From Text to Space and Vice Versa The travel accounts of Sir William Gell and Edward Dodwell in Phocis and Boeotia

Zafeirios Avgeris

Department of ALM Theses within Digital Humanities Master's thesis (two years), 30 credits, 2021, no.8 Author Zafeirios Avgeris

Title From Text to Space and Vice Versa. The travel accounts of Sir William Gell and Edward Dodwell in Phocis and Boeotia.

Supervisor Anna Foka

Abstract This thesis examines and compares two travel accounts in the regions of Phocis and Boeotia in Greece, as they appear in the book of Sir William Gell “The Itinerary of Greece: With a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that Country (1819) and on the two volumed book of Edward Dodwell A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece: During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, Volume 1 & 11 (1819). More specifically, the thesis explores the extent of the area that these travelers managed to cover during their routes, the places with historical and archaeological interest that they mentioned at least, their moves among the various chronotopes, and the use of their predecessors’ texts for on their routes. With the use of digital platforms such as Recogito, their travel accounts have been annotated, tagged, aligned with ToposText gazetteer and Wikidata, exported as .csv files, and further processed using OpenRefine. By having as a ground theory approach the social construction of space, as Lefebvre has defined it, the thesis, with the assistance of ArcGIS and Python and the necessary manual steps, explored the topics as mentioned above. The analysis of these topics provided interesting results to the thesis. It showed the differences in the area coverage of the two travelers in Phocis and Boeotia. It also highlighted their accuracy in the discovering of ancient places and buildings. Moreover, it delineated their moves through the different chronotopes and the vital role of the physical environment as a bridge for these moves. Ultimately, this thesis revealed the crucial role of their predecessors’ travel accounts for their navigation on the respecting. Mainly, it made clear the vitality of the travel accounts of Strabo and Pausanias. These results were clearly connected with the social construction of space and time from the two British travelers based on their cultural background.

Key words Digital Humanities, Spatial Humanities, Grand Tour, British Travel Literature, Sir William Gell, Edward Dodwell.

2

Table of contents

Introduction ...... 7 The books of Gell and Dodwell ...... 10 Thesis Purpose and Research Questions ...... 12 Delimitations ...... 13 Thesis Outline...... 14 Previous Research ...... 15 Theoretical Resources ...... 19 Material and Method ...... 22 How the travel accounts of Gell and Dodwell became annotated .csv files?..... 22 The spatial analysis on ArcGIS ...... 26 ArcGIS and Database Tools ...... 29 Using Python to extract the Time Periods and the References to their predecessors ...... 31 Study and Analysis ...... 33 The covered by the Travelers Area ...... 33 The Places with a Historical or/and Archaeological Interest ...... 39 Traveling through Time and Space ...... 43 The role of their predecessors ...... 50 Discussion ...... 55 Bibliography and list of references ...... 62 Sources ...... 62 Corpus ...... 62 Platforms and Tools ...... 62 Wikimedia Images ...... 62 In the thesis author’s possession ...... 63 Literature ...... 63

3 Table of Figures

Figure 1. Dodwell’s panoramic drawing. Banks of Kephissos in Boeotia and the southern side of the Acropolis of Orchomenos. The image is retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Edward Dodwell, 1821...... 17 Figure 2. The buffer zones and the paths of the two travelers. With the light green color, the buffer zone of Gell with its path on top of it. With the pink color, the buffer zone of Dodwell with its path on top of it...... 26 Figure 3. Dodwell’s Viewshed analysis. With green color, the visible sited during his routes and with pink color the non-visible ...... 27 Figure 4. Gell’s viewshed analysis. With green color, the visible sited during his routes and with pink color the non-visible ...... 28 Figure 5. The Places of Gell & ToposText in Gell’s Buffer Zone. With blue color, the places that Gell has at least mentioned. With red color, the TopoText places inside the Gell’s (light green) Buffer Zone ...... 30 Figure 6. The Places of Dodwell & ToposText in Dodwell's Buffer Zone. With blue color, the places that Dodwell has at least mentioned. With red color, the TopoText places inside the Dodwell’s (light green) Buffer Zone ...... 30 Figure 7. Map of Boeotia. Published from Jean Jacques Barthélemy in 1832. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons...... 35 Figure 8. Map of Phocis, Doris and Locris. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Jean Jacques Barthélemy, 1832...... 36 Figure 9. Dodwell’s drawing of Thebes. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Edward Dodwell, 1819...... 37 Figure 10. Dodwell’s references to settlements and buildings of the different time periods...... 45 Figure 11. The references on the various time periods on Gell's and Dodwell's travel accounts...... 49 Figure 12. The references of Gell on various of his predecessors, as sources of information on his travel...... 51 Figure 13. The references of Dodwell on various of his predecessors, as sources of information on his travel ...... 53

4

Table of Tables Table 1. The area that each of the travelers was able to observe inside the buffer zone of 6.880 meters around their routes ...... 34 Table 2. The travelers' mentioned areas on their buffer zone areas in comparison with the places on ToposText for the same areas ...... 40

5

6 Introduction

“Of Dardan tours let Dilettanti tell,

I leave topography to classic Gell;”

(Byron, 1811, p.80)

Between the 16th and the 18th century, antiquarianism had risen in Europe. At the turn of the 18th century, the interest shifted from ancient Rome to ancient Greece.

Ancient Greece was considered the most familiar stranger and a fundamental part of British and European identity (Duesterberg, 2015). Shelley’s lyrics from the same time period highlight the admiration that the British intellectual had for the ancient Greek civilization and the shift from ancient Rome to Greece at the begin- ning of the 19th century: “We are all Greeks, our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts, have their root in Greece. But for Greece - Rome, the instructor, the con- queror, or the metropolis of our ancestors, would have spread no illumination with her arms, and we might still have been savages and idolaters;” (Shelley, 1822, pub- lished 1886, p. viii-ix).

Inspired by the lyrics of Lord Byron, this thesis will examine the de- scriptions of two 19th century English travelers in Ottoman Greece. These travels happened in an era when classical studies were associated with nobility and power and the British noble class of the time was obsessed with Greece and Rome (Gold- hill, 2011).

7 Simultaneously, there is a shift from private space to public space in Great

Britain. The drastic urbanization and industrialization and the emergence of the working class in the big cities forced the upper and middle classes to present and share the ancient culture with the workers. They decided it primarily because they were afraid of how the working class is spending their leisure time, and they wanted to educate them to avoid “cultural degeneration” and political instability (Duester- berg, 2015). This idea for the use of culture for political stability is delineated in the book of Matthew Arnold a few decades later: “Culture works differently. It does not try to teach down to the level of inferior classes; it does not try to win them for this or that sect of its own, with ready-made judgments and watch words. It seeks to do away with classes; to make all live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light, and use ideas, as it uses them itself, freely, —to be nourished and not bound by them.” (Arnold, 1869, p. 48-49).

The cultural ideals, however, that these travelers were looking for were not reflected in the early 19th century Greek spatio-temporal state. Greece, at this point, was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire started in Asia in the 13th century, and it had conquered the Balkans, and the largest part of the Eastern Mediterranean at the beginning of the 19th century was progressively declining (Quataert, 2005).

Thus, like Pausanias looking for the Greek ideal in Roman-ruled Greece (Johnsons,

2016), the English travelers of the early 19th century were looking for the Greek ideal in the Ottoman-ruled Greece. The place in this occasion frames the contested and conflicted territory of this era and unavoidably reflects on the literary topogra- phy of it (Malpas, 2018). While they were in the Ottoman landscape, they were looking at the landscape through the lenses of their predecessors (Pollard, 2015).

8 This conjunction of time and space, or chronotope (Bakhtin, 1981), is visible in the accounts that this thesis examines and compares.

These are the travel accounts in Phocis and Boeotia of Sir William Gell in his book The Itinerary of Greece: With a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that Country

(1819)1 and on the two volumed book of Edward Dodwell A Classical and Topo- graphical Tour Through Greece: During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, Volume

1 & 11 (1819). Their accuracy and their in-depth knowledge of the ancient and early modern British travel literature has been a topic of discussion in the academic com- munity (Tsigakou (1981); Eisner (1991); Asvesta & Guilmet, 2007; Bennet et al.

(2017); Ksiazkiewicz (2020); Filser (2020). They are considered as essential, among other reasons, for their detailed archaeological records. Moreover, on the books that this thesis takes into consideration, they have both traveled on the

1 I had used all these books, as a part of a much larger corpus with a completely different methodology on the course “Distant Reading” at Uppsala University. I had also used the book of Gell with the use of similar tools and methodology but with quite different research questions on the course “GIS for the Humanities and the Social Sciences” at Uppsala University. The book of Gell and the first volume of the Dodwell’s book had also been used from me on the course “Landscape Analysis and Geographical Information Systems (GIS)” at Upp- sala University. The methods and the research questions have been reworked and optimized, the second volume of the Dodwell’s book has been added, while a larger part of the books of the two other books has been used on this thesis.

9 examined regions of Phocis and Boeotia. Thus, the topographical dimension of these books and how they approach time and space will be the main topics of this thesis.

The books of Gell and Dodwell This chapter discusses the biographies of Sir William Gell and Edward Dodwell very briefly. Also, it refers briefly to the contents of the examined by the thesis books, and even more specific to the examined by the thesis parts of these books.

According to the biographical details that Thompson (2020) provides in his book, Sir William Gell was born in 1777 in Hopton in Derbyshire, England.

He was a member of a noble family. He finished his studies in Classics at Cam- bridge University in 1804. Then, Gell started his archaeological and topographical travel expeditions in Greece and Italy to discover the traces of the classic civiliza- tion. He wrote numerous books with his travel accounts on these areas. He died in

Italy in 1836.

This thesis examines his book “The Itinerary of Greece: With a Com- mentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that Country (1819)”. This book had as its core intention to become the more detailed travel guide for the future travelers in Greece who were going to look for traces of the classical civilization. It contains one hundred routes in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, and Thessaly. In order to make his travel ac- counts as accurate as possible, he was counting the minutes from place to place, and on some occasions, he was also counting the yards. At the end of most of his routes, he evaluated the distances that his predecessors have calculated from place to place,

10 and their accuracy. The thesis will focus only on the routes in Boeotia and Phocis in his book, and as the traveler defines these two regions.

The biography and the examined book of Edward Dodwell has simi- larities and differences with Gell’s book. According to the Encyclopaedia Britan- nica (2010) information, Dodwell was also a noble family member. He was born in

Dublin in 1767. Dodwell studied at the Cambridge University before he started his archaeological expeditions in Greece and Italy. He died in Rome in 1832.

One of his identical books is examined in this thesis; the two volumed book “A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece: During the Years

1801, 1805, and 1806, Volume 1 & 11 (1819)”. This book contains routes on a much wider area than Gell’s one. In his book, he starts his travel account from Venice, he travels to the Dalmatic coast, and then he continues his exploration on the Ionian

Islands and continental Greece. On his travels in continental Greece in 1805, he is accompanied by his friend and painter Simone Pomardi. On the examined by the thesis regions, he started his exploration when he arrived by boat to the port of

Galaxidi, on southwestern Phocis. He wanted to visit Athens, but due to the spread of plague in the region of Peloponnesus, he had to choose a different route. On his route to Athens, he visited the places with a vast archaeological interest in the west- ern parts of Phocis and Boeotia. These were places such as Delphi, Chrisso,

Livadeia, Thebes, and he finally arrived in Athens via Eleutherae. The thesis exam- ines these routes from the first volume of his book, and from the second volume of his book examines the visited places on eastern Boeotia and Phocis, when he trav- eled from Athens to Thessaly.

11 Thesis Purpose and Research Questions

Even if these books elucidate classical antiquity and the landscape of Ottoman

Greece, the spatial dimension of these literary topographies and the quality of these descriptions have not been studied with quantitative methods. Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to conduct a comparative study between the travel accounts of Gell and Dodwell in the regions of Phocis and Boeotia. In doing so, it examines how their predecessors and their travel accounts influenced Gell’s and Dodwell’s meth- odology for historical and archaeological research, the results of this research, and their movement through time and space. For this purpose, this thesis pits the British travelers' accounts to gazetteers of ancient sites and Wikimedia items; then, it maps the effective breadth of coverage the early travelers could achieve without the ben- efit of modern maps and tools. The central method used is close reading, semantic annotation, and textual analysis by using Recogito to annotate the texts, align them to Wikidata and ToposText gazetteer, extract them as .csv files, use Python coding to analyze the hits of the various time periods, and the overlapping references on

Gell’s and Dodwell’s books. The study also consists of spatial analysis using

ArcGIS to visualize the itineraries, shed light on useful for its purposes spatial pat- terns, and execute two viewshed analyses.

The thesis considers space as a social and cultural construction influenced by the pioneering ideas of Lefebvre (1991). Based on these theoretical ideas, and with the use of the newest methodologies in the field of Digital Humanities, about semantics in historical texts (McGilivray, 2020), and the geovisualization tech- niques (Foka et al., 2020), the thesis proceeds based on the following research ques- tions:

12 - How effective was Gell’s and Dodwell’s methodology in terms of visibility?

How wide was the area that each of them had covered, and why?

- How do travel accounts map onto the archaeological record on the ground?

Did they accurately locate the various ancient places and buildings?

- How much did they move between various chronotopes? Which time peri-

ods attracted more of their attention?

- How much did they finally rely on the texts of their predecessors? Did dif-

ferent travelers' accounts play a different role for each of the travelers?

The ultimate aim of this thesis is through the in-depth investigation of these research questions to contribute to the field of the Grand Tour and on the British travel literature on the 19th century, and more specifically on the archaeological travel expeditions of this time period. The thesis aims to put the state of the research methodologically forward and to answer the settled questions comprehensively.

Delimitations The research of this thesis has its delimitations on what it can provide in the field of the Grand Tour and on the British travel literature in the nineteenth century. This thesis delves into the critical analysis of only two travel accounts in Phocis and

Boeotia. Thus, it is not a comprehensive study of the Grand Tour and the British travel literature of the nineteenth century. Consequently, the results cannot be ex- trapolated as catholic results for every route, on any area, at any time period.

Another delimitation of the thesis is the absence of a complete official archaeological cadastre of Greece. This absence forces the thesis to move to other

13 solutions by comparing the referred by the travelers' places of archaeological inter- est with the most accurate of the available gazetteers.

Thesis Outline The rest of the thesis is organized as follows; the first chapter is previous research on British travel literature and the Grand Tour, specifically on the British travelers in the Ottoman empire. The second chapter sets the thesis on the bigger theoretical perspective of spatial humanities. It analyzes the models and tools that will be used and how they are connected with the central theory of the thesis about the social construction of space. The third chapter analyzes the collection of the materials for the thesis and its methodology. The fourth chapter presents the results of the used methods and aims to shed light on the research questions of the thesis. Finally, the concluding chapter answers questions and provides a best practice scheme for com- bining theory and computational methods for a deep investigation of literary topog- raphies.

14 Previous Research

To examine the travel accounts of Gell and Dodwell in Phocis and Boeotia, the thesis starts from the investigation of a crucial “Society” for the History of the

Grand Tour, British travel literature, and the British archaeological expeditions in

Greece in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This “Society” is called “Society of Dilettanti”. Redford (2008) and Kelly (2009) provide valuable information about the Society of Dilettanti and its members, which was funding the trips of the English travelers in Italy and Greece to find antiquities. The name of this Society with sup- posedly antiquarian and artistic interest comes from the Italian word “dilettante”, which means “to delight,” and it was used to express their love for music or painting

(Kelly, 2009). Horace Walpole, in his letter to his friend Horace Mann in 1743, characterizes the Society of Dilettanti as a “...club, for which the nominal qualifi- cation is having been in Italy, and the real one being drunk;” (as cited in Black,

1985, p. 120). This Society, however, transformed the archaeological expeditions progressively from romantic literary descriptions to scientific topographies (Kelly,

2009).

Traveling to Italy and Greece was not a privilege that only the British young aristocrats had. The universities' emphasis on ancient literature led many travelers from all around Europe to visit the places described on it (Buzard, 2002; Constan- tine, 2011). Based on the ancient texts and the texts of previous early modern trav- elers, most of the travelers were looking for the classical ideal in Italy (Eisner, 1991;

Constantine, 2011; Mitsi, 2017). Although, as the years were passing, an increasing number of travelers started going to Greece to explore the classical ideal (Eisner,

15 1991; Constantine, 2011; Gephardt, 2014). These travels were usually on horse- back, using writing equipment and a clock, a small corpus of books, and accompa- nied by fellow travelers or local guides (Pollard, 2015). According to Constantine

(2011), from the ancient travelers, Pausanias and Strabo were essential to identify ancient places with Ottoman names or without any names. In the travel accounts of

Gell and Dodwell and on the topographical travel literature of the early 19th century, the use of Pausanias was adding authenticity (Alevra & Guilmet, 2007). An indic- ative example is the reference of Richard Chandler, another British traveler, in Pau- sanias and Strabo accuracy: “The places between Sicyon and Patrae, their order, their situation, their distances from the sea and from each other, are so exactly marked by Strabo and Pausanias, as not easily to be mistaken. It is a matter of regret, that travellers [sic] too commonly hasten along the beaten road, uninformed of the objects on the way; when by consulting and following those invaluable guides, they might increase their own pleasure, and at the same time greatly advance the general knowledge of ancient geography” (Chandler, 1776, p. 278).

The descriptions of Gell and Dodwell diachronically stimulate the interest of the scholars. Ksiazkiewicz (2020) highlights the importance of Gell’s descrip- tions for the Society of Dilettanti, while Eisner (1991) admires Gell’s detailed re- cording and, on the other hand, criticizes Dodwell’s tiresome overload of infor- mation. Contrastingly with Eisner, Tsigakou (1981) refers to Dodwell’s books

(1819) as a “systematic topographical description and a detailed investigation into the remains of antiquity” (1981, p. 26). Simultaneously, she admires Gell’s book

(1819) and highlights its importance as a guide for travelers. The contemporaries of Gell had also expressed their admiration for him. It worths mention again the

16 Lord Byron and a footnote on his previously mentioned poem: “Mr. Gell’s Topog- raphy of Troy and Ithaca cannot fail to ensure the approbation of every man pos- sessed of classical taste, as well for the information Mr. G. conveys to the mind of the reader, as for the ability and research the respective works display.” (Byron,

1810, p. 80). Another substantiation is his election as a member of Dilettanti Society when he returned from his travel in Greece (Cust & Colvin, 1894). Their trave- logues appear essential, however, even for current researchers, such as Bennet et al.

(2017), and the evaluation of Gell’s role as an archaeological source. Filser (2020), on the other hand, refers extensively to Dodwell’s methodology and the use of pan- oramic drawings to depict the landscape.

Figure 1. Dodwell’s panoramic drawing. Banks of Kephissos in Boeotia and the southern side of the Acropolis of Orchomenos. The image is retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Edward Dodwell, 1821.

The traveling accounts of Gell and Dodwell have an unambiguous spatial dimension. Their spatial dimension makes the study of the previous research on literary topography necessary to approach them. This research on literary

17 topographies starts from the innovative on its era book of Bakhtin’s (1981) to delve simultaneously into the temporal and spatial dimensions of literature and the foun- dational book of Yi-Fu (1977) for the relationship among place, time, experience, and emotion. Undoubtedly, crucial is the previous work on the literary topographies and territories of antiquarian and medieval travelers (Johnsons, 2016) and the state of the travel literature and topography in 19th-century British Travel Literature

(Youngs, 2006; Bragg, 2006; Watson, 2009).

18 Theoretical Resources

This thesis delves computationally into these itineraries and their importance, using text mining and spatial analysis methods and tools. Several studies have been done in the field of the spatial humanities and on the travelers in Greece during the Otto- man period. None of them, however, has been done on the intersection of these two fields, even if the digital methods and tools in the humanities have been discussed and applied for several decades. The first person who envisioned the use of digital tools in humanities was Vannevar Bush. In his pioneering article “As we may think”

(1945), he described an imaginary device, the “Memex,” which is going to help us in the future to optimize our filing system by the use of mechanized thinking. Alt- hough, in 1949, Roberto Busa, a Jesuit priest, managed with an IBM machine to automatize the textual analysis for the first time, and he used it for the “Index Tho- misticus” (Svensson, 2009). As the years passed, digital tools in the humanities have been specialized and divided into different fields. One of these fields unavoid- ably had to do with space, in an epoch that Foucault characterizes as “the epoch of space” (1967, published 1984, p. 22). The discussion around the field of spatial humanities has recently led to the writing, among others, of some highly influential books especially about it (Bodenhamer et al., 2010; Gregory & Geddes, 2014;

Cooper et al., 2016; Dunn, 2019) and to the Dunn’s (2019, p. 2) definition of it: “This umbrella term refers to the methods and processes which facilitate the critical investi- gation of place, space and location as an artefact of human history and experience.”

Although, in some fields, such as in the historical field, it is noticeable even from the 1980s an extensive use of GIS (Geographical Information Systems) software

19 (Thomas, 2004). From the late 1990s until today, the primary uses of spatial tech- niques in the humanities are to create digital gazetteers.

As Hill (2000) states, a digital gazetteer is a structured geographical dic- tionary that contains information about specific place entities and, according to

Schlieder et al. (2001), is a handy tool for information retrieval. Berman et al.

(2001) highlight another aim of the digital gazetteers: to cross-link resources. Good- child and Hill (2008) delineated the semantic interoperability of a gazetteer's spatial and temporal data with the data of other gazetteers and platforms. Thus, these at- tributes of the gazetteers have been beneficial for humanist scholars in need of spa- tial representation.

Among these scholars were also scholars who used spatial tools for textual analysis. Franco Moretti (2005) suggests using maps to extract hidden patterns from literary texts; he called this method “distant reading.” In one of his previous papers,

Moretti (2000) highlights the vital role of this method to shed light on minor or major parts of a text. Receiving inspiration from Moretti and the spatial analysis in the humanities, scholars started using spatial methods for textual analysis and other methods, such as programming (Montfort, 2016). Caquard (2013) calls this shift of the literary scholars “spatial turn” in the humanities. According to Guldi (2010), the term spatial turn “represents the impulse to position these new tools against old questions.” Elliot and Gillies (2009) envision this spatial shift and various projects followed this spatial turn by developing their own methodology. One of these pro- jects was the Corpus of Lake District Writing (CLDW) (Cooper and Gregory,

2011). This methodology has been called Geographical Text Analysis and com- bines a wide range of techniques from NLP and linguistics until the GIS and spatial

20 analysis (Murrieta-Flores and Gregory, 2015). According to Murietta-Flores and

Howell (2017), this methodology enables the semi-automatic spatial exploration of large corpora. Finally, the project “Digital Periegesis” uses a pioneering methodol- ogy for the semantic geo-annotation using Recogito and the alignment of the place entities with gazetteers and Wikidata items (Foka et al., 2020).

These two last projects are both in the field of travel literature but in differ- ent places and time periods. This indicates how valuable the spatial analysis of the travel literature is to make us understand the texts further. Hence, the comparative literary and spatial analysis of Sir William Gell’s (1819) and Edward Dodwell’s

(1819) books could be beneficial to shed light on the textual construction of space and time in them, the thoroughness and quality of their accounts, and in which older travel accounts they had based their observations.

To close with, it is vital to refer to how the thesis considers space and time.

The thesis will base its analysis on the Lefebvre (1991) theory about the social con- struction of space and time. This thesis argues that this theory is vital to understand- ing Gell’s and Dodwell’s travel accounts. These travelers' educational and cultural background led them to reconsider the space as place based on their own experi- ences. Hence, I argue that without having the Lefebvre theory about space and time in mind, it would be almost impossible to interpret the analysis results.

21 Material and Method

How the travel accounts of Gell and Dodwell became anno- tated .csv files? The initial material of this paper were three books in .txt format, the book of Sir

William Gell’s The Itinerary of Greece: With a Commentary on Pausanias and

Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that

Country (1819) and the two-volumed book of Edward Dodwell A Classical and

Topographical Tour Through Greece: During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, Vol- ume 1 & 11 (1819). The first step to manage the settled goal was the annotation of the books2. The books were annotated on the platform Recogito. As Riande and

Vitale (2020) refer to their article about Recogito, it is a valuable platform to visu- alize itineraries and compare the itineraries of different authors in the same areas.

On the same article about the use of Recogito, refer to the platform's capability for aligning places with gazetteers, adding your preferable tags, and comments on them. Recogito allows us, in other words, to make use of the capabilities of the gazetteers as this study had previously referred to in the theoretical resources sec- tion; to make use of the gazetteers as sources of structured geographical information

(Hill, 2000). Moreover, to use them for information retrieval (Schlieder, 2001), to

2 The annotation of the Gell’s book on the previously mentioned paper on the course “GIS for the Humanities and the Social Sciences” at Uppsala University , and on the first volume of Dodwell’s book had started on the previously mentioned paper on the courses “Landscape Analysis and Geographical Information Systems (GIS)” at Uppsala University. However, for this thesis, I changed the tagging process to add the “time periods” tags, the tags for the “mislocated” places, the tags for the references to other travelers and to remove all the other unnecessary tags that I had used. Thus, I had to go through all the annotated places from the beginning, to change the tagging, and in many instances to create new wikidata items. In the thesis annotation process, I also added many unidentified places which were not added on the annotation of the previous papers. Additionally, the thesis considers the regions of Phocis and Boeotia as the authors considers them, and not as the modern regions, like the previous papers. Finally, the annotation process of the second volume of Dodwell’s book started from the very beginning. These differences had as a result to expand the area of research in comparison with the previous papers.

22 cross-link the sources (Berman et al., 2001), and to emphasize their semantic in- teroperability (Goodchild and Hill, 2008). Finally, the moves between space and text that Recogito allows us to do was the ultimate reason for its selection (Barker et al., 2020).

For the annotation of the books, I aligned all the identified places with

“Wikidata” items, and in many cases, I had to create new items. As many places as I could, I aligned them with the “ToposText” gazetteer as well. I used Wikidata as a hub to link my research data with external identifiers and authorities (Neubert,

2017). To create Wikidata items for ancient places, I derived information about the location and other details from ToposText. Although, a similar gazetteer for the

Ottoman period does not exist. To tackle this challenge, for the Ottoman settle- ments, due to the use of different names than today, but for the same settlements, I

had to consult the “National Hellenic Research Foundation” website for the re-

names of settlement3 . In some cases, this was not enough. Hence, I also consulted the quite detailed maps of Topoguide4 and the rich geographical data of Geonames5.

However, the Named Entity Recognition function of the platform did not work with travelers' texts. The reason behind it is mostly the absence of an ottoman gazetteer for the examined area. Thus, the annotation had to be done manually, and it had to be selected the most suitable gazetteer of the available ones.

On Recogito, from the available gazetteers, I decided to use only the

“ToposText” gazetteer for the annotation. I took this decision for multiple reasons.

First, as I noticed, ToposText contains places of historical interest not only of the

3 Settlement Renames, National Hellenic Research Foundation website>metonomasies 4 Topoguide website> In English 5 Geonames website

23 ancient time as the other available gazetteers on Recogito, such as DAI (Deutsches

Archäologisches Institut) Pausanias, and Pleiades gazetteer, but also of the Byzan- tine, Frankish Times. The rest of the choices on Recogito are the “Heritage Gazet- teer of Cyprus” and the Binder Athens, which referred to other areas than the parts of the books that this thesis examines. Apart from the abovementioned, another reason to use ToposText is the annotation of most places using written sources, a similar -but of course more technologically advanced- methodology with the exam- ined travelers. Finally, I contacted the creator of ToposText. He sent me a revised version of it with more instances of towers and castles (derived from “Kastra”6), which do not appear either on Recogito or on the website of the ToposText. Hence, these reasons led me to choose ToposText for the annotation of the places.

In the tagging process, I standardized the used tags to create findable and meaningful ontologies. The first tag was “ottoman,” “byzantine,” “medieval,” “an- cient,” “diachronic,” or “physical,” to delineate the temporal aspect of a settlement or built in the first five cases and its geological existence in the last one. For in- stance, for the city of Livadeia, I used the tag “diachronic” because it exists in the same geographical area from ancient times until today, for the mosque in the same city, I used the “ottoman,” as a built of the ottoman years, for the monastery of

“Hosios Loukas” the tag “byzantine,” as a built of the byzantine years, and the tag

“Frankish,” to distinguish castle and towers built in Latin-ruled, or “Frankish,”

Greece (ca. 1204-1566) (Miller, 1964). Thus, the tag on the buildings refers to the time of its construction. This tag would be essential to see how much the travelers have emphasized the different remains, the buildings, and the settlements of the

6 Kastra, website> In English

24 different periods. It is, additionally, crucial to understand how the travelers move between the different chronotopes.

The second tag specifies what the place entity (e.g., mountain, settlement, temple) is. The third tag was used to distinguish visited places, from places on the sides of their tracks, “viewed” and “mentioned” places. Thus, as third tags, I used the tags “ON” (on the track), “LTRACK” (left of the track), “RTRACK” (right of the track), “VIEW” and, “MENTION.” These tags are crucial to identify the routes of the travelers accurately and to execute the viewshed analysis. Before the tag for the references, I added on some occasions the tag “mislocated” for the mislocated places on their travel accounts. The last tags had to do with the previous travelers or historians that the examined travelers had referred. When the authors referred to a specific traveler or historian (e.g., Pausanias), I used the tag “reference” and then another tag, or tags with the names of the travelers or historians. At the end of this workflow on Recogito, I exported the annotations of the three texts as .csv files.

In Dodwell’s books, my first step was to merge the files and add a column to distinguish the two books. By using Microsoft Excel, I added a serial number to each entity to assist me with the forthcoming visualization on ArcGIS. Then, I im- ported them on the OpenRefine, to assist me with cleaning my data, keep only the routes in Phocis and Boeotia, and parse the coordinates from the Wikidata items. I exported the new .csv file with all the places from Dodwell's books. I did the same process with the book of Gell. Finally, I was prepared for the analysis on ArcGIS.

25 The spatial analysis on ArcGIS The .csv files were then imported in ArcGIS, and I was able to create layers of points based on the Wikidata coordinates. With the use use of the “Points to Lines” tool, I made a new layer for each of the two travelers for the visited by them places, or, in other words, for the places with the tag “ON.” The serial number assisted me in creating the lines based on the order of the visited places, as they are recorded on the books. So, these new layers were the paths of the travelers. Then, with the tool

“buffer”, I created two buffer zones of 6.880 meters around their paths, one for each traveler. I chose to make it 6.880 meters because of the limits of human acuity (Og- burn 2006, cited in Gillings et al., 2020).

Figure 2. The buffer zones and the paths of the two travelers. With the light green color, the buffer zone of Gell with its path on top of it. With the pink color, the buffer zone of Dodwell with its path on top of it.

26 The raster layer of the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service - EU-DEM7, with the elevation data of Greece imported in ArcGIS. To achieve our goal and find the covered area, I did not need the elevation data of the whole Greece. These pro- cesses take a very long time on ArcGIS, and the elevation of the entire country would have been useless. I kept the elevation data layer only to the extent of the buffer zones. I made this choice to examine only the places that they could have seen clearly, at least under ideal conditions. However, the clip tool has the limitation of not cutting the elevation data layer exactly to this extend. This limitation is why the forthcoming “Viewshed Analysis” on the figures contains areas outside their buffer zones. The “Viewshed Analysis” distinguishes the places on visible and non- visible.

Figure 3. Dodwell’s Viewshed analysis. With green color, the visible sited during his routes and with pink color the non-visible.

7 European Environment Agency >Data and maps>Datasets>Copernicus Land Monitoring Service

27

Figure 4. Gell’s viewshed analysis. With green color, the visible sited during his routes and with pink color the non-visible.

This division of places allows us to use and calculate only the visible ones.

To do this, the above seen created layers with the “Viewshed Analyses” had to become polygons, simply with the use of the “Raster to Polygon” tool. From these polygons, I selected only the “visible” parts of their routes and created new layers.

On these layers, I calculated the final area that they were able to observe at least.

This area, to be calculated, needed some more process. On each of the polygons’ layers, a field calculator had to be added. To calculate the covered area from each traveler, I added a field on the attribute table of the polygons. Finally, with the use of the field calculator, I was able to calculate the observable area.

It needs to be mentioned that the buffer zones of 6.880 meters are the limit of the human eyes under ideal conditions. We do not know which was the weather during their routes and if the conditions allowed them to see as far as 6.880 meters.

28 Thus, the result calculated the maximum possible area of coverage and not the area that they could actually be able to observe due to the weather conditions.

To sum up, for this first question, I used multiple tools from the ArcGIS toolbox. First, I imported the .csv files, and I made them layers into the map. With the use of the “Select by attribute” tool, I selected only the visited sites. The “points to line” tool assisted me in creating the paths of each of the travelers. Based on these paths, I created buffer zones of 6.880m around them, based on the limits of the human acuity. Then, I clipped the elevation data on the extend of the buffer zones and execute a viewshed analysis on that extend. The final step was to transform the visible areas into polygons and calculate them.

ArcGIS and Database Tools In order to answer the question about the places of historical and archaeological interest that each of the travelers managed to discover on his routes, it was necessary to use a combination of processes in ArcGIS, Excel, OpenRefine, and the execution of some manual work. The reason behind it was that the version of ToposText on

Recogito, with which I was able to align the places in the first place, was non- identical with the one that I had as an Excel file. To answer this question, I had to find all the places that each of the travelers has at least mentioned, and they are inside his buffer zone and all the places of the ToposText revised version inside of these buffer zones. To do this, I used for another time the “Select by Location” tool.

This led to the creation of four layers, one for each traveler and one of the ToposT- ext places on each traveler’s buffer zone.

29

Figure 5. The Places of Gell & ToposText in Gell’s Buffer Zone. With blue color, the places that Gell has at least mentioned. With red color, the TopoText places inside the Gell’s (light green) Buffer Zone.

Figure 6. The Places of Dodwell & ToposText in Dodwell's Buffer Zone. With blue color, the places that Dodwell has at least mentioned. With red color, the TopoText places inside the Dodwell’s (light green) Buffer Zone.

30 After the creation of these layers, with the use of the “Table to Excel” tool I was able to export them as .xlsx files. Then, I put only the names of the ToposText place entities on one .xlsx file, and I tried to find the duplicates with the use of the appro- priate Excel formula. Some of the annotated places that did not appear on Reco- gito’s version of ToposText had to be aligned manually. Thus, apart from some cases that they had the identifier of ToposText place names IDs on their Wikidata items, the rest had to be matched manually. The result was an excel table with four columns, one for the visited, observed, or mentioned places and one for the places on ToposText for each of the travelers in the same area.

Using Python to extract the Time Periods and the References to their predecessors The first step to identify the movements between the different chronotopes of the landscape and the vital role of their predecessors on their routes had been estab- lished from the annotation and the tagging of the examined texts as for all the ques- tions. Thus, I used the already exported from Recogito, and edited on OpenRefine platfom, .csv files. I imported them on PyCharm, a platform to code in Python.

The first goal was to find all the unique time periods and the next goal was to find all the instances of each of them. The first steps were to use the commands

“import csv” and “import the counter from the collections” to achieve both. Then,

I was able to read on Python the actual .csv files. With the use of a “for loop” and with the use of “counter,” I counted all the instances of the time periods on the .csv files. Hence, I wrote a new file on Python for each of the travelers with the time

31 periods and the occurrences in their text. These files, would help the thesis to delve into the moves among the various chronotopes and notice the differences between the two travelers.

The second goal, the answer to the last question, was to identify and count the references to the various predecessors of the travelers. I used the same lines of coding as before. The new .csv files on this occasion assisted the thesis to evaluate the importance of the various ancient or early modern British travelers on the routes of Gell and Dodwell on Phocis and Boeotia.

32 Study and Analysis

The methodology as mentioned above, combined with the theoretical resources and the previous research on the field, gave me some interesting results to analyze and discuss. This section studies and analyzes each question and its results one by one.

The first question to analyze is the breadth of the coverage of the two travelers and why they had a significant difference. The second question to analyze is the places with historical and archaeological interests that they had at least mentioned. Then, the thesis proceeds with the analysis of the different chronotopes as they appear on the travel accounts of the two travelers. The final topic of analysis is the extent of the use of their predecessors during their routes. The questions are answered and analyzed by comparing the two travelers regarding their routes and methodology, based on the results and how they reflect on the text itself. To outline the reflection on the text, the thesis uses for the analysis quotes from it. The reason is to examine and explain the results more thoroughly by adding the “close reading” dimension of the analysis.

The covered by the Travelers Area On the first question, the effective breadth of the coverage differs significantly, but it is a good indication of what the travelers could observe from the back of their horses.

To be more specific, during his route, Gell managed to cover 8.606 square kilometers

(km2), while Dodwell covered only 6.880 square kilometers (km2).

33

Dodwell Gell

Covered areas 6.880 km2 8.606 km2

Table 1. The area that each of the travelers was able to observe inside the buffer zone of 6.880 meters around their routes.

This difference between the two travelers is quite understandable if we consider the routes that each of them made and their difference in the intentions of their travels and what they considered as Phocis and Boeotia.

Gell was trying to follow and comment on the routes of Pausanias in the same regions, but he found interest in the recording of contemporary topogra- phy. He refers to his interest in contemporary topography in the preface of his book.

Gell intended to make his book a pocket guide for future travelers (Gell, 1819). In his attempt to recognize as many places as he could and record them on his travel account, Gell made multiple stations his routes, especially on places with a clear view. Otherwise, he continuously recorded the area's topography while descending from a hill or a mountain. A good instance is his quite dense description while he descended from the “Kalybea of Rachi” in Boeotia: “The kalybea of Rachi, where is an ancient Ellenic tower R.8 A kalybea 500 yards L. Descend, having in view the lake Copais, or Topolias. L. across the plain, is seen Scripu, behind which on the hill are the ruins of Orchomenos, visible from the road. The mountain more distant is that of Talanta. On the descent are several sources R.” (Gell, 1819, p. 149).

Gell labels the analyzed on the thesis routes as his routes on Phocis and Boeotia on his table of contents. However, the routes go far away from the conventional borders of these two regions. In the case of Boeotia, the region’s

8 With the letters “R.” and “L.”, describes what he sees on the right and on the left of his route.

34 border on the south are the mountains of Cithaeron and Parnitha. However, espe- cially Gell overpasses them, and he still refers to Boeotia.

Figure 7. Map of Boeotia. Published from Jean Jacques Barthélemy in 1832. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons.

The situation is even more blurred on the northern borders of Boeotia and the bor- ders of Phocis with Phthiotis, Doris, and Locris. Gell, however, looks like he has included the southern parts of these regions until the label of Phocis. These routes to the southern parts of Phthiotis, Doris, and Locris and their inclusion in Phocis led to the high increase in the square kilometers he managed to cover. Another fac- tor was his potential travel from Lidoriki, a town in western Phocis, to Naupaktos, a city in the region of Aitolia western of Phocis. He mentioned the duration of the

35 travel, and he referred very briefly to this route or subroute. Although, he did not make it clear if he did it by himself.

Figure 8. Map of Phocis, Doris and Locris. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Jean Jacques Barthélemy, 1832.

On the other hand, Dodwell does not look so interested in the detailed descrip- tion of his routes. On some occasions although, he also made assumptions from spots with a clear view of the locations of ancient places by following the same method with Gell. In some instances, he used, as has been mentioned before, pan- oramic drawings to depict the landscape (Filser, 2020). This method was another way to increase his effective breadth of coverage. An indicative example of it was when he was moving towards the city of Thebes: “When we9 arrived within a mile

9 He uses “we” to refer to his traveling companion, the Italian painter Simone Pomardi.

36 of Thebes, we stopped to take a' [sic] general view of the Boeotian capital, with its beautiful plain, and the varied mountains of Boeotia, Phocis, and Euboea, amongst which Cithaeron, Helicon, Parnassos, Phoinikios, Ptoon, and the Euboean Oche, were conspicuously magnificent” (Dodwell, 1819, vol. 2, p. 52).

Figure 9. Dodwell’s drawing of Thebes. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons, Edward Dodwell, 1819.

In contrast with Gell, Dodwell does not specify the regions on which he travels during these routes. Some of his routes, however, look almost identical to the routes of Gell. After his arrival on the port of Galaxidi in the southwestern part of Phocis, Dodwell explores only the central and the western parts of the re- gions on his way to Athens. He makes some exemptions to visit places with a significant archaeological interest, such as Delphi. At the same time, he did not do so many stations as Gell, and he did not thoroughly write the topography around him. On the second volume of his book, when he traveled from Athens with the region of Thessaly as his destination, he also passed through the eastern part of

Boeotia. Based on the geological environment, I considered that his second travel

37 to Boeotia begins from the Parnitha mountain and ends in the mountain Chlomo in the northern part of the region. His unwillingness to explore more extensive parts of the landscape and record more places on his travel account reflects the difference between him and Gell on the table of the covered by them areas measured in square kilometers.

Thus, to answer the question, in terms of coverage, this comparison delineates how the different use of the existed means and the different decisions they took throughout their travels led the two travelers to have this difference in the effective coverage of the landscape, as it reflects on their viewshed analysis. The travelers had similar equipment with the described by Pollard (2015); a horse, writ- ing equipment, clock, travel companion, and a small corpus of books. Dodwell, however, was in a hurry to arrive in Athens, which was his desired destination. He could not arrive through Peloponesse, a region on the southern mainland Greece, due to the spread of a plague pandemic. Thus, he had to leave this time the eastern part of the Phocian and Boeotian landscape unexplored at first. Although, on his way from Athens to Thessaly, even if he noticed some of the eastern parts of the region, he did it in haste and not very thoroughly. However, what he found im- portant to visit, it was a result of his intentions, and his intentions were based on the way that constructed the space as place and valued what does worth visiting and what does not worth visiting.

To conclude, these results may be explained by the haste of Dodwell to move to Athens and the thoroughness and persistence of Gell for the creation of an as detailed as possible travel guide. These diversed intentions of the travelers and the different way of considering Phocis and Boeotia, are reflected clearly by

38 the “Viewshed Analysis”. This reflection highlighted after the use of the geovisu- alisation techniques in their travel accounts (Murietta-Flores & Gregory, 2015;

Foka et al., 2020). The long tradition of the use of GIS in the humanities, as Thomas

(2004) described it on its beginning, allowed me to do this “spatial turn” on the textual analysis (Caquard, 2013) and to investigate their routes from a new perspec- tive. The analysis showed how effective the existed means, or at least the way that these travelers used them, could be in terms of coverage.

The Places with a Historical or/and Archaeological Interest Many scholars referred to discovering of places with historical and archaeological interest and discovering the “Hellenic ideal” as the primary goal of these travels

(Eisner, 1991; Constantine, 2011; Gephardt, 2014). The two examined travelers did well on it. They managed to identify almost half of the places with a historical or/and archaeological. Even if they did not visit or did not observe all of them, they achieved to find the vicinities of ancient polities and temples based chiefly on the ancient descriptions. Our criterion to measure it, due to the absence of a complete archaeological cadaster of Greece, is the database of ToposText. Thus, according to it, Gell found 193 of 471 places referred to the ToposText gazetteer, while Dod- well found 111 of 254 ToposText Places on his routes. In terms of rates, Dodwell did better by mentioning a rate of 43.70%, while Gell recorded on his routes a rate of 40.97%.

39

Dodwell Gell

Places in the Buffer 111 193

Zone

ToposText Places 254 471

Percentage of at Least 43.70% 40.97%

Mentioned Places in

their Buffer Zones

Table 2. The travelers' mentioned areas on their buffer zone areas in comparison with the places on ToposText for the same areas.

This minor statistical difference is a consequence of their similar theoretical basis.

Both of the travelers made many assumptions that were, in most cases, correct. In some cases, however, they mislocated ancient places, and it had a destructive result on the landscape description.

The most significant case of mislocation is noticeable on the travel account of Gell in, according to Gell, eastern Phocis. During his routes from

“GRAVIA TO DADI” and “DADI to a KASTRO near OGLOUNITZA,” the Brit- ish traveler has confused two ancient settlements, Amphikaia and Drymaea. On these two routes, it became his main topic of discussion, and he accused Pausanias for his own mistake: “the confusion of stadia between Amphiclaea and Drymaea, in Pausanias, is fatal to all certainty. That author gives 80 stadia as the distance direct from Amphiclaea to Drymaea, and only 35 passing through Tithronium, so that the text must of course be corrupted” (Gell, 1819, p. 211). In the same area before, Gell had assumed that the distances of Pausanias are generally incorrect, because they “do not always correspond with each other” (Gell, 1819, p. 209). This

40 is not the only Gell’s mislocation. He seems to have issues identifying the ports on the west coast of Boeotia. The most difficult for him was to distinguish the ancient port town of Siphai and the port of Boulis. He referred to multiple ancient authors without finally taking a clear stance on it: “Tipha, or Siphse, was on this coast; but

Pausanias seems rather to place it to the W. of Thisbe. Stephanus and Ptolemy both call Siphae a port of Thespia. Mt. Korombile was perhaps called Tipha. On the coast below the modern village of Chostia, or Kostia, is a palaio kastro. Bulis was in that direction, 80 stadia from Thisbe, and 100 from Anticyra, which exactly corresponds with the place. If not Bulis, it must be Tipha” (Gell, 1819, p. 118).

Dodwell on his travel account, had an instance of mislocation on his itinerary on eastern Boeotia. The reason was probably his precipitation during this itinerary. When Dodwell approached lake Copais, he found a village and assumed that its ancient remains were these of the ancient settlement of Olmones. However, they were the remains of the ancient city of Kopai: “On the opposite branch of the lake, at the foot of Mount Talanda, the ancient Kyrtonon, we find a place called

Topolias, with a few remains of a city, perhaps the ancient Olmones, or Halmons”

(Dodwell, 1819, p.56). In another instance, he had probably mislocated the Cave of

Sybaris, a mythical beast with a cave as its home, which was terrorizing the broader area of Delphi, according to Antoninus (published in 1992). He noticed a cave on the Mountain of Cirphis opposite Delphi and the geological environment around it matched the description of Antoninus. The difficulties on his way to reach it and the view of this, finally, insignificant cave result of his short trip made him advise the potential next travelers on the area. However, the Cave of Sybaris has not been identified yet, and its identification is almost impossible because it is solely based

41 on one mythological reference. Thus, it is not sure if it is a case of mislocation, but it highlights the broad interest of Dodwell even for the mythological part of the ancient world.

Another distinctive attribute of Gell’s travel account is recording small unidentifiable ancient traces, vestiges of antiquities, and tombs. Even if he refers to them on some occasions, Dodwell did not look willing to record even the most negligible traces. The only cases of unidentified antiquities were two on Dod- well’s account when he referred to some temples around the ancient town of

Akraiphiai. He based his assumptions on the accounts of Pausanias for the same area, and only in one of them, based his assumption on the ancient spolia of a church.

To sum up, the two travelers mentioned a similar percentage of antiq- uities inside their buffer zones. The result delineates, first of all, their in-depth knowledge about these areas. Additionally, it signifies this move towards scientific topography on the travelers’ accounts, than romantic literary descriptions (Kelly,

2009). It could be assumed, this was one of the reasons that made the Society of

Dilettanti to elect him as its member (Cust & Colvin, 1894). To come to this result, however, the thesis had to make except of the needed geovisualization techniques on the ArcGIS (Murietta-Flores & Gregory, 2015; Foka et al., 2020), it had to make use of the linkability and the interoperability of the platforms (Goodchild & Hill,

2008). The use of the Wikidata as linking hub (Neubert, 2017) and ToposText as the main gazetteer, with structured geographical entities (Hill, 2000), allowed me to retrieve information (Schlieder, 2001) and cross-link sources (Berman et al.,

2001). However, the results have to be delimited only on the examined routes, and

42 they cannot be interpreted as a comprehensive study for the thoroughness and ac- curacy of the travelers on every route.

10 Traveling through Time and Space These travels had not only a spatial dimension; they also had a temporal one. The contested environment of the Ottoman Empire (Malpas, 2018) offered a breeding ground for moves through time. This conjunction of time and space, the chronotope as Bakhtin (1981) calls it, appears perceptibly on the accounts of the two travelers.

On Gell’s travel account, most of the references are on the physical environment (649). He uses the physical environment in most of the cases to describe his exact position or as a point of reference. The watercourses have a major position on his routes. More specifically, he has referred to 115 instances of rivers,

53 instances of streams, and 33 instances of torrents. Other essential elements are the mountains (205), the hills (53), the mountain peaks (5), and one mountain range

(the Acarnanian mountains). The considerable amount of references on mountains signifies their importance for the geological environment of the two regions. He usually refers to them as points of reference to refer to other places. Moreover, he refers to other elements of the physical environment when he is in a place with a comprehensive view or close to the coasts, such as straits (7), bays (2), capes (4), and gulphs (2). From the rest of the physical environment features, it worths mentioning the case of the seasonal lake “Pinigoura” on the mountain of Parnassus.

Gell, and Dodwell as well, they had the chance to travel on the mountain in the

10 The numbers on this section do not refer to unique instances of each place. Many of the places have referred more than once from the travelers. Each of their mentions has been calculated separately.

43 winter and observe the lake. This signifies the vital relationship between space and time.

Except of the physical environment, the ottoman buildings and settlements of the contemporary him ottoman period attracted his attention the most, with a total of 595 instances. More specifically, he mentioned 430 times contemporary to him settlements of various sizes. The rest of his reference had to do with buildings of the same era, such as towers (21), bridges (27), wells (14), churches (71), mosques (3), and inns (5). He described most of these places very briefly, or he only referred to them as instances of settlements or buildings on the sides of his routes or to highlight his exact place on it. His very detailed account confirms the previously mentioned opinions of modern scholars (Tsigakou, 1981;

Eisner, 1991) or contemporaries to him (Byron, 1810) about the accuracy and the depth of his travel accounts. As he writes to the preface of his book, however, it was unavoidable to mix the places and the names and give a more in-depth topography of the contemporary to him surroundings. Nevertheless, as he states:

“the traveller11 [sic] will find his advantage in an equal familiarity with each12.”

(Gell, 1819, p. VI).

At least in the examined regions, he managed to give the travelers an equal familiarity with the names and the places of each period. To this conclusion, they led me the total amount of ancient places and buildings on his travel account.

In total, he referred to them 526 times. In most cases, he referred to ancient settlements, districts, and regions of various sizes; 364 in total. In other cases, he referred to ancient temples, sanctuaries, theatres, monuments, and gates (42

11 He refers to the travelers who are going to use his book as a guide. 12 He refers to the ancient and modern names on his book.

44 references in total). At the same time, he also made brief references to various historical events, such as the battle of Marathon in 480 BCE. The numerous vestiges, tumuli, tombs, and traces of ancient walls, 78 in total, were usually on the sides of his tracks, and the most cannot be identified.

On the ottoman landscape, there were also present other time periods.

These time periods were the Byzantine and the Frankish. Most of the traces from these periods had to do with monasteries, churches, and various types of fortification. More specifically, from the Byzantine period, 19 times on monasteries and three times on churches. On the other hand, from the Frankish period in Phocis and Boeotia, he referred two times to churches, six times to castles, and 14 times to towers. On his account, even if he did many references on the ancient past, on the closest past of the Byzantine and Frankish periods, he did not make any direct mention.

DODWELL REFERENCES ON EACH TIME PERIOD

249

213

139

30

7 3 A N C I E N T P H Y S I C A L O T T O M A N D I A C H R O N I C B Y Z A N T I N E F R A N K I S H

Figure 10. Dodwell’s references to settlements and buildings of the different time periods.

45 On the other hand, Dodwell pays less attention to his contemporary settlements and buildings, so he spends most of his time lost on other chronotopes.

The physical environment works as a point of reference for him as well as a bridge to connect the various chronotopes of the landscape. With the help of mountains, hills, and various watercourses, he identified the location of the ancient settlements and buildings. However, the use of the physical environment on his travel account is not as significant as on Gell’s because it is not so detailed. On his 213 references to a feature of the physical environment, most of them are about mountains (80), and only once he mentions a hill. His fewer references to minor features of the physical environment are apparent in the referred watercourses. He has referred 48 times to rivers, and very few times to other watercourses; 15 times to streams, and not even once to torrents. The other features of the physical environment also have a minor role for him. His 17 mentions on lakes signify the importance of the three major lakes of the Boeotian landscape, the modern Hylike and Paralimni, and the

(dried now) lake Copais. When he traveled close to the coast, he referred only six times to gulfs. Finally, the 15 references he made on springs were only to refer to springs known from ancient times, such as the Kastalian spring and the Dirke spring.

His persistence for moving to other chronotopes reflects to the smaller amount of the references he has made to features of the contemporary Ottoman time period. From his 149 mentions to this period, the 124 are to refer to settlements of various sizes. In contrast with Gell, the primary reason for it is that he does not care to refer to all the instances of wells, churches, and bridges. Actually, he has not referred to any wells at all; he has referred only to four churches and one bridge.

46 Although, in many cases, he refers to his contemporary chronotope with the narration of small stories. Some examples are the stories about the reception on the

House of Logotheti in Livadeia, the attack with stones while he and his companion were trying to draw the city of Thebes, and the prohibition of entering Athens without staying on a ten days quarantine in a cave due to an epidemic of plague in other areas of Greece. Thus, at least in terms of topography, his description maybe is not as accurate as Tsigakou (1981) argues.

In contrast, his references to ancient remains usually include comparisons with other temples or sanctuaries, even from other countries. He has referred in total 249 times to an ancient place or building in Greece. The majority of them had to do with ancient settlements; he referred to them 174 times. The rest of his references were about various types of ancient buildings, such as temples (22 times), sanctuaries (4 times), treasuries (8 times), theaters (4 times), and stadiums

(3 times). These references to the diverse ancient places were accompanied by extensive and detailed references to the ancient texts. Together with the accounts of the ancient authors and the accounts of the early modern British travelers, the traveler traveled to completely different chronotopes on his account. For instance, when he saw some ancient traces of walls close to Delphi, he started comparing them with the Egyptian pyramids and the walls of Babylon, as he had read about them on other travel accounts.

For the rest of the time periods, he has paid even less attention than

Gell. The byzantine and the medieval period appear in his text very barely. A reason for it is that he has not mentioned so many instances of towers and castles. Of course, he could not miss the Castle of Livadeia, or Catalan castle, on his visit to

47 this city. However, if the quite important ancient Oracle of Trophonius was not so close, it is not sure if he would have referred even to this one. The same goes for the Byzantine period. He has made a few references to monasteries from this period, such as the Monastery of Hosios Loukas in Boeotia. Although, he mentioned these places as features of his contemporary environment. He did not “travel” with them back on time as he did with the places with the mentioned places and buildings from ancient times.

The last time period is unique; I named it “diachronic.” For both of the travelers, this category does not differ noticeably. I mostly added large cities, such as Thebes and Livadeia, with a continuous presence in the same space in this category. These settlements cannot fit in any specific category. The visit to them during this period was a journey to different chronotopes by itself. The travelers in the exact same space with these cities found remains of ancient settlements and buildings, while they also assumed the location of other ancient remains.

Simultaneously, they were noticing the features of their contemporary space, such as the mosque in Livadeia.

48

Figure 11. The references on the various time periods on Gell's and Dodwell's travel accounts.

This analysis leads us to multiple conclusions. First, it highlights the undiscussed role of the physical environment in these descriptions. The physical environment stays almost imperishable through the years, and it helps the transition from the ottoman to the ancient chronotope. It is somewhat surprising that no scholars have referred to the use of the physical environment on these travel accounts. However, apparently, the travelers with classical education (Eisner, 1991;

Constantine, 2011; Mitsi, 2017) are creating the space differently from the Ottoman habitants.

Hence, the ideas of Lefebvre (1991) about the construction of space as a cultural and social process reflect on the texts of the travelers. Moreover, they reflect the ideas of Yi-Fu (1977) for the relationship of space with time, experi- ences, and emotions. A good example is the small rural chamber with the ancient spolia on its foundation on the Ottoman village “Karditza”. For the Ottoman citizen,

49 this was probably another chamber on which she/he could visit to pray. For Dod- well, a person with classical education, this is probably the ancient Temple of Bac- chus on the ancient citadel of Akraiphiai, as it is referred to Pausanias (Dodwell,

1819). To conclude, due to their diverse social and cultural background, their varied experiences and emotions, and with the use of the physical environment as a bridge with the ancient past, the travelers have a tendency to move from the contemporary to them Ottoman chronotope to the ancient chronotope of their predecessors’ books. As we noticed, however, Dodwell moves to the ancient chronotope more often than Gell. Thus, it could be argued that Dodwell is maybe more “classic”, at least on the compared travel accounts, than “classic Gell”, as Byron refers to him

(1811, p. 80).

These results could not come into the surface without the combination of close reading with the annotation and the tagging on Recogito (Riande and Vi- tale, 2020) and the moves between the space and the text that it allows the user to do. These capabilities of Recogito led the thesis to these results. Thus, it should be highlighted the vital role of the distant reading methods (Moretti, 2000; Moretti,

2005) in combination with the close reading method to analyze these travel ac- counts' spatiotemporal dimension.

The role of their predecessors

The two travelers used their predecessors differently. In their routes on Phocis and

Boeotia, the texts of the ancient travelers, or the texts of other British travelers of

50 their time, used them as guides to navigate on the contested environment of the

Ottoman landscape. In this section, the thesis discusses the role of their predeces- sors on their routes. To do so, it quantifies the references that each of the travelers has made to their predecessors. Their predecessors, ancient authors or early modern

British travelers, assist them in identifying the positions of the numerous ancient settlements and buildings in their examined areas.

Apart from a travel guide for future travelers, Gell's book had its aim to be a commentary on Pausanias’ routes in Greece. The graph below illustrates his dependence on the travel account of Pausanias.

REFERENCES OF GELL

63

14 6 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 12. The references of Gell on various of his predecessors, as sources of information on his travel.

Gell usually referred to Pausanias at the end of each of his routes. He used the given by Pausanias distances to recognize the vicinities of the ancient settlements and buildings. He did not always agree with Pausanias' calculation. On multiple occurrences, Gell criticizes the ancient traveler. For example, when Gell arrived at the location of the ancient town Tithorea, he pointed out the mistaken distance

51 between Tithorea and the ancient city of Delphi, on Pausanias account: “Pausanias must be wrong in stating 80 stadia as the distance between Delphi and Tithorea”

(Gell, 1819, p. 215). The other travelers usually have a supplementary role. The most significant of the rest of the travelers is Strabo, with 14 references, followed up from the six references of Dicaearchus. Strabo and Dicaerchus, and the other ancient authors such as Livy, Pindar, Ptolemy, Pliny, and the byzantine author

Stephanus, are usually used to highlight a different opinion from Pausanias about the location of ancient settlements or buildings.

On the other hand, the rest of the referred travelers are British travelers of the early modern period. The travelers of this period were used as references even for ottoman villages. For instance, Gell uses Wheler, an early modern British traveler, to refer to the village of Hungaro, a mentioned by Wheler

Ottoman village that Gell is unable to find.

In contrast, Dodwell made a way more extensive use of references to previous authors and travelers. Dodwell usually referred to all the references of an ancient place from previous travelers, and he was also looking for places that a single author had mentioned. This is the reason behind the more considerable number of references on his predecessors, as illustrated in the graph below.

52

REFERENCES OF DODWELL

1 Xenophon 1 Ovid 1 Zosimus 1 1 Hesiod 1 Meletius 1 Vitruvius 1 Polyaenaus 1 Julius Pollux 1 Gell 1 Aulus Gellius 1 Apollodorus 1 Claudian 1 Juvenale 1 Cyriac of Ancona 1 Gerbellius 1 Castellan 1 Cantacuzene 2 Procopius

Seneca 3 Sophocles 4 Thucydides 4 Justin 4 Statius 5 Aeschines 6 Wheeler 6 8 Herodotus 10 19 Plutarch 22 49 Pausanias 94 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 13. The references of Dodwell on various of his predecessors, as sources of information on his travel.

At first glance, the higher number of different authors and references in Dodwell’s book is recognizable. In his text, however, the most highlighted au- thors are the same as in Gell’s book. This is an indicator of his distinctive, compared to Gell, way of writing. Moreover, it signifies his in-depth research before his trav- els in Central Greece and the ahead of his era writing with the use of multiple cita- tions under each of his references. It is perhaps the reason that made Tsigakou

(1981) to characterize his descriptions as very detailed, and Eisner (1991) to feel tiresome of loads of information. Pausanias and Strabo have a distinct position for

Dodwell’s travel account. The other writers play their own part in his narrative, but

53 they still have a secondary role compared to Pausanias and Strabo. To refer to an- cient places, he also used accounts of the early modern British travelers. The most referred early British traveler is also Wheler in Dodwell’s book. It could be argued then that Wheler had a distinctive role for the examined travelers.

To answer the question, Pausanias and Strabo were the two predeces- sors of the travelers with the most crucial role on Gell’s and Dodwell’s itineraries in Phocis and Boeotia. The rest of the travelers were mainly ancient travelers with a supplementary role as an extra verification for the locations of the various ancient places and buildings. Dodwell was based more on his predecessors, or at least he referred more to them, while Gell made only a few mentions to other travelers and authors except Pausanias. The analysis, however, verifies the critical role of their predecessors on their routes (Pollard, 2015). Moreover, it highlights the distinctive role of Pausanias and Strabo, as Constantine (2011), Asvesta & Guilmet (2007), and Chandler (1776) have previously referred. This is achieved by utilizing the tag- ging function of Recogito (Riande & Vitale, 2020). This function allowed me to approach this old question and find with quantitative data the role of each of their predecessors.

At this point, it is worth mentioning another aspect of their descrip- tions on which the use of quantitative methods sheds light. This aspect is the com- plete absence of any reference on a female author or traveler. The only mention of female sex on their itineraries was from Dodwell when he referred to the beauty of the women in the village of Arachova. I could argue then that the patriarchic struc- ture of their society reflects on their travel accounts.

54 Discussion

In this concluding section, I summarize and discuss the research questions, the methodology to answer them, and their analysis. In doing so, I relate them with the purpose and the theoretical framework of the thesis.

The first research question was a comparison of the landscape’s cov- erage from each of the travelers. As it came out from the analysis of the two travel- ers, even if they followed similar routes, they had differences in their results. The reason behind it is the small decisions that they took throughout their routes in Pho- cis and Boeotia and the different ways of considering what Phocis is and what Boe- otia is. Thus, the broader definition of Phocis and Boeotia led Gell to cover a more significant part of the landscape. Moreover, this difference is a result of Dodwell’s haste to be in Attica on the first part of his route and on his haste to be in Thessaly on the second part of it. Consequently, he did not explore large parts of the area but only the places he had to pass through to reach his final destinations and a few major archaeological sites such as Delphi. However, what places were vital for them to visit was a consequence of their cultural background and of the social construction of space as place. Based on them, they decided to take these small decisions about which areas they visited and what it can be considered as Phocis and Boeotia.

Hence, all these decisions affected the area that they covered with the means that they had.

The construction of space as place based on their cultural background also reflected on the main purpose of their travels. The primary purpose was edu- cational by visiting the places on which the ancient travelers referred to (Buzard,

55 2002; Constantine, 2011). The comparison with the ToposText gazetteer indicates how many places with an archaeological/historical has managed to mention each of the travelers. According, to this the difference between the two travelers was not that big. In addition, they mislocated places on very few occasions. Their accuracy and high percentages on at least mentioned places with a historical/archaeological interest signify their move to more scientific archaeological expeditions. It also shows the importance of their travel accounts for the future of archaeological re- search.

The analysis of the time period tags using Python gave the thesis in- teresting results about how much the two travelers shifted from one chronotope to the other during their routes in Phocis and Boeotia. Based on their cultural back- ground and the intentions of their travels, the two travelers refer on different extent to the different time periods. Gell put more emphasis on the Ottoman time period, almost equivalent with the ancient time period, and on the other hand Dodwell em- phasized on the ancient time period. This difference signifies their varied intentions.

Additionally, it is proof of their cultural background which made them construct the space differently from the ottoman inhabitants of these areas. For them, space had the meaning that the ancient authors and their various predecessors put into it.

This is the reason that while we are reading these travel accounts, we feel that we are between these two time periods; the contemporary to the travelers ottoman pe- riod and the ancient one, which is the period of their interest. Moreover, these re- sults indicate the vital role of the physical environment as a bridge between the ottoman and the ancient time period. The physical environment assisted them in

56 recognizing the referred to their predecessors' ancient places in the vicinity of the ottoman settlements.

On the last question and with the use of the last tags on Recogito’s annotation, the thesis managed to quantify the use of the various predecessors on their travels. Moreover, it managed to quantify the importance of each of their pre- decessors for each of the travelers. The results of this analysis were connected with the emphasis that each of them put on each of the time periods and the intentions of their travels. As the results illustrate, for Dodwell, the ancient travelers had a way more important role during his routes, or at least he referred more to his sources.

The more crucial for him were the travel accounts of Pausanias and Strabo, but

Dodwell used as many of his predecessors as he can to cite each of his mentioned places. For Gell’s travel account, the more crucial of his predecessors were also

Pausanias and Strabo. However, he made only a few mentions to other predeces- sors, and he did not try to use sources for every mentioned place. Although, the extensive use of their predecessors’ lenses was their primary tool to construct the ottoman space as ancient place.

The common thread among all these questions and these results, I would argue that it could be found on the intentions of their travels and on the existing means on this era. Gell wanted to make a travel guide and a commentary to Pausanias book.

In contrast, Dodwell wanted to emphasize mainly on the places with a historical or archaeological, as a member of the Dilettanti Society.

These intentions led Gell to cover as much of the space as he could in these regions and make a detailed travel guide for future travelers. Also, the existing means they allowed him to mention a high percentage of the places with

57 archaeological/historical interest in the area, but not all of them. His intentions to make a travel guide with a similar proportion of ancient and ottoman names and places led him to cover on almost the same level the ancient and the ottoman set- tlements. Finally, the citation of only a few travelers, and not of all his predecessors who referred to the settlements and buildings on these areas, shows that his princi- pal purpose was to refer mostly to Pausanias and make some comparisons with other travelers who felt that it was needed.

On the other hand, the intentions of Dodwell led him to different results on the compared aspects of their travel accounts. First of all, Dodwell covered a smaller area in comparison with Gell. This happened due to the fact that Dodwell wanted to move first to Athens and then to Thessaly, and except for the places with histor- ical and archaeological interest, he did not want to visit any other places. Although, he mentioned and located correctly a similar with Gell proportion of places with archaeological and historical interest. Contrastingly with Gell, Dodwell emphasized more on the ancient chronotope than on his contemporary one, and he used much more of his predecessors or referred much more to them than Gell.

All these results of both of the travelers reflect clearly on the intentions of their travels and on the way that they constructed space. However, the thesis would be unable to make these conclusions if it had used another methodology. The semantic annotation with the use of Recogito and the spatial analysis with the use of ArcGIS were the fundamentals for the textual analysis of these texts. The thesis made use of the interoperability and linkability of ToposText gazetteer and Wikidata with the

Recogito platform. Although, the fact that the most updated version of ToposText is not connected with the Recogito created a problem that had to be fixed manually.

58 The exported .csv files from the Recogito, which came to the ideal for the analysis format with the use of OpenRefine, in combination with the use of geovisualization methods on the continuing of the process, made the thesis able to proceed to the spatial analysis of the text by emphasizing on the examined from it areas with the use of the ArcGIS’ toolbox. The contribution of these tools on the “spatial turn”

(Caquard, 2013; Guldi, 2010) of the travel accounts allowed the analysis to move continuously between the text and space, mainly based on the annotation on Reco- gito (Barker et al., 2020).

Although, apart from the usability of Recogito, OpenRefine, and ArcGIS, it also proved their limitations. On Recogito, the use of close reading in combination with the annotation, the comments, and the tagging process was unavoidable. The reason behind this unavoidability of their use is that the Named Entity Recognition

(NER) cannot work perfectly with the available gazetteers. The ottoman settlements and buildings are not included in any of the available gazetteers. The other issue is that the travelers used the Latin names of the temples and not the Greek ones, as the gazetteers, and this confused the NER (e.g on their accounts wrote “Temple of Di- ana”, while on the gazetteers is “Temple of Artemis”). Then, even if the use of

OpenRefine, Python, and ArcGIS were vital for the thesis, steps of these processes had to be done manually.

The final results also had their limitations. First and foremost, they are the re- sults of only two travelers in Phocis and Boeotia. This thesis cannot come up with a conclusion about all the travelers in these areas. Secondly, it is very problematic the lack of an official cadastre for the archaeological settlements in Greece. This lack of an official archaeological cadastre, led the thesis to use the ToposText

59 gazetteer as the most comprehensive geodataset of places with archaeological in- terest to compare the mentioned by the two travelers places with archaeological interest.

Thus, the contribution of the thesis on the current state of research on Grand

Tour and on the British Travel Literature of the nineteenth century has to be delim- ited on the travel accounts of these two travelers in the regions of Phocis and Boe- otia. Even if these two travelers are quite indicative examples for the British travel literature, they could not offer us answers for all the travel accounts of British trav- elers in Greece at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

However, the combination of close reading methods with distant reading meth- ods, such as the textual analysis with the use of Recogito and Python, and the spatial analysis with the use of ArcGIS, proved to be very useful to investigate in-depth and compare the itineraries of these two travelers in Phocis and Boeotia. The use of these tools shed new light on old questions (Elliot and Gillies, 2009) and allowed me to discover smaller hidden units of the texts (Moretti, 2005). Hence, based on them, the thesis accomplished its purpose, to compare the travelers based on the settled research questions and to highlight the assistance that the implementation of digital tools and methods can provide in the humanities field. Despite its limitations, the thesis certainly adds to our understanding of the British archaeological expedi- tions in Greece and, consequently, on the study of the Grand Tour and on the British travel literature of the nineteenth century. This study establishes a quantitative framework for detecting the way that the travelers explore the landscape, how broad was the covered area, the places of historical and archaeological interest that they managed to discover, the emphasis that they put on the various chronotopes, and

60 the importance of each of their predecessors. I would also argue that it was crucial the approach of space and time as a cultural and social construction. This approach has a result to consider the space, in contrast with the previous research on the field, as something dynamic and not as something stable and unchanged through time. In this case, it is essential because the examined regions were diachronically contested.

The results of the analysis gave research ideas for the future. These ideas came to the surface by shedding light on the units of the texts that the traditional “close reading” methodology on the research had not highlighted enough. First of all, it would be useful to make comparisons of other travelers with the same or similar methods. Moreover, to compare even travelers from other time periods or from other countries who traveled in the same areas. Finally, the empirical analysis showed the vital role of the physical environment on their routes and the almost missing depiction of women in the travel accounts. These two results of the analysis could be fruitful areas for further research in the future. Significantly, the role of the physical environment on their routes seems crucial and completely undiscussed.

61 Bibliography and list of references

Sources

Corpus

Dodwell, Edward (1819), A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece: During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, Volume 1, Rodwell and Martin, Lon- don. Dodwell, Edward (1819), A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece: During the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806, Volume 2, Rodwell and Martin, Lon- don. Gell, Sir William (1819), The Itinerary of Greece: containing one hundred routes in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, and Thessaly, Rodwell and Martin, Lon- don.

Platforms and Tools

Kastra. https://www.kastra.eu/home en.php [Accessed 21 April 2021]. Geonames. https://www.geonames.org/ [Accessed 22 April 2021]. OpenRefine. https://openrefine.org/ [Accessed 20 April 2021]. Recogito, server of Humlab, Umeå Universitet. http://recogito.humlab.umu.se/ [Accessed 20 April 2021]. Topoguide. http://www.topoguide.gr/index-en.php [Accessed 22 April 2021]. ToposText. https://topostext.org/ [Accessed 22 April 2021]. Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page [Accessed 22 April 2021].

Wikimedia Images

Dodwell, E., 1819, Ruins of Orchomenos [image online] Available at: [Ac- cessed 01 June 2021]. Dodwell, E., 1819, Thebes – Dodwell Edward – 1819 [image online] Available at: [Accessed 01 June 2021].

62 Barthélemy, J, J., 1832, La Béotie pour le voyage du jeune Anacharsis - Jean- Jacques Barthélemy – 1832 [image online] [Ac- cessed 01 June 2021]. Barthélemy, J, J., 1832, La Phocide, la Doride et les pays des Locriens, pour le voyage du jeune Anacharsis - Jean-Jacques Barthélemy – 1832 [image online] [Accessed 01 June 2021].

In the thesis author’s possession

Email from JBK to Zafeirios Avgeris with the revised version of the ToposText places, 2021-02-04.

Literature

Antoninus & Francis Celoria (1992), The Metamorphoses of Antoninus Liberalis: a translation with a commentary. London: Routledge. Arnold, Matthew (1869), Culture and anarchy: An essay in political and social criticism. London: Smith, Elder & Co. Asvesta, Aliki & Guilmet, Céline (2007), The Periegesis and the Topographers (1800-1820). In: Georgopoulou, M. et al. (eds.), Following Pausanias: The Quest for Greek Antiquity, New Castle, Del: Oak Knoll Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1981), The dialogic imagination: Four essays, edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, Austin: University of Texas Press. Barker, Elton; Foka, Anna; & Konstantinidou, Kyriaki (2020), “Coding for the Many, Transforming Knowledge for All: Annotating Digital Documents”, in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Cambridge University Press, 135(1), pp. 195–202. doi: 10.1632/pmla.2020.135.1.195. Bennet, John; Davis, L. Jack, & Zarinebaf-Shahr, Fariba (2017), “PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT, PART III: Sir William Gell’s Itinerary in the Pylia and Regional Landscapes in the Morea in the Second Ot- toman Period”, in Bennet J. & Davis J. (Eds.), The Pylos Regional

63 Archaeological Project: A Retrospective (pp. 235-272). Princeton, New Jer- sey: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. doi:10.2972/j.ctv9hj718.11 Bodenhamer, David J.; Corrigan, John & Harris, Trevor M. (2010), The spatial humanities: GIS and the future of humanities scholarship, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Bragg, Tom (2016), Space and Narrative in the Nineteenth-Century British His- torical Novel, Routledge. Bush, Vannevar (1945), "As We May Think," in Atlantic Monthly, 176, pp. 101- 108. Buzard, James (2002), “The Grand Tour and after (1660-1840),” in Hulme, P. and Youngs, T. (eds) The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Companions to Literature), pp. 37– 52. doi: 10.1017/CCOL052178140X.003. Caquard, Sébastien (2013), "Cartography I: Mapping narrative cartography". In: Progress in Human Geography 37, pp. 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511423796 Chandler, Richard (1776), Travels in Greece: or an account of a tour made at the expense of the Society of Dilettanti. By Richard Chandler, D.D. . printed at the Clarendon Press. M.DCC.LXX.VI. Sold by J. Dodsley, J. Robson, T. Cadell, P. Elmsly, and G. Robinson, London; and by D. Prince, Oxford, S.l. Constantine, David (2011), In the footsteps of the gods: travellers to Greece and the quest for the Hellenic ideal, Tauris Parke Paperbacks, London. Cooper, David; Donaldson, Christopher & Murrieta-Flores, Patricia (Eds.), (2016), Literary mapping in the digital age, Digital research in the arts and humanities. Routledge, London ; New York. Cooper, David & Gregory, Ian (2011), "Mapping the English Lake District: A lit- erary GIS", Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 89–108. Cust, Lionel & Colvin, Sidney (1898), History of the Society of Dilettanti. Lon- don: MacMillan. Duesterberg, Susanne (2015), Popular Receptions of Archaeology: Fictional and Factual Texts in 19th and Early 20th Century Britain. Bielefeld: Transcript. Dunn, Stuart (2018), A history of Place in the Digital Age, Digital research in the Arts and Humanities, London: Routledge. Eisner, Robert (1991), Travelers to an antique land: the history and literature of travel to Greece, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Elliott, Tom & Gillies, Sean (2009), "Digital Geography and Classics", Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Dodwell, Edward to Drama: Volume 8, Slice 6, 2010, Project Gutenberg, S.l.

64 Filser, Wolfgang (2020), “Towards an Archaeology of the Panoramic View”. In: R. Reisen (Hrsg.), H. G. Esch: Advancing Horizons. Foka, Anna; Barker, Elton; Konstantinidou, Kyriaki; Mostofian, Nasrin; Demi- roglu, O.Cenk; Kiesling, Brady; Talatas, Linda (2020), Semantically geo-an- notating an ancient Greek “travel guide” Itineraries, Chronotopes, Networks, and Linked Data, in: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSPATIAL Workshop on Geospatial Humanities. Presented at the SIGSPATIAL ’20: 28th International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, ACM, Seattle WA USA, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3423337.3429433 Foka, Anna; Cocq, Coppélie; Buckland, Philip I., & Gelfgren, S. (2020), Mapping Socio-Ecological Landscapes : Geovisualization as method. In S. Dunn & K. Schuster (eds.) 2020, Routledge International Handbook of Research Methods in Digital Humanities, 1st ed., London and New York: Routledge, pp. 203– 217. Foucault, Michel (1967), “Of Other Spaces,”. Translated by J. Miskowiec, 1987. Diacritics 16, no. 1, pp. 22-27. Gell, Sir William (1817), Itinerary of the Morea: Being a Description of the Routes of That Peninsula, London. Gerhardt, Katarina (2014), The idea of Europe in British travel narratives 1789– 1914 , Routledge, London. Gillings, Mark; Hacıgüzeller, Piraye Lock, Gray (2020), Archaeological Spatial Analysis, A Methodological Guide. Oxon: Routledge. Goldhill, Simon (2011), Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity: Art, Opera, Fiction, and the Proclamation of Modernity. Princeton, N.J; Woodstock: Princeton University Press. Goodchild, Michael Frank & Hill, Linda L. (2008), Introduction to digital gazet- teer research, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22:10, 1039-1044, DOI: 10.1080/13658810701850497 Grafton, Anthony; Shelford, April & Siraisi, Nancy (1992), New worlds, ancient texts: the power of tradition and the shock of discovery, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Gregory, Ian N.; Geddes, Alistair; Roberts, Les & Thevenin, Thomas (2014), To- ward spatial humanities: historical GIS and spatial history, Indiana Univer- sity Press, Bloomington. Guldi, Jo (2010), What is the spatial turn?. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Feb- ruary 2021]. Hill, Linda L. (2000), Core Elements of Digital Gazetteers: Placenames, Catego- ries, and Footprints. In: Borbinha J., Baker T. (eds), Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. ECDL 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1923. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

65 Kelly, Jason M (2009), The Society of Dilettanti: Archaeology and Identity in the British Englightenment. New Haven: Yale UP. Lefebvre, Henri (1991), The production of space, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Lord Byron, G. G. N. (1811), English Bards and Scotch Reviewers. A Satire. 4th edition. London: James Cathworn, British Library, no. 24, Cockspur Street; and Sharpe and Hailes, Piccadilly. Malpas, Jeff (2018), Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography. 2nd edi- tion. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315265445. McGillivray, Dennis B. (2020), Computational Methods for Semantic Analysis of Historical Texts. In S. Dunn & K. Schuster (eds.) 2020, Routledge Interna- tional Handbook of Research Methods in Digital Humanities, 1st ed., London and New York: Routledge, pp. 261–274. Miller, William (1964), The Latins in the Levant, a history of Frankish Greece (1204-1566). Cambridge: Speculum Historiale. Montfort, Nick (2016), Exploratory programming for the arts and humanities. Cambridge, Massachusetts : The MIT Press. Moretti, Franco (2000), Conjectures on World Literature. In: New Left Review, vol. 40,1, pp. 54–68. Moretti, Franco (2015), Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary His- tory. London: Verso. Murrieta-Flores, Patricia & Howell, Naomi (2017), Towards the Spatial Analysis of Vague and Imaginary Place and Space: Evolving the Spatial Humanities through Medieval Romance. Journal of map & geography libraries 13, 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2017.1307302 Murrieta-Flores, Patricia & Gregory, Ian (2015), Further Frontiers in GIS: Ex- tending Spatial Analysis to Textual Sources in Archaeology. Open archaeol- ogy (Berlin, Germany) 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0010 Neubert, Joachim (2017), Wikidata as a Linking Hub for Knowledge Organization Systems? Integrating an Authority Mapping into Wikidata and Learning Les- sons for KOS Mappings. NKOS@TPDL. Pollard, Lucy (2015), The Quest for Classical Greece: Early Modern Travel to the Greek World. London: I.B. Tauris. Quataert, Donald (2005), The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922. 2nd ed. New Ap- proaches to European History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818868. Redford, Bruce (2008), Dilettanti: The Antic and the Antique in Eighteenth‐Cen- tury England, Los Angeles, CA: The J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Re- search Institute. Riande, Gimena & Vitale, Valeria (2020), Recogito-in-a-Box: From Annotation to Digital Edition. Modern Languages Open. 1. doi: 10.3828/mlo.v0i0.299.

66 Schlieder, Christoph; Vögele, Thomas & Visser, Ubbo (2001), Qualitative Spatial Representation for Information Retrieval by Gazetteers. In: Montello D.R. (eds), Spatial Information Theory. COSIT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2205. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Shelley, P. Bysshe, Wise, T. James (1886), Hellas: a lyrical drama. Second edi- tion. London: Published for the Shelley Society by Reeves and Turner. Svensson, Patrik (2009), Humanities Computing as Digital Humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3(3), pp. 1–32. Thomas, William G. (2004), Computing and the Historical Imagination, in: Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., Unsworth, J. (Eds.), A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, MA, USA, pp. 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999875.ch5 Tsigakou, Fani-Maria (1981), The rediscovery of Greece: travellers and painters of the romantic era, Thames and Hudson, London. Tuan, Yi-Fu (1977), Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Arnold. Watson, Nicola J. (2009), Literary Tourism and Nineteenth-Century Culture, Ba- singstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Youngs, Tim (ed.) (2006), Travel Writing in the Nineteenth Century: Filling the Blank Spaces, London; Herndon: Anthem Press.

67