Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology

40 / Dacal Moure and Watters
jail for three months to one year or a heavy ¤ne. More recently, in 1996, two
laws were promulgated, the ¤rst establishing mechanisms to control the exportation
of archaeological objects and the second stating that a permit approved
by the pertinent entity is required to perform research expeditions and
visits of a scienti¤c-technical nature to areas of sensitive ecosystems. Finally,
the Environmental Law of 1997 regulates the Sistema Nacional de Areas
Protegidas, making archaeological review mandatory.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we would like to address two issues brie®y. First, we are sure that
members of the Society for American Archaeology, whose professionalism
and working conditions have seen remarkable advances in these last forty
years, understand that although international collaboration is sought, Cuban
archaeology cannot go back to conditions prevalent in similar relations in
1931. Although the work of past U.S. investigators, such as Cornelius Osgood
and Irving Rouse, are good models for future studies in the sense that we
should always have as the main purpose the improvement of our understanding
of the human past, we also have to realize that social and academic conditions
in Cuba have changed markedly since the 1930s. Therefore, any scholarly
collaboration and exchange will have to take a considerably different path
determined by the developments achieved by professional archaeologists from
each country and current national laws.
Second, as Cuban society strengthens and protects its indigenous culture
with an eye on tourism, it needs the discipline of archaeology and an appropriate
interpretative theory to support these efforts. This theory, however,
cannot be imposed or in®uenced by advances in the other disciplines and
sciences. Independent of their complexity, importance, and speci¤city, archaeometric
approaches can contribute only new tools and not the main aims
of archaeological research. This volume may help Cubans approach this task.