Archeology Expanded—a Multidisciplinary Approach for Natural Disaster Response

The island of Santa Catalina is located in the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina¹ (hereafter, archipelago), a group of several islands in the northwest of the Colombian Caribbean, around which a 400 km² group of atolls and coral banks was created.

In November 2020, the category 4 Hurricane Iota devastated the island. The disaster revealed the high degree of vulnerability to which the island’s community is exposed, the lack of response measures in this type of event, and the latent dangers that surround the archipelago. The reconstruction process after the hurricane has been led by a centralized discourse that disregards the local knowledge of the territory.

Currently, this lack of knowledge is reflected in a state narrative where the instrumentalization of the landscape from a commercial logic predominates, overlooking traditional and historical elements that could offer key elements to achieve a transversal view during the reconstruction of the islands. This contrasts with works using multicomponent approaches in different sectors of the Caribbean, in which a series of experiences, decisions, and transformations have left their mark on the landscape and have offered elements to the discussion surrounding the impact of climate change on archeological heritage (Cooper and Peros 2010; Fitzpatrick 2010; Gomez and Jeong 2022; García-Herrera et al. 2007; Hetzinger et al. 2008; Higuera-Gundy et al. 1990; Lul and Liu 2005; McCloskey and Keller 2009; Malaizé et al. 2011; Mora,  Miller and Grissino-Mayer 2006; Rivera-Collazo 2019; Rivera-Collazo and Declet-Pérez 2017; Rivera-Collazo et al. 2018; Trouet et al. 2016).

In examining all the different perspectives from which this problem can be faced, this article seeks to discuss, from the study of three archeological sites on Santa Catalina, the relationship between natural disasters and the transformation of the fortified context of the island, in order to understand how human beings have interacted with their landscape and how they have modified the coastal areas. This will, in turn, help grasp how societies have or have not developed adaptation strategies in response to natural hazards and natural dynamics between coasts and ports, as well as to the vulnerabilities to which these societies are exposed.

The Caribbean islands are considered to be particularly vulnerable to the various effects of climate change. They offer a unique setting due to the multiple responses that past communities used when faced with sudden environmental changes (Cooper 2012). Climate change is not a recent event in the contemporary world. In fact, from the moment humans harnessed fire and all the way to the beginnings of agriculture, humans began to considerably impact their environment. However, it wasn’t until the first wave of globalization and the development of the industrial revolution that the planet started manifesting with more frequency a series of phenomena that would impact life on Earth.

Archeology, as the discipline that focuses on the study of the historical development of human groups from material remains, has developed approaches to account for the environmental impact of past societies, studying how they applied pressure on different natural resources (Butzer 2012, 2009; Hudson et al. 2012; Van de Noort 2015). The role humans play in changing the landscape and contributing to climate change has been examined since the publication of Childe’s landmark work The History of Civilization in 1936.

Since the 1980s, with the latest scientific advances in new techniques to tackle studies of the past, the study of archeological heritage in the face of climate change has been gaining strength² since this phenomenon exposes societies, economic sectors, and ecosystems to risks.³

If we assume that heritage is a non-renewable asset that, due to its properties and particularities, presents a high degree of exposure to exogenous agents, ranging from brief phenomena such as violent storms to chronic events such as droughts over several decades or the rise in sea level over several centuries, the vulnerability⁴ to which an archeological site is exposed will be influenced not only by the same environmental events, but also by multi-scale social, economic, historical, and political factors (Thomas et al. 2019).

Identifying these environmental and human factors that influence or have influenced the sovereignty of a site enables the understanding of differential vulnerability, a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacities (Thomas et al. 2019, p. 2), and, in this sense, heritage, as a product of this decision-making process, is susceptible to being instrumentalized to analyze possible responses to dynamic and spontaneous phenomena, such as hurricanes.

Archeological studies on the islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina have been carried out since 2013 and, to this day, there are only eight studies, six of which come from preventive archeology programs (Fajardo and Rodríguez 2017; Londoño 2014; Pérez et al. 2020; Romero 2013, 2016), while the remaining two come from academic research (Mayfield et al. 2019; Moreno and Baez 2021). These investigations identified seven archeological sites, particularly in the 2019–2021 field season (Pérez et al. 2020).

This article seeks to evaluate the vulnerability index from the case study of three archeological sites on Santa Catalina, one of the areas of the archipelago that was most affected by Hurricane Iota and the one with the highest archeological potential. For this purpose, we define an archeological site as a place or space in which evidence of past activity is preserved (Renfrew and Bahn 1991). Understanding the possible risks at the site level is vital to ensure that appropriate adaptation measures are put in place. For this reason, a vulnerability perspective is an advantage because it focuses not only on an evaluation of the site in terms of exposure and sensitivity to hazards, but also on the ability of a site to adapt and recover (Daly 2014, p. 269).

All of these structures were part of the fortification system that was constructed around the seventeenth century. Only one is registered as a Bien de Interes Cultural⁵ that is, an asset of cultural interest. The three structures are currently known as Fuerte Warwick, Playa del Fuerte, and Las Ruinas, and we decided to preserve the labels with which the sites were registered in the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History (ICANH, with its Spanish acronym) (see Table 1 and Fig. 1) (Fajardo and Rodríguez 2017). Accordingly, Fuerte Warwick is PRV005. The structure is located on a volcanic rock promontory, occupying an area of 7,000 m², where it is protected from the northwest and northern winds. Since its construction by the British in around 1634, this site has suffered transformations related to the landscape adaptation caused by the clearing of tropical dry forest, soil leveling, and ditch construction, as well as its toponymy. After the island was recovered by Spain towards the middle of the seventeenth century, the island was renamed Fuerte de la Cortadura de San Jerónimo, while Fuerte la Libertad was built over its foundation in 1822.

A map of the study area has the legend and the places labeled in a foreign text.

In regard to the second site, PRV013, between the 1630s and 40s, a small battery, called the Plataforma San Mateo, was found on an artificially elevated location on a beach, with an area of 1400 m². This coastal deposit of unconsolidated fine sand is made up of small and rounded fragments of corals and lithic volcanic rocks (Álvarez-Gutiérrez et al. 2014). Even before Hurricane Iota, November 16, 2020, a natural well was found that would’ve served as a watering point. After the natural phenomenon, the coverage of tropical dry forest disappeared, and the landscape resources were buried beneath a 50 cm layer of pebbles and sandstone.

Finally, the third one (PRV011) was found in the northwestern end of the island, which was known as Plataforma Santa Cruz in the seventeenth century, and similarly to the previous element, didn’t change its name, although its remains are currently referred to as Las Ruinas. This element was placed on a slag foundation occupying an area of 297 m². This volcanic material usually has a pink coloring (Álvarez-Gutiérrez et al. 2014), but appears black when exposed to a high degree of weathering, as was our case here.

The three sites are characterized by having been military constructions; PRV005 and PRV011 are located on a slag promontory, while PRV013 is located on a small beach, and PRV005 and PRV011 are on elevations not greater than 10 m in height, while PRV013 is just above sea level. All of them sought to ensure access to the marine channel that led to the different anchorages of the port. Platforms were built from brick and volcanic rock, which differed from those fortifications of the Spanish defense system in the Caribbean. Each unit is composed of ceramic, cannons, glass, and construction materials such as tiles and brick.

The sites are located on a deposit in an abrasion area, which implies that they are exposed to erosive processes due to the swell that causes the detachment and sliding of blocks and the formation of wide scarps and necks in the lower areas of scarps and crevices. These erosive processes contribute to the disappearance of the three sites since they represent a constant rate of land loss (Table 2).

Considering all the above, a multi-factorial approach is needed to evaluate the degree of response of the populations, in the past and present, when facing potential risks from climate change. This can be done by evaluating the Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), which measures a society’s exposure, sensitivity, resilience, and ability to adapt to the impact of climate change (CAF 2014, p. 5). This index is obtained from a formula that was first introduced by the Development Bank of Latin America, in which vulnerability equals the sum of the sensitivity and exposure indices⁶ minus the adaptive capacity index:

The indices are presented in a scale of 0–10, where values closer to 0 represent a greater risk, while values closer to 10 represent a lower risk. To support this interpretation, the indices are divided in four categories: extreme risk (0–2.5), high risk (>2.5–5), moderate risk (>5–7.5), and low risk (>7.5–10) (CAF 2014, p. 5).

In order to present a vulnerability framework adapted to the three archeological sites it was necessary to get to know the three sites over time to know which variables to use for the three categories involved: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. To gain an understanding of these aspects, different factors were evaluated using a deep and multiscale temporal perspective to understand the socio-natural characteristics of each site (Rivera-Collazo et al. 2015, p. 2) and the changes that occurred after the 2020 event. The idea of using a multiscale temporal approach implies data categorization into a defined chronology, specifically a major and a minor scale of analysis.

With the use of qualitative primary data from historical sources, three chronological periods that involve the past and the present of the structures were defined. The first period was between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, the second was between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries until Hurricane Iota, and the third came after the hurricane. Since we were on the island before, during, and after this natural phenomenon we were able to compare the vulnerability index of each landscape resource, allowing us to contrast the different landscape transformations and observe to what extent responses were created or not, specifically to such an atypical high-energy event that weakened the three archeological sites, increasing the risk of loss and destruction of these memories from the past.

The identification of the criteria mentioned above was established from the review of archival documentation housed in different Spanish and English repositories. Santa Catalina and Providencia have a good documentation arsenal composed of different types of archives, among which the files from Sevilla’s Archivo General de Indias (AGI) stand out, as well as those from London’s National Archives, which were transcribed by Newton (1985) and Kupperman (1993). These archives were the type of information used for the analysis in the major chronological scale because they offer a panoramic view of the relationship between humans and the different elements within the observed landscape, which allowed the identification of a series of actions for the care and maintenance of these particular archeological sites. The islands represented a problem for Spain since the seventeenth century as they were a place from which it was possible to attack the Silver Route between Cartagena and Portobelo; there are innumerable actions and reports from governors outlining a series of guidelines sent from Spain to try to maintain possession of the islands.

For the two minor chronological scales, the perception was quantified by implementing repeated field observations and interviews with stakeholders. The field observations aimed to collect data from the three sites’ locations and to contrast their observations before and after the hurricane. Site visits develop a first-hand understanding of the relationship between the heritage values and the surrounding environment, such as topography, patterns, and land use (Daly 2014, p. 273). As a result, different elements and the state of deterioration were visually recorded and georeferenced. Additionally, context descriptions of the sites were made. Regarding the interviews with stakeholders, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with local residents, visitors, and researchers. The interviewees gave important insights about the way in which they perceive the three sites, and how climate has impacted heritage.

The estimation of the Vulnerability Index provides a useful reference for developing parameters and indicators for future scenarios that must be kept under constant review. In order to understand the results, it is important to compare these values with the historical record of each site and how the Vulnerability Index has changed over time.

The Vulnerability Index shows that in both the present and the past, PRV005, PRV013, and PRV011, have been at great risk due to their exposure to natural phenomena. The main difference between them is their adaptive capacity because, in the major chronological scale, the sites had greater governance due to the importance of the island within the geopolitical situation of the Caribbean in the seventeenth century.

The archeological study of climate change offers analytical tools that allow us to note changes in the landscape, as well as actions that have been taken to face natural disasters. Considering the environmental vulnerability of the Caribbean islands, a multidisciplinary approach can offer insights into the way culture interacts with climate risks, as well as tools for designing public policy.

The islands of Providencia and Santa Catalina are part of what is known as Forgotten Islands, Useless Islands, or Hidden Ports (Bassi 2021; Schwartz 2015). The political imbalance of these islands, in addition to the lack of interest in the Spanish economic sector, led its occupants to keep these centers fortified and ready for defense. Military strategy was more important than their high vulnerability, which maintained the three elements we analyzed until the beginning of the period of independence from the Spanish. The arrival of the Europeans drastically transformed, both culturally and ecologically, the numerous islands and archipelagos of the world (Braje et al. 2017).

The landscape resources that were studied here, with a series of patrimonial, economic, and political values, present a constant fragility that has been increasing over time. These non-renewable assets face risks derived from climate change because the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve has been presenting warmer waters which have contributed to high-energy events like Hurricane Iota, creating coastal erosion that has caused elements associated with military constructions from the seventeenth century to be found today at sea or spread out along these new coastlines.

The islands’ archeological heritage has exemplified how a natural phenomenon can destroy a source of information regarding the islands’ past. The most critical area, from the elements studied, is the northwestern side of the islands, toward Punta Bucanera where PRV011 is located. Here we observed how coastal erosion, and later Hurricane Iota, dismantled the different components of this archeological site, practically destroying it in its entirety. Total destruction was also found in PRV013, since Hurricane Iota not only changed the coastline but also destroyed the water supply and buried the cannon that was previously found on the beach. PRV011, despite presenting greater integration of the previous elements, presents a negative outlook due to constant neglect.

All three elements could disappear both materially and from the Raizal population’s collective memory, due to the circumstances previously stated, if the protection policies necessary to face the present and the future of a Caribbean clearly affected by climate change remain unmanaged.