From the end of the 18th century, Europe discovered a renewed passion for the vestiges of a classical past whose heritage it claimed. We know a great deal about the main protagonists of this adventure, from Choiseul-Gouffier to Lord Elgin and the many " inventors " of the Venus de Milo. The local dimension, on the other hand, is much less well known ; sometimes it's ignored altogether. This description of local actors and interlocutors covers a vast range of individuals. At the top, the Ottoman bureaucracy, the authors of firmans and decrees authorizing - and sometimes prohibiting - the acquisition of objects and architectural elements. At the lower end of the scale, modest villagers or city dwellers whose attachment - often judged to be " superstitious " - to an object or monument led them to defy the predatory appetite of enlightened antiquarians. Between the two, a whole range of more or less powerful, more or less conscious, more or less committed individuals : governors or local notables ; poachers seeking to sell the proceeds of their excavations ; peasants whose chance discovery thrust them into the limelight ; the first learned societies emulating the Western model ; small-scale intermediaries between European diplomats and local potentates..
The symposium brought together specialists in the field who have frequently contributed to the " grande " history of early archaeology, but who also looked at the other side of the coin, reflecting on and questioning the local dimension mentioned above. It's not a question of making an alternative or reactive history, nor of claiming to " set the record straight " ; rather, the aim is to enrich this narrative by adding a critical dimension and, above all, by making it less univocal through the contribution of these local, Ottoman and post-Ottoman voices and perspectives. This foray into the knowledge, mentalities and practices of Ottoman and post-Ottoman populations could open up a new chapter in a connected history still in the making.