This week’s task takes a departure from written work and instead considers the content, structure, and style of a presentation. To accomplish this task, I’ve decided to compare two back to back lectures given by Kenneth Sassaman at the University of Colorado in 2014. Kenneth Sassaman is an Archaeology professor at the University of Florida who specialized in coastal landscapes and Archaic/Woodland archaeology. These lectures discuss his work in the American Southeast with reference to his notions of temporality, futurescapes, and responses to climate change. The two lectures were directed at the same audience and delivered on consecutive days. Given this structure, I though it would be inappropriate to discuss one without reference to the other.
In this blog post, I’d like to outline the structure and content of Sassaman’s lectures while exploring why, in spite of adopting different styles, both lectures work. As I’ve begun my research on landscapes and hunter-gatherers, Sassaman’s work has come to stand out as an example of imaginative theoretically driven hunter-gatherer research. I’ve also become enamoured by time theory. Driven by my own struggles to grasp large time periods, I’ve found utility and pleasure in working through concepts including time perspectivism, non-linear time, palimpsests, and scale. Listening to Sassaman’s two talks brought together many of the ideas I’ve always found fascinating including hunter-gatherers, deep time, past bodies, and climate change policy. In the remainder of my blog post I’d like to discuss the elements that added to my enjoyment along with the areas where improvements might have been made.
Structure
Sassaman’s talks began with an outline of purpose. He explained that in his first talk he’d be addressing his theoretical framework by drawing on phenomenology, public possibilities and the notion of the inevitable future. In his second talk, he would change gears and explore archaeological case studies from his own research. Sassaman explained that his first talk would begin with a discussion of what he terms ‘sensual archaeology’, something influenced by the concept of bodies touted in phenomenology. In turn, this would be connected to explorations of social experience, social bodies, and place-based entities. Despite presenting a complex theoretical framework. Sassaman’s ability to clearly sign post the path his talk would take allowed me to follow along with his argument. I believe that, without this clarity, much of the nuance in the talk would have been difficult to connect to Sassaman’s larger arguments.
The structure of Sassaman’s second talk was easier to follow as it simply explored how Poverty Point, his Southeastern Gulf archaeological survey, and select excavated shell middens illustrated his previously presented theoretical perspective. He also attempted to illustrate the parallels between climate adaptations in these dynamic landscapes and the climate adaptations that await us in the present and near future. This allows for an acknowledgement of ingenious indigenous ways of knowing and being while promoting a longer-term perspectives towards current problems.
I found it interesting that Sassaman chose to split his lectures this way. Pragmatically, with each talk lasting about an hour, the amount of content might have been difficult to cover in a single manageable talk. However, I also feel as though each talk was pitched differently. Though each lecture aimed to illustrate the value of hunter-gatherer studies to modern climate challenges and public policy, one argued via theory while the other argued via practice. The first lecture was structured in a complex fashion that was aimed at challenging and stimulating those with an interest in theory. Meanwhile, the second, simply structured lecture, was aimed at satisfying those with a desire for data. The second talk could have been observed independently as it did not rely on any information disseminated in the first talk. However, for individuals present at both lectures, they were complementary with little repetition. This is some of the subtlest yet brilliant code switching I’ve seen. I found that Sassaman’s first talk excited me theoretically while his second was able to make me excited about his projects and the archaeology of the Southeast. In each case, the talk was pitched at slightly different, albeit not mutually exclusive, academic audiences.
Style
Though I found the structure and content of Sassaman’s talks to be phenomenal, I found the style of his first talk to be somewhat problematic. Sassaman’s first talk was read from a written script. After apologizing for the script, Sassaman noted that it was necessary to properly convey the complex theoretical journey of the talk. Since he was reading from the script, Sassaman was also very stationary for the talk. He stood, positioned behind a podium, glancing up towards the audience and over towards his slides periodically. He also spoke at a slower calculated speed that was focused on reading clearly rather than dynamically. This caused me to have to rewind the lecture a few times as I became distracted. I also found that many of the images associated with this lecture weren’t particularly necessary. Some images, like the maps and landscapes were helpful. However, others, like road signs, sunsets, clocks, and book covers felt like filler. The design of the slides was also uninspiring as most were simply photographs placed on slides without title or transition. Overall, I would have also liked to see a typed road-map at the beginning of the talk. Though Sassaman clearly laid out his talk in speech, it might have been nice to see a visual counterpart.
I preferred the style of Sassaman’s second talk. Here each of his slides consisted on an image accompanied by brief bullet points. When I create a presentation, I often worry that text on my slides is distracting. However, I found that, since Sassaman paraphrased each point before elaborating, the text was a benefit and not a hindrance. Furthermore, speaking directly to his slides allowed Sassaman to stand next to the projector and motion dynamically towards what he was addressing. His more conversational and varied tone was also more engaging. Though I noticed that the pace had increased noticeably from the first talk, I felt as though the tone and excitement it conveyed added to my engagement. Immediately, I felt as though there was more room for conversation (some members of the audience did interject) than there was when Sassaman read a script. In this script-less talk, I also felt as though Sassaman was more confident in his material as he was seemingly able to adapt his talk as the conversation progressed.
Conclusions
It was interesting to review two closely associated talks delivered by the same presenter. I found it fascinating how widely the style varied between the talks. I was left wondering if the content of a talk naturally necessitates different forms. Despite my critiques, I found that both forms worked. I found that the content and structure of both lectures was well planned and executed. I had never thought about how different forms of talks may benefit both the audience and the presenter. In this case I think audiences benefitted from differently structured arguments in each talk. Meanwhile, I feel as though Sassaman was able to work through new ideas more efficiently using his first format. Overall, these talks inspired me to think of my own research differently. If anything, Sassaman’s conviction that hunter-gatherer archaeology has a contribution to make to modern policy encouraged me to explore how my own elevator conversations might have a social “so-what?” factor.
References
Dr. Kenneth Sassaman’s talk “The Temporality of Ancient Experience, Archaeological Practice, and Modern Living in the Human Challenges of Global Climate Change”. Presented at the University of Colorado: January 24th 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYBa8dTc-w
Dr. Kenneth Sassaman’s talk “Futurescapes of the Late Archaic: How Humans Dealt with Sea-Level Rise in the Long Term”. Presented at the University of Colorado, January 25th 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hkwHj8KLHY
Hi Beatrice,
Your analyses of Sassmaman’s presentations was very interesting, comparing two different but related topics by the same professor and their juxtaposition to one another. The presentation style seems to be quite iconoclastic in “splitting” his presentation in this way. In your experience of archeological presentations, do you find that scholars focus primarily on theory or practice? For medical and socio-cultural anthropology, theory is a supplemental tool to analyse and ground our practice in the discipline. Is the same true in archaeology?
In lecture, we have previously discussed that some presenters embark on too ambitious of a journey at the outset of a presentation and fail to cover all the topics they set out to explain, do Sassaman’s combined lectures suffer from this problem? Do you think there were any substantive unique ideas in the two presentations mildly discussed that could have splintered off into a third presentation, or could they have been merged into a single presentation?
Cheers,
Chris
Hi Chris,
I have found that archaeological talks vary substantively. However, my favourite talks always foreground practice with their theoretical perspectives. However, I’d say, more often than not, that they focus on practice (methods, results, interpretations).
I actually think that Dr. Sassaman paced his talks very well. Though his first talk contained a lot of information, I think it was all relevant to understanding his perspective. The second presentation utilized quite a few examples. Obviously, those examples could be expanded into talks of their own. However, he carefully selected relevant elements of his examples. I would have even been happy to listen to both talks back to back had Dr. Sassaman’s demeanour when reading been able to match his more animated/engaging tone in the second presentation.
A nice review Beatrice. (And if you want “Time Theory”, I’ll be pushing my new co-edited book on you when it comes out in a few months!). It was a good idea to see someone present in different kinds of modes. Many of us do it. You can imagine that Ken has yet a different mode when in front of students or in front of a general audience. He is a pretty funny guy — was humour used at all in these talks?
There was basically no humour in the first presentation. However, the second presentation contained some humour. Here, a few off the cuff comments were slid in. I didn’t feel like the humour overpowered the presentation at all. It was very subtle. However, now that you’ve mentioned it, I think Dr. Sassaman’s humorous potential added to his approachable tone. Though I appreciate humour in a talk, I think it depends on the subject matter. Talking about climate change, I think Dr. Sassaman may have be aware of having an obligation to convey the severity of the topic matter.