From its earliest days, Colonial Williamsburg was dedicated to research. Only gradually, however, did that research come to encompass the history of the town and the nation.
At first, Foundation officials thought of a “historian” as someone who, as Kenneth Chorley put it in 1929, “would keep track of everything that was done in Williamsburg...so that when the Restoration was completed we would have a complete document which would be a record of the work done.” Chorley, who later became the organization’s president, put “historian” in quotes.
In March 1930, Colonial Williamsburg hired Harold Shurtleff as “recorder and historian.” His contract, as well as his title, made clear that his primary responsibility was to record what was happening in 20th-century Williamsburg. His background as an architect seemed to make him the perfect candidate for the focus on the town’s buildings rather than its early history.
Within months, however, Shurtleff was lobbying to expand his department and the type of research it would do. He had as an ally Dr. W.A.R. Goodwin, the rector of Bruton Parish Church, who had dreamed of restoring Williamsburg and who had convinced John D. Rockefeller Jr. to fund it. Goodwin envisioned peopling Duke of Gloucester Street with scenes that “would show ancient modes of life and costume and would appeal to many who will not understand the fine points of architecture.” In addition to many other projects, Goodwin also hoped to establish an archaeology laboratory.
In December 1931, Shurtleff weighed in with a report in which he presented the different directions that research could go. The first was “restricting the Department to its present function as a purely architectural and allied data gathering organization.” The second would entail “changing the Department so as to equip it to do research work on the historical side of Williamsburg and its vicinity in both the 17th and 18th centuries.” Shurtleff made clear his strong preference for the second direction.
Shurtleff and Goodwin faced some resistance. Most of the experts working in Williamsburg were architects. This may seem strange for an organization that later came to pride itself on employing a range of experts, including archaeologists, architectural historians, conservators, curators and historians. But in the early years, architects controlled the direction of the research. Archaeologists, for example, focused on figuring out where buildings once stood and what shape they had. Only later would they give equal value to the artifacts they uncovered and see them as clues to how the people of Williamsburg once lived.
The organization’s benefactor was also reluctant to change direction. While acknowledging the value of history, Rockefeller worried that expanding the scope of the organization’s research and programming would divert funds and attention needed for the restoration and reconstruction of the town’s buildings.
Shurtleff persisted, sometimes with Goodwin’s help and sometimes with the help of Rutherfoord Goodwin, who had joined his father at the organization in 1928.
Gradually, the organization expanded the scope of its research — and its programs. In December 1934, soon before he became president of Colonial Williamsburg, Chorley delivered a speech in which he described the restoration of Williamsburg as the organization’s initial purpose. But with much of that accomplished, he continued, the organization’s objective was also to teach.
“What is it that we are to teach?” Chorley said. “It is history in its real and broader sense.”
From then on, research reports focused on the history of the site, not just its architecture or archaeology. These reports provided invaluable information about the community, which interpreters who later presented the history could employ. Indeed, in the decades following the early research, a wide range of research came to be recognized as important for its own sake and also as the framework for all Foundation programming.
“Today, looking back at the sheer amount of historical research that has gone before us, along with the number of highly skilled researchers it took to create it, it can be a daunting prospect to develop on this work,” said Peter Inker, the Foundation’s current director of historical research. “But it is important to note that history is never fixed. There is always some new piece of evidence, some new question that has never been asked, that can completely change the way we look at what has been written, and how we interpret the past.
“Colonial Williamsburg has always been ready to ask questions, and we are continuing to seek information that has been overlooked or uninvestigated in the past,” Inker continued. “If we are going to tell the story of the people of Williamsburg, we need to tell everyone’s story and not be afraid to confront taboos or discomfort. Williamsburg is a place where people can find the stories that speak to them and a place where they feel comfortable enough to ask hard questions.”