A historical researcher has called on an overseas archaeologist to speak up about who was really responsible for recommending the destruction of historic tombstones at Tucker’s Point.

LeYoni Junos, in a letter to the editor on page four of The Royal Gazette today, claims Canadian academic John Triggs was unfairly accused by Ombudsman Arlene Brock in her recent report on Marsden Methodist Memorial Cemetery of wrongly concluding that the tombs were built in 1992.

Dr Triggs, according to the report, adopted the view that the tombs were “false” and “new” without inspecting them and recommended their removal to Marsden First United Methodist Church, the custodian of the cemetery, leading to their destruction in 2012.

But Ms Junos says the evidence against Dr Triggs doesn’t stack up — since in a report of a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey that he conducted on the site in 2011 he suggests that the tombs may have been “original to the cemetery” and, if so, “should be preserved”.

He makes similar comments in the footnotes to an article published last year in the Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History, which is edited by local archaeologist Edward Harris, the director of the National Museum of Bermuda and a columnist for this newspaper.

Ms Junos says the “holy trinity” who actually oversaw the removal of the tombs — Dr Harris, the church trustees and the management of Rosewood Tucker’s Point — have failed to respond to the Ombudsman’s report, showing “complete disrespect to ... those buried in the cemetery and their descendants and to the public at large”.

And she suggests that Dr Triggs, who has refused to comment on Ms Brock’s report, is owed a “huge apology” by those who failed to properly read his recommendations.

She writes: “Dr Triggs did not say that the tombs or monuments were ‘false’. He did not recommend that they be torn up with a backhoe or bulldozed out of existence (actions overseen by Dr Harris).

“He made a clear distinction between the ‘original tombs’, ‘burial monuments’ and ‘original grave features’ that had been ‘covered’ by concrete sarcophagi. It was these new ‘covers’ which he recommended (if anything) be removed.”

Ms Junos asks Dr Triggs in her letter: “Are you a man or a mouse? All of these people have saddled you with the ‘blame’ for the disgraceful debacle and illegal desecration of one of our national historic protection areas.

“It is now obvious to me, and others, that these people cannot read and owe you (and everyone else) a huge apology.”

Ms Junos, who can trace her ancestry back to Tucker’s Town, said it was intriguing that Dr Harris had published the article by Dr Triggs last year in his journal, after overseeing the destruction of the tombs.

The graves at Tucker’s Point are the final resting place of an unknown number of mostly black residents who lived at Tucker’s Town from the early 19th century, around the time of Emancipation, onwards.

The community was forced to move to make way for a hotel in 1920, with some of those evicted resettling at Devil’s Hole and relocating Marsden Church there.

The cemetery, which sits beneath the hotel’s golf course, eventually fell into disrepair, but was rededicated in 1996 by Marsden Church and renamed the Marsden Methodist Memorial Cemetery.

It became a Historic Preservation Area in 2008 after the Department of Planning consulted with Dr Harris, the Bermuda National Trust and the Department of Conservation Services on its importance.

Marsden Church removed the tombstones to make way for a “dignified lawn” based mainly, according to the Ombudsman, on recommendations from Dr Triggs, who based his view on Dr Harris’s conclusions.

Ms Brock says in her report: “It is quite surprising that neither Dr Triggs thought of contacting the Department [of Planning] before making the recommendation to remove the tombs, nor Dr Harris thought of checking before implementing it.”

The Ombudsman was alerted to the removal of the stones by Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda (CURB).

She writes that the group questions “how eradicating a significant, unique cultural and historical relic [could] ever be considered dignified or respectful?

“CURB and others are concerned that non-Bermudians — without diligence, research, testing or consultation — would deign to recommend and (others) agree to the destruction of Bermuda’s heritage.”

Ms Brock says that Dr Triggs “takes issue” with that notion. She adds: “[He] points to his voluntary work for other projects in Bermuda. He now says that he meant that only the lids be removed.

“However, this is neither stated in the GPR Survey, nor consistent with the recommendation of a dignified lawn. There is also no evidence of him objecting — during the excavation — that stones other than lids were being removed.”

She writes: “While Dr Triggs did not imagine that his recommendation could be viewed in this way, CURB has articulated what many — especially black Bermudians (who are neither descendants nor members of CURB) — have told me that they are feeling.

“The destruction of the tombs has struck a nerve and evokes the entire history and pain of slavery and the legacy of structural racism and white privilege in Bermuda.”

Neither Dr Triggs, Dr Harris nor the trustees of Marsden Church would comment for this article. The management of Rosewood Tucker’s Point has not responded to several requests for comment.

Ms Brock finished her term of office as Ombudsman earlier this year.