​AT: How would you define history of archaeology?

AP: The history of archaeology is a different kind of digging than what you do in an ancient site. Historians of archaeology are after the links between the material remains of distant pasts and population groups that lived in comparatively less distant pasts, be they nations, elites, ordinary people, excavation workers, women, trained and amateur archaeologists, etc., or even institutions, such as museums or the League of Nations. They study archival documents, publications, photographs, videos and other mostly written or audiovisual primary sources in order to decipher the reception of antiquities by such people and institutions, the meanings and values that these ascribed to ancient finds, the uses they made out of antiquities, and the purposes of such uses. It is a particularly diverse field that brings together many different sources, techniques, theoretical approaches, even disciplines.   

AT: What is your area of research in the history of archaeology?

AP: I specialize in the history of archaeology, heritage and the classical reception in the Ottoman long 19th century. I look extensively into primary sources in Ottoman Turkish and Greek, and this allows me a close-up both to the Ottoman state and Ottomans writing in the official language of the state on the one hand and (Ottoman) Greeks in all their diversity on the other hand. This means that I can also read Karamanlidika, that is, Turkish written with the Greek alphabet, a linguistic hybrid used mostly by the Turkish-speaking Greek Orthodox in Cappadocia. Moreover, I speak French, the lingua franca of the long 19th century, and this too opens up new vistas in my research. In my work I make sure to study mainstream actors and topics as well as lesser known aspects in the history of archaeology, such as the reception of antiquities by ordinary (i. e. non-elite) Ottoman Greeks.

​AT: How did you become interested in the history of archaeology?

​AP: I had questions and I couldn’t get satisfactory answers! So, I had to look for answers myself. This applies primarily to Ottoman history, which is my broader field of expertise. But then, once into Ottoman studies, I had to decide among a few topics of special interest for my PhD.

I had always been fascinated by antiquities. As a child growing up in Greece, Antiquity and its material remains formed part of my daily life. Roads were named after ancient or medieval locations, I was aware that the Athenian suburb where I lived was where Euripides had his house in ancient times, and the local newspaper covered archaeological discoveries made during the construction of houses in our area. Also, the Near and Middle East, which I hold dear in my heart, is not simply rich in antiquities. Antiquities are central to understanding important aspects of the cultures and identities formed in the region. For example, look at the Ottoman Greeks and their interest in the classical and Byzantine past. Or the Lebanese and the Phoenicians. The importance of Islamic monuments for Arabs. Or the value that Turks ascribe to prehistoric finds, among other. And at the same time, this region became a hotspot for Europeans and Americans looking for the roots of their culture. To me, the history of archaeology has been a unique gateway to understanding the Ottoman Empire in its last phase as a multi-layered crossroads of peoples, identities, ideas and practices.    

AT: Are you working on anything in particular related to the history of archaeology right now?

AP: Until recently, as post-doctoral research fellow at the Research Centre for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED, Koç University), I worked on a project on the reception of antiquities by ordinary Ottoman Greeks in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia. In the history of archaeology, we still seem to privilege the educated elites over ordinary people, and for this reason this project has been of special importance to me. Moreover, as the archive I worked on is a collection of testimonies by Ottoman Greeks after they settled in Greece as refugees, trauma permeates what they convey to us. This adds some very interesting layers of analysis in the history of archaeology, and actually turns the history of archaeology into a vehicle for understanding broader questions besides the reception of antiquities stricto sensu.

In the academic year 2023-2024, I dedicate some time to the study of the reception of Byzantium by Ottoman Muslims. My starting point is a book in Ottoman Turkish on Kariye Mosque, that is, the Chora Monastery in Constantinople published in 1910. The book in question is an art historical treatise dating from a very interesting period for Byzantine monuments in the Ottoman capital. My main project however is the reception of Alexander the Great by the Turkish-speaking Greek Orthodox in Cappadocia in the 19th century. This is more of a classical reception project, but the classical reception informed the interest of local people on antiquities back then. Although we know a lot about Alexander the Great in western traditions and in the persianate world, we know close to nothing about how his legend affected the Turkish-speaking but Greek Orthodox Cappadocians, a minority that by means of its language (Turkish) and religion (Greek Orthodox) stood between two worlds, the Ottoman Turkish and the Greek ones.    
   
AT: What, from your experience, is the most meaningful thing you've come across in history of archaeology research and why?

AP: There are so many… But one of the things that I enjoy the most and in which I find meaning is the host of voices that have been developed over the years in history of archaeology research. History of archaeology is a field that invites research work not only by historians but also by experts originating in other disciplines, including archaeologists, art historians, conservators, and architects. It thus becomes a ground for extraordinary cross-fertilizations and dialogue. 

AT: Do you have any favourite books (academic or popular) related to the history of archaeology? Titles and authors would be great, and a few thoughts as to why.

AP: One of my favourite books in the history of archaeology is “Scramble for the Past” (Bahrani et.al. (eds.), SALT, 2011). It brings together many aspects related to archaeology in the Ottoman domains in the long 19th century, and when it first came out it broke new ground in the way we approach Ottoman archaeological history. Even more than 10 years after its publication, it remains relevant. 

AT: Is there a key object/ image/ text from an archive that inspires you or that you keep revisiting?

AP: I very much like the logo of the Imperial Museum, that is, the Ottoman archaeological museum in Constantinople. It is in Ottoman Turkish and reads as “Müze-i Hümayun” in what seems to me to be Gothic fonts. I can spend a long time just looking at its two words and trying to think of how it might have been created in the first place: the discussions about having a logo, the choice of font, any changes requested and the final approval, its first ever use. It survives as letterhead in the official correspondence of the Museum and in its period publications. Perhaps elsewhere too…

​​AT: Any advice for those interested in starting research on the history of archaeology?

AP: Always be aware that what you will work on is but a minuscule part of a vast area of past human activity. Be open to the new and the unexpected, and ready to challenge your very own assumptions.

AT: From your perspective, what are the key issues in the history of archaeology right now?

AP: I believe that we need to continue working on the elites, because formal archaeology was after all an elite activity, but at the same time systematically provide more space to ordinary people, women, and locals who engaged with antiquities within or without a formal archaeological context. Their views are no less valuable and consequential than the ones of those who happened to be privileged at a specific time in history. 

Also, provenance research is important and can help tackle issues that go beyond the strictly academic type of inquiry. It is a bridge between the study of culture and the actual formation of culture. Provenance research can help us decide in what kind of a society we want to live, and what kind of relations we want to have we the rest of the world. This is valid not only for former colonialist powers that collected antiquities from other countries oftentimes by taking advantage of their superior might, but also for countries of origin that have largely shaped their identity as being sole guardians of heritage in their lands.    

AT: How can people learn more about your research (personal blog, twitter, etc)?

​AP: You can follow me on academia.edu or ResearchGate:
https://harvard.academia.edu/ArtemisPapatheodorou 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Artemis-Papatheodorou

Thomas is Curator of the Cyprus Collection at the British Museum. Interview with Dr Amara Thornton, IoA History of Archaeology Network Coordinator.  ​

AT: How would you define history of archaeology?
 
TK: In a basic way, it is – or at least should be – just a subsection of the histories of science/exploration/discovery, broadly defined, as well as I suppose of the disciplinary developments within archaeology itself. Tim Murray and others have noted how archaeology has tended to define its own history pretty much from the beginning of its institutional phase in the later 19th century, and has generally been written by archaeologists, so it has generally avoided the same scrutiny as the history of science which has a much broader disciplinary base. 
 
At the same time, it’s also a subsection of general imperial and colonial history, especially when carried out in areas that came under imperial and colonial control, and where diggers had explicit agenda – though saying that, the broader urge to explore and record can be found in among naturalists or ethnographers who often were interested in antiquities. More broadly still, it’s the history of ‘encounters’, including within countries where elite collectors and excavators (often local landowners and bigwigs) mapped out nations and controlled their histories through their recording of archaeological remains. 
 
One shouldn’t put as much emphasis on the social and political impact or aims/ideology of archaeology as is widespread nowadays, but I think you can represent the history of the subject as a search for origins and identities, but also of change and flux, regardless of where or how this actually happened.    

AT: What is your area of research in the history of archaeology?
 
TK: Mainly 18th to 20th century Cyprus (and the Eastern Mediterranean in the same period more broadly), though working in a British Museum (BM) Mediterranean environment inevitably pans out into broader fields, such as museum procedures and admin – sounds dull, but is interesting (and certainly necessary) as we are very concerned about how we report and reflect our collecting history. I'm also fascinated by the role of the antiquities market in defining museum acquisitions and valorisation of artefacts. 
 
AT: How did you become interested in the history of archaeology?
 
TK: Like lots of people interested in archaeology, I was fascinated by the history of discoveries, which is probably how a lot of us get into the subject. Ironically, that interest probably waned as I started to study archaeology at university. I remember the lecturer in my first year core archaeology class talking about antiquarians and old archaeological theories, but even if he didn’t like Processual archaeology, he tended to be relatively dismissive of earlier archaeologists. 
 
When I was doing my PhD, I saw the history of the subject as a sideshow, and like many just rolled my eyes at what I saw as the ridiculousness of early excavators, such as Luigi Palma di Cesnola. I certainly didn’t realise how important archives were for archaeological purposes, let alone broader historical questions. 
 
It was only when I started work at the BM, and began to engage with the subject from within the archive, that I got hooked – first because I realised that you couldn’t understand the collections archaeologically without knowing how they were found and handled, and then more historically in understanding the motivations of early archaeologists. Bit by bit, all the different bits of the subject coalesced into what I hope is a more joined-up interest in the subject.   
 
AT: Are you working on anything in particular related to the history of archaeology right now?
 
TK: I’m finishing a big edition of correspondence relating to various phases of the history of Cypriot archaeology in the 19th century, from the late Ottoman consular activities to the fairly large-scale expeditions of the British Museum. Related to this, I’m also co-working on a paper on a Cypriot antiquarian and collector, Demetrios Pierides, and his relationship to the antiquity market – something that really interests me, as it’s very relevant to modern discussions of the trade. Finally, I’m also involved in a series of workshops on archaeology in the British colonial period in Cyprus with Lindy Crewe, Director of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in Nicosia and Anna Reeve, University of Leeds.  It had to go virtual, but the benefit is now that you can all join in (www.caari.org/programs).   

AT: What, from your experience, is the most exciting thing you've come across in history of archaeology research and why?
 
I think it’s fair to say that as in archaeology itself it’s often more a question of many small discoveries, and eureka moments when things start to connect in a way they didn’t at the beginning. Likewise with finding documents and photographs that you thought were missing, but were simply in a different file. Finding original photographs is always exciting, especially when they show local people – the elephant in the room of the history of archaeology. The edition of correspondence I mention above is joining up lots of individual stories and making sense of things which were very vague at the beginning. One very fun discovery was the Latin-based telegraphic code used by the British Museum’s supervisors in Cyprus to communicate with London.     
 
AT: Do you have any favourite books (academic or popular) related to the history of archaeology? Titles and authors would be great, and a few thoughts as to why.
 
TK: I have to be loyal to the books that first inspired me. Henri-Paul Eydoux’s In search of lost worlds (whose original French title, A la recherche des mondes perdus is clearly a play on another far less interesting book!) and Michael Wood’s In search of the Trojan War – I bought this book after seeing the memorable TV show back in the day when a TV company would make a 6 part documentary on one subject! 
 
Of more recent titles, I really like Maya Jasanoff’s Edge of Empire, Zeynap Çelik’s About antiquities on Ottoman archaeology, while Jacqueline Yallop’s Magpies, squirrels and thieves is a great read on collecting more generally. Likewise, Karolyn Schindler’s biography of Dorothea Bate, Discovering Dorothea, is great – Bate was primarily a palaeontologist, but her contacts and networks all overlapped with archaeologists and their broader worlds. They all in a sense project a sense of the serendipity and subjectivity, of how much individuals shaped the disciplines (and often went against the social grain). They all have great narratives, which are essential to the subject itself, but especially in engaging broad audiences. I love reading old travel accounts too, even if you have to take a deep breath at the prejudices expressed. 
 
One great joy of working where I do is our stunning collection of early books of travel and exploration, especially archaeology, and it’s wonderful to look at them in their glorious original scale and smell. My department has two (!) sets of Richard Pococke’s Description of the East of 1751. It’s a marvel.   
 
Conversely, while I won’t name names, but there are also loads of rather mundane chronicles of archaeological discovery out there that leave a lot to be desired. And, lots of writing on the subject is frankly a bit dull, especially when aspiring to being hyper-intellectual. It kind of squeezes the joy out of the subject and leaves potential readers of critical history rather cold.

AT: Is there a key object/image/text from an archive that inspires you or that you keep revisiting? 
 
TK: I really love the surviving field notebooks where excavators recorded their finds and began to grapple with what we would now call the ‘discipline of archaeology’. There is one by John Myres where he records the finds from tombs at Amathus in Cyprus a really meticulous way, but at the back are loads of scribbles and thoughts but also an attempt to ‘seriate’ the tombs in order to date them better. Myres has been called the ‘father of Cypriot archaeology’, and you can see his mind working, and the discipline coming into being in front of your eyes.