Archaeology’s importance to understanding and exploring difficult histories should be considered an essential tool in the public history toolbox. This paper will explore how the Department of Archaeology at The Montpelier Foundation in Orange, Virginia, interprets the lives of over 350 individuals enslaved by James Madison, the nation’s fourth president. To do so, we use the Rubric of best practices, standards established by the National Summit on Teaching Slavery held in 2018 and published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in a document called Engaging Descendant Communities in the Interpretation of Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites. This paper examines how the Montpelier Archaeology Department has developed a research and interpretive program that puts the Rubric into practice, making the case that public historians and heritage organizations must robustly engage archaeologists and the discipline of archaeology in all aspects of its research and interpretation.
“Where are my People?”
Dr. Iris Ford asked this question in 2007, standing on the nineteenth-century terrace of James Madison’s house overlooking the yard where archaeological research and historical documentation suggested her enslaved ancestors’ homes had been located, but were not adequately interpreted—to a visitor, they were invisible. Dr. Ford’s question sparked a new approach to researching and interpreting the lives of the people enslaved by the Madison family at Montpelier, one that makes the physical spaces, and the humanity of the people who lived within them, visible on the landscape. Dr. Ford’s question also centered archaeology as a primary approach to understanding the plantation landscape, since it is a discipline specifically designed to identify “where” things are, and “how” people lived in those places.
In this article we discuss the ways that archaeologists at Montpelier have woven their disciplinary approach with that of public historians, and why these methodologies are critical to the research, engagement, and interpretation of African American life at The Montpelier Foundation (TMF). We use a guide published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), Engaging Descendant Communities in the Interpretation of Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites (known as the Rubric), as our model for describing the ways the Archaeology Department has approached its work. By aligning the contributions of the Archaeology Department in connection with this model, designed for cultural heritage organizations, we argue that archaeology is an integral part of research, community engagement, and interpretation in the practice of public history.
During the initial conceptualization of this article in the summer of 2021, Montpelier had just hired a public historian to collaborate with the museum professionals and archaeologists on staff and provide expertise and scholarly perspectives on upcoming public programs and exhibitions that appeal to diverse, multi-generational audiences. This position infused Montpelier with new, innovative, creative, and intellectual perspectives, and furthered the Archaeology Department’s efforts to actively engage members of the public in the archaeological process. Accordingly, the authors of this article include practitioners of historical archaeology and public history.1
Archaeologists have long argued that archaeology is critical for examining the lives of enslaved and free African Americans, and for decades they have conducted research and produced scholarship about American slavery. This work began as early as the 1960s, with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, and expanded in the 1980s, as archaeologists began using plantation sites as a way of exploring the institution of slavery and its effects on people.2 This scholarship continues today as archaeologists research landscapes, gender, class, power, foodways, consumer choice, and other topics that broaden and deepen our understanding of slavery and its impacts while also demonstrating the ability to locate and identify sites of slavery that are no longer visible above ground.3
As archaeologists began conducting excavations at sites of enslavement, Dr. Michael Blakey and his colleagues at the African Burial Ground project in New York City began to explore the ethical complexities of a predominately white discipline working on sites of enslavement. During this project, Blakey developed the Clientage Model, and began engaging with what he referred to as “descendant communities” as a more ethical and just way of conducting archaeological research.4 This approach aligned with the increasingly public orientation that archaeologists had begun to take. The groundbreaking work at what is now the African Burial Ground National Monument pushed more archaeologists to adopt a collaborative, community-based framework that emphasizes the power and rights of descendant communities.5 Despite decades of valuable and meaningful work of archaeologists in research, interpretation, and descendant engagement, the contributions of archaeologists are often neglected by cultural heritage institutions who are addressing slavery and racism in their interpretation.
Only recently have cultural institutions begun addressing slavery as a critical component in the interpretation of American history.6 A shift in ethical practice in the early 2000s led to widespread reflection among history practitioners about how the public was encountering and responding to the history of slavery as portrayed by American cultural institutions.7 In addition to conversations about how to effectively recognize slavery’s central role in creating our modern capitalist system, some practitioners argued that museums and historic sites were ideal places to address how slavery shaped the American political system as most of the nation’s founders attained their wealth and status through the exploitation and subjugation of Africans and African Americans.8 This collective momentum marked a defining moment for the field as practitioners recognized their power to address the lasting legacies of slavery through a social justice lens.
With the growing awareness for the need to interpret slavery and work with descendants as part of this process, both public history and archaeology are beginning to adopt antiracist practices.9 This process could be aided through better collaboration between archaeologists and public historians, particularly those historical archaeologists working at African American sites, to reinterpret the lives of enslaved communities while dismantling systems of white supremacy, and to facilitate a more accurate and inclusive understanding of the past. The framing of the narratives presented at historic plantations, especially those once owned by former presidents, is critical in addressing the exclusionary representation of American history as taught in many schools across the country. The need for “whole truth history” at these sites becomes dire when considering that the majority of adult Americans do not take an American history course after high school. Museums and historic sites, therefore, serve as an essential provider of historical knowledge for this demographic.10
Public historians and archaeologists (particularly historical and public archaeologists) have long recognized the complementary and overlapping nature of their disciplines.11 Although there is collaboration on a case-by-case basis, the disciplines remain largely separate. Few public history publications recognize archaeology as an informative, let alone interpretive tool, and many university public history programs fail to offer courses or training on archaeological practices even though the two disciplines are inextricably linked through shared goals and overlapping methodologies. In the past several decades, both disciplines reevaluated methods, best practices, and professional ethics and placed greater emphasis on the multivocality of the historical record. Today, standards in both archaeology and public history require sharing authority with stakeholders and building trust with descendant communities, efforts that are furthered through implementation of the Rubric. This work, when undertaken collaboratively between the fields, has the power to help practitioners more deeply connect communities to their histories and further the information sharing process between archaeologists, public historians, and members of the public.
Contextualizing data and material findings from archaeological excavations with information from historical research by public historians contributes to a more informed historical narrative. By working with archaeologists, public historians can more effectively manage and preserve historic properties, curate collections, and create interpretive content based on archaeological findings. In addition to informing practices in collections management, historic preservation, and museum management, knowledge of the archaeological process can help historians identify patterns in historic landscape use, particularly by historically excluded communities. Perhaps most importantly, collaboration between public historians and archaeologists can lead to more meaningful and inclusive community engagement and descendant consultation, a goal historical archaeologists spent several decades working towards.12
In 2018, the NTHP convened the National Summit on Teaching Slavery at Montpelier. This gathering of scholars from a variety of historically oriented disciplines, descendants of enslaved people, and museum professionals worked together to establish a series of best practices for cultural heritage sites that are interpreting American slavery and outlined those guidelines in the Rubric. The summit came off the heels of Montpelier’s recent exhibition, The Mere Distinction of Colour, in which descendants of the people enslaved by the Madisons were heavily consulted in the design and research for the exhibition. The exhibition garnered six national awards. It also employed a multidisciplinary approach, including documentary, architectural, and oral history, as well as extensive archaeological analysis to inform interpretation. The success of the exhibition demonstrates how a multi-disciplinary approach and descendant collaboration can work together to create more inclusive and relevant projects, and shows the direction that archaeology and public history have taken over the past few decades. Since its publication, NTHP and the American Association of State and Local History (AASLH) have adopted the Rubric as an evaluative document of best practices for cultural heritage organizations, an important step in the field of public history.13
The Rubric emphasizes three major themes, ones that were central to the planning of The Mere Distinction of Colour. First, the Rubric argues that research and interpretation must be done in consultation and collaboration with descendants. Second, it lays out three areas in which organizations should begin exploring their institution’s approach: Multidisciplinary Research, Relationship Building with Descendant Communities, and Interpretation. Third, the document provides ways to measure the organization’s effectiveness in achieving these areas. The Rubric provides an overarching theory of practice focused on descendant collaboration, a broad set of areas to focus on, and a method for measuring effectiveness; it does not provide specific methodologies for how an organization and community should achieve these objectives. This is important, because each organization, and each descendant community, is different, and will want to engage in different ways. When adopting the Rubric, cultural institutions should assess their capacity, collections and exhibits, intended audience, and community stakeholders, a process that will vary from organization to organization.
This paper focuses on the Montpelier Archaeology Department’s implementation of the Rubric, which TMF uses to measure and guide all the research, interpretation, and institutional decisions on the property. Staff in historical research, architecture and historic preservation, collections management, and interpretation and education also use this document to guide their work, resulting in an institutionalized commitment to the Rubric. As of late May 2022, TMF Board of Directors and executive office have embraced the Rubric as a guiding document for all of its actions, allowing TMF to near complete institutional adoption of the Rubric for all decision-making processes.14
Map of the Montpelier property showing the locations of excavations of African American sites. (Map by Matthew Reeves, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
Map of the Montpelier property showing the locations of excavations of African American sites. (Map by Matthew Reeves, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
What is Montpelier?
The Montpelier Foundation is a co-steward of nearly 2,700 acres of land owned by NTHP. Almost 2,000 of these acres were part of the plantation owned by James Madison, the author of the US Constitution, architect of the Bill of Rights, and the fourth President of the United States, and his wife, Dolley, the nation’s first First Lady. The Madisons were also prolific enslavers—all told, over 350 individuals were enslaved at Montpelier from 1723 until the end of the Civil War.
As a museum and foundation, Montpelier is relatively young for presidential homes. The property was held in private hands until 1983, when the NTHP took over stewardship of the property. In 2000, TMF became co-stewards of the property, and runs its daily operations as a cultural heritage site and museum. Over the past decade, the organization has focused on telling a more complete history of the US Constitution—exploring its foundation at Montpelier through James Madison’s intellectual contributions, the way the document has changed through time, and how that document has affected, and has been affected by, the lives and contributions of all the people who lived in the United States. Early on in Montpelier’s history as an institution, archaeologists and descendants worked collaboratively to identify, research, and interpret the history of enslavement at the site.15
Key to this collaborative relationship has been an ethos of transparency in research and interpretation that was inspired by community-based archaeological research. In 2006, the archaeology department developed a residential, hands-on archaeological experience for the general public now known as our LEARN Archaeology Expedition programs: Locating (L), Excavation (E), Analyzing (A), and Reconstructing (R) sites, all while working to build a Network (N) of people. These week-long programs now run approximately twelve to fifteen times a year and attract thousands of participants from across the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, many returning year after year. The success of these programs shows the potential of archaeology for connecting broader audiences to the past through meaningful, participatory, experiential engagement. This type of engagement took on new meaning during programs held with descendant participants, who, through the LEARN Archaeology Expedition Program, are at the front lines of discovery, care, and interpretation of their ancestors’ homes, workplaces, and belongings.
As a result of this research relationship, interpretation at Montpelier has explored not only the lives of the Madisons, but also the lives of the African Americans who lived and worked there, and how the Constitution’s protection of slavery impacted their lives. This work was done through the structure recommended in the Rubric of descendant collaboration, multi-disciplinary research, and interpretation. In this article we use the evaluative structure of the Rubric to explore how these relationships bore out at Montpelier. We provide examples of how institutions can use archaeology as an inclusive, structured part of researching and interpreting slavery for and with the public.
Relationship Building with Descendant Communities
In the introduction to the Rubric, Michael Blakey states clearly that descendant engagement is the cornerstone of effective interpretation: “empowering descendant voices challenges the public to consider their points of view, which…have been marginalized from…dominant historical narratives.”16 Building relationships with descendant communities should not only help gain “historical information” but additionally “institutions engaging respectfully with descendants can forge connections critical to their work.”17 The Rubric outlines ways organizations can build and maintain these relationships. This includes setting high standards for cultural competency amongst the staff; expressing a commitment to descendant communities through governing and planning documents; building structural parity within the organization; institutionalizing culturally competent behaviors and practices; and proactively evaluating their engagement.
The Archaeology Department began descendant engagement at an institutional level with the research and excavations at the Gilmore Cabin in 2001. Upon emancipation, George Gilmore, born enslaved at Montpelier in 1810, purchased land across from what is now the main gate to the property, and in 1873, the Gilmore family built the presently restored cabin. When TMF began restoration of the cabin in 2001, the Gilmore Family was invited to take part in a week-long excavation at the cabin that October. Stemming from this interaction, conversations began between the director of archaeology and the family about the goals of restoration. Formal consultation with the family was held in a steering committee meeting in January 2002 which recommended restoring the cabin to its 1870s appearance and conducting additional documentary research on African Americans in Orange County and archaeological study of the Gilmore property to provide a broader context for the cabin and family history. This descendant-led project set the path for future work at Montpelier with descendant communities.
In 2010, archaeologists from Montpelier expanded collaboration with the local African American community with the restoration of a 1910s era train station through consultation with the Orange County African American Historical Society (OCAAHS). The decision to restore the train station to its Jim Crow-era appearance was only made after giving decision-making authority on the issue to the OCAAHS Board. Concurrent with the Gilmore Farm and Train Station restorations were a series of Descendant Gatherings (2001 and 2007) at Montpelier during which descendants provided feedback and guidance on research and interpretive efforts at Montpelier. The Archaeology Department used this guidance to formulate its goals over the next decade—and it was through the collaboration and working together on these early projects that trusting relationships were built between TMF and descendants. It was at one of these gatherings that Dr. Ford looked at the South Yard, an uninterpreted area where the outbuildings and slave dwellings had been located next to the main house, and asked, “Where are my people?”
In 2014, Montpelier received financial support to fully excavate and reconstruct the structures of the South Yard, the domestic complex associated with the main house at Montpelier. Key to the success of this project was involving the larger descendant community at the very beginning through the archaeological excavations. These participatory excavations involved structured discussions and inspired the archaeology department to begin thinking about building cultural competency amongst the staff, being explicit about working with descendants, and committing to antiracist practice. At this time, the director of archaeology began actively recruiting departmental leadership that included archaeologists who were committed to descendant-engaged, collaborative public archaeology, and dedicated to not only discussing racism in archaeology, but also to finding how to establish practices and policies that addressed it.
Reconstructed buildings of the South Yard as seen from the Main House at Montpelier. (Photo by Alex Raymond Productions, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
Reconstructed buildings of the South Yard as seen from the Main House at Montpelier. (Photo by Alex Raymond Productions, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
These efforts led to the development of antiracist practice in the Archaeology Department. This a critical component of this section of the Rubric, which argues that for organizations to build relationships with descendants, they must also do the work to “unpack and interrogate white privilege and supremacy and systemic racism.”18 The Archaeology Department has committed to building an antiracist approach to archaeological practice through providing regular antiracist training for staff, interns, and field school students through regular antiracist trainings provided by the Society for Historical Archaeology.19 Providing these trainings regularly ensures a base-level of knowledge for the people who do archaeology at Montpelier, helping them build cultural competency while also institutionalizing its practice.
The Archaeology Department also developed a Culture and Values document that makes explicit our commitment to working with descendant communities and establishing a culture of mutual respect, which includes antiracist practice. This document states that the department will “fight discrimination whenever possible by adopting anti-discriminatory practices,” expecting staff to “examine, critique, and understand your own privilege and bias,” and “consider and gather the viewpoint of…descendants…to create mutually beneficial relationships, research, and programs.”20 This commitment has resulted in research and interpretation that is focused on engaging and including descendants, and starts to address the Expressed Commitment discussed in the Rubric.
As called for by descendants, we developed a scholarship program for our field school and public programs for African Americans. This has increased the number of African American students attending our field schools, and subsequently the number of African Americans in our paid internship program, increasing the representation of African Americans among the staff.
At a gathering at Montpelier in 2019, descendants established the Montpelier Descendants Committee (MDC), a democratically elected and organized body representing those descended from the enslaved people of the plantation community. This has led to a more formalized collaboration on an institutional level. For example, Montpelier began working collaboratively on research grants and incorporating the MDC in these grants as advisors and participants. A recently received National Endowment for the Humanities Collaborative Research Grant included Descendant Committee advisors in the grant, who have complete oversight over the research project, including reviewing methodology and research questions. In all cases, descendants are compensated for their work. This has already resulted in significant changes in the project, where the descendants provide critical feedback on the approach and context of the research project.
These initiatives, instituted on a departmental level, are examples of some ways that museum departments could address some of the elements of the Rubric. They demonstrate a commitment to descendants that we are serious about our collaboration and that we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that it will be long term and built on mutual respect and trust.
Multidisciplinary Research
The Rubric makes a strong argument that for researchers to fully understand the history of slavery, they should employ methodologies from as many different disciplines as possible, including documentary history, oral history, architecture, material culture, archaeology, and cultural landscapes. Research questions should also address a multivocal historical narrative—meaning the questions should address a multitude of experiences from a variety of perspectives. It further argues that the research process should be collaborative, not only among scholars of different disciplines but with descendant communities, and that research must be transparent and accessible to descendants and the public.
The Archaeology Department is an integral part of Montpelier’s multidisciplinary effort to understand slavery. In many instances, archaeology has served as the primary means of understanding the plantation landscape and has informed the restoration and reconstruction of the formal grounds, outbuildings, barns, and dwellings that the enslaved community built and in which they lived and labored. The artifacts recovered help us understand the day to day lives of enslaved people. These buildings and objects are complemented by historical documentation, oral history, and architectural analysis so that the final interpretations are as full as possible; when taken as a whole, each discipline provides a new piece of evidence to create a fuller picture of what happened in the past. All forms of historical inquiry have gaps, particularly when examining a topic like slavery, where the narratives and experiences of enslaved people were intentionally excluded from the documentary record. Therefore, a multi-disciplinary approach, where each line of evidence is considered equally, provides a more complete understanding.
It is through this multi-disciplinary approach that Montpelier examines the story of the Constitution and its relationship to slavery and white privilege through a variety of perspectives. Archaeology helps us understand how the Madisons designed their landscape to signify their power, and establish themselves as representatives of a new class of American political elite, and how they manipulated landscapes for power and control over the people they enslaved. Archaeological scholarship also focuses on questions put forward by descendants, particularly those centered on the location of enslaved households and spaces of labor, and emphasizing the humanity of the enslaved within a constitutional system that systematically dehumanized them. Recently, our research expanded to incorporate the excavation of the homesite of a free white overseer that lived on the property with his family in order to explore the ways that slavery impacted white people of different political and social status. By adopting a multivocal approach to our research, we are able to see how the protection of slavery by the Constitution not only impacted the lives of enslaved people, but also how the system affected free white people, and how they perpetuated and benefitted from slavery.
The collaborative methodologies for conducting research with descendants changes as relationships with descendants become more institutionalized. Until the establishment of the MDC in 2019, the descendants had no official organization, and Montpelier organized and communicated with descendants with whom we established personal or working relationships. From early on, Montpelier archaeologists were interested in the questions that descendants had about their ancestors.21 Of particular focus for the department is the question posed by Dr. Iris Ford concerning the unacknowledged presence of her ancestors on the landscape. Her inquiry came in response to the lack of physical interpretive representation of Black people on the Montpelier landscape at the time, and it is a question that archaeology is better suited to address than any other discipline.
In the spring of 2014, a steering committee made up of descendants called for the complete reconstruction of quarters by the main house and further exploration of areas for sites of enslaved agricultural workers. Subsequently, Montpelier Archaeology worked to identify the location of the homes and sites of labor of African Americans through extensive survey across the property. Using research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Geographic, and private donors, we conducted a multi-stage archaeological survey including a metal detector survey, geophysical testing, and shovel test pits, as well as larger scale excavation to uncover the dwellings and work buildings in the South Yard domestic complex, stable quarter, the Home Farm, and sites of outlying farms on the more remote wooded portions of the property.22
Current archaeological research projects, conducted following the formation of the MDC, are using a more formalized collaboration through the clientage model. This model disrupts the standard model of archaeological research projects, which typically include the profession and the business client, by including a third entity, the ethical client, who is empowered with “rights to some version of informed consent over the disposition of their ancestral remains and…interpretation of their histories.”23 The MDC operates as the ethical client. Ongoing research projects such as the Home Farm Project, Montpelier Enslaved Community Cemetery Project, and the analysis of human teeth recovered from nonburial contexts follow this model, with early consultation and ongoing oversight.
Our focus on collaborating with colleagues and descendants is a critical component of addressing archaeological research questions. Our current research efforts are focused on implementing the clientage model to allow for increased power sharing in the way research is conducted. Still, we acknowledge that have a lot of work to do in making both our archaeological methods and data accessible to the public. We also heard from descendants that they want more training in archaeological methods, so they can be more effective partners in asking archaeological questions.
We continue to work on breaking habits as they relate to publishing articles and presenting papers. Learning where the boundaries are and working to establish better lines of communication continue to be places where we need to focus our attention. This article, for example, was not reviewed by the Descendant Committee until it was near completion. In retrospect, we should have approached them earlier. Although a small example, it is still important to remember that publication is a form of currency in academic disciplines.
Interpretation
The Rubric argues that “museums and historic sites have an inadequate record of interpreting slavery and its legacies” and that most interpretation often has segregated enslaved narratives as separate or “outside the main interpretive story” of the institution.24 Following the Rubric, much of Montpelier’s interpretive programming relating to slavery has begun with consultation with the descendant community.25 Descendant gatherings provided feedback, suggestions, and critiques of current and future interpretation. Archaeology is a critical piece of Montpelier’s Museum Programs Division’s interpretive efforts that engaged with the concerns and contributions of descendants.
Archaeological contributions to the museum’s public interpretation happen in four ways: landscape and building restoration and reconstruction, exhibition design, a publicly accessible lab and archaeology site, and the LEARN Archaeology Expedition Program. In each instance, archaeology addresses different components of the Rubric’s interpretation section.
Reconstructing the buildings at Montpelier was one way for archaeology to contribute to ensuring the experience of enslaved people was visible on the landscape. Up to that point, the South Yard, comprising six structures that were the homes and workplaces of people enslaved by the Madisons, was only interpreted by ground timbers and low-cut grass where the structures were located. Restoring the built environment became an interpretive priority for the Archaeology Department to make the enslaved landscape visible. The Archaeology Department pushed for the construction of ghost timber frames, inspired by interpretive efforts at other archaeology-based heritage sites such as Historic St. Mary’s City, to represent the buildings identified from historical documents and archaeology.26 Unlike other ghost timber frame outlines, these featured period framing details that gave a historic feel to the outlines, but clearly conveyed the need for more research and reconstruction efforts.
Extensive archaeological excavations were conducted in the South Yard to identify the foundations and architectural details of these six buildings, which are now fully reconstructed and used as interpretive spaces.27 The reconstructions are part of collaborative work with architectural historians, who rely on the archaeological evidence to inform the reconstructed building designs. Current efforts are also underway to interpret the yard spaces in the South Yard, to ensure that the buildings themselves are put into an accurate context, and that these areas of labor are not ignored. This process was repeated across the property, where ghosted frames are erected at the locations of domestic structures associated with the stable quarter and Home Farm, all based on archaeological excavations. Current research is focused on identifying additional work areas in the Home Farm. Making these areas visible ensures that the lives of everyone at Montpelier—enslaved African Americans, the Madisons, and other free white laborers—are all visible on the landscape. This means visitors will not be able to ignore how broadly the institution of slavery impacted the lives of Americans.
In addition to reconstructing buildings, the curator for archaeological collections is directly involved in furnishing the interiors of the reconstructed structures, as well as contributing artifacts for display in exhibitions. For The Mere Distinction of Colour, artifacts were used in a variety of ways to center stories of the Black community. One display used different artifacts as the vehicle to dispel common myths about slavery, using a touch screen to allow visitors to read about the objects that were on display. The furnishing of rooms in the reconstructed dwellings was based on the archaeological finds, meaning that, for example, ceramics were used that matched the ceramic decorations found in the archaeological excavations, or that a rifle is on display due to the presence of gun flints found at the site. Personal adornment is explored in another dwelling through a stunning display of fifty buttons found at enslaved contexts across Montpelier, each demonstrating the unique choices that individuals made to decorate their bodies.
One of the most powerful uses of archaeological artifacts is a piece of art crafted entirely of samples of brick that were found, cataloged, and sampled. Sorted by size and shape by the curator, the bricks were used by an artist to craft what has become the symbol of the exhibition: a portrait of an enslaved Black boy, staring at the viewer. It is a powerful piece of art that not only evokes the humanity of the young boy and draws an immediate connection with the visitor, but also uses archaeological materials in an artistic way to tell the story of enslaved children, a group of people often ignored.
Objects and places are also being used to supplement online interpretation at Montpelier. A social media strategy developed in collaboration with descendants following the murder of George Floyd has resulted in the highly successful Naming Project, and called for the use of objects and places as another means of highlighting the experience of enslaved laborers. Through recent support with Enslaved.org, social media and a blog will be used to write “biographies” of different objects that once belonged to enslaved people.28 This is part of a larger institutional effort to use digital and social media to bring on-the-ground interpretation to the digital sphere.
Brick mosaic showing an enslaved boy in the Mere Distinction of Colour exhibition. (Photo by Casey Cashell, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
Brick mosaic showing an enslaved boy in the Mere Distinction of Colour exhibition. (Photo by Casey Cashell, courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
The Archaeology Department also contributes to the front-line engagement with visitors across the property. This primarily happens by making sure our archaeology laboratory and excavation site are visible and welcoming to the public. Both spaces are equipped with artifact displays, and the lab has exhibit displays and a visible study collection. In each instance, visitors are able to engage with the archaeology staff and learn about how archaeology and the interpretation of slavery work together. Often, these visitors have just completed a guided tour, and many times the archaeology staff fields questions that probe even deeper into the intersections of race and slavery. Showing them artifacts or discussing the excavations challenges visitors to confront the reality of slavery at Montpelier. Seeing the foundations of a slave dwelling or touching the broken smoking pipe that just came out of the ground provides a tangible connection to the people who were enslaved at Montpelier. Visitors are often surprised by the proximity of the South Yard buildings to the main house, or the presence of marbles and children’s toys amongst the artifacts. And engaging with the closeness and familiarity of the material record encourages visitors to build more empathetic, meaningful connections to the people of the past.
Montpelier Descendants excavating in South Yard. (Photo courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
Montpelier Descendants excavating in South Yard. (Photo courtesy of The Montpelier Foundation)
In addition to using the results of archaeological excavation and analysis to inform on-site interpretation, we have also redesigned the decades old LEARN Archaeology Expedition Program to move beyond hands-on experiences teaching basic archaeological concepts. Now, the programs focus on how archaeologists use place and objects to discuss how the US Constitution’s protection of slavery shaped and was shaped by the different people who lived and worked at Montpelier. Further, they utilize the power of place and the tangible experience of excavation to make meaningful connections between participants and the people in the past.
This is achieved through programming throughout the week that focuses on a dialogical approach to interpretation. Introductory lectures and tours provide background about how archaeological research is conducted at Montpelier. These tours mix discussion of how archaeological methods are used to identify, excavate, and interpret sites and objects, and how the results of those excavations are used to address questions posed by descendants and in the interpretation. By the end of day two, participants have attended guided tours by our staff discussing the Montpelier formal landscape and home, and have toured the Mere Distinction of Colour exhibition and reconstructions with staff. Throughout the rest of the week, participants work on the current archaeological project, and take additional tours interpreting the archaeology of different sites on the property including the Civil War Encampments, Gilmore Farm, and cemeteries. At each space, the legacies of slavery, conversations about memory, and the ongoing complexities of historic sites, slavery, and descendant communities are discussed between staff and participants. These conversations, coupled with hands-on experience working on archaeological sites, give participants a full, comprehensive, participatory experience in understanding not only the mechanics of archaeology, but the value and power of place, collaborative interpretation, and the ways that slavery and its legacies are intermixed in our cultural heritage and society.
The efforts to include archaeology in interpretation, therefore, not only make the stories of enslaved people more visible, but also diversify the different tools and techniques Montpelier uses to interpret the past. Because archaeology relies on a diverse set of data to examine the past—the built environment, cultural landscapes, and objects—it offers multiple ways of presenting and engaging visitors using additional senses and at the same time helps emphasize the power of place. It is one thing to be told that enslaved people taught their children to read. It is an entirely different one to see the writing slate and pencil that they used, while standing inside a reconstructed building where it happened. These types of experiences build tangible, meaningful connections between visitors and people from the past.
Advocacy and Leadership
During the writing of this paper, TMF and the Montpelier Descendant Committee were engaged in a long and public negotiation about one key component of the Rubric, achieving structural parity. The Rubric describes parity as acheived when “the descendant community are represented and empowered at every level of the institution.”29 Although descendants of those enslaved at the plantation site had been active collaborators in the research and interpretation at Montpelier for over two decades, they had minimal to nonexistent access to structural power at any level of the organization, limiting their ability to make decisions about how their ancestors were remembered and represented. In 2019, the first step towards parity was made when the descendants formed the MDC, and their chairperson was added to the TMF Board. In June of 2021, TMF changed their bylaws to institute a process by which the MDC could nominate board members, and that the TMF Board would ensure that at least half of their membership would be from these nominees.
However, in March of 2022, the Board reneged on its promise. In March of 2022, they changed the by-laws again, allowing the TMF Board to also nominate individuals they deemed representative of the MDC—removing the power of the descendants to choose their own representation. As a final effort to ensure shared and equitable power, the MDC and Montpelier staff went public with the news. As a result, three staff members, including the director of archaeology, were fired, and two staff members, the assistant director and curator for archaeological collections and the archaeology project director, were suspended by the foundation.30 Despite this, the staff’s commitment to the MDC, built on the foundation of trust and collaboration, did not waiver. The MDC led a campaign, in coordination with current and former staff members, to bring the necessary pressure to the board to vote and elect eleven new officers to the board, all nominated by the MDC. By the end of May 2022, the board chair and CEO were replaced, and the fired and suspended staff were reinstated. MDC-nominated board members now comprised of over 50% of the TMF board, and it was chaired by the former MDC chairperson.31
Although advocacy is not a specific component of the Rubric, we argue that this is a critical piece of collaboration. The ability for Montpelier staff to advocate on behalf of descendants was due to strong relationships and a history of collaborative research and interpretation. Public outcry was not only due to the disappointment in Montpelier backing out of its initial commitment to appoint MDC nominated members, but also from supporting the transformative experiences visitors had when visiting Montpelier exhibitions or participating in public archaeology programs. We also learned how important advocacy is within the organization. In this case, the work being done by staff and descendants to carry out the Rubric had not been effectively integrated at the board level. Because the board had not participated in the collaborative work, nor established the high standards of cultural competency outlined in the Rubric, when it came time to hire new leadership, and to implement these practices at the Board level, they were unprepared for the challenge. The board would have benefitted from more robust training and involvement both with descendants and staff on these issues.
The achievement of structural parity at the board level will significantly impact the research and interpretation at Montpelier, moving our practice even closer to the expectations outlined in the Rubric. It will also have major implications for the fields of public history and public archaeology. We hope this decision will redefine how cultural heritage practitioners engage descendant communities.
Conclusion
At Montpelier, we have worked to establish a methodology for effective research and interpretation of slavery and African American history at the former estate of our nation’s fourth president. We have used the Rubric, established by a group of descendants, scholars, and museum professionals and adopted as best practices in the discipline of public history, to guide its creation and to measure the effectiveness of our archaeological approach. We believe our methods demonstrate the efficacy of including archaeology as a critical part of a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding and interpreting slavery at cultural heritage organizations. As such, we believe it is critical for cultural heritage organizations that are researching and interpreting the past to not only work with descendants, but to incorporate archaeology, and archaeologists, into a multidisciplinary approach.
There are many areas in the Rubric that we need to improve upon. The process of decolonizing the methodologies developed in our disciplines requires us to continuously rethink how we conduct our interpretation, research, publishing, education, and compensation. It is important to understand that the methodologies for public history and public archaeology used for the general public may not be applicable or align with the needs of descendant communities. For example, participating in a week-long excavation program may not be the way descendant communities want to learn about the archaeological method. Additionally, it is crucial that we acknowledge that the work of descendant communities often goes unrecognized and uncompensated. As institutions, we must do better to ensure descendants are being compensated fairly.
Fifteen years passed since Dr. Ford first asked where her people were, and Montpelier has experienced much institutional change that has affected the outcome of this work. As Montpelier pioneers a new model for cultural institutions, we look forward to operational change that facilitates a rethinking of how we approach public archaeology and history in parity with descendants.32 The Montpelier Archaeology Department is committed to working with the MDC and TMF to build a collaborative process for archaeological research and interpretation that is grounded in shared power. As a result, our archaeological practice will continue to change as our institution and our collaboration with the MDC evolves. Our department’s commitment to interpreting slavery in ways that are multi-disciplinary and our focus on community and public engagement has contributed to more effective and meaningful interpretation. In the end, this means that more people will be exposed to our nation’s complex history, and that more people, in particular the descendants of the people enslaved by the Father of our Constitution, will have a part in crafting how that story gets told.
Notes
Michael Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities in the Interpretation of Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites, National Trust for Historic Preservation & the African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund (2018), https://montpelier-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/Interpreting%20Slavery%2011-12-19.pdf.
The following publications present an overview of African American archaeology and archaeology of American slavery prior to 1995: Theresa A. Singleton, The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life (Orlando: Academic Press, 1985); Theresa A. Singleton, “The Archaeology of Slavery in North America,” in Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995): 119-40.
Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2004); Whitney Battle-Baptiste, Black Feminist Archaeology (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2011); Cliton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, Cabin, Quarter, Plantation: Architecture and Landscapes of North American Slavery (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); Kevin Fogle, James Nyman, and Mary C. Beaudry, Beyond the Walls: New Perspectives on the Archaeology of Historical Households (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2015); Barbara J. Heath and Jack Gary, Jefferson’s Poplar Forest: Unearthing a Virginia Plantation (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2012); Barbara J. Little, Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2007); Matthew Bruce Reeves, “Building a Methodology for Community-based Archaeology of People of the African Diaspora: Thoughts on Case Studies,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology (2021).
Cheryl J. LaRoche and Michael L. Blakey, “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground,” Historical Archaeology 31, no. 3 (1996): 84-113; Maria Franklin, “‘Power to the People’: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black Americans,” Historical Archaeology 31, no. 3 (1997): 36–50; Michael L. Blakey, “Archaeology Under the Blinding Light of Race,” Current Anthropology 61, no. S22 (2020): S183-S197.
Carol McDavid and Terry P. Brock, “The Differing Forms of Public Archaeology: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now, and Thoughts for the Future,” in Ethics and Archaeological Praxis, ed. Cristóbal Gnecco and Dorothy Lippert (New York: Springer, 2015).
The National Park Service, for example, did not include slavery in the interpretation of Civil War sites until the turn of the twenty-first century. Anne Mitchell Whisnant, Marla R. Miller, Gary B. Nash, and David Thelen, Imperiled Promise: The State of History in the National Park Service (Bloomington, IN: Organization of American Historians, 2011), 25.
Several museums forthrightly addressed some of the more challenging aspects of American history, including the Anacostia Community Museum in southeastern Washington, DC. Founded in 1967 as part of the Smithsonian Institution, this museum was intended to introduce Anacostia residents to the larger museums on the National Mall. With civil rights activist John Kinard appointed director, the establishment of the museum became a collaborative effort that included consultation with the predominantly African American community of Anacostia. Intended more for local audiences, the museum broached subjects that, at the time, its more well-known sister museums had not, including exhibits on the contributions of Black women throughout American history (1976-77), the African slave trade (1987-89), and the African American struggle for racial equity in Washington, DC (1992). The Anacostia Community Museum is emblematic of the Black struggle for inclusion within the field of public history. The efforts of African Americans to preserve historic structures, collect material culture, and acquire written documentation on Black history led to what one scholar calls “Afro-American public history.” Long excluded from white academic circles and local historical societies, Black Americans understood the importance of preserving evidence of the Black experience in America. While this effort to preserve Black history and culture began in the early-to-mid nineteenth century, it was not until the 1920s and 1930s that there was a robust audience for such content. During this period, preservation of African American places and material culture was done for a dual purpose: to challenge racism and bolster Black community pride. Toward the end of the twentieth century, practitioners—both Black and white—began bringing greater attention to the contributions of these early Black public historians as well as the need to incorporate this material in mainstream interpretation. Andrea Burns, From Storefront to Monument: Tracing the Public History of the Black Museum Movement (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013); Julie Des Jardins, “African American Woman’s Historical Consciousness,” in Women and the Historical Enterprise in America: Gender, Race, and the Politics of Memory, 1880-1945 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003); Jeffery C. Stewart and Faith Davis Ruffins, “‘A Faithful Witness: Afro-American Public History in Historical Perspective,” in Presenting the Past: Critical Perspectives on History and the Public, ed. Susan Porter Benson, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986); “About Us,” Smithsonian Anacostia Museum website, https://anacostia.si.edu/About.
Ira Berlin, “Coming to Terms with Slavery in Twenty-First Century America,” in Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory, ed. James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006).
Ayana Omilade Flewellen, Justin P. Dunnavant, Alicia Odewale, Alexandra Jones, Tsione Wolde-Michael, Zoë Crossland, and Maria Franklin, “‘The Future of Archaeology Is Antiracist’: Archaeology in the Time of Black Lives Matter,” American Antiquity 86, no. 2 (2021); Mary Furlong Minkoff, Terry P. Brock, and Matthew Reeves, “Aiming for Anti-Racism: Policies and Practices of a Publicly Engaged Archaeology Department,” in Critical Public Archaeology, ed. Camille Westmont, forthcoming.
James W. Loewen, Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong (New York: The New Press, 2019), 13.
Orser’s excavation of Millwood Plantation in Abbeville, South Carolina in 1980 was part of a larger endeavor (both publicly and privately funded) to investigate the historic area that would be affected as a result of the construction of the Richard B. Russel dam. In working with historians conducting their own study of the site, Orser found that the written records supplemented gaps in archaeological data. In turn, the archaeology added further insight into historians’ understanding of the people who worked and lived on the plantation. Both parties benefited from the collaborative endeavor, creating a more informed account of the site’s history. Charles E. Orser, “Uniting Public History and Historical Archaeology,” The Public Historian 3, no. 1 (1981): 75–83.
Carol McDavid, "Archaeologies That Hurt: Descendants That Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology," World Archaeology 34, no. 2 (2002): 303-14; Cheryl J. LaRoche and Michael L. Blakey, “Seizing Intellectual Power: The Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground,” Historical Archaeology 31, no.3 (1996): 84-113.
Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities.
The Naming Project is one example of how Montpelier staff outside of the Archaeology Department used the Rubric to guide their work. Led by the Senior Research Historian, this project is an ongoing effort at The Montpelier Foundation that draws on years of research to uncover and share the names and stories of the Black people who lived, worked, and were enslaved at Montpelier. Hilarie Hicks, “The Naming Project,” The Montpelier Foundation, (August 11, 2020), https://digitaldoorway.montpelier.org/project/say-their-names/.
William H. Lewis, Montpelier Transformed: A Monument to James Madison and Its Enslaved Community, (Charleston: The History Press, 2022).
Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities, 2.
Ibid.
Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities, 9.
Mary Furlong Minkoff, Terry Brock, Matthew Reeves, forthcoming; Michael S. Nassaney and Cheryl LaRoche, “Race and the Society for Historical Archaeology: Steps toward Claiming an Anti-Racist Institutional Identity,” SHA Newsletter 44, no. 4 (2011): 4-6; Maria Franklin and Carol McDavid, “Diversity, Anti-racism, and the Future of the SHA,” Panel at the 46th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Leicester, United Kingdom (2013), 10.
“Culture and Values Document,” Archaeology Department, James Madison’s Montpelier (2021).
Matthew B. Reeves, “Asking the ‘Right’ Questions Archaeologists and Descendant Communities,” in Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, ed. Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers (New York: Routledge, 2004).
“A More Complete American Story,” James Madison’s Montpelier (February 10, 2017), 2021, https://www.montpelier.org/learn/a-more-complete-american-story; for a complete list of reports about the excavations conducted at these sites, please visit https://digitaldoorway.montpelier.org/project/archaeology-reports-and-publications/.
Michael Blakey, “Archaeology Under the Blinding Light of Race,” Current Anthropology 61, S22 (Oct 2020): SS183-SS197, S191.
Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities, 12.
Reeves, “Asking the ‘Right’ Questions.”
Henry Miller, “When the Digging is Over,” in Past Meets Present, ed. J. H. Jameson & S. Baugher (Springer Verlag: 2007), 35–53.
Mark Trickett, “Homes Apart: Excavations of Montpelier’s Southeast and Southwest Duplex Homes for Enslaved Domestic Servants,” manuscript, The Montpelier Foundation (2013); Terry P. Brock, “‘Mrs. M’s Smokehouse’: Archaeological Investigations of the South yard Smokehouses at James Madison’s Montpelier,” manuscript, The Montpelier Foundation (2018); Terry P. Brock, “A Kitchen and Dwelling: Excavations at the North End of the South Yard,” manuscript, The Montpelier Foundation (2021).
Hilarie Hicks, “The Naming Project,” https://digitaldoorway.montpelier.org/project/say-their-names/.
Blakey et al., Engaging Descendant Communities, 10.
Gregory S. Schneider, “James Madison’s Montpelier Strips Power from Enslaved Descendants Group,” Washington Post (March 25, 2022); “Montpelier Foundation Controversy,” Cultural Heritage Partners, http://www.culturalheritagepartners.com/free-montpelier/.
“Embattled Montpelier Votes at Last to Share Governance with Descendants,” Cultural Heritage Partners, (May 16, 2022), http://www.culturalheritagepartners.com/montpelier-votes-to-share-governance-with-descendants/.
James French, “Can Equality Be Realized at the Home of the Father of the Constitution?” The Washington Post, June 14, 2021; “Descendants of Enslaved Persons at James Madison’s Montpelier to Have ‘Structural Parity’ in Unprecedented Board Restructuring,” American Alliance of Museums, June 23, 2021, https://www.aam-us.org/wire/montpelier/descendants-of-enslaved-persons-at-james-madisons-montpelier-to-have-structural-parity-in-unprecedented-board-restructuring/; “James Madison Museum Will Now Have Input From Descendants Of People He Enslaved,” National Public Radio, July 17, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/07/17/1017261672/james-madison-museum-will-now-have-greater-input-from-descendants-of-people-he.
University of California Press