Should we be attempting to 'solve' our historiography? (1 Viewer)

[Fake-Name]

Hey, I am writing about the changing nature of the depiction of an historical event.

I began examining three sources, after introducing each source, I then discussed how/why they differ over time. Now I am beginning to use archaeological evidence to prove/disprove the sources.

Should I be doing that?

I know the focus is on the changing nature of how history has been recorded, but isn't it only a historiography when you're debating something? And it seems too easy just to list the three sources and suggest why they have changed.

So, should we be trying to 'solve' our topic?

Thanks.

 

[Jaundice]

I never did any type of projects like this in school. Only source reliability.

the only things I can suggest is to discuss the reliability of the source. Discuss the motive (political/money etc), whether things are omissed or exaggerated and the type of source (primary/secondary).

Then talk about what the sources say, what insight they provide about the event and then use them in correlation to come to piece together the event.

Talk issues with the sources and how they affect interruptation and depicition of the historical event. Explain how people from different stations with predispositioned views can each interrupt the event differently and how that affects sources. Also talk about memory and secondary - how memory can be tainted overtime or false (eg someone tells you something happened and overtime your memory could become tainted and believe that it was your true memory of the event not someone elses) and how secondary sources rely other sources etc.

I think you get the idea. I hope this helps.

 

[Fake-Name]

Thanks for that, it really helped!

 

[Jaundice]

no worries!

 

[speedofsound]

you should make some attempt to come to some sort of conclusion. if your end your essay without some intelligent final statement about your topic, it just feels too open-ended and on the fence. perhaps you won't 'solve' it completely, but it's better than ending your essay the same as you started it. it's not very sophisticated.

 

[Jaundice]

I thought that went without saying. ???

 

[Fake-Name]

Yes, I understand to end on some sort of conclusion. Right now, in my conclusion I dont take either side. I simply rant on how revising history is important. I may have to fix this up!

 

[Jaundice]

Let me make sure this is clear. Don't structure it like the way I answered what source analysis involves. I was just giving you the basic ways to analyse a source not how to structure the essay.

Use the sources in correlation to come to a conclusion. You can say some things appear to be a constant and others variables in the sense that all of the sources may have described the same thing happening in X but also differed with views on other parts of X.

 

[speedofsound]

I thought that went without saying. ???

then let me rephrase it better for you to understand: what i mean by coming to a conclusion is that yes, to an extent you should be solving your question. if you end the essay without figuring anything out, it's kind of a waste of everyone's time. i don't know what else the OP was asking. what your doing with the sources is fine you just need to make sure you make a judgement rather than just saying how they've changed over time.

 

[Jaundice]

see above comment.

Edit: If you were talking about my first reply - it was just meant to give her an idea of how to analyse a source above the "what does it say" "what do you think it is" type of source work.

I wasn't at all answering the essay Q. Just in case.

 

[Fake-Name]

Hey, thanks for fixing that all up for me.

Thanks for that!