Controversy


(Remains in coffin carved in West Africa being brought back to the site for reburial. Photo by Mark Rose. Archaeological Institute of America http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/blakey/captions/2.html)


(A woman holds a candle during a procession for the dedication of the African Burial Ground Monument in New York. Associated Press. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299821,00.html )

(A map of the Burial Ground and surrounding buildings.)

The manner in which GSA handled the discovery of the African Burial Ground demonstrates the way in which African Americans continue to fight to have a voice and proper representation. The continued stonewalling of the descendant community's desires and concerns over the handling of the case until the intervention of Congress shows us how much still needs to be done to combat the problem of equality between ethnicities.

In December, 1990, the General Services Administration (GSA) purchased a plot of land with the intention of developing it into an office building, pavilion, and adjacent parking lot. Before purchasing, however, GSA was required to have the land archaeologically surveyed to ensure that no damage be done to a site. Historic Conservation and Interpretation (HCI) was called in to do some excavation of the land under the supervision of archaeologist Edward Rustch. They discovered that it used to be a burial ground for African slaves. In May they had begun the search for any remains, and by September they had begun to excavate skeletons. The discovery was announced in press conference in October.

The African American community was outraged by the way the discovery was being handled. In their opinions, the site was being excavated and the remains dealt with without any regard for the descendant community's wishes and desires. Decisions were being made “by white bureaucrats with little insight into African-American history and spiritual sensitivities" (Harrington, 1993). Furthermore, the African American community was never told that the Burial Ground may lie underneath the land purchased. Despite the fact that the GSA did inform “more than 200 federal, slate, and city agencies and local community groups, the agency did not alert civic groups in predominantly black neighborhoods that the buildings would be constructed on top of the old burial ground," (Harrignton, 1993).

African American disapproval increased when an accident occurred at the site which destroyed several burials. A backhoe dug into part of the site in order to pour a concrete footpath for the office building. The accident was reportedly due to the reliance on out of date maps which reported the area to be outside the area of the site.

Yet another concern of the African American community was that the find be interpreted from an African American point of view. However, the GSA enlisted a group called the Metropolitan Forensic Anthropology Team (MFAT), of which the community knew nothing. Any suggestions to GSA that they work with African American specialists such as Michael Blakey at Howard University were ignored outright.

To make matters worse, HCI seemed unable to produce a research plan to outline conservation methods or research goals. This suggested to the African American community that there was a problem with the team and the excavation. Edward Rustch's response to this was that GSA was overworking the team while simultaneously stressing to them the millions of public money being lost to the project, thus pressuring them to finish the excavation as soon as possible.

In April 1992, black activists staged a protest by forming a blockade around the site which prevented GSA from pouring concrete for the foundation of the building: clearly it was the GSA's intention that the development go on as planned, despite the importance of the find, both historically for the nation, and culturally for the African American community. The community was unhappy with the storage of the remains, which were being held in Lehman College. The bones had been wrapped in newspaper and placed in cardboard boxes for shipping to the college. Newspaper has a slight acidity which could have potentially damaged the bones, not to mention the disrespect the African American community felt this showed towards the remains. Fortunately no damage was actually done, but according to Blakey, who visited the storage facility, if the remains had spent more time is those conditions it was possible that mold growth or other damages may have occurred.

Eventually a hearing former House Representative Gus Savage gave a hearing to all interested parties, in which it came out that GSA had known about the existence of the Burial Ground before purchasing the land and had not designed a backup plan in the event that human remains be discovered. Savage strongly disapproved of GSA's handling the situation and called a halt to the excavation, insisting that the organization was being highly disrespectful and that it would not be permitted to continue as long as Savage had any say in the matter.

 

 

(Left: Michael Blakey, Photo by Celia Moore. Archaeological Institute of America http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/blakey/)
"There is a big battle as to who has authority over these remains. According to the law, the GSA illegally removed the bones in the first place. Just because they own the land, it doesn't give them authority to remove the bones. That doesn't give them ownership and authority over the bones. That's like, God forbid one of your parent's dies and you bury them. Someone else then comes along and says they have eminent domain over the land. Do they then own the remains of your parents because they own the land?" Charles Barron, member of the Committee of Descendants of the Afrikan Ancestral Burial Ground. 2001.

In October 1992 former President Bush signed Public Law 102-393 which ordered GSA to cease construction of the planned pavilion and instead that a memorial museum be built instead. Blakey was hired to develop a new research design alongside the black community and the organization John Milner Associates (JMA) and the remains were transferred to Howard University for a five year study period. The remains were set to be reinterred by 1999.

However, by 2001 studies were still under way, and the African American community once more began to grow anxious, specifically members of the Committee of Descendants of the Afrikan Ancestral Burial Ground. One member, Charles Barron, is quoted as saying, “It's been ten years. We're saying, ‘Come on: ten years?' We think that as long as these bones remain outside of the burial ground, this is like a second killing of our ancestors. It's been over a decade and they still haven't buried our ancestors. Well the research is finished. It should be finished! It should stop! We are demanding that it stop," (2001). The remains were not finally reburied until October 4, 2003.

Controversy did not end there. When the design for the memorial to be built on the site was released in 2005, protest broke out almost immediately. The Committee of Descendants of the Afrikan Ancestral Burial Ground said the design was too large and too permanent on a site where nothing was ever mean to be permanent. Another design was preferred because it would disturb less of the Burial Ground.

"There is a big battle as to who has authority over these remains. According to the law, the GSA illegally removed the bones in the first place. Just because they own the land, it doesn't give them authority to remove the bones. That doesn't give them ownership and authority over the bones. That's like, God forbid one of your parent's dies and you bury them. Someone else then comes along and says they have eminent domain over the land. Do they then own the remains of your parents because they own the land?"

- Charles Barron, member of the Committee of Descendants of the Afrikan Ancestral Burial Ground. 2001.