1
Beyond Indiana Jones and Night at the Museum: Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museums in the Liberal Studies Program at DePaul University. Morag M. Kersel, DePaul University “Lessons from the Trenches: The Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage” Electronic symposium for SAA Annual Meeting, April 18-22, 2012, Memphis, TN Co-organizers: Susan Bender and Phyllis Messenger
In the winter of 2010 I won the lottery. In a very tough job market I was offered tenure-track
employment in the Anthropology Department at DePaul University. For the first time in 8 years I was
going to live in the same city as my spouse and we would both be “gainfully” employed as
anthropological archaeologists. Prior to starting at DePaul I held postdoctoral fellowships at Brown
University and the University of Toronto – departments with both undergraduate and graduate students
– at most I taught a course or two per year, predominantly comprised of majors in anthropology. At
DePaul I would be teaching 6 courses per year, most of which would fulfill general education
requirements in the Liberal Studies Program. During my first year at DePaul in Introduction to
Archaeology and The Science of Archaeology I faced 40-45 non-majors many of whom were seniors
fulfilling their last general education courses. In my second year I taught in the innovative freshman
program Discover Chicago. My position at DePaul has been rewarding and enjoyable but I would be
disingenuous if I did not admit to some tears of frustration. Making archaeology and museums relevant,
educational, and engaging for students of business, marketing, economics, philosophy, and a host of
other non-majors is often a challenge, but at the same time gratifying in ways I never envisioned. Early
on I realized that, in classes for non-majors, my main competition came in the form of Ben Stiller as the
night guard in Night at the Museum and Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. In the following paper I want to
highlight my pedagogical highs and lows from the trenches, looking beyond the prevailing role models
presented by Hollywood towards a more enlightened and educational model of what museums and
archaeology are and what archaeologists really do.
In envisioning my new teaching challenges I was reminded of Hamilakis’ (2004: 296) paper on
“Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy” in which he suggests “A cornerstone of a critical and
emancipator pedagogy in archaeology should aim at unsettling common-sense preconceptions and
demolish stories that have produced pasts to suit present-day practices and identities”. Hamilakis raised
this notion with respect to challenging racist concepts in interpreting prehistory, but I wanted to co-opt
his ideas for making archaeology relevant by confronting accepted mainstream archaeological
2
stereotypes and theories and by asking students to think critically about what they read in the pages of
mainstream news sources and popular magazines (e.g. USA Today, Wall Street Journal, People and
Vanity Fair).
DePaul University and Anthropology
With over 25,000 students, DePaul University is the largest Catholic undergraduate institution in the
United States. With a fairly diverse ethnic makeup (61% Caucasian and 39% minority – Asian,
Hispanic/Latino, African-American, Native American and Pacific Islanders), DePaul has a significant
transfer, senior and first generation student population (over half)
(http://www.depaul.edu/emm/facts/index.asp). “DePaul, in common with all universities, is dedicated
to teaching, research, and public service. However, in pursuing its own distinctive purposes, among
these three fundamental responsibilities this university places highest priority on programs of
instruction and learning” (http://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/default.aspx). The website proclaims
“You come here to learn, your professors come here to teach”, DePaul first and foremost is a teaching
institution, with major emphasis placed on undergraduate instruction.
The Anthropology Department, part of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (LAS), has 7 full
time faculty and about the same number of contingent (adjunct and visiting) instructors who teach a
wide range of anthropology courses, with a focus on applied practice and service learning (a core
element of the DePaul Mission). We do not follow a traditional four-field approach to anthropology,
choosing to focus instead on applied practice in our course offerings. We require all of our majors (100+)
to participate in an archaeological field school and to take courses in ethics and professionalism,
ethnographic research methods and applied-practice. DePaul University is committed to service-learning
and many of our courses involve hands-on projects at local museums, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. As members of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences students majoring
in anthropology are also required to take courses in Liberal Studies Program (LSP ) as part of their core
curriculum. Faculty members in the anthropology department teach core courses in LSP, and it is this
element of my teaching and undergraduate education that is highlighted in the following.
Liberal Studies Program at DePaul
The Liberal Studies Program (LSP) is the common curriculum taken by all students in the seven
undergraduate colleges of DePaul University. Overall, the LSP is designed to develop students’ writing
3
abilities, computational and technological proficiencies, and critical and creative thinking skills. “Some
liberal studies courses introduce the institution’s unique Catholic, Vincentian, and urban mission and
identity, and often include opportunities for community service” (Udovic 2005). While the liberal studies
curriculum itself is quite varied, the LSP as a whole shares these four learning goals: 1) Reflectiveness; 2)
Value Consciousness and Ethical Reasoning, 3) Multicultural Perspective, and 4) Creative and Critical
Thinking (http://www.depaul.edu/academics/undergraduate/Pages/core-curriculum.aspx). Each course
that is offered as part of this curriculum must include these four elements in its development– through
assignments, exercises, classroom interaction and assessments.
Unlike a student’s chosen major, which offers depth of knowledge in a single focused field, a liberal
studies education provides breadth of scholarship across many different areas of study.” At DePaul,
faculty from virtually every department, interdisciplinary program, and college help to teach the over
1400 different courses from which students can choose to meet their liberal studies requirements. This
wide spectrum of participation on the part of students and faculty alike contributes to a strong sense of
intellectual community at DePaul, and a shared commitment to its mission and values”
(http://www.depaul.edu/academics/undergraduate/Pages/core-curriculum.aspx). In proposing classes
to fulfill LSP requirements the syllabus that faculty design must address the core values and mission of
DePaul while balancing the intellectual content of the subject and discipline – for me that is archaeology
and museums. Ultimately, the LSP seeks to educate future leaders who will create a more just and
humane world – at DePaul (as most universities) we are molding citizens of the world and in this specific
instance – citizens who care about the past, culture and global heritage.
Challenge 1 – Discovering Chicago
Core requirements begin when incoming students in autumn take a Chicago Quarter (CQ) course. “From
over a hundred different topic offerings, a single class, which includes an intensive immersion week
experience prior to the start of fall classes. CQ instructors use both traditional and experiential
pedagogies to teach students not only relevant course content, but also information about the city’s
people, communities, institutions, and system of public transportation”
(http://liberalstudies.depaul.edu/FirstYearProgram/index.asp). The idea behind the Chicago Quarter is
to get students out into the city of Chicago to “discover” the city, its environs, its people, its institutions
and its atmosphere.
4
When I joined the Anthropology Department my chair encouraged me to submit a proposal to offer a
Discover Chicago course, which would serve a multiplicity of purposes: to fulfill the broad educational
and community engagement remit of DePaul; to utilize the city as a teaching tool; to encourage
incoming freshman to declare anthropology as their major; and to add to the department’s intellectual
and pedagogical contribution to the College of Library Arts and Social Sciences. And so Objects ‘R’ Us –
Identity and Nationalism in Chicago Museums was born. Through first-hand observation, active
participation and reflection, this course acquainted incoming freshman with Chicago. Introducing 22
freshmen to museums in Objects ‘R’ Us was more intriguing than I could ever have anticipated.
As an archaeologist with an interest in cultural heritage and presentations of archaeology to the public I
decided that the best way to introduce freshman to the city of Chicago and its people was to focus on
objects in museums and how those objects represent the people of Chicago. From the lasting legacy of
the1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago is a city known for its museums – places like the Field
Museum, The Art Institute and the Shedd Aquarium are thought to represent the social and cultural
fabric of Chicago. Looking beyond these traditional Chicago museums, my proposed course explored the
diverse ethnic makeup of the city through its smaller, less-traditional museums and cultural centers.
Prior to the start of the traditional academic Quarter, in immersion week (5 days, 8 hours/day) we
visited 8 museums, travelling on the ‘L’ and the bus to the Southside, Pilsen, Andersonville, Chinatown
and the Loop (see Immersion Week Schedule). Through a single iron at the Chinese-American Museum
we discovered what life was like for the newly immigrant Chinese families who chose to establish roots
in Chicago. At the Swedish-American Museum a well-travelled trunk spoke volumes about those who
left Sweden to take up positions as domestic help in the well-heeled parts of Chicago. We then visited
the other side of that relationship at The Driehaus Museum, a stunning example of the Gilded Age in
Chicago – there the house itself acted as object, compelling the students to think about the variety of
people and places and classes of Chicago. During that week students kept a reflection journal where
they were asked to record their thoughts and ideas on how objects represent people and how objects
are represented in museums and other educational institutions. In the journal they included their
reactions to the assigned readings, the class discussions (on the ‘L’ bus and in the confines of the
classroom), the thoughts and musing of various curators, tour guides and docents encountered during
the museum visits. In the first class meeting after immersion week, students were asked to discuss a
5
single object that they would chose to represent their own lives and what that object would convey
about them, their past, their present, and their future.
IMMERSION WEEK SCHEDULE
Monday Aug 29
Tuesday Aug 30 Wednesday Aug 31
Thursday Sept 1 Friday Sept 2
Time 10:00am 8:30am 9:00am 8:30am 9:00am Activity First Class
– Meet Pinky and Kim (SAC 270)
Meet in Classroom! Museums on the Red Line
Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies http://www.spertus.edu
Meet in Classroom! South Side Museums – Hyde Park
Meet in Classroom! The Gilded Age Downtown
Assignment Syllabus overview
Reflection Journal
Reflection Journal Reflection Journal Reflection Journal
Transport Feet Red Line Red Line
Time 12:00pm NOON
10:00am 2:00pm 10:00am 10:00am
Activity BBQ in the QUAD
Chinese-American Museum www.ccamuseum.org
National Museum of Mexican Art www.nationalmuseum ofmexicanart.org
DuSable Museum of African American History www.dusablemuseum.org
Richard H. Driehaus Museum http://www.driehaus museum.org
Assignment Eat! Reflection Journal
Reflection Journal Reflection Journal Reflection Journal
Transport Red Line CTA Bus and Red Line Red Line
Time 1:30pm 2:30pm 3:30pm 2:00pm 1:00pm Activity Chicago
History Museum Visit and Meet the Curators www.chicagohs.org
Swedish American Museum www.swedishamerican museum.org
Pilsen Walking Tour
The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago oi.uchicago.edu
Meet in Loop Classroom!!
Assignment Reflection Journal
Reflection Journal
Reflection Journal Reflection Journal Common Hour
Transport Red Line Red Line Feet Bus/Feet Red Line
6
Night at the Museum
As one of the assignments in the class students viewed and wrote a movie review of Night at the
Museum. Rather than just presenting a plot summary and a thumbs up or a thumbs down rating,
students addressed the following questions:
1. What are some of the very obvious stereotypes about museums in the film? 2. What staff members are evident in the film, and what is their role in the Museum? 3. What inaccuracies/anachronisms did you notice (examples: things in the wrong time or place)? 4. Where are issues of gender and race evident in the film? 5. Though it changes by the end, what is the nature of this museum in its relationship to
community? 6. How are objects used to represent people, places and time periods?
Drawing from class readings, discussions and our own museum visits students challenged Hollywood’s
portrayal of museums, their missions, objects in museums and ethnic representations. Many suggested
that they had never considered this type of movie as anything other than entertainment – some told me
that I was spoiling all future movie viewing for them. Spoil we did and in deconstructing the film we
came to a consensus that while the film was entertaining and “a good night out” there were serious
flaws in gender stereotyping (females as docents or love interests); inaccuracies and anachronisms in
presenting historical people and events (Roman centurions battling cowboys from the Wild West); and a
glossing over of the relationship between the museum and its communities. This proved to be a useful
exercise in creating a more critical and aware class and I am indebted to Larry Zimmerman for bringing
to my attention the use of Night at the Museum as an effective teaching tool.
Learning Outcomes and the Goals of the Liberal Studies Program
What I thought they got out of the class:
Reflectiveness:
Students were asked to reflect on the origins of museums, concepts of national identity and materiality,
greater issues of cultural diplomacy and the use of museums in building local relations and social
cohesion. In doing this students also considered their own cultural background and how it is
represented by objects, which might make their way into museums.
Value consciousness:
7
Through the visits to cultural institutions to the readings on nationalism, identity and museums,
students gained a greater awareness of how individuals and communities value their pasts, their
countries of origin and their ethnic and religious backgrounds. They also began thinking about questions
surrounding ‘Who owns the past?” “How is the past represented?” and “Just who makes up the city of
Chicago?” The theory and background in museum studies anchored student discussions and writing on
valuing cultural heritage.
Multicultural perspective:
By visiting smaller community museums across Chicago students were exposed to the multicultural
nature of Chicago and how that diversity is expressed through public display. In the ensuing meetings
after immersion week students had the ability to formulate ideas about nationalism, identity and
museums. They questioned everything from the objects on display, curatorial authority, to identity
formation and motives of the represented ethnic groups.
Critical and creative thinking:
Through specific exhibit analysis (the final project) and reflection exercises, students learned creative,
reflexive and critical thinking. Hopefully, these students will no longer be passive visitors to museums
but will question the motives of the directors, curators and visitors to museums and the underlying
motives of the various stakeholder groups with an interest in public display.
As the instructor this final learning outcome was essential – I wanted the students of “Objects ‘R’ Us” to
think about museums and objects differently, with greater insight and with a more critical appraisal of
what they were viewing. I wanted them to consider contemporary issues, social and political power
relations that are intrinsic to archaeology, museums and cultural heritage research (Atalay 2008). When
they visit museums, I want them to ask the basic question “why is that object on display?”
What they got out of the class:
Last week (March 2012) some three months after the end of the Fall Quarter, I happened to run into
three of the former “Objects ‘R’ Us” students on separate occasions. I attribute these coincidental
meetings to the unseasonably warm Chicago Spring – everyone was out discovering the city again. One
of my students said “You’ll never believe this, but I am on my way to meet a friend at the bus station
and then I am taking him to the Chinese American Museum. He’s never been to Chinatown and I told
8
him that I could show him around the museum and we could get some good food” (as part of immersion
week we ate at restaurants in many of the ethnic neighborhoods we visited – the combination of food
and museums made for some memorable experiences). Another was on her way to Jordan on another
DePaul innovative first year programs – the Focal Point Seminar – where students spend their freshman
spring break in a foreign locale. I knew that during her 10 days in Jordan she would visit many museums,
archaeological sites, and heritage institutions; she mentioned that she would be thinking critically about
the presentation of the past, without any prompting on my part. The third student told me that she was
transferring from DePaul in the Fall of 2012. She found Chicago too big, too noisy and she was not really
satisfied with the course offerings (a declared history major). She then went on to tell me that she had
registered for my Spring Quarter Introduction to Archaeology, which I found very surprising. During the
“Objects ‘R’ Us” course she seemed the least engaged and least interested in the subject matter. Clearly
I was missing something and there were elements of the Chicago Quarter class that piqued her interest
enough to make her enroll in another anthropology class.
The formal course evaluations where good and encouraging although there were remarks about specific
museums we visited which were not deemed as interesting as others. The most consistent negative
comment was about a grading rubric, what I take to mean “we want more specifics about what is
needed to get an ‘A’ or a ‘B’”. That students are focused on what they need to do to get a good grade
(Hamilakis 2004: 301) is nothing new but it is still disheartening to think that in the end the course may
amount to a grade and not a new way of thinking about museums or archaeology.
Challenge 2 – Integrating Theory and Practice through the Science of Archaeology
One of the most difficult things for undergraduates to do is to merge theory (classroom experience) with
practice (real world experience) (Davis et al. 1999). The Science of Archaeology course is an attempt to
bridge this divide by providing a practical lab or “a real world experience” associated with each week of
lectures (the classroom experience). The second component of the Liberal Studies Program at DePaul is
made up of courses in well-defined Learning Domains. “Students are assured breadth of learning by
being required to take two to three courses in each domain, but are also given enough latitude to
experience and apply the many exciting forms of intellectual inquiry taking place in today’s modern
university” (http://liberalstudies.depaul.edu/About/index.asp). The Science of Archaeology course fulfills
an element in the Scientific Inquiry Learning Domain; a course like this is designed to broaden students’
knowledge base beyond their major. The Science of Archaeology is a science lab class that meets for 90
9
minute lectures twice a week and an extra 90 minute practicum. Through simulation exercises as well as
the analysis of actual archaeological data, students learn the principles of archaeology. The typical topics
of archaeology: dating, what is archaeology, how do archaeologists find stuff, bioarchaeology, pottery,
and lithics are all discussed and a practical lab assignment accompanies each of the “big picture”
subjects.
In general terms, learning outcomes for undergraduates studying archaeology may include knowledge
and skills in regional archaeologies (sites, artifacts, time periods, research themes); theory, method and
practice; research design, project management; practical skill sets (Colley 2004: 190) – are these the
same goals for non-majors in general education requirements? And how do these academic/practical
goals mesh with the stated learning outcomes of the LSP at DePaul? As I contemplated teaching my first
archaeological science lab class I wondered about the competing educational goals, the desires of the
students and my own areas of expertise and competence. Enrolment for ANT 120 (The Science of
Archaeology) was capped at 40 and on our first meeting I asked for a show of hands in order to assess
the class makeup. “How many of you are seniors?” 39 hands went up – 39 seniors and 1 sophomore.
“How many are anthropology or history majors?” (this class can be an elective in the Anthropology
curriculum) – no hands. “Geography, art history, biology, or from the College of Liberal Arts and Social
Sciences?” – 3 hands. As it turned out the majority of the students were from the Colleges of Commerce,
Communications and Computing and Digital Media (DePaul power houses, who form the basis for
DePaul’s academic reputation). Although taken aback at the lack of anthropology students in the class I
decided not to cover the material any differently but instead to add elements that I thought would make
archaeological science relevant to their daily and future lives.
In 2002 my DePaul colleague Jane Baxter stated: “It would be difficult to argue that there is a more
popular image of an archaeologist than Indiana Jones” (Baxter 2002: 16) – Jane could not be more
correct, so that is where I began. In the first class using Susan Renoe’s excellent exercise The Draw-an-
Archaeologist Test I handed out crayons and blank sheets of paper and asked students to “draw an
archaeologist” (Renoe 2007: 225). We then deconstructed popular perceptions of “archaeologists” –
white males wearing fedoras and carrying bullwhips. Only 2 students drew females and all of the
archaeologists depicted were white. Many were set in exotic locales – with pyramids or temples, in the
desert – no one was depicted doing a CRM survey in Texarkana. Some had the tools of excavation and
were depicted “doing the work of an archaeologist” – digging up dinosaur bones or golden idols. I am
10
well-known for my field mantra – where’s your hat and how much water have you had today?, so I was
interested in the illustration of those elements. One person drew a water bottle and, while most of the
archaeologists were depicted as wearing a fedora or pith helmet, a bunch of archaeologists wore no hat
at all! It was a fascinating exercise for the students and me as we talked about Hollywood stereotypes
and the actual work of archaeologists. I assured them that in the lab portion of class they would get to
experience some of the work of an archaeologist. Some were immediately hooked, some remained
unconvinced as to the relevance of the class and we were back to the “what do I need to do to get an ‘A’
in this class?” question.
Making Archaeology Relevant
“If we are to justify the existence of archaeology as a discipline and gain public interest and support
then we must effectively show how archaeology benefits society” (Davis et al. 1999). In a room filled
with non-majors, the need to make a connection between future real estate moguls, sales personnel,
fathers, mothers, computer graphics designers and educators and the importance of archaeology was
acute. While I was not teaching the course any differently, one might expect that in a class of
anthropology majors the need to “make the case” for the importance of archaeology would not be
warranted. I was amazed at the response I received in response to the Ripped from the Headlines
assignment. In each class students were asked to bring an archaeology, cultural heritage or museum
headline from that week’s online, print or social media news. At first the students did not believe there
would be anything to report but by the end of the quarter students were posting extra headlines to the
shared D2L class site and sending me links daily. Everyday there are news items in the pages of
mainstream media outlets but most students had not taken the time to read those types of articles and
now they did. The breadth of coverage was stunning – antiquities theft, early man, dinosaurs, CRM,
local, national and international in scope. The topics raised in class reinforced material covered in
lectures and labs – archaeology was cutting edge! I knew that the exercise had been a success when
marketing major came up to me at the end of a class. In his hand he had the most recent issue of GQ
magazine – in my head I thought “where is this going?” he pointed to an advertisement and short
review of the Indiana Jones and Adventure of Archaeology exhibit at the Montréal Science Centre
(http://www.montrealsciencecentre.com/exhibitions/indiana-jones-and-the-adventure-of-
archaeology.html) . “Do you think that they will talk about all of the archaeological stereotypes in the
Indiana Jones movies?” (Assignment #2 was a critical assessment of the portrayal of archaeology and
11
archaeologists in Raiders of the Lost Ark). We discussed his question and I then asked “would you visit
the exhibit?” We both agreed that we would definitely visit the exhibit but with a more critical stance
and assessment of the exhibit.
Effective teaching is not a one-way street and I learned much from the students. I have been an
archaeologist for many years and I recognize that I have become entrenched in certain lines of thinking;
these students challenged me to consider my own biases and academic leanings. I am Canadian and
surprisingly there were some issues of language and word choice which they helped me to navigate. This
was my first time teaching practical labs, so together we worked through worksheets and exercises that
colleagues and the internet generously shared. We “excavated” bulletin boards to demonstrate the
ideas of stratigraphy, producing a Harris Matrix. We measured replicas of early hominid skulls and
skeletons in order to examine ideas of sexual dimorphism and evolution. We analyzed garbage in order
to reconstruct the day in the life of a person. And we sorted and analyzed an assemblage of historical
artifacts from a DePaul field school excavation at the Charnley-Persky House conducted by Rebecca
Graff. But the labs were often simulations (such as the candy survey of Cahokia) and while these go a
long way to bridging the theory and practice divide, nothing beats a real field work experience. In every
class I tried to use examples from my own life as a field archaeologist and would often use slides of
students from my summer field project (which I co-direct with Yorke Rowan) at Marj Rabba – a
Chalcolithic site in the lower Galilee of Israel. By the end of the Quarter students were tired of the same
old “this could be you” slides interspersed with the regular topic being covered, but it worked.
In late April a burly football player type student approached me after class and said that he was
interested in spending the summer in Israel on the excavation. He was a philosophy major and he was
pretty sure that he did not want to become an archaeologist but he wanted to “put theory into practice”
and to “try out some of the techniques we learned in class”. Through the Anthropology Department and
the Office of Student Advising at DePaul the student received academic credit and fulfilled his Junior
Year Experiential Learning credit (another of the LSP requirements) and the Galilee Prehistory Project
gained a field school student. It was clear to all involved that after about two days in the July heat,
opening a new square, countless scorpions, and monotonous pesto and cheese sandwiches that the
student was correct in his original assessment – he would not change majors and become an
archaeologist. In his evaluation of the program he stated: “I felt that this was such a life-changing course
that there was a need for me to evaluate the course to show how wonderful the course was and what
12
impact it made on my life. I am a philosophy major here at DePaul University and was in need of fulfilling
a science requirement. So I enrolled in Dr. Kersel’s class and was pleasantly surprised about how much I
enjoyed the class and its material. I knew from class that she had a summer program and I asked her
about joining to help me further explore this new interest in archaeology that I had gained” (Field School
evaluation). Putting theory into practice was an outcome, but so too was rooming with a Turkish high
school student, working with Israelis and Palestinians, visiting Jerusalem, and losing 35 pounds.
Conclusion
While I would like to leave you with the impression that everyone walks away from these classes, happy
and satisfied, this is not always the case. There have been tears (students and mine) as students
complain about low grades and ineffectual teaching styles. Although I make it clear in the first class and
in the syllabus that sustained participation is critical to receiving an ‘A’ in the class, students never
believe me. The traditional DePaul model for classes of 40 or more students is straight lecture, but that
is not my teaching philosophy, and I incorporate a mixture of lecture, seminar, discussion, and debates
(e.g. archaeological ethics, the politics of public display, Neanderthal cloning) in which I expect students
to speak up. It was a new learning experience for me and the students. As an element of self-reflection
(How’s My Driving) I include a mid-quarter evaluation where students can let me know what is and is
not working. Together we revisit the syllabus and assignments to varying degrees of success. Inevitably
this assessment coincides with a mid-term or an assignment that nobody wants, so that is the first
complaint. One honest student told me that I should give more pop quizzes because “no one was doing
the reading” – they were right. I gave more quizzes and the level and content of participation increased
significantly. This shared notion of education and directing the class created a greater bond where a
greater number of students had a vested interest in the class.
Before starting my year of teaching at DePaul I reread Sonya Atalay’s (2008) inspirational chapter
entitled Pedagogy of Decolonization: Advancing Archaeological Practice through Education. In that
essay, Atalay calls upon the work of Audre Lorde and a recent book by bell hooks (2003) to reinforce the
idea that the role of the scholar and educator is to create critical thinkers and good citizens (Atalay
2008: 141). In teaching archaeology, museums and cultural heritage to majors and non-majors alike
within the Vincentian ideals of DePaul, I aspire to create critical thinkers and citizens of the world. Thank
you for the reminder Sonya.
13
Acknowledgements
Everyone warns you about your first year in an academic job but like my cautions to my students those
warnings often go unheeded. My colleagues in the Department of Anthropology at DePaul eased my
transition to full-time employment and DePaul. Thanks to Jane Baxter, Antonio Luis Curet, Sonny
Faulseit, Marcia Good, Michael Gregory, Ginger Hofman, Joe Kinsella, Larry Mayo, John Mazzeo, Sharon
Nagy and Robert Rotenberg. I also want to thank my many archaeological and anthropological
colleagues who graciously provided me with syllabi, lab exercises, PowerPoints, and general
encouragement: Anna Agbe-Davies, Daniel Adler, Meredith Chesson, Karen Holmberg, Laura Mazow,
Yorke Rowan, Krysta Ryzewski, Benjamin Saidel, and Larry Zimmerman. Navigating my first year was
made infinitely more enjoyable by the students in my Introduction to Archaeology, The Science of
Archaeology, Anthropology and Museums, and Objects ‘R’ Us – Identity and Nationalism in Chicago
Museums. I learned much from them, but have much to learn.
References
Atalay, Sonya 2008 Pedagogy of Decolonization: Advancing Archaeological Practice through Education. In
Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge. Teaching and learning in Indigenous Archaeology , edited by Stephen Silliman, pp. 123-144. Tucson, The University of Arizona Press.
Baxter, Jane 2002 Popular Images and Popular Stereotypes: Images of Archaeologists in Popular and
Documentary Film. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(4): 16-17. Colley, Sarah 2004 University-Based Archaeology teaching and Learning and Professionalism in Australia.
World Archaeology 36(2): 189-202. Davis, Hester, Jeffrey H. Altschul, Judith Bense, Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Shereen Lerner, James J. Miller,
Vincas P. Steponaitis, and Joe Watkins 1999 Teaching Archaeology in the 21st Century: Thoughts on Undergraduate Education. SAA
Bulletin 17(1). Electronic document http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/publications/SAAbulletin/17-1/SAA16.html Accessed March 5, 2012.
Hamilaks, Yannis 2004 Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy. World Archaeology 36(2): 287-309. hooks, bell 2003 Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York, Routledge. Renoe, Susan 2007 The Draw-an-Archaeologist Test. In Archaeology to Delight and Instruct. Active Learning in
the University Classroom, edited by Heather Burke and Claire Smith, pp. 225-233. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press.
Udovic, Edward R. 2005 Translating Vincent de Paul for the 21st Century: A Case Study of Vincentian Mission
Effectiveness Efforts at DePaul University. Vincentian Heritage Journal 26( 1): Article 16. Electronic document http://via.library.depaul.edu/vhj/vol26/iss1/16 Accessed March 5, 2012.