Mark C. Branstner wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-07-30 18:23:09 EDT, you write:
>
> << Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. is finalizing the research design
>  >as the first task for the Bureau of Reclamation on-call service contract.
>  >As promised in our proposal we will be developing a protohistoric dating
>  >key for use by field crews. Protohistoric sites are becoming increasingly
>  >common as we are better able to recognize their distinctive attributes. If
>  >in the course of your research in Arizona you have found an artifact or
>  >feature type that you are confident is diagnostic of the Protohistoric
>  >period, or have made other relevant observations, please contact Margie
>  >Green at < [log in to unmask] >. If incorporated, your work will be
>  >properly credited in the report. Our deadline is September 1, 1997. Thank
>  >you. >>
>
> Question of the Day:
>
> In an academic setting, it would seem that such a general query would be a
> perfectly reasonable and honorable request.  However, it is apparent from the
> request that it is being made in the framework of contracted, for profit
> cultural resource management.  In other words (i.e., in my words, as devil's
> advocate), the author is essentially asking for free advice to assist him in
> his financially compensated research.
>
> Is such a request inappropriate?  At what level does it become
> inappropritate? Or is this request simply reflecting the changing way we do
> archaeology in this country, i.e., shifting from an institutional to a
> contracted base?  Is there a fundamental difference?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark C. Branstner
> Great Lakes Research Associates, Inc.
Further, to ask this very question suggets that we are off track.
Randy Amici