what kind of traveler your character was, i.e. class, religious background, gender, and occupation?
M05 Assignment Instructions.html
Module 4: Paper Prompt
Paper Using the Digital Project ORBIS: https://orbis.stanford.edu/
Using the Orbis site, write a historically accurate narrative of a traveler in the Roman Empire in 200 CE. You must choose what kind of traveler your character was, i.e. class, religious background, gender, and occupation. Then, you must also choose a specific route using the ORBIS project. Use primary documents available in your textbook and the data from ORBIS to strengthen your narrative. Use your textbook to better understand life in the Roman Empire circa 200 CE.
Make sure to pay attention to the historical context (culture, society, and economy of the Roman Empire in 200 CE)
Your paper should be at least 900 words and no more than 1,200 words in Times New Roman, 12-point font, and double-spaced.
You will be writing a historical short story. So while you will need to be historically accurate by recreating a believable narrative of a traveler in the Roman Empire based on the knowledge you accumulated from the textbook, lectures, and primary documents, the style is not the same as for an essay. Only use sources from our class material (Lecture+Textbook with Primary Sources) and the data from ORBIS.
Failure to follow guidelines will result in point deductions.
Cite all your sources by using footnotes and use the Chicago Manual of Style. It is accessible in the Reese Library’s Reference section, call number: Z253 .U69 2010.
HOW YOU WILL BE GRADED
Rubric for Paper
Minimally Competent (2)
Not Competent (0)
Thesis and Arguments
The author creates a believable and historically informed Roman point of view that is consistent throughout the text.
The author creates an adequate Roman POV.
The author creates a marginally acceptable Roman POV, but not always consistent throughout the paper.
Creates somewhat inconsistent with historical facts Roman POV.
Completely inconsistent with a Roman POV.
The author uses good evidence from the textbook and primary sources available that strengthens the narrative about the Roman World and shows the student understand this historical period.
The author uses some good evidence from the textbook and primary sources available that strengthen the narrative about the Roman World and shows the student understand this historical period.
The author uses some evidence (though not the best available) that supports the narrative about the Roman world.
little evidence used.
no evidence used.
The paper is well written with no grammar or punctuation errors, and the language is precise and appropriately formal. The paper flows and is well organized.
The mechanics of the paper are correct, and is well-written and properly organized. Only occasional errors in mechanics.
Weakness in spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar. Sentence and paragraph construction is distracting and weakens paper.
Problems in spelling, punctuation, paragraph construction, and grammar make parts of the paper unintelligible. Weak organization.
Problems in spelling, punctuation, paragraph construction, and grammar so severe so as to make the paper unintelligible with little organization.
The author analyzes the sources with insight, placing the evidence in the appropriate historical contexts. Thorough awareness of perspective on the sources. Demonstrates depth of understanding of the relevant period and places.
Some effort at contextualizing the evidence, and at critically using the sources in the appropriate context. Demonstrates awareness of period and place of source.
Partial contextualization of sources. Irrelevant or misinformed placement of sources in period and place.
Minimal evaluation of the context of the sources, and use of the sources unconnected to the source.
Demonstrates no awareness of the need to contextualize sources.
All sources cited in footnotes in the Chicago Manual of Styles’ (CMS) notes format.
All sources cited in footnotes in the CMS’s notes format but with some mistakes.
Most sources cited in footnotes in the CMS but some missing and some errors.
Or cited but in the wrong format.
Few sources cited.
No citations at all.