Mark Branstner has thrown down the rhetorical gauntlet:
 
 
>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?
 
 
Archaeology cannot work without a rich flow of information among
practitioners. This situation is explicit in all codes of archaeological
ethics. So where is the line between proprietary information and the shared
database upon which we all must draw?
 
Clearly, whatever is published becomes part of our common body of
knowledge. Academic or contracted, we are obliged to provide access to the
data upon which our published findings are based, and publication includes
submission of CRM reports.
 
Unfortunately, the grey literature lacks a coherent system of finding aids,
The only way to find a tidbit buried in a CRM report is by word-of-mouth.
Maybe we remember a paper at a meeting, or we know someone who was working
in a particular area.  Recently, queries on HistArch and similar lists have
become a commonplace way to gather references to grey literature.
 
If the grey literature is to be useful, we must encourage the sorts of
exchange that generated the comment above. Mark Branstner is correct in
making the distinction between academic and for-profit data-gathering, but
I suggest that it is a distinction without a difference. The survey in
question will be used by all the profession in the study area, and the
requestor was seeking information that should be in the public domain.
 
If I read the query correctly, the person was asked to assemble a database,
for which he would be paid. But he would be paid for the scholarship and
the work of assembling data.  It seems to me that the data itself should be
freely shared. The collector is being paid for assembling, not for the
data. If it is properly acknowledged, there should be no reason for
complaint.
 
Ned Heite