ABSTRACT
Archaeological survey has sought to explore the evolution of the Greek countryside over time. Like excavation methodologies in Greece, survey techniques have changed radically in recent decades. Valuable unsystematic work by individuals prospecting for period-specific sites (Wiseman, 1978) have been supplemented by several systematic multi-period surveys of relatively small areas. The latter projects successfully draw on the expertise of physical, historical, economic and social geographers in an attempt to integrate the cultural landscape with the physical landscape (for example, Wells, 1996; Cavanagh et al., 1996; Cherry et al., 1991). While great advances in our understanding of rural Greece have accordingly been made, systematic survey and the conclusions drawn from it are hampered for the period of Late Antiquity by several constraints. The bulk of the survey finds are roof tiles and undiagnostic body sherds of household pottery. While some conclusions can be drawn from fabric typologies and site assemblage seriation, the finite chronology of the periods of occupation derives from less common feature sherds, decorated pieces and diagnostic imports; as a result, the accuracy of dating a site’s occupation is limited by factors such as relative wealth, distance from a market and, where they exist, the quality of studies on local pottery typologies.
