European Journal of Archaeology

Home , Diapori, Dia (island), Dionysades, Gavdopoula, Io (island), Koufonisi (Crete)

http://eja.sagepub.com

What Is an Island? Concepts, Meanings and Polysemies of Insular Topoi in Greek Sources Katerina Kopaka European Journal of Archaeology 2008; 11; 179 DOI: 10.1177/1461957109106373

The online version of this article can be found at: http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2-3/179

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: European Association of Archaeologists

Additional services and information for European Journal of Archaeology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://eja.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://eja.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/2-3/179

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 HAT IS AN ISLAND?CONCEPTS, W MEANINGS AND POLYSEMIES OF INSULAR TOPOI IN GREEK SOURCES1

Katerina Kopaka University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece

Abstract: This article proposes an alternative way to explore a series of definitions, concepts, meanings and, sometimes, polysemies of island worlds, by using mainly ancient Greek literary sources, diachronic island names, and their etymologies, epithets, and other systems of labelling and describing them. It argues that such evidence literally and metaphorically involves mirrors and maps, and transcribes important parameters of an eloquent cognitive geography, forged from long-established knowledge and empirical wisdom, and relevant to modern scientific insights, including archaeological ones. If systematically investigated and thoroughly deciphered, this may disclose numerous meaningful elements of the insular topoi we study; and thus enrich significantly our efforts to conceive them as ‘total’ natural and cultural geographies – or ‘insularities’ – through time. Here, a limited number of cited examples illustrate a few, and mainly physical, aspects of their morphological, geological, topographic and other environmental traits – only tentatively touching upon their human-made landscapes. All the same, the information this provides may be also relevant, even if indirectly, to the islands’ cultural environments. Furthermore, this approach can certainly be expanded to cover various other general and specific insular properties – including their inhabitants and diachronic monuments.

Keywords: Aegean, alternative archaeological readings on islands, Greek sources, islands, island names, properties and economic landscapes

INTRODUCTION Aegean prehistoric research is closely interwoven with islands – it is hard to pro- ceed in any other way in the island-embroidered domain of the Greek archipela- goes (Fig. 1). This has been the case since the important early explorations in Crete and the Cyclades, and the first publications of pottery from Thera, Rhodes and elsewhere, that began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One thinks of M. Kalokairinos’s seminal work at Knossos and the definitive excavations of A. Evans at this major site, and of F. Halbherr and of all the pioneers of Minoan Crete; and, of course, of C. Tsountas’s fundamental research in the Cyclades (1898, 1899 – see also, for example: Atkinson et al. 1904; Bent 1885; Fouqué 1879; Staïs 1889; and the recent overview in Vassilikou 2006); then, of the published contribu- tions of Furtwängler and Loeschke (1886), Myres (1895), Pottier (1897), and others.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 180 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3) Figures 1a . Northern Aegean (electronic elaboration by P. Stefaniki)

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 181 Figures 1b . Southern Aegean (electronic elaboration by P. Stefaniki)

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 182 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

In recent decades, archaeological interest in island cultural sequences has stayed lively – and, in a way, is ever ‘emerging’ to borrow C. Renfrew’s (1972) inspired title – thanks to the significant contribution of work conducted, mainly, by the Ephoreies, the foreign Schools, and the Greek Universities (see, among many others: Broodbank 2000a [and the important on-going work of his team on Kythira]; Efstratiou 1985; Grove et al. 1991; Marangou 1994, 2002; Marthari 1990; Matsas since 1984; Melas 1985; Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian 1998). Through surveys, like the eye-opening, interdisciplinary and diachronic researches on Milos (Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982) and Kea (Cherry et al. 1991), and systematic and rescue excavations, fresh avenues of knowledge are being trodden about more and more Aegean islands, isles, and even very modest (rock)islets (an early overview in Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979; see also: Atlas 1998; Davis 1992; Vlachopoulos 2005). And a growing pleiad of devoted nisophile researchers has been formed: among Greek scholars, C. Doumas (quite apart from his work on Thera, see also e.g. 1976, 1997, 2004, 2005) and A. Sampson (e.g. 1988, 2001, 2006) come immediately to mind. However, theoretical discourse in Greece has not developed at the same rate as field discoveries, despite massive international discussion which has strongly rein- forced, in our days, the concept and theme of Island Archaeology – principally since J. Evans’s important suggestions (Evans 1973, 1977; see also: Broodbank 1999; Erlandson and Anderson 2007; Fitzpatrick 2004; Rainbird 1999; Renfrew 2004; for the Mediterranean and the Aegean see Cherry 1981, 1985, 1990, 2004; Finlayson 2004; Knapp 2007; Patton 1996; and for the Cyclades see Broodbank 2000b). Most Aegean archaeological approaches remain strongly descriptive, artefact-based (and biased) and do not focus enough on the insular character of the cultures under study nor on their possible specific characteristics as compared to mainland ones. Analytical results and consequent assumptions rarely consider, at least on equal terms, the central concept of insularity, which only persists, then, as a trivial convention and, most often, as an ambiguous and even controversial conceptual framework. But islands are specific geographic entities. They may be conceived as particular natural and social eco-bioenvironments – and thus familiar, as parts of our oikos, yet, none the less, separate topoi, with their own cultural ‘bio-diversities’. This can encourage the beginning of a somewhat independent debate about their historical past and present, which has to be further developed, critically, in order to circum- vent blind island-centric arguments, based on barren views of cultural relativism. Any such effort should start, I believe, with some basic questions, definitions and thoughts, such as: What is an island, after all? – a seemingly simple question, that has already been asked in archaeology (e.g. Rainbird 1999:217; Terrell 1999:240–241), but only partially answered each time (e.g. van Dommelen 1999:250). Is it possible to discern some nuclear insular features and connotations, literal and metaphorical? If so, would the use of alternative – not necessarily archaeological – sources help us to understand them better? Can Greek literature and other related sources, for example, provide any clarificatory clues and insights – namely, from a ‘native’ point of view – as to Aegean islands? In this article, I shall seek to show that this is possible – and important for archaeologists too – through evidence selected from ancient texts, island names

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 183 and their etymologies and meanings, epithets, and other systems of labelling and describing them (the data are mainly drawn from the invaluable Thesaurus Linguae Graecae [TLG] and Liddell and Scott / and Jones [LSJ]2). At the present stage of my research, I will cite a limited number of examples to illustrate a few, mainly physical, aspects of proper insular loci – and only very briefly refer to their human-made landscapes. All the same, this very information may be indirectly relevant also to the islands’ cultural environments; and this approach can certainly be expanded to cover various other general and specific insular properties – including their inhabitants and diachronic monuments (see also Kopaka and Cadogan forthcoming). In truth, I am proposing a methodological outline here that needs filling in by each and every one of us, for our island(s) of preference, in the Aegean, the Mediterranean, and the whole world beyond.

ISLANDSOFTHESEAAND ‘OTHER’ ISLANDS Islands are lands completely surrounded by water – by sea-water or by fresh water (when in a lake or river). This is made quite clear in the sources by the use of adjectives like: περι′ρρυτος (sea-water bounded), used for example for sea-girt Crete (Od.19.173); αµφι′ρ(ρ)υτος (flowed around), used for example for Keos (Pi.I.1.8); and περικυ′µων (wave bounded), used for example for Lesvos (Archestr.Fr.59.4); or ποταµοφο′ ρητος (ποταµοφο′ ρητοι νη~σοι, river-brought islands – LSJ s.v. νη~σος). As a result, dry and wet form a meaningful pair of notions to define an island as against a mainland, which is only dryland (literally ξηρα′ ) in Greek. An island may lie far from a mainland, as many ocean isles do, or be close to it, as most Mediterranean ones are. It may even fall in the vicinity of another island or insular complex and be an ‘island’s isle’, like the satellite isles of Crete (Kopaka and Kossyva 1999) and Delos’s περιοικι′δες νη~σοι (islands lying round about) – which is all of the Cyclades for the Greeks (Str.10.5 2.15). To extrapolate, then, our entire planet is a vast complex of islands – up to insular states, like Britain, and insular continents, like Australia, the Americas – and, of course, their enveloping seas. Likewise, an ancient definition (Suid.43) sees the Ocean as a sea-circle around the earth, giving birth to all rivers and all seas and springs. Maritime islands form, without doubt, the most representative insular places in our diachronic perceptions, especially those concerning the Aegean and the Mediterranean. Yet, occasionally, the sea element is not taken for granted in the sources and needs to be further emphasized (e.g. Alonnisos is literally the Sea- island in Greek). Why? Apparently because, there are some ‘other’ islands, that are not sea-bounded, as Fernand Braudel (1972:160–161) made clear long ago, and should not be mixed up with the ‘real’ ones. In fact, the word ‘island’ and some of its derivatives (e.g. ‘island-like’ or νησοειδη′ς, νησια′ ζων and so on) are also applied to certain mainland formations: mainly to coastal ridges, such as capes (or νησια′ ζουσα α’κρα – Stad.202.1, 203.1) and peninsulas (thus, the Peloponnese is the ‘island of Pelops’ – LSJ s.v. νη~σος); but, also, to interior, often mountainous hinterlands – according to Strabo (3.1.7.7), Kalpi, a small but high and steep part of the Iberian massif, appears to be an island when

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 184 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3) seen from afar. There are, moreover, islands in the desert (oases), or within built environments (urban insulae), as well as ‘islands of green’, ‘of resistance’, ‘of the brain’. Within a cognitive geography, then, an island is conceived as a distinct setting, bounded, isolated, and detached through its specific volume: a definite world apart, an almost holistic universe. This sense of ‘independence’ – and even of ‘self- existence’ – in all insular loci is, of course, illusory, elliptical, and unachieved, since an island is, and always remains, a segment, a subordinate fraction of a total space – a seascape or other landscape. Water-islands have, I think, another extremely important feature: they cannot be reached on foot. To get there, one must cross water, often the open sea. This may be neither easier nor more difficult than crossing land. But it is certainly different. It implies a different technology, and different skills, experiences and risks – it repre- sents a different challenge: creating, thus, another perception of distance and time, and dictating its own norms of communication and exchange, isolation and interaction (Kopaka 2005: esp.94).

FLOATINGISLANDSANDSTABLEMAINLANDS The word νη~σος or να~ σος (for the island) – a feminine in ancient Greek – comes from the verb νε′ω, which means ‘float’ or ‘swim’ (e.g. Philox.152.3–4). An island is defined, then, as ‘if swimming in the water’ (Suid.343.1), like other floating bodies (EM 605.5). It makes an unstable environment, as opposed to the stable mainland, or solid land (literally στερια′ ). Indeed, in the Greek mythic tradition and toponymy, an island may move through water and navigate the sea, as do, for example Delos (e.g. Hdt.6.98.4–5) and Hemvis, Apollo’s isle in Egypt (Hecat.Fr.305.3–5 – but see also the scepticism expressed in Hdt.2.156); and, in Italy, the Aborigines’ Cotylê (Greek Cotylia – see D.H.Antiq. Rom.1.19.2–3), as well as the isle of Aiolos, in the Lipari complex, and the Planctae stones – Homer’s beetling crags, near Scylla and Charybdis (Od.12.59 sq., 23.327; see also LSJ:1410 s.v. πλαγκτη′ρ, and infra Kyaneai stones). An island may even tremble, like the Donousa (vibrating in Greek – e.g. Sch.D.P.132.1 530.3); or, perhaps, be pushed in the atmosphere by the winds, if the name Α’ερι′α – used for example for Crete and Thasos (Hdn.P.C.3, 1 298.24–28; St.Byz.E. 306.20, 384.11–12) and for Cyprus and Sicily (Hsch.1391) does not only mean ‘foggy’ (Hsch.1391) or just ‘windy’. Furthermore, in the mythic sources, an island can be ‘born’ – created or con- structed, like the Cretan Dionysades (D.S.5.75. 5.1–6), or cut from some land or other island, like Nisyros was detached from Kos by Poseidon (Str.10.5 16.8–13). It may ‘appear’, like Delos (meaning the Apparent – e.g. EM 264.31–32, Arist.Fr.v. 488.8–10), or ‘become visible’ all of a sudden, as in Anafi’s providential appearance to the Argonauts (A.R.4.1711–12 and 1717–18). Finally, an island can ‘die’ – be ‘drowned’, for a while or forever, in the sea, as in the case of legendary Atlantis (Pl.Ti.25d.2). Such concepts are further supported by related Greek verbs, meaning to become, make, be, or form an island (νησα′ οµαι/νησευ′οµαι, νησοποιε′ω, νησι′ζω/νησια′ ζω), and provide fascinating insights, not only metaphorically, but also at face value.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 185

Because, in reality too, islands are not static, but form unstable and fragile geo- morphological landscapes (see also Kopaka and Kossyva 1999:436, notes 7–10). They can undergo more or less rapid and drastic physical transformations, mainly due to sea-level changes and eustatic movements, or tectonic and volcanic activity, massive erosion and landslides and so on. An island can, thus, be separated from coasts, like Thasos or Mochlos in Crete, or emerge, totally or partly (see e.g. Sampson 1988:9–10, for Gyali and maybe Pergousa and Pachia in the same Nisyros complex). It can also change its relief, for example by sand depositions and other wind action, as well as its shape – Thera was circular before the mighty mid-Bronze Age eruption of its volcano – and even change its size: remember the vast maternal Cycladic island and its peak-offspring, the Cyclades (e.g. Broodbank 2000b:73–74, 111–114, with references and discussion). Finally, an island can disappear, for example by being joined to and/or compressed into a neighbouring shore, often to form a promontory – as happened perhaps to one of the three Cretan Kω´ ρυκαι, because of the upheaval of the coast (Spratt 1865:221–222, 226) – or by being sub- merged in the waters, for example with rising sea-level. Coastal settings are, of course, most sensitive to transformation, especially those on small islands, which are completely exposed to the continuous impact of winds, waters and the earth – far more than mainland ones, which are protected from at least one side. So we find the adjectives αλι′πλακτoς and αλι′ρροθoς (sea-beaten) used for both islands (Pi.P 4.14 and S Aj 597 – for Salamis) and coasts (E.Hipp.1205; Mosch.2.132), and αλιρραγη′ς (sea-broken) applied to marine rocks (Anthologia Graeca 7.383). But insular interiors may undergo deformations too, as shown, sometimes, by their out-of-proportion geography and various asymmetries of landscape – think for instance of the huge, abrupt mountains in such confined territories as Samothraki, Anafi, or Ikaria. Ancient authors do describe such phenomena, and Strabo (1.3. esp.18) provides a remarkable, critical synopsis of the information. He writes of former islands amalgamated with nearby mainlands – like Piraeus, Antisa in Lesvos, as well as one of the Echinades and some other neighbouring isles changed into solid land by the alluvia of the river Acheloos (for Echinades, see also Str.10.2. 19); and of others, having been founded (Str.10.2. 19 for Kefallinia) or separated from the coasts, whether artificially like Lefkas, or naturally like Lesvos, Prochyti, Pithikousa, also Sicily and Euboea. From Aristotle we hear that Rhodes was believed to be hidden under the sea, before it appeared and dried out (Arist.Fr.v.8.45 611.329–330); and Cedrenus (Cedr.Comp.hist.1.795 7–11) mentions that, as late as the Byzantine period, a new isle was thrown up from the sea depths by volcanic activity near Thera (perhaps one of the Kamenes?). The same had happened previously, he maintains, with Thera itself and Therasia.

MEANINGFULISLANDNAMES In its individual ‘identity card’, each island carries, primarily, a name: in some rare contrary cases, islands still need to be baptized, even if only as no-names (‘anonymous’ – e.g. Arr.An.1.19. 4.4) or just called ‘a certain isle’ (e.g. App.BC 5.11.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 186 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

102.6). The name is often followed by one or more ‘personal’ epithet(s) or other qualification(s). Ancient and modern island names, intra-insular toponymies, and any adjectival form or other related evidence, for the whole space or for parts of it, provide precious and multiple information, as yet not exploited enough in Aegean archaeological research (but see e.g. Kopaka 1995; Kopaka et al. 2001 for Gavdos). Yet, as some of the previous instances also show, these can clearly reveal an island’s basic meanings and connotations, because they directly transmit some of its intrinsic traits – clearly, each time, the most ‘interesting’ ones. To illustrate further this important contribution of the ‘nisionyms’ (islands’ names), let us examine the following categories of data, which mainly refer to geo- graphical and environmental components (Fig.1 – for modern island names see, principally: Atlas 1998 and Stamatelatos and Vamva-Stamatelarou 2006).

Island names and insular morphologies and topographies An island may be named, for example, by its own features, such as the following.

Size This is often shown through comparative word forms that indicate its place in a wider complex. Diminutives are thus often used, such as Thasos/Thasopoula, Spetses/Spetsopoula, Samos/Samiopoula, Gavdos/Gavdopoula. After all, the very word νησι′ (modern Greek island) is itself a diminutive (as is its parent, ancient νησι′ον). Or the adjectives ‘big’ and ‘small’ are assigned: either in their regular forms, for example Megalonisos (Crete), Magna in Libya (Corn.Alex.Fr.119–132), the Large and Small Ysaeis in Ethiopia (Hecat.Fr.1a, 1, F.326); or as superlatives, for example Megisti (‘the Largest’ – Str.14.3 7.5; Ptol.Geog.5.3 9.2), the ancient name of modern Kastelorizo – which is in fact tiny, but still the biggest in its group.

Shape Sometimes indicated directly, to cite, for example, the familiar Strongyli (circular, round) for Delos and maybe Naxos (D.S.5.50 1.3), but also for one of the Aiolian islands (Posidon.Fr.43 85–86). Likewise, Dolichi (elongated) is used occasionally for Crete (or for one of the Cretan isles – Hdn.P.C.3,1 298.25), Ikaria (St.Byz.E 329.12), and other islands; and there are the diminutive forms Dolichisti, in Lycia (Ptol.Geog.5.3 9.3) and Doulichion (or Dolicha) for Ithaki (e.g. Od.14.335, 16.396; Str.10.2 19.2–3, St.Byz.E.236.12). The synonym Makris (long) also serves for Ikaria (St.Byz.E 329.13) and Euboea (Str.10.1 3.1–2) – and there are Makri, Makronisos and Makrà too (Corn.Alex.Fr.86–88). Then, Trinakria (triangular) is another name for Sicily (Str.6.2 1.1–3). But shape is often implied by similarities in appearance: for example Pseira (flea), Angistri (fishing hook), and Myrmix (ant – e.g. Stad.10 2–3).

Relief For instance, the name of Skopelos can mean a reef, as well as a peak, promontory or lookout place or stone (Hsch.1088); and the Oxeies or Thoes, near Kefallinia, mean the ‘sharp islands’ in Greek (EM 453 12–14; St.Byz.E 236 11–12).

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 187

Colour Such names apparently reflect prevalent geological formations, and very often relate to white (λευκο′ ). We find, thus, Lefkas (Phot.Lexicon 216), and Lefki and the Lefkes islands in Libya (St.Byz.E 233.15) and Lefkofrys for Tenedos (e.g. Arist.Fr.v.8.45 611.135). But there is also Chrysi (Golden) south of Crete, and Erythi or Erytheia (Reddish) in the Atlantic (Eust.Com.D.P.558.1–3), and the Kyaneai (Dark/Blue) isles or stones, that is the two small Clashing Rocks at the entrance of the Euxine (e.g. D.P.144; Sch.A.R.152; and LSJ s.v. Κυα′ νεαι; see also supra Planctae stones).

Position This is sometimes related to a mainland, but more often to other islands: for example, Milos/Antimilos, Paxoi/Antipaxoi, Kythera/Antikythera, Psara/Antipsara, Tilos/ Antitilos, Keros/Antikeria. Among neighbouring isles we can add Adelfoi (brothers) near Alonnisos and maybe Didymi (twin) near Sicily (Ptol.Geog.3.4 – but see Posidon.Fr.43.88, where the name is related to the island’s shape). There are also, of course, the Cyclades themselves, forming a circle around Delos (e.g. D.P.525–526); and even the Sporades, which are ‘sown’ like grain (σπο′ ρος/σπορα′ ) in the sea (EM 724.26–27). But, quite frequently, the name places the isle’s domain within its maritime circulatory patterns, and signals its accessibility or the reverse. Such are the cases of: Poros ([narrow] passage) in the Saronic – and Diapori and Diaporia/oi (passing trough) in several parts of the Aegean; Portes (doors) near Paros; Diavati (easy to cross to – Ptol.Geog.3.3 8.6) near Sardinia – and Diavatis and Diavates (passer/s by) in Lemnos and in the Dodecanese; and, apparently, Anthropofagoi too (the Cannibals! i.e. ‘man-eating’ or ‘man-drowning’? islets) in the Fournoi complex.

Island names and insular resources Islands may also be named by representative elements of their ecosystems, reflect- ing, mainly, their economic landscapes and the potential forms of primary exploitation of their local produce. Such names are inspired by an island’s flora, fauna or resources.

Vegetation Endemic land-bound and marine species form by far the most numerous etymological instances; some of them are listed by Herodianus (Hdn.P.C. 3,1 269–270) and Athenaeus (Ath.1.55). Examples deriving from wild plants include the Aeolian Erikousa (heather/Erica) and the Libyan Fykouses (seaweed). There are, also, Aspalathis (spiny broom, Calicotome villosa) off Lycia (St.Byz.E.134.7–8), Anthemousa (maybe chamomile, Anthemis) and Melamfyllos (black-leafed, maybe laurel), both used for Samos (St.Byz.E.553.15); as well as Thymaina (thyme), Marathousa (fennel), Foinikousa (palm), Schinousa (lentisk, Pistacia lentiscus), and the numerous Aegean Prasonisi/a ([wild] leek). Timber is, of course, very important, as is shown, for example by the adjective υ´λη′εις/εσσα (wooded) used for Zakynthos (e.g. Od.9.24), and also by the names Dryousa (oak-tree), and Pityousa (pine-tree) – the latter is applied, amongst others, to Salamis (e.g. Eust.Com.H.I.1.440 3; Str.9.1. 9 17), Chios (Str.13.118.4–5) and,

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 188 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3) mainly, to two of the Balearic islands, most probably Ibiza and Formentera (Timae.F 3b, 566,F 164.310; Str.3.5 1; D.S.5.16 1.2–5; see also LSJ s.v. πιτυο′ εις meaning abounding in pine-trees).

Fauna Names originating from terrestrial wild animal species often relate to, and may warn of, snakes (ο’′φις), such as Ophiodis in Egypt (Str.16.4 6.1), Ofiousa for Rhodes (Arist.Fr.v.8.45 611.331) and for Kythnos (St.Byz.E.392.1–2), and Ofidousa, west of Astypalaia. But we also have Lycian Kochliousa (land snail – Hdn.P.C.3,1 269) – and, of course, modern Saliagos too (Evans and Renfrew 1968:3). Others are Pithikousa/ sai (apes) and Kapria or Kaprini (boar), both in Italy (Hecat.Fr.1a,1,F 63.2), as well as Myonnisos (mouse or rat) north-west of Euboea, and Lagousa (hare), Elaphonisos and Prokonnisos (deer – Sch.A.R.148. 14–16). Among names deriving from birds we have, for example, Ortygia (quail) used for Delos (Ath.9.47), and Lycian Chelidonies islands (swallow – Ptol.Geog.5.3 9.4), Sardinian Hierakon isle (falcon – Ptol.Geog.3.3), and Libyan Korakonisos (crow – Corn.Alex.Fr.119–132); not to mention the familiar Aegean Glaronisi/a (seagull). As for names from marine species, there are Porphyrousa (purple/Murex trun- culus), used for Kythira, and Ichthyoesa (fishy, full of fish), as was the ancient name of Ikaria (e.g. St.Byz.E.329.13); also Echinades (sea urchin), Lopadouses (limpet shell – Ath.1.55) and Polypodousa (polyps).

Cultivated plants and domestic animals Such names are not very frequent. Vineyards and wine seem to predominate among the former, for example Oinoni, the previous name of Aegina (e.g. Hdn.P.C.3,1 257 37–38), and Oinoï for Sikinos (EM 712.51); as well as Oinouses for two groups of isles, five near Chios (Hecat.Fr. F1a,1, F frag.142.1), and three off Messenia (Paus.4.34 12.8). Olives sometimes appear, mainly in islands named Elaiousa (e.g. Str.12.2 7; Hdn.P.C.270), the most familiar one lying off Cilicia – a fertile isle, Strabo adds. Grain is rarely implied and, I think, only indirectly: (Doulichion, Odysseus’s native [isle]land, is πολυ´πυρον – generally, rich in corn – see e.g. Od.14.335, 16.396), perhaps because it was so common an island crop, especially barley. There are also a few names from specific vegetables, such as Kramvousa (cabbage), Iberian Kromyousa (onion), and Teftlousa (Beet-island – LSJ s.v. τευτλο′ εις) south of Symi, in the Dodecanese. Names deriving from domestic animals are even fewer. They include Kynon nisos (Dogs’ island) in Libya (e.g. Corn.Alex.Fr.119–132); but most relate to goats (αι’′ξ-αι’γο´ς), and less often to rams (τρα′ γος in modern Greek), such as: Aigousa and Aigimorros, between Sicily and Libya, and Aigila for Antikythira (St.Byz.E.44.10, 42.3, and 41.5–7) – the very name, of course, of the Aegean Sea has most likely the same etymological origin (Sch.A.R.105.12–17; Conon 3.6–14); and various rock-islets called Tragos or Tragonisi (or Dragonisi), and Tragousa near Chalki and Tragonera near the islet of Ro.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 189

Inorganic materials Such island names primarily signal water, as we see in Ydrousa for Kea (Heraclid.Lemb.Pol.26.1) and Tinos (Eust.Com.D.P.525.49–50) and, maybe, Paros (Arist.Fr.v.8.45 611.156). But water is more often implied by intra-insular toponymies (indicating e.g. springs, wells and streams) than by generic islands’ names. From various stones and rocks we have, for instance, Gyali (glass, i.e. obsidian), the isle near Nisyros (Sampson 1988), Marmara (marble; but, maybe, ‘marble- white’ or ‘marble-like’ stone) used, for example, for the islet in the complex of Cretan Koufonisi (e.g. Papadakis 1983), and Kimolos (chalk – Str.10.5 1.15–16), and Thyganousa (θηγα′ νη meaning whetstone – Paus.4.34 12.6; Ptol.Geog.3.14 44.7). More rarely, islands may be named for their deposits of precious stones, like Topazios in India (Corn.Alex.Fr.96–97); or even for their quarries, like the Latomiai islands in Egypt (Str.16.4 8.4). Salt is also suggested, for example by some islets called Alatas and Alatonisi – like the one in the Fournoi complex – and Tigani (salt-pan).

Metals Metals give Molyvothis nisos (Lead island) near Sardinia (Ptol.Geog.3.3), and the famous Kassiterides nisoi (Tin islands) of Britain (e.g. Hdt.3.115 6–7; Sch.D.P.561); as well as Sideritis (iron) the islet north of Lemnos; then, Chalki in the Dodecanese and Chalkitis (Copper isle), one of the two Dimonisia near Thracian Chalkidon – which, according to Hesychius (Hsch.870), provided the ‘dimonisios copper’.

Island names and cultural landscapes: A brief note A few further examples may just remind us that island names do not only high- light physical attributes, but relate also to human-made, imaginary, mythical, and other cultural environments (see also Erdog˘u 2003; Kopaka 2005). They can often reflect, then, each isle’s symbolic connections with gods – as creators and/or pro- tectors – and with heroes, demons, Nymphs, Cyclops, and other supernatural beings, and even metaphysical settlers and/or residents. Among many such instances are: Dionysades, by Crete and Dionysias in Lycia (Scyl.100.8, for the latter); Hephaestus’ sacred island near Sicily (Posidon.Fr.43. 75–76); Hermaia, Nymfaia, and Heracles’s isle near Sardinia (Ptol.Geog.3.3), Cretan Dia – and, maybe, three others(?), near Naxos, Milos, and Amorgos (Sch.Theoc.2.45/46b.1–2 and Hdn.P.C.3,1 286); Dioskourias, the name of at least two islands, in Libya and the Black Sea (St.Byz.E.233.15); and even Crete, if its name derives from Kouriti (Kourites, the demons who nurtured baby Zeus on this island – Eust.Com.D.P.498.11–14). Likewise, we have Telchinis (Telchines, the semi- divine beings, skilled in metal work and magic) as an old name for Rhodes (Eust.Com.D.P.504.35–37), the Dragon’s isles in Libya (Corn.Alex.Fr.119–132.13), the Sirens, which were three rocky islets in Italy (Eust.Com.H.O.2.5 26); and, last but not least, the famous Island of the Blessed (e.g. Str.1.1 5.1–5).

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 190 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

DISCUSSION This is only a very small sample of what ancient Greek literary evidence and long- lived systems of place-names can tell us about islands. If systematically approached and thoroughly deciphered, they may disclose many more meaningful aspects of the insular loci under study and thus enrich significantly our archaeological efforts to conceive them as ‘total’ natural and cultural geographies – or ‘insularities’ – through time (Kopaka 2002, for a somewhat related attempt while exploring Gavdos). Island names and related internal toponymies, in particular, reveal, imprint and record an island’s most characteristic and salient features in time. These help us to trace back, in a long-term and quasi-layered perspective, its material and symbolic forms, uses and ‘utilities’: vis-à-vis its own inhabitants and, sometimes even more, the extra-insular people who interact with it – whether visitors, mariners, traders, settlers, conquerors ... and even interested scholars and thinkers. That is, with any- one who needs to ‘define’ the island in order properly to ‘consume’ it. The result, then, is an eloquent geo-cultural chart, based on accumulated knowledge and empirical wisdom, and, therefore, definitely relevant to archaeological and any other scientific approach – at least, before being verified in the library and the field, with the help of competent specialists. Cross-checks are always necessary, to overcome possible confusions, misunderstandings and other – real or ideologi- cal – weaknesses, which may be endemic in both the various categories of sources we rely on and the respective types of other data we compare them to. In fact, as partly shown here, and as further proposed in previous studies (Kopaka and Kossyva 1999:439–440; Kopaka et al. 2006:282–283), the information thus provided clusters around the islands’ major potential abilities to offer such features as the following.

Anchorage and harbourage, as a marine station and/or maybe nodal stopover – stepping-stone, port of call, emporium, gateway community. These were determining privileges in pre-industrial Aegean and Mediterranean cultural contexts, when the sea was the main route for communication and exchange – and the unique means to secure the islanders’ subsistence and survival (Kopaka 2005). A further capacity to supply ships and travellers with water and other staple provisions adds esteem to an island, and can inscribe it in more permanent trajectories and more resistant cultural cycles. Access to natural resources, as shown by the emphasis on local species for seasonal exploitation, mainly hunting, fishing, and collecting wild plants, edible molluscs and other food; and by the interest in wider use of the land for cultivation and animal breeding, as well as the acquisition of specific insular products and/or prestige items, including timber, purple dye, obsidian, salt, copper and other metals. Settings for ritual activities, as indicated by the names and toponymies, and also many insular monuments for cult and burial. These often turn islands into real sea- bounded sacred places, like ancient Delos and modern Tinos and Patmos, with special psychological connotations to their islanders, and to large populations of non-islanders.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 191

Shelter, protection, and confinement, often as floating bastions and fortresses, but also as ideal sea ‘dumping grounds’ for marginal or exiled individuals and/or unwanted minorities – and, of course, for waste and harmful materials and products.

Islands that respond enough, on each occasion, to similar diachronic needs may well survive and, in favourable historical conditions, further develop and exploit their proper local mechanisms and skills – so as even to flourish. None of them, though, really escapes, or at least not for long, its insular nature and destiny: to be a fragile and unstable fraction, a ‘subordinate’ sea-land, always needing and look- ing for, life-giving, offshore interactions – with mainlands and other islands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to thank the co-editors of this special EJA issue for their kind invita- tion to submit this article, and to its reviewers for their very useful comments. Thanks are also due to our partners in the Gavdos survey from the KE’ Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, to all colleagues in our interdisciplinary research on this island, and especially to G. Nikolakakis, who shared with us his anthropological wisdom on island communities. For valuable, fresh insights I am grateful to the students and young archaeologists who animate both the whole Gavdos project and my lectures and seminars at Rethymno. Last but not least, I thank F. Michelaki for a first confrontation with the Greek version of this text, and G. Cadogan and A. Sarpaki for a final polish of the English.

NOTES 1 In a previous version, this article was presented, in Greek, to the Symposium held in December 2005 at Rethymno in honour of Nikolas Faraklas, Emeritus Professor of Classical Archaeology of the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete (Kopaka forthcoming). It is part of a broader enquiry into insular cultures, which started in the 1990s, within the framework of the archaeological survey and interdisciplinary field research on the isle of Gavdos, off the south-west coast of Crete. 2. In the text, English transliterations of the islands’ names are as a rule adjusted to modern Greek (e.g. Ithaki and not Ithaca, Milos and not Melos; but Delos, Thera, Rhodes, Lemnos). Citations and abbreviations of ancient authors and works follow both the TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: a Digital Library of Greek Literature), and LSJ (the latest edition [1996] of H.G. Liddell and R. Scott [and H.S. Jones], A Greek-English Lexicon): App.BC – Appianus Bellum civile/Bella Civilia (first to second centuries AD). Archestr.Fr. – Archestratus Fragmenta (4th c. BC). A.R. – Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica (3rd c. BC). Arist.Fr.v. – Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Fragmenta varia (4th c. BC). Arr.An. – Arrianus Alexandri anabasis (2nd c. AD). Ath. – Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (2nd–3rd c. AD). Cedr. Comp.hist. – Georgius Cedrenus Compendium historiarum. Conon – Conon Fragmenta (1st c. BC–1st c. AD).

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 192 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

Corn.Alex.Fr. – Cornelius Alexander Fragmenta (2nd–1st c. BC). D.H.Antiq.Rom. – Dionysius Halicarn. Antiquitates Romanae (1st c. BC). D.P. – Dionysius Perieg. Orbis descriptio (2nd c. AD). D.S. – Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica (1st c. BC). EM – Etymologicum Magnum. E.Hipp. – Euripides Hippolytus (5th c. BC). Eust.Com.H.I. – Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem (12th c. AD). Eust.Com.H.O. – Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam. Eust.Com.D.P. – Eustathius Commentarium in Dionysii Periegetae Orbis Descriptionem. Hecat.Fr. – Hecataeus Fragmenta (6th–5th c. BC). Hdn.P.C. – Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo-Herodianus De prosodia catholica (2nd c. AD). Hdt. – Herodotus Historiae (5th c. BC). Heraclid.Lemb.Pol. – Heraclides Lembus Excerpta politiarum (2nd c. BC). Hsch. – Hesychius Lexicon (5th–6th c. AD). Mosch. – Moschus Europa (2nd c. BC). Od. – Odyssey. Paus. – Pausanias Graeciae descriptio (2nd c. AD). Philox. – Philoxenus Fragmenta (5th–4th c. BC). Phot. Lexicon – Photius Lexicon (9th c. AD). Pi.I. – Pindarus Isthmian Odes (5th c. BC). Pi.P. – Pindarus Pythian Odes. Pl.Ti. – Plato Timaeus. Posidon.Fr. – Posidonius Fragmenta (2nd–1st c. BC). Ptol.Geog. – Claudius Ptolemaeus Geographia (2nd c. AD). Sch.A.R.– Scholia in Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica. Sch.D.P. – Scholia in Dionysium Periegetam. Sch.Theoc. – Scholia in Theocritum. Scyl. – Scylax Periplus Scylacis (5th–4th c. BC). S Aj. – Sophocles Ajax (5th c. BC). St.Byz.E. – Stephanus Byzantius Ethnica (5th–6th c. AD). Stad. – Stadiasmus (Periplus Maris Magni [post 3rd c. AD]). Str. – Strabo Geographica (1st c. BC–1st c. AD). Suid. – Suidas Lexicon (10th c. AD). Timae. – Timaeus Fragmenta (4th–3rd c. BC).

REFERENCES

ATKINSON, T.D., R.C. BOSANQUET, C.C EDGAR, A.J. EVANS, D.G. HOGARTH, D. MACKENZIE, C. SMITH, and F.B. WELCH, 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, Conducted by the British School at Athens. London: Macmillan. ATLAS, 1998. Archaiologikos Atlas tou Aigaiou. Apo tin Proïstoria eos tin ysteri Archaiotita. Athens: Ministry of the Aegean – University of Athens. BENT, T., 1885. The islands of Telos and Carpathos. Journal of Hellenic Studies 6:233–242. BRAUDEL, F., 1972 (1949). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (2nd edn, trans. S. Reynolds). London: HarperCollins. BROODBANK, C., 1999. The insularity of island archaeologists: Comments on Rainbird’s ‘Islands out of time’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(2): 235–239. BROODBANK, C., 2000a. Perspectives on an Early Bronze Age island centre: an analysis of pottery from Daskaleio-Kavos (Keros) in the Cyclades. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(4):323–342. BROODBANK, C., 2000b. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 193

CHERRY, J.F., 1981. Pattern and process in the earliest colonization of the Mediterranean Islands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:41–68. CHERRY, J.F., 1985. Islands out of the stream: isolation and interaction in the Mediterranean insular prehistory. In A.B. Knapp and T. Stech (eds), Prehistoric Production and Exchange: The Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean: 12–29. Los Angeles: UCLA (Monograph 25). CHERRY, J.F., 1990. The first colonization of the Mediterranean islands: A review of recent research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2):145–221. CHERRY, J.F., 2004. Mediterranean island prehistory: What’s different and what’s new? In S.M. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Voyages of Discovery. The Archaeology of Islands: 233–248. New York and London: Praeger. CHERRY, J.F., J.L. DAVIS and E. MANTZOURANI (eds), 1991. Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times. Los Angeles: UCLA (Monumenta Archaelogica 16). DAVIS, J.L., 1992. Review of Aegean prehistory I: the islands of the Aegean. American Journal of Archaeology 96:699–756. DOUMAS, C., 1976. Protokykladiki kerameiki apo ta Chistiana Thiras. Archaiologiki Ephemeris: 1–11. DOUMAS, C., 1997. Nisia tou Aigaiou. Archaiologia 62:35–41. DOUMAS, C., 2004. Aegean islands and islanders. In J. Cherry, C. Scarre and S. Shennan (eds), Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew: 215–226. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. DOUMAS, C., 2005. I archaiologia sto nisiotiko Aigaio. In A.G. Vlachopoulos (ed.), Archaiologia. Nisia tou Aigaiou: 14–29. Athens: Melissa. EFSTRATIOU, N., 1985. Ayios Petros: A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series 241). ERDOG˘U, B., 2003. Visualizing Neolithic landscape: the early settled communities in western Anatolia and eastern Aegean islands. European Journal of Archaeology 6(1):7–23. ERLANDSON, J.M. and A. ANDERSON, 2007. Straw boats and the proverbial sea: a response to ‘Island Archaeology: In Search of a New Horizon’. Island Studies Journal 2(2):229–238. EVANS, J.D., 1973. Islands as laboratories for the study of culture process. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory: 517–520. London: Duckworth. EVANS, J.D., 1977. Island archaeology in the Mediterranean: problems and oppor- tunities. World Archaeology 9(1):12–26. EVANS, J.D. and C. RENFREW, 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. London: Thames & Hudson (British Archaeological School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 5). FINLAYSON, B., 2004. Island colonization, insularity or mainstream? In E. Peltenburg and A. Wasse (eds), Neolithic Revolution: New Perspectives on Southwest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries in Cyprus: 15–22. Oxford: Oxbow (Levant Supplement 1). FITZPATRICK, S.M. (ed.), 2004. Voyages of Discovery. The Archaeology of Islands. New York and London: Praeger. FOUQUÉ, M.F., 1879. Santorin et ses éruptions. Paris: G. Masson. FURTWÄNGLER, A. and G. LOESCHKE, 1886. Mykenische Vasen, Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiet des Mittelmeeres. Berlin: Asher. GROVE, A.T., J. MOODY and O. RACKHAM, 1991. Crete and the South Aegean Islands: Effects of Changing Climate on the Environment. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Geography Department.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 194 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

HOPE SIMPSON, R. and O.T.P.K. DICKINSON, 1979. A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age I: the Mainland and the Islands. Göteborg: P. Äström (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 52). KNAPP, A.B., 2007. Insularity and island identity in the prehistoric Mediterranean. In S. Antoniadou and A. Pace (eds), Mediterranean Crossroads: 37–62. Athens: Pierides Foundation. KOPAKA, K., 1995. Anichnefsi toponymion ton nision Gavdos kai Gavdopoula. In LOIVI eis mnimin Andrea Kalokairinou: 5–45. Iraklio: Etaireia Kritikon Istorikon Meleton. KOPAKA, K., 2002. Apo ti zoï mias proïstorikis lexis: ka-u-da, kai ta proïonta tis gis tis Gavdou. In SEMA, Timitikos Tomos gia ton Menelao Parlama:191–229. Iraklio: Etaireia Kritikon Istorikon Meleton. KOPAKA, K., 2005. Emporoi on the Mediterranean fringe: trading for a living on the small islands of Crete. In R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25:91–102. Liège: Université de Liège. KOPAKA, K., forthcoming. Ti einai nisi? Ennoies, simasies, amphisimies ton nisi- otikon topon. In C. Loukos, N. Xifaras and K. Pateraki (eds), Ubi dubium ibi libertas. Timitikos tomos gia ton Kathigiti Nikola Farakla: 51–71. Rethymno: Eudoseis Filosofikis Scholis Panepistiniou Kritis. KOPAKA, K. and G. CADOGAN, forthcoming. Two Mediterranean island life modes, two island archaeologies. Crete and Cyprus: how near, how far? In G. Cadogan, M. Iacovou, K. Kopaka and J. Whitley (eds), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus. International Symposium Organised by the Universities of Crete and Cyprus and the British School at Athens, Nicosia, 30 November–2 December 2006. London: British School at Athens. KOPAKA, K. and A. KOSSYVA, 1999. An island’s isles: Crete and its insular components. A preliminary approach. In P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 60th Year, Aegaeum 20:435–444. Liège: Université de Liège. KOPAKA, K., D. GONDICAS and G. MOSCHOVI, 2006. Chartografiki anagnorisi tis nisou Gavdou. Periigiseis se ena mikronisiotiko geopolitismiko topio. Acts of the 9th Cretological Congress, Elounda, 2000: 271–287. Iraklio: Etaireia Kritikon Istorikon Meleton. KOPAKA, K., G. NIKOLAKAKIS, A. TSANTIROPOULOS and A. KOSSYVA, 2001. Sympliroseis sto toponymiko tis Gavdou kai tis Gavdopoulas. In E. Gavrilaki and G.Z. Tzifopoulos (eds), Ta Kritika Toponymia, Diimero Epistimoniko Synedrio Istorikis Laographikis Etaireias Rethymnis: 283–333. Rethymno: Istoriki Laografiki Etaireia Rethymnis. LSJ (LIDDELL, H.G. and R. SCOTT), 1996. A Greek–English Lexicon (9th edn, rev. and augm. by Sir H.S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie and with a Revised Supplement ed. by P.G.W. Glare). Oxford: Clarendon Press. MARANGOU, L., 1994. Nees martyries gia ton Kykladiko politismo stin Amorgo. In FEGOS, Timitikos Tomos gia ton Kathigiti S. Dakari: 467–488. Ioannina: University of Ioannina. MARANGOU, L., 2002. Amorgos.I – Minoa. I polis, o limin kai I meizon perifereia, Vivliothiki tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Etaireias 228. Athens: Archaiologiki Etaireia. MARTHARI, M., 1990. Skarkos: enas protokykladikos oikismos stin Io. Idryma N.P. Goulandri. Mouseio Kykladikis Technis, Dialexeis 1986–1989: 97–100. Athens: Idryma N.P. Goulandri.

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 195

MATSAS, D., 1984. Mikro Vouni Samothrakis: mia proïstoriki koinotita s’ena nisiotiko systima tou Voreiou Anatolikou Aigaiou. Anthropologika 6:73–94. MELAS, E.M., 1985. The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos, in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Göteborg: Paul Äström (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 68). MENDONI, L.G. and A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN (eds), 1998. Kea-Kythnos: Istoria kai Archaiologia Meletimata 27, Kentro Ellinikis kai Romaïkis Archaiotitos. Athens: Ethnikon Idryma Erevnon. MYRES, J.L., 1895. On some pre-historic polychrome pottery from Kamàrais, in Crete. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London 15:351–356. PAPADAKIS, N., 1983. Kouphonisi, i Dilos tou Livykou. Archaiologia 6:58–65. PATTON, M., 1996. Islands in Time. Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory. London: Routledge. POTTIER, E., 1897. Vases antiques du Louvre; Salles A–E. Paris: Hachette. RAINBIRD, P., 1999. Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(2):216–234. RENFREW, C., 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London: Methuen. RENFREW, C., 2004. Islands out of time? Towards an analytical framework. In S.M. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Voyages of Discovery. The Archaeology of Islands: 275–294. New York and London: Praeger. RENFREW, C. and M. WAGSTAFF (eds), 1982. An Island Polity. The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SAMPSON, A., 1988. I Neolithiki katoikisi sto Gyali tis Nisyrou. Athens: Euboïki Achaiofilos Etaireia. SAMPSON, A., 2001. Epifaneiaki erevna sta erimonisa ton Voreion Sporadon. In A. Sampson (ed.), Archaiologiki erevna stis Voreies Sporades: 203–215. Alonnisos: Dimos Alonnisou. SAMPSON A., 2006. Proïstoria tou Aigaiou. Palaiolithiki–Mesolithiki–Neolithiki. Athens: Atrapos. SPRATT, T.A.B., 1865 (1984). Travels and Researches in Crete II. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. STAÏS, V., 1889. Anaskaphai kai erevnai en Aigilia (Antikytherois). Archaiologikon Deltion 5: 237–242. STAMATELATOS, M. and F. VAMVA-STAMATELATOU, 2006. Geografiko Lexico tis Ellados. Athens: Special edition for the newspaper ‘To Vima’. Athens: Ermis. TERRELL, J.E., 1999. Comment on Paul Rainbird, ‘Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology’. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(2):240–245. TLG. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. A Digital Library of Greek Literature. University of California. URL (accessed April 2009): http://www.tlg.uci.edu/ TSOUNTAS, C., 1898. Kykladika I. Archaiologiki Ephemeris 16:137–212. TSOUNTAS, C., 1899. Kykladika II. Archaiologiki Ephemeris 17:73–134. VAN DOMMELEN, P., 1999. Islands in history. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(2):246–251. VASSILIKOU, D., 2006. Oi Anaskafes tis Archaiologikis Etaireias stis Kyklades 1872–1910, Vivliothiki tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Etaireias 242. Athens: Archaiologiki Etaireia. VLACHOPOULOS, A.G. (ed.), 2005. Archaiologia. Nisia tou Aigaiou. Athens: Melissa.

SUBMISSION DATA

Received 20 February 2008; accepted 16 January 2009; revised 22 January 2009

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 196 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3)

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Katerina Kopaka is Associate Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete, where she has taught since 1985. Her research interests cover mainly Aegean Bronze Age. She has published, in Greek, French and English, archaeological material focusing, mainly, on the following themes: spatial organization and house inner architecture; ancient wine and oil tech- nologies; everyday life, domestic activities and gender studies; island cultures and research on Gavdos; history of Cretan archaeological research (nineteenth to early twentieth centuries).

Address: Department of History and Archaeology, University of Crete, Gallos Campus, Rethymno, Crete, 71100 Greece [email: [email protected]]

ABSTRACTS Qu’est-ce qu’une île? Concepts, significations et polysémies des mondes insulaires à travers les sources grecques Katerina Kopaka Cet article suggère une exploration alternative des mondes insulaires, à travers la lecture systé- matique des anciens témoignages littéraires grecs, et l’étude systématique d’une terminologie plus diachronique qui les concerne – et porte, par exemple, sur les noms des îles, et leurs etymologies, les adjectifs employés pour les désigner et sur d’autres données analogues. Tous fondés sur un très long savoir humain, ces renseignements ont de la valeur scientifique – aussi bien pour l’enquête archéologique. Une fois attentivement compilés et analysés, ils nous trans- mettent de nombreuses «concepts, significations et polysémies» concernant les îles; et sont sus- ceptibles de contribuer de façon décisive à nos efforts pour les concevoir en tant qu’entités géographiques naturelles et culturelles ‘totales’ – voire des ‘insularités’ – dans le temps. Un nombre restreint d’exemples cités dans ce texte concernent, dans l’état actuel de la recherche, seulement quelques traits physiques – morphologiques, géologiques, topographiques, environ- nementaux – des milieux insulaires, ne touchant que très brièvement à leurs paysages humains. Les exemples peuvent être multipliés, cependant, et couvrir d’autres domaines et révéler des caractéristiques variées, générales et spécifiques des îles, concernant leurs habitants, leurs monuments et leurs cultures.

Mots clés: Égée, îles, lectures archéologiques alternatives des îles, noms, proptiétés et paysages économiques des îles, sources grecques

(translation by the author)

Was ist eine Insel? Konzepte, Bedeutungen und Polysemien insulärer Topoi in griechischen Quellen Katerina Kopaka Dieser Artikel vertritt einen alternativen Weg der Untersuchung einer Reihe von Definitionen, Konzepten, Bedeutungen und manchmal auch Polysemien von Inselwelten anhand zumeist altgriechischer Literaturquellen, diachroner Inselnamen und ihrer Etymologien, Epitheta und anderer Systeme ihrer Benennungen und Beschreibungen. Es wird angeführt, dass solche Quellen auf wortgenaue wie auch metaphorische Weise bedeutende Parameter einer eloquenten kognitiven Geographie einbeziehen, widerspiegeln, abbilden und übersetzen, die aus einem über einen langen Zeitraum erzielten Wissen und empirischer Erkenntnis schöpften und auch noch heute für die moderne Wissenschaft – einschließlich der Archäologie – relevant sind. Systematisch untersucht und sorgfältig entziffert, kann dies zahlreiche bedeutende Elemente

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 197 unserer insulären Topoi enthüllen und damit maßgeblich unsere Bemühungen bereichern, sie als „totale“ natürliche und kulturelle Geographien – oder „Insularitäten“ – im Laufe der Zeit zu verstehen. Hier illustriert eine begrenzte Anzahl zitierter Beispiele einige, vor allem physische Aspekte ihrer morphologischen, geologischen, topographischen und Umweltmerkmale, wobei allerdings nur ansatzweise ihre anthropogen gestalteten Landschaften thematisiert werden. Gleichwohl können, auch wenn dies indirekt geschieht, die gewonnenen Informationen zudem für die kulturellen Umfelder der Inseln relevant sein. Weiterhin kann dieser Ansatz mit Sicherheit auf verschiedene andere generelle und spezifische insuläre Territorien nebst ihrer Bewohner und diachronen Monumente angewendet werden.

Schlüsselbegriffe: Ägäis, alternative archäologische Deutungen von Inseln, griechische Schriftquellen, Inseln, Inselnamen, Territorien und ökonomische Landschaften

(translation by Heiner Schwarzberg)

Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010