THE EDITOR, Sir:IN a previous column by Dawn Ritch captioned "What's right with Jamaica" and published on January 28, 2001, the writer showed an interest in the discipline of archaeology, for which we are grateful.
Ms. Ritch suggests that there are no "proper archaeologists" in Jamaica, writing "until we get some proper archaeologists like the French coming to Jamaica..." There are in fact "proper archaeologists" in Jamaica, though not many. They have been trained locally and internationally, pursing their postgraduate degree in archaeology with some of the most inexperienced having at least two years experience in the field as ell as in curation, laboratory analysis, and teaching.
Ms. Ritch noted that "they've (scholars) been confusing us for 300 years with wrong information, and particularly over the last century." Misrepresentations or confusions in Jamaica's prehistory and history are not entirely the fault of Jamaican scholarship. The British in the over 300 years of rule, distorted our knowledge of our prehistory and deprived us of any knowledge of the Spanish legacy. This bias in the representation of the archaeology and history is not limited to Jamaica alone, but is common in other Common-wealth territories. Hence, islands such as Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic know much more about their native inhabitants than we do. Present scholarship is just trying to set the records straight.
The issue of Tainos versus Arawaks that she mentioned is a debate that has arisen in the last two decades. However, if one examines the Spanish chronicles there is no evidence to suggest that the Tainos called themselves "Arawaks". In fact, in greeting the Spaniards, it has been chronicled that the indigenous group referred to themselves as "Tainon, Tainon!" However, it has been through the promotion of British scholarship that the term "Arawak", was used to characterise them.
This error is probably due to physical and other cultural similarities between the Tainos and Arawaks. The Tainos, Arawaks and Caribs all originated in the Amazon, but they are distinct ethnic groups, which have been distinguished by cultural and linguistic differences.
There are over 300 Taino sites in the island ranging from middens to cave art and burial sites. The most popular site is White Marl, St. Catherine, which is one of the largest sites. The radiocarbon date for the White Marl site is 877-1494 plus or minus 120 years (so I guess someone did bother to carbon date the site, Ms. Ritch).
Pottery or ceramics do play a very important role in archaeology. It is usually the most abundant material evidence recovered due to its inorganic composition. However, it is not "the only agreed physical evidence of the Tainos," as Ms. Ritch puts it. The Tainos have left behind many other artefacts including wooden sculptures, zemis, duhos, celts and canoes. Many of these objects because of the organic composition do not survive when exposed to the environment but we do have some at the Jamaica National Heritage Trust that are displayed from time to time in our heritage education programme in schools and communities. There are also three wooden Taino Zemis found in 1992 that are now at the National Gallery. This is the largest Taino find in 200 years.
We agree with Ms. Ritch that the current state of available scholarship on the Tainos leaves a lot to be desired. Jamaica is one of the least studied Taino sites in the Caribbean. There is much more left to be learnt about our indigenous people and their role in our history. The Jamaica National Heritage Trust, through its archaeological division, has forged links with academic institutions both locally and internationally in our bid to improve on this and provide valuable information about our past.
I am, etc.,
BLOSSOM SAMUEL
Executive Director (acting)
Jamaica National Heritage Trust
