Ritical Response PaperThe Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes and Athletes
Critical Response Paper I J. Matthew Harrington Ph.D. DUE: Friday, February 21, 2013 by 9:00 pm Archaeology 27: Spring 2014
Critical Response Paper I Assignment:
I. Carefully read and take notes on the article:
Barringer, Judith M. The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes.in Hesperia, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Apr. Jun., 2005), pp. 211-241.
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-I.docx) and email it in .docx format by Friday, February 21, 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.
As with all texts, both ancient and modern, academic texts are rhetorical devices designed to set the ideas of the author in the best possible light. The forms of evidence and rules of argument differ greatly, however, depending on the training and perspectives of the author and of the intended audience. For example, prehistorians may distrust ancient texts, since their training was focused on cultures without written history; they may similarly discount the role of individuals in historical processes. An art historian might attend zealously to a particular object, while deemphasizing the broader context of the practice that created that one instance and while focusing on the unusual objects of the very wealthy rather than versions more typical of the culture as a whole. Archaeologists suffer from all of the above and several issues of their own.
Your task is to critique the arguments in this article. What evidence does the author use or omit? How does she link pieces of evidence into arguments? What is convincing or fails to persuade? Why? 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 (thesis). Each element of the text should be critiqued on its own merits. I have article which I will fax.