Assignment Presentation: Style Guide

AHIS3000

1
Contents

How not to use this Style Guide:

Guide
Don’t attempt to read it through in one go. It’s not designed for it.
If the whole subject of references and footnotes is new to you, do read the “Introduction”
item which is first in the Table of Contents. Then read “When to give References”.
If you’re familiar with the concept of references and footnotes, start with “Different reasons
to use References”, and then read “Choosing a Referencing Style”.
For the details of styles accepted by the Ancient History Department, with examples, see
“How to give References” and its subsections. To help you see the advantages and
disadvantages of different styles, see “Detailed examples”.
“Glossary of terms” and “Abbreviations” should be self-explanatory.
If all you want is a quick reminder of the details, see the “Quick Reference Guide”.

Table of Contents Click here

Introduction. What are references for, and why are they necessary? 

Different reasons to use References, and different kinds of References. 

Choosing a Referencing Style 

When to give References. 

How to give References: 

Simple “In-text” references, plus Bibliography 

Footnotes (1): Author-Date style, plus Bibliography 

Footnotes (2): Author-Title style, plus Bibliography 

Detailed Examples of each style: Egyptian 

Greek 
Roman 

Glossary of Technical Terms 

Abbreviations 

Quick Reference Guide 

Contents > Introduction

Giving References in Assignments: the Ancient History Departmental Style Guide

A. Introduction: What are references for, and why are they necessary?
In nearly any assignment you are asked to do in an Ancient History subject, you will need
to give references showing where the ideas in the assignment have come from. Any
assignment is a combination of your own original ideas, things you heard in lectures and
tutorials, and things you learned from your own reading and research. As a general rule,
if an idea is your own, you will need to give evidence to support it, and if it is not your
own, you will need to say where you came across the idea, and why you believe it (or
don’t). Showing where an idea came from, and what the evidence supporting the idea is,
is one of the main jobs of references.
Broadly speaking, supporting evidence is of two kinds. First there is ancient evidence,
which is either statements by ancient writers (or simple deductions based on such
statements), or ancient objects or artefacts (or simple observations about such objects).
Second, there is modern scholarly opinion (which should be based, directly or indirectly,
on ancient evidence). You will need to keep the distinction between ancient evidence
and modern scholarly opinion clear in your mind, because there are different conventions
for referring to each of these.

When you give a reference either to a piece of ancient evidence or to a modern

scholarly opinion or opinions, the essential reasons for doing so are
1. intellectual honesty (admitting the idea was not your own original idea), and

2. providing the reader with the tools to check your work for themselves by showing what the
evidence is and where to find it.

You will soon learn how important this is to you in your own research. There is nothing
more frustrating than a modern historian making a significant claim (one you want to
make use of!), but not telling you what the evidence for the claim actually is! In the same
way, the reader of your assignment (who will usually be your marker) wants to know not
simply what you think, but also why you think it, and the evidence, ancient or modern,
which led you to your conclusion. That is what references are for: telling the reader
where the claims in your work are coming from.
There are many different styles of referencing. Here we will give you basic details about
three different styles, each of which is appropriate in particular circumstances. Different
publishers make use of different styles. Sometimes your lecturer will have a preference in
relation to a particular assignment. Sometimes you can decide which style suits a
particular assignment. But don’t mix and match within an assignment: stick to one style!

Please note: the Library has a number of online resources to help you with referencing.
An introduction to the topic can be found here; information about reference management
software can be found here.

3
Contents > Basic Kinds of References

B. What basic kinds of references are there?

There are three basic kinds of referencing, which need to be combined in most
assignments. There are

1. Brief In-text references

or
2. Footnotes or Endnotes (we prefer that you use Footnotes. Modern word processors
handle footnotes very well, and they are easier to keep track of when you’re reading
the assignment than are endnotes).
and
3. Bibliographies.

C. Different reasons to use references, and the different kinds of references:

There are two basic reasons for using references in an assignment:
1. As above, they can be used to make it clear where a quotation, an idea or an argument came from.

2. They can also be used to explain or qualify a point made in the main text, or to qualify, or
give further details of an argument which would unnecessarily break up your main text.
If you only need to give references of the first type (to show where a quotation, an idea or
an argument came from, or to refer to ancient evidence or a modern scholarly opinion),
then you can either use simple “In-text referencing”, or you can use formal footnotes.
Footnotes can be in “author-date” (“Harvard”) format, or extended “author-title”
(“Traditional”) format. The difference will be explained below.
If you need to give references of the second type (giving further details or qualifying your
argument), you will have to use formal footnotes of one of the two kinds. Since there is
no point mixing up the two kinds of references together, if you are ever going to need
formal footnotes in an assignment, use them the whole way through the assignment for
all your references.
Whichever form of referencing you use, you will usually also need to give a
Bibliography at the end of the assignment. The Bibliography should include only works
you have actually referred to in the assignment (i.e. not ones you just have a feeling you
should have!). The Bibliography should usually be divided into ancient authors you have
referred to, and the works of modern scholars you have used, listed separately. Each list
should be sorted alphabetically by the name of the primary author. (Works by more than
one author or editor should be listed under the name which comes first alphabetically.)
Because Bibliographies are organised alphabetically, you should give the surname of the
author first, followed by their first name. (In In-text references and in footnotes you will
normally give the author’s first name or first initial first. See the examples given below.)
The only cases where you will not need a Bibliography are likely to be those where you
have been provided with all the necessary references in your Unit materials.

4
Contents > Choosing a Style

D. Choosing a Referencing Style for an assignment

The choice between the three recommended referencing styles basically comes down to
three factors:
1. Does your lecturer or Department have a preferred style for this assignment?

2. How much information about your references will the reader need to be able to pick up “at a
glance”?

3. Does the variety of assignment mean you will need to give lots of explanatory comments or
qualifications to the argument in your main text?

If your lecturer or Department require a particular style, you should obviously go with that.
“Author-date” styles of referencing generally work to keep the amount of referencing
information on the page to a minimum: just the author, the date of writing, and a page
reference. All the other detail, like the title of the work and where it was published, is kept for
the Bibliography at the end. In some cases this works very well. “Author-title” styles put
more information on the page, and so take up more space and may distract from the main text.
If you will be referring to a small number of well-known works, without detailed interaction
with their opinions, you can use In-text notes in author-date style. But don't forget to include
precise page references, and the full Bibliography at the end of the assignment!
If you will be adding explanatory comments or qualifications to the argument in you main
text, you will need to use formal footnotes so those comments and qualifications don't break
up the flow of your argument. Author-date or author-title style? That depends on other
factors.
If you will be interacting with a relatively small number of well-known works, you would be
better off using formal footnotes, but could use the author-date style. Again, don't forget
page references, and the Bibliography at the end, in the same style.
If you will be referring to a wide range of material, so that constantly having to cross-check
with the Bibliography would be frustrating for the reader, you would be best to use formal
footnotes and the author-title system. It takes a little more work, but it gives the reader more
information “at a glance”, without having to turn to the Bibliography, and perhaps lose their
place in the main text. There may turn out to be other factors in particular cases as well.
As you begin to build up a body of works you regularly refer to, you should consider making
use of reference-management software. Such software keeps a database of all the relevant
information about each work on your list, and can output references in a wide range of formal
styles. This means you can easily re-use items from one assignment's Bibliography in a
second or third context. Over your University career you could build up quite a large
database, and save yourself a considerable amount of time.
For further information about reference-management software such as EndNote and
Mendeley, see the Library's online resource page, here. The University provides students with
free licences for this software, if you decide to make use of it.

5
Contents > When to give References

E. How do you know when you should give a reference?

As a rule of thumb, if you know where an idea came from, you need to give a reference
saying so. Unless there is a good reason to put it earlier, in mid-sentence, a reference will
normally come at the end of the relevant sentence.
1. If the words you use are a direct quotation, whether from an ancient author or a modern scholar,
you need to give a reference (quotations also need to be in quotation marks!). Quotations should
be brief. In rare cases where you need to quote more than three lines of text, put the quotation in
its own paragraph and inset it from the margin with a “hanging indent”.

2. If the idea is your own, no reference is necessary, though you may still need to say where you
found the evidence that suggested the idea.

3. If the idea was given by staff in lectures or tutorials, there is no need to reference it: everyone
else in the class heard it as well (or should have!), so it’s “common property”.
If you read the idea in one place, you need to say what that place was. If you read it in two or
more places, you need to give a reference to at least one of them. Referring to more than one
may strengthen your argument. If you read it in almost everything you read for the
assignment, you probably only need to refer to one item.
If you refer to an idea more than once, you only need to give a reference the first time.
References normally count towards the word limit of your assignment: don’t let them get too
long or repetitious! (Note: references normally do count: Bibliographies don’t.)
If you refer to the same book or article more than once, you only need to give the full details
the first time (even if you’re using the fuller “author-title” style). The second, third and
subsequent times, you can give the author’s name and an abbreviation of the title of the work,
and the different page number. There’s no need to give the full details over and over. Once
again, references count towards the word limit!
If you don’t know where the idea came from, you haven’t been keeping careful notes of
your reading! One of the most basic habits of effective study is keeping track of where
you notice ideas! And don’t just keep track of the author, or the book or article: keep
track of the page reference as well. There is nothing more frustrating than knowing there
was a great idea somewhere in your reading, but not being able to remember where.

In brief:
1. If you directly quote either an ancient author or a modern scholar, you must set it within
quotation marks, and you must give a reference,
and
2. If you make use of an idea which you know is not your own, even if your paraphrase it in
your own words, you must give a reference.

3. Rather than give multiple footnotes in the one sentence, it is usually best to combine them into
one footnote. If necessary you can add brief explanatory comments in the note.

6
 Contents > How to give References

F. Referencing: how to do it.

1. Brief In-text references (author-date format) plus Bibliography.
For ancient authors, give the name of the ancient author, followed by the Book, Chapter and
Section number/s of the passage, or the Line numbers. If the author is only known for one
work, you can simply give his name: e.g. “Polybius, Histories 12.27” can be abbreviated to
“Polybius 12.27”. Then, in brackets, give the surname of the translator and the date of the
translation, and then the page reference. Example:
According to Polybius 12.27 (trans. Waterfield 2010: 442) Timaeus was an
unreliable researcher …
For modern authors, give the surname of the author or authors of the work you are referring to
(if it’s a work with different chapters by different authors, with an overall editor, make sure
you give the name of your author), and then the date of publication of the whole work,
followed by the page reference. Example:
Badian argues that the Roman aristocracy made use of their foreign clients to
influence internal Roman politics (Badian 1958: 163) …
Then, in the Bibliography at the end of the assignment, give the full publication details which
will allow the reader to track down the works in question. Normally you should divide your
list into Ancient and Modern authors, and then give each list alphabetically by the name of the
authors. You do not need to give chapter or page references here. Example:
If an author has published more than one work in a year, refer
Bibliography
to them as, e.g., Badian 1965(a) and Badian 1965(b), etc.,
(a) Ancient authors: both in references and in the Bibliography.
Polybius, The Histories (2010), trans. R. Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford U.P.)
(b) Modern authors:
Badian, E. (1958), Foreign Clientelae (264‒70 B.C.) (Oxford, Clarendon).
2. Footnotes (author-date format)
Footnotes using author-date format work exactly the same as the references above. But
instead of being placed in brackets in the text itself, they are indicated by a super-scripted
number in the text, with a matching number in the footnote area at the foot of each page.
Example:
Main text → According to Polybius 12.27 1, Timaeus was an unreliable researcher …
Badian argues that the Roman aristocracy made use of their foreign clients to
influence internal Roman politics. 2
______________
Footnote separator:→

Footnotes: → 1. Polybius 12.27, trans. Waterfield, 2010: 442. (you might want to include a sentence of
the translation here to illustrate or reinforce your point: footnotes allow for that flexibility.
But keep such quotations as brief as possible.)
2. Badian, 1958: 163.
End of Page → ____________________________________________________________________
The Bibliography will be identical to that which goes with In-text author-date references,
above.
For author-title footnotes see over the page.

7
 Contents > Types of References

3. Footnotes (extended author-title format)

Footnotes using author-title format work similarly to the author-date footnotes above. They
are indicated by a super-scripted number in the text, with a matching number in the footnote
area at the foot of each page. The difference is that the first time you refer to an ancient
author, modern book, journal article or other work, you give the full details (for which see
below). In subsequent references to the same work you give only abbreviated details. In all
cases you give precise page references. Example:
Main text → According to Polybius 12.27 1, Timaeus was an unreliable researcher … Polybius
claims this was due to his lack of practical political and military experience 2 …
Badian argues that the Roman aristocracy made use of their foreign clients to
influence internal Roman politics. 3 He suggests this phenomenon is particularly
noticeable in the career of Pompey the Great. 4 Standard
______________ abbreviation
Footnote separator:→
Footnotes: → 1. Polybius 12.27, from Polybius, The Histories, trans. R. Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford U.P.),
First reference: → 2010, p. 442. (you might want to include a sentence of the translation here to illustrate or reinforce
your point: footnotes allow for that flexibility. But keep such quotations as brief as possible.)
Subsequent reference
→ 2. Polybius 12:28a (Waterfield), p. 445.
First reference :→
Subsequent reference
3. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264‒70 B.C.), (Oxford, Clarendon),1958, p. 163.
→ 4. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, ch. 11, pp. 252‒284.
End of Page 2. ____________________________________________________________________
→

4. Bibliographies
Bibliographies are (in most ways) the most detailed references, but they are not where you say
which specific passages you referred to in particular footnotes. They are where you list every
work you referred to with its full publishing details. They should be divided into Ancient
Evidence and Modern Sources, each sorted alphabetically by author’s name, all in the one
place at the end of the assignment. Because Bibliographies are organised alphabetically, you
should give the surname of the author first, followed by their first name or initial. Otherwise
Bibliographies should follow the conventions of their style: they should begin with the author
and title, or the author and date, of the work in question. Author-date style has been illustrated
on the previous page: here is how an author-title Bibliography should be laid out.
Example:

Bibliography
(a) Ancient Authors
Cicero, On Divination, trans. W.A. Falconer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.), 1923.
Herodotus, The Histories, trans. A. de Selincourt (Harmondsworth: Penguin), 1978.
(b) Modern Authors
Eckstein, A.M., “What is an Empire and how do you know when you have one? Rome and the
Greek states after 188 BC,” Antichthon 47, 2013, pp. 173‒190.
Gruen, E.S., “Greeks and Non-Greeks”, in G.R. Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the
Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 2006, pp. 295‒314.
Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Sociological Studies in Roman History volume 2), (Cambridge:
Cambridge U.P.), 1983.

8
 Contents > Referring to Ancient Authors

G. Types of References in more detail. Using “author-title” style.

How to refer to
1. a passage from an ancient author
Normally give the ancient author’s name, and either the full title, or the standard abbreviation
for the title of the work (in italics). Then give the Book, Chapter and Section number/s of the
passage, or the Line numbers.1 If the author is only known for one work, you can simply give
his name: e.g. “Polybius, Histories 12.32” can be abbreviated to “Polybius 12.32”.
(Book, Chapter, Section and Line numbers vary between ancient authors. For Greek and
Roman authors, if you can, use the system found in the Loeb Classical Library (available
in the Library both in hard copy and Online). Penguin translations and Oxford World's
Classics will normally use the same system; sometimes they put the numbers in the
margins or at the top of the page. Not all online translations will have book, chapter and
section numbers. The Perseus Project translations do. Avoid those which do not.)
Standard Then give the name of the translator (e.g. “trans. M. Staniforth”), and the publication details of the
abbreviation translation (place of publication, publisher, date). Last you can give the page reference in the
translation you are using. But note: that’s no use without the other details: different translations
will have quite different pagination!
Only give the full details the first time you refer to the item. Then add something like the
following: “All passages from (the author's name) are taken from the translation of (the
translation you used) unless otherwise noted.” Then in subsequent references you can simply
give the author's name, the abbreviated form of the name of the work, and the book, chapter
and section number (or page number).
Examples:
(Because this work has no known author, it can
simply be cited by its title in Lichtheim’s volume.)
Egyptian example:
First reference:→
“The Two Brothers” (P. Brit. Mus. 10183), trans. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature
Vol. II, The New Kingdom (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press), 2006, pp. 203‒210.
Subsequent reference→ “The Two Brothers”, trans. Lichtheim, p. 205.
or
“The Tale of the Two Brothers”, trans. E.F. Wente, in W.K. Simpson et al., eds., The
Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven: Yale University Press), 2003, pp. 80‒90.
“The Tale of the Two Brothers”, trans. Wente, p. 88.
Greek example: Herodotus, The Histories, Book 3.8, trans. A. de Selincourt (Harmondsworth: Penguin),
First reference:→
1978, p. 205.
Subsequent reference→
Herodotus 3.8 (p. 205, Penguin).
Roman example:
First reference:→
Cicero, On Divination (or: de Divinatione, or Div.) 2.29, trans. W.A. Falconer (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard U.P.), 1923 p. 441 (LCL). Standard
Subsequent reference→
Cicero, On Divination (or: de Divinatione, or Div.) 2.29 (p. 441, LCL) abbreviations

(Standard translations such as the Penguin and the Loeb Classical Library, and the phrase “University Press,” can
be abbreviated like this.)
1. Ancient verse texts, such as Homer’s Iliad and dramas such as those of Sophocles, are often referenced using line
numbers, which are sometimes abbreviated to (e.g.) “l. 370” or “ll. 370‒385”.

9
 Contents > Referring to objects and artefacts

2. An object or artefact from the ancient world

Normally you will find these in printed or online Museum or Exhibition catalogues, or in
other places which refer to such catalogues.
If it’s a printed catalogue, give the full publication details of the catalogue, starting with its
editor, its title and (if relevant) the museum or exhibition it’s a catalogue of. Make sure you
include figure numbers and/or plate numbers as well as page numbers.
If the catalogue is online, give the name of the editor and the title, the details of the museum
or exhibition it is a catalogue of, and the full URL (in angle brackets) and the date you
accessed it.
If you can't find such details, give the full reference to the work (journal article, book, website
or whatever) in which you located the object or artefact.
Only give the full details the first time you refer to the item. Then in subsequent references
you can simply give the abbreviated form of the name of the work (catalogue, journal article,
book, website or whatever) in which you located the object or artefact.
Examples:
First reference:→ H. Junker, Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden von Gîza, 12
vols. (Vienna, 1934-1955), V, 33, fig. 4a.
Subsequent reference→ Junker, Gîza V, 33, fig. 4a.
First reference:→ N. Yalouris et al., eds., The Search for Alexander: an Exhibition, National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C. (New York: Little, Brown and Company, for the New York Graphic
Society), 1980, 20.
Subsequent reference→ Yalouris et al., eds., The Search for Alexander, 22.
First reference:→ M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 1974,
Plates p. VI, 11, 30/1.
Subsequent reference→ Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage 2, Plates p. LX, 12, 498/43a.

10
 Contents > Referring to journal articles and printed books

3. An academic journal article

Give the author's name or names, the full title of the article (in quotation marks), the name of
the journal (in italics), the volume number (or volume and sub-part number), and the year of
publication. The give the full page range of the article, and if you are quoting a particular
passage, the exact page reference.
Only give the full details the first time you refer to the item. In subsequent references give the
author's name or names and an abbreviated form of the title (still in quotation marks), and
then the relevant page reference.
If you accessed the journal article online (say on eReserve or via JStor or a similar service),
do not give the URL: give the details of the printed version, as above.
Examples:
First reference:→ K.A. Kóthay, “Divine Beings at work: a motif in late First Intermediate Period and early
Middle Kingdom Mortuary Texts,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 96, 2010, pp. 83‒100.
Subsequent reference→ Kóthay, “Divine Beings at work,” p. 87.
First reference:→ P. McKechnie, “Greek Mercenary Troops and their Equipment,” Historia 43.3, 1994, pp. 297‒305.
Subsequent reference→ McKechnie, “Greek Mercenary Troops”, p. 301.
First reference:→ A.M. Eckstein, “What is an Empire and how do you know when you have one? Rome and
the Greek states after 188 BC,” Antichthon 47, 2013, pp. 173‒190.
Subsequent reference→
Eckstein, “What is an Empire?”, p. 180.

4. A printed book by one or more authors

Give the author's or editor's name or names (with initials), the full title of the volume (in
italics), the place of publication and publisher (in brackets), the date of publication and the
page or pages to which you referred.
Only give the full details the first time you refer to the item. Then in subsequent references
you can simply give the author's or editor's name or names, the abbreviated form of the name
of the book (in italics), and the page reference.
If you used an eBook, give the details (if you can) of the printed version, including the page
reference. If that is unavailable in the eBook you used, give the full URL and the date you
accessed it.
Examples:
First reference:→ I. Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford U.P.), 2000, p. 139. Standard
abbreviation
Subsequent reference→
Shaw, Ancient Egypt, p. 197.
First reference:→ R.S. Bagnall & P. Derow, eds., The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation
(Oxford: Blackwell), 2004, pp. 45‒46.
Subsequent reference→ Bagnall & Derow, The Hellenistic Period, pp. 69-70.
First reference:→ K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal (Sociological Studies in Roman History volume 2),
(Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 1983, pp. 201‒205.
Subsequent reference→ Hopkins, Death and Renewal, pp. 226‒235.

11
 Contents > Referring to works in edited collection volumes, and websites

5. A chapter by one or more authors in an edited volume

Give the name of the author (or authors) of the chapter first, then the full name of the chapter
(in quotation marks), followed by the name of the editor (or editors) of the volume, the full
title of the volume (in italics), the place of publication and publisher (in brackets), the date of
publication and the page range of the particular chapter, and the exact page reference.
Only give the full details the first time you refer to the item. Then in subsequent references
you can simply give the author's name, the abbreviated form of the name of the chapter, and
the page reference.
If you used an eBook, give the details of the printed version if you can, including the page reference.
If that is unavailable in the eBook you used, give the full URL and the date you accessed it.
Examples:
First reference:→ A. Woods, “A Date for the Tomb of Seneb at Giza: Revisited,” in A. Woods, A.
McFarlane & S. Binder (eds.), Egyptian Culture and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib
Kanawati vol. 2 (Cairo: SCA), 2010, pp. 301‒331, p. 303.
Subsequent reference→ Woods, “A Date”, p. 305.
First reference:→ E.S. Gruen, “Greeks and Non-Greeks”, in G.R. Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
the Hellenistic World (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 2006, pp. 295‒314, p. 298.
Subsequent reference→ Gruen, “Greeks and Non-Greeks”, p. 304.
First reference:→ T.W. Hillard & L. Beness, “Choosing Friends, Foes and Fiefdoms in the Second Century BC”, in
D. Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to Roman Imperialism (Leiden: Brill), 2013, pp. 127‒140, p. 131.
Subsequent reference→ Hillard & Beness, “Choosing Friends”, p. 135.
6. A website
The general rule for referring to material from an internet site is to give the name of the individual or
organisational author (if known), the date of writing or of last editing (if known: not all websites will
tell you), the page heading, the section number (or similar) if the site has them, the complete URL
(copy and paste it directly from your browser's address bar) set between angle brackets (like this:
<http://www…>), and the date you accessed the site.
As with the examples above, only give the full details the first time you refer to the item.
Then in subsequent references you can simply give the author or site's name, the abbreviated
form of the page heading, and the section number (if available).
Examples:
First reference:→ The Tomb of Horemheb, The Theban Mapping Project, <http://www.
thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tomb_871.html>, accessed 02/03/2017.
Subsequent reference→ The Tomb of Horemheb, Theban Mapping Project.
First reference:→ Polyaenus, Stratagems 5.44, Attalus.org.
<http://www.attalus.org/translate/polyaenus5B.html#44.1>, accessed 02/03/2017.
Subsequent reference→ Polyaenus, Stratagems 5.48, Attalus.org.
First reference:→ The Monumentum Ancyranum (Res Gestae Divi Augustae) ch. 9, Lacus Curtius,
<http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html>,
accessed 02/03/2017.
Subsequent reference→ Res Gestae 9, Lacus Curtius.

12
 Contents > Detailed Examples

Example 1: adapted from A. Woods, “A Date for the Tomb of Seneb at Giza: Revisited,” in A.
Woods, A. McFarlane & S. Binder (eds.), Egyptian Culture and Society: Studies in Honour
of Naguib Kanawati vol. 2 (Cairo: SCA), 2010, 301.
1(a): In-text references, author-date system:
The stone-built mastaba of the dwarf Seneb was discovered by H. Junker in 1927 and is positioned
in the West Field at Giza. The tomb consists of a rectangular mastaba with two false door niches
and an external chapel (PM III/2, 101-103, plans 7, 13, 27; Junker 1934-1955: V, 3-128, figs. 1-32,
pls. 1-9). Several stone elements are incorporated into the tomb's architectural design and include:
an inscribed lintel and drum positioned above the doorway of the external chapel (Figure 1; Junker
1934-1955: V, 33, 4a); Seneb's false door and two side panels from the chapel (Figures 2-6; Junker
1934-1955: V, 33-98, figs. 4-8, 14-26, pls. 4-6); a granite offering stone (Figure 7; Junker 1934-
1955: V, 100-104, fig. 28, pl. 7b-c) and the remains of the false door of his wife, Senet-ites, in the
northern niche (Figure 8; Junker, 1934-1955: V, 98. 100, fig. 27). Other items associated with the
tomb complex are: the famous double statue of the tomb owner and his family discovered in the
northern serdab (Figure 9; Russmann 1989: 39-41) and the limestone chest in which it was found
(Junker 1933-1955: V, 104-105, pl. 8d-f, pl. 20a); a small wooden shrine and statue as well as a
limestone chest found in the southern serdab (Martin-Pardey 1978: 95-98); a fragment of a granite
statue base belonging to Seneb (Figure 10; Martin-Pardey 1977: 155-157, 158-159) and the
limestone sarcophagus in Seneb's burial chamber (Junker 1933-1955: V, 122-124, fig. 30, pl. 7a;
Leipzig Museum Inventory 3695).
(Note how in this case In-text referencing makes the paragraph less informative, and makes the text harder
to follow.)

1(b): Footnotes, author-date system

The stone-built mastaba of the dwarf Seneb was discovered by H. Junker in 1927 and is positioned
The footnote
number is
in the West Field at Giza. The tomb consists of a rectangular mastaba with two false door niches
here → and an external chapel.1 Several stone elements are incorporated into the tomb's architectural design
and include: an inscribed lintel and drum positioned above the doorway of the external chapel
(Figure 1);2 Seneb's false door and two side panels from the chapel (Figures 2-6); 3 a granite offering
stone (Figure 7);4 and the remains of the false door of his wife, Senet-ites, in the northern niche
(Figure 8).5 Other items associated with the tomb complex are: the famous double statue of the
tomb owner and his family discovered in the northern serdab (Figure 9) 6 and the limestone chest in
but the which it was found;7 a small wooden shrine and statue as well as a limestone chest found in the
footnotes
themselves southern serdab;8 a fragment of a granite statue base belonging to Seneb (Figure 10); 9 and the
are down at
the bottom of
limestone sarcophagus in Seneb's burial chamber.10
the text, with
a line (Note how in this case Footnoting plus “author-date” references make it much easier to follow the text, but
separating
them from it.
a reader would still need to refer regularly to the Bibliography, because the authors’ names alone are not
very informative.)
↓

1. PM III/2, 101-103, plans 7, 13, 27; Junker 1934-1955: V, 3-128, figs. 1-32, pls. 1-9.
2. Junker 1934-1955: V, 33, 4a.
3. Junker 1934-1955: V, 33-98, figs. 4-8, 14-26, pls. 4-6.
4. Junker 1934-1955: V, 100-104, fig. 28, pl. 7b-c.
5. Junker 1934-1955: V, 98. 100, fig. 27.
6. Russmann 1989: 39-41.
7. Junker 1933-1955: V, 104-105, pl. 8d-f, pl. 20a.
8. Martin-Pardey 1978: 95-98.
9. Martin-Pardey 1977: 155-157, 158-159.
10. Junker 1933-1955: V, 122-124, fig. 30, pl. 7a; Leipzig Museum Inventory 3695.

13
Contents > Detailed Examples > Example 1 (cont.)

1(c): Footnotes, author-title system

The stone-built mastaba of the dwarf Seneb was discovered by H. Junker in 1927 and is positioned
in the West Field at Giza. The tomb consists of a rectangular mastaba with two false door niches
and an external chapel.1 Several stone elements are incorporated into the tomb's architectural design
and include: an inscribed lintel and drum positioned above the doorway of the external chapel
(Figure 1);2 Seneb's false door and two side panels from the chapel (Figures 2-6); 3 a granite offering
stone (Figure 7);4 and the remains of the false door of his wife, Senet-ites, in the northern niche
(Figure 8).5 Other items associated with the tomb complex are: the famous double statue of the
tomb owner and his family discovered in the northern serdab (Figure 9)6 and the limestone chest in
which it was found;7 a small wooden shrine and statue as well as a limestone chest found in the
southern serdab;8 a fragment of a granite statue base belonging to Seneb (Figure 10);9 and the
limestone sarcophagus in Seneb's burial chamber.10

(Note how Junker is only cited fully the first time:

subsequent references are abbreviated. The same
pattern is followed for Martin-Pardey vol. 2. Then
the first time volume 1 is cited, the full reference is
given, and then subsequent references are abbreviated.)

1. PM III/2, 101-103, plans 7, 13, 27; H. Junker, Grabungen auf dem Friedhof des Alten Reiches bei den Pyramiden
von Gîza, 12 vols. (Vienna, 1934-1955), V, 3-128, figs. 1-32, pls. 1-9.
2. Junker, Gîza V, 33, fig. 4a.
3. False door: JE 51297 (Junker, Gîza V, 33-98, figs. 4-8, 14-26, pls. 4-6). For the fragments of the granite architrave,
panel and lower lintel see Junker, Gîza V, 33-34, fig. 4b.
4. CG 57026 (Junker, Gîza V, 100-104, fig. 28, pl. 7b-c).
5. Junker, Gîza V, 98, 100, fig. 27.
6. JE 51280 (Junker, Gîza V, 107-111, pl. 9; E. Russmann, Egyptian Sculpture. Cairo and Luxor (Austin, 1989), 39-41
[14].
7. JE 51281 (Junker, Gîza V, 104-105, pl. 8d-f). Behind the shoulder of the statue, several alabaster vessels were
discovered (2 bowls and 13 vases), along with a flat alabaster table, green eye paint, carnelian beads and an agate
splitter (Junker, Gîza V, pl. 20a).
8. Stone chest: Hildesheim 3115 (E. Martin-Pardey, Plastik des Alten Reiches, II. Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, CAA
(Mainz am Rhein, 1978), 95-98; Junker, Gîza V, 104-105, pl. 8a-c); wooden shrine: Hildesheim 3116 (Martin-
Pardey, Plastik II, 99-102); wooden statue: (Martin-Pardey, Plastik II, 103-107); related items: Hildesheim 3118
(Martin-Pardey, Plastik II, 99-102). Other items found on the floor of the serdab include: 7 alabaster vessels (5
plates, 2 cups and flat table) – Hildesheim 3119, 3126.
9. Statue base: Hildesheim 3132 (E. Martin-Pardey, Plastik des Alten Reiches, I. Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, CAA
(Mainz am Rhein, 1977), 155-157); inlaid eyes from statue: Hildesheim 3133 (Martin-Pardey, Plastik I, 158-159).
10. Junker, Gîza V, 122-124, fig. 30, pl. 7a; Leipzig Museum Inventory 3695.

14
Contents > Detailed Examples > Example 2

Example 2: adapted from P. McKechnie, “Greek Mercenary Troops and their Equipment,” Historia
43.3, 1994, p. 297.
2(a): In-text references, author-date system:
David Whitehead's article “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops in Classical Greece?”, in a recent
volume of this journal (Whitehead 1991: 105‒113), expresses disagreement with an argument I
have put forward to the effect that employers of mercenaries in fourth-century Greece would “often
‒ perhaps even usually ‒ equip them.” (McKechnie 1985: 85.) Some further comment is required,
both to clarify my own case and to question Whitehead's line of argument against it; and since
“general considerations which tell, explicitly or implicitly, a different story” (Whitehead 1991: 105)
form an important element in Whitehead's analysis, I shall take the opportunity of sketching the
situation a bit more broadly than I did before. It is common ground that earlier scholars, particularly
H.W. Parke, (Parke 1935: e.g. at 106) have assumed without argument that mercenaries must
usually have provided their own arms and armour. Whitehead describes this assumption as an
orthodoxy (Whitehead 1991: 110), but I think that may run the risk of dignifying it with a status that
it does not really have. It is simply a question that nobody has thought about much. Instances where
an employer did provide the equipment are recognised by both of us: the chief ones are Cyrus and
the army he recruited to attack his brother King Artaxerxes II, and Dionysius I and his mercenary
army in Sicily (Whitehead 1991: 107‒108). The issue is whether any generalization from them is
possible.
(Note how in this case the relatively sparse “In-text” references work quite well.)

2(b): Footnotes, author-date system

David Whitehead's article “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops in Classical Greece?”, in a recent
volume of this journal,1 expresses disagreement with an argument I have put forward to the effect
that employers of mercenaries in fourth-century Greece would “often ‒ perhaps even usually ‒
equip them.”2 Some further comment is required, both to clarify my own case and to question
Whitehead's line of argument against it; and since “general considerations which tell, explicitly or
implicitly, a different story”3 form an important element in Whitehead's analysis, I shall take the
opportunity of sketching the situation a bit more broadly than I did before. It is common ground that
earlier scholars, particularly H.W. Parke,4 have assumed without argument that mercenaries must
usually have provided their own arms and armour. Whitehead describes this assumption as an
orthodoxy,5 but I think that may run the risk of dignifying it with a status that it does not really
have. It is simply a question that nobody has thought about much. Instances where an employer did
provide the equipment are recognised by both of us: the chief ones are Cyrus and the army he
recruited to attack his brother King Artaxerxes II, and Dionysius I and his mercenary army in
Sicily.6 The issue is whether any generalization from them is possible.

1. Whitehead 1991: pp. 105‒113.

2. McKechnie 1985: p. 85.
3. Whitehead 1991: p. 105.
4. Parke 1935: e.g. at p. 106.
5. Whitehead 1991: p. 110.
6. Whitehead 1991: pp. 107‒‒108.

15
Contents > Detailed Examples > Example 2 (cont.)

2(c): Footnotes, author-title system

David Whitehead's article “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops in Classical Greece?”, in a recent
volume of this journal,1 expresses disagreement with an argument I have put forward to the effect
that employers of mercenaries in fourth-century Greece would “often ‒ perhaps even usually ‒
equip them.”2 Some further comment is required, both to clarify my own case and to question
Whitehead's line of argument against it; and since “general considerations which tell, explicitly or
implicitly, a different story”3 form an important element in Whitehead's analysis, I shall take the
opportunity of sketching the situation a bit more broadly than I did before. It is common ground that
earlier scholars, particularly H.W. Parke,4 have assumed without argument that mercenaries must
usually have provided their own arms and armour. Whitehead describes this assumption as an
orthodoxy,5 but I think that may run the risk of dignifying it with a status that it does not really
have. It is simply a question that nobody has thought about much. Instances where an employer did
provide the equipment are recognised by both of us: the chief ones are Cyrus and the army he
recruited to attack his brother King Artaxerxes II, and Dionysius I and his mercenary army in
Sicily.6 The issue is whether any generalization from them is possible.

(Note how in this case the author-title system gives much more information without the reader needing to
turn to the Bibliography.)

1. David Whitehead, “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops in Classical Greece?” Historia 40 (1991), pp. 105‒113.
2. Paul McKechnie, Outsiders in the Greek Cities in the Fourth Century B.C. (London, 1989), p. 85.
3. Whitehead, “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops?”, p. 105.
4. H.W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Oxford, 1935), e.g. at p. 106.
5. Whitehead, “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops?”, p. 110.
6. Whitehead, “Who Equipped Mercenary Troops?”, pp. 107‒‒108.

16
Contents > Detailed Examples > Example 3

Example 3: adapted from Tom Hillard & Lea Beness, “Choosing Friends, Foes and Fiefdoms in the
Second Century BC”, in D. Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to Roman Imperialism, (Leiden:
Brill), 2013, p. 131.
3(a): In-text references, author-date system:
The ideological superstructure, though still favouring Rome’s traditional leaders, was under threat from the social
realities of an increasingly enriched, and thus empowered, commercial sector. (Various episodes make clear a
growing rift between those who determined the stages and the pace of expansion and those who would
commercially profit from it; cf. Badian 1972: 26‒47; Hill 1952: 87‒90.)
Such internal politics, one can speculate, also played a part in foreign policy. Following the third Macedonian
war, ten senatorial legati were sent out to Macedonia and five to Illyria to assist the commanders in settling
affairs (Livy 45.17.1), but Rome did not annex either. In Macedonia it instituted four autonomous republics,
under severe restrictions. Some modern scholarship has put this down to practical considerations; Rome, it is
thought, lacked the manpower to occupy another foreign territory permanently (Harris 1979/1991: 143‒6, 160‒
2). Ideologically, too, Rome’s new Mediterranean stature demanded justification. Rome could claim to have
brought freedom … In this last instance, if Livy can be trusted, it was actually observed that, where there were
publicani, there could be no libertas for ‘the allies’ (as the Macedonians were now cast: 45.18.4). The decision
can be seen as ideological, but it directly denied access to commercial interests—and this, in the immediate
context, can be seen as serving narrower senatorial interests (a theme explored by Badian 1972: 40‒3).
It might be said that the above arrangements were annexation without the name. What had been Macedonian
and Illyrian realms became virtually Roman appanages supplying a steady revenue to Rome and thus
contributing to the fundamental transformation of Rome’s economy. Yet Macedonia was not a Roman
‘province’ (For this argued at length, Kallet-Marx 1995: 11‒21; cf. Gruen 1984: 423‒9). It is therefore better
perhaps to characterise Rome’s expanding sway in three stages: penetration, exploitation, and occupation
(avoiding the more problematic ‘annexation’).
(Note how the concise notes work well in this example.)

3(b): Footnotes, author-date system

The ideological superstructure, though still favouring Rome’s traditional leaders, was under threat from the
social realities of an increasingly enriched, and thus empowered, commercial sector. 1
Such internal politics, one can speculate, also played a part in foreign policy. Following the third
Macedonian war, ten senatorial legati were sent out to Macedonia and five to Illyria to assist the
commanders in settling affairs (Livy 45.17.1), but Rome did not annex either. In Macedonia it instituted four
autonomous republics, under severe restrictions. Some modern scholarship has put this down to practical
considerations; Rome, it is thought, lacked the manpower to occupy another foreign territory permanently. 2
Ideologically, too, Rome’s new Mediterranean stature demanded justification. Rome could claim to have
brought freedom … In this last instance, if Livy can be trusted, it was actually observed that, where there
were publicani, there could be no libertas for ‘the allies’ (as the Macedonians were now cast: 45.18.4). The
decision can be seen as ideological, but it directly denied access to commercial interests—and this, in the
immediate context, can be seen as serving narrower senatorial interests. 3
It might be said that the above arrangements were annexation without the name. What had been Macedonian
and Illyrian realms became virtually Roman appanages supplying a steady revenue to Rome and thus
contributing to the fundamental transformation of Rome’s economy. Yet Macedonia was not a Roman
‘province’.4 It is therefore better perhaps to characterise Rome’s expanding sway in three stages: penetration,
exploitation, and occupation (avoiding the more problematic ‘annexation’).

1. Various episodes make clear a growing rift between those who determined the stages and the pace of expansion and
those who would commercially profit from it; cf. Badian 1972: 26‒47; Hill 1952: 87‒90.
2. Harris 1979/1991: 143‒6, 160‒2.
3. A theme explored by Badian 1972: 40‒3.
4. For this argued at length, Kallet-Marx 1995: 11‒21; cf. Gruen 1984: 423‒429.

17
Contents > Detailed Examples > Example 3 (cont.)

3(c): Footnotes, author-title system

The ideological superstructure, though still favouring Rome’s traditional leaders, was under threat from the
social realities of an increasingly enriched, and thus empowered, commercial sector. 1
Such internal politics, one can speculate, also played a part in foreign policy. Following the third
Macedonian war, ten senatorial legati were sent out to Macedonia and five to Illyria to assist the
commanders in settling affairs (Livy 45.17.1), but Rome did not annex either. In Macedonia it instituted four
autonomous republics, under severe restrictions. Some modern scholarship has put this down to practical
considerations; Rome, it is thought, lacked the manpower to occupy another foreign territory permanently. 2
Ideologically, too, Rome’s new Mediterranean stature demanded justification. Rome could claim to have
brought freedom … In this last instance, if Livy can be trusted, it was actually observed that, where there
were publicani, there could be no libertas for ‘the allies’ (as the Macedonians were now cast: 45.18.4). The
decision can be seen as ideological, but it directly denied access to commercial interests—and this, in the
immediate context, can be seen as serving narrower senatorial interests. 3
It might be said that the above arrangements were annexation without the name. What had been Macedonian
and Illyrian realms became virtually Roman appanages supplying a steady revenue to Rome and thus
contributing to the fundamental transformation of Rome’s economy. Yet Macedonia was not a Roman
‘province’.4 It is therefore better perhaps to characterise Rome’s expanding sway in three stages: penetration,
exploitation, and occupation (avoiding the more problematic ‘annexation’).

1. Various episodes make clear a growing rift between those who determined the stages and the pace of expansion and
those who would commercially profit from it; cf. E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners. Private Enterprise in the
Service of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 1972), pp. 26‒47; H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class in the Republican
Period (Oxford, 1952), pp. 87‒90.
2. W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 B.C. (Oxford, 1979, rev. 1991), pp. 143‒6, 160‒2.
3. A theme explored by Badian, Publicans and Sinners, pp. 40‒3.
4. For this argued at length, R. Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire. The Development of Roman Imperium in the East
from 148 to 62 BC (Berkeley, 1995), pp. 11‒21; cf. E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2
vols. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984), pp. 423‒9.

18
Contents > Glossary

Glossary of Terms:

Bibliography: a complete listing, sorted alphabetically by author’s surname, of all the works
referred to in an assignment. Often divided into “Ancient sources” and “Modern
works”. Whereas in notes authors are usually referred to by initial and then surname
(e.g. “E. Badian”) in bibliographies (because they are alphabetical) authors are
referred to by surname first, followed by the initial (e.g. “Badian, E.”).
(ed.) abbreviation for “editor” of a multi-author volume (e.g. “P. Green (ed.), Hellenistic
History and Culture (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press), 1993”).
Endnotes: references linked to the text of the assignment, placed at the end of the main text,
often on their own page. This style is common in collected volumes where each
chapter is its own complete work, but is not recommended for assignments. Use
footnotes instead.
et al. Latin abbreviation for “and others”, used to save space when a work has more than
three authors (or editors). Normally it is used as follows: “E. Badian et al., (name of
volume or article), (other details).”
Footnotes: references linked to super-scripted numbers in the text of the assignment, with the
notes themselves placed at the bottom of each page, and numbered sequentially,
usually continuously throughout the assignment.
f. & ff. Abbreviation for “and the following page” or “and the following pages”. We normally
recommend specifying the precise pages you are using instead, e.g. “17‒24”.
art. cit. Latin abbreviation, sometimes italicised, for “the most recent article cited that is by
the same author”, to save repeating all the publication details in second and later
references to the same article. Usually only the page number has to be added.
Example: “Badian, art. cit., 134.” We do not recommend using this abbreviation, but
you will need to understand it. Use “Author, abbreviated title, page” instead.
op. cit. Latin abbreviation, sometimes italicised, for “the most recent work cited that is by
the same author”, to save repeating all the publication details in second and later
references to the same book or collection. Usually only the page number has to be
added. Example: “Badian, op. cit., 134.” We do not recommend using this
abbreviation, but you will need to understand it. Use “Author, abbreviated title,
page” instead.
loc. cit. Latin abbreviation, sometimes italicised, for “the most recent location (i.e. in a
reference work like a dictionary) cited that is by the same author”, to save repeating all
the publication details in second and later references to the same location. Example:
“Badian, loc. cit.” We do not recommend using this abbreviation, but you will need to
understand it.
Ibid. Latin abbreviation for “the same (place, or reference) again”. Only use this if the
reference is identical to the previous one.
p. & pp. Abbreviations for “page” and “pages”.

19
Contents > Abbreviations

Abbreviations:
Each sub-disciplinary area (Egypt, the Ancient Near East, Biblical Studies, Greece, Rome) has sets
of standard abbreviations for ancient works and/or works of reference. You need to begin to
recognise these, and you should use them where possible, particularly in repeated references.
For abbreviations for Egyptian sources and works of reference, you can use those in this
brief list, from I. Shaw & P. Nicholson, British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London:
BCA), 1996, p. 328, or the comprehensive listing of B. Mathieu, Abréviations des périodiques et
collections en usage à l'IFAO (5th ed., Cairo, 2010), available here.
For abbreviations used in Biblical and related studies, see the listings in the SBL Handbook
of Style (2nd ed.), in the Library both in print and in electronic form.
For abbreviations for Greek and Roman sources, you can use those in the Loeb Classical
Library volumes (in print or online), in the introduction of the OCD (the Oxford Classical
Dictionary, in print or online) or in L'Année Philologique (again in print or online). Abbreviations
used in standard Greek or Latin dictionaries are also acceptable.

20
Contents > Quick Reference (1)

Quick Reference Guide:

In-text notes (Harvard) Author-date footnotes Author-title footnotes

First reference: First reference: First reference:
Ancient writer 1 1
… (Herodotus 7.4, trans. de Herodotus 7.4, trans. de Herodotus 7.4, trans. de
Selincourt 1972: 442) … Selincourt 1972: p. 442. Selincourt (Harmondsworth:
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: Penguin), 1972, p. 442.
2
… (Herodotus 7.5: 443) … Herodotus 7.5: p. 443. Subsequent reference:
2
Herodotus 7.5, p. 443.
First reference: First reference: First reference:
Object/Artefact 1 1
… (Crawford 1974: vol. 2, Crawford 1974: vol. 2, M.H. Crawford, Roman
Plates p. VI, 11, 30/1) … Plates p. VI, 11, 30/1. Republican Coinage, vol. 2
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: (Cambridge: Cambridge
2
… (Crawford 1974: vol. 2, Crawford 1974: vol. 2, U.P.), 1974, Plates p. VI,
Plates p. LX, 12, 498/43a) Plates p. LX, 12, 498/43a) 11, 30/1.
… … Subsequent reference:
2
Crawford, Roman
Republican Coinage 2,
Plates p. LX, 12, 498/43a.
First reference: First reference: First reference:
Journal Article 1 1
… (Kemp 1977: 185) … Kemp 1977: p. 185. B.J. Kemp, “The early
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: development of towns in
2
… (Kemp 1977: 190) … Kemp 1977: p. 190. Egypt”, Antiquity 51
(1977), p. 185.
Subsequent reference:
2
Kemp, “Early
development”, p. 190.
First reference: First reference: First reference:
Book 1 1
… (Petrie 1895: 5) … Petrie 1895: p. 5. W.M.F. Petrie, Naqada
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: and Ballas (London:
2
… (Petrie 1895: 7) … Petrie 1895: p. 7. William Clowes and Sons),
1895), p. 5.
Subsequent reference:
2
Petrie, Naqada, p. 7.
First reference: First reference: First reference:
Chapter in book 1 1
… (Stevenson 2011: 65) … Stevenson 2011: p. 65. A. Stevenson, “Material
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: Culture of the Pre-Dynastic
2
… (Stevenson 2011: 68) … Stevenson 2011: p. 68. Period”, in E. Teeter (ed.),
Before the Pyramids. The
Origins of Egyptian
Civilization (Chicago, The
Oriental Institute), 2011, p.
65.
Subsequent reference:
2
Stevenson, “Material
Culture”, p. 68.
First reference: First reference: First reference:
Website 1 1
… (Polyaenus Stratagems Polyaenus Stratagems Polyaenus, Stratagems
5.44: Attalus.org.) … 5.44: Attalus.org. 5.44, Attalus.org.
Subsequent reference: Subsequent reference: <http://www.attalus.org/tra
2
… (Polyaenus Stratagems Polyaenus Stratagems nslate/polyaenus5B.html#4
5.48) … Further details go in the 5.48. Further details go in the 4.1>, accessed 02/03/2017.
Bibliography. Bibliography. Subsequent reference:
2
Polyaenus, Stratagems
5.48, Attalus.org.

21
Contents > Quick Reference (2): Bibliographies

Remember that Bibliographies don’t differ much from style to style, except in the order in which
they present information, and in their punctuation. Remember to split them into Ancient and
Modern authors where appropriate, and sort both lists alphabetically by author’s surname.

Bibliography for using In-text notes using Author-date using Author-title

assignments (“Harvard”) footnotes footnotes
Ancient writer Cicero, de Divinatione, ditto Cicero, de Divinatione,
(1923), trans. W.A. trans. W.A. Falconer
Falconer (Cambridge, MA: (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Harvard U.P.). U.P.), 1923.

Object/Artefact Give details of the volume ditto ditto

or website where you found
the object or artefact.
Journal Article McKechnie, P. (1994), ditto McKechnie, P., “Greek
“Greek Mercenary Troops Mercenary Troops and their
and their Equipment,” Equipment,” Historia 43.3,
Historia 43.3, 1994: 297‒ 1994, pp. 297‒305.
305.
Book Hopkins, K. (1983), Death ditto Hopkins, K., Death and
and Renewal (Sociological Renewal (Sociological
Studies in Roman History Studies in Roman History
volume 2), Cambridge: volume 2), (Cambridge:
Cambridge U.P. Cambridge U.P.), 1983.
Chapter in book E.S. Gruen, (2006), “Greeks ditto E.S. Gruen, “Greeks and
and Non-Greeks”, in G.R. Non-Greeks”, in G.R. Bugh
Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to the Companion to the
Hellenistic World Hellenistic World
(Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge
U.P.): 295‒314. U.P.), 2006, pp. 295‒314.
Website Thayer, W., The ditto ditto
Monumentum Ancyranum
(Res Gestae Divi Augustae)
(08/03/2017)
<http://penelope.uchicago.ed
u/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Au
gustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html>,
Lacus Curtius, University of
Chicago, accessed
02/03/2017.

Please note: the Library has a number of online resources to help you with referencing. An
introduction to the topic can be found here; information about reference management software
can be found here.

22