SOPA has been around 21 years, as Bill Lipe points out, and I have been a
member for most of that time. Over the years, SOPA has been a quiet,
dignified, and focussed organization, low key and very professional. I have
been proud to proclaim my membership.
 
But I have never attended a SOPA meeting in all those years.
 
Why? Because SOPA is one of the many organizations that meet in a cluster
around SAA meetings. I don't belong to SAA, so I don't have any incentive
to go to a SOPA meeting. I'm self-employed and I must watch my pennies.
 
Over the years, SOPA has lived in the shadow of SAA, and has failed to
assert itself as a distinct voice for the profession. I believe that much
of that obscurity can be directly attributed to its too-close hstorical
association with SAA.
 
As for SAA, I am sure it is a fine organization within its scope, but
lately it has demonstrated some really disturbing ambitions. For example,
its membership list is labelled a directory of archaeologists. In fact, it
is a directory of people who have paid money, which is quite different. The
only real directory of archaeologists in North America is the SOPA book.
How does SOPA/ROPA/SAA propose to resolve this incongruity? Will SAA change
the name of its directory, or will they continue to insist that you may be
dubbed an archaeologist simply by sending money?
 
To merge SOPA into an organization so diffuse and unfocussed as SAA would
be a disaster for both. One wonders if the SAA motive is the improvement of
the profession, or just another example of rapacity and empire building. I
smell a Caesar somewhere in this salad.
 
Organizations with a mission need to stand alone, so that the mission can
be clearly discerned. SAA is, and probably should be, a muddle of general
missions and diverse constituencies. That's fine. They should have a code
of ethics. And they should have the privilege of bestowing the title of
"archaeologist" on anyone who sends them a check. There is no trademark on
the title, but I question the professional dedication of an organization
that throws it around so lightly.
 
SOPA should do what it does best: identifying professionals and setting
professional standards.
 
SOPA is not SHA, SAA, or ACRA. They are all different, and they should
stand alone. The success of ACRA, it seems to me, can be attributed largely
to the fact that it has aggressively defined itself as separate from SOPA
and the others, and meets independently, even thought it has overlapping
membership with the other organizations.
 
Each of us develops a suite of professional memberships that reflect our
interests and beliefs. No single organization can, or should, serve all our
professional needs. Archaeology is not a single profession, but an amalgm
of specializations and of different approaches. That's what makes it
interesting. The disturbing trend toward academic homogenization in the
profession, leading to a day when all the practitioners have identical
credentials, would be accelerated by subordinating other bodies into SAA.
 
Instead of getting swallowed into the amorphous blob that is SAA, the SOPA
organization needs to take a cue from ACRA and move to separate its mission
and existence from other organizations. The other organizations, in turn,
can further the cause, at no cost, by endorsing publicly that SOPA is a
sister organization with a distinct purpose.
 
When I was invited to run for SOPA office last year, I agreed only on the
condition that I could include a statement against ROPA in the election
brochure. Because election results are not released, I don't know how many
people agreed by voting for my position, but I know that ROPA is not
unanimously supported by the SOPA membership, or even by all the officers.
 
Instead of spending all this effort to merge the various organizations into
a super SAA, it would be more profitable, in my opinion, to organize SOPA
in a more focussed and aggressive manner, with endorsement from all the
dozens of organizations that are legitimately interested in the subject of
professionalism..The endorsements would be cheap, and would achieve exactly
the same purpose as the proposed ROPA, except that SOPA would remain
distinct.
 
Ned Heite
Member, SOPA, ACRA, SHA, SIA, SPMA, SAS, etc., etc.