Since Bob Schuyler doesn't seem to be listening right now, I thought that I
would reprint some of his opinion column on this subject from the Spring
1997 Newsletter (pp.8-9). I also urge everyone to read his June letter (SHA
NEWSLETTER vol.29 (2):14-15). (The full text of the Proposal is in the
Spring 1997 Newsletter).
 
SHA Awareness of the SOPA-ROPA Proposal
 
   Most SHA members still do not know of the existence of the SOPA-ROPA
Proposal...SHA members do not understand the proposal nor do they realize
that a "Yes" vote will open SHA finances to ROPA and make them permanent de
facto paying members of ROPA whether they join or do not join that organization.
 
Current SOPA Membership
 
...Currently the Society for Historical Archaeology has 2,000+ individual
members which means less than 10% belong to SOPA. The SOPA-ROPA Proposal is
a minority proposal. Indeed there is not even evidence that ROPA membership
will increase over the current SOPA...figure; in fact it may
fall...Nevertheless, all SHA members, if the proposal passes, will annually
pay for ROPA.
 
Nature and Purpose of SOPA
 
   In the 1996 DIRECTORY OF CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS there is
an interesting map (p.106). Of the fifty states 4 have no SOPA members at
all and 32 have ten or fewer SOPA members. The concentration in a few areas,
such as California and New York City, is in part artificially forced by
local regulations. I joined SOPA when it formed in 1976 to support
historical archaeology. Our field stands on a tripod: (1) a governmental
(Federal and local) leg; (2) an academic leg; and (3) CRM. This third leg is
the largest and it seemed that our colleagues in CRM needed the support of
an organization like SOPA. A "trade union" which would protect boundaries
(by defining who were and were not archaeologists) and maintain basic
standards seemed important. Yet over the last year,  because of the
SOPA-ROPA Proposal, I have for the first time discussed SOPA with CRM
colleagues and was quite surprised to find that SOPA is either resented or
considered irrelevant by many in the field. The SOPA Ethics Review Process
is...considered a failure by many in the CRM community. It has not only
failed to keep poorly-trained or non-archaeologists out of CRM (they simply
do not join SOPA) but it has also apparently been used and abused as an
harassment device by some SOPA members against their colleagues.
...I still think there is a place and function for an organization like SOPA
in its present form, not as ROPA....Standards in much of archaeology,
including historical archaeology, are well served by universities, the
Federal Government, local government and scholarly socieities. Outside of
CRM an expanded SOPA, as ROPA, may be redundant.
...If the SHA membership understands the SOPA-ROPA Proposal it will be voted
down and if the SAA membership (including its large avocational segment)
also understands the proposal they will probably vote it down. If SOPA is
weakened or disappears in the process it is not the fault of the SHA or any
other membership but the product of an ill timed, poorly constructed and
overly ambitious attempt at expansion.
 
 
Anita Cohen-Williams
Listowner of HISTARCH, SUB-ARCH, and SPANBORD
Contributing Editor, Anthropology, Suite101 <http://www.suite101.com>
[log in to unmask]