Today’s my first day of class in the spring 2026 semester. So it seems like as good as time as any to reflect on some of the reading I did on my winter research leave.
For whatever reason, there was a gaggle of survey publications that appeared during that time and while I’ve still not managed to process and think about them all, there are two that stand out as worthy of particular note.
First, John Bintliff and colleagues massive and impressive Boeotia Project, Volume III: Hyettos. The Origins, Florescence and Afterlife of a Small Boeotian City (2025). This kind of book will take a long time process and understand, but there are parts that stand out (to me, of course). Last week, I talked a bit about Athanasios K. Vionis, with Chrystalla Loizou’s chapter on “A household archaeology and history of Hyettos and its territory: the Byzantine to Early Modern pottery.” It’s good and useful.
I also found quite impressive John Bintliff’s appendix which surveyed the last 25 years of work related to both his manuring hypothesis and his work on “hidden landscapes.” It has a bit of a polemical edge which I found both entertaining (on a forensic level) and probably unnecessary. It will come as a shock to no one that he remains steadfast in his conviction that settlement halos derived from manuring near fields and the spread of domestic trash (notably ceramics) with the manure near the city. He is equally as unimpressed with efforts to complicate or challenge this theory. (Note: John generously responded to my previous post with a recommendation that I read his article on manuring from the Journal of World Prehistory (2023)). In particular, Bintliff found our hypothesis that the continuous carpet of artifacts in the Eastern Corinthia may represent a wide range of activities including short term habitation, building techniques that use sherds as chinking and temper (in mud bricks, for example), episodes of loss and breakage, as well as manuring, discard from towns, cities, and settlement, and post-depositional processes. He and I will likely have to agree to disagree on this (even if this makes me more of a contrarian than advocate for a productive alternative!) Bintliff’s insistence on a monocausal explanation for this material remains useful mainly as a clear hypothesis against which future projects can measure their ethnographic, material, and archaeological data. In the end, this debate continues (at least in the minds of those who prefer the more complicated explanations often afforded by diachronic assemblages and landscapes) because there isn’t a clear methodological or practical intervention that will resolve it. It remains an important consideration, however, for those who are interested in population size of ancient cities, carrying capacity of ancient landscapes, and the systemic cohesion of ancient agricultural (and social) practices.
His argument for hidden landscapes offers a far more obvious pathway for methodological innovation. David Pettegrew, Dimitri Nakassis, and I have thought a good bit about this during our time directing and analyzing surveys. On EKAS, we noted that very small assemblages of, say, Ottoman material on the low visibility and steep slopes of Mt. Oneion hint at a more expansive Ottoman landscape than the continuous carpet of artifacts on the plain would suggest. These realizations led us to sample survey units at the Western Argolid Regional Project not simply on the basis of density (with an awareness that low density units in particular require more intensive collection strategies to produce meaningful samples of the surface), but also based on the character of the assemblages. For example, small assemblages of pottery with unusual diversity often recommend returning to those units with increased intensity.
Second, Alex Knodell, who has been on a roll lately, published a lengthy “survey” (pun vaguely intended) of recent work by survey archaeological projects in Greece. If Bintliff’s survey (I really can’t stop) focused on manuring and hidden landscapes, Knodell’s was more general. He offered some useful observations for the character of pedestrian survey both since 2000 and moving forward.
Here are three of the highlights from his article (and these largely come in the final section since the article is rightly a summary of recent work by various projects).
First, the article really celebrates the diversity of methods which range from one person extensive survey to small intensive surveys to site based gridded collections. There was a time when a certain school of thought held saw and argued that if you weren’t going to do <2000 sq. m. units and 10 m spacing, just don’t bother. This time has passed. As To paraphrase Knodell, method isn’t theory and intensity does not guarantee accuracy.
One thing that does come out of this review of projects is that as survey has expanded it has become rather more estranged from excavation. Many (if not most) early second wave surveys had excavation components (or, more properly, sister projects). This close relationship between survey and excavation offers the potential of refined stratigraphic context for surface finds and the chronological benefits that these afford. Of course not all survey projects have the benefit of nearby excavations (ideally closely tied to the survey) and that isn’t a liability, necessarily, but as survey extends beyond the proximity of excavation, the limits of artifact level survey in terms of chronology and typology become more obvious.
Finally, it was sobering to recognize how few surveys in the 21st century have produced definitive or “final publications.” Some of this is understandable: a modern survey project might require as many contributors as an excavation (or even more if it is a diatonic survey) and this alone guarantees that nothing will take place quickly. Another aspect is that most survey projects engage with multiple research questions each with their own historiography and conventions meaning that not only are survey volumes long, but they’re also complex. Finally, we continue to be preoccupied with method and methodology. Whereas an excavation volume can often get by with a quick note that a project excavated stratigraphically, survey projects still work to unpack their methods, situate it within a methodology, and calibrate their results. This is a burdensome and boring kind of writing that rarely motivates authors.
There are some points that I would have liked to understand a bit better from Knodell’s review. While I admired his attention to the use of LiDAR and other remote sensing technologies, I wondered whether he discerned a change in the role the ethnography played in intensive and regional survey projects? Or to put it another way, how has remote sensing changed the relationship between the archaeologist, the landscape, and various communities?










