Primary Source Analysis — Study Guide

This assignment asks you to slow down and look hard at a single thing. Across the first weeks of the course we have ranged widely, from the deep prehistory of the eastern Mediterranean to the world of early Greece, examining many kinds of evidence along the way. For this paper you will choose one source from that material and write a close analysis of it. The skill being assessed is not breadth but depth — the disciplined reading of one text or one object until it yields its evidence.

The assignment

For your first assignment, a primary source analysis, choose one of six primary sources — three texts and three images — that will be announced in class and listed here in good time before the deadline. The texts will be drawn from the weekly reading; the images from the discussion documents and the lecture slides. Write a focused analysis of your chosen source.

Lengthup to c. 1,000 words

Format12 pt, c. 4 pages double-spaced

Not countedfootnotes & bibliography

Imagesinclude as many as appropriate

CitationChicago / MLA / Harvard — any one, used consistently

Footnotes and a bibliography or list of works cited do not count toward the 1,000 words. You may include as many images as you think appropriate. You may use any of the established referencing conventions so long as you do so consistently throughout.

How to use this guide. The shortlist of six sources will be posted here closer to the deadline; until then, use this guide to understand what the assignment asks and how it will be graded. The analytical checklist below maps directly onto the grading rubric at the foot of this page. Read the rubric before you start writing: it tells you exactly what “exemplary” analysis looks like.

Your six sources

Before the assignment is due, a choice of six sources will appear here. Three will be texts, three will be images. This will be announced in class and the document updated so you can prepare in good time.

In the meantime. The sources will be drawn from material studied across the first four weeks — in the weekly readings, the discussion documents, and the lecture slides. The best preparation is to engage fully with all of the weekly sources as we go, rather than waiting for the shortlist: the analytical skills below apply to any of them, and the wider your reading now, the stronger your eventual choice and argument will be.

What close analysis looks like

Whichever source you choose, the rubric rewards the same moves. Use these as a checklist while drafting:

Cover the basics. For a text: author, audience, genre, contents, context. For an object: maker, function, material, find-context, date. Establish what the source is before saying what it means.
Analyse, don’t just describe. Description tells the reader what is there; analysis asks how it is structured and what that structure does. Aim for analysis with description in support, not the reverse.
Evaluate perspective. Whose viewpoint does the source encode? What does it reveal, conceal, or take for granted? A palace tablet and a Hesiodic poem each have an angle.
Identify and develop a key theme. Build one clear argument about a central idea, supported by specific details (cited), and clarify the relationships among those details rather than listing them.
Cite specific evidence, and read beyond the source. Quote or point to specific lines or features; bring in original, peer-reviewed secondary reading (not only works supplied by the instructor) to support — and to push beyond — your own observations.

On generative AI. You may consult your preferred GenAI chatbot to undertake research, to help with ideas, and to identify readings — but you may not use any language generated by GenAI in your paper. If you do use GenAI, let me know, and cite it according to the Towson Cook Library guidelines.

Grading rubric

Primary Source Analysis — Rubric (Paul Stephenson)

Grading scale: A (94–100) · A− (90–93) · B+ (87–89) · B (84–86) · B− (80–83) · C+ (77–79) · C (70–76) · D+ (69–67) · D (66–60) · F (59 and below)

	Exemplary (A)	Adequate (B)	Minimal (C, D+)	Attempted (D–F)
Source Analysis Basics	Cites specific textual evidence to support analysis. Exemplary connection of insights gained from specific details to broader reading (cited). Addresses all basics: author, audience, genre, contents, contexts.	Cites specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary sources. Satisfactory connection of insights gained from specific details to gain understanding of text as a whole. Addresses some basics.	Minimal textual evidence to support analysis of primary sources; minimal analysis (more description). Partial connection of insights, no citations. Fails to address basics, omits author or audience.	Little or no textual evidence given. Little or no connections or insights gained from specific details.
Structure and Context	Exemplary analysis of how a primary source is structured, presented. Strong evaluation of authorial perspective(s). Almost all analysis with supporting description only to elucidate content and context.	Adequate analysis of how a primary source is structured, presented. Evaluates some aspects of authorial perspective(s). Some elements are more descriptive than analytical.	Minimal analysis of how a primary source is structured, presented. Minimal evaluation of authorial perspective(s). Maximal description, minimal analysis.	Little to no analysis of how a primary source is structured, presented. Little to no evaluation of authorial perspective(s). No analysis, all descriptive or narrative.
Identification and development of key theme(s)	Exemplary identification of central ideas or key theme(s). Provides clear and accurate summary that clarifies the relationships among key details and ideas. Cites original, peer-reviewed reading in support of argument.	Satisfactory identification of central ideas or key information. Summarizes and clarifies the relationships among key ideas and details. Cites some secondary works (supplied by instructor, on Bb), not all peer-reviewed.	Minimally identifies central ideas or key information. Somewhat summarizes or clarifies the relationships between key ideas and details. Cites only non–peer-reviewed secondary literature (C) or none at all (D).	Little to no identification of central ideas or key information. Inadequate summary; little to no clarification of relationships between key ideas and details. No cited secondary reading.