silvermoon
caffeine fiend
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,834
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
theres just one flaw in your logic classics_chic. you've created a paradox by saying that you shouldn't use quotes but that you need to show historiography and analysis of sources (without actually referencing the sources). think about it.
olay, you are right, you DO need to quote sources - especially reference to primary sources. your personal depth and understanding comes through in the way in which you use the sources, the way you link the ideas together and your anlaysis of the reliability of the source/historian etc. if you don;t quote you don't show your research and you aren't backing up your points. when the marker reads it, they will be sitting there going "How do we know this" - you need to use sources and quotes to back up your theories and show that they are plausible, not just pulled from the air. You can say Hatshepsut was an alien or Akenaten was a woman IF you can back up your sources with evidence in the form of quotes and primary sources. if you can't back it up, why should anyone believe its a reasonable theory?
olay, you are right, you DO need to quote sources - especially reference to primary sources. your personal depth and understanding comes through in the way in which you use the sources, the way you link the ideas together and your anlaysis of the reliability of the source/historian etc. if you don;t quote you don't show your research and you aren't backing up your points. when the marker reads it, they will be sitting there going "How do we know this" - you need to use sources and quotes to back up your theories and show that they are plausible, not just pulled from the air. You can say Hatshepsut was an alien or Akenaten was a woman IF you can back up your sources with evidence in the form of quotes and primary sources. if you can't back it up, why should anyone believe its a reasonable theory?