Halkidiki Landscape, Archaeology, and Ethnicity

Halkidiki Landscape, Archaeology, and Ethnicity Elisavet (Bettina) Tsigarida Ephorate of Pella Antiquities Ioannis Xydopoulos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Landscape archaeology in the Mediterranean has evolved in recent decades, as the data collected during field surveys in plains and mountains has been turned into solid knowledge about the past. Its interdisciplinary character (e.g., the simultaneous use of archaeology and/or historical geography together with geophysics) has contributed significantly to its success. In his comprehensive work on the Mediterranean, Fernand Braudel argued that in order to understand the region’s history one should ‘dissect [it] into various planes’, suggesting that researchers should ‘divide historical time into geographical time, social time, and individual time’.1 He held that concentrating on the deeds of certain individuals, where they kings or generals (l’histoire événementielle) was leading us away from a sound understanding of the Mediterranean world. In order to do so, one must take into account the slow unfolding of geomorphological, climatic, and environmental changes, as well as the history of institutions, economic systems, and ideologies. His work inspired the Annales School but was neglected by archaeologists for a long time. In the 1980s new forms of cultural history appeared, yet it was difficult for anyone to suggest that ‘the study of the Mediterranean should return to pre- Braudelian models’.2 It has been argued that writing history from the artefacts found during excavations is inadequate,3 since archaeologists generally think that in this way the material record becomes equivalent (or quasi-equivalent) to the literary sources available. Ian Morris is right when writing that the “great contribution of archaeology to 1 Fernand Braudel, I Mesogeios kai o mesogeiakos kosmos tin epochi tou Philippou B' tis Ispanias [La Méditer- ranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II], transl. Klairi Mitsotaki, Athens: M.I.E.T. 1991, vol. 1, p. 21. 2 Ian Morris, “Archaeology and Archaic Greek History”, in N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds), Archaic Greece. New Approaches and New Evidence, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 1998, p. 69. 3 Anthony M. Snodgrass, An Archaeology of Greece. The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, pp. 36–66. Mines, Olives and Monasteries the archaic historian, I contend, is that it allows us – for the first time – to think in social time”.4 This ‘social time’ is better explored and understood also by the use of new theories concerning the perception and evaluation of cultural landscapes. Researchers have passed from the Braudelian model of interpreting things (i.e., the trichotomy in landscape, social structure and events) to methods where supra-regional processes can be used. The employment of these processes has turned many to believe in the strong interaction between landscape and human actions. As Gert-Jan Burgers has recently emphasised in relation to another Mediterranean site, “any fundamental dominance of landscape or social structures over human action can be questioned considering that the former are also created, reproduced and transformed by human action”.5 As for the case of the Halkidiki peninsula, which is the focus of this study, these processes could be defined as: a) The role of the landscape; b) The creation of settlements and urban centres; and c) the notion of ethnicity(ies) in a Greek colonial context. 1. The Rural Environment of Halkidiki The inhabitation of a landscape derives from one’s experience of the world and space. How humans choose a region to inhabit is difficult to explain, as it is an issue related to existentialism.6 Additionally, “space” in ancient Greek philosophy had various mean- ings. One of them is the theory ἐν χώρῳ καὶ χρόνῳ, which indicated that all the phe- nomena that occur are related to space and time. As a result, every space is a field of human action over time.7 The settlement evidence in Macedonia generally varies. Transhumant pastoral groups are the main feature, while we can trace from the Bronze Age onward continu- ous occupation of tell sites (Kastanas, Vardaroftsa, Chauchitsa, and Thessaloniki). The permanence of these settlements allowed inhabitants to use domestic space in ways that seem more complex than those found in settlements in central Greece, while con- structions that had been made for storage purposes appear in the sixth century. Al- ready by the mid-sixth century, the Greek presence in the northern shores of the Ae- gean had a serious impact, not only in burial customs but also in pottery and architec- ture. It seems that the city-states of southern Greece were carrying out economic and political activities in these areas, and the indigenous populations had to find ways to 4 Morris, op.cit., p. 69. 5 Gert-Jan Burgers, “Landscape and Identity of Greek Colonists and Indigenous Communities in Southeast Italy”, in G. Cifani & S. Stoddart (eds), Landscape, Ethnicity and Identity in the Archaic Mediterannean Area, Oxford: Oxbow, 2012, p. 66. 6 Adrian M. Chadwick, “‘Geographies of Sentience’. An Introduction to Space, Place and Time”, in A.M. Chadwick (ed.), Stories from the Landscape: Archaeologies of Inhabitation, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004, p. 7. 7 Lilian Karalis-Giannakopoulou, Perivallontiki Archaeologia [Environmental Archaeology], Athens: Kardamit- sas, 2005, p. 80. [36] Aspects of Halkidiki’s Enviromental History respond to this deployment. Unfortunately, we neither do nor can know the impact the other side had on the Greek settlers in this area in the north Aegean littoral called “Thrace” in the ancient literary sources. The Halkidiki peninsula constitutes a typical example of Mediterranean morphol- ogy: it is characterised by mountains, plains, hills, and plateaus, surrounded by the Aegean. The sea also penetrates deeply among its three prongs, thus forming a kind of boundaries of separation between them and at the same time regulating the general conditions of living. Halkidiki seems to be an autonomous world, as usually the peninsulas are though to be, and one has to deal with all data available in order to understand the interconnection between its different micro-worlds and the people dwelling there. Halkidiki is the largest peninsula in Greece, covering an area of 2,918 km2. It includes three minor peninsulas, known as the three prongs. It is surrounded by the Aegean from the south, east and west and has a coastline of almost 500 km. Central Halkidiki is dominated by Mount Cholomon or Cholomondas (1,165 m), with some hills both to the east and west of it. The prongs are also dominated by mountains and hills. At the southern edge of the eastern prong is located Mount Athos (2,030 m), one of the tallest massifs in Greece, while the middle prong (Sithonia) has Mount Itamos (805 m.) at its centre. Finally, Cassandreia to the west is also a hilly region. Mountains comprise a world that lives far from the civilisation of the plains and towns. A world required to live on its own resources and to produce everything needed for the survival of its inhabitants. Mountains are exactly this: Obstacles.8 Solely from viewing a map of the peninsula, it becomes clear that the fertile, arable lands are limited, situated mainly along the coastline. The territory of Halkidiki certainly played a role in the history of the place. Human habitation was confined to specific areas, the ones that supported agriculture and stock raising. By this we mean that the people residing there had to adapt to the conditions they faced. The mountainous natural environment of the central peninsula was ideal for shepherds and herders, while farmers and traders were to be found at the prongs. The region does not form a single geographic unit. Instead, it is divided into various micro-regions, each one with its own micro-climate. It was natural, therefore, to have populations scattered all over the peninsula, living in communities situated in these micro-regions, thus creating situations of autonomy and separation, which played a role in the historical evolution of the peninsula. For example, in historical times Olyn- thos, Poteidaia, and later Cassandreia evolved into major cities of the peninsula. How- ever no single town managed to dominate the whole of Halkidiki, exactly due to the particularity of the latter. The study of the archaeological sediments of a site (or sites), which included physical, biogenic and cultural elements, has a long tradition in environmental and 8 Braudel, op.cit, pp. 38-9. [37] Mines, Olives and Monasteries stratigraphic composition. According to Karl Butzer, the presence of humans and animals as “geomorphic agents” is also based on the materials introduced to the site by people or animals. From the humans’ perspective, these materials included those for building, clothing or fuel purposes and those that accidentally have been brought to the site.9 The microworld of a region includes many activities that are directly linked to the natural environment. One of the aims of environmental recomposition is to define the relation of humans with the environment and vice versa, based on the study of resi- dues of fauna and flora. The environment determines the evolution of life in which humans, animals and plants will adapt. Not only livestock and wild fauna but also studies in land use by past human societies in the scientific community have a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of the environment, a conclusion reached by many scholars dealing with its importance in human lives. 2. The Archaeological Evidence 2.1. Prehistoric Period 2.1.1. Settlements Habitation in the Halkidiki peninsula began in the Palaeolithic period, as is inferred by an archaic skull of a Euro-African homo sapiens, dating from 200,000 to 150,000 BC, which was discovered in the cave of Petralona.

Load more