Ancient Civilisations (ARCA1001) (1 Viewer)

[bogdanovs]

Does anyone have any idea on the type of material that will be covered by this subject?

In particular, I'm wondering whether it concentrates on the differrent facets of society and culture (e.g. religion and daily life) for each of the civilisations, or whether it focuses purely on the importance of distinct archaeological finds (e.g. the discovery, excavation and significance of an aztec bow).

 

[DeepDarkRose]

hi i did this subject in 2008 and unless they've changed it drastically, it is based on childe's list of what qualifies as a civilisation (im sure you can google this and find the list, i dont remember it now). we studied egypt, sumeria, greece/rome, indus valley, bmac, and central and south america in one semester. you can imagine that none of this was very in depth. there was one assignment where we had to write 500 words on any object from any of these civilisations and a 1500 word essay on an aspect of any of those civilisations such as burial/clothing/trade/warfare etc. the reader is HUGE, like over 600 pages long, but if you read it all then you'll get a more in depth view of each subject area even though you spend only like two weeks per civilisation.

 

[bogdanovs]

Thanks for the reply

Is there anything else you can tell me about the subject? Apart from the massive readings is it fairly difficult?

How is the lecturer? The reason i ask is because i'm also considering studying 'Foundations for Ancient Rome' and ive heard the lecturer there is good so im trying to compare the two

In school i really enjoyed learning about the actual civilisations e.g. marriage customs, daily life and religious activies of the spartans, so im hoping that ARCA1001 will be similar. Having a quick look at childe's list on google it seems that this type of material wont be covered in it?

Thanks in advance

 

[spence]

Thanks for the reply

Is there anything else you can tell me about the subject? Apart from the massive readings is it fairly difficult?

How is the lecturer? The reason i ask is because i'm also considering studying 'Foundations for Ancient Rome' and ive heard the lecturer there is good so im trying to compare the two

In school i really enjoyed learning about the actual civilisations e.g. marriage customs, daily life and religious activies of the spartans, so im hoping that ARCA1001 will be similar. Having a quick look at childe's list on google it seems that this type of material wont be covered in it?

Thanks in advance

Are you aware that ARCA1001 and ANHS1601 are offered in different semesters?

 

[DeepDarkRose]

There are several different lecturers, depending on their field of expertise. The first year ancient history subject has changed a lot since I did it back in 2006, but I can tell you that most of the ancient history department lecturers are hillarious. However, you cant really compare the two subjects cause one is ancient history and the other is archaeology and they have different focuses.

Ancient history is text based mostly, and a lot more like what you might have studied at school except more in depth and a lot more complicated than just learning what a marriage system is like or watever (as in stuff like ideas about citizenship, morality, politics etc). Archaeology on the other hand is about the physical remains of a civilisation, so architecture, a LOT of pottery, fabrics, burial etc.
This difference is quite obvious when you start the courses, the essays you do for them will be very different and the readings as well.

 

[bogdanovs]

Thanks for the quick replies guys much appreciated

No Spence i wasn't aware of that... Just checked to confirm and yea your right.. Thanks for the notice man.

Ancient history is text based mostly, and a lot more like what you might have studied at school except more in depth and a lot more complicated than just learning what a marriage system is like or watever (as in stuff like ideas about citizenship, morality, politics etc). Archaeology on the other hand is about the physical remains of a civilisation, so architecture, a LOT of pottery, fabrics, burial etc.

From what your saying darkrose it seems that ancient history is the one for me. Id rather focus on a civilisation itself as apposed to the different techniques used to examine and study uncovered artefacts. However, don't historians use uncovered physical remains to explore the daily life of the inhabitants of a civilisation? So that kind of gets me back to my first question: does ARCA1001 focus on what these objects reveal about the society or is it primarily based on the objects themselves and how they were built, excavated etc? Sorry if im repeating myself

 

[DeepDarkRose]

From what your saying darkrose it seems that ancient history is the one for me. Id rather focus on a civilisation itself as apposed to the different techniques used to examine and study uncovered artefacts. However, don't historians use uncovered physical remains to explore the daily life of the inhabitants of a civilisation? So that kind of gets me back to my first question: does ARCA1001 focus on what these objects reveal about the society or is it primarily based on the objects themselves and how they were built, excavated etc? Sorry if im repeating myself

Yeah heh i always preferred history too, but it's a subjective thing, there are some that say history is too based on ideas without proof compared to archaeology *shrug*.

and yes of course it talks about what the objects mean, theres no use in finding them and then not analysing what they can tell us about a society.

also, yes historians do use physical remains too obviously, and in a perfect world a person would be an expert in both the written word and the artefacts that relate to a culture but the departments happen to be split up that way. In an archaeology essay, however, they generally as you to stay away from written primary sources as much as you can.