Quinn Suydam -- The "Experiment of Psammetichos"

  As I indicated in my comments on your draft, I think most of this is good
  but you haven't yet really explained why you are calling some things *borders* or 
  *boundaries* (i.e. things that divide some place from another place or some people 
  from others, while at the same time forming a connection between them).  Some of you seem 
  to be using those words almost as synonyms for "differences," but there is more to it 
  than that because you aren't always working in the idea of simultaneous *separation*
  and *connection*.  For the rewrite, you should find better ways to articulate 
  exactly what some of these boundaries are and why they are boundaries.  
  
  Here are some examples of what I mean by finding better ways to articulate
  exactly what some of the boundaries are. First, the idea that people want to say they
  are special in some way (for instance, the oldest civilization) is really saying they have 
  a desire to create a border between themselves and others.  You're close to saying 
  that, but you don't quite get the idea the Egyptians seemed to want to create a separation
  between themselves and others and a connection that defines themselves as the older
  into that part of the paper. 
 
  You also identify "a lack of historical perspective" as a boundary. But exactly what 
  is it that makes "a lack of historical perspective" a boundary?  One might say that a 
  later people is separated by a boundary from an earlier people because they don't understand 
  the history that intervened and hence don't understand how they are connected to the earlier 
  people. So there certainly is a sense in which that could be a boundary. But that's not what
  you said.   

  Similarly, for us I think there is also clearly a boundary between scientifically-established 
  facts and entertaining fiction.  The techniques we use to establish the former are not 
  expected or required for the latter and there are stories we would keep separate from the established
  facts because they haven't been established with the same techniques.  But I don't think that 
  distinction was anywhere near as clear for Herodotus because science, as we know it, was really 
  only just starting around the time he lived.  (By the way, I'm actually not completely convinced 
  that Herodotus does not believe the Psammetichos story, as you say at the top of page 3.)  And 
  isn't just the idea of doing an experiment, even a poorly-designed one, closer to science than 
  telling an entirely made-up story?

  I think you should try to reorganize what you wrote to get those boundaries into your 
  thesis paragraph right at the start.  You might need to focus on just a couple of them 
  there, although you could introduce additional ones as you get into the paper.  The details 
  of the Psammetichos experiment can then be the evidence you use to discuss your
  main points, instead of the content of the first paragraph.   
 
  In terms of the writing rubric attached, I think this paper is pretty much at the 
  "Proficient" level throughout the Content, Evidence, and Structure categories.  
  The Execution is at the "Advanced" level.

  Content: B+

  Mechanics: A-