2.1 AHM: Pre-independence

Figure 12.2 shows the pioneers of Trinidad and Tobago archaeology. Interest in archaeological research in Trinidad and Tobago began as a byproduct of geological surveys conducted in the mid-nineteenth century (Boomert, 2000). The surveys of G. P. Wall and J. G. Sawkins were designed to provide information about the structure and mineral resources of the island to the colonial government (Wall & Sawkins, 1860). During their work, Wall and Sawkins encountered several shell deposits in southern Trinidad. These deposits were subsequently identified as the middens of prehistoric settlements by the famous naturalist R. J. Lechmere Guppy in 1864 (Boomert, 2000). Contemporaneous research was focused on collecting and describing artifacts found in chance encounters. Subsequently, researchers like John A. Bullbrook, John M. Goggin, and Irving Rouse conducted extensive excavations in southern Trinidad, in places like Cedros, Erin, and Palo Seco (Boomert et al., 2013). These men were not born on the island, but some, like Bullbrook, devoted decades of their careers pursuing a greater understanding of the precolonial history of Trinidad and Tobago and advocating for the protection of tangible heritage. The discoveries made in this preindependence period piqued local interest in precolonial history and antiquities. This fascination contributed to the founding of the Royal Victoria Institute (RVI) which became the catalyst for other history or conservation organisations and institutions.

View Full Size

Pioneers of Trinidad and Tobago archaeology. Top left: John A. Bullbrook; top center: Irving Rouse; top right: Arie Boomert; bottom: Archie Chauharjasingh, Peter Harris, and Prof. Keith O. Laurence

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

3.1 AHM: Post-independence

Appointed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in 1979, the Archaeological Committee functioned in an advisory capacity to secure the protection, preservation, and restoration of sites of historical/archaeological and architectural significance, including some 250 middens (Reid & Lewis, 2011) and was vested with a broad remit in all matters of archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago. The mandate of the committee included making recommendations to the Town and Country Planning Division, the Trinidad and Tobago Tourist Board, the Chaguaramas Development Authority, the Tobago House of Assembly, and other state agencies on archaeological matters including land development, the listing of archaeological sites, and the conduct of archaeological research in Trinidad and Tobago. The committee functioned under the Chairmanship of the late Keith O’ Laurence, Professor of History at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine. It included members such as Arie Boomert, then the resident archaeologist at the University of the West Indies History Department; the late Peter O’Brian Harris of the Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago; representatives from the Town and Country Planning Division; UNESCO; the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Trinidad and Tobago Tourist Board, among others.

The government established this committee in direct response to a research proposal submitted by Wilfred Laurier University to excavate a prehistoric site called Lover’s Retreat in Tobago (Reid & Gilmore, 2014). Although the project never happened, this committee’s activities formalized cultural heritage management in the country. However, its powers were limited as an advisory body. Rudylynn DeFour Roberts became a member of the society due to her work with the NGO Citizens for Conservation. Ms. Roberts spoke highly of the work done by the committee, but highlighted several issues in the way in which it was administered.

We kept impeccable records on archaeologists active in the country and on their projects … [W]e also physically oversaw excavations and conducted environmental impact assessments on suspected sites. However, we were not empowered to act on land development or other risk factors that infringed upon archaeological heritage sites. We could only make recommendations to the minister [responsible for culture]. (Roberts, 2020)

This lack of statutory authority often hindered the committee in their mission to protect important archaeological sites from damage and destruction. Additionally, the lack of financial support from the government and the inability to raise funds also affected the committee’s effectiveness. Members of the committee were not regularly compensated for their time and effort, and budgetary allowances for site visits in Tobago and hosting visiting archaeologists absorbed much of the available resources. According to Reid, “[The committee was] provided with access to infinitesimal resources through the ministry responsible for culture” (Reid & Gilmore, 2014). Despite these challenges, this organization laid the groundwork for formalized heritage management in Trinidad and Tobago. The Archaeological Committee had functioned continuously from its appointment in 1979 until 2009, with the resignation of its long-standing Chairman.

The National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago is a membership-based organization created by an Act of Parliament in 1991 to recognize and protect tangible heritage assets or “properties of interest.” The National Trust Act defines “property of interest” as any monument, fossil, place, or site of natural beauty or national, historic, scientific, or archaeological interest (The Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, 1991). The National Trust Act is the only one that mentions monuments above or below the surface of the land or floor, whereby “monument” means any building, structure, or other work of man or nature—whether above or below the surface of the land or the floor of the sea—of national architectural, aesthetic, or historic interest. Therefore, preserving archaeological heritage falls under the purview of the National Trust. This organization has a wide-ranging set of obligations, including safeguarding the nation’s built and natural heritage through legal protection and acquisition; public education on heritage matters; and encouragement of local and foreign academic research.

In 2011, the National Trust sought to address the vacuum left by the Archaeological Committee by establishing a subcommittee focusing on archaeological matters (Reid & Gilmore, 2014; Reid & Lewis, 2011). However, this was a short-lived measure due to gaps in succession planning and budgetary concerns. Ms. Roberts laments on her experience, stating, “I remember going to sites where we heard something was found, and we get the committee, and we fly down there to look, and by the time you get there, foundation works were hurriedly done. When we spoke to individuals in the community about the find they would say ‘yea they found something there, but they cover it up fast fast’ … People in this country feel like the preservation of heritage is anti-development. This is something we have to work on” (Roberts, 2020). This dialogue shows that enforcement is complicated and frequently near impossible without an authority or committee with government authorization. Most of the interviewees agreed that stricter legislation is needed. They see it as the only way to curb the loss of archaeological heritage. However, Trinidad and Tobago’s legislation archaeological heritage is inadequate and simply not enforced.

Another legislative achievement is the Protection of Wrecks Act in 1994. This act affords protection for underwater archaeology in the form of wrecks. The act stipulates that “on account of the historical, archaeological or artistic importance of the vessel, or of any objects contained or formerly contained in it which may be lying on the seabed in or near the abandoned wreck; the site ought to be protected from unauthorized interference” (Protection of Wrecks Act, Chap. 37: 04). This legislation hoped to curb the practices of treasure hunting and unauthorized salvaging from historic wrecks. However, it has not been enforced, and seasoned divers like Derek Chung have reported significant losses of underwater archaeology to looting, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s (Chung, 2020). There seems to be a significant gap in knowledge about the underwater archaeology of Trinidad and Tobago. Legislation should not only protect these wrecks, but also help to foster more research and public education about them.

The limited legislative protections afforded to heritage did not spring up overnight but have been carefully cultivated from colonial times to the post-independence era. Trinidad and Tobago have made great strides in closing the gaps in heritage protection. Legislative attempts at protection seemed to blaze a trail in the ’80s and ’90s, but since then, enforcement, legislative improvements, and compliance have not been dealt with for archaeological properties.

3.2 Education and Promotion

The promotion of archaeological heritage and the way it is communicated to the public has been changing over the last thirty years in many parts of the world. One major transformation is the importance of making archaeology more meaningful and accessible to a broader public (Cleere, 1984; Grima, 2002). This transformation can occur through a reimagination of public interpretation. Public interpretation can be described as “the official (and unofficial) versions presented at an archaeological/ heritage site or museum exhibit” (Walker, 2009, p. 3). The way an archaeological site is promoted or described to the public can affect how people understand and appreciate the site. While interpretation should strive for accuracy and enjoyment, the most successful interpretive strategies create an experience for visitors that allow the site and its surrounding environment to influence their awareness and appreciation of the place (Walker, 2009). Building an appreciative population can help individuals, NGO s, or any organization or agency gain support for conservation policies and legislative changes to protect sites further. In short, public appreciation will garner public support to protect archaeological sites.

The interviewees agreed that more could be done to protect the archaeological heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. However, among the interviewees, there was no clear consensus on how it should be promoted. A common theme was the lack of archaeological heritage promotion in Trinidad and Tobago. Interestingly, this was described by each guardian as needing improvement, but when it came to their own dealings with archaeology, many seemed to shy away from it. During the interviews, interviewees often volunteered disclaimers that archaeology was not their “main area of focus” or that they “accidentally” ended up as custodians of archaeological heritage. Overall, they tended to distance themselves from this type of heritage. By contrast, those who claimed to have become “accidentally” involved in archaeology offered some of the most interesting suggestions for ideas and experiences related to heritage promotion.

View Full Size

Excavations at the Red House, Port of Spain

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

One interviewee, Margaret, took the time to actively consider how heritage could be promoted by taking a more constructivist approach to the National Trust’s only archaeological property, the Banwari Trace Archaeological Site. This property is the only archaeological site in the country that is legally protected as a “property of Interest” under the National Trust Act of Trinidad and Tobago, Chap 40:53. It is dated about 5000 BC or 7000 BP (years Before Present), and it is the oldest pre-Columbian site in the West Indies (O’Brian Harris and Trinidad & Tobago Historical Society, 1971; Rouse & Allaire, 1978; Tankersley et al., 2018). It is a well-stratified shell midden located in southeastern Trinidad, providing the oldest known archaeological evidence of human settlement in the West Indies and has been crucial to our understanding of the initial peopling of the greater Caribbean region. Detailed excavation profile descriptions, soil and faunal analyses, accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence dating, and stable carbon isotope analyses provide an accurate chronology and paleoenvironmental framework for the natural and anthropogenic depositional history of this significant archaeological site. indings suggest three Middle Holocene strata at Banwari Trace, which represent significant periods of midden deposition and environmental change at ~7800–7900 cal BP (Level 3) (O’Brian Harris and Trinidad & Tobago Historical Society, 1971; Tankersley et al., 2018). The oldest human remains in Trinidad were found on the site and have been preserved at the UWI Zoological Museum since 1978. The “Banwari burial,” as it is locally known, is one of the main attractions of the Zoological Museum. Margaret has a future vision for the site that includes a sandbox where children can dig like “archaeologists” and discover new finds. She hopes “to get a future archaeologist” out of the site’s visitors with this proposal. She underscores the importance of having more trained professionals in the field and hopes to encourage the next generation in this direction. The Banwari Trace site is the perfect location to emphasize Trinidad’s connectedness to the rest of the Caribbean. Margaret is aware of this as she states, “We are more connected to the rest of the world than we understand. Trinidad is one of those centres of the world where people passed through.” The Trust hopes that the site becomes a place where the voice of the Trust and of conservation is secondary to the inner voice of discovery and experience. Unfortunately, this idea is awaiting funding to become a reality.

Funding seems to be the most mentioned limitation to promotion and education. Exhibitions, interpretive materials, and their maintenance are costly to all the organizations in this study. Despite the common rhetoric of budget constraints, there are some elements that heritage stakeholders hope can be improved on a shoestring budget. Their goal is to get the public to understand and appreciate the archaeological heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. For the participants, there has been only one example of this thus far: the Red House Restoration Archaeological Project. Ms. Roberts describes the Red House excavations as “a shining example of what ought to be done, even in private enterprise.” In March 2013, discoveries including human remains, artifacts, and other archaeological materials were made at the Red House, Trinidad and Tobago’s seat of parliament, during a structural assessment of the foundations during restoration work. Preliminary data from this investigation suggested that the Red House site was a relatively sizable native settlement that was continuously inhabited for over twelve hundred years (Reid, 2018). The project’s committee included a consultation phase where information was shared with all the major heritage stakeholders. The First People groups of Trinidad and Tobago, including the Santa Rosa First Peoples Community and the Warao Nation, played an active role in deliberations over excavation methodology and processing of finds. After this Archaeological Project was completed, the First People communities of Trinidad and Tobago held a reinterment ceremony in October 2019, in which they reburied the human remains uncovered during the excavation. This unprecedented event and the preceding project are perfect examples of future archaeological projects. The site upon which these human remains now rest will undoubtedly become archaeological heritage in the future.

3.3 The Collections

The archaeological collections in Trinidad and Tobago are stored in multiple repositories across both islands. To our dismay, none of these repositories possesses documented protocols for the use of their collections by academic researchers or the public. In most instances, there is either no staff, or staff lack the qualifications and knowledge to assess and maintain their collections adeptly. Nevertheless, the institutions responsible for the following collections have done as much as they can with the available resources. In this section, we highlight these collections and the individuals who have contributed to the promotion and preservation of archaeological heritage through their biographies, and in so doing, improved the archaeological heritage management of the nation.

The Archaeology Centre was established over four decades ago, in 1981, by renowned Caribbean archaeologist Arie Boomert, and pioneering local amateur archaeologist Peter O’Brien Harris. The Centre is quite literally the nucleus of archaeological research in the country. As part of the Department of History at the UWI, St. Augustine the Archaeology Centre has resources found in no other repository. The facility has climate-controlled storage, is better equipped than other repositories, and used to be easily accessible to local and visiting researchers. The Archaeology Centre has several archaeological collections from Trinidad, Tobago, and some of Trinidad’s offshore islands. Notable pieces at the center are the Biche point arrowhead, as well as stone tools from the Archaic Age site of St. John, which produced the oldest known evidence of the use of domestic plants in the insular Caribbean (Pagán-Jiménez et al., 2015). The collection located here spans the entire chronology of the human occupation of Trinidad and Tobago and is comparable only to the archaeological and historical assemblages found at the National Museum and Art Gallery. The Archaeology Centre possesses the only national archaeological site inventory, of which there is only one hard copy and one in digital format. Though this facility is the best equipped in the country, there is virtually no public awareness of the facility outside of academic circles, and issues with the maintenance and curation of materials are similarly faced by other repositories. At the time of writing, this facility was unfortunately closed indefinitely due to insufficient funds and the lack of any professional archaeologists in Trinidad and Tobago, among other reasons. If Trinidad and Tobago is to promote and bolster its human resources in the sphere of cultural heritage management and archaeology, this facility must function, with resources allocated to improving its physical, digital, educational, and research capacities.

3.4 Peter O’Brien Harris Collection, University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT)

The Peter O’Brien Harris Collection is a diverse array of pre-Columbian and historic artifacts and ecofacts that were collected over decades of archaeological work in Trinidad and Tobago, from the 1960s to the 2000s, by Peter O’Brien Harris. The collection is under the guardianship of O’Brien Harris’ children who are based internationally, and the finds had been moved several times due to improper storage conditions before arriving at its current location at the O’Meara Campus of the UTT. The collection has undergone initial curation by Arie Boomert, but this paper-based catalogue he created in the 1990s has not been digitized in a detailed manner, and within the UTT facility, there is an obvious need for the holding containers and individual labeling to be upgraded. While the room in which the collection is stored at UTT has a stable environment, the O’Meara campus was shut down at the end of 2020 because of financial considerations, so the future location, utility, and management of the O’Brien Harris Collection remain uncertain.

4.1 Legislation

A thorough account of recommendations for improving archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago could fill an entire book, but within the constraints of this chapter, we have tried to be succinct. As can be discerned thus far, adequate national legislation is paramount to the success and progress of archaeological work, and to the preservation of archaeological heritage in Trinidad and Tobago. All of our interviewees share the opinion that a sound legislative framework will coalesce the abovementioned disconnected measures into one national system. An essential consideration within any legislation put forth is the presence and need for protection of artifacts and sites on land and in the sea.

It is highly recommended, and requested by guardians of heritage, museums, and the authors, that the National Archaeological Committee be reconstituted and rendered functional with qualified, competent members. This committee will be the national regulatory body for archaeology in Trinidad and Tobago and act as an advisory committee to the government, providing structure and clarity for the operations of all individuals and institutions involved or affecting archaeological heritage, as well as lobbying for funding for promoting local archaeological projects and public education. The Archaeological Committee should develop productive links with government ministries and other relevant local governmental bodies, so these external expertise can assist the committee members in their role as consultants for the archaeological assessment of both private and commercial locations. In 2005, Trinidad and Tobago signed the 1972 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention). It is noteworthy to mention that our twin-island republic is the only major island-state in the Anglophone Caribbean that is without a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We recommend that this obvious omission be addressed, as it could potentially increase public awareness and interest regarding issues of heritage preservation and management. Trinidad and Tobago is also a signatory to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001, which was enforced globally in 2009. However, there are numerous facets of underwater heritage that need to be overseen by trained marine archaeologists, divers, conservators, and the like, but are glaringly absent from the cohort of archaeological and heritage professionals in the country.

4.2 Education

Trinidad and Tobago has a plethora of terrestrial and marine archaeological resources. These resources require a steady supply of well-trained archaeologists and heritage practitioners to tap their potential. In their 2011 work, Reid and Lewis highlighted the improvements made: with the establishment of the Archaeology Centre, “heritage management has been given a boost with the presence of the archaeology program at the University of the West Indies (UWI), St. Augustine Campus.” Trinidad and Tobago’s archaeology was indeed well served by the activities of the Centre; however, the offered program only provides a small number of elective undergraduate courses, with no possibility of doing a major or minor in archaeology or heritage studies. Therefore, students interested in these disciplines must leave our shores to further their education. As previously mentioned, at the time of writing, the Archaeology Centre is without an archaeologist and is closed indefinitely, therefore putting all courses on hiatus. Further, the UWI is the only tertiary-level institution in the country that offers education in archaeology. Reid and Lewis (2011) reported the need for more locally trained archaeologists to develop sustainable research agendas and effective management of archaeological resources. This situation remains relatively unchanged - there are only a few individuals with archaeological experience residing in Trinidad and Tobago, but some of these citizens are pursuing related archaeological training abroad. It is recommended that other local tertiary institutions, like the University of Trinidad and Tobago, redevelop history programs to include information about the precolonial history and archaeology of Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean.

At the secondary school level, the basics of history should be compulsory for all students. Additionally, prehistory and archaeology should have a higher priority in the syllabus for students opting to pursue history in the later years of their secondary education. Mock excavations and other introductions to archaeological fieldwork should be used to encourage students to pursue history and archaeology programs at the tertiary level. Currently, and problematically, there are very few local opportunities for employment in the fields of archaeology and heritage management. However, recent trends in the state’s willingness to support heritage restoration projects as a precursor to the development of the local tourism industry augur well for the future.

4.3 Collection Management

In the Caribbean, it is well documented that there are major issues with adequately curating materials and documents in archaeological studies (Siegel et al., 2013). Trinidad and Tobago has not been immune to this problem. The country has been fortunate to have some level of interest in archaeology, but a centralized curation system for archaeological collections is recommended. This measure will allow researchers to locate and identify material assemblages that have been dispersed among the collections, which in turn can inform what needs to be done to preserve and conserve the items, and how they can best be presented to the respective audiences for storage, curation, education, and research purposes. A comprehensive and uniform curation system can assist in closing the gaps in tangible terrestrial and underwater heritage management in the country. Accompanying this should be protocols established by the Archaeological Committee, which could be templates for the activities of museums and other bodies that house archaeological collections. A national, digital inventory would be an indispensable requirement and aid for protecting and enabling efficient in-house and external use of the contents of the collections. The Archaeology Centre has the only national site inventory and has also started an electronic inventory of its own assemblages. We further endorse the establishment of a register of materials (individual artifacts and collections) that have been extracted from the country, both illegally and for scientific research. Both these inventories should be improved through standardized data inputs and regular updates and should eventually be transferred to an electronic database that allows remote public research access.