Uilkema, een historisch boerderij-onderzoek. Boerderij-onderzoek in Nederland 1914-1934. Deel 1

[p. 659]

Summary

In 1916 a book was published in Leeuwarden about the traditional farmstead in Friesland, that presented an entirely new view of the history of the vernacular architecture of that part of the country. It was titled ‘Het Friesche boerenhuis. Onderzoek naar het ontstaan van het tegenwoordige boerenhuis in Friesland’ (‘The Frisian farmstead. An investigation into the origin of the present farm types in Friesland’). Its author was an unknown agricultural teacher by the name of Klaas Uilkema.

In those days historical studies about the Dutch traditional farms were still rare. In this respect the Netherlands were far behind other European countries such as Germany, Austria and Scandinavia, where books about the history of vernacular architecture had already been published as early as the middle of the 19th century. Although Dutch interest in agricultural architecture can be dated back as far as the end of the 18th century, it had long been restricted to a purely rationalistic interest in the farm as a mere agricultural instrument. Few people were interested in the history of these buildings and historical research into this subject was practically non-existent. It was not until the end of the 19th century that historical farms started to attract wider attention in the Netherlands. The then growing interest in vernacular buildings was partly the result of the far-reaching social and environmental changes which accompanied the industrial revolution and partly stimulated by influences from abroad. The increasing popularity of the English vernacular revival and cottage style also motivated Dutch architects to study their local vernacular buildings in search of inspiration for a new architectural style. Ethnologists for their part displayed an increasing interest in traditional farm types under the influence of 19th century German romantic ideas, in which the distribution of the different types of farms was associated with the settlement of the various tribes during the Germanic Migration Period.

The latter view was introduced in the Netherlands by the professor of Germanic philology J.H. Gallée, who published in 1907 the earliest scholarly survey of Dutch traditional farm types. His book entitled ‘Het boerenhuis in Nederland en zijn bewoners’ (‘The Dutch farm and its occupants’) contained an ethnological and explicitly static historical view, in which historical farms were primarily regarded as bearers of ancient cultural characteristics. The Frisian ‘stelp’ farm with its dwelling, byre and crops storage all under the same large roof was thus defined by Gallée as an age-old architectural principle that might even date back as far as the 9th century, when the provinces of Friesland and Noord-Holland were not yet divided by the former Zuiderzee. It was this particular idea that was definitively overturned by Uilkema's publication of 1916. Not the stelp, but a now practically vanished type of long-house, which contained only dwelling part and byre - ‘the old-Frisian dairyfarm’ - constituted the oldest type in this region. The well-known Frisian farmstead with its huge, aisled, multipurpose barn was revealed as a relatively recent development: a combination of the original, low type of building and a much higher, initially separate, haybarn. Uilkema's elucidating and well-documented publication was very well received, also in academic circles, and his name became known all over the country.

His studies also had a stimulating effect - the farm types of the rest of the country were still awaiting proper investigation as well. The Frisian example had moreover given rise to serious doubts about Gallée's ideas on the origins of other farm types. A group of professors at Leiden University, who felt an interest in the cultural history of the Netherlands, exerted themselves to start an investigation similar to that which had been carried out in Friesland, for the rest of the country as well. Sponsored by a learned society, the ‘Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde’, they succeeded in acquiring sufficient financial support for a three year research project; Uilkema was commissioned to carry out the actual investigation. Starting in the summer of 1920 he roamed the countryside of the Netherlands, armed with a camera and travelling by

[p. 660]

bicycle and motorcycle, in search of the most interesting old farms all over the country - an impressive piece of pioneering work. During his travels he took thousands of photographs and made hundreds of measured drawings; he also wrote down all sorts of information about both plan and construction of the buildings and the type of farming for which they were intended and used. Of the numerous farms which he investigated were several historically exceptional buildings and examples of rare (and nowadays practically vanished) farm types. His documentation contains, amongst other things, measured drawings and photographs of some of the last stolp types of the isle of Schouwen, the two last existing ‘boo’ long-houses of Drenthe (semi-permanent accommodation for out-grazing cattle and their shepherd), two remaining (and now both lost) examples of the old Frisian long-house type for dairy farming, several undivided aisled houses which still functioned as unpartitioned byredwelling houses (‘los hoes’), and a great many interesting transitional types and primitive constructions.

During his investigations Uilkema also developed various revolutionary new theories about the historical development of farm types in the different regions. It was he, for instance, who discovered that the Limburg courtyard type with its closed quadrangle plan, described by Gallée as reminiscent of the ancient Roman villa, was in fact the product of a recent and gradual development. Both the Limburg courtyard plan and the Noord-Brabant compartmented single span type (which had also been regarded by Gallée as an ancient type of building) turned out to be the result of a gradual extension of the original, much smaller types. The Noord-Holland ‘stolp’ farm with its pyramidal roof shape was defined by Uilkema, like the Frisian stelp, as a combination of longhouse and initially freestanding haybarn. These and many other theories, discoveries and conclusions were expounded by Uilkema in private correspondence with Prof. Mr. D. van Blom, one of the professors who supervised the project.

The initial plan had been that at the end of three years investigation the project would result in a major publication about the historical development of all traditional farm types in the Netherlands. However, this was soon found to have been far too ambitious. When, after the first three years, all available finances had run out, hundreds of farms had already been drawn, but large areas were as yet undocumented. Although new and elucidating theories had been framed about the history of certain types of farms, the investigation as a whole was still far from complete. Initially at his own expense and later supported by a new sponsor, the ‘Fonds Landbouw Export Bureau’, Uilkema managed to continue his studies for several years. However, misunderstandings about the intended publication and conflicts about the duration of the project finally led to problems that seemed insurmountable. In 1934, fourteen year after the promising start of the project, Uilkema, disillusioned, broke off all connections with the supervising scholars. His intended major work about the history of Dutch farm types would never be published. Only three chapters, about the provinces of Limburg, Noord-Brabant and Noord-Holland, had been finished; two others, about Friesland and Zuid-Holland, had been drafted in concept. In order to safeguard his copyright, Uilkema himself duplicated the completed chapters; copies were distributed by him in a limited number among those who had supported the project financially. The distribution of this private edition also marked the end of Uilkema's exertions on behalf of the Dutch farm building history; until his death in 1944 he steadfastly declined all pleas to resume his studies. Fortunately his entire documentation, including photographs, documentary drawings, notebooks and unfinished manuscripts, was preserved and finally transfered to the Arnhem Open Air Museum. Here it has been incorporated in the archives of the ‘Stichting Historisch Boerderijonderzoek’ (Institute for Historical Farms Research) for further study and use.

For current and future historical farms research the collection is of particular interest because most of the documented buildings have now either gone or have been altered beyond recognition to accommodate the demands of modern

[p. 661]

farming. The value of the documentation is also considerably increased by the fact that all these farms were investigated by Uilkema at a time when they were still largely being used in the traditional way. The documentary drawings contain a great many notes about this subject, which makes them a rich source of information not only for historical farms research but also for other, related, fields of study, such as agricultural history and dialectology.

Recent study of Uilkema's documentation and working methods has moreover served to clarify several of his as yet unpublished theories, which were found to bear a remarkably close relation to the present ideas about the same subjects. It appeared that he may well have been the first person to conclude that the midstrey farms of Overijssel, Drenthe and the Gooi area, which had been classified by Gallée as an entirely new house group, had in fact developed from the simple threshing nave type of the eastern parts of the country, formerly called the Saxon type. Uilkema also discovered that the T-shaped plan, with its broad house facade and its house roof at right angles to the working part of the farm, had sprung, through sideways extension of the living quarters, from the same basic type. In Zeeland he concluded that the now general separation of house and barn must have been a recent development; the oldest farms mostly had their living and working quarters attached. While the centre of the province of Zuid-Holland now generally shows single span buildings with a superimposed tie-beam construction, he managed to prove that the same region originally had the anchor beam construction. Traces of the original construction as measured and drawn (but not published) by Uilkema would not be rediscovered by other investigators until more than half a century later. The conclusion seems altogether more than justified that in many respects he was well ahead of his time. Apart from these theories the available material also presented a clear picture of the course of Uilkema's investigations in the different parts of the country and of the working methods which he employed. In many regions the progress of his study and sometimes even the development of his ideas could be traced step by step and from year to year, which sheds new light on the documentary drawings that were made during the course of the investigation. In Limburg, for instance, it appeared that Uilkema had been on a wrong track during the first few years of his study. The later, accidental, find of some unaccountably deviating buildings led to a renewal of the investigation in these parts and finally to a drastic revision of his original theories about the origins of the Limburg farm types. Information of this kind has made the many stray notes on the measured drawings, which before could only be interpreted incompletely, more intelligible and thereby of more use to future research.

A comparative study of relevant literature also showed that later research had been rather more influenced by Uilkema's theories than was generally assumed. In spite of the limited distribution and obscure character of his private publication, influential Dutch post-war investigators, such as S.J. van der Molen, L. Brandts Buys and R.C. Hekker, were found to have had Uilkema's work at their disposal at an early stage of their careers. All of them were, though to different degrees, influenced by his ideas. Through their work, which in many respects added to these earlier studies, Uilkema's theories have become an intrinsic part of the present view of the historical development of Dutch farm types. What is even more important, is that his investigations have provided a working basis for present research. Various features of the modern approach, which is characterized by its dynamic and predominantly functionalistic views and which centres around the investigation of the buildings themselves as the major source of historical information, can be traced back to his work. Uilkema was, for instance, the first to base his theories about the historical development of the various farm types on data acquired through the investigation and documentation of the actual buildings, which information he combined with the results of iconographical research in the archives. Although the latter source of information had already been used - albeit incidentally - by others, Uilkema was the first historical farms investigator who made the largescale

[p. 662]

examination of old pictures and surveyors' maps an integral part of his study. His agricultural background and knowledge - not only was he an agricultural teacher by profession but he was also a farmer's son - allowed him moreover to explain the historical development of the farms which he investigated in a logical way. He invariably stressed the fact that through the ages farms must have undergone continuous and radical changes to adapt to new circumstances and new agricultural requirements, a process which he significantly called the ‘evolution’ of the historical farm. This dynamic approach to the historical development of traditional farm types contrasted sharply with the then prevalent, essentially static, views of the historical farm as bearer of ancient ethnological characteristics. Uilkema was primarily interested in the course of these developments and in the functional changes which caused them. This functionalistic and dynamic approach added a new and extremely profitable dimension to the study of agricultural vernacular architecture, which had until then been dominated by an exclusively academic point of view.

Uilkema's study furthermore served to draw attention to the now generally accepted maxim that profound regional investigation must precede the construction of a realistic classification of historical farms. His Frisian publication of 1916 had already convincingly proved that a general theory encompassing the entire nation lacked the necessary foundation when not based upon detailed regional research. The accounts of his continued studies clearly underlined that this did not exclusively apply to Friesland; in other regions his investigations led to a no less spectacular change of views. In the Netherlands the previous study of the individual historical development of the separate types of farms would from then on be regarded as absolutely essential for a reliable typology. Through this new approach Dutch research clearly distinguished itself from that of its neighbouring countries, where the study of historical farms would follow the old tracks for much longer.

Finally, Uilkema's work also played a fundamental role in the establishment of historical farm research as a regular branch of study. Until then, this subject had always been subservient to other practical or academic questions, such as the improvement of agriculture, the development of a new architectural style, or the determination of the regional distribution of the various Germanic tribes. Uilkema was the first to study traditional farm types out of a purely scholarly interest in the history of these buildings for their own sake. His studies furthermore led to a general acceptance of the idea that historical farms are not a product of dark and ancient traditions, but functional buildings that have reached their present form as a result of rational - and therefore traceable - influences. This new approach has stimulated investigators to enlist related disciplines such as agricultural history, socio-economic history and historical geography in their studies. Through Uilkema, historical farms research had taken the first step towards becoming an historical discipline in its own right. Both for this reason and because of his still evident influence on the working methods and ideas of later investigators, he may well be considered as the founder of modern historical farms research.