#papyrology

A female mummy encased in a cartonnage

from tombs found at Taposiris Magna,

modern day Abusir, Egypt

Not a dumb question at all. Terminology can be confusing from the outside, and even across universities from different traditions. So US terminology is subtly different from Canadian, both of which are more substantially different from European, Austrailian/New Zealand, etc.

First, there are 4 cousin fields when it comes to Greco-Roman history, plus related disciplines in the ANE (Ancient Near East). How these are divided up, and where they’re housed in modern universities, is somewhat an artifact of the birth of archaeology and Classics in the 1800s. I could write a mini-essay on European imperialism, but will stick to the question. ;)

The four basic fields are: classics, ancient history, classical archaeology, and classical art history. Anybody studying the ancient world really needs some knowledge of all four, but where we each focus determines how we “tag” ourselves. Also, we shouldn’t forget Assyriology, Hebraic Studies, and Egyptology, our “kissing cousins.” We should all be one big happy family, due to the intensive interaction among ALL these cultures. But if getting a PhD in some area of Greek or Roman history is typically about 8-10 years (including MA), ANE specialists are looking at 12-15, due to language acquisition.

Also, how these get divided varies not only from the US and Canada to Europe to Australia (et al.), but even from uni to uni within those. So, for instance, my fellow Macedonian Argead/pre-Hellenistic specialist, Bill Greenwalt, is in the Classics department at Santa Clara, while I’m in the history department at UNO–yet we’re virtually identical in our methodology. It was just a matter of what department hired us. Even so, Bill calls himself an ancient historian.

So, the distinctions.

Ancient Historians: our focus tends to be on texts, and answering questions of what happened in the past, taking into account how the texts were written and what biases they contain. We are informed by archaeology and art history, but work (mostly) with textual evidence. If the chief focus is on events and social history, sometimes historians deal with the ancient authors themselves, rather than what they’re writing about (as WHO they are affects what they write), defined as historiography. Classed: Humanities or Social Sciences (depending on university)

Classical Art Historians: work primarily with visual evidence; may consider how this informs social (and event) history, but may also look at how ancient art and archaeology was made. So the process of creating mosaics may be as much a focus as what the mosaics represent. As above, the “how” can inform what can be shown. Also, some types of art (e.g., pottery) are almost a sub-discipline. Classed: Humanities or Fine Arts (depending on university)

Classicists: focus on text and language, how words are used and interpreted. So, for instance, what “time” (honor) means in the Iliad versus how it’s used in later forensic speeches in Athenian court cases in the 5th century. They evaluate texts “in themselves” not necessarily in relation to historical events, so what is the “theme” of Euripides’ Bakkhai? They are more closely related to linguistics departments (where they sometimes reside), or even English departments than history. Classed: Humanities

Classical Archaeologists: Most modern archaeology is housed in anthropology departments, but Classical archaeology, not uncommonly, is in the Classics department as a function of the emergence of the two disciplines together in the 1800s. As one would expect, archaeologists focus on “stuff”–material evidence. They may use all manner of modern equipment. Classed: Humanities or Social Sciences (depending on university)

Again, all four of these disciplines interact A LOT. We need to know at least something about our sister disciplines. But we usually fall into one most strongly. My training is as a historian of the ancient world. After that, I’m probably most comfortable in archaeology, only because as a Macedoniast, we depend on archaeology as much for evidence as texts.

A couple of other specializations….

Epigraphy: the study of inscriptions, specifically. These are the best of the best, in terms of languages, as they not only have to be able to read the language in question, but read it well enough to recognize dialect and regional variation, as well as plain ol’ bad grammar and misspellings. Also includes training in how to date inscriptions by language, letter type, format, abbreviations (esp. for Rome), even the size of the stone.

Papyrology: See above, except with piecing together bits of papyrus fragments.

Numismatics: Study of coinage, which combines a bit of art history, epigraphy, and history. Coins are key in archaeology for dating.

Prosopography: the study of the interrelationship of families and power at courts, etc. This pertains more to some fields than others. Roman history relies on it, but so does Athenian…and Macedonian.

So, I consider myself an ancient historian, but specifically, I’m a prosopographer of Macedonian court politics.