Journal of Archaeological Science (1998) 25, 1149–1157

Article No. as980303

A Dendrochronological Investigation of British Stringed

Instruments of the Violin Family
John Topham
114 Mid Street, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 4JH, U.K.

Derek McCormick
25 Greystown Park, Upper Malone, Belfast, BT9 6UP, U.K.

(Received 15 September 1997, revised manuscript accepted 4 March 1998)

Dendrochronological analysis has been undertaken on 47 stringed instruments of the violin family. The majority of
these are attributed to British makers of the 17th to 19th centuries, whilst a small number from modern makers were
included for comparative purposes. Tree-ring dates have been produced for 38% of the measured sequences by
comparison with spruce and larch reference chronologies from the Alpine region. The results from this pilot study have
demonstrated the viability of the project and have produced additional dating evidence for many of the instruments. In
addition, information concerning past working practices and the geographical source of wood used by British makers
has also been provided.  1998 Academic Press

Keywords: DENDROCHRONOLOGY, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, VIOLIN, VIOLA, VIOLONCELLO,

PICEA ABIES, LARIX DECIDUA.

Introduction make an instrument front and so each wedge is sawn

again with a radial cut, opened like a book and after

D
endrochronological analysis is a well estab-
lished scientific dating technique which has
proved invaluable in various areas of research
(Baillie, 1982), but it is the basic provision of dates that
is of prime importance to this paper. Timbers from
archaeological excavations and standing buildings are
routinely analysed as are art-historical objects such
as panel paintings (e.g. Lambert & Lavier, 1996).
Dendrochronology has also been used to provide
additional dating evidence for instruments and
especially stringed instruments of the violin family
(Klein 1987).
Most modern members of the violin family are
constructed with back, sides and neck of maple (Acer
platanoides L.) or sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.)
whilst the front of the instrument is generally Norway
spruce (Picea Abies (L.) Karsten). It is the spruce front
of the instrument which is used for dendrochronologi-
cal investigation as neither sycamore nor maple is
suitable for dating purposes. The most desirable tonal
characteristics have traditionally been associated with
spruce of the Alpine region. For modern instrument
making, the trunk of the tree is quarter-sawn, i.e.
radially sawn or split to produce wedges of wood
with the oldest growth at the thin end of the wedge
(Figure 1). These wedges are rarely wide enough to
1149
0305–4403/98/111149+09 $30.00/0
some planing is joined so that the youngest growth
rings come together in a joint which will eventually
form the centre line of the front of the instrument.
The first recorded application of dendrochronology
in the investigation of the violin family was that of
Lottermoser & Meyer (1958) who measured the growth
rings on the fronts of two instruments by Antonio
Stradivarius and by Giuseppe Guarnerius. This inves-
tigation did not succeed in dating the wood, although
they did find a relative correlation between some of the
instruments. A number of later investigators have
however been successful in dating wood from instru-
ments of the violin family. Corona (1980) measured
ring widths of the spruce fronts of two violins from the
Cherubini Museum in Florence which are attributed to
the Florentine violin-maker G.B. Gabrielli. Corona
compared the ring widths with a Tyrolean (Otztal)
reference chronology for spruce and was able to date
the youngest rings on the front of the two instruments
to 1726 and 1717, respectively, which is consistent with
the dates of Gabrielli who worked between 1739 and
1770. In other studies Corona dated a violin from the
Destro collection (Corona, 1988) and in a larger series
including 10 violins, a viola, two violoncelli and a
double bass (all from the Collezione dell Ospedaletto
dell Pieta, Venice) he was successful in obtaining the
 1998 Academic Press
1150 J. Topham and D. McCormick
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the construction of a two-piece front for a violin from a quarter-sawn log.
terminus post quem or the date after which the fronts of
most of these instruments were made (Corona, 1990).
Dating of timbers in general has been greatly facili-
tated by the development of a network of reference
chronologies, and especially the International Tree-
Ring Database (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ftp-
treering.htm) which was founded in 1974 to provide a
permanent location for the storage of well-dated, high-
quality dendrochronological data from around the
world. However, most of the spruce chronologies in
this data base do not extend to a sufficiently early date
to be useful in the dating of 17th and 18th century
instruments.
Following the University of Hamburg’s initiation of
a comprehensive investigation of the wood of stringed
instruments, a series of papers has been published by
Klein and his colleagues in which a number of spruce
chronologies have been established and a wide range of
stringed instruments examined (Klein, Mehringer &
Bauch, 1984; Klein, 1985; Klein, Mehringer & Bauch,
1986; Klein 1987). Reference chronologies for spruce
were established in Bavarian Alpine and Erz Gebirge
regions in Germany noted for their history of violin-
making. They were constructed from spruce trees of
known felling date and local older cross-dated timbers
including spruce from instruments. By 1986, 134
stringed instruments from the 16th to the 20th century
had been examined (Klein, Mehringer & Bauch, 1986).
It was possible to date the fronts of 75 of the instru-
ments (56%) with documented or undocumented attri-
bution and in 65 of these the date of the most recent
growth ring was earlier than (and therefore consistent
with) the date of music-historical attribution. In the
remaining 10 instruments the dendrochronological
dating was later then the attributed date, thus requir-
ing a reappraisal of the time of manufacture of the
instrument.
(c)
(f)
In the report of the investigation which successfully
dated a number of German instruments (Klein,
Mehringer & Bauch, 1986) the authors concluded that
‘‘. . . it is necessary to analyse other schools of instru-
ment making in Italy, France and Great Britain’’.
There has been a flourishing ‘‘School’’ of British
makers since the mid-17th century (Harvey, 1996) and
many of the instruments of this period are still being
played at the present day. Some of these are of high
quality, although none of the British makers achieved
the international reputation of their European counter-
parts such as Stradivari, the Amatis and the Guarneris
in Italy, or Stainer in Germany. There has been no
published report of a systematic dendrochronological
analysis of British instruments and this project was
established to measure tree ring widths on the fronts of
instruments from a wide range of British makers. The
aims of the project are;
(1) to determine if it is possible to establish dates for
the wood of British stringed instruments using
Alpine master chronologies. If this were possible
it would provide an objective tool to assist in
authentication of these instruments. In British
instruments the original labels and dates have
rarely survived, and at present authentication is
primarily dependent on stylistic attributes.
(2) to establish if the dendrochronological data could
provide evidence of relationships between makers
and of their different working practices. This
survey provided the opportunity to examine an
unselected representative cross-section of British
makers, rather than selecting instruments of a
specific maker. The possibility therefore arises
that comparison of tree-ring patterns may allow
conclusions to be drawn about shared wood
sources between different groups of makers.

(3) to attempt to determine the practice followed by
British makers in making the fronts of instru-
ments. The modern method of construction, using
two matched pieces of spruce has been described
earlier (Figure 1). Klein, Mehringer & Bauch
(1984) provide evidence that on many old
German instruments a similar procedure was fol-
lowed although there were a number of instances
in which unmatched pieces were used. Nothing is
known about procedures in Britain and compari-
son of tree-ring patterns on the two sides of the
front may indicate whether matching pieces of
wood were used.
Materials and Methods
The instruments used in this investigation comprise 17
violins, 2 violas and 21 violoncelli, all of which are
attributed to British makers dating from the late 17th
to early 19th century. An additional 5 violins, 1 viola
and 1 tenor viol by contemporary makers were
included in the study. The instruments are listed in
Table 1 together with their attribution, label date (if
present), place of manufacture and maker’s dates.
Biographical information concerning most of the
makers was obtained from a standard reference work
(Henley, 1973). Many of the instruments were supplied
by violin experts and dealers, and others were obtained
from private owners. In all cases the instruments were
measured with the permission of their owners.
All measurements were made at the widest part of
the lower section of the spruce front in order to
maximise the number of rings available. This entailed
measurement of the grain in the radial plane rather
than the more usual method of measuring the rings in
cross-section. Klein (1987) has shown this to be a valid
method when he took radial measurements either
directly from the instrument or from X-ray images if
the varnish was too opaque. In the current project,
measurements were taken directly from instruments. In
instruments with two or more piece fronts, all pieces
were measured and in two piece fronts, the left and
right sides (as viewed from the front) are referred to as
the bass and treble sides, respectively. Ring width
measurements were made at magnifications of up to
32 using a Zenith stereo microscope with a measur-
ing graticule in one eyepiece which allowed measure-
ment to an accuracy of 25 ìm when the varnish was
sufficiently transparent. When the varnish was more
opaque, an accuracy of 50 ìm was possible. The
microscope was mounted on a horizontal, hand
adjusted travelling carriage under which the instrument
was fixed. Measurements were recorded manually as
the microscope was moved across the front of the
instrument. Ring width sequences were cross-matched
with each other using both visual comparison and
statistical methods (Baillie & Pilcher, 1973) and
sequences that cross-matched with a t-value greater
Dendrochronological Analysis of the Violin Family 1151
than 6·0 were considered to be significant (Pilcher
et al., 1995). Sequences of 60 rings or less were
excluded from the survey as they were considered too
short to provide statistically reliable results (Munro,
1984). Table 1 lists all the instrument sequences
measured, together with the number of tree-rings in
each sequence.
The size of instruments of the violin family dictates
that the spruce used in the construction of the fronts
would have been taken from trees which were at least
100 years old at the time of felling, probably consider-
ably older. It is clear therefore that in attempting to
date instruments of the 17th and 18th centuries, refer-
ence chronologies are required which extend back to
approximately AD 1400. Living spruce chronologies
exist for many sites in the Alpine area, but the earliest
of these date only from the second half of the 17th
century. However a number of longer chronologies do
exist and two of them have been used in this study; (1)
an Alpine chronology for spruce was used, which
covers the period 1276–1974 (Siebenlist-Kerner, 1984),
(2) since spruce often cross-dates with larch, an Alpine
larch reference chronology from the Italian Dolomites
was also used, which covers the period 1433–1991
(Hüsken, 1994).
Results
A total of 89 sequences were studied, ranging in length
from 62 rings (ichr0039) to 308 rings (ichr0062
(Ce032)). The average number of rings for each type of
instrument is given in Table 1.
All 89 sequences were compared visually and
statistically and 36 of them cross-matched with t-values
greater than 6·0 (Table 2). The relative positions of the
36 sequences are presented in Figure 2. An instrument
master chronology (IMC36) was prepared using these
sequences and cross-dated against the spruce reference
chronology (1425-1785, t=10·4) and the larch reference
chronology (1425–1785, t=7·8). This allowed cross-
dating of the individual sequences contributing to
IMC36 and the results are presented in Table 3.
In instruments with two-piece fronts, a comparison
was made between the two sides and the results are
shown in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 represents the results
for 14 sequences from 7 instruments by contemporary
makers with cross-matching values between sides of
individual instruments ranging from 11·0 to 15·3 (mean
12·0). Table 5 shows the results of cross-matching of
sides from 37 non-contemporary instruments and
Figure 3 illustrates the comparison of the two sides of
a cello front by John Betts (Ce046).
A mean chronology was calculated for each instru-
ment in which the sides cross-matched with a t-value
>6·0. These individual instrument mean sequences,
together with single piece front sequences were
cross-matched (Table 6).
1152 J. Topham and D. McCormick

Table 1. List of all British instruments studied with details of attribution, maker’s dates and label date it presents. The number of rings measured
and the identification number of the sequences is also given. S=sequence from a single-piece front; B=sequence from bass side of front; T=sequence
from treble side of front

Instrument Label Maker’s Sequence No. of

number Maker date dates number Side rings

VIOLINS Vn007 att. Richard Tobin — fl. 1798–1841 ichr0010 S 119

Vn015 att. Benjamin Banks — 1727–1795 ichr0029 B 68
ichr0030 T 92
Vn022 by John Johnston 1757 fl. 1750–1762 ichr0042 B 152
ichr0043 T 178
Vn026 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0050 B 97
ichr0051 T 94
Vn027 by Barak Norman — 1688–1740 ichr0052 B 97
ichr0053 T 100
Vn028 att. Daniel Parker — 1705–1761 ichr0054 B 74
ichr0055 T 89
Vn029 att. Richard Tobin — fl. 1798–1841 ichr0056 B 53
ichr0057 T 86
Vn031 att. Jacob Fendt — 1802–1849 ichr0060 B 77
ichr0061 T 70
Vn033 att. George Craske — 1795–1888 ichr0064 B 105
ichr0065 T 95
Vn034 by Richard Tobin 1829 1798–1841 ichr0066 S 101
Vn035 att. Lockey Hill — 1756–1810 ichr0067 B 79
ichr0068 T 82
Vn036 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0069 B 70
ichr0070 T 77
Vn039 att. Edward Pamphilon — fl. 1670–1690 ichr0075 B 116
ichr0076 T 95
Vn043 att. Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0083 B 102
ichr0084 T 97
Vn044 att. John Lott — 1805–1871 ichr0085 S 145
Vn056 by Martin Bouette 1980 born 1951 ichr0106 B 73
ichr0107 T 74
Vn059 by Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0112 B 97
ichr0113 T 111
Vn061 by Marc Soubeyran 1995 born 1958 ichr0116 B 76
ichr0117 T 77
Vn068 by Richard Duke 1756 fl. 1750–1780 ichr0129 B 81
ichr0130 T 91
Vn072 by John Topham 1994 born 1951 ichr0137 B 95
ichr0138 T 93
Vnd01 by Derek McCormick 1995 born 1942 vchr0004 B 95
vchr0005 T 94
Vnd02 by Derek McCormick 1995 born 1942 vchr0006 B 98
vchr0007 T 97

VIOLAS Va004 att. Thomas Smith — 1740–1790 ichr0006 S 223

Va020 att. William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0038 B 67
ichr0039 T 62
Va069 by Martin Bouette 1988 born 1951 ichr0131 B 84
ichr0132 T 83

CELLOS Ce009 att. William Forster I — 1714–1801 ichr0013 B 107

ichr0015 T 110
Ce013 by Henry Lockey Hill 1820 1774–1835 ichr0025 B 174
ichr0026 T 165
Ce014 English — Late 18th C. ichr0027 B 115
ichr0028 T 113
Ce030 att. Thomas Kennedy — 1784–1870 ichr0058 B 148
ichr0059 T 130
Ce032 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0062 B 308
ichr0063 T 163
Ce037 by Henry Lockey Hill 1810 1773–1835 ichr0071 B 165
ichr0072 T 197
Ce041 by Thomas Dodd — fl. 1786–1809 ichr0079 B 145
ichr0080 T 128
Ce042 by Thomas Dodd 1802 fl. 1786–1809 ichr0081 B 136
ichr0082 T 126
Ce045 att. Thomas Powell — fl. 1770–1800 ichr0086 B 85
ichr0087 T 120
Ce046 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0088 B 202
ichr0089 T 169
 Dendrochronological Analysis of the Violin Family 1153

Table 1. Continued

Instrument Label Maker’s Sequence No. of

number Maker date dates number Side rings

Ce047 by William Forster III 1792 1739–1808 ichr0090 B 179

ichr0091 T 188
Ce051 by William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0096 B 127
ichr0097 T 143
Ce052 by William Forster III 1814 1764–1824 ichr0098 B 119
ichr0099 T 149
Ce053 by Samuel Gilkes 1822 1787–1827 ichr0100 B 136
ichr0101 T 149
Ce054 by Benjamin Banks — 1727–1795 ichr0102 B 144
ichr0103 T 147
Ce055 att. Richard Tobin — 1705–1761 ichr0104 B 140
ichr0105 T 137
Ce057 att. Bernard Simon Fendt — 1800–1852 ichr0108 B 107
ichr0109 T 101
Ce058 att. Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0110 B 173
ichr0111 T 155
Ce060 by John William Owen 1928 1852–1933 ichr0114 B 136
ichr0115 T 130
Ce064 att. Bernard Simon Fendt — 1800–1852 ichr0122 B 161
ichr0123 T 198
Ce067 att. William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0127 B 122
ichr0128 T 225

VIOL VI048 by John Topham 1971 born 1951 ichr0092 B 105

ichr0093 T 99

Discussion variable number of the youngest tree-rings are removed

In this study it has been demonstrated that it is possible
to date the wood of British stringed instruments
using currently available spruce and larch reference
chronologies. Whilst it is tempting to interpret these
results as being indicative of an Alpine origin for the
wood of British instruments, this analysis cannot
be accepted without reservation. Other reference
chronologies are needed to establish the provenance of
the wood with greater certainty.
Comparison of dates determined for the wood with
the dates of the attributed makers (Table 3) has also
demonstrated that in all cases the terminus post quem of
the instruments was earlier than the likely date of
manufacture. This contrasts with the finding by Klein,
Mehringer & Bauch (1986) that 15% of instruments
(mainly of early German origin) had dendrochrono-
logically determined dates which were later than the
attributed date of manufacture. Two German instru-
ments attributed to the eminent 17th century violin-
maker Jacob Stainer were found to have fronts with
youngest tree-rings dated to the late 19th century
(Klein, 1987). The absence of dating inconsistencies in
the present series of British instruments may reflect
their lower commercial value which would make them
a less attractive target for forgers.
Klein, Mehringer & Bauch (1986) have emphasized
the obvious fact that while it may be possible to
determine a terminus post quem for the making of an
instrument, it is not possible to precisely date the year
of manufacture. The procedure used in the production
of the fronts of stringed instruments dictates that a
during dressing and planing of the wood prior to
jointing. Damage can occur to the outside of the tree
when the bark is removed and when the trunk is
handled as it is being either split or sawn into the
desired planks. These areas are removed to ensure a
final clean surface. Another factor is the variable
period of storage of the wood before use. It has been
suggested that a freshly cut piece of spruce needs to
be seasoned for 5–6 years (Harvey, 1995), although
experience suggests a period of 2–3 years is usually
adequate, providing it is already cut roughly to the
instrument’s size. In addition, makers often buy large
quantities of wood at one time, which would result in
some pieces being left for many years after the season-
ing period before use. A relatively small number of
dated labels inserted by the maker survive in old
British instruments (Table 1). Only seven of the
dendrochronologically dated instruments are dated in
this way. This sample is clearly too small for firm
conclusions, but it is clear, nevertheless, that there were
marked differences in practice. The shortest interval
between the youngest growth ring and date of
manufacture is 11 years (Vn068) and the longest
interval is 143 years (Ce013).
In addition to a simple dating of instrument wood,
the results presented here may allow some inferences to
be made about the working practices of early British
violin-makers. A high degree of cross-matching has
been shown between the sides of two piece fronts
in contemporary instruments (Table 4) in which both
pieces of wood are known to have come from adjacent
sections of the same tree. All of the makers of
Table 2. Cross-matching of ring width sequences. Sequences included are those that cross-match with at least one other sequence with a t-value >6·0

ich0010
ichr0025
ichr0026
ichr0030
ichr0042
ichr0043
ichr0050
ichr0051
ichr0062
ichr0063
ichr0067
ichr0079
ichr0080
ichr0081
ichr0083
ichr0084
ichr0087
ichr0088
ichr0089
ichr0090
ichr0091
ichr0096
ichr0097
ichr0098
ichr0102
ichr0103
ichr0105
ichr0109
ichr0110
ichr0111
ichr0112
ichr0113
ichr0128
ichr0129
ichr0130

ichr0006 5·8 7·7 10·8 4·7 11·6 12·3 5·5 6·2 10·3 8·4 — 6·0 9·2 4·8 8·6 11·3 5·6 5·7 5·3 10·4 11·4 5·6 6·5 6·6 9·9 12·9 — — 13·8 13·7 10·7 8·3 10·2 6·6 6·5
ichr0010 4·1 4·1 6·3 — 4·3 5·6 — 5·9 5·5 — 4·4 5·2 5·0 6·7 — 6·4 4·0 4·0 6·6 6·3 — 4·4 5·1 — 4·4 — — 5·8 6·0 6·1 4·2 6·2 — —
ichr0025 9·0 – 8·7 6·5 — — 5·4 5·8 — — 6·9 — 5·4 8·1 4·0 4·7 4·4 9·1 6·9 4·6 5·0 — 5·7 7·8 5·9 — 8·5 7·0 4·9 5·2 6·2 — —
ichr0026 — 9·6 6·9 4·1 6·6 9·7 7·2 — — 6·3 4·4 7·9 9·2 4·1 4·0 — 10·1 8·9 4·6 5·1 — 9·0 9·6 — — 11·5 9·5 9·3 6·5 7·3 — 4·6
ichr0030 — — 5·0 4·9 — 4·0 — 5·1 4·2 5·3 4·1 — 6·9 — — 5·8 5·3 — — 4·6 4·5 5·8 — — 4·2 5·4 5·5 6·1 4·7 — —
ichr0042 16·4 4·6 4·1 10·6 7·3 — 4·5 6·8 4·4 6·9 8·4 4·4 4·6 4·1 9·2 8·9 4·2 5·7 — 7·5 10·0 — — 9·7 8·4 8·3 6·1 6·2 — 5·1
ichr0043 5·4 — 9·4 8·2 4·7 — 8·0 5·3 5·8 6·3 5·5 6·3 5·7 8·5 9·0 — 4·2 5·5 8·3 10·2 4·7 — 9·7 8·6 7·7 7·3 7·6 6·4 6·7
ichr0050 6·4 6·2 6·8 6·7 6·1 7·2 4·7 5·7 — 4·8 5·4 4·4 5·5 5·4 — 4·9 6·0 5·1 5·8 — 4·1 6·2 5·6 7·9 6·5 8·2 6·3 5·6
ichr0051 — 6·3 — 5·1 5·9 4·5 5·1 4·5 5·3 5·4 6·0 4·3 — — 4·2 5·6 5·5 5·7 — — 5·6 6·5 8·8 6·0 7·0 — —
ichr0062 8·5 5·3 4·3 8·3 4·6 5·1 6·0 4·7 — — 7·5 9·7 — 4·4 4·9 8·9 10·3 4·2 5·4 9·8 7·4 7·9 6·1 6·1 5·5 6·7
ichr0063 6·1 6·0 9·4 4·1 7·3 6·1 6·3 6·2 5·3 8·3 7·6 — 6·6 6·2 7·9 9·4 4·2 4·6 8·3 7·8 9·1 6·9 10·0 6·5 5·5
ichr0067 — 5·4 — — — 5·5 4·1 — 4·3 4·8 — — 4·7 4·6 5·1 — 4·1 4·1 — 4·8 6·9 4·6 4·8 6·7
ichr0079 4·8 4·3 6·4 4·6 4·5 — — 6·2 5·0 4·4 4·3 5·3 5·3 6·1 4·5 — 4·8 5·4 6·3 4·6 6·5 5·5 —
ichr0080 5·6 5·5 — 8·5 5·8 4·5 10·4 10·8 — 7·2 8·2 10·0 10·6 5·7 6·1 12·1 12·5 10·7 7·7 9·3 9·1 7·4
ichr0081 — — 6·9 7·8 6·5 4·8 5·6 — — 4·5 — 6·1 4·7 — 4·5 4·5 6·4 — 4·4 4·8 —
ichr0083 6·8 4·9 5·5 5·7 8·3 7·2 — 4·7 6·0 6·6 7·2 — — 8·1 8·7 8·6 7·8 8·6 6·1 —
ichr0084 — — — 7·7 9·5 6·2 5·9 — 7·8 6·0 — 4·0 8·6 7·5 5·7 — 5·6 — 4·0
ichr0087 7·4 5·7 5·6 6·3 — 4·3 8·2 7·0 6·4 4·1 5·5 5·8 6·5 7·7 6·3 6·8 5·3 5·1
ichr0088 24·2 5·1 5·0 — — 5·6 6·7 8·9 4·6 5·9 6·0 6·6 7·6 5·4 6·2 4·9 4·6
ichr0089 4·4 — — — 4·8 5·3 5·8 — 4·8 5·3 6·3 6·7 — 6·5 4·5 —
ichr0090 19·4 5·4 7·4 7·3 7·7 10·6 — 4·6 10·7 9·2 11·8 7·7 9·1 7·0 6·3
ichr0091 6·0 6·7 6·4 9·3 10·0 5·8 5·1 10·5 9·0 11·3 9·5 8·1 6·1 7·3
ichr0096 13·5 — — 5·5 — — 4·8 4·4 — 4·5 4·1 — —
ichr0097 4·6 5·0 6·4 — — 7·2 6·9 6·1 4·8 7·2 — 6·8
ichr0098 6·0 6·2 4·4 4·2 6·3 6·8 6·4 5·5 6·3 6·6 4·9
ichr0102 12·1 5·2 4·9 10·2 9·9 9·4 7·5 6·3 7·9 7·1
ichr0103 6·2 5·5 12·2 12·5 13·0 8·7 8·4 9·8 7·0
ichr0105 5·9 — — — 4·1 4·3 6·1 4·4
ichr0109 — — 5·0 4·5 4·1 5·2 —
ichr0110 23·7 12·5 9·5 8·6 7·9 6·5
ichr0111 12·8 10·1 8·7 6·0 6·8
ichr0112 8·7 9·9 7·3 6·6
ichr0113 9·6 5·3 6·5
ichr0128 4·8 4·2
ichr0129 5·7
 Dendrochronological Analysis of the Violin Family 1155

Relative dates
Violins 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
ichr0084 141 – 237
ichr0051 167 – 260
ichr0030 170 – 261
ichr0083 165 – 266
ichr0042 121 – 272
ichr0112 198 – 294
ichr0050 207 – 303
ichr0010 189 – 307
ichr0043 130 – 307
ichr0113 198 – 308
ichr0067 237 – 315
ichr0130 229 – 319
ichr0129 241 – 321
Violas
ichr0006 78 – 300
Cellos
ichr0025 61 – 234
ichr0026 89 – 253
ichr0096 128 – 254
ichr0097 129 – 271
ichr0111 117 – 271
ichr0110 101 – 273
ichr0090 116 – 294
ichr0091 116 – 303
ichr0062 1 – 308
ichr0089 146 – 314
ichr0102 179 – 322
ichr0087 208 – 327
ichr0063 168 – 330
ichr0103 184 – 330
ichr0080 205 – 332
ichr0079 191 – 335
ichr0098 221 – 339
ichr0109 243 – 343
ichr0088 143 – 344
ichr0081 213 – 348
ichr0105 217 – 353
ichr0128 137 – 361
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Years (relative scale)

Figure 2. Relative dating of sequences that cross-matched with t-values >6·0.

these instruments used the split wedge construction
described in the introduction and it is therefore highly
likely that the two sides of the front are from adjoining
sections of the same tree. There was a high degree of
cross-matching between the sides in every case with
t-values ranging from 11·0 to 15·3 (mean 12·9). The
results from the 17th and 18th century instruments
suggest that similar procedures were often followed.
For example comparison of the ring patterns of the
two sides of the John Betts cello (Figure 4) make it
hard to avoid the conclusion that he worked in this
way. From the results from contemporary instruments
(Table 4) it seems reasonable to propose that side-side
cross-matches with a t-value >10·0 are highly sugges-
tive that both pieces originated from adjacent sections
of the same tree. Although this arbitrary value cannot
be accepted uncritically, it is consistent with the value
proposed for oak (Hillam & Groves, 1996). This ‘‘rule
of thumb’’ implies that about half of the British
instruments sampled may have used adjacent pieces
of the same tree for the fronts. Some of the lower
(although still highly significant) t-values may suggest
wood from the same tree, although not necessarily
from an adjacent section. In spite of the high pro-
portion of cross-matched sequences, it is clear that
about 25% of makers appear to have made no attempt
to match the wood, with no reported adverse effect on
tonal quality. This contrasts with the findings of Klein,
Mehringer & Bauch (1986; 1987) which indicate that
only 1 of 25 instruments in his investigations had
unmatched sides.
Dendrochronological comparison of the wood from
British instruments showed strong cross-matching
between many of them (Table 6). This may suggest a
common source of wood—possibly a single wood
merchant importing spruce from a particular Alpine
region. The majority of these makers worked in
London and almost all of them are known to have
1156 J. Topham and D. McCormick

Table 3. Cross-dating of sequences using the instrument mean chronol- Table 5. Cross-matching of the bass and treble sides of fronts from
ogy (IMC36). The makers’ dates and label dates are also presented non-contemporary British makers

Sequence Wood Maker’s Label Instrument t-value for Overlap

number dates dates date number cross-match (years)

ichr0006 1502–1724 1740–1790 VIOLINS Vn015 *

ichr0010 1613–1731 fl. 1798–1840 Vn022 16·4 143
ichr0025 1485–1658 1774–1835 1820 Vn026 6·4 54
ichr0026 1513–1677 1774–1835 1820 Vn027 29·3 94
ichr0030 1594–1685 1727–1795 Vn028 7·6 74
ichr0042 1545–1696 fl. 1750–1762 1757 Vn031 7·4 68
ichr0043 1554–1731 1750–1762 1757 Vn033 19·4 95
ichr0050 1631–1727 1755–1823 Vn035 4·9 78
ichr0051 1591–1684 1755–1823 Vn036 * —
ichr0062 1425–1732 1755–1823 Vn039 * —
ichr0063 1592–1754 1755–1823 Vn043 6·8 73
ichr0067 1661–1739 1756–1810 Vn059 8·7 97
ichr0079 1615–1759 fl. 1786–1809 Vn068 5·7 79
ichr0080 1629–1756 1786–1809
ichr0081 1637–1772 1786–1809 1802 VIOLA Va020 11·1 62
ichr0083 1589–1690 1717–1751
ichr0084 1565–1661 1717–1751 CELLOS Ce009 12·9 106
ichr0087 1632–1751 fl. 1770–1800 Ce013 9·0 146
ichr0088 1567–1768 1755–1823 Ce014 * —
ichr0089 1570–1738 1755–1823 Ce030 8·9 130
ichr0090 1540–1718 1739–1808 1792 Ce032 8·5 141
ichr0091 1540–1727 1739–1808 Ce037 5·6 160
ichr0096 1552–1678 1739–1808 Ce041 4·8 128
ichr0097 1553–1695 1739–1808 Ce042 * —
ichr0098 1645–1763 1764–1824 1814 Ce045 6·6 63
ichr0102 1603–1746 1727–1795 Ce046 24·2 169
ichr0103 1608–1754 1727–1795 Ce047 19·4 179
ichr0105 1641–1777 1705–1761 Ce051 13·5 126
ichr0109 1667–1767 1800–1852 Ce052 * —
ichr0110 1525–1697 1717–1751 Ce053 5·3 136
ichr0111 1541–1695 1717–1751 Ce054 12·1 139
ichr0112 1622–1718 1717–1751 Ce055 16·3 137
ichr0113 1622–1732 1717–1751 Ce057 * —
ichr0128 1561–1785 1739–1808 Ce058 23·7 155
ichr0129 1665–1745 fl. 1750–1780 1756 Ce060 17·7 128
Ce064 16·6 161
Ce067 * —

Table 4. Cross-matching of the bass and treble sides of fronts from

instruments by contemporary makers

Instrument t-value for Overlap

number cross-match (years)
ichr0088 (Ce046T)
VIOLINS Vn056 11·4 71
Vn061 14·5 75
Va069 13·1 83
Vn072 15·8 93
Vnd01 12·7 80
Vnd02 12·0 97

VIOL VI048 12·0 97

had working interactions such as master/apprentice

or employer/employee relationships (Harvey, 1995).
Many of the cross-matches are so high that the
possibility of some of the front wood from different ichr0089 (Ce046B)
instruments coming from the same tree cannot be ruled
out. For example, cross-matches between the wood of
the viola by Thomas Smith (Va006) produce t-values 1560 1580 1600 1620 1640 1660 1680 1700 1720 1740 1760
suggestive of the same tree status when compared with Year (AD)
instruments by Hill (Ce013), Johnson (Vn022), Betts Figure 3. Comparison of ring sequences from the treble (ichr0088)
(Ce032), Walmsely (Vn059), Forster (Ce047) and and bass (ichr0089) sides of a cello (Ce046) made by John Betts
Banks (Ce054). (1755–1823).
 Dendrochronological Analysis of the Violin Family 1157

Table 6. t-value matrix obtained from cross-matching mean ring width sequences from instruments with matching bass and treble sides (t-values
<4·0 are represented as ‘‘—’’)

Vn035T

Ce055B

Ce067B
Vn007

Vn022

Vn026

Vn043

Vn059

Vn068
Ce013

Ce032

Ce041

Ce045

Ce046

Ce047

Ce051

Ce054

Ce058
Va004 5·8 11·7 13·5 6·8 10·6 — 10·2 12·9 5·0 5·6 11·8 6·8 12·3 — 14·7 10·6 10·2 9·3
Vn007 4·5 4·6 6·1 6·7 — 6·1 6·9 7·0 4·1 6·9 4·8 4·1 — 6·1 5·9 6·2 4·3
Ce013 10·9 6·3 7·8 — 7·4 10·8 4·1 5·2 11·4 6·0 10·1 — 12·6 11·1 8·6 5·7
Vn022 5·9 11·0 5·1 7·6 9·3 4·0 5·9 11·0 4·8 10·4 4·7 10·0 9·6 7·8 9·0
Vn026 9·0 6·1 10·6 6·8 4·8 5·6 5·6 6·0 6·6 4·2 7·6 10·3 9·2 7·9
Ce032 6·5 10·8 8·4 6·5 — 8·5 4·8 12·0 4·6 9·3 11·3 7·6 8·4
Vn035T 4·4 — 5·8 — 5·0 — 5·3 — — 6·8 4·6 6·8
Ce041 8·4 7·9 5·4 10·7 7·8 12·0 5·7 12·7 11·1 9·0 10·5
Vn043 5·0 5·6 11·2 6·1 9·3 — 11·4 10·6 9·4 4·9
Ce045 6·6 6·6 4·0 7·3 — 5·4 7·0 6·0 6·1
Ce046 5·1 — 7·4 4·6 6·4 6·3 6·3 5·3
Ce047 8·2 10·6 5·1 11·2 13·0 9·3 10·7
Ce051 6·3 — 7·9 6·6 7·0 6·1
Ce054 6·7 12·7 12·6 7·4 11·9
Ce055B — 4·9 4·3 6·1
Ce058 16·1 9·1 9·5
Vn059 11·4 10·5
Ce067B 6·0

Conclusion Collana di studi organologici. Marco Tiella-Luca Primon, Trento,

This study has indicated that the wood of a large
proportion of 17th and 18th century British stringed
instruments can be reliably dated using spruce and
larch reference chronologies. It has also given some
insight into the working practices of the craftsmen
highlighting, in particular, the probable use of a com-
mon wood source by many of these makers. Further
studies are being undertaken in which we will increase
the number of instruments examined and additional
reference chronologies will be sought in an attempt
to derive more precise information concerning the
geographical source of the wood.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Cathy Groves and
Jennifer Hillam (Sheffield University) and Prof Mike
Baillie and Dave Brown (The Queen’s University of
Belfast) for their help and criticism of this work. We
are also grateful to J. & A. Beare Ltd (London), Morris
& Smith (London) and the private owners who made
instruments available for investigation.
References
Baillie, M. G. L. (1982). Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology. The
University of Chicago Press Ltd, London.
Baillie, M. G. L. & Pilcher, J. R. (1973). A simple cross-dating
program for tree-ring research. Tree-ring Bulletin 33, 7–14.
Corona, E. (1980). Richerche dendrochronologiche su due violini del
XVIII secolo. Italia For. E Mont XXXV, 112–115.
Corona, E. (1988). Eta del violino collezione Destro. Economia
Montana—Linea Ecologica 20, 58.
Corona, E. (1990). Note dendrochronologiche sugli strumenti
dell’Istituto dell Pieta di Venezia. In (M. Tiella & L. Primon, Eds)
pp. 83–87.
Harvey, B. W. (1995). The violin and its Makers in the British Isles.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Henley, W. (1973). Universal Dictionary of Violin and Bowmakers.
2nd edition. Amati Publishing Company, Brighton.
Hillam, J. & Groves, C. (1996). Tree ring research at Windsor Castle:
aims and initial results. In (G. F. Dean, D. M. Meko & T. W.
Swetnam, Eds) Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity. Radio-
carbon, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Hüsken, W. (1994). Dendrochronologische und okologische Studien
an Nadelholzern im Gebiet der Pragser Dolomiten (Sudtirol/
Italien). Dissertations Botanicae Band 215. J. Cramer, Berlin &
Stuttgart.
Klein, P. (1985). Dendrochronologische Untersuchungen an
gemaldetafeln und Musikinstrumenten. Dendrochronologia 3,
25–44.
Klein, P. (1987). Dendrochronological analysis of European string
instruments. CIMCIM Newsletter, 37–94.
Klein, P., Mehringer, H. & Bauch, J. (1984). Tree-ring chronology of
spruce wood and its application in the dating of stringed instru-
ments. In ICOM, Committee for Conservation, Seventh Triennial
Meeting, Copenhagen. 69–72.
Klein, P., Mehringer, H. & Bauch, J. (1986). Dendrochronological
and wood biological investigations on string instruments.
Holzforschung 40, 197–203.
Lavier, C. & Lambert, G. (1996). Dendrochronology and works of
art. In (G. F. Dean, D. M. Meko & T. W. Swetnam, Eds) Tree
Rings, Environment and Humanity. Radiocarbon, Department of
Geosciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, 543–556.
Lottermoser, W. & Meyer, J. (1958). Uber die moglichkeit einer
Dendrochronologie von alitalianischen Geigen. Instrumenten-
bauzeitschrift 12, 295–296.
Munro, M. A. R. (1984). An improved algorithm for cross-dating
tree ring series. Tree-ring Bulletin 44, 17–27.
Pilcher, J. R., Baillie, M. G. L., Brown, D. M., McCormac, F. G.,
MacSweeney, P. B. & McLawrence, A. S. (1995). Dendrochronol-
ogy of subfossil pine in the North of Ireland. Journal of Ecology
83, 665–671.
Siebenlist-Kerner, V. (1984). Der Aufbau von Jahrringchronologien
fur Zirbelkiefer, Larche, und Fichte eines alpinen Hochgebirgs-
standortes. Dendrochronologia 2, 9–29.