Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

10. Discovering Greece with Pausanias
is a great vacuum in the history of this country, though bordering on the
classical shores of Phocis, and within view of Parnassos itself. (Dodwell
(1819) 144) 31
A comparison between maps of similar areas in the Peloponnese (Fig. 12)
and Asia Minor (see Fig. 5, p. 22) demonstrates the difference: my maps
are based on the Barrington Atlas which aims to document all ancient
sites that are reasonably securely located: although my sample area of
Greece includes the mountainous inland area of Arkadia there are still
many more well-identified ancient sites than in the coastal area around
the great cities of Smyrna, Pergamon and Pausanias’ own home, Magnesia
on Sipylos. However, the high density of known ancient place names in the
Greek landscape has its own pitfalls: there is a temptation to attach a
name to every newly discovered spot with ancient remains, even if it
means stretching the meaning of the ancient texts to find an appropriate
reference. Only recently have field surveys been able to uncover such a
large number of sites that it is no longer possible to look to the Periegesis
to identify them all. At the same time Pausanias’ emphasis on historical
monuments, works of art and sacred sites no longer defines the sole focus
of archaeological research in Greece, and more attention is given to a wider
range of ancient remains. 32
Visitors to Ottoman Greece had combined their observations with
Pausanias to establish a basic framework of identified ancient sites, but
the Periegesis was a stark reminder of the many sites that still needed to
be explored, and at the same time it also raised expectations of magnificent
finds. Caylus’ Pausanias-induced utopian view of Greece which
opened this chapter also translated into great expectations for Greek
archaeology:
In Greece, if the Turks were to permit excavations, one could still find under
the scattered ruins of many famous cities some remains of those masterpieces
which once represented their beauty and ornament. (Caylus (1752-68)
I.iv)
Over a century later the first excavations showed that his prediction had
not been far from the mark: sensational finds such as Schliemann’s royal
tombs at Mycenae or the buildings and sculptures of Olympia seemed to
be particular confirmations of Pausanias’ descriptions. Archaeologists
continued to approach sites with the Periegesis in mind and were largely
successful in discovering what they expected to find. 33 Pausanias’ selective
approach, however, also suggests what we should not be interested in, and
his preferences and silences sanctioned an emphasis on the classical and
archaic remains while the ‘less interesting’ Roman remains were often
neglected or simply removed. There is no question that many excavations
did indeed uncover sites and monuments that were a remarkable match
for Pausanias’ descriptions, but it is also worth remembering that the
139