Ideas for Major Works (1 Viewer)

[ancient_nut]

I'm probably quite late for this year, but I'll post some of my ideas on what you could do for the project.

Others, please add your own ideas to the bottom!

(be warned, the name "ancient nut" is not an exaggeration- I'm looking mainly at the ancient stuff!)

* The dominance of Thucydides in the study of the Pel. War (or dominance of another writer in another time of ancient history where there isn't much to go for)
* The role of mythology in history (choose a historian, for me Herodotus and Thucydides would be most interesting, and discuss how mythology shapes their history)
* The role of Homer/ Hesiod in the historical canon, and how they have affected the way in which history is written
* The affect of Eurocentrism on the interpretation of ancient history (especially Greece- philhellenism- but also Rome- as they are supposedly the crux of Western civilisation. You could also look at the way in which the Near East and their achievements have been downplayed because of Eurocentrism, or how the affect of Arab technology on the European Renaissance has been downplayed). For Greece, there is a controversial work called "Black Athena" by Martin Bernal. It's mostly rubbish in my opinion (badly backed up, clutches at straws etc), and most classicists ignore him, but the debate he stirred is interesting in itself.
* The way in which medicine is used to alter the perception we have of people- look at the Hippocratic works on women and the womb (basically the cure for everything is to shut up and have kids- says alot about the Greeks and their views on women), or, if you'd like a challenge, look at Foucalt on madness.

My project stemmed from an initial study of Martin Bernal, and went on to look at how Greece is idealised in Western thought. It was difficult but there's a lot of material out there if you know where to look. PM me if you're interested in this one and want some help with sources!

Will come back when I've thought of more.

 

[ancient_nut]

Oh, have thought of another.

Is the study of literature acceptable in order to find information about a historical period? (could look at Shakespeare, or the colonisation literature for Greece, or Homer)

or just the question of what literature is versus what history is. That would be a challenging but interesting one.

 

[ancient_nut]

And another

Foucalt is a gold mine for ideas on the nature of history- the transcripts of some of his lectures (in a book titled "Society Must be Defended" are especially useful for the way in which the nature of history has changed from being the property of the ruling class, to the people, to being subverted for the ruling class again. PM me for references if you need them.

 

[ancient_nut]

Just because I like Greece doesn't mean I don't appreciate the glories of areas unappreciated by the West in general. My project in year 12 looked at the sometimes squalid nature of ancient Greece and how Europeans have transformed it into something quite different, something almost divine. I actually have read a bit on Near Eastern history, although I only talk about what I'm comfortable with (Greece, Greece, Greece )

I agree with your assessment- you could also do a study of the historical 'other' as depicted in Herodotos.

 

[rhapsody11]

I agree with your assessment- you could also do a study of the historical 'other' as depicted in Herodotos.

You could even talk about Herodotus' travels in Egypt, or Pluarch's Osiris and Seth account and how both Classical scholars apply their Greek ideas onto Egyptian philosophy...

 

[Simmie]

Originality, not Honesty, is the best policy. do something that interests you but at the same time do something that not many people have done, or something no-one has done before, and you'll get better marks. Keep in mind: If they've seen it before, they'll be harsher with your marking.

As a general rule:
if the ordinary person (ie, someone who hasn't studied history) has an oppinion of it, don't do it. Be original in your choices and you'll find that you'll produce a much better work.

 

[xeuyrawp]

not Honesty,

What are you going on about? :S

 

[ari89]

The Great Schism

I'm thinking about doing the Great Schism (1054) between the east and west church. Has anyone got any idea about this or know of anyone having done this topic before?

If so does anyone know of any reputable hisotrians writting about that time/event?

Thanks guys!

 

[xeuyrawp]

I'm thinking about doing the Great Schism (1054) between the east and west church. Has anyone got any idea about this or know of anyone having done this topic before?

If so does anyone know of any reputable hisotrians writting about that time/event?

Thanks guys!

If you find the topic interesting, great.

Personally, I would start from something I know a little about -- maybe have read a bit about.

I'd go to a library (a university one would be preferable) and look it up.

 

[Simmie]

What are you going on about? :S

Have you ever heard the saying 'Honesty is the best policy' well I was saying that in this case ORIGINALITY would be the best policy. Doesn't matter.

 

[Bobby George]

this is just my opinion, but you all appear to be dealing with really complex issues (though if you could pull it off, which im sure many could, would be very interesting).
However, my teacher strongly impressed upon me that if you can use original sources for your IRP it is better. for instance for my project, i did the changing reception of the Eureka Stockade over the past 150 years by NSW and VIC media, and i did exceptionally well.
The idea doesnt need to be brilliant, the research that stems from it does
Best of luck

 

[Triangulum]

I'm thinking Sir John Franklin, who went missing when trying to find the Northwest Passage in 1845. There are a few different theories as to what happened, so I think a comparison based on the various records could be interesting. Any comments?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Here's a little list of (somewhat overlapping) Historiographical Issues that I have found useful for the case study and research project. I originally compiled this list as an indication of the type of topic which might form the focus of HSC Question 1 (Historiography)

Context of historians
1. Personal – political, cultural, preoccupations
2. Public – audience, preoccupations of an age; literary norms, standards and styles

Focus
1. of an Age
2. of a particular work or author

Judgments
passed by historians on their material, including on characters and issues

Bias
1. Of evidence
2. of historian
3. of an age or culture

Narrative
1. Style – plain, literary, emotive, polemic, propagandistic, moralistic, sententious, dramatic, popular, scholarly or academic
2. Issues of structure – thematic, chronological, dramatic; articles, chapters, volumes
3. Effect of narrative on content eg selection of evidence, interpretation, emphases, etc.

Medium
1. Prose – articles, essays, books – issues of selection, treatment
2. Films, videos, television programs – visual evidence, simplification, treatment of textual material,
3. Multimedia – CDs, possibilities of innovative structures and presentations
4. Speeches – a talk on historical material
5. Re-enactments
6. Historical fiction – in book, film, television
7. Effect of medium on content

Purposes of History
1. Objective or "scientific" knowledge
2. History as propaganda or for "social conditioning" - as a support for nationalism, patriotism, colonialism, warfare and other political agendas
3. History as entertainment
4. History as literary or artistic creation

Sources of Evidence
1. Creation
2. Survival
3. Selection
4. Interpretation
5. Testing, reliability
6. Bias of sources
7. Incorporation into narrative
8. Effect of new technologies on use of evidence

Some of myideas about specific questions:

Historical mode:

* Different types of broader history - metahistory, 'big' history, Spier's 'regimes', Christian's Maps of Time, Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse...

* History as film?

* Why is writen evidence so important? A reevaluation of writing in X society - you'd look at epigraphical vs philological methods, look at archaeology vs social history, etc. I think this would work great with Egypt

Historical ethics:

* History as film - the Holocaust and epistemological implications, violation of the taboo, the second commandment issues?

* Righting historical wrongs and 'buyer beware' of historicity.

- isms and camps:

* Applying feminist looks to an event - from Popular Chick to Heroin Chic?

* Queer theory and reinterpretation of queer identity.

Geobiological history:

* A look at impact of colonisation - from 1492 in terms of impact. You could also take this on an anthropological spin and use a lot of archaeological evidence.

* Again, something by Diamond would be awesome, as would Crosby…

Egypt:

* A look at the Giza workmens' village and the idea of slavery in Egypt?

* A reinterpretation of the Kadesh scene,

* A look at the historical 'other' - non-Egyptians in Egypt,

* The neglected Giza - the Mastabas of the Giza plateau. You'd look at how the Mastabas are being neglected and ignored, when they're a great source.

* Weni the Elder: Time for another look - you'd look at the biography of Weni the Elder and how the 1999 discovery by Michigan University of his tomb impacts our view of him. You could get into some really interesting Egyptology historiographical questions here...

* Mythology verses monomyth - look at Assmann's views that Egypt's religion was not as polytheistic as we think.

* A specific scene – the fowling scene, the subjugation motif, etc.

* A reevaluation of the unification – Dr Kohler’s research, etc.

 

[pungemo]

I was also originally looking at doing something in the area of Western Phoenicia (Carthage). There were many malicious rumours spread about Carthaginian society (such as infantcide) as both the Greeks and Romans hated them. Despite being major contributors to our modern alphabet the Carthaginians wrote on paper, which unfortunately means that very few Carthaginian writings survived. This could make it difficult to tell fact from fiction when examining the historiography. If you do elect to follow this path, Hannibal is definately the most famous of all Carthaginians and there are many Roman records that describe him.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I was also originally looking at doing something in the area of Western Phoenicia (Carthage). There were many malicious rumours spread about Carthaginian society (such as infantcide) as both the Greeks and Romans hated them.

The Romans hated everyone, and it isn't unlikely that the Carthaginians practiced infanticide. Considering practically everyone of the time did (including Greece and Rome), I don't see why the Carthaginians didn't.

How do you account for the infanticide stela, then?

Despite being major contributors to our modern alphabet

Um, you've got your facts wrong. Phoenicians settled Carthage in the early 9th Century.

Because of Phoenician cultural expansion (really just increased exposure) and the need for an alphabet that actually worked (not Linear B after the fall of Mycenae), the alphabet seems to have come with trade in a direct line from Phoenicia from the east to Greece.

Carthage had nothing to do with it - it simply got Phoenician around the same time and developed Punic.

the Carthaginians wrote on paper, which unfortunately means that very few Carthaginian writings survived.

You mean papyrus? Paper is made from pulp which is blended and layed out, papyrus is made from sliced and flattened reeds.

 

[pungemo]

I never said it was unlikely. It is, in fact, most likely. However, the degree to which it is true must be called into question. Many texts of the time portrayed them as savage barbarians that slaughter children for afternoon entertainment (perhaps exaggerated slightly). That is doubtful.

When I stated that they were major contributors to the modern alphabet I was talking about Phoenicians, the cultural group prevalent in Carthage. Carthage was, for most of its time, closely linked to mainland Phoenicia. And yes I meant papyrus.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I never said it was unlikely. It is, in fact, most likely. However, the degree to which it is true must be called into question. Many texts of the time portrayed them as savage barbarians that slaughter children for afternoon entertainment (perhaps exaggerated slightly). That is doubtful.

When I stated that they were major contributors to the modern alphabet I was talking about Phoenicians, the cultural group prevalent in Carthage. Carthage was, for most of its time, closely linked to mainland Phoenicia. And yes I meant papyrus.

You back-peddle a lot.

Just to clarify - Carthaginians, not Phoenicians, were the main cultural group prevalent in Carthage. Phoenicians originally settled it, but it developed on its own.

If you meant that Phoenicians contributed to our alphabet, you should have said it. Not Carthaginians. Accept that you're totally wrong.

Carthage quickly developed its own cultural identity away from Phoenicia (that's what being 5000kms away will do over time...). They were not 'closely linked' more than any other people. In fact, Carthage was far more closely linked with other north African and Mediterranean groups - look at their pottery and architecture.

And I don't understand your phrase 'mainland Phoenicia' - Phoenicia wasn't a land, it was a group of people. That would be like saying 'mainland ancient Egypt' - ancient Egypt stopped being ancient Egypt when there were no Egyptians around. Period.

Anyway, I don't see the point of this, you'll just respond with 'what I meant was...' and be ever ambiguous, as you seem to prefer. You get destroyed in every thread, but you haven't learnt to shut your pie-hole.

 

[pungemo]

No, I believe being ever-pendantic is a much less endearing trait. There was definately a mainland phoenicia. Last time I check Egypt was not involved in very heavy colonisation. Phoenicia (even if not united) had colonies scattered all across the Mediterrainean that united under Carthage after Alexander's conquests. Also, you may have noticed at the beginning of my post I said Western Phoenicia and then placed Carthage in brackets. I don't have time nor inclination to explain to you the cultural links between Phoenicia and Carthage, that is something you can look up in a book. Its african neighbours were indded partially assimilated into society, but as an under-class. Its closest links with the rest of the Mediterrainean were more often wars than cultural exchanges. Obviously you don't take the time to read what you criticise, I never once even commented on whether there was child sacrifice in Carthage, so please spare me your pointless waffling.

 

[xeuyrawp]

No, I believe being ever-pendantic is a much less endearing trait.

Well good luck in the HSC - a group of exams based on pedantic marking criteria.

blah blah what I meant was blah blah what I meant was blah blah etc etc (no paragraph breaks, quoting, etc)

Anyway, I don't see the point of this, you'll just respond with 'what I meant was...' and be ever ambiguous, as you seem to prefer. You get destroyed in every thread, but you haven't learnt to shut your pie-hole.

qft. And still you haven't learnt to shut your pie hole? You look like such an idiot with all your constant qualifying, and calling me pedantic when that's what we're here for - to be pedantic and get the marks.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I never rang Normo Boys, but I had a student from there. I rang him up and, surprise surprise, his word limit was 2500, like everyone else in the state. I made sure that was the case by getting him to ask a few friends and, surprise surprise, it was the same! The students said that the teachers were very errr.. pedantic(?) about the word limit. What you said is clearly a lie.

To clarify: You're wrong. And don't pretend that the word count was to the journal or something - you clearly stated the essay.

 

[pungemo]

Seeing as you were so keen to check my story perhaps you could give me a name so I could return the favour? And please, if you can't be bothered to make a serious attempt at posting, don't bother. Also, if you want to quote something that people can read 3 lines before that's fine but mis-quoting is just childish.

One thing you keep posting that has me confused - you repeatedly claim I get destroyed in every thread. Now I did get into an argument with you about an idea in one other thread. Problem is I distinctly remember that the person who's ideas you were 'promoting' stated quite clearly he agreed with my point of view. I think you should check your facts.