The Archaeology of the Mediterranean World

The Corinthia and Survey Archaeology

My talk on the Fourth Trip, in the Corinthia, was on survey archaeology, particularly the work of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS).  No one in this group of Regular Members has any experience doing survey.  This is particularly striking because many of the folks at the school right now, from Jack Davis and Guy Sanders to Tim Gregory and myself, have spent time doing survey and have some investment in the method.  In any event, I introduced, in a very general, way the survey of the Corinthian landscape. 

I focused my brief presentation on four things.  None of them are new, but this is the gist:

1) Survey and Colonialism.  I began with the idea that survey had as long and august a history in Mediterranean archaeology as excavation, and, moreover, it had roots in the same colonialist impulse as the first large scale excavations.  In fact, I suggest that in some ways survey is more colonialist in that mapping the landscape and producing inventories of archaeological "resources" represents one of the most basic tasks that colonizers undertook in their efforts to domesticate "the other" by translating terra incognita into scientific (i.e. basically Western) notation and assigning it significance and meaning (in a recent email discussion with Dave Pettegrew, he offered the phase "appropriating knowledge" to which I objected (ironically)).  I suggested that the difficulties EKAS experienced in getting permits might be tied (in a very big picture kind of way) to the colonial legacy of Survey, particularly, the difficulties in "controlling the activities" of large scale regional surveys which sent teams out in the countryside in a way that was difficult (or manpower intensive) for local officials to supervise.  One can almost see the survey archaeologists as guerilla archaeologists out beyond the settlement and village both appropriating the countryside for scientific archaeology and (in some ways) using this intimate local knowledge for their own advantage.  This can be contrasted to large scale, contemporary excavations, which take place (in some instances) in the village surrounded by fences, under the watchful eye of the community.  It is theatrical and a spectacle and therefore somehow constrained by the spectators gaze.

2) Surveying the Suburbs.  Permit restriction, expense, and the incredible logistical demands all have influenced the decline in large scale, regional survey in the Greece.  In its place, more localized and focused survey has emerged (it is much easier to monitor a small scale survey centered on a known site).  Focused, smaller scale survey have had a long tradition in Greece with surveys in the suburbs of known sites being a component of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, the Cambridge Boeotia Project, and the Ohio Boeotia Expedition (and it appears to be the focus of a new project called the Eastern Boeotia Archaeological Project).  While almost all survey has sought to study the hinterland (i.e. not the center), the real variation has occurred only in how far the "hinter" the land really is.  Because permit limitation prevented it from being a genuine regional survey, EKAS reflected the tradition of suburban survey by focusing primarily on the eastern suburbs of a known urban center.  Two issues are associated with the "suburban" focus of this survey: (a) How do we define and understand the limits to our survey area and the concentration of pottery within it.  This is the old "what is a site problem" that most survey archaeologist know only too well. (b) How do we cope with incredibly high artifact densities in an efficient and responsible way.  Traditional sampling strategies (site based collections, the collection of all "diagnostic sherds" et c.) break down when confronted with the continuous high density carpet of unit after unit with densities of over 2000 artifacts/hectare.

3) Thresholds of Intensity.  The problem encountered working in an environment with astronomical artifact densities is where does one set the threshold of intensity.  The threshold of intensity refers, in the case of EKAS, to not only our desire to collect or document artifacts on the surface in a very intensive way, but also consequently document their environmental context.  EKAS, for example, was "bogged down" by a combination of high artifact densities and a very thorough set of forms that sought to document almost every conceivable variable an archaeologist might encounter in a field (visibility, vegetation type, surface clast type, surface clast size, soil type, et c.).  In theory this was an excellent idea, but in practice it prevented us from surveying a particularly large section of the Korinthian landscape.  Moreover, when analyzing the data we discovered that some of the variables that we recorded did not correlate with archaeological features in any demonstrable way.  This, then, marked the threshold of intensity -- the exact place where data collection inhibited the overall goals of the survey, which in the case of EKAS was to produce a meaningful sample of the suburbs of Korinth.  In our defense, we didn't realize that we had reached the thresholds of intensity until we actually analyzed the data. 

4) A Survey Discourse. The overall impulse behind increasing intensity of data collection in survey is to produce a landscape that will hold up to scientific scrutiny.  A "scientific landscape" would approach a kind of objective reality that can then be held up against excavation (the seemingly more scientific older brother of survey) in a positive light.  The overarching assumption is: "if we can somehow control for all the variables then survey data will have irrefutable meaning and have secured its place in the archaeological discourse."  The hope that survey archaeology can produce the same kind of meaning and support the same kinds of arguments as excavation, however, is problematic from the start.  First and foremost, survey data, with few exceptions, must rely upon excavated contexts for all ceramic chronologies.  Secondly, survey archaeology only ever produces a sample of the known material on the survey (and the level of intensity dictates how large a sample this is). 

Consequently survey is not a highly precise instrument and it is rarely suitable to answer the same kinds of questions that excavation can answer.  In particular, it is much better suited to inquiries framed by the Braudelian longue durée whereas excavations are better suited to shedding light on the historical eventement.  This shouldn't be particularly surprising as intensive survey in Greece was developed primarily by prehistorians who were interested in long term processes (Landscape Archaeology as Long Term History as it were). For those of us interested in the historical period, however, this means that we have to be willing to construct arguments that function of multiple scales that may or may not (as is the case with Braudel) intersect in a precise way.  This involves the development of a Survey Discourse for the historical period, a project that is currently underway, but far from being complete.

AIA Annual Meeting Overview

I perused the Program for the AIA's 109th Annual Meeting yesterday and have a little bevy of observations (as one might expect). 

The first is a blatant Advertisement For Myself (and a tribute to Norman Mailer's memory):

1) In the Sunday Poster Session, PKAP will present a poster that focuses on the evolution of a project with a strong commitment to both teaching and research by bringing in voices of students who have participated on the project, namely Greg Fisher, Brandon Olson (now at Penn State), Brice Pierce, David Terry, and Jessica Freas:

Pyla-Koutsopetria: The Evolution of a Survey Project
R. Scott Moore, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, William Caraher, University of North Dakota, David Pettegrew, Messiah College, Greg Fisher, Oxford University, Brandon Olson, University of North Dakota, Brice Pierce, University of New Hampshire, David Terry, University of North Dakota, and Jessica Freas, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

2) The Medieval and Post-Medieval Archaeology in Greece Interest Group of the AIA  will have its colloquium in Sunday: The Archaeology of Xenitia: Greek Immigration and Material Culture.

3) There is a panel called: The Post Roman World.  It includes a paper by Guy Sanders and Michael Boyd entitled: "Moving Homes: A Resistivity Survey of the Late Antique City Wall East of the Forum at Corinth".

4) We would be remiss not to mention the Corinth Panel highlighting the ongoing work of graduate students at the Corinth Excavations: Corinthian Horizons: Space, Society and the Sacred in Ancient Corinth.  The panel is chaired by Amelia Brown, who presented a paper on Late Antique Corinth in our (soon to be published) AIA Colloquium last year.  This years Corinth panel reflects, in part, the ever expanding group of folks working on Late Antiquity in Corinth (a topic for a later, longer post...).  In light of this in is interesting that the title of the panel (invoking again Mailer's spirit) resonates gently (and I am sure intentionally) with a certain work on Late Antique Greece (tongue in cheek).  Jeremy J. Ott's paper on Late Roman burials in the forum should be particularly valuable contribution to our understanding the the Late Antique City.  Moreover, I've heard that Joe Rife will be the respondent at this panel, and his nearby Kenchreai Cemetery Project (now, perhaps, Kenchreai Excavations), has a serious interest in Late Antique levels.  

5) Finally, one of the key members of the PKAP team, Sarah Lepinski, will participate in this supercool workshop (I assume Sarah's contribution will center on her work at Corinth):

Session: 3H: Order and Conflict: The Agency Role of Empires in the Levant and Mediterranean
Type: Workshop

Timeslot: Saturday, January 5, 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Organizer(s): Gloria A. London, AIA Seattle Society and Øystein LaBianca, Andrews University

Panelists: Gloria London, AIA Seattle Society, Øystein LaBianca, Andrews University, Randall Younker, Andrews University, Derek Counts, University of Wisconsin, Andrew Smith, Dowling College, Denise Demetriou, Michigan State University, Andrew Goldman, Gonzaga University, Sarah Lepinski, Bryn Mawr College, Bethany Walker, Grand Valley State University.

Last day in the field

Well, today, June 12, is the last day in the field.  I'm sad that our season has ended as quickly as it began!  Yesterday we finished surveying the slopes below the height of Vigla where our investigations this year revealed a Late Roman fortification wall and possibly an early Christian basilica.  A problem with these features is that they seem inconsistent with the pottery that we had found on the height: mostly Archaic-Hellenistic material with little Roman or Late Roman material.  The slope survey yesterday documented thousands of pottery sherds and a consistent low to moderate density scatter of Late Roman amphora fragments and even some tiles.  Needless to say, this demonstrates that we DO have some Late Roman material on the height, although in much lower amounts than the plain below.  Fortified Vigla perhaps was not a place that was regularly inhabited in the Late Roman era.

Today we'll be doing odds and ends: at the museum, finishing our catalogue and illustration of the survey pottery, and, in the field, wrapping up the survey of the ridges, pulling our orange flags from fields (archaeologists must be environmentally sensitive), and revisiting a few features.  Tomorrow afternoon we have our final meeting where we will make plans for the off season and next summer. 

All in all, it's been a very good season.  We've accomplished all of our goals and brought to light a variety of interesting finds that illustrate the significance of this site in the coastline of southeast Cyprus.

David

Archaeology as Field School, or why Bill Caraher is certainly wrong

David Pettegrew here (the arch nemesis of Caraher in respect to the question of student involvement).... 

This is actually an issue that Bill and I argue about most every summer.  Bill aims for specialization and efficiency, I aim for the well-rounded experience (admittedly at the expense of some of our field time).

I certainly disagree with Bill's view that students feel a "sense of satisfaction" with specializing in an archaeological task over a period of three weeks!   On the contrary, students appreciate getting the big picture that comes from being educated in the numerous components of our work here in Cyprus: gridding and mapping, reconaissance survey, intensive field walking, planning, drawing walls and features, filling out forms, data entry, GIS, and computer-based analysis, etc....  Without seeing the entire picture, participants fail to understand how their individual contributions matter.  This week, in fact, one student who joined us in mapping out survey units told us afterward that she now had a much better sense of why we were surveying where we were surveying.  Ultimately Bill and I will continue to debate the merits of the type of training that students should receive in archaeological method each summer, but, as I look back over the last three seasons, I do see the well-rounded "field school" approach gaining the upper hand!  I hope that we continue to develop the field school since it is one of the most exciting aspects of the archaeogical process! 

Some brief news from fieldwork this week....Today we finished our survey of the Bronze Age site of Kokkinokremos.  Exciting finds include ubiquitous pottery, numerous stone basins, several "loom weights" and anchors, many stone artifacts, and what appears to be a minor later Hellenistic-Roman phase at the same site--much to the chagrin of the prehistorians on our project!  Michael Brown and Dimitri Nakassis can fill you in.

The other thrilling discovery from the height of Vigla comes from John Hunt's analysis of the geophysical (electrical resistivity) data: it appears we have another early Christian basilica on the ridge!  Only excavation will determine for sure, but it looks promising and we're all excited.

David

Pettegrews on the Way

The Pettegrews (David and Kate) of south-central PA will be among the last to arrive in Larnaka this year.  Graduation day here at Messiah College is tomorrow, a few final meetings remain, I have to turn in grades, and then we fly out on Tuesday.  We are really excited to get to Cyprus, meet the new project members, and get to work--especially after reading Bill's recent posts about the rewarding results of the geophysical survey!  More monumental architecture??  Well,...that is the reason for conducting geophysical prospection, isn't it?  Geophysical work introduces an entirely new kind of data and allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the site.  While the rest of the team begins preliminary work in Larnaka, we Pettegrews are entering last-minute panic mode, getting everything in order before our 7 week stay in the Mediterranean.  My main goal before departure Tuesday is to finish a conference paper that I'm to present in Athens, Greece, in mid-June.  One thing I have discovered (or,...err...learned) about working on archaeological projects in the Mediterranean: there is very little time during a field season for writing papers!!  The long days and the hot sun sap your every bit of strength and the last thing you want to do at the end of a day is intellectual work!  And have you ever thought about how incredibly expensive archaeology in the Mediterranean is?  Simply getting to Cyprus costs at least $1000 (usually more), and living there for 3 weeks costs well over $1000.  Point is that since we pay so much to be there, we absolutely have to maximize our time in doing fieldwork.  So when Kate and I arrive next week, we plan to hit the ground running, after a good night's sleep, of course, and a cup of Nescafe.  And in the meantime, I'd better finish that conference paper.