Ethics Statement

Through the ASABG Project, we sought to provide space to contest and subvert dominant narratives about the role that African Americans played in the building of Charleston and its culture in order to honor, understand, and recognize African-descendant lives yesterday and today. We carefully considered the character of our interaction with the broader community, given the socially divided context in which we presently live and the highly politicized nature of any discussion of institutional racism, particularly within the education system. We applied relational ethics in the treatment of the Ancestors and interactions with their collective descendants by sharing stories embodied in their remains and recovering meaning with dignity and respect, as described by Zuckerman and colleagues (Reference Zuckerman, Kamnikar and Mathena2014).

Through our activist approach, we sought to ensure that the research was embedded in the community and integrated into a larger memorialization process and social justice effort, with equitable benefits for the community (LaRoche and Blakey Reference LaRoche and Blakey1997; Shackel Reference Shackel2011; Smith and Waterton Reference Smith and Waterton2009). It was essential that the reinterment become part of a broader recognition of both the relative absence of African-descendant lives in Charleston's historical narratives and the racial disparities that exist in the city and nation today (as advocated in Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021). Furthermore, it was critical that the project be endorsed by the City of Charleston as a statement of its commitment to healing and the protection of African-descendant burial grounds.

In this context, we carefully considered the ways that our work could build capacity and foster a greater diversity of BIPOC scholars in the field of anthropology and the sciences (Lans Reference Lans2021; Mays et al. Reference Mays, Byars-Winston, Hinton, Marshall, Kirabo, August and Marlin2023). Recognizing that two White researchers were to be responsible for carrying out the genetic analyses in this project, we felt it was very important to create opportunities for the scientific training of Black students. As a result, we obtained funding that would allow Fleskes and Schurr to train undergraduate BIPOC students in laboratory and bioinformatics methods (detailed in Supplemental Text 1).

Communities

It is first necessary to explain how community is defined by the ASABG team and what we mean by descendant community. Community is a vague concept, although its inherent interdisciplinarity offers additional insight by including multiple perspectives on its meaning. Within the fields of literature and communication, we can interpret a community as being a group of individuals defined by a shared identity-forming narrative or narratives (Johnstone Reference Johnstone1990). This concept of community is particularly appropriate for the African-descendant community in the Americas, who share a narrative of African inheritance, endurance, survival, and resistance through the Middle Passage, enslavement, and ongoing racial oppression (e.g., Gyasi Reference Gyasi2017; Morrison Reference Morrison and Knopf1987). Rather than imagining that there is a homogeneous African American, Gullah Geechee, or Charleston community, we understand that such communities are diverse and fluid (Hall Reference Hall and McDowell1997; McDavid Reference McDavid and Smith2020).

Individually or as a group, we identify with or can be assigned to various interpretive communities or communities of practice (Fish Reference Fish1980; Wenger Reference Wenger1998), with each person constructing meaning based on their own past experiences, prior knowledge, values, traditions, and perspectives. In terms of learning in community, Wenger (Reference Wenger1998) elaborates on the idea of a defining narrative by describing the connection between identity and learning, or meaning-making, and the importance of a sense of belonging when defining community. These concepts are especially relevant to our community programs, given our focus on understanding ancestry and identity through the project's research.

In this project, we aimed to push the boundaries of community archaeology, a field of practice within public archaeology that is situated within a particular community. Typically, practitioners seek to understand community members’ various interests and to reconcile these interests with archaeological research agendas, if not putting community interests before those of the researchers (Marshall Reference Marshall2002; McDavid Reference McDavid and Smith2020). In this case, the research and community engagement were led by a grassroots organization situated within the Charleston community and intent on effecting broader social change.

Finally, we found it helpful to reference relational ethics, as applied in bioarchaeology, and to borrow from the field of public health. These approaches focus on ethical practices and building trust, acknowledging power relations, recognizing an individual's value and experiences, and recovering agency and singularity, especially in cultural communities that have been marginalized or oppressed (Zuckerman et al. Reference Zuckerman, Kamnikar and Mathena2014). Such values are especially significant and were carefully considered because of the genetic component of our community participation activities (Nelson Reference Nelson2016).

Archaeology and Descendant Communities

Studies in African American archaeology and the archaeology of the African diaspora gained momentum during the Civil Rights Era in the 1960s and 1970s (Fairbanks Reference Fairbanks1984; Singleton Reference Singleton1999). Since then, archaeologists and anthropologists have continued to expand the examination of African American lives by exploring the complexity of social relations, cultural transformation, and creolization (Ferguson Reference Ferguson and Singleton1999). The discovery of the New York African Burial Ground (NYABG) in 1991 provided an opportunity for researchers to collaborate with communities. During the NYABG project, Howard University archaeologists conducted archaeological and bioarchaeological research. They developed a clientage model that enabled them to explore the ways that their ancestors formed and transformed this nation and gave voice to those whose voices had been ignored (LaRoche and Blakey Reference LaRoche and Blakey1997). The project's community involvement also established the rights of the descendant community as a collective, rather than direct descendants, to be involved in the recovery and preservation of their past; these rights were a source of pride and empowerment (LaRoche and Blakey Reference LaRoche and Blakey1997).

The socially and politically engaged bioarchaeological research associated with the NYABG was defined by a vindicationist revision of Eurocentric exclusion (Barrett and Blakey Reference Barrett, Blakey, Agarwal and Glencross2011; Mullins Reference Mullins2008). Just one year earlier, the World Archaeological Congress Code of Ethics had reiterated the right of the descendant community to accept, modify, or reject the research design of archaeological research (WAC 1990). Following the NYABG project, other cultural communities began to claim a stake in the study and protection of their past, recognizing the value of their cultural assets: socially, economically, and for individual and collective well-being (Chirikure and Pwiti Reference Chirikure and Pwiti2008).

Over the last 20 years, African diaspora scholars have focused on power dynamics, covert and overt resistance, and feminist interpretations that explore the intersections of race, gender, and socioeconomic status through the lens of the enslaved and their descendants (Battle-Baptiste Reference Battle-Baptiste2011; Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021; Lee and Scott Reference Lee and Scott2019). In museums, there has been an increased focus on building public trust through transparency and power sharing (Marstine Reference Marstine, Marstine, Bauer and Haines2013). Collaborative projects have encouraged communities to be actors, not just beneficiaries, and to engage in a dialogue on an equal footing. As Battle-Baptiste (Reference Battle-Baptiste2011:71) argues, “Public archaeology becomes an engaged and activist archaeology when there is a connection between archaeological methods and issues important to contemporary communities.” The amplified awareness of systemic racism in the national conscience has further encouraged scholars in all fields to grapple with the histories of their disciplines and their complicity in maintaining systems of oppression and violence against Black bodies (Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021; Justinvil and Colwell Reference Justinvil and Colwell2021).

Historical and Social Context

Narratives that treated slavery as a benevolent and civilizing institution passed through generations of families living in Charleston, to such an extent that individual memory became public (or collective) memory (Kytle and Roberts Reference Kytle and Roberts2018; Yuhl Reference Yuhl2005). The significant contributions made by African-descendant individuals in shaping the Lowcountry landscapes, economies, foodways, architecture, language, material culture, music, and dance were not discussed in the museums, historic houses, and plantations in and around Charleston. This situation has improved over the last 10 to 15 years, with interpretations that now include slave dwellings and specialist (often separate) African American Experience tours (Coats Reference Coats2021; Felton Reference Felton2021; Hull Reference Hull2020; McGill and Frazier Reference McGill and Frazier2023).

Although these changes are important, interpretations at the plantation alone do not acknowledge the presence of enslaved and free African people in the urban context and elsewhere. Charleston presently has a population of nearly 160,000 people and has been described as the fastest gentrifying city in the United States (City of Charleston 2023; Patton Reference Patton2017). In 2022, more than 7,700,000 people visited the Charleston area (Guttentag and Patience Reference Guttentag and Patience2023). These visitors are mainly White and college educated with an upper-middle income, fall into the 50+ age group, and are residents of neighboring states (Guttentag and Patience Reference Guttentag and Patience2020). Despite this traditional cultural-heritage–oriented demographic, there is a growing demand in Charleston, from both community activists and visitors, for access to an honest history of the city and its place in the establishment of this nation (Hull Reference Hull2020).

Numerous individuals have recognized that healing is only possible through truth-telling, shifting narratives, and bearing witness (see details in Supplemental Text 1). For instance, in contrast to many neighboring plantation-based historic sites, interpretation at the McLeod Plantation Historic Site focuses solely on the transition from enslavement to freedom and the perspectives of the enslaved laborers and free African descendants who continued to live on the plantation until 1990 (Halifax Reference Halifax2018). Black visitorship to McLeod, which was opened by the Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission, has grown exponentially from less than 5% in 2015 to about 25% in 2021 (which is almost equal to Black residency in Charleston County; Shawn Halifax, personal communication 2021). Similarly, preservation activist Joe McGill founded the Slave Dwelling Project at the Magnolia Plantation in 2010 with the mission of changing the narratives about slavery through the preservation of landscapes associated with the enslaved (Horwitz Reference Horwitz2013; McGill and Frazier Reference McGill and Frazier2023).

Charleston has often been at the epicenter of national conversations about slavery and racism (Kytle and Roberts Reference Kytle and Roberts2018). The massacre of nine parishioners at Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in June 2015 had a significant impact on the city and nation. In the months that followed, John J. Tecklenburg was elected as the new mayor of Charleston, the College of Charleston created the Race & Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), and discussions about the construction of a memorial for the victims and survivors at Mother Emanuel began.

The Mother Emanuel massacre and pressure from activists and the academic community, combined with evidence of countywide racial disparities, motivated Mayor Tecklenburg to focus on racial conciliation (Balsamo Reference Balsamo2021; Borden Reference Borden2015; Patton Reference Patton2017). In the summer of 2018, the Mayor presented a resolution “recognizing, denouncing and apologizing on behalf of the city of Charleston for the city's role in regulating, supporting and fostering slavery” and described the city's complicity with the institution in detail (City of Charleston 2018). City support of the community-led memorialization of the ASABG Ancestors was viewed as a reparative act by Mayor Tecklenburg.

Inception of the ASABG Project

The Ancestors were excavated by Eric Poplin and other archaeologists working with Brockington and Associates Inc., a cultural resource management company hired to document the burials after their accidental discovery in February 2013. According to Ofunniyin, “We want to say that construction made that happen, but spiritually I can't believe that. I have to believe that my Ancestors made that happen” (Ajani Ade Ofunniyin, personal communication 2018). Osteological, dental, and isotopic analyses were conducted by Drs. Suzanne Abel, Wolf Bueschgen, and Chelsey Juarez, respectively. The initial analyses demonstrated that these 36 Ancestors were buried with care over time in four equally spaced rows (Fleskes et al. Reference Fleskes, Ofunniyin, Gilmore, Poplin, Abel, Bueschgen and Juarez2021). After completion of the osteological analyses, the Ancestors’ remains were moved to a government storage facility.

From May 2017 through April 2018, Ofunniyin and Gilmore engaged in activities that laid the foundation for the Ancestors’ repatriation. We met with City of Charleston representatives, hosted screenings of the NYABG documentary at public libraries, and described the archaeological research related to the 36 Ancestors during what we termed “Community Conversations” at various locations. These were not passive events but instead were occasions where we endeavored to “change our understanding not only of the past but of ourselves and of the times we live in” (Melish Reference Melish, Horton and Horton2006:101).

We were encouraged by the community to view the 36 as our collective Ancestors, to use this point in time and place for healing, and to recognize the many people of African descent in Charleston whose burials have been lost or destroyed. During our initial conversations, community members expressed an interest in learning about the origins of these 36 people, asking questions about who they were and where they came from. These questions, which focused on identity and ancestry, informed the research and program of events throughout the memorialization process.

In October 2017, Ofunniyin and Gilmore used community feedback to develop an action plan for the memorialization process and DNA analysis, which they presented to National Geographic Society staff. The staff encouraged them to apply for a grant with anthropological geneticists, Dr. Theodore Schurr and then-PhD candidate Raquel Fleskes, at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2018, we were awarded funding from the National Geographic Society for community engagement and education programs, as well as for scientific research. We received additional financial support from the City of Charleston for community engagement activities.

Understanding Our Communities

As discussed earlier, communities are not homogeneous and static. When initially meeting with community members, we recognized that we had no authority to define who belongs in a community, nor did we select representatives or people who could speak on behalf of the group or community. Yet, we deliberately targeted audiences that we knew had been historically excluded from the decision-making process concerning cultural heritage and whose members have not been exposed to this subject matter via the Charleston County school system (Hawes et al. Reference Hawes, Adcox, Bowers, Moore and Smith2018). Of course, we welcomed all individuals into our conversations, especially because African-descendant lives and the history of slavery and racism are still inadequately discussed throughout the US school system and at many cultural heritage sites (Hudson et al. Reference Hudson, Fung So, Meng, Cárdenas and Li2020; Shuster Reference Shuster2018; Vlach Reference Vlach, Horton and Horton2006).

We contacted local cultural institutions to better understand their views of their audiences. Their responses suggested that little was known about current and potential African-descendant audiences for engagement with cultural heritage in the Charleston area. Research into the tourism sector in South Carolina has demonstrated that it is crucial to preserve, cultivate, and promote existing African American sites that are more welcoming toward African American visitors (see Hudson et al. Reference Hudson, Fung So, Meng, Cárdenas and Li2020). With these understandings, we focused our efforts on collaboration through the arts and through equitable partnerships with artists, community members, students, teachers, and professors, as described later in more detail.

Community Conversations

In our 13 Community Conversations, we purposefully acknowledged perspectives that shaped our work and deliberately rejected the position of neutrality and omnipotence (Marstine Reference Marstine, Marstine, Bauer and Haines2013). We referred to the Engaging Descendant Communities in the Interpretation of Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites rubric of best practices, acknowledging the authors’ viewpoint that truth-telling makes the marginalized visible and supports the physical, mental, and spiritual health of both the oppressed and the oppressor (National Trust for Historic Preservation 2019). In this way, the Community Conversations effectively began the healing and reparations process for community members involved in our work.

We sought to provide safe and welcoming forums for discussion at all our events and programs. We aimed to engage as many people in African American communities as possible precisely because these individuals often have the greatest barriers to accessing cultural and historical resources (Hudson et al. Reference Hudson, Fung So, Meng, Cárdenas and Li2020). Intellectual and cultural barriers to access involve the lack of representation in the presentation of Gullah Geechee stories at historical sites, discomfort due to location or institutional history (at sites that have not previously interpreted histories associated with oppression), and a lack of recognition for the Gullah Geechee language or cultural traditions. Personal or emotional barriers include a fear of racial discrimination and feeling unwelcome (Hudson et al. Reference Hudson, Fung So, Meng, Cárdenas and Li2020). Economic barriers may consist of a lack of public transportation to sites, limited opening hours, and the cost of entry for programs. Furthermore, Dr. O encouraged us to be thoughtful about the language that we used, acknowledging that our words can disconnect and sow distrust if not carefully chosen.

We addressed these cultural, economic, and social barriers to access in several ways. Our school-based programs, art programs, exhibitions, events, and adult-focused Community Conversations were all free. At our conversations and exhibitions, we provided refreshments that were catered by a local Gullah Geechee business. Examples from museum education settings demonstrate that starting an event with refreshments often helps build trust through consistency and helps participants feel welcomed and comfortable (Falk and Dierking Reference Falk and Dierking2013; Silverman Reference Silverman2010). In addition, we distributed questionnaires and collected contact information, which we used to learn about individuals’ thoughts and hopes for the reinterment and to keep in touch with attendees via emails and newsletters.

The Community Conversations provided spaces in which we could build relationships with community members. We did this by presenting the details about archaeological, historical, and DNA research, answering questions about the process, and soliciting feedback on the results. These conversations provided important opportunities for the White researchers Fleskes and Schurr coming from outside the community to build trust related to the DNA research. This process was particularly important, given the history of abuses by White scientists of the Black community (Nuriddin et al. Reference Nuriddin, Mooney and White2020). We viewed this as an important component of obtaining informed consent for genetic research when the individuals being studied were no longer living (Zuckerman et al. Reference Zuckerman, Kamnikar and Mathena2014). Thus, the process of community engagement was understood as an evolving dialogue grounded in listening to the descendant community and communicating the details of the research process as it unfolded.

In April 2018, Ofunniyin and Gilmore curated an exhibition, WOKE: Rattling Bones, Conversations, Sacred Rites and Holy Places, at the Charleston City Gallery at Waterfront Park. The exhibition explored the treatment of African-descendant peoples in life and death and drew parallels between our lives today and the influence of those who came before us (see Bland Reference Bland2018). It was intended to illuminate what the discovery of the 36 Ancestors meant for African descendants and all those living in Charleston today through thought-provoking historical research, archaeological interpretations, art, poetry, and the voices of formerly enslaved people. The exhibition also involved African American Studies students from the College of Charleston who curated a fashion show of current West African fashions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Ofunniyin with his College of Charleston African American Studies students, who created an African Fashion show at our WOKE: Rattling Bones, Conversations, Sacred Rites and Holy Places exhibition. Photograph courtesy of Joanna Gilmore.

Following the exhibition, Fleskes and Schurr visited Charleston to collect DNA samples from the Ancestors (Figure 2). During their visit, we hosted another Community Conversation where they described how anthropological geneticists conduct ancient DNA research and what we can learn from it. With support from the National Geographic Society and the University of Pennsylvania, we provided an opportunity for 78 persons of African descent to have their DNA analyzed. Initially, we had offered 36 tests as a symbolic connection between the Ancestors and collective descendants. Because of significant community interest, we expanded the testing to include an additional 42 individuals (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Fleskes and Schurr collected DNA samples from the Ancestors with Ofunniyin and Gilmore at the Brockington and Associates lab. Photograph courtesy of Joanna Gilmore.

Figure 3. Community member Regina Scott Sanders participates in DNA sampling with Gilmore. Photograph courtesy of Ajani Ade Ofunniyin.

The DNA research component was included as a means of fostering greater participation, trust, and understanding in genetic research and creating an avenue for participants to make personal connections with the Ancestors. After the community members’ DNA samples were analyzed, we hosted an event where we handed out the DNA test results to them. This was a moving experience for many participants, including Oubré, who joined the ASABG team shortly thereafter. The event also served as an important opportunity for public science education about genetic ancestry testing.

An important aspect of this project has been the powerful integration of archaeological and scientific research into planning for the artistic and ceremonial aspects of the memorialization of the Ancestors. For example, at the same event, architect Rodney Leon, founder and principal of Rodney Leon Architects and designer of the New York African Burial Ground Memorial, talked about his inspiration in designing memorials for the ancestors in New York. We invited Leon to speak to inspire the approximately 100 Charlestonians who attended the event to envisage how an empowering and poetic monument to their collective Ancestors might take shape. Attendees fervently encouraged Mayor Tecklenburg, who was also in attendance, to ensure that this sacred ground be indelibly marked in recognition of the African presence in the city.

In our final Community Conversation before the reinterment, Fleskes and Schurr presented the results of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis for the Ancestors. To make the genetic research more transparent, Fleskes showed a 12-minute video that she created using a Go-Pro camera while inside the University of Tennessee Ancient DNA lab. The video enabled the community to go with her into the lab to better visualize the processes of ancient DNA extraction for the Anson Street Ancestors. In addition, the initial DNA findings were shared by integrating the ceremonial names of the Anson Street Ancestors, bestowed during a Yoruba Naming Ceremony before the reinterment (described later), with their mtDNA haplogroups (maternal lineages). Each name was called and repeated by the audience, followed by a discussion of the personal history of each Ancestor gleaned from the bioarchaeological and DNA research to further honor them. The calling of the honorary names of the Ancestors centered the personhood of each individual in every discussion of the scientific results.

Education and Arts Programs

To provide opportunities for community members of all ages to actively express their responses to the research and to claim ownership in the memorialization process, we developed a range of strategies for participation. Our approach drew on engagement strategies developed by the Monument Lab in Philadelphia (https://monumentlab.com/) and the Paper Monuments Project in New Orleans (https://www.papermonuments.org). Both projects encouraged participatory engagement with the history of race and gender in each city to create public art (Budds Reference Budds2018). Our approach built on these strategies and combined historical, archaeological, and bioarchaeological research with community feedback to develop ideas for a memorial.

As a first step in this direction, College of Charleston professor of art and architectural history Nathaniel Walker developed a course in which students could explore a broad range of sites of commemoration, with a special focus on Africa and the American South and its many contested monuments. During the course, students drafted memorial designs that were critiqued by various community members. Their proposed designs were presented during a Community Conversation, which was followed by an informed discussion about what sort of ceremony and memorial community members envisaged. After listening to feedback from the community, the students modified their designs and exhibited the final memorial design proposals at the College of Charleston.

In addition to targeting college students and adults, we aimed to engage children in the K–12 education system through our education and arts program. To this end, Oubré visited nine schools in and around Charleston, many of which are located in low-income neighborhoods. At these talks, students learned about the discovery of the burials, and Oubré highlighted the ways that archaeological, osteological, and genetic research can enhance our understanding of our identities and the lives of people in the past. Students benefited from improved scientific, cultural, and historical literacy via hands-on constructivist learning, boosting self-esteem and a sense of belonging (Black Reference Black2005; Silverman Reference Silverman2010). Oubré also encouraged students to consider careers in science, anthropology, and archaeology in recognition of the lack of representation of BIPOC in these fields. In total, approximately 380 students were engaged via the grade-school education program. Students at each school created a mural, inspired by the research, that was displayed at the community art exhibition (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Oubré is interviewed by the Charleston County School District at the Community Art Exhibition at the Charleston Civic Design Center. Photograph courtesy of Joanna Gilmore.

Ofunniyin, Gilmore, and Oubré also partnered with Megan Collier-Bansil at the Redux Contemporary Art Center and five artists of African descent—photographer Dontré Major, textile artist Arianne King Comer, musician Nic Jenkins, quilt artist Peggie Hartwell, and painter Quadré Stuckey—to develop free weekly workshops with local senior adults and grade-school students. The artists explored Gullah Geechee ancestry and stories through traditional African arts in their workshops (Figure 5). An estimated 70 people of all ages (fourth to fifth graders, ninth to twelfth graders, and senior adults) participated in these workshops. The artwork they created was exhibited at the Charleston Civic Design Center during the reinterment (2019) and at the McLeod Plantation Historic Site (2021; see https://youtu.be/YsFxsiJDRPw). Meaning-making was central to this endeavor, as students and artists brought a variety of frames of reference, memories, and emotions to the experience (Silverman Reference Silverman2010).

Figure 5. The Tree of Memories designed by artist Arianne King Comer. Inspired by their Ancestors, community elders created indigo batik pieces to hang on the tree. Photograph courtesy of Joanna Gilmore.

Naming Ceremony and Reinterment Ceremony Events

The first of the reinterment events, the Naming Ceremony, was held at McLeod Plantation Historic Site in April 2019 (Figure 6). The idea to bestow honorary names on the Ancestors arose during our education program. At a school visit in March 2019, Oubré was asked by two middle-school students whether the Ancestors had names. She responded that they did not and that archaeologists use alphanumeric identifiers to distinguish individual burials. Motivated by this question, we asked Natalie Washington-Weik, who is a Yorùbá-Orisa Ọ̀ṣun priestess and an African historian, to name the Ancestors. The names chosen incorporated the isotopic data and mtDNA evidence of regional African maternal ancestry and the work of Lorenzo Dow Turner (Reference Turner2002), who recorded more than 400 Gullah Geechee names in the early twentieth century (Supplemental Table 1). Washington-Weik, historical archaeologist Terrance Weik, and Ofunniyin conducted the Naming Ceremony. According to Washington-Weik (personal communication 2019), this was “an important step forward in reclaiming the humanity of the deceased people who were most likely forced to travel across the Atlantic Ocean under the terror of other humans—who saw them as mere animals. These individuals deserve names and not mere numbers. They cannot be reinterred as mere numbers like that which they may have been assigned on slave ships.” In addition to restoring aspects of their humanity before reburial, the naming of the Ancestors enabled us to directly incorporate the wishes of community members into the reinterment process. It also reflects how projects can grow into meaningful directions through community collaboration.

Figure 6. Natalie Washington-Weik, Ofunniyin, and Terrance Weik led a Yoruba Naming Ceremony for the Ancestors at McLeod Plantation Historic Site. Photograph courtesy of Raquel Fleskes.

We selected the McLeod Plantation Historic Site as the location for the Naming Ceremony and the Community Art Exhibition because, in alignment with the interpretation at the site, we wanted to further reassert Black agency in this space (Halifax Reference Halifax2018). Black agency was already being asserted on every New Year's Day at McLeod, as libations are poured at the plantation's Sankofa Memorial Garden: Sacred Burial Ground of Our African Ancestors. The Naming Ceremony took place close to Wappoo Creek to acknowledge the connection to the water that brought the Ancestors to Charleston and would take them back to Africa after death, according to Gullah Geechee burial traditions (Creel Reference Creel1988; Pollitzer Reference Pollitzer1999).

The Reinterment Ceremony took place in early May 2019. Feedback provided in Community Conversations indicated that community members wanted the reinterment to be a meaningful, powerful, and joyful event that would illuminate and celebrate the lives of the 36 Ancestors. In the weeks before the reinterment, 16 members of the International Center for Indigo Culture from across the United States had hand-dyed and sent indigo fabric to Charleston for use during the ceremony. On the day of the reinterment, six small caskets containing two children, two women, and two men were wrapped in the hand-dyed indigo and placed in a horse-drawn hearse.

The hearse proceeded west to east on George Street, which had been closed by a rolling police escort, to the reinterment site. It was followed by an Egungun Masquerade performed by drummers from the Oyotunji Yoruba Village and children from the Watoto Academy of Meeting Street Schools, King Adejuyigbe Adefunmi II, and Gullah Society and community members (Figures 7 and 8). The Oyotunji Yoruba Village had been established in Sheldon, South Carolina, in 1970 as a religious and cultural community based on the Yoruba and Dahomey tribes of West Africa (Oyotunji 2023). The Watoto Academy was created by Donald O'Connor with a mission of building self-esteem in urban youth by providing education programs that focus on African American history and culture through music and dance (Watoto Academy 2023).

Figure 7. Children of the Watoto Academy of Meeting Street Schools followed the Oyotunji community to the reinterment site. Photograph courtesy of Raquel Fleskes.

Figure 8. King Adejuyigbe Adefunmi II and the Oyotunji African Village members followed the horse-drawn hearse and led the procession to the reinterment site. Photograph courtesy of Bruno Ghersi.

Using a horse-drawn hearse, hiring Black-owned Fielding Home for Funerals to manage the reburial, and hosting an African drum procession that closed city streets were intentional acts that aimed to reclaim this gentrified part of the city as “not merely a place of captivity, but a culturally contested site” (Vlach Reference Vlach, Horton and Horton2006:59). This was a place where enslaved and free people resisted oppression by continually pushing the boundaries of their agency in expressing and preserving their ancestral cultures and identity, as well as by passing on their intangible heritage by sharing memories and telling stories to their children (LaRoche and Blakey Reference LaRoche and Blakey1997). The ceremonial procession deliberately defied South Carolina's 1740 Negro Act, created in response to the 1739 Stono Rebellion (which occurred within 20 miles of Charlestown), which banned enslaved and free African people from gathering and playing African drums (Wood Reference Wood1996).

At the reinterment site, the six Ancestors wrapped in indigo were placed in a specially designed vault with the other 30 individuals, along with handwritten messages to the Ancestors composed by community members (Figure 9). Writing messages provided another opportunity for community members to connect with their Ancestors, because this act is an important part of African and Gullah Geechee traditions (Creel Reference Creel1988). The enclosure of the Ancestors in the vault was followed by the pouring of libations, prayers, calling the names of the Ancestors, and their committal to the sacred ground in which they were laid to rest in the eighteenth century.

Figure 9. Community members and Ofunniyin carried the caskets for the six Ancestors and placed them in the burial vault. Photograph courtesy of Raquel Fleskes.

In addition to community feedback, we used the archaeological and genetic research to inform the reinterment events. For example, in recognition of the ancestry of Coosaw, who had a maternal ancestor with a mtDNA haplotype found in Native American populations, we invited the Keepers of the Word Native American singers and drummers to be part of the ceremony. Other aspects of the Ancestors’ identities were manifested in performances by Gullah Spiritual singers, an African drum and dance troupe, and a Caribbean music and dance group, as well as contemporary Charlestonian singers, poets, and public figures. We found no archaeological evidence for the spiritual beliefs of the Ancestors. Therefore, representatives of various Christian denominations and Muslim, Native American, and Yoruba belief systems were incorporated into the reinterment ceremony. Oubré and Ofunniyin coordinated speakers and performers for the various reinterment events, and Gilmore designed programs for each event, including the “Anson Street African Burial Ground: Lessons from our Ancestors” booklet for community participants. The events ended with an ecumenical service at St. John's Reformed Episcopal Church the following day, officiated by Reverend Willie Hill Jr.