Accessed 4 Aug :52 GMT

Transcription

1 B t n V n nd t nb l: l n l L nd p n rl d rn r d. b r l D v, J L. D v (r v t r l J rn l f d rn r t d, V l 2, N b r, 20 4, pp. 204 (R v P bl h d b J hn H p n n v r t Pr D : F r dd t n l nf r t n b t th rt l http :.jh. d rt l 08 Accessed 4 Aug :52 GMT

2 Book Reviews 199 displacement. Yet contemporary Greek cinema registers the plight of the immigrant other the Albanian, Bulgarian, or African what Gramsci and Said emphasized as the infinity of traces, the mirroring of Greek history in the displacement of the Other. Calotychos closes his book by stressing the point that immigrants presence in the Greek economy and society, their marginal economy and cultural status, has in fact a transformative effect in opening Greek society to progressive change. Precisely because the sense of solidarity dominates the character of the marginalized immigrant, an immigrant challenges Greek exceptionalism and demonstrates the opulence of social solidarity in contrast to the rootless competition and exclusion of neoliberal ideology, which is bringing Greece to its knees. If I am to situate Calotychos s work, I would have to say that he clearly belongs to a group of scholars, both established and emerging, including Stathis Gourgouris, Gregory Jusdanis, Maria Koundoura, and Marinos Pourgouris, among others, who can be credited for expanding the parameters of Modern Greek Studies. But unlike Gourgouris, who remains within the paradigm of a nation, Calotychos, along with Koundoura and Pourgouris, moves away from this and into the paradigm of transnationality. This is not a shortcoming but an important intellectual step forward, responsive to the new discursive landscape created by postcolonial studies, cultural studies, and psychoanalysis, which treats academic discourse not as a mechanism for producing a national canon, but as a zone of discursive de-colonization. Given the current social situation in Greece and the Balkans, the destructive consequences of globalization and neoliberal ideology, sooner or later Hellenic studies will have to face the growing gap between social reality and the Greek cultural canon, and at that point Calotychos s work and the work of this group will emerge as the dominant one. Dušan I. Bjelić University of Southern Maine REFERENCES CITED Edwards, John C Ethics without Philosophy: Wittgenstein and the Moral Life. Tampa: University Presses of Florida. Siriol Davies and Jack L. Davis, editors. Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in Early Modern Greece (Hesperia Supplement 40). Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Pp. xi color, 42 b/w illustrations, 2 maps. Paperback $75. The Greek countryside is speckled with grand monuments testifying to the robust activities of two colonizing forces emanating from Venice and Istanbul. In spite of their

3 200 Book Reviews creators, these landmarks have been embraced by the popular imagination as Greek and have aided the conversion of historical time into experiential space (Mackridge 1992). Some of Modern Greece s greatest declarations of national pride have been uttered, for instance, from the walls of Venetian Nauplion or the towers of Ottoman Thessaloniki. The nation state has conveniently glossed over the colonial origins of the Modern Greek countryside by collapsing all its manifestations into a narrative of Greek resilience. The anachronistic subsuming of colonialist pasts into nationalist resistance conceals the instrumental role played by Venice and Istanbul in structuring the nation s lived spaces and aesthetic experiences. The archaeology of the early modern period thus aspires to revise myths constructed by early text historians and uncouple the discipline of archaeology from its presumed ancient (archaeo) subject. After all, Greek archaeology seeks the lustrous visualization of distant pasts, the heroic places of Homer, Plato, and Alexander, rather than the traumas of recent history. Between Venice and Istanbul fills an important scholarly lacuna in the early modern period, which in spite of its temporal proximity to the present remains a dark age in many respects. Did Greece experience a climatic catastrophe, known as the little ice age? How and why were the late medieval settlements abandoned, while new villages were founded? By what agency did such fundamental shifts occur in the Greek landscape? Between Venice and Istanbul tackles questions of colonial agency, strategies and tactics, imagined communities, subaltern subjects, hegemony, and resistance. All contributors directly engage primary sources and methodological hurdles; by a shared commitment to empiricist problem solving, they shun solipsistic theorizing. Early modern material culture became the subject of official investigation rather late in Greek scholarship through Georgios Lampakis s Christian Archaeological Society in 1884 and Nikolaos Politis s Folklore Society in Although pioneering for their time, the archaeology of the former and the ethnology of the latter were burdened by a central over-arching agenda: to prove ethnic continuity. The concern over Greekness, we must remember, arose from the combative arena of Western European scholarship that used cultural Hellenism to justify domination over the spoils of a deteriorating Ottoman Empire. Nationalism and colonialism even crypto-colonialism represent two sides of a single academic coin. An abundance of surviving textual sources from 1500 to 1800 differentiates these three centuries from earlier and later ones. The mechanisms of colonial bureaucracy that dominated Greece produced a plethora of administrative records. Despite the availability of textual sources, this period has slipped through the cracks of two adjacent great epochs. Turkish historiography, on the one hand, has weighed its attention on the era of Ottoman conquest and expansion the fifteenth century rather than the fragmentation and ultimate collapse of the late empire. Greek historiography, on the other hand, has placed its attention on the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where seeds of revolution and ethno-genesis are evident. The seventeenth century falls between the two national scholarly traditions. Ironically, we know more about Periclean than pre-revolutionary Athens. This is a serious problem, since the seventeenth century is the critical hinge of economic, demographic, cultural, and environmental transition into modernity. One naturally asks, what makes the contributors of this volume immune to the traditional blind spots of historiography? The answer is simple. Two thirds of the authors are archaeologists, while the remaining third are historians who have

4 Book Reviews 201 collaborated with archaeologists. Collectively, the authors represent the maturity of a discipline, the archaeological regional survey that was born in the 1970s. The field of landscape archaeology, a distinctly Anglo-American positivist discipline, has escaped the attention of textual historians. This volume marks the watershed moment when landscape archaeology fulfilled its promise of changing the mainstream historical narrative through its unique readings of material culture. Between Venice and Istanbul was conceived in 2003 at the Cincinnati Workshop. The collaboration, thus, belongs to the wider intellectual bridge that co-editor Jack L. Davis has built among scholars in the U.S., Greece, the U.K., the Netherlands, Turkey, and Italy and among various disciplines. The Cincinnati Workshop grew out of the diachronic and interdisciplinary questions that Davis encountered as the director of the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) in the 1990s. While solving problems over the Bronze Age, PRAP tackled the lacunae of later centuries, as well. Cincinnati, with the assisstance of co-editor Siriol Davies, became an epicenter of Ottoman archaeology. Between Venice and Istanbul must be read in the company of a growing list of Cincinnati scholarly conversations (Bennet et al. 2000; Davies 2004; Davis 1998; Davis et al. 2005; Lee 2001; Zangger et al. 1997), as the volume distills the collective generational lessons from the major field projects in Greece, whose archaeological publications need to enter the mainstream of Modern Greek Studies.1 After two opening essays by the editors, the volume is organized into four triads of essays that address four methodological and conceptual issues. Part I introduces the variety of source material that the historian confronts. In his usual documentarian s fashion, Machiel Kiel presents data only he has been allowed to see in Istanbul and Ankara. Kiel has become somewhat of an archaeologist s hero, an infinitely generous collaborator in field projects on the Ottoman Balkans, although some scholars outside of archaeology have been critical of Kiel s pro-turkish ideological stance (which gives him access to the archives) or his translation skills (an unorthodox philological training). Aglaia Kasdagli brings the wisdom of 3,000 notarial documents from Naxos to address issues of inheritance, property, boundaries, and literacy, as well as to call for a collaborative centralized electronic database such as the one she has initiated in the Institute of Mediterranean Studies. Joanita Vroom, the world s expert on Ottoman pottery in Greece, summarizes current pottery research and shows how ceramics can help us write the history of private life; she makes plates and pipes speak. Part II turns the reader s attention to demographics. Alexis Malliaris analyzes the Venetian policy of settling immigrants into its newly acquired Peloponnesian territories during the twenty-eight years of its occupation; Hamish Forbes illustrates the fluidity of Greek surnames in the late Byzantine and early Modern periods, opening a critical window into the trustworthiness of colonial name lists. Michael Given compares census records to the archaeological record from two survey projects and concludes that the mountainous population was invisible to the colonizers. All three papers reveal the complexity of demographic documents, warning us against seeing them as objective reflections of fact. The visit of the census official and the tax collector belonged to the theater of domination (141) dramatized across a liquid landscape (112). In Part III, the contributors tackle direct comparisons in the management and exploitation of the productive landscape. Allaire B. Stallsmith looks at Cretan agricultural policy under the Venetians ( ) and the Ottomans ( ). Organized

5 202 Book Reviews under different structures of control, the two colonial regimes seem to have utilized similar strategies, such as regulating grain production. Local producers responded swiftly to calamitous changes in the global markets, such as the disruption of Cretan wine demand (with France s invention of the cork screw) or new oil demand. Timothy E. Gregory compares the Korinthia with Kythera, using the archaeological evidence from two projects he has directed (the Eastern Korinthia Survey and the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey). The differences are extreme, suggesting a regionalist model that illuminates not only Ottoman versus Venetian policies, but also rich versus poor agricultural ecologies. John Bennett, like Forbes and Given in the previous section, develops the notion of performative geometry based on Ottoman tax registers (defters) and Venetian maps. In both cases, the colonizer brought to the colonized a foreign system of organizing geographical information, while the colonizer depended entirely on the colonized to fill an abstract epiphenomenal map with concrete data. On-the-ground research from Messenia (PRAP) and from Kythera (Kythera Island Project) illustrates a cartographic dialectic where maps are abstract instruments of control that, ultimately, cannot exercise power beyond enshrining verbal notions of space indigenous to the local population. In Part IV, four scholars reflect on the state of scholarship and comment on the essays. Since none are explicitly trained in Venetian or Ottoman history, their choice may seem surprising to some readers (218). Nevertheless, all four are pioneering field directors, or collaborators to archaeological surveys. John L. Bintliff offers the most magisterial overview of Ottoman archaeology, although heavily dependent on the Boiotia Survey. It should be noted that Bintliff s textbook, published after this collection of essays, is the first survey of Greek archaeology to incorporate post-classical and early-modern material culture (2012). Björn Forsén, a Roman historian and director of the Asea Valley Survey, highlights the importance of two concepts, mobility and regionalism. Finally, Curtis Runnels and Priscilla Murray, a prehistorian and an ethnoarchaeologist who collaborated in the Southern Argolid Survey, remind us of the prejudices, the nationalism, and the simple-mindedness that dominated the field only twenty-five years ago. The dialogue between historians and archaeologists that began in the 1990s has borne the richest of intellectual fruits. The concluding essays underscore the fundamental contributions that survey archaeology has made, including theses that have not yet sufficiently penetrated into the mainstream historical narrative. The single most important discovery that survey archaeology has made is to model fairly accurately the continuous movement of settlements, thus shattering both romantic and nationalist notions of a static rural environment. Early medieval settlements were clearly dispersed, while late medieval settlements were nucleated. As in the case of Italy, where this process of incastellamento was most finely refined, the exact date or scale of this shift seems highly micro-regional. The Pax Ottomana offered an undeniable economic and demographic boom to be terminated by the mysterious seventeenth century that witnessed depopulation and abandonment. Fueled by an agricultural revolution and global capitalism, the Modern Greek village grew in new ecological niches during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The collapse of these systems during the half-century of 1880s-1930s caused steady rural depopulation, mass immigration, and urbanization.

6 Book Reviews 203 Between Venice and Istanbul is a momentous publication that raises the profile of archaeological history. It takes its cue from the last great conversation on Ottoman archaeology organized by Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll (1986), pushing the future to the next decade and the next century. Between Venice and Istanbul also matches the last great archaeological collection edited by Peter Lock and Guy Sanders (1996). Unfortunately, there is no standard archaeological history of medieval and post-medieval Greece to take the place of edited volumes, although Bintliff (2012) and an ongoing project by Gregory hope to change this. Finally, it seems no coincidence that Between Venice and Istanbul was published by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, which, in spite of its name, has grown into a premier institute of post-classical research in Greece. Between Venice and Istanbul marks an important institutional moment when Greece s foreign archaeological schools insert Modern Greece into their academic priorities. Many of the volume s contributors, moreover, have directed academic programming, field-training, and graduate studies in the direction of early modern material culture. Given the shortage of post-graduate programs in post-classical archaeology, Between Venice and Istanbul must be seen as a winning battle for Modern Greek Studies in the competitive arena of American, British, Greek, and Dutch area studies. Between Venice and Istanbul has only two shortcomings. In its regionalist attention to the colonial daughter, it has under-represented internal changes in the history of the colonial mothers. The Ottoman decline thesis, for instance, raises its ugly head on numerous occasions, but the authors never tackle it directly some reject it, while others seem to wholeheartedly embrace it (160). Similarly, the volume does not address Venice s own transition away from a medieval maritime model of power into the exploitation of its own hinterland (hence the villas of Andrea Palladio, etc.). The second shortcoming reflects the geographical imbalance towards the Greek south. There is a simple reason for this. Most of the archaeological regional surveys conducted by the foreign schools have concentrated on Central Greece, the Peloponnese, and the Aegean Islands. An invisible boundary runs through mainland Greece. By leaving Macedonia, Epirus, and Thrace out of the picture, the volume ignores the heartland of Ottoman power tilting towards Istanbul, as well as the geographical affinities between the Ionian north and Venice. Clearly, one cannot do everything, and this volume does more than enough. Kostis Kourelis Franklin & Marshall College NOTE 1 In addition to PRAP, the volume reflects research from the Aetolian Survey, the Asea Valley Survey, the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey, the Berbati-Limnes Survey, the Boeotia Project, the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey, the Kythera Island Project, the Laconia Survey, the Methana Survey Project, the Minnesota Messenia Expedition, the Morea

7 204 Book Reviews Project, the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, the Northern Keos Survey, the Sidney Cyprus Survey Project, the Southern Argolid Project, the Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey, the Vrokastro Regional Survey Project, and other minor studies. REFERENCES CITED Baram, Uzi and Lynda Carroll, editors 2000 A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground. New York: Springer. Bennet, John, Jack L. Davis, and Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000 Sir William Gell s Itinerary in the Pylia and Regional Landscape in the Morea in the Second Ottoman Period. Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part III. Hesperia 69: Bintliff, John L The Complete Archaeology of Greece: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Twentieth Century A.D. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Davies, Siriol 2004 Administration and Settlement in Venetian Navarino. Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part VI. Hesperia 73: Davis, Jack L. editor 1998 Sandy Pylos. An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Davis, Jack L., Siriol Davies, Fariba Zarinebaf, and John Bennett 2005 A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the Eighteenth Century. Hesperia Supplement 34. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Lee, Wayne 2001 Change and the Human Landscape in a Modern Greek Village in Messenia. Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part IV. Hesperia 70: Lock, Peter and Guy Sanders, editors 1996 The Archaeology of Medieval Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackridge, Peter 1992 The Textualiation of Place in Greek Fiction, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 2: Zangger, Eberhard, Michael E. Timpson, Sergei B. Yazvenko, Falko Kunhke, and Jost Knauss 1997 Landscape Evolution and Site Preservation: The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. Part II. Hesperia 66: