1 Introduction
The Caribbean islands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are a diverse set of islands with different languages, cultures, and relationships to each other and to the European Netherlands. These differences are correlated with each island’s historical and geographical contexts, migration stories, status in the kingdom, and demographics. The islands—Curaçao (C), Aruba (A), Saba (S), Bonaire (B), Sint Eustatius (E or S), and Sint Maarten (S)—are often referred to as the “Dutch Caribbean,” the “CAS” and “BES” islands (according to the political status of the islands in relation to the Netherlands) or, as preferred by many islanders, according to their geography and languages: the “ABC” and “SSS” islands (ABCSSS islands). In these islands, there are diverse, sometimes conflicting, and changing perspectives on heritage and the role of heritage in the islands’ national identities, communities, and tourism brands (Sankatsing Nava, et al., 2023).
According to Phulgence (2008), the public, government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO s), developers, and archaeologists all carry responsibility with regard to Caribbean heritage research, engagement, and management. This also applies to archaeological heritage in the ABCSSS islands, where the lack of enforced heritage legislation means that government-mandated institutions do not carry the sole responsibility or authority to ensure the safety, respectful treatment, or protection of archaeological sites on the islands. The history of archaeological research and heritage legislation as well as the challenges related to the lack of enforced legislation in the region have been described in detail (Haviser and Gilmore, 2011; Dijkhof and Linville, 2015; Hofman and Haviser, 2015). The lack of enforced legislation means that community engagement, local guidelines, and professional codes are of utmost importance. This is being addressed from both a local perspective as well as a broader Caribbean perspective in multiple ways. For example, the International Association of Caribbean Archaeologists has developed and ratified a new code of conduct
In this chapter, we explore Phulgence’s idea of shared responsibility for heritage through the lens of collaboration ecosystems in the ABCSSS islands. In considering case studies of collaboration in Aruba and Sint Eustatius, we take an integrated, community-based approach to heritage collaborations that entails shared responsibility and is both fluid and involves a heterogenous group, including community members and non-academics (Poulios, 2014). In doing this, we embrace the notion that “collaborative methods involving heritage professionals and communities in a network of on-going relationships with heritage places are arguably the most productive means to accommodate the inherently fluid processes of valuing the historic environment” (Jones, 2017). What challenges and benefits does this shared responsibility bring to heritage ecosystems in the ABCSSS islands? To explore this question, we use examples from Aruba and Sint Eustatius: two case studies on collaborations between researchers, governments, communities, and the private sector in the management of archaeological sites in Aruba, and two case studies on the dynamics between heritage and nature conservation actors through an iguana conservation program in Sint Eustatius and a marine archaeology case study in Aruba.
Each case study also considers the involvement and influence of communities in these heritage ecosystems. In Aruba, the archaeological case studies of the Savaneta 7 archaeological site and the Paradera rock art site shed light on the dynamics between archaeologists, government, property developers, and the local community in the management of archaeological heritage sites. Similarly, the case studies on collaboration ecosystems of nature and archaeology highlight the dynamics and tensions between stakeholders as well as successes when responsibility is shared through longer-term collaboration.
2 Archaeological Heritage Ecosystems
Heritage actors in the ABCSSS islands are involved in cultural heritage and the arts in varying ways. Often one individual wears different “hats” in the cultural sector: as a practitioner, creator, researcher, artist, organizer, community member, or policymaker. At the same time, cultural heritage actors may also be active in other sectors, such as nature conservation or industry. These different individual roles within and between sectors are often complementary but can be conflicting: heritage actors are often represented by single umbrella organizations, yet at the same time, heritage organizations sometimes operate in
In the past decades, the islands have seen dramatic changes in government and governmental policies, as well as imposed top-down measures and policies at the kingdom level (such as through the COHO regulatory body, enforced after the islands’ COVID-19 relief negotiations with the Netherlands). This has coincided with severe social and economic consequences related to crises like hurricanes and pandemics on the islands. These changes have deeply impacted the cultural sector as a whole and disrupt the implementation of successful long-term strategies for cultural policy on the islands and within the kingdom. National budget cuts for culture across the Kingdom of the Netherlands deter continuity in the islands’ cultural sector. At the same time, there are many motivated creatives building innovative collaborations across islands, as well as emerging opportunities for funding cultural projects, such as crowdfunding and cultural entrepreneurship. Recently the governments of Sint Maarten and Aruba have invested in encouraging the islands’ creative economies through networking sessions and training and awareness programs. In the European Netherlands, kingdom funds for culture and research are once again strengthening efforts to include the Dutch Caribbean islands in their programs after years of omission (NWO, 2019; Mondriaan Fonds, 2021). Other new and renewed avenues include inter-island efforts toward cultural funding (Oostindie, 2021) as well as funding through the European Commission (such as Erasmus+ and Archipel, the OCTA’s Creative Europe fund).
In the Caribbean, island communities are a core part of heritage ecosystems. With regards to archaeological research, heritage management, and community engagement in the Dutch Caribbean, there are a number of established public and nonpublic actors on each island, some with a community-oriented focus. These are the National Archaeological Museum Aruba (NAMA), the National Archeological Anthropological Memory Management (Curaçao), the Sint Maarten Archaeological Research Center (SIMARC), the Saba Archaeological Center (SABARC) and Saba Heritage Center, the St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research (SECAR), and BONAI, the archaeology group on Bonaire. In addition, there are several international actors involved in archaeological heritage on the islands, through ad hoc or long-standing collaborators from foreign universities. One such long-term collaborator in Aruba is Leiden University in the Netherlands. Short-term contract archaeologists are often
The following sections explore the challenges and opportunities in heritage ecosystems and emphasize the importance of an integrated, community-based approach of shared responsibility that engages closely with communities early on in heritage research, management, and conservation actions.
3 Societal Collaboration to Safeguard Archaeological Sites in Aruba
In Aruba, the National Archaeological Museum Aruba (NAMA) plays an important role in the archaeological heritage management and preservation ecosystem, and as such leads the efforts of a wide variety of community members and stakeholders dedicated to the research, presentation, promotion, management, and conservation of Aruba’s archaeological heritage, all of whose efforts are required for successful cultural resource management (Dijkhof & Linville, 2015). The management and preservation of archaeological heritage sites on private land is a key task for NAMA, albeit a difficult one. The lack of legal protection for archaeological heritage on private land makes the collaboration with GO s, NGO s, private companies, communities, and the broader public one of the most important factors in mitigating the damage and loss of archaeological sites in Aruba (Dijkhoff and Linville, 2015). In the case of archaeological heritage in Aruba, besides NAMA, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP), the Department of Public Works (DOW), and Aruban communities play a crucial role in the heritage ecosystem. This section describes two archaeological sites: the Savaneta 7 and Paradera A20 case studies. Both sites are situated on land owned by the real estate company Better Homes Aruba
3.1 Savaneta 7: Managing Heritage in Silos
The Savaneta 7 archaeological site, located on the southern part of Aruba, measures 1.18 hectares, and is situated within one of the few remaining large open terrains within the G. M. Bruinewijk neighborhood, which has been designated for construction and development within the national Spatial Development Plan. The steady population increase on the island of Aruba, concomitant with a rise in residential construction, translated to a great number of archaeological finds in the G. M. Bruinewijk neighborhood over time. Island archaeologists closely monitored this area through regular visits, preparation of reports, and emergency rescue excavations. These research and monitoring activities aimed to emphasize the importance of the area for Aruban cultural heritage to both government and the island community.
The Savaneta 7 archaeological site lies within the large Ceramic Period (AD 900/1000–1515) habitation site of Savaneta (Du Ry, 1960; Boerstra, 1974; Versteeg & Ruiz, 1990). Aside from Indigenous habitation, the Savaneta 7 site also served as a large-scale stone tool production center. The tool production component of this site is a unique feature within the other large-scale Ceramic Period habitation sites in Aruba. These factors make the site highly significant for the island of Aruba due to its typo-chronological and specialistic activity qualities. This, together with a history of primary land use for crop cultivation using methods that caused minimal damage to the underlying strata, has made Savaneta 7 a particularly important heritage site to preserve for the National Archaeological Museum Aruba.
From 2006 onwards, NAMA led concentrated efforts to achieve conservation of the Savaneta 7 site. This involved regular site controls and intensified collaboration efforts with the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. NAMA provided documentation of the Savaneta 7 site, along with documentation of other sites of high archaeological value, for consideration and possible inclusion as conservation areas within the national Spatial Development Plan. The purpose of this documentation was also to aid the safeguarding of these invaluable cultural heritage areas during the processing and approval of parcellation permits. The formal documentation of the Savaneta 7 site showed the specialistic features of the site that were considered key factors in the conservation of the property during an eventual sale of the land.
Despite NAMA’s documentation efforts to have this site marked as a conservation area, neither the museum nor the island community was notified when,
On previous occasions, the Aruban government had facilitated archaeological site conservation by exchanging property containing valuable archaeological sites with other available land; for example, this type of land exchange was conducted successfully with another archaeological site, in Tanki Flip. The developer Better Homes Aruba N.V. was in favor of the land exchange, despite already having made investments in the construction and land clearing. Construction activities on the site ceased and, despite the fact that archaeologists and community members were not involved in the land exchange process, it seemed that the process was ongoing.
Sometime after these events, however, it became clear that the land exchange process had not been initiated by government authorities, and construction was resumed on the property. The archaeologists contacted the DIP and efforts were once again intensified to facilitate the start of the land exchange process with the parties involved. Eventually, Better Homes Aruba N.V. agreed to an exchange with a property of their choice, and protection of the site once again seemed possible. However, the exchange request was rejected by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. The DIP did not factor in the cultural and societal value of the site as described in the archaeological reports in the calculation of the total value of the land. As a result, the property selected for exchange by Better Homes Aruba N.V. was listed with a higher commercial value than the Savaneta 7 property containing the archaeological site. While the archaeologists’ actions aimed to emphasize the importance of the area for Aruban cultural heritage to the government and the island community, both the archaeologists and community members were excluded from the land value and exchange negotiations between the government and the developers. Ultimately, this led to the construction of the first house at Savaneta 7 in June 2014, and the loss of an important archaeological site in Aruba.
3.2 Paradera A20: Integrated Heritage Collaborations
The Paradera A20 pictograph site is a batholith boulder containing nine red-colored geometric motifs situated within the Casibari Better Homes Aruba N.V. housing project. NAMA first became aware of the threat to the site in 2006,
Beyond collaborating to conserve the site, the developer took an active role toward a more robust solution to protect the archaeological site for the long term. A metal enclosure with a gate was proposed, and the developer agreed to its construction and placement and financed the building of the enclosure. NAMA has widely shared the conservation efforts by Better Homes Aruba N.V. as an exceptional case of public and private partnership toward the protection of cultural heritage, which has built further trust and developed their relationship.
Conservation efforts at Paradera A20 did not end with the placement of the metal enclosure, but continued years after the project was finished. Community members and homeowners in the direct vicinity of the site participated in the conservation efforts and became voluntary custodians of access keys to the enclosure to facilitate maintenance of the site, including the removal of vegetation when needed. One such instance that resulted in a collaboration between homeowners, NAMA, and the Department of Public Works occurred in 2013, when a homeowner contacted NAMA to report the explosive growth of vegetation, which decreased the visibility of the pictographs and threatened to damage the heritage site. NAMA contacted the DOW for assistance in the removal of the vegetation, and the enclosure was cleaned to prevent further damage to the pictographs. After the vegetation removal, the owners of the property included the site in the landscaping of their yard and covered the ground with plastic decorative pebbles to prevent vegetation growth that could damage the pictographs in the future.
The long-term collaboration between the community members, archaeologists, developers, and the Department of Public Works led to the successful conservation of the archaeological site through a heritage garden, a scheme that has facilitated community access and involved community action and custodianship in its preservation. This shows that an involved partner can take archaeological sites into account in construction projects when the heritage concerns of all parties, including community members, are considered, and they are actively involved early in the construction and project development process in a reciprocal and trust-based relationship.
The archaeological case studies of the Savaneta 7 archaeological site and the Paradera rock art site shed light on the possible dynamics between
4 Natural and Cultural Heritage Engagement: Conflicts and Collaborations
This section explores some of the tensions between nature and cultural heritage activists on Sint Eustatius and collaborations between archaeologists, the government, and recreational divers in the conservation of marine archaeological sites in Aruba. It highlights some of the challenges of working in silos in heritage management. At the same time, it illustrates how actors in the cultural and natural heritage ecosystems can often benefit from an integrated, community-based approach to shared responsibility for solutions that serve the goals of all parties.
4.1 Endangered Iguanas and Monumental Ruins in Sint Eustatius
The Lesser Antillean iguana, or Iguana delicatissima, is a critically endangered iguana native to the island of Sint Eustatius. Sint Eustatius is of the few islands where the iguana still appears, but it is threatened by hunters for consumption (the name says it all: the creatures are considered a delicacy), loss of habitat, and the introduction of the invasive green iguana (or Iguana iguana). This threat leads to hybridization (i.e., interbreeding of the two species) and displacement. Ultimately these threats result in the loss of the genetically unique populations of the Iguana delicatissima (van Wagensveld & van den Burg, 2018). In a span of eight years, the IUCN Red List status of this species was elevated from endangered (Breiul et al., 2010) to critically endangered (van den Burg et al., 2018). In Sint Eustatius, ecologists monitor the health and count of the iguana population by tracking and catching the iguanas to tag and register them for continued monitoring.
The island of Sint Eustatius also boasts a rich cultural heritage. The historic city center, Oranjestad, lies alongside the west coast of Sint Eustatius and is known as the “Historic Core,” with buildings constructed in the eighteenth century. Some of these buildings are ruins, but most have been restored. Some well-known restored and preserved buildings in Sint Eustatius are the Roman
The story in the highlighted box below explores some of the tensions and (lack of) collaboration between nature and cultural heritage activists on St. Eustatius. At the same time, it illustrates how actors in the cultural and natural heritage ecosystems can often benefit from integrated heritage management solutions that serve the goals of all parties.
Case highlight by Stacey Mac Donald
In April 2016, I joined two ecologists on their daily hunt to find the critically endangered Lesser Antillean iguana. Alongside the cliff whereon the old monumental Fort Oranje is built were several trees in which the ecologist knew several iguanas made their homes. The first iguana was carefully and skillfully caught, after which he was measured, weighed, and tagged for future reference.
After several hours and visiting several locations, we arrived at our last site. This was in the ruins of an old sugar mill plantation that nature had taken over, and only several walls and parts of the tower used to process the sugarcane remained. As the ecologists scouted the area for another iguana, they carefully stepped over the ruins’ remainders. That was until another iguana was spotted in a nearly impossible-to-reach location, high up in a tree leaning against the ruins’ walls. As the ecologist climbed up the tree to capture the iguana, he had to use the walls for additional support. As he did so, several small pieces of brick fell from the ruin, further reducing the remains of that piece of cultural heritage. However, this did not seem to bother the ecologists at work, as they were solely and fully focused on safely capturing the iguana for their monitoring research.
A couple of years later, the tree in Fort Oranje was cut down, destroying the habitat of the iguana we visited with the ecologists. The tree was removed to make way for the necessary artificial reinforcement of the cliff. The natural reinforcement (i.e., the rooting system of plants and trees) had been destroyed due to the mismanagement of roaming animals (goats) over the years. If the cliff was not reinforced, it would not be able to support the fort, ultimately leading to its destruction. Moreover, the deterioration and erosion had reached such a dire state that natural reinforcement through replanting and reforestation would take too long to establish the cliff’s required safety and stability.
These two instances illustrate that while there are tensions between nature and cultural heritage activists, they often benefit from solutions that serve both interests. Proper maintenance and restoration of archaeological and monumental sites like that of the sugar plantation would safeguard the building and prevent iguanas from making that area their habitat of choice and further damaging the site. Similarly, while reinforcement of the fort was surely necessary, the entire process surrounding the management of Fort Oranje seemed counterintuitive and paradoxical: removing vegetation (i.e., plants and trees) and thus destroying the critical habitat of an endangered and culturally valued species, in order to protect another form of cultural heritage at risk due to the removal or disappearance of nature (i.e., plants and trees). In the case of the cliff, rather than removing vegetation, the removal of roaming livestock would have been the best way to prevent loss of habitat for the Iguana delicatissima, and likewise forestall erosion of the cliff and therefore safeguard the monumental fort in Oranjestad. The examples above highlight that in the case of nature and heritage conservation in Sint Eustatius, all parties could benefit from sharing responsibilities and implementing a more integrated approach to managing culture and natural heritage on the island.
4.2 Underwater Cultural Heritage of Aruba: an Opportunity for Nature – Culture Collaborations
Aruba’s archaeological record begins around four thousand years ago (1500 BC), the estimated date of arrival of the first inhabitants (Kelly and Hofman, 2019).
In 2012, the NAMA began raising awareness of this heritage through a publication on the sailor’s grave of a mariner shipwrecked in 1886, a temporary exhibition, and several activities linking the site to Aruba’s underwater cultural heritage. This development was triggered after a case of looting in 2009 when a WWII commemoration foundation began to remove propellers, anchors, and artifacts from a few sunken WWII vessels. They were lauded as heroes by governmental representatives and the community and were even aided by the coast guard. However, the divers removed the artifacts without regard for current professional archaeological standards and conservation practices (Dijkhoff, 2011; Price, 2018). NAMA contacted the commander of the marine base as well as the Department of Shipping, collaborating with these organizations to raise awareness of the illegality of these actions. These engagement activities were successful, and the organizations halted the unintended looting, which stemmed from a lack of awareness of preservation and marine archaeological heritage management among community members. The awareness activities organized by NAMA in 2012 had a positive impact on many community members, including government officials and recreational divers. The Department of Shipping solicited NAMA’s input in the development of an ordinance on the maritime heritage management of Aruba using the guidelines of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Meanwhile, certain coastal areas of interest have been assigned as a marine park to be managed by the Fundacion Parke Nacional Aruba, with whom NAMA has a close cooperation.
In 2019, the autonomous islands of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Curaçao, Aruba, and Sint Maarten) formally made a petition to the Ministry
5 Discussion and Conclusion: Collaboration Ecosystems in Cultural Heritage
These case studies demonstrate the importance of partnerships and integrated collaboration for cultural heritage with public and private partners, as well as with the broader community and other stakeholders. Construction and housing development companies play an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological heritage in Aruba. As illustrated in the case studies of Paradera A20 and Savaneta 7, developers can form a threat to heritage engagement, management, and conservation, but can also lead conservation and safeguarding initiatives. In some cases, it is not the commercial companies that create barriers to archaeological heritage protection. Successful implementation of rescue archaeology projects at sites affected by human impacts in the Dutch Caribbean is often dependent on intensive and integrated collaboration across sectors and finding common ground between stakeholders, as has also been previously demonstrated for older archaeological sites such as the Bethlehem Plantation on the island of Sint Maarten and the Spaanse Water site in Curaçao (Hofman and Hoogland, 2016).
Archaeological heritage management has shown to be successful in long-term collaborative partnerships between archaeologists, conservationists, private landowners and developers, societal partners, communities, and government. Together, they provide the technical, financial, logistical, and community support required to successfully conserve and co-manage archaeological
The case studies in this chapter illustrate how heritage conservation objectives can be achieved when involved partners co-define the importance, are aware of the relevance, and are actively involved with archaeological heritage. To ensure equitable and successful collaborations, engaging in a long-term commitment to build trust through partnerships that center reciprocity, such as site custodianship of community members, is key. This has also been found in archaeological heritage projects in other Caribbean islands (Sankatsing Nava & Hofman, 2018). Partners who are equitably involved early on in projects are often flexible and willing to work diligently to achieve common goals in heritage research, engagement, and management. In these cases, collaborations are often built upon mutual reciprocity and personal relationships, where the partners involved trust each other’s intentions and expertise and can apply this expertise to their field of work to collaboratively achieve heritage protection despite the possible conflict of interests. This was the case in the building development of Paradera A20, where the homeowners involved archaeologists and considered archaeological heritage in the landscaping plans. Developers and government officials can take archaeological sites into account by successfully applying for land exchange, planning heritage gardens in construction projects when the heritage concerns of all parties are considered, and all are actively involved early in the construction and project development process. In these cases, it is essential to engage with the community and other stakeholders at the early stages of the research process and to ensure equitable involvement in key decision-making phases.
At the same time, the case studies show that when stakeholders are involved in more formalized stakeholder groups, or are not deeply involved in the process and do not build relationships based on trust and reciprocity, their individual (and sometimes short-term) objectives overrule common goals, and long-term heritage projects are more difficult to achieve. An important factor in heritage collaborations is the ability to listen, build awareness, and engage both public and private partners. While there are sometimes tensions between nature and cultural heritage workers, as the case study about iguana conservation and the fort restoration in Sint Eustatius shows, they can often benefit from strategies that serve both interests, and an integrated approach to collaboration would facilitate identifying these solutions.
References
Boerstra, E. H. J. (1974). Preliminary report on the 1971 Ceru Noka Excavation, Aruba. In R.P. Bullen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles (pp. 13–20). Antigua Archaeological Society.
Breuil, M., M. Day, & Knapp, T. (2010). Iguana delicatissima. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2010, e.T10800A3217854. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/10800/0.
Burg, M. van den, Breuil, M., & Knapp, C. (2018). Iguana delicatissima. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2018, e.T10800A122936983. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/10800/0.
Dijkhoff, R. A. C. F. (2004). The history of archaeological research in Aruba. In A. C. F. Dijkhoff and M. S. Linville (Eds.), The archaeology of Aruba: The marine shell heritage (pp. 35–51). Archaeological Museum of Aruba, Oranjestad, Aruba.
Dijkhoff, R. (2020). Towards a sustainable underwater cultural heritage management in Aruba [Conference paper]. UNESCO Regional Underwater Cultural Heritage Congresses, Mexico and Jamaica, 2020.
Dijkhoff, R. (2020). Digitalization daily reports. Santa Cruz 35 excavation campaigns of 2001, 2012 and 2016. [Manuscript on file]. National Archaeological Museum Aruba.
Dijkhoff, R. A. C. F., & Linville, M. S. (2015). Achieving sustainable heritage management in Aruba. In C. L. Hofman & J. B. Haviser (Eds.), Managing our past into the future: Archaeological heritage management in the Dutch Caribbean (pp. 27–35). Sidestone Press.
Du Ry, C. J. (1960). Notes on the pottery of Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire. NWIG, 40, 81–102.
Fricke, F. and R. Hoerman. (2023). Archaeology and social justice in island worlds. World Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2179538.
Hofman, C. L., & Haviser, J. B. (2015). Introduction. In C. L. Hofman & J. B. Haviser (Eds.), Managing our past into the future: Archaeological heritage management in the Dutch Caribbean (pp. 71–87). Sidestone Press.
Hofman, C. L., & Hoogland, M. L. (2016). Connecting stakeholders: Collaborative preventive archaeology projects at sites affected by natural and/or human impacts. Caribbean Connections, 5(1), 1–31.
International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. (2021, August 22). Code of ethics. https://blogs.uoregon.edu/iaca/announcements/.
Jones, Siân. (2017) Wrestling with the social value of heritage: Problems, dilemmas and opportunities. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 4(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996.
Keegan, W. F., & Phulgence, W. (2011). Patrimony or patricide. In P. E. Siegel & E. Righter (Eds.), Protecting Heritage in the Caribbean (pp. 143–151). University of Alabama Press.
Kelly, H. J., & C. L. Hofman. (2019). The Archaic Age of Aruba: New evidence of the first migrations into the island. In C. L. Hofman & A. T. Antczak (Eds.), Early settlers of the insular Caribbean: Dearchaizing the archaic (pp. 147–162). Sidestone Press.
Kok, M. (2022). A future that does not forget: Collaborative archaeology in the colonial context of Sint Eustatius (Dutch Caribbean). Rotterdam, Bureau Archeologie en Toekomst, BAT-report 1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358128992_A_Future_That_Does_Not_Forget_Collaborative_Archaeology_in_the_Colonial_Context_of_Sint_Eustatius_Dutch_Caribbean.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science: Cultural Heritage Agency Aruba (MECS). (2020a). Final report on the Dutch Carib UCH Expert Meeting 29 Jan 2020.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science: Cultural Heritage Agency (MECS). (2020b). Roadmap NL-Caribbean Expert Group.
Mondriaan Fonds. (2021). Samenwerking voor vergroting bereik Caribisch deel Koninkrijk. https://www.mondriaanfonds.nl/actueel/nieuws/samenwerking-voor-vergroting-bereik-caribisch-deel-koninkrijk/.
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). (2019, February 5). More funding available for Caribbean science. https://www.nwo.nl/en/news/more-funding-available-caribbean-science.
Oostindie, G., & van Stipriaan, A. (2021). Inleiding: Antilliaans erfgoed, natievorming, nation branding. In G. Oostindie & A. van Stipriaan, Antilliaans erfgoed I; Toen en nu, (pp. 1–21). Leiden University Press.
Phulgence, W. (2008). Cultural resource management and the future of Heritage in the Anglophone Caribbean. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Poulios, I. (2014). The past in the present: A living heritage approach – Meteora, Greece. Ubiquity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bak.
Price, M. R. (2018). Parallels in history: Shipwreck salvage and exploitation of archaeological resources in Florida and Aruba. In J. Albertson & F. Hanselman (Eds.), ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2018 (pp. 158–164). Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology and the Society for Historical Archaeology.
Ruiz, A. C., & R. A. C. F. Dijkhoff. (2001). Archaeology as a land-mark. Towards new dimensions for Caribbean archaeology. In L. Alofs (Ed.), Aruba y su Status Aparte, Logro di pasado, reto pa Futuro. Aruba en zijn Status Aparte, Mijlpaal en uitdaging 1986–2001 (pp. 181–185). Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, Aruba.
Sankatsing Nava, T., & Hofman, C. L. (2018). Engaging Caribbean island communities with indigenous heritage and archaeology research. JCOM, 17(4), CN06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17040306.
Sankatsing Nava, T., Dijkhoff, R., Morris, A., Jean, J. S., Ulloa Hung, J., Geerman, P., & Hofman, C. L. (2023). Aruban archaeological heritage: nation-building and branding in a Caribbean context. In A. van Stipriaan, L. Alofs, & F. Guadeloupe (Eds.), Cultural heritage and the nation: Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao in Caribbean perspective (pp. 103–117). Leiden University Press.
Siegel, P. E., Hofman, C. L., Bérard, B., Murphy, R., Hung, J. U., Rojas, R. V., & White, C. (2013). Confronting Caribbean heritage in an archipelago of diversity: Politics, stakeholders, climate change, natural disasters, tourism, and development. Journal of Field Archaeology, 38(4), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1179/0093469013Z.00000000066.
Stelten, R. (2019). From Golden Rock to Historic Gem: A historical archaeological analysis of the maritime cultural landscape of St. Eustatius, Dutch Caribbean. Sidestone Press.
Statia Heritage Research Commission (SHRC). (2021). Report of the Statia Heritage Research Commission (SHRC) for the Government of St. Eustatius, Netherlands Caribbean.
Versteeg A. H., & Ruiz, A. C. (1995). Reconstructing Brasilwood Island: The archaeology and landscape of Indian Aruba. Archaeological Museum of Aruba.
Wagensveld, T. P. van, & Burg, M. van den (2018). First record on fecundity of an iguana hybrid and its implications for conservation: evidence for genetic swamping by non-native iguanas. Herpetology Notes, 11, 1079–1082.