[dakws]

(Original post by *whitenoise*)
There's a reading list on the cambridge website which I found helpful.

I've got an interview at Clare next weekend, really exciting and utterly terrifying, has anyone else on here got interviews there too? There's an essay we have to write before interview, does anyone know what kind of questions there might be- as in how general?

Edit: Just read the discussing interviews post, ooops, but still, anyone else with interviews at Clare?

Me! I've applied to Clare! Is your interview on the 8th? I'm so excited but so nervous at the same time...eeeeep.
Hopefully see you there *whitenoise*! (I will be the short girl with red shoes).

[Catsmeat]

(Original post by llys)
Hi - just curious: I was wondering how many students choose to go down that route? I know this is a new thing in the Arch and Anth tripos, but am assuming that current students have these options as well now?

I know it does not matter for anything; I'm just really curious how many students are actually interested in Ancient Mesopotamia / History & Archeology specifically of the Ancient Near East (as opposed to other geographic locations).

I don't have those statistics available, I'm afraid. It is likely that only a few students opt for the specific language options. Current students (i.e., IIA onwards) do not have access to these courses, however.

Of course, Egyptian/Near Eastern modules are available through Archaeology Tripos options; there are two Egpytian papers, and one Mesopotamian paper. In addition, there is a Near Eastern paper which is offered on alternate years.

Part II students represent only a very narrow group of the A&A total, so 'Option' lectures will generally have only a few attendees.

[llys]

Thank you

[Tyler Durden]

Anyone else nervous about their interview yet? I have one at Corpus next week! Any advice Cats? I had my mock today, which was 'good'. Did you make any mistakes during your interview, or did it just go extremely well? Sorry for all the questions, I am just fearing next week.

[The West Wing]

All of you Clare kids are going to get interviewed by one of the most incredible people I've ever met. You're so privileged to spend 30 minutes alone with her, I hope you all savour it.

[Academix]

Very nervous about my interview this Tuesday!

[Catsmeat]

(Original post by Tyler Durden)
Anyone else nervous about their interview yet? I have one at Corpus next week! Any advice Cats? I had my mock today, which was 'good'. Did you make any mistakes during your interview, or did it just go extremely well? Sorry for all the questions, I am just fearing next week.

Your anxiety is understandable, but unwarranted. The litany that "got me through" was that they are not looking for absolute, canonical knowledge of the disciplines, but of potential. Best of luck. Unfortunately, there seems to be little generic advice that I can provide.

[Academix]

(Original post by Catsmeat)
Your anxiety is understandable, but unwarranted. The litany that "got me through" was that they are not looking for absolute, canonical knowledge of the disciplines, but of potential. Best of luck. Unfortunately, there seems to be little generic advice that I can provide.

I'm in a similar situation. I have my interview tomorrow, and feel as though I am prepared. I know snippets of information regarding anthropology e.g. I have read Marcel Mauss' 'The Gift', and have read an introductory book. For archaeology meanwhile, I have read Steven Mithen's 'The Prehistory of the Mind' and try to keep up to date with the 'Current Archaeology' magazine. Did you feel your interview went perfectly though cats, or were there some questions you could not quite answer? This is my main concern, I just want my ability to show and am scared it will not at the final hour.

EDIT: How would you best describe the relationship between arch and anth?

[dig_the_pony]

(Original post by Academix)
I'm in a similar situation. I have my interview tomorrow, and feel as though I am prepared. I know snippets of information regarding anthropology e.g. I have read Marcel Mauss' 'The Gift', and have read an introductory book. For archaeology meanwhile, I have read Steven Mithen's 'The Prehistory of the Mind' and try to keep up to date with the 'Current Archaeology' magazine. Did you feel your interview went perfectly though cats, or were there some questions you could not quite answer? This is my main concern, I just want my ability to show and am scared it will not at the final hour.

EDIT: How would you best describe the relationship between arch and anth?

One word: RELAX! Don't be concerned at this stage, just go with it. I saw on the Pembroke thread you're asking about the interviewers, this won't help you. I had mine on Thursday and it's not as bad as you think, if you are good enough I believe that the interview will give you the chance to shine regardless of whether you are nervous. Concerning your last question, shouldn't you have worked this out by now? Or are you just looking for the magic words of a Cambridge undergrad? Sorry if that sounds mean but it does appear to me like you're trying to scrounge answers off someone. Good luck though!

[Academix]

(Original post by dig_the_pony)
One word: RELAX! Don't be concerned at this stage, just go with it. I saw on the Pembroke thread you're asking about the interviewers, this won't help you. I had mine on Thursday and it's not as bad as you think, if you are good enough I believe that the interview will give you the chance to shine regardless of whether you are nervous. Concerning your last question, shouldn't you have worked this out by now? Or are you just looking for the magic words of a Cambridge undergrad? Sorry if that sounds mean but it does appear to me like you're trying to scrounge answers off someone. Good luck though!

Well, no. I do have some ideas e.g. their relationship is really a symbiotic one. Archaeological data can extend the anthropological line of thought, by telling them how societies functioned previously to contemporary ones. Meanwhile, anthropology can build on the material remains studies by archaeologists. Those are just some of my ideas, i was only asking to see if someone had anything better. Thank you anyway, I am no scrounger though, I just like to share ideas and learn from others. Are you actually at Cambridge now then doing Arch & Anth? Yes, i was only asking about the tutor because someone said she was 'nasty', which got me concerned.

[The West Wing]

(Original post by Academix)
Well, no. I do have some ideas e.g. their relationship is really a symbiotic one. Archaeological data can extend the anthropological line of thought, by telling them how societies functioned previously to contemporary ones. Meanwhile, anthropology can build on the material remains studies by archaeologists. Those are just some of my ideas, i was only asking to see if someone had anything better. Thank you anyway, I am no scrounger though, I just like to share ideas and learn from others. Are you actually at Cambridge now then doing Arch & Anth? Yes, i was only asking about the tutor because someone said she was 'nasty', which got be concerned.

It's pretty obvious. In Arch you dig it up, in Anth you look at it.

[Academix]

(Original post by The West Wing)
It's pretty obvious. In Arch you dig it up, in Anth you look at it.

Was that meant to be a joke? (sorry I'm incapable of detecting sarcasm on the internet).

[dig_the_pony]

(Original post by Academix)
Well, no. I do have some ideas e.g. their relationship is really a symbiotic one. Archaeological data can extend the anthropological line of thought, by telling them how societies functioned previously to contemporary ones. Meanwhile, anthropology can build on the material remains studies by archaeologists. Those are just some of my ideas, i was only asking to see if someone had anything better. Thank you anyway, I am no scrounger though, I just like to share ideas and learn from others. Are you actually at Cambridge now then doing Arch & Anth? Yes, i was only asking about the tutor because someone said she was 'nasty', which got be concerned.

No i'm not there now, like I said I had my interview on Thursday. Sorry if that all sounded terribly mean , i've just come to realise that TSR is a breeding ground for unnecessary worrying about Oxbridge interviews. For instance, if you found out that this tutor was notoriously horrible, what would that do? Then again if you found out she was lovely would you feel better? Once again good luck, go and have a good time talking about what you love.

[Academix]

(Original post by dig_the_pony)
No i'm not there now, like I said I had my interview on Thursday. Sorry if that all sounded terribly mean , i've just come to realise that TSR is a breeding ground for unnecessary worrying about Oxbridge interviews. For instance, if you found out that this tutor was notoriously horrible, what would that do? Then again if you found out she was lovely would you feel better? Once again good luck, go and have a good time talking about what you love.

Agreed. The tutor may be in a good/bad mood. Hopefully, i'll be able to cheer her up

EDIT: What books have you looked at?

[Academix]

I really hope the college I have applied to gives me the chance to come and study Arch & Anth, as i really need to challenge myself, and it seems like this course does that.

[dig_the_pony]

(Original post by Academix)
Agreed. The tutor may be in a good/bad mood. Hopefully, i'll be able to cheer her up

EDIT: What books have you looked at?

Anthropology-wise I only read 'Guns, Germs and Steel', 'Rise and fall of the third chimpanzee' and a short introduction to evolution. I've read more archaeology, two of which related to my current interests - brochs and megaliths - and were the only ones I actually stated on my PS. Also read most of the 'Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe', use 'theories, methods and practice' for reference, bits of 'Archaeology an introduction'. Other than that I seem to receive far too many archaeology magazines and some of my ancient history A level stuff was quite archaeological.

I could have saved myself a whole lot of time not reading half of that, however I suppose it's better to be prepared than not. I think really they wanted proof that you had a strong interest but in the interview they didn't rely on you having any high level of knowledge. There was quite an awkward moment when one of my interviewers said "you do know I wrote part of that book don't you?", and I just replied "yes, I did notice that" followed by an awkward silence. Could have handled that SO much better. I also mentioned a site that he is the excavation director of - without knowing it - and they obviously thought I had been swotting up on him and starting quizzing me about where I knew about it but in reality I only discovered afterwards. Good times.

[Catsmeat]

(Original post by Academix)
I'm in a similar situation. I have my interview tomorrow, and feel as though I am prepared. I know snippets of information regarding anthropology e.g. I have read Marcel Mauss' 'The Gift', and have read an introductory book. For archaeology meanwhile, I have read Steven Mithen's 'The Prehistory of the Mind' and try to keep up to date with the 'Current Archaeology' magazine. Did you feel your interview went perfectly though cats, or were there some questions you could not quite answer? This is my main concern, I just want my ability to show and am scared it will not at the final hour.

EDIT: How would you best describe the relationship between arch and anth?

You seem well versed in social anthropology if you are aware of Mauss; his work is recursive within anthropology, having formed many of the theoretical frameworks within which we work. Of course, his ideas have been both gently and heavily modified and re-applied, but it's certainly a good place to begin. Equally, Mithen has become a darling of cognitive-processual archaeology and evolutionary anthropology, even if some of his comments about Neolithic archaeology are a bit odd ...

I don't remember much of my interviews, I am afraid. My first was conducted by a historian, the second by a social anthropologist with an interest in media and visual anthropology. In this context, my interests are very similar, thus the interview clustered on this area. There were no questions with which I felt unable to even explore.

As to the relationship between arch and anth, this is an enormously relative question. On a functional level, archaeology has often 'used' ethnographic analogy, both critically and uncritically. More critical ethnographic use ('ethnoarchaeology') has looked for regularities in human behaviour which are considered to be "neutral" (i.e., discard patterns in lithic production, etc). Of course, a large number of social anthropologists would suggest that all archaeological use of ethnography is uncritical and unwarranted. Other archaeologists have borrowed from anthropological and sociological theory, rather than 'data'; that is, attempts to discern ritual behaviour in the archaeological record, the study of social organisation, family, cultural resistance, taboo, etc ... again, it depends on the depth of archaeological data; historical archaeology (for example, 15th century Mexico) may employ a "direct historical approach" by using contemporary textual resources (Spanish codexes, such as the Mendoza, or diaries) in order to 'fill out' the archaeological material. This has its (obvious) problems in terms of veracity. As you can see, it's really a relative and variable relationship. If you're interested, have a look at the work of Franz Boas (an early 20th century anthropologist who developed the "four fields approach" which first year arch & anth effectively replicates, or Lew Binford [1960s-1980s] for his use of 'etnoarchaeology'). I hope this (rather vague and poorly articulated) answer will help rather than confuse ...

[Academix]

(Original post by dig_the_pony)
Anthropology-wise I only read 'Guns, Germs and Steel', 'Rise and fall of the third chimpanzee' and a short introduction to evolution. I've read more archaeology, two of which related to my current interests - brochs and megaliths - and were the only ones I actually stated on my PS. Also read most of the 'Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe', use 'theories, methods and practice' for reference, bits of 'Archaeology an introduction'. Other than that I seem to receive far too many archaeology magazines and some of my ancient history A level stuff was quite archaeological.

I could have saved myself a whole lot of time not reading half of that, however I suppose it's better to be prepared than not. I think really they wanted proof that you had a strong interest but in the interview they didn't rely on you having any high level of knowledge. There was quite an awkward moment when one of my interviewers said "you do know I wrote part of that book don't you?", and I just replied "yes, I did notice that" followed by an awkward silence. Could have handled that SO much better. I also mentioned a site that he is the excavation director of - without knowing it - and they obviously thought I had been swotting up on him and starting quizzing me about where I knew about it but in reality I only discovered afterwards. Good times.

Sounded like an interesting experience! I've read Steven Mithen's 'The Prehistory of the Mind', Thomas Eriksen's introduction to Anthropology, Clive Gamble's introduction to Archaeology, and Gayle Rubin's 'The Traffic in Women'. The latter is extremely interesting - she tries to find the roots for the oppression of women via various anthropological/societal phenomena. For example, she finds empirical evidence for her 'sex/gender system' in kinship where women form the actual 'gift' between tribes, with the 'incest taboo' acting as a safeguard. I think perhaps the most interesting scholarly piece of work I have read however, is Marcel Mauss' 'The Gift' - absolutely fascinating spin on the very concept of giving and receiving. The essay really challenges the preconceived notions of what a 'gift' actually is. Give it a read when you have the time. This conversation is calming me slightly.

EDIT: How long did you find your interviews lasted? Mine are quite later in the day (5.15 and 6.15).

[dig_the_pony]

(Original post by Academix)
Sounded like an interesting experience! I've read Steven Mithen's 'The Prehistory of the Mind', Thomas Eriksen's introduction to Anthropology, Clive Gamble's introduction to Archaeology, and Gayle Rubin's 'The Traffic in Women'. The latter is extremely interesting - she tries to find the roots for the oppression of women via various anthropological/societal phenomena. For example, she finds empirical evidence for her 'sex/gender system' in kinship where women form the actual 'gift' between tribes, with the 'incest taboo' acting as a safeguard. I think perhaps the most interesting scholarly piece of work I have read however, is Marcel Mauss' 'The Gift' - absolutely fascinating spin on the very concept of giving and receiving. The essay really challenges the preconceived notions of what a 'gift' actually is. Give it a read when you have the time. This conversation is calming me slightly.

EDIT: How long did you find your interviews lasted? Mine are quite later in the day (5.15 and 6.15).

My first one (anthropology) lasted about 25 minutes but the archaeology one went one for around 35 minutes. I think they lost track of the time and then they suddenly had to rush the ending. I can't believe yours is that late, do the interviewers not have homes to go to?

[Academix]

(Original post by dig_the_pony)
My first one (anthropology) lasted about 25 minutes but the archaeology one went one for around 35 minutes. I think they lost track of the time and then they suddenly had to rush the ending. I can't believe yours is that late, do the interviewers not have homes to go to?

Ha, I was also surprised by how late in the day the interviews were. I was thinking more early to mid-afternoon. Perhaps though they will be tired and expect me to be also - being so late in the day. It can either work to my advantage or disadvantage.