SAA COMMITTEESLETTERSmost dissertation projects. The highly politicized arena of universitypolitics and bureaucracy also offered un<strong>for</strong>eseen obstacles.While difficult, this interactive learning experience will bebeneficial to developing more fully in<strong>for</strong>med archaeologicalmodels and fostering long-term collaborative relationships withcolleagues in Eritrea.CONCLUDING THOUGHTSThose who study abroad, particularly students, should takeactive roles in both learning from <strong>for</strong>eign academics and helpingto build archaeology departments and research programs.As a consequence, relations between countries are smoothed,critical intellectual linkages established, and resources supplied<strong>for</strong> the further cultivation of archaeology and anthropologyabroad. Moreover, local universities are empowered to documentand preserve their nation’s antiquities. In the case of Tanzania,the story has come full circle; Tanzanians now constitutethe full faculty of the <strong>Archaeology</strong> Unit at UDSM and currentlyreceive requests from <strong>American</strong> and European students seekingarchaeological training and instruction. In fact, Dar is nowamong the leading archaeology programs in sub-SaharanAfrica. The Eritrean archaeology program, on the other hand,has just begun. Though unique, the Eritrean program isin<strong>for</strong>med by the Tanzanian experience. High enrollment in theundergraduate archaeology program at the University ofAsmara and the continuation of three Eritrean students in theAnthropology Masters Program at the University of Florida<strong>for</strong>etell a promising future. In sum, graduate students studyingand working abroad have much to gain and much to offer fledglingarchaeology programs in Africa and elsewhere. Where willyou choose to get involved? Where will you make your contribution?LETTERS, from page 3
SAA INSIGHTS COMMITTEESCRM, EUROPEAN STYLEThomas R. WheatonThomas R. Wheaton (RPA) is part-owner and Vice President of New South Associates and Executive Director of the<strong>American</strong> Cultural Resources Association.In 1992, the 40-plus member Council of Europe (CoE)promulgated the European Convention on the Protection ofthe Archaeological Heritage, or what is commonly knownamong European archaeologists as the Malta Convention(http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/WhatYouWant.asp?NT=143). As of today, most of the 16 European Union (EU) countrieshave ratified the treaty, notable exceptions being Italy,Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany. Others may haveratified the treaty by the time this is published. The EU has overridinglegal powers and tends to concern itself with political andeconomic integration, while the CoE uses friendly persuasionand deals with cultural issues.The Malta Convention has to some extent become the Europeanversion of the National Historic Preservation Act, but the EUhas also incorporated archaeological requirements into its environmentalregulations apart from the Malta Conventionrequirements. The Malta Convention and recent EU regulationshave caused, and will continue to cause, many changes in theway archaeology is conducted in Europe. The vast range of languages,laws, and cultures in Europe—including the archaeologicalculture—makes implementing these new regulations adaunting task.Of particular interest to those of us in the private sector, the EUhas also passed economic rules stating that if EU money isinvolved in a project, the bidding process must be open to allqualified bidders in all EU countries. The requirements are similarto those requiring adherence to federal law when federalmoney is used <strong>for</strong> projects in the U.S. This ruling has beeninterpreted by some to mean that an archaeologist qualified inthe U.K. should be able to run a project in France, and viceEditor’s Note: This is a shorter version of an article entitled “An<strong>American</strong> in Lisbon” that first appeared in the summer 2001issue of the US/ICOMOS newsletter prepared by the InternationalCommittee on Archaeological Heritage Management(ICAHM).versa. This is not welcome news in some countries. EU policyalso implies that there will be competitive bidding, and thus privateenterprise will get its dirty little foot in the door.As a result, it has become important to know what constitutesan “archaeologist,” what is adequate fieldwork, and what makesup a proper report. At last year’s annual conference of the EuropeanAssociation of Archaeologists (EAA) in Lisbon (September2000), discussions of standardization and attempts at understandingthe problem were major topics. As the <strong>American</strong> CulturalResources Associations (ACRA) executive director, I wasprivileged to be able to participate, along with Chuck Niquette,secretary-treasurer of the Register of Professional Archaeologists(RPA), in one such workshop and was an observer inanother.One of these sessions was a roundtable discussion headed byWillem Willems of the Netherlands, president of the EAA, andJean Paul Demoule of France. The original purpose of theroundtable was to reach some kind of agreement on how theMalta Convention should be implemented. But it soon becameobvious that the roundtable would not get past reviewing thedifferences in how archaeological heritage management (AHM)is implemented in individual countries. Even <strong>for</strong> Europeansaccustomed to dealing with cultural diversity, the range of lawsand practice was a little surprising.One representative from each country was allowed to sit at thetable and speak <strong>for</strong> their country. The participants were thenpresented with nine questions, which they answered in orderbe<strong>for</strong>e moving on to the next question. Participants wereencouraged to sum up the situation in their country. The overallview gained from this exercise was impressive in its complexityand gave one a sense of the enormity of the problem ofintegration in Europe. The following paragraphs describe someof the responses to three of these questions. A more extendeddiscussion of all nine is presented in the US/ICOMOS article.Who Owns the Remains?Each member, or at least the first few to speak, spoke with<strong>November</strong> 2001 • The SAA Archaeological Record13