Bret Devereaux

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/?)

But, I also know many people with archaeology degree who primarily publish "historical" pieces... for what it's worth. Also, note that the editorial board at @AncientWorldMag consists of two people with classical archaeology degrees, and then me with "ancient history." (18/?)

But, again there is a weird issue, as my first two major academic monographs will be predominantly archaeological in nature... so am I an historian? Who knows, but I certainly don't dig so would never call myself an archaeologist. But I do still call myself a classicist sometimes

To be clear, I am not 'calling out' anyone, merely musing that one corner of a field seems - disproportionate to its numbers - to focus on this sort of thing. That said, you've opened the question of how we understand the structure of the field, so let me treat that. 1/?

I think there maybe a conflict here between how we might want the field to be and how it actually is or how it is generally understood to be. 2/?