Monuments, Materiality, and Meaning in the Classical Archaeology of Anatolia.

Abstract

This dissertation studies Classical archaeologists’ perceptions of their discipline’s social context in Anatolian Turkey. Greco-Roman sites (100 BCE-300 CE) are important in the Turkish economy, but play a smaller role in national identity. Historically, archaeologists have been disconnected from these concerns; now, they are called to practice “stewardship” and collaborate with locals to create knowledge about the past. Initial chapters place Turkish archaeology in historical context. In late Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia, the past was deployed as polemic about civic and ethnic identity and material evidence used for political ends. In the early modern period (1400-1800), European travelers suggested that Anatolian sites had a space and time distinct from their Ottoman surroundings, but connected to Europe. Ottoman and Turkish modernizers resisted European appropriation of sites, successfully asserting control over sites and artifacts by 1930. Today, tourism growth in Turkey has fired debates about whether sites should be used for entertainment or scientific research. Remaining chapters explore how archaeologists, architects, conservators, government, and NGOs view this debate. Interviews illuminate attitudes toward public outreach, stakeholders, site management, tourism, and authenticity. Archaeologists agree that public outreach is important, yet outreach in practice focuses on academic and foreign audiences. Local residents are seen as disinterested in archaeology and receive little attention. Although their conservation efforts are effective, archaeologists see management as peripheral to excavation. Some resist participation, fearing that they will be marginalized if other groups become involved. Few Turkish sites have management plans or consult with non-archaeologists. Growing archaeological tourism leads to conservation impacts and inauthentic presentations of the past. Archaeologists, however, continue to take a reactive rather than proactive stance. They prefer sites that allow romantic contemplation of the past, an experience incompatible with mass tourism. With experience, they become more aware of tourism and management – yet this awareness is acquired only slowly. The dissertation concludes with recommendations: 1) adding training in conservation, management, and ethics to archaeology programs; 2) integrate site management and outreach activities into research designs and funding applications; and 3) broaden the definition of archaeology itself, to build political capital and improve stewardship of the past.