I think this is an important discussion, but the undercurrents are a little
strong and this seems to have generated another flurry of resignations from
the list.  

In that context I'd like to ask Colin why he signs himself "Peasant".  I am
not trying to "attack the messenger", and I am guessing that this may be
intended as ironic, but I will be frank here and say that it comes across to
me as a somewhat passive-aggressive, in-your-face, kind of self-labelling.
This may in fact an example of the kind of nuance that can be such a problem
with virtual communications by getting people's hackles up.

I think there are valid criticisms of large conferences that I have not seen
mentioned in this string so far.  One is the poor quality of both the
content and delivery of quite a lot of the papers I hear.  The second is the
over-scheduling that, time after time, eliminates all possibility for
discussion and debate.  This is often compounded by poor time-keeping and
ineffective moderation of sessions.  I am not ready to abandon the tradition
of major conferences just yet, but I do think that they are not living up to
their potential.  I would like to see much more structured discussion,
reflection, synthesis and consensus building on ways to advance particular
topics and the discipline as a whole.  I understand the pressures to have a
lot of speakers and sessions, but I think there should be some more thought
given to this whole matter.

There is a positive feature that has not I think been mentioned, and one
which I personally value.  This is the simple fact that when I attend a
conference like the SHA I am given the opportunity to focus exclusively on
thinking about archaeology.  In my daily work this is often difficult to do,
and I expect it is for many other people also.  These days I do tend to
bring some of my daily life with me in the form of my smartphone and my
laptop, but, even so, life is a bit different for a while.  The simple fact
of being in a different location where this is going on does make a big
psychological difference.  It may be that this difference can be created in
some alternative way, but I think we need to have a fuller understanding of
all the different benefits of big conferences before we abandon them.  I
imagine that there is actually some hard data about all this in social
anthropological literature.  Does anyone have any knowledge about this?

Another aspect, which has been touched on by Mike Polk, is continuing
professional education.  We talk a lot about this in archaeology, but as far
as I know only the RPA has actually got a CPE program in place at this time.
CPE can be done in many different fora, but conferences are surely a very
good venue.  If we took CPE a little more seriously there would be real
incentives to get people to conferences in order to obtain required credits
and certificates, and this might indeed make more resources available to
assist those who currently find costs prohibitive.

Ian Burrow   
 

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of sent
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Proposal for Replacement of Major Archeological Conference
Tradition

Greetings:

Whereas significant effort and sufficient time has been provided for the
discussion of  the costly Major Archeological Conference Tradition on this
forum it is IMHO time for a summation
and proposal to be generated based upon that discussion. Here it is:

1. Arguments in favor of the change

-In these hard, restrictive economic times archeological research,
employment in the field and the needs of the resource have been impacted as
never before. Cuts at all  levels have already occurred and if not will
occur in the future therefore, it is regrettably, apparent  that
continuation of a very expensive Major Archeological Conference tradition is
un-realistic. it sends a terrible message to those who have had their pay
cut, have lost jobs and to those entering the job market for the first time.
The diverting of funds to hold major conferences  from research,
conservation and employment is now  unacceptable if not inhumane

-Technologies at many levels now exist which can facilitate and in fact
extend our ability to  communicate and share research without traditional
major conferencing. Many of these technologies are free others need limited
funding. Some such as free long distance telephone calls and postal mail
while old technology and traditional still function adequately to facilitate
communication.

-Traditional Major Conferencing Tradition is antiquated and consumes an
unreasonable share of the overall Archeological Research economy and like
the pony express should be retired. We have now got face to face
communication that allows us to eliminate the need for physical meeting.
These range from communication platforms to video techniques such as those
that can present clearly, artifacts and site structures in  three
dimensions. Faces no longer need to be in the same room to accomplish
excellent communication. Using electronic means even more papers can be
submitted and even more sessions held. Additionally one could add virtual
tours of  sites and  collections and facilities as never before also in far
larger number. Essentially also the conference could never end and be
ongoing thus vastly extending communication.

2. Arguments in favor of maintaining the old major conference tradition-

-It feels better  to  be in the same room
-We have fun in conferences
-An alternative cant be done
-The funding would not continue

Alternative Proposal

1. Eliminate the conference tradition but divert all funding at all levels
to a special non profit charity/trust/fund

2. Solicit applications for disbursement of funds of three types:

-Funding for making up for funding cuts by local state and national agencies
of existing programs including pay cuts.

-Funding for new research 

-Funding for the development and implementation of electronic and other
alternative conferencing

I suggest that the percentage of funds allocated be done in this way

-Development and implementation of alternative conferencing 20% of total

-New  Research 50% of remainder
-Making up for cuts the remaining 50%

It has been observed however, that using existing technology including phone
and postal mail communication can still go forward at existing
levels following a shutdown of the Major Conference tradition- in the light
of this observation funding for this antiquated tradition at t he expense
of employment and research must be seen as truly unconscionable.

It is hard to adapt but we all know what happens to those who fail to adapt.
It is hard to give up things  that feel  good but it is necessary to do
so when they are inappropriate. We can not do things that divorce us from
the people we serve and those who we employ and care for.

All of this is IMHO take it as such.

While there will be objection and comment refrain from attacking the
messenger.

Reply if you have an alternative plan or philosophy, I welcome your input.
Conversation is good and relevant for the continuation of
our profession. 

I wish to thank all those who have been moved to  comment on  this issue.
Even those for which it seems to have hit a raw nerve.
Sometimes when this happens you really know you are on to something.

I thank you for your time and patience.

Conrad Bladey
Peasant
Archeologist