Ancient History Exam Discussion (and Suggested Answers!)

[sudodds]

YOU MADE IT!!!!!

Congratulations!!!! That exam is now LITERALLY Ancient History! You've all worked super hard this year, so hopefully the exam treated you well

I'm working on the answers right now and I'll post them here when I'm done. But in the mean time - what did you all think? Was it good? Did you understand the sources? What was your favourite section?

Super keen to hear how you all went!!

Great work <3

Susie

Section I - Core Study: Pompeii and Herculaneum

MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Source A provides evidence for which feature of life in Pompeii
a) Clothing
b) Leaisure
c) Religion
d) Trade

Starting off the exam with a pretty hard question! The reason this is hard is because if you didn't know that that was a Pompeian mural of Venus Anadyomene (which you very well could not have known!) then there isn't much to indicate that this was about religion (and you probably picked leisure... :/ ). But yeah, the source depicts the goddess Venus, so Religion is the correct answer! Again, just goes to show how important it is to go into the exam with a wide knowledge of sources.


2. Consider the following statements in relation to Source B
Statement I: Spoiling the water supply was a punishable offence in Herculaneum
Statement II: Slaves could not use public fountains in Herculaneum

a) Both statements are true.
b) Both statements are false.
c) Statement I is false, Statement II is true.
d) Statement I is true, Statement II is false.

Only two questions in and NESA is already asking us about literal shit aha - gotta love this subject. As source B suggests that you could be punished with a fine for free citizens or lashes for slaves for throwing "excrement" into the water fountains, very clearly Statement I is true. Though it does mention slaves, makes reference to the fact that if a slave was caught doing the same thing that they would also be punished, suggesting that they to could use public fountains for normal purposes, thus Statement II is false.


3. Which occupation does Source C depict
a) Fuller
b) Gold-worker
c) Mat-maker
d) Tanner

Like with question 1, if you didn't know where this painting was from, you may have had a hard time deciphering the source to answer the question, as from the content of the source Fuller or Mat-maker could definitely appear correct! The source was actually from The Fullonica of L. Veranius Hypsaeus, making A the correct answer!


4. Which feature of Source D identifies Pompeii as a Roman colony?
a) Latin name
b) Ampitheatre
c) Reference to honour
d) Quinquennial duumvirs

Quinquennial duumvirs acted as censors - meaning that an aspect of their job (on top of the regular responsibilities of a duumvir) were to conduct the census for Rome, thus as they were conducting this census in Pompeii as well, that means that it must have been a roman colony, thus the answer is D For the most part this question was okay, though I'm sure a lot of people got tripped up by c. as they referenced "colony" straight after they mentioned honour.

5. Where is the structure in Source E located?
a) On the Via Consulare, Pompeii
b) Outside the Nuceria Gate, Pompeii
c) Outside the Suburban Baths, Herculaneum
d) On the Decumanus Maximus, Herculaneum

The Source depicts the tomb of Flavii. No tombs have been located in Herculanuem, thus we can discount c and d right off the bat. We also know that according to law, tombs could not be located within the city walls, thus b, which is outside Pompeii is the answer


Short Answers!
6. Outline the influence of Egyptian culture in Pompeii. In your answer, refer to Source F and your own knowledge (4 marks)

This is a nice question, mainly because it only says Pompeii, which means that you are actually given permission to ignore Herculaneum in this question! Woo hoo! In terms of the Source, though it may appear limited, it is actually from the Alexander Mosaic, which features (as the source depicts) Nilotic imagery, which you can use as evidence for the influence of Egyptian culture on Art! The animal depicted within the artwork (a Hippo) was not native to Italy, which means that the Pompeiians would have come to know of this animal one of three ways 1. from travelling to Egypt themselves, 2. from an Egyptian migrant, or EVEN 3. through trade (Pompeii was known for trading exotic african animals, evidence of which can be found from the giraffe bones that have excavated there!).

However, as it also asks you to use "your own knowledge", that means that you weren't restricted to just mentioning nilotic imagery, and could also have mentioned religion and architecture! I personally would have referenced religion extensively, using the Temple of Isis as a related source to further the discussion into the impact of Egyptian religion (the cult of Isis), referencing its social impact (slaves and women invited to take part in practices) and how it was so important that the Temple was one of the first to begin reconstructive work after the earthquake of 62AD.

7. Describe the key features of political life in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Refer to Source B and D and your own knowledge (6 marks)

I'm personally glad that I didn't get this question last year. Not that it's a particularly unfair one - it's pretty much just a syllabus dot point reworded as a question, however it's definitely one of the trickier syllabus dot points to understand, due to a lot of the political terminology that you are required to remember. It also has the dreaded "AND HERCULANEUM" there, which means that if you don't reference Herculaneum throughout your response specifically (ie. provide a source from Herculaneum) then unfortunately you can't get full marks, as you haven't completely addressed the question. Luckily the sources provided are from both Pompeii and Herculaneum, thus hopefully you were able to shape your responses around those.

Things that you could have mentioned include;
- Role of aedile (junior magistrates), referencing Source B

• Two! – Plebian (limited to Plebian class) and Curule (Plebian and Patrician in alternating years)
• Elected annually by voting assembly (comitia)
• Part of the Curus Honorum (but not compulsory)
• Supervisors of public works, maintenance of public buildings market/temple/street activity, regulation of festivals and enforcing order.

- Role of duumvirs (Chief Magistrates), and more specifically, quinquennial duumvirs (reference to Source D)

• Duumvirs = Highest judicial magistrates
• Must have previously been an Aedile (powers much more extensive)
• Power to govern the community, presided over courts/council, oversaw public money (revenue/taxation)
• However, NO military power.
• Often funded public works and spectacle themselves to remain popular.
• Quinquennial Duumvirs = Similar to a Duumvir with added responsibilities
• Elected every 5 years (but term only lasted 1 year)
• Responsible for conducting the Census

- You also could have mentioned the Ordo Decurionum – Town Council Members

• Approximately 80-100 men over the age of 25 (elites)
• Basically a local version of the Roman Senate.
• Responsible for making and enforcing local laws.
• Held position for life (unless dismissed by Duumviri Quinquenales)
• Restrictions in regards to occupation - Actors, gladiators and grave diggers illegible.

In terms of other evidence/sources, you could have referenced official inscriptions (particularly programmata) or electoral graffiti. You could also have mentioned statues and iconography featuring important political figures (eg. Marcus Nonius Balbus from Herculaneum).

[/list]
10 mark Extended Response
How have conservation efforts attempted to deal with the impact of tourism at Pompeii and Herculaneum?

In your answer, refer to Source G and H, and your own knowledge.


I think this is a good question! Not too broad (ie. just "conversation efforts"), but also not too specific (impact of tourism is probably the most important thing you learn about with that dot point). I think there is definitely enough to talk about with this kinda question

In terms of the Sources, G references the issue of "wearing out" Pompeii. Source G mentions in particular how just the influx of people walking through Pompeii has damaged the floors (eg. the entrance steps of the Temple of Apollo). This would have been a great way to segue in some of your own knowledge, and mention the amount of tourists that visit Pompeii and Herculaneum annually - 2.5 million tourists visiting Pompeii, and 500,000 Herculaneum. G also references UNESCO, which is one of the international organisation attempting to help conserve Pompeii and Herculaneum, which could have allowed you to open up the discussion to other international/national contributors that you have studied. It also references that "there is no need to turn tourists away from Pompeii", which could have allowed you to discuss how there is a bit of paradox, in the sense that tourists damage the site, but they also provide the financial resources to maintain the site as well! It also mentions other ways that they are attempting to look after the site, but redirecting the tourists to other less-visited areas, through holding exhibitions there.

Source H is a panorama of the excavations of Herculaneum. Personally I think this is quite a tricky source. Theres really not much to discuss here in relation to tourists - I feel like you'd really have to stretch your analysis here a bit (keen to hear what everyone else wrote!). What you could have mentioned in regards to this source is that as Herculaneum is not fully excavated, given the fact that it is situated under the modern day city of Erculano (depicted in the source), there is less of an issue in regards to tourists (another way you could have segued into discussing the amount of visitors each year), as there is in Pompeii. Other students I have spoken to mention the railings within the photo and the raised footpaths could have been used to protect the site from tourists.

Other things you could have discussed, from your own knowledge are the various ways that tourists affect the site, eg. bashing into things, taking photos (with flash), littering, looting, touching artefacts, tagging/graffiti, etc. You could have referenced how the previous way they dealt with tourists was poor (just rope barriers, very little security, improper signage - particularly with the human remains), and how there has been a push for the Italian government to devote more money and attention to keeping the site properly managed (again, linking to international bodies like UNESCO, etc. etc).

Section II - Society Study (Sparta solutions)

I can't comment too much on the other options, but I thought the Sparta questions were alright for the most part!

The first question was easy enough, all you'd need to do is write down two roles of the periokoi - you wouldn't need to explain them (eg. 1. produced food and other products for Spartans, 2. used as supplementary forces in the Spartan Army.).

The second question was a little bit tricker, but not too bad. Artemis Orthia was a (potentially hybrid) goddess of nature and hunting, as well as fertility, childbirth, and vegetation. Hunting was of course a very prominent feature of Sparta, as was, for women, being fertile and strong enough to sustain childbirth. You could have mentioned the Temple of Artemis Orthia here, as one of Sparta's more sacred locations (and also one of the more intact archeological sites there!), and how it was used during activities within the Agoge.

I feel like C is quite a specific question for 5 marks. Spartan Marriage customs were very unique, and quite reflective of their "tough" society (and as such, other areas of Greece, particularly Athens, were pretty negative towards it). We gain most of our understanding of Marriage customs through Plutarch, who suggests that  Spartan girls was married when 'they were ripe for it' (roughly late teens). Spartan boys had to be married about the age of 20 where they were full-time warriors. Marriage featured a "kidnapping" ritual, whereby which a man would choose a bride and carry her off. Brides also had their head shaved, and  were clothed in male garments (this aspect has been debated by many historians, who suggest that this could be due to the fact that it was common practice in Sparta for older men to "teach" the younger boys about sex, and thus many spartan men would be uncomfortable or inexperienced in regards to intercourse with women). The groom would carry her to the bed after his daily meal from the syssitia and spend a short time with her, and depart discretely. The husband continued to visit his wife in secret for some time after the marriage, and the whole thing was to be kept a secret until a child was born.

For the final question, did I not predict cultural life! I knew this would have to show up at some point I thought this was a pretty nice question, and would have allowed you to talk about a range of things, specifically those that come under the "Cultural Life" aspect of the syllabus:

– art: sculpture, painted vases, bone and ivory carving
– architecture: Amyklaion, Menelaion, the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia
– writing and literature: Alcman and Tyrtaeus
– Greek writers’ views of Sparta: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle,
Pausanias, Plutarch

In terms of the source, which was a picture of the Laconian cup, you could have linked that to the first dot point I think it would also have been great to reference the concept of the 'Spartan mirage' here!

Section III - Personality Study (Agrippina the Younger

I thought that these were nice questions overall! I like how the first question pretty much gives you a structure - I would have just had a short paragraph on Seneca, Burrus and the imperial freedmen (Pallas in particular). This is essentially just a "basis of her power" question (another prediction! Go me  ), which means that you would have wanted to reference patronage here, and also how they allowed for her to maintain control over Claudius, Nero and the empire in general!

For the second question, I would have broken that up into the different perspectives of her influence - so the ancient historians who present her as "calculating, ambitious for power, and determined to be respected and feared", and then the more modern interpretations of her, linking that to the later half of the source referencing the fact that she was actually pretty great It's important to remember that it also said references to "other sources" as well, which means you should have included some quotes from either modern (eg. Barrett, Ginsburg, Ferrero) or Ancient (Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio) historians as well, and analysed their perspectives.

This question is not too dissimilar to one that I did last year. Here is what I wrote for that question (obviously not the exact same question, but presents some of the similar ideas!)

Agrippina the Younger has endured a controversial and polarizing legacy, with both ancient and modern sources offering a variety of perspectives on her life and influence within Rome. Her status as a woman greatly impacted upon these judgements, with the most prevalent representations of Agrippina placing great importance on her femininity (or lack thereof), such as the evil stepmother, sexual deviant, hyper-masculine woman commander, and feminist icon.

For many centuries, Agrippina had an overwhelmingly negative legacy, brought about by long-held misogynistic beliefs about powerful women and their incompatibility within society. Agrippina’s manipulative relationship with her son is the foundation of one of Agrippina’s most popular representations, the manipulative evil stepmother. Though Agrippina was Nero’s birth mother, the literary label of the archetypal villainess seems to many to be an appropriate fit, the greatest advocates for this depiction being ancient sources, particularly Tacitus, who stated that “Everyone longed for the mother’s domination to end.” Many ancient (and some modern) historians present Agrippina as an over-bearing and power hungry woman, who exploited her relationships with important men, such as her husband Claudius, and son Nero, in order to consolidate her own power and influence within the Empire. She is presented as ruthless, actively pursuing her ambitions no matter the cost, evident through Tacitus, who suggests that “Agrippina had long decided on murder,” in relation to her (supposed) role in Claudius’ death when he was no longer of use to her. These ideas relate to that of another representation of Agrippina, the sexual deviant.
Presented mainly through ancient historians such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio, who utilized gossip and scandal heavily within their histories, Agrippina’s supposed promiscuity remains a key feature of her legacy. Within Ancient Rome, the most effective way of discrediting someone was to “reveal” their immoral and deviant sexual exploits, and this was even more relevant in regards to women. “Her private life was chaste--unless power was to be gained” Though perhaps not as scandalous as Agrippina’s predecessor, Messalina, the ancient historians still describe Agrippina as a promiscuous women, utilizing her sexuality to obtain power over weak and lustful men. This description is evident within the works of many ancient historians, particularly Cassius Dio, who suggests that Agrippina not only seduced Claudius before their marriage, but was involved in many adulterous affairs with the likes of Pallas and Seneca, all of whom were influential men within the Empire. The accounts of her alleged incestuous relationship with her son is also evidence of this, as it was perceived to be a way for her to manipulate Nero, and keep him under her control. Though it is predominantly the ancient historians who assert this view, many modern historians failed to deviate from this conclusion as well, such as Scullard who referred to Agrippina as a “harlot.”
Another representation of Agrippina is that of the hyper-masculine woman commander, who greatly over-steps her domestic boundaries, as a woman seeking inappropriate political ambitions. It is clear through numismatic evidence (Agrippina’s profile appears on coins alongside Nero), the Sebasteion Relief’s (where she is depicted as equals next to Claudius and Nero), and her title of Augusta that Agrippina was a very powerful, which was highly unusual for a woman of her time and situation. According to modern historian Barrett, the patriarchal society of Rome “saw the elevation of women like Agrippina as an inversion of the natural order.” As second-class citizens, the concept of a woman achieving so much influence, even more than some important men said a lot about Agrippina’s person, Tacitus describing her as having a “masculine despotism.”  This view is also asserted by modern historians such as Scullard, who wrote within the 1950s (a decade known for its rigid gender stereotypes), and described Agrippina as having overstepped her domestic duties, showing that this view of Agrippina’s immorality withstood for centuries.

However, as society began to shift their focus away from “great men,” and instead began to embrace social history, the writings on Agrippina (and many other historical women) and her legacy dramatically changed. Instead, Agrippina was presented as a feminist icon, who seized the opportunities that she was given and most often deserved due to her intellect and ability, and was unfairly persecuted by men who used her as an example to further their anti-women, anti-imperial agendas. Historians such as Barrett, Ginsburg and Leadbetter suggest that the ancient historians judgement of Agrippina was clouded by their negative views on women, which “blinded them to any admirable qualities [she] might have possessed,” and that in many respects Agrippina’s influence was actually a positive one for Rome, evident after her death, when Nero, now free of his mother’s (and her supporter Seneca and Burrus’) control, began his reign of terror.

Therefore, it is clear that Agrippina’s legacy is a changing and dynamic one, that is heavily influenced by societies changing attitudes towards women and power. However, whether it is believed that she obtained her influence through immoral acts, manipulation, or pure ambition and intellect, Agrippina’s influence over Rome is almost impossible to deny, cementing her legacy as one of the most powerful women in history.

Section IV - Period Study (Julio-Claudians solutions

The final section! I thought the questions for the Julio-Claudians were alright! They were quite broad, which could definitely have made things quite tricky (eg. you'd want to have mentioned ALL of the emperors, not just one or two). But for the most part, I feel like these questions were fair!

For the first one, I actually wrote an essay on this last year! Here is what I wrote (I got 24/25 for it, however it was at the beginning of the year, so that might be a bit of a skewed mark)

Spoiler

The influence of the Senate declined throughout the Julio-Claudian period, with their power greatly dependent upon the Emperor. Though the Senate was designed to have equal power to that of the Princeps that was almost always not the case. After the reign of Augustus - with whom the Senate had a very positive relationship - the Senate’s influence and levels of control changed dramatically and negatively. This is most apparent though the changing influence of the Senate in regards to law making, their involvement within the political affairs of Rome and the overall respect they received from the Emperors – Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero.

The Senate’s control over law making was negligible during the Julio-Claudian period, with their influence greatly dependent upon the Princeps and Senates willingness to cooperate with each other. This is most evident during Claudius and Nero’s administration.
Claudius wished for a relationship with the Senate similar to that of Augustus, whereby the Senate at least appeared to have some influence over legislation (whether they had any true power however is debatable), striving to repair the damage done to it by his predecessors, Tiberius and Gaius, who treated the Senate with little respect. Claudius encouraged the Senate to take an active role in all aspects of the administration, which included the passing of legislation. This is evident within one of Claudius’ speeches to the Senate, which states, in regards to the passing of a new bill, “If you accept these proposals… in accordance with your convictions, if you do not accept them, find alternatives, but do so here and now.” It is clear that Claudius petitioned heavily for the Senate to take their role seriously, expecting them to debate new laws instead of just agreeing with whatever the emperor wanted. Therefore, it can be assumed that during Claudius’ reign, the Senate held significant influence, as Claudius clearly respected and sought for their opinion and guidance. However, their obstinacy towards Claudius due to their desire to return to a republic, and their unwillingness to cooperate with the Princeps meant that they effectively limited their own power, as Claudius instead turned to Freedmen to aid in his administration. Therefore, it is evident that despite Claudius’ efforts to cooperate with the Senate, the damage sustained during the reigns of his predecessors limited not only the Senates power and influence, but also the efficiency of Claudius’ reign, as they were unwilling to take on the new responsibilities given to them.
Nero, on the other hand represented a reign in which, similar to Gaius, the Senate had almost no control over the bills and laws passed. At the beginning of his reign Nero proclaimed (like all his predecessors) that he would be using Augustus as a guide, and give the Senate more autonomy and law-making power. This was shown through him supporting many Senate proposed laws, such as one ensuring that all slaves within a household could be punished for the crimes of one, which was widely unpopular amongst the Roman public. However, Nero’s relationship with the Senate drastically declined after the death of his mother Agrippina the Younger and his close advisors Burrus and Seneca, all of whom had significant influence over him. The Senate had little control over the actions of Nero, and many of the laws introduced by him had a very negative effect of the Senate, such as the revival of treason laws.
Therefore, it is clear that the Senate’s influence over the law making of Rome greatly declined throughout the Julio-Claudian period, and though this greatly depended upon the Princeps of the time, the Senate’s own attitude towards the emperor and the state of the empire had a significant impact upon their influence as well.

The Senate’s involvement within administration ultimately declined throughout the Julio-Claudian period, from being responsible for almost everything under Tiberius to having virtually no involvement during the reigns of Gaius and Nero.
During the reign of Tiberius and Claudius, the Senate was greatly encouraged to take an active role within political affairs. Though Claudius’ motives for this was increasing the efficiency of the Senate and repairing a broken relationship, Tiberius’ reasons were more superficial. Despite many ancient sources, such as Suetonius describing Tiberius as power hungry, it is believed that this opinion is based more on perpetuating an anti-imperial agenda than conclusive fact. Many modern historians, such as Scullard, believe Tiberius did not want the position of Princeps, evident through his retirement to Capri while still in power. The apathy for his position led Tiberius to effectively push all responsibilities of the administration of Rome onto the Senate, wanting to have as little to do as possible. Therefore, it is clear that the Senate was heavily involved during the reign of Tiberius, however this did not necessarily increase their influence or efficiency, as the Princeps allusiveness meant that the Senate that had relied so heavily on Augustus as their leader had been effectively abandoned, disrupting the Senate’s functionality.
The later reigns of Gaius and Nero served to further disrupt the Senate, by decreasing their heavy involvement to almost nothing at all. Though both Gaius and Nero began their reigns with a positive relationship with the Senate, this ultimately changed after, in terms of Gaius, his alleged mysterious illness, and in terms of Nero the death of his mother and advisors. After these events, the reigns of Gaius and Nero became completely autocratic, making decisions and introducing new legislation without the Senates knowledge or consent, effectively reducing their involvement to nothing, and in turn their influence over the administration of the Empire. Gaius in particular completely dismissed the role of the Senate, abolishing the idea of the Principate and Senate partnership of Augustus’ time. A crucial example of this was Gaius’ decision to give elections to the assembly, a right previously reserved for the Senate.
Therefore, it is evident that the involvement of the Senate declined throughout the Julio-Claudian period, greatly impacting upon their influence, because if they were unable to be involved within the administrational affairs of the empire, they were subsequently unable to have any impact upon their outcomes. Though the Senate’s involvement was ultimately declining, the drastic changes in involvement through the reign of Tiberius further decreased their influence as it came as such a shock to the Senate that had been groomed into dependency during the reign of Augustus.

The mutually declining respect between the Senate and the Julio-Claudians definitively indicates a declining relationship with the Princeps after Augustus, and therefore the power they held over Rome, evident through the reigns of all the Julio-Claudian Emperors. At the beginning of each Julio-Claudians reign, it is clear that respect was given to the Senate, most likely due to the Emperor testing the limits of their new position. However, it is clear that during the later years there was a sharp decline in the respect given to the Senate.
This lack of respect manifested itself as general frustrations with the Senate to maliciously attempting to humiliate and degrade its members. The respect offered by Tiberius and Claudius would be categorized as the former, as the decline in respect was due to their belief that the Senate was not working efficiently enough. According to Tacitus, Tiberius would describe Senators as “men fit to be slaves” as the senators struggled under his confusing and limited leadership, whereby he wished, according to modern historian Garrett Fagan, that the Senate would “act on his implicit desires rather than on his explicit requests”. Claudius was similarly frustrated with the ways in which the Senate operated, particularly in terms of what he considered a lack of honesty amongst them, along with a general rejection of his leadership on the part of the Senate. This led Claudius to seek the services of Freedmen in order to efficiently run Rome, which many of the Senators viewed as highly disrespectful, as it reduced the once prestigious position to one lower than former slaves.
Gaius and Nero on the other hand, according to ancient sources such as Suetonius, had virtually no respect for the Senate, not because they perceived them to be inefficient, but because they had virtually no respect for anyone. Gaius in particular, after his mysterious illness, appeared to have made it his mission to make the lives of the senators miserable. Calling for senators he knew were dead, having senators run alongside his chariot, and forcing senators to act as his servants are just some of the many ways Gaius attempted to humiliate the senators, however his most famous act of ridicule was when he officially made his favourite horse, Incitatus, a consul. Though the motive of this has been debated since ancient times, with many such as Suetonius and Tacitus siting it as proof of his insanity, while more modern historians such as Barrett entertain the plausibility that it was an elaborate stunt in order to highlight the Senates incompetency, as if to say that a horse could do a better job. However, either way it is clear that Gaius lacked the critical respect needed to effectively cooperate with the Senate.
Therefore, it is evident that as the respect the senators received from the Princeps declined, so too did their influence, as the Emperors, who where effectively the supreme rulers, were far more unlikely to listen to or work with the Senate if they had such a poor opinion of them.

It is evident through the lack of respect they received from the Emperors, their lack of involvement and their lack of control within governance and law making, that the influence of the Senate declined after Augustus’ reign during the Julio-Claudian period. Though the Senate was designed to be a powerful force within the Roman Empire, if they did not have a positive relationship with the current Princeps, their power could be greatly reduced, to the point where which they really held no influence at all.

You could have structured either of these essays according to the emperors (ie. a paragraph on each), or according to the ways in which they contributed!

*DISCLAIMER: Remember that any history course is subjective - just because you didn't write exactly (or even at all!) what I would have in the exam, DOES NOT mean that you have failed, or that you can't get a Band 6. Your interpretation of a question could be completely different to mine, but still completely valid! This is just what I would have written Feel free to contribute to these suggested answers as well, or contest if you think there are any issues with my solutions, as of course I am nothing more than a humble past student who can still make mistakes *

[Droolv]

Exam overall was fine, curious to know what the multiple choice was for the Roman colony or something like that, I have a feeling it's the Latin names one but i put down Amphitheater

[Arceus]

I got the question 5 multiple choice question wrong.  The worst part is, I have actually walked down and saw the tombs outside the Nuceria gate no less than a year ago  

Other than that, section one treated me relatively nice.
For question 6, I am lucky that I mentioned the Alexander the Great mosaic and the cult of isis.
As for question 7, I struggled a little, though I did mention a few of the points you noted.
I should recieve 10 marks for question 8 which I was fully prepared for.

 I thought I did really well in the Sparta section. I was lucky with the questions.

Our period study topic for section IV was NKE: Amenhotep III - Rameses II. In my honest opinion, the questions were ridiculous. Definitely not what many would have prepared for (including myself).

[katie,rinos]

Hey,
So here are my slightly longish thoughts:

Pompeii & Herculaneum: I got all of the multiple choice right (which is so surprising seeing I didn't know the sources at all and guessed some )!!! I think that I went ok with this section.
With question 6, I talked about the Nilotic imagery and the temple of Isis. I also talked about the House of the Faun and said it had Nilotic Imagery-I wasn't too sure in the exam but is that where the source is from?

With question 7, I didn't remember all of the political terms but talked about the aediles and quinquennial duumvirs in general terms. I also talked about how political figures were normally from a wealthy patrician background, client-patron relationships, that Eumachia was an influential political figure, political programmata/graffiti urging people to vote for a particular person, and the statue of Marcus Nonius Balbus.

With the 10-mark response, I talked about how the international recognition by UNESCO has allowed more education, awareness, reporting and funding to be done throughout both towns. I also talked about how areas of the towns were separated from the public and they didn’t have access to the whole site however tourists did destroy some areas with graffiti, taking ‘souvenirs’, etc.  With source H, I said that the raised footpaths would mean that tourists would not wear down the roads/paths of Pompeii as much but I felt like it was a hard source to try to write about.

Sparta: I really liked these questions  . I feel like my answer for Artemis Ortheia needed a bit of work (I forgot what God it was! But I did talk about the temple of AO and the cheese whipping festival) but the essay was really good. For the essay, I wrote about art (bronzework of the Perioki, cups/kylixes) and the writing of Alcmann/Tyrtaeus (just realised I spelt his name wrong in the whole essay) but I think it was a bit too short. I tried to talk about the Spartan mirage here as well.

Agrippina: I didn’t study for the first question too much so I’m not too sure how I went. For the 2nd question, I did it like that as well (slightly different though) and was pretty happy with it as I remembered heaps of my Ancient/modern quotes and archaeological evidence!

Julio-Claudians: My essay was terrible! I did the senate question and forgot so much detail and quotes. It was also really short. I went home and saw how many quotes that were in my detail table and can’t believe I forgot all of them! Hoping that I do well in all of the other topics to balance this out.

Can’t believe Ancient is over!

[maevecouch]

I got the question 5 multiple choice question wrong.  The worst part is, I have actually walked down and saw the tombs outside the Nuceria gate no less than a year ago  

Other than that, section one treated me relatively nice.
For question 6, I am lucky that I mentioned the Alexander the Great mosaic and the cult of isis.
As for question 7, I struggled a little, though I did mention a few of the points you noted.
I should recieve 10 marks for question 8 which I was fully prepared for.

 I thought I did really well in the Sparta section. I was lucky with the questions.

Our period study topic for section IV was NKE: Amenhotep III - Rameses II. In my honest opinion, the questions were ridiculous. Definitely not what many would have prepared for (including myself).

I did NKE from Amenhotep III to Ramesses II too and thought the questions were horrendous too! Far too restricted for a 25 marker, especially the post-Kadesh question as there is next to nothing you can talk about (besides the Hittite Peace Treaty and marriage of Maat-hor-neferure(?). I chose the officials one, but even then I feel like I was stretching it. The fact it mentioned “empire” was ok because I just have a timeline review of the empire and spoke a little bit of nonsense about the officials (even though our teacher completely skipped that dot point).

[maevecouch]

For the 10 marker in the Pompeii and Herculaneum section I spoke quite a bit about conservation projects such as the Pompeii Forum Project and the Herculaneum Conservation Project, while linking them to tourism. Would that be ok?
Also, I barely knew anything about Spartan marriage customs but as it did say customs I interpreted that to mean general culture around marriage. So I spoke about how the kings could determine a women’s marriage, how they inherited land, how married women were expected to primarily be child bearers, how Spartan Men were required to dedicate more time to the military than their wives and how old bachelors were taunted. How many marks will I scrape with that?

Besides that, and the ridiculous NKE Amenhotep III - Ramesses II question I found it all fairly achievable. And yes, of course I made up some Historians names I forgot for my quotes.

Good luck to everyone else!

[jaecolbert]

I got 4/5 for multiple choice, pretty good considering I've seen none of the sources before, for the 3 short answers I think I did pretty okay. I didn't revise political life so I was a little bit off with terms I used probably. Really happy with the 10 marker as I predicted that the question would either be that or ethical issues.

Sparta was 50/50 - totally forgot everything about Artemis Orthia & revised mostly terms and social structure stuff instead of culture, but my answer was kind of close to answering the question

For personality I did Hatshepsut - both really good questions especially with a being a describe verb 👏👏

Historical period was absolute rubbish imo, New Kingdom Egypt to the death of Thutmose IV...I chose to do option a (prominent officials) which was hard to talk about because I only really knew about the pharaohs.

All in all I think it was a pretty okay paper, I left feeling fairly confident & easily better than in trials

[Sim Kade]

I really didn't mind the Ancient exam until after I left and I realised that I answered the Cultural Life of Sparta question thinking it asked about Everyday life. I just lost a good 15 marks... so that wasn't a fun time.

The questions for the NKE To the Death of Thutmose IV were hella hard. I predicited that an officials question would be asked in either the Hatshepsut (personality) section or my NKE period but the second option about relations with the Mittani was REALLY narrow in my opinion.

[grace.estelle]

I absolutely hated the Pompeii and Herculaneum sources - got 2/5 in MC. I want to cry ahhh!! But the other sections were alright so I'm really hoping my raw mark is over 90/100 

What do you all think the raw mark cut off for a band 6 would be this year?

[Frecklelots]

For Pompeii I got 4/5 for multiple-choice. I got Question 4 wrong (I said it was the ampitheatre, I honestly had no idea). I'm pretty proud of myself considering I did not know any of the sources. The Egyptian influence question was easy and I was prepared for it. The political life one was the complete opposite. I wrote a lot for it but used basically no sources. I didn't like how specific Question 10 was by making us focus on tourism but I managed to adapt what I had. I agree that Source H was tricky. I just kept referencing the fences.

Societies freaked me out at first because the questions were very obscure and I was not expecting them at all. However, I think I managed to do quite well in this section, especially with the 15 marker.

The Agrippina questions were pretty good. I think I did well for the 10 marker but in the 15 marker I was flustered and rushed (I don't know why because I did this section first). Basically it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be but I used lots of historians and wrote a lot so hopefully it was ok.

Section 4 was terrible. I did NKE Amenhotep III-Ramses II and like the other people on this thread found the questions way too specific for a 25 mark essay. I did the Battle of Kadesh one because I knew only 2 officials at a very basic level. I don't think I answered the question very well because I was talking about so much other stuff to try and make it the length of an essay. It was frustrating because I prepared for this section so much but those 2 questions were both horrible in my opinion.

[beatroot]

Pompeii and Herculaneum: Yay got 4/5 for the multiple choice questions!! Honestly source C confused me because I didn't know what they were doing. I thought the person was tanning the cloth so I put down tanner . Short answers were sweet. The question for extended response wasn't too bad but I think the way I approached was awful. I said that tourism was good-ish BUT was bad because it also quickened the process of deterioration. O well.

Spartan society: All the question were amazing honestly. Are artisans and craftsmen the same thing? I totally forgot what a fisherman was called during the exam so I put down craftsmen instead for the first question. Artemis Orthia was sweet and also the marriage customs. My teacher was shocked when I told her that in my marriage customs response, I said 'fill her up with noble sperm' (Plutarch). It's still a source so... For the extended response, I predicted that it was going to be cultural life and I nearly cried when I saw it in the exam. For our Sparta assessment this year, we had the exact same question so this section was good. I mentioned Laconian Cup (the source given), Arkesilas Cup, Herodotus' account of the Karneia, the ivory sculptures of the Dioscuri, Pausanias' account of the buildings in Sparta and the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. I should've included Alcman but ran out of time.

Xerxes: Slightly disappointed in the questions. Succession to kingship was alright and the influence of Xerxes during his time was completely made up. Talked about his revolts and his administration of the empire and also how the result of the Persian wars influenced Athens to develop into a democratic empire.

Greek World: 500-440BC: I keep forgetting that this topic is split into three dot points not two. So guess which dot point turns up in the exam? The one I didn't study for because I completely forgot it existed. I would like to track down the HSC marker marking my essay and would like to formally apologise to him/her. Barely had sources for the question that I picked.

But hey! This Ancient History exam is literally history now. HUGE relief that its finally over!

[sudodds]

Exam overall was fine, curious to know what the multiple choice was for the Roman colony or something like that, I have a feeling it's the Latin names one but i put down Amphitheater

So glad that overall you found the exam to be quite accessible! Don't worry too much about the multiple choice It's just one mark - highly unlikely that it would have made a huge difference

Well done!

Susie

[sudodds]

I got the question 5 multiple choice question wrong.  The worst part is, I have actually walked down and saw the tombs outside the Nuceria gate no less than a year ago  

Other than that, section one treated me relatively nice.
For question 6, I am lucky that I mentioned the Alexander the Great mosaic and the cult of isis.
As for question 7, I struggled a little, though I did mention a few of the points you noted.
I should recieve 10 marks for question 8 which I was fully prepared for.

 I thought I did really well in the Sparta section. I was lucky with the questions.

Our period study topic for section IV was NKE: Amenhotep III - Rameses II. In my honest opinion, the questions were ridiculous. Definitely not what many would have prepared for (including myself).

One multiple choice question really isn't a big deal don't worry! I got a multiple choice question wrong in both Modern and Ancient last year, and it hardly affected my mark overall So cool that you've been to Pompeii though! So jealous. So glad that the rest of Section 1 went well though Sounds like you smashed it! Especially in Sparta!

If the question was super hard for NKE, then that'll be taken into account in the moderation of the exam So don't worry too much, as long as you wrote something, you'll probably be scaled up!

Great work,

Susie

[sudodds]

Hey,
So here are my slightly longish thoughts:

Pompeii & Herculaneum: I got all of the multiple choice right (which is so surprising seeing I didn't know the sources at all and guessed some )!!! I think that I went ok with this section.
With question 6, I talked about the Nilotic imagery and the temple of Isis. I also talked about the House of the Faun and said it had Nilotic Imagery-I wasn't too sure in the exam but is that where the source is from?

With question 7, I didn't remember all of the political terms but talked about the aediles and quinquennial duumvirs in general terms. I also talked about how political figures were normally from a wealthy patrician background, client-patron relationships, that Eumachia was an influential political figure, political programmata/graffiti urging people to vote for a particular person, and the statue of Marcus Nonius Balbus.

With the 10-mark response, I talked about how the international recognition by UNESCO has allowed more education, awareness, reporting and funding to be done throughout both towns. I also talked about how areas of the towns were separated from the public and they didn’t have access to the whole site however tourists did destroy some areas with graffiti, taking ‘souvenirs’, etc.  With source H, I said that the raised footpaths would mean that tourists would not wear down the roads/paths of Pompeii as much but I felt like it was a hard source to try to write about.

Sparta: I really liked these questions  . I feel like my answer for Artemis Ortheia needed a bit of work (I forgot what God it was! But I did talk about the temple of AO and the cheese whipping festival) but the essay was really good. For the essay, I wrote about art (bronzework of the Perioki, cups/kylixes) and the writing of Alcmann/Tyrtaeus (just realised I spelt his name wrong in the whole essay) but I think it was a bit too short. I tried to talk about the Spartan mirage here as well.

Agrippina: I didn’t study for the first question too much so I’m not too sure how I went. For the 2nd question, I did it like that as well (slightly different though) and was pretty happy with it as I remembered heaps of my Ancient/modern quotes and archaeological evidence!

Julio-Claudians: My essay was terrible! I did the senate question and forgot so much detail and quotes. It was also really short. I went home and saw how many quotes that were in my detail table and can’t believe I forgot all of them! Hoping that I do well in all of the other topics to balance this out.

Can’t believe Ancient is over!

YAY KATIE!!!! Great work - you've been working so hard over the last year, so you really deserve to smash this exam Don't worry too much about the Julio-Claudians - its a really hard/huge topic, so I'm sure other people struggled with those questions as well, not just you - this will be taken into consideration through moderation! Focus on the positives! Sounds like overall, you absolutely killed it!

Great work <3

Susie

[sudodds]

For the 10 marker in the Pompeii and Herculaneum section I spoke quite a bit about conservation projects such as the Pompeii Forum Project and the Herculaneum Conservation Project, while linking them to tourism. Would that be ok?

Definitely okay! I think they would have been great to talk about, considering the question was on conservation (particularly like how you provided examples for both Pompeii and Herculaneum!

Also, I barely knew anything about Spartan marriage customs but as it did say customs I interpreted that to mean general culture around marriage. So I spoke about how the kings could determine a women’s marriage, how they inherited land, how married women were expected to primarily be child bearers, how Spartan Men were required to dedicate more time to the military than their wives and how old bachelors were taunted. How many marks will I scrape with that?

I think that should still be okay! You may not be able to get full marks with that response, but I think, if you still provided a lot of evidence, if you mentioned all those points a 3/5 would not be out of reach (perhaps even a 4/5! It was quite a specific question, that i'm sure quite a lot of people would have had problems with)

Besides that, and the ridiculous NKE Amenhotep III - Ramesses II question I found it all fairly achievable. And yes, of course I made up some Historians names I forgot for my quotes.

Good luck to everyone else!

Eh everyone does You probably won't lose marks for that, you just won't gain one, so no biggie!

Great work! I'm sure you absolutely smashed it!! Good luck for your other exams,

Susie