The historiographic turn of Western classical archaeology

One

Classical archaeology is a sub-discipline of classical studies. As early as the Renaissance, some people who were committed to the revival of Greco-Roman classical culture began to consciously pay attention to the preservation and study of the cultural relics of the classical period. The Italian Pizcoli did a lot of written records and drawings of ancient remains from the Greco-Roman era, which is considered by some scholars to be the origin of classical archaeology. Systematic classical archaeology was established after the excavation of some large sites in ancient Greece and Rome and the Near East, such as the excavations of Troy and Mycenae by German merchant Schliemann, and the excavations of British archaeologists Evans, Dennis, Lyyard and others in Crete, Etruscan, Nineveh and other places. Among them, the most far-reaching was Schliemann's excavation in Troy. In 1870, Schliemann unearthed a large number of Homeric artifacts on a hill called Hisaryk on the Asian side of the Black Sea Strait (present-day Turkey), revealing Troy, which had been regarded as a legend for thousands of years. Schliemann's discoveries attracted more and more professional archaeologists to archaeological excavations in ancient Greece, Rome and the Near East, promoting the development of classical archaeology.

With the establishment and improvement of the modern discipline system, classical archaeology, together with classical philology, classical philosophy, classical history and classical art history, constitutes the five major sub-disciplines of classical studies. Classical studies is a product of the development of the modern academic system in Europe, and thus inevitably expresses the modern values of Europeans. Classical archaeology, as one of the subdisciplines of classical studies, is no exception, trying to emphasize the uniqueness and superiority of ancient Greco-Roman civilization in terms of architectural and artistic works of archaeological excavations. For example, John Boardman, a classical archaeologist at Oxford University, is also a classical art historian. He is one of the editor-in-chief of Cambridge Ancient History, but most of his academic achievements are concentrated in the field of ancient Greek art, such as "History of Greek Bottle Painting", "Greek Art", "Greek Sculpture", etc.

In the academic research system of classical studies, there is also an inherent tradition, that is, in the centuries since the Renaissance, Western academia has collected, sorted out and studied classical documents (including literature, history, philosophy, drama and other works). Although classical archaeology also conducts fieldwork and fieldwork like other archaeology, the emphasis on classical texts still dominates. It is often believed that the full explanation of events can be obtained naturally from the complete description of the literature, and the imperfection of archaeological data is inevitable, relying heavily not only on the integrity of archaeological sites and relics preservation, but also on the development of archaeological science and technology. In this context, many classical archaeologists believe that their task is to "supplement history", to provide material arguments for the superiority of ancient Greek civilization that has been fully explained in classical documents, and to further stimulate contemporary artists to strive to reach the artistic height of ancient civilization.

As the classicist Yang Morris of Stanford University in the United States said, in this context, the work of classical archaeology, whether it is field excavations in the field, the compilation and publication of archaeological materials, and even related theoretical explanations, is carried out under the framework of established Hellenism. The yoke of "classical" determines that it is difficult for classical archaeologists to break through this framework. Other archaeologists can tell the public what society was like in what period, while classical archaeologists only tell the public that Greek (and Roman) ones are the best. Therefore, classical archaeology in the early stages did not have independent disciplinary consciousness, but voluntarily became a vassal of classical art history and classical philology.

Two

With the in-depth development of the study of ancient Near Eastern civilization since the middle of the 20th century, Europeans gradually realized that ancient Greek civilization did not originate and develop independently, but developed in the context of close exchanges with Near Eastern civilization; Although the Greeks in classical times created a splendid civilization, this does not mean that Greek civilization is superior to other civilizations, but each has its own characteristics. This has led classical archaeologists to accept new academic trends in a more objective and rational way, and gradually shifted their interest from topics such as ancient art and the superiority of civilization to specific social and economic issues, as well as macro trends in historical development. The author calls this turn "the historical turn of classical archaeology."

This turn first occurred in the field of Iron Age archaeology. Although the history of this period is recorded in relevant documents, the documentary materials are seriously insufficient, and it is impossible to rely on the heirloom documents to write a continuous history. As a result, some classical archaeologists began to look to history and other disciplines for modes of interpretation. As the classical archaeologist Snod Grass of the University of Cambridge put it, "Once classical archaeologists move from mere outstanding works of art to the holistic study of material goods, historians can also provide them with a more useful framework for interpretation."

In 1977, Snodgrass gave an inaugural speech entitled "Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek City-State" at Cambridge University, which fully affirmed the importance of archaeology in the study of the rise of the Greek city-state, and believed that the rich archaeological results were enough to prove that the city-state arose in the mid-8th century BC. In his 1980 book Greece: The Age of Experimentation, Snodgrass laid out these conclusions more systematically. Based on the latest research in classical archaeology, he argues that archaeological material from burials proves that the explosive population growth of Greece in the mid-8th century BC led to the rapid development of settlements into towns and cities in the late Dark Ages, which led to the rise of the city-state. He called the rise of the city-state a "structural revolution."

Snodgrass's successor and modifier was Jan Morris. In 1987, Morris revised Snodgrass's interpretive framework in his book Tombs and Ancient Societies: The Rise of the Greek City-State, using a large amount of archaeological data. He argues that in the 8th century BC there was indeed a structural change in Greek society, but this change was not due to the massive population growth that Snodgrass believed, but because more members of society had the citizenship to participate in public life, which marked the rise of the city-state as a community of citizens. He summarizes this interpretive framework as "the revolution of the 8th century (BC)."

In 2006, Snodgrass published a collection of papers published between 1965 and 2002 entitled Archaeology and the Rise of Greece, several of which echoed his and Morris' discussion of the rise of the Greek city-state. These discussions and responses reflect the thinking and research of two classical archaeologists on the basic forms of early Greek historical development.

In addition to Snodgrass and Morris, many more scholars have joined this paradigm shift, such as James Wheatley, Robin Osbon, and Jonathan Hall. This shows that classical archaeologists are no longer satisfied with the discipline orientation of "confirming and supplementing history", but fully absorb and draw on the research methods of history, and put forward a new theoretical framework for major issues of historical development, which means that the historical turn of classical archaeology is basically completed.

In particular, some theoretical-focused archaeologists have also paid attention to this turn in classical archaeology. In 1992, the annual conference of the Theoretical Archaeology Research Association held at the University of Southampton, England, with the theme of "New Directions in Classical Archaeology", tried to build a bridge between classical archaeology and theoretical archaeology and history. In 1995, Nigel Spencer, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford, edited the conference proceedings Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Crossing the Great Divide. Most of these articles not only discuss specific archaeological discoveries or individual ancient texts, but also attempt to propose a theoretical explanation of how archaeological materials and data relate to ancient societies and their historical developments.

The latest research results in the field of classical archaeology also clearly reflect this new development trend. A 2019 Guide to Early Greek and Mediterranean Archaeology, edited by Oxford University classical archaeologist Irene Lemos and others, is a good example. In general, the structure and content of the entire book is an organic combination of archaeology and history. For example, the first chapter of the book, "Background Overview", focuses on the important role of "archaeological evidence" and "documentary evidence" in the study of the early history of ancient Greece and the Mediterranean; The second chapter, entitled "State and Society", basically reconstructs the history of ancient Greece before the classical era based on archaeological materials, respectively, discussing the rise and decline of the Mycenaean civilization, the early Iron Age social community, the revival of complex communities, and other stages of social and historical development.

From the newly published archaeological guide, we can see that in the 21st century, the historical turn of classical archaeology has gradually been recognized by scholars, including classical historians and classical archaeologists. Classical historians pay more attention to drawing on the latest excavations and research results of archaeology, while classical archaeologists are more inclined to use the results of archaeological excavations to analyze and study the development status and development trend of ancient societies. The combination of classical history and classical archaeology is getting closer and closer, providing new ideas and directions for the study of ancient history.

(Author: Li Yongbin, Professor, School of History, Capital Normal University)

Source: Guang Ming Daily