During our participation in the study season of the Ancient Cities of Boetia Project in Central Greece in August 2018, we had the honour to meet the Emeritus Professor of Classical Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, Prof. Anthony Snodgrass. Professor Snodgrass changed the way we study Mediterranean Archaeology and his work has and still is inspiring generations of archaeologists. Therefore, we took advantage of such an opportunity and decided to ask him some questions that interest us. In this brief interview we discussed with Professor Snodgrass a number of subjects including the Classical Archaeology, the Cypriot Archaeology, the Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum, the Boeotia Project as well as the future of Archaeology in general.
What is Classical Archaeology for you?
“Many years ago, in 1973 there was a famous article by David Clark in the journal Antiquity, which said that it was time for archaeology to make contributions to other subjects. I’ve lived most of my life surrounded by prehistorians and I found that they were not contributing outwards, to other sciences. It is in Classical Archaeology where other people come to the archaeologists to get information. Historians most obviously, but also even literary classicists. And for me that is Classical archaeology. It is a subject which can help other Sciences and it can of course contribute to Prehistory too. After all that is what Archaeology should be.”
What was the impetus for your study of Cypriot archaeology in the early 80s?
“The impetus was first of all my friendship with Vasos Karagheorghis, but secondly, I was very interested in studying iron and particularly the origins of iron working. This is something that does not interest many people. It doesn’t even interest metalworking specialists because it is ugly and they like beautiful bronzes and gorgeous silver and gold jewelry. Iron is never beautiful. But of course, the truth is that iron is more important than any of these other metals because it has supplied technology for the world for about three thousand years. Even today, you know, some basic things are still made of iron. So, in a sense, we are still living in the Iron age.”
You wrote in your article in 1982 that Cyprus was the first place in Mediterranean to pass from the Bronze age to the Iron age. Over the years more research has been conducted in this field. Do you still believe that this theory is valid, in your opinion?
“Possibly yes, because the argument was how quickly do you give up bronze and adapt to iron for the same purposes. In Cyprus they gave up bronze weapons in the Cypriotgeometric I and even in the Late Cypriot III, when other regions went on using bronze and iron. That was my argument then and I have not really heard of any decisive dating evidence that would prove this wrong. Although, it did make a lot of Israeli archaeologists very angry because they think they have the raw materials, which they do, but from the archaeological evidence it seems that they continued to use both bronze and iron, whereas in Cyprus after a period of time there were no bronze weapons, there were no bronze tools…However, this is not conclusive.”
When you expressed this argument, that Cyprus was the first place to pass from the Bronze age to the Iron age didn’t you think that some people would not easily accept it, because Cypriot archaeology was still developing in 1982?
“Archaeology is constantly developing. There was some very good work being done already at that time and excavations of the 70s and 80s appeared in print within three years, something which did not happen in the Levantine countries. This made it possible to look at Cypriot archaeology and take it very seriously.”
Regarding the Boeotian project. How did your cooperation with Professor Bintliff and your participation in that project came up?
“Me and Bintliff coincided twice, first while working on the excavation of the Menelaion in the 1970s. Then, in 1976 when Bintliff had just finished his PhD at Cambridge and I had just arrived there, and because we had the same interests, we both felt that traditional excavation had become less and less attractive. Firstly, because it was so expensive and secondly because it was not so easy to get excavation permission in Greece. Thirdly, nobody knew what survey could achieve and people were put off by it because they thought it was not exciting, but, potentially we thought, it could tell us much more than most excavations did and in a shorter time.”
How did you get involved in the committee for the return of the Parthenon marbles in Greece? Why is it taking so long? What are the reasons?
“I was always in strong support of it and after the death of Robert Browning, Professor of Byzantine history, I was asked in 2002 to take over as chairman. As a chairman I found out a whole lot of new things such as for example that the return of the marbles was not a cultural issue in Britain but a political one. There have been times when the British Labour party had said that the marbles should go back where they belong, but this did never happen while Labour was in power. At the moment, Labour party has a leader who does want them to go back and maybe things will change this time… In my time as a chairman I went around lecturing on the subject in Britain, in Scotland, in Ireland, in Germany, in France, in Switzerland, in Sweden, in Australia, in America and in Belgium. Everywhere the audience tended to be supportive and of course in the case of Britain, this is an indication that most of the British population want this to happen, but they cannot find a way to get this view being represented politically. So, it doesn’t have to do with the British Museum that the marbles don’t come back. The British Museum in reality is dependent on the parliament. There is of course another big reason and that is the so called flood gate argument. At this moment other countries such as Nigeria are asking about the Benin bronzes and Egypt about the Rosetta stone…If they send back the marbles they will have to send back all of the rest of the stolen artifacts… In fact all it needs is a quick act of parliament like the one they did with the human tissues of Australia…”
Do you believe that the Parthenon marbles will go back to Greece one day?
“Yes. I’ve heard somebody saying ‘By a hundred years’ time they will definitely be back in Athens, by fifty years not so sure, by twenty years no, that’s too quick…’”
What is the significance of the Parthenon marbles in the history and identity of the Greece?
“Very great. The ‘Dog in the Manger’ fable of Aesop represents exactly what the Parthenon marbles are for the Greeks. The story goes like this: There was a big basin full of hay and the dog lies on the hay. In reality the dog does not eat the hay, he doesn’t need it. And then the horses come who are very hungry, and they do need the hay and they want to get it, but the dog growls at them and refuses to move although the truth is that the dog is not terribly interested in the hay. Well, that is not altogether different from the reality of the Parthenon marbles… From the visitors of the British Museum, one in five wants to see the Parthenon marbles and people generally don’t know about them…but Greeks do.”
What do you think are the main research questions to be answered by the future generations in the field of history and archaeology?
“Well, my views are not the views of most people. In the last 35 years we have seen an enormous change in the world economic theory and practice. Since the time of Prime Minister Thatcher, there has been an enormous emphasis on business, commerce, wealth and profit. This has worked its way into the academic field. Historians of all periods are rewriting history in terms of business, commerce, wealth and profit…I’ve seen an article on market principles in Early Bronze age Mesopotamia. I find this absolutely extraordinary. But no, it’s not extraordinary, it’s predictable from the political atmosphere. In 2007 we had a terrible economic crisis. Now we maybe on the way to another one and people are beginning to rethink economic policies and when they will do it, I am sure that academics will follow and review history all over again…Unfortunately Archaeology is related to politics, but there is no reason for archaeological theory to follow contemporary political theories. I suggest focusing on agriculture. 90 per cent of the population, were dependent on agriculture which is ten times more important than trade and politics in the ancient world, I think.”
Panagiotis Theodoulou, Graduate ISA
Judith Gatt, 4th year ISA
Christianna Kelepeshi, 4th year ISA
Loizos Ioannou, 3rd year ISA
Comentários