**[WAC-5 Conference](http://www.american.edu/wac5/): Archaeology and
Globalization: Challenges in Education and Training for the 21st
Century**

*Organised by:*

*John H. Jameson, Jr*

*US National Park Service, USA*

*Joseph Schuldenrein*

*Geoarcheology Research Associates, USA*

*George S. Smith*

*US National Park Service USA*

*John Collis*

*University of Sheffield, UK*

*FORMAT:*

Globalization is changing the archaeological world. The archaeology of
the West is increasingly focused on the preservation of cultural
resources, public interpretation issues, and the use of information
systems and high technology for non-invasive investigations.
Archaeological training programs are making a painful shift from an
academic to an increasingly applied focus. In the developing world
Heritage Management is emerging as a critical component of national
economies to promote tourism and to structure development initiatives.
Education and training programs in these countries are just now being
fashioned. This session brings together archaeologists, educators,
preservation planners, government managers, and representatives from
development agencies to investigate the ways in which archaeological
education and training must change to accommodate the archaeological
realities of the 21st century worldwide.

Session schedule:

9:00 Session introduction - John H. Jameson, Jr., Joseph Schuldenrein,
George S. Smith, & John Collis

9:05 The Great American Disconnect: Traditional Archaeology, Cultural
Resources, and the Emerging Global Archeological Paradigm - Joseph
Schuldenrein

9:20 Training for global archaeology - Geoff Carver

9:35 Training and Qualifications in Europe - John Collis

9:50 Uniting Europe Without Unifying Cultures: Archaeological Training
and the Expansion of the European Union - Kenneth Aitchison

10:05 Archaeology and Globalization in practice: A Higher Education
Example - Beverley Ballin Smith

10:20 Archaeology for the present: local and global education and
training in Spain - Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero

10:35 Questions & answers

**11:00-11:30 BREAK**

11:30 Archaeology in the system of higher education in Ukraine in the
context of globalization processes in Eastern Europe - Olena Smyntyna

11:45 Strategies for teaching Archaeology in the 21st century - Mark
Staniforth

12:00 The Past in Contemporary Society: Knowing the Agenda - George S.
Smith

12:15 Cultural Heritage Management, Education and Training in Africa -
Steven A. Brandt, Fekri Hassan, and Peter Schmidt

12:30 Questions & answers

**1:00-2:00 LUNCH**

**2:00-3:30 Wednesday Plenary (refer to WAC-5 Program)**

4:00 Recent Advances in Archaeological Prospection Techniques - Steven
L. De Vore

4:15 An Interdisciplinary Cross Training Course of Study for
Archaeologists, Educators, and Interpreters in the National Park
Service - John H. Jameson, Jr.

4:30 And, We Call Ourselves Professionals: Inroads into Professional
Continuing Education - Carol J. Ellick

4:45 Keeping Archaeology alive in the 21st Century: The worth of
Archaeology in contemporary society and using Public Archaeology to
sustain our discipline - Jody Steele

5:00-5:15 Questions & answers

5:15-6:00 Issues summary and open discussion

## *Presentations*

**Introduction to the Session**

*John H. Jameson, Jr.*

US National Park Service

### Joseph Schuldenrein 

Geoarcheology Research Associates

### George S. Smith 

US National Park Service

#### John Collis 

University of Sheffield, UK

**Uniting Europe Without Unifying Cultures: Archaeological Training and
the Expansion of the European Union**

*Kenneth Aitchison,*

Head of Training and Standards,

Institute of Field Archaeologists, UK,

kenneth.aitchison@archaeologists.net

Society cannot move forward without understanding the past that has
created it. This widely accepted view of the relationship between
cultural heritage and socio-economic development is recognised as an
aspect of the European Union (EU)'s encouragement of greater economic
and social cohesion within the Union. The EU recognises that, in
building a Europe that is based on more than economic prosperity it must
aim to promote sustainable development as a means to meet citizens\'
expectations concerning quality of life and cultural and social
diversity. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Union
will expand into a truly transcontinental association of states, as the
accession countries of eastern, central and Mediterranean Europe will
become full members. Differing expectations of the relationship between
economic development and cultural heritage between the existing
(western) member states and the accession (eastern) countries will be a
key matter to address.

Training is recognised as being necessary to ensure that high standards
of work are undertaken, and there is need to ensure that professional
standards are internationally portable. With increasing movement of
professional archaeologists between European states, there is a need to
ensure that the quality of work meets both the archaeologist's
professional standards and those of the state where it is undertaken.

The European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), founded in 1994 and
with members from every state in Europe, is the pan-continental
professional association for archaeologists. One of the aims of the EAA
is to promote high standards in archaeological work, as members commit
themselves to defined principles, including requirements to carry out
their work to the highest standards recognised by their professional
peers and to keep themselves informed of developments in relevant
knowledge and methodology. Through the EAA, and specifically its
Committee on Professional Associations in Archaeology and its Committee
for Training and Education, there is a mechanism that can ensure that
archaeological standards are consistently high across the continent.

EU programmes support the development of human resources and improving
labour market activities throughout the European Union. They aim to help
people to develop their skills and to improve their prospects, and
projects currently funded by the EU are actively promoting transnational
training which bring together archaeologists and archaeological site
managers or presenters from across Europe.

Currently, bids to the various funds of the EU for transnational
programmes are greatly strengthened if at least one of the project
partners is from the accession countries. It is anticipated that, from
2006, the biggest of the funds -- the European Social Fund - will be
almost entirely diverted towards the accession countries. The challenge
to archaeologists and the trainers of archaeologists will be to ensure
that high standards of skill and competency are accepted, welcomed and
valued across the European Union.

**Cultural Heritage Management, Education and Training in Africa**

*Steven A. Brandt,*

Department of Anthropology,

University of Florida

e-mail: sbrandt@anthro.ufl.edu

*Fekri Hassan,*

Institute of Archaeology,

University College London

*Peter Schmidt,*

Department of Anthropology,

University of Florida

The need for education and training in African Cultural Heritage
Management (CHM) has reached a critical stage. The destruction of the
cultural heritage resulting from the construction of major dams, roads
and pipelines, urban/suburban sprawl and looting, to mention only a few
threats, is increasing at an alarming rate. At the same time, CHM in
virtually all countries suffer from the lack of trained personnel, poor
funding and an uninformed bureaucracy and public. Drawing upon recent
experiences in Egypt, Eritrea, and Ethiopia, we propose a plan for the
establishment of a training and education program that is both realistic
and sustainable.

**Training for global archaeology**

*Geoff Carver,*

SUNY Buffalo

gjcarver@buffalo.edu

If archaeology follows current trends, then it will soon undergo the
effects not only of a continued shift away from away research towards
cultural resource management, but also by those globalising forces which
have so shaped industry of late. Much of what we know as the process of
globalisation may be seen as a by-product of increasingly efficient,
centralised management practices. What this should mean for archaeology
is the emergence of international CRMfirms, enabled by new
communications and data technologies to increase profits through
economies of scale, and able to invest in the latest technologies in
ways which under-funded universities and state services are unable to
do. For archaeological training and education, this will mean an end to
\"national\" curricula, an increased emphasis on the archaeological
process, responsive to the emergence of a world archaeology.

**Training and Qualifications in Europe**

*John Collis,*

University of Sheffield, UK

J.R.Collis@Sheffield.ac.uk

Within the European Union, our governments have signed up to agreements
that we will accept one another\'s professional qualifications and also
move towards a common structure for university qualifications (Bachelor,
Masters, Doctorate). However, we all have very different university
structures (size of departments, context in which archaeology is taught,
nature and range of teaching, etc), and I shall discuss some of the ways
in which we may be able to resolve some of these difficulties, by
producing commonly agreed curricula, and persuading some of our
governments and universities to provide better training, and evening out
the differences in costs of training charged to students. The first
thing is to start talking to one another, and this has been initiated
through a European committee on Archaeological Training and Education
set up under the aegis of the European Association of Archaeologists.

Recent Advances in Archaeological Prospection Techniques

*Steven L. De Vore,*

US National Park Service

steve_de_vore@nps.gov

For the past twelve years, the National Park Service's external
archaeological program staff has presented a workshop on archaeological
prospection to the Nation's cultural resource management community. The
workshop initially resulted from a response of the Denver's Interagency
Archeological Service's staff archaeologists to the Cultural Resource
Training Initiative proposal call from the Washington Office in 1991.
Since its start on the Army's Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern
Colorado, the workshop has addressed the issue of technological advances
in the non-destructive, non-invasive evaluation of archaeological
resources. The instructors are some of the major practitioners in the
archeological prospection field. The workshop has been held in ten
states where the instructors have focused on the theory, application,
and practical use of a variety of archaeological prospection techniques,
including aerial photography, geophysical methods, electronic site
mapping, and the integration of the data into geographical information
systems. Over the years, numerous archaeologists from Federal agencies,
state agencies, universities, Cultural Resource Management contract
firms, and local archaeological societies have attended the workshop. In
addition to this Nation's archaeologists, archaeologists from eight
other countries have attended the workshop as participants or
instructors. While there has been an increase in the use of these
techniques in the past decade, the instruction of these techniques in
archaeological undergraduate and graduate programs has lagged behind
other aspects of the archaeologist's basic education. With today's
rapid, high density sampling capabilities of the instruments and the
enormous data processing of modern desktop Personal Computers, these
technologies are even more desirable for field applications especially
when it is becoming increasingly more difficult to conduct traditional
archaeological excavation methods.

**And, We Call Ourselves Professionals: Inroads into Professional
Continuing Education**

*Carol J. Ellick,*

Statistical Research, Inc.

<cjellick@srifoundation.org>

American archaeologists, when discussing archaeology as an educational
tool in the K-12 classroom, can often be heard saying, \"Well, you
wouldn\'t let a kid try out brain surgery or spend the day as a judge in
a court room. Think of the damage they would do.\" We often compare
ourselves and our work to these other professions, but how do we compare
to these other professionals? Engineers, planners, lawyers, and even
teachers must accumulate continuing education units (CEUs) in their
given profession. They have board certification and pass exams. There
have been discussions among archaeologists in the United States along
this same path, but how far have we come and how far should we go?
Maybe, we should look at other professions for guidance and enhance our
definitions of a \"professional\" archaeologist. in the United States,
as defined by the Register of Professional Archaeologist. In this
presentation, we will explore the \"professionalism\" of archaeology and
the role of continuing education to define what is a \"professional
archaeologist.\"

**An Interdisciplinary Cross Training Course of Study for Archaeologists
and Interpreters in the National Park Service**

*John H. Jameson, Jr..*

US National Park Service

john_jameson@nps.gov

Modern public interpretation programs seek to present a variety of
perspectives to multicultural audiences that result in a greater
understanding and appreciation of past human behavior and activities. In
these settings, archaeologists, interpreters, and educators collaborate
and use their knowledge and skills to create opportunities for the
audience to form intellectual and emotional connections to the meanings
and significance of archaeological records and the peoples who created
them. A new National Park Service training module has been established
to strengthen the relationships between archaeology and public
interpretation and ultimately to improve how archaeology is presented to
the public. In this interdisciplinary setting, archaeologists,
interpreters, and educators are trained together in the skills and
abilities (shared competencies) needed to carry out a successful
interpretation program. The module and course of study stem from a
Service-wide push to improve training and development of National Park
Service employees and to promote better methods for interpreting
archaeological resources. Upcoming interagency courses are planned at
Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Fort Sumter National Monument
in South Carolina.

**The Great American Disconnect: Traditional Archaeology, Cultural
Resources, and the Emerging Global Archeological Paradigm**

###### Joseph Schuldenrein 

Geoarcheology Research Associates, USA

Geoarch@aol.com

American archeology is steeped in an anthropological tradition that took
root in the early 20^th^ century. That tradition expanded the scope of
archaeology beyond culture chronology, producing environmental,
processual, and post-processual models to explain the evolution of the
human condition. While the American paradigm had significant impacts in
archaeological method and theory throughout the world, it was typically
not incorporated into other national programs which viewed archaeology
in a more practical sense, focusing on tourist and heritage development.
Globalization and exponential advances in archaeological method have
marginalized and isolated the American anthropological model. Nowhere is
this trend more evident than in the education and training of U.S.
archaeologists. The dominancee of cultural resource management (CRM) in
U.S. archaeology conforms to world trends towards preservation and
heritage management and emphasizes method over theory. At the same time,
archaeological education in the U.S. remains entrenched in an
anthropological tradition that is increasingly academic, obsolete, and
disconnected from the practical applications of archaeology in today's
world. This presentation explores this disconnect in the U.S. and
addresses the implications for an archaeological world view that will
stress practice over theory in what is becoming a more globalized
discipline.

**Archaeology and Globalisation in practice -- A Higher Education
Example**

*Beverley Ballin Smith,*

University of Glasgow, UK

A pre-sessional program for students from the Beloit College, USA to
Glasgow University involves environmental studies and archaeology. The
course is designed to introduce students from a wide background into the
cultural heritage of a different country, that of Scotland. This
programme involves many challenges. Teaching across different cultural
and intellectual traditions is not straight forward as expectations of
institutions, staff and students are not easily met, although meeting
requirements of different qualification standards is gradually becoming
easier. At present, teaching involves an introduction to the archaeology
of Scotland with examples of the cultural heritage, visits to monuments,
fieldwork exercises and the presentation of individual papers at the end
of course. Current approaches to the teaching involves building on the
existing skills, knowledge and concepts of students and applying them to
the different social, cultural and political contexts. The success or
failure of this is made apparent in the work presented by the students
and in the detailed evaluation of the course. In conclusion, new
thinking about the program and new approaches are suggested to enhance
the archaeological experience of these students and meet the global
challenges of the future.

**The Past in Contemporary Society: Knowing the Agenda**

*George S. Smith,*

US National Park Service

George_S_Smith@nps.gov

Presenting the past is remembering the past and has been a vital part of
the human experience since the beginning. Our lives are rich with the
past remembered. We see it in our language, laws, customs, and
intellectual works; as such the past is not just something beneath the
surface. Because the past is examined and explained within the context
of contemporary society, it has been and continues to be influenced by
social, political, religious, and/or scientific factors. This is why it
is important for those that teach, study, and present the past to be
aware of how the past is understood within the context of various
agendas and how that influences what is taught, and how it is valued,
protected, authenticated, and used.

**Archaeology in the system of higher education in Ukraine in the
context of globalization processes in Eastern Europe**

*Olena Smyntyna,*

I.I. Mechnikov National University, Ukraine

[http://www.mail.ru](http://www.mail.ru/)

In Ukraine, as well as in most of NIS countries, archaeological
education is traditionally affiliated with historical faculties of
classic universities. Nowadays only 3 state (National) and 1 private
universities in Ukraine are licensed for preparation of Baccalaureates
and Masters of Arts in archaeology. Post-graduate studies are provided
by these universities and by Institute of Archaeology of National
Academy of Sciences as well. In Odessa, I.I. Mechnikov National
University original system of education of young archaeologists of all
graduate levels is in operation. It is realized on the basis of
Department of Archaeology and Ethnology of Ukraine; specialists from
Odessa Archaeological Museum and Institute of Archaeology of National
Academy of Science are actively engaged to it. System of special
professionally orientated lecture courses combined with training of
practical skills during cameral and field work has been developed in
accordance with national educational standards of Ukraine. Facing the
process of higher education general reformation aiming integration to
the European one, archaeological education in Ukraine seems to be open
for the technical and organizational re-structuring which help it to
response globalization challenges. Some acute problems inevitable arose
during such process are the subject of current contribution.

**Strategies for teaching Archaeology in the 21st century**

*Mark Staniforth,*

Department of Archaeology,

Flinders University, Australia

mark.staniforth@flinders.edu.au

Archaeology is a multi-faceted discipline that requires both theoretical
and skills training. In the past Universities have approached the
teaching of Archaeology as a full-time on-campus activity designed
primarily for students who have recently left high school. The needs of
students who work and live in different places (or countries) and who
therefore cannot attend lectures on a regular basis (or at all) largely
have been ignored. This paper provides a case study in the teaching of
maritime archaeology from Australia that in addition to \'traditional\'
on-campus teaching includes four main components:

\* distance learning topics available through CD-ROM and using the
Internet;

\* skills training through the AIMA/NAS avocational training program;

\* learning field methods through field schools and practicums; and

\* internships or work placements.

The author argues that programs to teach Archaeology in the 21st century
need to be flexible and to address the diverse needs of students who do
not fit the \'traditional\' model.

**Keeping Archaeology alive in the 21st Century: The worth of
Archaeology in contemporary society and using Public Archaeology to
sustain our discipline**

### Jody Steele 

Flinders University, Australia

<jodys@senet.com.au>

Ever stopped and wondered 'WHY'? To archaeologists around the world, the
importance of their discipline cannot be argued. However, what
archaeologists must realise is that there are many people in society who
question the worth of a discipline that studies the past so intently,
whilst the remainder of society is geared toward the future. This paper
highlights the many justifications presented by the archaeologist for
their discipline, and looks to suggest how Public Archaeology as a
sub-discipline can aid its greater foundation through encouraging public
support.

**Archaelogy for the present: local and global education and training in
Spain**

*Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero,*

Dept of Archaeology,

Complutense University, Madrid

<preh@eucmax.ucm.es>

The future of archaeology depends on promoting education at university
level, and on training in field work and in the laboratory. But too
often we try to establish an ideal formal education in archaeology
without consideration of local traditions, possibilities or the means of
providing good training for the present, as well as in the long run. I
will present the case of Spanish archaeology as an example of what has
been done and what we are doing to accommodate local archaeological
realities within the mainstream of Western archaeology and at the same
time preserving the valuable components of Spanish tradition.