Message #203802

[Kara Sundstrom]

“As archaeologists, we are keenly aware of how much is left out of the written record and the consequent pitfalls of relying on it, especially in such cases where the texts are few, far between and written by outsiders,” they wrote in a statement in response to a reporter’s question. “In this case, we think it is better to keep the door wide open to the possibility that the heart-shaped symbol might have been interpreted by the 18th-century mourners as a sankofa from their homeland.”

And Dr. Gomez — who says he sees Dr. Seeman’s article as part of a wave of scholarly work that “pushes back against the notion of concrete, specific connections between Africa” and its slavery-related diaspora — predicted that it would “cause a ripple” because “it was meant to cause a ripple.”

He said that he believed that the article was vague and excessive in its claim that scholars had too quickly ascribed African origins to black American cultural practices and that it contained some faulty assumptions — that Anglo-American burial practices of the time were uniform and stable, for example.

Still, Dr. Gomez said, even if he was unconvinced by the argument for an Anglo-American heart motif interpretation, “Seeman may very well be right that this is not a sankofa symbol,” either. Perhaps the best answer, he said, is the National Park Service’s answer: “No one knows for sure.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/arts/design/27sankofa.html?pagewanted=2