Judging by the tenor of recent posts on the value of SOAP membership I
seem to be in the minority. I have not joined the organization, and don't
expect that I will in the future. If my ability to work in my profession
becomes dependent on membership, then I suppose that I will reluctantly
join. But I hope that I will never have to make that decision.
 
Over many years of involvement in the three worlds of archeology (CRM,
academic, & governmental) I have seen poor quality archeology done by
people who were not SOPA members-- as well as those who were members in
good standing. SOPA certification is no g uarantee of competency. Indeed,
the notion that any professional or trade organization (and it is not
clear to me in which category SOPA fits) can assure competency is an
illusion.
 
While SOPA can point to some positive accomplishments, for me, many
disturbing issues remain unresolved. The organizations newsletter
occasionally contains useful information and has featured articles which
foster discussions on ethical issues. SOPA may censure a few of our
colleagues guilty of the most severe ethical transgression, but I see no
evidence that it has raised the overall quality of archeological work.
 
I fear that there is a very real danger that SOPA has actually contributed
to a decline in the quality of archeology being conducted in the US. To be
sure, if such is the case (and my perception on this may be flawed) this
is certainly an unintended cons equence of SOPA's existence. What concerns
me is that SOPA certification has become a short cut toward assessing the
competence of archeologists.  My current position requires me to make
judgments on who is most likely to execute a particular archeological
project with dispatch and skill. These are not decisions which are easily
reached-- and there are no short cuts.
 
Determining the best fit between a given project and those best suited to
conduct it requires a careful review of the skills and past
accomplishments of the various candidates. The possession of SOPA
certification is not really relevant in this decision.
 
I worry that SOPA credentials may confer a false impression of competence
and forestall a more detailed examination of the strengths and weaknesses
of the various candidates. This is particularly a danger when the
selection is being made by an individual who is not familiar with
archeology. Certification can appear as a blanket stamp of approval and
can thus be more misleading than helpful.
 
The whole issue of certification is problematical, and, I think, raises
issues which we as a profession have been reluctant to address. SOPA
certification only has real meaning within the CRM world. It has been
suggested that certification aids a company or government agency seeking
compliance related archeological services select a competent practitioner.
Unfortunately, all to often these entities are not in the market for
quality archeological services, but, rather, are seeking a way to make
their archeological 'problem' go away at minimum cost, as rapidly as
possible. In such cases hiring a SOPA certified archeologist serves as
nothing more than a convenient fig leaf behind which to hide, and in these
instances at least SOPA me be of more harm than good.
 
I don't think it is possible to discuss the role of organizations such as
SOPA without considering the political economy of CRM archeology (and
public archeology in general)-- a subject which we rarely discuss outside
the confines of smoky barrooms.
 
                                        Jed Levin
                                        Eastern Applied Archeology Center
                                        National Park Service
                                        (Usually disclaimers apply....)