University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Classroom Debates as Interdisciplinary Teaching Tools

Dr. Sarah Wisseman, Program on Ancient Technologies and Archaeological Materials

For several years, I have taught a one semester course, Anthropology 221, "Materials and Civilization: An Overview of Archaeometry," through the University of Illinois' Campus Honors Program. The students are undergraduates from diverse majors ranging from Engineering Physics to English. Class size is limited to 15-18 students.

The small class size and the caliber of students makes it possible to teach in a format halfway between a lecture series and a seminar. However, the material presented must be constantly adjusted to accommodate the different backgrounds of the students: it is not safe to assume that everyone has had either basic archaeology or even high-school physics. Most lectures are therefore pitched for non-science majors, supplemented by frequent handouts on analytical techniques, targeted readings, and videotapes.

After introductory sessions on archaeology, anthropology, archaeometry, and methods for examining a range of materials (lithics, ceramics, metals, bone, etc.), the students are ready for active discussions and visits to various campus laboratories and museums.

Assignments have included working in pairs or teams (matching students with strong science backgrounds with those with primarily humanities or social science preparation) to examine ceramic artifacts and to prepare for class discussions and debates.

About mid-semester, we schedule the first formal debate, with students assigned to pro or con sides. The topics that have worked best so far have been the "Shroud of Turin" and the "Getty Kouros."

The Shroud debate involves historical research, an understanding of radiocarbon dating and techniques for characterizing pigments and human blood, and an ability to sort out solid science from pseudo-science in the name of religious beliefs. Even those students who become thoroughly convinced that the Shroud is a relic of the 14th century A.D. value the process of reading and critiquing numerous articles and trying to understand different points of view.

The debate on the kouros (the famous marble statue purchased by the J. Paul Getty Museum in California) requires research on ancient Greek sculpture styles, provenience analyses of marbles, and a close examination of the differences between man-made (forged) patinas and true weathered surfaces. This debate usually results in even more dissension than in the case of the Shroud: half the class votes down the kouros as a fake, and the other half votes for it as an authentic artifact. Either way, the students come away with an enhanced appreciation of the beauties and pitfalls of interdisciplinary research.

Students work in pairs or small groups to investigate every aspect of historical background, archaeological context, iconography, and materials analysis using multiple techniques. Their presentations are usually lively, sophisticated, and thorough. This past semester, discussions continued in a computer forum, allowing shy students to say things they would not in class, and everyone to add fuel to their arguments.

The debate format has been so successful that I am considering adding more--perhaps as structured discussions rather than formal debates-- on topics such as the Vinland Map and Piltdown Man. If Piltdown Man is used, we would ask different questions, such as why did it take so long to be unmasked as a forgery, and what techniques would be used today that were unavailable when Piltdown Man first appeared?

Classroom debates have altered this undergraduate course from its initial, unremarkable run as a lecture series into a stimulating learning experience for all concerned.