Analysing secondary sources (1 Viewer)

[eloeloelo]

we have to analyse primary and secondary sources for an assesment
i have found primary sources ok but analysing a seconfary source is hard!

We have been given a extract from alan gardiner(im finding it hard to read in iteslf) and was wondering if anyone had any tips on analysing its usefulness and reliablity?

thanks a bunch
eloeloelo

 

[xeuyrawp]

we have to analyse primary and secondary sources for an assesment
i have found primary sources ok but analysing a seconfary source is hard!

We have been given a extract from alan gardiner(im finding it hard to read in iteslf) and was wondering if anyone had any tips on analysing its usefulness and reliablity?

thanks a bunch
eloeloelo

Gardiner is difficult to read by modern standards, definitely.

The mistake of your teacher is giving you Gardiner, though! His work is excellent and very rarely proved wrong. Unless you're doing something like Hatshepsut or Akhenaten (where there are obvious flaws due to his context), I must say you're pretty screwed.

That is, unless your teacher will think it's okay for you to completely agree with the source.


Maybe it would help if you told us which period/personality/society you're doing?

 

[eloeloelo]

sorry, i totallt forgot to mention i was doing Hatshepsut

 

[xeuyrawp]

sorry, i totallt forgot to mention i was doing Hatshepsut

Well there you go. From memory, he's pretty anti-Hatshepsut.

 

[bored6]

sorry, i totallt forgot to mention i was doing Hatshepsut

Yep - when I studied Hatshepsut earlier on this year he was fairly critical of Hatshepsut particuarly her role as a military pharoah. If memory serves me right he basically denied her role as an expansionist Pharaoh and believed she usurped the throne.

I think it was Callender who said something along the lines of his assertions were flawed because he belonged to the "pre-feminist" movement.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Yup, exactly.

I really can't stand Callender, though.

 

[bored6]

Yup, exactly.

I really can't stand Callender, though.

I've heard of other people who dislike her too. Whys that?

 

[eloeloelo]

so a quote like " she was merely still a principal queen like others before her..." would show he is anti-hatshepsut aye?

 

[bored6]

so a quote like " she was merely still a principal queen like others before her..." would show he is anti-hatshepsut aye?

Well, doesn't show hes anti-hatshepsut but more diminishing her overall importance.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I've heard of other people who dislike her too. Whys that?

A lot of reasons, I think.

- Valid reasons: You can't have all the pharaohs of Egypt being important; maybe he missed a bit of evidence because of the memoria damnatio against her; etc.

- What we we would think of as invalid: Namely, the belief that a woman couldn't be important in pharaonic society; the fact that she would have to have been very domineering and manipulating to keep control; her presentation as a Pharaoh; etc.

so a quote like " she was merely still a principal queen like others before her..." would show he is anti-hatshepsut aye?

Definitely! She presented herself as Pharaoh: She used all the nomenclature (King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Son of Ra, Golden Horus, Horus, Two Ladies) and iconography (sphynx, smiter of the Asiatics/Kush, Pharaoh's clothing). Saying she was just a principal queen (I assume they mean 'Great Royal Wife???) is very anti-Hatsie.

 

[eloeloelo]

great, you guys helped so much!
thanks