One of the more intriguing problems I've encountered has been the way that archaeology gets (a) integrated into the historiography of the post-colonial world and (b) done.
Some years ago, for example, I was told by one of the people who'd worked on a dig in Jamaica that they'd come across evidence that indicated that there was trade between pre-Columbian Jamaica and the Central American mainland. However, I've not seen that mentioned by any historians. I suspect there are reasons for this having to do with what historians of Jamaica are interested in, little of which has to do with the aboriginal population -- which is generally perceived to have been extinguished by the first European colonisers. There's also the problem of how and by whom archaeological research is funded.
no subject
Some years ago, for example, I was told by one of the people who'd worked on a dig in Jamaica that they'd come across evidence that indicated that there was trade between pre-Columbian Jamaica and the Central American mainland. However, I've not seen that mentioned by any historians. I suspect there are reasons for this having to do with what historians of Jamaica are interested in, little of which has to do with the aboriginal population -- which is generally perceived to have been extinguished by the first European colonisers. There's also the problem of how and by whom archaeological research is funded.