Discussions of method, of the different ways in which we may try and answer research questions, are perhaps rarer in the historiography of ancient Greece than discussions of theory. Theory has, quite rightly, played a significant role in historiography, but the comparative unimportance of method is rather mysterious. Methods are central to archaeology because a researcher has to make choices, from the very start of a project, about which methods will be the most appropriate for delivering answers to the chosen research questions. The archaeological journal Antiquity has a special section on Method. The content of that section may seem to be rather more technical than the kinds of methods I want to consider here. Nevertheless, all discussions of method, or methodology, help to give substance to theory; they help us to make clearer the connections between evidence and theory. Stewart's paper, in this issue of AG, offers a series of reflections on the values and limitations of survey methods. Archaeologists are conscious of the fact that different methods produce different results. This can sometimes be perplexing for historians, as I discuss further below. Method refers not just to the ways in which we go about a particular research project. It also applies to the broad perspectives within which we do research. Catherine Morgan's report on the work of the BSA in 2013–2014 draws together the many new strands that are connecting people and places of the past, but also contemporary preoccupations with environments, societies and their habits in the recent past.