In what ways and to what effect, does Virgil develop the character of Aeneas in books one and two?

This question could connect to the A-Level; Classical Civilisations, The Aeneid.  

         In book one Aeneas is in the early stages of his journey. It could be argued that he has the characteristics of a displaced exile and is suffering from PTSD. Therefore, if you take this as the truth, the characteristics he shows in book one must be the product of the trauma he has experienced and you must understand (and give him leniency accordingly) that his words and actions may not be what he would truly be like if he were in his right mind. By the time Aeneas gets to book two he has had time to accept what happened to him with help from his comrades and with guidance from his mother. Also by the end of book two Aeneas has clearly developed away from the state we found him in, the retelling of the fall of Troy from his point of view may have helped him with this.

          Aeneas first involvement in the poem is during the storm/shipwrecking. This is where we also see the first of him ourselves, and it is not a good first impression. The very first adjective we have to describe him is ‘weak’ which is only then again implied through his cry to the gods ‘why could I not have… breathed out my life on the plains of Troy’. Aeneas is clearly a sorry creature, we can also see he describing himself as timid as he did not die alongside the ‘brave men’ in the battle of Troy. This also may show his regret of leading the people of Troy away from the burning city even though Hector told him to. This speech can also demonstrate Aeneas sense of self-doubt, he believes in himself very little as point, but soon Aeneas will remember his purpose and will be revived again.

          While the rest of the Trojans were working away to make camp once they had landed in Libya, Aeneas was looking for the rest of his fleet. But having no such luck soon returns to the camp to provide a motivational speech. The speech has the effect of showing why Aeneas needs to hide his true feelings from his comrades; the influence he has over them is huge and he cares about them very much ‘Aeneas, who loved his men’.

          Also in their mourning Virgil takes the opportunity to again show Aenea’s self-doubt, as he refers to everyone other than himself as brave, ‘brave Gyras and brave Cloanthus’. This is much like Aeneas did during his crying’s during the storm and becomes a theme over the two books. It occurs again while Aeneas is trying to inspire some men into fighting during the fall ‘you are the bravest of all our warriors, and your bravery is in vain’ once again he never refers to his own bravery because he believes he has none. This theme runs until in the end of book two when Aeneas accepts he must be the brave one to lead the people from Troy ‘I [Aeneas] yielded’.

Although the first book is in the present and the second is a telling of the past you can still see the development of Aeneas through the way he tells his story and the emphasises he puts on certain things. Aeneas by the end of book two has had some happy moments, such as being reunited with his lost comrades. This moment allowed Virgil to show us that Aeneas has developed towards a place where he can be happy in the role he has to play. Also the retelling of the fall of Troy says something about the development of Aeneas. I believe the story he tells to Dido and her people has been heavily edited to purposefully manipulate them. If Aeneas was able to do this it would suggest that to some extent he is getting over his PTSD of the event and is looking to the future, towards his fate.

Although Aeneas does develop somewhat in books one and two, it is clear that he still is far off what he needs to become to complete his destiny. Virgil has set his development in motion, from the displaced exile who just had lost his wife and beloved home to what he is at the end of book two. A man who is worthy of Dido and knows what his place is in the world; to protect his men and the people he lead away from Troy and find them a home. Virgil shows his development through the actions Aeneas takes and in the speeches he makes with emotive language, the way he always compliments others and eventually himself.

“Good fortune as much as political skill explains Octavian’s rise to power in Rome” How Justified is the claim with reference to the period 44BC to 36BC?

This question could connect to the A-Level; Classical Civilisations, Augustus.

Octavian’s rise to power over the period 44BC and 36BC saw dramatic fluctuation between good fortune and political skill as the main contributor to gaining power within Rome. Public opinion is an important factor to consider when being to rise to power in Rome. Octavian uses his political skills and any good fortune to his advantage to influence the public’s opinion in his favour.

In 44BC Caesar was murdered; this caused public outcry and a power vacuum was left. Because of the violent nature of his murder the assassins did not receive the reaction they expected.  Also they lacked the forethought to plan a way get Rome back to its old republican ways once the effective ‘king’ had been killed. This was quite fortunate for Octavian and if had he been in Rome and had known he was Caesars heir he would have been able to take control easily. Antony took control instead. Nevertheless it set the seeds for Octavian’s rise to power.

Antony’s handling of Caesars assassins would later be of great benefit to Octavian. Because Antony granted amnesty to the assassins the public turned against him. This benefits Octavian because the public would be looking for an alternative leader.

The reading of Caesars will at his funeral was another fortunate coincidence for Octavian. Caesar gave many gardens to the Roman public as well as 75 Denarii. This caused a great wave of affection towards Caesar and when his toga was shown with blood and holes from the stab wounds, even rioting. Also having announced it in his will, affection flooded towards his adoptive son Octavian. Octavian as Caesars only legitimate heir was the only alternative to Antony.

Octavian arriving in Rome was his first chance to use his political ability increase his power in Rome. Antony tried to squander his chances by refusing to give him Caesars money. This meant Octavian was unable to pay Caesars debts or make allies within Rome. But using his political know how Octavian took out loans and sold his own properties to make enough money to pay the debts. This made him popular with Caesars old allies.

Through the use of games, Octavian made himself even more popular. He paid with his own money which was an effective way of making allies and is a good example of his political ability. At these games there is another example of Octavian's good fortune. A comet appeared in the sky over his games. The public took this as a sign of ‘divine’ Caesar taking his place with the Gods, this legitimized Octavian’s ‘rule’ at a time when Antony would not make Caesars adoption of Octavian legally valid. This was especially important to Octavian’s rise to power as all his possible power rests on the divinity of Caesar.

The loyalty of legions or troops is a very important factor to power in Rome. Therefore Octavian was smart enough to raise his own army. While the other players have no army Octavian has his own and even some of Antony’s legions defer to him. Cicero attempts to use Octavian for his own game, which was fortunate for Octavian as he now was able to legalise his troops and gain some much needed formal power. Octavian was only able to turn himself being used in his favour because of his excellent political ability.

In the battle against Antony, Octavian knows his legions don’t want to fight their old allies therefore Octavian lets the two consuls for that year take charge. This can be seen as cowardice but also it can equally been seen as a political move. Both Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius the two consuls die, leaving Octavian the soul command.

Octavian’s entire power base is rested on his adoptive father, therefore siding with Cicero and his father’s assassins undermines his route to power. To correct this Octavian refuses to co-operate with them and did not give up his legions. This can be seen as something other than loyalty to Caesar on the part of Octavian, it can also be seen as a political move. Now Octavian has got all he can from them and they are now looking to push him to the side in favour of the republic, Octavian must find a new ally against the republicans. Who better than Caesars old friend Antony?

A problem for Octavian fixes itself in Gaul where the republican cause collapsed and Brutus is murdered. This gets Octavian one step closer to avenging his father and is another example of Octavian’s good fortunes.

Marching on Rome was a quick fix to many of Octavian’s problems. It meant he could pay his legions to stay loyal and he was able to become consul. Meaning Octavian, alongside his cousin, legalised his adoption and condemned the assassins it their absence.

The second triumvirate was another smart political move for Octavian. Siding with his father’s old ally and Lepidus meant power was shared between them much like in the first triumvirate. But this alliance was no secret as the one before had been. Proscription lists meant the three were able to get rid of their enemies such as Cicero. The long awaited revenge of Caesars brutal murder happened at the Battle of Philippi. 

Octavian’s last obstacle was his ‘ally’ Antony. Once Lepidus is deposed and Octavian takes his and Pompeius’ troops there is little difference in the strength of each side. Antony has the money pot of land in the Roman Empire but Octavian has Rome. The Conference of Tarentum in 37 is a perfect example of Octavian’s shrewd political skill. Antony was to send Octavian ships to help in the fight against the blockade on Rome and Octavian in return was to send Antony 20,000 troops to fight with. Antony never received these men. Octavian was not about to send a men who undeniably he would be fighting later a Legion.

Octavian’s beginnings in his rise to power are largely due to his good fortune and not his political skill. If Caesar had not named him as his heir, or stirred up affection for himself and by extension Octavian, it is unlikely he would have even been considered as a possible alternative to Antony due to his age, distant blood relation and his lack of a military reputation. But good fortune could only get Octavian so far, he definitely shows a huge amount of political skill in the years better 44BC and 36BC. His first political move is a good example as it benefited him greatly, finding money by any means necessary and paying the debts Caesar had promised gave him a lasting advantage over the unpopular Antony.

Grade: B

To what extent is Dido the victim in the opening book of the Aeneid?

This essay can connect to the A-Level course; Classical Civilisations and a book, The Aeneid.

To an extent dido is a victim in the opening book of the Aeneid, but it could be arguing that she is not to a large extent as there are also Aeneas and Juno who are also victims, or see themselves as such. She is also not the victim of the Aeneid as there are others who have been through just as much as Dido and who are shown to act or think in a way of that which more suits the idea of a victim, which as well as meaning “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action”, it could also mean “a person who has come to feel helpless and passive in the face of misfortune or ill-treatment.”

Dido’s past sets up her up as a victim. Her brother killed her husband, who she was “sick with love” for, over “blood lust for his blood” and then “deceived her with false hopes and empty pretences”. This sets her up as the victim as it shows the horrible past that she has had to live through. However, Dido is not acting like a victim here in the sense of the ‘victim mentality’ as she is taking action to change things and she is not pitying herself or wishing for things to be different or dwelling on her difficult past like Aeneas and Juno have been seen doing, for example. When Aeneas does get told of Dido does really say about her past in book one is in relation to Aeneas’ story: “I, too, have known ill fortune like yours and been tossed from one wretchedness to another until at last I have been allowed to settle in this land. Through my own suffering, I am learning to help those who suffer”. This may show that Dido is a victim, but it would also show that she is overcoming this. It is also It is also probable that Dido would not want to be seen as is a victim at all, especially as she is a queen and will need to seem powerful, and victims are not seen as that, especially in the sense of the victim mentality as she is taking action and change upon herself. This especially shows her strength given that at this time women were seen as very much less than men and did not often get the chance to do anything themselves. Therefore, depending on which way you look at it, it could be argued that Dido is a victim because she has had an awful past or that she has not been a victim because she is not passive or helpless and is taking action.

There are others who can be seen as the victims of the opening of the Aeneid. One example of this is Aeneas and, to some extent, his men too. This beginning of this is that they all have suffered greatly, losing family and friends in the battle of Troy and losing their homes with the final fall of Troy, and the storm that is set for them by Juno and Aeolus. This would make them as much as victims as Dido is, perhaps even more so, and then Aeneas ass to this sense of him personally being a victim by what he says in the midst of the storm: “Those whose fate it was to die beneath the high walls of Troy with their fathers looking down on them were many, many times more fortunate than I. O Diomede, bravest of the Greeks, why could I not have fallen to your right hand and breathed out my life on the plains of Troy…”

Juno is another of these characters that can be seen as a victim. The book lists the things that have been done against her; “there still rankled deep in her heart the judgement of Paris and the injustice of the slight to her beauty, her loathing for her the whole stick of Dardanus and her fury at the honours done to Ganymede, whom her husband Jupiter had carried off to be her cupbearer”. This shows that she is clinging to the bad things that have been done to her and that she sees herself as a victim to what the other people are doing. However, it could be argued that whilst she does have a certain victim mentality, she is still not a victim because she is not becoming helpless and passive like the definition of a victim states, and she is instead becoming angry and taking action against these that have made her angry.

In conclusion, Dido herself is not the main victim of the opening of the Aeneid to a large extent at all, as though she is the victim of bad things that have happened to her, things just as bad have happened to other people also, and she is not dwelling on the bad things that had happened in the past and developing a victim attitude which it can perhaps be said that Juno and Aeneas are.

Grade: A

To what extent were Richard II and Henry IV responsible for the problems that occurred in their reigns?

This question could connect to the second year A-Level course; Medieval History.

Both Richard II and Henry IV had many problems during their reigns. Richards’s issues were the continuing influence of his uncles, the power of the nobles, his religious enthusiasm, wanting to extend royal authority all over England and the conflict in Ireland, Scotland and France.  The problems Henry faced in his reign after Richard were that he was considered a usurper, he had unsupportive magnates, the Welsh rebellion and the French.

Richard, who came to the throne at a young age, only truly took control of England in 1389, when Richard declared himself of full age and free to exercise his kingly rights without restraint, the restraint mentioned here is that of Richard’s advisers. On the death of the senile king Edward III, Richard inherited the throne at the age of ten. This meant he was not old enough to rule on his own and needed people to advise him. These people were John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, a man with vast wealth and power in various parts of England. Also there was Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, and Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. They did not help Richard to become an effective king, after a number of ineffective campaigns in France and Scotland, Richard himself was being blamed. This was a big problem for Richard as he needed support from the parliament and the people of England as he was the new king. Richard was not responsible for this problem though. John of Gaunt, Edmund and Thomas were to blame. Richard dealt with this issue by replacing his ‘uncles’ assembling his own choice of court party around him.

Another problem Richard had during his reign was the power of the nobles and his parliament. Richard had made the mistake of only rewarding his favourites like his teacher Robert de Vere, who he gave offices and land in Kent. Because only the favourites of Richard were rewarded this meant the other nobles were jealous and angry. Richards’s relationships with the powerful men in England were bad because of this and it meant he was a very unpopular king. John of Gaunt was in spite of this was extremely loyal to the king, his experience and wealth meant he remained the kings trusted ‘right arm’ though they had little affection for each other.

Richard had great faith throughout his reign. His belief grew in the 1390s, Richard showed this new faith by giving many gifts to the shrine of St. Edward the Confessor at Westminster, some of which survive until this day.  Also his investment in Westminster Abbey and York Minster, yet he passed no new statutes. Richards own faith meant he didn’t pay much attention to the significant impact of John Wyclif and his Lollard followers.  Which was a problem as some of the most important Lollards that followed John Wyclif formed part of the king's court as knights. These included Sir William Neville, Sir John Montague and Sir William Beachamp. Richard was responsible for this as he being king should have paid more attention to the movements of the English society.

Scotland and France allied together in 1385. This auld alliance put Richard on the defensive as now he could be attacked from both sides. France sent a force of men to the aid of the scots, with Scotland attacking on the border and France attacking the coast Richard led an army of 14,000 men in an invasion of Scotland. Unable to draw the scots into battle Richard left without prevailing. The king’s government was making lots of mistakes and parliament was angry about the lack of reforms and the expensive war. Also the added fact that Richard wanted to continue planning an invasion of Ireland even with all the trouble and debt he was already in. Richard is partly to blame for this problem, if he had been able to make more reforms or an alliance with France as Henry later does the parliament wouldn’t have undermined the king’s authority or sacked chancellor de la Pole.

Richard’s reign had a bad beginning with him being crowned so young, the guidance of the duke of Lancaster and others, the ambitions of the powerful nobles and the parliament and the conflicts with France and Scotland. These problems were not Richards fault. But Richard must take some blame for other problems such as him only rewarding his favourites and for his ignorance over the religious change of some of his court and the Lollard leader Wyclif.

Richard lost the throne when he took Henry’s Lancastrian estates. Henry came back to England to reclaim his land from the king, along the way to London Henry gained the support of powerful magnates concerned that their own land could be taken as Henry’s had been. By the time Richard got back to London he had lost all the little support he had and parliament subsequently declared Henry king. Even though parliament had made Henry king and he had the support of the common people he was still considered a usurper and his reign was full of conflict and rebellion. Henry was not responsible for being considered a usurper and the rebellions, but being that he took the throne from a king who was still alive it is to be expected.

Henry also had the problem of unsupportive magnates. The same magnates who had previously supported Henry in taking the throne from Richard were now against him, as they were more interested in building their own power bases and not supporting the crown. This was a big problem for Henry as he wanted the support of the powerful magnates being the new king, but he was not completely responsible for the problem.

Owen Glyndwr began a rebellion against English rule in wales. The rebellion which began in the autumn of 1400 and Glyndwr took on the title of Prince of Wales. The rebellion was hugely successful, with English control in wales being removed or reduced to the holding of a castle. Henry tried to put down the rebellion but failed. Glyndwr also allied with the powerful Percy family, gaining more English resistance to the cause. The rebellion was not Henry’s fault but because he didn’t stop Glyndwr the rebellion had wider implications with wales gaining the support of the French in 1404.

Henry’s reign over England was full of conflict and rebellion, the rebellion came from him being a usurper, which you can’t consider him being responsible for unless you believe he planned to take the throne the entire time and not just his own lands back. The conflict from France was going on during Richard's reign also so you can’t hold Henry responsible for that either.

Comparing Artists

This piece of work can connect to Fine Art A-level, it is a piece of work you will have to complete if you do the course.

The artists I have selected to compare with John Piper with his work called High Cross, and Vincent Van Gogh with his work called Mulberry Tree.

The High Cross created by John Piper in 1977-8 is in the medium of lithograph on paper. I chose this art work because of the fact I like it and because of the trees, they seem to be moving in the wind around the church giving the effect of the church being over taken by the wind.

The Mulberry Tree painted by Vincent Van Gogh in 1889 is in the medium of oil on canvas. I chose this art work because of the use of colour. The tree is a yellow and stands out against the blue sky and the white sun-lit field. The tree looks as if it is almost on fire.

John Piper was a naturalist, naturalism is the realistic depiction of objects in their natural setting. This is shown in his work as it is an accurate representation of what he is studying.

Van Gogh was an early Expressionist, he used bright colour and bold brush strokes to express the emotion in the work which is characteristic of Expressionism. His work is very intense expressing his psychological frame of mind.

John Piper during the two world war was commissioned by the 'war artist’s scheme' to capture the effects of the war on the British landscape. The destruction of the Blitz easily fixed into Piper's usual works of old ruined buildings. Piper had also lost his brother in the First World War which may have enabled him to respond to the commission with his deepest emotion. During the years he travelled around Britain, he captured the atmosphere of places. The scenes are not always directly related to bomb-damage but reflect a sense of loss and nostalgia caused by the war.

Vincent van Gogh painted The Mulberry Tree while in voluntary confinement at the Saint-Paul-de-Mausole asylum in Saint-Rémy, France. Although Van Gogh suffered ongoing attacks (likely caused, at least in part, by epilepsy), he nevertheless produced some of his most powerful works during his time in France. The Mulberry Tree is a wonderful example of his output during his time in the asylum.

Each work connects to my ideas because of the nature element within them. The Mulberry Tree, its use of colour reveals how inspired Van Gogh was painting it, the contrast between the tree, the sky and the field. It is something I want to experiment with more. The tree to me represents life and vitality within nature, my ideas do connect with the life and vitality of nature but I am more focusing on the destruction of nature which is why I chose this painting because even though the tree is clearly alive it almost looks on fire because of the vivid colour Van Gogh used on the leaves.

The High Cross connects to my ideas because once again of the nature element within it. John Pipers muted use of colour on everything in the work apart from the church itself, draws emphasises on the church but also in return shows the trees and foliage to be important. To me the church looks to be overtaken by the trees and the foliage. This connects it to my ideas because I am focusing on the destruction of the nature, especially the destruction of air. The trees are blowing in the wind, with the storm clear in the sky, against the church which makes me think of the damage the tree would cause to the church if it were to fall.

The differences between the two works are the use of colour, the portrayal of nature and the style in which each work was done. The use of colour in the Mulberry Tree is very vivid and the colours contrast against each other, whereas in the High Cross the trees and nature are all the same colour. The portrayal of nature in the Mulberry Tree shows nature to be full of life but in the High Cross nature is shown to be destructive and violent. The style of the work in the Mulberry Tree is detailed and very expressive, whereas in the High Cross there is not much detail on the trees to give them that blowing in the wind sense.

The similarities of the two works is fact they are both trying to show nature in its true form, just the artists have a different idea of what that is. It is surprising that Van Gogh would have the positive outlook on nature considering his state of mind at the time, but I think drew energy from the life he saw in nature which is why he painted it like he did. There is also another side to what I see in the Mulberry Tree and that is the idea that the tree looks as it is on fire, which draws a similarity to the High Cross in the fact that nature though it gives life can also take it away though the destruction of itself.

Explain the main features of the mummification process in ancient Egypt.

This question can connect to the first year of A-level Archaeology, Unit 1; Religion and Ritual.

The earliest form of mummification comes from the pre-dynastic period, in the form of a sand burial, although no artificial means of preservation were used the bodies were effectively preserved thanks to the arid condition in which they were buried. The deceased body was buried with everyday objects that were seen to be useful in the afterlife such as pots and beads along with amulets that each served a different purpose, most commonly for protection. The body was placed in the foetal position with the head pointed south and the face turned west toward the setting sun which was seen as the entrance to the afterlife.

Over the years the process of mummification was adapted to accommodate the advances in technology and also to dispose of their deceased in a more respectful way that would give them the best chance of gaining entrance into the afterlife such as linen wrapping and embalming. When the original sand burial was changed to include a coffin this prevented the sand from preserving the body so the Egyptians developed the sarcophagus to look like the deceased so that the body can still be identified in the afterlife even though the actual body decayed. Evidence of the removal of internal organs and the use of natron to dry out the body come from the early dynastic period and the old kingdom, bodies in these periods were also wrapped in linen. A development from the first intermediate period, middle kingdom and second intermediate kingdom was the fingernails and toenails being tied onto the body with thread as these fall of as the natron dried the body as it was essential that the whole body be places in the tomb so that the person could exist in the afterlife. This period introduced the head and shoulders mask to make the body more easily identified.

The most recent form of mummification comes from the new kingdom, incorporating many of the previous techniques along with many new ones to perfect the process. The first step was to embalm the body, this process lasted for 52 days and included the removal of the organs through an incision in the abdomen and the brain was removed through the nose using a long hook, however the kidneys and heart remained in the body as these were seen as essential for gaining access to the afterlife, notably the heart being used in the weighing of the heart ceremony. The removed organs were dried with natron and placed in canopic jars, the mostly hollow body was then stuffed with linen, natron and resin the keep its shape. The body was then dried out with natron which took around 40 days. The next step was to take the body it the Wabet, the house of purification where it was washed in water of the Nile, the body cavity was then emptied and repacked, along with the skull, with resin soaked linen and the incision was sewn up. The body was then rubbed with a mixture of cedar oil, wax, natron and gum and them dusted with spices and coated in hot resin the close the pores and protect the surface. Between the 53^rd day of the process an the funeral the body was carefully wrapped in linen, individually wrapping each limb and digit with shrouds of linen, amulets, jewellery and masks enfolded between each layer along with extracts from the book of the dead to aid the Ba’s journey to the afterlife.

Although many of the features changed over time the main idea behind the process of mummification always remained the same, this being to preserve the body as much as possible to give it the best chance of reaching the afterlife.

Grade; B. Good development of the process of mummification, more specific examples needed.

How far can archaeologists identify and explain social differentiation in the past by age and/or ethnicity? 30 marks

This question connects to AQA's A-level Archaeology course; unit 3, world archaeology.

Social differentiation in the past can be hard to determine because it can be seen as an abstract thing. Never the less in some cases archaeologists in some cases have used ethnographic studies, burial evidence, depictions in the past of social classes and historical records to identify and explain social differentiation in the past by ethnicity and age.

Different ethnicities can have their own customs, language, culture and beliefs. Due to the fact an ethnicity is also normally connected to their own land; this can make it easier for archaeologists to identify differences between them. From the things they have left behind archaeologists can also hope to explain their social differentiation as compared to other social groups.

An example of this could be depictions of different ethnicities in Ancient Egypt. Smiting scenes found at the temple of Karnak show a pharaoh defeating his enemies, any other ethnicity bar Egyptian. Another example form Ancient Egypt could be the Narmar pallet which shows the two sides of Egypt forming into one, helping archaeologists to explain the fusing of the two social different groups.

Ethnographic studies can also help archaeologists greatly when trying to identify social differentiation through ethnicity. For example the Lake Baringo area in Kenya shows the differentiation between social groups through the ear decorations of females. Whereas if you were to look at the pottery of the same. This example shows the troubles archaeologists can have when trying to identify and explain social differentiation in the past.

Rare examples such as inhumation number 5 found at Sprong Hill at the Anglo Saxon cemetery in Norfolk can do a lot in the way of explaining social differentiation or lack of it in the past. In this example the burial of middle-aged women of negroid ancestry showed that she was treated much the same as the rest of the community in the 10^th century. Her burial matched others found in the same cemetery at Spong Hill, also she was of good health and lacked any diseases. This meant archaeologists could conclude that in Norfolk in the 10^th cemetery there was little social differentiation between ethnicities.

Historical references can also be harnessed by archaeologists as a way of identify and explaining social differentiation in the past, such as Danelaw. At the same time as the burial of inhumation number 5 Danelaw as protecting the rights of slaves brought to England by the Vikings. From this, archaeologists can infer that slaves who were of a different ethnic origin than the local population were still treated well.

Social differentiation by age can be hard to identify. But through burials it can be been found. Child burials can confuse the image of social differentiation if, for example, a child is buried with rich grave goods it can be presumed that the child could not have gained that much wealth or prestige in the time they were alive. Therefore they are evidence of a ranked society, with wealth and maybe power running through families over generations.

In Bristey (Kent) burials of young males with swords, shields and spears, can also be seen as social differentiation by age, as a warrior class may have been determined by age.

Archaeologists can identify and explain social differentiation in the past by age and ethnicity, but there are better ways of identifying it. For example through examples of gender or through elite goods. 

How did either individuals or elite groups maintain power in the past? 30 marks

This question connects to AQA's A-level Archaeology course; unit 3, world archaeology.

Power can be maintained in many ways. An individual in the past could use depictions of themselves to do this whereas elite groups would use conspicuous displays of power to uphold their status.

The intimidation of the lower classes would be a suitable way of maintaining control in the past. A way of intimidating could be the building of structures such as motte and bailey castles. These structures would be built after the conquest of an area, it was a high standing castle on a mound overlooking the conquered land. An example of this would be a 12^th century Norman motte in Bickleigh, Devon. Another example of an intimidating structures is the Iron Age hillfort at Danebury, though the use of the hillfort was for protection and not maintaining power, any attacking enemies would have been intimidated.

If an elite group had control of important resources this would also give them a way to maintain power. An example of this could be food storage in Oaxaca valley, in Zone D with the storage of acorns. Iron Age hill forts can be an example power through control of resources also.

The inheritance of a social position from an elder to another person is a way of passing down and maintaining power within a family over generations. Ascribed status generally an accepted form of power for example the Egyptian pharaoh lineage with many leaders including Amenhotep IV.

Another way the elite would maintain power would be through conspicuous displays of power or consumption. This can include feasting or the movement of many people to build impressive monuments. The conspicuous consumption in Celtic Europe and Peru can be seen as an example of power maintenance.

Depictions of the elite would also help to maintain power in the past, as it would remind people of the wealth and authority of the elite for example depictions of Caesar on Roman coins.

The maintenance of power in the past is a difficult thing to find proof of because of the nature of the evidence needed. Also the fact that power is not a tangible thing so to find physical evidence of is difficult can limit the evidence an archaeologist can find. But through some examples such as the Vindolanda letters, of which few survived, evidence of elite power can be seen and inferences can be made.

Grade: B

Many valid points supported by examples. Need to develop conclusion for grade A.