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.