سهر غوت

(1) Week 1 was entirely too hard for a beginner. That week and throughout the course, he introduced terms and did not define them. And, wow, in Week 7, when he got into mathematical formulas and had these symbols I had never seen before, I could not follow it at all. Two terms he used frequently were azimuth and declination. I didn't even know what azimuth meant until Week 7 when I decided to look it up on the Internet. If I had known earlier, some things might have made more sense. I looked up declination but couldn't figure out what it was, even with the definition.

(2) The tests were a joke! I have taught social studies classes, grades 7-12, for 25 years and taught Earth Science at a university for 4 years. I know how to create a good test of the material I wanted my students to know. These course tests seemed to pick out the most obscure part of the lesson, not the important points. And you never did find out the right answer if you missed one.

(3) I'm sorry, but he was difficult to understand. I'd read the transcript first and then watch the video with captions, but his inflection and mispronunciation still made it difficult to follow.

(4) I did like the photographs and the way it looked like he was actually standing at the sites. That was cool.

I have taken several online courses through Coursera and other places, but I did not enjoy this one at all. I had an in-person 3-day workshop on Archeoastronomy years ago at Kampsville, Illinois, and really liked it, so I was looking forward to this course. But it did not live up to my expectations.

Valoro sobre todo, el esfuerzo del curso en mostrar la importancia que le daban los antiguos a las "cosas del cielo" y su estrecha relaciòn con la arquitectura. Pero creo que el curso profundiza poco en el análisis de cada una y en como se utilizan las modernas herramientas, tanto de campo como informáticas para llegar a las conclusiones que establece. Un ejemplo seria el software Stellarium que es una maravilla, es gratuito y puede transformarse en una herramienta de enorme ayuda para la disciplina. Lo digo por que actualmente estoy haciendo una investigación de la meseta de Giza y lo utilizo a diario, así como otros programas que aceleran los procesos de deducción sobre los datos de campo.

Very interesting information. I am going to pursue this field and it was good to learn first hand what to expect. However, I found both the Speaker and viewpoint very biased. There comes a time when the world has to realize that People of Color belong in it. In history, and in the beginning of time. Sorry, we did not just evolve when Europeans enslaved us. And our names were not Toby or slaves. This is something that was done to us, not who we are or ever were. We were and continue to be of a highly race of people, damaged and trodded upon by European thinking. Especially, its constant need to write us out of history. Therefore, this very informative class suffered two stars.

Nice lecture but your obsession regarding so-called "pseudo" science ruins it. I have visited almost all the sites you were talking about personally (Egypt, Peru, Bolivia, Cambodia...) and I have to say that, in many cases, official archeology cannot hold water.

Archeology itself is very inaccurate science especially when looking at ancient civilizations. It is creating theories that usually cannot be properly proved or are backed up by inexact and misinterpreted radiocarbon dating.

I hope that archaeoastronomy will help archaeologists to open their minds and change their views on history, namely the dating of stone monuments.

Mixed review. General impression; think of it as touring very popular touristic sites with a well-paid professor providing more in-depth knowledge than the typical, local less well-paid tour guide. Positives: high quality visuals, short duration, useful information for trip planning, no multiple choice answers (which is very handy for the extremely difficult quiz on week 7). Negatives: bad enunciation of words ending in "ed", questionable audio quality, uneven content between weeks (week 7 is unnecessary and extremely diff

This course has amazing information in the lectures, but it is difficult in the video lectures to pick out what bits of information are going to be relevant in the quizzes, you will have to re-take quizzes a number of times, no matter how well you are taking notes. Also the very last section is entirely made of a rushed-maths lesson, and a quiz based on that rushed maths lesson that is VERY difficult. I would highly recommend this for anyone who already knows basic Astronomy Math, and caution anyone who doesn't.

I initially really enjoyed this class. I just feel that the last week felt tacked out. The same care was not given to it that was given to the other ones when it came to lectures et al. And talking about the moon and venus, I feel this could have been handled in similar ways to the other sections of the course to make it palpable, a visceral experience of the information instead of just bleating back info from articles.

Difficult for a beginner, but still very interesting. There needs to be a glossary of terms and definitions used in the course. This would make it easier to understand many of the formulas. The mathematical formulas in module 7 are too complex for this course and they did not seem relevant to the material and the exam, unless you are a true math geek. ( Just my opinion.)

The content was really good,especially unraveling the astronomical connection behind monumental architecture around the world. However, as a layperson the astronomy part was difficult to understand. So you will have to go through that part multiple times. I even enlisted the help of an astronomy enthusiast to further break things down for me.

The material is very interesting, I enjoyed learning about alignments and monuments through videos and lectures. However, Week 7 introduced a number of mathematical concepts which could have been taught and integrated into videos in the previous weeks. The quizzes were also very hard and required doing research on my own.

The information was really cool, but I had a hard time understanding the professor at points. I used subtitles most of the time, but then when week 7 hit there were no more videos, and I think it would have been more beneficial to have videos in that week to talk about the mathematical concepts in the readings.

Somewhat superficial. I know I am not versed on this subject but it was taught as an overview with very difficult quiz questions not covered in the lectures. It was very difficult without the book but I didn't want to spend the money and time because I am just interested.

Very interesting information about the connection between ancient monuments and the alignment with astronomical constellations. The instructor had a very heavy accent and was difficult to understand, however he seemed very well versed in Archaeoastronomy.

Bastante interesante el curso, sin embargo en el cuestionario final me parecio algo confuso debido a que mis nociones de astronomia (equinoccios, solsticios, azimuts, etc) no son algo que maneje con soltura

Should be a fascinating subject. Ancient peoples knew a lot about the stars and placed structures so as to observe them in various ways. Instructor has an extremely strong accent. Almost need subtitles.

A good course but I needed a better understanding of the basic astronomy before starting, the archaeology sections by comparison were easy so and could have been more complex

Week 7 is not up to par to the rest of the course. Some of the questions on the tests are never addressed the course

Found it difficult due to pronunciation of English with a strong Italian accent

Very interesting and enjoyable although some parts were difficult to understand.

interesting course but you cant do the tests if you didnt pay money (any tasts)

the videos are great but there is A LOT of self-guided reading at the end.

More material , little fun was 2 things which was missing.

very astronomic, little anthropological

Only the Western culture has been taken more into account. I guess it should be more diverse. Also, the scientific foundation has only been included in the reading section. It should be taught properly. Overall, the course just includes explanations of all the possible Western architecture. That's it. It's the only reason it got boring.