Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

(BLOCK 2, LOT #7)

Submitted herewith is an archaeological drawing showing foundations of existing house and all foundations recently uncovered by excavation in the vicinity.

The original house, which is the front or main portion of the existing house, is designated on the plan by the letters "A", A-1, A-2, and is one of the buildings which were insured against fire by James Semple in 1801 and in 1806 in the Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia.

The description, sketches, and dimensions recorded in the policies, #486 - James Semple, July 20, 1801, and #670, James Semple, Revaluation of the buildings insured in the former policy, June 11, 1806, photostats of which are filed in policy book, pages 48 and 49, Research and Record Department, positively identify the house.

The two wings "A 1" and "A 2" were built simultaneously with the central portion "A", for the main sills and joists of the wings are framed into those of the central portion inside the end walls of the central portion, and the walls of the wings are bonded with the walls of the central portion, and the flue of the chimney No. 1 in the east wing reaches the roof through the east chimney, No. 2, of the central portion of the house. There is no evidence of patching of the brickwork or change in the construction of chimneys No. 1 and No. 2, and as they are connected

by the flue, supported on an arch, they were undoubtedly built simultaneously.

Basement window openings 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 24, 32, 34, and 36 are original, for there is no evidence of patching in the brickwork around them and closures and mortar joints and pointing are original. Original opening No. 13 has been bricked up. No. 14 has been made deeper by cutting out brickwork below original window. No. 17 is original but is partly closed by wall of rear addition. No. 19, also originally an opening of the same size of the other basement windows, has been partially closed by wall 21.

The irregularly and roughly cut brick jamb on east side of opening 22 is positive evidence that present basement entrance there was cut through the original wall. Opening No. 28 is the original entrance to the basement, for it is not only the largest and the only opening not already proved to have been a window opening, or an entrance cut through the original wall, but the brickwork of the steps is very old and worn, and there are marks on the weatherboards above it, which indicate that there was a bulkhead over the steps. The two cheek walls 26 and 29 appear to have been repaired. Also, where they join the main wall of the house at 25 and 30 the main wall corners have been rebuilt. This suggests that much use was made of this entrance and many things carried in and out.

I have been told by Mr. "Jeff" Stubbs, who once lived in the house, that the basement was used as a kitchen. Servants, therefore, were constantly going in and out through the entrance and, by carelessly bumping objects against the corners of the walls, easily could have

damaged them to such an extent that it was necessary to repair them.

Walls 76, 77, 78 and 79 are the foundations of entrance steps and platform leading to the first floor, for the door at the end of the corridor there, over No. 23, is undoubtedly an original outside door, erected, as the framing of the house proves, originally at that location. Paving at 75 is probably contemporary with the steps to this door. Wall No. 82, built on wall 76, is modern and with walls 83, 84, 85, 63, 73 and 74 supported the recently removed modern additions. Steps and entrance walls 80 and 81 leading to basement opening No. 22 are modern, for the bricks are machine made, the mortar modern line, the wood nosings new, and, as already mentioned, the entrance was cut through the outside wall of the house.

At 18, when removal of the plaster and laths exposed the framing, the original rear entrance door to the 1st floor was found. Foundations 45, 46 and 47 are undoubtedly the foundations of the entrance steps and platform leading to it, (door 18) for the brickwork is centered on the door and has no connection with the addition under the floor of which it was found.

The wing of the main house at (G) was not insured in 1801 or 1806 by James Semple, and is not shown on the sketches of the buildings then insured. As Semple insured some very small buildings, apparently all buildings on the property, it seems clear that "G" was not standing in 1806 *(see Note, Page 9). The foundation walls (G) have been cut and patched in so many places it is difficult to determine when they were built. The framing of the whole wing indicates that first there was a rectangular outbuilding at G 1, later extended northwardly (G 2) and

still later (G 3) connected with the main house, A. Foundation No. 56 is the Chimney. Brickwork at No. 57 is under present hearth and appears to be very modern. No digging has been done around this brickwork to determine if it rests on an earlier foundation, because it would be necessary to remove floor of the building to do the work. However, this should be done, as soon as floor can be removed.

Foundation 71 may have supported the corner of a porch, built when wing G was first connected with the main house, "A" - a porch that connected with landing for lst floor entrance over No. 23. It is possible, on the other hand, that No. 71 may have supported the corner of a small outbuilding, that was removed before the erection of any of the present buildings, for the brickwork appears to be very old, and has the texture and red color of foundations found in other parts of Williamsburg that are older than the "Semple" House, such as the Palace outbuildings, Raleigh Tavern kitchen foundations, etc.. Foundations 70 and 72, perhaps supported a fairly modern porch or addition that preceded the one recently removed, and that joined the main house over the old foundations of entrance to door on 1st floor over No. 23. It was probably from a later porch or addition that steps No. 81 led to the basement at opening No. 22. No. 86 is a covered brick drain, square section 4" x 4", that evidently connected with fragments of brick drain 37 and 38. A similar drain was found at 43 and 44, which led to Francis Street.

The description, sketches, and dimensions, recorded in fire insurance policies of the Mutual Assurance Society (#486 and #670, James Semple) previously mentioned are positive evidence that B was the kitchen and D and E the office outbuildings insured by James Semple in 1801 and 1806. The dimensions of the kitchen are given in the policy dated 1801

as 20 x 16 feet, and in 1806 as 20 x 18 feet. The east foundation wall of the kitchen was not found, so the width of the foundation could not be checked by measurement. However, as the outbuildings were located to form a symmetrical group and the corresponding outbuilding, E, is 20' x 16', the kitchen must have been 20' x 16' too. Also, the chimney of the kitchen must have been centered on the end wall, which would have made the building 16 feet wide. That large chimney foundation, with foundation of dutch oven on the west side of it, is another indication that outbuilding B was the kitchen.

The sketch in insurance policy #486, dated 1801, shows a smoke house (12' x 12') distant 10 feet from the east wing of the main house, and joined to the kitchen by a 5 foot connection. The site, thus located, is marked H. Again, a symmetrical grouping of outbuildings places the smoke house at H, so the brick paving and remains found there probably belonged to that building. It is suggested in the drawing on the policy that the smoke house was built somewhat like the old Powder Horn, a six or eight-sided building. Unfortunately foundations to prove that have not been found.

The well, built of curved bricks, was found at F.

At "C" remains of paving and a wall of an outbulding have been found. As site "C" would have been a logical location for an outbuilding necessary to complete a symmetrical group, and as all contemporary residences usually had a dairy house, it is very probable that one was built on foundation "C". The paving there is laid in mortar which suggests it was a floor. Measurements and a study of the brickwork indicate that the building at "C" was probably square, 12' x 12'.

Mrs. Marston Christian told me that the old gable roofed story-and-a-half outbuilding, now in the rear of Mr. Dana's yard east of the present "Peyton Randolph" lot, formerly stood at "J", and that an old colored woman named Patsy Custis lived there. Mrs. Christian said she saw the building being moved to its present location. I measured the building and undoubtedly it once was supported by the foundations found at J, for the two sets of dimensions agree. J 1 is the foundation of the front entrance steps and landing, for, although the building now has no door at that location, patching of the weatherboarding shows that a door was once there. J 2 is the chimney foundation.

It is noted on the insurance policy No. 670, on the east side of the sketch of the kitchen, the following:

"This building is distanced 6' from 1 wooden house and 30' from another." The smoke house is shown 5' from the kitchen in sketch on policy #486, so it (the smoke house) must be one building referred to in the note. As outbuilding J is 30' from the kitchen it must be the other building referred to, and therefore must have been standing in 1806.

Mr. Jeff Stubbs who once lived in the "Semple House" told me he remembered the outbuilding at J and that about 15 feet east of it was the property line fence of the "Randolph" or "Semple" property, and between the outbuilding (J) and the fence there was a drive way.

Brick and mortar remains were found at K and L, but there is no evidence to prove what was constructed on those sites.

On the sketch in policy No. 670, dated 1806 on the west side of the Semple House and lot a 66' street is noted. This was probably Semple's privately owned Street at that time, for, on the Bucktrout Map of

1800, (as sketched by Lively in 1867) a street is shown in a similar location marked "this street sold to James Semple." It is shown on the map west of and adjacent to a lot marked James Semple. A house is sketched on that lot.

How long the house had been standing when it was first insured against fire by Semple in 1801 is problematical. It was not necessarily built by him and may have been standing in 1786, for on the Frenchman's Map of that date, there is a house shown at the approximate location of the present house which as closely as it can be scaled agrees in dimensions with the existing house, the building Semple insured. The actual dimensions of the house are 72' - 2" (length) x 28' - 1" (width of central portion), or 19'-1¾" (width of the wings). The house shown on the Frenchman's Map by scale is 70 feet long x 20 feet to 25 feet wide. The Frenchman, however, has plotted the building about 50 feet farther east than the site of the existing house. On the other hand, he clearly shows it on the lot adjacent to and west of Bassett Hall lot. The existing house is so situated. I think the probabilities that the Frenchman plotted the "Semple House," are greater than the probabilities that he plotted another building of an earlier period that has since disappeared, for we have completely explored by excavation the site of the "Frenchman's" house and have found no foundations of any buildings other than those identified as the existing Smple House or outbuildings mentioned in the Semple insurance policies or shown in photographs. The Frenchman could hardly have meant to indicate outbuilding "J" for it is only 22' x 16', and the building he indicated by scale is 70' long. Another large foundation near the present house would hardly have disappeared completely. Furthermore, in practically every case

where we have excavated for foundations of large buildings shown on the Frenchman's Map, we have found walls. Therefore, it seems to me that the existing "James Semple" House is the building shown on the Frenchman's Map and that it may have been standing prior to 1786, and possibly may have been the home of Peyton Randolph as has often been suggested.

P. S.

All articles, such as fragments of bottles, china, iron, stone, etc. found in the excavations have been turned over to Mr. Rutherfoord Goodwin. The excavated earth and debris was not screened. Foundations of the stables shown on insurance policy sketches were not found, but no excavations could be made at the site of existing modern stable. If it is removed, then the site should be explored by excavation.

* Remains of a brick walk "M" leading to rear door No. 18 of the main portion of the house, as well as foundations 45, 46 & 47 of the entrance to door No. 18, were found under wing "G" and are positive evidence that the whole of wing "G" was built after 1806.

August 11, 1931

Since the above report was written, deeper excavations have been made at "H" between the roots of a large tree, (see drawing) and, under them, parts of the south, east and west walls of an outbuilding have been

found. The north wall was not found but a fill of debris showing where wall was removed indicated the location of it. Undoubtedly, the smoke house stood on the foundation, for the dimensions agree with those given in the policy (12' by 12') and the site, as previously stated, is the one described and shown in the policy.

Fragment of paving 87 probably is contemporary with the smoke house.

Paving at 88, approximately at the elevation of the present grade, and about a foot above 87, appears to be modern.

The Brickwork at 57 is not very old, for it is built partly on brick walk "M", and apparently was built later than addition "G" for the purpose of supporting hearth and joists. Part of walk "M" apparently was removed when 57 and chimney 56 were built, for a fragment of the walk (M) was found south of the chimney.

Walk "M", then, was in use before "G" was built, and was probably laid about the time the main building was built, 1786 or earlier.

The interior wall No. 3, running east and west between the two big chimneys, Nos. 2 and 4, in the main foundation "A" was shown on the prints made August 3rd, as an original wall, cross hatched thus

in error. It is not an original wall, but a wall that was added after the house was built, for it is built in Flemish bond (the original bond is English) and is not bonded to the original chimneys. The bricks, too, are larger than the bricks in the original walls and chimneys. It is difficult to date wall No. 3, but as it appears to be quite old, and the mortar is oyster shell, I think it was probably built not many years after the hour was erected. Consequently I am changing the original construction period designated on the drawing already printed to the second period, which is cross hatched thus

There is a schedule of brick sizes, color and bond, in the corner of the drawing.