Testing the Hinterland: The Work of the Boeotia Survey (1989-1991) in the Southern Approaches to the City of Thespiai (review)

Testing the Hinterland marks the first of the presumably several volumes that will collectively present the definitive results of the Boeotia Project. This volume is concerned with material recovered from the intensive survey of a 5.2 km² "hinterland" zone that borders the ancient city of Thespiai, the remains of which are under modern cultivation. The second volume of the Boeotia survey will evidently address the material recovered from the ancient city itself, with subsequent publications tackling the large rural portions of the wider region. The focus of this volume is thus on "subrural" settlement and land use of the area around Thespiai from prehistory through the Medieval period, with a notable concentration on the Classical to Late Roman periods, the remains of which dominate the archaeological record in this region.

There is already a substantial corpus of publications arising directly or indirectly from the Boeotia Project (helpfully listed in this volume's appendix), and many will already be familiar with some of the important methodological and theoretical insights that Bintliff and colleagues have made to Aegean survey and the long-term culture history of Greece. Some of these contributions, such as the "hidden prehistoric landscape" theory that explains the difficulty in identifying prehistoric sites (Bintliff et al 1999; 2002), the "manuring hypothesis" that accounts for "off-site" artefact patterns (Snodgrass 1994; Bintliff 2000) and, more generally, why there are population cycles in the Mediterranean (Bintliff 1997; 1999), are directly applied to the analysis and interpretation of this data set. Some familiarity with the authors' earlier publications is thus helpful for fleshing out their methodological and theoretical approach to this set of data, as well as helping place this piece in the wider context of the theory and method of Aegean survey.

The Boeotia Project is, of course, one of very many regional surveys that have taken place in Greece over the last three or four decades. In fact, Cherry 2003 notes 85 since the 1970s, and this has grown by probably another ten or so in the last five years. However, few of these are well published. By this I mean not only that the results of the survey project have been fully disseminated, but that there is also sufficient disclosure of the crucial information of sampling procedures, together with sufficient raw data to allow comparative study and, if necessary, re-analysis. It really is all in the details. For example, at the risk of stating the obvious, there is a significant difference between being provided with a small-scale map showing the distribution of Hellenistic, or Middle Bronze, or Late Roman "sites", versus the publication of "raw" data showing sherd counts and distributions broken down by transect and period across a survey area. Whereas the former is a cleaner, but necessarily massive simplification of a complex data set that can subsequently only be used at face value, the latter allows other researchers the opportunities to examine data patterns at a higher level of resolution than summary presentations otherwise allow. This in turn facilitates comparative analysis and re-use of survey data, which is critical if we are to do anything at scales of analysis broader than the nominal "regions" with which surveys concern themselves. Given the now near ubiquitous use of GIS and related tools in survey work, there is an increased trend towards the re-use of data for inter-regional comparisons, and the move to an "Open Data" model is overdue, but will benefit us all.

The first volume of the Boeotia Project is a good example of this welcome recent trend of providing more basic information on collection strategies and transect-level raw data. It also presents survey data in an honest way, disclosing issues with sampling procedures, including possible sources of error and biases...