Scoring Criteria

Material Culture

Category	1	2	3	4	5	6
Methods Are the methods of construction correct for the project? What are the reasons behind the choices of constructions?	• The method used is modern for the piece and the era. • No explanation is given for variations from the method.	• The method used is modern for the piece and the era. • Some explanation is given for variations from the method.	• The method used is mostly modern and partly historical. • Variations in method are partially explained, and partially not.	• The method used is partly modern and mostly historical. • Adequate explanation is given for many of the variations in method.	• The method used is mostly accurate for the piece and the era. • Good explanation is given for most of the variations in method.	• The method used is accurate for the piece AND the era. • Or, if alternate methods are used they are as accurate as possible and any variations are completely explained.
Materials Are the materials & tools used for construction correct for the project? What are the reasons behind the choices of materials & tools?	• The materials & tools used are modern. • No explanation is given for variations in the materials used.	• The materials & tools used are modern. • Some explanation is given for variations in the materials used.	• The materials used are mostly modern and partly period. •Variations in materials are partially explained, and partially not.	• The materials used are partly modern and mostly period. • Adequate explanation is given for many of the variations in materials.	• The materials used are accurate for the piece and the era. • Good explanation is given for most of the variations in materials.	• The materials used are absolutely accurate for the piece and the era. • Or, if other materials are used they are as accurate as possible and any variations are completely explained.
Historical Accuracy Does the project replicate or vary from the historical example(s)? What are the reasons for deviations?	• The finished piece is modern in overall look and detail. • Variations from the exemplar(s) are not explained.	• The finished piece is mostly modern in overall look or detail. • Some variations from the exemplar(s) are explained.	• The finished item has some resemblance to the exemplar. •Variations from the exemplar(s) are partially explained, and partially not.	• The finished item resembles the exemplar. • Adequate explanation is given for many of the variations from the exemplar(s).	• The finished item is modeled after the exemplars. • Good explanation is given for most of the variations from the exemplar(s).	• The finished item replicates the exemplars completely and in every detail. • Any deviations from the exemplar(s) are completely explained.
Quality of Workmanship The workmanship used in making the project, as compared with the historic example the work is based on.	• Work appears unfinished, rushed, superficial, or rough.	• Simplified elements are pleasing but lack detail. • Shows visible (construction) flaws.	• Some aspects of work are detailed, while others are less so. • Flaws are visible but workable.	• Clean, neat work creates a finished appearance. • Flaws are minor, and mostly hidden.	• Careful work enhanced by attention to detail. • Very few flaws or flaws are not easily seen.	• Precise work reveals no flaws.
Research & Project Planning Journal What is the historical background of the project? Are historical exemplars presented and referenced? Can the project be recreated using the (step-by-step photo) journal?	• The journal presents no or minimal historical background, identifying few if any exemplars. • Not enough information to recreate the project. • No bibliography provided.	• The journal presents some historical background, identifying few if any exemplars. • Not enough information to recreate the project. • A partial bibliography is provided, no citations.	• The journal presents direct historical background, identifying the project’s exemplar • Not enough information to recreate the project. • A basic bibliography is provided, no citations.	• The journal shows familiarity with the broader historical background and identifies the exemplar as well as supporting exemplars. • Project could be recreated with help, incl. (partial) step-by-step instructions. • A bibliography with some citations.	• The journal shows familiarity and identifies historical exemplars, and discusses how the exemplars inform the creation of the item. • Project can be recreated, includes (photo) step-by-step instructions. • Bibliography with citations provided.	• The journal accurately identifies and completely describes historical background and exemplars, discusses completely how the exemplars inform the creation of the item. • Easy to follow manual. • Bibliography with extensive citations.

Live Performance

Category	1	2	3	4	5	6
Methods Is the structure, pace & flow, and method of performance appropriate for the performance? Does/do the performer(s) use appropriate techniques for sound & movement?	• The methods used are purely modern. • The style of presentation does not fit well with the selection. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques do not match the piece or otherwise detract from its presentation	• The methods used are mostly modern. • The performer showed some awareness of appropriate historic style for the performance. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques are appropriate, but do not necessarily enhance the presentation	• The methods used are mostly modern and partly historical. • The performer(s) generally made choices consistent with the sense of the piece. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques somewhat enhance the presentation	• The methods used are partly modern and mostly historical. • The performer(s) gave a solid delivery with choices regarding space, dynamics, other techniques enhanced the presentation	• The method used is mostly consistent with the historical source of the selection. • The performer(s) gave a solid delivery with excellent choices regarding use of space, dynamics, and other techniques that significantly enhanced the presentation	• The method used is purely consistent with the historical source of the selection. • The performer(s) gave a masterful delivery, using techniques to greatly enhance the sense of the piece.
Content How well does the target form match the composition of the piece? To what extent does the performer’s original content (if any) enhance the chosen target form?	• The piece is a modern composition with little to no material drawn from period styles, sources, or formats.	• The piece is a demonstrably modern composition, but is nominally based on a period form, or incorporates a few period elements into its framework.	• The performer(s) followed some aspects of a period form and showed awareness of period compositional elements • The style of composition is partially original, but follows a period method (e.g., a modern contrefait)	• The performer(s) successfully drew on a historical composition form and matched original material to the period framework in an unobtrusive way • The content is entirely historical but is fairly simple/easy to reproduce, with little originality	• The performer(s) used a historical composition form and matched original material to the framework, or mixed original and period content, in a way that is consistent with similar pieces of its historical basis • The content is entirely historical and is somewhat complex or difficult to present or reproduce	• The performer(s) used a historical composition form and matched original material to the framework masterfully, or mixed original and period content, in a way that creates an entirely historical impression • The content is entirely historical and is very complex or highly challenging to present or reproduce
Historical Accuracy Does the presentation replicate or vary from the provided historical example(s)? Original pieces or reconstructions that adhere to period forms or presentation styles count as authentic.	• The performance is essentially modern in its overall presentation • No exemplar is provided and/or no deviations from a similar period performance style are explained, verbally or in writing	• The performance is mostly modern in its overall presentation or is a poor attempt at reconstruction of a period style • An example of the performance style as it would be presented in period is provided, and some of the deviations are explained, verbally or in writing	• The performance has reasonable resemblance to a historic exemplar of the same style or is a fair attempt to reconstruct a period style • Variations from the historic style are partially explained	• The performance is drawn from a period exemplar or closely resembles a similar known performance style, or is a good attempt to reconstruct a period style • Adequate, reasonable explanation is given for variation(s) from the period framework	• The performance is a documentable or extant period piece presented in a reasonably accurate and appropriate historical style, or a successful reconstruction of a period piece. • There are few deviations, for which thorough explanations are provided	• The performance is a documentable or extant period piece or a carefully reconstructed one that duplicates similar historical exemplars in every detail • If there are any deviations at all, they are completely explained and do not detract from the overall impression of historical accuracy
Quality of Workmanship The skill with which the performance is presented. How entertaining is the performance? How pleasing are the ways in which the elements of the performance are combined? Does/do the performer(s) present an enjoyable experience?	• The performer(s) lacked confidence or basic command of the necessary skills for the chosen style • The performer(s) faltered in ways that detracted from the desired effect • The performance lacked or had minimal eye contact, appropriate movement, effective dynamic variation, etc.	• The performer(s) presented a clean performance free of errors • The performer(s) ably covered minor mistakes without affecting the presentation • The performance featured somewhat effective eye contact, minimal use of space, some dynamic variation, etc.	• The performance was presented solidly and confidently • The performer(s) showed affinity for their chosen style and exhibited adequate command of the skills needed for the performance • The performance was mildly entertaining and/or effective, featuring adequate use of dynamics, intonation, and interpretive elements	• The performance was presented with good dynamic variation, intonation, audience engagement, etc. • The performer(s) showed considerable skill in the technique(s) and style(s) presented • The performance was was moving, effective, entertaining, or otherwise a pleasing example of its style	• The performance was presented with exceptional execution of elements including intonation, use of space, movement, etc. • The performer(s) exhibited highly proficient skill in the technique(s) and style(s) presented • The performance was very entertaining and/or highly effective, engaged the audience very well	• The performance was presented with masterful command and execution, intonation, movement, etc. • The performer(s) exhibited exceptional proficiency in the technique(s), style(s), and material presented • The performance was superbly entertaining and/or exquisitely affecting, held the audience start to finish
Research & Project Planning Journal What informed the performing style or composition choices? What other exemplars or frameworks were used to create the piece? To what extent are the techniques, reconstruction, and/or composition process chronicled?	• The performance has no documentation, including verbal introduction • Performer(s) are unable to answer questions about the historical context of the presented work	• The performer(s) can verbally share some historical background or provide a rudimentary context for the presented piece • The performer(s) provides a few exemplars of the extant work or similar work	• Rudimentary written documentation including the historical background and context or an extant source, or other examples of same style • Documentation includes some information about the techniques employed in reconstructing or composing the work • Copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation are included in the written documentation, as well as the source for the same	• The performer(s) provides a reasonable familiarity with the historical context and background of the piece, style, and/or techniques involved in the presented work • A brief bibliography, along with copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation or facsimiles of the original.	• The performer(s) provide evidence of good familiarity with the broader historical background, context, and settings in which the piece would have been performed in period • Copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation or facsimiles of the original, are included in the written documentation as well as other supporting exemplars • A bibliography with citations and other supporting exemplars.	• Extensive familiarity with historical background, context, settings and styles of a period performance of the work or similar work, and/or analysis from a performance perspective • Copies of the text, score, etc, in both original and modern notation (if an extant piece), or facsimiles of period examples in their original • Documentation includes a bibliography with full citations, and if applicable, early drafts and/or considerable discussion of the reconstruction or composition process.

Research Paper

Category	1	2	3	4	5	6
Investigation How complex and original is the presented information? How effective is the supporting information? The methodology used?	• The paper covers an easy to research topic. • Evidence is sparse, with an unconvincing argument.	• The paper covers an easy to research topic. • Evidence is somewhat reliable but lacks coherence.	• Paper shows some complexity, deals with a slightly difficult topic or barrier. • Evidence is reliable, attempts to connect multiple ideas.	• Paper shows moderate complexity. • Evidence starts to build a coherent body of evidence; conjectures are mostly supported.	• Paper shows a high level of complexity, and deals with moderately difficult topics/barriers. • Solid body of evidence, connected by good logic.	• Paper shows a high level of complexity, dealing with difficult barriers, adding original sources. • Solid body of evidence, connected by a solid chain of excellent logic.
Research How is the information supported with examples and (new to the subject) data? Is it placed in historical context?	• Paper rephrases research completed by others. • Paper gives minimal historical/cultural context.	• Paper mostly rephrases, with some new analysis pulled from others’ research. • Inconsistent historical context.	• Paper is a meta analysis of many previous research materials to determine new analysis of the topic. • A good attempt at historical context.	• Paper uses some firsthand knowledge, as well as incorporating work of others. • Historical context is correct, but might be brief.	• An actual, first hand investigation, supported by relevant research. • Paper does a good job at placing topic in historical/cultural context.	• A first hand investigation into an unusual subject, adding original research and/or sources. • Paper clearly places topic in historical context in detail.
Historical Accuracy How familiar is the author with relevant scholarship and makes critical assessment of the authority & significance of the sources used?	• The topic is somewhat pre-1650 appropriate. • Sources are nearly all indirect and it is unclear if the author is familiar with relevant scholarship.	• The topic is somewhat pre-1650 appropriate. • Sources are nearly all indirect; quality of sources is limited.	• The topic is mostly pre-1650 appropriate. • The sources are a mix of indirect and scholarly; quality of sources is variable.	• The topic is pre-1600 appropriate. • The sources are mostly direct and scholarly, with an occasional indirect source; quality of sources is generally good.	• The topic is pre-1600 appropriate. • A good mix of direct and scholarly sources; quality of sources is good.	• The topic is perfectly pre-1600 appropriate • Great mix of direct and scholarly sources, might include unique or original research.
Quality of Technique Is the paper written in a clear and articulate manner? Does it have a logical format, an effective layout, a clear and consistent citation system?	• The paper is difficult to follow, with unexplained quotes. • Minimal attempt at formatting, with poor citation and no bibliography.	• Paper is somewhat difficult to follow. • Minimal formatting, inconsistent citation and an incomplete bibliography.	• Paper is somewhat easy to read and understand. • Spotty formatting, cites most sources with a limited bibliography	• Paper is readable, incorporates translations & quotes as needed. • Adequate formatting and citation, bibliography might include hyperlinks.	• Paper is easy to read, incorporates translations & quotes. • Overall good balance of text and images; consistent citations, bibliography includes links and illustration sources.	• Fascinating read, incorporates translations & quotes seamlessly; format is carefully thought out and enhances understanding. • Bibliography perhaps annotated.
Quality of Writing Is the information organized logically? Does the author clarify and elaborate the main topic or theory, and establishes it in context of other related topics/theories?	• Paper is unclear, with a minimal attempt at coherence or articulation of ideas. • Paper has little exploration of the main topic, and does not establish it within a broader context.	• Paper is hard to read, only parts are coherent and articulate – has no introduction. • Paper elaborates on the main topic in an unclear way.	• Paper is mostly coherent and articulate – includes some sort of introduction. • Some aspects of topic explored, discusses some related topics.	• Nearly all of the paper is coherent and articulate – adequate first impression (intro). • Many aspects of topic explored, discusses related topics / theories.	• Paper is easy to read and understand, it is coherent and articulate – quite engaging first impression. • Provides some significant detail, discusses most important related topics / theories.	• Very clearly written and highly articulate, with a great first impression; the reader wants to read more. • Provides extensive detail, extensively discusses multiple related topics.

Youth

Category	1	2	3	4	5	6
Documentation Does your project entry come with a journal? See our guide for details on the core questions.	• The entry came without a journal.	• The entry journal shares basic information, answering 1 or 2 core questions.	• The entry journal solidly answered 3-4 core questions, and includes 1 or 2 visual aids (ex. photographs or drawings).	• The entry journal answers up to 5 core questions, in detail, and includes several visual aids.	• The entry journal answers up to 6 core questions in detail, and includes visual aids that show the item in different stages of construction.	• The entry journal answers all 7 core questions in detail with visual aids including step-by-step photos that show construction from beginning to end.
Materials & Method What materials or ingredients did you use? Which method, tools did you need to create it? Do you know if these are similar to those used in period?	• The entry came without a journal. • The entry uses simple, easy to work with modern materials and/or methods.	• The journal indicates the entrant used easy, modern materials and/or methods.	• The entrant used some project-correct OR some period correct materials / method(s).	• The entrant used mostly project-correct OR mostly period-correct materials / methods. • The entrant shared an example of similar materials / method(s) in period.	• Used mostly project correct AND mostly period-correct materials / methods. • The entrant shared an example of the same materials / methods in period.	• The entrant used project-correct AND period-correct materials / methods. • The entrant shared several examples of the same materials / methods in period.
Workmanship & Skill Did you need a lot of skill to create your project? Do you know if these are similar skills as used in period?	• The entry came without a journal. • The entry shows basic skills.	• The entry was not very hard to make, using no more than a couple of steps, and did not take much effort.	• The entry took more than one or two steps to make, OR took some effort.	• The entry took more than one or two steps to make, AND took some effort. • The entrant shared an example of a similar skill used in period.	• The entry was hard to make, took several steps, and took quite some effort. • The entrant shared an example of the same skill in period.	• The entry was a challenge to make, took many steps, and took quite some effort. • The entrant shared several examples of the same skill in period.
Historical Context Did you base your project on a period pre-1600 example? Can you tell us more about it? Or other, similar, examples?	• The entry came without a journal and the judges don’t know for sure.	• The entry is not based on a period example, although it looks medieval-ish.	• Example is mostly period. • The entry is a wide mix of time, periods, places and cultures.	• Example is period. • The separate parts of the entry are not from the same time/place/culture, but are from a similar time/place/culture.	• Example is period. • Most parts are from the same time/place/culture, and some parts are from a related time/place/culture.	• Example(s) are period. • A significant number of parts are from the same time period, place and culture.
Assistance How much help did you get from your parent or instructor? Help for safety is always a-OK!	• The entry came without a journal and the judges don’t know for sure.	• The youth does not read or write well so the adult did the research & journal. • Youth made the entry with hands-on help from an adult (great way to learn!)	• The adult guided the research & journal; the youth was interviewed to show understanding of their project. • Youth shadowed an adult to make their entry (good start!)	• The adult suggested research; youth filled in an Easy-Doc (or similar interview) as their journal. • Youth made their entry, with adult close by and help as needed (well done!)	• Adult assisted research; youth made journal unassisted. • Youth made their entry with occasional adult help, on stand-by (perfect!)	• Youth researched and wrote journal unassisted by adult. • Youth did not need adult help, and completed the project on their own (high five!)