Assignments

While all assignments will be graded on a point scale (ie. 15/20) and the running tally of the semester grade on D2L will be displayed as percent, final grades will be given on a 4.0 scale. The final grade will be calculated using the following scale:

90 – 100 = 4.0
85 – 89.99 = 3.5
80 – 84.99 = 3.0
75 – 79.99 = 2.5
70 – 74.99 – 2.0
65 – 69.99 = 1.5
60 – 64.99 = 1.0
<60 = 0

Your final grade will be based on the following criteria:

Midterm (25%) – will include true/false, multiple choice, fill in the blank, and short answer questions. The material covered in the midterm exam will be based on the class discussions, lectures, class videos (if any) and required reading from the previous weeks. The midterm is completely online (delivered through D2L). Students can take the exam anytime they want during the week of February 19th. The exam will go live on Monday at 10am (EST) and close on the 25th at 5pm. Students will have 90 minutes to complete the exam once started. Once the 90 minute timeline is expired, the exam will automatically close and submit. The midterm will use the LockDown Browser, but not webcam proctoring.

Final Exam (35%) – will include true/false, multiple choice, fill in the blank, and short answer questions. The material covered in the final exam will be based on the class discussions, lectures, class videos (if any) and required reading from the midterm until the end of the semester. This exam isn’t cumulative. However, it will be a little larger/longer than the midterm exam (mostly because there is a little more material covered). Like the midterm, the final exam is completely online (delivered through D2L). Students can take the exam anytime they want during finals weeks. The exam will go live on April 22 at 10am (EST) and close on the 26th at 5pm. Students will have 120 minutes to complete the exam once started. Once the 120 minute timeline is expired, the exam will automatically close and submit. The exam will use the LockDown Browser, but not webcam proctoring

Discussion Posts (20%) – throughout the semester, students will be required to post a series of entries to the course website. The subject of each weekly Discussion Post is a response to a specific prompt (see the class Schedule for the prompts). The entry must be at least 500 words in length (though students are welcome to write more than that if they want). Students must complete the post by the due date/time, meet the minimum word count, and address the prompt in order to get credit. If they don’t meet any of these requirements, they will not receive credit. No partial credit is given.

Archaeological Discovery Paper (20%) – In this assignment, students will choose a site (or a specific archaeological discovery) and write a descriptive paper about it about it. The Archaeological Discovery Paper must be at least 2000 words in length (the works cited does not count towards the minimum word count), double spaced, 11 point font, have a title page with paper title, name, and student ID. The paper must be submitted as a MS Word file. The paper should be written formally in 3rd person as this is a research paper.

Students will select a site/discovery from the list below. Students can choose to write on a site/discovery that isn’t on the list – they just need to get it approved no later than April 5th by 5pm. If students write on a site/discovery that isn’t on the list that they didn’t get approval beforehand, they will not receive credit for the assignment.

The Archaeological Discovery Project should address the following questions/issues

What is the site/discovery?
What is the context in which it was found/excavated/etc?
Why is it important?
What did the discovery contribute to our overall understanding of the past and culture (either specifically – within the region or time period – or broadly)

This translates (roughy) into:

introduce the site/discovery
discuss the history of the discovery/excavation
discuss why the site/discovery is important/meaningful.

If students think that it is important to add more sections, they should absolutely do so. Students are encouraged to use headers for each section in order to organize their paper.

Students must have at least 7 scholarly sources. More sources are, of course, perfectly fine, but you need to have a minimum of 7.

All sources must be cited and formatted using Chicago style. If you are unfamiliar with Chicago, check out this great resource: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_formatting_and_style_guide/chicago_manual_of_style_17th_edition.html. Use the Author-Date/Text-Reference model (outlined here: https://library.concordia.ca/help/citing/chicago.php?guid=intro). USE THESE GUIDES. One of the most important things about citation (both generally and for this class) is that you CITE THE ACTUAL PUBLICATION – NOT THE RANDOM LOCATION ON THE WEB WHERE YOU FOUND IT. You don’t cite the random website where someone put the article or book (maybe the author’s professional website or Google Books, for instance), you cite the actual article or book (the journal in which it was published, etc) and the canonical DOI (document object identifier) if it is electronic (using these guidelines).

For instance, you might find an article on Cambridge Core and cite it like this:

Ringle, William M. “Debating Chichen Itza.” Cambridge Core, March 20, 2017. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ancient-mesoamerica/article/abs/debating-chichen-itza/5C57896E402831CDBB0FBB5E2E0D40F8

However, this is not the correct citation. Cambridge Core isn’t the venue, its just a portal where the publisher shares many of its publications online, the actual venue the original journal (in this case) where the article appeared. The citation should be

Ringle, William M. “DEBATING CHICHEN ITZA.” Ancient Mesoamerica 28, no. 1 (2017): 119–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536116000481

The good thing is that many publishers provide a built in citation tool that tells you exactly how you should properly cite the source.

Wikipedia (and similar sites like dictionary.com, Encyclopedia Britannic etc.) are absolutely not acceptable sources (either scholarly or otherwise). Remember, Wikipedia is a great place to start, but it shouldn’t be something you cite as a source on a piece of work.

Works of public science or scholarship (like Scientific American or National Geographic) are generally not considered scholarly. They are likely reputable, yes, but not necessarily scholarly – because (1) the author is oftentimes not listed (so you have no clue who they are), (2) if the author is listed, they are generally not an academic expert in the subject matter (they are usually just a journalist), and (3) these venues are not peer reviewed.

Similarly, sites like worldhistory.org or smarthistory.org are absolutely not acceptable as scholarly sources as (1) they are not peer reviewed and (2) are not an academic venue, and (3) are generally not writteen by academic experts. Further, especially in the case of smarthistory.org, they are intended for a highschool audience.

Another important thing to note, just because a source appears on academia.edu doesn’t mean that it is either scholarly or appropriate for this class. Academia.edu isn’t really an academic platform (despite its URL). Its a for-profit company that allows people to upload anything they way. The best way to tell if something is scholarly (and therefor appropriate for use) is to assess it with the three criteria of a scholarly source (listed below). If, after having done this, you are confident that the source is scholarly, you need to go and find where it was originally published (an academic journal, etc) and cite that, and not the instance of the source that lives on academia.edu.

Do not cite class lectures.

What is a Scholarly Source?

Many students have difficulty understanding what constitutes a scholarly source. In this course, a scholarly source is defined by three things:

The author. Is the author (or authors) an academic or scholar with specific expertise in the subject matter? If the source doesn’t have an author (common on the web), then the source is definitely not scholarly.
The venue. Is the source published in an academic venue – an academic journal or by an academic publisher. The personal website of an academic or an academic institution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a scholarly source (because they don’t necessarily meet the other two criteria).
Peer review. A peer reviewed publication means that other scholars with expertise in that subject matter had the opportunity to assess the quality of the work (peer review is review by peers). Most (if not all) articles published in academic journals and books published by academic presses are peer reviewed.

There are circumstances in which a completely appropriate source doesn’t exactly meet these three criteria. In the case of archaeology, a projects will often release site reports or annual reports that describe the work done at a particular site (over one or multiple seasons). These are not peer reviewed publications (as they are not published in an academic journal or as a book by an academic publisher). They are released by the project itself (often under the auspices of the institution that the project is part of – a university of a museum, for example). However, given the fact that they are authored by the director of the project (along with other experts and scholars working on the project) and released under the authority of the institution to which the project belongs, they are considered legitimate scholarly sources within the context of this class (and archaeology in general). The point is that you need to make an informed assessment of the source taking into account the three things (listed above) that contribute to a sources scholarlyness. This process can often be confusing to students who don’t have prior experience with archaeology and the academic archaeology literature. So, how can you tell if a source meets the expectations for this class? First, do an assessment using the above three criteria. There are a lot of things that are obviously not scholarly (and therefor not acceptable for this class) if you look at them through the lens of these three criteria. If you are still confused about the scholarlyness (and acceptability) of a source, ask. Send the source (or a list of sources) to me and I’ll let you know immediately if its appropriate.

How Do I Find Scholarly Sources?

Sources can be digital or physical – their medium doesn’t really matter as long as they meet the three above mentioned criteria. So, how do you find good scholarly sources? The first stop should be the MSU Library Catalog. Second, you should search the MSU Library Electronic Resources. Thirdly, search through external services such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Project Muse, or Scopus. Remember, just because you’ve found something through one of these resources doesn’t make it automatically scholarly – it must meet the three above mentioned criteria. If you find something that isn’t available electronically, use the MSU Library Inter Library Loan service. If you are having trouble accessing electronic resources off campus (ie. you are hitting a paywall), you’ll need to jump through a few hoops. Check out Off Campus Access for more information.

How will the Archaeological Discovery Paper be Graded?

Minimum Requirements – Is the paper formatted properly (double spaced, title page, etc). Does the paper meet the minimum word count (not counting the works cited section). Was the paper submitted as a MSU Word document. Please note, meeting minimum requirements doesn’t guaruntee a 4.0.
Writing/Structure – Is the writing clear, thoughtful, understandable, well and logically structured, and well organized. Does the paper address all of the required questions/issues (above) with thought and care. If you want to make sure that your writing is of a high quality, make an appointment with the MSU Writing Center for a one to one peer writing consultation.
Research – Were the minimum number of required scholarly sources used. Were the sources used appropriately and cited properly (using the Chicago Author-Date/Text-Reference model). Does the paper exhibit evidence of time and effort spent finding appropriate sources and synthesizing them to support the student’s statements. Is it clear that the student actually read the sources they are citing, or are they just performing citation (randomly citing a source whose title or abstract meets the focus of the paper)

Students can choose one of the following sites. Remember, students can also choose to write on a site/discovery that isn’t on this list – they just need to get it approved no later than 2 weeks before the assignment deadline. If students write on a site/discovery that isn’t on the list that they didn’t get approval beforehand, they will not receive credit. :

Mount Sandel
Olduvia Gorge
Hypogeum of Ħal Saflieni
Terracotta Army
St. John, USVI
Hofstaðir
Ollantaytambo
Port Royal
Alexandria (Underwater Archaeology)
Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump
El Zotz
Skellig Michael
Clonmacnoise
Brooman Point Village
Inuksuk Point
Keatley Creek Archaeological Site
L’Anse aux Meadows
Port au Choix Archaeological Site
Ratcliff Site, Wendat (Huron) Ancestral Village
Southwold Earthworks
Moose Mountain Medicine Wheel
Wanuskewin
Angel Mounds
Aztalan
Caddo Mounds
Dickson Mounds
Emerald Mound Site
Etowah Mounds
Holly Bluff Site
Kincaid Mounds
Moundville
Ocmulgee
Parkin Site
Spiro Mounds
Canyon De Chelly
Casa Grande
Homolovi Ruins
Pueblo Grande
Crow Canyon
Mesa Verde
Chaco Canyon
Pueblo Bonita
Calakmul
Chichen Itza
Copán
Dos Pilas
Mayapan
El Mirador
Palenque
Uxmal
Yaxchilan
Chavín de Huantar
Chan Chan
Nazca
Huaca del Sol/Huaca del Sol
Tiwanaku
Blackwater Draw
Cueva de las Manos
Mummy Cave
Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site
Monte Verde
Avebury
Sutton Hoo
Flag Fen
Skara Brae
Duggleby Howe
Pentre Ifan
Fairy Toot
Cissbury Ring
Offa’s Dyke
Wroxeter Roman City
Old Sarum
Petra
Pompeii
Ajanta Caves
Harrapa
Mohenjo Daro
Persepolis
Le Moustier
Uruk
Çatalhöyük
Knosos
Göbekli Tepe
Newgrange
Ostia Antica
Buto
Butrint
Palmyra
Mycenae
Goree Island
Tyre
Byblos
Ballbek
Hattusha
Delos
Gebel Barkal
Cyrene
Delphi
Olympia
Siwa Oasis
Bahariya Oasis
Barbar Temple
Bat
Nicopolis ad Istrum
Angkor Wat
Angkor Tom
Easter Island
Banpo
Zhoukoudian
Bashidang
Amarna
Grotte du Vallonnet
Glanum
Isthmia
Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb
Lothal
Dholavira
Susa
Shanidar
Jarmo
Nimrud
Ur
Sannai-Maruyama
‘Ain Ghazal
Gerasa (Jerash)
Volubilis
Borre Mound Cemetery
Gokstad Ship Burial
Oseberg Ship Burial
Histria
Arkaim
Pazyryk Burials
Sintashta
Gamla Uppsala
Vendel
Ebla
Carthage
Burton Fleming
Calleva Atrebatum/Silchester
Star Carr
Zafar
Akrotiri

HONORS OPTION

Students in the Honors College can choose a site on which to write a second Archaeological Discovery Paper in order to receive honors credit. The requirements for the honors option are mostly the same as the requirements for the regular (non-honors) assignment – the only difference is that, because this is an honors option assignment and therefor requires a grater level of quality, the minimum word count is 3000 words and the minimum number of scholarly sources is 10. The due date for the honors option assignment is the same as the regular Archaeological Discovery Paper. If you wish to complete an honors option for this class, you must submit an honors option agreement form no later than March 22 that includes a note on what additional site you’ve chosen for the focus of your honors paper. Please note, all Honors Option Agreement Forms submitted after March 22 will be denied.