Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-wfgm8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-25T12:44:41.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 Survey and landscape archaeology in Greece in the twenty-first century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2025

Alex R. Knodell*
Affiliation:
Carleton College, United States

Abstract

Over 100 archaeological survey projects – of various kinds – have taken place in Greece over the last quarter century, making it one of the most intensively studied countries in Europe from the perspective of landscape archaeology, defined by various types of interest in settlement patterns and human–environmental interaction at spatial scales beyond the individual site. This article examines the practice of survey archaeology in Greece over the last 25 years, with a particular focus on projects that have taken place in the last 10 years. More broadly, it presents large-scale trends in surveys since their coalescence as a systematic form of archaeological research in the late 1950s, based on a dataset of 204 individual projects, mapped and classified according to type, spatial scale, methods, and chronology. Surveys in the twenty-first century exhibit considerable variety in methods and goals, with many characterized by smaller spatial scales, the integration of various types of remote sensing, and a focus on archaeological sites; we see fewer of the large-scale, diachronic regional surveys that became widespread in the later twentieth century. This variety – along with the increasing production and availability of high-quality, multi-modal data – should be applauded, though regional analysis remains a critical strength and important goal for landscape archaeologists in Greece. Lingering problems include publication lag, digital data availability and interoperability, and (occasional) over-emphasis on methodology as an end in and of itself, sometimes at the expense of historical and anthropological research questions. Promising developments for the future concern: (1) the investigation of landscapes that have received little attention from systematic surveys (highlands, mountains, forests, uninhabited islands), especially via remote sensing; (2) the publication, reanalysis, and interpretation of ‘legacy’ datasets; and (3) the integration of survey datasets across multiple scales to address ‘big-picture’ questions in the history and archaeology of Greece, as well as themes of wider significance.

Information

Type
Archaeology in Greece [2024–2025]
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and The British School at Athens

Introduction

Greece has a particular pride of place in the history of Mediterranean survey. It was home to a foundational project in the form of the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME; McDonald and Rapp Reference McDonald and Rapp1972), it was a hotbed for the incubation of intensive survey techniques that became mainstream around the Mediterranean between the 1970s and 1990s, and it has a very high number of systematic archaeological survey projects per square kilometre in comparison with other parts of the Mediterranean. There is also a long history of summarizing and reflecting on the practice of archaeological survey in Greece (e.g. Cherry Reference Cherry, Keller and Rupp1983; Reference Cherry and Kardulias1994; Bennet and Galaty Reference Bennet and Galaty1997; Tartaron Reference Tartaron2007; Bintliff Reference Bintliff2018; Knodell and Leppard Reference Knodell and Leppard2018; Attema et al. Reference Attema, Bintliff, Van Leusen, Bes, De Haas, Donev, Jongman, Kaptijn, Mayoral, Menchelli, Pasquinucci, Rosen, García Sánchez, Gutierrez Soler, Stone, Tol, Vermeulen and Vionis2020; Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Wilkinson, Leppard and Orengo2023).

Early archaeological surveys had roots in topographic traditions, which gave way to multi-disciplinary, systematic investigations of regions in the mid-twentieth century. A ‘new wave’ of increasingly intensive surveys in the 1980s and 1990s saw the development of systematic methods of side-by-side fieldwalking in order to map the distribution of artifacts across the landscape and pay attention to ‘off-site’ traces of human activity, alongside the identification and mapping of archaeological sites (Bintliff Reference Bintliff, Doukellis and Mendoni1994; Cherry Reference Cherry and Kardulias1994). Over the last 25 years, surveys have benefited tremendously from advancements in remote sensing, database technologies, and geographic information systems (GIS), which have allowed regional archaeologists to carry out more detailed analyses and ask new questions of archaeological landscapes. Survey and landscape archaeology today comprise a diverse range of practices including fieldwalking, gridded collection at archaeological sites, architectural mapping, and geophysical survey, among other things (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Survey-based fieldwork in Greece: (a) fieldwalking with the Western Argolid Research Project (courtesy of Dimitri Nakassis); (b) architectural mapping with the Small Cycladic Islands Project; (c) gridded collection on Kato Kouphonisi with the Keros-Naxos Seaways Project (courtesy of Michael Boyd); (d) finds sorting during gridded collection with the Bays of East Attica Regional Survey (courtesy of Sarah Murray).

This article reviews the work of archaeological survey projects in Greece over the last 25 years, with particular emphasis on the last 10 years. Archaeological surveys typically focus on the documentation of material culture through surface remains. In Greece, surveys were long defined in contrast to excavations, though this strict permitting distinction is no longer in place. Collection practices and particular methods are now regulated according to the terms of individual permits. The size of project areas has been limited to 30km2 since 2002. Many projects have larger study areas, but the limit applies to areas of active investigation with artifact collection or formal documentation. Under this broad umbrella for what constitutes a ‘survey’ we can identify three main types of projects, according to scale and context: (1) regional or landscape surveys, which may vary in methods, scale, and intensity; (2) site surveys focused on a particular site and (possibly) its immediate surroundings, via artifact collection, architectural documentation, and/or geophysical survey; and (3) underwater surveys. This article focuses on the first category, although some site surveys will be discussed as well, not least because site documentation is also an important part of many larger-scale surveys. I do not discuss underwater surveys here (see Briggs and Campbell Reference Briggs and Campbell2023 for a recent review), nor do I systematically review geophysical surveys (see Donati and Sarris Reference Donati and Sarris2016).

Even this first category of regional or landscape surveys is extremely broad in terms of the methods and goals of projects that fall within it. Some focus on the identification and documentation of sites; others focus on mapping artifact distributions across the landscape. The former are often termed ‘extensive’ or ‘reconnaissance’ surveys, while the latter are usually called ‘intensive’ surveys, although these terms may be deployed by different projects to mean different things. In terms of territorial remit, project areas vary dramatically, with early extensive surveys covering thousands of square kilometres, while site surveys (and even some projects that claim to be regional surveys) may cover only a few hectares or less. Some aim to investigate a region for its own sake, while others aim to better contextualize a single site. Some projects focus on a particular period, while others are diachronic in scope. Even this distinction is not so simple, since ‘diachronic’ projects are usually (but not always) only diachronic within the scope of pottery-producing societies of the Holocene.

In addition to the types of projects above (and most of the projects discussed below), most of which can be characterized as academic research projects, a tremendous amount of survey work is carried out by the Greek Archaeological Service in the form of rescue or assessment projects for various types of construction, site registers, and more. Short reports are published in Archaiologikon Deltion, and elsewhere, but much information is relegated to a grey literature of internal reports. A recent development (since 2020) is the online publication of the Archaeological Cadastre of Greece, which contains descriptions and geospatial data for over 17,000 monuments, ca. 3,400 archaeological and historical sites, 844 protected areas, and 220 museums (https://www.arxaiologikoktimatologio.gov.gr/en ). While it would be impossible to review these types of surveys systematically, they must be mentioned as widespread and significant archaeological work, reporting on which may be consulted in collaboration with local ephorates.

I begin with a summary of recent publications (a selective sample from the last 10 years) of synthetic or thematic relevance. The bulk of this article describes recent survey-based fieldwork throughout Greece. At the end, I reflect on some broad trends and issues that merit further consideration. I argue that, on the one hand, there has never been more data available or as powerful a toolkit for investigating archaeological landscapes; on the other, concerns with methodology and ever-higher data resolution have at times obscured regional-scale research questions of broader significance.

Recent publications of broad geographical or thematic relevance

Two recent syntheses of survey practices in the Mediterranean deserve special mention. Attema et al. (Reference Attema, Bintliff, Van Leusen, Bes, De Haas, Donev, Jongman, Kaptijn, Mayoral, Menchelli, Pasquinucci, Rosen, García Sánchez, Gutierrez Soler, Stone, Tol, Vermeulen and Vionis2020) provide an overview of survey methods in Mediterranean archaeology in the form of a ‘guide to good practice’. The article is largely the product of the Mediterranean Survey Workshop, which has convened twice per year since 2000. Another recent paper systematically collected data about surveys across the Mediterranean, describing several schools of thought and practice and a wide range of goals, methodologies, and ‘types’ of project (Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Wilkinson, Leppard and Orengo2023).

The Journal of Greek Archaeology (JGA) and Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology (JMA) regularly publish papers on archaeological surveys in Greece (at a rate much higher than other journals relevant to Greek archaeology). Recent special sections in JGA address several relevant themes: the medieval countryside in the Aegean and Anatolia (Athanassopoulos Reference Athanassopoulos2020); GIS in archaeology (Evangelidis et al. Reference Evangelidis, Tsiafaki, Mourthos and Karta2024); and new applications of lidar analysis in landscape archaeology in Greece (Knodell Reference Knodell2025a). A JMA paper by Meyer (Reference Meyer2022) critiques the widely deployed ‘siteless’ model of intensive surveys, arguing for renewed attention to site definition and quantification; this set off a debate about priorities and potential in research design and interpretation (de Haas et al. Reference de Haas, Leppard, Waagen and Wilkinson2023; Meyer Reference Meyer2023). In a 2012 editorial, JMA noted that survey archaeology was the largest category of papers published by the journal (Knapp, Cherry and van Dommelen Reference Knapp, Cherry and van Dommelen2012). More recently, Given (Reference Given and Manning2022) observed a decline in the number of survey papers published (up to 2019), both in JMA and in a review of 15 journals related to Mediterranean archaeology, following a peak in 2007. However, in articles from 2019 to 2024, JMA has published about one-third of its articles either about survey or regional analyses (J. Cherry pers. comm.).

Several recent papers and edited volumes consider the interpretation of survey assemblages. An edited volume on the recording and interpretation of survey ceramics has taken on issues of collection strategy, diagnosticity, and the representativeness of survey finds (Meens, Nazou and van de Put Reference Meens, Nazou and van de Put2023). Bintliff (Reference Bintliff2023) synthesizes long-running debates concerning the creation of ‘haloes’ through manuring around habitation areas as evidence for agricultural intensification, highlighting the importance of ‘off-site’ assemblages. A recent review of soil geochemistry applications in archaeology demonstrates the relevance of another type of data to address questions of human impact at and around habitation areas (Bintliff and Degryse Reference Bintliff and Degryse2022). Other important works include survey-based contributions to themes of political geography in the Bronze Age (van Wijngaarden and Driessen Reference Van Wijngaarden and Driessen2022), Roman urbanism (de Ligt and Bintliff Reference de Ligt and Bintliff2020), and imperialism (Düring and Stek Reference Düring and Stek2018), and social complexity in several periods (Knodell and Leppard Reference Knodell and Leppard2018).

New work on rurality has formed an important complement to urbanism, especially in considering the evidence of ‘the ancient Greek farmstead’ from multiple regions (McHugh Reference McHugh2017), rural communities in the Byzantine world (Kondyli Reference Kondyli2022), and the broader importance of rural landscapes (and their dynamics) in Archaic Cyprus (Kearns Reference Kearns2023). Other studies have examined the importance of particular types of landscapes that are often considered marginal, evaluating land use and habitation practices in small islands across Greece (Knodell Reference Knodell2025b) and in mountainous environments in Crete (Kalantzopoulou Reference Kalantzopoulou2022; Reference Kalantzopoulou2023; Papadatos and Kalantzopoulou Reference Papadatos, Kalantzopoulou, van Wijngaarden and Driessen2022) – types of landscape that have only recently been subject to systematic surveys.

Macro-regional syntheses have long demonstrated the potential of combining survey datasets (often with other types of information) to address large-scale social change during critical periods, including various parts of the Palaeolithic (Tourloukis and Harvati Reference Tourloukis and Harvati2018), the Later Neolithic to Early Bronze Age (Pullen Reference Pullen, Dietz, Mavridis, Tankosić and Takaoğlu2018), the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition (Knodell Reference Knodell2021), the Byzantine/Frankish period (Kondyli Reference Kondyli, Caraher, Kourelis and Brooks Hedstrom2024), and periods of abandonment in modern times (Seifried and Stewart Reference Seifried and Stewart2021). These studies join classic works on landscape and demographic change based on survey evidence for the Classical-Hellenistic period (Bintliff Reference Bintliff1997) and in Roman times (Alcock Reference Alcock1993). Another important paper combines survey data with summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates across Greece (which are disturbingly scarce in comparison to other regions) to examine long-term demographic and environmental change, demonstrating a trend of increasing human impact on land cover from the Late Bronze Age onward (Weiberg et al. Reference Weiberg, Bevan, Kouli, Katsianis, Woodbridge, Bonnier, Engel, Finné, Fyfe, Maniatis, Palmisano, Panajiotidis, Roberts and Shennan2019).

Recent fieldwork

The aforementioned survey of Mediterranean surveys recorded 132 surveys from Greece as part of a wider database of 756 projects (Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Wilkinson, Leppard and Orengo2023). To that I have added a number of more recent projects and others that were not included in the initial reckoning (e.g. many site surveys), based on new bibliography, project websites, personal communications, and information available in AGOnline to produce a total inventory of 204 projects (112 since 2000 and 50 since 2015). These data were mapped and classified according to a number of factors, including project area, scope, methodology, and start year (Fig. 2). In the summary below, I pay particular attention to coverage, methodological innovations, and significant results. Because the remit of this article is the last 25 years, with an emphasis on the last 10, I do not systematically refer to older projects, though I do include contextual references and new publications (older projects are included in maps and graphs).

Fig. 2. Chronology and type of archaeological survey projects in Greece, with placemarks scaled according to project size; projects mentioned in the text are labelled, except for particularly dense areas that appear in more detailed maps (Figs. 5, 6, 9, and 10).

From the outset, we can observe several broad trends. First, survey areas have become smaller and survey methods more intensive over time. However, intensive surveys are by no means the rule, and there is even marked variation over what ‘intensive’ means. Second, surveys of different types are widely but unevenly distributed across Greece. A kernel-density analysis (heatmap) of survey projects shows the relative density of projects across the country, with individual projects weighted for intensity and coverage (Fig. 3). Zones of most intense survey activity include Messenia, the Corinthia and Argolid, east Crete, and Kythera. Arcadia, Boeotia, central and southern Euboea, the Cyclades, and central Crete have also seen substantial survey work, while other notable zones of activity appear in parts of Thessaly, Macedonia, and (recently) Thrace. Systematic surveys have been less widespread elsewhere, and there are several regions that are largely devoid of systematic survey work; namely, large portions of northern and western Greece. Third, we must note that approaches to sampling and coverage within the overall survey area vary from project to project, even for intensive surveys. Different approaches to mapping survey results include: artifact densities across continuous area (Fig. 4a); artifact densities within a sample of the project area as a whole (Fig. 4b); selected zones that were surveyed within an overall project area (Fig. 4c); and the distribution of archaeological sites as dots on a map (Fig 4d).

Fig. 3. Heat map of archaeological surveys in Greece, showing the density and intensity of projects; the heat map is based on the location and assigned ‘weight’ of projects according to the scale and intensity of survey work (weight = spatial coverage in km2 × intensity factor; intensity factors are the following, based on Cherry’s (Reference Cherry, Keller and Rupp1983, fig. 1) averages of sites per km2 discovered by intensive and extensive surveys: extensive = 0.08; intensive = 5.5; site = 10.

Fig. 4. Different types of areal coverage in archaeological surveys, as represented in maps of project areas: (a) the Mazi Archaeological Project (Knodell, Fachard and Papangeli Reference Knodell, Fachard and Papangeli2017: 147); (b) the Kythera Island Project (Kiriatzi and Broodbank Reference Kiriatzi and Broodbank2011: fig. 1); (c) the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (Davis et al. Reference Davis, Alcock, Bennet, Lolos and Shelmerdine1997: 393); (d) the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (Wright et al. Reference Wright, Cherry, Davis, Mantzourani, Sutton and Sutton1990: 598). From Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Wilkinson, Leppard and Orengo2023, online resource 12, courtesy Journal of Archaeological Research.

Peloponnese

The Peloponnese has been an important nexus of survey activity since the UMME in the 1950s and 1960s (McDonald and Rapp Reference McDonald and Rapp1972). Since then, a number of successor projects have taken place in Messenia, including the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP; ID146), which carried out intensive surveys and documentation of previously known sites in several zones in the vicinity of the Palace of Nestor (ca. 70km2 total; Davis and Bennet Reference Davis and Bennet2017) and an archaeological survey in the area of Iklaina (covering ca. 30km2; ID18471) focusing on the political geography of the Mycenaean period (Cosmopoulos Reference Cosmopoulos2016). Hope Simpson (Reference Simpson2014) has published a synthesis of the region in the Mycenaean period based on survey data from all of these projects (and other information). More detailed work on the prehistoric data collected by PRAP can be found in a recent PhD dissertation from the University of Cincinnati (Tsiolaki Reference Tsiolaki2022).

Laconia has also seen several decades of survey work, with the Laconia Survey (1983–89) documenting some 420 sites, ranging in date from the Neolithic to Veneto-Turkish periods, over ca. 70km2 northeast of Sparta (Cavanagh et al. Reference Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling and Shipley2002). The successor Laconia Rural Sites Project (ID10538) selected 20 sites for very intensive treatment via surface collections, geophysical survey, and soil studies (Cavanagh et al. Reference Cavanagh, Mee, James, Brodie and Carter2005). More recent work in Laconia has included a survey of about 1km2 at and around the recently discovered Mycenaean palace of Agios Vasileios (Wiersma et al. Reference Wiersma, Bes, Van IJzendoorn, Wiznura and Voutsaki2022; ID17881). The detailed site survey, alongside excavations, suggests a relatively small palatial site of 4–6ha in the Mycenaean palatial period, following a sudden expansion in LH IIIA, and a relatively early end to occupation in LH IIIB1; remains from Classical to Roman periods were indicative of small-scale rural activity, while there seems to have been an uptick in medieval and later times. Since 2024 a field survey associated with the Amykles Research Project (ID19587) has carried out surface collections and geophysical survey in a small zone (0.6km2) to the south of the Amyklaion, the presumed location of an associated settlement; this is part of the larger Belonging in/to Lakonia Project of the University of Münster. In Mani, a recent survey was carried out by the Diros Project, alongside excavations, over a small area (2.5km2) near Alepotrypa Cave (Pullen et al. Reference Pullen, Galaty, Parkinson, Lee, Seifried, Papathanasiou, Parkinson, Pullen, Galaty and Karkanas2018). New work by the Southern Mani Archaeological Project (SMAP) is a multi-method, diachronic survey, which builds on previous work at Diros and other landscape research in the region by the codirectors (Seifried, Gardner and Tatum Reference Seifried, Gardner and Tatum2023; Gardner Reference Gardner2024). In its initial field season in 2025, the SMAP team recorded material dating from the prehistoric period through the Ottoman period and mapped the castle of Achilleio (W. Parkinson and C. Gardner pers. comm.).

Several projects have taken place in Arcadia as well. The PaGE Project of the Megalopolis basin was a targeted survey of Pleistocene sediments that discovered Lower, Middle, and Upper Palaeolithic material from several surface and stratified sites, including the Marathousa-1, which is currently the oldest chronometrically dated Lower Palaeolithic site in Greece at 400–500kya (Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Tourloukis, Panagopoulos and Harvati2018). Also near Megalopolis, the Mt Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project (ID19635) has carried out topographical, geophysical, and architectural studies, alongside excavations, since 2004, including architectural and geophysical surveys of the main sanctuary sites of Zeus and Pan; the project is also involved in a larger plan to create a protected ‘Parrhasian Heritage Park’ of over 600km2 (Romano and Voyatzis Reference Romano and Voyatzis2015). In eastern Arcadia, three instantiations of the Norwegian Arcadia Survey (ID9169) have taken place since 1998, the most recent in 2016–17; these projects have focused on the wider region of ancient Tegea and aimed to contextualize the polis and sanctuary (Ødegard Reference Ødegard2005; Malmer Reference Malmer and Taunsend2018).

The Corinthia and the Argolid have the densest concentration of regional survey projects (Fig. 5). Several foundational projects took place in the 1970s–90s, beginning with the Argolid Exploration Project (ID14153; Jameson, Runnels and Van Andel Reference Jameson, Runnels and Van Andel1994). Recent studies of material from these projects present new data and interpretations. In another recent Cincinnati PhD dissertation, Cloke (Reference Cloke2016) provides a detailed study of the Geometric to Late Roman material collected by the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP; Wright et al. Reference Wright, Cherry, Davis, Mantzourani, Sutton and Sutton1990), joining Athanassopoulos’s (Reference Athanassopoulos2017) volume on the medieval material; other recent NVAP volumes (I and III) focus on survey and (especially) excavations at the Neolithic and Bronze Age site of Tzoungiza (Pullen Reference Pullen2011; Wright and Dabney Reference Wright and Dabney2020). While not particularly recent, we should also distinguish between two additional projects, an urban survey of the ancient polis of Phlius, carried out as part of NVAP (Alcock Reference Alcock1991) and the later Basin of Phlious project (1998–2002), which took place in the valley to the west, and urged caution in the interpretation of surface assemblages, following the detailed study of geomorphological dynamics in the area (Casselmann et al. Reference Casselmann, Fuchs, Ittameier, Maran and Wagner2004).

Fig. 5. Survey project extents in the Corinthia and Argolid. Type is indicated based on the predominant coverage across the marked area; for example, if a project used both intensive fieldwalking and extensive exploration over a very large area, that large area will be marked as extensive.

In the Berbati Valley, east of Mycenae, Bonnier and colleagues (Bonnier, Finné and Weiberg Reference Bonnier, Finné and Weiberg2019) have identified boom and bust cycles by applying GIS-based spatial analysis to data from the Berbati-Limnes Survey (Wells Reference Wells1996). The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS, 1997–2003; ID907) has a new comprehensive publication that demonstrates the value of linking a digital publication with original project datasets and field records (Pettegrew Reference Pettegrew2024). A successor project – the Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project (SHARP, 2007–10; ID1887) – undertook surface collections and architectural documentation at the Mycenaean harbour site of Kalamianos and other prehistoric sites in the eastern part of the EKAS study area, showing the importance of maritime connections across the Saronic Gulf during the Late Bronze Age, and the development of coastscapes as a central concept (Tartaron et al. Reference Tartaron, Pullen, Richard, Tzortzopoulou-Gregory and Boyce2011; Tartaron Reference Tartaron2013). Also in the Saronic Gulf, a recent survey on Aegina has taken place at and around the sanctuary of Zeus at the Hellanion Oros, alongside excavations that have revealed significant remains from the Mycenaean, Geometric, and Roman periods; the survey aims to better contextualize these finds by documenting numerous rural structures and signs of multiperiod activity (Krapf et al. Reference Krapf, Chryssoulaki, Vokotopoulos, Michalopoulou and André2024).

Witmore (Reference Witmore2020) provides a highly original reengagement with survey data throughout the Corinthia and the Argolid in the form of a chorography – a tradition that can be traced back to Pausanias, but that has been largely absent in modern surveys. In 27 ‘segments’ from Corinth to Hermione and the Saronic Gulf, Witmore provides thick descriptions of places and landscapes as palimpsests, revisiting the work of several foundational survey projects: the Argolid Exploration Project, the Methana Survey (ID8113), NVAP, and EKAS.

Another recent project in the eastern Peloponnese is the Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP, 2014–17; ID8916), which, in the tradition of NVAP, emphasizes continuous and as-comprehensive-as-possible coverage over the study area (ca. 18km2 out of the 30km2 study area; Gallimore et al. Reference Gallimore, James, Caraher, Nakassis, Rupp and Tomlinson2017; Erny and Caraher Reference Erny and Caraher2020; James et al. Reference James, Nakassis, Caraher, Gallimore, Erny, Fernandez, Frankl, Friedman, Godsey and Gradoz2024). The project covers the broader area of the Inachos river valley, which also comprises a series of land routes between the Argolid (namely Argos itself) and eastern Arcadia. While finds were documented from the Neolithic period onward, the periods of most substantial occupation seem to have been in Classical-Hellenistic, Roman, and Early Modern. The project is also noteworthy for its high-resolution collection methods (collecting and analysing all pottery, rather than limiting field collection to diagnostics) and for the open, early publication of its field manual, a practice that should be encouraged for all projects (Caraher et al. Reference Caraher, Gallimore, Nakassis and James2020).

The Sikyon Urban Survey (ID107) bears mentioning as a well-published model of an urban survey that applied multi-disciplinary techniques to understanding a city and its countryside in the long term (Lolos Reference Lolos2011, Reference Lolos2021). Since 2015 a project has set out to find and document the pre-Hellenistic city of ‘Old Sikyon’ by carrying out a survey of the plain below and to the east of the later site (Müth-Frederiksen et al. Reference Müth-Frederiksen, Kissas, Winther-Jacobsen, Frederiksen, Donati, Giannakopoulos, Papathanasiou, Rabbel, Stümpel and Rusch2015). These projects, as well as other recent work at Aigeira and Lousoi, are included in a recent volume comparing microregions in the northern Peloponnese (Baier and Gauß Reference Baier and Gauß2025). On the other side of the Corinthian Gulf, the Perachora Peninsula Archaeological Survey began in 2020, carrying out intensive fieldwalking in the western part of the peninsula, in order to follow up on the earlier extensive surveys of Payne (Reference Payne1940), Dunbabin (Reference Dunbabin1962), and Tomlinson (Reference Tomlinson1969). In addition to systematic fieldwalking across the landscape and artifact collections at previously noted sites, lidar documentation of the survey area in 2024 has already led to the discovery of new Mycenaean and Archaic-Classical sites, as well as many other anomalies that await systematic ground verification (Lupack et al. Reference Lupack, Weissova, Skuse, Ross, Sobotkova and Kasimiforthcoming).

The northwestern Peloponnese has seen surprisingly little systematic survey work, the main exception being in the vicinity of Olympia, where the Olympia Area Survey has done fieldwork since 2015 in three zones: the Kladeos Valley and Archaia Pisa, Salmone, and Epitalion (Eder et al. Reference Eder, Gehrke, Kolia, Lang, Obrocki and Vött2019). A previous extensive survey, focused on the ancient settlement and topography of Triphylia, examined the area south of the Alpheios river, providing another perspective (Heiden and Rohn Reference Heiden, Rohn, Matthaei and Zimmermann2015). By focusing on a major sanctuary, rather than a city, the Olympia Area Survey provides new perspectives on ancient religion, as well as settlement and land use; it also provides a long-term view of a place of particular confluence, at the centre of a panhellenic network.

Attica and the Megarid

For a long time, very little intensive survey work had been undertaken in Attica, though we should mention Lohmann’s (Reference Lohmann1993) groundbreaking study of the deme of Atene and long-term work in the Lavriotiki (Hulek Reference Hulek2023). This lack of widespread survey was in large part due to the scale of development across the region, even by the later twentieth century, when intensive survey techniques were being developed. For this reason, historical maps such as Curtius and Kaupert’s Karten von Attika (Reference Curtius and Kaupert1895–1903) are particularly important for understanding premodern modes of landscape organization, and even the location of now destroyed archaeological sites.

In spite of these challenges, a number of projects have taken place over the last decade around the borders of Attica. In northwest Attica, the Mazi Archaeological Project (MAP; ID8174) has intensively surveyed the Mazi Plain (2014–17), in order to understand this borderland diachronically and contextualize the well-known fortified sites of Eleutherai and Oinoe and the Byzantine monastery of Osios Meletios (e.g. Knodell, Fachard and Papangeli Reference Knodell, Fachard and Papangeli2017; Fachard et al. Reference Fachard, Murray, Knodell and Papangeli2020; Kondyli and Craft Reference Kondyli and Craft2020). The neighbouring Skourta Plain was also the subject of a survey in the 1980s (Munn and Munn Reference Munn, Munn and Fossey1989). Since 2019, the Kotroni Archaeological Survey Project (KASP; ID19627) has worked near Marathon, in the environs of ancient Aphidna; this project brought a suite of remote sensing methods to bear, alongside systematic fieldwalking, and was also an early adopter (in Greece) of archaeological lidar analysis (Agapiou et al. Reference Agapiou, Dakouri-Hild, Davis, Andrikou and Rourk2022). Also, since 2019, the Bays of East Attica Regional Survey (BEARS; ID18591) has investigated the coastal zone between Brauron and Porto Rafti, including several small islets and the headland of Koroni (Murray et al. Reference Murray, Pratt, Stephan, McHugh, Erny, Psoma, Lis and Sapirstein2021; Reference Murray, Godsey, Frankl, Lis, Erny, Stephan, Sapirstein, McHugh and Pratt2023). While, on the mainland, surveyors faced several challenges from dense modern development, Raftis Island revealed a major settlement of the post-palatial Bronze Age (LH IIIC), which must correspond with the famous cemetery at Perati of the same date; significant Late Roman remains were also found on the island. Other major findings include a Neolithic–Early Bronze Age lithics scatter on the Pounta peninsula, and a multiperiod ceramic production site at Praso. At Koroni, the team discovered material that predates the third-century BC military installation that the site is best known for and mapped hundreds of walls and dozens of structures that were left out of the plans prepared by the excavators in the 1960s (Vanderpool, McCredie and Steinberg Reference Vanderpool, McCredie and Steinberg1964).

To the west, the Western Megaris Archaeological Landscape Project (WeMALP) has investigated five distinct zones between Megara and the Geraneia mountains. The main goal of the project is to carry out detailed surveys of a number of rural sites across the study area, which of course is only a small fraction of the ca. 450km2 territory of the ancient Megarians (Farinetti and Avgerinou Reference Farinetti and Avgerinou2023).

Boeotia and Phokis

While the initial fieldwork of the long-running Boeotia Project was carried out from the late 1970s through to the 1980s, research has continued in various forms, including architectural mapping, finds analysis, aerial photography, and new fieldwork, focused on the cities of Hyettos, Haliartos, and Tanagra, as well as the Valley of the Muses (Fig. 6). Bintliff (Reference Bintliff2025) provides a summary of recent work and publications of the Boeotia Project, and in another publication has summarized the work of the first 36 years of the project (Bintliff Reference Bintliff, Bintliff and Rutter2016). The first two published volumes present the results of intensive surveys of the hinterland and city of Thespiai (Bintliff, Howard and Snodgrass Reference Bintliff, Howard and Snodgrass2007; Bintliff et al. Reference Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak and Snodgrass2017), while a third focuses on Hyettos (Bintliff, Farinetti and Snodgrass Reference Bintliff, Farinetti and Snodgrass2025). It is also worth mentioning Farinetti’s (Reference Farinetti2011) study of Boeotia, which provides the most comprehensive synthesis of survey results across Boeotia as a whole up to the point of publication.

Fig. 6. Survey project extents in central Greece.

The Eastern Boeotia Archaeological Project (EBAP, 2007–09; ID18585) carried out an intensive survey in the area around and between the modern villages of Eleona, Arma, and Tanagra. This zone was selected mostly because of known sites; namely, the Mycenaean cemetery at Tanagra and the site of ancient Eleon (named in the Linear B tablets from Thebes), which is the subject of the main publication of the survey to date, as well as ongoing excavations since 2011 (Aravantinos et al. Reference Aravantinos, Burke, Burns, Fappas, Lupack and MacKay2016).

In the Kopaic Basin, the Archaeological Reconnaissance of Uninvestigated Remains of Agriculture (AROURA) project (ID3064) undertook a large-scale geophysical survey, along with limited surface collections, in the immediate vicinity of Gla (Lane et al. Reference Lane, Aravantinos, Horsley and Charami2020). This project sheds new light on the drainage of the Kopaic Basin and the construction of Gla, all investigated alongside a model for land allotments derived from Linear B documents. Successor projects – Mycenaean Northeast Kopais Project (ID19597) and Kopaic Cultures, Economies, and Landscapes – have continued work in the region through geophysical survey, surface collections, and excavations (Lane Reference Lane2023). Also in this area, a recent lidar survey has been carried out at the site of Akraiphia, revealing architectural remains and aspects of the settlement plan that were previously undetectable (Lucas Reference Lucas2025).

To the west, the Kephissos Valley Project has investigated a large area (145km2) since 2018 (Sporn, Kounouklas and Kennedy Reference Sporn, Kounouklas and Kennedy2025), building on earlier work at Elateia and Tithorea (Sporn, Kounouklas and Laufer Reference Sporn, Kounouklas and Laufer2021; Kounouklas and Laufer Reference Kounouklas, Laufer, Sporn, Farnoux and Laufer2024). This project utilizes a combination of satellite imagery and lidar data to analyse the landscape, documenting over 2,700 areas of interest. At the site level, ground verification of lidar, architectural study, and geophysical survey have been applied to document several urban and rural sites, including Elateia, the sanctuary of Athena Kranaia, Agia Marina, Paliophiva, and the site of Synteleio (Sporn and Kennedy Reference Sporn and Kennedy2025). While this project has largely eschewed systematic fieldwalking and regional-scale artifact collection as a primary method, it has generated impressive results and demonstrated a powerful approach to regional survey in a large area of great historical significance.

Euboea

In Euboea, a series of recent projects make the southern and central parts of the island some of the better investigated archaeological zones in Greece. The north of the island has seen no systematic survey work, besides its inclusion in the island-wide survey of prehistoric sites on the island in the 1950s (Sackett et al. Reference Sackett, Hankey, Howell, Jacobsen and Popham1966). Since 2021, the Hinterland of Medieval Chalkida project is investigating the central part of the island via extensive survey over a large area (ca. 350km2) and targeted, intensive surveys of three selected sites (Vroom et al. Reference Vroom, Kostarelli, Blackler, Kalantzis-Papadopoulos and Kolvers2024). In this case, extensive survey means mostly the study and documentation of previously known sites, rather than exploration intended to find new ones.

In 2021, the Swiss School began a new intensive landscape survey in the area between Eretria and Amarynthos, uniting the long-standing excavations at Eretria with the more recent work at the sanctuary of Artemis Amarysia (ID19601; Fachard et al. Reference Fachard, Simosi, Krapf, Saggini, Kyriazi, André, Chezeaux, Verdan and Theurillat2024). Significant discoveries include the sacred way linking the city and sanctuary, parts of the ancient necropolis to the east of Eretria, and a number of rural sites in the eastern hinterland of the city. Also noteworthy was the development of a lidar-led survey methodology to accompany extensive exploration and feature documentation over an area of 240km2; this is currently the largest archaeological lidar acquisition in Greece (Fachard et al. Reference Fachard, Simosi, Krapf, Saggini, Kyriazi, André, Chezeaux, Verdan and Theurillat2024). This work follows on an older survey of the immediate environs of Eretria (Simon Reference Simon2002) and Fachard’s (Reference Fachard2012) extensive survey of the territory of the polis of Eretria, extending as far south as Styra.

Finally, the Karystia has seen a dense concentration of extensive and intensive survey projects, beginning with Keller’s (Reference Keller1985) extensive one-man survey of the region and the establishment of the Southern Euboea Exploration Project (SEEP; ID453), part of which was published in volumes on the Paxhimadi and Bouros-Kastri peninsulas (Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Talalay, Keller, Karimali and Farrand2013; Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and Mccoy2018). A number of successor projects followed, most recently the Karystian Kampos Project (ID453) in the western hinterland of Karystos (Tankosić and Chidiroglou Reference Tankosić and Chidiroglou2010) and the Norwegian Archaeological Survey of the Karystia (NASK), which moved northwest and upland to the Katsaronio plain, where discoveries included, among other things, the major Neolithic site of Gourimadi, under excavation since 2018 and home to the largest collection of obsidian projectile points known in the Aegean (Tankosić et al. Reference Tankosić, Laftsidis, Psoma, Seifried and Garyfalopoulos2021).

Phthiotis and Thessaly

Several new projects in Phthiotis and Thessaly have revealed new information about these regions. The Central Achaia Phthiotis Survey (CAPS, 2019–24; ID19598) is an intensive survey of the area north of Kastro Kallithea, building on a previous urban survey and other work at that site (Haagsma et al. Reference Haagsma, Karapanou, Surtees and Mazarakis-Ainian2015; Surtees Reference Surtees2012). The CAPS project surveyed an area of approximately 15km2, including a lidar acquisition of over 9km2, used for remote sensing and extensive survey, which identified several Early Iron Age tholos tombs in a relatively small area, suggesting potential for the application of lidar technology across a wider area (Haagsma et al. Reference Haagsma, Karapanou, Aiken, Canlas, Chykerda and Middleton2025). In the western Spercheios Valley, the Makrakomi Archaeological Landscape Project carried out an intensive survey in the vicinity of Profitis Elias/Asteria, documenting a nucleated Classical-Hellenistic settlement and its surroundings (Papakonstantinou et al. Reference Papakonstantinou, Penttinen, Tsokas, Tsourlos, Stampolidis, Fikos, Tassis, Psarogianni, Stavrogiannis, Bonnier, Nilsson and Boman2013). Across the Spercheios Valley as a whole, the Mycenaean Spercheios Valley Archaeological Project has carried out a programme of GPS, geophysical, and geomorphological documentation of previously known Mycenaean sites across the region (Malaperdas et al. Reference Malaperdas, Maggidis, Karantzali and Zacharias2023).

In the northeastern plain of Karditsa, the Palamas Archaeological Project has undertaken site surveys, geophysical surveys, and excavations at several locations, including Vlochos, Metamorfosi, Agios Dimitrios, and the Chomatokastro at Mataragka (Vaiopoulou et al. Reference Vaiopoulou, Rönnlund, Tsiouka, Klange, Pitman, Randall, Potter and Manley2024). This builds on previous work of the Vlochos Archaeological Project (ID6788), where a series of non-invasive methods were deployed to document multiple phases of habitation at the large Classical-Hellenistic city, which the investigators tentatively associate with Phakion, though they acknowledge several other possibilities (Vaiopoulou et al. Reference Vaiopoulou, Whittaker, Rönnlund, Tsiouka, Klange, Pitman, Potter, Shaw, Hagan, Siljedahl, Forsén, Chandrasekaran, Dandou, Forsblom Ljungdahl, Pavilionytė, Scott-Pratt, Schager and Manley2020). This project offers a model example of detailed digital documentation that did not include systematic artifact collection. Aerial photography, architectural study, geophysical survey (magnetometry and GPR), and geochemical prospection revealed a detailed plan of the acropolis and lower town. One of the most impressive innovations of this project was its interpretations of imagery of crop marks and snow marks, captured after a January 2019 snowfall, where the differential rate of melting caused by near-surface architecture allowed for the identification of plans of several buildings (Fig. 7). Another multi-site survey is the Kedros-Anavra Archaeological Landscape Project (KAALP), which (since 2024) is investigating two pairs of adjacent archaeological sites: Alonaki and Violi, and Chelonokastro (ancient Orthe) and Kolokria, all of which are located in the Agrafa foothills around the southwestern corner of the plain of Karditsa (A. Blomley pers. comm.). An additional aim of KAALP is to put survey results in dialogue with rescue excavations that have been carried out at these sites (e.g. Karagiannopoulos Reference Karagiannopoulos, Antonopoulou and Petrounakos2022). Other remote sensing work in the plain of Karditsa used a photogrammetric and multi-image approach to historical aerial photographs, maps, and satellite imagery to identify hundreds of mounded archaeological features, with initial samples investigated by ground verification associated with the Neolithic period (Orengo et al. Reference Orengo, Krahtopoulou, Garcia-Molsosa, Palaiochoritis and Stamati2015).

Fig. 7. Geophysical survey and snow marks interpretation at Vlochos. From Vaiopoulou et al. Reference Vaiopoulou, Whittaker, Rönnlund, Tsiouka, Klange, Pitman, Potter, Shaw, Hagan, Siljedahl, Forsén, Chandrasekaran, Dandou, Forsblom Ljungdahl, Pavilionytė, Scott-Pratt, Schager and Manley2020: fig. 12, courtesy of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, the Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa, and the Swedish Institute at Athens.

Additional site surveys have taken place at Skotoussa (ID19824; La Torre et al. Reference La Torre, Campagna, Di Giacomo, Donato, Karapanou, Miano, Mollo, Noula Karpeti, Papale, Puglisi, Toscano Raffa and Venuti2017) and at Melitaia, the latter involving a detailed lidar survey of the site (Rönnlund Reference Rönnlund2025). Drone-based lidar surveys have been done at several sites in the vicinity of Halos: Magoula Platoniotiki, the acropolis, and Voulokaliva (Waagen et al. Reference Waagen, Heymans, Scholte, Kriek and Stissi2025). This work follows several stages of previous survey in the area, including extensive survey, intensive fieldwalking, site revisitation, and methodological tests (1990–2006; 2011–13; see Stissi et al. Reference Stissi, Waagen, Efstathiou, Reinders, Rondiri, Mamaloudi and Stamelou2015 for a summary).

One further, specialized, project that is worth mentioning is the Pelion Cave Project, which documented ca. 160 caves and rock shelters and compiled a rich collection of ethnographic material (ID808; Andreasen et al. Reference Andreasen, Pantzou, Papadopoulos and Darlas2017). This project documented widespread evidence of cave use, mostly in the form of prehistoric and historical pottery, but including also lithics, engravings, and small finds from the Palaeolithic period up to the Second World War.

Recent site surveys in Thessaly and Phthiotis have produced high-quality work in a number of locations. However, only a relatively small number of regional-scale intensive survey projects have occurred in the area. This is a pity, given the hundreds of sites and micro-landscapes of historical interest – for many periods – that are found in the region.

Western Greece and Epiros

A low density of systematic surveys is even more noticeable in western Greece. Recent surveys are limited to site surveys at Kalydon (Dietz Reference Dietz2011) and a lidar survey of the site of Kastri-Pantosia, which used a suite of open-source solutions to process, analyse, and interpret a complex dataset (Abate et al. Reference Abate, Roubis, Aggeli, Sileo, Amodio, Vitale, Frisetti, Danese, Arzu, Sogliani, Lasaponara and Masini2025). Regional surveys are rarer, limited to the now venerable Aetolian Studies Project (Bommeljé et al. Reference Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, Vroom, Bommeljé, Fagel and van Wijngaarden1987; ID15887), the Nikopolis Project (Wiseman and Zachos Reference Wiseman and Zachos2003; ID15940), and the more recent Thesprotia Expedition (ID1929), focused on the Kokytos Valley (Forsén Reference Forsén2019). Part of the reason for this scarcity of surveys is the landscape, comprising the southern extent of the Pindus range, which is mountainous and thickly vegetated (this also applies to much of the landscape in the northwest Peloponnese). This environment has required researchers to rely on different types of evidence, especially rescue excavations, to address regional-scale questions (mostly concerning the Roman and Byzantine periods: e.g. Bowden Reference Bowden2003; Veikou Reference Veikou2012; Pirée Iliou Reference Pirée Iliou2022). Challenges aside, this type of landscape is exceptionally fertile ground for certain types of remote sensing, most notably lidar, which has the distinct advantage of being able to detect surface anomalies beneath vegetation cover. Lidar surveys of similar types of landscape in Italy have resulted in the discovery of hundreds of previously unknown archaeological sites, especially hillforts (Fontana Reference Fontana2024).

Ionian Islands

The Ionian Islands have seen a number of systematic surveys over the last two decades. On Kephalonia, the Livatho Valley Survey (2003—07; ID430) carried out a field survey of ca. 30km2 in the southwestern part of the island, and was designed to investigate prehistoric settlement and land use in the territory of the Greco-Roman city of Krane and around the castle of St George (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood Reference Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, Gallou, Georgiadis and Muskett2008). This followed mixed intensive and (mostly) extensive survey work in the 1990s, which examined an area of ca. 500km2 in the eastern part of the island, encompassing the territories of ancient Same and Pronnoi (Randsborg Reference Randsborg2002). Beginning in 2006, the Zakynthos Archaeology Project (ID4457) carried out surveys in three distinct areas in the southern part of the island, where they collected finds datable to as early as the Middle Palaeolithic period and through to the Holocene (van Wijngaarden et al. Reference Van Wijngaarden, Sotiriou, Pieters, Bogaard and De Gelder2015). Finally, since 2010, the Inner Ionian Archipelago Survey (ID2620) has carried out intensive surveys and targeted excavations on 10 small islands. The project aimed to investigate the history of occupation on these islets diachronically, but with a particular focus on the extent and chronology of evidence from the Middle Palaeolithic period (Galanidou et al. Reference Galanidou, Vikatou, Gatsi-Stavropoulou, Vasilakis, Staikou, Iliopoulos, Veikou, Forsén, Morgan, Vroom, Papoulia, Zervoudakis, Prassas and Vikatou2018).

Macedonia and Thrace

Survey projects in northern Greece are thinly distributed, at least in comparison with regions to the south. In western Macedonia, several projects have taken place in the broader area of Grevena. One recent project (2021–23) has combined remote sensing and extensive survey strategies to study unpublished ‘legacy data’ of the diachronic extensive survey called the Grevena Project (ID11901, ID11170) carried out between 1986 and 1994 (Wilkie Reference Wilkie1999). The new project documented sites previously recorded by the Grevena Project and discovered several new ones, finding an impressive 64% more sites than have been reported by the initial project, though publication is incomplete (Apostolou et al. Reference Apostolou, Venieri, Mayoral, Dimaki, Garcia-Molsosa, Georgiadis and Orengo2024). A number of surveys focused on the Palaeolithic period have also taken place in northern Greece, including the work of the Samarina Survey and the Aliakmnon Paleolithic/Paleoanthropological Survey, both also in the wider area of Grevena (Efstratiou et al. Reference Efstratiou, Biagi, Elefanti, Karkanas and Ntinou2006; Harvati et al. Reference Harvati, Panagopoulou, Karkanas, Athanassiou, Darlas and Mihailović2008). Farther north, another specialized project has focused on the caves of the northernmost peninsula of the Greek part of Lake Prespa, documenting use mainly in Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Byzantine, and post-Byzantine periods (Kontos, Michelaki and Miteletsis Reference Kontos, Michelaki and Miteletsis2017).

For the Classical period, recent site surveys have occurred at Methone (Morris et al. Reference Morris, Papadopoulos, Bessios, Athanassiadou and Noulas2020) and Olynthos (ID8114; Nevett et al. Reference Nevett, Tsigarida, Archibald, Stone, Horsley, Ault, Panti, Lynch, Pethen, Stallibrass, Salminen, Gaffney, Sparrow, Taylor, Manousakis and Zekkos2017), with the Pella Urban Dynamics Project developed as a successor to the latter (https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/pella/ ). Since 2010, the Anthemous Valley Archaeological Project has investigated the Anthemous river valley, located southeast of Thessaloniki, combining traditional archaeological prospection with a number of geophysical and geomorphological techniques, with a focus on landscape evolution from the Neolithic period to the Early Iron Age (Andreou, Czebreszuk and Pappa Reference Andreou, Czebreszuk and Pappa2016; Niebieszczański et al. Reference Niebieszczański, Czebreszuk, Hildebrandt-Radke, Vouvalidis, Syrides, Tsourlos and Spychalski2019). Across the region of Macedonia as a whole, Evangelidis (Reference Evangelidis2022) offers a synthesis of regional survey data from the Roman period.

In Thrace, a number of survey projects are reported in the recent edited volume, Surveying Aegean Thrace (Avramidou and Donati Reference Avramidou and Donati2023). These follow on the foundational explorations of Bakalakis (Reference Bakalakis1959) and various earlier projects focused on contextualizing the Neolithic landscape of Sitagroi (Blouet Reference Blouet, Renfrew, Gimbutas and Elster1986) and the Survey Project of the Rhodope Plain, whose primary interest was the documentation of evidence for the Pleistocene and early Holocene landscape and human activities therein (Efstratiou and Ammerman Reference Efstratiou, Ammerman and Iakōvou2004). More recently, the MapFarm Project (mapping the early farmers of Thrace) carried out systematic artifact collection, geophysical surveys, borehole sampling, and radiocarbon dating at eight Neolithic sites across the regions of Rhodope and Xanthi, documenting significant Late Neolithic ceramic scatters at six of them (Urem-Kotsou et al. Reference Urem-Kotsou, Sgouropoulos, Kotsos, Chrysaphakoglou, Chrysaphi and Skoulariki2022).

Other recent projects include several multi-disciplinary landscape surveys with diachronic scopes. Beginning in 2013, the Molyvoti Thrace Archaeological Project (MTAP; ID6182) has carried out excavation at the site the investigators identify as ancient Stryme and survey in the surrounding area (ca. 20km2), revealing a landscape that was used consistently from the Archaic period onward; several tumuli were also discovered along the course of presumed roads (Arrington et al. Reference Arrington, Terzopoulou, Tasaklaki, Makris and Hudson2023; Reference Arrington, Terzopoulou, Tasaklaki and Tartaron2025). The Archaeological Project at Abdera and Xanthi (APAX; 2015–19) used similar methods to investigate three zones, totalling ca. 10km2: the coastal region of the ancient city of Abdera and its environs, the northern end of the Xanthi alluvial plain, and a highland plain in the Rhodope range (Georgiadis et al. Reference Georgiadis, Kallintzi, Garcia-Molsosa, Orengo, Kefalidou and Motsiou2022). Finally, the Peraia of Samothrace Project (PSP) has examined four areas of interest between the Rhodope mountains and the coast, using a combination of remote sensing, intensive fieldwalking, and geophysics (Avramidou et al. Reference Avramidou, Donati, Papadopoulos, Sarris, Karadima, Pardalidou, Aitatoglou, Tasaklaki, Sirris, Avramidou and Donati2023).

Northern Aegean Islands

On Samothrace itself, a recent publication of the Samothrace Archaeological Survey (SAS), which did fieldwork in the 1980s, and new lidar-based remote sensing and fieldwork – the Samothrace Lidar Project (SaLiP) – provide much new information about the island. For the former, a survey of ca. 14km2 of contiguous area in the western part of the island revealed significant prehistoric sites, as well as widespread evidence from the Archaic to Byzantine periods; large numbers of trade amphoras highlight the significance of the island as a long-term nexus of activity, not least for its famous sanctuary (Matsas et al. Reference Matsas, Laftsidis, Hudson, Levine, Makris, Page, Avramidou and Donati2023). The American Excavations Samothrace project (ID19596) has recently undertaken a survey of the ancient city of Samothrace (Palaiopolis) and since 2024 the new programme of lidar analysis has opened up landscape investigations in several diverse landscapes across the island (Matsas et al. Reference Matsas, Wescoat, Witmore, Page, Garrison and Manquen2025). Lidar imagery is revealing in multiple places, but its utility is especially clear in depicting the landscape near the site of Christos, in the north of the island, where a ruined medieval village is heavily obscured by vegetation and rubble, both in aerial imagery and on the ground (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Lidar imagery and aerial photo of the area of Christos, a ruined medieval village in northern Samothrace. Map by B. Manquen, after fig. 10 in Matsas et al. Reference Matsas, Wescoat, Witmore, Page, Garrison and Manquen2025, courtesy of SaLiP.

On Lemnos, surveys over the last decade have discovered at least three previously unknown Epipalaeolithic sites on the island, as well as four sources of knappable raw material (Efstratiou et al. Reference Efstratiou, Biagi, Starnini, Kyriakou and Eleftheriadou2022). One of these (Ouriakos) is radiocarbon-dated to the Younger Dryas; the assemblages of all of the sites signal technological affinities with contemporary sites in Anatolia. Another period-specific survey compared the settlement patterns of Lemnos and Thasos during Late Byzantine times, carrying out an extensive survey that documented 93 sites on Lemnos and 17 on Thasos (Kondyli Reference Kondyli2022).

On Lesvos, a survey in the 1990s focused on the ancient city of Eressos (Schaus and Parish Reference Schaus and Parish1996), while a more recent series of surveys and excavations at Rodafnidia revealed important finds dated to the Middle Pleistocene, including Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic materials (Galanidou et al. Reference Galanidou, Athanassas, Cole, Iliopoulos, Katerinopoulos, Magganas, McNabb, Harvati and Roksandic2016). In the Sporades, the Ancient Skopelos Survey (ASkoS), which began in 2024, has so far carried out a reconnaissance survey to identify areas of interest across the island for more systematic documentation, including intensive survey, lidar analysis, geoarchaeological investigations, palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, and geophysical prospection. In 2024, project activities focused on reconnaissance and intensive survey, including the investigation of seven sites in the eastern part of the island and the ancient quarry south of Chora (F. Franković pers. comm.; https://askos.archeologia.uw.edu.pl/ ). Also noteworthy is a one-person survey of the island of Skyros, which documented 96 sites using a combination of extensive exploration, documentation of previously known sites, and systematic fieldwalking at sites of particular interest, with a focus on the Late Roman to Early Modern periods (Karambinis Reference Karambinis2015).

On Chios, the Emborio Hinterland Project (ID20638) has carried out an intensive field survey of ca. 10km2 in the vicinity of Emborio, the site of long-term excavations by the British School (Hood Reference Hood1981). This survey involves a high degree of spatial resolution, with fieldwalkers spaced 10m apart and recording finds every 10m to create a resolution of 10 × 10m grid squares. Significant findings include a range of new sites from the prehistoric, Greco-Roman, and medieval periods. An earlier survey, the Kato Phana Archaeological Project, also in the southern part of the island, investigated a 3km2 area near the sanctuary of Apollo Phanaios through surface survey, mapping, cleaning, and geophysical survey (Beaumont and Archontidou-Argyri Reference Beaumont and Archontidou-Argyri1999).

From 2021 to 2024, the West Area of Samos Archaeological Survey (WASAP; ID20635) carried out extensive and intensive survey in several zones throughout the western part of the island (Christophilopoulou et al. Reference Christophilopoulou, Huy, Loy, Mac Sweeney and Mokrišová2025; Loy et al. Reference Loy, Argyraki, Christophilopoulou, Delli, Evans, Huy, Katevaini, Mac Sweeney, Mokrišová, Regazzoni and Vasileiou2025). The project was designed to fill an archaeological blank spot on an island whose main ancient sites (the polis at Pythagorio and Heraion sanctuary) are located on the east side of the island (which has also seen no systematic survey work).

Southern Aegean Islands

The Dodecanese, too, have only recently seen systematic surveys, and only on a few islands. From 2018 to 2023, the Kos Archaeological Survey Project has carried out fieldwork in three main zones: the area of the ‘Serraglio’ on the east side (the largest zone), the Kastro of Palaio Pyli, in the centre of the island, and near the bay of Kephalos and Aspri Petra Cave on the west side of the island. While the scope of the project is diachronic, publication up to this point has focused on the Late Bronze Age finds, especially the discovery of a major prehistoric site at Agios Pandeleimon, now the largest known on the island (Vitale et al. Reference Vitale, Marketou, McNamee and Michailidou2022). A previous intensive survey (2003–05) focused on the site and territory of the ancient deme of Halasarna (Kopanias Reference Kopanias2009; Georgiadis Reference Georgiadis2012; ID9743). On Rhodes, a long-term project (since 2006) has carried out a variety of survey and excavation activities in the area of the ancient deme site of Kymisala, including work at the acropolis, necropolis, quarries, and a number of other locations (Stefanakis Reference Stefanakis2017; ID19754). On Karpathos, the Afiartis Survey (2006–16) investigated an area of 20km2 in the southern part of the island, where a particular interest was to clarify the prehistoric settlement pattern, especially in relation to Minoan Crete; Roman and modern finds were also abundant, among scattered remains of other periods (Klys Reference Klys2018). This intensive survey built upon the work of an earlier, extensive survey of the islands of Karpathos, Saros, and Kasos (Melas Reference Melas1985).

The Cyclades were home to two groundbreaking early surveys on Melos (Cherry Reference Cherry, Renfrew and Wagstaff1982) and on Kea with the Northern Keos Survey (Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani Reference Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani1991), but then saw little systematic survey work until relatively recently (Fig. 9). One recent project in the Cyclades, the Kea Archaeological Research Survey (KARS, 2012–14; ID19602) was a deliberate resurvey of the same area covered by the Northern Keos Survey in the 1980s (https://www.iihsa.ie/projects/the-kea-archaeological-research-survey-kars-project). This new work aimed to test the reliability of survey data and reproducibility of results and to increase the sample size; it also increased the overall survey area slightly and carried out site-based gridded collections in some new areas. The validity of the results of the earlier project has been confirmed.

Fig. 9. Survey project extents in the Cyclades, with survey type indicated and islands surveyed by the Small Cycladic Islands Project outlined in red (see online version).

Other intensive surveys have taken place mainly on small islands in various parts of the Cyclades. A survey of Therasia (2007–13), examined the entire island (ca. 9km2) through intensive fieldwalking (over 2km2), artifact collections, geophysical survey, geomorphological study, and excavations, providing also a detailed publication of methods and diachronic results (Sbonias and Tzachili Reference Sbonias and Tzachili2021).

Site surveys have been included in long-term programmes of excavation at sites of particular significance, such as at Zagora, on Andros (Beaumont, Miller and Paspalas Reference Beaumont, Miller and Paspalas2012), and at Vryokastro, the site of ancient Kythnos (Mazarakis Ainian Reference Mazarakis Ainian, Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian1998); a broader programme of extensive survey was also carried out in the northeastern part of Kythnos by the ephorate (Papangelopoulou Reference Papangelopoulou2012).

A series of surveys have been carried out in relation to a wider programme of work on Keros and Dhaskalio (Renfrew et al. Reference Renfrew, Boyd, Athanasoulis, Brodie, Carter, Dellaporta, Floquet, Gavalas, Georgakopoulou, Gkouma, Hilditch, Krijnen, Legaki, Margaritis, Marthari, Moutafi, Philaniotou, Sotirakopoulou and Wright2022). The Keros Island Survey (2012–13; ID4284) provided intensive coverage of the entire island (15km2) and six islets to the south, using methods based on the Kythera and Antikythera surveys (see below). Results indicate main periods of occupation in the Early Bronze Age, Late Roman–Early Byzantine period, and Early Modern times, with the main centre of activity in the northwest of the island and other significant zones in the south-central part of the island. From 2015 to 2018, the Keros-Naxos Seaways Project conducted surveys on Kato Kouphonisi (3.5km2) and a coastal block of 10km2 in southeast Naxos, including the major Bronze Age sites of Spedos, Panormos, and Korfi t’Aroniou, in order to investigate the wider coastal landscape and seascape of Keros and Dhaskalio. A new, five-year programme of excavations by the Keros Project has an explicit focus on areas of interest identified by the archaeological surveys of Keros and Kato Kouphounisi, in an attempt to address fundamental questions concerning the relationship between surface assemblages and subsurface remains (M. Boyd pers. comm.).

Elsewhere on Naxos, two specialized survey projects have investigated quarries, highlighting the unique geologic resources of the island. The first is the Stelida Naxos Archaeological Project (2013–present), which investigated the Stelida hill and promontory in northwest Naxos, home to a significant chert quarry and stone tools dating from the Mesolithic and Upper, Middle, and Lower Palaeolithic periods (Carter et al. Reference Carter, Contreras, Holcomb, Mihailović, Skarpelis, Campeau, Moutsiou, Athanasoulis, Tomlinson and Rupp2017). Subsequent excavations and infrared stimulated luminescence dating confirmed this broad date range, with the oldest cultural material coming from strata dated to ca. 200kya (Carter et al. Reference Carter, Contreras, Holcomb, Mihailović, Karkanas, Guérin, Taffin, Athanasoulis and Lahaye2019). An unexpected contribution of this project was the discovery of a Minoan-style peak sanctuary on the top of the hill (Carter et al. Reference Carter, Mallinson, Mastrogiannopoulou, Contreras, Diffey, Lopez, Pareja, Tsartsidou and Athanasoulis2021). Since 2020, the Naxos Quarry Project has applied a range of methods – aerial photogrammetry, lidar, field survey, sculptural analysis, and architectural analysis – to investigate marble quarries and quarrying practices at several locations across the island, especially at Melanes and Apollonas, known for the monumental kouros statues that have remained in situ at each of them (Levine et al. Reference Levine, Indgjerd, Samdal and Kristensen2025; Levitan et al. Reference Levitan, Levine, Athanasoulis, Legaki, Paga, Campbell, Indgjerd, Vanden Broeck-Parant, Anevlavi, Jakobitsch and Liard2025). Another stone-oriented project is the Jade Odyssey Project, which in 2022 and 2024 identified four areas on Syros that were used for the production of jadeite tools (chiefly associated with the Neolithic period) in the area of Kampos and the neighbouring valleys (https://diathens.gr/en/projects/syros).

Across the archipelago as a whole, the Small Cycladic Islands Project (SCIP; ID18178) has carried out systematic, intensive surveys of 87 small, (mostly) uninhabited islands over the course of six field seasons (2019–24; Athanasoulis et al. Reference Athanasoulis, Knodell, Tankosić, Papadopoulou, Sigala, Diamanti, Kourayos and Papadimitriou2021; Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Athanasoulis, Tankosić, Cherry, Garonis, Levine, Nenova and Öztürk2022; Reference Knodell, Athanasoulis, Cherry, Giannakopoulou, Levine, Nenova, Öztürk and Papadopoulou2025a). These islands ranged in size from less than 1ha to 18km2 (Polyaigos), although most were under 1km2 in size. Very few of these islands yielded no evidence of occupation or use, and many had remains of substantial material investment in the form of built features (structures, fortifications, agricultural installations) and surface ceramics and lithics. The comparative framework and results of the project have demonstrated a correlation between island size and intensity of occupation or use (an important distinction), as well as the connectedness of places long-dismissed as marginal. An acquisition of aerial lidar data has covered all islands subject to pedestrian survey by SCIP, as well as several larger, uninhabited islands (Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Levine, Wege, Fielder-Jellsey and Athanasoulis2025b). Detailed study of the SCIP lidar has also revealed significant strengths and some weaknesses of lidar analysis though a self-critical analysis of feature identification, classification, and verification strategies (Manquen et al. Reference Manquen, Garrison, Knodell and Athanasoulis2025).

Rheneia has been subject to a systematic intensive survey by the Rheneia Archaeological Project (RAP) since 2019. Results have highlighted the ancient polis of Rheneia on the west side of the island and the cemetery of the Delians on the east side (the subject of long-term, collaborative study), with a densely constructed and inhabited agricultural landscape in between. RAP has recently integrated the aforementioned lidar data to evaluate it explicitly alongside other forms of remote sensing (namely, drone-based aerial photography and photogrammetry) (Papadopoulou et al. Reference Papadopoulou, Samaras, Fylaktos and Knodell2025). While Delos is usually left out of discussions of systematic surveys, it must be mentioned that it is perhaps more thoroughly investigated than any other island in the Aegean, at least from the perspective of architectural mapping (e.g. Moretti et al. Reference Moretti, Fadin, Fincker and Picard2015).

In the southwestern Aegean, Kythera and Antikythera have seen a number of surveys since the 1990s, when the Kythera Island Project (KIP; ID6544) and the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeology Survey (APKAS) began work on different parts of the island. Publication is ongoing, and the main body of fieldwork has been supplemented recently by the KIP team at Palaiokastro and by the APKAS team with various remote sensing projects and other interventions (MacNeill Reference MacNeill2023). As successor project to KIP, involving many of the same people, the Antikythera Survey Project provided a hallmark example of a total island survey and methodological rigour that inspired many of the projects described above, not least through its relatively speedy publication (Bevan and Conolly Reference Bevan and Conolly2013).

Crete

A large number of survey projects have taken place on Crete: 45 in the present reckoning, with at least 11 new projects in the last 10 years and 23 since 2000 (Fig. 10). Gkiasta (Reference Gkiasta2008) provides a catalogue of some 17 ‘landscape tradition’ survey projects in The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete, with information also about 17 additional studies and surveys ranging from travellers’ accounts to projects in the traditions of culture history, human geography, and topography.

Fig. 10. Survey project extents in western Crete (top) and eastern Crete (bottom), with finder map showing the extent of the two maps.

In western Crete, the Rethymno Hilly Countryside Archaeological Project has investigated a 25km2 area since 2019, including surface survey, geophysics, and test excavation. The project has focused particularly on two multiperiod sites: Aï-Lias, notable mainly for its Minoan remains, and Kephala, with finds primarily from Geometric–Classical times. Recent publications of the Sphakia Survey (1987–92) are also noteworthy, including an ‘internet edition’ with photos, videos, and previous publications, and an article examining topical issues of sustainability, landscape management, and resource packages (Nixon Reference Nixon2024; Nixon et al. Reference Nixon, Price, Moody and Rackham2024). The Plakias Survey, targeting the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic landscapes of southwestern Crete, has also made major discoveries, which have become the subject of much discussion and debate concerning early seafaring in the Aegean (Strasser et al. Reference Strasser, Panagopoulou, Runnels, Murray, Thompson, Karkanas, McCoy and Wegmann2010; Cherry and Leppard Reference Cherry and Leppard2025).

Over the last two decades, several projects have taken place at and around Knossos. The most significant of these is the Knossos Urban Landscape Project (KULP; ID2900). While fieldwork began in 2005 and is not fully published, seven preliminary reports from the twelfth Cretological Conference make clear that the results are already reshaping the way we think about one of the most important centres in the Aegean, and for many periods (e.g. Whitelaw, Bredaki and Vasilakis Reference Whitelaw, Bredaki and Vasilakis2019). The combination of detailed survey data (over 300,000 sherds collected over a ca. 11km2 area) and a century’s worth of regular research and rescue excavation at the site show how disparate datasets can work together to address questions of state formation (signalling revolution over evolution in that debate), a previously unknown extensive settlement in the Early Iron Age (to accompany the dozens of excavated tombs), and a booming, expansive city in the often overlooked Classical–Roman periods. Other projects at Knossos include geophysical surveys focused on the Roman period city (ID6630) and on the Bronze Age at Gypsades (ID8570). Most recently (2019 and 2021), Kelly and O’Neill have carried out a specialized survey of aqueducts in the greater Heraklion area (ID18034). To the south, a variety of survey work has taken place in the vicinity of Phaistos (Bredaki and Lungo Reference Bredaki and Lungo2015) building upon earlier work in the Mesara (Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou and Blitzer Reference Watrous, Hadzi-Vallianou and Blitzer2004). In the eastern part of central Crete, the Galatas Survey (ID266) was conceived as an inter-site survey, between the powerful centres of Knossos/Herakleion and Kastelli/Lyttos (Watrous et al. Reference Watrous, Buell, Kokinou, Soupios, Sarris, Beckmann, Rethemiotakis, Turner, Gallimore and Hammond2017); this project was located within the territory of a larger extensive survey of the Pediada region (ID787; Panagiotakis Reference Panagiotakis2003).

In eastern Crete, a survey of the Sissi basin took place between 2017 and 2019, covering an area of about 2.4km2 and documenting 36 sites (Terrana et al. Reference Terrana, Mouthuy, Kress, Driessen and Driessen2022), abutting an area to the west surveyed by the Malia Plain Survey (1989–present; Müller Celka, Puglisi and Bendali Reference Müller Celka, Puglisi, Bendali, Touchais, Laffineur and Rougemont2014). Survey and excavation work at Anavlochos has focused on a ridge extending from the modern settlement of Vrachasi, and revealed a 10ha settlement, 12ha necropolis, and three cult places over an overall survey area of ca. 1.5km2. With finds primarily from LM IIIC to the Early Archaic period, it is chronologically and geographically between the Minoan site of Sissi and the later Archaic poleis of Milatos and Dreros. Just north of Agios Nikolaos, the Khavania Topographical and Architectural Mapping Project (ID18054) has carried out site-based field collections and architectural mapping since 2019, revealing a significant amount of LM II pottery, a period that is generally absent at other major sites in the Mirabello Bay region (Priniatikos Pyrgos, Gournia, and Pseira). In the area of Sitea, an intensive survey has taken place at Faneromeni, which revealed eight Final Neolithic and Early Minoan sites, alongside nine modern farmsteads, with other periods for the most part absent (Papadatos and Sofianou Reference Papadatos and Sofianou2015). Recent work at Palaikastro has combined remote sensing with extensive survey to document widespread agricultural and pastoral practices in a highly structured landscape (Orengo and Knappett Reference Orengo and Knappett2018); this has been complemented by other types of landscape study, such as coastal geomorphology (Veropoulidou et al. Reference Veropoulidou, Krahtopoulou, Frederick, Orengo, Riera-Mora, Knappett and Livarda2025) and paleoenvironmental and bioarchaeological analysis of plant and animal remains (Livarda et al. Reference Livarda, Orengo, Cañellas-Boltà, Riera-Mora, Picornell-Gelabert, Tzevelekidi, Veropoulidou, Marlasca Martín and Krahtopoulou2021).

Several specialized projects in east Crete have investigated types of marginal environments that have long been neglected by surveys in Greece. The mountainous terrain of east Crete has been particularly fruitful ground for surveys on Mt Dikte and in the Zakros uplands of the Siteia Mountains (Kalantzopoulou Reference Kalantzopoulou2022; Papadatos and Kalantzopoulou Reference Papadatos, Kalantzopoulou, van Wijngaarden and Driessen2022). These projects have demonstrated the importance of combined methods of extensive survey and site documentation to reveal evidence for rural habitation, political organization, and pastoral (and other) economies. They complement the ongoing work of the Minoan Roads Project near Zakros (since 1984), which has also undertaken a recent intensive survey at Katsounaki, Xerokambos (Chrysoulaki and Vokotopoulos Reference Chrysoulaki, Vokotopoulos, Antonopoulou and Petrounakos2022). The most recent project in this tradition is the Surveying High Elevation Ecozones for Prehistory Project (SHEEP), on the eastern slopes of Mt Dikte (Kalantzopoulou Reference Kalantzopoulou2023), which overlaps with an area previously studied by Beckmann (Reference Beckmann2012) in order to provide more thorough documentation; both this and the previous work on Dikte complement recent excavations at Gaidourophas (e.g. Papadatos and Chalikias Reference Papadatos, Chalikias, Oddo and Chalikias2019). Together, these projects have demonstrated the importance of combined methods of extensive survey and site documentation to reveal evidence for rural habitation, political organization, movement, and pastoral (and other) economies.

Work in the islets of Crete has also been groundbreaking, including long-term surveys at Gavdos and Pseira (Kopaka Reference Kopaka, Karetsou, Detorakis and Kalokairinos2001; Betancourt et al. Reference Betancourt, Davaras and Hope Simpson2004; Reference Betancourt, Davaras and Hope Simpson2005), as well as more recent work on Dia (Kopaka Reference Kopaka2012), the Dionysades islets (Dragonara), and Chryssi (for summaries, see Kopaka and Kossyva Reference Kopaka, Kossyva, Betancourt, Karageorghis, Laffineur and Niemeier1999; Chalikias Reference Chalikias2013). Work on several of these islets was presented in detail at a recent conference (Eaby, Chalikias and Sofianou Reference Eaby, Chalikias and Sofianouforthcoming).

Recent projects in Crete have focused on particular sites and particular problems, in contrast to the large-scale intensive fieldwalking surveys of earlier generations. At the same time, several earlier, regional surveys have been brought to publication, creating opportunities for comparative and synthetic work across larger regions. Pollard (Reference Pollard2023) used data from the Vrokastro (Hayden Reference Hayden2005), Gournia (Watrous et al. Reference Watrous, Haggis, Nowicki, Vogeikoff-Brogan and Schultz2012), and Kavousi (Haggis Reference Haggis2005) surveys to highlight the consolidation of settlement and population centres from the Early Iron Age to the Archaic Period in the Mirabello Bay region. Erny (Reference Erny2023) used legacy data from seven surveys across the island to reveal markedly varied settlement patterns in different parts of Crete from the Geometric to Hellenistic periods; these also differed from contemporary patterns on the Greek mainland. From a methodological perspective, Drillat (Reference Drillat2024) has examined sometimes contradictory survey results from overlapping projects (the Galatas and Pediada surveys). In a synthesis of data across Crete, Spencer and Bevan (Reference Spencer and Bevan2018) use survey data to create settlement location models and examine social change across the Bronze Age. Recent work by Whitelaw (Reference Whitelaw, Relaki and Papadatos2018; Reference Whitelaw, Garcia, Orgeolet, Pomadere and Zurbach2019) also provides models of long-term, regional trends in urbanism and demography, based mainly on survey data.

Discussion and conclusions

Over the last two decades there has been a shift in the dominant type of survey in Greece. Specialized surveys designed to answer particular questions, site-based surveys, and ‘off-site’ surveys focused on very small study areas are now more common than regional- or landscape-scale surveys (Fig. 11). There are several possible explanations for this trend towards more spatially limited projects. First, large-scale fieldwalking surveys are expensive, labour intensive, and complex; they can be challenging to organize as well. It is also possible that some researchers are deterred by the long time it takes to bring large-scale survey projects to publication, which remains an ongoing process for many projects, even ones that did their primary fieldwork in the last century. Site surveys or targeted surveys that address particular periods or questions may seem more manageable. While this should not be interpreted as a criticism of smaller-scale projects – indeed, question-driven research should be the rule, at whatever scale – we should also not lose sight of the benefits of systematic fieldwork over larger spatial scales, especially in the many parts of Greece that remain under-investigated. There are cultural heritage management concerns here as well. Cherry (Reference Cherry, Keller and Rupp1983) demonstrated long ago that there is a direct correlation between survey intensity and number of sites located. The more you look the more you will find, although of course this must be balanced with available resources and project priorities.

Fig. 11. (a) Total project areas of surveys by decade, indicating the number of projects started each decade and the average project size in each bar; (b) number of projects started per decade, organized according to type, indicating the number of each type and percentage of the total for each decade in the bars.

Over the last two decades, McCoy (Reference McCoy2021) has tracked a ‘geospatial revolution’ in archaeology, in which early adopters in the 1990s were followed by an unprecedented upswing in interest from about 2005 onward, resulting in the current framework in which the use of advanced mapping technologies, GIS, and various forms of remote sensing are standard practice. Drones offer inexpensive and accessible solutions for the photogrammetric recording of archaeological sites and features. Aerial laser scanning (lidar) can also be deployed at this scale with drones, but it is most useful for archaeological surveys at the regional level, which at present is only possible in Greece by commissioning flights (with aeroplanes) from private companies (Knodell Reference Knodell2025a). For now, this remains expensive, but we do not need to look far for examples of the large-scale analyses possible with publicly available lidar data over large areas (Fontana Reference Fontana2022). The potential for such lidar-led studies is greatest precisely in the mountainous, heavily vegetated areas that have received the least amount of attention from systematic fieldwalking. GIS and relational databases also offer tremendous potential for synthesizing and repurposing existing datasets, though combining data from different projects requires real work and early optimism for quick and easy digital data integration has faded (Alcock and Cherry Reference Alcock and Cherry2004). The challenges of data integration highlight the importance of data publication and methodological transparency at every level. One promising trend is the online publication of field manuals by some recent projects. Another is the move toward open data publication, although this comes with the caveat that there is a wide range of materials published as ‘open data’, ranging from photo archives to data tables to spatial datasets. The real challenge is to make data not only open, but widely usable and adaptable (de Haas and van Leusen Reference de Haas and van Leusen2020). It does little good to publish polygons of survey units or point data with site locations, unless these files also contain information descriptions, artifact counts, and information about chronology, function, etc., as well as links to other relevant materials, along with a ‘user manual’ (see Pettegrew Reference Pettegrew2024 for a good recent example). Traditional publication also remains essential, and is sorely lagging. In the aforementioned survey of Mediterranean surveys, only 27% of responding projects reported that publication was complete, versus ongoing (Knodell et al. Reference Knodell, Wilkinson, Leppard and Orengo2023). Most of the 204 projects mapped here are not comprehensively published and are published only as preliminary reports of varying length and quality. In addition to publishing digital data, projects must also synthesize and interpret that data as only those who collected it are best equipped to do.

Two final methodological challenges relate to restrictions on the size of survey areas and (historically) on what can be done as part of an archaeological survey in Greece. First, the 30km2 limit on project areas makes it difficult to address larger-scale regional questions, if we consider that the territorial scope of many ancient Greek polities was over 50km2, and for some was over 1,000km2, depending on the time and place. Nevertheless, there is much that can be done within such a territorial remit if it is approached deliberately, and in dialogue with the range of data available from other sources. Second, while much attention has been given to the interpretation of surface assemblages, significantly less work has been done on interpreting surface assemblages in relation to stratified excavations. This is a result of a legal framework that for a long time separated permits for survey and excavation. This separation no longer obtains and there are now many examples of test, research, and rescue excavations carried out during and after surface surveys (for example in the ongoing work of the Keros Project). Survey archaeologists should take heed, as even small-scale test excavations can supply crucial data regarding site formation processes, the visibility of certain periods, the comparability of survey data on the regional scale, and many other key issues. Surface assemblages are meaningful in their own right, but if we want to test the relationship between surface and subsurface remains in different contexts, we need to supplement survey data with test excavations.

Finally, while methodology is an essential concern, there is less discussion in the literature about the relationship between method and theory and the types of broader questions archaeological surveys are intended to address. Two issues are: (1) that method is often equated with theory; (2) good methodology is often equated with the collection of the highest resolution of data possible. These are false equivalencies. In recent decades we have seen the benefits of high-resolution data collection at sites and in other small areas. One might argue, however, that this has come at the expense of the development of research questions concerning the scales that survey archaeology is uniquely suited to address – landscapes and regions. For example, intensive surveys in the 1990s and 2000s made major leaps forward in the interpretation of ploughsoil assemblages, but often ignored mountains, wooded slopes, and other landscapes that were equally important to past peoples; at the same time, architectural documentation was often secondary to artifact collection and quantification (and sometimes not done at all). How can we account for regional settlement systems, the lived experience of landscapes, and themes like space, place, and movement if we are only looking at part of the picture? The greatest potential of survey lies in combining different types of field and laboratory work – remote sensing, extensive exploration, intensive survey, and site documentation – to produce layered, textured data relevant to landscape analysis at multiple scales.

Surveys in Greece have produced excellent results to inform local settlement organization, the long-term development of particular sites, polities, and microregions, and the extraction of maximal information from minimally invasive surface methods; they have been less engaged with broader dialogues in world archaeology – for example, in responding to ‘grand challenges’ identified for anthropological archaeology (Kintigh et al. Reference Kintigh, Altschul, Beaudry, Drennan, Kinzig, Kohler, Limp, Maschner, Michener, Pauketat, Peregrine, Sabloff, Wilkinson, Wright and Zeder2014); in investigating large-scale demographic and ecological change (although see Bevan et al. Reference Bevan, Palmisano, Woodbridge, Fyfe, Roberts and Shennan2019); and in considering archaeological futures and the problems of the Anthropocene (Gaggioli and Hunter Reference Gaggioli and Hunter2025; Pétursdóttir Reference Pétursdóttir2017; Witmore Reference Witmore and Birch2018). The detailed regional datasets of Greece (and their combination across larger areas) are uniquely positioned to address such issues in the long term. In the future, we should look forward to projects in which multiple methods, scales, and stages of analysis work together, intentionally and explicitly, to address research questions that are relevant not only to the archaeology of Greece, but also to the study of human societies elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Sam Much for her contributions to database editing, the GIS, and the bibliography for this article. Several colleagues provided information and comments about recent projects, images, or feedback on drafts of this report: Anna Blomley, Michael Boyd, Matt Buell, Bill Caraher, John Cherry, Anna Lucia D’Agata, Emeri Farinetti, Björn Forsén, Filip Franković, Chelsey Gardner, Tina Kalantzopoulou, Michael Loy, Susan Lupack, Brody Manquen, Dimitris Matsas, Sarah Murray, Dimitri Nakassis, Sophia Nomicos, Bill Parkinson, Robin Rönnlund, Maria Vaiopoulou, Leonidas Vokotopoulos, and Bonna Wescoat. Finally, I thank the editors for their invitation to contribute this article and for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Abate, N., Roubis, D., Aggeli, A., Sileo, M., Amodio, A.M., Vitale, V., Frisetti, A., Danese, M., Arzu, P., Sogliani, F., Lasaponara, R. and Masini, N. (2025) ‘An open-source machine learning–based methodological approach for processing high-resolution UAS LiDAR data in archaeological contexts: a case study from Epirus, Greece’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 32, 38 10.1007/s10816-025-09706-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agapiou, A., Dakouri-Hild, A., Davis, S., Andrikou, E. and Rourk, W. (2022) ‘The Kotroni Archaeological Research Project (KASP): Evaluating ancient Aphidna using multimodal landscape analysis’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 7, 413–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcock, S.E. (1991) ‘Urban survey and the polis of Phlius’, Hesperia 60, 421–6310.2307/148266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcock, S.E. (1993) Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Alcock, S.E. and Cherry, J.F. (2004) ‘Introduction’, in S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry (eds), Side-by- Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World (Oxford) 19 Google Scholar
Andreasen, N.H., Pantzou, N., Papadopoulos, D. and Darlas, A. (eds) (2017) Unfolding a Mountain: A Historical Archaeology of Modern and Contemporary Cave Use on Mount Pelion (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 19) (Athens)Google Scholar
Andreou, S., Czebreszuk, J. and Pappa, M. (2016) Anthemous Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report (Poznań)Google Scholar
Apostolou, G., Venieri, K., Mayoral, A., Dimaki, S., Garcia-Molsosa, A., Georgiadis, M. and Orengo, H.A. (2024) ‘Long-term settlement dynamics in ancient Macedonia: A new multi-disciplinary survey from Grevena (NW Greece)’, Land 13, 1,769 (https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111769)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aravantinos, V., Burke, B., Burns, B., Fappas, Y., Lupack, S. and MacKay, C. (2016) ‘The Eastern Boeotia Archaeological Project 2007–2010: The intensive surface survey – Eleon’, Mouseion 57, 293357 Google Scholar
Arrington, N.T., Terzopoulou, D., Tasaklaki, M., Makris, G. and Hudson, N. (2023) ‘The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project (MTAP): Discovering and recording a diachronic landscape’, in A. Avramidou and J. Donati (eds), Surveying Aegean Thrace in the Digital Era: Proceedings of the Workshop Held for the Research Project Archaeological and Geophysical Research at the Peraia of Samothrace (Komotini) 7998 Google Scholar
Arrington, N.T., Terzopoulou, D., Tasaklaki, M. and Tartaron, T.F. (eds) (2025) The Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project 1: Landscape, Architecture, and Material Culture (Hesperia Supplement 54) (Princeton)Google Scholar
Athanasoulis, D., Knodell, A.R., Tankosić, Ž., Papadopoulou, Z., Sigala, M., Diamanti, C., Kourayos, Y. and Papadimitriou, A. (2021) ‘The Small Cycladic Islands Project (2019–2020): A comparative survey of uninhabited landscapes near Paros and Antiparos, Greece’, Antiquity 95.380, e12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanassopoulos, E. (2017) Landscape Archaeology and the Medieval Countryside (Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 2) (Princeton)Google Scholar
Athanassopoulos, E. (2020) ‘Colloquium: The medieval countryside in the Aegean and Anatolia: An archaeological perspective: introduction’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 5, 367–76Google Scholar
Attema, P., Bintliff, J., Van Leusen, M., Bes, P., De Haas, T., Donev, D., Jongman, W., Kaptijn, E., Mayoral, V., Menchelli, S., Pasquinucci, M., Rosen, S., García Sánchez, J., Gutierrez Soler, L., Stone, D., Tol, G., Vermeulen, F. and Vionis, A. (2020) ‘A guide to good practice in Mediterranean surface survey projects’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 5, 162 10.32028/9781789697926-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avramidou, A. and Donati, J. (eds) (2023) Surveying Aegean Thrace in the Digital Era: Proceedings of the Workshop Held for the Research Project Archaeological and Geophysical Research at the Peraia of Samothrace (Komotini)Google Scholar
Avramidou, A., Donati, J., Papadopoulos, N., Sarris, A., Karadima, C., Pardalidou, C., Aitatoglou, P., Tasaklaki, M. and Sirris, N. (2023) ‘The Peraia of Samothrace Project: A multi-disciplinary approach to the diachronic landscape of the Peraia of Samothrace’, in Avramidou, A. and Donati, J. (eds), Surveying Aegean Thrace in the Digital Era: Proceedings of the Workshop Held for the Research Project Archaeological and Geophysical Research at the Peraia of Samothrace (Komotini) 1438 Google Scholar
Baier, C. and Gauß, W. (eds) (2025) Approaching Ancient Greek Coastal and Inland Poleis in the Northern Peloponnese: New Research in the Microregions of Aigeira, Lousoi and Sikyon (Vienna)10.1553/978OEAW93043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakalakis, G. (1959) Προανασκαϕικές έρϵυνϵς στη Θράκη (Thessaloniki)Google Scholar
Beaumont, L. and Archontidou-Argyri, A. (1999) ‘New work at Kato Phana, Chios: The Kato Phana Archaeological Project preliminary report for 1997 and 1998’, BSA 94, 265–87Google Scholar
Beaumont, L.A., Miller, M.C. and Paspalas, S.A. (2012) ‘New investigations at Zagora: The Zagora Archaeological Project’, Mediterranean Archaeology 25, 4366 Google Scholar
Beckmann, S. (2012) Domesticating Mountains in Middle Bronze Age Crete: Minoan Agricultural Landscaping in the Agios Nicolaos Region (PhD thesis, Crete)Google Scholar
Bennet, J. and Galaty, M. (1997) ‘Ancient Greece: Recent developments in Aegean archaeology and regional studies’, Journal of Archaeological Research 5, 75120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betancourt, P.P., Davaras, C. and Hope Simpson, R. (eds) (2004) Pseira 8: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island 1 (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 11) (Philadelphia)Google Scholar
Betancourt, P.P., Davaras, C. and Hope Simpson, R. (eds) (2005) Pseira 9: The Archaeological Survey of Pseira Island 2 (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 12) (Philadelphia)Google Scholar
Bevan, A. and Conolly, J. (2013) Mediterranean Islands, Fragile Communities and Persistent Landscapes: Antikythera in Long-Term Perspective (Cambridge)10.1017/CBO9781139519748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, A., Palmisano, A., Woodbridge, J., Fyfe, R., Roberts, C.N. and Shennan, S. (2019) ‘The changing face of the Mediterranean – land cover, demography and environmental change: introduction and overview’, The Holocene 29, 703–0710.1177/0959683619826688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. (1994) ‘The history of the Greek countryside: As the wave breaks, prospects for future research’, in Doukellis, P.N. and Mendoni, L.G. (eds), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques. Actes du colloque de Corfou (14–16 mai 1992) (Besançon) 716 Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. (1997) ‘Regional survey, demography, and the rise of complex societies in the ancient Aegean: Core-periphery, neo-Malthusian, and other interpretive models’, Journal of Field Archaeology 24.1, 138 10.1179/jfa.1997.24.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. (2016) ‘The first thirty-six years of the Boeotia Project, central Greece’, in Bintliff, J. and Rutter, N.K. (eds), The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass (Edinburgh) 447–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. (2018) ‘Survey archaeology in the Greek Aegean world’, in Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Cham) 118 Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. (2023) ‘Agricultural intensification and the evidence from offsite survey archaeology’, Journal of World Prehistory 36, 109–4510.1007/s10963-023-09176-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, J. (2025) ‘The Boeotia Project: a review of research conducted between August 2016 and August 2021’, Pharos 25, 161–77Google Scholar
Bintliff, J. and Degryse, P. (2022) ‘A review of soil geochemistry in archaeology’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 43, 103419 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103419)Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., Farinetti, E. and Snodgrass, A.M. (2025) Boeotia Project, Volume III: Hyettos: The Origins, Florescence, and Afterlife of a Small Boeotian City (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., Howard, P. and Snodgrass, A.M. (2007) Testing the Hinterland: The Work of the Boeotia Survey (1989–1991) in the Southern Approaches to the City of Thespiai (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., Farinetti, E., Slapšak, B. and Snodgrass, A.M. (2017) Boeotia Project, Volume II: The City of Thespiai: Survey at a Complex Urban Site (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Blouet, B. (1986) ‘Development of the settlement pattern’, in Renfrew, C., Gimbutas, M. and Elster, E.S. (eds), Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece (Monumenta Archaeologica 13) (Los Angeles) 133–43Google Scholar
Bommeljé, S., Doorn, P.K., Deylius, M., Vroom, J.A.C., Bommeljé, Y., Fagel, R.P. and van Wijngaarden, H. (1987) Aetolia and Aetolians: Towards the Interdisciplinary Study of a Greek Region (Studia Aetolica 1) (Utrecht)Google Scholar
Bonnier, A., Finné, M. and Weiberg, E. (2019) ‘Examining land-use through GIS-based kernel density estimation: A re-evaluation of legacy data from the Berbati-Limnes Survey’, Journal of Field Archaeology 44.2, 7083 10.1080/00934690.2019.1570481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, W. (2003) Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province (London)Google Scholar
Bredaki, M. and Lungo, F. (2015) ‘Phaistos Project: The results of the recent surveys (years 2011–2013)’, AEK 3, 453–63Google Scholar
Briggs, L. and Campbell, P.B. (2023) ‘Shipwreck archaeology in the past 10 years’, AR 69, 131–45Google Scholar
Caraher, W., Gallimore, S., Nakassis, D. and James, S.A. (2020) ‘Survey and the 7th century in the western Argolid’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 5, 377405 10.32028/9781789697926-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T., Contreras, D.A., Holcomb, J., Mihailović, D.D., Karkanas, P., Guérin, G., Taffin, N., Athanasoulis, D. and Lahaye, C. (2019) ‘Earliest occupation of the central Aegean (Naxos), Greece: Implications for hominin and Homo sapiens’ behavior and dispersals’, Science Advances 5, eaax0997 10.1126/sciadv.aax0997CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, T., Contreras, D.A., Holcomb, J., Mihailović, D.D., Skarpelis, N., Campeau, K., Moutsiou, T. and Athanasoulis, D. (2017) ‘The Stélida Naxos Archaeological Project: New studies of an early prehistoric chert quarry in the Cyclades’, in Tomlinson, J.E. and Rupp, D.W. (eds), From Maple to Olive: Proceedings of a Colloquium to Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece: Athens, 10–11 June 2016 (Athens) 75103 Google Scholar
Carter, T., Mallinson, K., Mastrogiannopoulou, V., Contreras, D.A., Diffey, C., Lopez, C., Pareja, M.N., Tsartsidou, G. and Athanasoulis, D. (2021) ‘A new Minoan-type peak sanctuary on Stelida, Naxos’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 6, 60100 10.32028/9781789698886-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casselmann, C., Fuchs, M., Ittameier, D., Maran, J. and Wagner, G.A. (2004) ‘Interdisziplinäre landschaftsarchäologische Forschungen im Becken von Phlious, 1998–2002’, AA 2004.1, 157 Google Scholar
Cavanagh, W., Crouwel, J., Catling, R.W.V. and Shipley, G. (2002) Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey 1: Methodology and Interpretation (BSA Supplementary Volume 26) (London)Google Scholar
Cavanagh, W., Mee, C., James, P., Brodie, N. and Carter, T. (2005) The Laconia Rural Sites Project (BSA Supplementary Volume 36) (London)Google Scholar
Chalikias, K. (2013) Living on the Margin: Chryssi Island and the Settlement Patterns of the Ierapetra Area, South-Eastern Crete (BAR International Series 2549) (Oxford)Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. (1982) ‘A preliminary definition of site distribution on Melos’, in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, M. (eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge) 1023 Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. (1983) ‘Frogs round the pond: Perspectives in current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region’, in Keller, D. R. and Rupp, D. W. (eds), Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area (Oxford) 375416 Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. (1994) ‘Regional survey in the Aegean: The “new wave” and after’, in Kardulias, P.N. (ed.), Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area (Lanham) 91112 Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. and Leppard, T.P. (2025) Human Dispersal, Human Evolution, and the Sea: The Palaeolithic Seafaring Debate (Denver)10.5876/9781646426911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. and Mantzourani, E. (1991) Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16) (Los Angeles)Google Scholar
Christophilopoulou, A., Huy, S., Loy, M., Mac Sweeney, N. and Mokrišová, J. (2025) ‘The west area of Samos Archaeological Project: Results from south-west Samos’, BSA 120 Google Scholar
Chrysoulaki, S. and Vokotopoulos, L. (2022) ‘Δρόμοι και ϕυλάκια, άνδηρα καλλιέργϵιας και αγροικίϵς: το έργο του Eρϵυνητικού Προγράμματος «Mινωικοί Δρόμοι» κατά τα έτη 2011–2019’, in Antonopoulou, B. and Petrounakos, S. (eds), Iδια η μνήμη γινάμϵνη παρόν… Tο Aρχαιολογικό Έργο των Eϕορϵιoν Aρχαιοτήτων κατά τη χρονική πϵρίοδο 2011–2019. Eπιστημονική Συνάντηση, Mέγαρο Mουσικής Aθηνoν, 25–28 Nοϵμβρίου 2019: Πρακτικά. Tόμος 2 (Athens) 726–33Google Scholar
Cloke, C.F. (2016) The Landscape of the Lion: Economies of Religion and Politics in the Nemean Countryside (800 BC to AD 700) (PhD thesis, Cincinnati)Google Scholar
Cosmopoulos, M.B. (2016) The Political Geography of a Mycenaean District: The Archaeological Survey at Iklaina (Athens)Google Scholar
Cullen, T., Talalay, L., Keller, D., Karimali, E. and Farrand, W. (2013) The Prehistory of the Paximadi Peninsula, Euboea (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 40) (Havertown)10.2307/j.ctt5vj918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtius, E. and Kaupert, J.A. (1895–1903) Karten von Attika (Berlin)Google Scholar
Davis, J.L. and Bennet, J. (eds) (2017) The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project: A Retrospective (Princeton)Google Scholar
Davis, J.L., Alcock, S.E., Bennet, J., Lolos, Y.G. and Shelmerdine, C.W. (1997) ‘The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. Part I: Overview and the archaeological survey’, Hesperia 66, 391494 10.2307/148395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haas, T., Leppard, T., Waagen, J. and Wilkinson, T. (2023) ‘Myopic misunderstandings? A reply to Meyer (JMA 35(2), 2022)’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 36, 127–3710.1558/jma.27148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haas, T.C.A., van Leusen, M. (2020) ‘FAIR survey:Improving documentation and archiving practices in archaeological field survey through CIDOC CRM’, FOLDER Archaeological Survey 12, http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-sur-2020-12.pdf Google Scholar
de Ligt, L. and Bintliff, J. (eds) (2020) Regional Urban Systems in the Roman World, 150 BCE–250 CE (Mnemosyne Supplements 431) (Leiden)10.1163/9789004414365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, S. (ed.) (2011) Kalydon in Aitolia: Danish/Greek Field Work 2001–2005 (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 12) (Athens)Google Scholar
Donati, J.C. and Sarris, A. (2016) ‘Geophysical survey in Greece: Recent developments, discoveries and future prospects’, AR 62, 6376 Google Scholar
Drillat, Q. (2024) ‘Reconciling contradictory archaeological survey data: A case study from central Crete, Greece’, Open Archaeology 10, 2024–0012 (https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2024-0012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbabin, T.J (1962) Perachora 2: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 1930–1933 (Oxford)Google Scholar
Düring, B.S. and Stek, T.D. (eds) (2018) The Archaeology of Imperial Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Empires in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean World (Cambridge)10.1017/9781316995495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaby, M., Chalikias, K. and Sofianou, C. (forthcoming) Chryssi Island and the World of Littoral Archaeology (Philadelphia)Google Scholar
Eder, B., Gehrke, H.-J., Kolia, E.-I., Lang, F., Obrocki, L., Vött, A. (2019) ‘A multidimensional space: Olympia and its environs’, Athenische Mitteilungen 134, 97195 Google Scholar
Efstratiou, N. and Ammerman, A.J. (2004) ‘Survey in Aegean Thrace: Exploring the landscape’, in Iakōvou, M. (ed.), Archaeological Field Survey in Cyprus: Past History, Future Potentials: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus, 1–2 December 2000 (London)Google Scholar
Efstratiou, N., Biagi, P., Elefanti, P., Karkanas, P. and Ntinou, M. (2006) ‘Prehistoric exploitation of Grevena highland zones: Hunters and herders along the Pindus chain of western Macedonia (Greece)’, World Archaeology 38, 415–35Google Scholar
Efstratiou, N., Biagi, P., Starnini, E., Kyriakou, D. and Eleftheriadou, A. (2022) ‘Agia Marina and Peristereònas: Two new epipalaeolithic sites on the island of Lemnos (Greece)’, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology 5, 5 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-022-00118-8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erny, G. (2023) ‘Statistical approaches to small site diversity: New insights from Cretan legacy survey data’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 36, 71101 10.1558/jma.26678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erny, G. and Caraher, W. (2020) ‘The kingdom of Chelmis: Architecture, material culture, and the modern landscape of the western Argolid’, Journal of Field Archaeology 45.3, 209–2110.1080/00934690.2019.1704990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evangelidis, V. (2022) The Archaeology of Roman Macedonia: Urban And Rural Environments (Oxford)10.2307/j.ctv2v6pckzCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evangelidis, V., Tsiafaki, D., Mourthos, Y. and Karta, M. (eds) (2024) ‘Special section: Mapping the past plotting the future: GIS in archaeology, maturity and implementation. Proceedings of the workshop organised by the AeGIS Athena Lab, at the British School at Athens, Thursday 30 March 2023’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 9, 1156 Google Scholar
Fachard, S. (2012) Eretria 21: La Défense du Territoire : Étude de la “Chôra” Érétrienne et de ses Fortifications (Gollion)Google Scholar
Fachard, S., Murray, S.C., Knodell, A.R. and Papangeli, K. (2020) ‘The fortress of Eleutherai: New insights from survey, architecture, and epigraphy’, Hesperia 89, 475548 10.2972/hesperia.89.3.0475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fachard, S., Simosi, A., Krapf, T., Saggini, T., Kyriazi, O., André, J., Chezeaux, C., Verdan, S. and Theurillat, T. (2024) ‘Fieldwork of the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece 2023’, Antike Kunst 67, 95109 Google Scholar
Farinetti, E. (2011) Boeotian Landscapes: A GIS-based Study for the Reconstruction and Interpretation of the Archaeological Datasets of Ancient Boeotia (BAR International Series S2195) (Oxford)Google Scholar
Farinetti, E. and Avgerinou, P. (2023) ‘WeMALP (Western Megaris Archaeological Landscape Project): the 2022–2023 campaigns’, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e Delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 101, 809–38Google Scholar
Fontana, G. (2022) ‘Italy’s hidden hillforts: A large-scale lidar-based mapping of Samnium’, Journal of Field Archaeology 47.4, 245–6110.1080/00934690.2022.2031465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, G. (2024) ‘Issues of sampling and representativeness in large-scale LiDAR-derived archaeological surveys in Mediterranean contexts’, Archaeological Prospection 32.1, 103–17Google Scholar
Forsén, B. (ed.) (2019) Thesprotia Expedition 4: Region Transformed by Empire (Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 24) (Helsinki)Google Scholar
Gaggioli, A.M. and Hunter, R.A. (eds) (2025) ‘Vital topics forum: Archaeology, politics, and environmental crisis’, American Anthropologist (https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1548-1433.vital-topics-forum)Google Scholar
Galanidou, N., Athanassas, C., Cole, J., Iliopoulos, G., Katerinopoulos, A., Magganas, A. and McNabb, J. (2016) ‘The Acheulian site at Rodafnidia, Lisvori, on Lesbos, Greece: 2010–2012’, in Harvati, K. and Roksandic, M. (eds), Paleoanthropology of the Balkans and Anatolia: Human Evolution and its Context (Dordrecht) 119–3810.1007/978-94-024-0874-4_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanidou, N., Vikatou, O., Gatsi-Stavropoulou, M., Vasilakis, A., Staikou, V., Iliopoulos, G., Veikou, M., Forsén, J., Morgan, C., Vroom, J., Papoulia, C., Zervoudakis, P. and Prassas, K. (2018) ‘H αρχαιολογική έρϵυνα ϵπιϕανϵίας στο Eσωτϵρικό Aρχιπέλαγος του Iονίου’, in Vikatou, O. (ed.), Tο αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Aιτωλοακαρνανία & τη Λϵυκάδα. Πρακτικα: 2ου διϵθνούς αρχαιολογικού & ιστορικού συνϵδρίου I.Π. Mϵσολογγίου, 6–8 Δϵκϵμβρίου 2013 (Mesolonghi) 277305 Google Scholar
Gallimore, S., James, S., Caraher, W. and Nakassis, D. (2017) ‘To Argos: Archaeological survey in the Western Argolid’, in Rupp, D. and Tomlinson, J. (eds), From Maple to Olive: A Colloquium to Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece (Athens) 421–38Google Scholar
Gardner, C.A.M. (2024) ‘Classical to Late Roman sites at Diros Bay in the Mani Peninsula, Greece’, American Journal of Archaeology 128, 527–5210.1086/731400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiadis, M. (2012) Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: The Halasarna Finds and the Aegean Settlement Pattern (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 38) (Philadelphia)10.2307/j.ctt3fgw48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiadis, M., Kallintzi, C., Garcia-Molsosa, A., Orengo, H.A., Kefalidou, E. and Motsiou, P. (2022) ‘The archaeological survey at Abdera and Xanthi 2015–2019: Long-term analysis of colonial relations in Thrace’, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 14, 167 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01635-x)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Given, M. (2022) ‘Towards a post-survey landscape archaeology’, in Manning, S.W. (ed.), Critical Approaches to Cypriot and Wider Mediterranean Archaeology (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 16) (Sheffield) 144–60Google Scholar
Gkiasta, M. (2008) The Historiography of Landscape Research on Crete (Leiden University Archaeological Studies 16) (Leiden)10.5117/9789087280369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haagsma, M.J., Karapanou, S., Aiken, M., Canlas, G., Chykerda, M. and Middleton, E. (2025) ‘The Central Achaia Phthiotis Survey (CAPS): Results of the 2023-2024 seasons’, Paper presented at the 126th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Philadelphia, 2–5 January 2025Google Scholar
Haagsma, M., Karapanou, S., Surtees, L. and Mazarakis-Ainian, A. (2015) ‘Greek–Canadian fieldwork at Kastro Kallithea 2006–2012’, AEThSE 4, 245–56Google Scholar
Haggis, D.C. (2005) Kavousi. The Results of the Excavations at Kavousi in Eastern Crete 1: The Archaeological Survey of the Kavousi Region (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 16) (Philadelphia)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvati, K., Panagopoulou, E., Karkanas, P. and Athanassiou, A. (2008) ‘Preliminary results of the Aliakmon Paleolithic/Paleoanthropological Survey, Greece, 2004–2005’, in Darlas, A. and Mihailović, D. (eds), The Palaeolithic of the Balkans: International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (BAR International Series 1819) (Oxford) 1520 Google Scholar
Hayden, B.J. (2005) Reports on the Vrokastro Area, Eastern Crete 3: The Vrokastro Regional Survey Project: Sites and Pottery (University of Pennsylvania Museum Monograph 123) (Philadelphia)Google Scholar
Heiden, J. and Rohn, C. (2015) ‘Die antike Landschaft Triphylien. Siedlungstopographischer Wandel und Repräsentationsmöglichkeiten im Hellenismus’, in Matthaei, A. and Zimmermann, M. (eds), Urbane Strukturen und bürgerliche Identität im Hellenismus (Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform Band 5) (Heidelberg) 330–49Google Scholar
Hood, S. (1981) Excavations in Chios, 1938–1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala (London)Google Scholar
Hulek, F. (2023) ‘The trial trenches at Ari/Charvalo in 2016 and the excavation by E. and O. Kakavogianni at Frankolimano Thorikou 1969/70: Preliminary results’, Der Anschnitt, 175–8610.46586/DBM.264.400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S.A., Nakassis, D., Caraher, W.R., Gallimore, S.C., Erny, G., Fernandez, R., Frankl, J., Friedman, A., Godsey, M. and Gradoz, M. (2024) ‘Landscape histories and terrestrial networks in the Peloponnese: Results from the Western Argolid Regional Project’, Hesperia 93.1, 145–9010.2972/hes.2024.a922194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, M.H., Runnels, C.N. and Van Andel, T.H. (1994) A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day (Stanford)Google Scholar
Kalantzopoulou, T. (2022) Taking the High Road: Prehistoric Habitation and Exploitation in the Mountains of East Crete New Evidence from an Extensive Survey (Aegis 22) (Louvain-la-Neuve)Google Scholar
Kalantzopoulou, T. (2023) ‘Narratives of mountainous areas in the Aegean: Prehistoric remains on the mountains of East Crete and the political geography of Minoan Crete’, Center for Hellenic Studies Research Bulletin 11 (https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HLNC.ESSAY:103377757)Google Scholar
Karagiannopoulos, C. (2022) ‘Aυτοκινητόδρομος Kϵντρικής Eλλάδας E-65 στην πϵριοχή της Δυτικής Θϵσσαλίας: οδικός άξονας διασύνδϵσης, ϵπικοινωνίας και ιστορικής γνoσης’, in Antonopoulou, B. and Petrounakos, S. (eds), Iδια η μνήμη γινάμϵνη παρόν. Tο Aρχαιολογικό Έργο των Eϕορϵιoν Aρχαιοτήτων κατά τη χρονική πϵρίοδο 2011–2019 (Athens) 847–55Google Scholar
Karambinis, M. (2015) The Island of Skyros from Late Roman to Early Modern Times: An Archaeological Survey (Archaeological Studies Leiden University 28) (Leiden)Google Scholar
Kearns, C. (2023) The Rural Landscapes of Archaic Cyprus: An Archaeology of Environmental and Social Change (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Keller, D.R. (1985) Archaeological Survey in Southern Euboea, Greece: A Reconstruction of Human Activity from Neolithic Times through the Byzantine Period (PhD thesis, Indiana)Google Scholar
Kintigh, K.W., Altschul, J.H., Beaudry, M.C., Drennan, R.D., Kinzig, A.P., Kohler, T.A., Limp, W.F., Maschner, H.D.G., Michener, W.K., Pauketat, T.R., Peregrine, P., Sabloff, J.A., Wilkinson, T.J., Wright, H.T. and Zeder, M.A. (2014) ‘Grand challenges for archaeology’, American Antiquity 79, 524 10.7183/0002-7316.79.1.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiriatzi, E. and Broodbank, C. (2011) ‘Kythera Island Project – 2010’, field report published on AGOnline (https://chronique.efa.gr/?r=report&id=1946)Google Scholar
Klys, A. (2018) ‘The Afiartis Project: Current survey results from Karpathos with special reference to Minoan penetration’, in Πϵπραγμϵνα Iα΄ Διϵθνους Kρητολογικου Συνϵδριου (Rέθυμνο, 21–27 Oκτωβρίου 2011) (Heraklion) 2941 Google Scholar
Knapp, A.B., Cherry, J.F. and van Dommelen, P. (2012) ‘Editorial: JMA’s silver anniversary (1988–2012)’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25, 129–4610.1558/jmea.v25i2.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodell, A.R. (2021) Societies in Transition in Early Greece: An Archaeological History (Oakland)10.1515/9780520380547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodell, A.R. (2025a) ‘Archaeological lidar in Greece: A summary of recent work’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special Section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 3–19Google Scholar
Knodell, A.R. (2025b) ‘Comparison and connections in the archaeology of small islands in Greece’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 38, 79–110Google Scholar
Knodell, A.R. and Leppard, T.P. (2018) Regional Approaches to Society and Complexity: Studies in Honor of John F. Cherry (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 15) (Sheffield)10.1558/isbn.9781781795859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodell, A.R., Fachard, S. and Papangeli, K. (2017) ‘The Mazi Archaeological Project 2016: Survey and settlement investigations in northwest Attica (Greece)’, Antike Kunst 60, 146–63Google Scholar
Knodell, A.R., Athanasoulis, D., Tankosić, Ž., Cherry, J.F., Garonis, T.K., Levine, E.I., Nenova, D. and Öztürk, H.Ç. (2022) ‘An island archaeology of uninhabited landscapes: Offshore islets near Paros, Greece (the Small Cycladic Islands Project)’, Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 17, 475511 10.1080/15564894.2020.1807426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodell, A.R., Athanasoulis, D., Cherry, J.F., Giannakopoulou, M., Levine, E.I., Nenova, D., Öztürk, H.Ç. and Papadopoulou, Z. (2025a) ‘A regional survey of the uninhabited islands of the western Cyclades: The Small Cycladic Islands Project 2021–2022’, Hesperia 94, 619–71710.2972/hes.2025.a977484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knodell, A.R., Levine, E.I., Wege, S., Fielder-Jellsey, M. and Athanasoulis, D. (2025b) ‘Post-fieldwork lidar applications in archaeological surveys: Feature recognition and quantification with the Small Cycladic Islands Project’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special Section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 49–69Google Scholar
Knodell, A.R., Wilkinson, T.C., Leppard, T.P. and Orengo, H.A. (2023) ‘Survey archaeology in the Mediterranean world: Regional traditions and contributions to long-term history’, Journal of Archaeological Research 31, 263329 10.1007/s10814-022-09175-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondyli, F. (2022) Rural Communities in Late Byzantium: Resilience and Vulnerability in the Northern Aegean (Cambridge)10.1017/9781108979825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondyli, F. (2024) ‘Settlement patterns, regional diversity, and a long-lived landscape: Exploring Byzantium through regional survey’, in Caraher, W.R., Kourelis, K. and Brooks Hedstrom, D.L. (eds), Beyond Icons: Theories and Methods in Byzantine Archaeology in North America (London) 3865 10.4324/9781003325383-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondyli, F. and Craft, S. (2020) ‘The making of a Byzantine monastic landscape: A case study from the Mazi Plain in northwest Attica, Greece’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 33, 135–5910.1558/jma.19470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontos, M., Michelaki, C. and Miteletsis, M. (2017) ‘Kαταγραϕή και έρϵυνα των σπηλαίων της λίμνης Mϵγάλης Πρέσπας. Πρoτα συμπϵράσματα και προοπτικές’, AEMTh 26, 4146 Google Scholar
Kopaka, K. (2001) ‘Eπιϕανϵιακή έρϵυνα στη Γαύδο. Προσϵγγίσϵις ϵνός οριακού νησιωτικού μικροκόσμου’, in Karetsou, A., Detorakis, T., and Kalokairinos, A. (eds), AEK A.2, 6380 Google Scholar
Kopaka, K. (2012) ‘Eπιϕανϵιακή έρϵυνα στη νήσο Nτία. Προκαταρκτικές ϵκθέσϵις των πϵριόδων 2010 και 2012’, Aριάδνη 18, 435–69Google Scholar
Kopaka, K. and Kossyva, A. 1999, ‘An island’s isles: Crete and its insular components. A preliminary approach’, in Betancourt, P., Karageorghis, V., Laffineur, R. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to M.H. Wiener as Ee Enters His 60th Υear (Aegaeum 20) (Liège) 435–44Google Scholar
Kopanias, K. (2009) ‘Preliminary report of the “Halasarna Project”: An intensive archaeological survey of the ancient demos Ealasarna on Kos’, in G. Deligiannakis and I. Galanakis (eds), The Aegean and Its Cultures: Proceedings of the First Oxford–Athens Graduate Student Workshop Organized by the Greek Society and the University of Oxford Taylor Institution, 22–23 April 2005 (BAR International Series 1975) (Oxford) 81–93Google Scholar
Kounouklas, P. and Laufer, E. (2024) ‘Neue Forschungen zur Befestigung von Tithorea. Ein vorläufiger Bericht über die Feldforschung 2016–2017’, in Sporn, K., Farnoux, A. and Laufer, E. (eds), Ancient Phokis: New Approaches to Its History, Archaeology and Topography. International Conference, DAI Athens, 30 March–1 April 2017 (Berlin) 287306 Google Scholar
Krapf, T., Chryssoulaki, S., Vokotopoulos, L., Michalopoulou, S. and André, J. (2024) ‘Aegina, Hellanion Oros: The 2023 season’, Antike Kunst 67, 104–09Google Scholar
Lane, M.F. (2023) ‘The Mycenaean northeast Kopaïs Project: A report from Ayia Marina Pyrgos’, Hesperia 92, 587643 10.2972/hes.2023.a914393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, M., Aravantinos, V., Horsley, T. and Charami, A. (2020) ‘The AROURA Project: Discoveries in central Greece, 2010–2014’, Hesperia 89, 413–7410.2972/hesperia.89.3.0413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Torre, G.F., Campagna, L., Di Giacomo, G., Donato, E., Karapanou, S., Miano, M., Mollo, F., Noula Karpeti, V., Papale, M., Puglisi, M., Toscano Raffa, A. and Venuti, M. (2017) ‘Il progetto Skotoussa: relazione preliminare sulle campagne 2014–2015’, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 94, 141–82Google Scholar
Levine, E.I., Indgjerd, H., Samdal, M. and Kristensen, S. (2025) ‘High-resolution drone lidar for Mediterranean archaeology: Point classification, feature detection, and the potential for cultural heritage management’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 164–84Google Scholar
Levitan, R., Levine, E.I., Athanasoulis, D., Legaki, I., Paga, J., Campbell, R., Indgjerd, H., Vanden Broeck-Parant, J., Anevlavi, V., Jakobitsch, T. and Liard, F. (2025) ‘An interdisciplinary workflow for the comprehensive study of ancient quarried landscapes’, Antiquity (https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.10212)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livarda, A., Orengo, H.A, Cañellas-Boltà, N., Riera-Mora, S., Picornell-Gelabert, L., Tzevelekidi, V., Veropoulidou, R., Marlasca Martín, R. and Krahtopoulou, A. (2021) ‘Mediterranean polyculture revisited: Olive, grape and subsistence strategies at Palaikastro, east Crete, between the Late Neolithic and Late Bronze Age’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 61, 101271 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101271)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, H. (1993) Atene: Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika (Vienna)Google Scholar
Lolos, Y.A. (2011) Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State (Hesperia Supplements 39) (Princeton)Google Scholar
Lolos, Y.A. (2021) Sikyon 1: The Urban Survey (Turnhout)Google Scholar
Loy, M., Argyraki, K., Christophilopoulou, A., Delli, G., Evans, M., Huy, S., Katevaini, A., Mac Sweeney, N., Mokrišová, J., Regazzoni, E. and Vasileiou, A. (2025) ‘Field data from the west area of Samos Archaeological Project (WASAP), 20212024’, Journal of Open Archaeology Data 13 (https://doi.org/10.5334/joad.156)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, T. (2025) ‘The lidar survey at Akraiphia (Boeotia): Methodology and first results’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 106–118Google Scholar
Lupack, S., Weissova, B., Skuse, M., Ross, S.A., Sobotkova, A. and Kasimi, P. (forthcoming) ‘Perachora Peninsula Archaeological Project: Report on the 2024 season’, MeditArch Google Scholar
MacNeill, R. (2023) ‘Patterns of life: Thematic diachronic interpretation of the results of the APKAS survey’, Mediterranean Archaeology 36, 101–18Google Scholar
Malaperdas, G., Maggidis, C., Karantzali, E. and Zacharias, N. (2023) ‘Field surveying, geostatistical and GIS methods in archaeology: The Mycenaean Spercheios-Valley Project (MY.SPE.AR. Project 2018–2022)’, Open Access Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 4, 5 Google Scholar
Malmer, M. (2018) ‘The Norwegian Arcadia Survey III: Preliminary results from the 2016 season’, in Taunsend, K. (ed.), Arkadien im Altertum : Geschichte und Kultur einer antiken Gebirgslandschaft (Graz), 441–54Google Scholar
Manquen, B., Garrison, T.G., Knodell, A.R. and Athanasoulis, D. (2025) ‘Visualization, vectorization, and verification: Open-source lidar methods for archaeological prospection and accuracy assessment in Mediterranean shrublands’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special Section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 70–87Google Scholar
Matsas, D., Laftsidis, A., Hudson, N., Levine, E., Makris, G. and Page, M. (2023) ‘Samothrace Archaeological Survey 1985–1987 revisited: Towards a final publication’, in Avramidou, A. and Donati, J. (eds), Surveying Aegean Thrace in the Digital Era (Komotini) 3969 Google Scholar
Matsas, D., Wescoat, B.D., Witmore, C.L., Page, M., Garrison, T.G. and Manquen, B.W. (2025) ‘The Samothrace Lidar Project (SaLiP)’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 88–105Google Scholar
Mazarakis Ainian, A. (1998) ‘The Kythnos Survey Project: A preliminary report’, in Mendoni, L. and Mazarakis Ainian, A. (eds), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology (Athens) 363–80Google Scholar
McCoy, M.D. (2021) ‘Defining the geospatial revolution in archaeology’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 37, 102988 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102988)Google Scholar
McDonald, W. and Rapp, G.R. (eds) (1972) The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment (Minneapolis)Google Scholar
McHugh, M. (2017) The Ancient Greek Farmstead (Oxford)10.2307/j.ctvh1dsmrCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meens, A., Nazou, M. and van de Put, W. (2023) Fields, Sherds and Scholars: Recording and Interpreting Survey Ceramics (Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens 9) (Leiden)10.59641/m11443pyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melas, E.M. (1985) The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 68) (Göteborg)Google Scholar
Meyer, N. (2022) ‘Finding sites in Mediterranean survey’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 35.2, 143–6810.1558/jma.25520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, N. (2023) ‘A necessary debate: The quality and role of artifact data from archaeological field survey’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 36.1, 138–4210.1558/jma.27149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, J.-C., Fadin, L., Fincker, M. and Picard, V. (2015) Exploration Archéologique de Délos 43: Atlas (Athens)Google Scholar
Morris, S.P., Papadopoulos, J.K., Bessios, M., Athanassiadou, A. and Noulas, K. (2020) ‘The Ancient Methone Archaeological Project: A preliminary report on fieldwork, 2014–2017’, Hesperia 89, 659723 10.2972/hesperia.89.4.0659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller Celka, S., Puglisi, D. and Bendali, F. (2014) ‘Settlement pattern dynamics and natural resources in MM-LM I Crete: The case of Malia’, in Touchais, G., Laffineur, R. and Rougemont, F. (eds), PHYSIS. L’Environment Naturel et la Relation Homme – Milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11–14 décembre 2012 (Aegaeum 37) (Leuven and Liège) 431–40Google Scholar
Munn, M.H. and Munn, M.L.Z. (1989) ‘Studies on the Attic-Boiotian frontier: The Stanford Skourta Plain Project, 1985’, in Fossey, J.M. (ed.), Boeotia Antiqua I: Papers on Recent Work in Boeotian Archaeology and History (Amsterdam), 73127 10.1163/9789004673243_011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S.C., Godsey, M., Frankl, J., Lis, B., Erny, G.K., Stephan, R.P., Sapirstein, P.N., McHugh, M.C. and Pratt, C.E. (2023) ‘The Bays of East Attica Regional Survey 2020–2021: New evidence for settlement, production, and exchange in Porto Rafti, Greece, from prehistory to late antiquity’, Mouseion 19, 112–7410.3138/mous.19.2.01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S.C., Pratt, C.E., Stephan, R.P., McHugh, M.C., Erny, G.K., Psoma, A., Lis, B. and Sapirstein, P.N. (2021) ‘The 2019 Bays of East Attica Regional Survey (BEARS) Project: New archaeological evidence for the history of coastal settlement, economy, and connectivity from Porto Rafti (Greece)’, Mouseion 17, 323–9410.3138/mous.17.2.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müth-Frederiksen, S., Kissas, K., Winther-Jacobsen, K., Frederiksen, R., Donati, J., Giannakopoulos, G., Papathanasiou, V., Rabbel, W., Stümpel, H. and Rusch, K. (2017) ‘Finding Old Sikyon, 2015: A preliminary report’, Proceedings of the Danish Institute of Athens, 305–2410.2307/j.ctv3405qph.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevett, L.C., Tsigarida, E.B., Archibald, Z.H., Stone, D.L., Horsley, T.J., Ault, B.A., Panti, A., Lynch, K.M., Pethen, H., Stallibrass, S.M., Salminen, E., Gaffney, C., Sparrow, T.J., Taylor, S., Manousakis, J. and Zekkos, D. (2017) ‘Towards a multi-scalar, multidisciplinary approach to the Classical Greek city: The Olynthos Project’, ABSA 112, 155206 Google Scholar
Niebieszczański, J., Czebreszuk, J., Hildebrandt-Radke, I., Vouvalidis, K., Syrides, G., Tsourlos, P. and Spychalski, W. (2019) ‘Uncovering tell formation processes in the Anthemous Valley (northern Greece): Geoarchaeological studies of Nea Raedestos Toumba’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 27, 101987 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101987)Google Scholar
Nixon, L. (2024) ‘Towards an archaeology of sustainability: Resource packages and landscape management in Sphakia, south-west Crete’, BSA 119, 435–82Google Scholar
Nixon, L., Price, S., Moody, J., and Rackham, O. (2024) The Sphakia Survey Internet Edition (Oxford) (https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.c.6816405)Google Scholar
Ødegard, K. (2005) ‘The topography of ancient Tegea: New discoveries and old problems’, in Ancient Arcadia (Papers of the Norwegian Institute at Athens 8) (Athens) 209–21Google Scholar
Orengo, H.A. and Knappett, C. (2018) ‘Toward a definition of Minoan agro-pastoral landscapes: Results of the survey at Palaikastro (Crete)’, AJA 122, 479507 10.3764/aja.122.3.0479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orengo, H.A., Krahtopoulou, A., Garcia-Molsosa, A., Palaiochoritis, K. and Stamati, A. (2015) ‘Photogrammetric re-discovery of the hidden long-term landscapes of western Thessaly, central Greece’, Journal of Archaeological Science 64, 100–0910.1016/j.jas.2015.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagiotakis, N. (2003) ‘L’évolution archéologique de la Pédiada (Crète centrale): premier bilan d’une prospection’, BCH 127, 327430 10.3406/bch.2003.7322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadatos, Y. and Chalikias, K. (2019) ‘Minoan land-use patterns and landscape transformation in the mountains of the Hierapetra area: The Minoan building at Gaidourophas’, in Oddo, E. and Chalikias, K. (eds), Exploring a Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Bronze Age Habitation in the Southern Hierapetra Isthmus (Philadelphia) 7995 10.2307/j.ctvk12st6.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadatos, Y. and Kalantzopoulou, T. (2022) ‘Turning the landscape into territory: Strategies of power for the exploitation of the Cretan mountains during the Neopalatial period’, in van Wijngaarden, G.J. and Driessen, J. (eds), Political Geographies of the Bronze Age Aegean: Proceedings of the Joint Workshop by the Belgian School at Athens (EBSA) and the Netherlands Institute at Athens (NIA), May 28 to 31, 2019 (Leuven) 3146 10.2307/j.ctv2tjdgj2.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadatos, Y. and Sofianou, C. (2015) ‘Kωροταξία οικισμoν στη μϵτάβαση από τη Nϵολιθική στην Eποχή του Kαλκού: Tα αποτϵλέσματα της ϵπιϕανϵιακής έρϵυνας στη Σκοπή Σητϵίας’, Aρχαιολογικό Έργο Kρήτης 3, 475–88Google Scholar
Papadopoulou, Z., Samaras, V., Fylaktos, P. and Knodell, A.R. (2025) ‘Seeing the trees through the forest: Lidar data and the identification of ancient sites in southeastern Rheneia’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 134–48Google Scholar
Papakonstantinou, M.F., Penttinen, A., Tsokas, G.N., Tsourlos, P.I., Stampolidis, A., Fikos, I., Tassis, G., Psarogianni, K., Stavrogiannis, L., Bonnier, A., Nilsson, M. and Boman, H. (2013) ‘The Makrakomi Archaeological Landscapes Project (MALP): A preliminary report on investigations carried out in 2010–2012’, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 6, 211–6010.30549/opathrom-06-08CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papangelopoulou, T. (2012) ‘Kύθνος’, ADelt 67, 723–32Google Scholar
Payne, H. (1940) Perachora 1: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia: Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 1930–1933 (Oxford)Google Scholar
Pettegrew, D.K. (2024) Corinthian Countrysides: Linked Open Data and Analysis from the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (Grand Forks)10.31356/dpb026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pétursdóttir, Þ. (2017) ‘Climate change? Archaeology and Anthropocene’, Archaeological Dialogues 24, 175205 10.1017/S1380203817000216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirée Iliou, N. (2022) The Transformation of an Agricultural Economy: Forms of Rural Settlement in Epirus from the Second Century BCE to the Fourth Century CE (PhD thesis, Oxford)Google Scholar
Pollard, D. (2023) ‘From the ground up: Modelling agricultural landscapes in Early Iron Age east Crete using legacy survey data and GIS’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 36, 4270 10.1558/jma.26676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullen, D.J. (2011) Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 1: The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill (Princeton)Google Scholar
Pullen, D.J. (2018) ‘Caves and the landscape of Late Neolithic to Early Helladic I Greece: Comparing excavation and survey data from the Peloponnese’, in Dietz, S., Mavridis, F., Tankosić, Ž. and Takaoğlu, T. (eds), Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area During the 5th and 4th Millennia BC (Oxford) 314–22Google Scholar
Pullen, D.J, Galaty, M.L., Parkinson, W.A., Lee, W.E and Seifried, R.M. (2018) ‘The Diros Project, 2011–2013: Surface survey and site collection in Diros Bay’, in Papathanasiou, A., Parkinson, W.A., Pullen, D.J., Galaty, M.L. and Karkanas, P. (eds), Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave in the Mani, Greece (Oxford) 407–25Google Scholar
Randsborg, K. (2002) Kephallenia Archaeology and History: The Ancient Greek Cities (Copenhagen)Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Boyd, M.J., Athanasoulis, D., Brodie, N., Carter, T., Dellaporta, K., Floquet, M., Gavalas, G., Georgakopoulou, M., Gkouma, M., Hilditch, J., Krijnen, A., Legaki, I., Margaritis, E., Marthari, M., Moutafi, I., Philaniotou, O., Sotirakopoulou, P. and Wright, J. (2022) ‘The sanctuary at Keros in the Aegean Early Bronze Age: From centre of congregation to centre of power’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 7, 136 10.32028/jga.v7i.1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, D.G. and Voyatzis, M.E. (2015) ‘Mt Lykaion Excavation and Survey Project, part 2: The lower sanctuary’, Hesperia 84, 207–7610.2972/hesperia.84.2.0207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rönnlund, R. (2025) ‘Melitaia in Achaia Phthiotis: Some first glances of an ancient city through a recent lidar survey’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 119–33Google Scholar
Sackett, L.H., Hankey, V., Howell, R.J., Jacobsen, T.W. and Popham, M.R. (1966) ‘Prehistoric Euboea: Contributions toward a survey’, BSA 61, 33112 Google Scholar
Sbonias, K. and Tzachili, I. (eds) (2021) Therasia 3: Archaeological Research and Landscape History of an Island Community (Athens)Google Scholar
Schaus, G.P. and Parish, J. (1996) ‘An archaeological field survey at Eresos, Lesbos’, Echos du Monde Classique: Classical News and Views 40.1, 2774 Google Scholar
Seifried, R.M. and Stewart, D.E.B. (eds) (2021) Deserted Villages: Perspectives from the Eastern Mediterranean (Grand Forks)10.31356/dpb019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifried, R.M., Gardner, C.A.M. and Tatum, M. (2023) ‘Mapping the Leigh Fermors’ journey through the deep Mani in 1951’, BSA 118, 417–40Google Scholar
Simon, P. (2002) ‘Nouvelles activités de prospection dans le territoire Érétrien’, Antike Kunst 45, 125–27Google Scholar
Simpson, R.H. (2014) Mycenaean Messenia and the Kingdom of Pylos (Philadelphia)10.2307/j.ctt1287h0qCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C. (2008) ‘Interpreting the Bronze Age landscape of Kephalonia: A (preliminary) view from the Livatho Valley Survey’, in Gallou, C., Georgiadis, M., and Muskett, G.M. (eds), Dioskouroi: Studies Presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the Anniversary of Their 30-year Joint Contribution to Aegean Archaeology (Oxford) 237–51Google Scholar
Spencer, C. and Bevan, A. (2018) ‘Settlement location models, archaeological survey data and social change in Bronze Age Crete’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 52, 7186 10.1016/j.jaa.2018.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sporn, K. and Kennedy, W. (2025) ‘Lidar-based research in the Phokian Kephissos Valley’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 20–33Google Scholar
Sporn, K., Kounouklas, P. and Laufer, E. (2021) ‘Tοπογραϕικές έρϵυνϵς στην κοιλάδα του Kηϕισού’, Aρχαιολογία και Tέχνϵς 136, 6680 Google Scholar
Sporn, K., Kounouklas, P. and Kennedy, W.M. (2025) ‘The Kephissos Valley Project 2018–2022: Human activities in a Phokian landscape’, AA 2025.2 Google Scholar
Stefanakis, M.I. (ed.) (2017) Kymissala: Archaeology – Education – Sustainability (Oxford)Google Scholar
Stissi, V., Waagen, J., Efstathiou, D., Reinders, R., Rondiri, V., Mamaloudi, I. and Stamelou, E. (2015) ‘Halos: Preliminary report of the 2011–2013 field survey campaigns’, Pharos 2, 6384 Google Scholar
Strasser, T.F., Panagopoulou, E., Runnels, C.N., Murray, P.M., Thompson, N., Karkanas, P., McCoy, F.W. and Wegmann, K.W. (2010) ‘Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean: Evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic habitation of Crete’, Hesperia 79, 145–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surtees, L. (2012) On the Surface of a Thessalian City: The Urban Survey of Kastro Kallithea, Greece (PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr)Google Scholar
Tankosić, Ž. and Chidiroglou, M. (2010) ‘The Karystian Kampos Survey Project: Methods and preliminary results’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10.3, 1117 Google Scholar
Tankosić, Ž., Laftsidis, A., Psoma, M., Seifried, R.M. and Garyfalopoulos, A. (2021) ‘New data on southern Euboean landscapes: Results of the Norwegian Archaeological Survey in the Karystia’, BSA 116, 133–65Google Scholar
Tartaron, T.F. (2007) ‘Aegean prehistory as world archaeology: Recent trends in the archaeology of Bronze Age Greece’, Journal of Archaeological Research 16.2, 83161 10.1007/s10814-007-9018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tartaron, T.F (2013) Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World (Cambridge)10.1017/CBO9781139017374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tartaron, T.F., Pullen, D., Richard, K., Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, L. and Boyce, J.I. (2011) ‘The Saronic Harbors Archaeological Research Project (SHARP): Investigations at Mycenaean Kalamianos, 2007–2009’, Hesperia 80, 559634 10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrana, T., Mouthuy, O., Kress, N. and Driessen, J. (2022) ‘Archaeological survey of the East Sissi Basin – a preliminary report: Introduction and objectives of the survey’, in Driessen, J. (ed.), Excavations at Sissi V: Preliminary Report on the 2017–2019 Campaigns (Aegis 21) (Louvain) 447–50Google Scholar
Thompson, N., Tourloukis, V., Panagopoulos, E. and Harvati, K. (2018) ‘In search of Pleistocene remains at the Gates of Europe: Directed surface T survey of the Megalopolis Basin (Greece)’, Quaternary International 497, 2232 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.03.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, R.A. (1969) ‘Perachora: The remains outside the two sanctuaries: The Hestiatorion’, BSA 64, 164–72Google Scholar
Tourloukis, V. and Harvati, K. (2018) ‘The Palaeolithic record of Greece: A synthesis of the evidence and a research agenda for the future’, Quaternary International 466, 4865 10.1016/j.quaint.2017.04.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsiolaki, E. (2022) Diachronic Landscapes and Communities in Messenia, Greece: Re-assessing the Neolithic and Bronze Age Evidence from the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PhD thesis, Cincinnati)Google Scholar
Urem-Kotsou, D., Sgouropoulos, K., Kotsos, S., Chrysaphakoglou, P., Chrysaphi, M. and Skoulariki, D. (2022) ‘Surveying the Neolithic farmers in Aegean Thrace with digital technologies’, Studia Praehistorica 16, 117–32Google Scholar
Vaiopoulou, M., Rönnlund, R., Tsiouka, F., Klange, J., Pitman, D., Randall, I., Potter, R. and Manley, H. (2024) ‘The Palamas Archaeological Project 2023: A preliminary report of the Greek–Swedish collaboration in the municipality of Palamas, region of Karditsa, Thessaly’, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 17, 2545 10.30549/opathrom-17-03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaiopoulou, M., Whittaker, H., Rönnlund, R., Tsiouka, F., Klange, J., Pitman, D., Potter, R., Shaw, L., Hagan, J., Siljedahl, E., Forsén, M., Chandrasekaran, S., Dandou, S., Forsblom Ljungdahl, V., Pavilionytė, A., Scott-Pratt, H., Schager, E. and Manley, H. (2020) ‘The Vlochos Archaeological Project: Report on the 2016–2018 seasons of Greek–Swedish archaeological work at Vlochos, Thessaly’, Opuscula, Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 13, 772 10.30549/opathrom-13-02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderpool, E., McCredie, J.R. and Steinberg, A. (1964) ‘Koroni: The date of the camp and the pottery’, Hesperia 33, 6975 10.2307/147029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wijngaarden, G.J. and Driessen, J. (eds) (2022) Political Geographies of the Bronze Age Aegean: Proceedings of the Joint Workshop by the Belgian School at Athens (EBSA) and the Netherlands Institute at Athens (NIA). May 28 to 31, 2019 (Leuven)10.2307/j.ctv2tjdgj2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wijngaarden, G.J., Sotiriou, A., Pieters, N., Bogaard, B. and De Gelder, L. (2015) ‘The Zakynthos Archaeology Project’, Pharos 2, 7998 Google Scholar
Veikou, M. (2012) Byzantine Epirus: A Topography of Transformation: Settlements of the Seventh-Twelfth Centuries in Southern Epirus and Aetoloacarnania, Greece (Medieval Mediterranean 95) (Leiden)10.1163/9789004227460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veropoulidou, R. Krahtopoulou, A., Frederick, C., Orengo, H.A., Riera-Mora, S., Knappett, C. and Livarda, A. (2025) ‘Coastal landscapes at Palaikastro, eastern Crete, from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age and historical periods’, Environmental Archaeology, 118 (https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.2484512)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitale, S., Marketou, T., McNamee, C. and Michailidou, M. (2022) ‘The Kos Archaeological Survey Project and the site of Ayios Panteleimon in the northeast Koan region’, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 99, 108–42Google Scholar
Vroom, J., Kostarelli, A., Blackler, A., Kalantzis-Papadopoulos, D. and Kolvers, R. (2024) ‘The hinterland of medieval Chalkida: A preliminary overview of the 2021 and 2022 fieldwork seasons’, Pharos 25, 179234 Google Scholar
Waagen, J., Heymans, E.D., Scholte, M., Kriek, M.H. and Stissi, V.V. (2025) ‘A UAS lidar case study in the archaeological landscape of ancient Halos, Greece’, in A.R. Knodell and B.D. Wescoat (eds), ‘Special section: Lidar and landscapes in the archaeology of Greece’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 10, 149–63Google Scholar
Watrous, L.V., Hadzi-Vallianou, D. and Blitzer, H. (2004) The Plain of Phaistos: Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara Region of Crete (Monumenta Archaeologica 23) (Los Angeles)Google Scholar
Watrous, L.V., Buell, D.M. Kokinou, E., Soupios, P., Sarris, A., Beckmann, S., Rethemiotakis, G., Turner, L.A., Gallimore, S. and Hammond, M.D. (2017) The Galatas Survey: Socio-Economic and Political Development of a Contested Territory in Central Crete During the Neolithic to Ottoman Periods (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 55) (Philadelphia)10.2307/j.ctt1wrpwkjCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watrous, L.V., Haggis, D., Nowicki, K., Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. and Schultz, M. (2012) An Archaeological Survey of the Gournia Landscape: A Regional History of the Mirabello Bay, Crete, in Antiquity (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 37) (Philadelphia)10.2307/j.ctt3fgvh4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiberg, E., Bevan, A., Kouli, K., Katsianis, M., Woodbridge, J., Bonnier, A., Engel, M., Finné, M., Fyfe, R., Maniatis, Y., Palmisano, A., Panajiotidis, S., Roberts, C.N. and Shennan, S. (2019) ‘Long-term trends of land use and demography in Greece: A comparative study’, The Holocene 29, 742–6010.1177/0959683619826641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, B. (ed) (1996) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990 (Stockholm)Google Scholar
Whitelaw, T. (2018) ‘Recognising polities in prehistoric Crete’, in Relaki, M. and Papadatos, Y. (eds), From the Foundations to the Legacy of Minoan Archaeology Studies in Honour of Professor Keith Branigan (Oxford) 210–5510.2307/j.ctvh1dnqd.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, T. (2019) ‘Feeding Knossos: Exploring economic and logistical implications of urbanism on Prehistoric Crete’, in Garcia, D., Orgeolet, R., Pomadere, M., and Zurbach, J. (eds), Country in the City: Agricultural Functions of Protohistoric Urban Settlements (Aegean and Western Mediterranean) (Oxford) 88121 Google Scholar
Whitelaw, T., Bredaki, M. and Vasilakis, A. (2019) ‘Long-term urban dynamics at Knossos: The Knossos Urban Landscape project, 2005–16’, in Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Cretan Studies (Heraklion) (https://12iccs.proceedings.gr/en/proceedings/category/39/35/796)Google Scholar
Wickens, J.M., Rotroff, S.I., Cullen, T., Talalay, L.E., Perlès, C. and Mccoy, F.W. (2018) Settlement and Land Use on the Periphery: The Bouros-Kastri Peninsula, Southern Euboia (Oxford)10.2307/j.ctv177tjxkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersma, C., Bes, P., Van IJzendoorn, M.W., Wiznura, A. and Voutsaki, S. (2022) ‘The site of Ayios Vasileios in Laconia from the prehistoric to the early modern period: Results of the pedestrian field survey’, Journal of Greek Archaeology 7, 122–7210.32028/jga.v7i.1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, N.C. (1999) ‘Some aspects of the prehistoric occupation of Grevena’, in Ancient Macedonia VI: Papers Read at the Sixth International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, October 15–19, 1996 (Thessaloniki) 1,345–57Google Scholar
Wiseman, J. and Zachos, K.L. (eds) (2003) Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece (Hesperia Supplement 32) (Princeton)Google Scholar
Witmore, C. (2018) ‘The end of the “Neolithic”? At the emergence of the Anthopocene’, in Birch, S.E.P. (ed.), Multispecies Archaeology (London and New York) 2646 10.4324/9781315707709-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C. (2020) Old Lands: A Chorography of the Eastern Peloponnese (London)10.4324/9781351109437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J.C. and Dabney, M.K. (2020) The Mycenaean Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill (Nemea Valley Archaeological Project 3) (Princeton)10.2972/j.ctv22wtqv8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J.C., Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., Mantzourani, E., Sutton, S.B. and Sutton, R.F., Jr (1990) ‘The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A preliminary report’, Hesperia 59, 479659 10.2307/148078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Survey-based fieldwork in Greece: (a) fieldwalking with the Western Argolid Research Project (courtesy of Dimitri Nakassis); (b) architectural mapping with the Small Cycladic Islands Project; (c) gridded collection on Kato Kouphonisi with the Keros-Naxos Seaways Project (courtesy of Michael Boyd); (d) finds sorting during gridded collection with the Bays of East Attica Regional Survey (courtesy of Sarah Murray).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Chronology and type of archaeological survey projects in Greece, with placemarks scaled according to project size; projects mentioned in the text are labelled, except for particularly dense areas that appear in more detailed maps (Figs. 5, 6, 9, and 10).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Heat map of archaeological surveys in Greece, showing the density and intensity of projects; the heat map is based on the location and assigned ‘weight’ of projects according to the scale and intensity of survey work (weight = spatial coverage in km2 × intensity factor; intensity factors are the following, based on Cherry’s (1983, fig. 1) averages of sites per km2 discovered by intensive and extensive surveys: extensive = 0.08; intensive = 5.5; site = 10.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Different types of areal coverage in archaeological surveys, as represented in maps of project areas: (a) the Mazi Archaeological Project (Knodell, Fachard and Papangeli 2017: 147); (b) the Kythera Island Project (Kiriatzi and Broodbank 2011: fig. 1); (c) the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (Davis et al. 1997: 393); (d) the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (Wright et al. 1990: 598). From Knodell et al. 2023, online resource 12, courtesy Journal of Archaeological Research.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Survey project extents in the Corinthia and Argolid. Type is indicated based on the predominant coverage across the marked area; for example, if a project used both intensive fieldwalking and extensive exploration over a very large area, that large area will be marked as extensive.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Survey project extents in central Greece.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Geophysical survey and snow marks interpretation at Vlochos. From Vaiopoulou et al. 2020: fig. 12, courtesy of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, the Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa, and the Swedish Institute at Athens.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Lidar imagery and aerial photo of the area of Christos, a ruined medieval village in northern Samothrace. Map by B. Manquen, after fig. 10 in Matsas et al. 2025, courtesy of SaLiP.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Survey project extents in the Cyclades, with survey type indicated and islands surveyed by the Small Cycladic Islands Project outlined in red (see online version).

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Survey project extents in western Crete (top) and eastern Crete (bottom), with finder map showing the extent of the two maps.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. (a) Total project areas of surveys by decade, indicating the number of projects started each decade and the average project size in each bar; (b) number of projects started per decade, organized according to type, indicating the number of each type and percentage of the total for each decade in the bars.