Just to point out that the Classical Archaeology Program at Penn is NOT 
part of the historical archaeology concentration under anthropology at 
Penn. Also some of my classical colleagues are now quite "anthropological". 
Barbara Hayden, for example, who has worked for years in Crete doing large 
areal surveys covers not only classical period sites but also those from 
the period of control by Venice and then the Ottoman Empire, right up to 
the present (ethnoarchaeology).

I am about to go to class where we are reading Anders Andren's excellent 
book [which I disagree with - agenda] and he points out that after 1900 
when Classical Archaeology lost one of its foundations because of the rise 
of modern art, architecture and literature, the field did one of three 
things: (1) continue to do a traditional Art History approach (examples for 
the present), (2) redefine Art History as a type of symbolic analysis, or 
(3) radically change the field to take an holistic, cultural approach 
(either borrowing from current History (e.g. soical history, economic 
history, 'history fromt he bottom up' etc.) or borrowing from anthropology).

Classical Archaeology has changed a lot in the last 25 years, even at Penn.

                                 Bob Schuyler

At 12:21 PM 9/28/2006, you wrote:
>Please accept my apologies.  I did not mean to diss any of the work
>being done "across the pond."  Yes, I meant classical archaeology, not
>all of Old World archaeology.  But I was also speaking of what was being
>taught at the University of Pennsyvlania in the early 1970's - which was
>not even current with developments in the field AT THAT TIME, let alone
>now.  I managed to stick with archaeology despite my frustrations with
>the program at Penn, and went on to a much better and broader and more
>up-to-date education at the Pennsylvania State University (NOT the same
>thing as Univ. of Pennsylvania) in the later 1970s and 1980s.
>Meli Diamanti
>
>
>Paul Scotton wrote:
>
> >Apologies are not necessary but thanks.  As for "recent years", the efforts
> >in Greece by both the Greeks themselves and the foreign archaeological
> >schools had moved far beyond the Art History notion by at least as early as
> >the second decade of the 20th century.  My own efforts have been fueled by
> >the copious strategraphic records kept in field notebooks from 1914 and
> >1915.  I suspect neither of us would consider that recent.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark
> >Branstner
> >Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:58 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Introductions
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Classical archaeology is more the ART HISTORY-based work of
> >>>Greek/Roman/Egyptian/etc. archaeology of the past (and perhaps the
> >>>present), that has only in recent years begun to catch up with REAL
> >>>archaeology :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This notion of Classical Archaeology is certainly dated and has been
> >>for quite sometime.
> >>
> >>Paul D. Scotton
> >>Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology
> >>Classics
> >>California State University
> >>1250 N. Bellflower Blvd.
> >>Long Beach, CA 90840-2404
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Sorry Paul ...  My response was meant to be very general and only in
> >response to Meli's post ..  Also, my concept of "recent years" may be
> >significantly different than yours ... I sometimes forget how how
> >long I have been doing this.
> >
> >

Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
3260 South Street
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]