European Journal of Archaeology 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, mean- ings 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. European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 11(2–3): 179–197 Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications ISSN 1461–9571 DOI:10.1177/1461957109106373 Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 180 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11(2–3) . Northern Aegean Figures 1a (electronic elaboration by P. Stefaniki) Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at BROWN UNIVERSITY on April 2, 2010 KOPAKA:WHAT IS AN ISLAND? 181 . Southern Aegean Figures 1b (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 cen- tral 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 physi- cal, 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 inhabi- tants 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 adjec- tives 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.