1 Introduction

The prevailing narrative on Grenada’s history continues to ignore its pre-Columbian past. This chapter argues that pre-Columbian history constitutes an essential part of Grenada’s culture, informed also by the landscape, which shapes the people’s identity. As one re-writes Grenada’s history, there are continuities of this past in many cultural features of “the contemporary” Grenadian society, particularly in the material culture left behind by the Indigenous Peoples. The materiality of food is one such example: native fruits and vegetables continue to shape the contemporary Grenada diet (see Government of Grenada, 2000).

The population has become increasingly culturally aware and historically conscious of the Indigenous past due to the work of historians and archaeologists who have been drawing links between the past and present cultures of Grenada. It must be noted that, for the present population to appreciate the past, they must discover—or sometimes even re-discover—and interpret the products of culture to understand their heritage appropriately in the present context. As cited by (Graham and Howard, 2008, p. 2), Lowenthal observes (1998, p. xv), “in domesticating the past we enlist [heritage] for present causes … [It] clarifies the past so as to infuse them with present purposes.” In so doing, one creates ways of making the Indigenous past—material artifacts, landscapes, food, myths, memories—part of one’s cultural identity and political and economic possessions of the present.

Thus, both the tangible and intangible aspects of one’s culture constitute the heritage of the Grenadian people. Even though these tangible and intangible objects demonstrate that Indigenous culture has greatly influenced Grenada’s cultural identity, the extent to which this heritage is acknowledged raises questions about the culture and the education system. Culture is a total way of life that a people acquire from previous generations. These ways of life include ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving (Geertz, 1973, pp. 4–5)—but preserving and advancing any culture will depend on the society’s education system.

Many social scientists argue that colonialism has distorted the culture of the Indigenous Peoples; perhaps it was deliberate, or a lack of understanding of colonialism itself—i.e., the impact of the colonizing power on Indigenous populations. Thus, the researchers adopt an interpretative approach because there are multiple realities: the reality of the colonial powers differed from those of the subjugated, and the voices of the subjugated are invariably ignored. Until now, the reality of the colonizers has always shaped the historical narrative of Grenada; therefore, it is necessary to (re)interpret these historical narratives. As Hodder (1991, p. 15) puts it, “The past then allows the possibility for a sense of other that is increasingly being eroded in an expanding, homogenized Western ethic.”

An interpretative approach is justifiable because it pays close attention to the education system—the one institution that can best advance cultural knowledge among the population; as a result, the role of teachers is an important consideration. Information gathered from teachers can highlight their lived experiences with the teaching of history in the educational system. The system of education has influenced the way in which history has been taught, ignoring Indigenous history and subjects closely connected with the discipline of archaeology. Lewis, Benoit, and Lewis argue that Grenada’s education system continues to be shaped by its colonial history and the religious authority of its origins. They further argue that the institution of education continues to be weak, and this weakness has prevented the development of national policy in favor of addressing the impact of colonial education on the population (Lewis, Benoit, & Lewis, 2021).

The result is that the power structure of contemporary Grenadian society has led to a culture that renders the Indigenous population insignificant. Over time, the education system has influenced governments and policy makers, reaffirming cultural norms and rewriting history in a manner that reflects how past power structures interpreted that history. The recognition of this phenomenon can allow one to bring the past into the future, and to appreciate the past that makes up one’s present cultural identity.

2 Indigenous Peoples of the Circum-Caribbean, Grenada

Amerindian (American Indian) has been the name traditionally used for the Indigenous peoples of the Americas: the Archaic (popularly, but incorrectly referred to as “Ciboney”); Island Arawak or Taíno; Kalinago or Island Carib; and Kalina or Galibis (See Granberry & Vescelius, 2004; Keegan & Carlson, 2010; Reid, 2009). Some scholars regard the term “Amerindian” as anachronistic and insist that it should be replaced with a more general term like “Indigenous”. Though a growing body of archaeological, linguistic, historical, and ethnographic evidence has shed light on the so-called “prehistory” of the region, the post-1492 era remains obscure in Grenada because of the continuous failure of the education system.

Human habitation of the Caribbean islands dates to at least 3000 BCE, when lithic blade producers, known collectively as the Casimiroid, left Central America for Cuba (Wilson, 1997, 2007). By 2000 BCE, lithic ground-stone foragers from Trinidad and Venezuela (known as the Ortoroid) are believed to have moved into the Lesser Antilles; the earliest occupation of Grenada could date to this period (Hanna, 2017). Pollen core samples from Lake Antoine, in Saint Patrick, Grenada, are currently the best evidence for human disturbance at such an early period (Sigel, 2018). In fact, very little evidence exists for either the Casimoroid or Ortoroid groups occupying the islands south of Guadeloupe. According to Cody (1997), “stone celts and axes” collected by amateur archaeologist Leon Wilder “could possibly reflect an Archaic occupation of the island. Unfortunately, the artefacts lack provenience.” Moreover, later groups made similar tools. Projects in the Leeward Islands have recovered evidence that these early hunter-fisher-gatherers possessed knowledge of plant management; produced low-fired, utilitarian pottery; and exercised seasonal mobility focused on animal cycles (Hofman, Bright and Hoogland, 2006). Later Archaic Age groups, however, may have been semi- or fully sedentary horticulturalists (Kelly, 1992).

Analyses of ceramics or pottery found in Grenada suggest that at least four distinct periods or cultures existed. The large quantities found at 84 identified pre-Columbian sites also suggest that their population densities may have been higher than for some of Grenada’s northern neighbors at times (Hanna, 2017). Though there is still much debate on the identity of the groups represented, the archaeological nomenclature defines the various peoples and cultures as Cedrosan Saladoid (ca. 500 BCE–650 CE); Troumassan Troumassoid (ca. 650–1100 CE); Suazan Troumassoid (ca. 1100–1450 CE); and Cayoid (ca. 1400–1600 CE) series and subseries (Hofman, Bright, Boomert, et al., 2007; Hofman, Bright, Hoogland et al., 2008; Keegan and Hofman, 2017).

According to Irving Rouse, the Cedrosan Saladoid ceramics are the island’s variation on mainland Ronquinan Saladoid ceramics; they were made by groups that were pushed out by the expanding Barrancoid peoples, and arrived in the Caribbean around the fifth century BC (Bullen, 1964). The Saladoid peoples are popularly identified as pre-Arawaks, though their language and ethnicity are not known. They produced high-quality, distinctive pottery, practiced slash-and-burn cultivation of cassava, corn, sweet potato, and vegetables, and supplemented their diet with crabs, lambie, sea eggs, sea turtles, and fin fishes. They possessed no knowledge of metallurgy, instead fashioning their tools from bone, wood, stone, and shell (Bérard, 2013). Many of the petroglyphs that can still be found stenciled on rocks across Grenada possibly date to this time, though later groups often added to them (Hanna, 2016). Evidence of Cedrosan Saladoid ceramics has been unearthed at four sites: Pearls, Black Point at Point Salines, Simon, and Beausejour (Hanna, 2016).

A second phase is evident in the changing of the ceramics after 650 CE and manifests itself in the Troumassan Troumassoid subseries identified at more than sixteen sites in Grenada and Carriacou (Hanna, 2017). Caliviny (see Calivigny Island), once identified as a series, is now identified as a complex within the Troumassan Troumassoid. The Caliviny culture may have depended more heavily on the sea and practiced a “mixed economy,” more so than the earlier Saladoid. Troumassoid peoples are popularly identified as Island Arawak, though their language and ethnicity are not known (Fitzpatrick, 2013). The Suazan Troumassoid period (Savanne Suazey, Saint Patrick, Grenada), identified at more than forty sites in Grenada and Carriacou, was once thought to represent the people commonly identified as Kalinago, but is no longer associated with them (Hanna, 2017). The Kalinago have since been tied to Cayo (Cayo, Saint Vincent) ceramics, associated with Cariban speakers from the Guianas (Boomert, 1986), which have been unearthed at several sites in Grenada, including La Poterie and Sauteurs (Hofman et al., 2019). The Galibis, who arrived in Grenada from the Guianas in the seventeenth century, may have left little or no material evidence to supplement the historical data; it can be asserted that they lived with the Kalinago and fought alongside them against the European invaders (Hanna, 2022).

Despite current debates over migration routes, Henri Petitjean Roget (1981) has suggested that “Grenada and its dependencies, Île de Ronde and Île de Caille, and above all Carriacou, constituted in a way the archaeological memory of the Lesser Antilles.” In their travels from South America through the Caribbean, the various Indigenous peoples must have used Grenada as their entry, transit point, and trading center; however, the southern stepping-stone theory is still a point of debate (see Callaghan, 2001; Fitzpatrick, 2013, 2016; Keegan & Hofman, 2017). A selection of artifacts recovered from various archaeological sites across the islands of Grenada and Carriacou can be seen at the Carriacou Museum and Grenada National Museum. Yet Amerindian heritage sites are threatened due to their coastal locations—often the primary areas for touristic and other developments, as in the case of the Pearls Amerindian site, the Maurice Bishop International Airport, and the famous Grand Anse Beach—and the effects of the coastal erosion, as in Sauteurs, Saint Patrick. It is quite possible that the existence of these groups, practices, and the material culture are embedded in contemporary Grenadian cultural identity, but the education system lags behind in circulating this knowledge.

3 History Education in Contemporary Grenada

At present, Grenada’s history as taught in schools takes little account of pre-Columbian history, as discussed above. There continues to be a knowledge deficit about the enslaved Africans who were moulded in the objects of labour continues to evade the education system (Brizan, 1998, p. 19). Ignoring the totality of history can be problematic for identity formation, since all aspects of a country’s history are essential in shaping the identity of the past, present, and future generations (whether that history is pleasant or unpleasant). The totality of history is also imperative for the social, cultural, and economic preservation of a country’s society; for this reason, the matter of education must be the focus. Education is a necessary condition for shaping identity, and identity will necessarily reflect the education system. Thus, understanding the totality of history—which includes the pre-Columbian past—is not only important for archaeologists and historians, but also for the general population. Therefore, the meaning and understanding of history must be clearly articulated to students and/or educators, while also entailing the active participation of the community in the process of this understanding.

Grenada has never articulated the meaning of its history in a way that might shape its future. In fact, the nation’s cultural heritage is sometimes misunderstood, as the colonial powers neglected the totality of Grenada’s history as insignificant to their interests. Instead, the nature of colonialism appears to have created a greater focus on transmitting ideologies of race, class, and status to the current society, which created a fragmented society (see Benoit, 2021) rather than the collective consciousness that is necessary for holding a society together (see Lukes, 1982, pp. 34–46). Thus, to what extent can the history of Grenada (including its pre-Columbian past) shape the collective consciousness of Grenadian society, and what is the role of education in this process? The process becomes confusing when one considers the preceding argument, where there is a symbiotic relationship between identity and education.

4 Destruction of the Natural Landscape and the Erosion of Pre-Columbian History

During this process of writing this chapter, several sites were being cleared for the construction of massive hotels on the island. Even during a pandemic, it appears that tourism is a “growing” industry in Grenada, creating jobs for the unemployed while contributing to the island’s sustainable development. At the same time, one might be concerned about the environmental issues that these developmental projects are bringing to the fore while exposing archaeological assets to danger (see Hanna, 2017; Hofman et al., 2019). For example, with the Blue Growth project, many of these developmental projects are taking place in the coastal areas (see Patil & Diez, 2016, p. 17), and it appears that the relevant authorities did not conduct proper long-term Environmental Assessments (EIA s) with the Breakwater Project particularly since these projects have started, some residents have had to be evacuated from their homes, and using beaches for fishing and recreational purposes is no longer possible because of rapid coastal erosion due to high tides and the rise in sea levels (personal observation, see also Campbell, 2016; NowGrenad.com). The Breakwater project, for example, was supposed to protect the natural environment and create employment for the area’s residents. However, it has since become a hazard: residents have had to flee their homes because no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted to anticipate the project’s effects on the natural landscape. It must be noted that EIA s are an example of best practices and fall under the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Grenada is party. Furthermore, Grenada has legislation stating that EIA s are required for projects under the Physical and Planning and Development Control Act 2016; the participatory approach, which requires consultations with the affected communities, is also under said legislation. Additionally, the area of the Breakwater project is a known archaeological site (Hanna, 2016; Holdren, 1998), and archaeological remains (skeletons) have washed into the sea and some of the residents’ yards (personal observations). This situation raises further questions not only about the role of heritage in national identity and education, but also the impact developmental policies can have on the cultural history of the people.

In previous research where I examined the role of heritage identity in Grenada’s development (Charles, 2017), it appears that some internal social dynamics have resulted in a crisis of identity that may be related to the role of history in fostering sustainable development. There is a neglect or lack of interest in Grenada’s heritage, and even the failure of the education system to adequately address the issue of heritage and pre-Columbian historical education is a matter of concern, not only from a cultural perspective but also from an educational and environmental point of view (Charles, 2017).

Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that tourism as a cultural phenomenon contributes to a people’s identity, and identity is shaped by one’s heritage. Culture and identity play an essential role in the development of a nation’s identity. This makes history, heritage, and identity a part of sustainable development, and threats to the environment are in no way in the public interest. From 2008 to 2017, tourism was Grenada’s prime economic activity, accounting for an average of 7% of GDP in this period; further growth was projected for 2018 and 2019 (Central Statistics Office: Grenada). In December 2017, the island also won “Destination of the Year” at Caribbean Journal’s Caribbean Travel Awards (Caribbean Journal Staff, 2017), and has been promoted as one of the best Eastern Caribbean tourist destinations (Avakian & Kiersz, 2017). The island, formerly dubbed the “Isle of Spice,” was rebranded by the tourism authority on February 14, 2014; the name “Pure Grenada, Spice of the Caribbean” was launched as the new brand under which Grenada should now be known (Loop News, 2017). Pure Grenada is an “ecotourism branding” that focuses on the natural and cultural environment of the island.

While the rebranding was controversial, the authorities believed that it was the best way to market the island as a tourist destination. However, questions can be raised about Pure Grenada’s marketing strategy, which does not consider the preservation of the island’s material and cultural resources untouched, unspoiled, or authentic. One cannot argue that the island’s resources are not managed according to the best practices, while our natural and cultural resources are continuously overlooked or destroyed in the process of other developments. The model of development that neglect the island’s heritage and environment for large scale projects such as hotel construction that offer only low-end jobs is not sustainable particularly when the people’s heritage is destroyed. It should be recognized that archaeological and historical sites are a necessary assets for the tourism industry. For any form of tourist infrastructural development, there must be an impact assessments to mitigate practices that can destroy the island’s heritage including its pre-Columbian past.

Like most countries, Grenada’s natural and cultural resources are finite, and as a developing nation it is susceptible to exploitation. If the nation appears to lack the active protections to achieve long-term and sustainable development, particularly as a SIDS faced with many environmental vulnerabilities and fragilities—hurricanes, sea and coastal erosion, small size, etc.—what are the implications of such policies for the long-term sustainable development of the tourist industry?

Despite these natural environmental issues, FDI in the tourist industry is increasing the environmental vulnerability of archaeological assets that could be valuable for said tourist industry and threatens the country’s long-term sustainable development. By sustainable development, we also mean that which does not marginalize a large percentage of Grenadian people who are unable to benefit from FDI in the tourism industry, particularly if this sector is a focus of growth and development. This model of development appears to ignore the country’s resources that can indeed provide long-term sustainable growth; a significant part of this is its failure to utilize the country’s history and cultural heritage in a more systematic manner to achieve meaningful sustainable development. What would be the impact of more focus on the country’s history and cultural heritage?

The development of human resource capacity in the interest of history and cultural heritage can provide a sustainable resource that directly benefits the tourist industry. As Hall has noted, a country with unsophisticated human resources will produce weakness in all other aspects of a society’s development (Hall et al., 2002). For this reason, developing exclusive properties that ignore Grenada’s archaeological heritage would only entrench the historic dynamics of colonialism and further deny the population the education necessary to shape a solid cultural identity. As cited by Jones (2007), according to the European Landscape Convention (2000), people are the core of development and policy. Thus, one would expect the various authorities to engage public participation, since the landscape is part of one’s cultural heritage and identity.

As the director of UNISCAPE has posited and cited by the Center for Landscape Democracy (CLaD), “land can be owned but not the landscape” (SALAZAR, 2015). The natural environment and archaeological sites in Grenada are not simply a “physical thing”; they are the culture of past generations, a sustainable resource that could be a sustainable tourist product. In small developing islands like Grenada, archaeological sites and the natural landscape are the same; they are integrated into and important to local communities. Thus, for any development to occur, there must be an approach that integrates public participation. It is also the most practical thing to do because if most of the archaeological sites are destroyed due to FDI, one might argue that the very nature of sustainability is threatened.

For example, Point Salines, located in the south of the island, is a unique natural and cultural landscape (National Parks and Wildlife Unit, Grenada Forestry Department). The area was first settled by humans over 3,500 years ago. In the 1960s, archaeologists began studying the area: Bullen in the 1960s (Bullen, 1964), then Petitjean Roget in the 1980s (Petitjean Roget, 1981). During the construction of the Maurice Bishop International Airport (MBIA) from 1980 to ’83, the salt ponds were surveyed, and the archaeological evidence demonstrated that When Sea levels lowered in the glaciation era this caused sea levels to drop and when it rained the water amalgamated and formed land. When the water moved through this space it melted the salt rock (halite) and accumulated on the top of the earth during the dry periods. For this reason, the salt mixed with other minerals from the earth’s surface and vaporization occurred forming a salt pan or salina” (Hanna, 2017). In the past, salt from Point Salines was a key exportation for Grenada (Martin, 2013). Most of the archaeological evidence was destroyed due to the airport’s construction, but there are still some archaeological remains in the area and a salt pond that still produces salt (Hanna, 2017).

In November 2017, during the presentation of Grenada’s national budget, former Prime Minister Dr. the Rt. Hon. Keith Mitchell announced that there were plans to construct a parallel taxiway, loading bridges, and passenger terminal among other facilitates at the MBIA. Knowing that this was an archaeological site, the Heritage Research Group Caribbean (HRGC)—a Grenada-based heritage consultancy that specializes in the archaeological, historical, and legal aspects of cultural resource management, and of which the author is a member—tried to contact the relevant authorities to inquire about the repercussions of such an expansion in the area. After much investigation, there was no evidence of any EIA and/or mitigation measure concerning the effects the expansion of the airport might have on the area’s archaeological remains. What is evident, however, is that this expansion will destroy any archaeological material that survived the previous construction, including the two salt ponds that remained. Now, instead of using the salt as a local commodity, Grenada imports salt from other countries. The authorities have not recognized this fact, and it is arguably unlikely that this part of Grenada’s history will be sustained, either for locals or for tourists.

By examining the problem of Indigenous history and education in contemporary Grenada, the historical narrative can be revised. The archaeological history of Grenada demonstrates that Indigenous history and heritage can serve to enrich Grenadian national identity, but this past appears to have been misused even in contemporary Grenadian society. It will be contended here that Grenada’s Indigenous history and its heritage are necessary and should be acknowledged and recognized, as well as incorporated into its education in a more significant way. The material objects of the Indigenous past are still active agents in modern Grenada, and as such, much more attention should be given to this aspect of the island’s material culture.

The emergence of a new Grenada, I willl argue came out of a colonial past: if the previous occupant had been able to withstand the turmoil and the pressure of their colonizers, there would have been no reason to seek labor outside of the Caribbean. It appears that this reality is not part of the consciousness of the country’s modern inhabitants—that the ideas of the colonizer–capitalist approach and the rise of individualism took over this consciousness; that the past is somehow forgotten, and the future starts with the here and now.

However, there must be a beginning for there to be an end, and there must be an absence for something to be present. Indigenous heritage must become important to the current population of Grenada because it is the starting point of the new society that emerged. This should be identified as part of the county’s national history and identity. National identity permits the development of one’s individual identity, allowing for the sharing of a culture and a collective consciousness of solidarity. This is a modern consciousness that is needed to contribute to the social, political, and economic growth of the county—or would it be safe to say, since the precursors of what constitutes national heritage and national identity did not develop in Grenada, is the reason for Indigenous heritage not being at the forefront regarding its ideas on Indigenous history, heritage, and education? One might then argue, if these elements of history repeat themselves, that all other forms of history and heritage should be ignored, since the new society that emerged was based on race and class, while ignoring the history and heritage of Grenada’s past civilization. There are some questions we can all ask ourselves: how does society decide which aspects of the past are to be considered heritage, and which heritage is important or unimportant? Who in Grenada decides what history and heritage should be protected? If it is the social elite that decides, how do these elites make decisions about what should or should not be preserved and protected?

5 Conclusion

While there is some form of legal framework for teaching the history and preservation of Grenada’s heritage, one might question its effectiveness. For example, in 2017, the Grenada National Museum Act was passed, in which section 22 (Part IV), no. 12 requires developers (and locals) to report potential archaeological sites when artifacts or and human remains are discovered; it further prohibits any unauthorized excavations or removal of any artifacts or material culture, which is punishable by a fine if found doing so. There is also the Physical Planning Authority (PPDCA Act of 2016), which aids in protecting Grenada’s natural and cultural assets. To this end, the Natural and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee was set up by the Physical Planning Committee to assess how developments might impact natural landscapes and cultural assets. Education is necessary so that Indigenous heritage can become important to the contemporary population of Grenada. Indigenous culture is part of Grenada’s cultural identity today, and the people have an inherent right to be included and recognized as part of the county’s national identity.