Evaluation of Master Thesis
Name of the thesis: Chipped Industry of 'Ainab 1A. Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Jabal 'Ainab (South-East Jordan)
Field of study: Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East The author of the thesis: Bc. Denis Štefanisko
The supervisor of the thesis: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D Opponent: Dr. Hans-Georg K. Gebel
Please, write what is your opinion to every point (1, 2, 3), what is good and where are the mis- takes and grade all three parts by A- Excellent, B-Very good, C-Good, D- Satisfactory, E- Sufficient, F- Failed.
___________________________________________________________________________
Note by reviewer: Due to time restrictions, evaluation comments are presented in a note form. Base of this review is the thesis copy send to me on 21st Dec. 2016 by Inna Mateiciucová.
The thesis is evaluated according to its
1) Contents list and structure, fulfillment of instructions, processing of used literature,
- table of contents meaningful, even for Chapter 1 since it prepares and follows the author’s idea to use the chipped stone analysis “to bring light on the visitors of the site”
- selection of used literature sometimes not understandable (time constraints hindered to explore more literature or more recent literature was not available?)
- processing of literature focuses on selected basic information of individual articles repeatedly processed in various contexts
- The great thing with this thesis is that it uses original, rare and unpublished material in a Master thesis; presenting such primary data makes this thesis outstanding.
- GRADE for all these aspects: B - Very Good
2) Command of language, formal mistakes, illustrations, and analysis methods, and to its
- English language of thesis is just sufficient for the submission to a university’s faculty outside UK/US, but not at all for a wider distribution of the thesis/ publication; much language and spelling (“core abonnement”, “borrers”) improvement has to be invested.
Dr. H.G.K. Gebel, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Fabeckstr. 23-‐25, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Dr. H.G.K. Gebel, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Vorderasiatische
Archäologie, Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Archäologie, Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Fachbereich Geschichts-‐ und
Kulturwissenschaften
Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie Arbeitsschwerpunkt Neolithikum Basta J.A.P., Ba’ja N.P., Rajajil J.A.P., Eastern Jafr J.A.P., ex oriente e.V.
Dr. Hans Georg K. Gebel
Postadresse Fabeckstr. 23-‐25, D-‐14195 Berlin Mobiltelefon +49 173 2168205
Telefon/Fax +49 30 98 311 246 E-‐Mail hggebel@zedat.fu-‐berlin.de Bearbeiter Dr. Gebel
Datum 31.12.2016
2
- Not at all acceptable: Thesis still contains a large number of formal mistakes like e.g. Page 4 the format and numbering of headlines or Page 8 the formats in Table 2, the division in 1.3 and 1.3.1 with no 1.3.2, or Page 15 Sub-chapter 1.4.1. followed by Sub-chapter 3.4.1. etc. etc. … - Not at all acceptable: The numbering of headlines in the text and contents list is a mess and
contradicts each other. Even on one page, e.g. Page 35, this take place. A thesis should not have been submitted like this.
- Correct referencing to illustrations was not checked by reviewer - Artefact drawings: poor, flimsy
- Author has to check correct photo authorships.
- GRADE for Command of language: C- Good - GRADE for Formal mistakes, illustrations: F- Failed - GRADE for Analysis Methods: A- Excellent
3) Analysis results and conclusions (with comments/ reference to sub-chapters).
- On 1.1: literature used is partly outdated or not applicable for the EPPNB ‘Ainab area
- On 1.3: quite good sub-chapter, should have tried more to work out contradicting information on the EPPNB
- On 1.4: Fig. 2 should have been completely updated.
- On Table 3: it would have been good to have an appendix with the definitions of these classes.
E.g. the term bipolar became out of use in bidirectional core techniques’ contexts since repre- senting a technology related to pieces ésquillés
- On 4: very good chapter, excellent analysis, also concerning the preliminary raw material classi- fications, the chipping floor analysis, re-fitting, etc. Primary and secondary production should have appeared together in a primary classification table as 100%.
- The author’s room designations like corridor etc. introduce misleading terms not discussed with the project.
- On 5.2.4. and 6: These chapters obviously were written in a hurry and do not exploit/ interprete sufficiently available data. It would have been positive for the thesis if the candidate would have made contacts to the colleagues currently working in the EPPNB. However, the principal inter- pretations of the author based on his chipped stone analysis are of great help for the under- standing of this site representing an ill-known period and occupation of Jordan’s southeastern desert.
- GRADE for Analysis Results and Conclusions: A- Excellent
Concluding evaluation: The candidate wrote this thesis under considerable personal constraints (time, social, various academic commitments) while known as a most enthusiastic, devoted and promising young colleague in the Neolithic chipped stone research. I suggest that this is taken into account when deciding about the final thesis grade. While not overlooking the severe thesis deficits, and seeing the potentials and valuable results of the candidate’s work, I suggest the combined mark of
B- Very good for the thesis.
Dr. Hans Georg K. Gebel
