Guidance notes

This TMA involves writing a longer version of something you have already done before in the unit activities, especially during Block 4: a critique of a scholarly article. You therefore already have the skills you need to complete the task. You might want to return to some of these to refresh your memory (e.g. in Block 4: Unit 1, Activities 1.7 and 1.10; Unit 2, Activity 2.11; Unit 3, Activities 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 Unit 4, Activities 4.6 and 4.12; Unit 5, Activity 5.2).

The article is of a relatively short length (and figures and maps occupy some of the space), but you may want to read it in several different sittings, and you will certainly need to reread it at least once.

How you structure your answer is entirely up to you, but it will read better if you start out with a brief introduction, setting out the context of the article, and end it with a conclusion in which you sum up the main points you have made. In the main body of your work, you should use the three-part methodology you have used in several of the activities mentioned above. Consider these aspects of your critique as you read and reread the article:

Summarise: identify the key points of the argument and the evidence on which it is based.

Criticise: examine the key points critically in relation to what you have learned in Block 4, assessing the use of evidence by the author and forming a judgement on the arguments they offer.

Problematise: think about aspects of the article which might be approached differently.

You may use these headings to structure your answer. You may also, however, choose to structure your answer entirely differently, perhaps by focusing on each of the key points in the article in turn. Regardless of how you do it, make sure your answer does those three things that a critique of a scholarly work always ought to, i.e. summarise, criticise, problematise. It is important to remember, when you are summarising an argument, not to simply paraphrase what the author says but rather to distil it down in your own words and in a way that shows your reader that you have really understood the main thrust or key points of the argument. Similarly, you will need to show that you are able to pull out the parts of the article that address the three criteria mentioned above. It may be helpful for you to identify those parts of the article which present evidence and describe the material on which the argument is based as well as to consider the conceptual and theoretical approaches which drive the argument.

Some of the possible questions you may like to consider are:

• What does Maréchal hope to achieve in this article?
• Does he make assumptions about what evidence of bathing and private bath houses can be taken to indicate? Are these well substantiated?
• Who are the ‘elite’ in Maréchal’s account, and is his use of the term consistent? To what extent is Maréchal’s framing of an ‘elite’ reliant on understandings of such groups drawn from other parts of the Roman world?
• Is ‘competition’ the only or even the best vector through which to assess the development of private bath houses?
• How far do ‘urban centres’ feature in this account and how well are problems of archaeological survival dealt with?
• What do you make of his chosen case study? How representative of the wider region is this area? How is the case study used to assess the wider body of evidence?
• Does he outline any issues with the source types used? How effectively are different types of source used in combination (especially archaeological and textual)?
• How thorough and rigorous are his methods in handling the evidence?
• Does he integrate ideas from other scholars?
• Is his argument well-structured and easy to follow? Does he argue the case effectively?
• How successfully does he link his observations to wider arguments about the nature of cultural change in the Roman provinces?

Note that Bathing was explored in Block 4, Unit 2, and questions of cultural diversity in Unit 5. You might want to consider how Maréchal’s discussion relates to broader approaches to bathing and the archaeology of bath houses in the Roman empire. Using primary and secondary resources, including the interactive map, should help you to critically assess the claims Maréchal makes, and to gauge his work against the current state of the field. Although this article is about the spread of bathing outside of Rome and Italy, your answer should focus on the article itself, and its strengths and weaknesses.

The aim of this TMA is to assess your ability to evaluate critically and challenge the information, arguments and assumptions presented in a piece of secondary scholarship. You should present to the reader a clear summary of the evidence and arguments made, and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used, and conclusions reached. You are not asked to write about Roman bathing culture generally. However, you may wish to read secondary scholarship beyond this article to inform your answer. If you do so, be sure to provide references and make sure that you follow the OU Cite Them Right guidance carefully.