TMA jaargang 20 (2008), nr.
40
Voutsaki, pp. 21-28
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-
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.
21
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-
TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40
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
12 Schnapp 1993; Marchand 1996.
22
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-
 Greek archaeology: theoretical developments
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
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.
23
Sofia Voutsaki
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
TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40
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
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.
24
the population consumed more protein?’. But they cannot
dictate the answers to interpretive questions such as ‘why
were 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
 Greek archaeology: theoretical developments
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
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.
25
Sofia Voutsaki
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
TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40
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-
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.
26
structed on the basis of literary sources, but the combination
of 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)
 Greek archaeology: theoretical developments
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 Jubileum
Congres 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 Greece
1785-1985. London, Free Association Books.
Bookidis, N., Hansen, J., Snyder, L. & Goldberg, G. (1999)
49 Morris 1992: 128-155; Morris 1994.
27
Sofia Voutsaki
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 the
eastern 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 for
the 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 Context
of Law in Ancient Greece. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Foxhall, L. (1998) Thinking Men: Masculinity and its
Self-Representation in the Classical Tradition. London,
Routledge.
Foxhall, L. (2007) Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking
the 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 the
theory 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, Cuisine
and 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.
TMA jaargang 20, nr. 40
Loraux, N. (1995) The Experiences of Tiresias: The Feminine
and 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 and
philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, Prince-
ton University Press.
Margaritis, E. (2003) Agroikies tis periochis Filas-Irakleiou
kai Leivithron, Makedonikou Olympou. In: Archaies
agroikies se sygchronous dromous. Athens, Greek Ministry
of Culture.
Morris, I. (1992) Death ritual and social structure in Classical
Antiquity. 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 and
things in Iron Age Greece. Oxford, Blackwell.
Nevett, L.C. (1999) House and society in the ancient Greek
world. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Nevett, L.C. (2007) Housing and households: The Greek
world. In: Alcock, S.E. & Osborne, R.G. eds. Classical
Archaeology. 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 Journal
of 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 Archaeological
Science 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 Cambridge
economic history of the Greco-Roman world. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
28
Schnapp, A. (1993) La conquête du passé: aux origines de
l’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 Journal
of 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 Middle
Helladic 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 modern
France. 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’.