Download Ancient Civilisations

T
A S
M A
C E R T I
TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY
O F
N I
F I
A N
C A T E
E D U C A T I O N
Ancient Civilisations
Subject Code: ANC5C
2005 External Examination Report
In the first year of a new external assessment format, the two-hour written paper produced some
very fine responses. Overall, examiners felt there was an improvement in the standard of essays,
an improvement attributed to the requirement to prepare for only two essays rather than the
previous requirement of three essays. Essays generally seemed a little longer, a little better
prepared and with far fewer weak responses than in previous years. This latter observation,
while in part due to the need to only write two examination essays, may also be because weaker
candidates had already been excluded from the assessment process by failing to submit an
Independent Study. Either way, there was a pleasing improvement in the overall quality of the
written examination paper.
With a total of 18 questions on the examination paper, candidates elected to answer any given
question with reference to any one or two of the three examinable civilisations of Egypt, Greece
or Rome, so in fact there were many more options than 18. As a result, the number of responses
ranged from one (questions 9 and 13) to 107 (question 16).
The biggest single failing in answers was, as always, the failure to answer the question.
Examiners noted far too many instances of what appeared to be semi-prepared answers being
forced to fit an unsuitable question. Sometimes candidates were able to accomplish this task
successfully, but many seemed ill-equipped to use the material they knew to respond to an
unexpectedly worded question. In the worst instances, candidates just went ahead and wrote the
answer to the question they were prepared for rather than the one actually asked: sometimes this
worked, but generally it didn’t.
Generally noted was a widespread inability to spell common terminology and names correctly.
Whilst certain variation is to be expected in transliterating from ancient languages (such as
Pericles or Perikles, Iulius or Julius, Amenhotep or Amenophis, for example), there are certain
acceptable alternatives and many more that were not acceptable. Similarly, there were problems
in dealing with terminology in the original language, usually indicative of a lack of thorough
preparation or of memory lapses. In a few instances, particularly in the Egyptian answers, some
candidates resorted to inventing words that looked Egyptian but were in fact fabrications.
Candidates are reminded that examiners are generally able to identify such inventions and do
not take kindly to attempts to fool them!
Sources also proved problematic for many candidates. Criterion 9 specifically requires ‘a
variety of primary and secondary sources’. In a few cases, such variety is difficult to come by,
and allowance is made by examiners for those situations, but in most cases such a variety is
available and candidates are expected to be able to make use of a variety of sources in support of
their contentions.
The element in this criterion of ‘an ability to analyse critically’ was also difficult for many.
Starting a sentence by saying something like ‘the sources disagree’ does not in itself amount to
a critical analysis: a further discussion is required to fulfil the requirements of this criterion.
Question 1
There were some fine answers to this question, particularly with reference to Egyptian art, but
many candidates were vague in their discussion and far too often, in answers from both Egypt
and Greece (there were no Roman answers, not surprisingly), there was little reference to
primary source material. Specific art terminology and concepts (the Orders in Greek
2005 External Examination Report
Ancient Civilisations
2
Subject Code: ANC5C
architecture, Canon of Proportions and etc in Egyptian art) were often overlooked until the final
paragraph and hence given insufficient attention.
Question 2
(a)
There were some very well-prepared answers to this question, with most candidates
scoring in the B to A range on all criteria except 9. Most showed a clear understanding of
the chosen texts.
(b)
Responses to this question about Egyptian writing covered the full range of awards. There
was some confusion about the uses of hieratic and, particularly, demotic, with many
candidates simplistically suggesting that hieratic was only used for things that weren’t
meant to last, like laundry lists, as opposed to hieroglyphics which were for eternity. As
happens far too often, the oversimplification meant that candidates had difficulty
accounting for the use of hieratic in coffin texts and, in particular, the so-called Book of
the Dead.
Question 3
2 answers.
Question 4
Answers were generally well-prepared and all were able to discuss the purpose of drama in
ancient Greek society effectively. Weaker answers resorted to too much plot retelling; better
answers were able to discuss texts as a means of social criticism.
Question 5
Most answers dealt with the quoted statement in the question effectively by discussing its
relevance to ancient Greece. Weaker answers again resorted to retelling myths and legends
rather than placing the myths and legends in the context of the society.
Question 6
There were many strong answers to this question from both Greece and Rome, and the general
standard of the responses was very good. Most candidates remained objective in their analysis
but a recurring weakness in weaker answers was the overuse of secondary sources to the partial
exclusion of the text itself.
Question 7
There were 27 responses to this question, most of them from Egypt. Generally the question was
well-answered, but a major weakness was a tendency to generalise without supporting evidence.
There is a wealth of primary textual material from Egypt in the so-called Wisdom Literature
texts available, but these were rarely referred to. Roman and Greek answers were generally
weaker than the Egyptian ones, with a lack of sources again a major problem. Too many
2005 External Examination Report
Ancient Civilisations
3
Subject Code: ANC5C
candidates were unable to provide support for their general comments from sources from either
Athens, Sparta or Rome.
Question 8
This was the second most popular question. On the whole the Egyptian answers were wellprepared, made excellent use of sources and terminology and dealt with the question effectively.
There was some confusion in details, such as the difference between a will and a ‘house
document’ in ancient Egypt (both being used well as primary source material for women’s legal
equality), and between a Queen Regent and a Queen Regnant, but generally candidates had a
strong grasp of the topic. Comparable results were obtained by candidates answering from both
Greece and Rome. There was some evidence of rote learning in a number of Greek responses,
although the only real downside of this is what looks like an original comment in one essay
turns out to be unoriginal when the same comment occurs in a number of other essays.
Question 9
1 answer.
Question 10
Many of the Greek responses lacked detail and made inadequate use of the wide range of
sources available. There was a lack of use of basic terminology such as kyrios and oikos and
even a lack of knowledge of the different responsibilities of the father and the mother in the
Greek family. Egyptian responses were generally better than the Greek ones, but Roman
responses again showed an inability to answer the question fully.
Question 11
Greek responses tended to rely on narrative too much and avoided the question of how effective
the government was in meeting crises. The best showed a thorough understanding the
development of different political structures over time (monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny,
democracy).
Roman responses were generally of a very high standard, with a majority of candidates
achieving a B+ or better. Generally sources were well used, and terminology was extensive,
although there were some spelling problems in Latin. Most candidates were able to discuss the
Roman government and its structures effectively and most were able to use the limited primary
sources which are available effectively.
Question 12
Stronger Greek answers were able to address all parts of the question well, and realised that the
wording ‘a government’ didn’t mean ‘one government’ but the concept of a government.
Weaker responses detailed a series of military incidents and avoided looking for links between
the government and the military.
2005 External Examination Report
Ancient Civilisations
4
Subject Code: ANC5C
With only two exceptions, most of the candidates answering this question from Rome failed to
understand the purpose of the question and, in particular, found no connection between
government and military.
Question 13
1 answer.
Question 14
The answers were, with one exception, average to poor. There was little understanding
demonstrated of the context of trade and economy in ancient Egypt, and most candidates
ignored the second part of the question completely.
Question 15
Roman answers were generally strong, although many concentrated on the first part of the
question and dealt less effectively with the other two parts. Sources were generally well used,
and most had a strong grasp of the connection between religion and its society.
Egyptian responses were less effective, mainly because, although they were able to discuss the
relationship of religion and society, they were less able to discuss the first-part of the question
and had little knowledge of the nature of deities.
Greek responses were mostly sound, with two essays showing extensive understanding of the
topic. Weaker answers made no mention of individual deities at all.
Question 16
The most popular question.
This question allowed good candidates to produce a great deal of information on beliefs and
practices and the results were very pleasing. Most dealt with beliefs such as the Osirian views of
the Afterlife and the Field of Reeds, and almost everyone had something to say about
mummification. Better answers linked mummification to the Osiris legend and thus could
explain the context of dryt mourners, Canopic jars and other aspects of the burial procedure
effectively. Weaker answers just outlined the mummification process.
Question 17
2 answers.
2005 External Examination Report
Ancient Civilisations
5
Subject Code: ANC5C
Question 18
Answers generally demonstrated a reasonable to exemplary knowledge of diseases and cures
(particularly Egyptian), but were far less effective in dealing with the last part of the question.
An analysis of what medical practices and health reveal about an ancient society requires a little
more than the ‘dumb Egyptians’ response of one candidate.
Independent Study
Given that this was the first year that candidates were required to submit an Independent Study
for external assessment of ANC5C, the Independent Studies were of a generally good quality.
Most abided by the guidelines and most were of an appropriate length. About 60% of
personalities reported on were from Egypt with the rest divided roughly equally between Greece
and Rome. Some personalities were clearly favoured over others, with many candidates
choosing female personalities for what were often stated as personal reasons. This led to a huge
majority of Egyptian responses on Hatshepsut and Nefertiti, although a similar gender bias was
not the case with Greece and Rome – probably because of the perceived lack of source material
on Olympias and Julia.
Many of those Hatshepsut and Nefertiti responses were very thorough and revealed
considerable insight into the personalities involved. However, a significant minority of
responses on Nefertiti revealed candidates who had been seduced by the plethora of web-sites
taking a ‘new age’ attitude to Nefertiti and the Amarna period and thereby missed the chance to
produce an historically valid response to Nefertiti’s life and achievements. Those candidates
who used a report structure rather than a formal essay structure seemed, overall, to fare better,
and to have an easier time of organising their material into a logical sequence.
In a great majority of cases, better proof-reading would have benefited the report. A degree of
haste in writing seems to have been apparent among those who, presumably, were close to the
deadline, and these in particular made some basic errors which should have been picked up in
proof-reading. Teachers are strongly urged to pursue effective proof-reading with candidates.
Criterion 6
As with all the criteria, there were many instances of candidates who seem not to have been
aware of the requirements stated in the Criterion Descriptor. Descriptors such as ‘demonstrate
sound understanding of a range of issues, discuss differing view points and exhibit some
understanding of the implications’ provide clear guidance to candidates as to what is expected
for a ‘C’ rating, but many failed to discuss a range of issues, failed to discuss differing view
points and failed to indicate an understanding of implications. Too many slavishly followed a
limited number of sources, often only from the internet, and entirely missed the fact that, for all
three civilisations, much published information is conjecture rather than fact.
Criterion 7
There is less opportunity, perhaps, in an Independent Study of a personality than there is in an
examination question to reveal a knowledge of appropriate terminology, whether in English or in
the original language. However, candidates frequently seemed to ignore this criterion completely
and so missed many opportunities to fulfil this criterion. Some candidates writing about
Egyptian personalities, for example, seemed confused as to whether ma’at or Ma’at was the
concept of truth and justice or the goddess embodying truth and justice or a combination of
2005 External Examination Report
Ancient Civilisations
6
Subject Code: ANC5C
both. This inability to distinguish clearly between different usages was problematic for some,
and yet is basic to an understanding of Egyptian life.
Criterion 8
This criterion’s requirements were not generally handled well. Many candidates were able to
explain to some extent the significance of the personality they had studied, but some had
difficulty in placing the personality in their context. Too many tried to place Nefertiti, for
example, in the pantheon of feminists rather than in the age in which she actually lived.
Sweeping statements about Nefertiti’s inspirational example to future generations of women
seem to miss the fact that her name and achievements largely disappeared from human
knowledge for over 3,000 years! This lack of basic contextual knowledge hindered many
responses from being fully effective. The Descriptor for a ‘C’ rating for this criterion includes
the words ‘demonstrate sound knowledge and clear understanding of a significant aspect of an
ancient civilisation’: far too often there was no attempt at all to provide such information, but
merely to provide a biographical account of the personality’s life.
Criterion 9
A few candidates were clearly widely read, had consulted a range of scholarly works and were
aware of the limitations of some web-sites, and these candidates were able to do well on this
criterion. Others relied heavily, sometimes exclusively, on web-sites, many of which were of
dubious value at best. Some candidates produced a long list of References and/or Appendices
without actually referring to those sources in their report. There were also some answers which
came very close to plagiarism – teachers are asked to ensure that candidates understand that a
simple footnote reference at the end of a long paragraph restating, at best, an author’s views and
sometimes, at worst, very close to quoting without quotation marks , is bordering on plagiarism
and must be strongly discouraged. Two particular web-sites – ‘neferchichi’ and ‘touregypt’ seem to have been particularly prone to this treatment and both should be treated with great
caution. Teachers and candidates are urged to give close attention to the TQA’s published
instructions regarding referencing and plagiarism.
Criterion 10
The particular relevance of this criterion in the assessment of the Independent Studies was to
provide an historical and social context for the personality being studied. Where candidates
were able to place their personality within the context of his or her times, some very effective
answers were produced. Seeing Julia as a product of changing values and standards in the early
Empire, or seeing Nefertiti as a leader in the religious and social revolution that was the Amarna
period in Egypt, for example, produced some effective historical insights. Others, however, tried
to insist that Hatshepsut blazed a path for other women to assume paramount power in Egypt, a
concept which is clearly wrong. The enthusiasm which some candidates seem to have developed
for the personality they were studying is touching, but often led to some gross historical
distortions: a case of what they would like to have happened rather than what actually did
happen.
All correspondence should be addressed to:
Tasmanian Qualifications Authority
PO Box 147, Sandy Bay 7006
Ph: (03) 6233 6364 Fax: (03) 6224 0175
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au
2005 External Examination Report