Help me make decisions!

[brigdh]

This summer, I'm teaching the 'Introduction to Archaeology' course at my university. I am super excited! I've TA'd this class four times (TA'ing in the sense of actually lecturing, not just being a grader), so I'm excessively familiar with it, but this is the first time I've gotten to be completely in charge: picking out the textbook, deciding what topics to cover, writing the syllabus, everything! I LOVE IT.

However, the actual process of writing a syllabus has made me realize what an enormously broad topic "Introduction to Archaeology" is. It's basically four courses in one: 1) the entirety of human history, including pre-human ancestors (quite a broad topic by itself); 2) how to do archaeology (field techniques, dating methods, etc); 3) archaeological theories that can be used in interpretation (gender, Marxism, structuralism, environmental archaeology, etc); 4) the history of archaeology as a subject, including modern consequences of archaeology (topics like NAGPRA, for example). That is way too much for 24 sessions, especially once you subtract sessions for the midterm, final, and introduction. Thankfully, having TA'd this course with four different professors, I know that we're allowed to basically pick whatever we think is the most interesting and focus on that. But sometimes decisions are really hard to make! Which is why I come to you, o LJ. For reference, most of the students who take this course tend not to be archaeology majors, but come from all departments- music, acting, biology, math, law, pre-med- you name it, I've had a student in it. In addition, they're letting some pre-college (i.e., high school) students sign up for the summer semesters.


[Poll #1740795]

Also, yes, I know the problems with the term 'civilization', but LJ polls do not allow enough characters to get into the whole thing about urbanization vs increased political complexity vs population increase vs writing as information storage vs the possibility of heterarchy as deliberate resistance to hierarchy, ETC ETC ETC, so basically I just mean the 'big name' cultures people think of when they think of archaeology.

Comments

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Also, I vote for Indus/Harappan and Shang China to be two of the three, on the basis that they are probably the least-known to your students (unless they're from India or China), so it will be the most educational. And possibly Egypt as the third, on the basis that it'll be the one they think they know best, so they'll have the mind-broadening experience of learning that much of what they thought they knew was simplistic/wrong/etc.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

I do feel sort of morally obligated to include Egypt no matter what, since it's what everyone thinks of when they take an archaeology class (and also I put a picture of the pyramids on the poster I made to advertise the class). Alas, Egypt is the culture I personally know/care the least about. But on the other hand, I know more than the textbook, and that's really all that's necessary for a 101-level class.

[chiasmus.livejournal.com]

Can you do the six civilizations briefly, then allow them to do a paper on whatever sounds most interesting to them/the one they'd most want to learn about? Or would that not work within the time framework? That was what I liked about the intro archeology class I took, that we covered a lot of shit and then got to research whatever most interested us for our final paper.

Random aside, what I thought was an eBook copy of the Eagle of the Ninth was actually just a five star review of the book; it was weird, but slightly amusing.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm also considering that as an alternative to the third option: I do either one civilization in depth or six briefly, then they do presentation/papers on them. SO MANY OPTIONS!

And ha, I saw that same thing! So bizarre, why would people want their very own pdf of a review?

[chiasmus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but they all sound fun! Whatever happens.

I have no idea, unless the reviewer was really proud of that review for some reason and hoped it would spread in the clever guise of an eBook.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

civilization BFF

LOL'ing forever!

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

Seconding this idea.

[hab318princess.livejournal.com]

gone for three in depth....


but what i really want is to be in these classes (my first career idea was archaeology - which would be wrong for me as I'm neither patient nor do I like being outside for any length of time...) but I would love to do this - instead I'll be sitting in an office in a hospital (which is a much better career choice)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Ha, archaeology is definitely not the smartest career choice. But I love it! Although I also think it would be pretty cool to work in a hospital.

[hab318princess.livejournal.com]

I'm a very good armchair archaeologist (love the UK TV programme Time Team - they do a dig over 3 days - with proper recording before and after etc - much more background work going on than we see during the three days condensed to about 50 minutes TV programme) but yeah, the NHS has drawn me in... I started out as a 'normal' secretary but have spent a big part of my working life in the NHS

I was given a book as a kid about old civilisations and still remember seeing the picture of the Ishtar Gate... it was a humungous kick to see the gate then for real in a (then) East German Museum in Berlin in 1988 - still a highlight for me

[graene.livejournal.com]

That was really a hard choice to make. I went with one or two (two!) with paper/presentation on choice of the others, but I'm sort of assuming that means one or two lessons lost to super-quickie summaries of the list of others and/or overview readings on them. But doing two in greater depth would seem to give you more time to deal with the rest in more detail, including all the stuff about how as methods/theories/modern politics changed, our understanding of the data changed that I came to really quite late as a casual reader in the subject(s).

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Well, what I was thinking was I'd do one or two in depth, and then the students could do the super-quickie summaries of the others for their presentation, in front of the rest of the class. That way I wouldn't lose much time. No matter what, I've got six days to spend on civilizations, the question is just: one a day? Three for two days each? Two for two days each by me, then two days of student presentations? Two a day for four days by me, and then two days of student presentations?

I'm definitely giving a lot of time to theories/modern politics/etc in other parts of the class, as these are mostly going to be students whose main interaction with archaeology will be Indiana Jones/2012/Atlantis, and so I want them to have good critical thinking skills about that sort of stuff.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

Three cultures as different as possible, plus a general overview, would give the noobs first years the best grasp of what the field is about, so when they become corporate executives, they will have something to regret.

I would recommend Egypt(accept it thus,)Harappan, and what ever pre Colombian civilisation you were most comfy with.
If you spend a lot of time on The Flintstones cave people, you'll spend a lot of time talking about Europe, and they'll come away thinking that it's all about them, because Europe was what happened before there was a U.S.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'll definitely try to give them as wide a view as possible. We actually only have one session really focused on Europe (the day about "cave paintings"), though if I end up having them do presentations/papers, I'll probably let Minoan/Mycenaean culture be a choice. But we don't do Rome or Classical-era Greece or anything like that, and even Stonehenge will probably be five minutes in another context.

The ones I know the most about are the Harappans, Mayans, and Mesopotamians, but part of the problem is that there's very, very little 101-level stuff out there to give them on the Harappans. I hate to skip it, but it may make the most sense.

[stardragonca.livejournal.com]

The ones I know the most about are the Harappans, Mayans, and Mesopotamians,

You are a Geek God. A tiny Geek God.

[miep.livejournal.com]

ok. I chose cavemen, but I think that what would be really useful, if I were a burgeoning archeologist, is your using one or two civilizations to teach the science/art of archaeology, and then teaching another as "example of how all this shakes out", and then having them write a paper that demonstrates their understanding of methodology, theory, and problems with regards to one civilization. Does that make any kind of academic sense?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I know what you mean. I have seen the class done that way one time, and it didn't work out too well, unfortunately, though that may have been the fault of the professor and not the idea.

[pocketmouse]

I don't think my Intro to Archaeo class covered civilizations in that context at all. I wouldn't expect it to. I'd expect that only to come up in the context of articles and examples, not to learn about a given culture one day in class.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's a lot of different ways to do such a class. We tend to follow a "Basic Human Prehistory" outline with methods and theories used as examples rather than the other way around.

[pocketmouse]

To me that sounds more like a history class with archaeology trappings. Or rather, history-in-the-context-of. That sounds more like my art history classes than my archaeo or anthro classes.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

It may help if I explain the full title of the class is actually "Archaeology: Early Societies and Cultures" instead of, say, "Archaeology: Methods and Theory". Other than that, I don't know why you think focusing on cultures would make it less anthropological?

[pocketmouse]

Ah, that explains it. I was thinking of Intro to Archaeo as more along the lines of the latter.

[graene.livejournal.com]

Makes more sense to me too...I would change my response.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

I vote for three in depth, because (1) in-depth allows you to present what's interesting about each one, while overviews are often too shallow by necessity to show what's really cool about the discipline and the subject; (2) I personally have always hated having to write papers with a passion for which I have no adequate words; and (3) doing in-depth looks gives you room to present the various analytical tools like Marxism in context, and with immediate illustrations of how they work in practice.

If I had a choice, I'd also vote for the civilizations being one American, one East Asian, and one West Asian/Northern African, but that's just me. I do realize you probably have no alternative to covering Egypt, even if Indus/Harappan might be more interesting.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, brief summaries really tend to reduce archaeology to the boring 'names and dates' stereotype, as opposed to the fun 'human sacrifice!!! 2012 Apocalypse!!!' type stuff.

I never would have guessed that you didn't like writing papers! You're such a good writer. But I'm actually leaning more towards oral presentations in front of the rest of the class, maybe with notes also handed in to make sure they don't make it up as they go along. Oral presentations are the big thing in universities these days, at least in my experience; all of my classes with less than 20 people required them.

Organizing by area, no matter how many I cover, really seems to be the best way to go about it. If just because it makes it easier: Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus share a lot of similarities, as do the Maya and the Aztecs. Whereas even if there are advantages to comparing, say, the Indus and the Maya, it tends to be advantages that are not obvious at a 101-level context.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

As always, you're too kind. The thing about papers is, they're so horribly fixed, and they offer the illusion of perfectibility. No matter what, there is always something in a paper that could have been expressed better, or more thoroughly; that reveals a lacuna in your reasoning that really ought to be addressed; that needs a footnote you have no source for even though you sort of thought you had one. And it requires so much sitting still and being organized and eeeeeeeeekkk. It's like, all the disadvantages of fiction writing, and without the emotional payoff; and you know my dreadful record when it comes to finishing stories.

But oral presentations are relatively easy and fun! For those you need only to do the reading, which is normally a pleasure, have an idea you want to present, and be able to talk from your notes. It eliminates both the awful sitting down and writing part and the ability to look over your own work and despair because it's still not any good. It's so much easier that I wonder at it being such a big thing in universities these days. Is it because no one can write, do you think, and having oral presentations means that you aren't faced with any dilemmas about awarding low marks to students who can't manage a paper?

I wish I could sit in on your classes, no matter what you decide. I remember almost nothing about Mesopotamia and Egypt, and I never knew anything at all about the Maya or Shang China. I bet it's going to be really fun, whatever you wind up doing.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I also hate writing papers, but in the same way that I hate a lot of chores: it's boring, it takes forever, it's really difficult to stop procrastinating, I'll just have to do it again in a little while, etc. On the other hand, years of writing fanfiction (and even LJ posts) means that once I have finally forced myself to sit down and do it, it's not all that hard. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I do seem to struggle a lot less with things like grammar, vocabulary, and basic fluidity of writing than the people around me. I really do think it's just a matter of how much practice actually writing a person has. Or so I tell myself to justify time spent on LJ.

I was told several times as an undergrad that the purpose of so many oral presentations was to get people over their fear of public speaking. I don't know if that's actually true, though, or if it's a matter of being quicker to grade than papers and/or providing the professor a break from lecturing. Or who knows, maybe it is a reluctance to give low grades.

Ha, well, if you're in NYC in July or August, feel free to come to a class. But it probably won't be as much fun as you expect; the course has to be such a broad overview there probably won't be much new information for you.

[ladysisyphus.livejournal.com]

Reminiscent of the pain I'm facing in teaching Intro to World Religions next year. My general take, I think, is that we're going to learn about each of the Big Five, and then I'm going to require the final paper be on a religious movement that is either not a part of or considered a 'fringe' movement to the Big Five.

But you should TOTALLY do the Mesopotamians! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAMRTGv82Zo)

[rodlox.livejournal.com]

honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with any of the first three in that poll.

and I love the 6 you named - though I didn't know there was much known about the Shang Period)

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Thanks! It's always good to get other people's opinions.

There's not a huge amount known about the Shang. I guess it depends on what you're comparing it to? It's very little compared to, say, Classic Greek or Rome, but it's probably more than the Indus Civilization.