Gregory - TheAbandoned Countryside

Commentary: Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology of Greece
Author(s): Timothy E. Gregory

Source: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 2, Special Issue: The
Abandoned Countryside: (Re)Settlement in the Archaeological Narrative of Post-Classical
Greece (June 2010), pp. 302-307
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41719792
Accessed: 28-06-2016 15:06 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41719792?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of
Historical Archaeology
This content downloaded from 128.197.26.12 on Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:06:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Int J Histor Archaeol (2010) 14:302-307
DOI 10.1 007/s 1 076 1 -0 1 0-0 1 08-8
Commentary: Medieval and Post-Medieval

Archaeology of Greece
Timothy E. Gregory
Published online: 27 February 2010

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Recent work by archaeologists emphasized the contributions of archae-

ological fieldwork to the study of post-classical Greece. This marks a significant
departure from traditional approaches to the archaeology of Byzantium that tended
to focus on art historical methods and architectural history. Despite these changes in
the study of post-classical Greece, the issues of abandonment, continuity and change
continue to play an important role both in ongoing debates and will undoubtedly
influence fixture research priorities. Only collaboration among scholars who study
historical archaeology in Greece and elsewhere will ensure the continued relevance
of this field even as these long-standing debates wane in relevance.
Keywords Continuity • Byzantium • Dark Ages • Ethnoarchaeology
I am happy to comment on the papers in this first session of the Medieval and
Post Medieval Greek Archaeology Interest Group of the Archaeological Institute
of America presented on January 5, 2007. But I am even happier to have heard a
fine series of papers by a promising group of young scholars. I am sure I don't
have to remind this audience that a generation ago a session such as this would
have been unthinkable and the few people who were working in the archaeology
of medieval and post-medieval Greece had to do so almost in secret. Indeed,
there exists even now a feeling in some quarters that there is no archaeology of
this period properly speaking. Thus, many scholars would admit that the fields of art
history, ethnography, and ethnoarchaeology are proper for the post-classical periods,
but that archaeology itself is not a proper tool for them. Over the past few years
some serious attempts have been made to practice the archaeology of post-classical
Greece and it is heartening to see scholars of the caliber of Charles K. Williams II
(Williams et al. 1997; Williams and Zervos 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996;), Pierre
T. E. Gregory (E!)
Department of History, The Ohio State University, 230 West 17th Ave., 106 Dulles Hall, Columbus,
OH 43210-1367, USA
e-mail: gregory.4@osu.edu
Ô Springer
Int J Histor Archaeol (2010) 14:302-307 303
Aupert (1980a, b), and Davis (1991; Cherry et al. 1991) making serious
contributions to the field. At the same time, I would like to second Kostis Kourelis'
(2007) observation that this phenomenon is not exactly new, but in fact represents a
return to an older tradition in which the later periods of Greek history were treated
seriously and viewed with an interest equal to that for earlier eras (e.g., Bon 1951,
1969; Mommsen 1868). This is a further reminder to those of us working in later
periods of Greek histoiy that we do not need to feel any need to take part in a
"cultural cringe," and that the material we deal with is worthy of study in and of
itself.
It is also encouraging to me to see that all the papers in this session approach their
subjects from the perspective of archaeology, deriving their evidence primarily from
their own archaeological fieldwork. They do not take narrow definitions of
archaeology (such as an exclusively art-historical or exclusively theoretical
approach), but all provide a mix of theory and evidence, all based on the
archaeological information itself. This is particularly significant since in many
scholarly circles "Byzantine archaeology" (which is frequently used to mean the
archaeology of all post-classical archaeology in Greece) is thought primarily to
involve the study of icons and wall-paintings! There is a long tradition in this regard,
especially within Greece and much of Europe, where the "field" is often defined as
"Early Christian Archaeology" or "Early Christian Art and Archaeology." George
Soteriou, in many ways the "father" of Byzantine archaeology in Greece, provided
the impetus for much of this thought that is still prevalent in scholarship today. The
authors of the present papers, of course, are aware of this tradition, but they choose
to approach their subject from a different perspective in which cultural evidence
(including but not limited to architecture and works of art) is treated as means to
approach and understand past societies.
In addition, all the papers demonstrate what I would consider a healthy
relationship among the written records, archaeological evidence, epigraphy and
other "ancillary" data, and ethnographic information. In other words, the authors
have attempted to make use of the richness of information available from a variety of
sources. This is, of course, one of the advantages of working in more recent periods,
in contrast, say, to prehistory - where scholars have to rely on the archaeological
record alone. To a certain degree the discipline has been seized, on the one hand, by
those who study "beautiful objects" and, on the other, by the prehistorians, who
sometimes insist on the purity of their reliance on the archaeological data alone
(interpreted of course, by a heavy reliance on theoretical models). In this regard,
those of us who work in more recent periods of the Greek past might well benefit by
looking more closely at the methods and approaches developed by historical
archaeologists elsewhere in the world. One of our difficulties, as indicated above, is
that we are constantly compared with archaeologists dealing with classical Greece
and Rome or with the prehistoric periods of Greece, while we perhaps have much
more in common with historical archaeologists working in other parts of the world.
Rather than discuss the individual papers, I would prefer to look at some of the
broader themes that they raise and how they have contributed to our understanding
of them - as well as how their presentations suggest new lines of investigation. One
issue is the question of continuity and discontinuity, which nearly all of the papers
discuss in one way or another: this is, of course, natural since continuity is simply
Ô Springer
304 Int J Histor Archaeol (2010) 14:302-307
the other side of the question of abandonment, the main focus of the panel. In
addition, most of us have been concerned with controversies involving continuities
or breaks of continuity in the Greek past since this has long been one of the central
themes of historical discourse in a Greek context. Nonetheless, we should also
remember that this is also a product of an older historical debate and an older set of
questions (complete with a fall set of political baggage - Fallmerayer thesis, nation-
building, theories of racial continuity, etc.) We (myself included) have long been
fascinated with the issues and arguments associated with questions of abandonment
of the landscape and/or population change. Although I am certain that this issue will
not simply "go away," I might suggest that we could profitably move beyond the
"abandonment" debate by shifting the paradigm, as Caraher seeks to do in his paper.
To be sure, at various times, individuals and groups of people moved into Greece
from elsewhere (as they do now); but at the same time, many of the people living in
the land have maintained their presence for centuries if not millennia. The issues are
interesting and they are given a new "life" by the immigration of hundreds of
thousands of "foreigners" into Greece over the past decade, but the historical
discussion still seems (generally) mired in discredited ideas of cultural-historical
archaeology that have been largely taken over by various nationalist interests to
prove the "right" of one "people" to control a territory (cf. Finney 2003; Kaiser
1995). My view is that we ought to do our best to avoid, or at least seriously
transform, such discussions, not because we fear the political ramifications, but
because they are almost always based on assumptions that few of us would accept.
The issue of the "movement of peoples" and the ownership of land has become
passé in most of the world, although its ramifications remain lively in the Balkans. In
this regard, it is a bit surprising to me that none of the papers (as far as I could see)
discussed the work of Florin Curta (2001, 2005a, b). Many will disagree with some
or all of his conclusions, and some in the field will probably disregard his work on
Greece because he comes to it as an "outsider," someone trained in the Balkans
rather than in Greece, who seeks to look at evidence in Greece from a very different
point of view. But I would maintain that - whether we agree or disagree with his
conclusions - we have to consider them seriously and address them with the same
interest and rigor that we do those of other scholars in the field. And I say this not
only because his ideas are worthy of consideration, but also because he is a good
scholar who has already published his work in scholarly venues that give his
arguments a credibility that we cannot ignore.
Beyond this, a focus on continuity (which I have argued is preconditioned by
former scholarship) ignores some of the major changes that did occur in this 1,500-
year period. Thus, I had expected more discussion of the argument of Russian
scholars, especially Rudakov (1970) and Kazhdan (1954; cf. Franklin 1992), about
the social changes that occurred in the period of the "Dark Ages" and their broader
ramifications. In addition, the periods of the Frangokratia, Tourkokratia, and
(undoubtedly even more) the nineteenth-twentieth centuries witnessed revolutionary
changes. These need to be investigated and discussed (again, not to show there were
breaks in continuity, since this is NOT the issue, but how we can identify and
discuss change in an archaeological context).
Following up the issue of change vs. continuity, some of the papers in the session
seemed to argue that "things are always the same," from an archaeological point of
Ô Springer
view. Most interesting in this regard is Pettegrew's paper, which seeks to burst the
bubble of the "explosion" of settlement (i.e., population?) in late antiquity. Certainly
there will be many discussions of Pettegrew's suggestions, or at least I hope that
there will, but one should probably ask the broader question: if we flatten all the
changes, what are we left with? The archaeological evidence certainly shows
considerable activity in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine period. (I don't think
Pettegrew would disagree with this.) But the earlier and later periods may be under-
represented because their pottery is not as easily recognized. Thus, if we "flatten" the
evidence we may loose the impression of a settlement "explosion" in the Late
Roman/Early Byzantine period, but are we to conclude that there was no significant
increase in "activity" at any points from the Roman period onward? And what about
the apparent collapse in the settlement evidence in the period of the Byzantine Dark
Ages (seventh-eighth centuries)? Certainly, following from Pettegrew's arguments,
we might want to claim that much of that observation is due, not to changes in
activity on the land (i.e., to "collapse") but to our relatively poor ability to identify
the ceramic material of this period.
One of the other broad observations I might make is that the papers in the session
focus primarily either on the Early Byzantine (i.e., Late Antique) period or on Late
Byzantium and later periods. This is good, but one wonders why none of them paid
special attention to the Middle Byzantine era (ca. 800-1204). This may, of course, be
chance, but I think there might be other factors at work, in part because the Middle
Byzantine period is better represented in text-based scholarship and because most of
the archaeological work on the period is focused on the (relatively well-known)
"high-end" architecture and art of the era. In any case, one hopes for further
archaeological work in this important period.
The last two papers stand apart, not only from others in the session, but also from
scholarship generally, in that they provide a real archaeological approach to the
modern period. Those working in the archaeology of Greece have, at least fairly
recently, displayed a general respect for Modern Greece and its culture, but scholarly
archaeological research on the period since 1831 has been confined primarily to
ethno-archaeology, while the two current papers examine this era in the way an
archaeologist would any other period, making use of the written records, to be sure,
but giving priority to the material evidence (Diacopoulos 2004; for a very different
approach cf. Hamilakis 2004; Yalouri 2001). It is exciting to see this new approach
in scholarship and we eagerly anticipate the continuation of this development.
In the end, I think that these papers already demonstrate considerable maturity in
the broader field of post-classical Greek archaeology, a maturity that allows us to
present a variety of narratives. None of the authors of the papers presented here seek
to provide a singular, "correct" view of the more recent Greek past. Indeed, they all
seem to realize that the enormous amount of data we have for more recent periods,
as well as the written records that can be connected with them, makes it virtually
impossible for us to create a single narrative, even if we desired to do so. Rather, our
authors all write from a sophisticated point of view, exploring and highlighting
various aspects and phenomena in Greek life over the past two millennia. This is a
development, I think, that is to be encouraged.
Finally, I think that the papers presented here show how much we can gain by
further collaboration with our colleagues, not only those working in earlier periods
Ö Springer
306 Int J Histor Archaeol (2010) 14:302-307
of Greek history but (perhaps even more) with colleagues studying other parts of the
Mediterranean or even other parts of the world, in the more recent past. Indeed, the
more we think about our work the more we may come to realize (as I have suggested
above) how much we have in common with historical archaeologists working
elsewhere. This may seem like an inappropriate comparison to some, since the term
"historical archaeology" often implies the study of western societies and their
contact with aboriginal people over the past three hundred (or so) years. Indeed, a
more apt collaboration to many might be cooperation with medieval archaeologists
in Western Europe, and there is certainly much to recommend such collaboration.
Nonetheless, I would argue that, in the sense I mean it, even they might well profit
by considering their work in the paradigms and approaches developed successfully
by historical archaeologists.
Be that as it may, I am sure that all would agree with the need to build a more
robust scholarly discourse in the area of post-classical Greek archaeology, primarily
involving more intense critical evaluation of evidence and arguments. We need to
discuss the issues as to (1) which questions might have priority for research, and (2)
the kinds of approaches that would be most advantageous for investigating them. In
other words, we ought to be involved in an active attempt at "priority-setting," not
that all scholars will agree, but that such a debate will help clarify the choices for us
to pursue. At the same time, we need to engage in more rigorous debate among
ourselves concerning interpretation of evidence and broader conclusions, something
that is especially difficult given the few opportunities for discussion and publication
of our research. I would hope that a priority in our broader conversation will be the
feasibility of providing new publication opportunities for work in post-classical
Greek archaeology and even, perhaps, the founding of a new journal. All too often
we publish (and give papers) in venues that do not offer enough challenge and
critical debate on fundamental issues, all of which certainly hinder progress in our
work. The session we heard today and the papers in them are certainly a good
beginning and it is up to all of us to press this advantage and continue to build a
stronger scholarly tradition in this exciting field.
References
Aupert, P. (1980a). Céramique slave à Argos (585 ap. J.-C.). Études argiennes, Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique, Supplement 6, Paris, pp. 395-457.
Aupert, P. (1980b). Objets de la vie quotidienne à Argos en 585 ap. J.-C. Études argiennes, Bulletin de
correspondance hellénique, Supplement 6, Paris, pp. 373-395.
Bon, A. (1951 ). Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu'en 1204, Bibliothèque byzantine, 7, Presses universitaires
de France, Paris.
Bon, A. (1969). La Morée franque. Recherches historiques topographiques et archéologiques sur la
principauté d'Achie (1204-1430), Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, fase.
213, 2 vols. E. De Boccard, Paris.
Cherry, J. F., Davis, J. L., and Mantzourani, E. (1991). Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History:
Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands , UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Curta, F. (2001). The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-
700 A.D , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Curta, F. (2005a). Female dress and 'Slavic* bow fibulae in Greece. Hesperia 74: 101-46.
Curta, F. (2005b). Byzantium in Dark-Age Greece (the numismatic evidence in its Balkan context).
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 29: 113-46.
Springer
Davis, J. L. (1991). Contributions to a mediterranean rural archaeology: case studies from the Ottoman
cyclades. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4: 131-214.
Diacopoulos, L. (2004). The archaeology of modern Greece. In Athanassopoulos, E. F., and Wandsnider,
L. (eds.), Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues , University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, pp. 183-198.
Finney, P. (2003). The Macedonian question in the 1920 s and the politics of history. In Brown, S. K., and
Hamilakis, Y. (eds.), The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories, Lexington Books, Lanham, pp. 87-104.
Franklin, S. (1992). Bibliography of works by Alexander Kazhdan. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46: 5-26.
Hamilakis, Y. (2004). The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity ; Archaeology, and National Imagination in
Greece , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kazhdan, A. P. (1954). Vizantijskie goroda v VII-XI w. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 21: 164-88.
Kaiser, T. (1995). Archaeology and ideology in Southeast Europe. In Kohl, P. L., and Fawcett, C. P. (eds.),
Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 99-119.
Kourelis, K. (2007). Byzantium and the avant-garde: excavations at Corinth, 1920s- 1930s. Hesperia 16:
391-442.
Mommsen, A. (1868). Athenae Christianae , B. G. Teubner, Leipzig.
Rudakov, A. V. (1970[1917]). Očerki vizantijskoj kul'tury po dannym grečeskoj agiografii , Variorum
Reprints, London.
Williams II, C. K., and Zervos, O. H. (1992). Frankish Corinth: 1991. Hesperia 61: 133-191.
Williams II, C. K., Barnes, E., and Snyder, L. M. (1997). Frankish Corinth: 1996. Hesperia 66: 7-47.
Yaiouri, E. (2001). The Acropolis: Global Fame, Local Claim , Berg, Oxford.
Springer

Gregory - TheAbandoned Countryside

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gregory - TheAbandoned Countryside

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commentary: Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology of Greece

Author(s): Timothy E. Gregory

Commentary: Medieval and Post-Medieval

Published online: 27 February 2010

Abstract Recent work by archaeologists emphasized the contributions of archae-

Keywords Continuity • Byzantium • Dark Ages • Ethnoarchaeology

You might also like