Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline.

Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline. I once read (I cannot remember where) a review of one of GeorgeSteiner's works which began with the phrase 'This bad book,which is, alas, a classic'. Memory of course plays strange tricks,and I cannot vouch for vouch forverb 1. guarantee, back, certify, answer for, swear to, stick up for (informal) stand witness, give assurance of, asseverate, go bail forverb 2. the accuracy of this quotation, but it doescapture exactly the feelings held by many scholars in university Englishdepartments toward George Steiner. Steiner is, of course, a livelypresence in the field of World Literature; his ideas are interesting,stimulating even; his books are readable and indeed widely read; butthese same books are often not scholarly and he is too frequently proneto inflated claims. Admiration for the man is mixed with exasperationwith his glib generalizations. Many archaeologists seem to feel the sameway about Michael Shanks This article is about the actor. For the archaeologist, see Michael Shanks (archaeologist). Michael Garrett Shanks (b. December 15 1970, Vancouver, British Columbia) is a Canadian actor who achieved fame for his role as Dr. and his erstwhile co-author Christopher Tilley Christopher Y. Tilley is a British archaeologist and a well-known proponent of post-processual archaeology.Tilley's major works on theoretical archaeology were written with his colleague Michael Shanks, and include ReConstructing Archaeology and .In this case both the admiration and the exasperation are merited.First, the good points about Michael Shanks' new and ambitiousbook: a book like this one had to be written - it is, above all else, anecessary book ('alas, a classic'). It places ClassicalArchaeology 'Classical archaeology' is a term given to archaeological investigation of the great Mediterranean civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Nineteenth century archaeologists such as Heinrich Schliemann were drawn to study the societies they had read about in Latin and firmly in a historical and theoretical frame. This is a realstep forward. Classical Archaeology, particularly the ClassicalArchaeology of Greece, has been more or less ignored in most historiesof archaeology, which have been more concerned with prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to . InTrigger's (1989) by now standard textbook, the role of classicalstudies in the early history of archaeology The history of archaeology has been one of increasing professionalisation, and the use of an increasing range of techniques, to obtain as much data on the site being examined as possible. OriginsThe exact origins of archaeology as a discipline are uncertain. is noted, but little more.Classical Archaeology is seen as being as remote from contempoaryarchaeology as the antiquarians who first studied the Bush Barrow orStonehenge. In the 20th century, Classical archaeologists did not think,or left no thoughts that the student of prehistory might wish toconsider. This is, it is true, an impression that some practitioners inthe field are quite happy with. Some prehistorians are quite ready tobelieve that Classical archaeologists do not think in any serious way,and so are quite content with works like Trigger's, which serve asa kind of useful whiggish genealogy for 'touch-feely'post-processual prehistory and American anthropological archaeologyalike. Some classical archaeologists are inclined to dismiss all theoryas a form of preconception pre��con��cep��tion?n.An opinion or conception formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience, especially a prejudice or bias.Noun 1. , something from which they believe themselvesto be entirely free. There is in Classical Archaeology an instinctivepreference for tried and tested methods, an aversion to manifestos and'isms', and a reluctance to make theoretical assumptionsexplicit. Indeed, one might almost say that traditional Classicalarchaeology is characterized by a denial of theory, and a feeling almostof contempt towards those inclined to theorize the��o��rize?v. the��o��rized, the��o��riz��ing, the��o��riz��esv.intr.To formulate theories or a theory; speculate.v.tr.To propose a theory about. (e.g. Boardman 1985:52-3). Such lofty disdain did nothing but irritate 'New'archaeologists in the 1970s when they at last came to consider whycertain archaeologies were inclined to resist the scientific innovationsthey were then proclaiming. This irritation, however, eventuallyprompted reflection in some quarters. In recent years Stephen Dyson(1989), Anthony Snodgrass (1987) and Ian Morris (1994) (allarchaeologists with a strong interest in innovation) have tried toexplain why Classical Archaeology (and in particular the ClassicalArchaeology of Greece) is so different from other archaeologies, and whyit is (apparently) so resistant to theory.It is the singular merit of Shanks' book that it both builds ontheir suggestions and goes well beyond what they have written. Itdemonstrates conclusively that Classical Archaeology is suffused withunconscious theory, that is, conventions and practices which, whilst notbeing explicitly theoretical, are imbued with ideas inherited from thepast. An example here is J.D. Beazley's achievement in attributingthousands of Attic pots to individual hands. As Shanks points out,Beazley's practice is not a technique innocent of theoreticalassumptions. The practice of attribution is part and parcel of a wholeset of ideas about detective work, a new paradigm New ParadigmIn the investing world, a totally new way of doing things that has a huge effect on business.Notes:The word "paradigm" is defined as a pattern or model, and it has been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework. , as Ginzburg (1990)put it, which crystallized in the latter part of the 19th century.Shanks also shows (and here he follows Morris) that ClassicalArchaeology is haunted by meta-narratives, of the need somehow to linkthe present-day 'West' with Classical Greece, to show how thelatter is ancestor and guide to the former. Shanks is also keen (andhere he is following Foucault) to link disciplinary practice withinstitutions, and to show how institutions partially shape disciplinaryconventions and ideas. Anyone who takes the trouble to read this bookwill be forced to admit that the ideas that have informed ClassicalArchaeology are of importance to the field as a whole. It will no longerbe possible for traditionalists to claim that all that they are doing ispresenting facts 'without preconceptions' and letting theevidence speak for itself - a pretence which was, at best,philosophically untenable, and at worst intellectually dishonest.Equally, prehistorians and historians of archaeology will have even lessexcuse for believing that Classical Archaeology can simply be ignored.Shanks moves on from these 'roots of the discipline' toprovide an overview of the present state of the subject. Here I mustdeclare an interest. I am part of the 'present state' thatShanks describes, and I am not particularly happy with his description.Shanks notes the recent methodological innovations in Greek archaeology(chief amongst which are the new field surveys) and goes on to describewhat he calls the 'rudiments of a social archaeology'. Thislargely consists of a list of ways in which Anthony Shodgrass, IanMorris, Cathy Morgan, Todd Whitelaw and myself have fallen short of hisideal. We are accused of relying too much on quantification, on abstractmeasures, and (worse still) of trying to explain the material we studyby the use of abstract concepts like 'society' and'social context'. We are accused of being functionalists, forwe do (it is true) use words like function. Shanks would obviouslyprefer a terminology where something (let us say a pot) does not have tobe explained in terms of something else (a burial tradition, or aparticular social order, let us say), but one where the whole of cultureis seen as an interconnected web of ideas and practices. He seeks a kindof 'thick description' of a particular culture withoutseparation and so categorization. If such an ideal is possible we mustgive up any attempt to analyse and so explain the material thatinterests us. All forms of explanation are limited by the categoriesthey choose and the analyses they employ, but explanation remains anecessary condition for any kind of understanding.We will have to await the publication of Shanks' next book tosee whether his ideal can be achieved in practice. There are someworrying indications that it may not. Here we reach the exasperatingside of the book. Shanks is sloppy when it comes to referencing. Herarely bothers with page numbers, and does not reference at all in thetext. He may well wish to avoid 'clogging the text withreferences' - this is what footnotes are for. In the bibliography,Shanks only refers works by himself (some inevitably'forthcoming') when it comes to Corinthian (or, as he puts it,Korinthian) pottery. This is pure arrogance, and no help to the readerwho may wish to consult what Benson, Amyx, Neeft, Payne and Johansenactually wrote. His descriptions are sometimes glibly glib?adj. glib��ber, glib��best1. a. Performed with a natural, offhand ease: glib conversation.b. innaccurate, aswhen he calls the British School at Athens The British School at Athens (BSA) (Greek: Βρετανική Σχολή Αθηνών) is one of the 17 Foreign Archaeological Institutes in Athens, Greece. 'an erstwhile colonialestablishment' (p. 15), as if mainland Greece had ever been acolony of Britain. Shanks has little sympathy for institutions. He viewsthem as, at best, a necessary evil. He fails to see their positive side.As institutions go, the British School is a good one. It has a betterrecord of supporting younger scholars than most comparable institutionsactually located in the United Kingdom. It is hard to see how anyserious work by British scholars on any aspect of Greece could takeplace without it.Cavils aside, this is an essential book. There is simply nothing elselike it, nothing else that explores the history, theories and practicesof Classical Archaeology with any degree of both critical distance andunderstanding. It is well written, and often a pleasure to read (evenif, like this reader, you are inclined to take exception to what he issaying). It will be of particular value to anyone teaching a 'GreekArchaeology' or 'Theory and Methodology' course, indemonstrating to students that the archaeology of Greece is a diversefield which is much more interesting than it at first seems. Anyone witheven a passing interest in the subject should read this book.JAMES WHITLEY School of History & Archaeology University ofWales Affiliated institutionsCardiff University Cardiff was once a full member of the University but has now left (though it retains some ties). When Cardiff left, it merged with the University of Wales College of Medicine (which was also a former member). , Cardiff E-mail: WhitleyA@Cardiff.ac.ukReferencesBOARDMAN, J. 1985. 100 years of Classical Archaeology in Oxford, inD. Kurtz (ed.), Beazley and Oxford: 43-55. Oxford: Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology.DYSON, S. 1989. Complacency and crisis in late twentieth-centuryclassical archaeology, in P. Culham, L. Edmunds & A. Smith (ed.),Classics: a discipline and profession in crisis?: 211-20. Lanham (MD):University Press of America.GINZBURG, C. 1990. Clues: roots of an evidential ev��i��den��tial?adj. LawOf, providing, or constituting evidence: evidential material.ev paradigm, in C.Ginzburg, Myths, emblems, clues: 96-125. London: Hutchinson Radius.MORRIS, I. 1994. Archaeologies of Greece, in I. Morris (ed.),Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies: 8-47.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .SNODGRASS, A. 1987. An archaeology of Greece: the present state andfuture scope of a discipline. Berkeley (CA): University of CaliforniaPress "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. .TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.