|
Activity
Report
African Burial Ground Project
Pursuant to the Amended MOA
July
31, 2002
This report will cover
events surrounding the African Burial Ground project for the period of
March through July, 2002. Subsequent
reports will cover 3 month periods.
Introduction
During this period, Mr.
Karl Reichelt was appointed Regional Administrator for the Northeast and
Caribbean Region. With Mr. Stephen Perry, GSA Administrator, they have
established the following goals for the African Burial Ground project:
- To
re-open a positive and productive dialogue with all African burial
Ground stakeholders;
- To
move forward respectfully, prudently and expeditiously to complete
this important project;
- To
do the extraordinary by marshaling resources, our best thinking and
strong leadership to deliver the results outlined above;
- To
make the best possible decisions and assure our colleagues of the
results.
Plans are also underway
to brief the New York Congressional delegation.
Highlights of the items to be presented are shown in Appendix A.
On March 12, 2002,
Howard University hosted a meeting that included GSA, ACHP, NYC-LPC, NPS
and Howard’s research team. This
lengthy meeting was productive in that it gave all parties an
opportunity to voice concerns regarding the successful completion of the
tasks outlined in the amended MOA signed by GSA, ACHP and NYC-LPC in
December of 1991.
GSA’s technical
advisor, Dr. Jerome Rose, was unavailable due to commitments abroad, so
Dr. Michael Trimble of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), St.
Louis District, was asked by the General Services Administration (GSA)
to assist GSA in resolving the uncompleted tasks of the African Burial
Ground (ABG) project. A
series of meetings and conference calls with senior leaders in New York
and the Administrator in Washington, D.C., was held between March and
April. The Corps was asked
to concentrate on resolving the three report deliverables from Howard
University (HU): (1)
archaeology, (2) bioanthropology, and (3) history.
The Corps team prepared a strategy to conduct an overview of the
work accomplished to date, the work remaining, the status of the data,
and the resources required to complete the work.
Beginning in early April through the end of July the Corps team
met with a range of individuals to evaluate the work to date and to
determine a course of action to be followed.
A timeline documenting relevant meetings and teleconferences is
provided in Appendix B.
Results of Meetings
Dr. Jerry Rose
The Corps team met with
Dr. Jerry Rose at his house to discuss the project.
Dr. Rose provided
excellent background information regarding his role throughout the
project. He also supplied
extensive documentary information and copies of the reports he prepared
when he served as GSA’s consulting anthropologist.
Finally, Dr. Rose allowed the Corps full access to all of his
records and provided us with a wealth of background information
supplemental to his written reports.
Howard University,
Bioanthropologists
The Corps team met with
Mr. Mark Mack and Dr. Michael Blakey to discuss the scientific research
associated with the bioanthropology aspect of the project.
They reviewed appropriate data at the Cobb Laboratory associated
with the bioanthropology. In
response to Corps team questions raised during interviews with both Mr.
Mack and Dr. Blakey, it was revealed that they feel their data are good
and that they have taken all the samples required.
Mr. Mack has been responsible for the Cobb Lab for the duration
of the project and is one of the most knowledgeable individuals
associated with the project. He
has been very forthcoming to the team with all his answers to questions.
Mr. Mack is responsible for the dental analysis and Dr. Blakey is
managing the remaining pathological analyses.
The meetings with Mr. Mack and Dr. Blakey were successful and the
Corps team believes that positive relationships are being renewed.
It is the opinion of the Corps team that they have gathered
sufficient baseline data for the bioanthropology report.
Dr. Blakey had a number of concerns about the peer review of the
draft final report. As with
the history report (see below), Dr. Blakey would like to suggest people
to be part of the peer review of the draft final report.
In sum, it is the
Corps’ sense that the bioanthropological team has collected sufficient
baseline data and is capable of writing a professional
bioanthropological report. They
also strongly believe that the bioanthropological team is dedicated to
completing the report in a professional manner.
Howard University,
Historians
The meetings with Dr.
Edna Greene Medford were very successful.
Dr. Medford and her team have been working on the history report
since it was turned in for review several years ago, so a number of the
comments that were made in the peer review have already been addressed.
After consultation with GSA it was agreed that Dr. Medford and
her team could suggest professionals to serve on the peer review of the
draft final report. Dr.
Trimble had extensive conversations with Dr. Medford over a five- to
seven-hour period. During
that time she outlined in sufficient detail how the history report would
be completed and the component parts that are remaining.
The Corps team believes that the historians should be required to
produce a detailed outline and schedule of how they will complete the
report. Dr. Medford is
dedicated to completing the report, and the Corps team believes that
positive relationships have been reestablished.
In addition,
Dr. Medford will
coordinate the completion of the 3 major research tasks.
Howard
University, Archaeologists
Based upon an
examination of the collection, the archaeologists feel that most of the
collection survived the collapse of the World Trade Center, although a
complete review of the material and assessment of its condition needs to
be conducted. A portion of
the collection, primarily grave goods, is stored at Artex in Washington,
D.C. All of the artifacts
(associated burial items and grave shaft materials) have been catalogued
but not analyzed. The Corps
team met with the archaeological team in June and had a long and
thorough conversation with them, particularly about what remained to be
completed in terms of archaeological analysis.
The Corps team was extremely impressed with the professionalism
of the archaeological team. Dean
Donaldson, representing HU, prepared and presented a cost estimate for
the completion of the work. In
sum, the archaeological team wants to and will complete the report and
appears to be dedicated to its successful completion.
GSA is reviewing the HU proposal.
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) was contacted via telephone and in person
to explain the Corps’ involvement in the completion of the ABG
project. The Corps team
believes that positive relationships with ACHP have been reestablished.
Dr. Trimble outlined the Corps team’s plan for completion of
the project with GSA backing. ACHP
staff wants GSA to ensure that all members of the community (scientific,
descendant, etc.) are notified of updates and changes in the project.
To that end, ACHP has requested notification in writing from GSA
that GSA will regularly update the public, scientific community, LPC,
and ACHP. The ACHP is
supportive of the current plan to rebury in April 2003, provided the
Corps team is responsible for the project management of the preparation
of the three reports in order to ensure that the reports are finally
completed. They are also
only willing to support the plan if GSA follows it explicitly.
ACHP staff would like to review the draft archaeology report
after it is completed. Finally,
the ACHP is concerned about the completion of an integrated report that
unites all three separate reports.
They believe it is a vital part of the project, but feel that
perhaps it would be best to assign that task to a professional
contracting group to ensure it is completed quickly.
The Corps will update ACHP every two weeks on its aspects of the
project, in addition to GSA’s quarterly reports.
New
York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
The
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) was contacted via
telephone to explain the Corps’ involvement in the project, to update
the LPC on current activities, and to solicit the LPC’s concerns.
LPC raised two issues with the project:
(1) data collection and report writing, and (2) on-going
coordination with the community. LPC
would like to be assured that the data derived from the analysis of the
human remains and the associated artifacts is extensive enough to
prepare a quality report. In
addition, LPC is concerned that the data be maintained in a format that
will permit researchers to use the data in the future, since additional
hands-on study of the artifacts and all of the human remains, which will
be reinterred, will not be possible. LPC views the preparation of the reports and the subsequent
curation of the artifacts and records as important as the excavation,
analysis, and reinterment. LPC
has reviewed the history and bioanthropology reports.
LPC
would like regular project updates including a meeting to review the
activities of the archaeologists, the project schedules for completing
all of the reports, the process for continuing community involvement,
and the plan to accomplish reinterment.
The Corps team will update LPC every two weeks, in addition to
GSA’s quarterly reports.
National
Park Service
As with the ACHP
and LPC, the National Park Service (NPS) was contacted to inform them of
the Corps’ involvement in the completion of the project.
NPS is eager for the project to end and looks forward to
receiving updates about the conclusion of the project.
Dr. Trimble met with Dr. Frank McManamon, who is willing to
review the draft final reports. Dr.
McManamon is also willing to assist GSA, if requested, in starting a
dialogue to discuss the NPS’s potential involvement in taking over
administrative control of the 290 Broadway visitor’s center.
Dr. McManamon stressed that at present NPS has no plan to take
over the visitor’s center, but, if it does happen, it will require
long and extensive consultation between GSA and NPS senior leadership.
Overview of Data
Howard University,
Bioanthropologists
The Corps team began
the project with an understanding that GSA felt the measurements of the
skeletal remains were not sound, based on Dr. Blakey’s statements
during the March 12, 2002, meeting at HU.
However, after reading the peer review comments of the draft
bioanthropology report, reviewing selected sections of the data, and
discussing the project with Dr. Rose, Mr. Mack, and Dr. Blakey, the
Corps team came to the conclusion that the measurements are acceptable
and do not require a complete set of additional measurements.
It is the belief of the Corps team that the peer reviewers of the
draft report feel the measurements are sound, but think that some of the
conclusions drawn from those measurements need to be reevaluated and
amplified upon. Additionally,
it is the opinion of the Corps team that the report would benefit from
having a professional editorial team prepare it for production.
While at the Cobb Lab,
the Corps team reviewed the skeletal remains to determine their current
condition, but did not measure any of the remains.
During a subsequent visit, members of the Corps team reviewed
five binders of color slides (13% sample) and 36 burial folders (9%
sample) that contain extensive information about each burial.
The team also reviewed the photograph logs that accompany each
slide binder and the team interviewed Mr. Mack on laboratory protocols.
The forms in each
burial folder appear to be extremely thorough.
Slides are, for the most part, clear and focused with good
contrast and color. The only real concern with the slides is that very few of
them contained a scale marker; however, since the skeletal elements have
been measured, this probably is not too much of a concern.
During the course of
the meetings with Mr. Mack, he explained that all of the skeletal
elements have been identified and all samples had been taken from the
remains by the end of 1999. Mr.
Mack’s dental analysis was to have been completed in May 2002.
In sum, Mr. Mack feels the gathering of data during the
scientific phase of the project is thorough and at this point the Corps
team concurs; however, the Corps team also believes a thorough report is
absolutely essential.
The draft final report
for bioanthropology is scheduled to be completed in December 2002, but
realistically it probably will not be completed until February 2003.
Inventory
of Skeletal Remains and Burial Artifacts
In order to complete
the exit inventory of the human skeletal remains and associated burial
artifacts, the Corps team will coordinate the transfer of the burial
artifacts at the Artex facility and the coffin fragments and hardware
from the Customs House in New York to HU, or another facility if needed.
The burial artifacts at Artex and the Customs House will be moved
following the final review by the archaeological team.
The Corps team will coordinate with Bronx Council on the Arts and
Artex to arrange the wrapping and transfer of the remains back to New
York.
Once all the artifacts
and human skeletal remains are in the same location for inventory,
specific activity stages will be developed by the Corps team to decrease
potential confusion, interruption, and allow each group adequate time to
perform their work. A
number of activities will occur simultaneously, so it is vital that the
exit inventory procedure be followed.
The exit inventory procedures for the ABG project will be
completed in mid-November, 2002.
African
Burial Ground Interpretive Center
A contract was awarded
to IDI Construction Company, Inc., NY, NY, in February 2000 to design
and build the Interpretive Center.
The Interpretive Center is to be located off the ground floor
lobby of the 290 Broadway Federal Building overlooking the Memorial
Site. The Center is to
be an interpretive environment that informs, engages and enlightens
visitors about the historical, archaeological and cultural findings
surrounding the burial ground and New York's African ancestry.
The contractor is
required to utilize the research findings of Howard University in the
development of the center. Since
we have not received acceptable deliverables from Howard University, the
Interpretive Center contract has been under a suspension of work.
Once GSA is in possession of acceptable scientific reports, work
will resume on completing the Interpretive Center project.
GSA is planning on utilizing the expertise of the Army Corps of
Engineers to assist with Interpretive Center project management.
Exterior Memorial –
Reinterment
Approximately
458 coffins, and 21 plaques, hand-carved in Accra, Ghana have been
delivered to GSA and are presently being stored at 290 Broadway, NY, NY.
Seven
(7) crypts with lids for each have been fabricated and delivered to GSA.
One crypt and lid is presently stored at 290 Broadway, NY, NY.
The other six (6) crypts and lids are being stored in a warehouse
in Brooklyn, NY.
6
World Trade Center Issues
The
artifacts retrieved from the World Trade Center have been cleaned and
are presently being stored at the Alexander Hamilton Custom House at 1
Bowling Green, NY, NY. In
addition, GSA is aware that the New York City Police Department
recovered a small number of artifacts from the World Trade Center site.
Arrangements are being made for their return to GSA.
Howard University has visited 1 Bowling Green and report that
most of the artifacts have been retrieved.
They will soon conduct a comprehensive survey of the retrieved
items to determine the exact extent of loss.
Appendix A
Dr. Trimble has met
with representatives of Howard University, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission and the National Parks Service to bring the project back on
track, to determine a project timeline, to hold stakeholders
accountable, to gather information on where each party stands with
relation to the African Burial Ground project and to determine and solve
budgetary, procedural and public interest issues for GSA.
GSA has selected five
finalists to compete for the design of the ABG Memorial.
This will be announced when GSA determines a final reinterrment
date.
GSA will receive the
final anthropological report from HU by December 30, 2002.
GSA will receive the
final historical report from HU by December 30, 2002.
GSA will receive a
draft archeological report from HU by March, 2003.
GSA will reinter the
remains and burial artifacts no later than April 30, 2003.
GSA will receive the
final archeological report
from HU by July 31, 2003.
In order to achieve the
highest quality study, GSA is currently negotiating the production of an
Integrated Report (all the above documents combined into a universal
document) from Howard University that will be submitted no later than
July 31, 2003.
The entire project will
be completed by no later than July 31, 2003.
From1989 to 2000, GSA
obligated $19.6 million on the ABG project.
From 2000 to present,
GSA has obligated $2.7 million on the ABG project.
The bulk of this money
was to fund the Office of Public Education and Interpretation (OPEI)
(about $800,000 per year). Other
funds were spent on construction and transportation for coffins;
construction, transportation and storage of the crypts; the excavation
contract; the asbestos abatement for the 6WTC artifacts; the Bronx
Council on the Arts contract relating to preparation of the remains for
reinterment and several consultant contracts.
GSA expects that an
additional amount not to exceed $2 million will be required to complete
the project. This includes possible contract modifications to the site
preparation, Howard University and payments to Corps of Engineers.
Appendix B
Timeline of Meetings
and Relevant Telephone Calls
Conducted/Attended by Corps Team
March, 2002
Corps contacted to assist in project.
April 25
Meeting with Mr. Stephen Perry in Washington, D.C.
April 26
Meeting with Mr. Mark Mack at HU.
April 30
Meeting with Dr. Jerry Rose in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
May
7-8
Review of photographs and documentation of skeletal remains at HU.
June
17
Meeting with Mr. Karl Reichelt in New York.
June
18
ABG progress meeting in New York.
Meeting
with HU contracted archaeologists, Dr. Warren Perry, Dr. Jean Howson,
and Mr. Len Bianchi, and Dean James Donaldson in New York.
June
19
Meeting with Ms. Kim Hamilton-Shakir, Bronx Council on the Arts
in New York.
June
21
Meeting with Dean Donaldson, Dr. Edna Greene Medford, and Mr.
Mack at HU.
June
24
Teleconference with Ms. Charlene Vaughn and Ms. Laura Dean at the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
July
2
Teleconference with Ms. Amanda Sutphin at the New York City
Landmarks Preservation Commission.
July
8
Meeting with Dr. Medford at HU.
Meeting
with Dr. Frank McManamon at the National Park Service (NPS).
July
9
Meeting with Ms. Vaughn and Ms. Dean at the ACHP.
Teleconference with Mr.
Reichelt.
July
10
Teleconference with Mr. Bianchi to discuss archaeological
databases.
July
11
Meeting with Mr. Perry in Washington, D.C.
July
12
Meeting with Dr. Michael Blakey at the College of William and
Mary.
July
17
Teleconference with Dr. Howard Dodson at the Schomburg Center.
July
24, 2002
ABG progress meeting in New York. |
