Sustaining an authentic community partnership through the Fort St. Joseph archaeological project

Abstract

When community partners authorize investigations and interpretations of heritage sites, there is an increased likelihood that the needs and desires of various stakeholders will diverge. Further complications arise when natural forces threaten site integrity, making it incumbent on heritage professionals to reach reasoned decisions in the interest of the public good while balancing research and preservation needs. Community partnerships succeed when they contain the tensions between competing goals among partners. How do heritage professionals enter into and sustain large-scale, multi-year projects in the face of opposing demands, some of which come into conflict with ethical principles like site conservation? The Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project suggests how navigating these turbulent waters can lead to sustainable practices with long-term mutual benefits. By preserving the past for the future at Fort St. Joseph, we aim to sustain the results of our investigations for future generations.

Archaeology, Heritage, and Public Participation

“…When African American descendants in New York City organized to seize control over the proper excavation and respect for their ancestors at the African burial ground in the early 1990s, the power of the people could no longer be ignored (LaRoche and Blakey 1997; Levin 2011). Despite these developments, the norms that emanated from institutions that sanctioned this work (i.e., colleges and universities, professional organizations, governmental bodies, cultural resource management) still reflected white, dominant culture values that thwarted transformational change (Barndt 2007:143-183;Nassaney and LaRoche 2011). This remains the case.…”

“…Raised by first-generation Arab-American parents in an upper-middle-class, multicultural household, I identify as a white, heterosexual, cisgendered male who has been engaged in collaborative archaeology since the 1980s (Nassaney 1998(Nassaney , 1999. For about the past 10 years, I have claimed an anti-racist identity, and I actively work toward dismantling the racialized hierarchy into which I was socialized and of which archaeology is a part (Nassaney and LaRoche 2011). Although I now see collaborative archaeology as a positive development, I initially resisted working with descendant groups for fear that they would compromise the archaeological process (Nassaney 1989).…”

“…Although genuine collaboration between groups at all stages of a project is the ideal, in reality, many projects fall short of this lofty goal, but they can still provide meaningful results. For example, in the Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project, we have been unable to build the capacity needed to involve the archaeology advisory committee in disseminating the results of our investigations through presentations and copublication, although it is supportive of the work and provides regular input into the research design (Nassaney 2011, 2020).…”

“…Here, I examine these disparities and ask readers to consider the larger structural forces that impinge on practice and inhibit the formation of equitable relationships needed to fulfill the promise of authentic collaboration in hierarchical societies. By authenticity, I mean honest and transparent exchanges of goods, services, and information among partners and a willingness to be accountable (Nassaney 2020). 1 Although much of my discussion has relevance for collaboration beyond the field of archaeology, I draw predominantly from the English-language archaeological literature produced in the United States and other settler societies.…”

“…Much of the literature in collaborative archaeology employs the self-congratulatory case study—“the distinctive trope of publication in the field”—as justification for the method (Gould 2016:5; Nassaney 2020). Yet, critical examination of public involvement in archaeology notably provides some cautionary tales that reveal room for improvement.…”