Methana Arvanites

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

[email protected]. 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


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


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


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


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


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


7/12

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


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


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

Documents

Methana Arvanites