Now *that* is living history

Back when I worked at the Paul Revere House, one of the frustrations we frequently encountered was explaining why the house was the sole survivor of 17th century Boston. The shock line was to point out that when the Revere House was saved, it wasn't the only one.

Tourists--and gullible house buyers in olde New England towns like mine--seem to think that 17th century houses exist under some sort of protective bubbles. There isn't a whole lot of thought apparent about the risks houses face. Some visitors asked about Virginia. Yes, there buildings in Virginia older than in New England: made of brick or stone. The wooden structures mostly were eaten by termites. There are also older buildings in New Mexico. But let's get back to New England.

Of all hazards, fire and obsolescence tie as hazards in New England. Much of 17th century Boston had either burnt or been replaced with more fashionable (and durable) buildings by the time Paul Revere moved to North Square in the later 18th century. This is true in much of the early settlement area of New England. The assertion of a real estate broker isn't enough to date a house. Only a fraction of the dwellings bearing a 16-whatever date on a plaque or chimney really deserve it.

Plimoth Plantation, which has been pushing the envelope of first-person historic interpretation for over 30 years, has now shown the gullible that there was no bubble. We gather that when one of their buildings caught fire yesterday, the causes were purely accidental...but an accident that replicated those of the 17th century with nice precision. Props to them; they reopened as soon as it was safe. I hope, I expect, that they are incorporating the accident into their interpretation. A windy day; a fire that throws sparks into a flammable roof: that and the dictates of fashion have all but obliterated the built environment of early New England.