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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-14 08:53 pm (UTC)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.