How important is it to have quotes? (2 Viewers)

[lukasheights]

Hey guys, quick question in regards to the HSC Ancient History exam.

How important is it to memorise specific quotes as opposed to the general idea of what each historian had to say? I feel as though the exam itself should be fine, but is it crucial to know word-for-word the quote which accentuates their bias or trail of thought?

What else are you guys doing for Ancient History in your very last minute preparations?

 

[ReneeApple]

I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but I still think you should know some. But the important thing is knowing the different arguments and who argued them.

My last minute revision is comprising of freaking out. I'm so worried about the historical period question!

 

[Kelsey2]

You dont need to quote but you MUST refer to historians yo ucan paraphrase and source them for your argument.

 

[Fake-Name]

You dont need to quote but you MUST refer to historians yo ucan paraphrase and source them for your argument.

I wouldn't say you MUST use historiography, in my class of 30 I'm the only one doing it. It just adds detail and validity to your argument.

 

[jessxxxr]

yeahhh im pretty sure you'd still be able to score really highly even if you don't use historians, but its always best to have a few

 

[enoilgam]

Hey guys, quick question in regards to the HSC Ancient History exam.

How important is it to memorise specific quotes as opposed to the general idea of what each historian had to say? I feel as though the exam itself should be fine, but is it crucial to know word-for-word the quote which accentuates their bias or trail of thought?

What else are you guys doing for Ancient History in your very last minute preparations?

From what I know from modern, you should have historiography but its only to support you analysis i.e. you cant just merely throw them in there and expect a band 6.

 

[lukasheights]

From what I know from modern, you should have historiography but its only to support you analysis i.e. you cant just merely throw them in there and expect a band 6.

Yep, just as I thought. Thanks.

So basically, it's just knowing what you're arguing. I can deal with that.

 

[Galladrim]

You shouldn't have to remember quotes verbatim and spill them out during the exam, it takes far too long. Paraphrase what they say.

You can simply say "according to Herodotus" or "Plutarch observed"

 

[D94]

You should always read the rubrics as they tell you what's required in the response: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/ancient-history-exam-rubrics.html

Anyway, for Modern, it's suggested to include historiography as it adds validity to your point and when correctly used, it does strengthen your whole argument.

 

[lockedbox]

Yep, just as I thought. Thanks.

So basically, it's just knowing what you're arguing. I can deal with that.

a lot of the things you are arguing come from the sources.

My teacher says you need to use at least one source a paragraph (given the paragraph is more than 100 words) to get a band six essay. Use ancient sources to tell what you are arguing, e.g. thucydides stated that the aims of the league was to "compensate themselves for their losses etc etc" and use modern sources to suport your argument, e.g. this is suported by Yada yada who stated that "yadayada" therefore... this is not nessicary and paraphrasing will get you marks for sources provided that you paraphrase closely but I'd recommend trying to learn a few quotes for every essay because direct quotes make your essays look more proffesional and band six worthy and if you forget them then just paraphrase anyway, at least you tried that way.

p.s. always try and remember which authors go with which topic, in the trials i acidently atributed all of thucydides quotes to plutarch and plutarchs quotes to thucydides! I still got 20/25 for that section though, so its not the be all and end all.

 

[Galladrim]

My teacher says you need to use at least one source a paragraph (given the paragraph is more than 100 words) to get a band six essay. Use ancient sources to tell what you are arguing, e.g. thucydides stated that the aims of the league was to "compensate themselves for their losses etc etc" and use modern sources to suport your argument, e.g. this is suported by Yada yada who stated that "yadayada" therefore... this is not nessicary and paraphrasing will get you marks for sources provided that you paraphrase closely but I'd recommend trying to learn a few quotes for every essay because direct quotes make your essays look more proffesional and band six worthy and if you forget them then just paraphrase anyway, at least you tried that way.

This. If you want a band 6, you have to include sustained references to historiography. Simple as that.

 

[acemusic415]

Using historians are crucial if you want to achieve a Band 6 in Ancient. You need to include both modern and ancient sources. Modern sources is essentially historiography - what historians think such as Bradley and Redford etc whereas ancient sources are archaeological evidence - for instance, the Temple of Karnak at Gebel Barkal.

When my teacher was marking Section 4 of our trials - that being the essay, she was really agitated as only one person and myself used modern sources (that being quoting historians). That said, you don't need to necessarily remember the quote word for word, just paraphrase because it would be time consuming remembering all the quotes. You should also know a few historians off the top of your head including: Bradley, Tyldesley, Redford, Wilson, Gardiner etc.

You should also demonstrate historiography in a question, demonstrating the debate of a particular topic. For example, in the personalities section of Hatshepsut, one of the dot points are: "The Relationship with Thutmose III" and since there is no solid archaeological evidence to justify whether their relationship was turbulent or peaceful, you have all these modern historians arguing various points.

So in an essay you should note that (for example): Callendar argues that Hatshepsut usurped the throne and her "claim to the throne was unconstitutional" whereas Redford argues the direct opposite: "There is no opposition, why would there by any opposition? They stood in reliefs together". You see how I integrated those quotes to prove a point - and those thoughts were contrasting?