1 Introduction
The Amerindian archaeological site of White Marl in Jamaica is often described in heritage circles as âthe most valuable TaÃno site on the island, and an important hub in the social networks of pre-colonial Jamaicaâ (Mickleburgh et al., 2018). It is located next to a bustling thoroughfare traversed daily by thousands of Jamaicans and linking Spanish Town (the second historical capital of Jamaica, known then as Saint Jago de la Vega) to Kingston, the present capital of Jamaica. In 2017, in response to a proposed road redevelopment, an archaeological impact assessment and subsequent excavations were undertaken, which revealed additional human burialsâa rarity. It has been noted that human remains have been documented at White Marl since 1860 when Richard Hill reported finding âportions of human skeletonsâ (Mickleburgh et al., 2018) along with pottery and shells. Sixteen additional human skeletons were also revealed during excavations in the 1950s to 1960s (Allsworth-Jones, 2008; Howard, 1956; Mickleburgh et al., 2018). The burials have also been described as representing a significant source of information on Jamaican pre-colonial life and death rituals, as little is known of burials other than from caves or disturbed contexts (Mickleburgh et al., 2018).
The scientific importance of White Marl is clearly known to archaeologists, but what do local communities or those who drive by every dayâin other words, the average Jamaicanâthink? Is there an awareness of the site or its relevance, and do they perceive the archaeological heritage of the TaÃno as having any relevance to them beyond being on the national coat of armsâor even care what happens to the site?
Let us compare White Marl to Port Royal in Kingston, Jamaica, which practically every Jamaican child has visited on a school trip and adults remember fondly from their youth: everyone remembers the Royal Artillery House at Fort Charles, more popularly known by Jamaicans as the âGiddy House.â Port Royal is also a popular recreational spot for Jamaicans; hence the question, do Jamaicans value the site because of its historical significance, their nostalgic memories, or perhaps a bit of both?
Excavations at the White Marl TaÃno Site (2018)
The terms âhistoryâ and âheritageâ are used throughout this paper, and for many people, the two are synonymous (Harrison, 2010). The historian David Lowenthal (1997), in making the distinction between the two, posits that âheritage is not history at all, as it is not an inquiry into the past, but a celebration of itâ (Lowenthal, 1997). As such, heritage in this research refers to âsomething that can be passed from one generation to the next, can be conserved or inherited, and something that has historic or cultural valueâ (Harrison, 2010), as evidenced through objects, places, and practices. UNESCO further defines heritage as âthe legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations.â1 History is defined as the âscientific, evidence-based investigation of the pastâ (Seixas, 2014). Both concepts are however inextricably intertwined, as without history, there would be no heritage.
Jamaicaâs Coat of Arms, which depicts the native Amerindians
In examining how Jamaicans value their archaeological heritage, we must identify the unique processes that have defined this value system, as well as determine if such value exists only for a select few or a particular section of society. One must also ask, what does this value look like, and how is it manifested in exploring how Jamaicans interact with this heritage? What are the tools, contexts, and processes that have helped Jamaicans to attain and or contextualize
The Giddy House in Port Royal, Jamaica
COURTESY OF THE JAMAICA NATIONAL HERITAGE TRUST
The Devon House historic mansion
COURTESY OF THE JAMAICA NATIONAL HERITAGE TRUST
2 Identifying Jamaicaâs Archaeological Heritage
The ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (1990) identifies archaeological heritage as comprising âall vestiges of human existence and consist[ing] of places relating to all manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures, and remains of all kinds (including subterranean and underwater sites), together with all the portable cultural material associated with them.â2
Jamaica has benefited from extensive archaeological research in the twentieth century, with work done by Lee in the 1960s (which led to the formation of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica), Link in Port Royal (1950s and 1960s), Mathewson at Old Kings House (1969â1973), Howard at White Marl (1950s and 1960s), Marx in Port Royalâs Underwater City in the 1960s, Mayes at Port Royalâs terrestrial sites (1960s), and the Columbus Caravels Archaeological Project (1990s) (Richards and Henriques, 2011). Added to these are archaeological research projects undertaken by the University of the West Indies History and Archaeology Department, as well as numerous overseas universities.
In the beginning, research primarily focused on Port Royal, plantation, and Amerindian archaeology; however, since the latter part of the twentieth century, there has been much work on the Afro-Jamaican and Maroon presence courtesy of Agorsah and Armstrong, among others. These research programs have ensured that there is a wealth of information on the archaeological heritage of Jamaica available to the public through the Jamaica National Heritage Trust.
In a 2003 survey (to be discussed later in this paper) on attitudes of the Jamaican public toward its archaeological heritage, Richards (2003) highlighted that Jamaicans viewed their archaeological heritage as anything from the colonial period, anything in use by Jamaicans now, anything used by the Amerindians, and pots and other objects used by peoples in the past. When discussing this heritage, Jamaicans tend to focus on what is known to them; thus, because there has been very little archaeological research done, for example, on the Indian presence in Jamaica, there is very little awareness of this.
The archaeological record indicates that after AD 600, Jamaica (Indigenous name âYamayeâ) was inhabited by ancestors of the so-called TaÃno represented by the ceramic series defined as Ostionoid or redware culture (Rouse, 1992), whose earliest sites were Little River (Saint Ann) and Alligator Pond (Manchester). Three hundred years later, appeared the Meillacan Ostionoid subseries, also known as White Marl, from the name of the site dating to AD 877. Rouse (1992) linked this subseries with the Western TaÃno, which inhabited parts of Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. The Amerindian culture we call the TaÃno developed about AD 1200. These cultures would leave behind a heritage discernible from its zemis, pottery, stone tools, petroglyphs, and burials, among other materials, particularly from sites such as White Marl.
Reid (2009) has pointed out how Caribbean researchers now use the word âTaÃnoâ to differentiate the peoples of the northern Caribbean at the time of Spanish contact from the Arawakan societies of mainland South America. Reid goes a step further, however, in indicating that there are schools of thought that challenge the use of the word âTaÃnoâ or claim that the peoples Columbus met did not have a âself-designation.â Atkinson (2006, 2010) has highlighted that in Jamaica, the word âArawakâ was still used to describe the Indigenous population, although Jamaican researchers and archaeologists had largely transitioned to using âTaÃno.â Today, more and more Jamaicans use the word âTaÃnoâ, especially in the educational system, where the name has replaced the formerly used âArawak.â
Columbus arrived on the island in 1494 and claimed it as a colony of Spain. The Amerindian population would be decimated by the mid-seventeenth century, around the time England took control of the island from Spain in 1655 (Black, 1965). European colonization resulted in the mass enslavement of Africans who were brought to this âNew Worldâ primarily for the cultivation of sugar plantations and other forms of monoculture. Sites such as Maima Seville have been recognized as important contact sites for the Indigenous people, European colonizers, and enslaved Africans (Henri and Woodward, 2019).
The Maroons emerged from this system as enslaved Africans who liberated themselves from plantation slavery and forged new identities in the various mountainous areas of Jamaica, such as the Cockpit Country and the Blue and John Crow Mountains (communities include Accompong Town, Moore Town, Charles Town and Scotts Hall). During the nineteenth century, other ethnic groups such as Indians, Chinese, and Middle Easterners would also settle in
Seville Heritage Park. Top left: Seville Great House; Top right: Spanish Castle; Bottom; Replica of housing used by the enslaved.
3 Jamaican Identity through the Lens of Archaeology
The term âheritage valuesâ refers to the meanings that individuals or groups of people bestow on heritage (including collections, buildings, archaeological sites, landscapes, and intangible expressions of culture, such as oral traditions). These values have been a key factor in legitimizing heritage conservation, protection, and management, although the understanding of what they are has varied over time, and there are nuances between one country and another. There are many classifications of values, including historical, aesthetic, economic, social, and scientific, among others (Mason, 2012).
Being âout of many, one peopleâ (the national motto of Jamaica), there is no archaeological heritage that tells the complete narrative of all Jamaicans. However, if asked to name a heritage site in Jamaica that they identify with, most Jamaicans would answer âSevilleâ or âPort Royal,â yet not necessarily have a reason or understand why the site is of value to them as Jamaicans, beyond it being known as a heritage site.
In delving deeper into how Jamaicans have arrived at their value system and in what way this manifests in their interactions with heritage, we will take a closer look at the institutions tasked with protecting and sharing this heritage with Jamaicans; our systems of learning; and the values reflected in how Jamaicans manage, protect, or facilitate the destruction of this heritage.
4 How is Archaeological Heritage Valued in Jamaica?
The notion that our past is linked to material cultural heritage obtained from archaeological sites is something that many Jamaicans do not think about. As mentioned above, Jamaicaâs heritage is intertwined with that of many cultures, yet Jamaicaâs archaeological research mainly focuses on the Amerindians; Europeans, as reflected by the Spanish and English; and finally, Africans who were enslaved and brought to the island. This has been the archaeological heritage that is available for public dissemination and consumption.
Some of Jamaicaâs archaeological sites reflect several of these groups at once: sites such as Port Royal and Seville are two such examples and are referred to as âcontact sites.â The question of how Jamaicans view the material manifestation of this heritage is reflected firstly through their level of engagement with it.
Jamaicans are not known to just visit an archaeological site, except as part of a school-sanctioned educational trip or because an event is being hosted at a site. It is also widely perceived that Jamaica does not have a museum culture, as evidenced by the low visitor numbers to museums and interaction with exhibitions. Farmer and Cummins (2012) have highlighted the role of museums (displaying archaeological objects) in developing identityâand by extension a value systemâin the postcolonial Caribbean landscape, and that of Caribbean museums in presenting the heritage of a nation to the public.
There is also the matter of access to be factored in, as only some archaeological sites are open to the public or promoted for visits.
The institutions with primary responsibility for managing heritage resources in Jamaica are the Institute of Jamaica (IOJ) and the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT). The IOJ was created in 1879 for collecting various types of material cultural resources (Richards & Henriques, 2011), including natural and cultural heritage. The IOJ has several divisions, such as the National Museum of Jamaica, the National Gallery of Jamaica, the African Caribbean Institute
In 1958, the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT) was founded as the Jamaica National Trust Commission, the name being changed to the present form in 1985. This change in 1985 resulted in a widening of the mandate of the entity in relation to the protection and promotion of all types of heritage sites. The divisions3 of the JNHT include Archaeology; Heritage Protection, Research, and Information; Communications; Estate Management; and Business Development. The entity has archaeological resources to enable research, analysis, and public outreach.
In Grades 1â3, students are introduced to topics such as: places of interest in my community, aspects of Jamaican culture. In Grade 4, students are asked to: locate at least three TaÃno settlement sites on a map of Jamaica, explain how the TaÃnos used their environment, state aspects of Jamaicaâs culture influenced by the TaÃnos, among other topics. Grades 1â3 have integrated studies which may include field trips.
Grades 4â6 include more discrete subject areas, but with history and geography combined in social studies. Visits to heritage sites are encouraged in the section of the curriculum titled âExtended Learning,â which provides students with the opportunities for authentic experiences associated with what they have learnt.4 For Grades 7â9, the subject areas are completely discrete, and history is taught separately, however, much like the other grades, visits to heritage sites are not mandatory, and the sites suggested are often those that are well known (i.e., Port Royal, Spanish Town, and Seville).
While schools may visit sites and museums throughout the year, these visits are not mandatory and occur predominantly on days linked to the countryâs heritage, such as Reggae and Black History Month and Jamaica Day in February, TaÃno Day in May, and National Heroes Week in October.
Visitor statistics 2019/2020. Data provided by the JNHT and IOJ
| Museum/Heritage site | AprilâJune 2019 | JulyâSept 2019 | OctâDec 2019 | JanâMar 2020 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| African Caribbean Institute of Jamaica/Jamaica Memory Bank | 408 | 379 | 1,905 | 4,472 | 7,164 |
| Liberty Hall: The Legacy of Marcus Garvey | 984 | 754 | 4,959 | 1,892 | 8,589 |
| National Museum Jamaica | 18,513 | 10,895 | 5,568 | 6,066 | 41,042 |
| National Gallery (West) | 1,028 | 1,220 | 1,867 | 1,493 | 5,608 |
| National Gallery of Jamaica | 4,416 | 4,789 | 4,369 | 5,078 | 18,652 |
| Natural History Museum of Jamaica | 2,299 | 921 | 3,360 | 891 | 7,471 |
| Jamaica Music Museum | 1,243 | 843 | 2,838 | 59 | 4,983 |
| Simón BolÃvar Cultural Centre | 515 | 425 | 202 | 1,142 | |
| Programme Coordination Division | 556 | 450 | 4,780 | 5,483 | 11,269 |
| Fort Charles | 6,451 | 4,848 | 3,214 | 0 (closed) | 14,513 |
| Seville Heritage Park | 5,010 | 1,692 | 7,693 | 2,700 | 17,095 |
| Total | 41,423 | 27,216 | 40,553 | 28,336 | 1,37,528 |
Aside from visits to these well-known or popular sites being carried out by researchers, many Jamaicans visit these spaces more often to fulfill the school curriculum and as an extracurricular activity than for actual enjoyment.5 The table of visitor statistics above shows that the total number of persons visiting the site in the period of April 2019 to March 2020 was reported as 137,528, which represents approximately 4.5% of the population visiting museums and cultural spaces in the year 2019/20.
This brings us to a discussion on public archaeology in Jamaica, which is led mostly by the JNHT and, to a lesser extent, by the nongovernmental Archaeological Society of Jamaica (ASJ). Importantly, while the IOJ is not involved in the
These institutions have had to develop creative means to engage the Jamaican populace and publicize the heritage that makes us who we are today. This has entailed âtaking heritage to the peopleâ instead of waiting for them to reach it, from incorporating music to enticing people to âcome, see, and learnâ to opening museums on Saturdays and Sundays, going where the people are, to art shows and other entertainment, among other events. It also includes directly engaging students by visiting primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions and exposing aspects of Jamaicaâs material cultural heritage to children and adults who would not have normally seen evidence of Jamaicaâs heritage otherwise.
Through these types of engagements, there is increasing awareness that artifacts from AD 650 (or at least a very, very long time ago) exist and that Jamaicaâs material cultural heritage remains are not just relics from their great-grandparentâs generationâsuch as the kitchen bitch, enamel mug, and the shet pan, among other objects associated with the islandâs independence in 1962âbut far beyond or much earlier than that. This has resulted in an understanding that culture is a significant contributing factor to their national and individual identity.
5 Role of Cultural Institutions
The structure of the governmentâs cultural resources management is that of a central ministry with several agencies managing various aspects of heritage. Within the scope of archaeological heritage, that ministry â the Ministry of Culture, is responsible for determining policy, and guiding the work of the associated agencies, namely the JNHT and the IOJ. The operations of both entities are set in motion by the legislations through which they were constituted.
The role of the JNHT and IOJ involves not just their outreach to the public, but also the research, preservation, maintenance, and display of the collections they hold. Through the Jamaica National Heritage Trust Act (1985), the JNHT has the chief tasks of research, declaration and designation of heritage sites as national monuments or protected national heritage, and regulation of such sites. It is through the JNHT that all aspects of archaeological research are undertaken or regulated. In fact, the JNHT Act is the main piece of legislation through which all activities toward the preservation, promotion, and development of Jamaicaâs cultural heritage are regulated.
Through the Institute of Jamaica Act 1995 (1978), the IOJ has had the chief tasks of maintaining and presenting its wide and varied collections, which include not only collections from archaeological sites, but also those associated
The activities of these entities remain extremely significant and relevant; and it is often through these activities that Jamaican participants cultivate a greater appreciation of their heritage. However, understanding the value of heritage does not happen overnight, as only a small slice of the populace is ever exposed to these efforts, which makes the work of cultural agencies ever-increasing and repetitive.
6 Value or No Value?
Despite the work of culture agencies, the average Jamaicanâs understanding of the need to protect the nationâs heritage is still not at a level that would ensure its preservation and safeguarding. This understanding normally focuses on the tangible elements of heritage, reflected in its historical objects, monuments, etc., which in times past have been defaced, neglected, and in some cases destroyed. Examples of this include the removal of bricks from historic buildings for use in home construction or renovation, and archaeological remains that have been the target of looters and illegal excavations and have suffered from the impact of development.
The consistent deficiency in funding for initiatives promoting heritage awareness and preservation is a strong contributor to this situation. Due to a lack of understanding and coordination between unrelated government agencies, often those with significant financial backing in small countries such as those in the Caribbean, cultural heritage is sidelined as merely a social good. The oft-heard yet misguided saying âthere is no money [value] in heritage (heritage doesnât pay)â can be interpreted in this context, as many see no economic value in heritage, much less in protecting it. The funding needed to protect sites from neglect, to preserve and conserve them, is simply unavailable, and the general society interprets this as a reflection of their unimportance or lack of value, which influences how Jamaicans view and treat heritage. However, there is more that can and should be done with available resources.
There are several sites that have suffered the impact of illegal excavations and looting; these mostly include Amerindian sites, such as White Marl, Saint Catherine, Chancery Hall, Saint Andrew, and Canoe Valley at the border of Manchester and Clarendon, as well as underwater and terrestrial sites in Port Royal, among others. In these cases, those responsible for the wanton destruction recognized the financial gains to be made in selling these materials to collectors and not because they were aware of their value to Jamaicaâs archaeological heritage. The destruction of sites is not only due to the work of looters
The question of whether Jamaicans understand the extreme damage being inflicted on heritage sites is uncertain. One might infer that those who loot sites, ransack historic structures for building materials for their homes, or replace historic buildings with modern structures do not understand the finite nature of heritage resources or see the relevance of preserving them. Clearly, this is evidence of the Jamaican publicâs conflicted interaction with its heritage and what it means to fill the gaps in our national identity by investigating its material culture. Awareness and understanding are lacking, not only in the average Jamaican but also in many government entities. In 2000, a portion of the historic Bushy Park aqueduct was slated to be relocated to facilitate the construction of the Highway 2000 development. The JNHT placed a preservation notice6 on the site while it arranged for the mapping and eventual relocation of the monument. The day after the expiration of the notice, the National Works Agency (NWA), another government agency, moved in and tore down a portion of the monument (Richards and Henriques, 2011). Such poor coordination between government agencies and a lack of awareness regarding the heritage of the nation is of serious concern, particularly for the future preservation of historic monuments. Insensitivity and ignorance among those who are responsible for development are a concern.
Often, the protection of archaeological sitesâboth explored and unexploredâis not a priority to developers, and sometimes these sites are easily sacrificed for the sake of development. The most relevant piece of legislation to the protection of archaeological sites, the JNHT Act, authorizes the JNHT to âdeclare to be a national monument, any structure, the preservation of which is, in the opinion of the Trust, a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, architecturally, traditional, artistic, aesthetic, scientific or archaeological interest.â7
Regarding land-based development impacting sites, the act only addresses the destruction of sites declared as national monuments or protected national heritage, and in Section 17 declares it âan offence,â for which one âon summary conviction before a Resident Magistrate [may] be liable to a fine not exceeding forty thousand dollars (approximately three hundred United States dollars) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and
The Act is rarely enforced within the context of competing priorities at the national level. Further, provisions for Heritage Impact Assessments are not mandatory or legislated, although there have been cases of Archaeological or Heritage Impact Assessments taking place on their own or as part of a wider Environmental Impact Assessment, as was the case with White Marl, Cockpit Country, and the construction of the Old Harbour Bypass, North Coast Highway Development Project, Highway 2000, and the Long Mountain Housing Development Project. In these instances, archaeologists could conduct research and rescue archaeology and, in a few cases, even save some sites by proposing mitigation actions that were accepted. The JNHT also conducts âwatching briefsâ on sites that are known to them or declared as protected national heritage, and which may be impacted by development works. At present, much of the responsibility for declaring what is found and alerting the Trust lies in the hands of the developer, which is never a good situation. This is particularly within the context of limited awareness by developers, and there have been several examples island-wide in which the JNHT has not been able to adequately protect archaeological remains from hotel development and, more recently, from the construction of the cruise-ship pier in Port Royal, among other things.
In 2009, the JNHT initiated a process to update the Act8 with the intention of implementing greater enforcement measures as it concerns the looting of archaeological sites, destruction of heritage sites and monuments, and the engagement of private collectors and collections. The revised Act will also entail increased fines and other matters associated with international cultural heritage law, such as management of world heritage properties, preservation of underwater cultural heritage, and legal and illegal trade in cultural objects. Prior to this, as indicated previously, the Act had little teeth, and very little punishment, if any, was meted out to those who contributed to the destruction of monuments. The process of updating the Act is still ongoing, but presents an opportunity for the Trust to renew its push to build greater awarenessâfor example, through consultations with stakeholders regarding Jamaicaâs
The ongoing destruction of sites has led heritage agencies to seek greater engagement at the central government level in order to have a say in policies that are not associated with heritage, but have implications for the protection of sensitive heritage sites. Importantly, over the last decade, there has been an evolution in the understanding of the value of archaeological heritage by arms of government unconcerned with its protection and preservation, resulting in an improvement in how heritage resources are engaged. While there is still a way to go before considering the preservation of heritage in the natural environment or cultural landscapes, a settled matter, the present contextâbeing given an opportunity to put forward concerns, such as with parish development orders - demonstrates an improvement in the understanding and awareness of the value of heritage resources. An example of a policy unassociated with cultural heritage is the National Minerals Policy, which is now being finalized with an addition that addresses sensitive sites such as world heritage properties. Through the JNHT, there remains a consistent push to ensure that the interests of urban planning, mining, and road and other infrastructural development have no negative impact on archaeological sites. However, this is an uphill battle. In the face of financial and human resource challenges, the agency maintains its regulatory function to protect archaeological sites throughout the island inasmuch as possible.
7 Moving Forward: Opportunities for Shifting the Paradigm of How Archaeological Heritage is Valued
Merriman (2000) states that âit is only by finding out the content of peopleâs images of the past that we can begin to assess where misconceptions lie and where approaches to the exhibition of the past might be modified.â McManamom (1990), in applying the subdivisions used in determining the scientific literacy of the general public to archaeology, stated that only a small percentage (less than 5%) were truly archaeologically literate; a somewhat larger percentage is interested (or intrigued) enough to read materials on the topic, watch the history channel, or visit heritage sites/museums, etc. The rest of the public (a significant portion) gets its archaeology from Indiana Jones or the nightly news. These larger percentages present unique opportunities for engagement in engendering a more aware public, and an aware public participates in the protection of its archaeological heritage.
In the same survey, the respondents (in multiple responses) indicated that they learned about archaeology through: television, 222; books/magazines, 195; archaeological projects, 20; school, 129; cultural/historical events, 121; the internet, 26; archaeological/historical society, 30; and museum/heritage site visits, 3. Fifty-five respondents never learned about archaeology. It can be seen from these figures that visiting heritage sites/museums, archaeological and historical societies, etc. remain under-utilized strategies, when in fact these should be the primary strategies for stimulating and nurturing an awareness of the archaeological heritage.
When asked if they could name an archaeological site, many did not understand what the term âarchaeological siteâ meant, and thus were prompted with the term âheritage site.â The results suggested that many individuals knew only limited sites; thirty-eight percent of those sampled could not name any site. Port Royal (33.1%), Seville (23.5%), and White Marl (11.2%) were the most popular answers among those who could name a site; the sites that 1 to 11% of respondents named were: Spanish Town, 6%; Rose Hall Great House, 6.8%, Accompong, 1.6%, Blenheim, 1.2%, Maroon Town, 1.6%, Green Grotto Caves, 2.4% and Fort Charlotte, 1.2%. Sites with less than 1% of responses were Stony Gut, Bath Fountain, Morant Bay Court House, Trelawny Barracks School, Parish Church and Bottle Dome, National Heroes Park, Hendon House, Harrison House, Sligoville Great House, the Rio Nuevo Battle site, Devon House, Montego Bay Civic Centre, Two Sisters Cave, Harmony Hall, Ashton Great House, Flagstaff, Green Castle, Colbeck Castle, St. Andrew Parish Church, and Paradise Park.
Awareness leads to value, and the solution for greater awareness among Jamaicans is greater outreach in all spheres. One such example that needs upscaling is the program that the ministry responsible for culture developed in 2013, in collaboration with the Jamaica Cultural Development Commissionâs (JCDC) Culture Clubs, and relaunched in mid-2015. The program, titled the âCulture Passportâ program, was created to encourage primary-, secondary-,
7.1 The Place for Archaeological Heritage in Education
In 1992, Irving Rouseâs research for his book The TaÃnos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus prompted the JNHT to intensify its outreach efforts to the general public, in particular teachersâ colleges, where they explained the differences between the TaÃnos and the Arawaks as a means of stimulating greater interest in Jamaicaâs Amerindian inhabitants.
The JNHT, having engaged the teachersâ colleges, extended their public communications to students island-wide. Through this initiative, the ministry responsible for education sought to change the historical narrative in schools.9 This change of narrative resulted in a burgeoning understanding of Jamaicaâs earliest inhabitants by the wider Jamaican public, and again filled in some gaps in Jamaican national identity.
This illustrates that there is ample capacity for the integration of archaeological research into the educational curriculum beyond the mere mention of and visits to heritage sites. There is also a robust opportunity for archaeological remains and heritage sites to be used to teach elements of other subjects,for example, using historic water wheels to teach science. From schools to the average resident of each parish, individuals should be encouraged to learn more about the heritage existing within their parish boundaries, instead of just the better-known sites of Port Royal and Seville. The Covid-19 pandemic has also revealed a wonderful opportunity for Jamaicaâs archaeological heritage to be conveyed through technology, such as through the development and promotion of virtual and interactive tours. This would contribute significantly to awareness and accessibility. There is also the possibility to create virtual discovery archaeological tours or trails in each parish to encourage awareness and research.
A formal chain of information transmission is something that can be developed to ensure that the islandâs educational system receives regular updates. Further, amid the understanding that culture is central to the national identity of any people, filling in the gaps through education is necessary and significant. Education officers at the ministry responsible for history, geography, and social sciences education understand this, and have sought to formalize such a system, which could be done through a memorandum of understanding between the ministries responsible for culture and education and their associated agencies.
Another major advance is the provision of short certificate courses to registered teachers by the Jamaica Teaching Council (a ministry agency responsible for education) during the summer break. Based on communication with the Core Curriculum Unit, the summer 2020 program is being used by other government agencies, namely the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), to provide updated information on geography. This is an opportunity to ensure that the information being communicated through the educational system is relevant and current, as the available information on Jamaicaâs archaeological heritage very often proves to be outdated.
While the JNHT routinely drafts reports on archaeological excavations, it remains to be determined what portion of these analyses is communicated to Jamaicans via publications, school curricula, and informal avenues. There is no coordinated flow of information to the educational system, as the means of dissemination are informal. Education officers and teachers often gain additional information through workshops, conferences, or relationships with cultural agencies.10 This lack of structure in transmitting information is a concern, as the knowledge that would benefit both teachers and students is obtained only through haphazard sharing, which creates unnecessary, and potentially costly gaps in the information flow.
A program promoting Jamaicaâs archaeological heritage during the summer, could be used to consistently reach a larger group of teachers island-wide, in comparison to the infrequent face-to-face engagement workshops, which can
The above mentioned proposed engagement with teachers has the potential to be extremely beneficial, as this structured approach to information sharing requires minimal effort. This is due to the ministry responsible for education already having the necessary platform and support infrastructure for effective implementation.
The Ministry of Educationâs âCulture in Educationâ program is based on the use of culture âas context, content and methodology for learning.â Under the view that culture can be used to support the transmission of school curricula, one of the objectives of the program is to âpromote and encourage visits by the school community to heritage sites.â11 Through the implementation of this program, culture agents ensure that both students and teachers are actively engaged. This program has even greater potential in tandem with cultural agencies to encourage awareness of Jamaicaâs archaeological heritage as a part of the nationâs identity. Jamaica Day is celebrated island-wide and is a product of the Culture in Education program. Observed on the last Friday in February, it has the potential to remind Jamaicans annually that their heritage extends beyond emancipation and independence, encompassing many peoples, objects, and places. Jamaica Day also presents an opportunity to promote an inclusive archaeological heritage. The understanding that much of our archaeological heritage still needs to be uncovered, and that we must safeguard what remains for current and future generations, is a lesson that many would benefit from learning.
A good example of integrating heritage and educationâwhich should be recognized and its sustainability ensuredâwas the project âThe JNHT Presents: Heritage Across the Curriculum.â Through this program, the agency sought to introduce heritage in a more dynamic way, encouraging the use of heritage resources beyond the usual history, social studies, and geography curriculum, such as using a sugar plantation to teach economics while exposing students to the history and heritage of the site. Though the project has had some challenges in implementation, a complete launch is expected to be undertaken by the JNHT and the Ministry of Education, bringing history and heritage to the forefront not only for teachers and students, but also the wider Jamaican public.
In the greater Jamaican society, a more focused awareness program is needed to engage the public and secure their support. While enforcement
Through ordinary citizens, sites can be protected and interpreted in a way that promotes sustainability for the sites themselves and the wider community. This impact is well reflected in the Community Tourism Policy and Strategy 2015, which indicates that the positive engagement of communities will lead to the beneficial harnessing of Jamaican creativity and natural and cultural resources that can empower communities to âgenerate opportunities for sustainable livelihoods, improve their social condition, and celebrate, preserve and rejuvenate their natural and cultural heritage.â12 Community interaction has played a significant role in protecting sites such as Accompong and Charles Town, both Maroon sites, where the community recognizes the value of sustaining their archaeological heritage. In so doing, they have built tourism initiatives that promote the preservation of Maroon heritage, some of which is archaeological in nature.
8 Conclusion
As Firth (2015) highlights, âcultural heritage is a valuable, and irreplaceable record of human activity ⦠and [our] heritage provides us with a tangible link to the past and connects intangible stories to people and places. It provides many social, well-being and environmental benefits, including a sense
The issue of Jamaicans recognizing the value of archaeological heritage, or in fact all types of cultural heritage, is an important part of this discourse. The fact remains that while a select few members of the Jamaican populationâmostly those in culture agencies, academia, and civil societyârecognize the historical, social, and aesthetic values of heritage, the average Jamaican associates archaeological heritage mainly with its social or recreational value. It is not necessarily an awareness of the historical value of these sites, but the ability to enjoy the spaces within a social context. Port Royal and Devon House are perfect examples of this. Jamaicans visit Port Royal primarily for socializing in the cool, well-known restaurant on the edge of Kingston Harbour, and Giddy House is remembered for its nostalgic memories as opposed to the actual historical use of the structure. Little beyond the obvious is known or appreciated, but if this sense of value can be utilized more effectively to increase historical value, then these opportunities should be pursued. Certain challenges, as discussed above, put our archaeological heritage at risk; however, continued support of the work of culture agencies is a must, with an increased push to make the population aware of the connection between Jamaicaâs archaeology and its national identity. A historically aware and engaged Jamaican populace can only be of value to its archaeological heritage.
References
Allsworth-Jones, P. (2008). Pre-Columbian Jamaica. University of Alabama Press.
Atkinson, L. G. (2006). The earliest inhabitants: The dynamics of the Jamaican Taino. University of West Indies Press.
Atkinson, L. (2010). TaÃno influence on Jamaican folk traditions. Jamaica National Heritage Trust. http://www.jnht.com/download/influence.pdf.
Black, C. (1965). The story of Jamaica from prehistory to the present. St. Jamesâs Place.
Firth, A. (2015). The social and economic benefits of marine and maritime cultural heritage: Towards greater accessibility and effective management. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 46(1): 223â224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1095-9270.12228.
Government of Jamaica. (1985). The Jamaica National Heritage Trust Act. Jamaica National Heritage Trust. http://www.jnht.com/download/act_jnht_1985.pdf.
Government of Jamaica. (2016). National Standards Curriculum. Ministry of Education and Youth. https://moey.gov.jm/curriculum/.
Harrison, R. (2010). Understanding the politics of heritage. Manchester University Press.
Henry, S. and R. Woodward. (2019). Contact and Colonial Impact in Jamaica: Comparative Material Culture and Diet at Sevilla la Nueva and the TaÃno Village of Maima. In C. L. Hofman and F. Keehnen (editors), Material Encounters and Indigenous Transformations in the Early Colonial Americas. (pp. 84â101). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004273689_005.
Howard, R. R. (1956). The archaeology of Jamaica: A preliminary survey. American Antiquity, 22(1): 45â59.
ICOMOS. (1990). Charter for the protection and management of the archaeological heritage. Antiquity, 67: 402â5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0004549X
Lowenthal, D. (1997). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge University Press.
Jamaica National Heritage Trust. Jamaica National Heritage Trust ActâA Review. http://jnht.com/download/doc_legislation_review_discussion.pdf
Mason, R. (2002). Assessing values in conservation planning. In M. de la Torre (Ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage (pp. 5â30). Getty Conservation Institute.
McManamom, F. (1990). The many publics for archaeology. American Antiquity, 56(1): 121â130.
Merriman, N. (2000). Beyond the glass case: The past, the heritage and the public. Institute of Archaeology, University College London.
Mickleburgh, H. L., Laffoon, J. E., Pagán Jiménez, J. R., A. A. A. Mol, S. Walters, Z. J. M. Beier, C. L. Hofman. (2018). Precolonial/early colonial human burials from the site of White Marl, Jamaica: New findings from recent rescue excavations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 29(1): 155â161. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2707
Papadopoulos, J. & Urton, G. (2012). Construction of value in the ancient world. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Reid, B. (2009). Myths and realities of Caribbean history. University of Alabama Press.
Richards, A. & Henriques, A. (2011). Cultural resource management: A study of Jamaica. In P. Siegel & E. Righter (Eds.), Protecting heritage in the Caribbean. University of Alabama Press.
Richards, A. (2004). The eyes and ears of Jamaican archaeology: Just how blind and deaf are they? [Conference presentation]. Archaeological Society of Jamaica Annual Symposium, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica.
Rouse, I. (1992). The TaÃnos: Rise and decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale University Press. https://www.scribd.com/doc/195022266/Irving-Rouse-The-Tainos
Seixas, P. (2014). History and Heritage: Whatâs the Difference? Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens. Fall issue: 12â16.
UNESCO definition of heritage: https://www.unesco.org/en/world-heritage#:~:text=Heritage%20is%20our%20legacy%20from,sources%20of%20life%20and%20inspiration.
Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (1990). Accessed at: https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/arch_e.pdf
Information from http://jnht.com/about_jnht.php.
National Standards Curriculum Exploratory CoreâGrade 4, January 2020: https://pep.moey.gov.jm/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NSC-Grade-4-Exploratory-Core-Jan-2020.pdf.
Nicole Patrick Shaw, Deputy Executive Director, IOJ, personal communication (2020).
No action could be taken that would impact the integrity of the structure.
JNHT Act, Section 12, located at http://www.jnht.com/download/act_jnht_1985.pdf.
Jamaica National Heritage Trust ActâA Review.
Personal communication with archaeologist Dorrick Gray, August 3, 2020.
Personal communication with education officers of the Core Curriculum Unit, August 11, 2020.
âCulture in Educationâ program brochure.