The study of ancient Greek and Roman in their presence and influence on post-classical times and places, not least in the West.
A group for HCommons members interested in Classical archaeology.
This article outlines practical strategies for incorporating the teaching of writing into the classical studies classroom without sacrificing content and without becoming overwhelmed with grading.
The site of Morgantina, located on a ridge in the rolling landscape of east-central Sicily about 60 km from the Ionian Sea coast, has been the locus of continuous archaeological investigation since 1955 (fig. 1).1 The ridge controlled the western end of the fertile Plain of Catania and stands above the source of the Gornalunga River. Farther west, behind the inhabited zone, the land rises toward the Heraian Hills, which form a protective barrier. Between approximately 1000 BC and AD 50, two distinct settlements—both apparently called Morgantina in antiquity—existed on the ridge: an earlier village on the hill at the northeastern end, known today as Cittadella, and a later one on the neighboring plateau, called Serra Orlando, to the southwest (fig. 2). Research carried out at the site has revealed a great deal of information about both towns. The history and preserved material culture of Morgantina specifically (and of Sicily generally) allow for a detailed examination of the transition from Cittadella to Serra Orlando, as well as of the identities and lifeways of the people who settled in those towns during the archaic and classical periods (roughly 600–400 BC). Evidence that will be applied to these issues will include contemporary and later ancient historical accounts, the urban plans of the two towns, and the artifacts—especially pottery—uncovered by archaeologists at Morgantina. Most significantly, this evidence reveals the great extent of indigenous presence in the settlement of the town at Serra Orlando, and perhaps even their participation in the town’s foundation, a fact all the more striking for the historical context in which it occurred.
The following paper explores classical Tibetan language pedagogy as it’s generally practiced in the West, while suggesting a radical reinterpretation to that approach by providing alternatives based on the consensus of multidisciplinary research from second language education and linguistics, among others. Especial attention is paid to the importance of production processes (speaking and writing), phonology (listening and speaking), and environment (language exposure) and their roles in language learning contexts; these concerns lead us to the conclusion that the spoken language ought to be the basis for the study of sophisticated literature, even in a classical language context. We then turn toward the specific issues of Tibetan language literacy: the language diglossia; its history; why “classical” Tibetan is not a classic example of a classical language; and, briefly, how to overcome these obstacles in a Tibetan as a Second Language (TSL) educational context.
The initiative plan for this research project came from the idea of working along the lines of my interest areas, especially the classical Shan manuscript literature that I have been working on for the last ten years. The purpose of this research project is to do a survey on Shan manuscript literature, by examining collections of Shan manuscript data through available resources including two books on the biographies of the most well known Shan authors and the lists of Shan manuscripts as well as through the unpublished research data collected in the last decade through a number of research projects. Also a major method used for an analysis of Shan manuscripts for this research is the making of a list of selected Shan manuscripts, arranged by the dates of composing, in order to see the timelines or big picture of Shan manuscript literature and the lineage of Shan authors. The list is added as an appendix to this dissertation. I also created another list of Shan manuscripts arranged by titles, similar to index, in order to see the variety of subject areas of Shan manuscript literature. The significant findings of this research include some earliest dated Shan manuscript texts, “less known” Shan authors who were excluded in Lung Khun Maha’s book on “most well known” six Shan scholars, and notable titles of some classical Shan manuscript texts, to show a picture or map of existing collections of Shan manuscripts with a variety of subject areas, especially in the fields of studies in humanities and social sciences.
A group for the philology (including epigraphy, papyrology, and text criticism) and linguistics of Ancient Greek, Latin, and related languages.
Group for the promotion of the study of Race and Ethnicity in the Classical world and it reception
This dissertation explores how prose authors of the Classical period envisioned literary distinctions, particularly how and when they labeled a particular utterance ‘poetic’. The first chapter addresses fifth-century prose authors whose work survives in significant degree (Herodotus, Thucydides), or whose projects are inherently interested in literary categorization (Gorgias). The second chapter continues the investigation, looking now at relevant fourth-century authors who show an explicit interest in literary categories and, especially, the place of poetry (Isocrates, Plato). The final chapter addresses Aristotle’s treatment of poetry. The foundation of the project is a semantic analysis of the language used to describe or single out a work or production as poetic. The primary terms are various POI- root words (e.g. [special characters omitted]); various words of song (e.g. [special characters omitted]); and several adjectives and adverbs that consistently appear in the period in discussions of literary distinctions. There emerges, when these terms are traced through time, a clear picture of the ongoing instability of literary categories. Meter is consistently put forward as a formal feature that marks off poetry from prose, for instance, but it is just as consistently rejected by the same authors as a satisfying distinction; instead, further categories defined by subtler features are introduced to more accurately describe literary productions, and those productions’ relationship to the poetic. Studying how the authors of this period distinguished literary categories makes it clear that our emphasis on the contrast between prose and poetry is too simplistic. Rather, the continual negotiations we see these authors engaged in when trying to define the poetic alerts us to the relative nature of literary categories, and how poetry only becomes what it is in contrast to what it is not.
On July 29th, 2016 the Women’s Classical Committee UK, with the support of the Council of University Classics Departments, hosted a workshop at the University of Birmingham titled ‘Classics and Feminist Pedagogy: Practical Tips for Teaching’ workshop. This is one of two reports that came out of that workshop and presents some practical tips for teaching, aimed primarily at PhDs and ECRs.