Time for me to jump into the frey!  As a founding member of SOPA, an
ex-President, an ex- membership chair, an ex-Grievance Coordinator, a
general meddler in SOPA, SAA, SHA, AIA, ASCA affairs, and as current Chair
of the SAA Ethics Committee, I come with a lot of baggage about the issue
of setting standards for professional research, trying to acquaint folks
with what a Code of Ethics is for and about, trying to determine whether
someone has violated the Code, seeing that "good" archeological research
is done whether it be under contract or thru field schools, or whatever!
I won't cover all the issues that have been brought up because Bill Lipe
has been doing a good job with most of that.
 
 Perhaps Bill's response has lead to some thinking there is a closer
relationship between SOPA and SAA than there really is.  True, SOPA grew
out of an SAA Committee charged with reviewing what SAA might do with
regard to "accreditation" (see Arlie House Report).  The members of that
committee (of which I was one), were in favor of establishing some kind of
accreditation or registration based on both formal training and field
experience BUT, in 1976, felt that the SAA Executive Board would probably
take our report and say "that's interesting, we'll take your
recommendations under advisement."  So we wrote the report, adjourned our
Committee meeting, and formed ourselves into the Society of Professional
Archeologist.  SAA hasn't, over the years, been able to figure out what to
make of this organization, until about three years ago when some ethics
issues reared their ugly heads, an ad hoc ethics committee was formed, new
"issues" were discussed, new Ethical Statements drawn up, etc., (see
Lynott and Wylie's publication).  The world of "ethics" in archeology is
vastly changed in the last 20 years, just as the reality of archeology,
and the whole profession - not just the SAA or SHA are struggling to
figure out how to handle the "problems" that do - believe me - occur.
Shoddy inadequate field work, field schools where work is NEVER reported
and artifacts are inadequately curated if at all, resumes with false
information about education and/or experience provided to potential
clients.
 
SOPA started as a membership organization, which confused many because it
had no journal or professional meeting where papers could be given -
thought to be the normal perks of a membership organization.  Now you
apply to SOPA for certification as a professional archeologist, and you
sign an agreement to uphold the Code and Standards.  By signing, you not
only indicate that you believe the Code and Standards to be one mechanism
for "quality control" in our profession, but you may subject yourself to
being "grieved against," i.e., having someone file a grievance that
alledges you to have violated the Code or Standards.
 
Many have asked for specifics and/or numbers as to what SOPA has done to
uphold the Code and Standards - why should we pay good money to "support"
an organization where we "get nothing in return" - no meeting to go to, no
journal, etc.  I can't give you numbers, although I believe that McGimsey
or someone has reviewed some of this in some of the printed material re
ROPA in the last year or so.  The Grievance Procedure itself is designed
to protect the innocent, so that most of the instances where grievances
have been "officially" filed are settled without going public with the
acqusations.  There have been less than a dozen cases which have been
taken to the Standards Board (three elected "peers)" for review.  the
result has been either censure or explusion.  SOPA was advised by its
legal counsel initially that even this action should not be made "public"
although it could be distributed to the membership.  But the
"put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is" portion of SOPA's purpose is not well
known.  However, California has a requirement for SOPA certification for
those doing contract work; another state SHPO office requires
certification for a firm/person to be listed as possible contractors.
Departments of Anthropology have ignored SOPA, including SOPA's efforts to
have departments agree to abide by the Standards for Field Schools.  It is
my belief that some of this will remain the same with ROPA.
 
All professional archeological societies have been represented on the SOPA
Board since the beginning.  There have been MANY changes in how SOPA
reviews applicants over the years, particularly with regard to historic
archeology.  Initially there was no "speciality" of historic archeology.
Then that was included.  Initially there was a "speciality" for
documentary research, and another for collections research, both of which
- as did all specialities = required the SAME another of educational
background and field/lab experience as the basic requirement.  Now, the
specialities are gone.  How ROPA will organize itself to deal with the
multiplicity of specialists, with changing needs of the profession, with
changing ethics of doing archeology is an exciting challenge for the
future - a part of the growth of a true PROFESSION.
 
And that, it seems to me, is the bottom line.  Sure, SAA seems arrogant -
I think we've got it to stop saying it is the largest organization of
archeologists in the country because, of course, the AIA is - but then, so
does SHA at times.  So do we all.  But the bottom line is how to assure
that the archeological resources are conserved, preserved, treated in such
a way that information is obtained when needed but not messed with then
not required.  ONE WAY to try and assure that is to see that the people
who are messing with the information all have the same basic background
and have had field and lab experience doing ARCHEOLOGY (prehistoric,
historic, underwater, whatever). An MA degree is one measure, but not the
only one.  Trying to "measure" experience" or "appropriate field work" or
"adequate report" is a bitch, no question, but NOT DOING ANYTHING makes us
a wishy washy bunch, not willing to try to do our best and see that the
best is done by others.
 
Finally (for now), one reason that SOPA has not had more formal cases of
violation of the Code and Standards for review is that archeologists are
loath to squeal against their colleagues.  They do like to complain, and
one of the functions - and the MOST time consuming one - of the SOPA
Grievance Coordinator, has been to take calls from disgruntaled
archeologists.
 
If you want to have nice fuzzy Codes and Standards to point to but with no
teeth to do anything about blantant violations (of which there may not be
many), but you don't need ROPA.  If you would like to support one
mechanism, and the only one we've thought of so far, that is trying show
the world (university administrators, federal agencies, colleagues) that
we have a Code and Stanards to which we agree in writing, then let's try
ROPA.  It won't answer all the problems, but then neither SAA, SHA, AIA or
any other organization is able to either.
 
Wheeeeewww
 
hester davis