Bret Devereaux

This does not mean that all of these people are "just historians" though. For instance, one of the most high-profile people in our field is certainly Mary Beard. Yet, I remember a keynote she gave at the CA in reading (2013?) in which she described the "most important" (10/?)

thing someone in our field could be doing was studying the meaning of a single word in Latin or Greek whilst holed up in the library (I paraphrase, but that was the gist). This is certainly not the thought of an "ancient historian" per se. (11/?)

This is, instead, the type of view that I expect out of most of our colleagues. One that eschews the idea of disciplinary boundaries within ancient studies and recognizes the importance of all aspects of the field. (12/?)

And I really do think most people in the field hold this type of view. Thus, the type of division that you're highlighting in this Tweet, which again I am only responding to because you called out @AncientWorldMag is creating a straw man. (13/?)

But, why do people who appear to be "historians" appear more often? Because historical questions are what public audiences most readily go for. But, this itself isn't entirely accurate, as can be seen in the consumption of ancient myth and myth-related content (14/?)

much of which seems to be produced by people calling themselves "classicists" rather than "ancient historians." (15/?)

As to your last Tweet (at least before I started this thread), those numbers seem quite arbitrary. I personally view "ancient history" as the most common title amongst colleagues, with fewer have the word "classics" on their terminal degrees. (16/?)

Regarding archaeology, it's also worth noting the number of classical archaeologists who have terminal degrees in art history via US institutions where that is their home (which still seems odd to this mixed-education mutt). (17/?)