Overview

The module will cover a range of chronological and thematic topics. Topics coverd may include: What is prehistory?; The Lower Palaeolithic and the earliest human societies; Neandertals and the Middle Palaeolithic; Late Glacial hunters of the Upper Palaeolithic; The Mesolithic; The Neolithic revolution (?) and the beginings of agriculure; Neolithic burial and monumentality; Bronze Age beakers and barrowsl; Stonehenge and its landscape; Settlement and agriculture; The production and deposition of metalwork; Houses and households in later prehistory; Iron Age 'hillforts'; Iron Age settlement and agriculture; Iron Age Ritual and burial practices; Late Iron Age Britain and the Romans; Regional variation and social change in prehistory.

Assessment Strategy

-threshold -There are three grades for third-class performance:D+ (48%)Work is marked D+ if it: shows evidence of acceptable amounts of reading, but does not go much beyond what was referenced in lecture notes and/or a basic textbook; covers much of the necessary ground but fails to discuss one or a few vital aspects of a topic; deploys relevant material but partly fails to combine it into a coherent whole, or sustains a clear argument only for the greater part of the piece; deploys some evidence to support individual points, but sometimes fails to do so, or shows difficulty in weighing evidence, or chooses unreliable evidence; displays an awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways but without devoting sustained discussion to this; is for the most part correctly presented but has sections where there are serious problems in presentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references and bibliography where needed but occasionally misunderstands their appropriate use or makes mistakes in their presentation. D (45%)Work is marked D if it: shows evidence of an acceptable minimum of reading, based partly on lecture notes and/or a basic textbook; covers some of the necessary ground but fails to discuss some large and vital aspects of a topic; deploys some relevant material but partly fails to combine it into a coherent whole or sustains a clear argument for only some parts of the piece; deploys some evidence to support individual points but often fails to do so or shows difficulty weighing evidence or chooses unreliable, atypical or inappropriate evidence; shows some awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways but the differences will not receive sustained discussion or analysis; is often correctly presented but has sections where there are serious difficulties in presentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references and bibliography where needed but sometimes misunderstands their appropriate use or makes serious mistakes in their presentation. D- (42%)Work is marked D- if it: shows evidence of an acceptable minimum of reading, based largely on lecture notes and/or a basic textbook; covers parts of the necessary ground but fails to discuss some large and vital aspects of a topic; deploys some potentially relevant material but fails to bring it together into a coherent whole or sustains a clear argument for only parts of the piece; occasionally deploys evidence to back some individual points but often fails to do so or shows difficulty weighing evidence or chooses unreliable, atypical, or inappropriate evidence; may show some awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways but the differences will not receive sustained discussion or analysis; is in part correctly presented but has sections where there are serious difficulties in presentation, style, spelling, grammar, or paragraph construction (but see section on dyslexia below); and uses references and bibliography where needed but sometimes misunderstands their appropriate use or makes serious mistakes in their presentation. For the portfolio: class portfolios in the range of 42-48 (D- to D+) may cover each section in the required format, but may tend towards description rather than analysis, the summaries may be hazy and comment may be irrelevant or weak. Seminar/workshop summaries will tend towards description or very weak analysis and may not cover all of the areas as laid out in the proforma. There may be little contributions to class and a lack of how to improve and a lack of understanding of the topic. The summaries will have some reflections on how to improve but this may be vague and only suggest a basic understanding of the themes. The discussion of the areas for self-improvement may betray serious confusion, and may be badly organised. There may be some discussion of core themes, but this will be superficial and confused. The annotated bibliography may tend towards description and the range of texts may be very limited, or be badly chosen, or may contain popular rather than academic texts, irrelevant websites or untrustworthy texts. The book review may be written in ways as described in the essay criteria above for this class; the counterfactual review may discuss relevant literature and relate it to a specific example but it may lack substance and focus. The overall presentation will have numerous inaccuracies, poor grammar, spelling errors, errors in syntax and overall the portfolio will betray confusion and a lack of critical engagement. Portfolio: The marks below for the portfolio will have errors as described in the paragraph above and will have features that match the descriptors below. The summaries may be very inaccurate and superficial, there will be omissions, very poor presentation, they may be garbled and betray a very poor understanding of the material discussed:(v) Pass mark: E- to E+—work not of honours standard Reading: Work may show evidence of reading—but this largely cursory Content: Work discusses a limited number of the basic aspects of a topic, but leaves many out; or shows largely a limited knowledge of those it discusses; or is short weight; or makes major mistakes about the pattern of events. Argument: Work is mostly badly organized; or has a largely unclear argument; or makes an argument which is quite irrelevant to the task in hand. Analysis: Work deploys only a limited amount of evidence and tends more to express opinion without much support from historical fact (or archaeological evidence); or misuses evidence; or indicates only a limited sense that evidence can be interpreted in different ways. Presentation: Work makes some serious mistakes in presentation or writing style or in coherence; or makes some serious errors in grammar, spelling, or paragraph construction (but see guidelines on dyslexia below). Scholarly apparatus: Work prone to misuse references and bibliography, or inconsistent in recognizing when these are essential. Work at the lower end of this scale will have more deficiencies than those at the upper end of the work(vi) Fail Marks—not sufficient to pass the course One of four designated marks will be awarded for fail performances according to the degree of deficiency below the Pass Level criteria.F (33%)Reading: Work may show some evidence of reading, although this is cursory Content: Work attempts to discuss a few of the basic aspects of a topic, but leaves many out; or shows a limited knowledge of those it discusses; or is clearly short; or makes gross mistakes about the pattern of events. Argument: Work badly organized; or has an unclear argument; or makes an argument which contains substantial irrelevance to the task in hand. Analysis: Work deploys little evidence, but rather tends primarily to express opinion without supporting this with historical fact (or archaeological evidence); or often misuses evidence; or shows little or no sense that evidence can be interpreted in different ways. Presentation: Work makes many serious mistakes in presentation or writing style or coherence; or makes many serious errors in grammar, spelling, or paragraph construction (but see guidelines on dyslexia below). Scholarly apparatus: Work may fail to use references and bibliography when these are essential. F1 (20%)Reading: Work suggests minimal evidence of reading, although this appears very cursory Content: Work may discuss a couple of the basic aspects of a topic but leaves the rest out; or shows a very limited knowledge of those it discusses; or is very short; or makes very gross mistakes about the pattern of events. Argument: Work very badly organized; or has a very unclear argument; or makes an argument which is quite substantially irrelevant to the task in hand. Analysis: Work deploys minimal evidence, but rather tends willfully to express opinion without supporting this with historical fact (or archaeological evidence); or largely misuses evidence; or shows no sense that evidence can be interpreted in different ways. Presentation: Work is overrun by serious mistakes in presentation or writing style or is incoherent; or lacks much sense of grammar, spelling, or paragraph construction (but see guidelines on dyslexia below). Scholarly apparatus: Work largely fails to use references and bibliography when these are essential.

-good -There are three grades for upper second-class performance:B+ (68%)Work will receive a B+ mark if it is consistently strong in: covering the necessary ground in depth and detail; advancing a well-structured, relevant, and focused argument; analysis and deployment of an appropriate range of historical and/or archaeological evidence and consideration of possible differences of interpretation; and is correctly presented with references and bibliography where appropriate.B (65%)Work will receive a B mark if it: is clear that it is based on solid reading; covers the necessary ground in depth and detail; advances a well-structured, relevant, and focused argument; analyses and deploys an appropriate range of historical and/or archaeological evidence and considers possible differences of interpretation; and is correctly presented with references and bibliography where appropriate.B- (62%)Work will receive a B- mark if it: is clearly based on solid reading; covers the necessary ground in some depth and detail; advances a properly-structured, relevant, and focused argument; analyses and deploys an appropriate range of historical and/or archaeological evidence and considers possible differences of interpretation; and is correctly presented with references and bibliography where appropriate.Portfolio: portfolios in the 2i range will cover each section correctly and will be mostly analytical and critical throughout. Seminar summaries will be especially cogent and will maintain a good balance between describing preparation, contribution and areas to improve and analysis. The summaries will mostly relate to class discussions and will have some reflective critical analysis of the summary, areas for self-improvement and will relate the discussion to reading and core themes. The annotated bibliography will be focussed and critical and will a good selection of academic texts, the book review will be based on an academic monograph and will be generally well-written in ways as described in the essay criteria above, the counterfactual review will discuss relevant literature and relate it to a specific example in a mostly critical approach. Overall presentation of the portfolio will be accurate, the writing will have a good structure and purpose, and the writing style will be clear and lucid and will have a good analytical and thoughtful approach.

-excellent -There are four grades for first-class performance: A* (95%)At this level, first-class work earns its mark by showing genuine originality. It may advance a novel argument or deal with evidence which has not been considered before. Such originality of ideas or evidence is coupled with the standards of content, argument, and analysis expected of first-class work graded at A or A+. At this level, the work exhausts relevant secondary material, includes in dissertation work extensive and often unanticipated primary evidence, and betrays no factual or interpretative inaccuracy. It can also show a mastery of theory and deploy hypotheses subtly and imaginatively. In the case of essays and dissertations, work of this standard will be impeccable in presentation and will be publishable.A+ (87%)At this level, first-class work will also have its argument supported by an impressive wealth and relevance of detail, but will further deploy the evidence consistently accurately and give indications of deploying unexpected primary and secondary sources. It will habitually demonstrate a particularly acute and critical awareness of the historiography and/or archaeological debate, including conceptual approaches, and give a particularly impressive account of why the conclusions reached are important within a particular historical or archaeological debate. It will show a particularly sophisticated approach to possible objections, moderating the line taken in the light of counter-examples, or producing an interesting synthesis of various contrasting positions. It will be original work. The standards of content, argument, and analysis expected will be consistently first-class work. In essays and dissertations standards of presentation will be very high.A (80%)At this level, first-class work will have its argument supported by an impressive wealth and relevance of detail. It will usually also demonstrate an acute awareness of historiography and/or archaeological debate, and give an impressive account of why the conclusions reached are important within a particular historical or archaeological debate. It may show a particularly subtle approach to possible objections, moderating the line taken in the light of counter-examples, or producing an interesting synthesis of various contrasting positions. Overall, the standards of content, argument, and analysis expected will be consistently superior to top upper-second work. In essays and dissertations standards of presentation will be high.A- (74%)There is no unbridgeable gap between a mark at B+ and one at A-. A first-class mark at this level is often earned simply by demonstrating one or more of the features of a good upper-second essay to a peculiar degree, for example presenting a particularly strong organization of argument, near consistent focus, wide range of reading, engagement with the historiography debate, depth of understanding, an unobjectionable style, and sound presentation.

-another level-There are three grades for lower second-class performance:C+ (58%)Work will receive a C+ mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but remains partially superficial; covers the important aspects of the relevant field, but in some places lacks depth; advances a coherent and relevant argument; employs some evidence to back its points; and is presented reasonably well with only a few or no mistakes. It will also contain appropriate references and bibliography, which may, however, be slightly erratic and/or partially insufficient.C (55%)Work will receive a C mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but remains superficial; covers most of the important aspects of the relevant field, but lacks depth; advances a coherent and largely relevant argument; employs some limited evidence to back its points; and is presented reasonably well with only limited mistakes. It will also contain appropriate references and bibliography, which may, however, contain some mistakes or be slightly erratic and/or partially insufficient.C- (52%)Work will receive a C- mark if it: shows evidence of solid reading, but little knowledge of in-depth studies (for first-year work the student may not have read beyond a few standard works; at second or third year the student may not have read a good selection of journal articles and specialist monographs); covers most of the important aspects of the relevant field, but lacks depth or misses a significant area (for second- and third-year work this may mean that it fails to deploy the historical details found in specialist literature); advances a coherent, and sometimes relevant argument, but drifts away from tackling the task in hand (for example, by ordering the argument in an illogical way, becoming distracted by tangential material, or lapsing into narrative of only partial pertinence); usually employs evidence to back its points, but occasionally fails to do so or deploys an insufficient range; displays an awareness that the past can be interpreted in different ways, but may fail to get to the heart of the central scholarly debate or fully understand a key point (in second- and third-year work this may extend to a failure to discuss important subtleties or ambiguities in the evidence, or to a lack of awareness of the current state of historical or archaeological debate); is reasonably well presented and contains appropriate references and bibliography, but makes some mistakes in presentation or appropriate use.

Learning Outcomes

• Demonstrate a familiarity with primary archaeological evidence, such as material culture, key archaeological sites and environmental evidence.

• Demonstrate a mastery of basic study skills, particularly the ability to follow a course of reading, make effective notes, and benefit from seminar discussions.

• Demonstrate knowledge an understanding of social and technological evolution within British prehistory.

• Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the main chronological divisions of British Prehistory

• Present archaeological arguments in essays, and back them with evidence.

• Show awareness that archaeological evidence may be interpreted in different ways.