Historically and today structurally, 'Classics' is organized around the Greek and Latin language traditions first, and thus around Greece and Rome (as societies) mostly by consequence of the first thing. 2/15
-
-
And of course I do that as a historian, but it isn't like archaeologists aren't already making those broader connections or that philologists can't (in many cases I came to those texts because philologist mentors said, "oh, you think that's cool, look at *this*)... 13/15
Näytä tämä ketju -
So I don't know where the field needs to go. It's tricky because I think we do need to evolve as a field towards a broader vision, but we also need to do so without opening the doors to forces which would just abolish departments and jobs and replace them with nothing. 14/15
Näytä tämä ketju -
But that Broader Mediterranean is, at least, where I intend to go - situating Rome (my research specialty) within its broader, interconnected world while stressing the whole in my teaching (should the job-fairy decide I get to do more of that) and public scholarship. end/15
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Clarification of prior brain-fart: Song of Kumarbi (Hurrian/Hittite; Anatolian) meant to include in the same spot Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle (Levantine)
Näytä tämä ketjuKiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Love the idea of broadening perspectives on classical antiquity beyond the Greco-Roman, but doesn't the dearth of non-G/R texts contemporary to the “classical” period preclude this? For non-classical ancient history, sure, but Akkadian etc. seem of marginal gain for a classicist.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.