Linda Derry was not clear, in her recent posting, whether she is becoming increa
singly
bothered by CRM firms working outside of their area of expertise (a frustrating,
but
personal matter), or whether she perceives an increase in unqualified individual
s
undertaking certain kinds of work. I don't agree with the latter interpretation.
Abilities to integrate archival research and analysis with archaeological data r
ecovery
and analysis (notice how analysis appears twice in this clause) vary considerabl
y, but
the reports that I have read always include general and site specific historical
background. Historical archaeologists no longer are difficult to find, and most
compliance archaeologists have the good sense not to try to pass off "colonial p
ottery"
in the results and analysis sections of their reports. Those firms lacking exten
sive
experience in historical archaeology, but which are not in the economic position
to pass
up any kind of work, make the effort to hire one or more knowledgable persons fo
r the
crew and grant the principal investigator the time necessary to become familiar
with
current issues in historical archaeology. Given the likelihood of encountering h
istoric
period sites on any Phase I identification survey--the bread and butter of compl
iance
archaeology--it is difficult to conceive of any firm wholly lacking in historic
sites
experience.
Where such lapses occur, it is the responsibility of the review agency to requir
e
appropriate revisions to the report and to reject those reports that do not comp
ly with
the pertinent state and/or federal standards. I don't see ROPA as a principal fo
rce in
the monitoring of credentials, project by project. State and federal agencies em
ploy
people for just that purpose. Judging from Hester Davis' statement that SOPA
successfully prosecuted less than a dozen cases over 21 years, it appears unlike
ly that
SOPA has pursued otherwise competent archaeologists working on the kinds of site
s with
which they have inadequate training and experience. Hester also stated that acad
emic
departments have essentially ignored SOPA. This point suggests that faculty runn
ing
fieldschools on sites outside of their training and experience--operations gener
ally
outside of state and federal jurisdictions unless undertaken on public lands--ha
ve and
will continue to remain immune to SOPA grievance procedures. The federal governm
ent,
through the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and many states through thei
r own
laws evaluate credentials and stipulate conditions before issuing permits for
archaeological study on public lands.
Hester Davis, in her posting, provides none of the quantitative data that I have
called
for to support the passage of ROPA, other than the tidbit cited above. That one
bit of
information, less than twelve successful prosecutions in more than two decades--
and some
of those offences insufficiently severe to warrant more than censure--does not b
ear out
the claim by ROPA supporters of significant unethical behavior in the field. No
doubt
there have been many more admonishments issued, and possibly lawsuits filed, by
state
and federal agencies; the same agencies designated by the various legislatures t
o
promulgate and enforce historic preservation regulations. As a discipline, we ar
e not
being "wishy washy," clinging to "fuzzy Codes and Standards lacking teeth." Fede
ral and
state, and in some instances county/parish and municipal, standards and guidelin
es are
specific and sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide range of local circumst
ances.
For the third, and I think final time, I respectfully request that the supporter
s of
ROPA share with the rest of us data on:
1) how many grievances have been filed and exactly how many have been successfu
lly
prosecuted by SOPA;
2) what are the anticipated costs for SHA members, SAA members, those with memb
erships
in both as well as in the AIA; and
3) what are the anticipated application fees and annual dues for those seeking
ROPA
certification?
I am with Terry DelBene, appropos Terry's recent posting: as a self-employed per
son
responsible for paying his own membership fees, from a limited income, and with
many
other equally important organizations to support, why would I want to support--d
irectly
or indirectly--an organization that duplicates efforts by governmental agencies
and
other professional organizations? In this regard I disagree with Bill Lipe's rec
ent
posting that states that money is not the issue. As a self-employed person opera
ting a
sole proprietorship firm, let me assure all of the list members that money is al
ways an
issue. You can't pursue archaeology, you can't perserve sites and analyse data,
and you
can't educate the public if you can't pay the bills. In a field where many of us
earn as
much or less than than support staff working for governmental agencies, we have
to keep
a close eye on the checkbook.
My fear is that most of our colleagues are apathethic about SOPA/ROPA, and that
ROPA
will be ratified by the majority of those voting, but that those casting ballots
will
represent a minority of SHA. I am sure that both Bill Lipe and Hester Davis supp
ort
SHA's participation in ROPA only if that participation is real (viz., active
participation by the majority of SHA members eligible for ROPA certification), r
ather
than symbolic. SHA has a number of initiatives to which it is already committed
without
further straining its resources and those of its members.
Jim Gibb
Annapolis, MD
|
