<%BANNER%> xml version 1.0 standalone yes
PageID P144
ErrorID 4

DeMesa-Sanchez House - Field Inspection November 21, 1978 (124 pages)
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00011621/00072
 Material Information
Title: DeMesa-Sanchez House - Field Inspection November 21, 1978 (124 pages)
Series Title: Herschel Shepard Project Files
Physical Description: Unknown
Language: English
Donor: Shepard, Herschel ( donor )
Publication Date: 1978
Physical Location:
Folder: 7813 DeMesa-Sanchez House
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida -- St. Johns -- St. Augustine
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: AA00011621:00072

Full Text

NOVEMBER 21, 1978

We must assume that the vertical saw marks on interior studs, at least for

* a working hypothesis, are the marks of a vertical stroke saw. If this is

the case, the following conclusions must be reached. First, the stair in

i Room 105 was installed contemporary with a wooden floor, no trace of which

remains, for the original stringer of the stair which extended to the east

clearly fell approximately 3" above the tabby floor, and the spacing of the

approximately 7" risers of the stair indicates that the lower riser sprang

from the wooden floor and not from the tabby floor to the east.

Secondly, the vertical stroke studs in the partition located at the east

end of this stair, which forced the lower rung of the stair to be routed to

the south, postdates the installation of the stair. Furthermore, this parti-

tion rested upon the wooden floor also for the studs terminate approximately

3"k above tabby floor and bear some evidence of toenailed nails, which must

have fastened to the wooden floor. The partitions which flank Room 102 must

have been installed either contemporary with the wooden floor or later than

the wooden floor for the studs terminate approximately the same distance above

the tabby floor and bear evidence of toenailed nails in the bottom edges.

These partitions also bear'both vertical stroke, cut and circular saw cut lath

as does the partition on the east side of 105.

SPortions of what appear to be an early door were found at nailers and blocking

above the door from 102 into 103. These planks exhibit cut nails and nail

holes where lath was applied when used as blocking. The.planks exhibit a very

small:'bead along one edge. The edges arei,,square, and the planks measure approxi-

Ii other planks exhibit a half-lap rabbitt on one edge, rrection:, The beads '
m ae. 1 / x 4 7 / 8 w e t h b d f n h : ., : u e Th e

- 2-

previously noted are opposite one another on one edge on three planks.

The present partition between Room 103 and Room 106 is modern plaster on

standard 4" concrete partition blocks.

The west casing on the north jamb of the door between 105 and 107 extends

below the uppermost concrete slab to the level of the wood floor below as

does the north jamb of this door. The east casing on the north side does

not extend below the later concrete floor.

There is evidence of an earlier opening where the present east door to Room

102 is now located. The bottom of the coquina is cut on a level plane approxi-

mately 2" above the top of the present hand-hewn wooden lintel above this

opening. The present door casing has been toenailed to this lintel with cut

nails. The bottom of the present lintel beam exhibits whitewash, indicating

it was exposed to view at one time. Apparently the north jamb of the original

opening met the west face of the wall approximately 5" to the north of the

present opening. The door frame to this door apparently extended to the top

of the wooden floor. (We are here referring to the present door frame.)

The casing of the north jamb of the large cased opening in the east wall of

101 extends to what appears to be the level of the earlier wooden floor. Cor-

rection: This casing extends all the way to the top of the tabby floor. Since

this casing bears on top of the Sanchez floor, there may be an indication that

this casing was installed simultaneously with or after the installation of

the Sanchez floor. However, the existence of a patch approxiamtely the wall

thickness of the east wall of 101 running for the full width of this opening

may indicate that this casing was installed after the wooden floor had been

removed. This would be borne out by the fact that the lintel above this opening


is circular saw cut as is the framing related to the second floor room above.
back of the
The latter circumstance is further corroborated by the fact that the/north

jamb of this opening and the casing on the east side are circular saw cut.

They are held together with cut nails. The large 2x east jamb of the south

door to the outside from 10lis fastened with cut nails; however, this piece

of wood was machine planed. It also extends below the concrete floor level

to the approximate level of the Sanchez floor. This indicates this opening

is a later addition installed after the wooden floor had been removed and the

Sanchez floor re-exposed prior to the installation of the concrete floor, which

is now the top floor.

All visible nails in the east door to Room 104 are wire nails. The west

casing of this door was installed prior to the pouring of the present concrete

floor in this room also. The sill conditions at the south door into Room 106

indicate that an earlier door was in this location. The present door frame,

however, dates from the concrete floor since it terminates just below the

surface of the later concrete floor ca. 1905.

The west door to the kitchen from Room 107: The jambs of this door extend to

within approximately 4" (very rough approximation) of an extension of the

Sanchez floor. This would indicate that these jambs may have terminated above

the wooden floor installed at a later date. This would also indicate that the

flanking partition infilling in which this door is located was installed at

approximately the same time. The whitewash on the bottom of the joist above

this wall extends about aninch or so to the east of the bottom of the beam

where it terminates apparently for the full north and south length of the beam.

In other words, the entire wall was infilled and there was not an opening in

the east face of this wall that went to the exterior beneath the porch located


on the south of the kitchen, nor did the opening, as far as the present framing

indicates, extend into the kitchen without a door. In other words, all of the

infilling wall is probably of the same time but the masonry on the exterior por-

tion adjacent to the south porch of the kitchen and the wood framing on the

interior portion separating the northside of Room 107 from the kitchen is earlier.

However, the coquina infilling in the studs of the portion of the wall between

105 and the kitchen is a later infilling. Originally, it must have been sided

with wood or some other material, perhaps plaster.

The east door of Room 108 to the kitchen exhibits a wooden threshold below the

recent concrete ramp from the recent concrete floor in 108 down into the kitchen.

The top of this wooden threshold is approximately 2" below the top of the most

recent concrete floor slab in 108. Apparently the east.face of this deteriorated

threshold bears a rabbetted out stop for a door which swung into the kitchen.

This is also borne out by the location of patched hinge rabbits in the north jamb

of the early casing of this door. The concrete ramp is very late, probably put

in by Frazier. It is a very gray concrete. It is apparent that the concrete floor

in the kitchen, which is approximately 3" below the floor level of Room 108, was

poured up to the top of a wooden base which was applied against the face of the

west wall of the kitchen, and this wooden base continued along just below the

wooden threshold beneath the door. The top of the base is slightly below the

low edge of the rabbet in the threshold of the door. Correction: The threshold

previously referenced is actually a wooden sill into which the jambs of the

door are tenoned at both ends. There is evidence that a threshold was nailed

above this sill. A nail hole is evidenced in approximately the center of the

sill member. Note that the tabby floor in this area, dating from Sanchez, is

approximately 81" below the top of the modern concrete floor. This door was

examined on the west side by taking out the modern concrete floor down to the


tabby floor. The coquina wall has been leveled to receive the sill noted

above. The levelling of the concrete wall, however, occurs approximately

2" above the top of the Sanchez floor. The top of the wooden sill is loca-

ted approximately 2-3/4" above the levelled top of the coquina. Therefore,

it seems probable that this opening is related to a wooden floor located above

the Sanchez floor. The planks to the floor could easily have extended above

the coquina over to the back of the sill and jamb of the door which is located

toward the east face of the wall. In addition, this work must have been accom-

plished after the kitchen was attached to the main structure of the house.

Second floor of Kitchen: All of the roof rafters were vertical saw cut, and

the ceiling joists are hand-hewn. They appear to be all of one kind. The

lath on the ceiling in this room was hand-split lath running east and west.

The infilling supports have been removed. The laths for the infilling of the

exterior stucco on the south wall remains cut laths as does the lath

at the west wall of this room at the southwest corner. Split lath is also

visible in the exterior stucco in the partition at the west end of the porch

south of the second floor kitchen.

There is clear evidence that the window between the kitchen and the second floor

east room of the east wing was left in place late because the plaster over the

east face of the window was installed over machine-cut laths; the laths were

installed over circular saw cut studs erected at the centerline of the window.

Therefore, we can assume that this window was left in place and exposed to view

until very late.

The window beneath the stair was checked. The wooden planks which cover the

window on the south side were apparently installed all at one time. They all

exhibit vertical stroke saw marks. The plaster installed over circular cut


wood laths on the north side of this window appears to all have been installed

from the north side at a later time. Therefore, the north face of this window

may have been exposed into the room to the north, that is, Room 106.

The Classic Revival, that is to say, Greek Revival, trim that is used as a

surround on the south windowsand door of the second floor kitchen room is

identical, or appears to be identical, to the trim used in the surround in the

opening to the partitions of Room 102, indicating that all this work was done

in the same period.

The west door to the second floor kitchen and to the balcony south of the

kitchen are also of the kitchen period as seen in the use of the trim and the

plaster surrounding the wood casings.

The circular saw cut rafters,starting with the rafter above the partition

between the stairhall and Room 205 and going to the west, all have been re-

placed with circular saw cut rafters. Also, the beam or the plate above the

south wall of Room 205 and the stairhall at the west end of the beam exhibit

circular saw marks.

The south wall of Room 205 and stairhall has been rebuilt several times.

There is evidence of circular saw cut marks, vertical stroke saw marks and

modern planed timber in the framing of the wall.

The studs in the partition between the stairhall and 205 are vertical saw cut.

The lath is circular saw cut and vertical saw cut similar to the lath in the

partitions surrounding 102. Therefore, we can assume that this partition is

of the same approximate date. This partition also bears upon the large planks

that are continuous between Room 205 and the stairhall. The base of the south

wall of 205 appears to continue behind the south end of this partition.

- 7-

Partition in Room 201: The studs are vertical saw cut; the lath is a mixture

of circular saw cut and vertical stroke saw cut similar to partitions flanking

Room 102. The partition has never been related and exhibits original lath.

The baseboard on the south face of the partition bears against the early flooring,

but a shoe mould has been installed to trim off the edge of the later flooring

installed above the earlier flooring.

The following is a description of the Greek Revival trim on the northeast jamb

of the door between 101 and 102. Overall east-west dimension is 1-5/8"; depth

approximately 3/4", with the flat face approximately 9/16ths of an inch. The

configuration of the trim on this door is not exactly the same as the configura-

tion of similar trim on the second floor surrounds of windows of the second

floor kitchen on the south side.

Room 201 probably had a wooden ceiling in the period ca. 1840 since the parti-

tion dividing this room has circular saw cut and vertical stroke lath inter-

mixed and dates from no earlier than ca. 1855. However, the room did contain

a partition the location of which must be determined later after the present

flooring is removed.

An earlier door opening was located in the east wall of Room 102. The south

face of the rough opening was approximately 11" south of the present door

casing. The north rough opening was approximately 11" inches north of the

present door casing. Therefore, the total width of the rough opening was

approximately 54". The bottom of the wooden lintel is approximately 7'-4"

above the present floor; the present flooring is approximately 7/8" thick.

All visible nails are wire nails, and a sill projecting into the room is

circular saw cut fastened with wire nails to the casing of the window. However,

an early keeper of metal, similar to that found in the Princess Murat House,

- 8 -

is attached to the west jamb of the window, maybe a later addition. The head

of this window is well above the heads of windows in Rooms 201 and 202, and

the sill is lower than other sills in rooms of this area.

The south elevation of the exterior of Room 105: The window in the south wall

of Room 105 was located in the location of the present door. The west jamb

is 12" west of the west jamb of the door and the east jamb is 12" east of the

east jamb of the door. The sill height was approximately the same as the

adjacent windows. The head height is the same as the present door.

The east wall of Room 104 contained a window similar to the window in the south

wall of Room 105. The south jamb of this window was located at the location

of the present door jamb. The north jamb is located to the north of the

present door jamb, making the full width of the opening approximately 54".

The head and sill of this window are the same as the one in the south wall

of 105.

In the downstairs kitchen the window in the east end of the south wall is

a later replacement for an earlier window the dimensions of which can be

clearly discerned from the exterior. The east exterior door to this room

is a later addition as is the north window to this room. In Room 108 the

door to the kitchen was probably installed and took the place of an earlier

window as evidenced by the fact that the headers above this door and window

in the south wall are at the same elevation, same size and general configuration.

The south window in Room 108 existed as a window until recent times. The south

wall of this room has been infilled with circular cut studs with sheetrock on

the north face and plaster on wood lath on the south face. The sheetrock on

the north face of this infilling is the only coverage ever placed on this side

of the studs. The wood lath on the south face of this opening is of recent

vintage. The lath on the south face of the closure was installed with wire


wire nails. Therefore, we may conclude that this was maintained as an

opening into Room 105 until relatively recent times and that the window

in the north wall is a recent addition. The lath on the north face of

the enclosure of the south window in Room 106 is fastened with cut nails

to circular saw cut scrap. The window frame in the opening was apparently

utilized for two casement windows or.shutters with three small hinges in

each jamb. An earlier door was centered on this window and measured approxi-

mately 3'-2" masonry-to-masonry on the north side of the wall. Inside sash

size of this window is 3'-2-3/4" wide x 4'-4-3/4" high;masonry-to-masonry

dimensions horizontally outside of the frame are 3'-7-1/8" x 4'-6-5/8" from

the top of the wooden sill to the bottom of the wooden lintel. The sash

consisted of two abraised sash or shutters which opened into Room 106 and

was apparently fastened at the center of the sill into the sill. The hinge

measures 1" high x 1-3/4" on the shutter leaf and 1" on the jamb leaf.

The shutter leaf has a knuckled top and bottom; the jamb leaf has a center

knuckle. Each hinge is attached with three fasteners which appear to be

hand-wrought nails, but this needs to be verified.

The wall between 106 and 108 is made of four-inch partition block and should

be removed. Therefore, the configuration of combined Rooms 106 and 108 in
the 1830-1840 period/consist of a door from the west from Room 103 centered in

a masonry wall. The double in-swinging casement window or shutter in the south

wall was visible to view inside Room 106, but the vertical saw cut planks on

the south face of this opening had been installed against the back of the stair.

The window in the north wall of 106 is a later addition and did not exist. The

south door of Room 106 apparently relates to the period of the wooden floor

but not earlier since the sill of this door would have occurred much higher

than the Sanchez floor level. The bottom of the sill was located approximately

3/4" above the Sanchez floor. However, the south door of Room 108 seems to be

10 -

related to the Sanchez floor as the sill pocket extends well below the top level

of the Sanchez floor. The present casings of both of these doors have been cut

to conform to the modern concrete floor, but frames within these later casings

extend approximately 1" below the recent shoe mould and a tenon extends con-

siderably below that level. However, the casing on this south door of Room

108 and the interior frame to which it is attached both postdate the wooden

floor as the sill would have occurred much higher than the wooden floor. There

is clear evidence of an earlier frame in the early Sanchez floor in this loca-

tion. Therefore, the earlier wooden floor would have continued through the

early door and frame.

Check archaeological report for an early partition running north-south,

separating Rooms 106 and 108, the centerline of which was approximately 10" to

one foot to the west of the present partition separating these rooms. In

Room 202 a window was originally located in place of the door opening to the

balcony to the west. The right or north jamb of the window, that is the masonry
splayed opening,iocated approximately 11" north of the edge of the door at the

junction between the door and the frame. As far as can be determined at this

time, this window probably matched the windows in Room 201 on the west side

in appearance, height and width.

In Room 206, second floor, the south door of this room is not the original door.

An earlier door was located where the present door is located but was approxi-

mately 4'-11" from the north wall face of the wall where the splay began on

the north face of the wall. The wooden lintel above this opening is 7'-3"

above the present floor, which is approximately 7/8" thick.

The partition between Room 204 and 206 is circular cut lath; circular saw cut


In the second floor room north of the stairhall, the window in the north wall

appears to be early and should at least stay until further evidence indicates

11 -

otherwise. The door into this room in the south wall apparently dates from

the period of the installation of the stair and should remain, although there
is evidence that a window/located earlier at the same location of the present

door. The window lintel was reused for the installation of the door. The

window opening to the north face of the splays of the masonry opening was

approximately 6" to the west of the actual edge of the door and approximately

6" to the east of the edge of the actual door, for a total opening width of

approximately 51". The sill height, that is, the bottom of the sill, was

located approximately 18" above the present floor.

The ceilings above the two second floor rooms above 106 and 108 were of

planks in a "tea-tray" form. The ceiling above Room 205 was plaster on split

lath as was the ceiling above the second floor of the kitchen.

The south wall of Room 205, although exhibiting whitewash on the studs, was

very likely plastered with split lath as first constructed. The whitewash

was applied after the wall was repaired with circular saw cut material at a

later date.

November 13, 1978
Accompanied by Robert Steinbach

Answers to additional investigation and questions:

C. Masonry Walls

1. Exterior face of the south wall of 101 was built in two stages. A

horizontal joint is visible approximately 9 ft. 9 in. above grade. The south

wall of 104 was all one at one time to a height of approximately 9 ft. above

grade at the southeast corner to a height of approximately 12 ft. above grade

at the intersection at the southeast corner of room 101. All of this wall is

coquina. The masonry above the line stepping down from west to east is of

brick masonry, a soft salmon-colored brick installed with a white mortar

which is apparently a lime mortar and exhibits a few pieces of coquina distributed

throughout. This mortar is markedly different from the tannish mortar exhibited

in the coquina of the wall below. The east wall of 104 terminates approximately

9 ft. above grade. The masonry of south wall 101 bears upon the Escovedo floor

which appears to have extended beneath. The east wall of 101 bears upon the layer

of dirt infilling and although an earlier wall may have existed in this location,

the present wall was installed at a date later than the south wall. Correction,

the east wall is probably the earliest wall on the east side. There is no

evidence of an earlier wall below it. Therefore, we may conclude that the east

wall of 104 is a later addition and postdates the south wall. The east wall was

installed long after the Escovedo floor had been abandoned and filled over. Note

also that the east wall of 104 terminates below the joists supporting the second

floor and the east wall of 104 is wood frame above the 9 ft. elevation. Although

some vertical stroke marks are visible on floor joists above 104, there are also

a number of joists that exhibit circular saw cut marks. The ceiling joists and

stripping between is probably reused material. All of the stripping that occurs

- 2-

midspan between the ceiling joists appears to be from 1 x 4 T&G full length,

painted white,on the surface now exposed to view to which the wood lath was

nailed. A piece of the flooring material was removed and examined. It mea-
sured 1" net x 3" face; concealed face was circular saw cut and it exhibits

cut nails which were used originally to blind-nail it as flooring. The cut

nails are about 22" o.c. plus or minus. All floor joists and flooring above

were circular-saw cut, and the entire ceiling installation must date from the

same period. The sequence of construction, therefore, was as follows: The

south wall of Room 101 was a one-story addition south of the original DeMesa

structure. The south wall of 104 was next constructed following the addition

of a second floor to the south addition to the DeMesa structure, as evidenced

by the fact that the west end of the south wall of 104 extends approximately

at least three feet above the height of the one-story addition. This wall

may have been built at a full story-height or may have been constructed with

the sloping configuration noted above, depending upon further evidence. It

cannot be determined at this time whether it was built full height or not when

originally constructed. Lastly, the east wall of 104 is definitely a later

addition than the south wall in 104. Note that on the north face of the south

wall of 104, above the ceiling joists there is evidence of plaster on the south

wall and possible evidence of at least two pockets which may have supported

joists running to the north. Perhaps there were three joists. These would

have constituted the intermediate purlins for a porch floor, assuming the

flooring ran from east to west. In addition, there is evidence of a large

pocket that may have received a joist at the southeast corner of this wall.

The evidence is rather strong that joists did frame into this wall at one

time, presumably to support a balcony because the elevation of these joists

would be correct to align the balcony with the interior floor of Room 101.


Salmon colored brick is behind the eastern joist pocket.

2. Masonry Walls of 106. There is clear evidence that the masonry floor "C"

in Room 106 was poured at the same time that the walls were plastered. The

archaeological evidence is clear. It is very unlikely that the masonry walls

would have been constructed without plaster. Secondly, there is clearly no

evidence of an earlier dirt floor beneath floor "C", and there is evidence,

therefore, that the north and south walls of Rooms 106 and 108, floor "C" and

the plaster on the walls all date from the same period. We may assume, further-

more, that this room was originally one story in height, if we assume that

Rocque's description is correct. The south walls in 106 and 108 were not

investigated to see if they were built in two stages because the evidence

would very likely be ambiguous since the wall may have been laid up to the

bottom of the joists, the joists installed and then the wall continued above.

However, Rocquet seems to indicate that the building was one story.

3. There is no evidence that a window preceded the door in the east wall

of Room 201

A. Flooring.

1. The workmanship of flooring above rooms on the first floor.' The splice

in the flooring above Rooms 102 occurs above the seventh, not the sixth, joist

from the south end of the structure. This joist is located approximately 8"

north of the south wall of 102. Whether or not there is a clear difference

in workmanship between the joists above 101 and those above 102 and 103 cannot

be determined with certainty. Also the wall which was originally the south

wall of the DeMesa House was probably in existence until ca. 1905 because the

only floor which continues above the foundation of this wall and is not abutted,

is the concrete floor which presumably was poured ca. 1905. The date of the

infilling of Stout's door to St. George needs to be verified by looking at


archaeological records. Due to the spacing of the joists above Rooms 101,

102 and 103, which is similar throughout, the balance of the evidence may

indicate that they were all installed at one time unless we can find further

evidence that joist ends on the second floor.

2. The early hand-finished flooring installed above 101, 102 and 103

was face-nailed with hand-wrought nails, and all appear to have been installed

at the same time. The spliced planks at the north end of Room 103 appear not

to have occurred at a partition but the splice would appear to have been

exposed to view on the upper floor. There is no evidence of a stair in this


3. See notes in Item 2 above.

4. Evidence of interior stairs in Floor B is not easily obtainable and

is being delayed until further investigation is completed.

5. Flooring and nails above 105 and 107. The flooring above these rooms

appears to have been machine-sawn.. The bottom face, although indeterminate,

seems to have been sawn by a band saw. The tongue-and-groove edges appear

to have been machine run. The floor joists bear upon the large timber supported

by the south wall of Rooms 105 and 107. This timber was examined above the

partition between 104 and 105 and sides clearly exhibit circular saw markings,

indicating the large beam postdates 1855. Therefore, since the floor joists

in this space bear upon this beam, it is logical to assume that the floor

joists were installed at the same time as the beam and do not predate 1855.

The large floor joists were hand-hewn and hand-sawn but must have been

installed at this time. There is a possibility, however, that the floor

joists could have been removed if the edge beam was replaced and the floor

joists replaced when the beam was replaced.

- 5-

B. Floor Joists

1. It did not seem to be necessary to investigate due to other evidence.

2. Joists above 103, 106 and 108 have been checked for an interior stair

with inconclusive results. There is no clear indication of an interior stair

in these locations.

3. Joists above 105 and 107 were checked per item A-5, noted above.

4. The final conclusion is that the joists above 102, 103 and 101 all

exhibit similar workmanship and spacing as best as can be determined at this

time, and the possibility seems to be that they were all installed at one time.

5. The south wall of 104 shows probable evidence of joists from an east

balcony framing into the north face of the wall. Stair framing was not de-

termined and it would not be reasonable if, indeed, the balcony did frame into

this wall.

' Special Note:

1. The wooden planks above Hall 102 were examined and they exhibit not

only cut nails but also wrought nails. The bottom of the joists above the

planks above 102 do not indicate that any earlier finish was applied. There-

fore, we must assume that the planks are the earliest finish material applied

to the floor system and date from the same period as the installation of the

floor. Assigned date: 1800 + 20 years. The partitions on the north and

south of space 102 bear upon the tabby floor "C" from the Sanchez period, and

the presence of cut nails, circular saw cut lath and band saw cut studs indi-

cate that these partitions are no earlier than ca. 1855. The original south

floor of the DeMesa House, therefore, over which the 1900 concrete floor is

poured over which the concrete floor is poured and to which the Sanchez floor

abuts, must have been removed when these two partitions were installed. The

partitions on the north and south sides of Room 102 do not extend completely

down to the Sanchez floor as previously believed. The wall on the south has


one joist at the southeast edge shored up with brick above the Sanchez floor.

The same condition was discovered beneath the north partition of Room 102.

For some reason both of these partitions were shored above the Sanchez floor

with brick and obviously predated the floor which apparently was poured ca.

1905. Why the walls were left in place and why the studs extend only to within

3" of the Sanchez floor could not be determined at this time. Note that the

infilling of the wall between 103 and 106 is plaster on 4" concrete block, of

recent origin, and should be removed. The masonry wall to the east exhibits

a door, the centerline of the south jamb of which is located 32" north of

the south wall. The north jamb of this door was not located with certainty

but could be no more than 32" to the north of the south jamb. A red-striped
early landing of the stair is 12" high above the Sanchez floor.

A yellow stripe with two parallel black stripes near the top is located beneath

the The black lines are approximately 1/4" wide and 2-1/4" o.c.

The top black line appears to be approximately 1" below the top of the yellow

band.Although it cannot be determined with certainty, the yellow band may have

extended to the Sanchez floor below. Apparently a third black band was

located below the other two approximately the same distance, or exactly 2".

The top of the yellow band would have been approximately 13" above the

tabby floor, the top black band occurring 1" approximately below this.

2. Two nails were pulled from the stair. The configuration of one nail

could not be determined with certainty. The configuration of the second nail

was definitely a cut nail, indicating that the framing of the stair was

installed after 1820 or 1830. Further evidence that the stair did not predate

this period can be found in the stringers, which are vertical stroke or band-

saw cut on the long sides. Also the back sides of the vertical planks facing

the stair hall are either vertical stroke or band-saw cut. However, the

- 7-

back faces of the risers were hand-planed. At the lower landing of the

stair, the stringer terminated above the Sanchez floor approximately 4" as

do the studs from the partition which flanks the stair on the east. The bottom

of one of the studs in this partition apparently was toenailed to a plate which

is now missing. The same condition exists here as was found in the two par-

titons flanking Room 102. The lath on this partition is one-time lath; that

is, no earlier lath was applied to the studs, and, therefore, the lath is

contemporary with the studs. The lath exhibits both vertical probably band-
saw marks and circular saw marks, indicating this framing/does not predate

the 1850's. The risers on the lower flight of the stair, now abandoned,

measure approximately 7". The bottom of the first riser is located approxi-

mately 2" above the Sanchez floor, indicating an intermediate floor of some

type was at one time installed in this area. However, note that the first

riser must account for the thickness of the tread. The distance from the
top of the Sanchez floor to the top of the /tread is approximately 10".

Therefore, there is approximately 3" differential between the Sanchez floor

and the floor from which this stair sprang.



A sash-sawn timber

and used wherever available. Log cabins of post-frontier days,
for instance, were often assembled of hand-hewn logs and
floor joists, but with sash-sawn ceiling joists and trim. (In the
South,. however, many of the fine plantation houses had
frames of hand-hewn timbers until well into the industrial
age, but for economic rather than aesthetic reasons. For the
Scotton-farming entrepreneurs of the South had access, at their
house sites, to all the timber they needed as well as unlimited
slave labor. It was cheaper for the Southern plantation owner
1 to use hand labor and hewn timbers, despite the waste of

o 5

I A. 6: I _____ ___ ___


r y\',. ,y

P^j J

. ,Iyi



Tj;) ..j
4- 1 ~


I. ii;I

t I? ; 7


_ i-i. .i~-Il... ....I .I-I... I .XI(~-i.. ..

|.,% ......., /i7/ nm 4/^ 7//

Log Architecture 239

lers, or following immediately behind them, came the rough and finish carpenters,
the cabinetmakers, the architect-builders, and a variety of other craftsmen, each
bringing his own specialized tools. In the settlements along the Ohio River and up
the major river valleys, these various craftsmen were plying their trades prior to
1800. The traditional settler was primarily a farmer, dependent on his own skill
with tools for most of the necessities of life; this trait or penchant is still present in
rural Ohio, as it is among farmers throughout the country. There are many books
available for the reader who is interested in woodworking tools. One of the stan-
dard sources, though in need of revision in light of more recent research, is Henry
C. Mercer's Ancient Carpenters' Tools (Doylestown, 1960). Several of Eric Sloane's
books give information on early tools; among them is A Museum of Early American
Tools (New York, 1964).
Since the number of sawmills in Ohio increased rapidly with the expansion of
settlement, most would-be builders were never far from a source of dimensioned
lumber. For example, almost all remaining log houses in Ohio have sawed plank
floors. Though some of these floors are not original, it is obvious that the majority
are. The vertical sawmill was common in the settled areas of Ohio prior to the
War of 1812; following the war it quickly spread to the thinly populated areas. Of
course, hauling sawed plank a few miles was an easier and quicker task than hew-
sts show ing out a puncheon floor. Sawed rafters, joists, and studs are found with enough
he lower frequency to show that convenience and time were more important to most settlers
curtain- than economy.

Varieties of Wood
If the settlers might complain of the lack of certain necessities of life on the
) frontier, they certainly did not lament a lack of timber; in fact, many hated the
ammer, sight of trees and cut them for that very reason. More wood was burned for the
handled simple expedient of getting rid of it than was used for necessary purposes. Francis
d blade, Baily was especially aware of this fact because of the diminished forests in his
broadax, native England. He wrote the following comment while in Ohio in 1797:
ngles to I have seen oak-trees, and those not uncommon, which measured near four feet diameter
as being at the bottom, and which had a straight trunk without a single branch for seventy feet; and
with all from that part to the termination of the upper branch it has measured seventy more; and
found in these immense trees I have seen cut down for the sole purpose of making a few shingles
ts, studs, from them to cover a house with: and even for the sake of killing a poor bear ... ; and
tion that even for less than that: I have often seen them set on fire merely to dislodge a paltry
finishing raccoon!'
broadax. Nowlin estimated his father burned five thousand cords of wood while clearing sixty
up a log acres of land in Wayne County, Michigan."
accurate Aside from a very few, very small natural prairies, the entire Ohio Country was
or alone forested. An adage held that a squirrel could go from Cincinnati to Cleveland with-
out touching the ground. Much of this forestation, however, was open, allowing
vegetation to grow under the trees. One such area was the barrenss," a belt of
nd what many thousands of acres running north and south just east of the valley of the
Id afford Miami rivers. Charles Dickens described the desolation of this region in American
ible cost. Notes (London, 1842); he passed the miles of felled trees and tree stumps while
ourse all
ols came 67. Baily, op. cir., 214.
the sett- 68. Nowlin, op. cit., 133.

S ,I

J .
iI <; -

The invention of wood-working machinery, which removed the hard work
from sawing and offered the possibility of high-speed working in other processes,
was stimulated by the advent of the steam-engine. Reciprocating saws driven by
water-wheels had, however, been used from the Middle Ages. The circular saw
was probably invented in the third quarter of the eighteenth century by Walter
Taylor (1734-1803) of Southampton, who had a contract for making pulley-
blocks for the Royal Navy. The band-saw was patented in 18o8 by William
Newberry, but it was not a practical invention at the time because a steel band
which would run for long without snapping could not then be made. The band-
saw was successfully re-invented in the United States by Lemuel Hedge in 1849
and in France by Perin in 1855.
Bentham's comprehensive patent for wood-working machinery has already
been noted. The mortising machine originates from Bentham and the block-
making factory at Portsmouth. His proposals for using rotary cutters came to
fruition later in the United States, in J. A. Fay's tenoning machine of 1840 and
Andrew Gear's vertical-spindle moulding machine of 1853.
Bramah in 1802 made a rotary wood-planing machine for Woolwich Arsenal,
and this was in use for fifty years. The wood to be planed was placed on carriages
which ran on rails 40 ft long. The carriages were moved backwards and forwards
by an endless chain which derived its motion from a hydraulic engine. Above the
carriage was fixed the planing disk-carrying twenty-eight gouges for rough
cutting and two planing-irons-which was rotated at 90 rpm by a steam-
engine. In 1827 Malcolm Muir, another former employee of Maudslay, invented
a machine for making flooring-boards. Planks were fed into it by an endless
chain fitted with catch-hooks at intervals, and were treated by a succession of
planes and circular saws which reduced them to the required dimensions and
formed the tongues and grooves. This machine was improved in 1836 by John
McDowall by using rotary cutters for tonguing and grooving, and by substitut-
ing for the chain-feed-which had a tendency to tear the wood-pairs of rollers
under pressure at each end of the machine to feed the boards through the cutters.
In a letter written in 1785 Thomas Jefferson, then American minister to
France, described as follows a visit he had paid to a gunsmith named Le Blanc:
An improvement is made here in the construction of muskets, which it may be interest-
ing to Congress to know, should they at any time propose to procure any. It consists in
the making every part of them so exactly alike, that what belongs to any one, may be used
for every other musket in the magazine. The government here has examined and ap-
proved the method, and is establishing a large manufactory for the purpose of putting
Sit into execution. As yet, the inventor has only completed the lock of the musket on this

V .... /`
M.S 22


the '
ved 1850-1855
of The first attempt to beautify the town was in 1850, when
April Saurez, an old slave, under the direction of Dr. A. S. '
Baldwin and Gen. Thomas Ledwith planted the oaks that
lined the streets of Jacksonville before the fire of 1901. These
trees grew to be the pride of the city; most of them were I' ,
uilt destroyed in the fire of 1901.
ast In 1850, the first circular sawmill ever built in East Flor-
r of ida was erected at the mouth of Pottsburg Creek and in the
large following year John Clark built the second circular sawmill,
rs. oon East Ba Street, near Hogans Creek. Mr. Clark then
Out]* added a planing mill, the first in East Florida. About 1853-54
there were five or six sawmills at Jacksonville, and as many
er more in the immediate vicinity. The lumber industry had
grown to be the principal one here. A great quantity of live
oak timber was exported annually, for use in the construction, i
of vessels." Considerable cotton continued to be brought here
for shipment also, Jacksonville being the shipping point for J
quite a large territory tributary to the St. Johns River.
head These industries put into circulation much money that natu-
't at rally found its way into all lines of business. Nearly all the ;
pied merchants were well-to-do, gauged by the standard of that
udge early time. Business was conducted without rancor and with
reet, the utmost integrity. Salaries were not what would now be
their called large, but the cost of living comfortably was within'
this, the reach of all-a condition having an important bearing
ast of upon the community. Abject poverty was a state unknown
ig to and seldom was a door locked or a window closed out of fear
of petty thieving.b
Relation Between Master and Servant

od to The question of master and slave was seldom referred
,. into. The master considered it his duty to protect those who
served him, and the servant felt that he was accountable
for his master's social position and other responsibilities.
The slaves were treated with a consideration and trust with-
out a parallel at this day. The children loved their colored
z"mammies", and the mammies felt that they were respon-

t |?'Az




For several years after the survey of Jacksonville in
B22, I. D. Hart must have experienced severe disappoint-
lent, for his dream of a boom town at the Cow Ford did not
materialize rapidly. Brady and Hogans, who scouted the
ea in the beginning, no doubt expressed themselves upon
seasion, "I told you so". Brady shortly afterward sold out
id moved away, but L. Z. Hogans remained to perpetuate
ie expression.
Up to 1828-30, the development of the place was confined
the building of about one house a year within the town
its. A dismal picture was drawn of it by a writer in the
ast Florida Herald of St. Augustine, December 20, 1825;
When this town (Jacksonville) was laid out on the St. Johns river,
,eat expectations were formed of its rapid increase, commodious
uses were soon to be built, commerce and useful mechanic arts were
flourish, and the soil improved by cultivation and industry. But alas!
ne of these fond expectations have been realized. There are not more
an eight or ten houses erected of any description, most of which are
dely formed of logs, and affording only a feeble protection against
e cold, the wind, and the rain. There is not a sash window in the
lole town; but few of the houses have even a chimney.
There appears to be very little trade of any kind carried on in the
ace. There is, indeed, one store of goods, but whether well or ill
applied, the writer of this article is unable to state, for although he
is several days in the place, during the late term of the Superior
urt held there, and was desirous of purchasing many necessary
idles of merchandise, usually kept in country stores, he never found
s store open or any person ready to attend upon purchasers. He
before presumed it was only a warehouse for the deposit and trans-
tation of goods into the country and not for their sale at the place.
was, perhaps, a wholesale and not a retail store. As to mechanics,
re does not appear to be a single working individual in the whole
The building appropriated for the use of the court would scarcely
considered fit for a barn. It is open to the wind and rain at almost
point of the compass. There is, indeed, the frame of a pretty
e courthouse erected, which has the appearance of having been in
t state for some time. Nothing has since been done to it.
Yet nothing can be more beautiful than the natural situation of




the place. It commands an elevated, picturesque, and extensive view
of the St. Johns river at its majestic bend from the south. It is
admirably situated for commerce; the water is of sufficient depth for
vessels of upwards of a hundred tons burden, to moor close to the
The regular term of the Superior court, directed by the Legislative
council to be held twice a year, lately drew together at this place a
pretty numerous assemblage of strangers. Every house was crammed
as closely as possible. The judge of the court, with several members
of the bar at St. Augustine, having been detained by the badness of
the famous King's road from that city to the Cow-ford, on their
arrival at Jacksonville were unable to obtain any kind of lodging there
-even on the floor. They were therefore compelled to take up their
quarters at Mr. Hendricks's on the other side of the river, a respectable
planter, who does not professedly keep a public house, though often
influenced by hospitality and kindness to accommodate travelers. He
is licensed to keep the ferry on that side of the river, and promptly
afforded the Judge and the gentlemen who had business in court every
facility in crossing the river.

This is one of a number of descriptive articles on Jack-
sonville published in the St. Augustine paper prior to 1828.
All stress the beautiful situation of the village, but complain
about the accommodations at court terms. "Junior Bar-
rister" in the Herald of March 26, 1826, remarked that it
was customary for the grand jury to lodge in the open air
and suggests "with the intention of keeping their heads cool,
in order to deliberate with more caution and prudence."

First Sawmill
In 1828 or 1829, Charles F. Sibbald built the first steam

sawmill in East Florida at Panama on Trout Creek. He also
operated a brick kiln. Judge F. Bethune, in his diary 1829-33
(still preserved), frequently refers to the steam sawmill and
brick kiln at Panama, in connection with building operations
at his "New Ross" plantation on the river four miles above
Jacksonville. During the summer of 1829, Judge Bethune
built a small sugar mill. The lumber and brick were brought
up from Panama in the brig "Venus"; he sent to St. Augus-
tine for a carpenter, and the mill was ready for operation by
January 1, 1830. He began grinding cane, but soon after-
ward his cane mill broke down and he had to send again to
St. Augustine for the carpenter. In three weeks it was
repaired and he began to grind again. This was probably

9%^~f/$> T_/ PA..

w |


c. 23


Mill Work

of light and medium duty sawing without regard to th
direction of grain of the wood.
The distinction-between an angle saw and a tilting table saw should be
carefully noted as indicated in figs. 3,586 and 3,587. The actual construct~
tion of these two types of saw is shown in figs. 3,588 and 3,589.

FIG. 3,588.-American angle or bevel band saw for shops where heavy stock is to be bev
sawed such as in ship yards and car shops. In operation, the table remains stationat
in a horizontal plane while the upper wheel shifts to bring the blade at any angle to tI
table up to 45.



.LJ..JIU ,--, -
FIG. 35l89.-Fay and Egan quick angling tilting table device with micrometer adjustment
pattern work.
FIGS. 3,590 and 3,591.-Relative cuts of circular and band.saw, illustrating saving due to
band saw.

Mill Work



Note the method of tilting frame in fig. 3,586, and compare with fig.
3,588, in which the angular position of the saw is obtained by sliding the
upper wheel mounting on the circular shaped top part of the frame.

"Rip" Band Saws or Band Saw Mills.--Formerly band saws
were used only for light work such as sawing boards, but be-
cause of the, considerable saving in lumber due to the thin cut
as compared wit the circular saws, the range of work performed
by the band saw has been greatly creased. In fact recent
development has produced band saws up to 18 ins. wide capable
of the heaviest duty; they have largely replaced the circular
saw in several lines of work. The relative saving due to thin-
ness of the band saw blade is shown in figs. 3,590 and 3,591.
Band saws from 2 to 8 inches in width, are extensively used
for ripping and resawing, because, compared with the circular
saw, they save kerf, time and power.
This leads to the consideration of the band saw as related to the sawmill.
Before its introduction there was a limit in size of timber which could be
sawn by circular saws, which could cut only logs of a size slightly less than
half the diameter of the saw. The size of the saw itself was also limited;
difficulties of management and running arose as soon as the saw diameter
was increased beyond a certain point.

Double Mills.-Double mills were used to a great extent in
regions where large timber was being cut. By this arrangement,
which consisted of two circular saws, one above the other, logs
of an ordinary size were sawn with the larger or "main" circular
saw, while the smaller, or "top saw," was brought into action
when a log exceeded the capacity of the main saw. The band
saw obviated all this, for there is practically no limit to the size
of logs which can be cut by band saws.
In large band mills, as a rule, the work is brought to the saw
upon a carriage driven by feeding devices independent of the



? ..




1. STOUT (1771-1784)
A. Stout expanded the DeMesa structure to the south ca. 1783.
(1) Extensive archaeological evidence by Deagan and Bostwick indicates
the DeMesa structure was expanded to the south by Stout. See Deagan, Descrip-
tion of Stage 2 and Figure 7. See Bostwick, Description of Stage 2 and Figure
(2) In 1783 Mary Stout commented, "We have been at a great expense
for repairing and raising a new roof to the house in town". See Scardaville,
p. 4.
B. Three rooms were locatedon the first floor, separated by interior masonry
partitions, and floored with tabby (Floor D.).
(1) See Deagan and Bostwick as noted under Statement "A" above.
C. As part of this construction a second floor was added, and access was
provided by a single-flight stair located inside the structure.
(1) There is a distinct difference in quality in workmanship between
the floor joists located in the original DeMesa portion of the house and the
floor joists added by Stout to the south. This is a clear indication that
the presumably attic floor joistsinstalled by DeMesa were left in place when
Stout remodelled the house and Stout installed the floor joists south of the
DeMesa structure.
(2) Counting from the south end of the Stout addition and including the
joists are
first floor joistX just inside the south wall, all/equally spaced or approximately
2'-6" centers except for the space between the fifth and sixth joists. The
centerline of the sixth joist is slightly over 2' from the centerline of the
fifth joist. This is the only odd spacing in the floor joists in the entire
West Wing, and is accounted for by the fact that the sixth floor joist fell
just to the north of the original south wall of the DeMesa House that was
left in place by Stout but which has been subsequently removed.
(3) The early floor planks of the second floor of the West Wing are
spliced in two places. The planks run continuously from the south wall co-
structed by Stout to a point above the sixth joist, where all are spliced. All
planks then run as one piece from this joint north to the center of the joist
located approximately 5'-6" south of the north wall of the original DeMesa structure.


Short planks then fill in the balance of the space. -All planks examined to
date were face nailed with wrought nails.A The splice located above the sixth
joist from the Stout south wall probably indicates that the flooring north
of this splice line dates from the DeMesa period.
(4) Stout probably removed the gabled end of the DeMesa House at
the south wall in order to extend the second floor to the south. The bottom
of the floor planks above the DeMesa south wall is clearly chiseled to allow
the planks to pass above the top of the wall.
(5) The interior north-south dimension of the DeMesa structure is
approximately 23'. The actual floor planks, however, are approximately 18'
long and are spliced above the joist 5' south of the north wall as described
above. Since much longer planks were commonly available, it seems reasonable
to assume that the planks stopped short of the north wall to allow for a stair
or steep ladder opening in the floor.(Note that the floor planks above Rooms
106 and 108 are approximately 24' long.)
(5) ManuaSy notes the likelihood of interior stairs dating from the
C. C
First Spanish Period as well as the British Period. (Manusy p. 96.). Manumy
also illustrates several "common houses" which contained interior stairs
(Manuisy, p. 52, Figure 22, Plans C, D, and E). Note also that two examples
shown by Manuary contain stairs located on the north wall of the structure
(Manuay, p. 51, Figure 21, Plans K and L).
(6) Second floor openings in the west wall towards St. George Street
have probably changed little in terms of general location in the wall since
the second floor was originally constructed. For instance, Window 13 is
apparently opposite an earlier window located in the east wall. The opening
in which doors 201 are now located is approximately opposite an earlier door
opening in the east wall. Window 14 is almost directly opposite Windoe 14A.
Doors 202 require additional investigation but appear to be in an earlier
opening. Therefore, if we assume these west wall openings are in the same
locations as the original openings, we must also assume that there is a reason
for the asymmetry of the location of the openings in the wall. In other words,
although these openings are approximately equally spaced, they are shifted
south in the wall so that a large blank portion of the wall remains at the
north end of the west wall at the second floor. This may be an indication
of a stair or partitioned space at the north end of the structure.


(7) "The oldest house" contained an interior stair that may date from
this approximate period. ("Evolution of the Oldest House",Notes in Anthropology,
Vol. 7, 1962, pp. 108 and 109, Figure 4, p. 114, and Figure 5, p. 115).
D. The entire second floor was one room with an inverted "tea-tray" ceiling
ceiled with whitewashed planks.
(1) The existing partition between Rooms 201 and 202 is clearly a
later addition; there is ample evidence that the "tea-tray" ceiling extended
above the present partition and the partition was framed to it.
(2) All of the present roof framing over the West Wing was installed
at the same time, including the rafters and the ceiling joists that support
the "tea-tray" ceiling. There is no indication that earlier ceiling joists
were located at the plate line or that the present ceiling joists were installed
later in the roof rafters. Workmanship and general detailing indicate all of
the framing was installed at the same time.
(3) As noted in "C" above, the splice in the floor planks approximately
12' north of the south wall of the present structure did not necessarily occur
at a partition but results from the addition of the flooring to the south by
(4) Pieces of the earlier wood plank ceiling were reused as nailing
strips when the "tea-tray" ceiling was plastered.

E. Similar planks ceiled the bottom of the second-floor floor joists.

(1) Whitewashed planks with half-lapped rabbeted edges are located
on the bottom of existing floor joists above Room 102. Although these planks
are nailed with cut nails, further investigation is required for it seems
probable they have been reused. Except for the bottom of the northernmost
joist in Room 103, all joists in Room 103 and Room 102 and the northernmost
joist in Room 101, a similar plank ceiling was nailed to the bottom of the
joists. The pattern of nailing is conspicuous and regular. The apparent lack
of nail holes in the northernmost joist of Room 103 may indicate that a
stair well was located between this joist and the next to the south.

Note that the nailing pattern for the plank ceiling does not seem to appear
in the bottom of the joists in the portion of the house presumed to have been
added by Stout. However, extensive evidence of lath ceilings remains. Note
also that the interiorip2arition added by Stout terminated beneath tie joist(
and not against the floor above; therefore, no evidence remains of this par-
tition in flooring planks.


F. In addition, the DeMesa chimney or hearth in the east wall of Room 103
was demolished, and Rooms 106 and 108 were constructed to the east.
(1) There is clear archaeological evidence that the north wall of
these rooms was constructed by DeMesa or during the First Spanish Period.
(Deagan describing Stage 1; Bostwick, p. 7).

(2) 1968 color photographs filed with the Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board indicate two significant features of the north wall of
Rooms 106 and 108. First, the present wall extends the full length of Rooms
106 and 108, and no vertical struck joint is visible where the foundation,
noted as Feature 60, intersects the wes all of an earlier kitchen, noted as
Feature 67. Secondly the photograph apparently indicates that this wall was
one story in heightA for thee is apparently a clearly defined horizontal line
between seven and nine feet above grade.

(3) An early paved loggia in Rooms 105 and 107 dates from the DeMesa
period (Bostwick, p. 12; Deagan, Description of Stage 1). This area was sur-
faced at least twice by Stout (Bostwick, p. 12). There is no evidence of a
floor before the time of Sanchez in Rooms 106 and 108 (Bostwick, pp.13 & 14),
except for Tabby Floor D above and east of Feature 67 at elevation 2.26 MMSL
(Bostwick, p. 11). Note, however, that the elevation of the later Stout loggia
is elevation 2.35 and 2.40 MMSL (Bostwick, pp. 12 and 13). These elevations
are both higher than the elevation of Floor D, and it seems unlikely that
exterior loggia elevations would have been maintained at L tihBli elevation X!:i
than interior paved surfaces. This could be an indication that the floors of
Rooms 106 and 108K(if these rooms were indeed constructed by Stout) were of
compacted earth or were of off-grade wood construction. 7. 1X4 1 7' .

(4) 'Neither Deagan nor Bostwick specificabt date the south walls
of Rooms 106 and 10 8V 6- Gi,. f.

(5) The hearth area to the east of Room 103 could have been con-
structed by idp rather than Stout and was removed by Stout when Rooms 106
and 108 were constructed.

(6) The workmanship of the floor joists, the spacing of the floor
joists and the workmanship and size of the floor planks of the second floor
above Rooms 106 and 108 are very similar to the corresponding area above
Room 01. If this supposition is correct, abitableattic may have been
Room 101. If this supposition is correct, IA A;habitabIe attic may have been

- 5 -

located above the East Wing. The end of the floor joists and flooring in this
area require further investigation, as do the flooring and floor joists in the
West Wing.

G. The "East Wing" thus formed was one-story and adjoined a paved loggia
to the south in the area of present Rooms 105 and 107.
(1) As referenced above, the loggia area was paved during the First
Spanish Priod and by Stout /

H. The loggia my have been uncovered, or may have been roofed with a
one-story structure supported by masonry piers.

(1) Bostwick notes the evidence of a posthole may indicate that the
loggia area was covered during the DeMesa period (Bostwick, p. 12). Although
omitted in the final draft report, Deagan's early draft report notes that the
loggia may have been roofed and supported by masonry piers at the time of Stout
(Deagan, Draft Report).

I. A separate kitchen constructed by DeMesa was remodelled at this time.

(1) The archaeological evidence for Stout's work in the area of the
DeMesa kitchen is confusing because '-uU did not allow further investigation
of Features 67, 68 and Floor D. (Bostwick, p. 11). It seems conceivable that
Stout's "remodelling" was actually the demolition of the DeMesa kitchen to
allow construction of Rooms 106 and 108 on the earlier footings. Floor D in
this area could have easily remained in place. It also see s possible that,
*'j,, -*1 9
the remodelling of the west wall of the DeMesa kitchenAcould gave been accom-
plished by Walton prior to Stout's purchase of the site.

J. The 1788 Rocque map and key describe this structure, although Sanchez
may have begun further alterations by that time.

(1) If Stout did indeed accomplish extensive work on the roof of the
structure as noted by his wife, it seems certain that Sanchez purchased the
house in very good condition although at a greatly reduced price. Is it reason-
able to assume that Sanchez undid the work accomplished by Stout only four years
after Stout's remodelling? Let us assume that Stout did not add a second floor
when he extended the house to the south. If he did not, three major possibilities


(a) Sanchez removed all of the floor framing and flooring at what
is now the second floor and replaced it with the present framing. The archi-
tectural evidence indicate that the floor framing was installed in two dif-
ferent stages; that is, the framing above the DeMesa House and framing above
the Stout addition.) ? ," A ; -.

(b) Stout extended the one-story structure but constructed a habit-
able attic over the original DeMesa House as well as his new addition. Addi-
tional field investigation should indicate whether or not the Stout addition
to the south was originally one story and whether or not the present floor
joists were tied to the rafters. If Sanchez added the second floor, he may
have reused Stout's floor joists for the habitable attic.

(c) If Sanchez did indeed add the second floor as noted in (b), there
is still a reasonable possibility that Stout added the East Wing, Rooms 106
and 108, with the continuation of the habitable attic above and an interior
stair, as indicated by the similarity in workmanship.

2. SANCHEZ (1784-1802)

A. Sanchez altered the structure in two phases.

(1) The roof framing above the West and East Wings indicates the
following sequence of construction: The roof framing of the West Wing was
the first to be installed and was installed all at one time. The roof framing
above Rooms 206 and 208 was installed after the roof framing of the West Wing
had been completed. Finally, the jack rafters located on the east side of
the roof over the West Wing and south side of the roof over the East Wing
were clearly installed after both the West and East Wing roofs had been com-
pleted. This report assumes the roof framing above the West Wing was com-
pleted by Stout and that the roof framing above the East Wing and the roof
framing above an L-shaped balcony above the loggia was completed by Sanchez.
If all of this work were actually completed by Sanchez, Sanchez would have
altered the structure in at least three major phases rather than two.

B. In the first phase a second floor was added to the East Wing (Rooms
204 and 206).
(1) As noted under "Stout", there is evidence in the north wall
of the East Wing that the East Wing was constructed in two stages; that is,

~Y~C~ Z;rJ~~~-Cl"4.C

- 7-

the first floor preceded the second floor.

(2) There is a qualitative difference in the workmanship between
the roof framing of the West Wing and the roof framing of the East Wing.
Except for workmanship, however, the roofs are of similar construction.
Both roofs are of approximately 12-in-12 pitch. Hand-hewn rafters and
ceiling joists are employed in both roofs. Wrought nails are visible in both
roofs. The wooden plates receiving the ends of the rafters where employed are
built into the masonry in similar manner. Both roofs may have been framed for
"tea-tray" ceilings. The ridge joint at both roofs is mortised and tenoned
and fixed with a peg. Both roofs employ Roman Numerals as symbols to match
like pairs of rafters; the rafters over the East and West Wings were not in-
stalled in numerical order, perhaps indicating the fabricators were illiterate.
/A e -) Despite the similarities in techniques, the evidence is clear that the roofs
were constructed at different periods and that the west roof preceded the east
roof. (e,,,t / :, t 4*W Yn Jc^-t- e y^-- ,<^ S j C., l?) g, 7"Ct w Q

C. The interior stair constructed by Stout was retained for access to the
second floor, and the loggia to the east either remained unroofed or retained
a one-story roof constructed by Stout.
(1 There is clear evidence that the jack rafters supporting the roof
above the loggia balcony were installed after the roofs of the East and West
Wings had been completed, stripped for shingles and presumably used for a period C
of time. If so, a one-story roof over the loggia may have been removed or
remained during this construction. There is no clear evidence of a covered
exterior stairway giving access to the second floor. '

(2) The earliest floor planks remaining in Room 206 and 208 are
similar to those found in the West Wing andAA full length(except where patched
for the east-west dimension of the East Wing, indicating the second floor may ),
have been one large room when originally constructed. /- I ?,. p
^u+4^4f ^r C ^ t4-2 ^ ^ 2A A. MI-Zi JtG f cn <-
(3) Tabby Floor B, installed by Sanchez, probably dates lateVfrom
the Sanchez occupancy (Deagan, Describing Stage 3 and Figure 8). Thus Tabby
Floor B was probably installed after Sanchez had completed the second floor
of the East Wing and the covered balcony south of the East Wing and east of
the West Wing. 5 /<-...- '

-,.l ^ r\.. .z r,

^t~fe.^S ^v %v4^ y~~tIt


SD. This work was completed by 1791 and is described in the Book of
( (1) See Scardaville, p. 8. The Book of Mortgages notes that the
S second floor was completed over the entire building,except for the out-building,

and roofed with shingles.
" '(2) It is not clear whether or not the Book of Mortgages would have
6 described a .gLmand r covered balcony. -I-any .vwnt, th se. nd pha0o Z 01
o construction could have preceded 1791 or been accomplished after that date.

E. The second phase consisted of the construction of an L-shaped balcony
S* ,east of the West Wing and south of the East Wing.
(1) As noted above, the framing of the jack rafters for the balcony
C" roof clearly followed construction of the second floors above the West and
4 East Wings.

F. A masonry wall, possibly two stories in height, supported the south
end of the balcony east of the West Wing.
(1) The existing coquina masonry south wall of Room 104 exhibits a
0 vertical struck joint at its intersection with the east wall of Room 101,
clearly indicating the present south wall of Room 104 is of later construction
than the addition by Stout to the west.

(2) The top of the present south wall of Room 104 is cut to a slope
to drain to the east. Although additional field examination is required,
there is no evidence of a horizontal joint at the second floor level in this
wall, indicating it may have been constructed two-stories in height at one
time and was subsequently cut down to support a pitched roof.

(2) The mortar in this wall appears to be a tan, soft, lime mortar,
similar to that found in the adjacent wall constructed by Stout. .
A, '
\-/* --.. -.- .- - ..., _.. -'"--_ .. .. ...... .
(4) The east wall of Room 104 was apparently constructed after the
south wall for a vertical stacked joint occurs at the southeast intersection
of the two walls. Deagan does not show the east wall of Room 104 in Figure 8,
but Bostwick notes that Room 104 postdates 1788 but probably predates 1813
(Bostwick, p. 14). It is unfortunate that the SanbornX maps are ambiguous
and did not specifically identify Room 104 as an enclosed space until the San-
borng map of 1899. This paper assumes the east wall of Room 104 postdates the
south wall.


G. Masonry piers supported the south edge of the balcony south of the
East Wing.
(1) See Bostwick, p. 15 and Deagan, Figure 8.
(2) The masonry pillars are presumably mentioned in the 1802 inventory
(p. 3 of the Translated Inventory).

H. The present stair was constructed at this time except the lower flight
did not turn south as at present but continued to the east.
(1) The stair was constructed after the first floor of the East Wing
was constructed for it runs in front of a window in the south wall of the East
Wing. The window was sealed when the stair was constructed.

(2) The lower flight of the stair was modified when the/partition
between Room 105 and Room 107 was installed because there is clear evidence
beneath the lower landing that the stair continued in a straight run to the
east and terminated just west of the present Door 106.

(3) The revision of the lower flight of the stair and the partition
between 105 and 107Abear upon Tabby Floor B, installed by Sanchez. ^
nu b i-
(4) The 1802 Appraisal notes "18 varas of masonry of the south wall
of the stairway", which may refer to the south wall of Room 104 mentioned above
(Translated Appraisal, p. 3). T7 p ./
1. The interior Stout stair was removed.

(1) As previously discussed, this stair may have been located at the
north end of the West Wing.

J., This work was completed by 1802 and is described in the 1802 Appraisal
(the separate kitchen was rebuilt during either of the two phases).

(1) The quantities of masonry and tabby flooring described in the
1802 Appraisal, conform well to the existing configuration of the East and
West Wings (analysis in files of Shepard Associates by H. Shepard). The West
Wing is described as having a concrete floor and a thin masonry partition wall
which divides the parlor (sala) from the "room" (aposento). The partition wall
was pgreeB y the original south wall of the DeMesa structure which was left
in place by Stout The East Wing is described as having "concrete floors
of the rooms and dining room", and it is noted that "pillars support the upper
floor of the dining room". "dining room" may Room 107 and
floor of the dining room". S "dining room" may ae ee Room 107 and a
.... *.

10 .

Supper floor Room 207 V-Es enclosure of these former loggia areas w&ay
accomplished by Sanchez. hum -m -stFP_ -r; -a i- -..

(2) Conversely, the 1802 Appraisal r erto Rooms 106 and108
as the "dining room" rather than Room 107. The north wall of the East Wing
is described as "the north wall of the quarters of the dining room". The
Appraisal then addresses the east wall and the south wall, which is presumably
the wall separating Rooms 105 and 107 from Rooms 106 and 108. The Appraisal
then describes the masonry partition of the "lower division" and the "upper
division", clearly referring to the division between .Rooms 106 and 108 on
the first floor and Room 206 and 208 on the second floor. The phrase "pillars
that support the upper floor of the dining room" may simply mean "pillars
that support the floor above the dining room", referring generally to the
entire second floor. Outside spaces may be referred to as "rooms" as seen
in the description of the concrete floor which notes "the concrete floors
of the rooms and dining room","rooms here referring to unenclosed spaces
in the areas of Rooms 104, 105 and 107.

(3) Both Deagan and Bostwick state that archaeological evidence
supports an open loggia on the first floor (Bostwick, pp. 15 and 16; Deagan,
Figure 8). Therefore, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion
that Rooms 104, 105 and 107 were not enclosed in 1802 and that an open balcony
of L-shape was located above this area.

(4) The term "pillars" (pilares) implies free-standing structural
members without an enclosing infilling. Also, the appraised area of pillars
is enough for three or four free-standing members at most, one-story in height.

(5) The 1802 Appraisal clearly describes the free-standing kitchen.
The described quantities indicate the gabled end-walls were located on the north
and south of the building. Therefore, the ridge of the roof ran north and

3. LISK (?) (183183 837) OL { C0t- 9: i B = ? /1 8 )

A. Lisk enclosed the first floor loggia (Rooms 105 and 107) by filling-in
between the masonry pillars with masonry walls, windows and a door south of
Room 107.
(1) Archaeological evidence indicates this area was closed between
1813 and 1835 (Bostwick, p. 16).


- 11 -

(2) Two of the supporting masonry pillars shown by Deagan and
Bostwick in Figures 8 and 4, respectively, can be identified in present con-
struction. It is probable that an additional pillar was located at the
intersection of the south wall of 107 with the east wall of 104. The present
window and door in the south wall of Room 107 have apparently replaced earlier
and larger openings which were removed and partly replaced with coquina in-
filling. C, -

\The windows and door in the south wall of Room'107 are of very
late manufacture. The window sills are of poured-in-place concrete and all
sash and trim appear to be recent.

B. The deteriorated balcony flooring and floor joists above Rooms 105
and 107 were removed and replaced. "01 ,a* .... 4
A-Ir a ^ 50 m L
()A The floor joists above Room 107 vary in spacing from 2 -11"
to 3'-7" o.c. This spacing is in marked contrast to the spacing of the floor
joists above Rooms 101, 102, 103, 106 and 108 where the joists vary from
2'-6" to 2'-8" o.c. However, the joists above Room 107 are hand-hewn and hand-
sawn, and they were apparently installed with a slope to the south to drain
I.II .,.;. 0-At-v C 6 2
the open floor above. It is possible they were reused wheA the present floor
planks were installed. The present floor planks are tongue-and-grooved and
exhibitX the marks of a vertical stroke or band saw or possibly an early milling
machine. They are probably no earlier than ca. 1825 and no later than ca.
1850 at which time circular saws came into general use' If &he original flooring
was deteriorated from the weather and replaced, it is very probable that the
joists supporting the flooring were severely deteriorated also. The use of
machine-sawn planks in combination with hand-hewn and hand-sawn larger timbers
is not unusual in the Territorial Period, A .< p .. .. *.. i*t

(2) The floor joists and flooring above Room 105 have been reworked
several times. However, early members that remain are similar to those found
above Room 107, and it is very probable that floor construction above Rooms 107
and 105 was installed at the same time. The whitewash is continuous on the
structure in both rooms. Most of the floor planks appear to run continuously
above the partition separating Room 105 and Room 107, but this condition should
be checked. In any event, there is some evidence that the flooring and floor
joists were replaced with the intention that Rooms 105 and 107 would be one
large space. Apparently the installation of a partition between Rooms 105 and
107 was subsequent to the reframing of the floor as was the revision to the / ->
n- vI 0, e 4 l-



- 12 -

flight of the stair.
C. The deteriorated balcony flooring and floor joists, as well as the
second floor roof and rafters, were removed at the balcony east of the West
(1) Evidence of the jack rafters which formed the roof above this
particular balcony area, as well as the hipped rafter and associated framing,
remain in place on the east side of the west wing roof.

(2) All existing framing above Room 104 dates from the middle or late
19th Century.
D. The masonry wall supporting the south end of this balcony was altered
to support a one-story sloping roof above a new enclosed space, Room 104.

(1) The south wall of Room 203 clearly exhibits a sloping top surface
which closed the south end of a sloping shed roof above 104.

(2) The west wall of Room 203 exhibits a horizontal strip in the
plaster which probably formed the flashing reglet at the top of the pitched
roof over Room 104. The west wall of Room 203 above the flashing reglet
exhibits a red paint or stuccoed surface similar to that found on the exterior
of the balance of the building. This indicates this wall was an exterior wall
at the time the building displayed a red scored ashlar stucco.

(3) The wood framed partition between Rooms 203 and 204 is a late
19th Century partition probably added when Room 203 was constructed. Therefore,
no trace of the sloping pitched roof which abutted this wall remains,e~-d1.

E. The north end of Room 104 was left open into the new stair hall, Room 105.

(1) The large beam above the present partition separating Room 104 from
105 is whitewashed on the bottom as well as the faces. This is a clear indication
the beam was exposed to view at one time.

(2) The plaster on the west wall of Room 104 continues unbroken into
Room 105 behind the west end of the partition now separating the two rooms
clearly indicating the two rooms were open into one another at one time.

(3) The plaster on the east wall of Room 104 also continues unbroken
into Room 105 behind the present partition separating the two rooms.

- 13 -

F. The lower flight of the Sanchez stair was altered to its present con-
figuration as required by the new partition separating Rooms 105 and 107.

(1) As noted above, the s air was rerouted when the partition separating
SAA 3H () cbmfc
Rooms 105 and 107 was installed. al. ..... Li- tte

ed u "e vreifllepd. Ti f...... ..tha....t.... e.lo fwhI" d"San red --a-h. ea..-

71s buC E'hly pr eL s entL by dhizg.

G. On the second floor the south edge of the balcony south of the east wing
was enclosed by constructing a wood partition with horizontal exterior siding
exposed to view to the interior and whitewashed.

(1) The present framing in the exterior partition is in severely
deteriorated condition and requires very careful study to determine dating.
However, this partition was probably reframed when the flooring above Rooms 105
and 107 was replaced.

(2) The plate above the masonry of this exterior wall was probably
replaced when the flooring was replaced. However, further investigation is
required. The western end of this plate became a beam above Rooms 104 and 105
as previously noted.

(3) No early horizontal siding remains on this wall; however, horizontal
siding does remain on the gable ends in the attic above Room 106 and also at the
easternmost end of the balcony numbered 209. The exterior face of existing studs
south of Rooms 204 and 207 is so severely deteriorated that the presence of hori-
zontal siding cannot be determined with certainty at this time. ) t ^

(4) Portions of the existing framing of the south wall of Room 207
exhibit whitewash. Enough whitewash remains to confirm that this wall was
exposed to view to the interior of Room 207.

H. This partition enclosed Room 205 and the present stair hall. The present
partition separating these spaces is probably a later addition.

(1) The present partition separating spaces 204 and 207 was installed
after Rooms 204 and 207 had been plastered as one large room. This partition
is obviously later and may date from the installation of the narrow flooring
that occurs throughout most of the second floor. Further investigation is re-

14 -


The following additional field investigation is required:

A. Flooring

1. All late 19th Century wood flooring should be removed from the second
floor, and earlier flooring checked for splices, nails, and partition loca-
tions, particularly in 201, 202, 204, 206.

2. Early hand-finished flooring should be carefully compared to establish
sequence of installation.

3. Check particularly infill planks above north end of 103 to see if
installed when stair or partition was removed.

4. If possible, check for evidence of interior stairs in Floor B and
earlier at 102, 103, 106, 108.

5. Examine flooring and nails above 105 and 107.

B. Floor joists

1. If possible, the ends of floor joists above 101, 102, 103, 106, and
108 should be examined to see if reused from earlier attic construction.

2. Check joists above 103, 106 and 108 for interior stair.

3. Check joists above 105 and 107 to determine date and possibility
these joists were installed very late (1850-1900).

4. If possible, determine conclusively that joists above 102 and 103
were installed before those above 101.

5. Check south wall of 104 for evidence of balcony framing and stair

C. Masonry walls

1. Check exterior face of south wall of 101 and 104 to see if built
in two stages (first floor, second floor) or all at once.

2. Check south wall of 106 and 108 and east wall of 108 to see if
built in two stages (first floor, second floor).

3. Was a window located in the east wall of 201 removed and the early
door installed in its place?

D. Roof framing

1. Verify whether "tea-tray" joists above 204 were part of original
framing, or were added later.

- 15 -

2. Examine whitewashed siding at gable framing above east and west
walls of 204 and determine when installed, and why.

3. Project the valley rafter of the early balcony roof above 203,
stair hall, and 205. In addition, project the adjacent jack rafters of
this roof remaining in the east and west wing roof framing. The projected
intersection of these rafters with the valley will determine the outer edge
of the early balcony roof.

4. Carefully compare workmanship and detailing of roof construction
above 201 and 202 with 204 and 206.

5. Determine if early roof framing above 204 was definitely installed
at same time as 206.

E. Finishes

1. See if red plaster occurs in stair hall and 205 as well as 203.

2. Examine wood planks used in ceiling above 102. Were they reused
from earlier construction, and is there any evidence of wrought nails?

3. Examine wood planks used in ceiling above 201 and 202 per previous

4. Remove existing casings and examine earlier door frames where
visible in masonry walls. Note particularly 206.

5. Compare window sash and frames.

F. Stair

1. Examine types of nails and finishes employed in stair framing.


A. Is there conclusive evidence that the south wall of 106 and 108 and
the east wall of 108 could not have been constructed by Stout or Walton?

B. Is there conclusive evidence that a tamped earth or wooden floor could
not have preceded Floor B in 106 and 108?

C. Is there conclusive evidence that the hearth east of 103 and the de Mesa
kitchen remodelling could not have been accomplished by Walton rather than

D. What was the exact location of the post hole possibly attributable to
de Mesa as noted by Bostwick p. 12?

E. Does Deagan's reference to masonry piers possibly dating from de Mesa
in her early draft report indicate there is no conclusive evidence that
these piers date from Sanchez?

- 16 -

F. Is there any possibility that the south expansion of the west wing
could have been an early modification accomplished by Sanchez? Could the
1788 Rocque map indicate a structure not yet modified by Sanchez, but as
completed by Stout; that is, Stout added an east wing and a habitable
attic (or true second floor) to the basic de Mesa structure, but did not
expand to the south? If this were so, the Rocque map would be approximately
in scale. It would also explain why Rocque does not show a partition in
the west wing.


A. Scardaville notes that the low appraised value (f 300) of the Stout
structure at the end of the British Period may indicate it was one story,
particularly since it was in good condition. Could this low appraisal
have resulted from a relatively small size or other factor? Are comparable
structures known which:

(1) Had a second floor?
(2) Had a second floor and one-story wing?
(3) Had a habitable attic and one-story wing?
(4) Were one-story with a one-story wing?

B. Comment on 2F above.

AUG 2 2 1978


ntp //

To /A4

SFrom ,




HSAPB Form No. 20







Historical Outline of the DeMesa-Sanchez
(Spanish Inn) Site

B-7, L-6, St. Augustine, Florida

with Chain of Title Appended

Michael Scardaville


August 1978

'-** -

7. .

r -


A. 1763-64

1. Owner: Antonio de Mesa

a. employed as Shore Guard, a minor position in
the Royal Treasury

1. basically a customs official who inspected
non-Cuban cargoes for contraband

2. Annual salary of 132 pesos supplemented :--
by legal collection of fees from non-Cuban

3. Status: above median income level

4. One of few civilians on royal payroll

a. only 3.7 percent of all royally
funded positions went to non-military
and non-ecclesiastical personnel

5. because of his position, de Mesa performed
an important role in the 1763-64 evacuation
of Florida.

b. born in Veracruz, Mexico

c. married in 1746 to Gerdnima Santollo, a native of
St. Augustine

d. fathered 7 children, 4 girls and 3 boys

e. went to Havana, Cuba in 1764 with his family

f. died in Havana by September, 1766

2. Lot

a. 1 varas N-S x 71 varas E-W (31.6 ft. x 195.2 ft.)

b. bounded on south by tabby house owned by infantryman
Lucas Escovedo on a lot measuring 18 varas N-S x
71 varas E-W

1. northern section of tabby structure presently
located on Lot 6: see expansion of lot to the
south in the British Period


3. Structure

a. stone house

1. 36% of all houses in St. Augustine in 1764
were constructed of stone

b. one story


A. 1764-1768

1. owner: William Walton

a. head of William Walton and Company of New York City

1. export company contracted to supply St.
Augustine from 1726-1739 and 1754-1763

2. residents of St. Augustine accumulated
debts of over 25,000 pesos with the company
by 1763

3. Jesse Fish served as a factor for the company
in St. Augustine at the end of the First
Spanish Period.

b. Walton was patriarch of one of New York's leading
mercantile families

1. served as member of New York General
Assembly from 1751-59

c. fourth largest property owner in St. Augustine in
the early British Period (1765)

1. solely or jointly owned 10 lots and 23

a. indebtedness to company enabled Walton
to control property through his agent,

b. Fish rented some of Walton's structures,
the proceeds of which were used to satisfy
the debt

d. Walton died in 1768


2. Lot

a. 11 varas x 71 varas

b. same as de Mesa

1. 1769 Jeffery map shows Walton house bordered
on the south by the tabby structure formerly
owned by Escovedo

3. Structure

a. Walton made no alterations

1. Absentee proprietor interested in recovering
debts, not in improving property

b. Through 1769, the structure was the same as de Mesa

B. 1768-1771

1. owner

a. Lot and building reverted to British crown

C. 1771-1784

1. Owner: Joseph Stout

a. from Philadelphia

b. served as apprentice to Dr. William Stork, an
ardent promoter of settlement in East Florida

c. came to East Florida in 1767 to manage the 31,000
acre estate of John Tucker

1. lived with family at Mount Tucker, located
north of Lake George on the St. Johns River,
until 1779

d. in 1779, purchased 950 acres of land near the
northeast Creek of the Matanzas

1. grew and exported indigo, the most important
money crop of British East Florida

2. owned 8 slaves and some livestock

e. Status

1. value of estate was within the upper one-half
of all estate appraisals

f. married in c. 1765 to Mary Rolph, a native of
Cantebury, England

g. fathered 4 boys while residing in East Florida

h. went to the Bahamas in 1784-85 where he became
a prosperous merchant and cotton planter

2. Lot

a. frontage

1. before 1780, Stout illegally expanded to the
south by 9.8 ft. into the vacant lots held by
Jesse Fish

a. Jose Peso de Burgo house built c. 1780,
after the Stout encroachment

2. discrepancy between deeded and actual lot frontage

a. deeded frontage: 33.0 ft. (12 varas)

b. actual frontage: 42.8 ft.

3. deeded and actual frontage did not coincide until 1885

b. E W side

1. deeded and actual property increased 41.3 ft., from
31 varas (195.2 ft.) to 86 varas (236.5 ft.)

3. Structure

a. Gov. Grant granted him the lot and building in 1771

b. expansion of lot to the south suggests that Stout
demolished the Escovedo structure in order to en-
large his house

c. documentary evidence of improvements

1. in 1783, Mary Stout commented: "We have
been at a great expense for repairing and
raising a new roof to the house in town"

d. possibility of structure remaining at one story

1. appraised values of houses in St. Augustine
at end of British Period


a. one story stone houses

1. average value: L 328.8

2. median value: L 325

3. range: L 300-373

4. Stout house: b 300 (newly repaired house)

b. two story stone houses

1. average value: L 487.5

2. median value: E 425

3. range: L 300-800

2. In Stout sale to Sanchez, no mention of partial
upper story

e. roofed with shingles

f. use of structure

1. "A good dwelling house with convenient offices"

2. possibility of renting the town house, particularly
after influx of immigrants in the late British

g. house sold for one-third of its appraised value
due to depressed housing market during the transfer
of Florida to Spain

1. sale value indicates the good condition of the
structure since the majority of houses were sold
for (only one-quarter) of their value


A. 1784-1802

1. owner: don Juan Sanchez

a. employed as Chief Master Caulker of the Royal Works
with 420 pesos annual salary

b. born in Puerto Real, Andalusia, Spain

c. between 1767-79 married in Cuba to Maria del Carmen Castaieda

1. Castaneda born in St. Augustine in 1742

2. married Jose'Joaquin de Ortega (son of
Nicolas de Ortega, the Royal Armorer)
who later died in Cuba

3. had one child from the first marriage

d. fathered two girls, one born in Havana and the other
in St. Augustine

1. one married Tomas'de Aguilar, an official from
the Governor's staff

e. purchased a 25 ton schooner (goleta) in 1787 which
carried cargo between Havana, St. Augustine, and

1. sold vessel in 1789

f. bought the Rodriguez-Avero-Sanchez House (Dodge
House) at public auction in 1791

1. enlarge the small coquina structure in the

2. Castaieda, as heir, sold the southern half of
lot to Juan Paredes in 1803 and the house and
lot to Pedro Fucha 10 years later

g. value of Sanchez estate in 1803

1. 5815 pesos 1 real

2. owned 9 slaves

B. 1803-1832

1. owner: heirs of don Juan Sanchez

a. Maria del Carmen Castaneda, wife (inherited
one-half of estate)

b. Maria de los Dolores Sanchez and Maria del Rosario
Sanchez, daughters (each inherited one-quarter of

C. Lot

1. Frontage

a. deeded frontage throughout Second Spanish
Period remained 33.0 ft. (12 varas)

b. actual frontage increased

1. 1784-1803: 42.8 43.3 ft. (Stout encroachment)

a. in 1791, Sanchez bought the 14 vara
lot to the south from Jose Peso de Burgo

b. the following year, Sanchez sold 10 varas
of this property to John Struder, retaining
3 3/4 varas (10.3 ft.) for himself

c. Sanchez' deeded frontage now measured 43.3 ft.
15 3/4 varas)

d. Sahchez thus purchased all and resold part of the
de Burgo lot for purpose of legitimizing Stout's
illegal encroachment

2. by 1802: 47 ft. (present size)

a. frontage on 1803 inventory: 46.5 ft. (17 varas)

b. such a measurement would suggest the disappearance of the
outbuilding to the south by 1803

c. neither Sanchez nor Castaneda, however, added the
3 3/4 varas Sanchez kept in 1792 to the deeded
12 vara frontage

1. When CastaZeda sold the property in 1832,
the deeded frontage was listed at 12 varas

2. E W side

a. deeded E W dimensions throughout Second Spanish Period
remained 236.5 ft. (86 varas)

b. actual dimensions increased

1. between 1788 and 1803 Sanchez illegally enlarged his
lot to the east by approximately 21 ft. (8 varas)

2. by 1803, E W dimension: 257.5 ft. (94 varas)

a. remained 256 ft. until 1874

D. Structure

1. August 11, 1784 purchased Stout's property at public vendue
for 450 pesos

2. 1788: Rocque map and key

a. 3 room stone house with an outbuilding (kitchen)
to the east and a loggia to the south

b. 43% of all houses in St. Augustine in 1788 were
constructed of stone

1. of which only 21% were listed in good condition

2. Sanchez house in good condition: one of the
better masonry structures in the early Second
Spanish Period

c. second floor over one of the first floor rooms, pro-
bably the westernmost room

d. presumably, Sanchez added this partial second floor

1. See section on Stout

3. 1791: Book of Mortgages

a. second floor completed over entire building, except
for outbuilding:

b. roofed with shingles

4. 1803: Inventory and Appraisal

a. two story, L-shaped masonry structure with a
frame one story detached kitchen and street balcony

b. appraised value of house and kitchen: 2380 pesos

5. Use of Structure

a. private residence until family left Florida in 1820-21

1. after Sanchez' death, his son-in-law, Tomas de
Aguilar, was regarded as the head of household

a. in 1814, a total of 19 persons lived in the
structure including Aguilar, his wife and
6 children, Castaneda, and 10 slaves

b. enlargement of structure possibly related to Sanchez'
mercantile activities in the late 1780's

1. storage of supplies and merchandise

2. according to Vignoles (1823), the ground floors
were generally used as "store rooms (with)
the families living in the upper story"

c. Between 1793-94, the Royal Treasury and Treasurer's
quarters were located on the second floor

1. Treasurer: Juan Chrisostomo de Acosta

6. Possible enclosure of detached kitchen

a. 1833 Anonymous map shows the structure with an
elongated E W orientation

b. Aguilar.and CastaKeda certainly had resources to under-
take the necessary construction


A. Owners

1. 1832

a. Lewis G. Melizet (Havana) and John M. Melizet (Philadelphia)
purchased property from Castaineda and daughters (Havana)
for $1,000

2. From 1832-1978 there have been 21 owners of the property

B. Lot

1. From 1803-1874 property dimensions remained 47 ft. N S
x 256 ft. E W

2. In 1874 the heirs of Mary Strischka sold the eastern 96 ft.
6 inches of the lot for $200

a. E W dimensions: 159 ft. (present site)

b. portion of lot sold to raise the $200 Strischka bequeathed
to her servant

3. Lot 6 assumed present N S and E W size by 1874

C. Structure

1. Possible enclosure of kitchen between 1835-1837

a. sale price of property increased from $1,000 in
1835 to $1,800 in 1837

b. property owned by James C. Lisk of New Baltimore,
New York

1. no biographical data uncovered

2. Sale price indicates that few property improvements were made
between 1844 and 1892

a. increased sale value after Civil War probably
reflects rising property values


3. Extant tax records provide no reliable information to
date improvements

a. earliest municipal tax record: 1855

b. from 1855-1880's, appraised property values reflect
aggregate value of one's holdings

4. Building assumed 1977 configuration between 1893-1899

a. additions

1. room 104

2. eastern wing

5. Use of structure

a. structure used as a residence, boarding house (late
1860's early 1870's), barber and cigar shop (1884/
1888), music shop (1899), curio shop (1904/1910),
museum (1934-37/1959-60), restaurant (1940), newspaper
office (1949), antiques shop (1945-54)

1. primarily used for commercial purposes after the
Civil War, a reflection of the nature of north
St. George St.

b. southern portion of lot before 1904 used for a shooting
gallery (1884/1888), music shop (1893), and bicycle
shop (1899)

c. Charles Loring, brother of William Wing Loring, rented
house from 1837-41

1. during ownership of Seth Gifford

d. from c. 1867 to the 1870's, the proprietor, Strischka,
rented the structure for use as a boarding house

1. c. 1867-69: "St. John's House"

a. one of the first boarding houses to
open after the Civil War

b. J.V. Hernandez, proprietor

2. 1869 1870's: "Canova House"

a. Anita Canova, proprietor

1. former Anita Mickler

2. married to Ramon Canova, a Minorcan
descendant, who was mayor of St.
Augustine in 1866


6. Condition of structure

a. between 1873 and 1883 the house deteriorated into a
"dilapidated condition"

1. heirs of Strischka unable to "make a profitable
investment" in the property


A. Construction of Second Floor

1. Documentary evidence suggests that Sanchez added the entire
second floor between 1784-91

a. possible relationship between construction and mercantile

B. Enclosure of kitchen

1. Kitchen was enclosed between 1803 (Sanchez inventory)
and 1884 (Sanborn map)

2. Documentary evidence suggests two possible periods, both
of which pre-date statehood

a. 1803-21: Second Spanish Period

1. house occupied by the 19 member upper status
Aguilar/Castaneda household

2. 1833 map shows elongated E W orientation

b. 1835-37: Territorial Period

1. 80 per cent increase in sale price over 2 year
period perhaps reflects considerable property

Chain of Title

The following is a chain of title to Block 7, Lot 6 in St. Augustine,

Map and Key

January 22, 1764

Antonio de Mesa

Description of house: "stone house
Lot: 11 varas N-S x 71 varas E-W
Source: Juan Joseph Elixio de la
Puente, "Plano de San
Agustin," Block E, Lot 82


Royal Grant

March 1, 1765


Mr. (William) Walton

Source: James Moncrief, (Plan of
St. Augustine)



Joseph Stout

Lot: 12 varas N-S x 86 varas E-W
Source: East Florida Papers,
Escrituras, 1784-1787, Bundle
366, fols. 26-28

August 11, 1784

Joseph Stout

Juan Sanchez

Sale price: 450 pesos
Description of house: "masonry
house with shingles"
Lot: 12 varas N-S x 86 varas E-W
Source: EFP, Escrituras, 1784-1787
Bundle 366, fol. 26


Estate of Don Juan Sanchez

in Havana)

April 15, 1832


Maria del Carmen Castaneda, wife
Maria de los Dolores Sanchez,
daughter (one quarter)
Maria del Rosario Sa'nchez, daughter,
(one quarter)

Appraised value of house and kitchen
(July 21, 1802): 2,380 pesos
Source: EFP, Testamentary
Proceedings, 1801-1802, Bundle
306Q15, fols. 4-6v

Maria del Carmen Castaneda & others

Lewis G. Melizet, resident of Havana,
John M. Melizet, Philadelphia,

Sale price: $1,000.00
Lot: 12 varas N-S x 86 varas E-W
Source: Public Records of St. Johns
County, Deed Record (hereafter
cited as DR), Book I & J, p. 295

June 3, 1835

John M. Melizet & wife and Lewis G.


James C. Lisk, New Baltimore, New York

Sale price:
Lot: 36 ft.
Source: DR,

November 9, 1837

N-S x 256 ft E-W
Book N, pp. 48-49

Charles Lisk and Charles Lisk, Jr.,
State of New York, executors of the
estate of James C. Lisk


Seth K. Gifford, Camden
South Carolina




May, 1803

Deed (cont.)

of Mortgage
Sale at Auction

November 9, 1837

January 23, 1844

Sale price: $1,800.00
Lot: 36 ft N-S x 256 ft E-W
Source: DR, Book N, pp. 53-54

John Beard, U.S. Marshal


John C. Bedell

Price: $500.00
Source: DR, Book 0, p. 609

January 27, 1844

John C. Bedell

Ann Hurlbert

Sale price:
Lot: 36 ft.
Source: DR,

January 27, 1844

N-S x 256 ft. E-W
BookO, p. 610

Ann Hurlbert


John G. Bedell

Amount: $350.00
Source: DR, Book O, p. 611

March 1, 1851

Ann Hurlbert


Mary Allen, wife of Darius Allen

Sale price:
Lot: 36 ft.
Source: DR,

May 8, 1867

N-S x 256 ft. E-W
Book P, p. 225

Darius Allen and his wife Mary Allen

Mary Strischka





Deed (cont.) May 8, 1867 Sale price: $1,150.00
Lot: 36 ft. N-S x 256 ft. E-W
Source: DR, Book R, pp. 491-192

Agreement May 8, 1867 Between Darius Allen, Carpenter

Mary A. Strischka

"That the said Darius Allen, for
150 dollars, promises and agrees
to place in tenantable order, on or
before the first day of August, 1867,
the House and Lot which the said Mary
A. Strischka has this day purchased
from him. and also to repair, and
place in proper condition, the fences
around said premises .
Source: Public Records of St. Johns
County, Miscellaneous Records, Book
A, p. 180

Deed August 21, 1874 Christine Smith, J. M. Strischka &
Lizzie M. Smith, heirs of Mary Strischka,
late of St. Johns Co., deceased


Louis B. Pacetti

Sale price: $200.00
Lot: the Eastern end of a lot
or parcel of Land that was conveyed
by Darius Allen and his wife to Miss
Mary Strischka May 8, A.D. 1867..

Lot described as:
"Begin at a point where the fence on
the east boundary of the lot of
Dronecia (?) Dunham intersects the
fence on the south side of the lot
now granted and conveyed, and from
said point running eastwardly along
the south boundary line of this said
lot 96 feet 6 inches be the same more
or less, to the west boundary line of
a lot formerly belonging to Domingo
Circoply thence northwardly along said


Deed (cont.)

August 21, 1874

west boundary line of said Circoply
forty feet more or less thence west-
wardly along the north boundary line
of the lot now granted and conveyed
ninety-six feet six inches be the
same more or less, thence southwardly
forty eight feet more or less to the
place of beginning. It is hereby
agreed and understood that a line
running northwardly across the lot
now granted and conveyed in a line
with the fence on the East boundary
line of the lot of Dronecia Dunham
is to be the west boundary line of
the lot now granted and conveyed."
Source: DR, Book U, pp. 614-615

January 5, 1885

Josephine M. Strischka, executrix of
last will of Mary A. Strischka, (et al)


Bartolo F. Oliveros

Sale price:
Lot'! 47 ft.
Source: DR,

January 16, 1885

N-S x 159 ft. 6 inches E-W
Book BB, p. 516

B. F. Oliveros & wife (Caroline M.


Elizabeth Wallace

May 11, 1885

Sale price: $3,000.00
Description of house: "stone-house"
Lot: 47 ft. N-S x 159 ft. E-W
Source: DR, Book DD, p. 173

Elizabeth Wallace, widow, St. Johns Co.


Susan E. Meyers, Orange Park, Clay Co.

Sale price:
Lot: 47 ft.
Source: DR,

N-S x 159 ft. E-W
Book EE, p. 429





May 5, 1886

Susan E. Meyers, widow, St. Augustine


B. C. Maxwell, London, England

Sale price: $4,500.00
Lot: 47 ft N-S x 159 ft. E-W
Source: DR, Book GG, p.72

April 21, 1892

Bernard C. Maxwell and Alice C.
Maxwell, his wife, London, England


Frederick Sulzner, St. Johns Co.

Sale price:
Lot: 47 ft.
Source: DR,

May 9, 1905

N-S x 159 ft. E-W
Book TT, p.138

Sallie Sulzner and Margaret Sulzner,
each unmarried, St. Johns Co.


Mary McMicken Strobridge, wife of
Wm. M. Strobridge, County of Hamilton,

Sale price: $3,500.00
Lot: 47' x 159'
Source: DR, Book 9, p. 212

December 20, 1911

Mary McMicken Strobridge, wife of
Wm. M. Strobridge, Hamilton, Ohio


Lawerence Wischert, St. Johns Co.

Amount: $10.00 o.v.c.
Lot: 47' x 159'
Source: DR, Book 23, p. 85






November 14, 1912

November 16, 1912

October 12, 1949

October 12, 1949

Lawerence Wischert, St. Johns Co.


Margaret A. Mullaney, St. Johns Co.

Sale price: $4,000.00
Lot: 47' x 159'
Source: DR, Book 24, p. 111

Margaret A. Mullaney, St. Johns Co.


Lawerence Wischert, St. Johns Co.

Amount: $3,500 with 8 per cent
interest rate per annum
Source: Public Records of St. Johns
Co., Mortgages, Book U, p. 159

Margaret A. (Mullaney) Butler, St
Johns Co.


Thomas G. Wiles and Doris C. Wiles,
his wife, St. Johns Co.

Amount: $10.00 o.v.c.
Lot: 47' x 159'
Itemization of personal property in
the dwelling
Source: DR, Book 181, pp. 249-250

Thomas G. Wiles and Doris C. Wiles,
St. Johns Co.


Margaret A. Butler, St. Johns Co.

Amount: $25,000 with 4 per cent
interest rate per annum
Source: Mortgages, Book 89, pp. 355-361





Deed September 26, 1952 Thomas G. Wiles and Doris C. Wiles,
St. Johns Co.


Marguerita Phillips, Germantown, Pa.

Amount: $10.00 o.v.c.
Lot: 47' x 159'
Itemization of personal property in
the dwelling
Source: DR, Book 119, pp. 508-510

Lease August 5, 1954 Margerita Phillips, lessor,


Walter B. Fraser, lessee

Sum rent: $36,000 with monthly
installments of $300 cash
Option to buy: $35,000 cash
"Lessee shall have the right to make
such alterations and changes in such
parts of the buildings as he finds
necessary for his purposes, especially
the right to repair or rebuild the
roof of the Spanish Inn building and
to convert a window on the north side
of the Spanish Inn building into a
door leading into the patio of the
Governor Salazar's mansion, at his
own expense, provided, however, that
such alterations shall not in any way
injure the buildings or depreciate
their value. ."
Source: DR, Book 212, pp.387-389

Assignment April 15, 1958 Walter B. Fraser
of Lease

Gerald Horton Bath, Palm Beach Co.

Assumes lease contract between
Marguerita Phillips as "Lessor"
and Walter B. Fraser as "Lessee"
dated August 5, 1954
Source: DR, Book 243, pp. 314-316


September 13, 1963

Marguerita Phillips, Philadelphia


Gerald Horton Bath

Sale price: $35,000 "With all
furniture, fixture, equipment and
personal property more
particularly described in Mortgage
to Mrs. Margaret A. Butler."
Lot: 47' x 159'
Source: St. Johns County Public Records,
Official Records (hereafter cited as
OR), Book 46, p.657

September 30, 1963

Gerald Horton Bath and Lotta H. Bath,
his wife


The Exchange Bank of St. Augustine

Amount: $35,000 with 6 per cent
interest rate per annum
Source: OR, Book 46, p.659

of Mortgage

December 23, 1965

Gerald Horton Bath and his wife
Lotta H. Bath

December 23, 1965

The Exchange Bank of St. Augustine

Amount: $35,000
Source: OR, Book 80, p.602

Gerald Horton Bath and his wife Lotta
H. Bath


St. Augustine Restoration Inc.

Itemization of contents and antiques
"All furniture manufactured in Spain,
all being handmade and some being
Source: OR, Book 80, pp.603-609





.i 4

December 23, 1965

May 31, 1977


St. Augustine Restoration, Inc.


The Exchange Bank of St. Augustine

Lot 6 of Block 7, structures and
Amount: Total mortgage $50,000
Less chattel $25,000
Real Estate $25,000
with 6 per cent interest rate
per annum
Source: OR, Book 80, pp.610-614

St. Augustine Restoration Foundation,


Board of Trustees of Internal
Improvement Fund, Historic St.
Augustine Preservation Board


1977 Excavations of the de Mesa

Sanchez House Interior

Kathleen Deagan

Florida State University

July 1978




House Interior Excavations (by James R. Jones III)

Process of Floor Deposition

Pre-De Mesa Stage

Stage 1: De Mesa

Stage 2: British Period

Stage 3: Sanchez

Stage 4: Modern



Appendix 1: Faunal Remains from the De Mesa House

Appendix 2: Provenience TPQ Guide

List of Figures

1. Location of the de Mesa-Sanchez site

2. Locations of the 1977 excavation units

3. Location of Profile transects

4. Profile transect composite East-West

5. Profile transect composite North-South

6. Stage 1 Floor plan and features

7. Stage 2 Floor plan and features

8. Stage 3 Floor plan and features

9. Composite location of all features

10. Rocque (1788) house floor plan

11. Current floor plan configuration

List of Tables

1. Floors and features
1977 House Interior Excavations

2. Ceramics in Room 101, Trench A

3. Ceramics in Room 101, Trench B

4. Ceramics in Room 102, Trench C
and Room 103, Trench D

5. Ceramics in Room 104, Trench A

6. Ceramics in Room 105, Trench E

7. Ceramics in Room 107

8. Ceramics in Room 110, Trench I


The excavation of the De Mesa Sanchez site (SA-7-6; Spanish Inn)

(Figure 1) took place from March through September of 1977, under a

grant from the National Park Service. The work was done by the Florida

State University Field School under the direction of the author, in

conjunction with the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. Field

supervision was done by James R. Jones III, graduate student at Florida

State University Anthropology Department.

The De Mesa Sanchez excavation offered a unique opportunity to

excavate both the back lot area, and the interior of a standing colonial

structure. In this way the complete range of activity on the site could

be archeologically documented; placing the architectural evolution of

the structure itself in a behavioral context.

The 1977 season excavations included the colonial back lot area;

the courtyard of the present building, and trenches inside the structure

(see Figure 2). Subsequent work to answer certain architectural questions

from the 1977 season was carried out inside the present structure from

October 1977 to April of 1978. These excavations were done by the

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, supervised by John Bostwick.

The data from the 1978 season will be partially incorporated into this

report when possible; however the 1978 report is currently in preparation

and should be referred to for additional information about the house


ST. AUGUSTINE ca. 1764
(after Puente 1764)

Matanzas River


Location of SA-7-6

The 1977 investigations had three primary goals:

1. The determination of the evolution of the De Mesa

Sanchez house architecture, including the sequence and

dating of floor plans and construction features.

2. The determination of lot element patterning through


3. the determination of the dietary and material

patterning associated with a lower-middle income

criollo household (See Jones 1978) in order to

better understand how the range of economic variability

was managed within the criollo ethnic group.

This report will concentrate on the first of the above goals; and

Jones (1978) (MA thesis, FSU, in prep) should be consulted for the back

lot excavation results and assessment of cultural and material pattern-

ing. Historical background data can be found in the historian's report

(Scardaville, 1978 in prep); and zooarcheological analyses will be found

in Reitz (1978; Appendix 1 of the report) and more completely in Jones


This report will deal primarily with architectural data, rather

than with material culture analysis. The non architectural material

remains excavated from the house interior are secondary deposits, brought

in as levelling material from an unknown source. For this reason, this

material cannot be used to gain sight into the De Mesa/Sanchez occupation

and cultural behavior. These issues are treated by Jones (1978) using


SA 7-6


Location- of 1977 Excavation

(After Jones 1978)

A I Excavated trenches
inside structure
1. 100N 97E
2. 97N 88E
3. 100N 82E
4. 92.5N 68E
5. 97N 64E
6. 97N 65.5E
7. 94N 64E
x datum mark



. I

the in situ primary deposits from the lot areas outside the house.

Nineteen, five day work weeks were invested in the excavation of the De

Mesa Sanchez site, for a total of 95 days or 665 work hours. Crews of

from five to seven students worked on the site for 65 work days; and a

crew of 12-14 students worked on the site for 30 work days (this was due

to the structure of the FSU Field School, from which the crews were


Methodology and Controls

(by James R. Jones III)

On the first day of the Spring excavation, horizontal and vertical

controls were established over the backyard of the site. A 1976 survey

of the Old Spanish Inn property had fixed two permanent metal pipes at

the north and south ends of the east line of the property (where the

backyard ends), and a key stake was placed in the center of the line. A

temporary transit station was set over the southwest corner of this

stake, and stakes were set in at 3 meter intervals along this line,

establishing it as the grid meridian, and grid north. It was determined

that this line was 8 degrees 39 minutes east of magnetic north. The key

stake was then tied in to the southeast corner of the east wall of the

Old Spanish courtyard, from which it was exactly 21.89 meters distant at

an angle of 237 degrees 26 minutes east of magnetic north. This stake

was arbitrarily designated 100N100E, in order to allow sufficient number

of squares to be set up over the entire site using a modified Chicago

grid system. The transit was then turned 90 degrees west of the meridian,

and a baseline was set up, running over the backyard and through a door

in the courtyard's east wall, where a secondary key stake was set up for

later reference for the courtyard excavations. All stakes were set in

at three meter intervals, or multiples thereof, throughout the backyard

and the courtyard.

Vertical control was established by fixing a datum chipped and

marked onto the northeast corner of the doorway in the east courtyard

wall. The datum was tied in with an area of known elevation above MSL,

in the doorway of the Monk's Vineyard, a restaurant in St. George Street,

opposite the Old Spanish Inn. The datum plane was 3.66 meters above

mean sea level (MMSL). All vertical measurements were taken from this

point downward, either in meters below datum (MBD) or direct MMSL (within

the house). All of these measurements, however, were converted to MMSL

for this report.

Excavation units were three meter squares, those within the court-

yard were 1 meters by 3 meters (or parts thereof), and those within the

house were 0.75 meter wide trenches of various lengths. Outside excav-

ation units were designated by the coordinates of the southwest stake of

the square. Inside units were designated by trench letters (A-I).

Horizontal measurements were taken from two adjoining sides of the

trenches or squares, and, in the case of the squares, were based upon

the southwest corner of the southwest stake. All measurements were made

in meters or centimeters.

Three 3 meter squares were excavated in the backyard of the lot:

Square 100N97E, Square 100N82E (excavated in two 11m. by 3m. units), and

Square 97N88E, (see Fig. 2). These were selected in order to represent-

atively sample the backyard for backlot structures of the De Mesa-

Stout-Sanchez house occupations. Four squares of various sizes were

opened inside the courtyard area, to test for backlot structures and

foundation structures in the area where the house's loggia should have

been. Square 97N67E ( m. by 3m.), Square 92.5N68E (1m. by 1.39m. to

allow for the south wall of the house). Nine trenches were excavated

inside the Old Spanish Inn, in order to test for foundations, floors,

and other building structures found beneath the present rooms of the

house, in order to determine the evolution of the house and its differ-

ent occupations through time. The width of these trenches was 0.75m., a

convenient size to fit between doorways, and the lengths were determined

by the dimensions of the present-day rooms.

Excavation of Square 100N97E and the west half of Square 100N82E

was performed by arbitrary 15 centimeter levels, or less if a heavy

concentration of features were encountered, in order to learn the strat-

igraphy of the site. After this, however, all squares were dug by

natural strata, in 10 centimeter levels, again stopping when a large

number of features was encountered at approximately the same elevation.

15cm. balks were kept inside each side of the square, for later profiling.

All proveniences were carefully excavated with the usual shovels

and trowels, and-all artifacts found within then were bagged separately

and by provenience and assigned a field specimen (FS) number. Artifactual,

faunal, and organic material from the same proveniences was bagged

separately, and each provenience was given a separate, consecutive F.S.

number. Each F.S. bag was labelled with site number, square number,

provenience letter or number, F.S. number, and bag number, and all of

this information plus top and bottom elevations was carefully maintained

in an F.S. catalog. Much of this data was also recorded in the field


All proveniences, features, and profiles were mapped, the maps

being continually revised and kept current in the field. Photographs of

all features, profiles, and other important proveniences were made in

duplicate, in black and white color. In addition, general photos of the

site, the excavation methods, and the crew were taken, to record the

excavation of the site. Copious, redundant field notes were kept, in

duplicate, every day, detailing crew members and assigned jobs, summaries

of all work done, methods of excavations, complete data on all proveniences,

sketches of features, etc.

Each day, one person was assigned to the field laboratory, where he

or she analyzed, classified, and cataloged the artifacts and organic

material F.S. by F.S. Faunal material was set aside, to later be sent

to the Florida State Museum, University of Florida for identification.

All proveniences were water-screened through a inch screen, which

allowed recovery of even the smallest faunal and floral material,



rTh H

r:o ~n 3~r

0 SA-7-G

F-- GU U 3


reduced abrasion of artifacts and the screen, gave the artifacts a good

first cleaning, and sometimes kept certain crew members cool towards the

end of a hot working day.

All field notebooks, maps, recording forms, analysis cords, and

photographs are filed at the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,

St. Augustine, Florida. Duplicates are located at the Department of

Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

House Interior Excavations

The excavations inside the De Mesa-Sanchez House revealed at least

4 stages of construction and evolution in the house. This section will

summarize the results of the interior work by evolutionary stages with

the test explanations summarized and supplemented in the accompanying

tables and figures.

The reader is urged to refer to these figures and tables in this

section. Figure 3 shows the locations of the composite profile sections.

Figure 4 is a composite profile of the East-West transect through the

house, while Figure 5 is a north-south transect.

Figures 6-9 show the stages of house evolution as it is indicated

by the 1977 excavations. All floors and features (with a single exception

discussed below) are accounted for in these figures, and the location of

all excavated features is shown in Figure 10.

Table I summarizes in chart for the floors and features associated

with each activity stage on the site, with mmsl elevations listed.

Tables 2-8 show the distribution of ceramics by provenience in each

trench-of each room. While material from the tables is extracted and

summarized in the text, the reader should refer to them for additional


Floors and features were grouped by, and included in evolutionary

stages by the following criteria:

1). similar above sea level elevation

2). similar construction methods

3). relationships between floors and footings

4). terminus post quem provided by artifacts in material beneath


Only two features encountered during the 1971 season are not accounted

for, and cannot be included in any stage by virtue of the above criteria.

These are a clay floor found at the lowest level of Trench A, Room 104.

This feature was at an elevation of 2.14 mmsl and does not correspond to

any other features in the house.

The second anomalous feature was designated as Floor "D"; an irregular

layer of coquina debris in Rooms 105, 102, and 107 (see Figure 4). In

profile and upon inspection of their physical composition, these areas

are strongly indicated to be areas of masonry trimming and construction

debris. All occur at elevations below the earliest grade at the site

(represented by the top of the De Mesa stage oyster shell footings).

These chipping areas range from 2.07 2.13 mmsl.

Process of Floor Deposition

The stratigraphic situation encountered in the house interior was

somewhat irregular and inconsistent from room to room. Basically, earth

was spread on the existing grade to provide a level surface at the

desired elevation, and prepared tabby was poured on this surface. This

resulted in a series of alternating layers of earth and tabby flooring.

The earth is believed to have been taken from the back area of the

house, since it is humic, artifact bearing and fauna bearing. This

hypothesis is discusseR and tested in Jones (1978). In any case, the

earth underlying each floor contains artifacts which provide a terminus

post quem (date after which it must have been deposited) for the floor


It should be noted that most of the tabby floors in the De Mesa

Sanchez House (with the exception of Floor "B", the Sanchez Floor,) were

of poor quality; broken in places and settled irregularly. This would

increase the possibility of contamination of underlying deposits.

Pre-De Mesa Stage

Both the 1977 and 1978 seasons indicated the possibility of an

earlier phase of activity than is represented by the De Mesa-Sanchez

House. Possible evidence for such a stage is provided by the clay floor

surface in trench A of Room 101 and by several burials beneath the level

of house construction. These were Christian Indian burials, encountered

both in the back lot area (Jones 1978) and inside the structure (Bostwick,

personal communication, 1978), and analyzed at Florida State University

Y//A v//////i/ //j j --




F.- -Go J P. G,




". .' "
""*......) "" .".: .:" *...
R 5' '

.~. TC4LO N




(. 2 6)

F. Z5

0 Z 5
I oo = I
I'.\00 M5T'TP,\C




(oe MieSA.)


L 28



F// ///,

P. Z6



(Gest 1977). These individuals are believed, on the basis of stratigraphic

placement (beneath the earliest house level) and also on historical

documentation of crown ownership and Fort labor sources (see historical

report); to be Indians associated with Castillo construction activity

during the 1670's. The site may therefore have functioned as a historic

period Indian burial ground prior to its occupation by Spanish inhab-


Stage 1 (Figure 6)

Footings encountered during the 1977 season, which described the De

Mesa structure include Features 28, 30, and 58. The extant west wall of

the present structure is almost certainly sitting in the location of the

de Mesa west wall as well. No evidence for floors inside this structure

was recovered at the grade level (ca. 2.13 2.23 mmsl) All of the

lowest floors in this part of the house overlay deposits in elevation to

later floors in other parts of the house, and are thus not associated

with the De Mesa occupation.

No interior dividing walls are believed to have been present at

this earliest stage. Feature 29 (footing between rooms 102/103) was

obviously added after the exterior de Mesa walls were built, although

the exact date is uncertain. The later construction of Feature 29 is

shown by the nature of its juncture to the west De Mesa footing.

This is either a very late 1st Spanish period, or a British period

wall. Floor "C" in both room 103 is poured up to but not across the

Feature 29 footing. Beneath this floor is soil containing 1st Spanish

period ceramics plus a few creamware sherds (which could have been

deposited as early as ca. 1755; (Deagan 1975), and the Second Spanish

period floor "B" was poured over it.

This data is interpreted here as indicating a British period

affiliation for the Feature 29 wall; being constructed after De Mesa's

occupation; and before 1788, at the same time that the tabby Escovedo

House remains to the south were covered as the old De Mesa structure was

expanded to the south.' This is supported by:

a). the creamware sherds under floor C in Room 103,

102 and 104.

b). the discontinuity between Feature 29 and the

west (standing wall) and east (Feature 59) De Mesa walls

c). The fact that a room described by Feature 28

(south de Mesa wall) and Feature 29 would only be 8'-10'

wide, and would be far more approximate as a central entry

room (as it would be if Feature 29 dates to the 2nd period

of activity) than as the south room of the house.

In addition to the footings in the northwest section of the present

structure, other evidence for the De Mesa occupation was encountered

during the 1977 and 1978 seasons. The first of this evidence was tabby

flooring found in rooms 105 and 107 (Fig. 6). These were floors in

fairly good condition, overlaying only first Spanish period material.

All were at elevations between 2.20 and 2.29 mmsl. These are the earliest

floors in this part of the site and seem certainly to date from De

Mesa's occupation (see Figure 4 for relationship between Floor "C" here,

and the De Mesa wall footing) The most reasonable explanation for these

floors with the present data is that they represent exterior loggia

flooring. The east side of the structure was.the only possible area for

a loggia, since the Escovedo house to the south, the Avero house to the

north and St. George Street to the west would have preluded its placement

on those sides. The 1978 excavation data will be needed to test or

expand this explanation. The 1978 season revealed features and floors to

the east of the De Mesa structure, which suggests a garden wall and a

kitchen. Feature 60 is an oyster shell wall footing under the present

north walls of Rooms 106 and 108. This footing abutts Feature 30 (north

wall of De Mesa structure and present Room 103) at the exterior northeast

corner of Room 103. Feature 60 is 10 cm. higher in top elevation than

Feature 30 (230 mmsl), and is believed to have been added to the already

described De Mesa structure during the First Spanish period (Bostwick,

personal communication 1978). Feature 60 entends from the northeast

exterior corner of Room 103, along the north side of Room 108. At 1.45

meters west of Room 108's east wall, Feature 60 ends, and is abutted at

right angles by Feature 67. This is a north to south shell wall footing

(top: 2.21 mmsl) extending across Room 108, up to Feature 60. It is

also poured up to a continuation of Feature 60, extending east, but

separated by a stacked joint from Feature 68 (Bostwick, personal communication

1978). The wall footing was designated Feature 68 (top: 2.19 mmsl)

Features 67 and 68 are beleived to be a De Mesa garden wall along the

north lot line while Features 67 and 68 are beleived to describe the

west and north de Mesa kitchen walls respectively. Feature 68 extends

to the east for an unknown distance into Room 110, and the report from

the 1978 season should do much to clarify this situation.

The following evidence is offered to support the interpretation of

these features.

1. The 1978 season trenched the entire area between Rooms 110 and

103. In this area, Feature 67 was the only N-S footing which could have

dated to early periods of house construction. For this reason, it must

represent the west wall'of an outbuilding with the east wall at an

unknown distance into Room 110.

2. Underlying the wall between Rooms 106 and 108 (which was a post-

1780 wall; Bostwick, personal communication, 1978) was a probable well

pit, designated Feature 75 (top: 1.35). This obviously dates (by elevation

and contents) to the earliest period of site occupancy. The position of

the well between the house back wall and a kitchen is highly typical of

hispanic St. Augustine lot patterning and supports the hypothesis that

Features 67 and 68 represent a kitchen building.

3. To the west of Feature 67, no floors earlier than the Sanchez

Floor "B" was encountered. Feature 67 itself is covered by Floor "D",

which is poured over, but exactly to the west edge of Feature 67. Floor

"D" is dated by elevation and underlying artifact materials to the

second (British) stage of activity (Bostwick, personal communication,

1978). To the east of Feature 67, a tabby Floor "E" underlies Floor "D"

and was apparently poured while Feature 67 was standing. This is

believed to have been a kitchen floor. This is the only De Mesa period

floor along the north side of the house and extends an unknown distance

into Room 110.

Within the present De Mesa-Sanchez house and also the remains of

the 18th century Escovedo tabby structure. These are represented in the

1977 data by Feature 25 (north wall of Escovedo) which extends east-west

through all of rooms 101 and 104; by Feature 27 (top: 2.09 mmsl) (north-

south, dividing wall) and by Feature 26 (top: 2.19 mmsl),(tabby flooring

in the west Escovedo room). Floor "D" (elevation 2.22 mmsl) a tabby

floor in Trench A of Room 104 is also most likely associated with the

Escovedo structure. Additional evidence for the Escovedo structure was

recovered during the 1978 season and that report should be consulted for

that data. Figure 6 summarizes the hypothesis layout of the lot at ca.


Stage 2 (Figure 7)

ca. 1763-1780 British period

Figure 7 shows those footings and floors associated with the second

activity stage at the site (this is based on the assumption that the

Feature 29 footing between 102/103; and the Floor C in both rooms were

not a result of De Mesa's activity). This stage took place prior to

1788, when the Roque map was made, and prior to the laying of the Floor

B (TPQ 1785). The ceramics underlying the floors associated with this

stage suggest a British period affiliation, since all of them overlay

deposits of creamware (ca. 1760).

During this stage; Feature 29 was added ( a partition between

102/103) as discussed above, and Floors "C" in Rooms 103 and 102 were





(C) P.,







I (D)

O \ 2
1:100 ME1


eSA--7- G




ST-rAc- 2



laid. At the time Feature 28 (the former south wall of the De Mesa

House) was still-standing. This is strongly suggested by the nature of

the floors adjacent to Feature 29 and 28. Floors C in rooms 103, 102,

and 101 north of Feature 28; appears directly below the upper floor B;

and in some instance is borded to it. Upon close inspection, however,

it can be seen that the finished, worn surface of Floor "C" is present

and intact; although in many places covered by Floor B. While Floor "B"

is poured across the tops of Features 28 and 29; Floor C is poured up to

these footings, indicating that the wall were still standing during

Floor "C" times.

At the same time as the construction of Feature 29 and the laying

of Floor C in 102/103 the tabby Escovedo House to the south was demol-

ished, and the De Mesa-Sanchez house expanded to the south. This can be

seen in the juncture of the present west wall of the structure's south

half, with Feature 28 (former south wall of the De Mesa).

The trench adjacent to the interior of the present room 101 west

wall was excavated during the 1978 season. The information concerning

juncture of wall footing and floors in this trench is from Bostwick

(personal communications 1978) and the 1978 report should be consulted

for further details.

It is beleived that this Feature 28 wall was still standing at this

time due to the fact that Floor C to the south; both came to the edge,

but not across the top, of the feature. Although the Floor D in Room

101 to the south of Feature 28 is at a somewhat lower elevation that

Floor Q to the north; it was clearly poured after the demolition of

Escovedo House; since it completely covered the footings of that struc-

ture. In addition, it was also poured up to the edge of Feature 28

(That is not clearly shown in profile; but isquite apparent from a top

view. Another piece of evidence for a British period date for this

floor is the presence of a painted pearlware above the floor, and

creamware underlying it.

The 1977 work therefore described a three-room structure extending

north-south along the present street face of the building. Floor evi-

dence in other areas of the house suggest, however, that this does not

describe the entire extent of the Stage 2 building. In Room 104 (to the

east of Feature 23) a well preserved tabby floor was encountered at an

elevation consistent with others in this stage. This also overlaid

creamware. Other evidence for the British period occupation was recover-

ed in the 1978 season, and the 1978 report should be consulted for that


What was apparently an exerior floor, probably a loggia floor was

encountered in Trench G of Room 107. This also was of consistent ele-

vation and terminus post quem with other elements in Stage 2. This was

a surface (Feature 38; top: 2.32 mmsl) paved with broken barrel tile

and other ceramic debris, and covered with packed earth. This was

separated from what was the east wall of the structure by a distance of

about 5 meters. Only earth was encountered in this space; which is

close to the distance between the north room (103) and the kitchen (see


Floor D in Room 108, discussed in the previous section was poured

directly over and up to the west.side of Feature 67. Apparently during

this stage, the stone De Mesa kitchen was torn down, and a structure

with a wooden west wall and a tabby floor ("D") was constructed. This

is evident in the nature of the west edge of the poured floor D (Bostwick,

personal communication 1978). There is no corresponding floor in the

rest of Room 108, or in Roo, 106. The tile paving (Feature 38) corresponds

both in elevation and location with this proposed wooden kitchen area,

and is a likely location for an outside activity area. The configuration

outlined in Figure 7 is suggested for the second stage. The 1978 season

report should be consulted for further information.

Stage 3 (Figure 8)

ca. 1780 1900 Sanchez activity

On the basis of the 1781 Roque map configuration of the structure

(see historian's and architects reports; Figure 9); and also the pres-

ence of Floor "B" in all areas of the site except Room 100, a third

construction stage is indicated (Figure 8). This activity would have

taken place after 1785, since Floor "B" in all rooms overlays deposits

containing hand painted pearlware (1785). In Room 107 only the latest

dating item is a single sherd of mocha ware (1790). From the absence of

artifacts dating to later than 1790 in any part of the house under Floor

B, it is suggested that Floor B represents a late 18th or early 19th




SA -7- 7/78

0 \ 2. 3


Pl .L-L.. AR


Csa N cH )

century activity, and the house at that time exhibited much the same

floor plan that it does today.

A separate kitchen was present to the east of the house in what is

today Room 110. The west wall of the kitchen is represented by Feature

35, a north-south wall footing at 2 meters east of the east wall of Room

107. To the east of Feature 35, a single floor remnant was encountered,

designated Feature 32 (top: 2.13 mmsl). This was a hard packed earth

layer with a greasy texture, which contained sherds of painted pearlware

(1785). The area between Feature 35 and the east wall of the house

contained primarily 1st Spanish period deposits, while the areas to the

east of Feature 35 all contained materials dating to 1785 1790, suggesting

that this area was primarily a Stage 3 activity area.

In addition to the kitchen in the Room 110 area, the loggia area

represents another change from Stage 2 to Stage 3. The tile paved

loggia area suggested for the Stage 2 activity, probably remained as a

loggia (on the south wall of Room 107) during Stage 3, but was resurfaced

with the same flooring material as the house interior.

Feature 23, the wall dividing rooms 101 and 107 was also added at

this time, and the present room 106 was enclosed.

Stage 4

post 1905 Modern,

The fourth and final stage of activity on the site is represented

by Floor A, a modern cement floor present in all parts of the extant

building. This stage, which occurred after 1905 (based on the presence







SZN-rT F.L.0oor




0 1 2
1:100 METR\CA

10C (08

I 10

105 l07



of a 1905 nickel under Floor A (Bostwick, personal communication,

1978)-, but invloved not only the laying of floor A, but also the in-

corporation of the separate kitchen into the present structure; and the

enclosure of the loggia, this stage resulted in the structure much as

it stands today.


1977 excavation in the De Mesa Sanchez house interior revealed four

stages of construction activity at the site. These stages are graphically

depicted in Figures 6-8.

Stage 1 was a First Spanish period structure, a one-room De Mesa

structure of coquina described by Features 28, 30, 59 and the present

west wall. No floors or interior partitions were indicated; although a

floored area, probably a loggia, was located along the east side of the


A garden wall is also indicated (Feature 60) extending East-West to

the east of Feature 58 along the north lot line. At 5.4 meters west of

the De Mesa structure, a possible kitchen building is indicated to be

Features 67 and 68, floored in tabby.

Immediately south of the De Mesa structure, the Escavedo tabby

house remains were encountered. That was a 2-room tabby house floored

in tabby, about 1.5 meters south of the De Mesa house.

At some time between 1760 and 1780; the Escovedo gouse was demolished

and the De Msa Souse was extendedto the south to incorporate its present

North-South extent. At this time, the masonry kitchen represented by

Feature 67/68 was removed and a wooden structure floored in tabby,was

erected in the same area. The area to the south of this room was a

courtyard or loggia, paved with broken barrel tile (Room 107). Current

data suggests that an unsurfaced area existed between what is today the

east wall of Room 105, (rear of the structure) and Trench G area in

Room 107 (loggia). Stage 3 activity did little to change this config-

uration other than the addiiton of a partition wall between Rooms 104

and 101, the tabby flooring in the loggia area (Room 107) the enclosures

of Rooms 106 and 108 and the establishment of a separate kitchen to the

rear of the structure, represented by Feature 35. This was probably

floored with earth. Floor "B", which was poured during this stage, was

a durable tabby floor which was to persist in all areas of the house and

loggia (except the kitchen) until the 20th century.

At some time after 1905, the kitchen (Room 110) was enclosed; the

loggia was enclosed, the partition between Rooms 101 and 104 was removed

and the house took on the appearance that it exhibited immediately prior

to the excavation.


Deagan, Kathleen

1975 New Dates for Creamware From Closed Contexts in St.

Augustine Conference on Historic Sites Archeology

Volume 8

Gest, Thomas

1977 (ms) Physical Analysis of Two Skeletons From SA-7-6,

St. Augustine. Ms on file, Historic St. Augustine

Preservation Board, St. Augustine.

Jones, James R. III

1978 MA thesis in prep. FSU Anthropology Department, Tallahassee

(Excavation at the old Spanish Inn, St. Augustine, Florida)

Noel Hume, Ivor

1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, Knopf, New York

Reitz, Elizabath

1978 Analysis of Faunal Remains From the De Mesa House, St.

Augustine, Florida. Paper presented at Society for American

Archeology Meetings, Tuscon, Arizona.

Further Excavations in the "

de Mesa Sanchez House

1977 1978

John Bostwick

Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board

August 1978

Figure 1

A modern floor plan of the de Mesa Sanchez house

showing excavation and room numbering system.

' -, *- .-. "
. -:. ,'. -? ,.' .*/ + -*. -K '.' ,.-'.,..,
Sr^-K: ~~~~ .fts -.--,--* -';" : { -.,*
m l,, -. '' ,. *- ., .. ,,, ..+ m ",.

in; -*- *, '. -. .
' -. .. ;, :-,



1 ete. r

,-.s.; *.* ,* .'. o ..- %
A.. ,, .._ .. *_..
" .. --.._ ,,.; ,

.L-.' .* -. *.-** -

.. '(
R.. I *
W -.
_zn '27-4F1~: --L j ..




"r- "- -^ t-

I I." -

-. -... ..... .. .L.. ,2L


R,. //o

i L.

. '..-* ,-S_-. ?.,-'.' %. I ; ,;. -f..: ... .
...: .L+- ... i. '; ,
.. ._ ; -/ t -?-- '., ..... i-a .-- .-5
*.. ,,- '.- .-.." ,S .,-. l-i .- -,- -
* -l .-. i '

-^"?%'T ._- -* "AZ-';-
_.. .. .. .- .,*_ _,

.+<_."'--" -?""/-- .-: "-.-,..il -..I. ---'- -"- .I..-.-M-".
:J .. ", 1 '..

r ~f~ rI
I~-,;~ IP

f i-_ 2 -/ '-

r. _

S G -

G "
G>G ^:'

S-._ .-. ?-- -,
I *. ,--- ---.,o-. .

... ...-. P -.-- *- .; .
^t^^ 'TK8^:7 .
T ^'t,'-: .- -- : i : ...
:- : ": I

: ,. .. .. s. .-. *;. ,.' ,. -
f:,- '.:-! ". .-.'- -- r --
4' '- ** ^ 1
! I -.
i, .",:..:.;: ;'_.. B :: ,. -
o..+ e:..,:- .., .,.+ L. .


Cr -.


,I ....

c-..: .
r ~3~'~-~




The de Mesa site, SA 7-6, has been the focus of intensive archeo-

logical investigation during 1977 and 1978. Initially, the Florida

State University archeology field school under the direction of Dr.

Kathleen Deagan spent the Spring and Summer seasons of 1977 in active

investigation of the de Mesa envirions. Following the Florida State

University activity a further excavation was continued by the Historic

St. Augustine-Preservation Board with a crew funded through the Compre-

hensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). This crew consisted of the

author and three other crew members. Excavation under the CETA program

(0 was in two phases. The first from September 8, 1977 October 12, 1977,

and secondly December 20, 1977 April 17, 1978.

----The purpose-of these excavations was, in part, to define the his-

.toric evolution of the de Mesa house from the early eighteenth century

to its present form. Extensive restoration is proposed for this his-

toric building and its history and architectural evolution being an

unknown factor the need for extensive archeological aid in the histor-

ical interpretation was well evident.

Other questions dealing with culture process as seen through the de

Mesa excavation will not be addressed in this report. These questions

and others of cultural interpretation will be presented in an M.A.

thesis based on the Florida State University excavations by Rick Jones

of that institution (Jones 1978). The report concerning the historical