modern historians in ancient (1 Viewer)

[Mustafa Mond]

Hey everybody,
I've been doing some reading on the forums adn it appears that many people are using modern historians in their regular exam responses. I've been primarily using primary sources for all my topics (Sparta, Ramesside Period, Ramesses II, Amenhotep III - Ram II) as the evidence for my essays. And unless I was asked something like "asses ancient and modern interpretations of such adn such" I wouldn't have quoted any modern historians at all. So what's the verdict? are modern historians opinions and historiography neccessary? or are they only really needed for ceratin topics? How much historiography do people do in their essays? (I, for example, usually have some discussion of the unreliabilities/problems with teh primary sources) but not much else. So if anyone can clarify this for me it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance

Mustafa

 

[SmokedSalmon]

hey mustafa,
it is very important that you have an equal amount of ancient and modern interpretations/sources used throughout ur essays regardless of that particular period/society. Just mainly using ancient historians will not get you band 6 results. HSC markers will feel as if you didn't bother to really scope out the modern sources in depth. And that is not good. How have u done in ur previous school exams? What do your teachers think?
Btw, you have done topics which are similar to what i have done last year (except sparta), i'll be glad to send u information for them if u want

 

[angelduck]

Yeah, hes right!
Im sure somewhere in tha syllabus it says that you have to be able to compare historical views, and theres something about continuity and change - ie. why opinions have changed - new evidence = new theories. So you need to include both. I think theres a limited no.of modern sources on here, becasue they're the easiest to find. The ancient ones are difficult, because you dont know which ones to use and stuff, or at least thats my experience...

 

[Mustafa Mond]

Oops. Smoked Salmon, I'm currently ranked 1st in my ancient class of 20 odd ppl and I got 93% in the trials. my teacher has never really made mention of needing to discuss modern views/interpretations and has focused us entirely on primary source material. So if you have any summaries/notes on modern stuff for my topics it would be extremely appreciated (bobwithasilentc(at)hotmail.com). btw I can only find mention of historiography in the historical period section of the syllabus so it's obviously important there for assessing ppl's achievements etc, but how do you integrate thuis modern historiography into other sections, like society and personality?
Mustafa

 

[The Bograt]

One of the band 6 outcomes says you have to compare modern and ancient sources, ie talk about different interpretations of the past. Also a good idea to state the reliability of sources in a sentence in your intro

 

[mittens]

historians

thats cool! but what modern historians have we got writing pieces on rome from augustus to titus? or greece from 500-440BC its kinda hard like that...u guys checked out what tacitus says on that roman period? also thucidides gives a little documentation on the peloponnesian wars... and for agrippina if u studied her as a personality, a good historian: modern historian is Anthony A. Barrett.

 

[Mustafa Mond]

Need Help

I went to my local library to try and find some material for this but their range was extremely limited and largely irrelevant. Hence, if any one could send me some notes on modern historiography for Sparta, NKE during the Rammesside period, Rammesses II or the period from Amenhotep III to Ramesses II, then it would be muchly appreciated...

Mustafa

 

[launcher169]

I went to my local library to try and find some material for this but their range was extremely limited and largely irrelevant. Hence, if any one could send me some notes on modern historiography for Sparta, NKE during the Rammesside period, Rammesses II or the period from Amenhotep III to Ramesses II, then it would be muchly appreciated...

Mustafa

For the period of Amenhotep III to Horemheb (the Amarna period)
refer to:
Cyril Aldred in his book Akhenaten: King of Egypt
Donald Redford in his book Akhenaten, the Heretic King
Gardiner - Egypt of the Pharaohs
Breasted in Ancient records of Egypt (good 4 primary evidence)
Nicholas Reeves in Egypt's lost prophet: Akhenaten


theres many more but these are the ones that i use

For the early Ramessides

i use: Kitching in Pharaoh Triumphant
and Breasted in Ancient Records of Egypt

Hope this helps!

 

[trekkie]

If what your studying has a large amount of primary sources (i.e. Rome or Athens) then you should use these as much as possible, with secondary sources being used to support or disagree with what has been said by your primary (e.g H.H Scullard agrees with Tacitus interpretation, or E.T Salmon disagrees with Suetonius, instead believing that...).
If what your studying doesnt have alot of primary sources (Minoan society, Cleopatra) then you can use modern sources but make sure that you say why your using alot of them (just make a comment about ther society being an oral culture i.e.. Sparta). We were told by all the history teachers(3 of which are markers) in our school and by Philippa Medcalf (author, teacher and senior marker) that you should try and use more primary sources than secondary, as the primary source is where the original information came from, even for authors like Scullard, and thats what this side of ancient is about, showing that you not only have the knowledge about what your studying, but that you also know where this information came from.

P.S=For Roman society the three best modern sources to use would be H.H Scullard, E.T Salmon and Pamela Bradley(yes you can use her to support informartion).

 

[senso]

P.S=For Roman society the three best modern sources to use would be H.H Scullard, E.T Salmon and Pamela Bradley(yes you can use her to support informartion).

I think using pamela bradley goes against like everything almost every teacher has ever said.

 

[Paroissien]

I haven't read anything by Bradley on the topic of Rome. But Grant does well with those other two

 

[trekkie]

Bradley CAN be used in the exam but you shouldnt use her on her own, she should only be quoted if your using her to support something that was stated in a primary sources, 2 of my teachers told me last year they had questions about whether Bradley could be used as a secondary source and the senior markers said yes, but not on her own like you could, if you cant remember primaries, with Scullard, Salmon or Grant. I also spoke to Phillipa Medcalf at the Singleton high school study day, shes a senior marker and she agreed with my teachers, the only problem people have with Bradley is she isnt qualified as much as other people are and because her books are written with us Yr 12 students in mind! and at the sake of starting another Pamela Bradley thread im going to stop right here right now.

 

[jimmik]

mittens, for greek world 500-400BC you hav a few modern sources like: fine, bury and meiggs, ehrenberg and hammond.

 

[The Bograt]

Don't forget buckley he is good
My teacher told me not to quote bradley...so I'm not