Bret Devereaux

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/?

In defense of the tripartite specialty division, first off, are our professional associations, at least in the USA. The largest is the SCS, formerly the American Philological Association, followed closely by the AIA, the Archaeological Institute of America. 3/?

While the SCS changed its name, its philological focus is preserved in the name of its journal, The Transactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA). 4/?

And then of course, much smaller than the other two, there is the Association of Ancient Historians. I'd hazard nearly all AAH members are SCS or AIA members, but clearly, given the numbers, relatively few SCS or AIA members are AAH members. 5/?

Now is there crossover between those disciplines? Of course, that's why we share a big annual meeting (SCS/AIA) and often a department (Classics), though of the five universities have been at, in 3 of them, the ancient historians were actually in the history department. 6/?

I should note that conflict over if ancient historians and archaeologists should, for instance, have different philological and teaching expectations was one of the (admittedly, more minor) flash points at the (in)famous Future of the Classics panel in 2019 7/?