ARCHAEOLOGY AS COMMUNITY SERVICE: THE AFRICAN BURIAL GROUND
PROJECT IN NEW YORK CITY


By Warren R. Perry

     "...it is our past, our culture and heritage, and forms part of our present life. As such it is ours to control and it is ours to share on our own terms." (Rosalind Langford 1983)

     "The past is contested terrain over which archaeologists among others struggle. How the past is conceptualized shapes our perceptions of the present and what is possible in the future.  (Thomas Patterson 1993)

Introduction

     Since its discovery in 1991, the African Burial Ground (ABG) in New York City has been the subject of discussion in a variety of scholarly and popular media (Wilson 1996). Its significance ranges from the fact that its discovery gives voice to a marginalized African historiography in the United States, to the window it provides into
African captivity in the north. The ABG experience has inspired public curiosity about both the African diaspora and the practice of archaeological science. Through its public education programs it continues to teach the descendant community to recognize and combat improper research techniques and to identify cultural resources in
the cities and towns where they live. Finally, the ABG project has provided the descendant community with political awareness through concrete historical experiences that afford opportunities to make alternative history and inclusion in the production of knowledge.
     Recently, there has been some attention paid to the social relations involved in the archaeological production of knowledge and the movement of indigenous communities in demanding control of their own past. These studies suggest that it is within the cultural sphere that most struggles for identity and knowledge production take place (Blakey 1983, 1991, 1996; Gero and Conkey 1993a and b; Gathercole and Lowenthal 1994; LaRoche and Blakey 1996; Schmidt and Patterson 1995; Perry 1996, 1997, in press; Perry and Paynter in press). All scholars produce knowledge in specific sociocultural and historical contexts. In this essay, the ABG will be situated within the continuity of the African struggle that envisions a shared past, empowering African descendants to challenge injustice and to demand justice, dignity and power. The deeply sacred and symbolic role played by the ABG in both past and present has spawned descendant community outrage and unmasked institutionalized racism as excavations commenced with callous indifference to the wishes of the African community, both living and dead (Blakey 1996).
     Here I will describe the racial tensions emanating from the African Burial Ground from its 18th century inception to the present, paying close attention to the conflicting relations among the General Services Administration (GSA), archaeological consultants and the ethical client, the African descendant community. Chronicling these events and documenting these relations is significant for evaluating claims to knowledge in order
to reveal the conditions under which that knowledge is produced (Schmidt and Patterson 1995). The struggle around the ABG requires coequal relationships and symmetrical exchanges of ideas and actions between the scientific community and the African descendant community. Only in this way can authority be established over the
ABG to create knowledge in the service of the community. The goal of this essay is to show how public and scholarly engagement, part of a legacy of African descendant activist scholarship, has become a source of important insights into understanding and representing the past and in contributing to the African descendant community's understanding of itself.

The African Burial Ground: Legacy of Struggle

Early Resistance

     The first African captives arrived in Dutch New Amsterdam in 1626 from West and Central Africa and later from Caribbean plantations. Due to constant conflicts with Native Americans, the Dutch created a buffer zone for themselves by granting Africans "half-freedoms" and small parcels of farmland outside the city walls about
1643. Since the ABG is located in this area, Africans may have begun burying their dead there soon thereafter, although as yet there is no conclusive documentary evidence of this. The marginal spatial location and the respective marginal social positions of Natives and Africans meant that their settlements were likely locales for intercultural social and economic relations (Foote et al. 1993; Taylor 1992).
     When the British colonized New Amsterdam in 1664, the 700-plus Africans constituted 40 percent of the population. This percentage was greater than in any other English settlement except Charleston, South Carolina, and more than was found in any northern settlement. The British revoked African half-freedoms, instituted harsher
laws, confiscated African lands and imported more Africans for sale to the south. There were a number of insurrections by Africans in this area during the 18th century, and the highest proportion of escapees with a greater likelihood of success than elsewhere on the continent (White 1995). Indeed, individuals allegedly involved in these revolts were executed at the ABG (Barto 1991; Will 1991). New York gradually emancipated Africans from 1799 to 1827, but census and court records indicate that slavery continued at least until the 1860s (Jaffe 1995).
     The ABG is the oldest (late 1600s to 1796) and largest (five to six acres) African descendant cemetery excavated in North America to date. Situated near the banks of the Collect Pond, the ABG not only provided privacy but its location near water was in keeping with the common central African practice of associating cemeteries and bodies of water (Foote et al. 1993; Thompson 1984). After 1750, several noxious chemical
industries desecrated the ABG by disposing of their wastes there; medical students at New York Hospital also stole corpses for dissection. During the ABG occupation, Africans seem to have controlled their own funerals, mortuary and burial practices, but not without resistance (Blakey 1997; Foote et al. 1993; Harrington 1993; Jamieson 1995).
Furthermore, only during funerals were Africans permitted outside after sunset and to gather in unsupervised groups larger than three persons. In 1731 the British sought to curb African subversive activity by passing laws requiring daytime burials with limited attendance. Pawls (the cloth used to cover a casket during the funeral and
procession to the grave site) and pall bearers were also banned at African funerals (Epperson 1997). These laws suggest that the British suspected that African funerals were used to mask insurgent activity.

Recent Struggles

     Today the ABG is located under some of the most valuable real estate in the world. It is estimated that from 10,000 to 20,000 first-generation African Americans were buried in the ABG. Since only 14,000 square feet were excavated, most of those interred remain beneath the city.   In 1989 the GSA sought to purchase a block of land from New York City. The plan was to erect a $276-million federal office building in lower Manhattan. Documentary research conducted for the GSA by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) indicated the
presence of a "Negroes Burying Ground" on the proposed building site. In 1991 GSA, as mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, contracted Historic Conservation and Interpretation (HCI), an archaeology consultant firm, to begin fieldwork. The study of the human remains was contracted to the Metropolitan Forensic
Team (MFAT) from Lehman College. As more human remains were uncovered, GSA pressured HCI and MFAT to comply with the original one-year construction schedule (Epperson 1997; Harrington 1993, 1996). Meanwhile, the descendant community held meetings, religious observances, vigils and protests at the ABG (Blakey 1997).
Since the excavations began without any significant community consultation or participation as to the treatment of the cemetery--as required by the mandate of scientific requirements for the preservation of the site's history--there was immediate and often volatile reaction to the excavations by the African descendant community (see the Kutz
video series for an account of these events).
     In 1991 burials were disturbed by construction workers, further alarming the African descendant community. Community persons who were monitoring the excavations and had seen the remains at Lehman College complained about the way the skeletons were being conserved. Problems included remains wrapped in newspaper under improper environmental conditions and inadequately stored on top of each other (La Roche and
Blakey 1996). The descendant community condemned this behavior as disrespectful, arrogant and insensitive. Their encounter with contract archaeology made it clear that the few African American archaeologists who exist were never consulted or involved in the ABG research in any substantive way.  It also became clear that consulting firms reap huge profits from studying African Americans and strongly influence how African Americans are historically defined. These were major issues of concern and contention for the African descendant community (LaRoche and Blakey 1996).
     Since MFAT and HCI failed to produce a timely and comprehensive research design, and had treated the remains unscientifically and disrespectfully, the descendant community demanded that the remains be placed under the care of Michael Blakey, one of the few African-American biological anthropologists in the United States. Blakey, who is a professor of anthropology at Howard University in Washington, DC, was concerned that HCI and MFAT had no experience in African or African American history, cultures or skeletal biology. He was also aware that when archaeologists used construction equipment to remove the earth down to the burial outline, they had already destroyed artifacts that Africans customarily placed atop their graves and coffins (Satchel 1997).
     The descendant community, cognizant of the ignorant portrayals of African diasporic history, recognized that archaeological interpretation is an active and subjective struggle between contending versions of history that demands political engagement (Gathercole and Lowenthal 1994; Schmidt and Patterson 1995). To insure that the spiritual, cultural and inspirational significance of the site and its contents were subject to African-centered
paradigms and scholarship, they demanded incorporation of African descendant voices and histories (La Roche and Blakey 1996). They insisted that those working on the project have a knowledge of and respect for African diasporic studies and a commitment to their struggle to reclaim their past. For the descendant community, the skeletal remains and the ancestral possessions are the only concrete material evidence of the lives of this first
generation of African Americans in New York City. As such, they constitute powerful links to a shared African past.
     In 1992 David Dinkins, New York City's first African American mayor, and U.S. Rep. Gus Savage of Illinois, who chaired the House Committee for Building Funds, were able to establish an advisory committee on the project, halt the excavation and close down the site. At the request of the African descendant community, New York State Senator David Patterson, who is also African American, formed an oversight task force for organizing
various forms of political activity around the ABG (Howson 1992). The descendant community continued to press for the involvement of African American scholars in directing the research, analysis and interpretation.
     In 1993 Howard University gained control over the research project and, along with John Milner Associates (JMA), another contract archaeology firm, submitted a more comprehensive research design to ACHP that incorporated the concerns and desires of the descendant community. The archaeological materials were placed in the Foley Square Lab under JMA, while the 400-plus human remains were transferred to the Cobb Biological
Anthropology Laboratory at Howard University. Pageantry and celebration accompanied the caravan of remains from New York to Washington, DC, with stops at historically significant African- American churches in several cities along the way. The transfer culminated in a ceremony entitled "The Ties that Bind" at Howard University.
The descendant community and its allies were in evidence throughout the transfer celebration. Representatives from the African American community, the U.S. Muslim community, the Native American community, and from the Akan in Ghana  were all in attendance at Howard. In 1994 African chiefs from Ghana returned to Howard on a
tour of fihankra, a movement of unity that involves prayers and rituals for forgiveness to the ancestors to atone for colonial-era involvement in the trade in African captives.
     Although I have spoken of the descendant community throughout, there is, of course, no homogenous African descendant community; this entity is actually multi-dimensional and ideologically heterogenous. Throughout the struggle around the ABG, however, all segments of the African descendant community and their allies were and continue to be involved. There continues to be a consensus that the site, the human remains, the
artifacts and their interpretation must be controlled by the descendant community.

The Current Research Project

     The current scientific project constitutes yet another dimension of the struggle for control of the ABG. We seek to  illuminate the impact of African captivity upon the lives of our ancestors and their living descendants, and to reconstruct knowledge of their origins and identities that were deliberately distorted in the effort to bolster the identity of Euroamericans at the expense of African Americans (Blakey 1997). As Scientific Director of the African Burial Ground Project, Mi

chael Blakey has brought together a national and international research team of scholars from Africa and the US who are concerned with creating alternative histories. The ABG Project has evolved into a multi-disciplinary scientific effort comprised of complementary natural and social science teams with expertise in the African diaspora. These include: molecular genetics, bone chemistry, skeletal biology, history and archaeology (African and African American), ethnology, conservation and African art history. This collaborative effort has global and universal implications, transcending any particular discipline or the interests of any one segment of the descendant community.
     These organizational changes have resulted in the selection of four basic research questions to guide our scientific analyses. They are relevant both for activist scholars and the descendant community:
     1) What are the cultural and geographical roots of the individuals interred in the African Burial Ground?
     2) What was the physical quality of life for Africans enslaved in New York City during the colonial period
and  how was it different from the quality of life in their African homeland?
     3) What biological characteristics and cultural traditions remained unchanged and which were transformed during the creation of African American society and culture?
     4) What were the modes of resistance and how were they creatively reconfigured and used to resist oppression and to forge a new African American culture?
     In addition to the scientific teams, the ABG has an Office of Public Education and Interpretation of the African Burial Ground Project (OPEI), directed by Dr. Sherrill Wilson. OPEI's primary roles are to educate and inform the public of ABG project events, to assure public access to the site, the skeletal and artifactual remains,
and to allow appropriate cultural ceremonies to commemorate  the ancestors. It also provides community involvement/education activities such as educators' symposia, laboratory tours and two newsletters that update the public on the research and introduce archaeology, anthropology and conservation to children and adults.

Conclusion

     New York City's ABG project is a case of archaeology as community service. It emerged from a protracted struggle over control of the ABG and its products between an organized descendant community and its allies, and the GSA and archaeology consultant firms. This struggle has resulted in an increased awareness of the disciplines of anthropology and archaeology within the African descendant community. It has produced a public education program that facilitates a reciprocal dialogue between researchers and the general public, maximizing the interpretive potential of the archaeological record and creating an historical consciousness that challenges the distortions of Eurocentric history (Singleton 1995). Through this struggle the descendant community and its allies
have successfully achieved the incorporation of African American scholars in the creation and maintenance of a research design and agenda that establish a prominent role for historically under-represented African Americans in the analysis and interpretation of an internationally renowned archaeological site (Mathis 1997). By taking moral
responsibility for the spiritual and physical control of the site, the descendant community seized intellectual power--forcing changes in the composition and direction of the professional leadership of the project (La Roche and Blakey 1996). The original, ancestral ABG community and the modern descendant community have used this sacred social space to resist and to honor their African heritage in spite of institutionalized racist disrespect. The struggle for the proper treatment of the ABG reaffirms its significance in the past and gives the site continued significance in the present; it is an important part in the legacy of struggle to control and interpret the African past (Blakey 1996).

References

Barto, S. 1991. Chain of Title Block 154 (Principally) Northern Half. Unpublished Historical Research Reports for the African Burial Ground Project. Historic Conservation and Interpretation (HCI). On file with the African Burial Ground  Project.

Blakey, M.L. 1997. The New York African Burial Ground Project: an examination of enslaved lives, a construction of ancestral ties. Briefing prepared for the Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Commission on Human Rights, United Nations. Delivered at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva Switzerland, 19 August.
     --1996. Howard University research reaches a new plateau. Newsletter of the African Burial Ground and Five Points Archaeological Project. 1 (10):3-7.
     --1991. Man and nature, white and other.  In Harrison, F. ed.  Decolonizing               Anthropology. pp. 15-23. Washington DC: American Anthropological Association.
     --1983. Socio-political bias and ideological production in historical archaeology. In Gero, J.M., D.M. Lacey and M. Blakey, eds. The Socio-Politics of Archaeology. Research Report #23, Department of Anthropology. U Mass. Amherst.

Epperson, T.W. 1997. The politics of "race" and cultural identity at the African Burial Ground excavations, New
York City. World Archaeological Bulletin. 7:108-117.

Foote, T.W., M. Carey, J. Giesenberg-Haag, J. Grey, K. McKoy, and C. Todd. 1993. Report on Site-Specific History of Block 154. Written for the African Burial Ground Research Project. New York.

Gathercole, P. and D. Lowenthal, eds. 1994. The Politics of the Past. New York: Routledge.

Gero, J. and M.W. Conkey. 1993a. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell.
     --1993b. Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology. In Gero, J. and M.W. Coney, ed. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. pp. 3-31. Basil Blackwell.
Harrington, Spencer. 1993. New York's great cemetery imbroglio. Archaeology. March/April. pp.30-38.
     --1996. An African cemetery in Manhattan. In Fagan, B. ed. Eyewitness to Discovery. pp. 324-333. London: Oxford U Press.

Howson, J.E. 1992. The Foley Square Project: An 18th century cemetery in New York City. African American
Archaeology. Newsletter No. 6, Spring. pp.3-4.

Jaffe, S.H. 1995. "This Infernal Traffic":   New York Port and the illegal slave trade. Seaport: New York's History Magazine. 29 (3):36-37.

Jamieson, R.W. 1995. Material culture   and social death: African-American burial practices. Historical Archaeology. 29 (4):39-58.

Kutz Television, Inc. 1994. The African Burial Ground: An American Discovery. Parts I-IV. The National Technical Information Services, National Audio Visual Center, VA.

Langford, R. 1983. Our heritage--your   playground. Australian Archaeology, 16, 1-6.
La Roche, C.J. and M.L. Blakey. 1996.   Seizing Intellectual Power: the Dialogue at the New York African Burial Ground. Paper, pp. 1-48.

Mathis, R. 1997. The Harris Matrix as a      useful method in the stratigraphic analysis of the African Burial  Ground. Unpublished Draft-Statement of Field, for the Department of
 Anthropology,  U Mass, Amherst.

Patterson, T.C. 1993. Archaeology: The  Historical Development of Civilizations. Prentice Hall.

Perry, W. In Press. Dimensions of power  in Swaziland research: coercion, reflexivity and resistance. In  Transforming Anthropology. A Publication of the Association of Black
Anthropologists, Virginia, Arlington.
     --1997. Analysis of the African    Burial Ground Archaeological Materials. Update: Newsletter of the African Burial Ground and Five Points Archaeological Projects, Vol.
2 #2:1-5 & 14.
     --1996. The African Burial Ground  Project. African Update: African Studies Newsletter Vol. IV,  # 4:1-5. CCSU, New Britain, CT.

Perry, W. and R. Paynter. In press.  Epilogue: Artifacts, Ethnicity and the Archaeology of African   Americans. In Singleton, T., ed. We Too Are America: Essays in  African American Archaeology. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Satchel, M. 1997. Only remember us:   skeletons of slaves from a New York grave bear witness. U.S.News  and World Report. July 28:51 and 54.

Schmidt, P.R. and T.C. Patterson. 1995.      Making Alternative Histories. The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research  Press.

Singleton, T.A. 1995. The Archaeology   of Slavery in North America. In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 24, pp. 119-140.

Taylor, R. 1992. Land of the blacks.   New York Newsday. Thursday, February 6. p.60.
Thompson, R.F. 1983. Flash of the  Spirit: African and Afro-American Art and Philosophy. New York,  Vintage.

White, S. 1988. We dwell in safety and  pursue our honest callings: free blacks in New York City, 1783-1810. The  Journal of American History. 75 (2):445-470.

Will, G. 1991. Salvage archaeology in   Manhattan offers a perspective about America. Hartford Courant.

Wilson, S. 1996. Citations on the New   York African Burial Ground 1991-1996. (3rd Ed.) Compiled by the Office of Public Education and Interpretation of the African Burial  Ground. New York City.