Ritical response paper-the emperors new clothes

Critical Response Paper II Assignment:
I. Carefully read and take notes on the article:
Pitts, Martin. The Emperors New Clothes? The Utility of Identity in Roman Archaeology.American
Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 693-713.
II. To what degree is authors thesis and argumentation convincing?1 Indicate the strengths and weaknesses of
the authoras data, arguments, and thesis, while setting this reading in the context of the other readings,
lectures, and recitations.
III. Do not summarize the authors data. Analyze the arguments and use of evidence; BE SPECIFIC.
IV. Write between 1,500 to 1,600 words (not counting titles): NO MORE, NO LESS.
V. Cite the page and text of any source that you paraphrase; you may use a few (5) short ( 10 word)
quotations, if a paraphrase will not convey the point.
VI. Title your response paper with your last name (e.g. Harrington-CP-II.docx) and email it in .docx format by
Friday, April 4, 2014 at 9:00 pm to your TA (CCing the instructor). The text of the paper should ALSO be
pasted into the body of the email.
In this article, the author critiques particular uses of Identity Theory in archaeological analysis and then
proposes his own methodology for relating objects to identity. Your task is to critique the arguments in this
article. Is the author fair in his use of the alternate formulations of Identity Theory as applied to archaeology?
(Are his discussions sufficiently balanced and well-supported in their arguments?) Does his proposal model the
connection between objects and ideas more effectively than those he critiques?
What elements of his argument are convincing or fail to persuade the reader (i.e. you)? Why? You must
take a position and argue it thoroughly. You do not have to agree at all points with the author or even with me,
but you must have logical reasons for your views based on specific evidence from the readings, lectures, and
recitations.
An Arange paper:
consists of analysis of the arguments and methods of a reading, not summary of the data
shows awareness of concepts from lectures and readings
has an argumentative thesis and focuses on the logical demonstration of that thesis
uses specific references to the texts, but minimizes quotation in favor of concise paraphrase
contains references to the texts that are necessary and well-integrated with the argument
cites all sources, including paraphrases
is clear, concise, and specific
meets the required length
has been proofread for typos and syntactic errors
1 It is entirely possible for an author to be right (thesis) for all the wrong reasons (data & arguments), or have all the right reasons (data
& arguments) and still be wrong in the interpretation (thesis). Each element of the text should be critiqued on its own merits