Cambridge A Level Classical Studies 9274 — 2011 Oct/Nov Paper 3 · Variant 1

This document consists of 3 printed pages and 1 blank page. DC (LEO) 28486/4 © UCLES 2011 [Turn over UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS General Certificate of Education Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level * 1 7 9 0 9 9 5 5 3 5 * CLASSICAL STUDIES 9274/03 Paper 3 Classical History – Sources and Evidence October/November 2011 1 hour 30 minutes Additional Materials: Answer Booklet/Paper READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST If you have been given an Answer Booklet, follow the instructions on the front cover of the Booklet. Write your Centre number, candidate number and name on all the work you hand in. Write in dark blue or black pen. You may use a pencil for any diagrams, graphs or rough working. Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid. This paper contains two options. Answer one question. Every essay is marked out of 50. You are advised to spend 20 minutes reading and thinking about the three passages on the option you have chosen to answer, and then 10 minutes planning your answer. Answers need to make use of all three passages given for the question you are answering. You are reminded of the need for good English and clear presentation in your answer. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together.

2 9274/03/O/N/11 © UCLES 2011 1 The changing world of Athens: its friends and enemies Read the following passage and answer the question which follows: Two other factors, however, make any view which imputes aggressive intent to Athens unlikely. First, at Potidaea, at least, Athens did not act with unprovoked aggression but was reacting to Corinthian hostility; much the same is probably true of the Megarian Decree: it was the Athenian answer to Megarian provocation. Far more important is the fact that Pericles could not have hoped for anything more than survival in the war he is alleged to have been careless about provoking. It is conceivable that the average Athenian voter was more optimistic; but that Pericles positively welcomed a war in which he had no hope of a victory but only of avoiding defeat defies belief. Athens’ offers of arbitration may therefore be taken at their face value: Athens was trying to avoid the war, while at the same time refusing to give way to Spartan pressure. This makes Corinthian responsibility far greater. J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth (1997) To what extent was the Greek world forced into united opposition to Athens in the fifth century? In your answer you should consider the passage above and your wider reading as well as the two passages below. People’s feelings were generally very much on the side of the Spartans, especially as they proclaimed that their aim was the liberation of Hellas. States and individuals alike were enthusiastic to support them in every possible way, both in speech and action, and everyone thought that unless he took a personal share in things the whole effort was being handicapped. So bitter was the general feeling against Athens, whether from those who wished to escape from her rule or from those who feared that they would come under it. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 2. 8 But after all – we’re all friends talking together here – why do we blame it all on the Spartans? It was some Athenians who started it – some Athenians, mind you, not Athens, remember that, not the City – but a bunch of good-for-nothing individuals, worthless counterfeit foreigners, bad coin through and through. They kept denouncing Megarians – first of all their woollen cloaks, and soon, whenever they saw a cucumber or a young hare or a piglet or some garlic or some rock-salt, ‘Megarian goods!’ they’d say, and had them confiscated and auctioned the same day. Well, that was a minor thing, just normal Athenian behaviour; but then some young roisterers got drunk, went to Megara and kidnapped their tart Simaetha; and this raised the Megarians’ hackles, and they stole two of Aspasia’s tarts in retaliation. And that was the reason why this war erupted throughout the Greek world: it was on account of three whores. Aristophanes, Acharnians 509–529

3 9274/03/O/N/11 © UCLES 2011 2 The Roman Empire: civilisation or submission? Read the following passage and answer the question that follows: (In the ancient world) history was regarded merely as a branch of literature ... Content was often distorted by writers’ resorting to ‘stock’ characters and ‘stock’ descriptions of literary convention, in preference to real facts. Telling a good story within the conventions was the primary aim. Similarly it is important to remember we only get the Roman viewpoint ... Barbarians can be presented in the Roman sources both as ‘noble savages’, reduced from liberty to slavery by Roman conquest, and as mere ‘cannon fodder’ for Roman victories. J.C. Mann & R.G Penman, Literary Sources for Roman Britain (LACTOR 11, 1996) ‘The bias of Roman writers makes it almost impossible to gain an accurate understanding of opposition to the Romans.’ How far do you agree with this view? In your answer, you should consider the passage above and your wider reading as well as the two passages below: The news of these events soon reached Gaul; and the Gauls, drawing what they thought was the natural inference, invented a story that Caesar was detained by the disturbances in Rome, where political strife was so acute, they said, that he could not rejoin his army. The prospect of such a chance spurred them into action. They were already smarting under the subjection to Rome, and now began to plan war with greater confidence and boldness. The leading men arranged meetings at secluded spots in the woods, where they spoke bitterly of the execution of Acco and pointed out that the same fate might befall them next. They complained of the miserable condition of the whole country, and offered tempting rewards to induce some of their hearers to open hostilities and risk their lives for the liberty of Gaul. The first step, they said, was to contrive means of cutting Caesar off from his army before their plot was divulged ... In any case it was better to die in battle than to resign themselves to the loss of their ancient military glory and the liberty inherited from their ancestors. Caesar, Gallic Wars 7. 1–2 So Caesar now ordered them to raze the whole city and Sanctuary to the ground, leaving the towers that overtopped the others ... to show later generations what a proud and mighty city had been humbled by the gallant sons of Rome. All the rest of the fortifications encircling the City were so completely levelled with the ground that no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited. This then was the end to which the mad folly of revolutionaries brought Jerusalem, a magnificent city renowned to the ends of the earth. To guard the site Caesar decided to leave the Tenth Legion with a few troops of horse and companies of foot; and having now settled all the problems arising from the war, he decided to congratulate the whole army on its achievements and to bestow suitable rewards on those whose services were outstanding ... He thanked them heartily for their unfailing loyalty to him, and praised their obedience throughout the war, shown along with personal heroism in many dangerous situations. By their own efforts they had increased the power of their country and had made it plain to all men that neither the number of their enemies, the strength of their defences, the size of their cities, nor the reckless daring and brutal savagery of their warriors could ever hold out against Roman valour, even if some of them had found in fortune a constant ally. Josephus, The War of the Jews (Penguin, chapter 22)

4 9274/03/O/N/11 © UCLES 2011 BLANK PAGE Copyright Acknowledgements: Question 1 © J.B. Salmon; Wealthy Corinth ; Oxford University Press; 1997. Question 1 © R. Warner; Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War ; Penguin; 1972. Question 1 © A.H. Sommerstein; Aristophanes, Lysistrata & Other Plays, Penguin; 2002. Question 2 © J.C. Mann & R. G. Penman; Literacy Sources for Roman Britain ; LACTOR 11; 1996. Question 2 © S.A. Handford; Caesar: The Conquest of Gaul ; Penguin Books; (1951) 1980. Question 2 © G.A. Williamson; Josephus, The Jewish War, Penguin Books; 1970. Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity. University of Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2011 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9274 CLASSICAL STUDIES 9274/03 Paper 3 (Classical History – Sources and Evidence), maximum raw mark 50 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began, which would have considered the acceptability of alternative answers. Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the examination. • Cambridge will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes. Cambridge is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2011 question papers for most IGCSE, GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level syllabuses.

Page 2 Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version Syllabus Paper GCE AS/A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9274 03 © University of Cambridge International Examinations 2011 1 To what extent was the Greek world forced into united opposition to Athens in the fifth century? General Any critical exploration as an answer to a paper 3 question will necessarily encompass differing views, knowledge and argument. Thus the mark scheme for these questions cannot and should not be prescriptive. Candidates are being encouraged to explore, in the exam room, a theme that they will have studied. Engagement with the question as set (in the exam room) may make for limitations in answers but this is preferable to an approach that endeavours to mould pre-worked materials of a not too dissimilar nature from the demands of the actual question. Examiners are encouraged to constantly refresh their awareness of the question so as not to be carried away by the flow of an argument which may not be absolutely to the point. Candidates must address the question set and reach an overall judgement, but no set answer is expected. The question can be approached in various ways and what matters is not the conclusions reached but the quality and breadth of the interpretation and evaluation of the texts offered by an answer. Successful answers will need to make use of all three passages, draw conclusions and arrive at summative decisions. Specific The quotation from JB Salmon’s book seeks to present a view of Athens’ role in the run-up to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. Candidates may well address this particular issue, though they may draw on a wider range of material to support their argument across the period studied. In answering the question, candidates will need to draw on a variety of sources to present their argument. Discussion should focus on the issues of interpretation raised by the passages, and candidates may also make reference to other states involved in the disagreements of the period studied; for example, the roles of Sparta, Thebes, Corcyra and Potidaea may be used to further illuminate the diplomatic tensions Athens experienced in the 430s, but also at other times as well. Candidates should explain the power blocks within the Greek world, especially where allegiances changed during the period (e.g. Corcyra, Megara) and the tensions that surfaced, for example within the Delian League (the revolts of Euboea and Samos, or others) and within the Peloponnesian League. The passages help focus on issues specific to 431 BC, though candidates may well wish to discuss the changing perceptions of Athens over the period from different perspectives within the ‘Greek world’ (Ionian cities, Sparta and Peloponnesian states, independent states in the wider Greek world). Thucydides seems to imply a degree of unity and he records one of Sparta’s ‘war aims’; some candidates may wish to explore the extent to which this was a realistic possibility at this time and discuss the outcome of the Peloponnesian War. Aristophanes provides a different view of the causes of hostility, and candidates may choose to look at individual responsibility for Athenian acts, though they may also discuss the context of this comic play and the extent to which it reflects internal Athenian discussion of policy. Candidates may also choose to focus on the significance of Sparta during this period and the extent to which she chose her own course of action or responded to the demands of others such as Corinth. Candidates may draw any sensible conclusions provided that these are supported with critical reference to the texts.

Page 3 Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version Syllabus Paper GCE AS/A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9274 03 © University of Cambridge International Examinations 2011 2 The Roman Empire: civilisation or submission? ‘The bias of Roman writers makes it almost impossible to gain an accurate understanding of opposition to the Romans.’ How far do you agree with this view? General Any critical exploration as an answer to a paper 3 question will necessarily encompass differing views, knowledge and argument. Thus the mark scheme for these questions cannot and should not be prescriptive. Candidates are being encouraged to explore, in the exam room, a theme that they will have studied. Engagement with the question as set (in the exam room) may make for limitations in answers but this is preferable to an approach that endeavours to mould pre-worked materials of a not too dissimilar nature from the demands of the actual question. Examiners are encouraged to constantly refresh their awareness of the question so as not to be carried away by the flow of an argument which may not be absolutely to the point. Candidates must address the question set and reach an overall judgement, but no set answer is expected. The question can be approached in various ways and what matters is not the conclusions reached but the quality and breadth of the interpretation and evaluation of the texts offered by an answer. Successful answers will need to make use of all three passages, draw conclusions and arrive at summative decisions. Specific The quotations offer a view of the nature of Roman historiography which better candidates may challenge through their reading of the prescribed and other texts, along with the views of commentaries and other works. Candidates may choose to discuss the extent to which the writing of history was ‘merely’ a branch of literature in the eyes of the Romans; they might also question the issue of style as ‘pre-eminent’. There are other issues in the quotations, e.g.: • distortion • telling a good story • the issue of the Roman point of view • the views of barbarians in the sources. The passage from Caesar should lead candidates to consider Caesar’s evidence for what he writes, the characterisation of the Gauls, the motives and the thinking he ascribes to the Gauls, and so on. They should also consider how far what he writes, in this extract and elsewhere, is determined by his own agenda and situation. The passage from Josephus offers candidates opportunities to consider the historical accuracy of the account from a non-Roman, the context in which he was writing, and his agenda (or that of his masters). The passage offers a Roman point of view towards opposition and consequences of opposition which better candidates may consider in the light of other evidence from Tacitus and Caesar. They may ask what can be understood from the sources about Roman policy and the reactions to it by indigenous populations. Candidates may include examples from the sources to support their discussion, e.g.: • Tacitus, Agricola: the evidence of 15 on the views of the Britons (Boudicca) and the speech of Calgacus (30-32); Agricola’s victory at Mons Graupius (36-37); the night attack (26) • Caesar Gallic Wars: Caesar’s reactions to revolts (6.3); Vercingetorix’s speeches (7.2) and characterisation; Aeduan resistance (7.3) and Caesar’s account of the situation at Gergovia; Critognatus’ speech (7.5)

Page 4 Mark Scheme: Teachers’ version Syllabus Paper GCE AS/A LEVEL – October/November 2011 9274 03 © University of Cambridge International Examinations 2011 • Josephus War of the Jews: the view expressed about Vespasian (3.1ff.; about Simon (7.34ff); about the Jews (7.260ff); Eleazar’s speech (7.315ff); the German revolt. There are other authors and texts which candidates might use to discuss the nature of historical writing and the extent to which any accurate account can be gained. Better candidates should provide precise and relevant examples from their relevant reading to support any conclusion or judgement on the issues. Candidates may draw any sensible conclusions provided that these are supported with critical reference to the texts.