The Queen Mary Harp: A "forensic" study of the musical instrument

The Queen Mary Harp

A “forensic” study of the musical instrument

Karen Loomis University of Edinburgh

My research area is organology, the study of musical instruments, and my specialty is the historical harps of Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland, of which the Queen Mary is one of the earliest surviving examples. This harp, and the 'Lamont harp', both belonged to the Robertson family of Lude, and were passed down in that family for a number of generaGons prior to being acquired by the NaGonal Museum of AnGquiGes of Scotland (now the NaGonal Museum of Scotland).

Queen Mary harp NaGonal Museums Scotland

© NaGonal Museums Scotland

According to the family history of the Robertsons of Lude, the Queen Mary harp was presented to Beatrix Gardyne by Mary, Queen of Scots, on a hunGng trip in Scotland. Unfortunately, there is at present no corroboraGng evidence to confirm that this took place, so we don't know if Mary actually ever had this harp in her possession. What we do know, however, is that the Queen Mary harp probably predates Mary, Queen of Scots, by at least a century, if not more, making it one of the oldest surviving harps in Europe, and (with the Lamont harp, and the 'Brian Boru' harp of Trinity College Dublin) the earliest surviving form of the harps that enjoyed a centuries long, rich history as part of the musical and cultural heritage of both Scotland and Ireland. These harps were also known and admired beyond the BriGsh Isles, both for the beauty of their sound and the skill of the musicians that played them.

The Queen Mary and Lamont harps NaGonal Museums Scotland


In spite of their historical and cultural status, up to the present liWle has been known or understood about the construcGon and craXsmanship of the surviving instruments themselves. ComplicaGng maWers is that these harps have been somewhat mythologized. So, with regards to some of the historical informaGon that has come down to us, fact has to be sorted out from ficGon. In recent years there has been a growing interest in what in musical circles is referred to as "historically informed performance", that is, performance of researched early repertory on historical instruments, or faithful replicas of these instruments. With regards to these harps, performance is always on a replica, as the surviving historical instruments are all too fragile to be strung and played themselves.

InterpretaGon of historical repertory depends a great deal on the instrument used. How that instrument sounds and behaves depends on the craXsmanship of the maker, and the materials used, as well as on the skill of the musician. So, any informaGon about the materials, construcGon, and craXsmanship that can be gleaned from the Queen Mary harp is of paramount importance -‐ to the musical instrument builders who craX replicas of this and similar harps, the musicians who strive to recreate their historical sound, and the audiences who aWend performances to experience some of the cultural heritage associated with these harps. In order to bridge the informaGon gap regarding the construcGon of the surviving harps, in 2010 I approached the NaGonal Museum of Scotland and the Clinical Research Imaging Centre of Queen's Medical Research InsGtute to propose a study of both the Queen Mary and Lamont harps. Both insGtuGons were immediately enthusiasGc about the project and have been fully supporGve of it since its incepGon. We developed a collaboraGon to undertake not just a study of these two harps, but the most comprehensive study to date of any of the surviving harps of this type, and the first study to uGlise state-‐of-‐the-‐art medical imaging and materials analysis.


IniGally, each harp had 1 1/2 days at the NaGonal Museums Scotland CollecGons Centre, where they each underwent visual and microscopic examinaGon by the museum's conservaGon staff and myself, a detailed photographic survey, and materials analysis of some areas of interest. This consisted of XRF and SEM-‐EDX analysis. Emphasis was placed on the use of non-‐ or minimally-‐ destrucGve analysis. The laboratory work was followed up with CT scanning at the Clinical Research Imaging Centre. Extensive followup analysis on both harps was conducted at the CollecGons Centre in December 2012.


CT scanning is, in effect, a 3-‐dimensional image produced by x-‐rays, which can be viewed from any angle and can be cross-‐secGoned through any plane. This has provided unprecedented views of the construcGon as well as historical damage and repairs to the Queen Mary harp, as well as the Lamont harp. The state-‐of-‐the-‐art scanner that was available to us also made possible precise measurements of any part of the harp, both internal and external, with a precision of 0.5 mm.


Details of the craXsmanship of this harp that were previously unknown have now been revealed. This has been combined with the materials analysis done in the lab to gain a much clearer understanding of this and the other surviving harps, as well as generaGng a large body of data that will be of use to future researchers for years to come. We are sGll in the process of interpreGng the new informaGon, but numerous important advances in knowledge and understanding of both the Queen Mary and Lamont harps have been made. These have already had an impact on the construcGon pracGces of present day builders of replicas of these historical harps, and have been published in a jointly authored arGcle in a peer reviewed academic journal.




Queen Mary harp soundbox cross-‐secGon


historical repair to the neck of the

harp




Contour map of the Queen Mary harp soundboard © NaGonal Museums Scotland

There is one line of inquiry of this research that I would like to focus on, that shows the way in which, as a collaboraGon, we pooled our experGse and resources to resolve a long-‐standing controversy having to do with the Queen Mary harp. This has to do with the wood used to construct the harp. The historical informaGon pertaining to these harps tells us that they were tradiGonally constructed of willow. As menGoned earlier, however, these instruments have been somewhat mythologized and the historical informaGon that has come down to us is, in some instances, a mixture of fact and ficGon. So, understandably, there has been a degree of skepGcism regarding this informaGon, especially claims of longstanding, or 'ancient' tradiGon, as this is the sort of informaGon that someGmes becomes embellished. A number of people have, therefore, argued that, instead of the builders of these harps seeking out a parGcular type of wood, it is more plausible that they used whatever wood was to hand, parGcularly for the soundboxes, which are constructed from a single large Gmber that would not be easy to source. In the 1960's samples of wood were taken from the Queen Mary and Lamont harps for microscopic analysis to idenGfy the species. This was done by A. J. Hayes, of the University of Edinburgh Dept. of Forestry.

The result of his analysis was that neither harp was made of willow, but that all parts of both harps were actually hornbeam (Carpinus betulus). This result, which has been cited numerous Gmes, has been controversial up to the present day. Some have argued that the parts of the harp don't visually appear to be all of the same wood, while others, primarily musical instrument builders, have argued that hornbeam, which is a hard, dense wood that is difficult to work, would be an unusual choice, parGcularly for a largish hollowed out soundbox. The counter-‐argument has been that disagreement with the results of the wood species idenGficaGon derives from a reluctance to let go of cherished beliefs about the history of these harps, whether factual or not. Upon reading A. J. Hayes's leWer and report of his wood idenGficaGon analysis to the museum, which is contained in the museum archives, I noGced that, although he was fairly certain of his results, the idenGficaGon had been difficult and he may have had some small lingering doubts about the results. I showed his report to Ticca Ogilvie, Head of Artefacts ConservaGon, herself a woods scienGst, who noted that his report was missing some key informaGon.

"After a considerable amount of difficulty I have now succeeded in identifying the wood from which both the Lamont and Queen Mary Harps were constructed. I think that I mentioned to you, that my first impression was a Rosaceous timber, possibly hawthorn or apple, but microscopic examination shows this not to be the case. I am now 99% certain that the timber used was hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L. )."

A. J. Hayes, 1969

The structure of wood is 3-‐dimensional, and a definiGve idenGficaGon should ideally be determined from samples aligned with each of the three primary planes within the wood.

When the Queen Mary harp was examined in the lab, we could see where Hayes had taken his samples. However we only saw sampling locaGons in one of the three planes of the wood. It is possible we overlooked some of the sampling sites, but also possible that Hayes may have been limited in the areas that he was permiWed to sample, as there are few inconspicuous places where one can shave off a sample of wood from the Queen Mary harp.


When I examined the CT scans of the Queen Mary and Lamont harps, it was immediately apparent that some members of the wooden frames were enGrely more dense than others. This seemed odd, considering that all of the wood was idenGfied as belonging to the same species of tree. I measured the density of each frame member from the scan data, and compared them to each other as well as to the expected range of densiGes for air dried hornbeam. This confirmed that the densiGes were disGnctly different from one another, and furthermore, that some, parGcularly those for the two soundboxes, were significantly outside of the range of expected densiGes for hornbeam.

Lamont harp

Queen Mary harp


Based on the wood densiGes, and the possible issues with Hayes's idenGficaGon, the decision was made to resample the wood. This was done for both harps when they were back in the lab at the CollecGons Centre in December of 2012. We used the CT scan of the Queen Mary harp to facilitate the safe removal of the back cover of its soundbox, which is the most fragile part of that harp. This made it possible to take samples from the interior of the soundbox, which gave us more opGons for inconspicuous sampling sites for both the soundbox and the neck, which extends into the box. We found no evidence that Hayes had taken samples from the interior of the soundbox. Tomograms from the CT scan were also consulted to see the direcGon of the wood grain at individual locaGons in each frame member in order to idenGfy appropriate sampling sites.


The sampling was conducted by Ticca Ogilvie. Upon removal of the first sample from the Queen Mary harp soundbox it became apparent that there was a problem, which was that the wood is extremely fragile and even with careful handling would be difficult to prepare for examinaGon on a microscope slide without it disintegraGng. It is likely that Hayes would have encountered the same problem, so in addiGon to possibly not having a full set of samples, he may have had difficulty preparing the samples that he did have. For our purposes, there was an alternaGve to the usual method of sample preparaGon.

Ticca Ogilvie sampling the Lamont harp soundbox wood


Ticca Ogilvie suggested instead taking small (~ 2mm) cubes, cut aligned with the planes of the wood, to be imaged with the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Using a micro-‐scalpel, she took and prepared each of the samples in this manner. They were then imaged in the SEM by Lore Troalen, AnalyGcal ScienGst at the CollecGons Centre. This method kept the samples intact and preserved the fragile cellular structures. As a comparison, a known piece of hornbeam was also sampled and imaged. Very good high resoluGon images of each plane of the wood were obtained, making it possible to clearly see the cellular structures necessary for a definiGve idenGficaGon. We are sGll working on the other frame members, but have a posiGve idenGficaGon for the soundboxes of both the Queen Mary and Lamont harps. This idenGficaGon was carried out by Ticca Ogilvie. The process is systemaGc and objecGve. Key cellular structures are idenGfied, step by step, and the species (or genera) that do not have that structure are eliminated. This process is repeated for each idenGfying structure unGl only one possible species (or genus) remains.

Queen Mary harp soundbox wood sample – transverse plane


Queen Mary harp soundbox wood sample – radial plane


Queen Mary harp soundbox wood sample – radial plane detail


Queen Mary harp soundbox wood sample – tangenGal plane


In the plane for which we know Hayes had samples, the wood does have the idenGfying features of hornbeam, however it also matches a number of other species as well. In the other two planes, some of the idenGfying cellular structures do not match hornbeam. The soundbox wood of the Queen Mary harp is, therefore, not hornbeam, refuGng the previous idenGficaGon. Each soundbox was examined individually, and this was found to be the case for both the Queen Mary harp and the Lamont harp. The complete idenGficaGon process for our samples of soundbox wood from these two harps idenGfied the wood of both soundboxes as willow (Salix spp.), confirming that, in this case, the historical informaGon is indeed correct. The following slide is a snapshot of my own follow-‐up idenGficaGon, done with the aid of Intkey: H. G. Richter and M. J. Dallwitz (2000 onwards), Dallwitz (1980) and Dallwitz, Paine and Zurcher (1993 onwards, 1995 onwards, 1998). 'Commercial Gmbers: descripGons, illustraGons, idenGficaGon, and informaGon retrieval.’ Version: 4th May 2000. hWp://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/.


I would like to kindly acknowledge the following people and ins5tu5ons for their contribu5ons to this collabora5ve project: Na5onal Museums Scotland – George Dalgleish, Ticca Ogilvie, Lore Troalen, Isabell Wagner, Jackie Moran, David Caldwell, Jim Tate, Verena Kotonski, Suzanne Kirk Clinical Research Imaging Centre, Queens Medical Research Ins5tute – Edwin van Beek, MarGn Connell, David Brian, Danielle Bertram, Tessa Smith University of Edinburgh – Darryl MarGn, XRF analysis – Lore Troalen, Suzanne Kirk SEM images and EDX analysis – Lore Troalen Photography – Maripat Goodwin, Verena Kotonski, Karen Loomis, Isabell Wagner I would parGcularly like to acknowledge Dr. Ticca Ogilvie for leading the wood sampling and species idenGficaGon, and Dr. Lore Troalen for the SEM imaging that made the idenGficaGon possible.

All images and photography © Trustees NaGonal Museums Scotland

The Queen Mary Harp: A "forensic" study of the musical instrument

Documents