Skip to main content



Archaeology as a vital US strategic interest

An opinion piece by me on the above subject on Fox News, and on why US National Science Foundation (NSF) funding of archaeology should be (i) supported, and (ii) if anything increased (rather than reduced in real terms), is at:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/08/archaeology-as-vital-us-strategic-interest/

The current specific problem or issue is the FIRST Act (Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Act), which seeks greatly to reduce NSF support for social, behavioral, and economic sciences areas like Archaeology, and especially to reduce support for work outside the USA. For a recent statement by the American Schools of Oriental Research highlighting the (negative) problems this act would cause for US scholars working in the east Mediterranean and Near East, see:

http://www.asor.org/news/2014/06/FIRST-Act.html

(Previously, see e.g. statements of the Society for American Archaeology; Society for Historical Archaeology; American Anthropological Association)

For some other statements highlighting the general problems/flaws in the FIRST Act (in particular: its drastic reduction of overall social science support, and its attack on the peer-review system and addition of levels of politically-motivated review – rather than letting scientists best judge what is good and important science), see e.g.:

National Science Board Statement

Association of American Universities

David Skorton, President of Cornell University

David T. Takeuchi, Associate Dean for Research at the Boston College Graduate School of Social Work

Scholarly Publishing and Academic Research Coalition critique

And, for a range of other information, and for links to several other commentaries, see: http://community.apsanet.org/Advocacy/issues/competesact

For a collection of reports on the FIRST Act and its progress, and on the debate around this act from Science magazine, see: http://news.sciencemag.org/tags/first-act.

For a debate in Scientific American for and against the FIRST Act, see:  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-research-in-the-national-interest/

One of the targets of the FIRST Act cuts to funding for the NSF’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences would be support of graduate student dissertation research via Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants in these areas (e.g. Archaeology, Anthropology, etc., etc.). This would especially affect those seeking to conduct research projects outside the US. For a discussion by a US PhD student in Anthropology supported in part by the NSF, who works on a Japanese topic (and is presently in Japan doing research), on how the FIRST Act would affect work like hers, and why we should instead support and value such research, see: http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2014/07/07/a-defense-of-nsf-funding-from-the-field/.

It is important also to realize that the FIRST Act is not the only serious current threat to the small amount of funding available to archaeology in the USA, and, broadly, to funding for research in the ‘social sciences’ and ‘humanities’. The budget of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is currently (summer 2014) under active attack. See the 9 July 2014  blog post by the National Humanities Alliance, stating:

“On July 9, the House subcommittee that oversees funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities passed a bill to fund NEH at its lowest level (in constant dollars) since 1972. If enacted, this $8 million cut would bring NEH’s funding level to just $138 million for 2015. NEH’s funding has already been severely cut over the past four years, and additional cuts would fundamentally erode NEH’s capacity”.

 

IMG_6168

And, in case you are wondering about the photo in the Fox News piece? The photo was taken at the Late Bronze Age site of Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios, Cyprus. The Late Bronze Age on Cyprus dates between ca. 1700-1100 BCE. With me are (left) Jeffrey Leon and (right) Catherine Kearns, both currently completing PhDs at Cornell. I post here a different version of the photo showing some more actual archaeology (photo taken by Andrew Viduka).

Thera/Santorini date debate: what’s new, and why is it important?

The Thera (or Santorini) volcanic eruption in the southern Aegean is the largest known of the past 12,000 years (Johnston et al. 2014) and sent ash (tephra) and tsunami over a large area of the east Mediterranean (the latter reached the Levant: Goodman-Tchernov et al. 2009). The eruption buried, Pompeii-like, a large Bronze Age town at Akrotiri on Thera (Santorini) – disrupting long-established trade and communications networks in the region (Knappett et al. 2011). This great mid 2nd millennium BC volcanic eruption appears self-evidently an event of historical importance. When precisely did it occur?

A correct answer has proved a long, difficult, and controversial topic over the past several decades, pitting an established archaeological synthesis based around linkages of material culture and stylistic traits across the Aegean and east Mediterranean to proto-historical Egypt, against science-based dating techniques. The story up to 1999 was surveyed in Manning (1999), but this volume has now been out of print for a number of years. A new book (Manning 2014) – http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/test-of-time.html – provides a reprint both of the original text, as well as a 200-page update and revisit of the topic of the date, critically presenting and analyzing evidence available through 2013.

Why now? Despite the decades of often trenchant debate, and the strong rejections of the scientific evidence and an insistence by some scholars that the standard archaeological scenario cannot be radically revised, a considerable range of new information and reassessment have become available very recently which seem at last to point to a resolution of the Thera date question. Hence the new book (and hence of course this blog).

It has been clear since the mid-1970s that radiocarbon indicated an earlier date than the previously orthodox archaeological estimate of ca. 1500 BC, and more recent radiocarbon dating on materials from both Thera and the region, allied with sophisticated forms of modeling, have firmly pointed to a date in the later-late 17th century BC (Manning et al. 2006; Manning and Kromer 2012). Possible concerns that volcanic carbon dioxide could have affected the samples from Thera itself were shown to be irrelevant, since similar ages were determined from contemporary archaeological contexts elsewhere in the Aegean. Nonetheless, it was argued by critics for many years that radiocarbon did not work for some reason, and, in particular, it was believed that radiocarbon gave different results versus Egyptian history and so could be questioned – but a key large-scale study by Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010) demonstrated that radiocarbon analyses could indeed give accurate and precise dates for Egypt and Egyptian history in the second millennium BC. Thus, if radiocarbon worked in mid second millennium BC Egypt, then it should work also in the Aegean. Manning (2014) offers detailed discussion and analysis of the radiocarbon evidence from the Aegean (and also Egypt), and finds that the radiocarbon evidence clearly indicates a date for the Thera eruption in the late 17th century BC (and not a date after ca. 1530 BC as required by the conventional archaeological chronology). Claims and arguments to the contrary are reviewed, and it is explained why these are unlikely, implausible, or incorrect.

Olive branch? An olive branch was found buried in the Minoan eruption pumice on Thera (Friedrich et al. 2006). The outer preserved part should give a date for, or close terminus post quem for, the eruption. A sequence (from inner to outer parts of the sample) of radiocarbon dates on the sample gave a date shortly before 1600BC in agreement with (but more closely defined than) radiocarbon studies based on short-lived plant materials buried by the eruption at Akrotiri, or finds elsewhere associated with the eruption. All seemed clear. But, because the group publishing the olive branch claimed they could approximately recognize annual growth increments (tree-rings) – whereas most agree this is problematic to impossible in olives beyond the juvenile stage – much debate ensued. The tree ring issue unfortunately has come to hide the obvious: whether or not any growth rings are evident the simple inner to outer (oldest to most recent) time series of radiocarbon ages from the branch (and no supposed tree-ring information) still leads to almost the same conclusion: a late 17th century BC date, as stated by Friedrich et al. (2014) responding to claims by Cherubini et al. (2014) that a lack of clear tree rings somehow undermined everything. The other tactic is to argue that maybe the olive branch was long-dead by the time of the eruption. While possible in isolation, unfortunately for the rejectionist case, a second olive branch has been found, and there was clear evidence in both cases that there were leaves associated, which rather undermines claims that the branches were not living when buried by the eruption (I thank Jan Heinemeier for highlighting this to me while I was visiting Aarhus recently, and saw his fabulous new AMS radiocarbon laboratory).

Other scientific work (as, or even after, Manning 2014 went to press) has recently added further evidence either in favour of a late 17th century BC date for the Thera volcanic eruption, or against the low archaeological chronologies as especially promulgated by Manfred Bietak for the Levant, and from there for the east Mediterranean:

(i)               There is now a reasonably strong circumstantial case for identifying the major volcanic eruption detected in the Sofular speleothem in NW Turkey as Thera, and this eruption is dated by the independent timescale established for the Speleothem to the late 17th century BC (Badertscher et al. 2014); and

(ii)             A detailed radiocarbon analysis and chronological framework for Tell Megiddo, Israel, while yet to reach the Middle Bronze Age, already indicates that the ultra-low chronological model for the Middle Bronze Age to Late Bronze Age transition in the southern Levant, which places this transition as not occurring until during the earlier 15th century BC (e.g. Bietak 2013: Fig.8.1), is unlikely (Toffolo et al. 2014: 241), as does further analysis of the dates from the Middle Bronze Age destruction at Jericho which supports a date range no later than during the 16th century BC (Dee and Bronk Ramsey 2014: Fig.5).

Tell el-Dab‘a (ancient Avaris)? This great site – a super-city of the world in the earlier to mid second millennium BC – was long held to prove that Thera could not have erupted around 1600 BC – a position restated time and again by the long-time excavator of the site, Manfred Bietak (most recently in Antiquity arguing against the olive branch date’s relevance). Tell el-Dab‘a supposedly had a secure archaeologically based chronology linked to Egypt which showed that the relevant cultural horizon in the Aegean was late 16th century BC at the earliest, if not later. This certainty has proved to be rather insecure. A detailed radiocarbon dating programme at the site found a chronology on average around 100 years older than the one claimed by Bietak (Kutschera et al. 2012). Since radiocarbon dating – and by the same laboratories – found a good correlation with Egyptian history from other material from other sites, then it starts to suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the supposed archaeological chronology at Tell el-Dab‘a when this site alone yields such discordant dates. It is in fact notable on critical examination that there is very little sound basis to the Bietak archaeological chronology. For example, nothing actually ties the supposed Tuthmosid palace platforms to any of the evidence of named New Kingdom kings (scarabs) (carefully read Bietak et al. 2007: 27) – and hence these platforms were originally dated (in the early 1990s) by Bietak and his team as pre-New Kingdom before being later re-dated as 18th Dynasty – a first assessment which now seems likely to have been correct all along according to the radiocarbon evidence, and as suggested in Manning 1999: 93-94).

New archaeological finds meanwhile also dramatically undermine convention. At Tell Edfu in Egypt, finds of sealings place the well-known Hyksos king Khayan around a century earlier than usually assumed (Moeller and Marouard 2011). Bietak placed Khayan about 1600-1580 BC, and linked him with a palace at Tell el-Dab‘a, but now Khayan and this palace would match the much older radiocarbon chronology for the site, and seem to confirm the need radically to revise all existing arguments based around the evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a – such as when Cypriot ceramic types appear (which were again held previously, based on links from the Aegean to Cyprus and the reverse, to disprove the radiocarbon-based date for the Thera eruption, and so on). The lid with the inscribed name of Khayan found by Sir Arthur Evans at Knossos was also held for many decades to stop a raising of Aegean chronology, as otherwise indicated by the radiocarbon evidence – this too may go by the wayside now, and, indeed, it may instead be held as evidence indicating that an earlier date is necessary.

Of course, it will take time for such new realities to seep, drift, or sweep over the academic field of Aegean and east Mediterranean archaeology. A Canute-like tendency seems something of an archaeological trait in the east Mediterranean field. The text of A Test of Time Revisited in Manning (2014) reviews and analyses much of the evidence regarding the dating of the Thera volcanic eruption, including numerous figures to illustrate especially the radiocarbon dates and analyses. It also provides discussion and critique of scholarship which has sought to undermine or reject the radiocarbon-based evidence and date range.

Is the Thera date question important? Yes: the new evidence provides an important context and time-frame to reassess the history of the mid-second millennium BC east Mediterranean. In his The Making of the Middle Sea, Broodbank (2013: 383-386) states that the Hyksos capital, Avaris (Tell el-Dab‘a), went “supernova after 1650 BC”, and Broodbank rightly notes the enormous scale and potential importance of the Hyksos world, and wonders what would have happened if the Theban polity of Upper Egypt had not militarily defeated and erased this brilliant civilization. But, with the new timeline indicated by archaeology and science for Thera, Tell el-Dab‘a, and Khayan, we have a new quantum. Rather than being squeezed into the years before the rise of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, Avaris and its world can now rise in the late 18th century BC, with its great king Khayan – attested from finds bearing his name from Crete to Iraq to the Levant – around or shortly after 1700 BC, and then there are nearly another 150 years until the conquest of Avaris by Ahmose from Thebes. The Hyksos world, of trade and culture, is thus very clearly the critical milieu in which the transformational processes of Middle Cypriot III/Late Cypriot I Cyprus (first polities), latest Middle Helladic through Late Helladic I southern Greece (the Shaft Graves and emergence of Mycenaean polities), and Middle Minoan III through Late Minoan IA Crete (the floruit of the Neopalatial period) should be placed and viewed – and not the New Kingdom of Egypt. It is time for the Hyksos finally to get a better press. Re-dated, their world, driven out of the huge port city at Avaris in the Nile Delta, may become seen as a central force in the development of the wider east Mediterranean and Aegean, and the creation of a trading world and elite culture koine (observed notably in one aspect via its ‘Aegean’-style wall-paintings as best known at Akrotiri on Thera but also found from mainland Greece, Crete, western Anatolia, Rhodes, the Levant, and at what might be re-dated as late Hyksos palatial buildings at Tell el-Dab‘a). Several issues in early Aegean/Greek culture and history, from language to mythology, can find a better context with this new time-frame and milieu. The key is the correct chronology: read the book! To find out more, go to: http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/test-of-time.html.

 

References

Badertscher, S., Borsato, A., Frisia, S., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Tüysüz, O. and Fleitmann, D. 2014. Speleothems as sensitive recorders of volcanic eruptions – the Bronze Age Minoan eruption recorded in a stalagmite from Turkey. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 392: 58-66.

Bietak, M. 2013. Antagonisms in historical and radiocarbon chronology. In A.J. Shortland and C. Bronk Ramsey (eds.) Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt: 76-109. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bietak, M., Marinatos, N. and Palyvou, C. 2007. Taureador scenes in Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris) and Knossos. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Broodbank, C. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London: Thames & Hudson.

Cherubini, P., Humbel, T., Beeckman, H., Gärtner, H., Mannes, D., Pearson, C., Schoch, W., Roberto Tognetti, R. and Lev-Yadun, S. 2014. The olive-branch dating of the Santorini eruption, Antiquity 88: 267-73.

Dee, M.W. and Bronk Ramsey, C. 2014. 2014. High-precision Bayesian modeling of samples susceptible to inbuilt age. Radiocarbon 56: 83-94.

Friedrich, W., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M., Heinemeier, J., Pfeiffer, T. and Talamo, S. 2006. Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627-1600 BC. Science 312: 548.

Friedrich, W.L., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M., Heinemeier, J., Pfeiffer, T. and Talamo, S. 2014. The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting, Antiquity 88: 274-277.

Goodman-Tchernov, B.N., Dey, H.W., Reinhardt, E.G., McCoy, F. and Mart, Y., 2009. Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern Mediterranean shores, Geology 37: 943-946.

Johnston, E.N., Sparks, R.S.J., Phillips, J.C. and Carey, S. 2014. Revised estimates for the volume of the Late Bronze Age Minoan eruption, Santorini, Greece. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 171: 583-590.

Knappett, C., Evans, T. and Rivers, R. 2011. The Theran eruption and Minoan palatial collapse: new interpretations gained from modelling the maritime network. Antiquity 85: 1008-1023.

Kutschera, W., Bietak, M., Wild, E.M., Bronk Ramsey, C., Dee, M., Golser, R., Kopetzky, K., Stadler, P., Steier, P., Thanheiser, U. and Weninger, F. 2012.The chronology of Tell el-Daba: a crucial meeting point of 14C dating, archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd millennium BC. Radiocarbon 54: 407-422.

Manning, S.W. 1999. A Test of Time: the volcano of Thera and the chronology and history of the Aegean and east Mediterranean in the mid-second millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Manning, S.W. 2014. A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited. The volcano of Thera and the chronology and history of the Aegean and east Mediterranean in the mid-second millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Manning, S.W., Bronk Ramsey, C., Kutschera, W., Higham, T., Kromer, B., Steier, P. and Wild, E. 2006. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Science 312: 565-569.

Manning, S.W. and Kromer, B. 2012. Considerations of the scale of radiocarbon offsets in the east Mediterranean, and considering a case for the latest (most recent) likely date for the Santorini eruption, Radiocarbon 54: 449-474.

Moeller, N. and Marouard, G. (with a contribution by Ayers, N.) 2011. Discussion of late Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate Period history and chronology in relation to the Khayan Sealings from Tell Edfu, Ägypten und Levante 21: 87-121.

Toffolo, M.B., Arie, E., Martin, M.A.S., Boaretto, E. and Finkelstein, I. 2014. Absolute chronology of Megiddo, Israel, in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages: high-resolution radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 56: 221-244.

Graduate study in Classical-Mediterranean Archaeology in the USA – why, how, where? Some comments and general advice

At this time of the year would-be graduate students think about what to do, where to apply, and what is the meaning of ‘life, the universe and everything’. As a Professor of Classical Archaeology, I get a range of inquiries from students who would like to pursue study in the general area of Classical-Mediterranean archaeology. Cornell has a concentration in Classical Archaeology in its Classics Field (see: http://classics.cornell.edu/graduate/concentrations/archaeology.cfm; for the Cornell Graduate School, see: http://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/; for Cornell’s Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies, see: http://ciams.cornell.edu/about-ciams/).

Thus I offer a few thoughts on the general topics:

(i)    Why Classical Archaeology?
(ii)   And what should you know when considering this choice?

1. First a caveat: other areas of archaeology are fabulous too! Archaeology overall is unique in the humanities and sciences as it seeks to explore, understand, and explain the total time-span of human activities and material engagements on Earth. But this blog is focused on the areas of Classical-Mediterranean archaeology. Classical archaeology today covers all aspects of the study of the regions of the Earth within or neighboring the area of the greater classical world within a time-span typically from the origins of farming and the first towns (the Neolithic) through the post-Roman world of Late Antiquity.

2. If? Suppose you read below and feel you are not quite prepared yet, or firmly committed, but you really want to study graduate archaeology? The answer may be to consider taking an MA or equivalent first, both to establish background and CV, and to clarify what you really want to go on to study and work on. One example, shamelessly recommending my own University and its Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies, is the MA in Archaeology at Cornell: see http://ciams.cornell.edu/ma/. If lack of ancient language preparation is an issue – see below on this topic – then one option is to consider a Post-Baccalaureate program in classics as offered by a number of institutions (for a list of institutions in North America which offer graduate programs in Classics – the first column indicates those with a Post-Baccalaureate Program offering – see: http://apaclassics.org/education/list-of-graduate-programs-classics).

 

Sketch schematic indication of the total area of the Earth encompassed,
at one time or another by the Hellenistic-Roman worlds. Neighboring regions are also important to the classical world.

 

3. Why? Classical Archaeology is very much the original interdisciplinary field, the literal cornerstone of much of the western tradition. It combines the rich classical worlds and their history, culture and literature with the study of the material culture, monuments, art, landscapes and entanglements of the humans who lived in and around the area of the Greek and Roman civilizations and their neighbors, and their predecessors, and successors. See Map for approximate main area (plus then neighboring areas). The field engages with several thousand years of human lives, thoughts, actions, experiences and desires which intellectually and materially shaped much of the world around us, from central Asia to western Europe, North Africa to Scandinavia, and, via relatively recent European transplants, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and so on. Shelley in the preface to his Hellas (written 1821, published 1822) famously stated “We are all Greeks. Our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts have their root in Greece”, and a recent book by C.J. Richard, 2010, Why We’re All Romans: The Roman Contribution to the Western World, makes some similar claims for the Romans. (For those interested – which would hopefully include would-be graduate students in classical archaeology, see, on the history of classical archaeology and art in the USA, the book by S.L. Dyson, 1998, Ancient Marbles to American Shores. Classical Archaeology in the United States; and, for a history of classical archaeology in general by the same author, see S.L. Dyson, 2006, In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries). This centrality is because the Mediterranean, south-west Asia, and classical worlds were home to several of the key early civilizations of the world, produced many of the most recognizable and beautiful objects and buildings known to humanity, and shaped and inspired much subsequent human history and material expression. The greater Mediterranean region, the ‘Middle Sea’, formed an extraordinary cradle and conduit in the history of humanity – a relatively small region compressing an enormous range of geographies and resources around a navigable, almost inland, sea. It was a central region (and actor) in the wider human story from the Last Ice Age to the modern period. Exploring and trying to understand this complex record is both fascinating, and fundamental, as made clear in two key synthetic studies which every would-be student of classical archaeology should aim to read: (i) Broodbank, C. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea. A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World; and (ii) Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History.

Classical archaeology at a North American university comprises the study of the material culture – that is the landscapes, monuments, sites, artifacts and art – of the ancient Mediterranean world and western-central Europe north to Britain, as well as the neighboring regions and cultures. The field typically explores the period from the prehistoric era through to the Late Roman-Byzantine world, with a central focus on the civilizations of Greece and Rome. In recent years more emphasis has gone to considerations of those civilizations and areas on the margins of the Classical World, but which exerted significant influence from prehistory to late Antiquity, in particular to the east: Egypt, the Near East, and central Asia. It is important to remember that the Roman Empire, and its Hellenistic fore-runner, was merely the western end of a set of empires which formed and re-formed across the mid-latitudes of Eurasia from late prehistory to the modern period.

4. Requirements? How can you aim to be suitable for admission to a graduate program in classical archaeology (and of course win funding)?
(i) Ancient languages. Yes, it is classical archaeology, but all major programs require some background in at least one classical language (i.e. either ancient Greek or Latin) even to be seriously considered. Further, most major programs require students to achieve at least a reasonable competence in one of these languages before moving to the all-but-dissertation (ABD) stage. And you will be recommended to try in fact to acquire some standing in the other language if possible. This language requirement makes sense for two reasons. First, looking forward, if your aim after the PhD is a faculty position in a Classics Department, then competence in one or both languages is something of a sine qua non. Second, unless you plan solely to work in the prehistoric period, knowing one or both languages is relevant/useful/essential for your research. So, as an undergraduate, you should try to acquire at least a couple of years, or more, of either ancient Greek and/or Latin. If you are reaching the end of your undergraduate career, and you do not have much ancient language background, then options to consider are looking for intensive summer courses, and looking at Post-Baccalaureate Programs in classics (see 2. above).
(ii) Archaeology. Take some courses that give you evidence of background in classical archaeology and art-history, and also wider archaeology (so look at anthropological archaeology courses, Near Eastern archaeology courses, for example). If possible, seek to volunteer to be part of an archaeological project. This is likely going to be a highlight of one or more of your summers. If this is in the classical world, fine, but anywhere (including locally) is OK. The point is for you to see if you actually like fieldwork, and to impress a graduate committee that you have sought out real archaeological experience and worked successfully on a project. For suggestions of possible projects, ask the archaeology professors at your university, or look at e.g. the Archaeological Fieldwork Opportunities Bulletin (http://www.archaeological.org/fieldwork/afob).
(iii) Modern languages. Most programs will require you to pass a (fairly basic) reading exam in two modern languages – typically French and German –before becoming ABD. It is also important: a great deal of significant literature relevant to many topics in classical archaeology is written in non-English European languages, especially French and German (but for some areas Italian, Spanish, modern Greek, etc., may be as or more important). Thus to make yourself a strong applicant, and to get a head start, take one or more foreign language classes as an undergraduate, and especially consider French or German.
(iv) Personal statement. Make sure you have carefully researched the PhD programs you wish to apply to. Contact some of the professors, and especially those you think you would be interested to take courses with, and to work with. Your personal statement should make it clear that you want to come to the X (e.g. Classics) Department at Y University for their PhD (if general) or specific program/concentration (if there is one) for reasons based on your research of the program and mentioning some of the professors you want to work with and why. Explain your background and preparation and why you are suitable for admission. Give some indication of the research areas that interest you and why – but not too much detail and especially do not be too definite and determined that you will only study one specific topic (remember part of the point of the first couple of years of a PhD program is to experience additional areas and approaches, and you should seem open to development and seem teachable and able to develop – you may not, perhaps even should not, clearly identify your specific PhD topic until a couple of years into the program having read much more, taken new classes, talked more with faculty and other graduate students, and experienced more in classes, in labs, and in the field). Minimize dramatic ‘my whole life has been preparation for this’ type paragraphs – go factual and positive and professional.
(v) Writing sample. Utterly key. Yes you need good grades (obvious), and GRE scores (obvious) and yes you need some (three) professors who are prepared to write strong recommendations for you (obvious), but by far the most important thing is an impressive writing sample. This will likely be read both by professors interested in classical archaeology and those in other areas of classics. You need to impress both with a well written, interesting, and engaging paper. The paper should show evidence of thoughtful writing – independent critique and analysis by you – and the ability to use (and not just describe or list) evidence to make an argument. It should be properly referenced. Talk with your undergraduate professors. Select your best paper(s), discuss how they could be better. Consider a re-write. If there is an option to write a senior thesis – do so. Hopefully this can form a suitable writing sample. If you do not enjoy doing a senior thesis then reconsider your plans for graduate school.

Is this not all dreadfully conservative? Is archaeology not as important as, and independent of, the text-based approach to the classical world? Are we not breaking away from old stereotypes, and accessing a past beyond the world of the elite (almost exclusively) male literature studied for centuries from the Greek and Roman worlds? What about new anthropological approaches, archaeological science approaches, visual culture approaches, etc? Yes, yes. But… In the North American model (contrast Europe where there are regular departments of ‘Archaeology’), you have to fit at least somewhat into the disciplinary structure or you will simply not gain admission. Nor will there be any job for you to go to afterwards. You have to sort of fit the mold in order to then break (or re-shape) the mold. Plenty of exciting and radical work is on-going in graduate classical archaeology right now in the USA – but you have to gain admission first. Then you can seek to blend new interdisciplinary directions, ask new questions of previously non-studied data, push frontiers, use or develop archaeological science or IT techniques, and so on. And you do so starting from a solid platform, as a substantive scholar.

5. Where to apply? There are some strong general programs, including those well integrated with cognate departments/fields at their university, but key is to identify some faculty you want to study and work with. Do research: that is what the web is for. If you are really interested in the earlier, prehistoric periods, then do not apply somewhere which only does later material and topics. If you really want to do art-history in the classical period, then again choose appropriately. Do not apply somewhere where there is just one suitable faculty member – pick places with at least a small group of relevant faculty. See what resources are there – in particular: the library. If possible, visit and have a look, and meet some of the faculty (faculty are usually very happy to meet prospective students and to discuss their options – faculty want to recruit applications from good applicants too).

The top programs are much over-subscribed and so very competitive in terms of getting a place. But, of course, every year students get places at each of these programs – so it is a case of you making the best application you can (see above). Only apply to programs you really would like to go to. If you get one offer: be delighted. Do not apply to somewhere you do not want to go to. Graduate school to PhD is 5-7 years of your life – the decision to go to graduate school is a very important one in your life; you should only go to a place you really want to go to and which seems right for you. Your application list should all be first choices. If you get more than one offer: wonderful – you then have to decide among good choices.

Top programs? This depends on your preferences. It is not a case of picking a famous university. Study the offering and faculty in classical-Mediterranean archaeology (and related) carefully at each institution. A number of the ‘top’ universities in the USA at present do not in fact have strong Classics Departments, and especially classical archaeology programs. Centers of gravity change over time: you should try to go to a currently strong, or up-and-coming, center. Look for faculty who are not already emeritus or very close to. Check the scholars are research-active. Again look at the Department webpages, but also check out e.g. Academia.edu to see what the faculty have been doing in the recent (last 5 years) period. You want major active scholars who will be good to shape your studies and career, and write recommendations, for the next 10+ years. You of course do want a university with a major research library and associated resources – check.

A few programs strong in (interesting) classical archaeology (or classical archaeology and art) in the US at present, in no order of ranking nor as a comprehensive list by any means, are (author’s personal opinion):

Berkeley: Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology Program at the University of California, Berkeley, http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/ahma/

Brown: The Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World at Brown University, http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/

Cincinnati: The Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, http://classics.uc.edu/

Cornell: Concentration in Classical Archaeology, Field of Classics, Cornell University,
http://classics.cornell.edu/graduate/concentrations/archaeology.cfm

Michigan: The Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology at the University of Michigan, http://www.umich.edu/~ipcaa/

Stanford: The Department of Classics and the Archaeology Center, Stanford University, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/classics/home/index.html

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Department of Classics, UNC, http://classics.unc.edu/academics/graduate-programs-in-classics

North of the border it is also worth looking at both the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia.

NSF Funding and Archaeology

In an opinion piece (USA Today 30 September) entitled “Rethinking science funding”, Eric Cantor and Lamar Smith (respectively Majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee) argue that the US National Science Foundation (NSF) is wasting US tax payer dollars, citing concerns with funding research in the areas of the “social, behavioral and economic sciences” (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/30/cantor-gop-budget-science-spending-column/2896333/). Cantor and Smith go on to identify some grants which they state are questionable and not directly of benefit to Americans. They make the emotive statement that “Congress is right to ask why NSF chooses to fund research on Mayan architecture over projects that could help our wounded warriors or save lives”. They identify 10 projects they regard as particularly inappropriate for funding, of in total $3,203,154 (and in fact, ruling out one large project, 9 of the 10 account for $1,703,436); several are ‘archaeological’.

Some reaction seems appropriate since the Cantor and Smith argument is not only narrow and emotive, but worryingly sloppy, untrue, and in fact seeks a path which would impoverish the USA in several ways. One of their targets is the Bronze Age in Cyprus – a research interest of this author – thus I declare a personal interest. For some other reactions and similar arguments, see also: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/01/why-fund-studies-of-maya-architecture-instead-of-saving-lives/ and http://blogs.cornell.edu/adamtsmith/2013/10/02/archaeology-as-high-priority-research/ and http://jamesdoyle.net/2013/10/02/why-research-on-mayan-architecture-saves-lives/.

(i) Cantor and Smith create a false claim. Applications to the NSF for the funding of, for their example, Mayan architecture, compete only against other applications in the area of archaeology. They are not directly competing against, or taking money away from, medical research (or any other large, high-priority, areas). This archaeology panel represents only a tiny fraction of the total NSF budget. It offers (fairly minimal) support to a range of archaeology and related studies both in the USA, the Americas, and world-wide. This is relevant and important. Archaeology informs us about our heritage – a rich, global one for modern Americans – it also offers many relevant lessons for us now and for our future, ranging from how human societies have adapted to, or failed to adapt to, climate change in the past, to how urban settlements developed in different contexts world-wide over the past several thousand years and how and why some urban forms work and others fail over the long-term, to better understanding the development of economic paradigms and historical trends over the long term which help explain the context of today’s world and its future. For one recent paper arguing the relevance of archaeology as a key social science, see Smith et al. 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 7617-7621 (http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-EtAl-12-PNAS.pdf). We would all be much poorer for the lack of such studies. Cantor and Smith state they are concerned that the US remain globally competitive – something history and archaeology in fact informs us about in terms of origins and future (see the book by Ian Morris, Why the West Rules–for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, 2011) – and they specifically express concern that, for example, “High-energy physicists look to research conducted in Europe more than America”. And yet, if one does look to Europe, it is notable that the European Research Council (ERC) spends much more on archaeology and related studies than the USA as well, and is not just spending on high-energy physics. If there is a point: it is the decline of US spending over the past generation on many areas of research (in preference to other things, and tax cuts primarily benefiting the wealthy – the top 20% and especially 1% – for example, see section 3. in http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/). This is something which should worry the US population – and especially voters.

(ii) Let us consider just the money. The NSF budget is around $7 billion (2012 figure – e.g. http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/04/nsf-budget-year-starts-out-well – since NSF pages are currently unavailable). This is a little over half what goes to the three national science agencies ($13.1 billion in 2013, $13.9 billion in 2012): the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories (data from http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/rdbudgets). The NSF’s $7 billion is then a little over 10% of the total non-defense annual federal Research and development budget ($64 billion in 2013, $66.8 billion in 2012). The awards identified by Cantor and Smith in their article amount to less than 0.05% of annual NSF spending, or about 0.005% (1/20,000th) of total federal research spending in a year. The projects identified are therefore so insignificant in the overall scheme of the total US spend on basic research that it is a questionable waste of the highly paid Congressmen’s time to be writing such an article (attacking the 0.005%). The Congressmen are of course funded by the taxpayer (so they are wasting our money – which they claim to be trying to protect) – and they are being paid even during the current government shutdown, unlike other federal employees.

(iii) Cantor and Smith state they support medical and related research and wish to see it fulfill its goals of helping people in need. This is of course a vital national concern and an area any civilized society should prioritize. But here also is an area for the Congressmen to better concentrate their attention towards. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) receive over $30 billion a year (more than 4x as much as the NSF in total), and, despite much great science occurring as a result, there are regular fraud cases in the multi-million dollar range with, for just one example, Northwestern University this past summer (2013) agreeing to pay back nearly $3 million to resolve allegations of grant fraud by a cancer researcher (see: http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2013/pr0730_01.html).

(iv) In general, Cantor and Smith appear to dislike any research projects not about the USA and any in the areas of the “social, behavioral and economic sciences”. This highly xenophobic view seems to miss several highly relevant issues all of benefit to the USA. First, the USA does not and cannot exist in isolation – indeed Cantor and Smith note with alarm how China and Europe and Russia seem to be ahead in areas of research – and research on areas, peoples, and issues outside the USA invariably provides information, training and useful engagements of benefit to the USA (and hopefully the other partners). Even at the isolationist, right-wing, extreme, Cantor and Smith should remember the advice of Sun Tzu: know your enemy. Further, in the modern world, few topics are purely local; engagement in global research is essential if the USA is to remain at the forefront of research (in any area). The research projects Cantor and Smith critically highlight will almost all involve students from US universities. Two are of a financial level that they are likely in direct support of PhD students at US universities. Thus these projects are providing support towards training the next generation of globally aware and engaged leaders in academia and elsewhere. Whereas Cantor and Smith bemoan that these projects are overseas, look at the list of areas just for the projects they single out: Bolivia, China, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Mexico (and northern central America), Mongolia, New Zealand, Russia. These include a number of highly important, strategic, or problematic loci of considerable relevance to the USA. Research and engagement by students and faculty of US universities can only be valuable.

(v) Cantor and Smith claim it is unclear how these (to them questionable) grants are awarded and claim that there is a lack of information. This is simply untrue and dishonest. Their attack on the NSF is cynically timed such that one cannot even check facts regarding the claims made by Cantor and Smith because the Government shutdown principally forced by their Republican Party (trying to overturn the results of the last election) means that the NSF websites and similar sources of information are not presently available. The overall NSF budget and its main divisions are approved by Congress. There is (when the federal government is not shut down) considerable information on each program on the NSF website and details on how applications are to be made. An application for funding typically requires a 15 page text (some programs require more, and a few, such as those supporting doctoral candidates, less), full references, detailed budgets, CVs for the applicants and key project staff, and information on facilities, mentoring of postdoctoral students, and so on. Writing and assembling each application is a major task – daunting is an under-statement and why many university faculty never apply – and takes many weeks to months of work (usually by a group). The applications are then reviewed anonymously and, such is the small amount of funding available versus the applications received in most categories, most are rejected and receive no funding. A few, top, applications receive funding in each round of the various funding schemes. As required by the NSF, these projects will have articulated both “the intellectual merit of the proposed activity” and “the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity”. The process is rigorous if not almost masochistic. Cantor and Smith complain that only the summaries of each project are made available (these summaries are required as part of the overall applications and to be written for the general public versus a scientific readership) – as senior members of Congress they know this is not how the applications are reviewed and judged and grants are awarded – and so they mislead. If Cantor and Smith want copies of every 50+ page application sent to them as well as the NSF, then I am sure researchers all over the USA would happily bury them in pdfs/paper.

In all, in 2013, the USA is budgeted to spend over $140 billion on federal Research and Development (R&D), more than half of this on defense. To spend a tiny, tiny, amount of this vast sum on trying better to understand the world and human engagements with it, both inside and outside the USA, past and present, is an important and strategic investment. If Cantor and Smith really want to worry about value for money and priorities, then it would seem likely they should carefully examine some of the other 99.995% of federal R&D spending.

Why archaeology?

Archaeology is the study (by all available means) of how and why we have become what we are: the story of human origins and history from the earliest times to the present day and of our engagements with the world around us. It necessarily focuses on material culture and remains in the prehistoric periods, and embraces texts and other sources in the historic periods. It especially offers the potential to encounter some of the (vast majority of) people not included in the elite’s written history of the world until the modern era.

Archaeology as a field has undergone a remarkable intellectual expansion over the last few decades. On the one hand, the field has embraced new techniques developed in the physical and chemical sciences for analyzing sites and objects in increasing detail. The burgeoning sub-field of archaeometry (or archaeological science) has carried archaeological analysis to the elemental and atomic level with advanced chronometric, geochemical, and radiometric techniques. At the same time, ongoing engagements with archaeological theory have pushed the field towards increasingly sophisticated accounts of the materiality of social reproduction from the remote past to the immediate present. Hence, archaeology has redefined itself from a study of past artifacts to an encompassing approach to the historical development of human relations with our material world (landscapes and things).

At Cornell we aim to pursue this conversation joining the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences via the Cornell Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies (CIAMS): http://ciams.cornell.edu/about-ciams/.