1 Introduction

The Amerindian archaeological site of White Marl in Jamaica is often described in heritage circles as “the most valuable Taíno site on the island, and an important hub in the social networks of pre-colonial Jamaica” (Mickleburgh et al., 2018). It is located next to a bustling thoroughfare traversed daily by thousands of Jamaicans and linking Spanish Town (the second historical capital of Jamaica, known then as Saint Jago de la Vega) to Kingston, the present capital of Jamaica. In 2017, in response to a proposed road redevelopment, an archaeological impact assessment and subsequent excavations were undertaken, which revealed additional human burials—a rarity. It has been noted that human remains have been documented at White Marl since 1860 when Richard Hill reported finding “portions of human skeletons” (Mickleburgh et al., 2018) along with pottery and shells. Sixteen additional human skeletons were also revealed during excavations in the 1950s to 1960s (Allsworth-Jones, 2008; Howard, 1956; Mickleburgh et al., 2018). The burials have also been described as representing a significant source of information on Jamaican pre-colonial life and death rituals, as little is known of burials other than from caves or disturbed contexts (Mickleburgh et al., 2018).

The scientific importance of White Marl is clearly known to archaeologists, but what do local communities or those who drive by every day—in other words, the average Jamaican—think? Is there an awareness of the site or its relevance, and do they perceive the archaeological heritage of the Taíno as having any relevance to them beyond being on the national coat of arms—or even care what happens to the site?

Let us compare White Marl to Port Royal in Kingston, Jamaica, which practically every Jamaican child has visited on a school trip and adults remember fondly from their youth: everyone remembers the Royal Artillery House at Fort Charles, more popularly known by Jamaicans as the “Giddy House.” Port Royal is also a popular recreational spot for Jamaicans; hence the question, do Jamaicans value the site because of its historical significance, their nostalgic memories, or perhaps a bit of both?

There is also Devon House, the historic mansion of Jamaica’s first millionaire of African descent. Again, we must consider whether individuals value the site because of its historic significance, or as their favorite recreation and ice cream spot in Kingston. How many know, understand, or wish to partake in the historical significance that surrounds them while they drive by or enjoy their fish meal or ice cream?

View Full Size

Excavations at the White Marl Taíno Site (2018)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The terms “history” and “heritage” are used throughout this paper, and for many people, the two are synonymous (Harrison, 2010). The historian David Lowenthal (1997), in making the distinction between the two, posits that “heritage is not history at all, as it is not an inquiry into the past, but a celebration of it” (Lowenthal, 1997). As such, heritage in this research refers to “something that can be passed from one generation to the next, can be conserved or inherited, and something that has historic or cultural value” (Harrison, 2010), as evidenced through objects, places, and practices. UNESCO further defines heritage as “the legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations.”¹ History is defined as the “scientific, evidence-based investigation of the past” (Seixas, 2014). Both concepts are however inextricably intertwined, as without history, there would be no heritage.

View Full Size

Jamaica’s Coat of Arms, which depicts the native Amerindians

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Papadopoulos and Urton (2012), in discussing the notion of value, highlight it as “a social construct […] defined by the cultural context in which it is created,” and elaborate further by asking how value is created and defined. Reid (2012) theorizes that the process of identifying, recognizing, and managing heritage—and by extension valuing it—is always “political, partial and contested, [as in] the case of the Anglophone Caribbean whose varied history, and ethnic composition have been the result of conquest, immigration, dominance, resistance and creolization.”

In examining how Jamaicans value their archaeological heritage, we must identify the unique processes that have defined this value system, as well as determine if such value exists only for a select few or a particular section of society. One must also ask, what does this value look like, and how is it manifested in exploring how Jamaicans interact with this heritage? What are the tools, contexts, and processes that have helped Jamaicans to attain and or contextualize this value? For example, is valuation of heritage achieved purely through the work of institutions assigned to protect heritage, or does the educational system (formal and informal) have a significant role to play in this? If there was an absence of cultural institutions, would the remaining systems in place lead to any appreciable value being placed on our archaeological heritage? Importantly, within the context of the Caribbean, we often find situations in which a particular ethnic group constitutes the overwhelming majority, and it is often assumed that what is termed “national heritage” and valued is really the heritage of the majority.

View Full Size

The Giddy House in Port Royal, Jamaica

COURTESY OF THE JAMAICA NATIONAL HERITAGE TRUST

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

The Devon House historic mansion

COURTESY OF THE JAMAICA NATIONAL HERITAGE TRUST

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

2 Identifying Jamaica’s Archaeological Heritage

The ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (1990) identifies archaeological heritage as comprising “all vestiges of human existence and consist[ing] of places relating to all manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures, and remains of all kinds (including subterranean and underwater sites), together with all the portable cultural material associated with them.”²

Jamaica has benefited from extensive archaeological research in the twentieth century, with work done by Lee in the 1960s (which led to the formation of the Archaeological Society of Jamaica), Link in Port Royal (1950s and 1960s), Mathewson at Old Kings House (1969–1973), Howard at White Marl (1950s and 1960s), Marx in Port Royal’s Underwater City in the 1960s, Mayes at Port Royal’s terrestrial sites (1960s), and the Columbus Caravels Archaeological Project (1990s) (Richards and Henriques, 2011). Added to these are archaeological research projects undertaken by the University of the West Indies History and Archaeology Department, as well as numerous overseas universities.

In the beginning, research primarily focused on Port Royal, plantation, and Amerindian archaeology; however, since the latter part of the twentieth century, there has been much work on the Afro-Jamaican and Maroon presence courtesy of Agorsah and Armstrong, among others. These research programs have ensured that there is a wealth of information on the archaeological heritage of Jamaica available to the public through the Jamaica National Heritage Trust.

In a 2003 survey (to be discussed later in this paper) on attitudes of the Jamaican public toward its archaeological heritage, Richards (2003) highlighted that Jamaicans viewed their archaeological heritage as anything from the colonial period, anything in use by Jamaicans now, anything used by the Amerindians, and pots and other objects used by peoples in the past. When discussing this heritage, Jamaicans tend to focus on what is known to them; thus, because there has been very little archaeological research done, for example, on the Indian presence in Jamaica, there is very little awareness of this.

With a known and recorded history spanning several centuries of discovery, occupation, and migration, Jamaica’s archaeological heritage highlights the peoples who have made Jamaica their home—encompassing Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, Asians, and Middle Easterners. Such circumstances create a unique case study through which to discuss valuing heritage: whose heritage is it, what is valued, and why?

The archaeological record indicates that after AD 600, Jamaica (Indigenous name “Yamaye”) was inhabited by ancestors of the so-called Taíno represented by the ceramic series defined as Ostionoid or redware culture (Rouse, 1992), whose earliest sites were Little River (Saint Ann) and Alligator Pond (Manchester). Three hundred years later, appeared the Meillacan Ostionoid subseries, also known as White Marl, from the name of the site dating to AD 877. Rouse (1992) linked this subseries with the Western Taíno, which inhabited parts of Cuba, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. The Amerindian culture we call the Taíno developed about AD 1200. These cultures would leave behind a heritage discernible from its zemis, pottery, stone tools, petroglyphs, and burials, among other materials, particularly from sites such as White Marl.

Reid (2009) has pointed out how Caribbean researchers now use the word “Taíno” to differentiate the peoples of the northern Caribbean at the time of Spanish contact from the Arawakan societies of mainland South America. Reid goes a step further, however, in indicating that there are schools of thought that challenge the use of the word “Taíno” or claim that the peoples Columbus met did not have a “self-designation.” Atkinson (2006, 2010) has highlighted that in Jamaica, the word “Arawak” was still used to describe the Indigenous population, although Jamaican researchers and archaeologists had largely transitioned to using “Taíno.” Today, more and more Jamaicans use the word “Taíno”, especially in the educational system, where the name has replaced the formerly used “Arawak.”

Columbus arrived on the island in 1494 and claimed it as a colony of Spain. The Amerindian population would be decimated by the mid-seventeenth century, around the time England took control of the island from Spain in 1655 (Black, 1965). European colonization resulted in the mass enslavement of Africans who were brought to this “New World” primarily for the cultivation of sugar plantations and other forms of monoculture. Sites such as Maima Seville have been recognized as important contact sites for the Indigenous people, European colonizers, and enslaved Africans (Henri and Woodward, 2019).

The Maroons emerged from this system as enslaved Africans who liberated themselves from plantation slavery and forged new identities in the various mountainous areas of Jamaica, such as the Cockpit Country and the Blue and John Crow Mountains (communities include Accompong Town, Moore Town, Charles Town and Scotts Hall). During the nineteenth century, other ethnic groups such as Indians, Chinese, and Middle Easterners would also settle in Jamaica, in addition to other Europeans such as Irish, Scottish, and Germans, some of who were brought to the Caribbean as indentured laborers from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries.

View Full Size

Seville Heritage Park. Top left: Seville Great House; Top right: Spanish Castle; Bottom; Replica of housing used by the enslaved.

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

3 Jamaican Identity through the Lens of Archaeology

The term “heritage values” refers to the meanings that individuals or groups of people bestow on heritage (including collections, buildings, archaeological sites, landscapes, and intangible expressions of culture, such as oral traditions). These values have been a key factor in legitimizing heritage conservation, protection, and management, although the understanding of what they are has varied over time, and there are nuances between one country and another. There are many classifications of values, including historical, aesthetic, economic, social, and scientific, among others (Mason, 2012).

Being “out of many, one people” (the national motto of Jamaica), there is no archaeological heritage that tells the complete narrative of all Jamaicans. However, if asked to name a heritage site in Jamaica that they identify with, most Jamaicans would answer “Seville” or “Port Royal,” yet not necessarily have a reason or understand why the site is of value to them as Jamaicans, beyond it being known as a heritage site.

Are Jamaicans to be blamed for not knowing or sufficiently valuing their own archaeological heritage to interact with it in a more meaningful way and contribute to its protection? What opportunities have been extended to Jamaicans to engender valuing this heritage? Can we expect them to value what they don’t know?

In delving deeper into how Jamaicans have arrived at their value system and in what way this manifests in their interactions with heritage, we will take a closer look at the institutions tasked with protecting and sharing this heritage with Jamaicans; our systems of learning; and the values reflected in how Jamaicans manage, protect, or facilitate the destruction of this heritage.

4 How is Archaeological Heritage Valued in Jamaica?

The notion that our past is linked to material cultural heritage obtained from archaeological sites is something that many Jamaicans do not think about. As mentioned above, Jamaica’s heritage is intertwined with that of many cultures, yet Jamaica’s archaeological research mainly focuses on the Amerindians; Europeans, as reflected by the Spanish and English; and finally, Africans who were enslaved and brought to the island. This has been the archaeological heritage that is available for public dissemination and consumption.

Some of Jamaica’s archaeological sites reflect several of these groups at once: sites such as Port Royal and Seville are two such examples and are referred to as “contact sites.” The question of how Jamaicans view the material manifestation of this heritage is reflected firstly through their level of engagement with it.

Jamaicans are not known to just visit an archaeological site, except as part of a school-sanctioned educational trip or because an event is being hosted at a site. It is also widely perceived that Jamaica does not have a museum culture, as evidenced by the low visitor numbers to museums and interaction with exhibitions. Farmer and Cummins (2012) have highlighted the role of museums (displaying archaeological objects) in developing identity—and by extension a value system—in the postcolonial Caribbean landscape, and that of Caribbean museums in presenting the heritage of a nation to the public.

There is also the matter of access to be factored in, as only some archaeological sites are open to the public or promoted for visits.

The institutions with primary responsibility for managing heritage resources in Jamaica are the Institute of Jamaica (IOJ) and the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT). The IOJ was created in 1879 for collecting various types of material cultural resources (Richards & Henriques, 2011), including natural and cultural heritage. The IOJ has several divisions, such as the National Museum of Jamaica, the National Gallery of Jamaica, the African Caribbean Institute of Jamaica/Jamaica Memory Bank, Liberty Hall: The Legacy of Marcus Garvey, the Natural History Museum of Jamaica, the Simón Bolívar Cultural Centre, and the Jamaica Music Museum. Among these divisions, the IOJ has collections ranging from Jamaica’s first peoples to the pre- and post-independence period.

In 1958, the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT) was founded as the Jamaica National Trust Commission, the name being changed to the present form in 1985. This change in 1985 resulted in a widening of the mandate of the entity in relation to the protection and promotion of all types of heritage sites. The divisions³ of the JNHT include Archaeology; Heritage Protection, Research, and Information; Communications; Estate Management; and Business Development. The entity has archaeological resources to enable research, analysis, and public outreach.

While schools may visit sites and museums throughout the year, these visits are not mandatory and occur predominantly on days linked to the country’s heritage, such as Reggae and Black History Month and Jamaica Day in February, Taíno Day in May, and National Heroes Week in October.

Throughout the year, both the JNHT and the IOJ welcome visitors to heritage sites and exhibitions in the spaces over which they have jurisdiction. The table below, compiled from 2019–2020 data received from the IOJ and JNHT, highlights an increase in visitor numbers during the periods where days linked to Jamaica’s heritage – as mentioned above - are located. This is also evident for the two most visited heritage sites on the island, Fort Charles in Port Royal and Seville Heritage Park in Saint Ann, both operated by the JNHT. Of course, these are also the two most accessible and promoted sites in Jamaica.

Aside from visits to these well-known or popular sites being carried out by researchers, many Jamaicans visit these spaces more often to fulfill the school curriculum and as an extracurricular activity than for actual enjoyment.⁵ The table of visitor statistics above shows that the total number of persons visiting the site in the period of April 2019 to March 2020 was reported as 137,528, which represents approximately 4.5% of the population visiting museums and cultural spaces in the year 2019/20.

This brings us to a discussion on public archaeology in Jamaica, which is led mostly by the JNHT and, to a lesser extent, by the nongovernmental Archaeological Society of Jamaica (ASJ). Importantly, while the IOJ is not involved in the actual archaeological excavation of sites, interpreting the knowledge gained is within their remit. The line between the entities is sometimes blurred, as the JNHT occupies this role as well.

These institutions have had to develop creative means to engage the Jamaican populace and publicize the heritage that makes us who we are today. This has entailed “taking heritage to the people” instead of waiting for them to reach it, from incorporating music to enticing people to “come, see, and learn” to opening museums on Saturdays and Sundays, going where the people are, to art shows and other entertainment, among other events. It also includes directly engaging students by visiting primary, secondary, and tertiary institutions and exposing aspects of Jamaica’s material cultural heritage to children and adults who would not have normally seen evidence of Jamaica’s heritage otherwise.

Through these types of engagements, there is increasing awareness that artifacts from AD 650 (or at least a very, very long time ago) exist and that Jamaica’s material cultural heritage remains are not just relics from their great-grandparent’s generation—such as the kitchen bitch, enamel mug, and the shet pan, among other objects associated with the island’s independence in 1962—but far beyond or much earlier than that. This has resulted in an understanding that culture is a significant contributing factor to their national and individual identity.

5 Role of Cultural Institutions

The structure of the government’s cultural resources management is that of a central ministry with several agencies managing various aspects of heritage. Within the scope of archaeological heritage, that ministry – the Ministry of Culture, is responsible for determining policy, and guiding the work of the associated agencies, namely the JNHT and the IOJ. The operations of both entities are set in motion by the legislations through which they were constituted.

The role of the JNHT and IOJ involves not just their outreach to the public, but also the research, preservation, maintenance, and display of the collections they hold. Through the Jamaica National Heritage Trust Act (1985), the JNHT has the chief tasks of research, declaration and designation of heritage sites as national monuments or protected national heritage, and regulation of such sites. It is through the JNHT that all aspects of archaeological research are undertaken or regulated. In fact, the JNHT Act is the main piece of legislation through which all activities toward the preservation, promotion, and development of Jamaica’s cultural heritage are regulated.

Through the Institute of Jamaica Act 1995 (1978), the IOJ has had the chief tasks of maintaining and presenting its wide and varied collections, which include not only collections from archaeological sites, but also those associated with Jamaica’s flora, fauna, and ethnography, including African retentions and fine art.

The activities of these entities remain extremely significant and relevant; and it is often through these activities that Jamaican participants cultivate a greater appreciation of their heritage. However, understanding the value of heritage does not happen overnight, as only a small slice of the populace is ever exposed to these efforts, which makes the work of cultural agencies ever-increasing and repetitive.

6 Value or No Value?

Despite the work of culture agencies, the average Jamaican’s understanding of the need to protect the nation’s heritage is still not at a level that would ensure its preservation and safeguarding. This understanding normally focuses on the tangible elements of heritage, reflected in its historical objects, monuments, etc., which in times past have been defaced, neglected, and in some cases destroyed. Examples of this include the removal of bricks from historic buildings for use in home construction or renovation, and archaeological remains that have been the target of looters and illegal excavations and have suffered from the impact of development.

The consistent deficiency in funding for initiatives promoting heritage awareness and preservation is a strong contributor to this situation. Due to a lack of understanding and coordination between unrelated government agencies, often those with significant financial backing in small countries such as those in the Caribbean, cultural heritage is sidelined as merely a social good. The oft-heard yet misguided saying “there is no money [value] in heritage (heritage doesn’t pay)” can be interpreted in this context, as many see no economic value in heritage, much less in protecting it. The funding needed to protect sites from neglect, to preserve and conserve them, is simply unavailable, and the general society interprets this as a reflection of their unimportance or lack of value, which influences how Jamaicans view and treat heritage. However, there is more that can and should be done with available resources.

There are several sites that have suffered the impact of illegal excavations and looting; these mostly include Amerindian sites, such as White Marl, Saint Catherine, Chancery Hall, Saint Andrew, and Canoe Valley at the border of Manchester and Clarendon, as well as underwater and terrestrial sites in Port Royal, among others. In these cases, those responsible for the wanton destruction recognized the financial gains to be made in selling these materials to collectors and not because they were aware of their value to Jamaica’s archaeological heritage. The destruction of sites is not only due to the work of looters who feed the collections of private individuals, but can also be attributed to large-scale infrastructural engineering or land-based development at the expense of heritage, where there have been few examples of compromise in favor of Jamaica’s archaeological heritage.

The question of whether Jamaicans understand the extreme damage being inflicted on heritage sites is uncertain. One might infer that those who loot sites, ransack historic structures for building materials for their homes, or replace historic buildings with modern structures do not understand the finite nature of heritage resources or see the relevance of preserving them. Clearly, this is evidence of the Jamaican public’s conflicted interaction with its heritage and what it means to fill the gaps in our national identity by investigating its material culture. Awareness and understanding are lacking, not only in the average Jamaican but also in many government entities. In 2000, a portion of the historic Bushy Park aqueduct was slated to be relocated to facilitate the construction of the Highway 2000 development. The JNHT placed a preservation notice⁶ on the site while it arranged for the mapping and eventual relocation of the monument. The day after the expiration of the notice, the National Works Agency (NWA), another government agency, moved in and tore down a portion of the monument (Richards and Henriques, 2011). Such poor coordination between government agencies and a lack of awareness regarding the heritage of the nation is of serious concern, particularly for the future preservation of historic monuments. Insensitivity and ignorance among those who are responsible for development are a concern.

Often, the protection of archaeological sites—both explored and unexplored—is not a priority to developers, and sometimes these sites are easily sacrificed for the sake of development. The most relevant piece of legislation to the protection of archaeological sites, the JNHT Act, authorizes the JNHT to “declare to be a national monument, any structure, the preservation of which is, in the opinion of the Trust, a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, architecturally, traditional, artistic, aesthetic, scientific or archaeological interest.”⁷

Regarding land-based development impacting sites, the act only addresses the destruction of sites declared as national monuments or protected national heritage, and in Section 17 declares it “an offence,” for which one “on summary conviction before a Resident Magistrate [may] be liable to a fine not exceeding forty thousand dollars (approximately three hundred United States dollars) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment, and in addition, such person may be ordered to pay the cost of replacement of any such monument, mark or notice and in default of payment of such cost, to be imprisoned with hard labour for a further term not exceeding twelve months.” There have been few cases where the destruction of heritage has been declared an offense; however, this also speaks to the availability of the JNHT’s resources to pursue these offenses, and the police and court system to act on them.

The Act is rarely enforced within the context of competing priorities at the national level. Further, provisions for Heritage Impact Assessments are not mandatory or legislated, although there have been cases of Archaeological or Heritage Impact Assessments taking place on their own or as part of a wider Environmental Impact Assessment, as was the case with White Marl, Cockpit Country, and the construction of the Old Harbour Bypass, North Coast Highway Development Project, Highway 2000, and the Long Mountain Housing Development Project. In these instances, archaeologists could conduct research and rescue archaeology and, in a few cases, even save some sites by proposing mitigation actions that were accepted. The JNHT also conducts “watching briefs” on sites that are known to them or declared as protected national heritage, and which may be impacted by development works. At present, much of the responsibility for declaring what is found and alerting the Trust lies in the hands of the developer, which is never a good situation. This is particularly within the context of limited awareness by developers, and there have been several examples island-wide in which the JNHT has not been able to adequately protect archaeological remains from hotel development and, more recently, from the construction of the cruise-ship pier in Port Royal, among other things.

In 2009, the JNHT initiated a process to update the Act⁸ with the intention of implementing greater enforcement measures as it concerns the looting of archaeological sites, destruction of heritage sites and monuments, and the engagement of private collectors and collections. The revised Act will also entail increased fines and other matters associated with international cultural heritage law, such as management of world heritage properties, preservation of underwater cultural heritage, and legal and illegal trade in cultural objects. Prior to this, as indicated previously, the Act had little teeth, and very little punishment, if any, was meted out to those who contributed to the destruction of monuments. The process of updating the Act is still ongoing, but presents an opportunity for the Trust to renew its push to build greater awareness—for example, through consultations with stakeholders regarding Jamaica’s heritage. This is particularly important for engaging those involved in development projects and responsible for approving them, and for enacting value campaigns targeting society on different levels.

The ongoing destruction of sites has led heritage agencies to seek greater engagement at the central government level in order to have a say in policies that are not associated with heritage, but have implications for the protection of sensitive heritage sites. Importantly, over the last decade, there has been an evolution in the understanding of the value of archaeological heritage by arms of government unconcerned with its protection and preservation, resulting in an improvement in how heritage resources are engaged. While there is still a way to go before considering the preservation of heritage in the natural environment or cultural landscapes, a settled matter, the present context—being given an opportunity to put forward concerns, such as with parish development orders - demonstrates an improvement in the understanding and awareness of the value of heritage resources. An example of a policy unassociated with cultural heritage is the National Minerals Policy, which is now being finalized with an addition that addresses sensitive sites such as world heritage properties. Through the JNHT, there remains a consistent push to ensure that the interests of urban planning, mining, and road and other infrastructural development have no negative impact on archaeological sites. However, this is an uphill battle. In the face of financial and human resource challenges, the agency maintains its regulatory function to protect archaeological sites throughout the island inasmuch as possible.

7 Moving Forward: Opportunities for Shifting the Paradigm of How Archaeological Heritage is Valued

Merriman (2000) states that “it is only by finding out the content of people’s images of the past that we can begin to assess where misconceptions lie and where approaches to the exhibition of the past might be modified.” McManamom (1990), in applying the subdivisions used in determining the scientific literacy of the general public to archaeology, stated that only a small percentage (less than 5%) were truly archaeologically literate; a somewhat larger percentage is interested (or intrigued) enough to read materials on the topic, watch the history channel, or visit heritage sites/museums, etc. The rest of the public (a significant portion) gets its archaeology from Indiana Jones or the nightly news. These larger percentages present unique opportunities for engagement in engendering a more aware public, and an aware public participates in the protection of its archaeological heritage.

In the earlier mentioned 2003 survey on attitudes of the Jamaican public toward its archaeological heritage (Richards, 2003), Jamaicans were asked, “What do you think our archaeological heritage is?” Out of four hundred and five respondents (representing all fourteen parishes), participants responded as follows: “anything from the colonial period,” 167; “anything in use by us now,” 9; “anything used by the Amerindians,” 87; “pots and other objects used by peoples in the past,” 120; “all of the above,” 142; “none of the above,” 20. This indicates that individuals do have an understanding that anything older than their time is considered their archaeological heritage.

In the same survey, the respondents (in multiple responses) indicated that they learned about archaeology through: television, 222; books/magazines, 195; archaeological projects, 20; school, 129; cultural/historical events, 121; the internet, 26; archaeological/historical society, 30; and museum/heritage site visits, 3. Fifty-five respondents never learned about archaeology. It can be seen from these figures that visiting heritage sites/museums, archaeological and historical societies, etc. remain under-utilized strategies, when in fact these should be the primary strategies for stimulating and nurturing an awareness of the archaeological heritage.

When asked if they could name an archaeological site, many did not understand what the term “archaeological site” meant, and thus were prompted with the term “heritage site.” The results suggested that many individuals knew only limited sites; thirty-eight percent of those sampled could not name any site. Port Royal (33.1%), Seville (23.5%), and White Marl (11.2%) were the most popular answers among those who could name a site; the sites that 1 to 11% of respondents named were: Spanish Town, 6%; Rose Hall Great House, 6.8%, Accompong, 1.6%, Blenheim, 1.2%, Maroon Town, 1.6%, Green Grotto Caves, 2.4% and Fort Charlotte, 1.2%. Sites with less than 1% of responses were Stony Gut, Bath Fountain, Morant Bay Court House, Trelawny Barracks School, Parish Church and Bottle Dome, National Heroes Park, Hendon House, Harrison House, Sligoville Great House, the Rio Nuevo Battle site, Devon House, Montego Bay Civic Centre, Two Sisters Cave, Harmony Hall, Ashton Great House, Flagstaff, Green Castle, Colbeck Castle, St. Andrew Parish Church, and Paradise Park.

Awareness leads to value, and the solution for greater awareness among Jamaicans is greater outreach in all spheres. One such example that needs upscaling is the program that the ministry responsible for culture developed in 2013, in collaboration with the Jamaica Cultural Development Commission’s (JCDC) Culture Clubs, and relaunched in mid-2015. The program, titled the “Culture Passport” program, was created to encourage primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-level students, persons with disabilities, unattached youth, and the elderly to engage with heritage sites, museums, and plays and other cultural performances at reduced rates or free of cost, to create a more culturally aware citizenry. Students are also encouraged to become part of the culture club at their schools, which also ensures that participation is not limited to students of history alone. Each participant is provided with a “passport” that allows entry into the cultural space and is also stamped at the end of the visit. The program has experienced some hiccups, but is now a program between the ministries responsible for culture and education.

8 Conclusion

As Firth (2015) highlights, “cultural heritage is a valuable, and irreplaceable record of human activity … and [our] heritage provides us with a tangible link to the past and connects intangible stories to people and places. It provides many social, well-being and environmental benefits, including a sense of identity and a stimulus for community involvement, learning, leisure and recreational activities.”

The issue of Jamaicans recognizing the value of archaeological heritage, or in fact all types of cultural heritage, is an important part of this discourse. The fact remains that while a select few members of the Jamaican population—mostly those in culture agencies, academia, and civil society—recognize the historical, social, and aesthetic values of heritage, the average Jamaican associates archaeological heritage mainly with its social or recreational value. It is not necessarily an awareness of the historical value of these sites, but the ability to enjoy the spaces within a social context. Port Royal and Devon House are perfect examples of this. Jamaicans visit Port Royal primarily for socializing in the cool, well-known restaurant on the edge of Kingston Harbour, and Giddy House is remembered for its nostalgic memories as opposed to the actual historical use of the structure. Little beyond the obvious is known or appreciated, but if this sense of value can be utilized more effectively to increase historical value, then these opportunities should be pursued. Certain challenges, as discussed above, put our archaeological heritage at risk; however, continued support of the work of culture agencies is a must, with an increased push to make the population aware of the connection between Jamaica’s archaeology and its national identity. A historically aware and engaged Jamaican populace can only be of value to its archaeological heritage.