SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

2021/22

Autumn Semester

CLAR2006

EXTENDED SOURCE STUDY

20 Credits

Convener:
Professor Mark Bradley (mark.bradley@nottingham.ac.uk) [MB]

Worksheet leaders:

Dr Lynn Fotheringham (lynn.fotheringham@nottingham.ac.uk) [LF]

Dr Theodora Jim (theodora.jim@nottingham.ac.uk) [TJ]
Dr Chris King (chris.king@nottingham.ac.uk) [CK]
Dr Emily Kneebone (emily.kneebone@nottingham.ac.uk) [EK]
 MODULE BOOKLET
2021/22

CONTENTS
1. Module aims, content, and role 3

2. Module objectives 3

3. Schedule and Study Methods 3

4. Assessment 6

5. Worksheets 8

6. Faculty Assessment Criteria 10

7. School of Humanities Academic Misconduct Information 15

8. Presentation Handout template 16

9. Essay checklist 17

Important Notes

Please note that the information contained in this booklet is provisional. The continuing
situation with Covid-19 means that changes may be required at short notice in order to respond
to local, national or global developments and regulations in relation to the pandemic. Students
will be informed of any such changes via the Department, School or University as appropriate. It
is your responsibility to make sure that you are aware of such changes by checking your
individual timetable and University e-mail account regularly, as also the Moodle page for this
module.

This booklet does not repeat information given in the Undergraduate Student Handbook and
the Undergraduate Assessment Handbook (available on the Department Community page on
Moodle). Everything in those handbooks, so far as it is relevant to this module, should be
deemed to form part of this booklet, unless explicitly superseded below.

2
1. MODULE AIMS, CONTENT, AND ROLE

The module is available only to students in the Department of Classics and Archaeology.

This module is designed to develop your skills of research, analysis and written presentation as
preparation for your third-year dissertation. You will choose one of five specified ancient
sources for detailed study, after introductory sessions on each of them. As well as giving a
presentation on one aspect of the source, you will then write a 3,500-4,000 word essay. This
aims to provide a stepping-stone between the process of writing an essay in conjunction with
lectures and seminars, and the process of designing a completely independent project as you
will do for your third-year dissertation.

2. MODULE OBJECTIVES

On successful completion of this module, you should have:

i) increased your understanding of how to approach and use primary evidence
relevant to Classics and Archaeology
ii) acquired detailed knowledge of a specific topic in the study of Classics and
Archaeology
iii) improved your ability to work independently with primary evidence while giving due
weight to the arguments of others
iv) enhanced your capacity to understand complex ideas and relate them to specific
problems or questions, construct a coherent argument substantiated by relevant
evidence, and communicate effectively in writing
v) begun to develop intellectual independence by taking responsibility for the
directions in which you want to develop your study
vi) improved your ability to organise and manage working time, including scheduling
tasks and meeting deadlines
vii) taken responsibility for your own learning, reflected upon and assessed your own
progress, strengths and weaknesses.

3. SCHEDULE AND STUDY METHODS

The module is delivered through a combination of pre-recorded lectures, real-time online

follow-up sessions (‘lecture engagement activities’), face-to-face seminars, and independent
study.

3
 Week Asynchronous content made Monday 13.00-14.00 (lecture engagement, on Teams) Thursdays 11.00-12.00 (lecture engagement, on
starting… available (by Thursday evening) Teams)
11.00-13.00 Seminars, in person (various locations)
27 Sept Intro to module [MB] INDUCTION WEEK
Intro to worksheet 1 [EK]
Intro to worksheet 2 [LF]
4 Oct Intro to worksheet 3 [TJ] General Q&A about module structure Activities for worksheets 1-2 [EK, LF]
Intro to worksheet 4 [MB]
Intro to worksheet 5 [CK]
11 Oct Approaching Greek drama [EK] Activities for worksheets 3-4 [TJ, MB] Activity for worksheet 5 [CK]
Approaching classical rhetoric [LF]
18 Oct Approaching Greek history [TJ] Worksheet Selection Activities for Approaching… lectures 1-2 [EK, LF]
Approaching Roman time [MB]
Approaching historic architecture
[CK]
25 Oct Activities for Approaching… lectures 3-4 [TJ, MB] Activity for ‘Approaching early modern castles’
lecture
1 Nov Seminar 1 (context and scholarship)
8 Nov DIRECTED STUDIES WEEK

15 Nov Material for referencing clinic [MB] Seminar 2 (presentations 1-5)

22 Nov Referencing clinic (MB) Seminar 3 (presentations 6-10)
29 Nov Sample past essays [MB] Seminar 4 (presentations 11-15)
6 Dec Marking sample essays from past years [MB] Wrap-up activity with your seminar leader
13 Dec General drop-in consultation session
There are effectively four phases to the module:
1) In the first fortnight of the module you will be introduced, by pre-recorded videos and
follow-up online discussions, to the five case studies, each of which has a worksheet.
2) The second fortnight is mainly occupied with lectures of general interest + follow-up
activities, giving a broader perspective on interpreting the range of sources we use and
the themes they evidence.
3) By Monday 18 October you will be able to express your preferences for which
worksheet to study. The convener will allocate people so that as many preferences are
satisfied as possible, though do be aware that mathematically it is unlikely that
everyone can get their top pick. You should not, therefore, find one topic that interests
you and ignore all the others: you need to engage with each worksheet from early in the
module, so that you can make a reasoned list of preferences. The allocations will then
lead on to four seminars after reading week, on which more below.
4) Towards the end of the module, the convener will run some more skills-based sessions
to support the process of writing up the essay.

Seminars will be held in the following rooms, and all take place simultaneously on Thursdays at
11.00-13.00 (two hours):

Mark Bradley’s group Humanities A2

Lynn Fotheringham’s group Law and Social Sciences C102
Theodora Jim’s group Humanities A21
Chris King’s group Trent C5
Emily Kneebone’s group Humanities A3

After being allocated to a group, you will have four seminars with it. The first seminar will
consist of a more in-depth overview of the source, based on some preparatory reading. You will
be allocated a presentation topic. Each of the remaining seminars will be based on up to five
assessed presentations of 10 minutes each, so that each student has the opportunity to present
once during the semester; presentations will be followed by general discussion on the content
of the questions addressed. This is not only about developing your presentation skills: learning
from each other’s presentations is a fundamental means to acquire a sense of all the different
perspectives one can take on the source in your case-study. It is therefore crucial that you
prepare for and participate in seminars even where you are not being assessed yourself.

If you have a study plan which gives you specific dispensation from presentations: the convener
will check for information about this. However, experience suggests that, if you are willing to,
double-checking by email that I have up-to-date information is a good idea. We can then
explore possible alternative assessment patterns.

Attendance at seminars will be registered. If you have good reason to miss one completely or to
attend online, it is your responsibility to inform the convener and (if different) the relevant
teacher of this reason by e-mail, and before the class in question if at all possible. Any student
who fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for absences will be asked for such an
explanation, and if one is not forthcoming, may be asked to attend a meeting with the personal
tutor or senior tutor. These communications will be sent to your University e-mail account. It is
your responsibility to check your University e-mail regularly.

An essential part of learning for this module is time devoted to independent reading. The
worksheets will include suggestions for further reading, which you are expected to follow up. In
terms of time allocation, it is appropriate to devote 10-12 hours per week to a one-semester
20-credit module. Some of these will be timetabled, of course, but the majority should be self-
directed work, such as preparatory reading for seminars, making notes and reflecting on what
you have been reading, exploring comparable ancient sources that interest you, and so on.

Further tips for getting the most out of this module:

 Do not leave your essay or presentation until the last minute.
 Take advantage of the opportunities offered for feedback and support in the seminars
and consultation sessions, and approach the seminars with a view to helping your peers
and being helped in turn.
 Engage with all the lectures, even if you don’t think they will directly touch on material
that you will be discussing in your essay: they will all be about methods for interpreting
ancient sources in detail, and these methods generally transfer across sources of all
sorts.
 Try to identify problem areas early and don’t be afraid to ask others for advice.
 This module is a great opportunity to look out for ideas which could be the basis for a
dissertation.

4. ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed as follows:

(i) A 10-minute presentation on an aspect or section of the case-study (15%).
(ii) An Extended Source Study of 3,500-4,000 words (85%).

4.1 The presentation

As explained in §3, you will be allocated a presentation topic soon after you are allocated to a
particular worksheet. You will also be informed at the same time about the date and location of
the seminar in which you are expected to present to the rest of your group.

For your presentation, you should produce a short handout, which includes a bibliography with
any primary or modern references that are relevant to your presentation. A template that you
can use for your handout is provided in this module booklet (section 8 below). You should
submit your handout to the relevant Turnitin submission folder on Moodle prior to your
presentation. Feedback on your presentation, and any details of the handout (including
referencing), will be provided on this submission within 15 working days after your
presentation.

You are not required to produce Powerpoint slides to accompany your presentation, although
you may do so if you wish (particularly where you wish to show images). If you use Powerpoint
slides and you do not also wish to circulate a handout, you can save your slides as a PDF and
submit this to Moodle instead of a handout. If you do this, please do use a slide to list your
main references, so that we can provide feedback on these.
6
A copy of the Faculty’s presentation rubric is included later in this module booklet.

There is a deadline of 15.00 on Thursday 2 December for submitting your handout (or a PDF of
your slides) to Moodle.

4.2 The source study

Your source study is an essay of 3,500-4,000 words. You should make use of the range of
approaches suggested by the different presentation topics on your worksheet, but you should
not try to include every single one. Moreover, essays which merely accumulate ideas from the
different presentations are unlikely to get a good mark. You will need to design your essay
around three or four aspects of the topic which most interest you, and demonstrate your own
research into those aspects, starting from the bibliography on your worksheet but also going
beyond it.

See §8 for a checklist of things to check as you write and just before you submit your essay.
Your essay should be submitted electronically to the relevant Turnitin folder on Moodle by
15.00 on Wednesday 5 January 2022.

Any study submitted after 15.00 on 5 January will incur a 5% lateness penalty. A study
submitted after 15.00 on 6 will incur a 10% lateness penalty, and so on.

You should include a word count at the top of the first page of your essay. When calculating the
word-count, you should include footnotes/endnotes, but exclude the title and bibliography. An
essay of more than 4,000 words, however good it is, will be penalised by 5%, so make sure
you select your material carefully. An essay of less than 3,500 words is unlikely to cover the
topic in adequate depth.

General points about assessment

Any sources used should be acknowledged using the referencing procedures outlined in the
Department’s Assessment Handbook: this does not apply only to direct quotations, but to any
information or opinions you have derived from your research. If in doubt, provide a reference.
The format ‘author (date) pages’, e.g. ‘Bradley (2021) 123-4’ is likely to be the most economical.

Coursework must be wholly your own work. Cases of academic misconduct will be taken
seriously and are the main way in which students incur severe penalties. Please read (or,
hopefully, re-read) the Academic Misconduct Information in section 7 carefully, and by all
means ask if you’re still unsure what’s involved.

To ensure fairness in marking, there is a Faculty-approved set of criteria for the various grade-
bands, as set out in section 6. You should familiarise yourself with the criteria for different
levels, and ensure that you are fulfilling them to the best of your ability.

Another measure to ensure fairness is anonymous marking, which in this module applies to the
essay (but not to the presentation, which is allocated individually). When submitting your essay
to Turnitin, do not include your name in the document, its headers, or its title. To enable us to
locate files in case of any problems, please name your file ‘[your Student ID] CLAR2006 2021’,
e.g. ‘20134567 CLAR2006 2021’.

7
When your work has been marked and released to you on Turnitin, you will be able to see both
a provisional mark and, more importantly, written qualitative feedback to help you improve in
the future and to maintain your strengths. Written comments may appear both within the text
of your submission and in the overall feedback tabs.

The mark will be provisional. This is because as a final measure to ensure fairness, every
module is assigned another member of staff and an external examiner (from a different UK
classics department), who have responsibility for checking the quality and consistency of
marking. If they propose changes, the mark may go up or down between being returned to you
and being confirmed by the exam board at the end of the year.

5. WORKSHEETS

The topics of the different worksheets this year are as follows:

No. Topic Designer
1 Euripides on the fall of Troy EK
2 Cicero and Asconius on the death of Clodius LF
3 The Old Oligarch: Pseudo-Xenophon’s TJ
Constitution of the Athenians
4 The Roman calendar MB
5 Bolsover Castle CK

1. Euripides on the fall of Troy (Emily Kneebone)

Euripides’ Trojan Women is a fifth-century tragedy set in the smouldering ashes of Troy at the
end of its long and brutal war. In a remarkable move, the play focuses almost entirely on the
psychological states of the women of Troy, destined to be dispersed as captives and slaves to
the victorious Greek heroes, and mourning the devastating loss of their homeland and families.
In this topic you will consider how Euripides uses the Trojan War to reflect on the values of
classical Athens. The worksheet will focus on the final stretches of the play, where Helen and
Hecuba, the former queen of Troy, enter into angry debate over the degree of Helen’s
responsibility for the war and its horrors, and where the corpse of an innocent child is buried.
You will examine whether and how the play offers political commentary on the events of the
contemporary Peloponnesian War (a question much debated by scholars), and confronts its
audience with the question of how much control women are able to exert over their own lives.
You will consider how the play uses mythical themes and characters to explore the power of
speech and rhetoric, and the role of religion in a society wracked by war and shaped by radical
new ideas about the world.

2. Cicero and Asconius on the death of Clodius (Lynn Fotheringham)

In this topic you will contrast two narratives of the death of P. Clodius in 52 BC. The first is
Cicero’s ‘statement of facts’ (narratio) from his speech Pro Milone, in defence of T. Annius Milo
who was accused of responsibility for Clodius’ death on a charge of political violence (vis). The
second was written in the first century AD by Asconius, who was writing commentaries on
Cicero’s speeches. It is unusual to have an alternative version with which we can compare
Cicero’s, and many scholars have taken it for granted that Asconius tells us ‘what really
8
happened’. Cicero has an obvious motivation for lying, whereas Asconius appears to be neutral.
But where did he get his information, and how reliable was it?
 
In studying the ancient world, there are many occasions when we have to contrast two
different versions of events. In this case-study, it is important to take into account the genre of
the texts, and in particular the requirements and customs of rhetoric (the theory of speech-
making) as they affect Cicero’s speech. The speech which has survived may not be the one that
Cicero delivered at the trial itself. How does this change how we read it? The speech itself has
been widely praised. Why? Does its literary value change our understanding of its historical
value?

This topic stands on the borderline between the study of history and the study of literature.
These are complicated issues which affect, in one way or another, all our attempts to use
literary texts as historical evidence. You should think about all of these issues, but then you will
have to select a few on which to focus. Read widely, but remember not always to believe what
you read. The fact that many people have said a thing does not make it true.

3. The Old Oligarch: Pseudo-Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians (Theodora Jim)

Conveniently known as the Old Oligarch, the Constitution of the Athenians is the earliest extant

treatise (most probably fifth century B.C.) reflecting on Athenian democratic theory and
practice by an opponent of the constitution. The identity of the author remains unknown, but it
is generally thought that he was an Athenian and a member of the aristocracy, who was critical
of the Athenian constitution. Paradoxically, however, despite the anti-democratic stance of the
author, his critique turns out to be a kind of defence of the very system which he sets out to
criticize. Though at times seemingly inconsistent in its arguments, this is a wonderfully diverse
and intriguing work which can shed light on contemporary thinking about the democracy by
both its opponents and supporters. It can also illuminate a wide range of important issues in
Athenian history and society: social dynamics within Athens, Athenian relations with the allies,
democratic institutions, and central aspects of Athenian culture. This treatise is therefore a
valuable source for fifth-century Athenian political and social history. 

4. The Roman calendar (Mark Bradley)

The Fasti Antiates Maiores (c. 84-55 B.C.) is the earliest surviving Roman calendar. It was
painted on plaster on public view in the centre of the colony of Antium, a Roman colony just
south of Rome, and appears to be a close copy of the official Roman calendar. This source study
will get you to explore what this calendar can tell us about the Roman organisation of time and
its significance for the society, politics and religion of Republican Italy, the distribution and
character of festivals, the relationship between Roman colonies and the mother city, and the
communication of information to the masses.

5. Bolsover Castle: Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue (Chris King)

This topic will explore the architecture and decoration of an important historic site in the East
Midlands: Bolsover Castle, in Derbyshire. Bolsover was created by William Cavendish, royalist
courtier, poet and playboy, in the early decades of the 17th century as a grand residence and
9
pleasure palace where he could entertain his guests in splendid surroundings. At its heart sits
the ‘Little Castle’, a mock gothic tower containing a complex interconnected suite of rooms
decorated with one of the best preserved sequence of wall-paintings surviving from early
modern England, which are structured around the themes of pleasure and virtue. The wall
paintings make extensive use of classical imagery and motifs including the labours of Hercules,
Elysium and the cult of Venus and they speak to the great power of ancient myths in shaping
culture and identity in the post-Renaissance court.

This topic sits between the topics of archaeology and classical reception. It is possible to study
Bolsover as a complex piece of architecture planned around the needs of a great household,
while the preservation and scientific analysis of the wall paintings are an important example of
historic conservation practice. We will explore the layout and function of different rooms and
spaces and the ways in which viewpoints are shaped to create a distinctive architectural
experience for residents and guests. The decorative scheme raises a host of questions about
the impact and understanding of classical mythology in early modern England. Why did
Cavendish select certain classical motifs and themes and what meanings did they hold for
contemporaries in a post-classical, Christian society? How does the interaction of architectural
space and iconography communicate complex ideas about Cavendish’s position in the royal
court and wider political and social tensions during a period of Civil War?

6. FACULTY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

a) The essay

Structure and Argument Knowledge and Understanding Writing and Presentation

Exceptional Class
I quality  Superb structure,  Exemplary answer to the  Lucid style and accurate English
(“Starred First”) maintained question at an outstanding professional
throughout, that  Outstanding knowledge and standard
100 helps to highlight understanding of the  Outstanding professional
salient points relevant material presentation, including
98  Precise, focused  Well-formed in response to referencing and bibliography as
argument existing debates, with appropriate.
95  Innovative and outstanding criticism of  For examination answers
original thought others’ arguments The answer will be completed
92  Exemplary integration of in long form, with all main
wide reading, as appropriate points covered, and of a
90  Sure handling of analytical reasonable length of
terms and critical concepts continuous prose.
88  Exemplary analysis of
evidence / examples
85

At higher levels of study, an answer in the 85-100 range might contain elements of publishable
quality (depending on the discipline, topic, and task).

10
 Structure and Argument Knowledge and Understanding Writing and Presentation

Class I quality
 Excellent structure  Comprehensive and effective  Clear writing and accurate
82  Clear, coherent answer to the question English style
argument  Excellent, wide-ranging knowledge  Professional presentation,
80  Independence of and understanding including referencing and
thought and/or  Well-digested and extensive bibliography as appropriate.
78 evidence of originality, reading (as appropriate for the  For examination answers
especially at the upper task) The answer will be completed in
75 range  Sure handling of analytical terms long form, and of a reasonable
and critical concepts length. Some points may be
72  Accurate analysis and effective better covered than others.
criticism of others’ arguments
70  Excellent discussion of evidence /
examples
Class II.i quality
 Good to very good  Thorough answer to the question,  Generally clear writing and
68 structure covering most or all aspects acceptable English style
 Sound argument,  Good to very good knowledge and  Good to very good presentation,
65 generally well-directed understanding including referencing and
to the question  Wide reading (as appropriate), bibliography as appropriate
62  Some independence in generally well-digested  For examination answers
thought and approach  Appropriate handling of analytical The answer will be completed, of
60 terms and critical concepts a reasonable length, and all key
 Critical awareness and satisfactory points will be raised, but not
analysis of different points of view necessarily discussed.
 Good to very good discussion of
evidence / examples

Class II.ii quality

 Generally coherent  Adequate to good answer to the
58 structure question, covering the main aspects
 Adequate and generally  Adequate to good knowledge and
55 relevant argument understanding
 Some signs of  Fair amount of reading
52 independence in thought  Some awareness of different points
and approach, but often of view, maybe with some
50 derivative of existing deficiencies in analysis and
scholarship characterisation
 Serious attempt to make
appropriate use of analytical terms
and critical concepts, maybe with
some deficiencies
 Some discussion of evidence /
examples
 Generally coherent structure
 Some deficiencies in clarity and
English style, but generally
adequate to good
 Moderate presentation,
including referencing and
bibliography as appropriate.
 For examination answers
The answer will be complete or
near completion. Extended
notes for may come into this
band, provided that there is
evidence of all points to be
discussed and the material to be
deployed.

Typical weaknesses in this class include over-reliance on one or two authorities; some irrelevance; some
incoherence in argument and/or structure.

11
 Structure and Argument
Class III quality
 Adequate to weak
48 structure; there may be
some irrelevance
45  Some ability to interpret
questions and to convey
42 information adequately,
but weak argument
40  Little evidence of
independence in thought
and approach
Soft Fail quality
 Little or no discernible
38 structure
 Little or no discernible
35 argument
 Could scarcely be
32 considered a serious
attempt at the task
30  Failure to address the
question adequately
 Typically brief and/or
incomplete
Hard Fail quality
 Extensive incoherence
28 and/or irrelevance
25  Could not be considered
22 a serious attempt at the
20 task whatsoever
--------  Typically very brief
18 and/or incomplete
15
12
10
--------
8
5
2
0
Knowledge and Understanding
 Some aspects of the question
addressed adequately, but
failure to address important
aspects of it
 Limited knowledge, with
serious errors and/or
omissions
 Limited to adequate reading
 Limited discussion of
evidence / examples
 Failure to address the question
adequately
 Little evidence of knowledge and/or
understanding
 Little or no evidence of relevant
reading
 Some demonstrable ability to
communicate information about
relevant material
 Failure to show understanding of
the question
 Failure to show evidence of any
knowledge and/or understanding
 Failure to show evidence of relevant
reading
 Little ability to communicate
information about relevant material
12
Writing and Presentation
 Moderate level of fluency and
technical competence, with
errors in grammar and/or
vocabulary
 Poor presentation, with poor or
perhaps incomplete referencing
and bibliography.
 For examination answers
If complete, the answer will not
cover all the main points, be
extremely short, and lack
evidence. If incomplete, the
notes will not provide enough
detail to support an answer.
 Widespread incoherence and/or
irrelevance
 Minimal acceptable level of
fluency and technical
competence; comprehensible
overall even if characterized by
errors in grammar and/or
vocabulary
 Poor or very poor presentation,
with poor, incomplete or no
referencing and bibliography.
 For examination answers
The answer will either be
extremely short or incomplete.
Any notes will not be adequate
to construct an answer to the
question.
 An unacceptable level of fluency
and technical competence,
characterized by serious errors
in grammar and/or vocabulary
 Very poor presentation, with
poor, incomplete or no
appropriate referencing and
bibliography.
 For examination answers
Incomplete, with little or no
additional information.
b) The oral presentation

Class Structure Content Presentation Response

I Outstanding
(“Starred First”) Exemplary organisation with a clear Outstanding understanding, explanation and analysis of all Speaks audibly and clearly at all times. Well-paced presentation, kept Outstanding performance
structure and a logical argument the key issues and themes; Evidence of wide appropriate strictly to time limit; any use of notes does not detract from maintained into question time.
100 leading to valid conclusions; reading used to support argument, if appropriate; communication with audience at all. Maintains eye contact with, and Questions are listened to, judged
98 Introduction secures attention and Exemplary support for arguments; Wide-ranging treatment relates very well to, the audience with evidence that their interest has well with full, targeted answers
95 leads to an argument which is easy to of the topic providing strong evidence of independent been retained. returned. Responses indicate
92 follow and in which ideas link clearly thought; Clearly related to title and no irrelevancies; sophisticated knowledge of the
one to another, with no discernible Exemplary definition of terminology and/or unfamiliar If appropriate to the task: Superb visual aids that are very well designed topic.
90 and easy to follow, always relevant to content of presentation, and
88 weaknesses. vocabulary.
enhance it. No errors/typos and, where appropriate (e.g. handouts)
85 bibliography/references complete and correctly presented.

I Excellent
Excellent organisation with a clear Excellent understanding, explanation and analysis of all the The presentation is clearly audible, well-paced, kept to time limit and Excellent performance maintained
82 structure and a logical argument key issues and themes; Evidence of appropriate reading delivered successfully; any notes do not hinder communication with into question time with full
80 leading to valid conclusions. used to support argument; Excellent support for audience. Maintains eye contact with, and interest of, the audience. engagement of audience and
78 Introduction secures attention and arguments; Wide-ranging treatment of the topic providing knowledgeable, well-balanced
leads to an argument which is easy to evidence of independent thought; Clearly related to title If appropriate to the task: Excellent use of visual aids that are very well answers provided to questions.
75 designed and easy to follow, relevant to content of presentation and
72 follow and in which ideas link clearly and no irrelevancies. Excellent definition of terminology
one to another. and/or unfamiliar vocabulary. contain no errors or typos. Where appropriate (e.g. handouts)
70 bibliography/references are complete and correctly presented.

II.i
Well-planned structure with good to Well researched, with evidence of appropriate reading, and Speaks audibly and clearly at most times. Good to very good time- Good to very good performance
68 very good introduction and summary. with relevant information presented. Good to very good keeping and generally well-paced; some reading of text/prompt cards maintained into question time.
The body of the paper contains clear understanding, explanation and analysis of most of the key may somewhat detract from communication. Mainly addresses the Sound responses to questions
65 signposts to an argument which is issues and themes. Some evidence of independent thought audience and maintains both eye contact and interest. indicating both a good
understandable and focussed on the and critical evaluation of the issues. Overall good to very understanding of the question
topic being presented. good definition of terminology and/or unfamiliar If appropriate to the task: Good to very good use of visual aids which are asked and knowledge of the
62 quite clear, easy to follow and relevant to presentation. Where
vocabulary but there may be occasional errors. presentation topic.
appropriate bibliography/references are complete (e.g. handouts)
60 though minor points of presentation may be incorrect.

Class II.ii
Adequate to good structure. There may Satisfactory to good understanding and analysis of most of Reasonable delivery that is audible but pace may be too fast/slow Adequate to good performance but
58 be weaknesses, e.g. in introduction the key issues and themes. If appropriate, there is evidence causing presentation to fall slightly outside time limit. Attempt to responses may be somewhat
and/or conclusion, or in maintaining of reading but there may be omissions in literature engage audience but not always successful, e.g. tendency to read from superficial, suggesting incomplete
55 focus, but overall the flow is logical and research. Most of the material is relevant to the question notes or address ceiling/floor. understanding of either question
major points can be picked out easily. but some is off-topic or not explained fully. Definitions of and/or topic.
terminology and/or unfamiliar vocabulary sometimes If appropriate to the task: Adequate to good use of visual aids which are
52 not always easy to read and understand. Some errors/typos likely.
lacking or unclear.
Where appropriate (e.g. handouts) bibliography/references are
50
 complete but presentation may be incorrect.

Class III
Adequate structure, though with Issues generally understood, but analysis shallow and Delivery is not always satisfactory: parts of the presentation are Minimal attempt to involve
48 weaknesses, such as rambling and loss narrowly focused with some major points not covered and inaudible and the pace is too fast or slow causing the presentation to fall audience in follow-up activities.
of focus, very weak introduction and/or some irrelevant material; Narrow range of reading (if outside the time limit. Responses to questions are
45 conclusion. The argument is not always appropriate) with ideas paraphrased rather than integrated confused/unclear suggesting poor
easy to follow and some of the main into argument. Lacks definitions or appropriate If appropriate to the task: Little attempt to engage the audience and understanding of the subject.
points are unclear explanations of terminology and keywords. visual aids are not used effectively (e.g. they may be difficult to read and
42 understand or irrelevant). Appropriate supporting literature (e.g.
handouts) may be badly presented with incomplete/incorrect
40 bibliography and references.

Soft Fail
Little or no discernible structure and Incomplete or confused understanding of issues and little Very weak delivery: the presentation may be mumbled and the pace No attempt to involve audience in
38 lacks obvious introduction or or no analysis. Little evidence of reading outside lecture much too fast/slow; it may be much too short too or fall well outside the follow-up activities/discussion.
conclusion. At times the argument may references. Some of the material is irrelevant and not all time limit. Little or no meaningful response to
35 be confusing, contradictory difficult to major points are covered. Complete lack of adequate questions, suggesting serious
follow. Main points are not made clear. definitions or appropriate explanations of terminology and If appropriate to the task: Minimal attempt to address audience and weakness in knowledge and
keywords. visual aids are poor, irrelevant or non-existent. Appropriate supporting understanding.
32 literature (e.g. handouts) may be omitted or so badly presented (e.g.
missing/faulty Bibliography/references) as to be unusable.
30
Hard Fail
No discernible structure, introduction The content is almost entirely irrelevant with incomplete or Extremely poor presentation that is difficult to hear and is well outside Poor performance maintained into
28 or conclusion. What little argument that confused understanding of issues and little or no analysis. the time limit, or far too short. No attempt to address audience. follow-up activities/discussion,
25 is presented is confusing, contradictory Virtually no research into the topic. demonstrating lack of knowledge
and - in the worst cases - impossible to If appropriate to the task: and visual aids are poor, irrelevant or non- and understanding.
22 existent. Appropriate supporting literature (e.g. handouts) may be
20 follow
omitted or so badly presented (e.g. missing/faulty
----- Bibliography/references) as to be unusable
18
15
12
10
-----
8
5
2

0 Failed to give presentation Failed to give presentation Failed to give presentation Failed to give presentation
7. SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT INFORMATION

The University states that academic misconduct is ‘any improper activity or behaviour by a student
which may give that student, or another student, an unpermitted academic advantage in a summative
assessment considered to be an act of academic misconduct and unacceptable in a scholarly
community.’ Examples of academic misconduct may include, but are not restricted to, the examples
listed below.

Representing another person’s work or ideas as one’s own, for example by failing to follow convention
in acknowledging sources, use of quotation marks etc., is a serious act of academic misconduct, known
as plagiarism. This includes the unauthorised use of one student’s work by another student and the
commissioning, purchase and submission of a piece of work, in part or whole, as the one’s own. It is
incompatible with your personal academic development and violates the intellectual property of others.
Consequently, you must take all measures to avoid plagiarism. Passages paraphrased from books,
articles or other sources, including web sources (whether published or unpublished) MUST be
acknowledged by a footnote or by a reference incorporated in a sentence. If you transcribe word for
word into an essay or dissertation a passage from a book, article or other source, electronic or printed, it
is ESSENTIAL that you indicate this by the use of quotation marks around the extract, and that you cite
the source. Be especially careful when taking notes that you later use again in your essay.
Plagiarism often occurs when students are experiencing difficulties in their work. It is not a solution to
those difficulties, however, and will always make them worse. Instead, discuss your problems with the
module convener or your personal tutor.
Cooperation with another student in order to gain an unpermitted advantage is an act of academic
misconduct known as collusion. This may occur where students have consciously collaborated on a
piece of work, in part or whole, and passed it off as their own individual efforts or where one student
has authorised another to use their work, in part or whole, and to submit it as their own. 
False authorship: where a student is not the author of the work they have submitted. This may include a
student submitting the work of another student. This may also include the submission of work that has
been produced (in whole or in part) by another student or third party. As it is the authorship that is
contested, there is no requirement to prove that the assignment has been purchased.

The penalties for academic misconduct are severe: If academic misconduct is suspected, the student
will be called to a meeting with the Head of Department. If the Head of Department is satisfied that an
act of academic misconduct has occurred, a record will be kept on the student’s file and by the
University Academic Misconduct Committee, and a penalty will be imposed, for example:
1. A written warning 
2. No mark for the specific material which is the subject of the academic offence  
3. A mark of 0 for the entire piece of coursework  

In some circumstances the matter may be referred to the University’s Academic Misconduct Committee,
which may impose more severe penalties. For more information on the University’s policy and
procedures in respect of academic misconduct, see:
www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/ assessment/academic-misconduct.aspx
See also the new policy on declaring that any use you make of external proof-reading services falls
within the acceptable limits of proof-reading:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk//QualityManual/ Assessment-awards-and-deg-classification/Pol-
proofreading.aspx
8. PRESENTATION HANDOUT TEMPLATE

[Your name]
[Date]
[Email address]

[Question]

[Main body of handout: Excerpts of text and/or images related to your presentation.
Notes:
(1) You only have 10 minutes, so don’t present too much – between 2 and 4 sides of A4
should be plenty.
(2) If you decide to use slides in your presentation, don’t just duplicate the content of your
slides on your handout: try to think how you can use both media in a complementary
way.]

References

[Present here any ancient sources (translations or editions of text, or catalogue sources for artifacts)
that you have used]

Bibliography

[List here any items of modern scholarship that are relevant to, or mentioned in, your presentation.
Make sure that you format your references appropriately: full guidance can be found in the Classics
Assessment Handbook on the Department of Classics and Archaeology Community Homepage, pp. 16-
21.]
9. SOURCE STUDY CHECKLIST

1. Main text: preparing and structuring the content

Have I thought about the context in which the source was created, and/or the aims of the author, and/or the likely
or intended audience?
Have I thought about what kind of source it is, and how that may have shaped the information it conveys?
Is there other ancient source material I can use to help make sense of, or raise questions about, this source?
Have I used the opening paragraph to identify the source and the principal themes it exposes, and to signpost my
approach to the source study?
Have I ensured that there are smooth and logical links from one paragraph to the next?
Have I used the final paragraph to summarise my approach and argument?

2. Main text: presentation

Have I double-spaced the main text?
Have I numbered the pages?
Have I left a reasonable margin on both sides of each page for comments?
Have I run a spell check, to eliminate obvious spelling mistakes?
Have I italicised any transliterated Greek or Latin terms?

3. Adding references
Have I provided a reference (ancient and/or modern) for every statement or claim that might be open to question
(not just for quotations)?
Have I used a consistent and recognised referencing system – ideally, the Harvard system (e.g., Syme (1939) 55-6).
Have I included a specific page number in references to modern works (except in cases where I am paraphrasing
the overall argument of that work)?

4. Bibliography (see the Assessment Handbook)

Have I listed ancient and modern sources in two separate sections in the bibliography?
Have I placed authors’ surnames first, and listed them in alphabetical order?
Have I included the initials of all modern authors?
Have I included the date of publication of every item, and done so in a way which is consistent with my chosen
referencing system (i.e., if using the Harvard system, date of publication should come immediately after the
author’s name and initials – e.g., Beard, M. & Crawford, M. (1999) Rome in the Late Republic (2nd edition)
(London)?
Have I identified whether sources are books, chapters in multi-authored volumes, or journal articles, and given the
details required for each of these categories?
If I have used any websites, have I indicated the name of the website, the author (if possible), and the date on
which I accessed the site? Have I used websites critically, and am I aware of the scholarly quality of the websites I
have consulted (e.g. Wikipedia versus Perseus)?

5. Before uploading on Moodle

Have I double-checked that what I’m uploading is the right version of the right essay?
Have I placed the word count and my student ID on the front page?
Is my file named using the following convention: [Student ID] CLAR2006 2021
Have I made sure that I have maintained anonymity by not including my name anywhere on the essay?