'construction and recording over time'

[Riffy Raffy]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

How did you interpret the 'over time' part? I got really thrown off because I thought it meant I might have to have done historical theory and how its developed over time, which I couldn't do. Instead I did mainly how modernists believed people have recorded and constructed history throughout time, and the postmodernist view on the same thing. Am I wrong?

[sirpoopalot7]

Yeah I did the postmordernist/structuralist arguments of Jenkins and White vs. Evans, Thucydies, Windshuttle - chucked in some Carr, Becker and Hobsbawn somewhere. It was a bit of a mess, literally. Arrows and asterisks' all over the place. Got some Tuchman for the story part.

[jessica.anne]

I thought this was a bit of a double barreled question, given that we had to discuss what is history and how is history constructed/recorded simultaneously.

I discussed my historians chronologically from Thucydides ("precise" ancient history), Von Ranke (empiricist history), Elton/Carr, Reynolds/Windschuttle, Hayden White (postmodernism) and threw in quotes from others like Geyl and Becker.

Riffy, what you discussed should be okay as you still engaged in some discussion about changes in values/beliefs, which one would assume is implied to be over time...I wouldn't worry about it too much, as other respondents may not have even written more than a page or two without any reference to any other sources other than the one given- if that.

[Thecorey0]

Originally Posted by jessica.anne

I discussed my historians chronologically from Thucydides ("precise" ancient history), Von Ranke (empiricist history), Elton/Carr, Reynolds/Windschuttle, Hayden White (postmodernism) and threw in quotes from others like Geyl and Becker.

Although the exam is already over, I should mention that the markers do not like chronologically structured essays. Every single year they emphasise it in the marking notes.

[Riffy Raffy]

Thanks guys, informative responses. Hmm, at Thecorey0, thats what I thought too...but apparently they also like a range of historians? You can't do that many historians unless you do it chronologically. I got scared by their remark about having a lot of historians so I chucked in White and Marwick :S

[illa mc]

Originally Posted by Riffy Raffy

Thanks guys, informative responses. Hmm, at Thecorey0, thats what I thought too...but apparently they also like a range of historians? You can't do that many historians unless you do it chronologically. I got scared by their remark about having a lot of historians so I chucked in White and Marwick :S

thats not true at all.. what you do is structure it via issues from the 5 key questions that are pertinent to the source, and in your analysis of the key issue, use different historians views to develop your analysis.
eg. i used as my issues; The significance of identity in how history is ultimately constructed (used Carr vs Elton, and Tuchman as a balanced perspective), The use of sources in history's construction (empiricism - Ranke vs 'total history - Annales) and the role history plays in society (used Herodotus - entertainment, oral history vs Thucydides and the idea of producing an account of the present for future generation, and Tuchman for the view that the historian should "work within the evidence" but also aim to "enthal the reader" for a balanced perspective). I quoted the parts where these issues were mentioned in the source and did a quick evaluation of my own opinion before moving into that of the historians. Im pretty sure this is how it should be structured, or it is how i was told anyway..

[jessica.anne]

Originally Posted by Thecorey0

Although the exam is already over, I should mention that the markers do not like chronologically structured essays. Every single year they emphasise it in the marking notes.

The essay was not structured chronologically, it was structured around the key facets of the question and the points I was making. However, it just so happened this involved discussing the historians from ancient to modern sources.

Edit: Also, considering the question involved "over time", I'm sure they would make allowances given its difficult to show the evolution of something without discussing it chronologically - otherwise it would not make sense.

[Riffy Raffy]

The way I did it was find three major issues raised by the source and then discuss how the modernist vs postmodernist debate argues about it...