Part 18 (1/2)
At the southwest corner of the foundation, evidence matching that at the northwest corner was found. Here, again inset 4 inches from the line of the main south foundation wall, were to be seen the tops of red-sandstone slabs like those found at the north end (fig. 36), in this case with one tie rod still in place. The driveway obscured the point to which the corner of this extending structure could presumably be projected. Subsequent construction against the sandstone slabs had covered their surfaces with a rubble of brick and mortar that appeared to be the foundation for masonry steps (fig. 35). Projecting out from the southwest corner of the foundation was a rectangular red-sandstone block which appeared to be the corner of these superimposed steps.
Although situated under the driveway, it was apparent by projection that Wall B-I joined the southwest corner of Wall C. It will be demonstrated from surviving records that Wall C, with its connecting sections, was the foundation of a full-length veranda.
The belief which persisted for a time that Structure B might have been the courthouse was dispelled by doc.u.mentary evidence showing that it was John Mercer's mansion.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 35.--SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STRUCTURE B, showing molded-sandstone trim with added brickwork in front. Bricks also covered red-sandstone block, lower right. (Diagonally placed bricks at left are not part of structure.)]
SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS a.s.sOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE B
_Date _Artifact_ of Manufacture_ _Provenience_
2 rim sherds from ca. 1730 Beneath flagstone in brown-banded; porch ap.r.o.n north ”drab,” stoneware of Structure B.
mug (USNM 59.1754; fig. 67b)
Iron candle-snuffer 1730-1750 Debris at south end (USNM 59.1825; ill. 62) of Structure B.
Small crescent-shaped Debris at south end chopping knife of Structure B.
(USNM 59.1837; fig. 85a)
Silver teaspoon ca. 1730-1750 Wall debris near (USNM 59.1827; fig. 86d) north end.
In addition, there was the usual variety of 18th-century delftware, Nottingham and white salt-glazed stoneware, pieces of a Westerwald stoneware chamber pot, and much miscellaneous iron, of which only a hinge fragment and a supposed shutter fastener probably were a.s.sociated with the house. None of this material has provenience data, nearly all of it having turned up in the process of trenching. Little of it, therefore, throws much light on the history of the structure. The most important artifacts found in and around Structure B are those of an architectural nature, and these will be considered primarily in the following section.
ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND a.n.a.lYSIS OF STRUCTURE B
That the ”manor house,” as Thomas Oliver called it in 1771, was an extraordinary building is both revealed in the Structure B foundation and confirmed by the insurance-policy sketch of 1806. Long, low, and narrow, fronted by a full-length veranda and adorned with stone trim for which we can find no exact parallel in 18th-century America, it was as individualistic as John Mercer himself. Yet, far from being a vernacular anachronism or a mere eccentricity, it was apparently rich with the Georgian mannerisms that made it very much an expression of its age.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 36.--SOUTH WALL OF STRUCTURE B, looking east. Base of veranda extends to bottom of picture at left. Molded-sandstone trim appears through brick rubble that has been attached to it, evidently as base for steps.]
The measurements made of the foundation when excavated, as we have seen, show a length of 108 feet and a width of 28 feet for the main structure, with an overall width, including the projecting Wall C, of 37 feet 6 inches. The insurance policy states a length of 108 feet 8 inches and a width of 29 feet 6 inches for the main foundation, plus a separate width for the ”portico” (as the structure above Wall C was called) of 8 feet 4 inches. These small discrepancies probably lie in the differences between measuring a standing house and a foundation.
Despite the fact that the foundation was far from fully excavated because of the presence of trees and highway, it is clear, nevertheless, that two cellars of unequal size were situated within the main foundation, separated by sections where there were no cellars. These findings correspond with the notation on the insurance-policy plan, ”a Cellar under about half the House.”
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 37.--CELLAR OF STRUCTURE B, showing remains of original cross wall at left and added cross wall at right. Mercer probably referred to the latter in 1749 in his account with Thomas Barry: ”Underpinning and altering the cellar.”]
The partly destroyed cross wall extends about midway across the foundation, acting as a retaining wall. As described above, this cross wall was found to be tied into the brick pavement that ab.u.t.ted it on the south side.
The bricks in the main foundation walls and in the partly destroyed cross wall and pavement, on the basis of sample measurements, show a usual dimension of about 8-1/2 by 2-3/4 by 4 inches. An occasional 9-inch brick occurs--about 10 percent of the sample.
In contrast, the bricks in the second cross wall are all 9 inches long, except two that are 8-1/2 inches and one that is 8-3/4 inches. Similar sizes prevail in the bricks exposed in the ”portico” foundation (Wall C) at the south end. The significance of these brick sizes will be discussed later.
It is clear that Wall C was the foundation of the ”portico,” and that by ”portico” the writer of the insurance policy meant veranda or loggia.
The policy also shows a ”Porch 10 by 5 f.” extending from the middle of the veranda. The highway now covers this spot.
In the s.p.a.ce between the two parallel cross walls within the main foundation, the debris yielded a large section of a heavy, red-sandstone arch, 14 inches wide, 9 inches thick, and 3 feet 2 inches long. This arch was roughhewn on the flat surfaces and on about half of the outer curved surface, or extrados. The inner surface, or intrados, and the remainder of the extrados are smoothly dressed (fig. 38). At the south end of the main foundation another curved red-sandstone piece was recovered. This piece curves laterally and has a helically sloped top surface. It is 25 inches long, 14-1/2 inches high at the highest point, and 9 inches thick. Presumably, it was part of a flanker for a formal outdoor stair or steps (fig. 39). Also at the south end was found a cast-mortar block with grooves on the back for metal or wooden fastenings (USNM 59.1823; fig. 40). This was perhaps part of a simulated ashlar doorframe. A few gauged or ”rubbed” bricks occur that are slightly wedge shaped.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 38.--SECTION OF RED-SANDSTONE ARCH found in cellar, presumably from an arcade surrounding the veranda.]
Turning to the doc.u.mentary evidence, one may recall that an item dated September 1747, ”By building part of my House,” appeared in David Minitree's account in Ledger G. Two years later, in 1749, several items related to the house appeared in the account of Thomas Barry, ”By Building the Addition to my House/ By 22 Arches/ By 900 Coins & Returns/ By a Frontispiece/ By Underpinning & altering the Cellar.” In 1749 and 1750 William Copein was paid for mason's work.
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 39.--HELICALLY CONTOURED red sandstone, possibly a flanker for the steps at the south end of the veranda, near which it was found.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 40.--CAST-CONCRETE BLOCK, probably part of a rusticated door enframement. Found at south end of Structure B. (See ills. 1 and 2.)]