Journal of Greek Archaeology Volume 5 Sampler (original) (raw)
Related papers
Smith, D.M (2018c) Archaeology in Greece. Newsround. Archaeological Reports 63, 27-47.
‘Newsround’ offers a platform for the presentation of new data which do not appear within the specialist contributions of this year's Archaeological Reports, but which nevertheless warrant emphasis, either as a result of their particular characteristics or for the contribution they make to broader archaeological narratives. This section is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is designed to highlight recent discoveries in a way which complements digital content made available through AGOnline/Chronique des fouilles en ligne. The very varied nature of this material has meant that, for the most part, it has proved preferable to organize this section chronologically, although dedicated sections are provided for the inclusion of regional histories, marine archaeology and archaeological survey
Greek archaeology: theoretical developments over the last 40 years
TMA40, 2008
"Classical archaeology has for a long time been considered a self-contained and conservative discipline.However, the discipline is undergoing a dramatic transformation, as practitioners adopt new interpretive approaches and innovative methods of analysis, inspired by developments in the neighbouring fields of prehistoric archaeology and ancient history. These changes in practice and orientation do not really constitute a unified phenomenon. Rather, different academic traditions are developing, diverging approaches are adopted, and even competing definitions of classical (or Mediterranean?) archaeology are used alongside each other. Archaeology has not only changed; it has also become a diversified, growing and vibrant field. This paper will attempt to outline some of the theoretical and methodological changes that have taken place in classical archaeology in the last forty years or so. Although the emphasis will be on Greek archaeology, developments in all areas of the Mediterranean and examples from different periods will be brought into the discussion. "
Classical archaeology has for a long time been considered a self-contained and conservative discipline. However, the discipline is undergoing a dramatic transformation, as practitioners adopt new interpretive approaches and innovative methods of analysis, inspired by developments in the neighbouring fields of prehistoric archaeology and ancient history. These changes in practice and orientation do not really constitute a unified phenomenon. Rather different academic traditions are developing, diverging approaches are adopted, and even competing definitions of classical (or Mediterranean ?) archaeology are used alongside each other. Archaeology has not only changed; it has also become a diversified, growing and vibrant field. This paper will attempt to outline some of the theoretical and methodological changes that have taken place in classical archaeology in the last forty years or so. Although the emphasis will be on Greek archaeology, developments in all areas of the Mediterranean and examples from different periods will be brought into the discussion.
The archaeology of ancient Greece
2001
List of figures page viii List of tables xix Preface and acknowledgements xxi par t i approaches to greek archaeology 1 Introduction: Classical Archaeology and its objects 2 Great traditions: Classical scholarship and Classical Archaeology 3 Modern archaeologies of Greece 4 Chronology and terminology par t ii: archaic greece, 1000-479 bc
Journal of Greek Archaeology 5, 1–62, 2020
This article deals with a relatively new form of archaeological research in the Mediterranean region – intensive surface survey, coverage of the landscape by teams walking in close order, recording patterns of human activity visible on the landsurface as scatters of pottery and lithics, or building remains. Since 2000, archaeologists from Dutch and Belgian universities working on Mediterranean survey projects have gathered annually to discuss methodological issues in workshops that gradually attracted landscape archaeologists from other European countries and Turkey. On the basis of these discussions, this paper, written by regular workshop contributors and other invited authors with wider Mediterranean experience, aims to evaluate the potential of various approaches to the archaeological surface record in the Mediterranean and provide guidelines for standards of good practice in Mediterranean survey
A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the Mediterranean
Wiley eBooks, 2019
The Greek Landscape Setting Although we are accustomed to envisage Greece from the Mediterranean climate zone around its long coastlines and on the Aegean islands, the landscape is far more varied if we travel both up into the mountains of the south and into the more temperate climates of the north. It remains still true, as Colin Renfrew illustrated in his still invaluable synthesis of later Greek prehistory (1972), that the high cultures of the Early Bronze Age (EBA), Minoan-Mycenaean civilization and the Geometric (G) to high Classical cultures of Greece have their essential distributional focus in the south and the lowlands, but inversely, till recently, archaeological research was far less interested in the development of societies in upland Greece and in the northern provinces. Even today we are mostly best informed about Macedonia, due to the innovative regional work of university and state archaeologists in that region (cf. Andreou, Fotiadis, and Kotsakis 1996), and need to know much more about Thrace and northwest Greece. We already are aware that Neolithic Greece in contrast is most flourishing in the northern plains, while from late Classical times into the Ottoman era northern Greece has also been as significant for urbanism and rural settlement as the south. Various explanations have been proposed for the apparent precocity of the lowland south in the Bronze Age (BA) to high Classical eras:
Method in the archaeology of Greece
Archaeological Reports, 2014
Discussions of method, of the different ways in which we may try and answer research questions, are perhaps rarer in the historiography of ancient Greece than discussions of theory. Theory has, quite rightly, played a significant role in historiography, but the comparative unimportance of method is rather mysterious. Methods are central to archaeology because a researcher has to make choices, from the very start of a project, about which methods will be the most appropriate for delivering answers to the chosen research questions. The archaeological journal Antiquity has a special section on Method. The content of that section may seem to be rather more technical than the kinds of methods I want to consider here. Nevertheless, all discussions of method, or methodology, help to give substance to theory; they help us to make clearer the connections between evidence and theory. Stewart's paper, in this issue of AG, offers a series of reflections on the values and limitations of surv...