Draft:Farmingdale Statue

Gramly's institutional affiliations during the investigation

The investigation of the Farmingdale Statue spanned several years and multiple institutional affiliations for Gramly. His correspondence with Edna Genega documents the following sequence: he was Visiting Assistant Professor of Anthropology at SUNY Stony Brook (1975–1977) when the investigation began in 1976; by June 1978 he had moved to the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, where he served as a Research Assistant (1978–1979); by January 1980 he was writing from the Maine State Museum in Augusta, Maine, where he worked as an Exhibit Planner (1979–1980); and by the time of the Buffalo Museum of Science exhibition in 1981 he was serving as Curator of Anthropology there.^[5] Throughout this period he kept Mrs. Genega regularly informed of developments, copying her on key correspondence and sending her photographs of comparable statues.

Initial examination

Archaeologist Richard Michael Gramly examined the statue and took measurements and photographs. He cut a small block of wood from the statue's base for radiocarbon dating, filling the hole with paraffin to prevent further damage. In a letter of August 30, 1976 to Mrs. Genega, he enclosed three communications from the C-14 laboratory and asked her to pay their fee directly — confirming that Edna Genega personally funded the radiocarbon dating.^[6] His initial planned next step was to photograph the statue and send prints to specialists in American Indian art, indicating that at this early stage he had not yet ruled out a Native American origin. He also excavated two pits near the find-spot with the assistance of the Genega family to verify the circumstances of discovery. Both pits revealed 40 to 60 centimeters of barren fill resting upon swamp or bog deposit. The most significant item recovered was a chip of sawn wood bearing marks of an early straightsaw — suggesting the deposit dated to the seventeenth century or later.^[1]

Radiocarbon dating

Gramly submitted a small sample of wood chips from the statue's base to Krueger Enterprises, Inc., Geochron Laboratories Division, of 24 Blackstone Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts (sample no. GX-4388). The sample was received on June 30, 1976 and results reported on July 9, 1976. The wood was chemically pretreated with hot dilute hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide to remove contaminants prior to combustion and analysis. The laboratory returned an age of 320 ± 115 C-14 years B.P. (before present, referenced to A.D. 1950), calculated using the Libby half-life of 5,570 years, with the error representing ±1 standard deviation. In an accompanying letter, laboratory director Harold W. Krueger noted that factoring in the slight age of the tree at fabrication, the measured age translates to A.D. 1630.^[7] Krueger added his personal observation that he would suspect the piece to be an early colonial import of native art made elsewhere.^[7]

Expert consultation

Gramly solicited evaluations from multiple specialists in primitive art and African ethnology, though initial responses were skeptical given the exceptional state of preservation. Opinions on stylistic attribution varied widely. A curator of ethnology at a New England museum cautiously suggested a Middle Eastern or African origin. Specialists at a large Midwestern museum compared the iconography to excavated figures from ancient Nineveh, or alternatively proposed it was a naive modern European portrayal of a prehistoric man. Experts at a Belgian museum argued the statue lacked the rounded surfaces characteristic of authentic African carvings.

A decisive identification came from Dr. Leon Siroto, one of the leading experts on traditional African wood carving, who at the time was assisting in the cataloguing of the Peabody Museum's collection of African art at Harvard University. Referred to Gramly by Professor Monni Adams, Curator of Art and Anthropology, Dr. Siroto identified the work unhesitatingly as having been made by the Zulu or another Nguni group of southeastern Africa. The identifying clues were the headring, the detachable knobkerrie, the fur kaross appearing to have been sewn from leopard skins, the beard, and the decorative scarification designs on the shoulders and breast.^[1]

Patricia Davison, identified in Gramly's correspondence as Professional Officer in the Ethnological Section of the South African Museum, confirmed Dr. Siroto's attribution.^[1] By December 1977 Gramly was able to write to Mrs. Genega that Prof. de Zeeuw had given his positive identification of the wood, and that he had forwarded it to South African specialists awaiting their reply. By June 1978, writing from Harvard's Peabody Museum, he reported receiving photographs from the Leiden Museum of figurines collected before 1892 north of Zulu country, and was still awaiting a response from South Africa about the Cape Town statue — describing it as the only thing he needed before he could begin writing.^[8]

Smithsonian Institution

On January 9, 1978, Gramly wrote a detailed three-page letter to Dr. Gibson, Curator of the African Collection at the Smithsonian Institution, at the suggestion of William W. Fitzhugh, Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History. Gramly described his three immediate impressions upon first seeing the statue: its general African character, the extreme friability of the wood as a sure indication of age, and what he described as the absolute trustworthiness of Mrs. Genega as the finder. He summarized the radiocarbon result, the Cassia siamea wood identification, and Dr. Siroto's Zulu attribution. In the letter he generously credited both himself and Mrs. Genega with pursuing the wood identification, though the research was conducted by Gramly. He also reported that intermarriage between Blacks and Native Americans had been commonplace on Long Island, and that Patricia Davison had just informed him of the discovery of a similar statue on the grounds of a hospital in Cape Town, with Prof. Nick van der Merwe of the University of Cape Town agreeing to investigate.^[9]

In a reply dated January 24, 1978, Fitzhugh wrote that he had shown Gramly's materials to Dr. Gibson, who was quite intrigued. Fitzhugh praised the documentation as extremely thorough, suggested Smithsonian magazine might be interested, and stated that the Smithsonian would be a proud possessor of the final object — indicating institutional interest in acquiring the statue. He relayed that a colleague, Steve Cox, had independently raised the possibility that the piece had arrived on Long Island through Dutch intermediaries rather than via African slaves. The statue was not ultimately acquired by the Smithsonian.^[10]

On January 9, 1978, Gramly also wrote to Mrs. Genega advising her to inquire about security storage for what might turn out to be a unique historical artifact.^[11]

Publication history and the pre-publication draft

The path to publication proved lengthy and frustrating. Writing from the Peabody Museum on September 16, 1978, Gramly sent Mrs. Genega a draft of the essay — marked for her eyes only — expressing hope it would be published in Natural History or Smithsonian. The draft, held in the Genega family archive, carries the original title "Sleuthing an Artifact of Colonial America" with the subtitle "A wooden statue buried for 300 years on Long Island recalls episodes in the history of New Netherlands" — a title Gramly later noted he had preferred over the one chosen by the editor.^[12] His institutional affiliation on the draft is given as the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, consistent with his address at that time. The draft contains handwritten annotations including a correction of "Portugal" to "Angola" on page 11, a strikethrough of the word "blindly" on page 9, and a handwritten note at the end reading "N.B. Some condensation from pp. 9 onward may be in order." The draft also includes a captions list for nine photographic plates and a set of working photographs annotated in red ink identifying the "1940 Zulu statue," "Leiden statues — 1889 World Fair," the "1675 map," and the "Capetown Statue." The captions list confirms the statue was described as being in Nassau County, Long Island.^[12]

The draft contains substantial historical material about Black life in colonial New Amsterdam that was subsequently cut from the published article. This material — the deletion of which Gramly specifically lamented in his July 14, 1981 letter to Mrs. Genega — includes a detailed account of the Dutch West India Company's formative years (1624–1643), the system of half-freedom under Director-General Kieft whereby enslaved people were released seasonally to earn their freedom, the first sale of enslaved people in New Amsterdam in 1646 (from Brazil), subsequent arrivals from Guinea in 1655, and the auctioning of the cargo of the vessel Eycksenboom in 1660 under restrictions confining purchases to farmwork. The draft also preserves a remarkable roster of named Black individuals emancipated by Kieft: Domingo Anthony, Paulo D'Angola, Big Manuel, Anna Negra, Clein Antonio, Jan of Fort Orange, Anthony Portuguese, Simon Congo, Pieter Santome, Lucas and Solomon Peters, Christoffel Santome, and Manuel de Spangie. The draft further argues that by the end of the seventeenth century a population primarily American Indian in outlook and traditions but Black American in appearance had entrenched itself on Long Island — context that Gramly considered essential to understanding how the Farmingdale statue came to be buried where it was found.^[13]

In a letter of September 3, 1979, Gramly reported that he had tried Natural History, Smithsonian magazine, and the Sunday section of the New York Times, all without success, and had just sent the manuscript to Black Art. By January 20, 1980, writing from the Maine State Museum, Gramly confirmed that Black Art had accepted the essay for Volume 4. On July 14, 1981, he announced the essay was at long last published, noting the title had been changed and the New Amsterdam material cut, which he intended to publish elsewhere.^[13]

^

Sea Point statue, Cape Town (1977)

The discovery of a comparable statue in Cape Town was first reported to Gramly in a letter from Patricia Davison, Professional Officer (Ethnology) at the South African Museum, dated December 30, 1977 — written in response to Gramly's letter of December 7, 1977. Davison reported that since she had sent her comments on the Farmingdale carving to Prof. Nick van der Merwe, a coincidence had occurred: a similar figure had been found in Sea Point, Cape Town. She described it as damaged and not identical to the Farmingdale statue but noted that certain characteristic features were unmistakable, as shown in enclosed photographs.^[14] The figure had been dug up recently in the gardens of a hospital, and the site might have been a refuse dump at some time in the past. Davison had not yet spoken to the gardener who found it and had no first-hand information. She noted that van der Merwe felt the Cape Town statue could not be dated reliably, that botanists at the museum were examining a wood sample for identification, and that she had also consulted the museum botanists about Gramly's questions regarding windbreak trees and the Cassia species.

Comparison of photographs showed the Cape Town statue shares the headring, kaross, and socketed knobkerrie with the Farmingdale specimen, though the club was missing from its socket. The finish and execution of the Farmingdale statue were judged superior, with finer detail in the scarification, kaross, and loincloth. The differences in quality and execution were taken to imply a significant difference in age between the two objects.^[1]

Transvaal statue (1978)

In May 1978, Davison encountered a third comparable figure while examining a privately owned collection of African art in the Transvaal. The owner had received it from a friend who purchased it in Zululand in the 1940s or 1950s and did not consider it a serious work of art, believing it had been made for the tourist trade. Despite its crudeness, the statue bears a basic similarity in form to the Farmingdale and Sea Point specimens.^[1]

Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden

The Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde at Leiden was found to hold several wooden statues from southeastern Africa, all considered outstanding examples of traditional wood carving from the region. Three of them had been exhibited at the 1889 World's Fair in Paris as a contribution by the Republic of South Africa, and an 1892 auction catalogue listed them as having been fashioned by the Kaffir in the Transvaal. While related in head shape and facial details (ears and nose) to the Farmingdale and Sea Point statues, the Leiden statues belong to a different class of free-standing figures as they hold no weapons and their sex is shown.^[1]

Gramly statue (2020)

A fourth comparable figure came to light in 2026 when archaeologist Richard Michael Gramly, PhD, FRAI, who conducted the original investigation of the Farmingdale Statue, disclosed that he had purchased a similar wooden statue at McInnis Auctions in Amesbury, Massachusetts in 2020. According to documentation accompanying the object, the statue was collected in 1945 by Dr. Robert G. Stubbs of Augusta, Maine, while on safari in Africa. The statue may have had some age before Dr. Stubbs acquired it, to judge by use-wear on the object. It has not been radiocarbon dated.

The statue stands 16¾ inches (approximately 43 cm) in height — shorter than the Farmingdale Statue's 51 cm — with the difference in height attributable to proportionally shorter lower legs rather than a smaller torso or upper body. Gramly notes that the torso and upper legs are proportionate to those of the Farmingdale Statue.

Notable features include an ivory necklace imitating a full-size lion or leopard claw necklace, comprising 27 individual claws each drilled with two holes and strung together. The statue also features a hood behind the neck — absent on the Farmingdale Statue — with a socket suggesting that something was once mounted there, in addition to sockets in each hand for removable implements.

Despite these differences, Gramly assessed the statue as belonging to the same class of artifact as the Farmingdale Statue, observing that "the basic form remained unchanged over the centuries."^[15]

West African slave connection

If the carving had been traceable to West Africa — the origin of most enslaved people brought to colonial Long Island — it could have been argued that an enslaved individual transported it. However, the statue's southeastern African attribution made this explanation inapplicable.^[1]

Massapequa tribal connection

The statue was found within a few kilometers of the Massapequa tribal stronghold, which was destroyed in 1644 — a date close to the radiocarbon date of the statue. Gramly proposed that the statue may have belonged to a member of the Massapequa tribe, who received it as a curiosity or trade item from a European or African contact. As a symbol of a completely foreign culture, the meaning of the artefact likely died with its owner, and the carving was eventually discarded and buried in the swamp.^[1]

Dutch East India Company and the capture of Nguni individuals

Gramly considered the possibility that the statue's original owner — a Nguni person from southeastern Africa — had been captured by Dutch forces and pressed into service with the Dutch West India Company, eventually arriving in New Amsterdam (now New York). Between 1600 and 1650, Dutch men-of-war posed a serious threat to Portuguese shipping in the Indian Ocean. A Dutch fleet laid siege to the island of Mozambique, Portugal's principal southeastern African port, in 1607. It was common Dutch practice to hold officers and wealthy passengers for ransom and sell crew members into bondage.

A specific case that attracted Gramly's attention was the Nossa Senhora da Belem, a Portuguese vessel from the Indian Ocean that ran aground at the Umzimkulu River on the southern Natal coast in July 1635. Survivors constructed two new vessels — the Natividade and the Boa Viagem — from salvaged timber, during which time they traded with local Nguni groups. The Boa Viagem was never heard from again after departing in January 1636. A Dutch fleet diary confirms arrival at Table Bay in March 1636, suggesting the Dutch fleet likely intercepted the Boa Viagem.^[1] Gramly speculated that a Nguni individual who had been taken aboard the Boa Viagem or an associated vessel — perhaps as a result of contact along the Natal coast — may have subsequently ended up in Dutch colonial service in New Amsterdam, bringing the statue with him.

Gramly acknowledged that this explanation remained circumstantial, and that the full story of how the statue came to be buried in a Long Island swamp may never be known. Reporting in Newsday, journalist Tony Schaeffer summarized Gramly's supporting historical framework: Dutch ships visited African coasts in the early 1600s, indentured Black laborers from Africa were brought to the New World under Dutch rule, and some of those laborers married American Indians who occupied the area where the Genegas later came to live.^[16]

Pre-exhibition press coverage

Prior to the public opening of the Buffalo Museum of Science exhibition, the statue attracted newspaper coverage in Buffalo. An article headlined "African Statuette: Zulu Woodcarving To Highlight Show," bylined by Carl Allen and published in The Buffalo News on Sunday, February 15, 1981 (Section C), previewed the forthcoming exhibition. It was among the earliest press accounts to bring the statue to public attention in Buffalo.^[17]

The article described the statue as a carving depicting a warrior, standing just over 19 inches high (consistent with the documented height of 51 cm), discovered by a Long Island housewife during excavation behind her home in 1961. It noted that specialists at major museums had initially dismissed it as modern tourist art. The article identified Gramly as then affiliated with the Peabody Museum at Harvard University — an error, as Gramly was at SUNY Stony Brook at the time of the initial investigation — and credited Dr. Leon Siroto as the expert who provided the decisive identification, writing to Gramly that the headring, knobkerrie, and kaross showed the statue was the work of the Zulu or another Nguni group who had populated and ruled much of southern Africa since antiquity. A copy of the article annotated in Gramly's hand, held in the Genega family archive, notes "a few inaccuracies — but otherwise OK" and corrects three errors: the height (given in the article as "just over 12 inches"), the institutional affiliation (Harvard rather than SUNY Stony Brook), and the description of the swamp environment as "aerobic" rather than the correct "anaerobic."^[17]

The article also described the preservation conditions: Gramly told the reporter that the anaerobic environment of the swamp and the white limestone-like soil that had clung to the statue helped discourage the bacteria that could have destroyed the wood, while the figure's coating of waxy animal fat or oil — commonly used by African woodcarvers — was the real secret of its survival. Gramly was quoted as believing the statue had been left during the Colonial period by a free African working on a ship owned by the Dutch, who were also exploring the coast of South Africa.^[17]

Museum exhibition and related publications

In 1981, the Farmingdale Statue was loaned by Edna Genega to the Buffalo Museum of Science, where it was exhibited as catalogue item No. 83, titled "Wooden Statue," in the exhibition "Masterpieces of the Anthropology Collection," which opened on May 3, 1981. This marked the statue's first public museum display.^[18] The exhibition was organized by Dr. Richard Michael Gramly in his capacity as the museum's curator of anthropology — his first curatorship of this kind at the institution in seventeen years — and was planned to remain on view for two years.

The Farmingdale Statue served as the lead artifact in the Buffalo Courier-Express Sunday section's feature article on the exhibition, published on May 3, 1981, under the headline "Into the Light: The cultures of man have many faces. Some of them look back at you in an important new show at the Museum of Science." The article described the statue as one of 80 artifacts in the exhibition and characterized it as "one of the oldest such artifacts ever found in North America." A color photograph of the statue as displayed was published on page 29 of the same edition.

The formal loan of the statue to the museum was documented in a shipping invoice dated December 16, 1980, signed by Edna Genega. The invoice, issued by the Buffalo Museum of Science (Humboldt Parkway, Buffalo, New York 14211), records the transaction as a loan from Mrs. Genega to the museum for the period December 16, 1980 to April 16, 1982, with all correspondence directed to R.M. Gramly, Curator of Anthropology. The invoice described the object as "a wooden statue of African origin found by Mrs. Genega in the rear of her home in Farmingdale" and noted its condition as having "no breakage on statue except missing hand." The statue was to be displayed for one year — April 15, 1981 to April 15, 1982 — in Hamlin Hall as part of the "Masterpieces of the Anthropology Collection" exhibition. The museum agreed to insure the statue while on exhibit and in the museum, and to provide five copies of the exhibition catalogue to Mrs. Genega in recognition of her cooperation.

The exhibition catalogue (catalogue entry No. 83, p. 54) described the statue as one of the earliest artifacts associable with Black Americans of African descent, and noted that two years of correspondence and research had traced the carving to southeastern Africa, specifically to an unknown Nguni-speaking group of which the Zulu are members. The catalogue referenced the identification of the wood as Cassia siamea, a carbon-14 age of 320 radiocarbon years, and the hypothesis that the figure had been brought to New Amsterdam by an indentured African laboring for the Dutch West India Company. The catalogue confirmed the statue's dimensions as 51 cm in height and 15 cm in width at the shoulders, and acknowledged the Genega family for their cooperation in sharing the discovery.^[18]

The Buffalo Museum of Science also produced an official postcard featuring the statue, photographed by David Wahl of Buffalo, N.Y. (postcard stock no. 166510). The postcard caption describes the object as a "17th century Southwest African wooden statue unearthed at Farmingdale, Long Island," with a height of 51 cm and the wood identified as Cassia siamea. Notably, the postcard uses the geographic designation "Southwest African" rather than the "southeastern African" attribution given in both Gramly's scholarly article and the exhibition catalogue — a minor discrepancy in the museum's own documentation.^[19]

Post-exhibition, Christie's appraisal, and current status

Per the terms of the loan agreement, the statue's display period in Hamlin Hall ran from April 15, 1981 to April 15, 1982, with the full loan period formally ending April 16, 1982. Following its return to the Genega family, Tony Schaeffer reported in Newsday on September 23, 1982 that Edna Genega was actively seeking a suitable permanent exhibition venue on Long Island.^[16]

Shortly after the Newsday coverage, the Nassau County Museum expressed formal interest in the statue. In a letter dated September 30, 1982 — just one week after the Newsday article appeared — Phyllis Braff, Curator of Art at the Nassau County Museum (Sands Point Preserve, 95 Middleneck Road, Port Washington, N.Y.), part of the County of Nassau Department of Recreation and Parks, wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Walter Genega to say the museum was quite interested in learning of their fascinating Zulu carving. Braff described it as what would be an important addition to sculptures in their Black History Museum interpretation program, and invited the Genegas to consider the museum as a place where the general public could see and admire the work and examine its context and reflect on its heritage. Whether a loan or acquisition was subsequently arranged is not documented in the archive.^[20]

In a letter of May 10, 1983, Gramly responded to Mrs. Genega's report that she was having difficulty eliciting responses and recognition for the statue. He acknowledged there were non-believers out there, encouraged her to be patient, and gave her advice that would prove to have lasting significance: he told her to keep all correspondence, the postcard, and other materials in an artist's portfolio, describing the portfolio as part of the pedigree of the statue and invaluable when it came time to sell. This letter is the direct origin of the Genega family archive — the systematic collection of documents that now constitutes the primary source record for this article.^[21]

In 1987, Mrs. Genega pursued the possibility of selling the statue through Christie's auction house. On March 12, 1987 she wrote to Patrick Meehan at Christie's New York (502 Park Avenue), following a conversation with Christie's representative Liz Kunstadter, forwarding documentation for referral to an African art appraiser based in London. The matter was passed to Hermione Waterfield, Director of the Tribal Art Department at Christie's South Kensington (85 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3LD). The department's letterhead also listed Tim Teuten and William Fagg C.M.G. as Consultant — William Fagg being one of the world's foremost authorities on African art and formerly Keeper of Ethnography at the British Museum.

In a letter of April 10, 1987, Waterfield described the carving as a very interesting carving but noted she needed more time to consider it properly. On June 1, 1987, Waterfield wrote again to advise that she had received a reply from a person who had studied the art of South and East Africa — whose opinion she respected but who preferred to remain anonymous because he was an amateur. She also noted that Christie's had coincidentally received two similar statues for sale from two different sources at that time, one scheduled for the June 30 sale and the other for autumn, and that they were not expecting much money for either. The anonymous evaluator's comments have not been located among the Genega family archive.

Gramly responded directly to Waterfield in a letter dated June 19, 1987, written on Buffalo Museum of Science letterhead and signed as Chairman of the Curatorial Department. Gramly dismissed the anonymous evaluation vigorously, arguing that the central issue was the age of the carving — which he maintained was very old and far better carved than any modern Nguni statues. He drew an analogy to Iroquois false face masks, arguing that dismissing the Farmingdale statue because modern Nguni carve similar figures was as illogical as dismissing Iroquois masks simply because modern Iroquois make them for tourists. He concluded by distinguishing scholarly from commercial value, describing the Farmingdale statue as a bona-fide object. The Christie's episode ultimately did not result in a sale.^[22]

In October 1993, Mrs. Genega wrote to Dr. Ralph Solecki, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M University, at Gramly's suggestion. Solecki — best known for his excavations at Shanidar Cave in Iraq — had referenced Fort Neck in one of his books, and the statue had been found approximately six miles north of that location. In a reply dated November 15, 1993, Solecki confirmed that Gramly had already sent him a reprint of the published article. He expressed mild skepticism about long-term preservation in a bog, while acknowledging the find as a very interesting one. Whether a subsequent meeting took place is not documented in the archive.^[23]

The statue remains in the private possession of the Genega family.

Gramly comparable statue

• 
  Gramly Zulu statue, front view. Collected 1945 by Dr. Robert G. Stubbs; purchased by R.M. Gramly at McInnis Auctions, 2020.
• 
  Gramly Zulu statue, left side profile.
• 
  Gramly Zulu statue, rear view showing provenance label.
• 
  Gramly Zulu statue, top of headring showing drilled holes.
• 
  Ivory claw necklace, 27 claws, associated with Gramly Zulu statue.