Over the past year, Greek archaeology has seen a remarkable number of new publications, both fieldwork data reports (ADelt vols 65–68 for 2010–2013 in ten fascicules, AEMTh 25 and AEThSE 4, among others) and conference proceedings, exhibition catalogues, monographs and Festschriften that include much new and unpublished material. Regular updates continue to appear in AGOnline, but it has been impossible to process all this material in the space of a few months for publication in this year's Archaeology in Greece. Some of the new exciting discoveries are, however, presented in the ‘Newsround’ section, and we hope to provide further updates in next year's AG.

The relevance in the 21st century of an organization founded in the later 19th century lies in the BSA's statutory objective: ‘to promote the study of Greece in all its aspects … in all periods including modern times’. In modern business jargon, the BSA's ‘unique selling proposition’ is its location, which places UK-based researchers (at all career stages) at the heart of a region not only central to the history of the Western tradition, but also pivotal historically to post-Ottoman southern Europe and currently on the front line of the refugee crisis. Its location also offers local researchers and organizations opportunities to establish collaborations with us and – through us – with UK-based researchers. Our 130-year history brings a strong reputation, an unparalleled regional network, an accumulation of library and material resources, and a body of expertise that benefit both UK-based researchers and those who engage with us as research partners.

‘Newsround’ offers a platform for the presentation of new data which do not appear within the specialist contributions of this year's Archaeological Reports, but which nevertheless warrant emphasis, either as a result of their particular characteristics or for the contribution they make to broader archaeological narratives. This section is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it is designed to highlight recent discoveries in a way which complements digital content made available through AGOnline/Chronique des fouilles en ligne. The very varied nature of this material has meant that, for the most part, it has proved preferable to organize this section chronologically, although dedicated sections are provided for the inclusion of regional histories, marine archaeology and archaeological survey.

This paper offers an account of the archaeological textiles excavated in Greece, consideration of the challenges one has to deal with when studying such materials and a discussion of ways to overcome them. A complete list of archaeological textiles excavated in Greece is not within the scope of this paper, since such comprehensive studies have been published previously (Spantidaki and Moulhérat 2012; Moulhérat and Spantidaki 2016) and, of course, the corpus of such textiles is continuously expanding.

The study of textiles is an emerging and fast-growing field of Greek archaeology (Gleba 2011). The number of archaeologists and conservators working with and studying archaeological textiles is steadily increasing, thus raising the general awareness of textiles and expanding the corpus of known ancient fabrics. In recent years, several research projects have investigated ancient Greek textiles, such as those conducted by the Centre for Textile Research at the University of Copenhagen (for example Textile Economies in the Mediterranean Area), several funded by Marie Skłodowska Curie Action grants and some by European Research Council grants (for example Production and Consumption: Textile Economy and Urbanisation in Mediterranean Europe 1000–500 BCE hosted by Cambridge University).

The development of human osteoarchaeology in Greece has been the subject of a number of papers (for example Agelarakis 1995; Roberts et al. 2005; Buikstra and Lagia 2009; Lagia et al. 2014). The volume New Directions in the Skeletal Biology of Greece (Schepartz et al. 2009) constituted a milestone in the field by bringing together the work of multiple scholars, employing a diverse thematic focus and stressing the value of the potential of human osteoarchaeology in exploring the past. Recent years have witnessed significant developments in the field across Greece with respect to the research themes explored and the methodological approaches adopted, as well as important institutional changes. These developments are reflected in this review, which focuses on the progress of human osteoarchaeological studies in Greece in the 21st century, the research questions they address, the challenges they face and their envisaged future.

It has been ten years since the publication of Lorenzo Lazzarini's monumental volume on the quarrying, use and properties of the coloured marbles of Greece: Poikiloi Lithoi, Versiculores Maculae: I Marmi Colorati della Grecia Antica (Lazzarini 2007). The first study since Angelina Dworakowska's Quarries in Ancient Greece (Dworakowska 1975) to attempt a large-scale examination of quarrying across Greece, Lazzarini's approach is fundamentally an archaeometric one. Analysis of the evidence for quarrying in different regions is set alongside minero-petrographic and geochemical analyses of the materials extracted. Lazzarini focuses on 12 lithotypes: marmor lacedaemonium from Laconia, variously referred to as serpentino and porfido verde antico; three stone types from the Mani peninsula: rosso antico tenario, nero antico tenario and cipollino tenario; from Chios, the famous marmor chium or portasanta, breccia di Aleppo and nero antico chiota; the breccia di settebasi and semesanto of Skyros; the intensively exploited marmor carystium or cipollino verde, as well as the marmor chalcidicum or fior di pesco from Euboea; and from central and northern Greece, marmor thessalicum or verde antico and the breccia policroma della Vittoria. For each of these lithotypes, Lazzarini considers the evidence for their use and distribution, illustrated with a distribution map in each case, and provides a thorough overview of what is known about their quarries. Archaeological and geological approaches are here combined, and this is a hallmark of much recent work on the question of quarrying and stone use through Greek history.

The Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Spelaeology (EPS) is the state-run body responsible for the range of issues revolving around the legal protection, management, development and interdisciplinary study of caves in Greece (http://www.culture.gr/el/ministry/SitePages/viewyphresia.aspx?iID=1784). It is housed in the Ministry of Culture and Sports and is the sole institution taking an integrated overview of the issues surrounding caves in Greece. Its position within the cultural-heritage domain derives from caves being fully ascribed the status of ancient monuments and thus subject to the protective provisions of the archaeological law (3028/2002), alongside and independent of their status and need for protection as sustainable natural landforms. Once caves were recognized as sites requiring specialized archaeological research with distinct administrative requirements, the Ephorate of Speleology was established as a special office within the Ministry of Culture in 1976; it was comparable in status, at a later stage, to the local ephorates of antiquities, but as an entity constituted at the national rather than the district level. Its supra-regional scope was reformulated by legislation in 2014 reuniting into one institution the two components (northern and southern Greece) into which it had been separated a decade previously.

The Early Helladic period on the Greek mainland is a time of complexity and innovation, characterized by a marked regionalism in settlement patterns and material culture, and the presence of myriad crossscale networks within which objects, technologies, ideas and individuals circulated. Nevertheless, much about the period remains unclear beyond the relative comfort of its long ‘middle’ phase, Early Helladic II (ca. 2950–2250 BC). Its emergence from the socio-cultural processes of the Final Neolithic, particularly, continues to be obscured by a ‘fourth-millennium gap’ which has proved frustratingly intransigent. Of those few Peloponnesian sites yielding radiocarbon dates which potentially fall within the fourth millennium, those of Franchthi (FCP 5.2, P-1659, ca. 4,230–3,790 cal. BC; see Vitelli 1999: table 9), Kouveleiki Caves A and B (ID1492; Kontaxi 2006) and Alepotrypa (Bronk-Ramsey et al. 2015: 200) fall well short of its mid-point. Halieis alone potentially bucks the trend (ca. 3,909–3,367 cal. BC; Pullen 2000: 184–86; see also Alram-Stern 2007), although the range on this sample is so great as to be problematic.

Early Cycladic culture (third millennium BC) has been a focus of scientific interest since the late 19th century. Our knowledge of Early Cycladic civilization is based primarily on evidence gathered from a substantial number of cemeteries that have been discovered in various parts of the Cyclades. In comparison, excavations of Early Cycladic settlements are few in number. Thus, habitation comprises an essential yet understudied field of research.

Despite these limitations, fieldwork as well as material and analytical studies conducted over the period 2000–2017 have contributed to a far better understanding of Early Cycladic habitation patterns. Excavations and/or publications of important sites, such as Chalandriani and Kastri on Syros, Skarkos on Ios, Dhaskalio and Kavos on Keros, Markiani on Amorgos and Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos, have revealed significant new evidence regarding the development and character of Early Cycladic civilization.

The deme of Acharnai belonged to the Oineis tribe and was the largest deme in Attica, represented in the boule by 22 bouleutai (Trail 1975: 65; Osborne 1985: 44; Platonos 2013: 137). Acharnai not only had a larger population than the other Attic demes, but it also appears to have extended over a particularly large area: over Neapoli, Agios Athanasios, the centre of modern Menidi, Lathea, Auliza, Pyrgouthi, Agia Anna, Charaugi, Kokkinos Mylos, Agia Soteira, Loutro, part of Gerovouno and possibly northern Lykotrypa (Fig. 125).

Both Maria Platonos (2013: 139; 2004: 31–32) and Danielle Kellogg (2013: 10–26), who have studied this deme in depth, agree that there would have been more than one settlement within its limits. Kellogg (2013: 32–33) also notes that the settlement pattern in most areas would have been scattered: that is, there would have been numerous farmsteads dotted across the landscape. This is a very attractive suggestion, since Acharnai was known for its fertile fields, and it is supported by the archaeological evidence, since numerous Classical walls delimiting properties have been excavated in the broader area of the SKA Rail Centre (ID4852; Platonos 2004: 430).

The Sanctuary of Artemis Amarysia in Amarynthos was the most renowned shrine of the Eretrian polis, and its annual festival, the Artemisia, drew large crowds from Euboea and beyond. Yet, despite its regional fame and prominence, its remains have eluded archaeological identification. As a result, the location of the Artemision has been a vexed question in Euboean studies for over a century. Between 2003 and 2007, however, a new impetus was given to its localization. In collaboration with the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea, the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece (ESAG) carried out a large-scale geophysical survey in the area of Amarynthos, some 11km east of Eretria, at the foot of a hill locally known as Paleoekklisies (or Paleochora). The ensuing trial trenches were followed by systematic excavation that eventually led to the discovery of substantial buildings. We suggest that these buildings are part of a monumental complex that should be identified as the Sanctuary of Artemis Amarysia (see afterword).

On 16 June 1936 the young American epigraphist Charles Edson signed an agreement with the Berlin Academy of Sciences for the publication of all Greek inscriptions from Macedonia (Fig. 146) in the prestigious Inscriptiones Graecae series (see the text in Nigdelis 2015b: 10–12), estimating that the whole project could be completed within four years. His estimate proved, as so often in epigraphy, too optimistic. By 2016, only two volumes of inscriptions from ancient Macedonia had appeared in IG: the one Edson managed to complete in 1972 containing the inscriptions of Thessalonike (IG X 2.1) and the 1999 volume covering most of the northwestern border areas prepared by Fanoula Papazoglou and her collaborators (IG X 2.2.1). A further volume, of new material published after or not included in Edson's corpus, has just been published (IG X 2.1, Suppl. 1; most inscriptions have already been published and commented upon in Nigdelis 2006a and 2015a) and another is planned: a supplement to Edson's volume and full photographic documentation (due for publication in 2018).