How has the methodology employed in the given history shaped the interpretation of its source base and conclusions?
In response to this question, a complete precis will note: 1) the research question the historian has posed to their topic; 2) the answer, or argument, the historian mounts in their text; 3) the sources the historian uses to substantiate that argument; and, in particular, 4) the methodological approach the historian takes to the analysis of their sources, and how that approach shapes their interpretation of their sources, narrative and, conclusion. When possible, the prcis should also consider the contribution the historian makes to the historiographical debate, as assigned for that week, by comparing/contrasting it to (at least) one to two other secondary sources. In particular, the prcis should examine how the historians approach, or methodology, has informed, if not determined, their selection, and exclusion, of voices, ideas, cultural norms and practices, institutions, (systemic) processes, material things and events for the purview of their narrative, as well as the conclusions the historian reaches about their topic and the contribution they (purportedly) make to the larger historiography.
Use Chicago Manual of Style: Adherence of Precis to the SMOS’s guidelines for citations and style
For Susan Reynolds “Kingdoms and Communities 900-1300” 2nd edition:
Use chapters 6 – 8
attached in sources
https://www-fulcrum-org.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/epubs_download_interval/8g84mm36t?chapter_index=12&locale=en&title=8.+THE+COMMUNITY+OF+THE+REALM+%28page+250%29
can download chapter 8 here with a nypl library card (file was too big to be uploaded; if you cannot access it contact me and i will figure out a different way to access the doc)
For Joseph Strayer “On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970; Reprint, Princeton Classics, 2010)”:
Use chapters 1 – 3
attached in sources
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|