Course Language:
English
Course Coordinator:
Courses given by:
Course Objectives:
Practical application of the writing, reading and critical-thinking skills that students will require to succeed in Anthropology at undergraduate level.
Course Content:
See below.
Course Methodology:
1. Lecture 2. Case Study 3. Demonstration 4. Fieldwork 5. Student Activities/Projects
Course Evaluation Methods:
A. Exam B. Participation/Discussion C. Field Work/Case Study D. Homework/Assignment E. Presentation
Vertical Tabs
Course Learning Outcomes
| Learning Outcomes |
Program Learning Outcomes
|
Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| 1. Effective essay writing. | 4,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 2. Evaluation and use of primary and secondary sources. | 4,7,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 3. Linkage between ideas. | 4,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 4. Construction of argument and structure of reasoning. | 4,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 5. To help students become informed and sceptical users of data. | 4,7,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 6. To help students become persuasive communicators. | 4,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
| 7. To expose students to polarising debates on anthropological and archaeological topics. | 1,4,10 | 1,2,3,5 | A, D |
Course Flow
| COURSE CONTENT | ||
| Week | Topic | Study Materials |
| 1 | In this first session students will be given guidelines on what to expect in the coming 13 weeks. You will be instructed on how to prepare for classes and assessments, and how to prepare your essay plan. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 2 | This session follows on directly from ANT-115 Weeks 13 and 14, in which you examined the question of whether the Göbekli Tepe III enclosures represent sanctuaries (‘Argument A) or were simply elaborate communal dwellings (‘Argument B’). In this session, we will consider the matter from the perspectives of ten archaeologists working in different areas of the Near East. This will give you an appreciation for the nuance of developed academic argument, as well as demonstrating that - so far as academics are concerned - there are typically as many opinions as there are individuals. The aim is for you to become comfortable operating in the grey space between diametrically opposed poles of opinion. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 3 | In this session we will examine how the Göbekli Tepe team developed their ‘Argument A’ in light of Banning’s counter-‘Argument B’ and the ten peer reviews you looked at in Week 2. As part of this process, the team drew on archaeological theory to test the reasons that underpinned their claim that the Göbekli Tepe III enclosures represent sanctuaries more rigorously than had been attempted hitherto. At the end of this session we will compare their developed ‘Argument A’ with the original ‘Argument A’ in order to identify lessons that you can apply in your own academic work. We will also look at some of the most recent work on Göbekli Tepe, to bring your understanding of the site right up to date. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 4 | Use this time to revise: (1) undergraduate study skills; (2) the two core texts of last semester’s ANT-115 Writing and Reading Skills in Anthropology I; (3) all of the Set Reading from Weeks 2 and 3, plus a selection of the Further Reading from the same weeks. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 5 | This session sees the first of three student-led seminars that you will complete during this module. It draws together all aspects of the reading that you’ve done so far this semester (plus the last two sessions of ANT-115 Writing and Reading Skills in Anthropology I). First, we will listen to student-delivered presentations on alternate interpretations of the Göbekli Tepe III enclosures (‘Argument A’ vs ‘Argument B’), each delivered as a developed argument in the format you learned last semester. You will then debate the findings in a workshop moderated by the tutor, with the aim of reaching an objective, evidenced conclusion. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 6 | This week, we will turn our attention to Aceramic Neolithic Cyprus. Here, the site of Khirokitia-Vouni has yielded elaborate pillar buildings bearing more than a passing similarity to those of Göbekli Tepe III. The two groups of structures are separated chronologically by more than 2,500 years. Is it feasible that a cultural link might exist between them across such a vast expanse of time and space? The Khirokitia pillar buildings have for many decades been interpreted as straightforward domestic dwellings (‘Argument A’). In recent years, however, this view has been challenged by scholars who prefer to view the site as a vast necropolis: a village for the dead (‘Argument B’). This session serves as an introduction the Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus, to the site of Khirokitia and to ‘Argument A’. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 7 | In this session we will look in more detail at the suggestion that Khirokitia was a village more for the dead (‘Argument B’) than for the living (‘Argument A’ - the focus of last week’s session). This may seem far fetched, but you’ll discover that even a quick glance at the ethnographic literature yields innumerable examples of such behaviour. Furthermore, on the adjacent Near Eastern mainland, scholars have for many years noted a ‘domestic ambivalence’ with regard to pillar buildings, as well as a possible association with funerary behaviour. Above all else, this session should serve as a warning (1) not to jump to conclusions and (2) to remain open to less obvious interpretations, provided they’re supported by the evidence to hand. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 8 | University holiday. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 9 | This second workshop examines the strengths and weakness of the two very different interpretations of the Khirokitia pillar buildings that you looked at in the previous two sessions. Student-led presentations will summarise and critically review the relative merits of the domestic-dwelling (‘Argument A’) vs necropolis (‘Argument B’) viewpoints. A third student-led presentation (‘Argument C) will consider issues of identity and insularity to evaluate the extent to which Khirokitian Cyprus was in contact with, or isolated from, the adjacent mainland. Once again, these presentations should be delivered as developed arguments in the format you learned last semester. You will then debate the findings in a workshop moderated by the tutor, with the aim of reaching an objective, evidenced conclusion. High marks will be contingent on your exploring the crossover between arguments relating to the Göbekli Tepe III enclosures (Weeks 2-5) and those relating to the nature of settlement at Khirokitia (Weeks 6-7). | Provided as .pdf files |
| 10 | For this final block, we will return from Cyprus to the Near Eastern mainland. This session serves as an introduction to the Late Neolithic Halaf culture of upper Mesopotamia. Broadly contemporary with aceramic Khirokitia, the Halaf is renowned for its spectacular painted pottery and - of key interest here - the reappearance of circular architecture (‘tholoi’) in the mainland archaeological record after a gap of two millennia. This session serves as an introduction to the Halaf culture and opens the debate concerning the origins of the tholoi. Were they a local adaptation in response to changing environmental and social conditions? Or might they represent a revival of much earlier building traditions that had survived in remote hinterlands, perhaps even Cyprus? In these final sessions of the course, argument (‘Argument A’) and counterargument (‘Argument B’) aren’t delivered to you on a plate. You will have to work through the disparate threads of the literature and work out what they might be for yourself. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 11 | Use this time to revise: (1) all of the Set Reading from Weeks 6 and 7, plus a selection of the Further Reading from the same weeks. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 12 | Online one-to-one tutorials, in which you will review your Essay Plan with the course tutor. Engagement with this process will help you with the writing of your assessed Essay. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 13 | The disparate threads that you’ve been exploring since the start of this module are gradually drawn together in this session. Given the architectural similarities between the Khirokitia pillar buildings and Göbekli Tepe III enclosures - to say nothing of their shared domestic ambivalence - some sort of relationship, even if indirect, seems likely. Furthermore, the recently demonstrated contemporaneity of Khirokitia with the earliest Halafian tholoi is striking. What sort of factors might have underpinned such relationships, however putative, and to what extent are they truly evidenced by hard data? Furthermore, how might we structure such thoughts into argument (‘Argument A) and counterargument (‘Argument B’)? By this stage of the module you will be all too aware that is rarely enough simply to observe, describe and interpret; you also need to explain. In this session you will consider (1) Ingold’s notion of ‘trust’ vs ‘domination’ and (2) the Late-Neolithic spread of pastoral networks as potential explanatory models. | Provided as .pdf files |
| 14 | In this third workshop, you and a partner will draw on what you have learned in ANT-115 and ANT-116 to distil the disparate content of the Week 10 and Week 13 reading into a coherent argument (‘Argument A’) and counterargument (‘Argument B’) of your choice. Issues you might explore include local-adapation (‘upper Mesopotamia’) vs dispersal models (‘Cyprus’) for the origins of the Halafian tholoi, or shared-antecedent (‘diachronic’) vs real-time connectivity (‘synchronic’) models to account for the architectural similarities between structures at Khirokitia and some Halafian tholoi. | Provided as .pdf files |
Recommended Sources
| RECOMMENDED SOURCES | |
| Textbook | |
| Additional Resources | |
Material Sharing
| MATERIAL SHARING | |
| Documents | All course reading provided as .pdf files |
| Presentation | Topic allocated at start of course |
| Essay | Topics shared at start of course |
Assessment
| ASSESSTMENT | ||
| In-Term Studies | Number | Percentage |
| Assignments | 1 | 50 |
| Final essay | 1 | 50 |
| Total | 100 | |
| CONTRIBUTION OF FINAL EXAMINATION TO OVERALL GRADE | 50 | |
| CONTRIBUTION OF IN-TERM STUDIES TO OVERALL GRADE | 100 | |
| Total | 100 | |
Course’s Contribution to Program
| COURSE'S CONTRIBUTION TO PROGRAM | ||||||
| No | Program Learning Outcomes | Contribution | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 1 | Acquires the basic terms, theoretical point of views and the historical evolution of anthropology. | X | ||||
| 2 | Gains insight into the subfields of anthropology and the unique methods and applications of these fields. | X | ||||
| 3 | Possess knowledge about conducting ethnographic study, which is the basic research method of anthropology, and designs fieldwork accordingly. | X | ||||
| 4 | Formulates questions and evaluates research findings through analytical, critical and creative thinking by utilizing the knowledge and skills of anthropology. | X | ||||
| 5 | Demonstrates adherence to scientific and ethical values in fieldwork and academic research and acts in accordance with these values. | X | ||||
| 6 | Identifies social problems and develops social projects using anthropological theory and research methods. | X | ||||
| 7 | Effectively utilizes current databases, information resources, and information technologies. | X | ||||
| 8 | Designs interdisciplinary studies and participates in study groups by integrating disciplines alongside anthropology. | X | ||||
| 9 | Exhibits social awareness and responsibility, approaching individual and cultural diversities with impartiality. | X | ||||
| 10 | Acquires the ability to think, read, write and orally express English at an academic level. | X | ||||
ECTS
| ECTS ALLOCATED BASED ON STUDENT WORKLOAD BY THE COURSE DESCRIPTION | |||
| Activities | Quantity |
Duration (Hour) |
Total Workload (Hour) |
| Course Duration (Including the exam week: 14x Total course hours) | 3 | 14 | 42 |
| Hours for off-the-classroom study (Pre-study, practice) | 3 | 14 | 42 |
| Assignments | 5 | 5 | 25 |
| Final Exam | 1 | 25 | 25 |
| Total Workload | 134 | ||
| Total Workload / 25 (h) | 5,34 | ||
| ECTS Credit of the Course | 5 | ||