how do i approach this question?! (1 Viewer)

[mittens]

i'm so lost as to what i need to study here... i'm thinking that it couldn't hurt too much to use some of the historians from my assessment (it was in the homeric question: ie. whether 'homer really composed the illiad and the odyssey as its original authour or that he was their first authour in antiquity to record the works). so in section 1 where they give you the source and you answer a guideline following, like: with reference to the source and other sources, discuss how historians use evidence to reconstruct the past... ok, how do i approach that 1... do i attack it with historians through the ages or should i attack it with modern-ish historians that refer to all different aspects of history and still get a good mark; on the other hand, i'm not terribly sure how to structure my argument so are there any pointers someone might be able to make in regards to that? or am i basically just touching on the stages of historical documentation like the age of the bards, the age of christian historiography, the enlightenment, then ages like the postmodernist age and the poststructuralist age... etc... help!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

you are touching on stages of historical documentation from Herodotus (ancient historians) to post modernist and post structuralist age... just merely refering to modern historians will NOT give u great marks. quite poor in fact. Does your school have the standard's package? Because then u should get the past exemplar responses from them. I also do have some notes on this section 1 topic from last year, if u want them pm me

 

[Sarah168]

You should answer the first Question with a wide and varied range of historians (saying this though, you shouldnt be referring to 5000 with a sentence devoted to each ). Yeah as salmon said, the examplar samples in the standards package is perfect for showing you what you should be doing and how you should be structuring your essay.

 

[launcher169]

I was wondering - i am using Herodotus, Thucydides, and Marc Bloch

i do quite well in my analysis of the ancient sources and i do decently enough in
my analysis of Marc Bloch (sometimes i use Von Ranke instead)

My main question is: is that enough - i mean should i refer to another modern historian or should i put even more detail about these historians?

 

[gemita]

Both! You should have a very detailed understanding of all of them, but in my opinion it's also a really good idea to have one or two spare historians, just in case the question is whacked...which it may well be. I'm scared!

 

[mittens]

ohh man! i just got it! this is kinda like art where we need to kno case4 studies capt all year i've been trying to get my head around the concept of an historian and their view being da di da di da and its been reeli strange.... k so if i space it out a bit... then the ages between the historians in regards to their times should determine how many case studies i need... y am i only just getting this?!

 

[silvermoon]

don;t forget that you also need to show personal engagement...so YOUR opinion has to come through just as much as the views of any of the historians you studied as part of the course. and you don;t have to agree with the historians - you could be talking about a point in the article and show how one historian's views/methodology etc. either supports or challenges this but then add a bit on talking about the flaws of that historian, or why their argument isn't necessarily right. thatway you're showing that your in-depth knowledge and your own opinion.