Earl Mark on the Digital Reconstruction of Structure 144
The digital reconstruction of the Jamestown Statehouse, structure 144, was developed under the close guidance of the Jamestown Rediscovery Team using Bentley Systems commercially licensed Microstation Architecture Triforma software and under contract to the architectural firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson. The initial reconstruction was based upon a published Report to APVA , Jamestown Rediscovery, titled "Description and Analysis of Structure 144" developed by, Cary Carson, Willie Graham, Carl Lounsbury, and Martha McCartney, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Division, 20 August 2002. This report developed a reconstruction from the physical evidence on site and seventh and early eighteenth century brick construction in England.
The report noted that a "Rediscovery team in 2000 and 2001 provided some new evidence that clarified the history of the development of Structure 144, but did not go far enough to substantiate or disprove" a prevailing theory, such as first developed in 1903 by Colonel Samuel Yonge with specific emphasis on House five. The new report concluded that there are several areas (particularly in Houses 3 and 4) that have not been touched by previous excavations, which may promise to answer some questions. The report asserted that the current speculation would need to be further tested against future evaluations and evidence.
A reconstructed version of the model developed in the report was first put forward by Johnson, Craven and Gibson which provided a stronger development of architectural detail. This effort was led by Earl Mark, Associate Professor at the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia in association with Duncan Morton, R.A. of Johnson, Craven and Gibson. The Jamestown Rediscovery Team led by Archeologist Bill Kelso reviewed this reconstruction and made key suggestions regarding the color of doors and windows, the possible composition and change over time of roofing materials, the size and detailing of windows, the likely arrangement of gables, and the sequence of houses one through five. Apart from the English precedents cited in the "Description and Analysis of Structure 144" report the Jamestown Rediscovery Team asserted the particular relevance of Bacon’s Castle, an AVPA property, which offered some local precedent for a potential model of interior spaces, window details, and masonry.
A visit by the Curator of the City Museum for London helped to critique the first reconstruction presented as a five staged development after the reconstruction report, but with a greater speculation on architectural details. Further discussions with the Jamestown Rediscovery Team led to the formulation of a completely revised five staged model, more in keeping with ideas about the water table, the change in roofing materials that is presumed to have occurred over time, the likely disposition of gables, and a prospectively more plausible size and arrangement of windows. The model is developed to the extent allowed by inference from existing information, but is completely undeveloped with respect to interior spaces. It provides a visual “straw man” against which further speculations can be developed. It reflects the character of materials found on site. Its connection to the processes of archeological discovery is a form of argument making. The firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson, very familiar with architectural detailing of classical buildings in Virginia, lent its expertise not to a validation of archeological findings, but rather to provide a consistent architectural reasoning against assertions made by the Jamestown Rediscovery Staff.
The current three-dimensional digital model is developed in five stages following the timeline suggested in the Reconstruction of Structure 144 report, but modified according to the speculations of the Jamestown Rediscovery Staff. The model depicts some aspects of window details, roofing materials, wood finish, and also various seasonal lighting conditions. A collage of the model on the site of the excavated foundations is also developed as a part of this speculation. One aspect of the model which might call for greater scrutiny is the color of the trim, less likely to be a "white" paint as suggested by the model, and most probably an off-white gray, red or cream color. The brick was also probably painted red. However, this is merely a point of speculation based on local architectural precedent, and isn’t necessarily supported by a specific evidence trail.
Future development of the model might provide greater development of interior details and structure. A depiction of site conditions especially as related to speculation about the James River shoreline would add to the contextual understanding. A more completely rendered series of studies of surrounding structures and site uses may help to test and further the current speculation.