9th November 2005, 11:27 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by idontdodinos
I think a factor which has an influence on how sites are treated back home is that most sites are palaeo-indian/native sites. There is still a very large native population who are the direct descendants of the people who lived on the same land 500, 1000, 5000, even 15,000 years ago whereas England, which had been invaded by the Romans, then the Anglo-Saxons etc etc there is not so much of a direct link to the people and cultures that we excavate over here as there is in Canada. There is a long history of oral tradition within the native culture and archaeologists often work alongside the local natives bands and tribes (who are trying to preserve their unique culture), in an effort to help each other understand the archaeology, even on commerical sites.
dinos
Maybe, but the British can point to continuous occupation since the end of the Ice Age. A few contributions to the melting pot have occured, but on balance these are extremely local additions on the whole ie channel hopping. Until fairly recently the spice in the pot was provided by the (non-Roman) Romans, but essentially the same meat over 10,000 years plus.
In the Americas there is much debate about multiple founders. Also there is good historical evidence for great dynamics in settlement. This must have occured in the more distant past as well.
So, I think it's more to do with perception than reality.