I agree, it was a great conference, and the HQ folks and Jamestown people 
did a super job. Liked the venue too, and loved the fact that I could print 
out stuff at midnight! (hated having to do that, though! Would have rather 
been dancing!).

My comment is about programs too...unless I missed them (and I looked) the 
abstracts for the poster sessions were missing. The same was true for the 
forums -- it would have been nice to see those abstracts too, as well as the 
lists of panelists. The effect of this (unintentional I'm sure) was that 
those sorts of information exchanges were made to seem less important than 
the "scholarly" symposiums and sessions, which had the full abstracts 
listed. I would second Mark's comment about affiliations as well, although 
it is possible to track people down afterwards by using the online member 
search on the web site.

An extension of all this was that people who gave posters, or were panelists 
on forums, didn't have their names listed along with everyone else in the 
abstracts. I always look for a few key people when I first scan a program --  
people I want to catch up with, or make a point of seeing the sort of work 
they are doing, or whatever. The missing information made that difficult. If 
that could be solved by having a separate abstract book, then great -- or 
maybe there is some other solution (perhaps a name index with a page # 
listed for any time a specific person is listed, in addition to all the 
abstracts).

The only other thing is that the time allotments for discussants weren't 
indicated on the schedule, which made it hard to know how long discussants 
should talk. If two discussants took, say, 10-20 minutes each, then in some 
cases that left less than a 1-hour break between the morning and afternoon 
sessions. Doable, but difficult. However, if we know, for next year, that 
discussants will only have 5-10 minutes, that's fine too, and everyone can 
plan accordingly. But speaking of discussions, I'd really love to see a time 
slot scheduled for "open discussion"...I think people would really enjoy 
that. Although it's probably true that doing this would further complicate 
an already-packed schedule. Perhaps, though, "open discussion" could be a 
formal option on the symposium submission forms...that is, each symposium 
organizer could choose what would work best for their topic.

I know it must be really hard to juggle all this, though, and this is 
complicated by the fact that, as Carl or someone pointed out,  people 
frequently don't stay for Sunday sessions. I did this year, and was glad 
because the session I stayed for was great! Some conferences have late 
afternoon or even evening sessions...would that help? I'd rather do that 
than have a more restrictive submission policy...I wouldn't mind starting a 
day early, either, though at this point it's probably too late to do that 
for 2008.

These comments are not meant to be anything other than food for thought next 
year! It was indeed a super conference, and the hard work put in by all of 
the planners was most appreciated!

cheers,
carol


**************************************
Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
Project Director, Public Archaeology, Yates Community Archaeology Project
Adjunct Asst. Professor, University of Houston
1638 Branard
Houston, TX 77006
www.webarchaeology.com
www.publicarchaeology.org



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Branstner" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: An Exceptional Conference: SHA Williamsburg


> Yes, but there were a few glitches ...
>
> How about the Jamestown buffet venue that had a posted maximum capacity of 
> "60 persons" ...  I'm guessing that that there were 2x to 5x that number 
> in there for several hours ...
>
> But more seriously, the one that several of us were talking about 
> concerned the printed program ...
>
> I thought that the idea of combining the program with the abstracts was 
> generally bad, and resulting in everyone lugging around something about 
> the size of a Gideon's Bible for four days.  I would suggest reverting to 
> the old short program that you can stuff in your pocket or purse, and a 
> separate published abstract volume.
>
> Further, perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that I noticed that neither the 
> program nor the abstracts including ANY institutional affiliations.  Most 
> of us (or our sponsors) spent a lot of time and money, either organizing 
> sessions or presenting papers.  As such, I think that it is important to 
> include those credentials for public consumption ...  Further, if no 
> institutional affiliation is published, tracking down papers and/or 
> participants after the conference gets pretty dicey ...
>
> Otherwise, I thought the organizers did a great job ...  I heard 1500+ 
> registrations and 700+ papers.
>
> Looking forward to Albuquerque ....
>
> -- 
>
> Mark C. Branstner
> Historic Archaeologist
>
> Illinois Transportation
> Archaeological Research Program
> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
> 23 East Stadium Drive
> Champaign, IL 61820
>
> Phone: 217.244.0892
> Fax: 217.244.7458
> Cell: 517.927.4556
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> "Liebe: eine Gleichung mit zwei Unbekannten"
>
> - Gerhard Branstner (1927- )
>
> "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
> without either virtue or talents ... The artificial aristocracy is a
> mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to
> prevent its ascendancy."
>
> - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)