The following is a translation of the original book written in Swiss-German. All attempts have been made to have the translations as accurate as possible. However, there is no guarantee of this accuracy.
Walt Sterneman
The farmhouse "Unter Rot" in Ruswil
History, building examination and restoration with notes to the Farmhouse research in the canton Luzern
Claus Niederberger
I. Farmhouse Research In The Canton Luzern, Emergence And Development.
In connection with the publication of the restoration of the farmhouse "Unter Rot" in Ruswil Luzern, is a brief orientation, of the emergence, the development and the status of the farmhouse research in the canton.1
In the year 1944 the Swiss Society for Folklore (SGV) board of trustees initiated the "Campaign for Farmhouse Research in Switzerland" formed under the SGV, targeting research, regular inventory and the publication of the history of rural buildings. In 1946 Dr. Alfred Bühler was elected president of the SGV, and was at that same time also the president of the mentioned board of trustees. Bühler, a series Luzern politician, moved to the canton capital to orient himself over the new project of the SGV. Bühler's efforts had however achieved no success. Only the efforts in the year 1953 of the new private initiative "Campaign Luzern Farmhouse" led to the establishment of the "Union for Luzern Farmhouse Research" on 25 March 1954. The first president was government advisor Vincenz Winiker, Ernst Brunner was selected the inventory director.
The major task of this association is described in the statutes as follows: "the purpose of the union is a global investigation of the Luzern farmhouses as far as possible, their architecture, mechanism, history and customs, in the form of descriptions, plans, drawings and photographs. This information is to form a reliable basis for later publications."
From the completion of the inventory, the financial and technical protection of the analysis work, and book publication, the union gradually shifted the bulk of its activity from collecting traditional rural special goods to creating a new museum, which is still there. Outwardly the union carried out this step, in 1971 by giving themselves a new name: "Union for a Rural Museum in the Canton Luzern". In 1974 they opened the agriculture museum in Burgrain. Museum manager Walter Steiner could complete the collection process through the years in such a good manner with exhibits from the whole of Switzerland, that they decided to open a Swiss agriculture museum. The association modified its names thereupon in 1982 once again to "Association Swiss Agriculture Museum Burgrain" (government advisor Adolf Käch was the second president from 1959 to 1978, and government advisor Erwin Muff was the third president starting from 1979).
2 The Functions
2.1 The Inventory.
The first major task after the establishment of the association in the year 1954, consisted of an urgent selection of the objects and a brisk inventory of the interesting buildings, because rapid increasing deterioration of important buildings could already be observed at that time. In the first operating phase, from 1954 to 1960, 500 to 600 objects, of all styles and of all types of use, were to be inventoried; i.e. 400 to 500 houses and approx. 100 farm buildings such as granaries, stables, barns, draws, mills and alpine huts. In order to be able to advance the work rapidly, the inventory director organized a supporting staff with a regional leader for each of the five offices and 30 small local working groups, each of which had to recruit particularly from the municipalities, and from the owners of the houses, their understanding.
The actual inventorying of the individual objects was executed by apprentices and craftsmen, idealists as well as pupils approved by Ernst Brunner, auxiliary workers, ETH and technical school students. After seven years of inventorying 500 objects were completed. The costs of it amounted, despite a most modest salary of the inventory director, to 55000 Swiss Franks. The financing came from contributions from the Canton, the Swiss national fund as well as from funds of the association.
Up to beginning of the seventies, Luzern farmhouse research processed and inventoried over all 543 objects. All objects were photographed. Thus over 6800 pictures were developed. In addition Ernst Brunner had begun the compiling of special documentation. The entire documentation of the Luzern farmhouse research is today located in the file of the canton care of monuments.
2.2 The Publication.
After the inventory activity was completed in the sixties and early seventies the center of attention turned to the sifting, analysis, supplementing and representation of the entire copy material. In the year 1961 the canton Luzern declared itself ready to support a publication of the Luzern farmhouses with funding from the fund for cultural and scientific publications. The Folklore section arranged a functional commission, to which Ernst Brunner, on the basis of his publication concept, was assigned the elaboration work. During 14 years he operated the analysis with great persistence on extensive material. In 1977 there appeared the result of this time-consuming documentation and research work as tape 6 of the series published by the Swiss Society for Folklore of the farmhouses of Switzerland under the title "The Farmhouses in the Canton Luzern". This richly illustrated work gives an outstanding idea of the history of the rural building culture in the canton Luzern from the beginning to the middle of the 19th century. This Luzern tape is however not a short inventory of the many building objects, but an exemplary and detailed representation of the most important building types.
2.3 Outlook
Since the beginning of the seventies only some completing of inventories were known to be executed. In the context of art monument inventory, a short inventory of the interesting rural buildings were entered in the office discharge book from 1980 to 1983. The various special documents from the inventory farmhouse research in the Canton Luzern are not yet analyzed. As consideration of the characteristics in regional building, this information would make substantial criteria documents for restoration practices. Still a large number of objects fall victim each year to rapid technical restructuring. It is therefore of great importance to enter the ever shrinking stocks outside of the office discharge book in the whole canton area, to document from them the historical, cultural meaning of the buildings and keep it if possible. For these functions of the care of monuments, however, further specialists and financial funding is required.
3 The Inventory Director and Book Author Ernst Brunner
The central figure in the Luzern Farmhouse research from the forties to the seventies is Ernst Brunner (1901 to 1979). Who was Ernst Brunner? He was born on 5 December 1901 in Mettmenstetten ZH, he completed elementary school and apprenticed as a building carpenter in the workshop of his father. From 1923 to 1925, after his younger years, he visited the carpenter department in Nürnberg and studied interior finishing at the college of arts and crafts in Zurich. He was from 1925 to 1936 active in different Luzern architect's offices as a draftsman for interior finishing, among other things with Albert F. Zeyer an important firm for "new building" in the Canton Luzern. From this time comes Ernst Brunner's prototype for a wardrobe, which is arranged in the stylistic idiom of "new building" and is today kept in the historical museum in Luzern.
The crisis years of the pre-war times for him became a vocational new beginning. First he was active with the technical work service in the city of Luzern for the inventory of historical architectural monuments. In 1936 he made his past hobby, photographing, one of his vocational branches of trade. Until 1961 he was active as a travel photographer for well-known magazines, as well as, for the Swiss Society for Folklore in Basel. He built a picture file with more than 50,000 photos, in his spare time he took folklore photos of landscape, architecture, agriculture, handicraft, work, etc. his collection takes in the whole of Switzerland. This culture-historic and folkloric, highly interesting photo collection, he bequeathed by will to the SGV in Basel. His photos of the farmhouse research are located in the file of the care of monuments in Luzern.
Ernst Brunner embodied the heart of the Luzern farmhouse research. He was the chief initiator of the private committee for the establishment of the "Union for Luzern Farmhouse Research" in 1954. He was the engaged inventory director and the author of the large work " the farmhouses in the canton Luzern".
II. The Farm "In The Rot" By Ruswil And Its Owners2
1. The Farm
On the north side of the Ruswil Mountains, approx. four kilometers northwest from the village of Ruswil and approx. two kilometers southeast from the village Buttisholz, the rural group of farms is "In the Rot" (See map) in a scenic, delightful, protected and a fruitful valley, flanked on the south and west by the red dog ditch forest. The farm "Unter Rot" with the powerful house and the old cheese factory is the core area of the former farm "In the Rot", which was fief-property of the monastery Muri.3 Since when and on which conditions the fief-farmers received the full vested titles, is not well-known. It was one of the large and richly wealthy farms with influential families from the period of the mid 15th up to the mid 18th centuries in central Switzerland.
The farm and field-name comes from a near by brook, "the Rot (Red)", which is in the area of the upper Säliwalds on the Ruswil mountains. The "Geißbach (Goat-brook)" and "Eselbach (Donkey brook)" springs rise and join to form the Rot. The two brooks flow north and south respectively by the real estate "Unter Rot" and unite below in the red forest that is adjacent to the "Rot". The Luzern red valley also received its name from this red brook, which flows below Ettiswil into the Wigger.4 The correct form of the farm name is different in various sources: in the Roth, us of the Roth, Rot, Root, Rodt and Rott.
The name Rot, Roth or Root defines a larger or smaller farm which is because of a brook or a similar settlement which was situated in the canton Luzern frequently.
The origin the name has different interpretations. For the one, it is of Celtic origin and would mean "the run", others explain the name with red water, which can flow in the brook.5
2 The Farm And The Family Bächler (Bechler)
Since the mid 15th to the end of the 16th centuries, it is documented that generations of the family Bächler (Bechler) lived on the farm in the Rot.
The family of Bächler (Bechler) is not only the oldest, documents admitted in Ruswil, but they also had large political and economical influence. Beside the farm in the Rot, the Bächlers also possessed real-estate in neighboring Etzenerlen, on the Arig and in the Merzenberg. Several generations were active in Ruswil as Sergeant.6
The oldest documents of this family is in the year 1488, the church donation of "Heini Bechler in the Rot" and his Mrs. Anna of Hapfegg, which is in the oldest year book of the parish Ruswil.7
Mentioned in the same year book in a first supplement is Peter Bechler and in a second supplement a "Hans Bech1er in the Rott" and "Peter Bechler of Buttisholz". With this Hans Bechler it is mentioned in a document from 9 December 1508 "Hänsli Bächler in the Roth, at present Sergeant in Ruswil" businessman.8 The most important representative of this family was the Ruswi1 Court Sergeant Hans Ueli Bächler. From him a document is received, which in 1503 has "Hans Ueli Bächler in the Rot, was sworn Sergeant to Ruswil" for the judicial examination in a controversy administrative district constable Ludwig Küng had issued over marriage belongings.9
Hans Ueli Bächler died in the war against the king of France, which Switzerland undertook in May 1515, fighting for the duke Massimiliano Sforza. Under this battle in the Ruswil year book the year of death of "Hans Uly Bechler in rott " is listed.10
"Baschian Bächler, Sergeant", a son or at least a descendant of Hans Ueli, was listed in 1554 co-signatory of sales with the Luzern Mayor Heinrich von Fleckenstein, the Ruswil administrative district constable and other high officials.
It is mentioned that in 1573 a "Bürgi Bächler, inn the root" Luzern hospital builder settled as an owner of the farm subject to the payment of interest in the Merzenberg.11
The extraordinarily generous late gothic part of the house comes from either "Hans Uhi Bächler in the Rot, was sworn Sergeant to Ruswil" as owner of this house, the most important representative of the family, (approximately 1515)12 or more probably his son "Baschian Bächler, Sergeant "13, since the construction period could be determined around approx. 1520 to 1530 from the dendrochronology investigations of the building timber for the oldest existing part of the house.
Why the Bächler family sold their estate in 1610, is not evident. Professor Stirnimann gave a possibility to the epidemic, in the years 1608 to 1615 that afflicted Switzerland, where city and country were depopulated and whole families and generations extinguished. Thus can emerge favorable conditions to take over a large farm. Also in Ruswil particularly in the years 1611 to 1612 the plague took numerous victims.14
3. The Farm And The Families Stirnimann
From 1610 to 1821 seven generations of the family of Stirnimann lived on the farm in the Rot. These families had, as evidence from the following summary is largely economic, cultural and political influence in the district Ruswil. The farm in the Rot and the farmhouse in the today's "Unter Rot" became the actual master seat of the families Stirnimann in the cantons Luzern and Aargau.15
3.1. First Generation: Peter Stirnimann-Bircher
Peter Stirnimann (1560?-1620), the son of Heinrich and the Kunigunde Sinner of Luthern, acquired the farm in the Rot in 1610. He sold his former real estate in Luthern around the year 1610 to Jakob Luchs. A process between seller and buyer had preceded this sales, where the Mayor and Advisor of Willisau had decided in favor of Peter Stirnimann.16 The reasons, conditions and relations, which caused Peter Stirnimann to abandoned the farm and start over with its family on the farm in the Rot in Ruswil, is not well-known. The fact that his wife Adelheid Bircher originated from the wealthy and politically leading family of this valley, might have facilitated the acquisition of this farm for him.
Peter Stirnimann had his domicile in Ruswil on the farm in the Rot since approx. 1610 with his family, his wife Adelheid Bircher and their children, as well as, his mother Kunigunde Sinner. Witnesses to it the entry of the family from 16 April 1610 in the second year donation book of the parish church Sursee.17
The oldest, non-church document of the family on its new domicile in the Rot is a responsible-letter from 5 February 1613, which the Luzern city clerk Renward Cysat (1545 to 1614) wrote and issued.18 From this responsible-letter it follows that Peter Stirnimann with his son Hans acquired the farm in Ruswil to the extent of 20 Jucharten country and 2 Jucharten forest for 950 guldens in cash.
The marriage partners lived to the end of their lives on the farm in the Rot. The book of Sursee announces the death of Peter 1620 and of its wife Adelheid Bircher 1629.19
3.2. Second Generation:
a) Hans Stirnimann-Bächler
Father Peter Stirnimann probably transferred the farm in the Rot according to old custom to his oldest son Hans (1598?-1647). The farm might have at that time measured a surface of approximately 160 Jucharten.20 Documentation states that starting from 1630 Hans Stirnimann is a farmer on the farm in the Rot. This date carries the mortgage letter, with which Melcher Heine granted him a loan of 200 guldens.21
Hans Stirnimann married Anna Bächler in 1613 in the parish church of Sursee. She bore five children according to the baptismal book of the parish Sursee, of whom all up to Katharina, died in infancy. Katharina married Jakobs Süess in 1638 in Buttisholz. Hans Stirnimann and his wife lived until their death on the farm. The dying book of Sursee contains the following entry "Anna Bächler of the Rott" 1636 and "Hans Stirnimann of the Rott" 1647.22
b) Peter Stirnimann - Süess
The second son of Peter Stirnimann and Adelheid Bircher, also named Peter (1600-1668), was probably never the owner of the farm in the Rot, but nevertheless he is important for farm history. Because of his death (1668) his younger brother Hans Jakob, now farmer in the Rot, also inherited the neighboring farm Etzenerlen (See map). Peter had probably become married to Maria Süess in the year 1624 on the farm Etzenerlen. Their marriage remained childless.23
The farm Etzenerlen, according to the Chancellor Mr. Beromünster, had a size of approx. 170 Jucharten.24 Peter Stirnimann is proven living on Etzenerlen since 1640. He was sworn judge and chairmen of the Twing or village court. He and his wife were characterized by large social conviction and charity. He gave the parish Ruswil for welfare service 1000 guldens.25 They were Godparents for one hundred children, related, homeless, etc. He further donated 1000 guldens for an eternal time to the parish church Ruswil.26
c) Hans Jakob Stirnimann-Bucher
The third son of Peter Stirnimann and Adelheid Bircher was Hans-Jakob (1605?-1670). Probably since his first marriage with Barbara Bucher in 1630, he was a farmer in Meienberg, 1.5 km north of the Rot, a removed farm with approx. 80 Jucharten country.27
Since he was the only one of the three brothers with male descendants he was given the paternal transfer to the farm in the Rot. When this occurred, is not well-known. Probably Hans Jakob returned for the death of his brother, Hans (1647) on the farm in the Rot. In accordance with a diary entry of Pater Jost Stirnimann in the monastery Muri, Hans-Jakob lived there with his family (three sons and three daughters) in February 1654.28
Soon after 1654 his first wife, Barbara Bucher, seems to have died and Hans Jakob married his second wife Margaretha Estermann 1661. This second marriage remained childless.29
In the year 1668, after the death of Peter Stirnimann, the farm Etzenerlen was going to be inherited by his brother Hans Jakob. The Chancellor Beromünster required a tax for this owner change to Hans Jakob, from which a controversy developed, which in the long run the Mayor in Luzern had to decide.30
In the same year 1668 Hans Jakob acquired additionally the farm Huprächtigen in the today's municipality Nottwil with 212 Jucharten country and 28 Jucharten forest for 6500 guldens. The purchase was expensive and part for his still only daughter of Elisabeth (1654-1692).31 She married Walter Meyer in the same year, who managed this farm and later controlled casually and a became a judge. Walter Meyer gave a mortgage of his farm to his wife for its value. From this mortgage log we see that Elizabeth Stirnimann kept one loan to her father in the large value of approximately 7815 guldens. With this information the farm Huprächtigen was estimated at 18,200 guldens value by the Court Sergeant and office recorder.32
If one counts the surfaces of the three large farms, those in the possession of Hans-Jakob all together, then a total area results in approximately 197 Hectors33 (approx. 500 acres) converted by approx. 542 Jucharten by to today's values of the number. This very large land property and therefore also very large sales sum for the marrying daughter and later for the son Peter in the monastery Muri show the extraordinary wealth of this farmer on the farm in the Rot.34
Hans Jakob Stirnimann made ready for his death on 30 April 1670, a last mark of himself says, when he took the church last rights in Ruswil and ordered his funeral.
3.3. Third Generation: Hans Stirnimann-Zimmermann
Of the three sons of Hans Jakob the elder Sebastian and the younger Hans (Johann) take over with their families the large farm: Sebastian the farm Etzenerlen and Hans the farm in the Rot.
Son Peter (1654-1706), who as Pater Jost (See fig. 3), went to the monastery Muri after the death of his father Jakob (1670), received when he professed as monk the amount of 5000 guldens in 1673 from his two brothers Sebastian and Johann (Hans), who had divided the property left to them by their father. 35
Peter, as Pater Jost, who was a twin brother to Elizabeth, has written a diary in the monastery which was preserved. The diary does not only contain a quantity of events from the life of his parents brothers, sisters and relatives in the Rot, but is also considered an important document to the building history of the monastery Muri from 1695 to 1697.36
Hans Stirnimann (approx. 1633?-1675) married Elizabeth Zimmermann in 1661. Hans died very early during a pilgrimage to Rome in 1675 and left the family with five children under age. Therefore his brother Sebastian and his brother-in-law Walter Meyer leased the farm in the Rot to Alp Schattsiten in Romoos first then to Jöri Tobmann for a rent of 780 guldens and later to Augustin Bühlmann for 670 guldens annually.37
In a record of the court from 1 September 1677 the inventory and division of the assets of Hans are recorded. His fortune amounted to approximately 16,647 guldens. His sons Peter and Leonz received 4350 guldens each, the three daughters 2600 guldens each.38
His daughter Katharina married Joseph Schmildli, later the Court Sergeant, and the daughter Rosina married German Wüest. She later became the nurse of the village Ruswil.39
3.4. Fourth Generation: Peter Stirnimann-Steiner And Leonz Stirnimann-Bühlmann
Whether the two sons of the deceased Hans, Peter (1667-1741) and Leonz (1671-1741) managed the farm together or separately, is not well-known. Surely the farm was legally not divided, and the two families each lived in one house. A legal division of the farm into the Untere (lower) and the Obere (upper) Rot (See map)was made by the grandsons, Joseph and Peter in the year 1741 after the death of their fathers.
In the tax rolls from 1691 to 1702 the brother Peter is always mentioned alone. Perhaps because it was up to the older to assume casual control. The farm in the Rot covered at that time 160 Jucharten country. But the two farmers paid 420 guldens per year duty and for Alp Schattsiten in Romoos another 150 guldens. After a land sale in 1695 on the Eglisberg of approx. 10 to 12 Jucharten for 2276 guldens they had to pay out an annual tax of 605 guldens altogether.40 In accordance with the mentioned tax rolls the farm in the Rot was at this time the third largest farm and of a total of 218 taxpayers, Peter (with Leonz) was the fourth largest taxpayer of the village Ruswil. 41
The building of the large upper expansion of the old family house are of special importance for farm history in the Rot in the year 1705 by Leonz Stirnimann (1671-1741). He was married in 1691 to Elizabeth Bühlmann and had eight children.
His older brother Peter married Anna Maria Steiner von Grossdietwil in 1688 and they had five children. Peter must have built a new house beside an old on the upper Rot at approximately the same time as brother Leonz.
The fact that the large wealth of these two farmers in the Rot was not unlimited is shown by the fact that in the 18th century there was established for the first time two mortgages on the farm in the Rot. By Peter and Leonz three mortgage letters each were received from 1718 to 1729. One of the two mortgages which Peter had established for the value of 3000 guldens each in 1718 and had to pay 150 guldens annually, reads on Squire Jost Batt Franz Balthasar and is an example of the financial dependency of many farmers on the urban Patriziat, since the farmer war.42
Peter calls himself in the mortgages he established as residing "in the Oberen Rot". His farm borders on the possession of brother Leonz. Leonz notes in his mortgage letters that his farm "in the Roth" his brother borders.
It would be quite possible that both the brothers established the mortgages for the building of their new houses.
The daughter of Peter, Anna Maria (1692-1767), married in 1731 Hans Jakob Hüsler in Huprächtigen. The exceptionally built, largely baroque farmhouse (1734) on the today's farm Mittler-Huprächtigen has therefore, not coincidentally, a large similarity with the farmhouse in Unter Rot.43
3.5. Fifth to Seventh Generations
From the fifth to the seventh generations of the family Stirnimann in the master real estate Unter Rot, only the names and years are well-known. One compares the family tree. Kasper Stirnimann-Arnet, whose marriage remained childless, sold the remainder of the large farm Unter Rot made up of 26 Jucharten country and 4 1/2 Jucharten forest to Kandi Grüter, citizen of Emmen, resident in Eschenbach, for approximately 4459 Gulden. The sales contract became complete in 30. November 1821. 44
4. The Farm and the Family Muff
From the sale of the farm "Unter Rot" in the 1821 by Kaspar Stirnimann until the transfer to Heinrich Muff in the 1841, the house and farm were articles of different passages of ownership. The reasons are not well-known. A family remained over several generations on the "Unter Rot" again only with the Muffs. The rural real estate was acquired by Heinrich Muff-Bachmann to the extent of 34 Jucharten country and 5 Jucharten forest at the price of approximately 8781 guldens. The sales contract was agreed upon on 17 April 1841 and completed on 14 September 1842 documented.45 Since that time there have been, in continuous order, five generations of Muffs on the farm.
From the family tree of the Muff it is evident that the family of Heinrich Muff came to Ruswil from Schenkon, however they originated in Nottwil and Neuenkirch.46
III Building Examination Of The Farmhouse "Unter Rot"
Before beginning of a restoration of an older building, with which neither building history nor the building status are presently reliably known, is more thorough to execute a building examination. The building examination informs one substantially about culture and historical sections and prevents unpleasant building delays because of unexpected historical finds. The building examination also leads to accurate knowledge of the structural status of an object and protects against unexpected damage. It shows the owner, the architect and the monument conservator, by what consideration it must be restored and where over or new building can occur. The building examination is essential for old buildings, if we do not want to dissipate irreplaceable cultural property carelessly.
1. The Building Inventories Of The Farmhouse Research 1957/58
The first building inventory of the farmhouse was made in 1957/58 by Ernst Brunner with the aid of M. Hüsler and B. Stäger in the context of the building inventories for farmhouse research.47 Besides the glossary words of the farm, the inhabitants and the building it contains a site plan on a scale 1:1000, a view of the main front, a cross section of the house and a sketch plan of the main-story on a scale 1:100, two detailed house cross sections on a scale of 1:20 and a detailed plan from the ribbed slab floor in the upper floor on a scale 1:2 as well as four photographic field recordings. As typically characteristic of the house, the chambers for supplies are located in the large attic.
2. The Building Examination For The Total Restoration 1986/87
The first local building examination confirmed the assumption that in this baroque farmhouse late gothic architecture was still contained. The baroque house had not been totally rebuilt therefore with old felled trees, but the late gothic house had been covered in baroque manners. This rare, well maintained structural house extension, in connection with the two dominant modes inside Switzerland, of the farmhouse is important for culture, historical, building history and monument care interest. Therefore for further building examinations different specialist were required.
2.1 Building-Historical Investigations And Plan Documentation
For the creation of a project of total restoration a building does not only have to be historically examined, but also a probe planned. For the available object the partial inventory plans could be used with the completed farmhouse research. After the local building examination, the remaining necessary components were recorded with the missing sketches of the main story, cuts and fronts on a scale 1:50 and the important details on a scale 1:20, 1:10 or 1:5. With the building examination they paid particular attention to the arrangement of the individual building phases and entered these into the inventory plans.48 In addition a photo documentation of the building was made.49 It could be proven that there are essentially four unique building phases in the house. Chapter 3 describes them.
2.2 Dendrochronology Investigations
Dendrochronology is the scientific method for the age determination of felled trees. The method is based on the analysis of narrow and broad year rings of a wood, which are the printout of different climatic influences in each year during the growth time of the tree. For the investigation suitable drilling samples are taken from 0.5 cm to 1 cm radially to the year rings. In the laboratory all year ring widths of a drill core are measured exactly to 1/100 mm. The values are plotted and compared with well-known reference curves from that time. In the last thirty years continuously structured year ring dendrochronology calendars of similarity is represented and compared to full-grown.50 The drilling and analysis of the dendro samples in the oldest wood portions proved extraordinarily difficult. The problems are to find the age in the structure of the soft wood and in wood processing. Three times a new series of drilling samples had to be made at the building, and only the third series, with twelve drilling samples in different suitable places, could be successfully analyzed. The boards of the floors with the "Schlüüftili" over the first upper floor are equivalently old with security. They come from white firs, which was used in the time of 1520 to 1530. The last measured year ring comes to be situated thereby on the year 1507. The processing status of the boards shows however that still some year rings up to the crust are missing, so that the cut down date must be significantly younger than 1507. Despite large efforts during this analysis no secured year could be determined for the wood of the construction of the building blocks of the oldest, first building phase. Only with an analysis curve could similar conditions be found as with the mentioned floor boards, that points to an unsecured however similar dating. Surprisingly, no similarities with well-known oak reference curves could be determined from drilling samples from the oak door jambs of the first building phase. Due to the building examination, and building details of a first building phase that took place in the 16th century could acceptance of this dating value in the period from approx. 1520 to 1530 still be specified.51
2.3 Polychromy Investigation
Polychromy means multicolored, and its investigation with the available building interior and exterior inventory, expressly the regulation and the documentation of colored versions.
Color designs at a rural building are astonishing. The practical experiences prove however that the baroque farmhouses and granaries of important owners in our region became particularly colored.
In particular above all the entire area of rich embellished window-openings is the section that is for color design, porch, roofing, boards, edging, pedestal-masons or the whole front article. Also the color design on the whole body expansion and the rural timber construction painted as a baroque work of art, can, at least in our region, not be ignored completely. In the inside, such paint was usually used on the wall and wainscot, the space in lowest area. Such is the painting however in an upper floor nor is the paint demonstrably very differently arranged: simple to artistic in the handwriting, ornamental to figurative in the representation, fine to strong in color.
Unfortunately such painting was usually only fragmentarily preserved into our time. The reason is that the bonding agents used had little strength for the earth paint against outside influences of the weather (rain, sun) or against internal wear (cleaning), you find the maintenance lacking often in a structural renewal of later times. Even the substantially more permanent oils under this constant weather demand on a long-term basis have grown worn and today usually only the paints are recognizable. Finding this situation in the available building is very typical.
Little more was to be seen by the original color on the exterior at first sight. The farmhouse "Unter Rot" presented itself during the walk past like most other timber buildings in a uniform brown gray tone promoted by the sun. Only with a closer look one could in the attic floor detect color paints above the window portions marks that were quite faded. From a color sample thus the determination could not be. The painting pH investigation supplied different results. A whitish color had best resisted the sun. To make this certain, visible paint samples were taken from the highlight . Thus it was found that the shifting loading caused a wavy painting and the ornament-beards in rich Rocaillen. Also the graduating ledges with tooth cut, passing over the windows, was prepared for color testing. Owing to found pure pigment, the colors red, green, yellow, white and black could be determined as used. No color paints showed up on the belt beam with die-friezes underneath the windows in the ground floor, although one knows from other objects of the same time that such beams were frequently painted. The polychrome facade design was exclusively limited to the created baroque window design, which was done only in the upper floors and otherwise to the 19th century portion. The situation was found sufficiently however, in order to ensure a perfect restoration into the original state.
In the inside in the two main spaces of the ground floor, in which you find a large room from the time of the late Renaissance to the early baroque and in the adjacent parents chamber, are representative paints of an artful decorative painting done with earth paint on the ceilings and walls. By wear (cleanings) breakage and changes from the process of further building restoration these paintings in the large room were completely destroyed and in the parents chamber partially destroyed. The formal ornamental art from the walls and wainscot was documented by the geometrical nail breaks on the original components. From the baroque framework doors to these two main spaces colored painting from this second building phase of 1705 are likewise identified. On the door between the large room and the parents chamber a is figurative representation of the coronation of Mary in the sky in the fulfillment of the room's tradition.52 She was sold decades ago and could not be found despite intensive investigations in the antique trade. Since it is no longer available in the dining room like the pine paneling, it most probably was integrated into the artful painting of the walls and wainscot, and exactly the same with ornamental and figurative decorated representations. The plain paneling of the walls in the large room becomes ever affected by a central standing Raute, which encloses a high rectangular framework surround. The Raute points are held by semicircular swing of the surround framework (See fig. 45). With the flat cover a type of art money box is pretended. Each maserierte box framework is accompanied by a surround, which extends in the corners quarter-circularly (See fig. 46). In the parents chamber the plain paneling accompanies interior sharp-edged two parallel surrounds, which in the upper quarter one discovers a horizontal ledge. The ledge frame section does not pass through the center and its heading is central perspectively aligned, whereby the parallel surrounds receive an almost column like character. Something together-supporting spans the internal surround architecturally holding the Ledge-gap. This forms geometrical samples from fine double lines and is covered with brown tones in paste-technology (fresco?), which are to emulate nobler material. In colored contrast is the field ceiling. The fillings framed by three double lines show a whitish reason. Whereupon, like absent-minded flowers working, red to orange are attached with black cores.
2.4 Folkloristic Banishment Marks (See fig. 22)
On the north side in the ridge attic in one of the stores over the so-called "Schlüüftili" on the plank boards on the inner wall, a strange geometrical drawing was found, which was strong with black color originally. Kurt Lussi, a folklore and local historian from Ruswil, took care of the interpretation of this drawing and the results in his manuscript "on the paints of witches and spirits" states in summary.53
The previously mentioned, still well readable drawing, consists of three symbol characters important in the superstition:
a) the five-pointed star mentioned in the vernacular Drudenfuß, Schrättelifuß or Pentagramm, that
b) is surrounded by a closed set line and to the outside
c) nine semi-circles with points that are lined up to form a garland.
While each of these three characters was used individually for magic and ritual actions, in particular for avoiding and protection from spirits or demons, the meaning of the available information of these three drawing symbols all on one figure could not yet be clarified. The Drudenfuß was used in antiquity as an indication of health of body, lives and soul. The set was a particularly important character of the necromancy and other magical ritual actions. The nine semi-circles with the points, which is to represent nine half-moons and nine stars, were used at certain places against particularly dangerous spirits as defense and protection marks.
In the walls and ribbed slab floors of the gothic building of blocks one finds holes, which are clogged with wood pegs and whose purpose is not obvious. Also near the banishment marks, the so-called verpflockungen (plugging with pegs) itself is interesting. When removing a peg, a vegetable substance came to light in the hole. Obviously it was put into the hole and locked with the peg. How the arrangement of the verpflockungen, is usual at other places, could not be detected.
2.5 Construction Status
If one considers the old age of the building and the different large and small structural interventions into the static structure, then the construction status must be called extraordinarily resistant. If the building were not established with so strong, oversized construction components, extended and converted, this house would hardly have had as good a preservation chance. A particularly large potential area for damage in the house caused the removal of the entire eastern side from construction connected with the addition around 1705. It affected the entire eastern half of the house, in particular however the large, richly painted room on the ground floor, which was repaired again and again NOT-POORLY as a consequence and so gradually built. The humidity of the natural earth cellar soil destroyed not only the original floor of the ground floor, but also caused during the remaining construction substantial damages. In particular at the south facade particularly strong pest-attack was recognizable in the wood from the third building phase. The close roof area, the combustion of wood for the kitchen and room in the center aisle of the lowest story since the 16th century, and bad air-circulation in the building were substantial reasons for the fact that the wood from the inside out was globally conserved and thus spared from additional age damage. The additions in 19th and 20th centuries caused no special structural damage.
3 Summary Of The Test Results
3.1 First Building Phase Around Approx. 1520 To 1530 (Fig. 47)
At today's location around 1520/1530 a large late gothic farmhouse in the traditional basic concept and shape of inner-Swiss farmhouses was established. The house was built in the true sense of the word on rock. Its western center section is situated up to the height of the ground floor on a powerful lime rock.
The solidium probably consisted of a bricked base story with two and a half stories in wooden construction of building of blocks of square timbers (pine) and a flat bent saddle roof, a so-called Tätschdach, and to two pent-roofs over the windows in the front facade. All roof areas might have been covered at that time with wooden shingles , which were held by beams and stones. In the upper floor the windows were on the front side. Below the rear half of the northwest side porch was a closed porch. The outhouse is situated outside of the dwellings in the base and in the ground floor. The construction size was approximately 10x14 meters (without outhouse) in the ground floor sketch, an eave height of approximately 6.5 meters and a ridge height of approximately 10 meters.
The foundation system of all stories today essentially consists of three zones: the southern front rooms and the northern back rooms with two to three room units and the broad, continuous center aisle. This was an open space from the ground floor to the attic with different stairs and landings for access to the spaces in the upper floors and attic. The windows of the gothic building phase were about a size of 65x70 centimeters. They were inserted as single, double or casement windows with lead glazed (moon disks) in the fronts. If at all, these windows had folding shutters or Falläden from closed board loading with borders. The interiors were arranged in the then usual constructional coined shaped type. The proof is impressive that almost all front and back areas of the two main rooms were enriched with chamfered or cantilevered rib beam ceilings. Also impressive are the wood doors, diagonally let in borders with thick door jambs. Nothing artful was held back from the arrangement of the main room in this first building phase with exception of a cantilevered rib beam.
In accordance with the building examination all marks point to a typical and traditional use of this late gothic farmhouse: In the basement are the stockrooms, in the ground floor the main room, the parents chamber, the center aisle with the open kitchen, three chambers (possibly an additional room ,a pantry and another chamber), in the upper floor, chambers were used as sleep spaces for daughters and sons, farmhands and farm servants, and in the attic were the smoke and storage chambers.
The select location of the house, the large construction size, the rich construction style and the well maintained structure point to a quality building of a self-confident and wealthy owner.
Due to the historical sources it is to be assumed that a representative of the family Bächler (Bechler), was the owner of this first building phase. It was most probably, "Hans Uli Bächler in the Rot, sworn Court Sergeant to Ruswil" or his son "Baschian Baechler Weybell."54
3.2 Second Building Phase About 1705 (fig. 48)
The first profound change of the late-gothic farmhouse outside of the building was documented three times for the year 1705. The house was converted at that time and enlarged in the typical characteristics and styles used inside Switzerland for a farmhouse during the transition period of the late Renaissance to the early baroque. The change concept is therefore of regional interest.
The roof structure with the actual roof was removed at the height of the attic. Likewise the entire eastern side of the house with the porch, the block wall and the stone wall was removed. The eastern side of the house was widened for the entire house length, approximately three meters, from the cellar to the upper floor and built again on the completed stone walls; the timber construction of the house extension with new porch was in post and beam construction. Over the new total structure, i.e. old building with addition, a completely new, powerful, high-gable saddle roof construction was built and the new house center at that time was oriented. The house might have been covered still into the second building phase with wooden board-shingles, which were held by beams and stones. Since that time the farmhouse has a foot print of approximately 13x14 meters, additionally the side porches in the upper floor were added giving the house an eave height of approximately 6.5 meters and a ridge height of almost 15 meters in the main front.
The outside appearance of the house was substantially transformed thereby in the two front facades, particularly on the southern main front. The front facades received a completely new appearance with the increased front surfaces, the powerful steep roof, the three pent-roofs and the baroque window designs. In the timber construction of the south facade and in the north facade at least in the attics, all windows were increased to approx. 70 x 100 centimeters and distributed as double or series windows in the spaces. This second window generation also possessed lead glazing with moon disks. One of these original windows could be found in the attic and secured. With all new outside windows, window linings with closing shutters or Falläden were doubled at that time. The entire window organization proved in baroque manners very delicate and colorful. In the attic ridge on both of the front facades, in the central portion of the early baroque window framework has the owner with the year of construction "LUNTZE - STIRNEN - MAN 17 - 05 IARS " (See figs. 4 and 5). He also engraved the year of construction, 1705, into the new formed door of the main level. The west front was maintained unchanged at that time up to the eave height.
On the inside one is essentially transferred the basic concept of the first building phase. The foundation system with the three space zones in the house depth was maintained from the cellar to the upper floor and fully transferred in the structure of the two new attics. Thus all existing depths were preserved unchanged. In the ground floor most space widths were changed and the southern main spaces were rearranged.
In the upper floor one third each was added to the two chambers on the south and north sides. In the room sketch of 1705, the two new wide "Schlüüftilichammere" between the upper floor and the lower attic as well as the granary of underground storage, which was like space containers under the roof structure stacked up and in our region not very frequently used, are new. The "Schlüüftilichammere" was instrumental to the ventilation system for the stores which are situated over it in the attic. These stores had to fulfill the same function as the common, free standing building granaries. While the entire new roof structure and the eastern old porch can be classified as master performances relating to crafts, the construction of the eastern house addition within the area of the transitions to the new building, i.e. of the block to the post and beam construction, must be judged problematic work. This structurally large intervention with incorrect execution led again and again to settlement damages. They tried to recover with different further structural additions. These attempts remained however without long-term success, because the cause of these constructional problems up to the current restoration were not really recovered. Regretfully the consequence of it is that the main space of the house, which was the room with the splendid baroque configuration, which is situated in this area, has therefore gradually deteriorated.
The artful, totally new organization of the room and the parents chamber is of special interest in the southern part of the ground floor, on which the ceilings and walls colorful painting was again discovered. In the room paints could still be proven partially ornamental or partially figurative by reason. At the walls and wainscot of the parent's chamber a type of the colored painting in paste technology that spread in the canton at that time, was found for the first time (See figs. 21 and 59).
Also this second building phase with the substantial addition to the house done in a fastidious manner, delicate to the total artful organization is witnesses to a wealthy and culture-conscious owner as well as the technical ability of the craftsmen.
3.3 Third Building Phase Starting From 1821 To Approx. 1850 (Fig. 49)
The third building phase begins in the year 1821 and follows different passages of ownership with the farm and allocations of the house in connection with the sale of the farm from the family Stirnimann, which was also linked obligatorily with structural modifications and renewals in the house. Only twenty years later at least the house was again in the complete possession of a family: In 1841 Heinrich Muff acquired a small section of the old large farm "Unter Rot" with all the buildings. The internal horizontal and vertical partitioning of the house into two independent housing units must have therefore been executed in 1841.
The construction volume was neither increased or decreased in this third phase. However, substantial interventions of the outside appearance of the house and of the internal floor plan were made.
Outside at that time was probably ramshackle and leaky gothic and baroque single, double and series windows replaced by modern, larger, classical single windows with normal glass. The front surfaces were wall paper with waste paper and boarders with round, natural wood shingles. But, partially because the structurally was substantial, the beam headings of the blockhouse were back-cut partly or completely.
For the installation of the second, independent housing unit in the large center aisle over the ground floor, opening up to the ceiling of the upper floor, a fixed timber ceiling was built. These two center aisle spaces were partitioned vertically with a diagonally running center wall. Additionally, they inserted a new stairway and beside the old door of 1705 a second house door. The floor which was probably already at that time a rotten structure over the cellar spaces within the area of the southern front exits, the room and the parents chamber was also renewed. In the room the ceiling was increased and the formed central beam was replaced by two simple non-distinguished ceiling cross girder beams. Fortunately however the original ceiling boards from the second building phase was again used. Additionally a narrow space was separated from the parents chamber. These front rooms they again disguised and with oil paint all with simplest walls and wainscot. At this time the fire-place courses as well as the tiled stoves in this room and the northeast addition might have been rebricked (1833). The family Muff acquired a smaller farm section of the old larger real estate "Unter Rot" a too small yield base in 1841 to maintain the large elegant farmhouse manner and style. Therefore, since that time the most necessary construction measures could be only executed in simplest form.
3.4 Fourth Building Phase Around 1910 (Fig. 50)
Around 1910 to the west side of the house a large, two-story wood shed with a floor area of approximately 8 x 9 meters was built. It was established on a wall base as simple two story stand construction with a saddle roof with board siding and was used for pigs, hares, firewood and laundry. The porch, originating from the first building phase construction in the southwest front half was removed for the building of this shed and within the remaining porch area the board siding was used. On the inside of the house some partial construction work was executed, so among other things new windows in the ground and upper floor on the south side was used.
IV. The Restoration Of The Farmhouse "Unter Rot"
1 The Project
The total restoration of a ramshackle building of wood, of which part is soon two centuries and part soon a half millenium old, makes special demands. The variety of interwoven structures by several generations with different construction and style forms can lead to a convincing restoration work only if all involved parties, owner, architect, monument conservator, craftsman and restorers with their technical knowledge are obligated to quality performances. The selection of an architect is therefore of special importance. This applies in particularly with an object, which has the status of a protected architectural monument. On this basis, building examinations with careful analysis of important information and today for time and money savings reasons for it to be a good restoration project unfortunately, it is still no matter of course, which mostly leads to architecturally unsatisfactory and, in the long run, more expensive buildings. With the farmhouse "Unter Rot" these objectives were to be achieved with building examination and restoration.
After a check of different project schemes for the installation of three autonomous dwellings, the owner decided on a dwelling in the ground floor with internal expandability for the horizontal allocation, i.e. in the upper floor, a dwelling in the upper floor and a Dormer dwelling in both attics.
2 Structural Reconstruction Of Buildings
The first important structural work after measurement and the evacuation was a global constructional and static reorganization of the huge potential damage, which had been produced with the deterioration of the entire eastern external 1705 wall of blocks. The static forces were distributed further on the former outside and internal load bearing walls. Ants, wasps, other wood destructive insects and water were the cause of different cavities in rough hewn timbers. This also applies to the "driven off" construction parts, which were reorganized with technical aids, again was arranged and again imposed. In this sense also the lowering of the southeast corner of the building was corrected by approximately 20 cm. This reorganization example showed once more, how constructional building damage can be recovered favorably with centuries old timber construction work.
3 The Restoration In The Inside
3.1 The Basement
The stone-wall of the cellar and base story, in the 16th and 18th centuries 60 to 70 cm thick bricked with lime mortar, structurally was still intact and was also for the new concrete ceiling load bearing. The existing original two small rooms of the southern front and of the two northern rear areas were maintained.
In the southeast front room a combustion wood boiler for central heating and a common storage water heater for warm water supply of the whole house was built. Concrete floors were poured only in this heater area. In the remaining cellar spaces they maintained the natural tamped dirt floors. The rocky central area of the house under the center aisle remained unchanged, and therefore had to be done without an internal cellar aisle. So for necessity, the windows and doors with the post frameworks were renewed.
3.2 The Ground Floor
The entire wooden floor had to be removed and replaced by concrete floors because of the large moisture damage. Meanwhile, the three-layered section of the foundation with the southern front and northern rear exits as well as the intermediate broad central space could be maintained unchanged.
In the northeast half of the center aisle the new stairway with access to all dwellings, closed in itself, was built of pine and maple wood. In the western half a comfortable standard open kitchen system was arranged in the space. The same space is used as a dining corner. From here housing internal stairs could be built in the case of an extension of the dwelling to the upper floor. In the entire floor space of the center aisle the owner wished no more limestone removed. North of this center aisle out of late gothic time the pantry with original ribbed slab floor, door jamb and wood door, the children's room, the bath with water closet and the parent's room are still attached.
The two southern front rooms, the living room and the parents chamber had simple, modest interior equipment from the 19th century with detailed walls and wainscot and beech parquet on the floors. Paneling was pulled out and they dismantled the ramshackle tiled stove of 1833. In the room the wall paneling sections of the original plank board ceiling of 1705 was under these panels and, looking at nail break paints and small color pigments a colorful paint job was found. In the third building phase, a richly formed cross girder beam of the room ceiling from 1705 that had been removed, could be found in the house. Since it had been used again at that time in shortened form, only the profiles could be taken and transferred to the new cross girder beam. The plank board ceiling of 1705, moved higher in the third building phase, was installed again at the original location into the threshold beams and the sections wall paneling of 1705 was similarly done. As the owner wished, they did without a reconstruction of colorful painting of ceiling and wall paneling. In place of the highly damaged, large seat tiled stove of 1833 in the room, a green tiled stove was acquired which was removed from a similar large house of the same time period and inserted.
In the walls and ceiling of the adjacent parents chamber more boards originating from the second building phase around 1705 could be placed with some fillings and with formed capping. The global, splendorous, brown painting in paste technology, with geometrical perspective ornamentation (see. fig. 21) and with colored central surfaces at the ceiling could be restored professionally.
The magnificent room door with fillings and inlay was found in the attic and reused in the partition between living room and parents chamber with a suitable, formed door frame. This element from the house served as main for the doors from the living room and the parents chamber. All remaining doors of the living stories were usually either originals or in an original form, as wooden doors with thrust borders and wood latch plate locks from pine wood.
There in the living room and the parents chamber no paints of a soil origin before the 19th century were discovered, and the floor of the construction period in early 18th century were likewise defective, accordingly, a floor from pine wood with a simple fries-cross-division from walnut was inserted. In the former toilet porch a small wash room was created.
3.3 The Upper Floor
In the upper floor, as in all stories of the building, they could essentially maintain the original three layered story arrangement and the room space of 1705. The deviations are limited to the stairway installation and individual sanitary areas.
In order to solve the sound acoustics between the dwellings well, the two wide ceilings in the living room and the parents chamber had to be substantially more loaded and the floor construction of the upper floor had to be technically strengthened. The floors of all chambers were arranged with 27 to 35 cm broad, continuous pine wood boards. In the broad center aisle there is carpet.
The original floor structures with timber ribs over platform and blunt pushed beams, which were detailed as in a timber construction box without nails into the threshold beams fitted into one another as to the construction period, were opened for cleaning of the centuries old dust from the attic. All external walls of the entire timber construction on the inside were baroque paneling with formed capping and isolated, as far as possible, from those of the second construction period. The inner walls and construction of blocks building with raw stands and plank boards or square timbers were left in the original condition. The cleaning of the strongly sooted wood wall and timber ceilings in all stories caused large problems. All missing rough cut lumber in the three stories was replaced consistently with new fine, year old mountain wood, conscious that the natural tone was left. Thus the building restoration of today is to remain recognizable as the fifth building phase of house history. The lateral porches fulfill the function of generous, protected balcony spaces in this story. The sanitary appliances of this story with kitchen, bath, water closet and shower are north and east in the sketch.
3.4 The Attics
A dormer roof dwelling was built in the two attics. The entire roof structure in its original appearance could be left from 1705. The broad, continuous central space is visible therefore from the floor level of the "Schlüüftili" up to the ridge height of the roof rafters, over two and a half stories, almost eight meters as open roof space, and over it a new roof on the front side and the windows of the open roof chambers are exposed. This former dark screed talking room became a generous exposed dwelling in the center of the attics.
The lateral original space chambers still work as secondary and stacked mobile "space containers" in the attics. On the original, smoke-blackened roof rafters over the entire roof area a blunt flat board with insulation layer was fitted under a conventional outside clay tile roof construction. From here all open and closed spaces, stairs and galleries are directly accessible. On the west side of the central space a kitchen open to the area was inserted. The remaining sanitary appliances with bath, water closet and shower are on the north side beside the two chambers.
4 The Restoration Advancement
Also for the external restoration of the building they paid attention to a consistent representation of the restoration work as possible and maintain the identity of the building restoration as the fifth building phase of house history. Thus the new construction parts and wood boards were left in bright natural tone, so that they age again in natural style. Compromises were however, to be made here also. In consideration of the total effect of the outside appearance with the colorful painting of the baroque windows they used naturally browned mature timber for partially replaced construction beams at the fronts in the ground and upper floors. The general outside appearance of the building further dominated by the second building phase in 1705 increased and widened construction size. For the entire roof areas beaver-tail-shingles were used again in a double covering and the defective galvanized roof gullies and gutters were replaced by new copper sheet.
All windows and most of the doors had to be completely renewed. The two original window arrangements with lead glaze of moon or honeycomb disks were out of the question for the new windows. Therefore, for the form of the baroque double or series windows a regional, documented example of today's window arrangement with wood rungs in the form of classical single windows, which corresponds to the original window design from the third building phase was used. The delicate baroque window systems were restored similar to the structural findings with, shifting or Falläden, ornament beads and with the original colorful painting.
4.1 The Front Facade
On the southern front facade was the defective shingles and the ramshackle window decorations from the 20th century rework. Thus up to this point in time the block and stand construction could be made visible again.
The baroque attachment system, series window with course loading and a continuous belt beam with die-frieze could be proven in the entire ground floor, and thus renewed. On the remainders of the old belt beam the smallest colored pure pigment could not be proven, so it had to be done without painting. With exception of the southeast corner in the upper floor all windows correspond to the structural findings in the baroque form new double-windows. The remarkable baroque details at both front facade and the inscription and coat of arms boards of the owner and the year of construction from the second building phase are included in the window system of the ridge attic. The delicate flight rafters with simple and star shaped termination heads, as well as the ability to manage the former loading are restored.
On the northern front facade the special, characteristic three dominant modes of the original window design of this building remained evident: From the first, late gothic building phase originate two window openings, one in the former northwest toilet porch and one on the original window belt beam in the upper floor (the second opening at this location is a supplement), from which the second, baroque building phase is the delicate system with shifting loading in the attics and from the third, classical building phase are most single windows with lateral folding loading in the ground connection and upper floor.
4.2 The Side Facades
At the eastern side facade, established during the house widening in the third building phase, the house portal were renewed completely again in the original form. But with the installation of a second house door in the 19th century, the richly formed door jamb of pine wood and the room door of oak and with octagonal field fillings, could only be renewed owing to an old family photo. The owner desired that the family coat of arms Muff be inserted here again. Into the door in original form the year number 1705 was transferred. In order to improve the lighting conditions in the central space and in the stairway new window areas were opened, on the left and on the right the house portals and at the house walls of the side facades, hidden behind the porches.
To the western side the shed of the fourth building phase which created extreme difficulty to the house was removed and the destroyed components of the porch construction was rebuilt. For the northwest toilet porch the pedestal wall with the closed timber construction to the extent of the original structural findings was completed. On the porch construction, the boarding with the delicate organization of the parapet wall profile and the strongly weathered termination boards, were replaced.
4.3 The Environment
The environment of our farmhouse was at all times simple and natural. The paths to the farm and between the buildings were simple and coated with rock. The remaining surfaces were grown as meadows. The only substantial decorative fixtures in the near environment of the farmhouse were the farm garden, usually in the front with a lime tree. Both items were still available in "Unter Rot". The over grown farm garden changed into baroque form with young plants was divided and is again with vegetable and flowers emitting its colored radiant strength.
5 Consequences
Cultural properties are loans, which are left to our generation for increase, for preservation and also for passing on. Architectural monuments are the most visible area of cultural heritage for us, which we can see in the everyday life and experience history also in everyday life, which is contrary to culture documents in files and museums. Architectural monuments do however increase in decay and the destruction when the renewal is suspended.
Each structural process is linked with interventions, modifications and transformations, even if it concerns a repair or a restoration. Therefore each plan and building are a challenge to a quality-consciousness argument between receiving from the past and the shapes of new cultural property. In the quality of this argument is the key to the promotion of building culture. This applies in special measure to each building, which has the status of a protected architectural monument.
The agriculture and its rural commercial and building have lasting influence relating to the crafts and great culture landscape of the canton Luzern in the 20th century. The agriculture usually has profound consequences for the old and important buildings given the increasing industrialization in a large technical and economic restructuring. Importantly, how building functions are solved with rural old and new buildings in the present, and how the culture-scenic value of our landscape and local pictures are shaped. Buildings are therefore not only for a person to see but also a social connection.
From such considerations there needs an effective promotion of the architectural style, quality for structural modifications, apart from a thorough stock inventory and evaluation of the objects and places. Practice shows that increased large efforts and unorthodox "building culture promotion models" are necessary for agricultural buildings. We cannot solve this fastidious function as Canton Care Of Monuments. We can encourage and support in addition to handling architectural monuments. The successful restoration of the farmhouse "Unter Rot" is unfortunately in this sense today still a rare example and but a pleasing stroke of luck.
The persons and companies who took part in the restoration
Owner: Leo and Rita Muff Stocker, farmer, "Unter Rot", Ruswil. - project and construction supervision: Pius head, architect HTL, Ruswil. - building-historical investigation and documentation: Office Baltensweiler and partner, Ebikon and Zurich, Jonas Baltensweiler and nod leuenberger. - the drochronologische building dating: Dendrolabor Heinz and Christina Egger, Ins/BE. - investigationinvestigation investigations, color and finery restorations: Petrol Duermueller, restorer, Horw, coworker: Franz count and Karl Germann. - interpretation of the Folkloristic n spell characters: Kurt Lussi, Ruswil. - timber construction statics: Head AG, Ruswil, coworker: Josef waiter more holzer, dipl. Zimmermeister. - structural design: Robert bricklayer, engineer HTL, Ruswil. - carpentries: Head AG, Rus wil, coworkers: Hans Ruedi Schumacher. - carpenter work: Head AG, Ruswil, Franz Limacher, Ruswil, furniture Meier, Sursee, Franz Ziswiler, Buttisholz and Franz cook, Ruswil. - window construction: Head AG, Ruswil, coworker: Josef Grueter. - heating engineering: Office Roland Christian, Ruswil / Sempach- expert of the Eidg. Commission for preservation of regional tradition and nature and the Kantonalen care of monuments: Claus Niederberger, dipl. Arch., Oberdorf.
1 Kantonale Denkmalpflege Luzern. Bauemhausarchiv. Zusammenfassung aus den Korrespondenzakten und den Jahresberichten der "Vereinigung für Luzernische Bauernbausforscbung" 194S bis 1970, den Jahresberichten der "Vereinigung für ein bauerliches Museum im Kanton Luzern" 1971 bis 1977, des "Verein Landwirtschaftsmuseum Burgrain" 1978 bis 1981 und des "Verein Scbweizeriscbes Landwirtschaftsmuseum Burgrain" seit 1982.
2Daß eine Vielfalt von historischen Aussagen zu diesem Kapitel vom 15. bis
19. Jahrbundert überhaupt gemacht werden kann, ist das große Verdienst von Professor Dr. Josepb Stirnimann in Luzern. Er hat seine familienkundlichen Nachforschungen aus mehreren Jahrzehnten zu Beiträgen einer informativen Familien-, Hof- und Gütergeschichte ausgeweitet. Diese Forschungsarbeit war eine ergänzende, ideale Information und ein seltener Glücksfall sowohl für die Baudokumentation als auch für die Baurestaurierung. Die Aussagen von Professor Stirnimann auf dem Forschungsstand von 1987 haben unsere Arbeiten für die Baudokumentation und Baurestaurierung des Bauernhauses mitgeprägt. Wir erachten es deshalb auch als wesentlich, seine Erkenntnisse hier zumindest zusammenfassend darzustellen, auch wenn seine Forschungsarbeiten noch nicht abgeschlossen sind und verschiedene originale Quellenangaben in seinen Unterlagen noch fehlen. Man vergleiche: Stirnimann, Joseph. Die Familien Stirnimann in den Kantonen Luzern und Aargau. Beromünster 1973; Stirnimann, Joseph. Der Hof in der Roth in Ruswil. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript 1987.
3Wie Anmerkung 2; Stirnimann 1987, S. 12.
4Küng, Josef Niklaus. Die Hofnamen der Gemeinde Ruswil. Lizentiatsarbeit. Fribourg 1982. S. 48; Stirnimann, Joseph. Rundbrief der Familien Stirnimann Nr.7 1981. S. 6.
5Wie Anmerkung 4; Küng,Josef. Die Hofnamen in der Gemeinde Ruswil. In:
Ruswil, Geschichte einer Luzerner Landgemeinde. Ruswil 1987. S. 270.
6 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 3-6.
7 23. Juli, f. 52v.; vgl. Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S.3.
8Gfn 19.1863 S.301 und 315 nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 4. -Der Amtiweibel, auch Untervogt genannt, war unter der Herrschaft des Stadtluzerner Patriziates bis Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts die höchste und begehrteste politische Funktion, zu der ein Angehöriger der ländlichen Geschlechter aufsteigen konnte. Er war der ständige Vertreter des meist in der Stadt Luzern wohnliaften Landvogtes für Verwaltung und Rechtssprechung. Im Bereich der Verwaltung stand dem Amtsweibel der Amtsschreiber zur Seite. Vgl. Segesser A. Ph., Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und der Republik Luzern 1850-58. Band 3, und Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.S. 35-36.
9 Sti\LU Urk. 2074; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 4.
10Gfn 17.1861.S. 23f£; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimaun 1987.S.5.
11StALU Cod. 377 fol. 40r; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimaun 1987.S. 6a.
12 Wie Anmerkung 9.
13 StiA St. leodegar im Hof, Luzern, Urkunde C 5; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann1973.S. 29.
14Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.S. 29.
15Seit 1970 im >Verband der Familien Stirnimann Ruswil" zusammengeschlossen (PrIs. Josef Stirnimann-Raas, Unter-Sonnenbergli, 6017 Ruswil).
16 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5. 8.
17Vgl. Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.5. 26-27. Stirnimann 1987.5. 8.
18StkLU Sch 579: Landvogtei Ruswil. Vgl. Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987. 19 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5. 9.
19Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5. 9
20Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5. 9 und 21.
21Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 9.
22Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 9-10.
23Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.5. 30-31. Stirnimann 1987.5. 10.
24Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.S. 31. Stirnimann 1987.5. 12.
25Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.S. 30. Stirnimann 1987.S.10.
26 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimannl973. S.30-31. Stirnimann 1987.S. l0und S.21.1000 Gulden entsprachen im 17. Jahrhundert dem Wert einer Liegenschaft im Ausmaß von 10 bis 12 Juch arten Land und einem heutigen Geldwert von ca. Fr. 200000.-.
27Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S.11.
28 Klosterarchiv Mun-Gries Samen, Ms 399, Annale breve. Stirnimann, Pater Jodocus; nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 11.
29 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12.
30 StALU PA 885/18293 (Original im StiA St. leodegar); nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12.
31 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12.
32 StLU Cod. 4135. Gerichtsprotokoll des Amtes Ruswil. 5. 570ff. Nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12-13.
33 In der Roth 160 Jucharten, Etzenerlen 170 Jucharten, Huprächtigen 212
Jucharten; vgl. Dubler, Anne-Mane. Maße und Gewichte im Staat Luzern
und in der alten Eidgenossenschaft. Luzern 1975.S. 29.
34 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5.13.
35 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12.
36 Klosterarchiv Mun-Gries Samen, Ms 399, Annale breve. Stirnimann,
Pater Jodocus; nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 12.
37 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5.15-16.
38 StALU Cod. 4135 Gerichtsprotokoll des Amtes Ruswil. S.107; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.5.16.
39 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 16.
40 StLU Gülten A 1 Ruswil 1700-49; Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 18.
41Wie Anmerkung 2. Stjrnjmann 1987.S. 18.
42 StALU Gülten A 1 Ruswil 1700-49. Nach Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S.18.
43 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1987.S. 19.
44 Stadtarehiv Sursee. Kaufprotokoll Ruswil. 1820-22. ZF 19/ll.S. 339ff.
45 Stadurehiv Sursee. Kaufprotokoll Ruswil. Band 39. ZF 19/20.S. 246ff.
46 Auskünfte über die Familie Muff von Vater Anton Muff-Sidler in Ruswil.
47 Vgl. Kantonale Denkmalpflege Luzern. Bauemhausarchiv. Inventarmappe Nr.334. Brunner, Ernst. 1957.
48 Kantonale Denkmalpflege Luzern. Planarchiv. Aufnahme- und Projekt-pläne 1987/88.
49 Kantonale Denkmalpflege Luzern. Fotuarchiv. Aufnahmen über den Vorrestaurationszustand, während den Bauarbeiten und nach Abschluß der Restaurierung.
50 Für detailliertere Auskünfte sei auf entsprechende Fachpublikationen verwiesen, z.B. Schweingruber E H., Ruoff U., Stand und Anwendung der Dendrochronolugie in der Schweiz, Zeitschrift für Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 36/2 1979.5. 69ff. - Seifert M., Dendrochronologische Datierung von sechs Schwyzer Bauernhäuser, in: Der Geschichtsfreund 141, 1988. 5. 201f£
51 Kantonale Denkmalpflege Luzern, Archiv. Dendrolabor H.+Ch. Egger, Ins. Bericht vom 20.9.1988 über die Auswertung der Dendro-Proben vom Bauernhaus "Under Roth" in Ruswil.
52 Wie Anmerkung 2. Stirnimann 1973.S. 34.
53 Lussi, Kurt. Auf den Spuren von Hexen und Geistern. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Stand Ende Januar1988. Nach Aussage von Pro£ Dr. H. Trümpy, Basel, handelt es sich dabei um eine interessante Festbindung von bekannten Fakten an die Luzerner Landschaft.
54 Vgl. 46, Anm. 12 und 13.
