Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

RUSSEL HOUSE AS RECONSTRUCTED IN 1948. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WAS DETERMINED BY THE IRTERPRETATION OF EXCATVATED FOUNDATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE USE OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA PRECEDENT.

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
RUSSELL HOUSE
(Reconstructed)
Block 17, Colonial Lot #52. Bldg. 31

The Russell House was reconstructed under the Division of Architecture of Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated.

A. Edwin Kendrew, Director of the Division of Architecture
Singleton P. Moorehead, Assistant Director and Designer
Perry, Shaw and Hepburn, Architects, acted as consultants

Reconstruction was started November, 1948
Reconstruction was completed November, 1949

Singleton P. Moorehead was coordinator of design,
Phillips Russell, Chief Draftsman who checked all drawings.

John W. Henderson, Draftsman, who prepared most of the working drawings.
Richard A. Walker, Designer of stairs.

Archaeological investigation and plot plan of digging by Singleton P. Moorehead
Ernest M. Frank made preliminary research study for determining nature of insurance policy descriptions of property in the area of lots 51 and 52, Block 17.

Plot Plan by John K. Walker
Landscape Plan by John K. Walker
Details of fences and gates under direction of Alden Hopkins.

This report was prepared by A. Lawrence Kocher for the Division of Architecture (Architectural Records), March 12, 1953.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

RUSSELL HOUSE PLAN

No attempt was made to restore the original plan of the Russell House. This was due to meager information on what the plan might have been, and also because of the customary practice of treating house interiors for non-exhibition buildings to meet present day living needs. In most cases with the house for today, modern plumbing, modern heating, lighting and kitchen equipment are added for convenience. The house plan as reconstructed included some of the plan features of the Powell-Hallam House which formerly stood on York Street and now is on Francis Street within the restored area of Williamsburg. What appears on the archaeological drawings to have been a corner fireplace was reconstructed in a manner similar to the corner mantel in Powell-Hallam, likewise repeating a similar angle fireplace in Timson House in Williamsburg.

RUSSELL HOUSE EXTERIOR DESIGN

The nature of the exterior design of the Russell House followed logically from its one room deep original form, to which a ten foot addition was acquired at its rear. It is believed that the John Blair House on Duke of Gloucester had such a plan when originally built. It too had a rear part appended to a one-room-deep plan. The Moody House on Francis Street was also provided, with a single end room and stairs in its early form and later acquired a second room at one end added space in a rear leanto.

The evidence of records and archaeology suggested to the architects a story-and-a-half house of frame, with an A roof for the front and a leanto roof at the rear. A gambrel roof, as for the Powell Hallam was ruled out, says Mr. Moorehead, because of the nature of the archaeologically suggested plan arrangement.

While some departures undoubtedly made from the actual 18th century original, it is probable that the nature of the "design arrival" as it was reconstructed would be considered a faithful reproduction of colonial Williamsburg architecture; correct in the nature of its windows, doors, cornices, dormers and wall facing. The reconstructed Russell House was in no sense an anachronism. It is a representative example of pre-Revolutionary Williamsburg architecture, a product of architectural research translated into building, and adapted to the nature of domestic architecture of Tidewater Virginia , during the thriving century when the Capitol of Virginia was situated in Williamsburg.

FOUNDATIONS

The foundations for the Russell House are fragmentary and required considerable study in order to arrive at a supposed original building size (20' x 36'), with a rear addition to the north, approximately 12' x 36'. It is suggested that the detailed archaeological foundation drawings of Mr. S. P. Moorehead, dated November 17, 1935, be examined as an accompaniment to the discussion in this report* The footings that were discovered below grade are least disturbed at the north side. This is particularly true of the northeast angle. The north portion of the footings, it is observed by Mr. Moorehead are apparently later in date than the house proper whose size we have tentatively indicated as 20' x 35'. The discovery of stairs (4 basement steps) leading down beneath the house area suggested the house width. There is very little in the way of fragments at the west side (no wall to suggest the house limit).

There is also an almost total absence of wall on the mouth side toward Duke of Gloucester Street. However a retaining wall fragment [section B-B] lends support to the assumption that the front face of the house must have conformed approximately with the usual setback on the main street and that it must have been approximately in line with the adjoining Prentis House on Lot #51.

The South-east angle of the house foundations was completely gone. Here and on the west sides, a building line was determined by a juncture of undisturbed clay soil and the compacted area where it was determined a wall once stood.

The north limit of the supposed original house is convincingly shown by old brickwork and parts of a wall, revealed during excavation. This is indicated in areas 36, 37, 38, 40 and 41^*. The earlier date of this wall 4 is indicated by the nature of the brick which is laid with an excess of clay and sand as mortar and with a limited amount of oyster shell lime; while the wall approximately twelve feet north of this intermediate wall is well laid in Flemish bond and oyster shell mortar. It was estimated by the examiner, Mr. Moorehead, that the rear and later wall belongs to a period in the late 18th or early 19th century but the evidence is not conclusive.

The house was without a basement but it had a depressed area dug beneath the house. This is shown with dotted limits on the archaeological drawings. These roughly defined areas of solid ground were an aid in the establishment of the western and southern limits of the house.

The casual and narrow nature of the foundation fragments suggested to the architects the original existence of a wood superstructure. In no places do these fragmentary widths of foundation exceed the length of a brick [8 ½"]. This brick length established the width of the foundation walls. There is, to be sure, heavier brick masonry where fireplaces occur.

Insurance policies with their descriptions, were thought to be a clue to the nature of the house construction. The question was raised "was there evidence to support a claim that the original Russell house was built of brick?" Do the insurance policies state the unmistakable nature of the insured house on lot 51? To these direct questions there had been no direct and unmistakable answer.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS

GENERAL

The Russell House is located on the north side of Duke of Gloucester Street in Block 17, near the Capitol. Lot 52 on which the house stands is shown on the Bucktrout map of 1800 in possession of a person or persons named Russell. The Frenchman's Map of 1782 has a representation of a square shaped building on the plot but without indication of the neighboring building, now known as the Margaret Hunter Shop. This shop is mentioned repeatedly by insurance policies from 1796 on. It is probable that the Russell House and the Margaret Hunter shop were incorporated into a single mass in the map produced by an unknown Frenchman. At the rear of this same map there are two small outbuilding, midway between the north and south limits of Lot 52.

HOW THE HOUSE SIZE WAS ESTABLISHED

The house size and its shape are based upon old foundations brought to light when excavations were made under direction of Mr. S. P Moorehead, November 17 1935.

The foundations for the Russell House are scant and of more than one period. They required much study and some assumption of the existence of early walls in order to arrive at a supposed original building line with limits of approximately 36 feet in width and 20 feet in depth. It was also a conclusion that a rear twelve foot addition was built at an early date, increasing the overall depth to 32 feet.^*

[No digital image available]

RUSSELL SITE WITH VIEW OF MAIN FOUNDATION AT NORTHWEST, LOOKING EAST, SHOWING REMAINS OF STEPS DOWN TO A SEMI-BASEMENT AT THIS CORNER OF HOUSE. Photo N 5403

[No digital image available]

VIEW OF MAIN FOUNDATIONS FROM EAST SIDE, SHOWING PAVEMENT OF BROKEN BRICK AND STONE, ALSO FRAGMENTS OF BRICK WALLS. Photo N 5399

[No digital image available]

RUSSELL SITE, VIEWED FROM NORTHEAST. THE POST ORIGINAL WALL IS SHOWN HERE. ITS WORKMANSHIP, WHILE SOUND WAS INFERIOR TO OTHER WALL STRUCTURE. Photo N 5400

NATURE OF THE EXCAVATED FOUNDATIONS

The excavated footings for the house were found to be the least disturbed at the North side. This is particularly true of the north-east angle, an area which belonged to the twelve foot by 36 foot addition. The discovery of 4 basement steps at the assumed north-west corner of the house was a factor in determining the house width. There was very little in the way of brick fragments at the west side to aid in establishing the house width.

There is a similar absence of wall and of fragments on the south side, toward Duke of Gloucester Streets. However a retaining wall fragment and two other clusters of brickwork lent support to the assumption that the front face of the house conformed approximately with the usual set-back on the main street and that It must have been about in line with the adjoining Prentis House on Lot 51.^*

SOUTHEAST ANGLE OF HOUSE

The south-east angle of the house foundations (old part) was completely gone. Here and on the west side, a building line was established by examination of the soil and fill. The juncture of undisturbed clay soil and a line of fill led to the discovery of compacted areas where the wall once stood.

NORTH LIMITS OF ORIGINAL HOUSE

The north limit of the supposed original house is convincingly shown by old brickwork in situ . These remnants are identified on archaeological drawings as areas 36, 37, 38, 40 and 41.

The basis for an assumption that the Russell House was of brick appears to have arisen from an insurance policy description of the Margaret Hunter shop, This shop is located on the eastern 9 side of Lot 52, described as contiguous to three buildings of brick.^*

Because of the supposition that the Russell House might have been of brick, the archaeological assistant of Colonial Williamsburg, James M. Knight, was asked to make exploratory diggings at the Russell House site to determine the possibility of this building having been constructed of brick. In a note Of J. M. Knight, dated March 22, 1948 the following observations were made:

"Several trenches were carefully cut on each side of the building site, crossing the location of original walls. On the north and east sides, fill, composed of brick and mortar fragments could be found to a depth of approximately 18 inches below the present grade. Practically all of this fill rested on undisturbed sandy-clay subsoil.

"Should these two sides of the building line have been constructed of brick," observes Mr. Knight, "it is logical that they would have been placed deeper so as to have a good secure footing to bear the weight . . . "
J. M. K.

The original house, it was decided, based upon the outlined archaeological findings, was probably not in the form of an approximate square, but had, at first, a one-room-deep form, 36 feet wide and only 20 feet deep. This floor area, it should be noted, was slightly larger than the 20 x 30 feet area required by the Act of 1699.^**

[No digital image available]
FRAMING OF RUSSELL HOUSE, SHOWING A ROOF AND LEAN-TO AT REAR.
RUSSELL HOUSE FRAMING, NORTH SIDE

A leanto of approximately 12 x 36 feet was believed to have been added at an early date, subsequent to the first construction. At that time, it appears, a bulkhead was added at the rear giving access to a low ceiling area (recently dug) beneath the house. The reason why the rear part, twelve feet in depth, was considered to be of a date later than the front part is due to the divergent character of brickwork belonging to the two parts. The rear part, designated as areas 29 - 27 - 39 was laid in Flemish bond, whereas parts of the center line wall (areas 35, 36) was laid in English bond and with a different kind of mortar.

[deleted] Plan of [illegible] showing basis for reconstruction of walls & partitions

PHOTO - THE SCRIVENER HOUSE BLOCK 17. COLONIAL LOT 56 IS ONE OF THE MODELS ON WHICH THE RUSSELL HOUSE WAS RECONSTRUCTED. BOTH HAVE AN ENTRANCE DOOR AT ONE END OF THE FACADE, BOTH HAVE A PAIR OF WINDOWS AT ONE SIDE OF THE DOORWAY. IN EACH CASE THE LOW ROOF HAS THREE DORMERS. THIS HOUSE AS RECORDED IN ITS EARLY PHOTOGRAPH ALSO THE, CRAIG-POWELL HOUSE THAT ONCE STOOD ON YORK STREET WERE SOURCES FOR MOST OF ITS EXTERIOR DETAILS.

Russell House
Property Ownership Tabulation Block 17, Colonial Lot 52 Compiled by E. M. Frank May 3, 1948

[No Digital Image Available]

RUSSELL HOUSE SHOWING APPLICATION OF BEADED WEATHERBOARDING

RUSSELL HOUSE, NORTH FACADE, SHOWING LEANTO, CHIMNEY ARISING FROM CORNER FIREPLACE, ALSO ROOF SURFACED WITH ROUND BUTT SHINGLES.

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
(A Reconstruction)

PLAN TYPE

The Russell House has a rectangular plan with a stair hall and a rear kitchen at one side. A living-dining room is at the other side at right. An interior corner-fireplace occupies one angle diagonally opposite the hall, giving a floor arrangement that we sometimes associate with a gambrel-roof house such as the Tayloe, Orrell and Lightfoot houses. The archaeological evidence for the Russell House seemed to indicate a probable northeast location for the fireplace in the house as it was originally built. [Archaeological remnants are, as is separately pointed out in the archaeological report, extremely fragmentary and baffling.]

The house is given what is termed an exterior reconstruction treatment, with the interior following a general eighteenth century plan patter, along with the introduction of modern features for heating, plumbing, lighting, closets and kitchen equipment.

HOUSE SIZE

The house as reconstructed on the basis of archaeological evidence, and, with its rear addition, is of moderate size. It measures 36'-0" in overall length, from east to west, and 32'-0" in depth, north to south. As a basis for comparison of relative bigness, we list four-other familiar Williamsburg houses with almost [illegible]

A RECONSTRUCTED HOUSE

No parts of the house are original and old in the sense that 16 First Floor Plan of Russell House , as reconstructed. The outer walls and division between front and back part, also chimney location were determined by archaeological excavations. The plan, with side hall resembles the plan (reversed) of Scrivener House, also in B1, 17. 17 Second Floor Plan, Russell House. No attempt was made in the way of reconstructing a completely authentic eighteenth century interior. The second floor plan was devised so as to provide two comfortable bedrooms, a bath and ample closet storage space. Details of woodwork such as doors, windows, and their trim, stairs and flooring boards are all in colonial manner. 18 A proposed scheme for the Russell House #2. Final arrangement included a transom over doorway, and a wrought iron railing on either side of the stoop. 19 the house is a restored eighteenth century dwelling. It is however colonial in appearance since its form, details and the nature of its materials are similar to those same components when found on houses that have continued in existence for a hundred and fifty years or more. It is suggested that the facts concerning the history of this house and its archaeology, as reviewed by S. P. Moorehead, be reviewed as an accompaniment to the reading of this report.^*

INTERIOR

GENERAL

The interior of the Rimsell House is a reconstruction, intended to reproduce in its hallway and principal living rooms, the general appearance of Williamsburg colonial architecture, and at the same time to provide convenient rooms for modern living. This was customary with the treatment of non-exhibition house interiors. Heat, plumbing, electric illumination and an interior kitchen are among the additions that are made to the house so as to meet the demands of modern living. The plan of the house recalls a house plan that was found on occasions with the A roof, story and a half dwelling, as with the Scrivener House. Both have an entrance at one end, with stairway within the hall (differing in their location).

Since the house had been destroyed many years before, there was no record of the interior appearance or of its furniture. The working details of stairs, cornice, cabinets, and trim all represent what was typical for the period. All architectural forms are attached to precedent for the period, as will be related in the following account. The existence of a fireplace, and possibly an entrance or two, were the sole facts of interior established by the archaeology. [See Archaeological photographs #N5418 and N5421]. We have previously discussed the two periods of plan arrangement, first with the one-room-deep original house, and later with a twelve foot addition on the north side. [See Progress Photograph 49W-509].

INTERIOR FEATURES OF THE PLAN

The front doorway leads to a fairly commodious hall where the stairs to the upper floor was located. From this hall one may enter the living room at right (23'-20"x 19'-8"), through which at rear, we reach the dining room.

Also from this hill one can continue on back to a modern 38 equipped kitchen, which has the convenience of a pantry and also a lavatory.

Dual coat closets are beneath the upper range of the stairs, off of a vestibule leading to the kitchen.

The second floor has two bedrooms and a bath. Each of the bedrooms has its own closet. This sums up the generalities relating to rooms of the two principal floors.

FLOORS

All floors are of Southern pine in random widths, varying from approximately 4" to 6 ½" in width. While the material is new, their dimensions, nature of wood finish and general appearance correspond with the floors of eighteenth century Williamsburg houses. Floor boards are attached to the joists by face nailing, with use made of wrought iron nails. Door thresholds are also of pine.

For finish, a slight color was added to the wood boards as a stain, so as to approach the appearance of old wood floors. All floors were then given a rubbing down with floor wax.

BRICK

There are no brick floors on either the first or second floors. The single fireplace has a brick paved hearth, discussed under the topic Fireplace .

The stairway from the first to second floor is on the west wall of the hall and consists of 16 risers (a subdivision of a floor to floor height of 10'-1 ½".

All woodwork (balusters, handrail) is of poplar, to be painted. Stair risers and treads - pine. The handrailing detail is from [not located].

The balusters (turned) are a variation of 18th century balusters of Bassett Hall.

Stairway to basement is a simple round top rail as found in Wigwam, Amelia county.

CHIMNEY PIECE

There is a single mantel in the living room of the Russell House. This consists of an arched fireplace opening, a mantel shelf with dentils, panelled overmantel, side panelling in which there is a two tier cupboard. The denticulated mantel shelf is from the Orrell House (MacCandlish) of Williamsburg. The overmantel is similar to the overmantel of the dining room of the Coke-Garrett House. The arched wood frame (not the bolection) surrounding the cement plastered fireplace opening, also the side cupboard panels are from Colonial Williamsburg collection of antique parts of buildings. Measurements were made of these old examples and their record drawing used in the making of working drawings for the Russell House mantel.

The living room mantel of the Allen Byrd House (a reproduction) and the reconstructed Russell House mantel have many similar details. The importance given to the Russell House chimney piece is due, in part to the relative importance of Russell in the local community. His name appears with fair frequency on records of property transfers. (See Research Report)

The fireplace opening is surrounded by a bolection molding from Mill's Point House, Charles City County. The outer curve is hollow, forming an outer frame to the smaller ogee molding on the inner part of the frame.

The living-dining room chair railing that surmounts the plastered 40 dado of the room has a full rounded center with a reverse curve molding at both top and bottom. Its profile is the same as the chair railing (right of hallway) in the Brush-Everard House. It is also similar to the chair railing in Ayscough Shop.

The interior cornice molding in the living and dining rooms consists of three and one half inch crown molding with an ogee below the crown, applied against a back board with its lower edge beaded. The Robertson-Galt interior cornice was used as precedent here.

WALLS

All interior walls and ceilings are plastered on metal lath. Walls are finished with a "slightly wavy surface" so as to resemble the wall surface of eighteenth century plastering. The approval of the Architectural Division of Colonial Williamsburg on a sample of wall was obtained before the finish coat was added.

PANELLING

Panelling above and around the dining room fireplace is of clear yellow poplar, a material used during colonial days and suited to painting. Details of panelling showing rails, stiles, moldings, etc. are seen on detail sheet #205.

The interior cornice, described under the Fireplace account is new, and is a replica of a cornice in the main Bassett Hall House, is also based on a cornice in Robertson-Galt House.

CHAIR RAILING

Interior chair railing is of poplar, as discussed under "fireplace". All chair railing is applied against a 5" backboard with a ½" bead at top and bottom.

BASEBOARD

All board finish at base of walls is of pine, with a half inch quarter round mold at top. The height of baseboard is nearly 5".

DINING ROOM CUPBOARD

The built-in cupboard in the dining room is a close copy of a cupboard in Hillsborough.

DOOR & WINDOW TRIM

Window trim for interiors is single faced for 15 light windows, molded at outer edge adjoining the square fillet. Eighteen 41 light windows are given a double face trim. The outer molding of interior window trim is the same as the outer molding of doors.

Windows are without a sill; however the trim at sides and top is continued across the base to form a completely molded frame.

Door trim is not all the same in width. Important doors have a 5" wide single molded frame at sides and top. See rooms #105, #109, #110. Other doors, such as Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 203 have a 3" frame. Here again the outer edge and molding corresponds with that of wider frames and also for windows.

HARDWARE

No digital image available
PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF DOORS IN WHICH HARDWARE IS PLACED

RUSSELL HOUSE
COLOR AND PAINT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Files of the Department of Research and Records, Colonial Williamsburg.
• Research Report by Mary Stephenson, 1947.
• Research Report by Hunter D. Farish, April 29, 1941. 7 pp.
• Archaeological Survey Plat of Foundations [Russell House Site] Block 17, Lot 52, made under direction of Singleton P. Moorehead, November 17, 1935.
• Archaeological Report in excavations made at Russell Site, Block 17, Colonial Lot 52. Architectural Division of Colonial Williamsburg. Report written by Singleton P. Moorehead, December 28, 1935.
• Measured Drawings of Powell-Craig House, made by G. S. Campbell, December 11, 1934.
• Deeds, inventories and property sales, land transfers, auctions, bills of sale, etc. in Department of Research and Records, Colonial Williamsburg, Inc.
• Files of the Virginia Gazette with use of Cappon-Duff Index for persons, property, buildings and other subjects. Two volumes, Special tracing of Russell family.
• Architectural notes on the site collected from S. P. Moorehead by ALK and HD
• Glossary and Architectural Records Files, Division of Architecture were consulted for definition and precedent.
• Precedent files in the Division of Architecture with measured drawings, and details of buildings, windows, doors, cornices, etc.
• Inspection of site with notes taken of brickwork, roof form, surfaces, windows, etc.
• Swem's Index with references to individuals, buildings, practices and associations.
• The Frenchman's Map, 1792.
• Files of photographs and collected drawings, as precedent for design of eighteenth century buildings and their parts.
• Handbooks of eighteenth century architecture with illustrations of plans and exteriors.
• Progress Photographs taken as a record of the site, and of progress during construction of the building.
• The general correspondence files were consulted with the idea of discovering the basis for the design decisions.

There were a few artifacts collected at the site. These were consulted at their place of storage, the archaeological laboratory.

WELLHOUSE
Sheet #100 (Plans and Elevations)

GENERAL

The outbuildings, as was observed when archaeological excavations were made, are of different periods. An attempt was made to use brick sizes as an aid in determining the approximate construction dates. This idea was not followed out to any great extent because of the frequent reuse of old brick, thereby leading to a frequent mixture of masonry of several dates. In addition it was discovered that the making of brick did not follow any positively determined sequence. There were kilns that produced "Statute" brick, while in other cases, the brick size was arbitrarily specified. However, it was possible to select brick from the main house and then to match that in some other part of the building. Bricks of identical size and texture lead to the supposition that both were of the same kiln and hence, possibly of the same date.

THE WELL AND WELL HOUSE

A fairly complete well curb (square base), well and drain leading away from the well were found northeast of the lean-to addition of the main house. The nature of the square base suggested the former existence of a superstructure to shield the well. "The round well with a square curb or foundation, is very common in colonial wells of Virginia. The existence of a gutter pitching downward toward the north suggests the use of such a gutter for the carrying away of unused water. It was an obvious feature employed with hand operated 51 wells. On the Prentis site, Coke-Garrett site and at the Governor's Palace flat, similar drains were found."^*

From the illustration shown above and with use of measurements at site, and by application of collected data on Virginia well design the drawings of the Russell House well was reconstructed.

[No digital image available]
FOUNDATION OF WELL AND DRAIN, NORTHEAST OF THE HOUSE

The well house is approximately 3'-6" square, resting on a plinth 5'-4" square, raised about eight inches above the grade level.

The well(3'-2" in diameter) was reconstructed with brick, rising from a brick base as exposed and measured at the site.

BRICKWORK

All exposed brick for well and base are handmade under direction of Colonial Williamsburg, in an eighteenth century manner.^** They are similar in color and size to the face brick used in the Russell House. These bricks are laid with oyster shell mortar with English bond.

WOODWORK BELOW LATTICE LEVEL

The well base is eased with flush, random width boards, with beaded edge. A plank top, approximately 1 1/8" in thickness, forms the platform on which the well is placed. This same plank top 52 surrounds the well at its counter level.

SUPERSTRUCTURE OF WELL HOUSE

The upper part of the well house has a four post frame (4" x 4") supporting the roof, with a lattice framework between. The diagonally arranged slats are after the manner of well house enclosures in Virginia.

LATTICE

There are many surviving evidences to justify the use of lattice as enclosure for dairies and well houses. As precedent we cite a well head with lattice at Edenton, North Carolina, also well heat lattice precedent is shown in photographs from King William County. Both examples are found in the Photograph Book in Drafting Room II.

WELL HEAD PRECEDENT

Precedent for the shape of the well head, its pyramid roof and square base is found in the yard of a house (Mayo) that formerly stood on York Street, Williamsburg.

CORNICE

The cornice consists of bed molds and a beaded edge backboard supporting a 4" overhand of roof covered with wood shingles. The same set of bed molds were found at the York Street well head. They resemble in reduced scale, the bed molding of the local Debtor's Prison.

ROOF

The steeply sloping room (52 degrees) is approximately the same as for the York Street example. The roof is surfaced with hand-split cypress shingles.

HARDWARE

The door hardware consists of two pairs of H hinges (6" in height) made of wrought iron, under direction of Colonial Williamsburg, and resembling antique H hinges.

DAIRY

GENERAL

The dairy of the Russell House is built in old foundations. That the building was a dairy was determined by its location, shape and the nature of its partial brick floor.^*

[No digital image available] - PHOTO OF DAIRY

The dairy is located "northward from the foundations of the main house, ... roughly on the west line of the house extended." It is believed that circulation to the smoke house and dairy was by a marl path to the east of these building foundations. A part of such a path was located during excavations. The footings on three sides of the assumed dairy were in a fair if partly crumbled condition. Walls as found were composed of broken brick or batts ( ½ and ¾ lengths) two courses deep, laid in what appeared to be English bond. Paving of the same size brick [9" x 4 ¼" x 2 ½" ] laid flat on a thin base of brick rubble and mortar was found, only near the center of the building. It was here, because no trace of fill was found, that the structure was considered not a smokehouse. Oyster shell lime was 54 clearly in evidence, with intrusions of oyster shell particles in the mortar. See Archaeological Report by Mr. S. P. Moorehead, pp. 5 and 6.

BUILDING SIZE

The dairy is approximately a square 8'-6" x 8'-6". Its wall up to the eaves is about the same, and so is in the shape of a cube, surmounted by a pyramidal roof.

SHINGLES

The roof is surfaced with round butt asbestos-cement shingles, with fantail treatment at the hips, as described under smokehouse.

[No digital image available]
DETAIL OF DAIRY, RUSSELL HOUSE, SHOWING CORNICE, CUT-OUT LATTICE AND DOOR

CORNICE

The cornice differs from that of both the smokehouse and the well in that it is a full cornice with crown and bed moldings also with a projection beyond the face of the wall. The cornice follows closely (slightly reduced in scale) the profile of cornice at Liberty Hall near Indian Neck, Virginia, Essex County. A peculiarity of the 5 ½" overhang is the beak shaped "water drop" at the lower edge of the fascing below the crown molding. The cornice overhang, it may be mentioned was a common practice with dairy design. Its purpose was to shade the upper part of the wall where air passage was made possible 55 by use of a cut-out lattice. See drawing on previous page. This detail was from a dairy located west of Richmond by Walter Macomber during the early 1930's. Sketch drawings were made of it and added to the files of the Division of Architecture, Colonial Williamsburg.

WEATHER-BOARDING

The walls of the dairy are faced with weatherboarding (cypress) that is applied with a 6" exposure to the weather. The lower edge of the overlapping boarding is finished with a ½" bead. Precedent for this same profile of boarding is found at the Brush-Everard House.

CORNER BOARDS

Here as with the smoke house, the corner board faces two directions due to the nature of the roof which is hipped. See under smoke house for description and dimensions. Precedent for the two-way corner board is the hip-roofed Taliaferro Cole House.

DOOR

The door of the dairy is double sheathed, both sides faced with beaded edge sheathing boards, flush, random width. The boards extend vertically on the exterior, and horizontally on the inside.

BRICKWORK

The exposed brickwork of foundations consists of English bond, brick patterning. Bricks are hand made, matching in color and texture the brickwork of the colonial foundations. All mortar contains oyster shell lime including particles of calcimated oyster shells.

HARDWARE

The doors are swung on wrought iron strap hinges, 26 ½" in length. These hinges were manufactured by a local smith and are duplicates of 18th century ones, see Hardware Folder, page 7, 1-A. A wrought iron hasp, CWI F 20, is used as an attachment of door.

All boarding is face nailed with wrought iron, galvanized nails hammered heads. The latter are not over 3/8" in diameter, and follow the appearance of nails of mid-eighteenth century.

Here, as with most outbuildings, the exterior along is reconstructed in a colonial manner. The interiors are unfinished.

EAST ELEVATION

SMOKE HOUSE

GENERAL

The smoke house is situated north and slightly to the west of the main house. Its size is approximately 8'-4" on each side. Its identity as a smoke house was clearly shown by its size and by the existence of a square hearth at the center of its plan.

[No digital image available] - PHOTO OF SMOKE HOUSE

The building is roughly cubical in form, surmounted by a steep pyramid roof, without a finial.

ELEVATIONS

All elevations are alike, excepting the north side which has a batten door (double sheathed).

SHINGLES

The roof is surfaced with asbestos cement shingles with round butts. These are laid with a slight side taper on sides of the roof hip. This fan tail arrangement is in the manner of colonial roof shingling and permits a joining of the shingles at the hips, working gradually, in 3 or 4 shingle width to a vertical position at the center of each side of the roof.

The use of asbestos shingles as a substitute for wood ones is based upon local fire regulations. The asbestos cement shingle was evolved by Colonial Williamsburg by careful experimentation and was designed to give the weathered appearance of wood shingles.

The roof is deeply sloped, (approximately 60 degrees) and has a slight change in slope as the cornice is approached. There is no cornice in the usual sense. The 58 overhang of about 6" has a crown mold beneath the overhang as with the Russell House dairy. Precedent for these molds is found in the case of many small outbuildings. See the example of outbuildings at Falmouth, on the Rappahannock River, Stafford County, Virginia. [See files of Architectural Records, by Addison F. Worthington].

WALL SURFACE

The smokehouse is faced with weatherboarding, attached to the building frame with 6" exposure to the weather. All boarding has the usual ½" wide beaded edge. Weatherboarding is of cypress.

CORNER BOARDS

The corner boards 3 ½" x 1 ¼" face in two directions as was customary with square hip roofed wood buildings. A ½" bead on one of the boards forms the corners of the building. The corner board is similar to the outbuilding cornerboards at Falmouth, on the Rappahannock River, Virginia. See corner board precedent, Architectural Records files.

DOORWAY

The doorway to the smokehouse is double sheathed, with vertical flush, beaded edge boarding on the outside and horizontal sheathing, also with beaded edge and random width, within.

HARDWARE

The door is hung on 26 ½" wrought iron strap hinges, (type 7) as shown in the hardware catalog. All weatherboarding is face nailed with galvanized iron cut nails, hand hammered heads, not over 3/8" in diameter. The door is fastened with a wooden pin, attached to a leather thong.

BRICKWORK

Brickwork for foundation is similar to that used in foundation of the Russell House laid with oyster shell lime and with English bond.

For further reference to details of Smoke House, see sheet #100, Blueprint room.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Works consulted in the preparation of this report)

• Measured drawings of Powell-Craig House, made by G. S. Campbell, December 11, 1934
• Archaeological Survey plat of foundations [Russell House Site], Block 17, Lot 52, made under direction of S. P. Moorehead, dated November 17, 1935.
• Archaeological Report on excavations made at Russell Site, Block 17, Colonial Lot 52. Architectural Division of Colonial Williamsburg. Report written by S. P. Moorehead, Dec. 28, 1935.
• Research Report, on Colonial Lot 51, Block 17, by H. R. Shurtleff and H. Bullock, 4 pp. Drawings of insurance maps. Sept. 28, 1935.
• Research Report on Colonial Lot 52 by Department of Research and Record, Mary Janson, April 29, 1941.
• Research Report on Colonial Lot 51, by Department of Research and Record by Mary Stephenson.
• Notes compiled by ALK and HD in-conference with SPM regarding reconstruction of the Russell House, 6 pp.
• Insurance policies, no. 127p Mutual Assurance Society to Jane Charlton, April 19, 1796. Policy no. 665, Mutual Assurance Society. Policy no. 1517, Revaluation on Declaration Policy #665, made May 31, 1815, Mutual Assurance Policy #2939, Margaret Hunter Property. Policy #7596 (Margaret Hunter) a revaluation of buildings declared by John Gordell per Declaration #5028 dated 1830.
• Interpretive studies of Insurance policies, Lot #52, reduced to plot drawings, including plans and data, dated May 3, 1948.
• Correspondence files of:
  Perry, Shaw and Hepburn, Architects
  Files relating to work by resident architects A. S. Kendrew and S. P. Moorehead
  General files
• Maps:
  Frenchman's map, 1783
  Tyler Map, near 1800
  Bucktrout map, 1803
• Pain, William. The Practical House Carpenter, London, 1788.
• Builders Companion, London, 1765. Consulted for details of cornices, roof shapes, windows and doors.
• Waterman, Thomas. Mansions of Virginia, 1947. 60
• Historic American Buildings Survey. Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
• Progress Photographs, Files of Architects' Office, Colonial Williamsburg.
• Working Drawings and Specifications, prepared by Architects at Williamsburg for Colonial Williamsburg.
• Swem's Index to Subjects and Individuals of Virginia.
• York County Records, Department of Research and Record.
• Powys, A. R. Repair of Ancient Buildings. This work contains data on eighteenth century details, particularly base of wall guttering painting, etc.
• Photographic Files of Division of Architecture.
• Recollections of Victoria Lee, Mr. Charles and other citizens of Williamsburg whose memory has recalled many of the vanished buildings of the town.

LIST OF WORKING DRAWINGS AND WHO MADE THEM:

All drawings checked by Philip Russell; S. P. Moorehead, Coordinator of design.

Map - Colonial Lot 52 - oversized image