Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

I do not think that either of the insurance policies mentioned in the report on the Maupin Lot refer to this property. In policy No. 585 issued to John Crump and Esther Whitefield in February 1802, it is stated that the property insured is situated between the properties of Robert Greenhow and J. W. Dixon. Bucktrout's Map of 1800 shows a Dixon lot where the present Maupin lot is situated, but the policy cannot refer to this lot, for it would have been stated that it was bounded on the east by King St. Moreover, in the re-valuation of the Crump lot in 1815 for Robert Anderson it is recorded in the policy No. 1387 the revaluation of No. 585, that the property is bounded on the west by Greenhow's lot and is clearly shown to be on the north side of Duke of Gloucester or Main Street, in York County. Bucktrout's Map of 1800 shows a Crump lot on the north side of Duke of Gloucester Street at the present site of the Donegan and Bryhn lots, bounded on the west by a Greenhow lot, and I think the two policies refer to it. The dimensions given in the Crump policy No. 585, and in the revaluation policy No. 1387 do not agree even approximately with the measurements of the foundations uncovered by excavation on the Maupin lot, which is further evidence that the policies do not refer to the Maupin lot. Further search should be made foe information about this property. Perhaps it can be traced by searching the chain of title of the Dixon property. Dixon, according to the Bucktrout map and the similar maps of Williamsburg of about 1780, owned the present Maupin lot during that period, and probably from the date of the Revolution until a few years after 1800. There^fore, as the Frenchman's Map was made during this period (in 1786) and shows a building where the foundations on the Maupin lot were uncovered, it is very probable that these walls are the foundations of a building owned by Dixon.

Submitted herewith is an archaeological drawing, showing remains of old foundations recently uncovered by excavation at the above described lot.

The foundations marked"H"on the plan are undoubtedly the remains of a colonial house, for the Frenchman's Map of 1786, shows a building exactly on this site, and the distance of the front wall from the street agrees closely with the 6 feet that colonial buildings were set back from the Duke of Gloucester Street line, according to Hening's statutes, to allow for porches and entrances. As shown on the drawing the building had a basement with steps leading into it from the back yard. Remains of wood nosings still exist on some of these steps. There were two outside chimneys, one at the East end and one at the West end of the house. There were no fireplaces in the basement, and no indications of any paving or flooring there. The bricks are the usual salmon color of colonial bricks, and are from 9" to 9½" long x 4½" wide x 2-?"to 2¾"thick. Four courses laid up measure from 10-5/8"to one foot in height, an average about 11" in height. The -2- oyster shell mortar joint is scarcely an average of 3/8" thick.

During the latter part of the eighteenth century, this lot, according to the map of Williamsburg of 1780, and the Bucktrout Map of 1800, was owned by a man named Dixon. According to the Virginia Gazette, Purdie and Dixon kept a book shop in Williamsburg in 1786. Also, a Dixon was mentioned as the Postmaster at one time. The building on Foundation "H", certainly standing in 1786, would have accommodated a ship on the first floor, and although there is no data now in the Research Department to prove conclusively who owned or occupied the building, it is very probable it was Dixon.

The fragments of wall at "J", suggest that an addition to building "H" might have been built on the West side of it. However, only four courses of brickwork remain, the two bottom courses stretcher courses, the next a header course, and the top one a stretcher course. Perhaps, English bond was used in this building above grade, but these four courses are more like modern bond, and the bricks are modern size.

About the outbuildings, Mr. Charles, in his "Recollections of Williamsburg" says that there were two outbuildings on the Maupin lot during the Civil War, the eastern one occupied by servants and the western one by students.

Mr. H.D. Cole and Mrs. Whitley, formerly Miss Maupin, say that they remember the two outbuildings, and that both were one story and a half outbuildings, with gable roofs and dormer windows. Mrs. Whitely was not sure, but thought -3- the steps to the second floor of the eastern outbuilding led directly from separate entrance door opening on the yard with no connection to the first floor, the stairway being enclosed by two partitions. Mrs. Whitely also thought the eastern outbuilding was very near the present western line of King Street. Judge Armistead, who also remembered the outbuildings, thought the chimney was inside the house.

No remains of the western outbuilding were found, although excavations were made West of the Maupin House, where Mr. Cole said the building had stood.

Foundations marked "B" include an old chimney foundation approximately at the site where Mrs. Whitely thought the eastern outbuilding stood. Judge Armistead said it was a very old outbuilding and he thought it was older than the Maupin House. The bond of the brickwork in the chimney is English, the mortar, oyster shell, so the building may have been built in the eighteenth century, but I think that it is more probable that it was early nineteenth century, perhaps the same date as the Maupin House, for the brickwork does not resemble that in foundation "H" and the bricks are different size. (See schedule on plan, showing brick sizes in the various foundations found on the lot). The two sets of paving, at different levels, found inside this chimney foundation, apparently, are of a later period. The 9" wall along the South side of the chimney also seems to be of a later period, being built of bats. The remains of brickwork at "A" are also built largely of bats, and seem -4- to have no connection with foundations at "B". Perhaps, after building at "B" was destroyed, steps were built at "A", but so little brickwork remains there that this is hardly more than a guess.

Mrs. Whitley was so sure the outbuilding she remembered was nearer Kind Street than the foundation of the chimney at "E", it is probable that Judge Armistead is correct and that the chimney of the outbuilding was inside the house, for then the building would have extended to King Streets, as Mrs. Whitley thought it did. Moreover, if the chimney was at the eastern end of the house, the western end of the building would have extended to foundation "C", and there is no evidence on the ground that it did. Of course, it is possible that the western part of foundation "B" was removed for the construction of outbuildings at "C", but Mrs. Whitley remembers no outbuilding so near the present Maupin House as site "C", and she does remember one approximately at "B".

Her recollection suggests, then, that Foundation "C" is older than foundation"B"and that building "C" was removed before building "B" was built which I think is correct, for it is not probable that a building would have been erected at "C" at any time within two feet of the main addition to the Maupin House, whether building "B"was standing or not. This addition is said to be as old as 1835 or 1840, and would hardly have been built within two feet of an existing outbuilding, so foundation"C"must antedate the addition. The bricks at "C" are unusually small, 7½" x 5½" x 2¼" and none of similar size have been found in any of the other recently uncovered foundations, -5- but strangely enough some of identical size have been found in the rear chimney of the main addition to the Maupin House. The logical deduction then is that outbuilding at "C" was pulled down and the bricks used in building the chimney of the addition to the Maupin House. Outbuilding "C" then, would be as old as the main part of the present Maupin House (early nineteenth century) and perhaps was contemporary with building of Foundation "N".

The bricks in foundation "H" and "C", laid up, both average 4 courses to 11 inches. The bricks at "C" apparently were laid without any attempt to bond. Those in "H" were laid with English bond but were not carefully laid.

At "E" a rectangular shaped cistern was found. The foundation built over it does not appear to be very old, the bricks being modern size, and the bond and mortar also modern. The building was probably contemporary with the present Maupin House, and was probably used as a laundry, for between it and the well at"D"there is a drain basin, for the disposal of waste water, which ran off through a brick drain shown parallel to and North of the well.

The brickwork at "G" is laid largely of bats, and is probably not very old, although it is almost centered on foundation at "H".

Excavations also were made South of the foundations shown on the drawing for foundations of smoke house and other outbuildings said by old residents of the town have been formerly on the lot, but no remains of any buildings were found. -6- Four photographs were taken of Foundation"H", and one large box of articles (pieces of iron, glass, china, etc.) found in the excavation have been turned over to Mr. Rutherfoord Goodwin.

A memorandum is attached concerning the old Mutual Assurance Society policies which it was thought referred to the Maupin lot. I think the policies refer to another lot and have stated my reasons in the memorandum.

Practically no data has been found by research in old records concerning the foundations on this lot, and some of my conclusions from a study of the old walls is perhaps more or less contradictory but I am submitting them any way, as thoughts that may be helpful in determining the dates of the various foundations.

Policy No. 710 (or 719)
Mutual Assurance Policies, p. 32