Anita,  SOPA certification,in HA or any of the several specialties covered,
is based on much more than the presence or absence of a degree.
Consideration is given to length and type of experience, as well as
evidence of supervision, data collection, analysis and production of
credible research reports.  It does not guarantee anything except that the
candidate's record has been carefully scrutinized by a group of peers
interested in perpetuating sound practice, in their own interest and in the
interest of the finite resource base.
 
Second, some self-styled historical archaeologists do study societies other
than Europeans, including Middle Americans.  Granted, this is not a core
topical area at SHA meetings, but is done and is certainly appropriate.
 
Third,  SOPA is a serious, not always successful, attempt at
self-regulation among practicing archaeologists.  It is an organization
that seeks to remedy some of the problems articulated by various
contributors to this thread.  Good/bad, successful/failure, we could debate
all day.  The fact remains that this has been the only organization to take
the development and maintenance of ethics and standards of practice in
archaeology as its sole purpose, and as such I think it deserves some level
of support.  I admit to being a member since 1977 and carrying
certification in historical archaeology, based on more than holding a
master's degree in anthro.
 
Last, the "new" historical archaeology is not always labeled as such.  The
trend that I think Tom reacts to, and I do, too, is the trend to emphasize
interpretation over physical evidence.  Influenced by several powerful
trends in Western intellectual circles, such as critical theory and
reflexive anthropology, many archaeologists are finding it more attractive
to focus their attention on social critique, to the detriment of scientific
consideration of the strictly archaeological evidence.  No historical
archaeologist in her/his right mind would deny the central importance of
documentary evidence. However, the anti-science bias inherent in many
current theoretical stances downplays the role of the archaeological
artifacts, features and associations in favor of trendy interpretations
that exist before a spade of soil is turned.  Many people find these trends
unsatisfying and even distressing.  I think that is what Tom is getting at.
 
 
 
 
 
************************************************************************
Patrick E. Martin, Associate Professor of Archaeology
Director of Graduate Studies in Industrial Archaeology
Editor of IA, the Journal of the Society for Industrial Archaeology
Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931  USA
Telephone (906)487-2070   Fax  (906)487-2468   Internet  [log in to unmask]
*************************************************************************