TCE Ancient History Practice Questions

What is weak. The paragraph asserts the mass-suicide story as fact without naming its only literary source, so it cannot show the student analysing evidence (Criterion 4 Element 1). 'Many people think' is an unattributed generalisation, and 'Yadin dug it up and found things' mentions an excavator without saying what was found or how it bears on the argument, so there is no synthesis of primary and secondary sources (Element 3). It also offers a personal value judgement ('very brave') in place of a historical position (Element 4), and it lacks a topic sentence tied to the question.

Rewritten paragraph. The account of a collective suicide at Masada rests almost entirely on Josephus, whose reliability is limited by his position. Writing The Jewish War in Rome under Flavian patronage in the 70s AD, Josephus was not present at the siege and reconstructs Eleazar ben Yair's two speeches in the manner of Greco-Roman historiography, which suggests literary invention rather than eyewitness report. Yigael Yadin's excavations (1963–65) were presented as confirming the narrative: he publicised ostraca bearing names, including one reading 'ben Yair', which he linked to Josephus' story of lots being drawn, and a small number of skeletons. Later scholars such as Nachman Ben-Yehuda have argued that Yadin's interpretation was shaped by the needs of a young Israeli state for a heroic symbol, and that the remains are too few to confirm 960 deaths. The archaeology therefore corroborates the siege itself, including the Roman ramp and camps, but not the details of the suicide, so the event is better treated as a contested representation than as established fact.

Why it is stronger. It opens with an arguable claim, attributes the primary source and its context, uses archaeological evidence precisely, introduces a modern scholar's interpretation in a lead sentence, and ends with a judgement that answers a historiographical question.

Indicative mark allocation (ATARMAxxing scheme, not a TASC mark scheme; TASC rates this course by criteria only, A+ to z): 2 marks for identifying the Criterion 4 weaknesses (no attribution, no synthesis, opinion in place of argument); 3 marks for a rewritten paragraph that integrates an attributed primary source and a named secondary interpretation; 1 mark for a supported concluding judgement.