Figure 5. Detail, G.M. Hopkins, Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington,
Philadelphia, 1879. p. 71.
Figure 6. Rear facade, c. 1890. Courtesy Mrs. Ransom Amlong. Copy by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Figure 7. Rear facade, c. 1900; Courtesy Mrs. Earl Alcorn. Copy by Stuart C. Schwartz.
In May, 1892, the Gazette reported another meeting of the Woodlawn Farmers' Club at Huntley, though the column was a little garble, noting that the Club:
... met at Huntley, the residence of Mrs. Pierson.... The farm of our hostess consists of about 300 acres and is part of the estate formerly owned by Mrs. Thomson Mason. A new cottage has been built overlooking a fertile valley, and giving a fine prospect including the Potomac River, Mt. Vernon, Woodlawn and Belvoir estates and is carried on by Harry Pierson, son of our former President.[44]
The Pierson House may be the structure directly across Harrison Lane from Huntley. It has the same outlook and general location as Huntley, and is located on part of the original Huntley tract.
Albert W. Harrison, to whom Huntley had passed in 1868, died in 1911. The Gazette noted that:
Mr. Albert W. Harrison, an old, well known and esteemed resident of Fairfax County, died at his home "Huntley" in the Woodlawn neighborhood at 7:30 o'clock last night. The deceased was 80 years old. He leaves four children, a son and three daughters. Mr. Harrison was a native of Montclair, New Jersey, but moved to Fairfax County in 1869. His frequent visits to this city for more than forty years made him as well known in Alexandria as any resident of the City. Mr. Harrison was a member of the Second Presbyterian Church. His funeral will take place Saturday afternoon at the residence. The interment will be in Alexandria.[45]
On April 5, 1911 the married daughter, Margaret N. Harrison Gibbs, and her husband J. Norman Gibbs, deeded:
... all of their right, title and interest, legal and equitable in and to the personal estate of said Albert W. Harrison, deceased, except his watch, and also to hold as tenants in common, the following described tract of land containing three hundred fifty eight and three quarters (358 3/4) being part of "Huntley" so called and known ...[46]
to Clara B. Harrison, unmarried; Mary C. Harrison, unmarried, and Albert R. Harrison, unmarried. The part of the Huntley tract transferred contained the house.
For the next 19 years neither the Harrisons nor Huntley seem to have made the news. Then in 1930, a full page Alexandria Gazette article appeared entitled "Nation's Greatest Air Center."[47] The rest of the headline read:
George Washington Air Junction Tract Found Ideal for Trans-Atlantic Terminal for Airships of Zeppelin and R-101 types without Interfering with Thousand-Acre Airport for Planes—Admiral Chester Shows That Historic Ancestral Lands of George Washington and George Mason, First Selected by War Department 12 Years Ago for Army Aviation Field, Afford Only Tract Ideal for Great National Air Center.
The "only ideal tract" was the valley in front of Huntley. Admiral Chester was reported as saying that the War Department in 1916-17, made an investigation:
... of all possible sites for an Army Aviation field near Washington, and found that the Air Junction site was the only ideal site for a large air center.
Figure 8. Hindenburg disaster, Lakehurst, New Jersey, May 6, 1937. Photo
published in New York Times, National Archives print.
Public Relations men for the Air Junction certainly used local history as a promotional gimmick:
It will be a twentieth century aeronautic, scientific and historic center, but retaining the gorgeous 18th Century pastoral setting, including beautiful groves that teem with birdlife ... a dozen bubbling springs that have been making for centuries the sparkling Little Hunting Creek and Dogue Creek.... There are many other alluring surprises that one would not dream of finding within only nine miles from the Capital, such as Mason's poetic "Huntley," a gem of colonial architecture, surrounded by stately trees. George Mason's "Huntley" and "Okeley" are both part of the George Washington Air Junction. These estates ... had been forgotten, due to the lack of signs on the Washington-Richmond Highway to make known that a modest lane led to them. The lane has now been widened into a 50 foot gravel road and has become the entrance to the Air Junction.
As the visitors drive into the Junction, past the historic Little Hunting Creek, about 3,000 feet westward, they behold "Huntley," a gem of colonial architecture, which graces one of the hills on the north side of the Washington Air Junction Drive and overlooks the Thousand Acres Airport. It is surrounded by stately trees, and its sides are screened by vines and picturesque thick bushes of lilacs, roses and other flowers.
"May I carry it away?" is the usual query from visitors, as from the distance "Huntley" looks small enough to carry away. Failing to obtain permission to remove this colonial gem, the visitors feel happy in being photographed on the quaint porch and steps....
The writer had apparently convinced himself of at least one thing, for under the photograph of Huntley, which accompanies the article, the house is again called "a gem of colonial architecture."
Air Junction promoters invited the Graf Zeppelin and subsequent airships to make their base here rather than at Lakehurst, New Jersey. The same invitation went to the British and to others, but the accidental burning of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst on May 6, 1937, seems to have put an end to dreams of a great airship junction at Huntley, though there was an operative airport there. Such names as Lockheed Boulevard, Fairchild Drive, Piper Lane, Beechcraft Drive and Fordson Road still survive.
Later Owners
Albert R. Harrison, still unmarried and last of the Harrison children, died on March 24, 1946, and in September his executors sold Huntley to August W. and Eleanor S. Nagel.[48] For some reason the Nagels had Edward M. Pitt, an Arlington architect, do seven sheets of drawings of Huntley that same year.[49]
Less than three years later the Nagels sold the house to the present owners, Colonel and Mrs. Ransom G. Amlong.[50]
Chapter 2 Notes
[16] Deed Book B., No. 4, p. 448, November 7, 1859 Fairfax County, Virginia. T.F. Mason's first name is spelled "Thomason," "Thompson" and "Thomson."
[17] Helen Hill Miller, George Mason Constitutionalist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 18.
[18] Stevens Thompson Mason, Mason Family Chart.
[19] Ann was not Mason's grandmother, but the first wife of his grandfather. Thomson was a favorite of Grandfather Chichester and he would have known of Ann Gordon. Mr. Chichester had, as a matter of fact, spent his first married years with the Gordon family.
[20] C.A. Gordon, History of the House of Gordon (Aberdeen: D. Wyllie & Son, 1890), p. 11.
[21] Will Book M, No. 1, p. 130, November 21, 1820, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[22] Deed Book W, No. 2, p. 199, October 1, 1823, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[23] January 29, 1818, Letter to Alexandria Baggett from Thomson F. Mason, Alexandria, William Francis Smith Collection, Thomson F. Mason Papers.
[24] Ibid., A.P. Glover [?] to T.F. Mason, October 18, 1819.
[25] Ibid., P. Taylor "sent T.F. Mason, esq...." February 5, 1823. Mason either was not at Huntley at the time, or the items were for his tenant. The bill notes specifically that the delivery was for "W.T.R.".
[26] Lee vs. Chichester, #60, Fairfax County Court House. From a deposition of Bernard Hooe.
[27] Letter, William Francis Smith Collection.
[28] Ibid., Price Skinner to T.F. Mason, December 7, 1832.
[29] At least 10 documents concerning the work which Mason did at Colross are in the William Francis Smith Collection.
[30] Will Book T, No. 1, p. 3, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[31] Will Book T, No. 1, pps. 1-4, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[32] Deed Book B, No. 4, p. 448, November 7, 1859, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[33] Deed Book B, No. 4, pps. 449-50, November 7, 1859, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[34] Deed Book B, No. 4, p. 451, December 7, 1859, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[35] United States, National Archives, Record Group 77, Map of Eastern Virginia and Vicinity of Washington, Arlington, January 1, 1862, Bureau of Topographical Engineers.
[36] Deed Book E, No. 4, p. 195, June 12, 1862, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[37] Alexandria Gazette, June 12, 1862.
[38] Alexandria Gazette, May 13, 1868. King, then in the U.S. Army, married on May 18, 1827, according to the Christ Church Register. On May 14, 1879, when he sold Lloyd's Lot, which is adjacent to the Huntley property, to Pierson and Harrison, he is listed as "Benjamin King of Anne Arundel County." King, John Mason, and T.F. Mason, all married girls named Price and may have been relatives. It is possible therefore that King was the brother-in-law of T.F.
[39] Deed Book I, No. 4, p. 236, November 21, 1868, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[40] Alexandria Gazette, May 16, 1870.
[41] 1870 Census, Reel 108, Frame Number 197, National Archives. In earlier censuses neither Mason nor King appeared. The actual occupant at Huntley prior to this time was usually an overseer or tenant. Not knowing who most of these were and having no maps coded to the census, the author was unable to gather any earlier information from the census.
[42] Deed Book O, No. 4, p. 338, March 11, 1871, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[43] G.M. Hopkins, Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington. (Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, 1879), p. 71.
[44] Alexandria Gazette, May 14, 1892. A Pierson property is shown adjacent to "Huntley" on the 1879 Hopkins map.
[45] Alexandria Gazette, March 3, 1911. The Fairfax Herald, March 10, 1911, also carried an obituary. The March 4, 1911, Alexandria Gazette, noted that the funeral took place "from the residence this afternoon ... conducted by Rev. J.M. Nourse. The remains were interred in Presbyterian Cemetery in this City." The Harrison plot is in the third section to the left from the entrance. Stones bear no epitaphs, only names and dates of birth and death.
[46] Deed Book J, No. 7, p. 22, April 5, 1911, Fairfax County, Virginia.
[47] Alexandria Gazette, "Northern Virginia Industrial Edition," January 1, 1930, Section C, p. 8.
[48] Deed Book 515, p. 60, September 1, 1946, Fairfax County, Virginia. See also Deed Book 515, p. 64, August 21, 1953. A survey of the area is shown on pps. 62-63. The plat is marked "Farm and Mansion House Area," and shows the "House," "Tenant House," and "Barn."
[49] According to the records of the American Institute of Architects, Mr. Pitt died January 18, 1969.
[50] Deed Book 694, p. 400, June 11, 1949, Fairfax County, Virginia. Col. Amlong is a retired U.S. Army officer.
Figure 9. Huntley, front view. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Figure 10. Huntley, rear view. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
AN ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION[51]
The buildings currently comprising the Huntley complex include the mansion house, the tenant house, the storage and necessary house, the ice house, the root cellar and the spring house.
The Dwelling or Mansion House
Huntley, the mansion house, is of brick construction. The brick is laid in common, or American, bond, with five courses of stretchers to one of headers. Average brick size is eight and three-eights inches by four inches by two and one-quarter inches thick.[52] "The brickwork does not seem to have been laid ornamentally, but this is not strange for a building of the early part of the nineteenth century, where the emphasis was taken away from brick and it was often either stuccoed or painted."[53]
Room Arrangement
Originally the house was "H" shaped. The center portion is three stories at the front (south), two at the rear, and only one room deep. The wings on either side are two stories at the front, one at the rear and two rooms deep. Construction of the house on the slope of the hill accounts for the difference in height. Major entrances are on the first floor, although a ground floor is located beneath it. The wings project about half their width front and rear from the center section. This arrangement provides a large center room at the first floor level, with two rooms on each side. On the second floor level there is only one large center room, while on the ground floor level there is a large center room with two flanking rooms on each side. Here were the kitchen, various storage rooms, and possibly quarters for the household staff.
Every room on the first floor and almost every room on the ground floor had an exterior entrance. There is no obvious physical evidence to indicate the means of access to the second story room. Evidence of a dumbwaiter from the ground floor kitchen area to the floor above still exists in the rear ground floor room of the west wing.
A wing has been added to the rear portion of the west side of the house. This is partly brick and partly frame and is of relatively recent construction. The rear of the H-shaped building has been filled in to create a hall space, bath and an enclosed stair to the second floor room. At the second floor level it provides an extra room and a bath. This work is probably nineteenth century, but the exact date is unknown.
In front, at the first floor level is a porch addition. This is built around earlier steps which are of quarried stone supported by a brick wall on each side. The present porch roof covers and obscures the brick arch and top of the fanlight over the entrance. There was probably no covered porch on the house originally.
| Figure 11. Mantel, central first floor room. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett. | Figure 12. Mantel, north room first floor. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett. |
Windows and Doors
Windows in the facade are unique in that they are set into recessed brick frames. While the frames in the root cellar are arched, those in the residence are square panels, with the window set into the center of the frame. According to architectural historian E. Blaine Cliver, the exterior window construction is quite simple with a double beaded frame set into the brick two to three inches from the front surface. The simplicity of the window framing, which is Federal in style, would place the house somewhat after the late Colonial period, in the early nineteenth century. Windows on the ground and first floor are six-over-six, double-hung sash, except adjacent to the entrance on the first floor porch where they are four-over-four. Windows on the second floor consist of a single, nine-pane sash, which opens to the side on hinges. The pane size is eight and a half inches by ten inches and a large portion of the glass is early. The exterior shutters consist of a single panel of fixed louvers and much shutter hardware survives. This includes several types of shutter stops, which are generally wrought rather than stamped. A fine boot scraper also exists at the rear first floor entrance.
The door entrance in the south front has framing sidelights and an elliptical fanlight with wood tracery. In general, the oval fanlight came into use in the 1790's and went out of common use around 1825; although according to Mr. Cliver it probably was not common in this area until after 1800. The stiles of the entrance are basically the pilaster type although the reeding within the pilaster is rounded rather than flat. An opposing door at the north or rear of the center room was also originally exterior. The keystone over the fanlight has a beaded center portion which is similar to those found in the work of nineteenth century architect Asher Benjamin.
Interior Features
The center first floor room has a fine mantel which is also similar in proportion to the Federal styles of Benjamin. The mantel is somewhat busy, and a little heavy, yet it has delicate detail and reeding on the sides. The mantels in the side rooms are much simpler, as might be expected in ancillary rooms. Basically, however, their proportions are the same, dateable to the early nineteenth century but with much less style involved. All four of the side mantels are of the same basic design, but each has been given an individual detail or refinement.
The second floor room has a simple mantel and moldings. It has the ovolo curve in the molding around the architraves which was common in the eighteenth century and persisted into the nineteenth.[54] This room would have been less used than downstairs rooms and the moldings are bound to be simpler, as is often found in the nineteenth century, when the upstairs was no longer as much used as in the eighteenth century. This room has a tray ceiling of the type one would expect to find beneath a hip roof, such as Huntley had in the nineteenth century.
Much of the flooring in the house is early, consisting of wide random width pine boards. The saw marks in the subflooring above the ground floor center room are vertical, but apparently from a mechanical saw. Beams under this portion of the house are hand-sawn on one side and broad-axed on the other.
Figure 13. Detail, exterior door, north facade. 1969. |
Figure 14. Detail, interior of entrance door, south facade, 1969. |
Figure 15. Detail, window and door, central first floor room. 1969. Photos by Wm. Edmund Barrett |
On the ground floor only the kitchen fireplace in the west side is open. There is evidence of a possible oven in the west chimney in the center room. In the east wing the front fireplace has been closed, though a balancing structural arch in the adjacent room is still open. The floor on the ground level was brick but floors in all rooms except the rear room in the east wing have been covered with concrete.
Much early hardware remains at Huntley, some of which fits stylistically into the period of construction. Most of it cannot be positively dated. The front door latch, for example, is an old Carpenter-type lock, generally common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but having no visible manufacturers mark, it cannot be positively dated.
Door and window architraves in the center first floor room, and in rooms in the east wing have corner blocks, while those in the west wing do not. Detail of the architraves throughout is early, and those with corner blocks are probably contemporary with the rest of the house. In the center room, first floor, the mantel, door and window architraves, and panelling beneath windows, all have the same molding details, indicating that all woodwork is of the same age.
Exterior Features
On the two wings the wooden cornice is fairly deep, approximately eight inches, providing a slight projection. This may be indicative of a somewhat later date—moving toward the cornices of the Greek Revival period. They are probably of a later date, but if so, certainly within thirty to forty years after the house was constructed, or no later than the mid-nineteenth century. The saw-tooth cornice line does not run behind the present wooden cornice, indicating, along with the fact that brick bonding continues into the gable end, that the roof configuration on the wings is probably original. The only probable differences between the original roof and that now in place is that the gable ends over the center section were clipped, giving the appearance of a hip roof when seen from the front. This roof continued, shed style, over the wings. There probably were no covered porches and the front porch at the first floor level may have been open above and below.
The Tenant House
The tenant house is a brick two-story structure with a ridge roof, a slightly off-center interior chimney and a three bay front. The building is approximately thirty-two feet long and twenty-two feet wide. A seven foot projection on the right end, added in this century, houses bath and kitchen facilities. It is approximately two hundred seventy feet west of the mansion house.
The brick is laid in common bond, with five courses of stretchers to one of headers. The average brick size is eight and one-half inches by four inches by two and one-eighth inches. The cornice line is composed of three rows of bricks stepped outward. The first and third courses are stretchers and the middle course is composed of headers laid to form a dentil course.
This structure burned in 1947; now only the exterior walls are original. All windows, doors and interiors date from remodelling after the fire. As part of the Huntley complex, it is still a visually important building.
Figure 16. Necessary and tenant house from the icehouse, 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Figure 17. Necessary, rear or west elevation. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
The Storage House and Necessary
The building referred to by the present owners as the slave quarters does not seem to have been suitable for the housing of human beings, and may actually not have been used for that purpose. It is a one-story brick structure with a ridge roof over three rooms. Neither of the end rooms has a finished floor or ceiling nor do they appear ever to have had finished walls; the windows are wall openings protected by iron bars; each room has four brick diamond-shaped ventilators and neither seems to have been heated—in addition to being open, there are no chimneys or flues. It is likely that both rooms were used for storage spaces and, from the evidence in existing doors and windows, secure ones. The overall measurements of the building are approximately thirty-four feet eight inches by ten feet ten inches, each end room measuring approximately eleven feet eleven inches by ten feet ten inches.
The necessary, a privy or outdoor toilet, occupies the central recessed portion between the two end storage rooms. It measures approximately ten feet ten inches by five feet five inches, and includes separate men's and women's sections.
Brick in the structure has an average size of nine inches by four and one-quarter inches by two and one-quarter inches. The bond is common, varying from three courses of stretchers to one of headers at the foundations, to five to one at the gable end. Queen closers are used at the corners of the structure. The cornice line is three bricks deep, stepped outward. The bottom and top course are stretchers, while the middle course is set at an angle in a saw-tooth pattern,[55] the same cornice as is used on the house.
The structure is symmetrical. Brick ventilators, two in each gable end and two to the rear of each end section, are worked into the brick wall. They are in the shape of a flattened diamond, with sixteen headers eliminated to form the pattern.[56]
To the rear of the structure the roof has been replaced, though the front part of the ridge is old. This may be accounted for by the fact that the rear wall is bowed back two or three inches out of plumb. This may be immediately seen in the joint of the wall dividing the storage room on the left from the necessary. This shift could have necessitated the replacement of the roof to the rear.
Hand wrought, rose head nails were used in the construction of the doors to the necessary; they may have been used for their clenching properties. The latches are hand wrought, or at least one of the early fabrications. The left door consists of three vertical boards, from left to right; nine, ten and eleven inches in width. The center board is beaded on each side, while the outer boards are undecorated.
Hand wrought rose head nails are also used in the construction of the barred windows in the front of the storage rooms. Here they are used structurally, tho the effect is decorative. The bars are iron, and the original frame and bars remain in the left storage unit window.
The storage rooms have dirt floors and unfinished ceilings. Bars at the windows, strong doors and the open ventilators would indicate storage areas needing light, ventilation and security. Such an area might be required for any number of farm produced commodities.
Both necessaries, in the center portion, are completely finished, with plaster walls, well shaped seats, windows with sash and glass, and brick floors, now covered with concrete. The necessary for men to the right has one seat, while that for women, to the left, has three. Two of these are at ordinary height, while the third is at a child's height. The necessary was cleaned from the rear. A tray, inserted beneath a log sill at the foundation line, could be removed, cleaned and reinserted daily.
Figure 18. Necessary, door detail. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Figure 19. Detail, interior, women's necessary, 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Part of the lath in the ceiling of the necessary is split; there has been some replacement with sawn lath. Lath nails in a piece of split lath removed from the ceiling probably postdate 1830, while nails used in the seats are cut and probably postdate 1840. The significance of dating these nails is minimal as the interiors could have been finished at any time after the construction of the building.
The ceiling and columns of the recessed entrance to the necessaries were recently replaced by the present owners, the Amlongs. They replaced the round columns with square posts. The brick floor laid in a herringbone pattern, if not original, is certainly early.
In the absence of documentary material it is difficult to date this structure. It would probably be safe to say that it was built as early as the house, c. 1820, and possibly before.
The Icehouse
The icehouse, located sixty-six feet northwest of the mansion, is one of the most striking structures at Huntley, and one that differs from most other Virginia icehouses known to the author. It exhibits quality of design and workmanship seldom seen in a utilitarian structure. Most icehouses are square, a simple form which would offer easier construction than the round structure at Huntley. Not only is this structure round, but the roof is hemispherical, forming a complete circular dome. Construction of the dome is all headers. Some of the bricks are fired to a dark color but there is no discernible pattern in the brick work.
All of the structure is below ground. At the top of the dome is a square opening of quarried stone which is at ground level. The stone here shows the wear of ropes which were used to lower and raise ice. Most other ice houses are at least partially above ground, with some type of superstructure, or reveted into a bank or side of a hill.[57] They require some depth, and insulation, so that they are usually finished in brick or stone. Sawdust was an ingredient commonly used for storing ice, used in alternating layers of block ice and sawdust. Sawdust was certainly used in the icehouse at Huntley, and has covered the floor to such an extent that it is not possible to determine the original depth of the structure. Walking on the present "floor" gives one somewhat the same feeling as walking on a peat bog. The distance is at least twelve feet from the present floor level to the entrance at the top of the dome, and approximately fifteen and one-half feet in diameter.
The dome is strong enough to support the Amlong automobile, which is parked above it in a recently constructed carport. Access to the icehouse may be had directly from the adjacent root cellar. One stone step exists, in the root cellar wall. There may have been a ladder or wooden steps at one time. The walls between the root cellar and icehouse are separate, indicating that the two structures were constructed at different dates.
The Root Cellar
This building, located fifty feet northwest of the mansion and adjacent to the icehouse, consists of a one story brick structure above ground, approximately fifteen feet two inches square, with a full cellar below ground level. Access to the cellar is through steep steps of rough cut stone, located on the right side of the structure. Access to the icehouse is directly opposite.
Figure 20. Detail, dome and ground level opening, icehouse. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
Figure 21. Detail, icehouse door to root cellar. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett. |
Figure 22. Detail, root cellar entrance to icehouse. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett. |
Evidence of ventilators can be seen on both front and rear. These were barred openings approximately six inches deep with vents to the surface, which were finished with brick and faced with quarried stone at ground level. The bars are now gone, but they were horizontal, instead of vertical as are those in the storage rooms adjacent to the necessary and of approximately the same size. There is no shelving or other built-in furniture to indicate the use of the cellar. Since the room above and the roof are replacements, there is little indication of actual use, and the name "root cellar" has been used only for convenience.
The cellar walls are brick, laid in common bond, with three courses of stretchers to one of headers. This bond is uniform for the structure, above and below ground. The average size of bricks is eight and three-eighths by four by two and one-half inches. The plain cornice is uniform, probably indicating that the roof was originally hipped.
With the exception of the brick walls, which stand substantially as constructed, the structure has been entirely rebuilt. Windows in these walls are set into brick arches which are decorative rather than structural. The recessed windows of the building like those in the mansion house are of particular interest.
Dairy and Springs
A dairy or springhouse is located at the base of the hill, some one hundred fifty-six feet southeast of the mansion house, near the point where the south driveway to Huntley meets Harrison Lane. This spring, and the one immediately across the road, form the source of the south branch of Little Hunting Creek, from which derived the early name of Huntley, "Hunting Creek Farm." The springhouse is brick, now overgrown and filled almost completely so that there is no flow of water and original use is difficult to ascertain. The structure may have had a door and shelves in the brick wall. The roof is arched, one brick course deep, and the structure is reveted into the hillside.
There is another spring on the hill to the northwest above the mansion house. This, too, is encased with bricks, all below ground, and could have furnished water to the house through gravity flow. Since both this cistern type spring and the springhouse below the mansion house are probably contemporary, the lower one may have served exclusively as a dairy.
At least two other springs or shallow wells also exist on the property, providing the headwaters for Barnyard Creek, and for part of Dogue Creek.
Early Structures No Longer Standing
Though barns existed until the 1950's, none of these, as evidenced by photographs, would seem to date from the period of construction of the house. Some one hundred seventy-one feet west of the tenant house, and in a straight line with the main house, are the remains of a large brick foundation. This foundation supported a sizeable structure in the Huntley complex, which may have been a barn. The ruins are rectangular, and approximately thirty-three by sixty feet.
Figure 23. Dairy and springhouse, viewed from the southeast. 1969. Photo by Wm. Edmund Barrett.
None of the storage rooms in the outbuildings show any evidence of ever having been used as a smoke house, though the structure over the root cellar may have been used for that purpose. It has been completely remodeled inside, including a floor and roof, and any evidence of smoke house use has been eradicated. Though one would expect to find, in a complete southern plantation complex, barns, slave quarters, and a smoke house, none of these now exist at Huntley, as is the case with most surviving eighteenth and nineteenth century mansions.
Chapter 3 Notes