I've been asked to post this from an anonymous source. Please fire away.

Lyle Browning



This is not an actual case. It is exaggerated to excite comment on
underlying principles.

Let's just imagine you've just completed the first session on a really
terrific site for a private investor who needs a federal permit.
You're about three quarters through, and you aren't disguising your
enthusiasm for the site.  The SHPO is equally enthusiastic.

The client claims that enough information was recovered in the first
session. The client takes the position that the archaeologist is taking
advantage of the law to ride a personal hobby horse at his expense. The
client threatens legal action if the archaeologist talks to anyone in
authority.

The client starts looking for a cheaper archaeologist who will declare
the job done. Some low-ball consultants advise the client that he is
being taken for a ride, and they can dispose of sites without so much
as a determination of eligibility.

In the meantime the field staff, who habitually shuttle between
employers, are becoming restive.  They know that they will continue on
the job, regardless of who hires the PI, so they have no need for
loyalty.  Furthermore, they don't like the methods the current PI is
using, because he doesn't subscribe to the high-production,
low-productivity methods typically in use on CRM projects.  They don't
like the PI's attention to detail or his standards. In particular, they
resent being required to sustain his research directions with regard to
the stated site objectives.

Staff start talking to people from other firms about the "problems"
they are having, all the while exaggerating situations they don't fully
understand.  Naturally, the client starts hearing from sales reps from
those other firms.  The vultures are circling.

Meanwhile, the SHPO staff are having difficulty getting authoritative
information.  Key people from other firms "drop" remarks at meetings.
Relationships between the client and the PI deteriorate as suspicion
increases. The client is being advised by lawyers, competing CRM firms,
and his own business office, but the PI is being ignored because his
motives are now considered suspect. The SHPO tries to stay neutral.

Did I mention that all the CRM firms involved are headed by RPA people
and are members of ACRA?

So I tell this little fable to ask certain questions:

1. What is (or should be) the direct collaborative role of the SHPO in
regard to the PI on a Phase III project?

2. Do field crew have an ethical obligation to anyone whatever?

3. Does the code of ethics of either RPA or ACRA dictate business
tactics when the archaeological contents of the project might be in the
balance?

4. If the purpose of Phase III is to answer archaeological or
historical questions, does it follow that the PI should be the final
arbiter of what is correct procedures, subject to SHPO review?

5. Is the Phase III fieldwork and lab work part of the regulatory
process, or is it a separate entity that is merely a condition required
by the regulatory process?

6. Should the client be required to fund the PI's researches into
issues raised by the dig, or lab work on materials beyond some absolute
bare minimum? Who decides what is the minimum? On what basis?