And in AAH 2020, @WalterScheidel returned to the topic in his (quite interesting: https://web.stanford.edu/~scheidel/Scheidel%20AAH%202020%20Keynote%20Lecture.mp4 …) keynote, openly suggesting that ancient history should intentionally unshackle itself from 'Classics' 8/?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
Now to be clear, I think all of those specialties are good! And I think good classicists reach over those boundaries a lot. But I also know quite a few 'pure' philologists, whose study is centered very much on texts and language, for whom hist-context is quite secondary. 9/?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
Which can be a valid way to interrogate a text, its meaning, continuing relevance, etc.! But it's also clearly different from how an ancient historian, or an archaeologist, might approach the same evidence - the questions we'd ask, the answers we'd seek. 10/?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
Of course we build on each other's evidence and arguments. The historian's study is informed by the archaeologist's fresh evidence and goes in to inform the philologist's understanding of their text's context (and vice versa, not a one-directional flow). 11/?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
At the same time, my research uses zoological evidence, which does not make me a biologist or a zoologist, just like being a material culture historian doesn't make me an archaeologist. And I think that is a valid distinction to make. 12/?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
If I may offer an analogy, the hastatus, the triarius, the veles and the eques are all on the same team, relying on each other, but that doesn't mean they all do the same thing or that there are no differences between them. 13/?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
In terms of the main point, I want to make clear that I think the world of
@AncientWorldMag is very important and valuable. Classics - at least in the USA - is in trouble in the long run; embattled departments, disappearing funding, falling enrollments. 14/?1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @JoshuaRHall3 ja
And while there are all sorts of Classicists doing that work, it seemed to me that, despite being a fairly small slice - in the USA at least - of 'Classics,' ancient historians tended to have outsized presence in public outreach. And I wondered why. That's all.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
I think somewhere in my rambling thread I suggested an answer, which is historical questions and their answers are more digestible by the general public. The ideas of objectivity and truth are still relevant in that sphere, so more ephemeral types of studies
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JoshuaRHall3, @BretDevereaux ja
however valuable (as we in the academy view them) will not have the same traction. If you look at our readership numbers (and I think those from Eidolon would support this, though I don't know anything beyond public information on their numbers) then there is evidence of this.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
You probably know more than me on that score, since I don't think @AncientWorldMag's figures are public (not that they need to be!). I was actually a bit surprised by the readership numbers quoted for Eidolon; they were about the same as mine on ACOUP.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.