Myths and Realities of Caribbean History

Myth 2. The Arawaks and Caribs Were the Two Major Groups in the Precolonial Caribbean

Myth 2 The Arawaks and Caribs Were the Two Major Groups in the Precolonial Caribbean Some history books refer to the Arawaks and Caribs as the two major groups to have colonized the Caribbean. However, archaeological research has pointed to the presence of multiple cultural groups in the region before 1492, namely the Casimiroid, Ortoioroid, Saladoid, Barrancoid ,Troumassan Troumassoid, Suazan Troumassoid, and Ostionoid peoples. Caribbean archaeologists have designated these various groups based on the names of sites where artifacts associated with the groups were first identified.  Identifying and Naming Precolonial Peoples in the Caribbean Traditional views of the precontact Caribbean, based in part on mistaken ethnohistoric perspectives, divided the archipelago between only two large and relatively homogenous groups: the Arawaks and the Caribs (Wilson 2007). While some history books (Rogonzinki 2000; Dookhan 2006) continue to refer to the Arawaks and Caribs as the two major Amerindian groups,Caribbean archaeologists have been able to identify multiple cultural groups based on artifact types. Attaching an identity to particular artifacts or monuments, most frequently expressed in terms of the ethnic groups, or peoples, who produced them has figured at the heart of archaeological enquiry (Hides 1996). While the identification of “cultures” from archaeological remains and their association with past ethnic groups is seen by many as hopelessly inadequate (Jones 1997), there is currently no better alternative, given that we are dealing with nonliterate groups, communities, and societies that existed thousands of years ago and therefore did not leave behind any tangible information concerning their names or ethnic identities. Even the task of ascribing names to contact- 12 / Myth 2 period groups, such as the Taínos and the Island-Caribs, has been fraught with significant challenges (see Hulme 1993). (See Chapters 3, 4, and 7.). For example, in an attempt to differentiate the Caribs of the southern Caribbean from their counterparts in South America, Caribbean archaeologists have been referring to the former group as Island-Caribs (Keegan 1992; Rouse 1992). Even if Kalinago or Kalina is arguably the preferred cultural/ethnic identifier for this group, it should be borne in mind that these terms invariably refer to the living Caribs of Dominica (Ricardo Hernandez 2008,personal communication), with their usage stemming from the 17th-century linguistic studies of the Dominica Caribs by Father Raymond Guillaume Breton (Saunders 2005). Kalinago or Kalina cannot be usefully applied to the Carib Indians of Trinidad and Tobago let alone those of South America. The name Carib is a product of European cultural biases (see Chapter 7), but Caribbean archaeologists will continue to use it, given the lack of a better alternative. The problem of names is not restricted to the Caribbean; it is in fact a worldwide phenomenon. For example, “American” usually refers to someone who is a citizen of the United States of America, even though the geographic term “the Americas” refers to North, South, and Central America. Many people identify themselves by national boundaries (e.g., Mexican, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan , Jamaican, or Trinidadian), despite the fact that these national identifiers mask the level of ethnic diversity in those countries. Others use more local terms (e.g., Floridian, Californian, Xinguano), their heritage (e.g., African American,Afro-Caribbean,Irish American),or their local group identity (e.g., Mehinaku, Makaritare, Carib) and so on. Names and the Culture-Historical Approach Caribbean archaeologists have sought to circumvent the problem of names by using artifactual assemblages relating primarily to pottery and stone artifact types to identify the presence or absence of major cultural groups. This is called the culture-historical approach and can be defined as an attempt by archaeologists to use approaches utilized by traditional historians, or simply projecting history back into periods when there was no writing (Drewett 1999). In other words, the culture-historical approach attempts to reconstruct the history of people based on detailed local sequences of artifacts and information about their geographic distribution (Drewett 1999). But there is also another step in the process. The cultures and peoples associated with certain artifactual types have also been given the name of the site where each artifact type was first described. For example, Saladoid was named after the site of Saladero in Venezuela, where its pottery characteristics were first identified and classified (Figure 2.1). For several decades, Caribbean archaeologists have been Figure 2.1. Saladoid site locations of Saladero in the Orinoco delta of Venezuela, northeastern South America. (Adapted from Boomert, Trinidad and Tobago...