1 BOARD OF THE FACULTY OF CLASSICS REPORT OF THE EXAMINERS FOR PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS IN CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND ANCIENT HISTORY Trinity Term 2013 UNRESERVED VERSION 2 A: STATISTICS AND GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Numbers of candidates in each class, 2013 I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 4 11 0 0 15 % 27% 73% 2. CAAH Moderations Results: 2002-2012 I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2002 1 13 14 7% 93% 2003 4 17 21 19% 81% 2004 1 13 1 15 7% 87% 7% 2005 4 15 3 22 18% 68% 14% 2006 3 14 2 19 16% 74% 11% 2007 2 12 4 18 11% 67% 22% 2008 1 17 4 22 5% 77% 18 2009 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2010 7 13 1 21 33% 62% 5% 2011 3 18 2 23 13% 78% 9% 2012 4 16 20 20% 80% 3 3. Classes by gender Female I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2 4 6 % 33% 67% Variance from overall +6% -6% percentage Male I II.1 II.2 III Pass Fail Total 2 7 9 % 22% 78% Variance from overall -5% +5% percentage 4. Examiners and Assessors The Examiners were: Dr PCN Stewart (Chair) Dr R Thomas Dr N Momigliano (External) 5. Overall level of performance The overall level of performance was somewhat better than in 2012, with the same number of 1sts from a smaller cohort, but given the small size of the programme the proportions are in line with past performance across the years. It was notable that there were no 2.2 results or lower. All of the examiners were aware of the risk of results bunching in the 2.1/low 1st range, but considered the marks genuinely to reflect consistently sound performance rather than caution on the part of the markers. There were instances of exceptionall high marks on individual papers and questions, although the examination process in its entirety has had a homogenizing effect. For more detailed discussion please see individual reports under Examiners’ Reports. 6. Administration It should be noted that in accordance with the change from Moderations to Prelims in 2013, the results should not have been classified as above, but rather as Pass/Fail results, with or without a 'Distinction' category. Although the issue was raised by one assessor during the process, no one involved in the administration of the process was aware that the change in classification scheme was required. This error had no practical consequences for marking, as the marking conventions under both systems 4 are consistent. Consequently the Junior Proctors agreed to allow the classified marks to stand for the 2013 examinations. Two others problems arose on the Roman Architecture paper, where an error had crept into one questions at an early stage of editing and was not spotted by the examiners (it had the effect of making the question impossibly restrictive), and similarly with meaningful formatting on the Cicero paper (see below). This raised the question of whether paper-setters should routinely be asked to check the final papers. Several of the other assessors queried the practice of examiners carrying out final edits of papers without necessarily consulting the setters, and this could be reviewed for next year. Otherwise no problems occurred with the papers. The Examiners are most grateful to Brooke Martin-Garbutt for help in preparing the papers and to Andrew Dixon for compiling the marks and for all his help during and after the examination. B. EXAMINERS’ REPORTS Reports on papers with fewer than five candidates have been removed for reasons of data protection. CORE PAPERS Aristocracy and democracy in the Greek World, 550-450 BC Overview: 15 candidates, 3 firsts (20%), no lower seconds or thirds. The cohort performed well overall: even relatively less good work was mostly sound and no one scored less overall than 65. A particular strength was that candidates frequently integrated archaeological and textual evidence in a sophisticated way, thereby demonstrating that the main objective of the integrated "core" class had been achieved. The spelling of foreign words or names was good this year (esp. e.g. no one mutilated kouroi or korai), with most minor mistakes probably due to nerves. Attention to spelling in the classes and in the non-assessed course on "Introduction to Greek" seems to be paying dividends. Qu.1: Picture / gobbet question. This was the first year in which the paper included a compulsory picture / gobbet question. All but two candidates chose to answer on two images and one text. The most popular images were i. (tyrannicides: twelve takers), and iii. (Serpent Column: twelve takers), while iv. ('Ionian' delegation from Persepolis) had only four takers, and no one was tempted by ii. (Connolly's reconstruction of Athens ca. 500 B.C.). Answers were mostly good, with the best making detailed observations and drawing points of wider significance from these as well as showing awareness of the wider context. All gobbets were attempted, but most opted for vi. (Hdt on Peisistratos' second tyranny: ten takers), or viii. (A.P. on ostracism), while only one candidate attempted v. (Xenophanes on the value of athletic winners), or vii. (Hdt on Datis at Delos). The reduced popularity of the texts, and the fact that gobbet technique was generally unrefined, indicate that candidates need much more instruction and practice in answering this question, even though the Course Handbook includes very clear guidelines. 5 Essay questions. Of the essay questions the most popular were 2. (tyrants: ten takers), 3. (symposion: ten takers), 6. (Sparta: seven takers), and 8 (coinage: nine takers). No other question attracted more than four answers, and no one answered on 7 (Spartan basileis), 10 (epigraphy), 12 (Magna Graecia), 13 (ordinary men / women) or 14 (writing history from an archaeological rather than textual viewpoint). We report on the four most popular questions as follows: In Qu 2 the better answers brought in a wide range of tyrants from across the Greek world (including several who had not been discussed in the classes and had therefore been researched through reading around the paper) and included relevant detail (e.g. dates). They also examined the question from both sides (tyrants making their communities / being made by them) and brought out difficulties of interpretation (esp. e.g. the extent to which particular monumental buildings may be associated with particular tyrants) before reaching a nuanced conclusion. In Qu 3 better answers examined all three elements of the question (textual, iconographical, and archaeological evidence for the symposion) using a thematic structure before attempting a synthesis, or concluding that the impressions offered by each strand were different. When handling the evidence they also showed detailed knowledge (e.g. citing images from specific pots) and critical awareness of the different geographical and chronological contexts of the texts, pots, or putative andrones referred to. All candidates needed to do more to bring out this aspect, especially with regard to the iconographic evidence and its Athenocentric nature, or the fact that large numbers of intact sympotic pots were recovered from contexts in Etruria (and the implications which could follow from this), or with regard to absences of evidence. In Qu 6 assessors liked answers that brought a wide range of evidence to bear, used this critically, and avoided basic mistakes (e.g. some candidates thought that the ancient tradition about Spartan money was that it was made of lead rather than iron, or that Sparta had been walled in the fourth century B.C.). Candidates were less good at thinking through the complexities of "Sparta", esp. e.g. who it was in Sparta who made the material evidence, and for what / whom. In Qu 8 candidates needed to read the question carefully and note that it was not about the origins or early history of Greek coinage, but directed at the developmental processes that its emergence illustrates. Better answers showed how coinage reflected a number of interesting developmental changes, and used an impressive array of evidence to support their answers. Republic to Empire: Rome, 50 BC to AD 50 There were 15 candidates. The agreed marks resulted in: two firsts (in the lower 70s), twelve 2.1s (across the range of the 60s), and one 2.2. There was a little clustering of (three) candidates at the very top of the 2.1 band, which acurately reflects the level of performance of the candidates. The overall mark profile reflects the fact that candidates were consistently highly competent and well prepared, if not generally very adventurous in the development of ideas and and arguments. Nevertheless, performance across the paper was very satisfactory. As with the Greek Core Course (Aristocracy and Democracy, above), this was the first year of the compulsory picture/gobbet question. The candidates 6 seemed well prepared and there were no indications of the exercise causing significant problems. The treatment of the texts, however, did suggest a lack of awareness of the context (i.e. the kind of text in question), which let down some of the answers to 1. vi (Piso SC), vii (Tacitus), and viii (Petronius). By far the most popular pictures/gobbets chosen were 1.iii (cuirass of Prima Porta statue) and v. (Cicero), with 13 and 11 takers respectively. Attention was more or less evenly given to most of the the others, although 1.ii (Farnesina) was unpopular and no one answered on 1.i (relief of the Gessii). The most popular essay questions were 4. (How strategic was Roman expansion... 10 takers) and 10. (on defining villas; 9 takers), while 5. (religion and the emperor's political position) was also liked.