Anthropology Assignment

by Kelly Draper

Submission date: 13-Dec-2017 08:31AM (UTC+0000)

Submission ID: 79819538
File name: Anthropology_Assignment.docx (92.17K)
Word count: 2814
Character count: 15308
1
 2

6
 7

10

11
12
 13

14
15

16

17
18
Anthropology Assignment
ORIGINALITY REPORT

15 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
8%
INTERNET SOURCES
6%
PUBLICATIONS
15%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
Submitted to Queen's University of Belfast
Student Paper 7%
2
researchonline.jcu.edu.au
Internet Source 1%
3
Submitted to The University of Manchester
Student Paper 1%
4
www.bijt.org
Internet Source 1%
5
Submitted to University of Kent at Canterbury
Student Paper 1%
6
Submitted to Dublin City University
Student Paper 1%
7
Submitted to University of Glasgow
Student Paper 1%
8
Clark, G. R., C. Reepmeyer, N. Melekiola, J.
Woodhead, W. R. Dickinson, and H. Martinsson-
1%
Wallin. "Stone tools from the ancient Tongan
state reveal prehistoric interaction centers in the
 Central Pacific", Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 2014.
Publication

9
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Internet Source 1%
10
www.ogilvie.ch
Internet Source 1%
11
Submitted to University of Aberdeen
Student Paper 1%
12
Submitted to Rhodes University
Student Paper <1%

Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches < 10 words

Exclude bibliography Off
Anthropology Assignment
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

65
This was a good essay. You were fluently discussed
the contents of several ethnographies, and were able to
relate this well to conclusions that anthropologists can
make about different societies, in relation to their
exchange systems.

/100
However, towards the latter end of this essay you try
and address two points, namely the Kula and the
Potlatch. You draw some very interesting conclusions
from these studies, but you really need to elaborate on
these more, as the sections were very short, and you
don't support your points. This can be done either by
referencing what other theorists have said about this
study or similar studies, or by going into more detail
about your conclusions. Overall, this essay was a little
short, even though you could have filled that space by
elaborating on some of your points.

Unfortunately, this essay was below the compulsory

word count, and points have been deducted
accordingly. To avoid this in future, please ensure that
your essays meet the minimal word count
requirements.

PAGE 1

Comment 1
This is significantly less than the compulsory word count

PAGE 2

Comment 2
Good reference - no need for the initial, though
 Comment 3
*will be?

Also, best to avoid personal pronouns such as "I" in academic writing.

Comment 4
Good layout of the arguments you're going to make.

Comment 5
Good introduction.

Comment 6
You say you're quoting Mauss, but you're referencing Carrier?

PAGE 3

Comment 7
Again, if you're quoting Mauss you should cite Mauss, not just someone else who has quoted
Mauss.

Comment 8
If this is a comment by Cheal, then why are you also citing Carrier?

Comment 9
You should only be citing Murcot here, not Carrier again. Doing so suggests a lack of personal
research.

Comment 10
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't see how this relates to your broader argument.

Comment 11
Good lead-in

PAGE 4

Comment 12
Good.
PAGE 5

Comment 13
This is an interesting assertion, but needs to be supported with evidence.

Comment 14
Provide a date for this publication

PAGE 6

Comment 15
Interesting, but how? What bonds do they see forming? This section feels a bit short. You need to
elaborate.

Comment 16
None of the citations in this section provide a date. This is essential.

Comment 17
Interesting point, but again this section is really short, and needs to be elaborated upon.

PAGE 7

Comment 18
Good conclusion.

PAGE 8