Gee, I don't know that I would call the debate 'heated' or even much of a
debate at all! The following are my comments on the SOPA/ROPA 'debate' as it
has been presented in the SAA and SHA newsletter--a version of these
comments will be coming out in the fall SAA newsletter (I have recieved no
reply from Henry Miller, the person designated by SHA to send comments to).
I thought I would wait to send it to the list until after the summer
doldrums, but since you (Anita) ask...
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]
 
Until now, I have only cursorily followed the progression of the SOPA-ROPA
proposal.  Having read the proposal and discussion put out by both the SHA
and SAA, I am a little concerned over the narrow scope of the definition of
what a 'professional archaeologist' is--i.e., a 'dirt' archaeologist.  The
only discussion of broadening the definition (in the official
newsletters/web sites) is that inclusion of a 'broader constituency' is
'anticipated' for some undefined point in the future.
 
I do not find this comforting or convincing given the long standing bias in
archaeology that the dirt archaeologists are the only 'real' archaeologists
while collections and document oriented work is devalued. This is a
particular problem for historical archaeologists who, presumably, focus a
significant portion of their work on non-excavated materials.  Nor does it
sit well with the recent discussion of the ethics of digging and destroying
the non-renewable resource of the archaeological record as opposed to
working on all those (already excavated) collections moldering in museum
basements.
 
The SAA newsletter has only published arguments in favor of the proposal and
doesn't even attempt to discuss any issues that might be of concern.  Are
there really no negative aspects of concern to SAA members? Is the only
(negative) concern of SHA members the financial drain on the sponsoring
organization?  This is the only 'minus' presented.  Maybe the newsletters
are limited by what contributors send in for the member comments, but the
'official' proposal discussion ought to discuss concerns with more
consideration than is given in the propaganda-like "Some Questions and
Answers about ROPA" and the proposal itself.
 
The physical separation of the one voice against the proposal from the main
body of the discussion is also disturbing--Schuyler's comments are published
under the 'OPINION' section [SHA Newsletter 30(1):8-9], while the official
discussion is presented on pages 27-32 and is listed in the index under
'SOPA-ROPA.' While it is true that the index listing for Schuyler's opinion
includes reference to SOPA-ROPA, the reference is somewhat lost amid the
surrounding all-caps entries and anyone looking specifically searching for
the topic is likely to see the official listing and look no further--I
certainly missed it until I saw Lee's reference to it in the following
issue!  No mention is made in this section that there is further discussion
of the topic elsewhere in the newsletter.  In contrast, the favorable
opinion by Lees in the following issue of the Newsletter [30(2):10], is
immediately followed by the 'SHA PAST PRESIDENTS SUPPORT ROPA' section,
suggesting that a rigid newsletter format is not the cause of the separation
of Schuyler's opinion from the debate.  Perhaps the differential treatment
of 'pro' and 'con' discussion is accidental, but it only adds to my
impression of a propaganda campaign as opposed to a reasoned discussion of
an issue to be voted on by the general membership.
 
Please note that I am not necessarily against the proposal, but I would like
more discussion of the issues.  For instance, how sure can we be that the
'first class' archaeological citizens (dirt archaeologists), who are
eligible for membership will ever vote to allow the 'lower classes' into the
club? It is significant (and not encouraging) that SOPA did not include
different categories of membership in their proposal even though multiple,
more inclusive membership categories were discussed.
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-3710
[log in to unmask]
(510)528-2378