In contemporary Greece, although the Byzantine past is seen as a core element of the national identity, Byzantine archaeology is organized separately from the
Archaeology of the prehistoric and classical periods, both in the museums and the administration of state archaeology, the regional ephorates—thus maintaining a dichotomy in Greek culture between the classical and the Christian medieval pasts. The consequence of this is that classical and earlier periods have often been given greater significance to the detriment of the study and preservation of the Byzantine past (see Kotsakis in Meskell 1998: 54-5). In addition, until recently, there has been an overwhelming emphasis on ecclesiastical archaeology; this is not surprising given the background to the foundation of the main museum and of the discipline as part of the wider European interest in early Christian archaeology (Frend 1996; Konstantios 2004: 9-13).
In Bulgaria, independent from the Ottoman empire after 1878, medieval archaeology has fared better as part of the wider national agenda, with benefits for the wider field of Byzantine archaeology. The medieval First and Second Bulgarian empires were seen to provide a legitimacy for the new Bulgarian state and from the late nineteenth century the centres of the early kingdoms at Pliska, Preslav, and later Turnovo were the focus for major excavations, although since the majority of the reports are in Bulgarian the fuU significance of these has not always been recognized (see Mijatev and others 1974). In Sofia medieval antiquities are divided equally between the National Archaeological and National Historical Museums, with major regional collections at Preslav, Shumen, and Veliko Turnovo (Evans and Wixom 1997:321-35), while medieval Bulgarian and Byzantine archaeology are components of the National Institute of Archaeology.
The republic of Turkey is the most recent of these new nation states (1923) and although it is defined as a secular state, the population is predominantly Muslim following the population exchanges after the Treaty of Lausanne (1922) (see a survey of Turkish archaeology by Ozdgan, in Meskell 1998:111-23 and for the disjunctions with Greek archaeology see Ousterhout and Bakirtzis 2007: 1-6). The prehistoric archaeology of Anatolia has played a crucial role in the creation of a new Turkish national identity, most clearly displayed in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara where only limited exhibits of the classical and later periods are presented in opposition to the wealth from the more distant past. By contrast the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul is a late nineteenth-century foundation and represents the wider possessions of the Ottoman empire and at the same time exhibits the treasures of the Byzantine city. Public archaeology is administered through regional museums and Byzantine archaeologists remain underrepresented since only recently has there been a growth in the number of degree programmes which include Byzantine archaeology and art history. In addition, with few exceptions (notably Semevi Eyice and Yildiz Otiiken), the majority of projects concerned with Byzantine archaeology were led by foreign academics, either as part of long-term projects such as the Austrian excavations at Ephesos, or of specific monuments like Alahan, studied by a British team. With the rapid expansion of universities in Turkey over the past decade this situation has significantly improved and in
Addition numbers of Turkish graduates have studied in Europe and elsewhere ensuring a broader approach to the national archaeology.
World History
