1 Introduction
In “Trinbago” parlance, “spinning top in mud” is a popular metaphor used to describe situations in which one’s efforts are seemingly futile. This idiom effectively describes the present state of archaeological heritage management (AHM) in Trinidad and Tobago at the national level. In 1924, John A. Bullbrook, a pioneer of archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago, submitted a document to its colonial government titled “Suggestions for the Terms of an Ordinance for the Conservation of the Aboriginal Remains of Trinidad, B.W.I.” (Nero & Baptiste, 2015). Then governor Sir S. H. Wilson refused to support legislation on the matter and opted to issue non-binding instructions to protect and preserve such remains as much as possible. A century later, there is still no cohesive national legislation governing the management of archaeological heritage in Trinidad and Tobago. Meanwhile, the artifacts, structures, middens, monuments, and spaces that comprise this nation’s patrimony remain at risk from natural and anthropogenic factors like coastal erosion, uncontrolled development, and looting (Fitzpatrick, 2012; Hofman and Hoogland, 2015; Reid & Lewis, 2011) for which there has not yet been any comprehensive investigation, and which are beyond the realm of this paper.
Past explorations into Caribbean archaeological heritage have revealed an ongoing epidemic of undervaluation, mismanagement, and destruction (Fitzpatrick, 2012; Reid & Gilmore, 2014; Siegel, Righter, & Ebrary, 2011; Siegel et al., 2013; Wilson, 2007). Despite the commonalities that connect us through space and time, distinct colonial experiences and the resulting linguistic differences have led to geopolitical divisions in the regional management of this precious resource (Hofman, 2015). In most English-speaking territories, existing local legislative frameworks designed to protect heritage have fallen into disuse, or there is a lack of political will for proper enforcement (Keegan and Phulgence, 2011). In Trinidad and Tobago, the heavy responsibility of protection and management falls to archaeologists, historians, heritage professionals, site caretakers, museum professionals, First Peoples groups, and others who are
The country of Trinidad and Tobago comprise the southernmost islands in the Caribbean chain. They are considered continental islands, as they were once joined to South America and now reside on its continental shelf. However, both islands are inextricably linked to their regional neighbors through the shared past of human migration, colonialism, and exploitation. Trinidad and Tobago is known to be one of the primary thresholds through which Indigenous groups from the South American mainland ventured northward into the Lesser Antilles in successive waves of migration (Boomert, 2000, 2013; Keegan & Hofman, 2017; Rouse, 1992). At the time of European contact, the Indigenous population of Trinidad and Tobago was heterogeneous, multi-component, and multilingual. According to Boomert, Trinidad’s population consisted of groupings such as Carinepagoto, Yaio, Shebaio, Arawak, and Nepoio, whereas Tobago was home mainly to the Kali’na (Boomert, 2016). The island’s colonial history is equally complex and defined by competition between opposing European nations, including Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Britain, the plantation system, and waves of forced and voluntary migration. Unification occurred in 1899 when Tobago was declared a ward of Trinidad, thus creating a single entity under British control (Nimblett, 2012). On August 31st, 1962, Trinidad and Tobago divorced itself from Great Britain to become an independent state and then a republic in 1976. This twin-island nation has a history of archaeological research spanning more than one hundred years, with over three hundred identified archaeological sites and countless artifacts representing its precolonial, colonial, and postcolonial past.
2 The Guardians
This work would not have been possible without the fantastic and thought-provoking responses received from Trinbagonians working at various levels in the fields of cultural and archaeological heritage management (Figure 12.1).
Images of three guardians of archaeological heritage in Trinidad and Tobago. Left: Hamlet Harrypersad; top right: Rudylynn DeFour Roberts; bottom right: Derek Chung
People like Hamlet Harrypersad, the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago’s (The Trust) custodian for the Banwari Trace Archaeological Site, provided
Rudylynn DeFour Roberts is an architect who has devoted much of her life to restoring historic buildings and lobbying for the preservation of built heritage in Trinidad and Tobago (Reid & Gilmore, 2014). Rudylynn has also served on several national committees and boards, as well as organizations focused on heritage preservation and management, such as the The Trust and Citizens for Conservation’s Historic Restoration Unit. The contributors listed above represent only a sample of the perspectives included in this work and are by no means the only contributors to archaeological heritage management in Trinidad and Tobago. The following table shows our other interviewees.
The present study is based on semi-structured interviews conducted in 2020 with individuals, NGO s, and professionals working in the heritage sector (Table 12.1).
Interviews conducted in 2020 with individuals
| Interviewee | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christo Adonis | Piyai (healer, herbalist) of the Santa Rosa First People’s Community |
| Christopher Harris | Custodian of the Peter Harris Archaeological Collection |
| Ricardo Bharath | Chief of the Santa Rosa First People’s Community |
| Derek Chung | Owner of Undersea Tobago Dive Shop and underwater archaeology enthusiast |
| Eric Lewis | Curator of the Moruga Museum, Chief of the Warao Nation (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Hamlet Harrypersad | Caretaker of Banwari Trace Archaeological Site |
| Jennalee Ramnarine | Curatorial Assistant, University of the West Indies (UWI) Zoological Museum, St. Augustine |
| Kevin Farmer | Deputy Director of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society (BMHS) and former archaeology lecturer at UWI St. Augustine |
| Margaret McDowall | Chairman of the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago |
| Nimah Muwakil | Former curator of the National Museum and Art Gallery |
| Lorraine Johnson | Curator of the National Museum and Art Gallery |
| Rudylynn De Four Roberts | Restoration architect, President of Citizens for Conservation, former President of the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago, and former board member of the Archaeological Committee of Trinidad and Tobago |
Figure 12.2 shows the pioneers of Trinidad and Tobago archaeology. Interest in archaeological research in Trinidad and Tobago began as a byproduct of geological surveys conducted in the mid-nineteenth century (Boomert, 2000). The surveys of G. P. Wall and J. G. Sawkins were designed to provide information about the structure and mineral resources of the island to the colonial government (Wall & Sawkins, 1860). During their work, Wall and Sawkins encountered several shell deposits in southern Trinidad. These deposits were subsequently identified as the middens of prehistoric settlements by the famous naturalist R. J. Lechmere Guppy in 1864 (Boomert, 2000). Contemporaneous research was focused on collecting and describing artifacts found in chance encounters. Subsequently, researchers like John A. Bullbrook, John M. Goggin, and Irving Rouse conducted extensive excavations in southern Trinidad, in places like
Pioneers of Trinidad and Tobago archaeology. Top left: John A. Bullbrook; top center: Irving Rouse; top right: Arie Boomert; bottom: Archie Chauharjasingh, Peter Harris, and Prof. Keith O. Laurence
3 Archaeological Heritage Institutions
The Royal Victoria Institute (Figure 12.3) was built in Port of Spain in 1892 as a tribute for the Diamond Jubilee of the then British Monarch, Queen Victoria. The multifunctional space was initially designed to combine the Scientific Association, Agricultural Society, a public library, and a museum. It also functioned as a place for research exhibits on natural history and archaeology, as well as a lecture hall (Collens, 1888). The museum, housed within the institute, began as an amalgamation of several collections of curiosities, but soon became the most important collection of artifacts on the island. Unfortunately, the building and all its priceless contents were destroyed by fire in 1920. Among the losses was a prized collection of Amerindian ceramics donated by
Photograph of the Royal Victoria Institute, home of the National Museum and Art Gallery of Trinidad and Tobago
The Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago was an association established in 1932 to promote and disseminate historical information to the broader population of Trinidad and Tobago (Jarvis, 1998). The society’s founders were a multidisciplinary group of esteemed scholars and luminaries from colonial public service and private enterprise. The association was most successful in collecting, translating, printing, and circulating all manner of historical documents pertaining to Trinidad and Tobago’s colonial past under Spanish and British rule. The society consisted of a number of subcommittees, each with a focus that reflected the society’s underlying ethos. The historic sites or landmarks section and the archaeology section provided early direction in the management of the colony’s tangible heritage assets. The landmarks section’s mission was to identify and preserve historical sites in Trinidad and Tobago. By 1938, this section had arranged for the documentation and restoration of several historic forts, such as Fort Abercrombie and Fort King George (Jarvis, 1998). John A. Bullbrook was invited to join the society and establish its archaeology section after his well-received public lecture on Trinidad’s prehistory titled “The Ierian Race,” which was held at the Royal Victoria Institute on March 3, 1939 (Annual Reports 1938–1939). The archaeology section conducted excavations, organized exhibitions of artifacts, and raised public awareness of archaeology. Bullbrook’s work as the founder of this section and his curatorship of the Royal Victoria Institute Museum emboldened his tireless pursuit of legislative protection for the archaeological heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. However, his advocacy would not bear fruit during his lifetime. This pioneering archaeologist is considered to be the original guardian of this country’s archaeological patrimony.
3.1 AHM: Post-independence
Appointed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in 1979, the Archaeological Committee functioned in an advisory capacity to secure the protection,
The government established this committee in direct response to a research proposal submitted by Wilfred Laurier University to excavate a prehistoric site called Lover’s Retreat in Tobago (Reid & Gilmore, 2014). Although the project never happened, this committee’s activities formalized cultural heritage management in the country. However, its powers were limited as an advisory body. Rudylynn DeFour Roberts became a member of the society due to her work with the NGO Citizens for Conservation. Ms. Roberts spoke highly of the work done by the committee, but highlighted several issues in the way in which it was administered.
We kept impeccable records on archaeologists active in the country and on their projects … [W]e also physically oversaw excavations and conducted environmental impact assessments on suspected sites. However, we were not empowered to act on land development or other risk factors that infringed upon archaeological heritage sites. We could only make recommendations to the minister [responsible for culture]. (Roberts, 2020)
This lack of statutory authority often hindered the committee in their mission to protect important archaeological sites from damage and destruction. Additionally, the lack of financial support from the government and the inability to raise funds also affected the committee’s effectiveness. Members of the committee were not regularly compensated for their time and effort, and budgetary allowances for site visits in Tobago and hosting visiting archaeologists absorbed much of the available resources. According to Reid, “[The
The National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago is a membership-based organization created by an Act of Parliament in 1991 to recognize and protect tangible heritage assets or “properties of interest.” The National Trust Act defines “property of interest” as any monument, fossil, place, or site of natural beauty or national, historic, scientific, or archaeological interest (The Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, 1991). The National Trust Act is the only one that mentions monuments above or below the surface of the land or floor, whereby “monument” means any building, structure, or other work of man or nature—whether above or below the surface of the land or the floor of the sea—of national architectural, aesthetic, or historic interest. Therefore, preserving archaeological heritage falls under the purview of the National Trust. This organization has a wide-ranging set of obligations, including safeguarding the nation’s built and natural heritage through legal protection and acquisition; public education on heritage matters; and encouragement of local and foreign academic research.
In 2011, the National Trust sought to address the vacuum left by the Archaeological Committee by establishing a subcommittee focusing on archaeological matters (Reid & Gilmore, 2014; Reid & Lewis, 2011). However, this was a short-lived measure due to gaps in succession planning and budgetary concerns. Ms. Roberts laments on her experience, stating, “I remember going to sites where we heard something was found, and we get the committee, and we fly down there to look, and by the time you get there, foundation works were hurriedly done. When we spoke to individuals in the community about the find they would say ‘yea they found something there, but they cover it up fast fast’ … People in this country feel like the preservation of heritage is anti-development. This is something we have to work on” (Roberts, 2020). This dialogue shows that enforcement is complicated and frequently near impossible without an authority or committee with government authorization. Most of the interviewees agreed that stricter legislation is needed. They see it as the only way to curb the loss of archaeological heritage. However, Trinidad and Tobago’s legislation archaeological heritage is inadequate and simply not enforced.
Another legislative achievement is the Protection of Wrecks Act in 1994. This act affords protection for underwater archaeology in the form of wrecks.
The limited legislative protections afforded to heritage did not spring up overnight but have been carefully cultivated from colonial times to the post-independence era. Trinidad and Tobago have made great strides in closing the gaps in heritage protection. Legislative attempts at protection seemed to blaze a trail in the ’80s and ’90s, but since then, enforcement, legislative improvements, and compliance have not been dealt with for archaeological properties.
3.2 Education and Promotion
The promotion of archaeological heritage and the way it is communicated to the public has been changing over the last thirty years in many parts of the world. One major transformation is the importance of making archaeology more meaningful and accessible to a broader public (Cleere, 1984; Grima, 2002). This transformation can occur through a reimagination of public interpretation. Public interpretation can be described as “the official (and unofficial) versions presented at an archaeological/ heritage site or museum exhibit” (Walker, 2009, p. 3). The way an archaeological site is promoted or described to the public can affect how people understand and appreciate the site. While interpretation should strive for accuracy and enjoyment, the most successful interpretive strategies create an experience for visitors that allow the site and its surrounding environment to influence their awareness and appreciation of the place (Walker, 2009). Building an appreciative population can help individuals, NGO s, or any organization or agency gain support for conservation policies and legislative changes to protect sites further. In short, public appreciation will garner public support to protect archaeological sites.
The interviewees agreed that more could be done to protect the archaeological heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. However, among the interviewees, there was no clear consensus on how it should be promoted. A common theme was the lack of archaeological heritage promotion in Trinidad and Tobago.
Excavations at the Red House, Port of Spain
One interviewee, Margaret, took the time to actively consider how heritage could be promoted by taking a more constructivist approach to the National Trust’s only archaeological property, the Banwari Trace Archaeological Site. This property is the only archaeological site in the country that is legally protected as a “property of Interest” under the National Trust Act of Trinidad and Tobago, Chap 40:53. It is dated about 5000 BC or 7000 BP (years Before Present), and it is the oldest pre-Columbian site in the West Indies (O’Brian Harris and Trinidad & Tobago Historical Society, 1971; Rouse & Allaire, 1978; Tankersley et al., 2018). It is a well-stratified shell midden located in southeastern Trinidad, providing the oldest known archaeological evidence of human settlement in the West Indies and has been crucial to our understanding
Funding seems to be the most mentioned limitation to promotion and education. Exhibitions, interpretive materials, and their maintenance are costly to all the organizations in this study. Despite the common rhetoric of budget constraints, there are some elements that heritage stakeholders hope can be improved on a shoestring budget. Their goal is to get the public to understand and appreciate the archaeological heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. For the participants, there has been only one example of this thus far: the Red House Restoration Archaeological Project. Ms. Roberts describes the Red House excavations as “a shining example of what ought to be done, even in private enterprise.” In March 2013, discoveries including human remains, artifacts, and other archaeological materials were made at the Red House, Trinidad and Tobago’s seat of parliament, during a structural assessment of the foundations during restoration work. Preliminary data from this investigation suggested that the Red House site was a relatively sizable native settlement that was continuously inhabited for over twelve hundred years (Reid, 2018). The project’s committee included a consultation phase where information was shared with
3.3 The Collections
The archaeological collections in Trinidad and Tobago are stored in multiple repositories across both islands. To our dismay, none of these repositories possesses documented protocols for the use of their collections by academic researchers or the public. In most instances, there is either no staff, or staff lack the qualifications and knowledge to assess and maintain their collections adeptly. Nevertheless, the institutions responsible for the following collections have done as much as they can with the available resources. In this section, we highlight these collections and the individuals who have contributed to the promotion and preservation of archaeological heritage through their biographies, and in so doing, improved the archaeological heritage management of the nation.
The Archaeology Centre was established over four decades ago, in 1981, by renowned Caribbean archaeologist Arie Boomert, and pioneering local amateur archaeologist Peter O’Brien Harris. The Centre is quite literally the nucleus of archaeological research in the country. As part of the Department of History at the UWI, St. Augustine the Archaeology Centre has resources found in no other repository. The facility has climate-controlled storage, is better equipped than other repositories, and used to be easily accessible to local and visiting researchers. The Archaeology Centre has several archaeological collections from Trinidad, Tobago, and some of Trinidad’s offshore islands. Notable pieces at the center are the Biche point arrowhead, as well as stone tools from the Archaic Age site of St. John, which produced the oldest known evidence of the use of domestic plants in the insular Caribbean (Pagán-Jiménez et al., 2015). The collection located here spans the entire chronology of the human occupation of Trinidad and Tobago and is comparable only to the archaeological and historical assemblages found at the National Museum and Art Gallery. The Archaeology Centre possesses the only national archaeological site inventory, of which there is only one hard copy and one in digital format. Though this
3.4 Peter O’Brien Harris Collection, University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT)
The Peter O’Brien Harris Collection is a diverse array of pre-Columbian and historic artifacts and ecofacts that were collected over decades of archaeological work in Trinidad and Tobago, from the 1960s to the 2000s, by Peter O’Brien Harris. The collection is under the guardianship of O’Brien Harris’ children who are based internationally, and the finds had been moved several times due to improper storage conditions before arriving at its current location at the O’Meara Campus of the UTT. The collection has undergone initial curation by Arie Boomert, but this paper-based catalogue he created in the 1990s has not been digitized in a detailed manner, and within the UTT facility, there is an obvious need for the holding containers and individual labeling to be upgraded. While the room in which the collection is stored at UTT has a stable environment, the O’Meara campus was shut down at the end of 2020 because of financial considerations, so the future location, utility, and management of the O’Brien Harris Collection remain uncertain.
4 Recommendations
Our goal for this section is to highlight areas of hope for improving archaeological heritage management in Trinidad and Tobago. While the interviewees have highlighted many challenges and setbacks within the heritage industry, we have chosen to take a closer look at some of their main concerns: legislation, education, and collection management.
4.1 Legislation
A thorough account of recommendations for improving archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago could fill an entire book, but within the constraints of this chapter, we have tried to be succinct. As can be discerned thus far, adequate national legislation is paramount to the success and progress of archaeological
It is highly recommended, and requested by guardians of heritage, museums, and the authors, that the National Archaeological Committee be reconstituted and rendered functional with qualified, competent members. This committee will be the national regulatory body for archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago and act as an advisory committee to the government, providing structure and clarity for the operations of all individuals and institutions involved or affecting archaeological heritage, as well as lobbying for funding for promoting local archaeological projects and public education. The Archaeological Committee should develop productive links with government ministries and other relevant local governmental bodies, so these external expertise can assist the committee members in their role as consultants for the archaeological assessment of both private and commercial locations. In 2005, Trinidad and Tobago signed the 1972 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention). It is noteworthy to mention that our twin-island republic is the only major island-state in the Anglophone Caribbean that is without a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We recommend that this obvious omission be addressed, as it could potentially increase public awareness and interest regarding issues of heritage preservation and management. Trinidad and Tobago is also a signatory to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001, which was enforced globally in 2009. However, there are numerous facets of underwater heritage that need to be overseen by trained marine archaeologists, divers, conservators, and the like, but are glaringly absent from the cohort of archaeological and heritage professionals in the country.
4.2 Education
Trinidad and Tobago has a plethora of terrestrial and marine archaeological resources. These resources require a steady supply of well-trained archaeologists and heritage practitioners to tap their potential. In their 2011 work, Reid and Lewis highlighted the improvements made: with the establishment of the Archaeology Centre, “heritage management has been given a boost with the presence of the archaeology program at the University of the West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine Campus.” Trinidad and Tobago’s archaeology was indeed well served by the activities of the Centre; however, the offered program only provides a small number of elective undergraduate courses, with no possibility
At the secondary school level, the basics of history should be compulsory for all students. Additionally, prehistory and archaeology should have a higher priority in the syllabus for students opting to pursue history in the later years of their secondary education. Mock excavations and other introductions to archaeological fieldwork should be used to encourage students to pursue history and archaeology programs at the tertiary level. Currently, and problematically, there are very few local opportunities for employment in the fields of archaeology and heritage management. However, recent trends in the state’s willingness to support heritage restoration projects as a precursor to the development of the local tourism industry augur well for the future.
4.3 Collection Management
In the Caribbean, it is well documented that there are major issues with adequately curating materials and documents in archaeological studies (Siegel et al., 2013). Trinidad and Tobago has not been immune to this problem. The country has been fortunate to have some level of interest in archaeology, but a centralized curation system for archaeological collections is recommended. This measure will allow researchers to locate and identify material assemblages that have been dispersed among the collections, which in turn can inform what needs to be done to preserve and conserve the items, and how they can best be presented to the respective audiences for storage, curation, education, and research purposes. A comprehensive and uniform curation system can assist in closing the gaps in tangible terrestrial and underwater heritage management in the country. Accompanying this should be protocols established by the Archaeological Committee, which could be templates for the
5 Conclusion
Trinidad and Tobago has the frameworks in place for proper archaeological heritage management in the form of government regulatory oversight from the Archaeological Committee. It also has the potential to improve education and outreach through new experiential and innovative practices at sites. These activities can help improve interaction and coordination among heritage institutions and organizations, as well as between agencies and communities (Sankatsing Nava and Hofman, 2018). It is fortunate for Trinidad and Tobago’s archaeological heritage—in the absence of sturdy, comprehensive legislation—that the efforts of the aforementioned guardians have been consistent and impactful. Despite the lack of funding, Trinidad and Tobago has an incredible support base through these indefatigable custodians, yet it requires more concerted efforts on the part of the government to enable purposeful, sustained development. While communities can possibly have the opportunity to gain an understanding and new interpretation of the past through engaging with the institutions, universities, and collections or museums that house archaeological heritage, there are serious challenges to the longevity of protection offered. Issues of accessibility, passing on of information, and persons leaving important positions without succession planning are just some of the problems that have plagued heritage institutions. Although individuals have taken on the role of custodians and preservation champions, there is a serious lack of continuity in a country that relies heavily on the state for institutional support. The guardians of the past are working laudably in the present, but for archaeological heritage to have a safe future, there must be a cohesive effort from individuals, communities, and the government that is guided by local and international legislation.
Boomert, A. (2013). Gateway to the Mainland. The Oxford Handbook of Caribbean Archaeology, 141.
Boomert, A. and P. O’Brien Harris. (1984). An inventory of the archaeological sites in Trinidad and Tobago. Department of History, University of the West Indies St. Augustine.
Chung, D. (2020). Underwater cultural heritage in T&T. Video Recording.
Cleere, H. (Ed.). (2009). Approaches to the archaeological heritage. Cambridge University Press.
Collens, J. H. (1888). The guide to Trinidad and Tobago. E. Stock.
Roberts, R. (2020). Archaeological Committee of Trinidad and Tobago.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2012). On the shoals of giants: Natural catastrophes and the overall destruction of the Caribbean’s archaeological record. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 16(June), 173–86.
The Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. 1991. National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago Act 1991.
Grima, R. (2002). Archaeology as encounter. Archaeological Dialogues, 9(2), 83–89.
Harrypersad, H. (2020). Banwari Trace Archaeological Heritage Management. Audio.
Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago. (1940). Annual reports 1938–1939. Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago.
Hofman, C. L. and J. Haviser. (2015). Managing our past into the future. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Dutch Caribbean. Sidestone Press.
Hofman, C. L. (2015). The Caribbean challenge. In M. H. van den Dries, S. J. van der Linde, and A. Strecker (Eds.), Fernweh: Crossing borders and connecting people in Archaeological Heritage Management (pp. 105–9). Sidestone Press.
Hofman, C. L, and Menno LP Hoogland. 2015. ‘Beautiful Tropical Islands in the Caribbean Sea’. In W.J.H. Willems & H. P. van Schaik, Water & Heritage – Material, Conceptual and Spiritual Connections (pp. 99–120), Sidestone Press.
Jarvis, K. (1998). The Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago 1932–1954. Caribbean Quarterly, 44(3–4), 91–104.
Keegan, W. F. and W. Phulgence. (2011). Patrimony or patricide? In P. E. Siegel and E. Righter (Eds.), Protecting heritage in the Caribbean, 143–51. University of Alabama Press.
Nero, L. M. and A. Baptiste. (2015). Breaking new ground: John A. Bullbrook’s contribution to precolonial archaeology in Trinidad.” Archaeology and Anthropology Journal of Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology, 19(1): 1–16.
Nimblett, L. M. (2012). Tobago: The union with Trinidad 1889–1899: Myth and reality. Authorhouse.
O’Brien Harris, P. and Trinidad and Tobago Historical Society. (1971). Banwari Trace: Preliminary report on a pre-ceramic Site in Trinidad, West Indies. Trinidad and Tobago Historical Society.
Pagán-Jiménez, J. R., R. Rodríguez Ramos, B. A. Reid, M. van den Bel, and C. L. Hofman. (2015). Early dispersals of maise and other food plants into the southern Caribbean and northeastern South America. Quaternary Science Reviews, 123, 231–46.
Reid, B. A. (2018). An archaeological study of the Red House: Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. University of the West Indies Press.
Reid, B. A. and R. G. Gilmore. (2014). Encyclopedia of Caribbean archaeology. University Press of Florida.
Reid, B. A. and V. Lewis. (2011). Trinidad and Tobago. In P. E. Siegel and E. Righter (Eds.), Protecting heritage in the Caribbean. University of Alabama Press.
Rouse, I. (1992). The Tainos: Rise and decline of the people who greeted Columbus. Yale University Press.
Rouse, I. and L. Allaire. (1978). Caribbean chronology. Chronologies in New World archaeology. Academic Press.
Sankatsing Nava, T. and C. L. Hofman. (2018). Engaging Caribbean island communities with Indigenous heritage and archaeology research. Journal of Science Communication, 17(4), 1.
Siegel, P. E., C. L. Hofman, B. Bérard, R. Murphy, J. Ulloa Hung, R. Valcárcel Rojas, and C. White. (2013). Confronting Caribbean heritage in an archipelago of diversity: Politics, stakeholders, climate change, natural disasters, tourism, and development. Journal of Field Archaeology, 38(4), 376–90.
Siegel, P. E. and E. Righter (Eds.). (2011). Protecting heritage in the Caribbean. University of Alabama Press.
Tankersley, K. B., N. P. Dunning, L. A. Owen, and J. Sparks. (2018). Geochronology and paleoenvironmental framework for the oldest archaeological site (7800–7900 cal BP) in the West Indies, Banwari Trace, Trinidad. Latin American Antiquity 29(4), 681–95.
Walker, C. J. (2004). Heritage or heresy: The public interpretation of archaeology and culture in the Maya Riviera (Mexico). The University of Alabama Press.
Wall, G. P. and J. G. Sawkins. (1860). Report on the geology of Trinidad: Or, Part I. of the West Indian survey. HM Stationery Office.
Wilson, S. M. (2007). The archaeology of the Caribbean. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.