Indigenous Hellenisms/ Indigenous Modernities Classical Antiquity, Materiality, and Modern Greek Society

02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 19 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

chapter 2

...... INDIGENOUS HELLENISMS/ INDIGENOUS MODERNITIES CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY, MATERIALITY, AND MODERN GREEK SOCIETY ...... yannis hamilakis

What does it mean to live in a country that is at the same time symbolically at the centre of the western imagination and at the margins of the current geopolitical nexus? To be asked to carry the immense symbolic weight of the classical tradition, while being a modern, western European nation-state? To be subjected to constant surveillance on whether you have performed your duties as a worthy steward of the material classical past, and to various tests on whether you are a true descendant of Pericles or a ‘bastardized’ mix of Slavic and Ottoman cultures? To have to become the object of the patronizing epithet ‘Philhellenism’, as if you were a rare species in need of protection? To be the only country in the world that needs the preﬁx ‘modern’ in front of its name? To have to deal with both Orientalism, and its local and peculiar variant, Balkanism (Todorova 1997)? Welcome to Greece! 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 20 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

20 yannis hamilakis

If the other chapters in this section deal with the Hellenism in the western sense, in this chapter I will attempt to briefly highlight an alternative Hellenism, indigenous Hellenism (in its various forms) as performed by intellectuals and state bureaucrats, politicians and citizens, poets and ordinary people, in Greece since the nineteenth century. In other words, I will deal with the reception, management, and recasting of the classical heritage by those people who, as the Nobel laureate poet Giorgos Seferis put it in Mythistorima, ‘woke up with this marble head in [their] hands’,a marble head that exhausts their elbows but which they do not know where to put down (Keeley and Sherrard 1981: 88). The evocation of the marble head is not accidental: my brief survey will place particular emphasis on the materiality of classical antiquity, its agency, and its embodied engagement with humans, through its physical and sensory qualities. For people living in the southern end of the Balkan peninsula, classical antiquity was never purely an abstract entity, a concept that scholars and western travellers would evoke in their writings and travelogues. For them, it always was a material and physical presence, a visible and touchable reality, in the shape of ruined buildings, scattered objects, shattered fragments of pottery and stone; and in some cases, and more poignantly, in the shape of human bodies, either skeletons emerging out of the ground while ploughing the fields, or men and women made of marble or bronze, most naked, some with their heads or limbs missing, some complete, some so real and alive that you ‘could see their veins’, as Makrygiannis, the enigmatic nineteenth-century author and fighter of the Greek War of Independence put it (Vlahogiannis 1947: 63). For them, these were the feats of people who were there before them, different from themselves, other people, not their ancestors, but still admirable in their abilities to construct large and elaborate buildings and works of immense beauty (Hamilakis 2003). In folk stories from the nineteenth century, tales that reflect local attitudes before the ideas of nationhood became widespread, these people were the Hellenes, and their time was the ‘time of the Hellenes’, o Kairos ton Ellinon (Kakridis 1989). But in other stories, it becomes clear that this time is not conceived of in terms of a linear chronological sequence, that is as time past, linked genealogically to their own time. Some of these Hellenes are still alive, and they often engage with contemporary people in contestations of physical strength. Times past and times present, therefore, seemed to coexist in the folk imagination, prior to the establishment of western modernist temporality and its chronomet- ric devices. Moreover, in some of the descriptions of Hellenes in these stories, it becomes clear that the marble statues themselves are the Hellenes, not just the feats of past people. The statues had become entities with animate properties, human beings that even without heads could walk, and even without eyes (when marble statues were missing their painted eyes) could see. These stories, but also many other stories and practices involving antiquities (some recorded by travellers), such as those that attribute emotive reactions to ancient, especially anthropomorphic objects, and the practice of reusing ancient architectural parts and objects such 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 21 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 21 as reliefs and inscriptions in contemporary buildings, be it churches or houses (the tradition of spolia), often in places of prominence, such as the outer walls of churches or above the entrances of houses, speak of an intimate relation with the material past (Papalexandrou 2003). This is an alternative indigenous archaeology, involving practices of recovery, care, exhibition (in houses and churches and other places of worship, not museums), interpretation; an archaeology that also included ‘destruction’ (when using marbles as raw material to produce lime, for example), or rather reincorporation into the web of daily life; an archaeology based on a non- western conception of temporality and materiality, although the increasing number of western travellers to Greece who were seeking antiquities, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and the impact of western Hellenism through the work of local intellectuals, would have, no doubt, influenced and shaped this native archaeology. Yet, things were destined to change, as Greece was incorporated into the western European world-system. The nation-state of Greece was founded at the intersection of a number of historical contingencies. Since the mid-fifteenth century ce,the area we now call Greece was under the Ottoman Empire, composed of many ethnic and religious groups which were organized on the basis of the millet: the system whereby the basic form of identification was religion, not language, and certainly not any national or even ethnic self-identification. The Greek language, however, enjoyed a privileged position, partly because it was the language of the Bible, partly because it was the lingua franca for many administrators, but also because it was the language of the new social class which emerged in south-eastern Europe from the seventeenth century and whose economic base was trade and seafaring, rather than the land. In the Babel of languages, religions, and ethnic groups of the Balkans at the time, Greek provided a convenient medium of communication for the physically mobile and upward moving new social classes (Stoianovich 1960; Roudometof 1998). Christian Orthodox people belonged to the millet-i Rum,and progressively, Greek became the dominant means of communication amongst the members of the millet, who were called by others and were calling themselves Romioi. Interestingly, the term ‘Hellene’ still signified for most people the pagan classical tradition, and it was a term that especially the clergy was keen to eliminate. Certain evocations of the term ‘Hellene’ by Byzantine scholars (e.g. in the twelfth century) contained some elements of contemporary ethnic identification, but it never acquired widespread currency, it ‘never really “caught” on’ (Beaton 2007: 93). The Hellenes were destined to become ancestors in the decades prior to the Greek War of Independence, through the concentrated effort of the Greek-speaking merchants and scholars who were educated in the West or were involved in trade and financial transactions with western countries, and of western Hellenists and travellers, combined with the political desires of European powers to expand their zone of influence into the territories of the Ottoman Empire. The Greek speaking merchant-intellectuals (and the roles were often combined, as for example 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 22 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

22 yannis hamilakis

in Adamandios Koraïs, the most prominent intellectual of what would come to be called the Greek Enlightenment: Dimaras 1977;Jeffreys 1985;Clogg2003) came into contact with western Hellenism and started identifying themselves as Hellenes, the direct descendants of ancient Greeks, so admired by the western intellectual and political elites. These Greeks imported into the area of present- day Greece, together with trade goods and financial capital, the symbolic capital of Hellenism, and dreamed of the new imagined community of the Hellenic Nation as the resurrected Hellas of classical times. In translating ancient Greek authors, in naming their merchant ships with ancient Greek names, in training teachers who would teach pupils their true destiny, and in baptizing children with ancient Greek names (Politis 1993), they forged a future for the area: a future of a national state, a community based on ethnic self-identification and on ancestral glory, a homogenized national community, in place of the multi-ethnic and multilingual communities structured around religious faith. The fighters of the War of Independence now started calling themselves Hellenes, rather than Romioi. While prior to the foundation of the nation-state the Hellenic homeland was imagined in diverse ways, with some focusing on Herderian biological and cultural allegiance and continuity with ancient Greece, and some on a Rousseauian, more inclusive self-ascription and self-definition, a republic that would include various ethnic groups and religions (as, for example, in the declaration of an unrealized ‘Hellenic Republic’ by Rigas Velestinlis, a canonized national hero, published in Vienna in 1797;Beaton2007: 82)—it was the first version that would dominate in the period from the nineteenth century to the present. While early national intellectuals would often evoke ancient Athenian democracy and its ideals, the new state, apart fromabriefinterludeofafewyears,wouldbecomeakingdom,withaBavarian king, Otto I, imposed upon it by western European powers. He would bring with him an entourage of Bavarian diplomats and intellectuals who would establish the modernist structures of the new state, from a legal framework, to education, and, interestingly for the present discussion, structures for the management of the material classical past: the first university professor of archaeology was Ludwig Ross, the first archaeological legislation was drafted by a member of the regency, Georg Ludwig von Maurer (Petrakos 1982, 1987), and the person who came up with the idea of transforming the Athenian Acropolis from a military fortress into an archaeological site and monument was Leo von Klenze, the Bavarian architect who was responsible for many neoclassical buildings in Munich (Papageorgiou- Venetas 2001). The material manifestations of classical antiquity were, even before the War of Independence, at the centre of attention for national intellectuals, and measures to declare them national property and subject them to the jurisdiction of and protection by the state were taken while the war was still raging (Hamilakis 2007). Liter- ary and historical references may have provided the initial impetus that attracted 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 23 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 23 westerners to Greece, and may have formed the basis of the symbolic capital upon which the nation-state was founded, but it was the material traces of that classical heritage that would prove crucial. These material remnants of the ‘golden age’ provided a direct, physical, visible, and touchable proof of continuity between past and present, they linked contemporary people with the earth and territory. It is no coincidence that in the first years of the state the material objects that received most attention were stone inscriptions from classical times (Voutsaki 2003). The Greek language, a form of which was still spoken by many, was of course seen as a direct link with the classical past, but stone inscriptions acquired such importance because they combined the symbolic power of the language with the physicality of the medium, a medium that could be seen and touched, and one which evoked per- manence and eternity; put in another way, they were the sacred words of illustrious ancestors, cast in stone. So classical antiquity, especially through its material manifestations, became a sacred entity. This was a process of sacralization that was the result of many and diverse factors: western travellers and intellectuals often evoked the sacredness of classical antiquity; national fighters, intellectuals, and politicians likewise would call classical antiquities sacred, partly as a result of this western discourse, and partly as a result of antiquities’ national role; after all, national imagination often acquires sacred connotations and properties, and various national projects with their emphasis on sacrifice, destiny, and eternity, rework and reshape pre- existing religious beliefs and ideas (Anderson 1991: 10–12;vanderVeerand Lehmann 1999; see Hamilakis 2007: 84–5, and Hamilakis 1999 for more references). In the Greek case, an additional factor was the role of Greek Orthodoxy in the national process. While originally against the War of Independence and the ideas of national liberation, the Church in Greece, after acquiring auto- cephaly in 1833 (signifying its autonomy from the Patriarchate of Istanbul), was incorporated into the national project, thus helping to fuse the ideas of national imagination with the ideas of Greek Orthodoxy through a complex process of religious syncretism (Kitromilides 1989, Matalas 2002): the ‘resurrection’ fol- lowed the ‘fall’, both in Christian and in national doctrine. Folklorists (specialists of Laographia, a field of study which, together with archaeology and national history, helped create the intellectual and material foundations of the Greek national imagination; Herzfeld 1982;Kyriakidou-Nestoros1978; Politis 1993)would engage in attempts to find ‘survivals’ of ancient tradition in the lives and lore of pure folk, and to establish links between ancient ritual practices and cult localities, and modern religious rites and places of worship, so bypassing the fundamental differences between ancient religion and modern Greek Orthodoxy (Stewart 1994). Archaeology was one of the first institutions of western modernity to be firmly established. Once it was, it did not simply manage a pre-existing archaeological past, it created one, the national archaeological record as the materialization of 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 24 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

24 yannis hamilakis

national imagination based on classical antiquity. This process of creation involved a series of practices: practices of demolition, which I prefer to call practices of ritual purification: the removal of all the matter that was deemed out of place, such as all the non-classical buildings of the Athenian Acropolis, for example, a process that was initiated by Leon von Klenze and continued by several Greek archaeologists (Mallouhou-Tufano 1998; Hamilakis 2001, 2007); practices of rebuilding and re- creation, by attempting to reconstruct a number of classical buildings, especially temples, and restore them to their supposed original state in the fifth century bce; practices of demarcation, by fencing-off sites and thereby divorcing them from the fabric of daily life; and practices of exhibition, by framing buildings and objects as exhibits to be admired primarily through vision, in specially assigned monumental sites and in museums. The most sacred icon of the secular religion of the nation, the Athenian Acropolis, was transformed into a monumentalized landscape, a landscape of oblivion, a locale where re-created classical glory obliterated all other phases of its life, be it medieval, Ottoman, or other. The emphasis in the first decades of the state was primarily on classical antiquity, very narrowly defined (the Athenian fifth century), whereas other phases were seen as belonging to the dark stages of conquest and barbarity, starting with the ancient Macedonians and continuing with the Romans, and even the Byzantines, whose theocratic state was seen as against the democratic ideals of classical antiquity, and as responsible for the death of classical civilization (cf. papers in Ricks and Magdalino 1998). This sacralization of both the national project and of the national material classical past, however, had significant social-political effects, and not only in the way material antiquities were treated: most importantly, the new nation became a nation apart, an entity out of time, not an outcome of social, economic, and political contingencies that were under way in many parts of Europe at the time, but rather a resurrection of an ahistorical entity, Hellas, which was awaking from its centuries-long sleep (Skopetea 1988). Social critique and political struggles, present throughout, were thus masked and neutralized within this discourse of national sacralization. By the first decades of the nineteenth century, therefore, the classical past had been transformed from an otherness into selfhood, and was placed at the centre of the national psyche. The awe and admiration felt by many ordinary people towards material antiquities had been now transformed into ancestor worship. But it was a transformation that was less radical than it seems. While the modernist national discourse brought about a fundamental change by establishing a genealog- ical link between classical Hellenes and contemporary Greeks, and by instituting new ways of managing and exhibiting the material past, pre-modern attitudes towards antiquities were incorporated into this new framework: ancient classical things would still maintain their agency and power, not simply as national objects but as fellow national subjects, and, as before the establishment of the nation-state, they would be invested with emotive properties and human feelings. The example 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 25 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 25 of the caryatids from the Erechtheion on the Acropolis is a case in point: these statues are often described as mourning for the ‘abduction’ of their sister by Lord Elgin, an official and popular discursive topos that is still alive and evocatively powerful, more than 200 years later (cf. Hamilakis 2007 for examples). Thus, since the nineteenth century, many or most people in Greece view classical heritage with a sense of dual responsibility: a responsibility towards ancient Greeks to prove worthy of them (implicit comparisons with ancient Greece abound in the media), and a responsibility towards western Europeans to prove worthy managers and true descendants of ancient Greeks, an aspiration that western Europe often treated with ambivalence. Modern Greece was thus founded at the intersection of the two powerful processes of western modernity, colonialism and nationalism, as a peculiar inheri- tor of the classical heritage. This was not simply an ideological colonization, that is, the imposition upon that part of the Ottoman Empire of the ideas of the nation, and of the idealization of the classical heritage, as the ideological cornerstone of the western imagination. It was also a material and political colonization, as evidenced in the imposition upon Greece of political leaders, of institutions, of legal frameworks, of modernist European apparatuses. Material classical antiquities were at the centre of this process, not simply as the objects of desire that brought western travellers to Greece in the first place (the hold that things have on people, which is at the basis of colonialism; cf. Gosden 2004), but also as the physical and material truths, the facts on the ground for the national imagination, the landmarks in the topographic dream of the nation (Gourgouris 1996;Leontis1995). Classical ruins and the nation were involved in a process of mutual constitution: they helped shape the nation but at the same time they were shaped by it, becoming a purified and re-created national material record through the modernist device of archaeology, which has now replaced local, indigenous archaeologies. But this ongoing process was and still is one of hybrid modernity, whereby objects and artefacts are not simply the inanimate entities that prove the truth of the nation, but animate and emotive beings, members of the national body, often in pain, as the exiled and imprisoned Parthenon marbles in the British Museum (Hamilakis 1999,and2007: ch. 7). As was shown above, this process of hybridity characterized the whole Greek national project, not simply the attitudes towards antiquities. In Greece, therefore, and contrary to the statements of some commentators (e.g. Anderson 1991), nationalism did not replace pre-existing cultural systems, but it was grafted onto them. If western Hellenism was crucial in shaping the modern Hellenic nation at the end of the eighteenth and during the first decades of the nineteenth century, it was indigenous Hellenism that triumphed from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards. The impetus for the radical transformation and reshaping of the national narrative was given by the Austrian scholar and diplomat Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who in 1830 claimed that there was no genetic or cultural allegiance 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 26 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

26 yannis hamilakis

between ancient and modern Greeks, whom he saw as more linked to the Slavic populations that had occupied Greece in the Middle Ages (Thurnher 1993;and Veloudis 1982,Skopetea1997 on the reception of his work in Greece). His claim, the target of which was German classicists more than modern Greeks (Skopetea 1997: 17), caused a stir in Greece and engaged national intellectuals in a ferocious battle. Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, who would become known as the national historian par excellence (Dimaras 1986; Kitromilides 1998), was at the forefront of this battle. In a series of publications, and mainly in his monumental History of the Hellenic Nation (published between 1860 and 1874), he would respond by emphasizing the cultural, not the biological, ties with ancient Greeks, focusing on what he saw as the ability of indigenous Hellenism (Ellinismos) to absorb and transform foreign elements. A by-product of the Fallmerayer affairwastheinventionofaschemethat bridged the chronological gap between classical and modern Greeks, by inventing multiple Hellenisms: in addition to the ancient, there were Macedonian, medieval, and modern Hellenisms. In this way, the ancient Macedonians and Byzantines, seen until recently by Greek intellectuals as arch-enemies of Hellenism, became an integral part of the national narrative and continuity. This change helped fuse further classical antiquity and Orthodox Christianity through Byzantium, a fusion that would be expressed in 1852 with the term ellinohristianikos proposed by S. Zambelios, another key protagonist in this bridging project. National narrative is thus emancipated, producing a home-made synthesis which dominates to the present day. It will have been obvious that a key factor in the bridging process described above was the appropriation and modification of Droysen’s Geschichte des Hellenismus (Sigalas 2001; Koumbourlis 1998), which was translated into Greek in 1897,under the influence of Paparrigopoulos, and with the revealing title: History of Macedonian Hellenism (Sigalas 2001: 32). Droysen offered to Greek national intellectuals of the mid-nineteenth century not simply the opportunity to rehabilitate ancient Mace- donian Hellenism, but much more: the idealization of an expansionist imperialist regime, at a time when Greece was under the irredentist dream of the ‘Great Idea’; the adoption of a concept of spiritual (Hegelian) rather than racial continuity; a multitude of essentially similar Hellenisms; and last but not least, the belief in the absorbing power of Hellenism, its civilizing mission, and ability to culturally transform and incorporate other cultural influences. Since then, this indigenous Hellenism, ellinismos, would be closely associated with exellinismos,theHelleniza- tion, through language and culture, of all ‘foreign’ elements. Since the mid-nineteenth century this reshaped national narrative underwent various modifications and reworkings: for example, the Mycenaean material past, which achieved prominence in the late nineteenth century, added historical depth to ancient Hellenism, especially when in the 1950s the deciphered Linear B script proved to be an early form of Greek; or, in the 1970s, the discoveries at Vergina in Greek Macedonia by Manolis Andronikos led to the further valorization of the 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 27 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 27 ancient Macedonian past and the glorification of its materiality (Hamilakis 2007: ch. 4). But the basic outlines of the national narrative remained more or less stable. Cultural continuity with the ancient Hellenic past was never seriously challenged, even by the ‘others’ of the nation, such as the persecuted leftists and communists of the pre-war and post-war years (Hamilakis 2007:chs.5 and 6). The absorbing power of indigenous Hellenism was put into practice in the forceful Helleniza- tion of ethnic minorities, especially in Greek Macedonia, following the resettle- ment there of Asia Minor refugees after 1922 (Danforth 1995; Karakasidou 1997; Kostopoulos 2002; papers in Mackridge and Yannakakis 1997). The symbolic capital of classical antiquity would often operate as an authoritative resource in legiti- mating authority and political roles, mostly by autocratic regimes and govern- ments, but it would also serve anti-authoritarian agendas of subordinate groups. The supreme moral authority of classical antiquity often acquired the surveillance properties of panopticism: ‘Your ancestors are watching you’, politicians and intellectuals would declare, especially to dissidents. It is thus tempting to see the most important material signifier of this moral authority, the Athenian Acropolis, as the tower of the all-seeing but unseen guard in this panoptic scheme (Doxiadis 1995; Hamilakis 2007:ch.6). At certain historical moments, some groups would project an alternative version of this indigenous Hellenism, as for example in the leftist discourse of Romiosyni (most famously championed by the poet Yannis Ritsos and the composer Mikis Theodorakis; cf. Leontis 1995), an anti-western discourse aimed at critiquing the right-wing deployment of indigenous Hellenism. But more often than not these challenges were and are taking place inside the parameters of the national discourse rather than outside it, and dissidents would often critique the management and mismanagement of the symbolic capital of classical antiquity rather than its basic premises (Hamilakis 2007). Modern Greek society continues to deploy the ancient Greek past in many and diverse ways, from staging modern performances of ancient dramas to disseminating widely translations of ancient Greek authors—which are often given away with newspapers—to finding inspiration for jewellery design, and discovering what is thought to be ancient Greek culinary delights (as in the chain of restaurants called ‘Tastes of the Ancients’). Other, more peripheral readings of indigenous Hellenism either come close to the original Droysenian meaning (cf. Canfora in this volume), as for example when it is used to describe diasporic Greeks (called Apodimos Ellinismos), or when they take a neo-pagan character and call for the worshipping of Olympian gods. At the same time, Greek society continues to grapple with the tensions, paradoxes, ambiguities, and ironies arising from this relationship, as for example in the fact that classical heritage functions as both national and ‘global’ (i.e. western) heritage, or the fact that its material objects will have to continue being both sacralized and commodified: continue being the sacred relics of ancestors while at the same time being employed as commodities in the global cultural economy, from archaeo-tourism to advertising. As for the colonial 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 28 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

28 yannis hamilakis

undertones of the relationship between Greece and classical heritage, they remain largely unacknowledged, turning Greece into a crypto-colony (Herzfeld 2002). The narrative of continuity is still going strong and finds support both on the Right and on the Left, as recent debates have shown (e.g. Beaton 2007; Hamilakis 2007). Several voices, however, working primarily within a post-colonial framework, and coming largely from the intellectual diaspora, have attempted to redefine the Neo-hellenic, focusing more on its hybridity and ambivalence (Tziovas 2001;cf. Lambropoulos 2001). At the same time, Greece, due to recent immigration from the Balkans, Asia, and Africa, is fast becoming again a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural country. Is this diversity and plurality going to challenge the official national discourse on Hellenism? It remains to be seen. In any case, I hope to have shown that contemporary Greece offers a unique and fascinating case in studying a diverse range of important topics such as: the various local configura- tions of Hellenism; a peculiar form of colonization; the fates of western modernity in the periphery and its reshaping into alternative modernities which often include the pre-modern; and the multifaceted entanglement of materiality with national imagination.

Suggested Reading

On the broader issues of the role of the ancient past in Greek society, see the papers in aa. vv. (2004); on the ‘Minoan’ past, Hamilakis and Momigliano (2006) and on the Aegean prehistoric past, Darcque, Fotiadis, and Polychronopoulou (2006). On the role of the past in general, Brown and Hamilakis (2003). On the creation of the monumental landscape of the Athenian Acropolis and of Athens more broadly, see, in addition to Mallouhou- Tufano (1998), Tournikiotis (1994), Bastéa (2000), and Beard (2002). On anthropological discussions of classical heritage in Greece, see Herzfeld (1982)and(1987), and in relation to the Athenian Acropolis in particular, Kaphtantzoglou (2001) and Yalouri (2001). On literary discussions of Hellenism, especially from a post-colonial perspective, see Leontis (1995), Gourgouris (1996), and Calotychos (2003).

References

aa.vv. 2004. Oi chr¯eseis t¯es archaiot¯etas apo to neo ellinismo. Athens. Anderson,B.1991. Imagined Communities: Reﬂections on the Origins and Spread of Nation- alism.Rev.edn.London. Bastéa,E.2000. The Creation of Modern Athens: Planning the Myth.Cambridge. Beard,M.2002. The Parthenon.London. Beaton,R.2007. ‘Antique Nation? “Hellenes” on the Eve of Greek Independence and in Twelfth-century Byzantium.’ Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 31: 76–95. 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 29 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 29

Brown,K.S.andHamilakis,Y.eds.2003. The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories.Oxford. Calotychos,V.2003. Modern Greece: A Cultural Poetics.Oxford. Clogg,R.2003. ‘The Classics and the Movement for Greek Independence.’ In The Impact of Classical Greece on European and National Identities. 25–46. M. Haagsma, P. de Boer, and E. M. Moormann eds. Amsterdam. Danforth,L.1995. The Macedonian Conﬂict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton. Darcque, P., Fotiadis,M.,andPolychronopoulou,O.eds.2006. Mythos. La Préhistoire égéenne du XIXe au XXIe siècle après J.-C. (Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique. Supplé- ment, 46.) Paris. Dimaras,K.Th.1977. Neoell¯enikos diaphotismos¯ .Athens. 1986.Athens.Konstantinos¯ Paparr¯egopoulos: ¯eepoch¯etou,¯ezo¯¯e tou, to ergo tou.Athens. Doxiadis,K.1995.‘Giaten¯ ideologia tou ethnikismou.’ In Ethnos, Kratos, Ethnikismos. 41– 52.Athens. Gosden,C.2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. Cambridge. Gourgouris,S.1996. Dream Nation: Enlightenment, Colonization and the Institution of Modern Greece.Stanford. Hamilakis,Y.1999. ‘Stories from Exile: Fragments from the Cultural Biography of the Parthenon (or “Elgin”) Marbles.’ World Archaeology, 31: 303–20. 2001. ‘Monumental Visions: Bonﬁls, Classical Antiquity, and Nineteenth-Century Athenian Society.’ HistoryofPhotography, 25: 5–12. 2003. ‘Lives in Ruins: Antiquities and National Imagination in Greece.’ In The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. 51–78.S.Kaneed.Boston. 2007. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece.Oxford. and Momigliano N. eds. 2006. Archaeology and European Modernity: Producing and Consuming the ‘Minoans’.Padua. and Yalouri,E.1999. ‘Sacralising the Past: The Cults of Archaeology in Modern Greece.’ Archaeological Dialogues, 6: 115–35. Herzfeld,M.1982. Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin, Tex. 1987. Anthropology through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe.Cambridge. 2002. ‘The Absent Presence: Discourses of Crypto-Colonialism.’ South Atlantic Quar- terly, 101: 889–926. Jeffreys,M.1985. ‘Adamantios Koraïs: Language and Revolution.’ In Culture and National- ism in Nineteenth-Century Eastern Europe. 42–55. R. Sussex and J. C. Eade eds. Columbus, Ohio. Kakridis,I.Th.1989. Oi archaioi Ell¯enes st¯eneoell¯enik¯elaik¯e parados¯e. 3rd edn. Athens. Karakasidou,A.1997. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia, 1870–1990. Chicago. Kautantzoglou,R.2001. St¯e skia tou Ierou Vrachou: topos kai mn¯em¯estaAnaphiotika¯ . Athens. Keeley,E.andSherrard,P.eds.1981. Voices of Modern Greece: Selected Poems.Princeton. Kostopoulos,T.2002. Eapagoreumen¯ ¯eglossa:¯ kratik¯e katastol¯eton¯ Slavikon¯ dialekton¯ st¯en Ell¯enik¯e Makedonia.Athens. 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 30 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

30 yannis hamilakis

Kitromilides,P.1989. ‘ “Imagined Communities” and the Origin of the National Question in the Balkans.’ European History Quarterly, 19: 149–94. 1998. ‘On the Intellectual Content of Greek Nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the Great Idea.’ In Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity. 25–33.D.Ricksand P. Magdalino eds. Aldershot. Koumbourlis,I.1998 ‘Ennoiologikes polysemies¯ kai politiko protagma: ena paradeigma apo ton K. Paparregopoulo.’¯ Ta Istor ika, 28/9: 30–58. Kyriakidou-Nestoros,A.1978. E¯ theoria t¯es Ell¯enik¯es laographias: kritik¯eanalys¯e. Athens. Lambropoulos,V.2001. ‘Syncretism as Mixture and as Method.’ Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 19: 221–35. Leontis,A.1995. Topographies of Hellenism: Mapping the Homeland.Ithaca,NY. Mackridge,P.andYannakakis,E.eds.1997. Ourselves and Others: The Development of a Greek Macedonian Cultural Identity Since 1912.Oxford. Mallouhou-Tufano,F.1998. EAnast¯ ¯elos¯ ¯eton¯ archaion¯ mn¯emeion¯ st¯en Ellada (1834–1939). Athens. Matalas,P.2002. Ethnos kai orthodoxia: oi peripeteies mias sches¯es, apo to ‘elladiko’ sto voulgariko schisma.Irakleion. Papageorgiou-Venetas,A.2001. Athens: A Vision of Classicism.Trans.I.Fatsea.Athens. (Originally published as Hauptstadt Athen: Ein Stadtgedanke des Klassizismus,Munich, 1994.) Papalexandrou,A.2003. ‘Memory Tattered and Torn: Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine Hellenism.’ In Archaeologies of Memory. 56–80.R.M.vanDykeandS.E.Alcockeds. Oxford. Petrakos,V.1982. Dokimio gia t¯en archaiologik¯e nomothesia.Athens. 1987.‘IdeographiatisenAthenais¯ Arhaiologikeis¯ Etaireias.’ Archaiologik¯eEph¯emeris: 25–197. Politis,A.1993. Romantika chronia: ideologies kai nootropies st¯en Ellada tou 1830–1880. Athens. Ricks,D.andMagdalino,P.eds.1998. Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity. Alder- shot. Roudometof,V.1998. ‘From Millet to the Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society 1453–1821.’ Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16: 11–48. Sigalas,N.2001.‘Ellenismos¯ kai exellenismos:¯ o schematismos¯ tes¯ neo-ellenik¯ es¯ ennoias ellenismos.’¯ Ta Istor ika, 34: 3–70. Skopetea,E.1988. To ‘protypo vasileio’ kai ¯emegal¯e idea: opseis tou ethnikou provl¯ematos st¯en Ellada (1830–1880).Athens. 1997. Phalmerayer: technasmata tou antipalou deous.Athens. Stewart,C.1994. ‘Syncretism as a Dimension of Nationalist Discourse in Modern Greece.’ In Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis. 127–44.C.Stewartand R. Shaw eds. London. Stoianovich,T.1960. ‘The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant.’ Journal of Economic History, 20: 234–313. Thurnher,E.ed.1993. Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer: Wissenschaftler, Politiker, Schriftsteller. Innsbruck. Todorova,M.1997. Imagining the Balkans.NewYork. Tournikiotis,P.ed.1994. The Parthenon and its Impact in Modern Times.Athens. 02-Boys-Stones-c02 9780199286140–Boys (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 31 of 31 April 6, 2009 10:30

indigenous hellenisms/indigenous modernities 31

Tziovas,D.2001. ‘Beyond the Acropolis: Rethinking Neohellenism.’ Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 19: 189–220. van der Veer,P.andLehmann,H.eds.1999. Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe and Asia.Princeton. Veloudis,G.1982. O Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer kai ¯egenes¯e tou Ell¯enikou istorismou.Athens. Vlahogiannis,G.1947. Apomn¯emoneumata/Keimenon Eisagog¯eS¯emeioseis¯ Gianne Vla- chogianne. Vol. 2. 2nd edn. Athens. Voutsaki,S.2003. ‘Archaeology and the Construction of the Past in Nineteenth Century Greece.’ In Constructions of Greek Past: Identity and Historical Consciousness from Antiq- uity to the Present. 231–55.H.Hokwerdaed.Groningen. Yalouri,E.2001. The Acropolis: Global Fame, Local Claim.Oxford.