That is interesting, and it makes sense. I can see the point of getting a tighter fit by having a square peg to shear into round fit with a round hole as it is driven in. Also, it seems like it would be easier to make a round hole than a square one; and easier to make a square peg than a round one.
But driving the square peg into a round hole seems like it would shear the peg all the way to the end that stands outside of the hole after driving. Since the shearing is with the grain, it would amount to splitting, which would continue to the end of the peg. But the pegs in the photos retain a square shape, at least in the exposed “head” portion.
My guess is that they made square holes for square pegs for this bridge reconstruction.
In this era of woodworking, square holes would be relatively easy to produce. But does it follow historic practice? And if it does not, does it at least offer some structural advantage? I can’t see one.
If there is no structural advantage, and if they did indeed make square holes for square the square pegs, might this be due to a misinterpretation of historical practice? If somebody merely stipulated that the pegs should be square for historical accuracy, one might then easily conclude that the holes need to be square.
You know what they always say about the futility of trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
|
