I asked you on Tuesday, if you were a classicist, to try to look at these readings from a historical point of view, and if you were a historian, to look at them from a classical point of view. Some questions that occurred to me as I looked over the readings, and which might help guide your own exploration of the texts-
- What’s the difference between ‘Classical Archaeology’ and ‘archaeology of the classical world’? How does that play out?
- I see a connection between Constantine, Napoleon, and many reports on this site: heritage.crowdmap.com. Do you?
- How is archaeology tied up with postwar social and economic developments in the UK, US?
- Roman archaeology is tied up with the municipal, national, and international roles of the City of Rome. There’re a lot of tensions between the state and the church in the 20s and 30s. What are these? How do they play out?
- You might want to Google for current debates on the role of archaeology in the city of Rome
- Where does epigraphy fit into all of this?
And having discussed all of that, where are we? What does ‘Roman archaeology for historians’ look like: what are the issues? The exciting bits? The puzzling bits?