The Nineteenth Century
Interest in archaeological remains was well established in Cuba prior to the Revolution and can be viewed as a long-standing expression of pride in national heritage that is also reflected in the works of numerous nineteenth-century writers such as José Martí, the Cuban national poet. As Fernández Leiva (1992) and Davis (1996) have pointed out, a strong sense of patria (fatherland) and curiosity about the archaeological history of the country existed before the Revolution. This earliest work was highly descriptive and speculative and was performed by schoolteachers, engineers, and doctors, who pursued their interests as an elite avocation. During the later part of the century, the study of the past began to become more scholarly. While archaeology had not yet become a formally recognized science, several scientific papers were published that brought local findings to the attention of scholars outside of Cuba. Excellent summaries of these early works can be found in Ortiz (1922a) and Fernández Leiva (1992). Fewkes (1904) and Rouse (1942) both provide overviews in English. Rouse's summary relates specifically to the history of archaeological investigation in the Maniabon Hills area in north-central Cuba.
Fernández Leiva (1992:33) regards the work of Andrés Poey as marking the beginning of archaeological study in Cuba. Poey's 1847 discovery of a fragment of a human mandible at a prehistoric site on the south coast of Camagüey set in motion the study of prehistoric people, as well as their physical remains. In 1855, he presented his findings to the American Ethnological Society in a paper titled "Cuban Antiquities: A Brief Description of Some Relics Found in the Island of Cuba." By 1891, archaeology had become a recognized science (Fernández Leiva 1992). Soon thereafter (1902), the Montané Anthropological Museum was established, named after Montané Dardé, who had conducted the country's first major archaeological excavation in the Maisí region and had studied the skeletal remains from the Cienaga de Zapata. In the same decade, archaeological artifacts were exhibited at other museums, such as the museum of the Academy of Science on Calle de Cuba and a museum in Baracoa (the Santiago Museum) (Fewkes 1907). In 1913, the government created anthropology courses for University of Havana students and a chair of Anthropology and Anthropometric Exercises was established (Rivero 1994:61).
The National Commission for Archaeology (Comisión Nacional de Arqueología) was created in 1937. In 1941, its name was changed to the National Board for Archaeology and Ethnology ( Junta Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología) and its scope broadened to include ethnological studies. Laws for the preservation and restoration of historical monuments were promulgated (Dacal Moure and Watters, Chapter 2; Fernández Leiva 1992:36). The council's research was published in the Revista de Arqueología y Etnología. Between 1937 and 1962, the council published 20 volumes. By 1943, sufficient data had been amassed that Fernando Ortiz could write a synthesis of Cuban archaeology (Davis 1996:163).
Prior to the formal professionalization of archaeology after the Revolution, archaeology was conducted by groups of highly dedicated avocational archaeologists such as the Grupo Guamá (Havana area), Grupo Humboldt (eastern Cuba), Grupo Arqueológico Caonao (Banes area), Grupo Yaravey, and the Speological Society of Cuba (Sociedad Espeleológica de Cuba) (Dacal and Watters, Chapter 2; Davis 1996:164; Fernández Leiva 1992; Linville, Chapter 5). The Grupo Guamá, founded in 1941, consisted of medical doctors, engineers, mathematicians, lawyers, and university professors. Some notable members included the writer Felipe Pichardo Moya, the natural scientist and political leader Antonio Nuñez Jiménez, César García del Pino, Manuel Rivero de la Calle, René Hererra Fritot, Oswaldo Morales Patiño, Antonio García Valdés, García Castañeda, Martínez Arango, García Robiou, and Roberto Pérez de Acevedo, among others. Their articles and monographs were published in Revista de Arqueología y Etnología and Revista Nacional de Arqueología.
The Organization of Cuban Archaeology / 45 American Involvement before the Revolution
U.S. archaeologists have had a lengthy but sporadic involvement in Cuban archaeology. For example, Squier, who with E. H. Davis published Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley, the first volume in the series of Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, was the first U.S. professional archaeologist to bring Cuban archaeology to the attention of North Americans. On a train trip in i860, he noted elongated 3-6 foot mounds between Bemba and Unión, which he reported in "Discovery of Ancient Tumulí in the Island of Cuba" in The Century, June i860 (Harrington 1921:51; Ortiz i922a:i6). Although, he did not conduct work in Cuba, Daniel Brinton (i9i9), who introduced the four-field approach to American archaeology (Urbanowicz 1992), published "The Archaeology of Cuba" in American Archaeologist 2(10) in 1898. This work summarized and reviewed the contributions of Poey, Ferrer, García, and others.
Brinton was the first North American archaeologist to recognize that a tradition of archaeological study existed in Cuba. Reflecting a general national ideology that knowledge about the world was in the country's best interest and should apply everywhere, U.S. archaeological interests extended to the Caribbean in the early part of the twentieth century. Through capitalist philanthropy and nationally sanctioned efforts, projects were undertaken throughout the Antilles. During the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, American anthropology was interested in discovering the origins and antiquity of prehistoric groups in order to link them with contemporary natives (Parezo 1987:19). Meltzer (1985:252; see also Parezo ibid.) notes that this goal and the associated method of the direct historical approach formed one of the major paradigms of American archaeology at this time. Thus, in 1901, the University of Pennsylvania Museum sent Stewart Culin (Fane et al. 1991) to Cuba to investigate reports of surviving Indians in Oriente. During his visit, Culin acquired a small collection of artifacts (Culin 1902:225). Culin's work also reflected another dominant paradigm of the time—salvage ethnography, the idea that native peoples were disappearing and it was anthropology's mission to study them before they became subsumed by Western culture. Anthropologists considered it their moral duty to collect as much as possible from the groups that they perceived to be on the brink of extinction.
Through the Platt Amendment, the United States acquired Guantanamo Naval base and was granted the right to intervene in Cuban affairs whenever it was determined necessary (Pérez 1995). In 1902, the chairman of the National Research Council suggested that American anthropology should "fol low American interests overseas" (MacCurdy 1902:534, cited in Vincent 1990: 134). U.S. expansionist policies allowed for new areas of research (Hinsley 1981; Patterson 1995:41; Vincent 1990). The acquisition of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Guantanamo Bay from Spain opened up previously uninvestigated areas for scientific exploration. In 1904, the Bureau of American Ethnology sent Jesse Walter Fewkes to Puerto Rico to "investigate the aboriginal economy of the island and to report just how America could use her new acquisition" (Noelke 1974:175, cited in Vincent 1990:134). Fewkes went to collect data and specimens that "would shed light on the prehistoric inhabitants" of Puerto Rico (Fewkes 1907:17), but it was necessary to visit other islands and obtain collections to attain comparative insight into the origins and spread of Antillean cultures. Thus, he visited Cuba and in 1904 published an American Anthropologist article titled "Prehistoric Culture of Cuba." The work described a small collection of artifacts he purchased from Nipe Bay (Fewkes 1904:395-396). The purchase of collections was not unusual at this time, and many major museum collections, such as the Smithsonian's, were created this way (Parezo 1987).
In February 1914, Theodore de Booy of the Museum of the American Indian-Heye Foundation visited Cuba. In the fall of 1914, he returned and conducted several excavations in the province of Baracoa (northeastern Cuba). His enthusiasm about the abundance of sites prompted Mark Harrington's trip in 1915. During this visit, which lasted almost a year, Harrington concentrated his efforts in the Baracoa area. For two months in 1919, he returned for a brief stint in Baracoa and then conducted some preliminary work in Pinar del Rio, Cuba's westernmost province. He presented his findings and interpretations in two volumes, Cuba Before Columbus (1921).
In 1932, Herbert Krieger, curator of ethnology at the National Museum of Natural History, went to Cuba, but he never published his findings and they remain in the Smithsonian's files, now accessible on the Internet (Krieger 1933). The following year Yale University established its Caribbean program "as an attempt to improve the methodology of archaeology through intensive research in a particular area, as well as to resolve the historical problems of the aboriginal populations of the West Indies and related peoples in North and South America" (Osgood 1942:5). Under the program, archaeological research was conducted throughout the northern Antilles. In 1936, during America's Great Depression, the U.S. Congress established the Division of Cultural Relations to establish links with Latin America (Patterson 1995:78).' This office established and funded the Institute of Andean Research, which oversaw archaeological research in South America and the Caribbean. The institute supported Rouse's archaeological work in the Maniabon Hills of northeastern Cuba and Osgood's work at Cayo Redondo in Pinar del Rio. Their investigations resulted in two publications: Cornelius Osgood's The Ciboney Culture of Cayo Redondo, Cuba (1942) and Irving Rouse's Archaeology of the Maniabon Hills, Cuba (1942). These works represent the last published U.S. research effort in Cuba until the 1990s. Their work, and that of their U.S. predecessors, influenced several generations of Cuban archaeologists and continues to be referenced by contemporary Cuban archaeologists.
The study of history was an important concern from the onset of the Revolution. The Revolution drew upon the historical conditions that had created and perpetuated social inequities, inequities that had also threatened Cuba's national identity (Pérez 1999). Jorge Domínguez (1993:96) notes that the linking to Cuban history was critical in the forging of a new Cuban national identity distinct from the regime of Fulgencio Batista (batistato). According to Pérez, "Fidel Castro, the 26 of July Movement, which he led, and other revolutionary forces that had participated in the revolutionary war, sought to affirm Cuban nationalism. In the symbols used and histories evoked, in the problems diagnosed and solutions proposed, there was a strong emphasis on enabling Cubans to take charge of their history' (Pérez 1995:315, italics added). Pérez also notes that "by attacking the past that had created these hardships, the revolutionary leadership struck a responsive chord that initially cut across lines of class and race and served to unite Cubans of almost all political persuasions. It aroused extraordinary enthusiasm for la revolución and, as ambiguously defined as it was, it could mean all things to all people. Aroused too was a powerful sense of nationalism, one summoned by the revolution and soon indistinguishable from it" (Pérez 1995:315).
Respect for and pride in the past were clearly evident in early postrevolu-tionary government proclamations. In 1959, the Cuban government created the National Commission for Historical Monuments, which is housed in the Ministry of Culture. In 1966, the government created the Council of State of the Republic of Cuba and the National People's Assembly. The first two laws that were approved by the assembly were for the protection and restoration of historical monuments. The Department of Museums, which oversees the country's museums, is also situated in the Ministry of Culture.
With the creation of the Cuban Academy of Sciences (CAS) in 1962, or ganized along the lines of the Soviet Akademia Nauk (Suchlicki 200i:4), archaeology, like other scientific disciplines, became formally recognized and funded by the government. The Academy of Sciences, which replaced the Academia de Ciencias de La Habana, was established once the "necessary conditions for an increased development of science were created" (Statutes of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba 2001). The CAS is responsible for the coordination and implementation of scientific and technical research. Archaeologist Ernesto Tabío, who returned to Cuba after years of self-exile in Lima during the Batista regime, participated in the formation of the CAS and founded and directed its anthropology department (Oyuela-Caycedo et al. 1997:366).
On April i6, i96i, Fidel Castro proclaimed Cuba a socialist country (Pérez 1995). Social scientists adopted a historical materialist perspective and archaeologists modeled their work after Soviet archaeology. According to Domínguez (1991:9), the goal of archaeology is to define and explain Cuban history, to promote a materialist understanding of Cuba's history, and to provide temporal depth to that history. While many of Fidel Castro's speeches acknowledge the role of history (after the Spanish conquest) in shaping the present day, at least one speech recognizes the role of prehistory. Lourdes Domínguez (1991:9) cites a 1968 speech given by Fidel Castro (published in 1975) in 1968, in which "he says that we have the duty to undertake the investigation of our oldest history, as a fitting imperative for the discovery and analysis of the heritage of our country [cuando nos dice que debemos abordar la investigación de nuestro pasado más antiguo como la tarea justa de ahondar y profundizar en las raíces históricas de este país]." The unique character of the Cuban national identity that emphasizes themes of struggle and resistance extends these notions to prehistory, as memorialized throughout the country at highly visible public sites associated with archaeology and history. A statue of a young Cuban Indian woman stands outside the entrance of the Capitolio (Figure 3.2), which houses the Academy of Sciences. She represents liberty and the Cuban republic (Baker 1997:264). Not far from the Capitolio is the Fuente de la India Noble Habana, a fountain surmounted by a marble statue of The Noble Havana, the Indian woman for whom the province is named; tourist guides describe her as an Indian queen (Baker 1997). A famous statue of Hatuey stands in Baracoa's Plaza Independencia, facing the cathedral.
Pérez (1995:358) and others have noted that the most notable achievements of the Revolution have been in the areas of education, nutrition, and health
services. Soon after the Revolution, the government created new educational opportunities and expanded existing ones. In i959, there were three university centers: the University of Havana, the University of Oriente, and the University of Las Villas. By the 1980s, there were 40 universities and centers of higher education (Pérez 1995:360). During this period, archaeological training at the university level was offered in Cuba for the first time. The formal study of archaeology (often followed through a "historical sciences" curriculum) was made possible by the social and political changes that made education accessible to people of all class backgrounds, including women, who traditionally had been excluded from higher education. Significantly, the first person to receive a doctorate in archaeology was a woman.
Archaeologists, like academicians in other disciplines, doctors, and people involved in technological fields, were encouraged to study in the USSR (Pérez
1995). Scholarships and other educational support were made available. Estrella Rey was awarded a doctorate in historical sciences from the Institute of Ethnography (Miklujo Maclay) of the USSR's Academy of Sciences in 1968 and thus was the first student of prehistory to have a Ph.D. in Cuba. Ernesto Tabío received his doctorate in historical sciences from the same institution shortly after Rey. His dissertation was published by the Cuban Academy of Sciences and is considered a landmark work. Tabío and Rey's coauthored work, Prehistoria de Cuba (first published in 1966, then reissued in 1979), played a role in the formation of a movement in Latin America known as Latin American Social Archaeology (Dacal and Watters, Chapter 2; Fernández Leiva 1992; McGuire 1992; Oyuela-Caycedo et al. 1997:366). The advocates of this approach saw the practice of archaeology as "a way to link their revolutionary politics with archaeological practice" (McGuire 1992:65). José Guarch, another notable scholar, also received his doctorate from the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1987, Jorge Febles, a former barber, received his doctorate from the Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy of the Siberian Branch of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Numerous others received master's degrees from the USSR prior to the 1990s.
During the period of close relations with the Eastern Bloc, archaeologists from these countries were welcomed and both independent and joint research encouraged. The Polish archaeologist Janusz Kozlowski published his findings in Cuba (Kozlowski 1972, 1975) and Poland (Kozlowski 1974). A set of papers, based partly on collaborative work among archaeologists from the Siberian branch of the Soviet Academy of Science's Institute of History, Philology, and Philosophy, was published in Russian (Vasilievski 1986). The bulk of the work focused on artifact analysis, although one study examined prehistoric crania (Alexeiev 1986). During this time, the Poles and Russians supplied microscopes and other equipment to support technical analyses. Radiocarbon samples were submitted for dating and a series of dates published (Panichev 1986). Collaboration with the Siberian Branch of the Soviet Academy of Science also allowed Cubans to do archaeology in Siberia. Three Cuban archaeologists, Lourdes Domínguez and Jorge Febles (in 1980), Alfonso Córdova and Jorge Febles (in 1986), and Jorge Febles (in 1987) participated in the joint Cuba-USSR Archaeological Excavations in Western Siberia between 1980 and 1987.
The system of training archaeologists instituted during the early days of the Revolution remains today. Archaeology is taught in the Faculty of Marxism and History and the Faculty of Historical Sciences at the University of
The Organization of Cuban Archaeology / 51 Table 3.1. Licentiate in History Curriculum, University of Havana
The history of mankind: prehistory; archaeology of the world
Social and economic formations: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism; the Middle Age, modern history, and contemporary history (including the classic revolutions of France, England, and Russia)
History of Cuba
History of every country in America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa, and their liberation movements (including the First and Second World Wars)
History of Philosophy
Marxism-Leninism (dialectic materialism and historic materialism)
Methods for research in the social sciences
Archaeology of Cuba
Table 3.2, Curriculum for Students Specializing in Archaeology, University
Study of aboriginal technology: lithics, pottery, shell, wood, cordage, basketry, metal,
Havana. One can earn a Licentiate in History (Table 3.1) that entitles the holder to conduct research. Cuban universities do not grant degrees in archaeology, but students can specialize in it. The licentiate takes five years to complete. Students who specialize in archaeology must take courses that include artifact analysis, zooarchaeology, Marxist philosophy, physical anthropology, computer analyses, history, and philosophy (Table 3.2). Fieldwork is required to complete the program. In 1987, Lourdes Domínguez (Figure 3.3) became
3.3. Dra. Lourdes Domínguez, with her husband standing to her right and her mother to her left. Photograph by Mary Jane Berman.
the first archaeologist to graduate from the University of Havana with a Ph.D. in historical sciences. Attempts to create a separate Department of Archaeology here, at some of the Higher Pedagogical Institutes, and at the other university centers have been unsuccessful. The Ministry of Higher Education has granted several notable individuals, such as Ramón Dacal Moure, Milton Pino, Alfredo Rankin, and César García del Pino, the Master of Science degree in recognition of their commitment and contributions.
In addition to offering courses in archaeology, several universities have museums where collections are curated and exhibited. The Montané Museum of the University of Havana (Figure 3.4) is the oldest and most widely known. The University of Oriente and the University of Holguín both have active archaeology programs and museums. Other institutions such as the Universities of Villa Clara, Pinar del Rio, Ciego de Avila, Camagüey, Sancti Spiritus, and Cienfuegos are working to develop museums.
During the 1990s, several people, many of whom are represented in this book, received their doctorates in history from the University of Havana. Pedro P Godo was awarded his Ph.D. in 1995 for the dissertation "The Study of Use-Wear Traces in the Tool Kit of the Aborigines of the Fishing-Gathering Phase and Its Application on Ethnohistorical Reconstruction." Others include Ricardo Sampedro for "The Study of Use-Wear Traces in the Tool Kit of
the Aborigines of the Protoagricultural Phase and Its Application on Ethno-historical Reconstruction"; Gabino de La Rosa for "The Palisades of the Eastern part of Cuba: Chase and Resistance"; Enrique M. Alonso for "The Real Origin of the So-Called Guanahatabey of Cuba"; and Jorge A. Cabrera for "The Aborigines of the Cunaqua Cultural Variant: An Ethnohistorical Reconstruction." Many of these studies reflect the influence of Soviet thought and method.
While cultural and educational exchanges between Cuba and the United States were at a standstill for the most part from 1959 onward, the Smithsonian's Latin American Archaeology program, administered by Dr. Betty J. Meggers, provided Cuban scholars intellectual and other forms of support throughout this period (Politis 2003:117). In recognition of her scholarship, commitment, encouragement, and personal contributions to the field of Cuban archaeology, Meggers was awarded the Medalla de "La Periquera" from the Museo Provincial de Holguin in 1997.2
Archaeological reports and essays are published in journals that come out of the Institute of Historical Sciences, the Center of Anthropology, the Society of Historians, the Montane Museum, the Casa del Caribe, and the speleo-
logical societies. Each year the Provincial Speleological Committee (Comité Espeleológicos Provinciales) produces scientific papers with a section devoted to archaeology (Fernández Leiva 1992:39). Archaeological discoveries are reported in the newspapers Granma, Juventud Rebelde, and Bohemia and on radio and television. In April 2002, for example, the discovery of artifacts from Villa Clara (north central Cuba) was reported by Radio Havana (2002) and posted on the Internet, thus expanding the means by which the official news service is communicating archaeological information to Cuba and beyond.
Archaeology within the Government Administrative System
The various agencies that administer government policies are overseen by a Board of Ministries. Archaeology is administered by the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Science, Environment, and Technology. The Center of Anthropology (Figure 3.5), along with the Center of Historical Sciences, Institute of Linguistics, and other institutes of social and biological research, is located administratively in the Ministry of Science, Environment, and Technology. The Center of Anthropology consists of regionally based archaeology departments in Havana and Holguín and the Department of Ethnology. The Department of Archaeology (Havana) has offices in Pinar del Rio and Matanzas and collaborates with other institutions. The National Commission of Patrimony, situated in the Ministry of Culture, grants permits to conduct archaeological research (Fernández Leiva 1992:38). Archaeologists must submit a report upon finishing a project. The National Commission oversees the laws that protect and preserve sites and the administration and management of the i5 provincial museums. These museums were created as a result of a 1966 law that provides that all the municipalities must have at least one museum. There are over i00 municipal museums in addition to the provincial counterparts. Many of both kinds of museums contain archaeological collections and exhibits. Fernández Leiva (i992:39) notes that, as a result of these efforts, today's elementary schoolchild knows more about the prehistory of Cuba than the majority of educated people did before 1959.
Museums devoted specifically to archaeology also exist. Some notable examples are the Montané Museum of the University of Havana (mentioned in numerous contexts throughout this paper) and the University of Oriente's Museo Arqueológico in Santiago de Cuba. The Museo Indocubano in Banes is famous for a thirteenth-century gold figurine and for murals painted by the noted muralist José Martínez depicting Taíno life. The Museum Chorro de Maíta, situated on the site of Bani, is believed to be the largest aboriginal
burial site thus far excavated in the Caribbean and is a national monument. Trinidad's Museo de Arqueología y Ciencias Naturales, located in an elegant old mansion on the southwest corner of the main plaza, contains taxidermy examples of Cuban flora and fauna and exhibits that chronicle the evolution of Cuba's aboriginal cultures. There is a Museo de Arqueología in Sancti Spiritus. Formally trained archaeologists staff these institutions. Many municipal museums whose missions are more general also have formally trained professionals. For a period of time the Capitolio housed the Cuban Academy of Sciences, but it was closed in 1996. Its re-creation of the famous Punta del Este cave that featured depictions of the pictographs painted by artist José Martínez were removed.
Avocational groups located throughout the country contribute significantly to the work of professionals (Fernández Leiva 1992:38). Their involvement further reflects the democratization of archaeology. Once perceived as an elite avocation, today everyone has the potential to participate in recovering and constructing the nation's patrimony and to assist professionally trained archaeologists. Avocational archaeologists have recorded the location of many sites and provided data about site size and occupation. Much of these data were incorporated into the compilation of archaeological censuses (e.g., Febles 1995). Many avocational archaeologists are members of the country's speleological societies that have played key roles in the discovery and description of rock art sites (Linville, Chapter 5). There is a speleological society in every province, and each has an archaeology section (Fernández Leiva 1992:38). The Escuela Nacional de Espeleología offers courses in archaeology.
The withdrawal of the USSR in the early 1990s significantly impacted the infrastructure of Cuban life, including academic research and the dissemination of scholarly findings. Opportunities to study in the Eastern Bloc evaporated, and archaeologists have not gone there to study since the onset of what Cubans call the "special period," nor has any Eastern Bloc archaeologist undertaken any scholarly work in Cuba. Attempts to maintain contact with Russian and Eastern Bloc colleagues have met with little or no success. The shortage of supplies such as paper and ink and the loss of parts for printing presses account for a reduction in the frequency of newspaper and magazine publications, a decrease in the number of pages per publication, and the delayed printing of new books and journals (Johnson 1988; Pérez 1995:386). Thus, reports and articles written during the height of Soviet influence may never see their way to publication in Cuba, while some editors have sought and attained publication through European presses. For archaeologists, the shortage of other critical materials, such as fuel, has been particularly frustrating, because it has reduced mobility and access to field sites, museum collections, and libraries and archives outside of one's home institution.
The Cuban scientific and intellectual community, including archaeologists, has responded pragmatically and innovatively to these obstacles, however. Much of their response is directed to connecting in various ways to the West, particularly North America. First, scientific collaborations between the Center for Anthropology and North American institutions have been actively sought and encouraged. Since 1997, the Royal Ontario Museum has collaborated with the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología, y Medio Ambiente (CITMA) in Ciego de Avila on the excavation of Los Buchillones, a submerged site that has yielded a wealth of wooden and other organic objects (Collazo 1998; Harrington 1999; http://www.rom.on.ca/digs/belize/cuba.html; Pendergast et al. 2001). At the end of the 1999 field season, the project's base of operation moved to the Institute of Archaeology (IOA), University Col lege, London (Graham et al. 2000). Project oversight is shared between the Cuban and British institutions; codirectors are David Pendergast (IOA) and Jorge Calvera (CITMA), and subdirectors are Elizabeth Graham (IOA) and Juan Jardines (CITMA).
Throughout the 1990s, attempts were made (and continue to be made) to create collaborative projects with U.S. museums and universities. In the early 1990s, an agreement between the Montane Museum and the Carnegie Museum of Natural History resulted in joint fieldwork in Pinar del Rio and the publication of an elegantly illustrated book on the prehistory of Cuba by the University of Pittsburgh Press (Berman 1999; Dacal Moure and Rivero de la Calle 1996; Gnivecki 1998). Other collaborators (the authors included) sought grant funds in the mid-1990s to conduct research in central Cuba, but U.S. policy, which expanded the scope and severity of its sanctions after 1995, intensified the amount of paperwork involved in obtaining visas and licenses, making it nearly prohibitive to undertake projects there.
On a more positive note, the return of human remains to a Taino community in Caridad de los Indios (eastern Cuba) in January 2003 is bringing new meaning to archaeological collaborations between Cuba and the United States. Following six years of discussion between Smithsonian and Cuban archaeologists and the Cuban government, Cuban Taino remains, believed to be from seven individuals, were returned and reburied in a ceremony attended by Cuba's Taino descendants, staff from the National Museum of the American Indian (Smithsonian), representatives from several U.S. Indian tribes, and Taino descendants living in the United States (Bauza 2003). Cuban archaeologists are now requesting the return of artifacts collected by Harrington, but the Smithsonian's policy is to return artifacts to native communities, not to universities or museums. According to the NMAI repatriation coordinator, the Cuban Tainos themselves must claim these in order to begin repatriation proceedings (Bauza 2003).
Another response on the part of Cuban archaeologists has been to organize international conferences to connect with scholars from other countries and intellectual traditions, which may also bring much-needed U.S. dollars and other forms of Western currency to the island. Numerous meetings brought North American, European, Latin American, and Cuban scientists and avo-cational archaeologists together to discuss rock art, physical anthropology, colonial archaeology, and prehistoric archaeology during the 1990s. Other conferences such as the Sixth Iberian-American Symposium of Terminology, held in Cuba in 1998, included papers by archaeologists. The proceedings of this conference were published in Portugal (Correia 2002) owing to the difficulty of publishing in Cuba.3
An additional means by which Cuban archaeologists have sought to engage with colleagues from other countries has been to offer their services to archaeologists outside the island. Archaeologists have recognized the unique expertise of several Cuban investigators and incorporated them into their projects: Dacal Moure (Rostain and Dacal Moure 1997) has worked on the study of shell tool production at the Tanki Flip site on Aruba and Jorge Febles on stone tool production and edge wear analyses on sites in Puerto Rico. A few Cuban archaeologists have also contributed to recent international publications. For example, José M. Guarch's chapter (2003) titled "Paleoindians in Cuba and the Circum-Caribbean" appears in Jalil Sued-Badillo's book (2003), UNESCO General History of the Caribbean, Volume 1, Autochthonous Societies. In addition to his work in Cuba, Jorge Ulloa (see Chapter 6) has participated in archaeological research in the Dominican Republic and has published in Dominican journals.4 In 1995, Febles completed a CD-ROM titled Taíno, Arqueología de Cuba. His efforts to distribute it internationally to secure funds to support the work of the Centro de Antropología did not yield the much-needed and desired financial results. In 1999, Febles applied for and received a John Simon Guggenheim award to complete the database he had established with the CD-ROM.
In order to disseminate their work outside the country, Cuban avocational and professional archaeologists are beginning to publish their findings on the Internet. A recent paper by Racso Fernández Ortega and José B. González Tendero (2001b) from el Grupo-arqueológico Don Fernando Ortiz is an excellent example. Jorge Ulloa published an article in a special 2002 issue of the electronic journal KACIKE: Journal of Caribbean Amerindian History and Anthropology. While reducing publication costs, such papers provide outlets to the international community. This example is not typical, however, because few Cuban archaeologists own personal computers, but it is our hope that we will see more Cuban archaeologists publishing their work in this manner. Time will tell if the Internet proves to be an effective means of dissemination of information.
With the shortage of fuel and high costs that make travel prohibitive, many archaeologists are redirecting their efforts from fieldwork to the reexamination of collections housed in museums and repositories. Some are applying insights gained from their Soviet and Eastern Bloc experiences, as well as new inter pretive models inspired by their more recent contacts with U.S. and Canadian archaeologists. In December 2003, the scientific publication Journal of Trace andMicroprobe Techniques devoted a whole issue to the work of archaeologists engaged in the analysis of prehistoric and colonial period pottery (majolica) using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and electron probe X-ray microanalysis (SEM-EDX) analyses.5 Three Cuban archaeologists, including Pedro Godo (Chapter 8), are featured in this volume, which will be republished in the 2004 edition of Information Science and Technology. Nevertheless, such analyses are difficult to undertake, since the parts for the Soviet-manufactured equipment needed to conduct this work are several decades old and hard to replace. Last, but not least, Cuban archaeologists are reaching out to North American archaeologists by marketing their national and regional conferences, which they continue to organize, in professional media. Such calls for papers and invitations to conferences appear frequently in Anthropology Newsletter and SAA Archaeological Record, which supplanted SAA Bulletin.
Was this article helpful?