1st August 2008, 04:08 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by m300572
Right enough - the problem with the use of modern political boundaries to define archaeology is that is doesn't really work for those periods when the political boundaries were elsewhere. I must admit that I hoped that once Scotland had its own assembly the level of anti-English sentiment would decrease as it would become apparent that it wanst all "England's Fault". From personal experience the opoosite may be happening - this is on the basis of being a Scot, living and working in NW England and married to an Essex girl (in the geographical rather than joke sense - she has never owned a pair of white stilettos in all the years we have been married) and going up to Scotland reasonably frequently where unkind comments based on her Englishness have been directed against her.
I was quite surprised when I discovered that what anti-English sentiment did exist (and I can't say I've ever encountered much all the time I've spent in Scotland) made no distinction based on where you were from. You were English that was that. I thought that the Scots would feel some sort of empathy with people from Northern England (particularly the most northerly areas) on account of both being a long way from the centre of British/UK government. But apparently not. Now that there is a Scottish Parliament this is less of a problem in Scotland (unless of course you are a long way from Edinburgh, wheels within wheels) but remains the case in the North of England, with the additional snub that Scotland has its own parliament.
Regarding no archaeology in the North West, I never cease to be amazed by the type of comments made by some southern archaeologists I have worked with about the inferior quality of the archaeology. They just don't get it! Anyway, seemed to have strayed into a bit of a rant! This is part of a bigger issue regarding developer funded work where the largest and most massively funded projects tend to happen in the south where the money is massively distorting the amount of information and therefore perceived inportance of the archaeology, which is already heavily distorted by the increased amount of research anf other funding that has already been made available. In most cases round here we are still relying on the results of excavations carried out in the 19th century for sites that, had they been in the south, would undoubtedly have had at least one decent, funded programme of recent excavation.
Like I said, seem to have strayed into a rant, looking for a way out, oh, there is is...