Zoe Crossland

Don't do it. She doesnt do Archaeology justice. It is obvious that this class is at the bottom of her list. I really regret taking this course... uninteresting and the Ta was useless. Even though it was a very small class she wont even know her face. You dont even have to show up to follow along, most of the class didnt. The TA grades everything by herself.. dont cout on her to help you out or read your work.

"Now on to the real issue: I have never heard any prejudiced language from the TAs in this course, from either Natasha or Mark. Throwing out incendiary remarks is more than childish. It's hard to imagine that the person who penned the review is indeed, as they claim, a junior. They sound more like a scorned middle schooler who is out for revenge." ...I'm not sure where this reviewer was the whole semester. This class was a total nightmare and the attitudes of the TAs absolutely appalling. I agree with all reviews posted thus far except the one mentioned above. As for calling the comments of one reviewer "incendiary", I would note that the comments made by the TAs were far more incendiary than anything else I've heard at Columbia so far. I only disagree with the other reviews in that I do believe I actually learned one or two things this class. Yes, it made complicated issues far too simplistic and yes, some totally ridiculous comments were made, but the map of Africa quiz and the midterm paper really broadened my knowledge of the continent. That said, I probably could have learned the same amount (if not more) after an hour on sporcle or a single trip to the Museum for African Art. Zoe was wonderful but I don't think she shines in such an intro-level class. It seemed like she didn't know how to deal with some of the ludicrously uninformed (and often downright racist) comments…

Zoe Crossland is a quirky, knowledgeable professor who is genuinely interested in both passing on her experience and learning from her students. When I took this class it was a 4000 level (i hear she's bumped it down to a 3000). The weekly reading was easy, but rarely linked up to lecture material very closely. I found the weekly student presentations spotty... a few were good but as always dependant on the group. This was the first time she taught the class so I expect it to get better with time. Covers interesting topics that are both ancient and modern. Over all Zoe is very enthusiastic and that makes up for most holes in the class.

I think I got a much more realistic idea about what it means to write a thesis. I think I know much better know what I would get into if I were to go to do a PhD. It was also the first time that a whole class would discuss my texts. This was a great experience.

Weekly (ungraded) discussions on courseworks Lots of reading 1 Midterm paper Final exam

This course was one of the worst classes I have ever taken - if not the very worst class . I don't know why everyone before me is being so positive on Zoe. She's very sweet and loves the subject, but her lectures are incredibly disorganized. I have no idea what I was supposed to get out of the class about African archaeology, other than the general theme of white people sucking, which the TAs shoved down our throats repeatedly. Because of this emphasis, it felt like we never actually talked about African archaeology - just the Western gaze. One student late in the semester asked that we move on, take the western framing as a known fact and actually talk about Africa. Nope. TA Natasha shot her down, implying that our class was too dumb to get that point so we'd be addressing it as we had for the rest of the semester, i.e. talking about this and only this. Someone raised a point about this perpetuating stereotypes, and Natasha then said it wasn't archaeology's job to do anything, but rather to critique, since it's academic. Well, I won't go into this here, but archaeology has a huge political and cultural impact. Ignoring that is 1) ignorant and 2) extremely harmful when racially-charged comments are tolerated (i.e. treated as acceptable in class). TA Mark wasn't much better, also on more than one occasion pointing out the inferior minds of the students in our class. How is that…

the title of the course already gets you pretty excited, huh? the course is fun (in a morbid sense) and definately unlike anything i've heard of before. you complete readings (they're necessary up until after the midterm, which then you should worry about the essay that is 50% of your grade and do some readings if a particular subject interests you (i.e. cannibalism)). you show up to class and listen to very engaging lectures that explain and supplement the readings (she uses powerpoint in every lecture, full of pictures and random relations to every day life). i loved the course--but i hated the presentations, but that's just me. the professor is very approachable, not at all intimidating, professional but very down to earth (extended our paper deadline a week after some students asked for one). this class will work you though, the first half of the semester when you are reading for the midterm and the second when you are working on your 5500-7500 word essay. it's worth it if you are willing to work very hard.

I learned how to stay accountable to a group while engaging in my own academic inquiry. I wrote a thesis!

I both agree with and disagree with the previous post about this class. It could have used more structure, certainly. Many of the comments in class were a bit rudimentary, but this is a core, low-level class, and as such, the students in the class were not, by and large, Archaeology majors; they were taking thsi course to fulfill a requirement. Now on to the real issue: I have never heard any prejudiced language from the TAs in this course, from either Natasha or Mark. Throwing out incendiary remarks is more than childish. It's hard to imagine that the person who penned the review is indeed, as they claim, a junior. They sound more like a scorned middle schooler who is out for revenge.

Zoe is a visiting professor from Great Britain and I am writing this review because I know that she will be teaching another class next Fall. She is the nicest person you will ever meet and she always looks out for her students. The class itself was concentrated on death as a sociological phenomenon, not on decay and archeology of the dead body. The lectures were interesting, but I always left with a feeling that we could have gotten much deeper into the issue. Every lecture touches a new topic and that is probably why we were unable to study the material in depth. Every student had to participate in 2 presentations on a particular reading during the semester - pretty easy if you get good people in your group, which is tricky because students just sign up randomly in the beginning of the semester. The short take-home midterm was great and so were the 4 "response papers", which happened to be rather straightforward questions on the readings. Overall really nice & breezy class. Take it for an overview in social archaeology of death, but beware CSI addicts - do not get disappointed when there are no gruesome pictures of decaying flesh (ever!):-)