ARCO3012: The Archaeology of South Italy

Work not of an acceptable standard.

Work may fail for any or all of the following reasons: lack of sufficient research using appropriate sources; irrelevance of content; failure to answer the specific question or treat the specified theme; wholesale lack of analysis or interpretation; unacceptable levels of paraphrasing; direct copying of work from other students or sources; presentation, grammar or structure so poor that work cannot be understood; partial or incomplete work; very late submission without an extension; non-submission.

Work of an acceptable standard.

Written work contains evidence of minimal reading and some understanding of subject matter, offers descriptive summary of case-studies and material relevant to the question, but may have a tendency to paraphrase; makes a reasonable attempt to organise material logically and comprehensibly and to provide scholarly documentation but demonstrates little initiative in research and/or over-reliance on internet searches. Demonstrates rudimentary awareness of the nature and complexity of archaeological data, methodologies and interpretation. Language is clear and bibliography is adequate but limited; possibly some errors of form or style. There may be gaps in any or all of these areas.

Work of a satisfactory standard.

Competent written work, with broad and reasonably accurate command of the subject matter and some sense of its broader significance; clearly understands the question. Case studies will be relevant, and used critically to support core argumentation. Offers synthesis and some evaluation of material, demonstrates an effort to go beyond the essential reading, although still reliant on basic search skills; bibliography may perhaps remain shallow or undeveloped. Clear essay structure with a coherent argument and consistent focus on the principal issues. Articulate, properly documented, with room for improvement in matters of style and/or grammar and punctuation. Demonstrates understanding of relevant scholarship and diverse interpretations, with a solid awareness of archaeological context and complexities.
There may be some weaknesses of clarity or structure.

Competent work, demonstrating potential to complete Honours work, though further development needed to do so successfully.

Written work that engages with the question effectively, with a clear essay structure of the essay that builds and reinforces a critical argument, using an appropriate range of vocabulary. Case studies employed effectively to critically and consistently reinforce an argument. Offers synthesis and critical evaluation of material on its own terms, and takes a position in relation to various interpretations. In addition, it shows some extra spark of insight or analysis. Well written and documented with appropriate use of citations and evidence of comprehensive reading; has a strong bibliography that expands well beyond the recommended readings and is only minimally reliant on internet searches. Demonstrates understanding of broad archaeological context and methodologies, good selection of evidence, coherent and sustainable argument, some evidence of independent thought, grasp of relevant archaeological theory and debate.

Highly competent work, demonstrating clear capacity to complete Honours successfully.

Engages critically and creatively with the question, with evidence of research-initiative and extensive reading; solid grasp of subject matter and appreciation of key issues and context. Use of case studies will be extensive, with evidence employed effectively in support of key arguments. Has a strong essay structure that reinforces central arguments consistently; concluding paragraph employed deftly to drive these points home. Attempts an analytical evaluation of material, with solid understanding of the complexity of archaeological data, methodologies and interpretation. Use of relevant literature demonstrates some intellectual independence and an ability to weigh up different interpretations, perhaps drawing on ideas from outside the course. Makes a good attempt to critique alternate archaeological interpretations or issues of context, and offers a pointed and thoughtful contribution to an existing archaeological debate. Some evidence of ability to think theoretically as well as empirically, and to conceptualise and problematise issues in archaeological terms. Concisely and articulately written, with few errors of form or style. All sources for evidence, arguments, or interpretation cited appropriately, with a strong and consistent bibliography that extends well beyond the initial readings.

Work of a superior standard.

A sharply-focussed answer that engages with many implications of the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. Case studies will relate clearly to the question, and employed persuasively to demonstrate key points or arguments. A considerable degree of independent thought is demonstrated, and a strong understanding of the nature and complexity of archaeological data, methodologies and interpretation. Clear outline of issues and method of approach; differing arguments are presented critically, with a strong understanding of the material and vocabulary. The assignment concludes with a synthesis rather than a summary, showing some independence of view. Lucid writing characterised by style, clarity and creativity, with rare errors of form or style. Fully and consistently documented, with rare errors in referencing style or omissions. Referencing demonstrates: initiative in research; engagement with pivotal and current academic publications on the topic; and the ability to pursue archaeological debate across several sources. Makes good comparisons between different interpretations, linking these clearly to the data or issues of context, theory and/or method. ‘Gets behind’ the evidence to engage with underlying issues of archaeological context, processes, and/or biases in the evidence. Takes an interrogative stance in relation to assumptions, argument and interpretation, shows critical understanding of the principles and values underlying the unit.

Work of exceptional standard.

An authoritative and highly effective response that engages with the full implications of the question. The issues and methodology are set out clearly, critical arguments are exceptionally well-developed, and there is a clear and complete understanding of the material and terminology. Written work demonstrates initiative and ingenuity in research and reading, pointed and critical analysis of subject matter, innovative interpretation of evidence, and makes an insightful contribution to current debate. Persuasive use of case studies to drive home arguments, and unpack or challenge issues of archaeological context and interpretation. A considerable degree of independent thought and interpretation is demonstrated, as is an understanding of the full nature and complexity of archaeological data, methodologies and interpretation. Evidence is provided of wide-ranging and insightful use of relevant literature, with demonstrated ability to widen the scope of research in pursuit of specific evidence or debate. The conclusion expresses the candidates independent judgment in a mature way; writing will be scholarly and elegant. Expression is efficient and lucid, without unnecessary complication. Faultless presentation of citations and bibliography; judicious use of academic conventions.