Making up Secondary Sources (1 Viewer)

[Therewego]

So it seems to me that the entire HSC so far has been an exercise of who is the best at bullshit, and making said bullshit look realistic.

I guess my question is whether there is really any way the marker will know if I say;

"Spartan society was the foremost military power of the ancient world" (Barker, 2001)

or;

"Hatshepsut was undeniably of supreme importance in the New Kingdom...unprecedented impact upon its development" (Imacooldude, 2000)

And that I am completely lying.

Or even if I take a real historian....say Xenophon....and fabricate realistic lies?
ie;
"Lycurgus decreed that the agoge...was important to Spartan boys"


Discuss.

 

[random-1005]

So it seems to me that the entire HSC so far has been an exercise of who is the best at bullshit, and making said bullshit look realistic.

I guess my question is whether there is really any way the marker will know if I say;

"Spartan society was the foremost military power of the ancient world" (Barker, 2001)

or;

"Hatshepsut was undeniably of supreme importance in the New Kingdom...unprecedented impact upon its development" (Imacooldude, 2000)

And that I am completely lying.

Or even if I take a real historian....say Xenophon....and fabricate realistic lies?
ie;
"Lycurgus decreed that the agoge...was important to Spartan boys"


Discuss.

lol everyone at my school that does ancient says all you have to do is make shit up.

 

[imsopostmodern]

markers are more interested in seeing that you have WELL REPUTED sources. so what you're saying actually has a foundation. i doubt that they would bother in hsc, but for trials, if a source is particularly suspicious, teachers have been known to look it up, whereby your lying could potentially be exposed.

 

[roar84eighty]

you need them to be general so markers are less likely to notice or challenge them, which really makes the quote worthless.

 

[-may-cat-]

So it seems to me that the entire HSC so far has been an exercise of who is the best at bullshit, and making said bullshit look realistic.

I guess my question is whether there is really any way the marker will know if I say;

"Spartan society was the foremost military power of the ancient world" (Barker, 2001)

or;

"Hatshepsut was undeniably of supreme importance in the New Kingdom...unprecedented impact upon its development" (Imacooldude, 2000)

And that I am completely lying.

Or even if I take a real historian....say Xenophon....and fabricate realistic lies?
ie;
"Lycurgus decreed that the agoge...was important to Spartan boys"


Discuss.

I really don't see why people should have to do this, seriously guys, its not that hard to just memorise a couple of historians and their general views. That looks far better than a direct quotations from a bullshit/dodgy source anyway.

 

[Tully B.]

One of my old history teachers said that he made up just 1 person, but used that person throughout his time in Universality to support his theses; he even used it once for his PHD.

 

[-may-cat-]

One of my old history teachers said that he made up just 1 person, but used that person throughout his time in Universality to support his theses; he even used it once for his PHD.

What terrible work ethic. At HSC level, while i disagree with it, its not too big a deal, but for a PHD- that's just sad.

 

[LordNecro]

What terrible work ethic. At HSC level, while i disagree with it, its not too big a deal, but for a PHD- that's just sad.

He must be really good at it, otherwise the markers who checked his work shouldn't have their jobs...

 

[-may-cat-]

Regardless, what piss weak student.

"Hey, i completed my PHD by making shit up".

Awesome.

 

[luridlysteph14]

If you were to mosey on over to the recently updated CSSA trials thread, there's a comment from a marker & a reference to her senior marker saying that memorising quotes doesn't do anything except show that you can memorise quotes.

The most important part of the answer is integrating the "evidence" into your argument. If you just plonk a quote in there, the marker just shrugs their shoulders and thinks, well, do you actually know what the quote is saying?

... and I wouldn't use that Xenophon example. If you're going to mimic ancient sources you need to observe the characteristics of their language. Thucydides, for example, doesn't talk about poetry or art like Alcman and Tyrateus, he's all about politics. Xenophon restates a lot fo what he says, and has a great deal of analytical thought compared to Herodotus, whose history reads like a narrative and has relatively complex sentence structure in comparison. If you're going to mimic anyone on the agoge, go for Plutarch.

If you're floundering, assign a historian to each syllabus point and just paraphrase quotes.

 

[LordPc]

Regardless, what piss weak student.

"Hey, i completed my PHD by making shit up".

Awesome.

lol, exactly

@ OP: you can make sources up, but you must be careful. markers should know certain things about certain sources, for example, aristotle didnt like sparta particularly the women while thucydides admired the spartan way of life, and xenophon was fond of the spartan youth system

in saying this, you dont want to get things wildly confused, for example, quoting xenophon about spartan women, cause any marker that has been teaching sparta for a few years would know which historians said what

also, if the last question asks you to "evaluate ancient and modern sources..." you are pretty much stuffed, which is probably the best reason to not rely on making stuff up