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:

Blog Entries/Responses (20%) – throughout the semester, students will be required to post a series of entries to the course blog. The subject of each weekly Blog Entry is a response to a specific prompt (see the class Schedule for the prompts).  The entry must be at least 400 words in length (though students are welcome to write more than that if they want).   In addition to the posts, students are expected to respond to at least one post made by their fellow students.  The responses must be at least 250 words.  Posts are (usually) due by 5pm on a Friday, and the responses are due by 5pm on a Sunday. Students must complete both that week’s entry and response in order to get credit for the assignment.  If students meet all of the requirements for the assignment (due date, length requirement, entry + response), they will receive full credit.  If students don’t meet all of the requirements, they will not receive credit at all.

Midterm (25%) –  will include multiple choice, fill in the blank, true/false, and short answer questions. The material covered in the exam will be based on the class discussions, lectures, and the required reading.

Optionally, students can choose to write a short research paper of no less than 2500 words.  The topic of the paper is open and up to the student (however, they must get approval for their intended topic with the professor well before the due date).  Instead of being physically handed in, research papers must be sent (electronically) in PDF format to the professor (PDF only, no Word documents). If students choose to write a paper, they must discuss their proposed topic with the professor beforehand.

Final Exam (35%) – The final exam is take home.  The exam is intended to give you an opportunity to digest the things we’ve talked about, do some synthesis, and be a little more thoughtful about what you write than you might normally be able to do in a traditional exam. The questions and more detailed instructions will be provided near the end of the semester.

Pseudoarchaeology Wiki Article (20%) – In this assignment, students write a critical article about  a site, artifact, individual, or issue (of their choosing) that has played a central role in the arguments and ideas of pseudoarchaoelogists  and write about it. Instead of being physically handed in, students will put their Pseudoarchaeology Wiki Project on fakearchaeology.wiki  The Pseudoarchaeology Wiki Project must be at least 2000 words in length (more is perfectly fine).

Students will select a site/artifact/person from the list below. Upon choosing a site/artifact, students must email your professor by October 7th to claim their choice (so that two students don’t write on the same site). If students write on a site/artifact that they didn’t claim beforehand, they will not receive credit. Students can choose to write on a site/artifact that isn’t on the list – they just need to get it approved beforehand. Students who do not choose a topic will be assigned one.

If you’ve chosen a site or an artifact, your article should address the following questions/issues (each of which translates into a specific section of the article)

  • What is the site/artifact?
  • What is the context in which it was found/excavated/etc?
  • What is the pseudoarchaeological narrative associated with the site/artifact?
  • With multiple sources of evidence, critically deconstruct the pseudoarchaeological narrative

If you’ve chosen an individual your article should address the following issues/questions (each of which translates into a specific section of the article)

  • Who is the individual (bio)
  • What are their major “contributions” to pseudoarchaeology?
  • With multiple sources of evidence, critically deconstruct the pseudoarchaeological narrative that they are most closely connected with.

If students think that it is important to add more sections, they should absolutely do so.

Some guidelines/things to think about with the Pseudoarchaeology Wiki Article:

  • Meeting the minimum word count is a requirement of the assignment.  If students don’t meet that minimum word count, they will be docked significantly.
  • Students must have at least 7 sources/references (this doesn’t count any cited images). More sources are, of course, perfectly fine. The sources can be digital or physical. However, they have to be scholarly in nature.  If you are confused as to what constitutes “scholarly in nature,” ask. Here is a really good source for determining the quality of an online source: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html or http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources
  • All images must be referenced as properly.  Try to use Creative Commons licensed works. Here is a hint to find creative commons licensed images – use the CC Search engine. Also, for specific archaeological images that are creative commons licensed, you should look at the ISAW Ancient World Image Bank.
  • Wikipedia (and similar sites like dictionary.com, Encyclopedia Britannic  etc.) are absolutely not acceptable sources. Remember, Wikipedia is a great place to start, but it shouldn’t be something you cite as a source on a piece of work.
  • Check out digital archaeology repositories such as tDAR and ADS. You might also want to check out Open Context – which is a publication platform for primary archaeological data (if you need it).

Students can choose one of the following sites or suggest their own:

  • Berg-AVM Runestone – Isabella Wikle
  • Baghdad Battery – Lindsay Holcomb
  • Bat Creek Inscription – Natasha Wright 
  • Bourne stone – Haley Borrow
  • Dorchester Pot – Caitlin Bierema 
  • Ġebel ġol-Baħar – Alya Schwartz
  • Lenape Stone – Tyler Grubb
  • Holly Oak Gorget – Haley Allgeyer
  • Moab Man – Jennifer Gianetti
  • Oklahoma runestones (Heavener stone, Poteau stone, Shawnee stone) – Caitlyn Danforth
  • Quimbaya artifacts – Sarah Schanhals
  • Kingoodie hammer – Ann Desrochers
  • Fuente Magna bowl – Courtney Byron
  • Los Lunas Decalogue Stone – Mia Pardel
  • Mount Padang – Rebekah Dobski
  • Bakoni Ruins – Kayla Leer
  • Burrows Cave – Sabine Duvall 
  • Wondjina Petroglyphs – Hunter Smith 
  • Sego Canyon Cave Paintings – Devon E. Washington
  • VA243 Cylinder Seal – Joseph Pease
  • Chaco Canyon Petroglyphs – Cait Byron
  • Baalbek megaliths – Bella Rosi
  • Peter Kolosimo – Sabrina Ruff
  • Jacques Bergier – Emily Westfall
  • John Wilson
  • Edward Hine
  • Edward Wheler Bird
  • Cheikh Anta Diop
  • Grafton Elliot Smith
  • Dighton Rock – Ayla Schwartz (honors option)
  • Augustus Le Plongeon
  • James Churchward – Tyler Grubb (honors option)
  • John Newbrough – Madison Towers
  • Louis Jacolliot
  • William Scott-Elliot – Reid Ellefson-Frank
  • Rudolf Steiner – Ann Desrochers (honors option)
  • Antikythera Mechanism – Riley Johnson
  • Easter Island Moai – Sarah Hinojosa
  • Zecharia Sitchin – Zoe Russell
  • Hill of Tara (British Israelite Interpretation) – Isabella Wikle

Bonus Wikipedia Editing Assignment (10%) – In this bonus project, students will edit a wikipedia page on a topic relating to pseudoarchaeology (of their choosing).  Students will be asked to write a blog post of at least 750 words discussing the edits they made (rationale, content, etc.) as well as a reflection to what happened to their edits after they were made.  The discussion/reflection will take the place of a regular blog post.

Detailed Guidelines:

  • Students are free to choose any page or topic that they would like.  However, the topic or page you choose should be one that is logically weak or poorly written, or that is otherwise incomplete.
  • Using a pseudonym (which means you need to create an account), log into Wikipedia and make a substantial improvement to the article. Email Ethan with your pseudonym, the page/article you edited, an brief description of the changes you made.
  • Wait at least a week before returning to the edited your article to see what changes/reversions/edits were made.
  • In your blog post, reflect on how much of their contribution survived the interval; why did those parts survive? Why did some parts get reverted or deleted? How does the Wikipedian community deal with citations and points of view? The blog post should also (briefly) discuss the changes/edits you originally made to the article.
  • This assignment is not about whether your changes survive.  I’m not at all concerned if your changes get reverted back 5 minutes after you make them.  Instead, the assignment is about the quality & quantity of edits that you made and your reflection upon those edits (and any subsequent changes that were made to what you did)

Wikipedia Editing Resources

Honors Option

Students in the Honors College can choose a second artifact/site/individual on which to write a second article in order to receive honors credit.  The requirements for the honors option are the same as the requirements for the regular (non-honors) wiki article assignment.  Students interested in doing in honors option must request their additional topic by October 7th.  Once approved, the student must complete and submit the honors option agreement form no later than October 14th.

Department of Anthropology Undergraduate Learning Goals

By the time they graduate, all MSU Department of Anthropology undergraduate majors should be able to:

  • Demonstrate how communities differently construct systems of knowledge about the natural and social world
  • Demonstrate in-depth understanding of a culture other than their own
  • Explain cultural and biological diversity across time and space
  • Recognize and explain connections between local events/contexts and global dynamics
  • Connect actions of individuals to societal norms and social structure

They should able be able to:

  • Locate, extract, and evaluate data from multiple sources
  • Apply appropriate methods to collect data in at least one subfield (field or lab work)
  • Apply appropriate methods to analyze data in at least one subfield
  • Apply appropriate methods for presenting what they have learned to an audience
  • Construct an argument using evidence/critical analysis
  • Identify and Demonstrate ethical research standards

In order to ensure these learning goals are being met, all Department of Anthropology undergraduates will build and submit a portfolio of their work as part of ANP 489: Anthropology Capstone.   This portfolio will ask students to identify specific