methana arvanites
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
1/12
78
Shimelmitz and Adams
production
of
the Early Bronze Levant. In S.
Rosen and
V.
Roux (eds.), Techniques
and Peo
ple,
135-56. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche
Frans:ais
de Jerusalem.
Shimelmitz,
R.,
R Barkai and
A
Gopher
2000 A Canaanean blade workshop at
Har
Haruvim,
Israel.
Tel Aviv
27: 3-22.
2011 Systematic blade production at late Lower
Paleolithic (400-200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel.
Journal o Human
Evolution
61:
458-79. http:/
dx.doi.org/1 0.10 16/j.jhevol.20 11.06.003
Shimelmitz, R., and
S.A.
Rosen
in press
The
flint assemblages
of
Beth
Yerah.
In
R.
Greenberg (ed.), Bet
Yerah
the Early Bronze Age
Mound, Vol.
2.
Monograph
Series of
the Insti
tute ofTel Aviv University,
Tel Aviv:
Emery and
Claire
Yass
Publications.
Torrence, R.
1985 The chipped stone. In C. Renfrew (ed.)
The
Archaeology
o
Cult: The Sanctuary at
Phylakopi,
469-78. London: Thames and Hudson.
Ussishkin, D.
1980 The Ghassulian shrine at En-Gedi.
Tel Aviv 7:
1-44.
Vardi, J., and I Gilead
2009
On
the definitions
of
errors on contexts
of
craft
specialization: Krukowski microburins from
The Fund
fur
Medlternmean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
Beit Eshel Chalcolithic flint worksh
op.
Rosen and
V.
Roux (eds.),
Techniques
pie, 125-34. Jerusalem: Centre
de
Frans:ais
de Jerusalem.
Vella, C
2011 The lithics. In D. Tanasi and N. Vella
Site, Artefacts and Landscape. Prehistoric
in-Nadur, Malta, 173-94. Monza, Malta:
metrica.
Wapnish,
P.
and
B.
Hesse
2000
Mammal remains from the Early Bronze
compound. In
I
Finkelstein,
D.
Ussishkin
B.
Halpern (eds.), Megiddo III The
Seasons.
Monograph Series
of
the
Archaeology ofTel Aviv University
18:
Tel Aviv:
Emery and Claire
Yass
2001 Commodities and cuisine: animals in the
Bronze Age
of
northern Palestine. In S.R.
(ed.),
Studies
in
the
Archaeology
o Israel
Neighboring
Lands in
Memory
o Douglas L
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
251-82. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Yellin,
J., T.E.
Levy
and
Y.M.
Rowan
1996
New evidence on prehistoric trade routes:
obsidian evidence from Gilat, Israel.
o
Field
Archaeology 23: 361-68. http://dx.
org/10.1179/009346996791973873
Journal of Mediterr anean Archaeology 27.1 (20 14) 79-1 00
ISSN (Print) 0952-76 48
ISSN (Online) 1743-17 00
and the Making
o
Improper Citizens
in
Modern Greece
of
Archaeology, University
of
Nottingham, Nottingham NG 2RD, UK
study
integrates
the dominant
archaeological discourse concerning
use
o
he
Classical
past
in
defining
identity in
Greece
with a strando
thnographic
research
on
Greece's ojficial J unacknowledged mi-
that has not ound
its way into
the
archaeological
literature
on
Greece. The first partdiscusses
how
the
state has
tried to deny the
existence
o
thnic alterities
within
its boundaries, often
punishing
those who
on advertising their non-Greek origins. One o he ways in which Hellenisation has been forced
on
these
is
via an
insistence
that 'true' Greeks'
origins lie in
a
Classical past.
Those whose
origins lie
elsewhere
have been
ejfective J marginalised.
The
second
part o he
study focuses on the Greek-Albanian (Arvanitis)
minority. As a case study,
two
Arvaniticgroups are compared, one
Peloponnesian
and one
Boeotian.
Boeotian
Arvanites have no monumental
symbolic capital
as a
usable
past
employable
within the
wider national(istic)
discourse.
In contrast,
the
Peloponnesian group has
a monument linking
them
to an alternative
(non
Classical)
past which they
use
to
advertise
their
right to be
considered
'proper' Greek
citizens.
Keywords:
Arvanites
Classical
past,
cultural
hegemonisation,
ethnic
alterities,
Greece,
heritage
Prologue: Babel in Greece Discon necte d
cts in Four Scenes
Scene 1:
Place: Athens. The
time:
2 February 2001.
A Greek citizen
was
sentenced to 15 months in
jail for disseminating false information which
could provoke public anxiety and give the
impression that there are minority problems in
Greece . Sotiris Bletsas had distr ibuted a leaflet
produced by an EU-linked body at an annual
gathering
of
Greek Vlachs, whose language
is
related to Rumanian. It listed all the lesser-used
languages of Europe: in Greece, Arvanitika
a
form
of
Albanian), Aroumanian (Vlach),
Bulgarian (spoken by Moslem Pomal
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
2/12
80
Forbes
Twenty years later, a US State Department
document
on
human rights in Greece indicated
concerns about t he human rights
of
this minor
ity, including that Turldsh-spealdng Greeks were
still legally barred from self-identifying
as
Turk
ish, despite repeated European
Court of
Human
Rights decisions supporting their right to do so
(Wildleaks 2009: esp. paras. 1-3, 6).
Scene 3:
The
place:
Athens. The time: the summer
of
1998.
An Athenian taxi-driver harangued me about a
scandal concerning the treatment of the Elgin
Marbles ta Elyinia) by the British Museum.
t
made me realise that in the many years I have
been visiting the Methana peninsula in the
northeastern Peloponnese (Figure 1), the issue
of he marbles has never been raised. Methanites
are Arvanites, a minority group belonging to
the Greek Orthodox faith which has existed in
Greece for many centuries, spealdng a form
of
the Albanian language but seeing themselves as
unimpeachably Greek citizens.
Scene 4:
The place: the small town of Kranidhi in the
Southern Argo id, part
of
the northeastern Pelo
ponnese. The time: the mid-1980s.
While shopping for supplies for an archaeo
logical project, I used a phrase
in
Arvanitika,
which was spoken in the area, although local
people never mentioned its existence to project
personnel.
The
response was enthusiastic, with
questions about how I knew any
of
he language
and how much I knew. In each successive shop
I entered I was greeted in Arvanitika: word had
spread rapidly
Once it
was established that I
valued their minority identity, they were keen
to own it.
ONemea
PELOPONNESE
( ;
)
0
0 km
50
100
Figure 1 Methana: location map.
The
Fund
fur
Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
Archaeology and the Making o mproper Citizens in Modern Greece 81
Introduction
This study
is
a contribution to the burgeoning
literature on the multivocality of ancient remains,
the contested discourses they engende1; and the
ecologies
of
power which they constitute. Incor
porated in the discussion are aspects of debates
in archaeology, history and anthropology over
identity within Europe, especially the Mediter
ranean lands,
but
also well beyond. The focus
is
primarily identity's entanglement with the
material record, in the context
of
current debates
over multiple, alternative, and often competing
narratives concerning the past (e.g. Karakasidou
1997; Rountree 2003; Colwell-Chanthaphonh
2009; Stroulia
and
Sutton 2009; Herzfeld
2010; Meier 2013; Nildasson and Meier 2013;
Bawaya 2014), the origins
of
which may be seen
in historical debates relating to Hobsbawm and
Ranger's concept of invented traditions (1983),
and Anderson's concept
of
imagined communities
(1991).
My explorations owe much to Herzfeld's
engagement with issues
of
national identity
and
marginality in the context
of
Greek anthropol
ogy and also more widely across the Mediter
ranean
and
Europe
as
presented
in
Anthropology
through the ooking
Glass
(Herzfeld 1987, esp.
Chapter 1) and further developed, for example,
in Herzfeld 2002a. Particularly relevant here
is
his observation that the nation-state
is
an
'imagined community' whose identity
as
prom
ulgated by elites may not be shared by other citi
zens (Herzfeld 2002b: 140). His expositions on
the complexities of competing claims to histori
cal
and material cultural 'heritage' demonstrate
the potential to use entangled themes of dentity
and material culture to categorise not only those
who are considered to 'belong'
but
also to mar
ginalise those who do not (e.g. Herzfeld 1991;
2009, esp. 227-28, 301-302).
In an age
of
global interactions, 'heritage'
is
particularly entangled with a variety of contes
tations over appropriat ions of the past and the
way traditions are invented, especially
if
tourist
The Fund for Mediterranean Arrhaeology Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
cash
is
involved (Herzfeld 1991, esp. 57-58,
144-47, 191-93, 226-28; 2009, esp. 227-33,
304-305, 310-11; Hodder 2003: 56). For exam
ple, a fictitious Maya past created on a
Hondu
ran island brings in $50 million annually, but
devalues the pasts of the disadvantaged ethnic
minority original inhabitants (Bawaya 2014).
Another locus of a variety of contestations asso
ciated with tourism
is
Malta: Sant Cassia (1999)
presents the multivocality
of
the town
of Mdina
and
its entanglement in contestation by elite
and other groups and organisations-includ
ing the
state-over
ownership
of
its past in the
context
of
an economically dominating tour
ist industry. A different aspect of contestation
over the Maltese past can be seen in Rountree's
(2003) discussion
of
mother-goddess tourism in
the islands' Neolithic temples.
ackground
Greeks' use
of
their ancient past for political
purposes
and as
cultural capital has been the
subject
of
numerous publications in archaeol
ogy and anthropology over the last two decades
(e.g. Hamilalds and Yalouri 1996; Sutton 1998:
173-78; Stewart 2003; Hamilalds 2007). Arguing
that feelings
of
national identity need material
traces from the past, with archaeology
as
west
ern modernity's official device for producing a
nation's materiality
of
the past, Hamilalds (2007:
vii)
asks:
How do different social actors (from
the nation-state, to intellectuals, to diverse social
groups, including "others"
of
the nation) deploy
antiquity in general and material antiquities in
particular, in constructing their own versions
of
national imagination and in pursuing various
agendas
at
the same time?' Here 'antiquities' and
'antiquity' are almost entirely the Classical past
of
Greece (Hamilalds 2007: 7), used by govern
mental and other Greek elites
as
a hegemonising
rhetoric. While the presence of Minoan imagery
in the procession
at
the start
of
the Athens
Olympics (Hamilalds 2007: 3-5)
might
be
considered a counterbalance to this view, the
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
3/12
82
Forbes
'official' line in heavily prescribed history books
in Greek schools mostly favours the rise of Hel
lenism: for the Bronze Age the primary focus
seems to be
on
Mycenaeans
as
the first Hellenes
(Hamilalds 2003) rather than the non-Greek
Minoans.
The
'others'
of
the nation in the quotation
above are political 'ot hers'- commu nists and left
ists, for
example who have striven to establish
themselves
as
an alternative hegemonising elite,
thus also employing the Classical past as symbolic
capital (Hamilalds 2007: 291). The first part of
this article, however, explores the existence
of
other 'others', whose 'otherness' the Greek state
officially denies e.g. Scenes 1 and 2 above),
despite their existence in their present locations
for centuries before the formation
of
he modern
Greek state, and despite their relationship to the
Greek past.
The
term which I use for these others
is
'ethnic minorities'. According to the United
Nations, the term 'minority',
as
used in its
human
rights system, 'usually refers to national
or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,
pursuant to the United Nations Minorities
Declaration'. Further, '[a]ll States have one or
more minority groups within their national
territories, characterised by their own national,
ethnic, linguistic or religious identity, which
differs from
that of
the majority population'
(United Nations 2010: 2). The
UN
has defined
a minority
as:
[a] group numerically inferior to the
rest
of
the
population of a
State, in
a non-dominant
position, whose members-being nation
als of
the State-possess ethnic,
religious or
linguistic characteristics differing from those
of the
rest
of the population and
show,
if
only implicitly, a
sense
of solidarity, directed
towards
preserving their culture, traditions,
religion or language.
(Capotorti and United Nations 1979:
para.
568, quoted in United Nations 2010: 2)
This definition states dearly that members
of
such minority groups, including ethnic minori
ties, have the same nationality or national
The
Fund
fur Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
identity
as
that
of
the majority, despite
standard' origins.
The
modern Greek
ethnos however, has significantly different
notations indicating, in a formal sense,
and
nationality. My experience has been
many Greeks who meet the English term
minority' assume that it automatically
groups who claim a nationality or national
tity other than Greek.
They
therefore
the discussion of indigenous ethnic .......
,,c
1
in
Greece to be highly contentious.
Madiano u (1999: 413), for example,
-.. ~ u u u
one such group, deliberately does not
them as
an ethnic minority, repeatedly
the terms 'marginal'
and
'marginalised'
u ' ' ' ' ' ~
While these minorities, or parts of them,
often marginalised, this term
is
not
appropriate in the present context. Despite
potential for mixed messages, therefore, I
use the phrase 'ethnic minority' in this
since I cannot
think
of a better English
tive but with the understanding that it
not signifY
any alternative national identity
e.g. Magliveras 2013: 152-53).
For the purposes of this study
of
alterity, contestation
and
the identification
alternative significant pasts, Gefou-.u,uuuv
(1999) discussion
is
particularly relevant.
notes that identity among these minority
munities 'should be understood
not as
an
that can be defined outright, but rather as
ongoing process whereby relations
of
power,
authority, and authenticity are negotiated
formulated withi n particular social and political
contexts' (Gefou-Madianou 1999: 414). Using
this approach, I shall discuss how the use
of
particular monument as validation of a
nity's social worth is part
of
the group's
u1a.1v .J.
cal process
of
negotiating its identity with
it views
as
a culturally and politically uvJ.lUll
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
4/12
84
Forbes
continued unbroken from antiquity to their
own time and were desperate for liberation
from Turkish oppression. This invention
was
to play a major role in the intellectual revival
of
Greece both before and after Independence.
As
part
of
their campaign, this group claimed
principal ownership
of
the Classical past, and at
the same time a symbolic superiority over other
Europeans (Gefou-Madianou 1999: 417-18;
Hamilalds 2007: 75-77).
The
corollary to the
last
sentence-that
ownership of the Classical
past automatically defines non-owners, within or
beyond Greece s borders,
as
inherently inferior
lies at the heart of this study.
In
keeping with its origins, the emphasis
on
ownership
of
the Classical and Hellenistic past,
particularly its literary and material manifesta
tions,
as
the entry key to modern Greek iden
tity has meant that access to that knowledge
has been the privilege only of a well-educated
minority. Furthermore, the increasing emphasis
by the new state
on
use
of
the Greek language
also reflects at least
as much
an
Ottoman
elite
preference, rather than a Western dassicising
one, since before Independence Greek was
the language of the educated
and
commercial
elite throughout the Balkans.
The
designation
Greek was sometime s used
as
a marker
of
an
elite class rather than
of
ethnicity: peasants
spoke a variety of other languages (Livanios
2006: 45-46, 58).
The
discourse
of
Greek iden
tity has thus suited more privileged members
of
Greek society,
but
effectively marginalised
regional
and
ethnic alterities.
The dominant archaeological discourse char
acterising the identity
of
the Greek nation
as
based
on
imported Western ideals
of
ancient
Hellenic origins is thus too simplistic, failing to
consider the position
of
various eth nic
and
other
minorities within the Greek state. Two minor
ity groups, Moslems
and
Jews, are officially
recognised,
but
the existence
of
any minor
ity groups based on alternative ethnicity has
been denied (Herzfeld 2002a:
906)-as
dearly
evidenced by Scenes 1 and 2 above. This situa-
The Fund
fur
Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing
Ltd.,
2014
tion continues
Ottoman
practice
at
the time
Greek Independence, which acknowledged
three separate peoples (millets), based -...... '''v
upon religion: Moslems, Jews
and
Nationality based
on
modern concepts
of
nicity, associated with separate languages
cultures, was
not
recognised (Vucinich
605; Abu Jaber 1967: 214; Goffman 2002:
The Greek state s poor record in th e context
the rights
of
ethnic
and
religious alterities,
its emphasis on the Greek language (with
implied ancient roots), thus derives not
f JUUli iJ :
ily from imported Western values,
but
Greece s previou s his tory
of isolation
from the
West, latterly in a relatively privileged position
within the milletsystem
of
he
Ottoman
Empire
and
formerly within the Byzantine Empire
(Pol
lis 1992: 171-73, 182; Livanios 2006: 53-54;
Tsitselikis 2008: 28).
E Pluribus Unum?
In
1829, with the modern Greek state emerg
ing from the ruins
of
its War of Independence
from
Ottoman
Turkey, Prince Klemens Wenzel
von M etter nich received a lett er from Austria s
ambassador in London, which asked: What do
we mean by the
Greeks?
Should t hey be defined
as
an identifiable people, or
as
inhabitants of a
country or
as
co-religionists-i.e. members of
the Greek Orthodox Church?
The
geographi
cal area which was approximately the area
of
ancient Greece was part of the Middle Eastern
ethnic mosaic after centuries
of
Venetian and
Ottoman
rule: heterogeneous, polyglot, multi
ethnic and with three separate major religions:
Moslem, Jewish and Christian, with Chris
tians being divided into an Orthodox majority
and a small but significant Catholic minority
(Livanios 2006: 43). Its peoples spoke many
languages: Italian (in some
of
he islands), Alba
nian (throughout parts of the mainland and
in some
of
the islands), Vlach, Bulgarian and
Slavo-Macedonian (particularly in what
is
now
northern Greece), Turlcish and many different
Archaeology and the Making o mproper Citizens in Modern Greece
85
dialects (Sasse 1998: 41; Livanios 2006;
s n ~ ' l l ' ' J . ~ 2008: 28). This linguistic mix was
in Dimitrio s Byzantios s
Babylonia,
produced in 1836 (Byzantios 2003;
' ' ~ u . - - ~
2008: 33). With a cast
of
linguisti
diverse Greek characters, including an
(Alvanos), it depicts the misunder
between these characters resulting
their highly divergent forms
of
the Greek
l U I ' ' ' ~ n - As
a result
of
this heterogeneity, the
popular Gree k language dhimotiki) which
after Independence was itself a deliber
creation
out of
various contemporary forms
(Sasse
1998: 50).
It has been claimed that Greeks themselves
answered Metternich s question by emphasising
their roots as Hellenes rather than
as
Romans
(Romii), the latter term emphasising historical
links
with
Constantinople and the medieval
Greek
Orthodox
Byzantine Empire.
Thus, it
is suggested, they laid a primary stress on a
supposedly shared Greek language (McNeal
1991; Livanios 2006: 58). That this can also
be
understood
as
a power-grab by an already
Greek-spealdng educated and mercantile elite
(Livanios 2006: 58)
is
generally ignored.
While archaeologists have regularly noted
the contribution
of
Greeks ancient past to the
development of their national identity over the
last 180 years or so, an even greater emphasis
was
placed
on
a nation unified by Greek
as
the only recognised language (Livanios 2006:
58-59, 61). Even today, those citizens who
wish to valorise other languages in addition
to
Greek are treated with severe intolerance
(Scenes 1
and
2 above; also below).
The
insist
ence
on
legitimising only Greek also places a
strong secondary emphasis
on
membership of
the Greek Orthodox Church , since the church s
liturgy remains entirely in the linguistic form
of its origin in later antiquity
and
the medieval
period-though
Livanios (2006) would see this
relationship the other way around,
with
Greek
Orthodoxy being the primary element. Those
of other faiths, which do not use Greek
as
their
The Fund
for
Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publlsbing Ltd, 2014
primary liturgical language-especially Roman
Catholics, Jews and Moslems-have likewise
been treated
as
second-class citizens (e.g. Stavros-
1995; Hart 1999; Kretsi 2002; Tsitselikis 2008).
Yet despite sometimes heavy-handed action
by the Greek state, and considerable levels
of
discrimination by Greeks who consider them
selves superior (see e.g.Whitman 1990: 17-21),
non-Greek language groups still exist
in
Greece.
Certain
monoglot
Greek
out-groups-e.g.
Sarakatsani
and
Cretan villagers (Herzfeld 1987:
57-58; 1988:
xi-xv,
34-38;
2003)-also
prefer to
adopt alternative and/or parallel regional and/o r
quasi-ethnic identities. Thu s, local C retan elites
have often ignored or downplayed a Classical
and
particularly an Athenian Classical past, pref
erentially focusing on Minoan and Byzantine
pasts (Herzfeld 1988: 34-36).
The Classical Past
and
Greek Identity: A
Recent Development?
As
noted
above, educated Greeks use Greece s
ancient past
as
a rhetorical resource, particu
larly in facing the non-Greek world,
and
most
especially in situations of self-presentation, con
testation
and
debate.
My
ethnographic experi
ence in the early 1970s, however, tallcing to
a wide cross-section
of
working-class Greeks
with a limited education who visited the spa
on
Methana, was otherwise.
Many
at
that
time
were uncomfortable with the idea of connect
ing themselves with non-Christian (heathen,
polytheistic) roots, preferring to connect them
selves to the greatness of the Christian Byzan
tine Empire, stretching from Anatolia through
Greece northwards into the Balkans (see e.g.
Livanios 2006: 56-57).
Not all scholars believe that the present level
of
emphasis
on
a Classical past
as
a crucial part
of
Greek national identity has a particularly
long historical time depth. Gotsi (2000) sug
gests that the special use
of
the Classical past
in national identity has been particularly pre
cipitated by Greece s accession to the E uropean
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
5/12
86 Forbes
Union in 1981. That new posltlon within a
union
of
states with very different cultures
and
histories created a cultural anxiety over the pos
sible effacement
of
Greece s dist inctive cu lture
and histo ry by a very different European homo
geneity (Gotsi 2000: 92-93).
One
way
of
pre
senting/performing Greeks specialness to/over
other Europeans, therefore, has been to focus
attention particularly
on
their Classical herit
age. t is
almost certainly no coincidence that
the campaign to return the Elgin/Parthenon
marbles the
ultimate emphasiser
of
Greece s
unique
and
dominant cultural position within
Europe started just two years after Greece
joined the EU.
2
Thus, while a relatively small
and
well-educated sector
of
the population has
emphasised its roots in the Classical past since
the 19th century, the more widespread accept
ance
of
hose roots has resulted from a combina
tion of a more assertive performance of Greek
specialness by government
and
a wider recogni
tion
of
Greece s place within Europe.
Ethnic Alterity
n
Greece Two Example s
Boeotia
With
little room for ethnic alterity in the pre
sent Greek state, how can some citizens engage
with an ancient Greek monumental past most
obviously located in
Athens on
the Acropolis,
and
in other high-profile monuments
in
the
centre
3
w he n their ethnic
and/or
regional
identities have little to connect them with
that
past? Two linked publications exemplifY the way
in which discussions of Greek identity have so
far failed to recognise the existence
of
others
whose identities do
not
focus directly on the
Classical Greek past.
Pantazatos (2010) discusses the
case of
Arvan
ites in Boeotia. Bintliff (2003)
had
previously
discussed his ethical dilemma
as
an archae
ologist in approaching the past
of
this eth
nic group, whose communities are widespread
where he conducted fieldwork. While Bintliff
wished to publicise archaeological evidence
of
The
Fund fur
Mediterr.meanArchaeology EquinoxPublishing Ltd., 2014
their ethnically differentiated past, the
inhabitants themselves did
not
wish to
it
revealed: publicising
it
would invite
of
the abuse
and
discrimination that they
previously suffered
as
minority group
bers (Bintliff 2003: 1 38-41; Pantazatos 201
99).
As
a philosopher discussing the ethics
this situation, Pantazatos argues that, from
viewpoint
of
stewardship , par t of the
relationship
of
the Arvanitis community
its historical heritage
is
its right
not
to have
revealed (Pantazatos 2010: 99). Surprisingly,
ignores the ethical ramifications
of
the
why they must deny their own identity
their past, which might otherwise have
valorised: the abuse and discrimination, both
as
official policy
and
unofficial behaviour,
suttere:d
by generations of Arvanites.
Instead, Pantazatos (2010: 97-98)
terises Arvanites
as
a diaspora community ;
although Bintliff himself never defines
as
such. This definition, Silverstein (2005:
364-66) argues, problematises them
as
an
immigr ant comm unity , racialising and exoti
cising them. It implicitly suggests an element
of
rootlessness, ignoring the fact that Arvanitic
communities were already established in the
area in the late medieval period, many centu
ries before the foundation
of
the Greek state
(Bintliff 2003: 132-33),
and
instead implicitly
equates
them
with the late-20th-century Alba
nian diaspora.
In
reality, they are better
seen
as
an indigenous population,
as
defined by the
International Labour Organization Indigenous
and Tribal
Peoples
Convention (International
Labour Organization 1989; see also Watldns
2005: 430). Watkins (2005: 441) highlights
the ethical problem
of
indigenous groups who,
for various reasons, prefer not to draw atten
tion to themselves by relating themselves to
their archaeology.
He
suggests that their silence
may not reflect lack
of
interest in their past(s),
but
past lack
of
concern by those at the power
centres
of
the archaeological establishment
for
engaging with these groups alterities.
Archaeology and the aking o mproper
Citizens
in Modern
Greece
87
and
Hamilalds (2003a:
9)
are more
vm:pathc:tlc
to the complexities
of
the Boeo
situation. They emphasise the exclusion
of
r v u n ~ ~
from the dominant national narrative
on Classical antiquity, the impact
of
xeno
and racist attacks on recent immigrants
post-communist Albania, and the need
of
to distinguish themselves from the
recent immigrant community. Bintliff, however,
also
focuses
on
the resilience
of
Arvanitic ethnic
identity in the face
of
over a century
of
sustained
policies
of
total Hellenisation, including the
deliberate ethnic cleansing
of
their toponymic
landscapes, replacing indigenous toponyms with
sometimes highly inappropriate Greek names
(Bintliff 2003: 138-39). By contrast, Brown
and Hamilalds dwell primarily
on
the impact
of recent (illegal) immig ration from Albani a,
aligning themselves with the centralist line by
suggesting that
as
a foreign researcher Bintliff
was
imposing his own ethnic or minority label
onto the Boeotian Arvanitis situation (Brown
and Hamilalds 2003a: 9).
In
fact, the exogenous
foreigner probably brings less cultural baggage
to
the situation than Greek archaeologists who
have
grown up within the dominant discourse
on the relationship of proper Greeks to their
past.
As
Livanios (2006: 65-68) notes, these
ethnic labels were impos ed in the later 19 th
century by local political
and
religious elites who
strove to differentiat e Greeks , Bulgarians , etc.
This ultimately resulted in the Second Balkan
War
of
1913 and subsequently a tendency to
define intolerabl e ethn ic groups who spoke lan
guages ot her tha n the nationally approved one.
The Northeastern
Peloponnese
The inhabitants
of
the village
of
Kiladha, dose
to Kranidhi (Scene 4 above), do not consider
the ancient past
of
their most famous archaeo
logical
site the
Franchthi Cave, just across the
bay to be important. Instead, they reminisce
about the cave in its recent past
as
a goatherd s
dwelling,
and
a location for parties
and
for
gathering a range of commodities (Stroulia and
The Fund
for Mediterr.mean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
Sutton 2009: 124-25). Stroulia and Sutton
(2009: 126-27) link Kiladhiotes amnesia
of
the
ancient world with the situation further north
in the eastern Peloponnese.
The
local inhabit
ants near the famous ancient religious complex
of Nemea are largely indifferent to its remains:
while archaeologists value an archaeological past,
the local commun ity prefers a
much
more recent
past
of
agricultural expansion (Stroulia
and
Sut
ton
2009: 131).
When
the American excavators
of
the ancient site first initiated re-enactments
of the ancient games there, there was very lit
tle local participation. Significantly, in light
of
the contenti on that Greeks ancient heritage has
been appropriated primarily by m ore privileged
sectors
of
society, most
of
the contestants came
from Athens or the USA (Stroulia and Sutton
2009: 134).
t is suggested that this landscape dissonance
in which local inhabitants and archaeologists
see sites
and
their vicinities in completely dif
ferent ways, is primarily the result of the ways
in which archaeologists-especially, though
not
exclusively,
non Greeks behave
when excavat
ing, and also when presenting and preserving
ancient sites (Stroulia
and
Sutton 2009: 127-
33). Not once, however, do the authors consider
the possible impact
of both
these communities
Albanian-spealdng pasts (the original Albanian
names
of both
local villages have been expunged
in favour
of
Greek-sounding replacements)
on
their relationship with ancient sites. This
is not
surprising, since, as a result of their recent histo
ries, members
of
these communities, although
valuing their origins, would
not
readily identifY
themselves
as
part of an im proper Greek min or
ity to an exogenous observer (Scene 4 above).
As
noted below, Arvanites tend to
tal{e on
multiple
identities, often identifYing
as
Greek when inter
acting with outsiders,
but
asserting an Arvanitic
identity at a local level.
In
yet another Arvanitic
community not far from Nemea, ethnic alter
ity status
is
a significant complicating factor in
its relationship to another important Classical
site (Deltsou 2009). Once again, therefore, it
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
6/12
88 Forbes
is
important to recognise the officially unrecog
nised otherness of such Greeks and their local
pasts when discussing their relationships with
their archaeological landscapes.
Residents in the area around Nem ea prefer to
place a high value
on
a local cave instead
of
the
archaeological site. Although it
is
linked
in
local
belief to the mythical Nemean lion killed by
Hercules (Stroulia and Sutton 2009: 126-27),
this
is
a natural feature. While the associated
myth
might be ancient,
it
does not
mal
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
7/12
90 Forbes
considerable variability in the readiness
of
people
in different Arvanitic communities to identify
themselves, which may sometimes be affected
by very short-term political considerations (e.g.
Gefou-Madianou 1999: 416). Thus, in one
Arvanitis mountain community in the Pelopon
nese, some
of
the younger men present their
Arvanitis identity very publically
as
a means
of
aggressively breaching cultural norms (Lawrence
2011: 40-41). Sasse (1998: 56-57), however,
notes very mixed attitudes towards the spealc-
ing
of
Arvanitika within Arvanitis populations,
especially in villages in Attica and Boeotia.
Gefou-Madianou (1999: 414) describes Arva
nitic identity in Attica
as
Greek in a national
context,
but
Arvanitic in more localised con
texts.
Thus
there
is
considerable variability in
Arvanites readiness to self-identify, and they
can take
on
multiple identities. These depend
heavily
on
contingent factors, the specific social
contexts
of
encounters, the structural position
of
the person being addressed, the spealcer s values
and the overall context, conversational and social
(Tsitsipis 2009; Magliveras 2013;
see
Scene 4
above, and also below).
The desire for an articulate Arvanitis voice
led to the foundation
of
a number
of
national
and regional Arvanitis associations. Founded in
1981, the primary aim of he Arvanitis League
of
Greece, according to its former website (which
was on-line in August 2012,
but is
currently
unavailable; the site has come and gone over
the years),
was
to research the contribution
of
Arvanites t o Greece s hi story
and
to preserve
their language
and
traditional songs. Signifi
cantly, while the website made no reference
to ancient physical or monumental evidence
of
their origins, there was an emphasis on
the primeval origins
of
Arvanites civilisation.
This seems to refer to a line
of
20th-century
scholarship accepted by some Arvanites and
also by a number
of
Albanian
nationalists-
that the original ancestors
of
Albanians and
of
Greece s Arvanites were the Pelasgians, a mythi
cal race that the ancient Greeks believed inhab-
The
Fund
f r Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing
Ltd.,
2014
ited Greece before they arrived
(Sasse
1998: 48,
55; de Rapper 2009). While those at the centres
of power have emphasised their millennia-long
ancestry from the Hellenes
of
ancient Greece
(Gefou-Madianou 1999: 419-20 ), Albanians
are
now attempting to
trump
their cards historically
by linking themselves to the prestigious original
inhabitants
of
Greece, older even than the Clas
sical ancestors , who subseque ntly transferred
their civilisation to the Greeks, who are thus
represented as merely parvenu inhabitants
of
he
land (de Rapper
2009: 58-61).
Nevertheless, because
of
the stigma
of
their
non-Hellenic identity, Arvanites could
not
pub
licly own their historical roots. The recent major
influx
of
ethnic Albanians following the collapse
of
communism in 1991 has given Arvanites
further reasons not to acknowledge those roots
(Gefou-Madianou 1999: 416; Bintliff 2003:
138).
Of
all the migrant groups i n Greece in the
1990s and early 2000s at least, ethni c Albanians
were the most visible, most reviled
and
most
particularly associated with criminality in Greek
social consciousness (Roughed 1997; Vidali
1999; Baldwin-Edwards 2004: 58-61).
Alterity and Alternative Monuments Methana
In the
face of
the sorts
of
marginalisation
dis-
cussed here, what sorts
of
material past(s) do
Methanites, as Arvanites, use to identify them
selves as
proper Greeks?
To
most Methanites,
the impressive remains
of
the ancient city of
Methana were less important parts
of
their
cognitive maps
of
the landscape than the
local
cave, the highest peale or the most recent volcano
(Forbes 2009: 101). Methanites lack
of
interest
in Classical antiquities
is
broadly paralleled
by
the situation in the Arvanitic village
of
Vasiliko
near Corinth, located on the site of the ancient
Greek city
of
Sikyon. Deltsou (2009: 181,
183)
notes that the issue of how or even whether
Vasilikariotes connect themselves to the ancient
Classical past
on
which their village stands
is
complex. Villagers repeatedly stated that
they,
or the village , had n o interest i n antiquities
Archaeology and the Making
o mproper Citizens
in Modern
Greece
91
(Deltsou 2009: 181, 187), yet they did
not
ignore
them. s incomes from agriculture declined, they
became aware
of
the need to develop the tourism
which might be connected with their ancient
site (see above on connections with tourism).
However, the local museum which, it was hoped,
would attract tourists and their cash, was closed
after earthqualce damage and remained so for
two decades. Many
also
noted that the Greek
Archaeological Service
was
currently
not
working
on their site, whereas it was actively developing
nearby sites. Their viewpoint
was
technically cor
rect, but ignored the existence
of
non-excavation
survey projects
on
the site in which the Archaeo
logical Service
was not
the prime mover
(e.g.
Lolos et
al
2007; Sarris et
al
2008; Lolos 2011).
Some Vasilikariotes used these concerns over the
lack
of
clear direct involvement in their site by
central governmental authorities to construct an
anti-hegemonic discourse based on feelings
of
inferiority (Deltsou 2009: 181-84, 187).
Methanites connected themselves neither with
the glories
of
ancient monuments in Athens nor
with the ancient sites
on
their peninsula.
Yet
they have considered themselves to be every bit
as
Greek
as
all other Greek citizens, and
much
better than some badly-behaved sections
of
the
nation. Thei r most significant heritage site con
necting themselves to unimpeachable Greek
ness has been the fortifications constructed by
the French philhellene Charles Fabvier
on
the
peninsula s isthmus during the War
of
Independ
ence (Mee et
al
1997: 165-67). He considered
Methana an ideal defensive location in which to
train his force
of
international volunteers after it
had recently received a severe mauling in action
against Ottoman forces (StClair 1972: 291-92).
Few buildings are easily visible now,
but
the main
fortification remains readily identifiable (Figure
2). This structure
is
evidently the focus
of
con
siderable nationalistic pride. A large painting
of
the Greek national flag was placed there many
Figure 2. The Kastro Favierou: Charles Fabvier s Revolutionary War fortifica tion on the Methana isthmus.
The Fund
for
Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2014
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
8/12
9
Forbes
Figure 3.
Two
Greek national
flags
prominently displayed on the Kastro Favierou.
years
ago:
the specific design
was
superseded in
1978. A second, slightly smaller version painted
nearby
is
evidently later, since it uses the current
design (Figure 3) (Army General Staff 2003;
Breschi n.d.). Another, much smaller, painting
of
he Greek
flag yet
another design has been
painted inside a gun-slit (Figure 4).
Over the years that I have spent
on
their
peninsula, Methanites have regularly empha
sised the importance
of
the Kastro Favierou
as
it is
known),
as
a
monument and
a statement
of their community s contri bution t o mod
ern Greece s foundation. During the Metha na
Archaeological Survey the main fortification
was initially thought to be Venetian. Methanit es
were very disappointed when I mentioned this
possibility: for them it was specifically
as
a War
of
Independence monument that the ruins
had
their full meaning.
The
Fund
f r Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing
Ltd.,
2014
There
is
only the one site
of
this era on the
peninsula, however.
The
lack
of
other sites of
this period on the peninsula is significant: some
40 years ago, during increased repression
of
Arvanites by the military dictatorship, Metha
nites felt it necessary to increase their links to
this nationally formative period by construct
ing a second Revolutionary War
monument
in
the form
of
a memorial stele (Figure 5).
monument
to the Revolutionary War fallen
Methana commemorates the leader
of
a
of
Methanitis fighters, listing the uauu.ua1y
revered leaders with
whom
they were
a s ~ : o c t a t e a
and
the battles in which they fought.
t
records that he gave his life for the cause
independent
Greece the
ultimate
sacrifice. The
monument is
associated with
church of Ayios Yeoryios, a focal point where
Methanites from
all
over the peninsula and
rchaeology
and the aking
o
mproper
Citizens
in Modern
Greece
93
Greek flag-design used du ring th e Revolutionary War,
in
a gun-slit of he Kastro Favierou.
expatriates from other parts
of
Greece, especially
Athens
and
Piraeus, gather in large numbers
every year for the national celebration of St
George s Day. This
is
the place which represents
pan-Methana feeling m ost intensely. The stele s
significance for Methanites seems to have grown
over time. Until the 1980s
it
was tucked away
on the margins
of
a large empty
and
dusty area
surrounding the church. The area has since been
landscaped
and
planted with trees: the stele
now has a prominent place
much
closer to the
church (Forbes 2007: 263-64, 370-74).
The
significance
of
the fort for Methanites
also
seems to have increased over time. In March
2013, a Methanitis journalist uploaded an article
in an online organ describing itself
as
the first
portal for Piraeus (the administrative centre for
Methana s region) an d shippin g matters (Atha
nasiou 2013).
He
describes his participation in
The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd.,
2014
the first ever flag-raising
at
the fort. He then
tells the fort s history, emphasising that this
was_
where Greece s regular army was born,
and
the
central
part it
played during the War
of
Inde
pendence: Methana in 1826 became the centre
of
the struggle [for independen ce] . He then
mentions the contingent ofMethanites and their
involvement
in
the Revolutionary War, specially
noting that the name
of
their leader, who made
the ultimate sacrifice, was Arvanitic.
While
Methanites
cannot
connect them
selves to this time through memory, there are
visible
monumental
reminders, original
and
retro-constructed, via which they can associ
ate themselves with the events which founded
the nation. Local patriotic pride and identity
as
worthy Greek citizens, therefore,
is
clearly
focused
on
this aspect
of
Methanites historical
heritage. These material links, not the ancient
-
7/21/2019 Methana Arvanites
9/12
94
Forbes
, o - ~ , r J
~ + f f ~
. i \
(liSP f\\ .TEQ2: KAl nATP t1o;:
nE:WNTE:i: MEOANITAI
EN. TOll: IEPDil: TOY EONOYr A r ~ l
IQANNH2:
L I E ~ E r . K - 1 K A 2 :
EK
K:Ar THl:.
bO:Iii
ElL
THN KAPLlAN 1QN fEKNQir
i:OY