Greek archaeology: theoretical developments

over the last 40 years

Sofia Voutsaki

Introduction

Classical archaeology is often perceived as a self-contained,

introverted and conservative discipline, concerned mostly

with high culture, monumental temples, artistic master-

pieces and the urban elites. This perception of classical

archaeology as separate and different from the rest of the

archaeological discipline is reinforced (and reproduced) by

the institutional separation between classical archaeology

and other sub-fields, usually local prehistory or medieval

archaeology. This conceptual and institutional gap is usually

referred to as Renfrew’s ‘Great Divide’.1 I would like to argue

in this paper that the ‘Great Divide’ has been bridged over

the last 40 years, during which classical archaeology has

undergone pervasive changes.

To start with, classical archaeology, and classical studies in

general, are no longer privileged fields. The erosion of the

‘Classical Ideal’ already at the end of the 19th century, the

onset of modernism during the 20th century, the abuse of

classical ideas by fascism (from Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s

Italy to the Greek junta (1967-1974)) had already brought

about a reaction against what was becoming a body of stale

and conservative ideas, used to uphold authoritarian regimes.

Most recently, debates within the discipline, triggered by femi-

nist2, post-colonial3, or post-structuralist critique4 have

revealed how classical scholarship had distorted and

mythologized the classical past in order to maintain the dom-

inant ideology of male / white / bourgeois supremacy, but

also, in a more narrow sense, in order to defend and maintain

its position in the academic establishment.

The notion of the ‘Great Divide’ further implies that clas-

sical archaeology is an internally homogeneous field. Noth-

ing could be further from the truth. How could classical

archaeology possibly be a unified body of knowledge, if it

encompasses a millennium of human history, diverse geo-

graphical settings and deeply dissimilar political formations

ranging from minute Archaic poleis to the Roman Empire?

How could it be homogeneous when it operates across differ-

ent academic, national and archaeological traditions?

Precisely because of its internal heterogeneity classical

archaeology has opened itself gradually to different influ-

ences. As I will discuss in the rest of the paper, classical

archaeology is being transformed under the influence of pre-

historic archaeology (and indirectly the influence of anthro-

pology and social theory in general). New methods and

theories are being adopted and adapted to suit the particular

circumstances and opportunities provided by the wealth of

data available in the classical world. Influences are also com-

ing from other directions, particularly from ancient history

in all its different guises, i.e. from economic5, social6 and

cultural history.7

Most interestingly, classical archaeology itself exerts influ-

ences on other fields. For instance, the debates surrounding

attitudes to death8, gender9 or ethnicity10 in the classical

world – to give just a few examples – are by far more sophis-

ticated than the equivalent discussions in prehistoric archae-

ology. As a result, classical archaeologists nowadays feature

more often than ever in general theoretical discussions.11

Conversely, ancient historians are becoming more and more

aware of the significance and usefulness of archaeological

data. It is impossible nowadays to discuss city and country-

21

1 Renfrew 1980.

2 E.g. Fantham et al. 1994.

3 Bernal 1987.

4 Larmour et al. 1997.

5 Scheidel et al. 2007.

6 Wallace-Hadrill 2008.

7 Cartledge 1993.

8 Morris 1992.

9 Loraux 1995.

10 Hall 2002.

11 See references to Morris 1992 by Parker Pearson 1993: 205.

TMA jaargang 20 (2008), nr. 40 Voutsaki, pp. 21-28

side relations in the ancient world without incorporating

results of archaeological field surveys. If we only take a look

at the situation in the Netherlands today, all departments of

ancient history, without exception, are closely collaborating

with archaeologists, and are integrating archaeological data

in their research projects.

If we want to get a sense of how classical archaeology is

changing, we only need to go through the themes covered in

the 20 years of the Tijdschrift van Mediterrane Archeologie,whose jubilee we celebrate in this issue: titles such as Gender,Kolonialisme, Culturele confrontaties, Wonen in de Oudheid,Het Mediterrane Landschap, etc. give a good indication of the

changing emphases and interests in the discipline over the

last decades.

To conclude: classical archaeology is not a privileged and

separate field of study, nor is it insulated from wider develop-

ments in archaeology. But – and this is the crux of my argu-

ment- it is different from other branches of archaeology. I

should emphasize that it is not better than or superior to

other forms of archaeology – it is simply different. In my

mind, its difference lies in two inherent components of clas-

sical archaeology: the weight of the classical tradition and the

significance of written sources. Precisely because of the uses

and abuses of classical antiquity over several centuries, classi-

cal archaeologists are much more sensitive to the ways their

discipline has been formed by prevailing ideas, changing

mentalities and divergent academic traditions; indeed the

historiography of classical archaeology is producing works of a

subtlety and erudition not paralleled in equivalent accounts of

prehistory.12 Many prehistorians may still believe that their

discipline is objective, scientific and impervious to ideological

factors, social distortions, or gender bias. According to such

views, the way archaeology is being practiced today is guided

by practical, common-sense considerations. Classical archae-

ologists know better; they (or at least, many of them) have lost

this kind of innocence a while ago.

The significance of written sources, and the integration of

archaeological and historical data are complex problems,

which cannot be discussed at length here. Needless to say,

historical sources contain several biases: they were written by

and for the male, urban, educated minority; they reproduce

the distortions and biases of the specific literary or historical

genre; they are the product of their own Zeitgeist rather than

a faithful or accurate description of past events; their preser-

vation and coverage is dramatically uneven. This is all

undoubtedly true, but we archaeologists also need to be aware

of the biases inherent in our own evidence: the problems of

preservation, representativeness, equifinality – but more than

anything else, the ambivalence of material data. In addition,

the very definition of written sources is undergoing a trans-

formation at the moment, as papyri, graffiti, inscriptions and

coins become more widely used as sources of information. I

will return to this point below, where I will try to demon-

strate that written sources and material data do not necessar-

ily offer incompatible readings of the past. In fact, I would

like to argue that they can and should be used in combination.

Effectively, my point is that written sources can prove invalu-

able, if they themselves are treated as archaeological artefacts –

that is, if they are placed in their archaeological, historical and

social context.

Classical archaeology: the changes over the last 40

years

Before I start my discussion about the changes that have

taken place in classical archaeology over the last four decades,

I should clarify that I employ a rather loose definition of clas-

sical archaeology: I include the archaeology of different peri-

ods (from prehistory to the Roman period) as practiced by

Greek and foreign archaeologists in the Greek lands (which

encompass Greece, western Turkey and southern Italy).

I will first present the changes in method, and will then

discuss the changes in theoretical outlook. Of course, the

two are interdependent: our interpretations are shaped by

the analytical techniques we use, which are guided by the

kind of questions we ask, which in their turn are dictated by

our theoretical choices.

Changes in archaeological method

Classical archaeologists no longer spend most of their time

gazing at ancient temples, or depictions of satyrs on a red-fig-

ure vase. Connoisseurship, attribution to artists, and

aestheticizing descriptions are still components of the disci-

pline, but many classical archaeologists now use very differ-

ent data, acquired by means of very different methods.

Classical archaeology long ago emancipated itself from phi-

lology; by now it has also liberated itself from the close grip

of art history. More and more purely archaeological methods,

as well as innovative scientific techniques are being used. I

cannot do justice to all these methodological developments

in a short paper; I will only refer to some examples I have

encountered in my own research.

I do not need to say much about the new methods used to

survey past landscapes, as an entire section of this volume is

devoted to field survey and the way it has revolutionized our

understanding of land use in the past. We now have at our

disposal a new and constantly expanding dataset for the

human occupation, utilization and organisation of the land-

scape. This allows us to observe changes through time, as well

as diversity in practices between different regions. Although a

lot remains to be done, the Greek lands (and the Mediterra-

nean as a whole) are becoming one of the most intensively

investigated areas of the world. As a consequence, classical

archaeologists are at the forefront of methodological refine-

22

TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40

12 Schnapp 1993; Marchand 1996.

ments and advances in interpretation.13

At the same time, the wealth of data acquired by these new

archaeological methods has a direct impact on economic his-

tory. A good example is Engels’ recent study of Roman Cor-

inth, in which he integrates archaeological and historical

data to challenge the ‘consumer city’ model which has domi-

nated the debate on the ancient economy since the 1970s,

presenting an alternative model, that of the ‘service city’.14

Other scientific methods provide us with new data that

transform our understanding of the changing economic base

of ancient societies. Pollen analysis and the study of

palaeobotanical remains provide new evidence not only about

wine production, but also about the expanding economy in

Hellenistic farmsteads and villas.15 This kind of analysis

allows us not only to reconstruct the local environment or

subsistence, but to demonstrate the interconnectedness of

local economies. Another excellent example is Cappers’ anal-

ysis of plant remains in Roman Berenike.16 By integrating

palaeobotanical data, ancient written sources and modern

ethnographic research, Cappers reconstructed the ‘interna-

tional’ trade in luxury products (e.g. pepper) operating from

Berenike, a site located in a hostile physical environment at

the very margins of the Roman Empire.

To give a different example, the analysis of animal remains,

gives us new insights not only into subsistence in the past, but

also to ancient ritual and social practices. For example, the

analysis of animal remains from the Mycenaean palace at Ano

Englianos, in Pylos, southwestern Peloponnese, has revealed

the importance of feasting and conspicuous consumption for

Mycenaean palatial ideology.17 Although a lot more needs to

be done in this field, studies of animal remains from classical

sanctuaries (and their manner of deposition)18 not only help

to identify deities and the nature of cult, but are also begin-

ning to reveal a complex picture of diverse and localized prac-

tices that transform our view of ancient religion.

To move to a different topic, the study of social organisa-

tion of past societies has benefited enormously from the

spread of osteological analysis and related methods.19 Mod-

ern day osteological analyses investigate mortality rates and

sex ratios, and attempt to reconstruct pathologies and dietary

variation as well as the broad categories of physical activities

that past populations engaged with during life. The ultimate

aim is to detect variation along age and sex divisions, as well

as between social and kin groups. The use of such techniques

even in rescue excavations in Greece is indicative of their suc-

cess in reconstructing social relations in the past.20

These few examples show that classical archaeology has

moved a long way away from typology and connoisseurship.

Classical archaeology is nowadays employing innovative

methods, and is in a position to provide new and better

answers. Looking back over its development in the last four

decades or so, we surely have reason to be optimistic and pos-

itive about the prospects and future of the discipline.

The proliferation of new methods and analytical tech-

niques, however, brings with it new problems which at times

remain unnoticed. To start with, these new techniques have

certain limitations of which we need to be aware. Second, ana-

lytical techniques are methods of analysis, and not tools of

interpretation. Finally, the constant introduction of new ana-

lytical techniques is bringing about increasing specialization, a

growing fragmentation of the field and an unwillingness to

attempt broader syntheses across disciplinary boundaries. I

would like to illustrate these cautionary remarks with three

examples.

I start with the example of ancient DNA analysis. This

new method, which is now becoming more widely used, is a

powerful and accurate technique which gives unequivocal

results about sex identification. DNA analysis can therefore

substitute, or complement the more traditional osteological

analyses, especially in cases of poor preservation. Mitochon-

drial DNA can also give invaluable evidence about kinship

relations.21 Here, however, some caution is necessary: mito-

chondrial DNA can only reveal kinship relations down the

maternal line, and can therefore provide at best a partial pic-

ture of kin relations. The most important problem, however,

is that reducing the whole gamut of relations based on con-

sanguinity, affinity (marriage, adoption, baptism, etc.) and

social exchanges (e.g. hospitality ties) to only their biological

parameter, i.e. to blood relations, amounts to a severe form of

biological determinism. Ancient DNA analysis in itself, i.e. if

carried out in isolation, can tell us only a limited amount

about kinship relations in past societies. Only if undertaken

in combination with a careful contextual analysis of all

aspects of the mortuary data and a systematic examination of

variation among age, sex and social groups, can the

technique help us understand the role of kin in structuring

23

Greek archaeology: theoretical developments Sofia Voutsaki

13 Alcock & Cherry 2004.

14 Engels 1990.

15 Margaritis 2003.

16 Cappers 2006.

17 Halstead and Isaakidou 2004.

18 Bookidis et al. 1999.

19 As can be evidenced in MacKinnon 2007.

20 Grammenos and Triantaphyllou 2004.

21 Sullivan et al. 1992.

social relationships.22

A further example can be given: stable isotopes analysis is

employed widely in Greek archaeology in order to recon-

struct the main components of diet in the past. Analyses have

been carried out on samples originating from different areas

and belonging to different periods.23 The method allows us to

establish whether people relied on plants and legumes, cereals

and other domesticates, terrestrial or marine resources, fresh-

water or marine foodstuffs, etc. The method has certain limi-

tations: it reveals fairly broad dietary categories, and does so

only if they form a substantial component in the diet. The

method works better if samples from contemporary (wild

and domesticated) animals are included in the analysis, since

faunal isotope values provide a reliable baseline of the food

chain consumed by humans in prehistory.24 In general, the

method works better if used in conjunction with the study of

plant and animal remains recovered from contemporary set-

tlement layers.

Stable isotopes analysis is primarily used in order to exam-

ine dietary variation between social groups, entire communi-

ties and environmental zones. However, inferences on social

differentiation are often based on the assumption that people

of higher status have a diet more heavily based on meat and

protein. Not only is this a generalization that does not allow

for cultural differences and dietary rules (think of food pre-

scriptions among Muslims or Jews), but it also assumes that

social status is based on productive potential. Effectively, the

use of this method introduces a causal linkage into our social

reconstructions. Social status, however, is not based solely on

economic success, but may derive from personal achieve-

ment, descent or a combination of different factors.

To conclude: if the study of ancient DNA usually rests on

some kind of biological determinism, stable isotopes analysis

often relies on a fairly crude economic determinism. These

two examples demonstrate, I hope, that methodological

refinement and the use of innovative analytical techniques

are welcome developments, but need to be accompanied by a

critical disposition. We archaeologists need to remain aware

of the limitations and shortcomings of the scientific methods

we are using. We also need to use different analytical tech-

niques alongside each other, and to cross-examine different

aspects of the evidence, otherwise we will end up with a frag-

mented (and perhaps distorted) picture of the past. Finally,

we need to keep in mind that scientific methods are tools of

analysis, and not of interpretation. They may provide

answers to descriptive questions such as ‘what is the percent-

age of women buried in this cemetery?’, or ‘which segment of

the population consumed more protein?’. But they cannot

dictate the answers to interpretive questions such as ‘whywere women excluded from this cemetery?’, or ‘why did this

group of people consume more meat and dairy products?’. In

order to find the answers to these questions, we need an

explicit theoretical framework which will allow us to make

social and cultural inferences from material data. Analytical

techniques allow us to describe our data better; theory helps

us to interpret them.

This brings me to my next topic: the changes in theoreti-

cal outlook that have taken place in classical archaeology over

the last forty years.

Changes in theory

I have already emphasized that theory is closely connected

with method. Theory is not an optional extra we resort to at

the final stage of interpretation; rather it informs every stage

of our research: the selection of the initial questions, the

demarcation of the topic, the choice of the types of evidence

to be sought, or of the methods to be used. Everything we say

contains implicit logical links and causal assumptions, and

therefore involves theoretical choices. However, theory is

about making these choices, links and assumptions explicit,

and about adopting a critical and self-reflexive attitude

towards our own logical processes.

At the same time, archaeological theory is a body of

knowledge which has been debated and modified over the

last two centuries or so. The development of archaeology is

usually seen as having gone through three paradigms: the tra-

ditional cultural-historical school which dominated until the

1950s, the processual or systemic approach (or ‘New Archae-

ology’) which arose in the 1960s, and the post-processual cri-

tique which became quite influential from the 1980s

onwards. It is doubtful if this scheme can be applied to classi-

cal archaeology – and here again the divergent trajectory of

the discipline, as well as its institutional separation from the

rest of archaeology has played a role. For instance, the ‘New

Archaeology’ has had little or no effect on classical archaeol-

ogy, which adhered to a more cultural-historical approach

well into the 1980s.25 The theoretical changes that have

taken place from the 1980s onwards should be attributed not

only to the influence of the post-processual approach, but

also to stimuli from other sources as well, primarily from

ancient history, cultural history, anthropology and social

theory in general.26

24

TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40

22 Voutsaki 2005.

23 C.f. Richards & Hedges 2008; Triantaphyllou et al. 2008.

24 C.f. Richards et al. 2003.

25 Renfrew 1980.

26 Morris 2000.

Three main tenets of the post-processual approach27 have

exerted influence on classical archaeology: the active role of

material culture, the significance of social practices and the

importance of agency. People are no longer seen as fixed into

social roles and positions, but as agents pursuing their own

goals and aspirations. They do so by means of social practices

(ranging from formal, ritual acts to everyday gestures, such as

greeting formulae) which allow them to negotiate their posi-

tion in the web of social relations. Material culture plays an

active role in social life, as it is employed in social practices

and thereby manipulated by people. In archaeology, the study

of material culture and its patterning allow us to reconstruct

social practices, and therefore the actions and aspirations of

people in the past.

These new theoretical trends derive inspiration not only

from archaeology, but from other disciplines as well. Indeed

the post-processual ideas can ultimately be traced to disci-

plines other than archaeology such as anthropology28 and

sociology.29 Other sources of influence are cultural history30,

and post-structuralist critique31. These schools of thought

vary widely, but there are certain common denominators. I

would single out the shift away from environmental, eco-

nomic and social determinism and a growing interest in the

study of cultural meaning and representation. In archaeology

this has been translated into an emphasis not only on the

function of social practices (e.g. of mortuary ritual, feasting,

etc.), but also on their form and meaning.

Needless to say, not everyone in classical archaeology

shares this theoretical outlook. Indeed many practitioners

retain the interest in more art historical questions, or in more

artifact-oriented studies. But these new ideas are gaining

ground in many university departments and in many national

academic traditions.32 While it may be said that these new

approaches were formulated in specific academic settings

(notably the University of Cambridge), under the influence of

innovative teachers (such as Anthony Snodgrass, Professor of

Archaeology at Cambridge between 1976 and 2001), it would

be simplistic to attribute them to one institution, one country

or one charismatic personality. For instance, there is a certain

convergence between Anglo-American scholars, who have

been at the forefront of these theoretical developments, and

German scholars33 who come from a tradition much more

firmly rooted in traditional art history.

If there is one thing that characterizes these new schools of

thought and its practitioners it is not so much a sharply

delineated and internally homogeneous way of thinking, but

rather the ease with which they move across disciplinary

boundaries. In the first part of this article I emphasized that

classical archaeology is changing by adopting more explicitly

archaeological methods and thereby emancipating itself

from art history and ancient history. The moment we turn to

theory, we observe the exact opposite: there is a certain blur-

ring of boundaries, a certain merging of these hitherto sepa-

rate disciplines, as scholars use and combine material culture,

written text and images. This is foremost what these new

approaches stand for.

Let me give one example: Lin Foxhall, Professor of Greek

Archaeology and History [sic] at the University of Leicester,

is a leading authority on gender34, ancient Greek law35,

ancient Greek agricultural practices and economy36. She is a

historian with diverse interests who is using different types of

evidence, including literary, epigraphic and archaeological

data – but at the same time she is an active field archaeologist

(member of the Methana Project, Greece and co-director of

the Bova Marina Archaeological Project in Italy). We see

therefore that our disciplinary distinctions dissolve and lose

their significance, as historians use archaeological data, and

archaeologists ask historical questions.

Below I would like to give some examples of this kind of

approach where different types of data – objects, texts,

images – are integrated in order to provide a fuller under-

standing of social relations and cultural strategies in the

Greek world. I will briefly present recent discussions in three

different spheres of ancient Greek life: the public spaces, the

domestic context and the funerary realm.

Public spaces

Recent years have seen a growing interest by archaeologists in

the importance of public space. The open space of the classi-

cal agoras, for instance, is no longer seen as the mere back-

drop of democratic politics, but as a constituting element of

democratic political culture. Conversely, the transformation

of the Greek agora from the Classical to the Hellenistic and

Roman periods demonstrates that control over public space

25

Greek archaeology: theoretical developments Sofia Voutsaki

27 Hodder 2001.

28 Sahlins 1972; Bourdieu 1977; Geertz 1980.

29 Giddens 1984.

30 Zemon Davis 1987.

31 Foucault 1972.

32 See for instance Alcock & Osborne 2007.

33 For example Zanker 1988.

34 Foxhall 1998.

35 Foxhall 1996.

36 Foxhall 2007.

is an important mechanism of political and social domina-

tion.37

Research is not only being done on the lay-out and archi-

tectural form of public monuments and temples, but also on

the positioning of sculptural monuments and inscriptions.38

A specific example can be given: the study of honorific stat-

ues in the Hellenistic and Roman period has moved beyond

attribution to artists to examining these monuments as ele-

ments of the practice of evergetism, i.e. the exchange of bene-

factions and honours that sustained political life in the

post-classical city. The inscriptions themselves reveal the

intricate political procedures that determined the location,

size, material and degree of elaboration of the monument.39

We see therefore that historians and archaeologists are

shedding new light on local politics not only by combining

written sources and objects, but by effectively treating writ-

ten sources (primarily inscriptions) as archaeological data, as

‘written artefacts’: by placing them in their find context, and

examining them as components of political and social

strategies.

The domestic context

The study of ancient Greek domestic space, at the level of the

city as a whole as well as that of the individual house, has

been a growth area in the last 10 to 15 years.40 The emphasis

has been on the city-layout, and in particular on the

sub-division of civic space by means of grid systems – a com-

mon phenomenon in Greek cities. While the ideological sig-

nificance of this ‘democratic’ division and representation of

space has been emphasized, meticulous analyses of house

size, design, construction (including also house prices men-

tioned in inscriptions) as well as house assemblages are

revealing a much more complex picture of economic differ-

ences, regional diversity and subtle changes through time. A

range of different aspects is now being examined: from rub-

bish disposal and manuring practices41 to gender relations in

the domestic space42 or spatial templates such as the division

between private and public realms43. Archaeology reveals a

more complex picture than the stereotypic images recon-

structed on the basis of literary sources, but the combinationof archaeological and written sources (including inscrip-

tions, house sale contracts, inventories of possessions) allow

us to piece together a richer and more nuanced picture.

The funerary realm

One of the main tenets of the post-processual critique is that

mortuary ritual is not a passive reflection of social organisa-

tion44, since the prevailing funerary ideology may mask,

distort or exaggerate social divisions. The discussions sur-

rounding ancient Greek funerary ideology are extremely

sophisticated, and it is impossible for archaeologists to ignore

them.45 For instance, all aspects of the evidence in a 5th cen-

tury Athenian cemetery – the relative simplicity of mortuary

ritual, the dearth of valuable offerings – are pervaded by the

ideology of isonomia (equality in front of the law, a right exclu-

sive of citizens) which clearly run at the face of the existing

social, economic and political divisions of Athenian society.

Therefore, the study of mortuary practices allows us to recon-

struct not so much social organisation, the ‘real’ social divi-

sions, but rather social structure, i.e. the set of principles that

guide and underlie social life (e.g. equality or hierarchy).46

However, the discussions on funerary ideology are almost

by definition abstract and generalizing. The analysis of

funerary data allow us to understand social relations across a

much broader spectrum of society, especially the more mar-

ginal groups (children, older people, slaves, freedmen, for-

eigners, etc.) whose presence cannot easily be established in

the domestic sphere. They also allow us to move beyond the

usual Atheno-centric bias of traditional archaeology, as well

as to reconstruct changes through time. In recent years, tradi-

tional archaeological analyses have been supplemented by

osteological analyses, which provide invaluable evidence on

health, pathologies, age and gender differentiation.47

Although a lot more work needs to be done in this field,

osteological studies are a growth area in the classical world.48

On the other hand, in classical archaeology we can com-

bine purely archaeological information (location, type, con-

struction, elaboration of the tomb; treatment; offerings)

26

TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40

37 Hölscher 2008; this topic is also explored by C.P. Dickenson, PhD candidate, University of Groningen.

38 Smith 1998; Van Nijf 2000.

39 Van Nijf 2000.

40 Nevett 1999 & 2007.

41 Ault 1999.

42 Nevett 1999, passim.

43 Nevett 1999.

44 Hodder 1982.

45 Vernant 1991; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995.

46 Morris 1992: 1-30.

47 Grammenos and Triantaphyllou 2004.

48 McKinnon 2007; see above.

with the evidence from inscriptions and sculptured markers

which give us invaluable information on self-definition and

self-representation.49 Therefore, both the mortuary ritual

and the custom of setting up inscribed monuments are seen

as part and parcel of social strategies which shape and create

social reality. This is the main advantage of funerary evidence

in the classical world: there is a wealth of information, which

can shed light on many different aspects of life and death in

ancient Greece.

Conclusions

In this paper I have argued that classical archaeology is

changing. The discipline is sharpening its focus and refining

its methods, while at the same time it is broadening its scope

and blurring its own boundaries by integrating different

types of evidence. These are all positive developments which

should co-exist, cross-fertilize and stimulate further change.

While an overview is expected to be descriptive, I hope I

am allowed to end on a prescriptive note: The (classical)

archaeology I am advocating is one that uses innovative sci-

entific methods, but adopts a critical and mature attitude

towards them; an archaeology that carries out thorough anal-

yses of empirical data, but also places them in a theoretical

framework; that examines them in their archaeological con-

text, but also against their historical and cultural back-

ground; an archaeology that treats specific cases in depth, but

also attempts broader syntheses. Classical archaeology offers

us the opportunity to do all these; and it is gratifying that in

the last four decades, we actually do.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the organizers of the TMA JubileumCongres for inviting me, and for giving us all the opportunity

to reflect on the development and future prospects of classi-

cal (or Mediterranean) archaeology. This paper has benefited

from long conversations with many classical colleagues, but I

would like to single out Onno van Nijf for many discussions

on the classical and post-classical city.

References

Alcock, S.E. & Cherry, J.F. eds. (2004) Side-by-side survey:comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world.Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Alcock, S.E. &. Osborne, R.G. eds. (2007) Classical archae-ology. Oxford, Blackwell.

Ault, B.A. (1999) Koprones and oil Presses at Halieis: Interac-

tions of town and country and the integration of domes-

tic and regional economics. Hesperia 68 (4), pp.549-574.

Bernal, M. (1987) Black Athena: the afroasiatic roots of Classi-cal civilization, Vol.1 The fabrication of Ancient Greece1785-1985. London, Free Association Books.

Bookidis, N., Hansen, J., Snyder, L. & Goldberg, G. (1999)

Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Cor-

inth. Hesperia 68 (1), pp.1-54.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cam-

bridge, Cambridge University Press.

Cappers, R.T.J. (2006) Roman foodprints at Berenike:archaeobotanical evidence of subsistence and trade in theeastern desert of Egypt. Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of

Archaeology.

Cartledge, P. (1993) The Greeks: a portrait of self and others.Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Engels, D. (1990) Roman Corinth: an alternative model forthe classical city. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Fantham, E., Foley, H.P., Kampen, N.B., Pomeroy, S.B. &

Shapiro, H.A. (1994) Women in the Classical World. Im-age and text. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Foxhall, L. (1996) Justifications not Justice: the Political Contextof Law in Ancient Greece. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Foxhall, L. (1998) Thinking Men: Masculinity and itsSelf-Representation in the Classical Tradition. London,

Routledge.

Foxhall, L. (2007) Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seekingthe Ancient Economy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972) Archaeology of knowledge. London,

Tavistock.

Geertz, C. (1980) Negara: the theatre state in nineteenth-cen-tury Bali. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: outline of thetheory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Grammenos, D. & Triantaphyllou, S. eds. (2004)

Anthropologikes meletes apo ti Voreia Ellada. Thessaloniki,

Archaeological Institute of Macedonian and Thracian

Studies, vol. 5.

Hall, J.M. (2002) Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture.Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Halstead, P. & Isaakidou, V. (2004) Faunal evidence for

feasting: Burnt offerings from the Palace of Nestor at

Pylos. In: Halstead, P. & Barrett, J.C. eds. Food, Cuisineand Society in Prehistoric Greece. Oxford, Oxbow Books,

pp.136-154.

Hölscher, T. (2008) Public spaces: The Greek world. In: Al-

cock, S.E. & Osborne, R.G. eds. Classical Archaeology.Oxford, Blackwell, pp.65-73.

Hodder, I. (1982) The identification and interpretation of

ranking in prehistory: a contextual perspective. In:

Renfrew, C. & Shennan, S. eds. Ranking, resource and ex-change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp.

150-154.

Hodder, I. (2001) Archaeological theory today. Cambridge,

Polity.

Larmour, D.H.J., Miller, P.A. & Platter, C. (1997) Rethink-ing Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity. Princeton,

Princeton University Press.

27

Greek archaeology: theoretical developments Sofia Voutsaki

49 Morris 1992: 128-155; Morris 1994.

Loraux, N. (1995) The Experiences of Tiresias: The Feminineand the Greek Man. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

MacKinnon, M. (2007) State of the Discipline: Osteological

research in Classical Archaeology. American Journal of Ar-chaeology 111, pp.473–504.

Marchand, S.L. (1996) Down from Olympus: archaeology andphilhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, Prince-

ton University Press.

Margaritis, E. (2003) Agroikies tis periochis Filas-Irakleiou

kai Leivithron, Makedonikou Olympou. In: Archaiesagroikies se sygchronous dromous. Athens, Greek Ministry

of Culture.

Morris, I. (1992) Death ritual and social structure in ClassicalAntiquity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Morris, I. (1994) Everyman’s grave. In: Boegehold A.L. &

Scafuro A.C. eds. Athenian identity and civic ideology.Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press,

pp.67-101.

Morris, I. (2000) Archaeology as cultural history: words andthings in Iron Age Greece. Oxford, Blackwell.

Nevett, L.C. (1999) House and society in the ancient Greekworld. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Nevett, L.C. (2007) Housing and households: The Greek

world. In: Alcock, S.E. & Osborne, R.G. eds. ClassicalArchaeology. Oxford, Blackwell, pp.205-223.

Van Nijf, O.M. (2000) Inscriptions and civic memory in the

Roman East. In: Cooley, A. ed. The afterlife of inscriptions.Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement

75. London, Institute of Classical Studies, pp.21-36.

Renfrew, C. (1980) The Great Tradition versus the Great

Divide: Archaeology as anthropology? American Journalof Archaeology 84, pp.287–98.

Richards, M.P., Pearson, J.A., Molleson, T.I., Rusell, N. &

Martin, L. (2003) Stable isotope evidence of diet at Neo-

lithic Çatal Höyük, Turkey. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 30, pp.67-76.

Richards, M.P. & Hedges, R.E.M. (2008) Stable isotope re-

sults from the sites of Gerani, Armenoi and Mycenae. In:

Martlew, H. & Tzedakis, Y. eds. Archaeology Meets Science:Biomolecular and site investigations in Bronze Age Greece.

Sahlins, M.D. (1972) Stone age economics. Chicago, Aldine.

Scheidel, W., Morris, I. & Saller, R. (2007) The Cambridgeeconomic history of the Greco-Roman world. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

Schnapp, A. (1993) La conquête du passé: aux origines del’archéologie. Paris, Carré.

Smith, R.R.R. (1998) Cultural choice and political identity

in honorific portrait statues in the Greek East in the sec-

ond century A.D. Journal of Roman Studies 88, pp.56-93.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995) ‘Reading’ Greek death. Ox-

ford, Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, K. M., Hopgood, R. & Gill, P. (1992) Identifica-

tion of human remains by amplification and automated

sequencing of mitochondrial DNA. International Journalof Legal Medicine 105, pp.83-86.

Triantaphyllou, S., Richards, M.P., Zerner, C. & Voutsaki, S.

(2008) Isotope dietary reconstruction of humans from

Middle Bronze Age Lerna, Argolid, Greece. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 35, pp.3028-3034.

Vernant, J.-P. (1991) Mortals and immortals: collected essays.Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Voutsaki, S. (2005) Social and cultural change in the MiddleHelladic period: presentation of a new project. In: Dakouri-Hild, A. & Sherratt, S. eds. AUTOCHTHON. Papers

presented to O.T.P.K. Dickinson on the occasion of his re-

tirement. Oxford, BAR IS 1432, pp.134-143.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2008) Rome’s cultural revolution. Cam-

bridge, Cambridge University Press.

Zanker, P. (1988) The power of images in the age of Augustus.Michigan, University of Michigan Press.

Zemon Davis, N. (1987) Society and culture in early modernFrance. Cambridge, Polity.

Over de auteur:

Sofia Voutsaki teaches Aegean Archaeology and Classical

Archaeology at the University of Groningen. She is also the

director of the NWO VIDI project ‘Shifting identities: social

change and cultural interaction in the Middle Helladic

Argolid, 2100-1600 BC’.

28

TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40