Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

THE IMPACT OF CLASSICAL GREECE

ON EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL


IDENTITIES
PROCEEDINGS OF AN INTERNATIONAL
COLLOQUIUM, HELD AT THE
NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE AT ATHENS,
2 - 4 OCTOBER 2000

EDITED BY

MARGRlET HAAGSM A
PIM DEN BOER
ERIC M . MOORMANN

J.C. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER


AMSTERDAM 2003

DEQL06ICA.L ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY


ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE
Kostas Kotsakis

Thucydides. in the first paragraph of his famous History of rhr


PeIopmrtesian War describes his interest in the events of that war
in the follawf ng way: 'Far this was the greatest movement that had
ever a t i d the Hellenes, extending also to some of the Barbarians,
one might say even to a very large part of mankind".
Commentaries on Thucydiks generally seem to agree on the
exaggeration involved in the description of the sweeping
consequences of the event (e.g. Gsmme I945,89;Cktwright 1997,
10; Hornblower 1991, 6). From a slightly different point of view,
however, this particular phrase of Thucydides might well be
considered as revealing one aspect of his historical gaze to h e pass:
a narrative based on a sense of community, a histmy primarily
concerned with owselves. Thucydides's gaze turns towards those
things close, while by contrast, those things distant or alien m a i n
outside ~e historical narrative. History therefore kames - one
way or another - our history.
Compared to this ancient vision, archaeology, at least in its
contemporary, theonetical sense, seems to move in the complete
opposite direction. 'People without Histwy' was the description of
a large part of the cultural past of humankind (Wolf 19821, and
although many past cultures have k e n elevated to the status of
'ancestors' for many contempomy societies, especially in a
national Framework, archaeology still ultimately familiarizes us
with the idea that the unfamiliar other dms exist - even though
there might be no historical records or historical evidenoe in the
strict m s e . Fur the vast bulk of cultures and material remains that
are not c h a r a d z e d - one way or anoher- as 'ancesml' this lack
of connectedness with the present is a rule. In this respect
mhaeology in its global gerspective and w i d e nationalist
agendas represents, like anthropology, an approach to the cultural
and the temporally distant. And unlike history, it need not Ix our

56

KOSTAS KOTSAKIS

archaeology, nor contribute to the construction of a genealogy of


ancestors -at least in the sense reported by Thucydides. Ever since
New Archaeology assessed critically the relation of archaeology
with history, the link was never consi&red uncomplicated. Indeed,
the significance of this relation is redefined today once more by
contemporary discussion on the dialectics of agency and structure
and in this view, history is to a large extent understood as the
analysis of concrete human agency. Compared to the arguments
popular in the 197Q's with their stress on the anteredness of
generalization and on laws of human behaviour this contemporary
discussion leaves now much more space for the accommodation of
the contingent, and is, therefore, much more historically informed.
Nevertheless historicist archaeology, in as long as it is consideted
an auxiliary to history, looses a significant part of intrinsic quality.
It is somewhat reduced to an illustrator, a provider of material
evidence that proves the accuracy of historic documents, while the
past is primarily constructed and interpreted through the
perceptions of its actors, presented and recorded in texts and
documents.

GREEK
ARCHAEOLOGY A N D NATIONALISM

b k archaeology consciously and carefully kept the bond with


ancient history and classics throughout the nineteenth century,
when it played a central role in education and culture and in the
ideological formation of the Greek nation. The exclusively
historicist outlook adopted was largely predictable, in view of the
general ideological climate prevalent and the responsibili tits felt
towards the construction of the nation-states of Europe of hat time.
It was first and foremost an expression of the role and the
obligations of archaeology as a discipline within the particular
swial context. Yet, to some extent unexpectedly, it was very much
present even in the end of the twentieth century, when: it resurfaced
ten or so years ago with the ac~ca1le.dMacedonian issue. The way
archaeology was at that time once again called into arms to 'prove'
history through material evidence was a clear sign that Greek
society never really abandoned a perception of the past dominated
by this historicist discourse (Kotsakis 1998). Incidentally, it was

WW)UX;ICAL ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY


ARCHAE)WGY IN GREECE

57

the only time in the history of Modern Greek Macedonia when


some recognizable state interest in archaeology was expressed, but
this is another story, although obviously, not in the least irrelevant.
The Uacedonian issue may be the last act of the drama, but the
political role of the past, especially of classicd antiquity, is a
widely recognized fact and has been debated by a number of
scholars in recent discussions (e.g. Skopetea 1988; Kotsakis 1W1;
Moms 1994; Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996) where it is placed
within the context of national politics. Apart from this, relatively
bivial angle, however, the Macedonian debate illustrates quite
vividly another significant characteristic of archaeology in Greax
its international dimensions, its direct appeal to an Emopean
audience, generally assumed to form an integral part of the agenda
through its inferred cultural &scent from Greek civilization
(Moms 1994). There is a long aaditlon of faith in the Greek
cultural ancesq of Europe (Herzfeld 1987) that goes as far back as
the eighteenth cenhty phi1he1lenism (Chrysra 1996; Mmband
1996; Kotsakia 1997). This unique and fomfwl international
dimension of k k culture gives a particular character to the
relation of archaeology with the Greek nation-state and with its
past. Here the appeal to a non-domestic audience becomes
essentially different from the familiar fixation of nationalism with
the boundary between its own enclosed existence and zhe outer
other. To some extent we have here a national idiom ideologically
constructed in an international context, through philhel Eenisrn and
international concern with Greece. Of course, all through the
history of archaeology in Greece one of the most effective
mechanisms for domestic national integration was the
establishment of a direct link with classical Greece, and the
emblematic use of ancient Greek material culture. This was the
domain of archaeology par excellence but it was practiced by
Greek and foreign archaeoIogists as well, often in mutual distrust,
mcasionally in collaboration (Petrakos 1987; Kalpaxis 1993;
KaFpaxis 1996; Kalpaxis 1990). As Friedman so aptly discusses
(1992). the constitution of Greek national identity cannot be
understmd as a lmal phenomenon alone. It should be put in the
same arena as the development of a Western European identity,
which identified Greece as her idealized ancestor. As this
identification was transferred to Greece through p l i tical concern

and foreign pressing interest in archaeology, the identification of


the populations of Greece with classical Greece became the
embodiment of European identity, the only way to separate Greece
from the oriental other of Europe.

A R C H A E OHISTORY
~,
AND NATIONALISM: A CLOSER LOOK

Is this international concern with the idealized ancestor enough to


explain the, close tie with history and classical Greece in Greek
archaeo1ogy? We have seen that recent research has considered this
persistent relation as an aspect of nationalism. In this way it is
aiming at exploring the details of the participation of archaeology
in a political context, which has ateacted a lot of interest from
political scientists as an assimilation process (Wallerstein 1991;
Miller 1995), from antlrropologists as a practice of collective
identity definition (Gellner 1987; Banks 1996). and lately, from
archaeologrsts as a structure of heritage manipulation (MeskelI
1998). Nationalism, in the strict sense of the term, as the ideology
of the nation-state, is perhaps a convenient category to contain
archaeology in a post-mdern world, especially in a context of
deconstmcting narmives and exploring the politics of h e
discipline (Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Dim-Andreu & Champion
19%). It is necessary to keep in mind, however, that the state, as a
political mechanism of Romogenisation, is he end result of a long
process, which is far from simple and straightfmard. For
example, there is vcry little critical analysis of the ways or the
degree that the assumed dominant ideological discourse of the state
was actually endorsed by its subjects as popular perceptions of the
past (Alexandri 2002). The development of a particular perception
of cultural heritage and of national identity should not be
considered as a simple, uncompPicated case of enforcement of state
ideology anymore, directed at an undifferentiated 'people'. After
all, 'people' include g~groups vety different among themselves,
which have conflicting interests and resist unconditional surrender
to state ideology, or even, use it often as part of their social
strategies. After the initial discussions, where calling attention to
the political relation of archaeology and nationalism was central,
we should now be in a considerably better position to have a clearer

IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONTEMPURARY


ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE

59

understanding of the different shades of the process. In this sense it


will not te sufficient anymore to continue subsuming everything
under the generic argument of national politics of identity and see
archaeologists as 'high priests' of nationalism (e.g. Hamilahs
1999, 711, yet addressing a congregation that remains largely
unspecified.
Apart from anything else, participation in state ideology and
nationalism developed in very different ways and pace in
Northwest and Southeast Europe,Tziovas, for example, points out
that rather than a feeling of superiority and might, the fluidity and
the instability of institutions and structures in Greece and the
resulting deep feeling of insecurity has enforced a quest for a
distinct - and enduring - Greek national identity (Tziovas 1989;
1997). Mwzelis ( 1978) discusses the differences between historical
contexts where integration was gradual through economic and
administmtive institutions, prirnari ly in North-western European
nation-states, and contexts where nationalism developed as an
ideology 'before the constitution of the state. So, although
nationalism is an obvious starting poiat, one gradusllFy realizes that
a much closer &finition of its constituting parts is necessary for a
deeper analysis of the place of archaeology in the particular modem
Greek social reality. And, needless to say, the experience of orher
social contexts should be imported in Greece critically, assessing
the actual historical background of each country. From this point of
view the persistence of classical tradition and the historicist outlook
were both particularly characteristic and &sme close analysis.
However, this is not the place to discuss the complicated issue of
the formation of Hellenic identity. or to conclude whether the
process was one of continuity or invention pace Andwson (1991).
As an mchaeologist, I am more c o n e d with the use of material
culture in the process of defining a new identity, suitable for the
purposes of the new emerging neeHellenic state.
So, let us have a better look at this close tie with history. Its allpervasive presence is apparent in many aspects of contemporary
Greek satiety. It has been already argued that its prototype is found
in the nineteenth century, in the monumental work 'History of the
k k Nation' by Konstan tinos Paparrigopovlos (Kotsakis 1998).
This major work of synthesis, in its clear-cut primordialism,
exercised a profound influence on social and historical thought in

amanp! a!

Is!uoy)nloh-

pm pymsq-ym Suons sll

v!M m010asyq MaN JO U O F ] 3 " m U p w

l3JR

~ -J X

lSOWIV

ylmt k3o~oatly~m
103 smanbasuo3 aql am an!muad
*ladedtuasard ap JO adox
ayl. puoLaq s! ley I n g ..-leql m p mua81snlp s!y, u! a ~ o wqanw
s! amp n y l qu!q~ I@CU auo y%notpp'aqs-uogau a y ~ a l l aaw
~
30 WS!ll?UO!lype4 W a A O a U ! S v 01 p a d d o SR
4 ~ ~ q83 3
qh
uyyl~mm d w p a q 30 urs~um~lodou~soa
uaAoaxa ap q palqanrn
IOU X l q q o ~ ds! hois!q jo %upm~
3u1%~ah!p
q a u -wuaurao+nua
p3gyod pup l e ! m 3ua3g~1p ha^ ~104
auro~s l d o f i ~ aql
1 ~ qluappre
1
ou a n 0 3 jo s! 11 ,-1CImsyy JO %upmaspunahyomalo
lnq a ~ ! s a ~ a dAl(mba sy putt aaeds p p o ~ s ! q paru&y
s,Lje~eaqym 411uap1DFafiaH JO XZopua3 ay) uo m a s ! s u ~
SIW 1saauo3 JaWnj ppo3 a u ~
' ( ~ 6 6 1sono!zcl;) h o l ~ ~ u o ~
su~aesa~u,ua3s!uads!q uis~uqmwu~adarnzJQ u~s!m!~odou~so:,
ayl ~ I ! M rCE!uyp p13allarul s!q jo map u! y;Znorl~le
'Idmuo:, s!yl punom palltorla1 Ala3ml baed s ! -&puap!
~
qutpa JO
L%opauaf?ayl s13p a q q a p aq plnm lmfm tplm p-o
sourl la sem
'lax3 1azud 1 q o q
~ 'suajq a % ~ o a :~3)p s u a 3 ~ r q 3IClan
~ap!suo~
I q3!qm "ldmxa auo L ~ u ouopuaur ll~m1 =suo~ssardxa
pnrqlau! ald!lpu ol LEM s)! spuy p w amsuo:, p@oloapy
u~ pappaqtua lCldaap s~ tdm103 sryl JO ~amodarlr, W d x a sv
.sopdo3@ed Xq y o m p!ruas
a q moy amuayu! a l q q ~ ~ s y n u ue
n s! a m q h v ~ o d u ~ a ~ o ~
JO S U @ ~ O a41 uo a ~ y w e upapun q a u *(2861 'nol~rrlla~s)
, ~ O ~ S F H Y a r f ) JQ m
~
4 OOOP *!UoPa~W, Pm ( 0 ~ 6 1 'Ie
la solnodolsuV3) s,OL A I aW~ u! pa~!lqnd,PlJoM W J f l art] JO
1 C I o ] s ! ~ ,atunp-nlnw atp
a 3 u a s ~ yjo
l suo!ssa~dxa~uasar
arou a u ' ( 8 ~ 6 1so~o~sa~-nopyepL)~)
X l a ~ g d s a rs!p!qlrp4y
aod~gs p a sp~lod soeloq!~jo m q n ~q a q JU h!un ayl
JO s a q m ~ d d e]a3polsy ayl ow! pauuojsw.f~ aram ~ ! ~ o p 3 u n j
pm uIs!uoynloAa se y ~ n s 5ualuo3 p!~ols/q-gm Isa~!nenr
e q r m s a y m ~ d d auaAa mp 1x3a y ~01 in0 pau!od a1olqlod yaarf)l
j o hwqr ayl uo qooq ~ a qu! 4 ~ ~ i s a ~ - ~
n ~
I 'Vnh m@o a~
yEagnam ayl u~ ale1 u a a pashpcre pua payaaad slem A a ! m
qaarf) q ~ r q m@noq
a r u q ayl 'afoym P stl
qaarg JO
a3~u1!
pd&aya~aay, SE penoqaun~1~0~1113
1! 'uo!ujdo ICIU UI 'XXLQ

WEQLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY


ARCHAEOIBGY IN GREE(SE

61

on Greek archaeology remains minimal (Kotsakis 1991). By


contrast, archeological discussions that are closer to the old
culture-historical paradigm were more easily absorbed and still
remain powerful (Kotsakis 1998, 55-58). Particularly informative
in this respect is the position of prehistoric archaeology in Greece.
It is well known that Greek nationalism never had much use of
prehistoric studies, except for those domains where prehistory
could somehow 6e related to the Greek world, directly, as in the
case of Mycenaean civilization, or indirectly through myths and
legends, as in the case of Minoan Crete (Kotsahs 1991). The very
meagre record of Neolithic studies, and the even slighter, almost
non-existent of pre-Neolithic is, in this sense, very informative.
D.R.Theocharis, for instance, in his effort to establish the study of
the Neolithic as a legitimate field of study had to establish a
connection with the historical periods:
'This continuous march of man on the Greek land through
millennia, from the first settlements of the Stone Age up to the
present day, is followed by the history of the Greek Nation. It
presents the dwurnented continuity of the Greek World, its
cultural unity and the internal integrity of Greek culture.. ..Just
as t h y the annexation of the Creto-Mycenaean World to
Greek History i s considered natml, so tomorrow everyone will
accept the truth which is already visible, that the basic roots of
the Greek Nation and the main components of the b k Spirit
are laid in Prehistory' (Christopoulos et al. 1970.9)
Whatever our m&
(or should one say 'post-modem')
reactions
to this essentialist n m t i v e , TSleocharis'sstrategy was simply to
evoke the familiar concept of origins and extend it to Rehistory.
He did so in the knowledge that the lure of the concept for Mcdem
Gneek swiety was significant. This Is no wonder: the obsession
with origins and genealogy is in many ways central in ethnic
~Iassification and identity politics. It is equally central to
archaeology as a particular attitude towards the reconstruction of
the past, where the reconstruction of origins is closely connected to
two compIementary concepts, that of continuity and that of
boundedness of culture. We need to have a closer look at these
complementary concepts now, in order to gain some insight in the
contribution of mtiondist discourse in the shaping of archaeology
as a discipline and practice in contemporary Greece.

62

KOSTAS KOTSAKlS

CONTINUITY
AND BOUNDEDNESS IN CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

In certain ways there is no meaning in stressing origin, unless


some form of continuity is assumed. In nationalist discourse,
continuity is a particular manipulation of time that leads to a form
of legitimisation of the present. In reality, continuity is a question
of temporal classification, which creates a pseudo-historical
narrative: one has simply to define a start (the past) and an end of
the trajectery (the present) and in some miraculous manner aH that
goes in between is insignificant ('hkkas 1994). The trick, if I may
use the term, is a simple perception of cause and effect similar to
magic: an observation that looks like a cause and an observation
that could look like an effect are linked in one continuous, but
mythical, process. To use the well-known expression of Anderson's
(1991) this is another 'imagined community', this time a
community with the past. So this 'imagined' continuity f o m s one
of the basic ingmhents of national history. But as Miller wonders
in discussing national identity (1995, 35-47), does the realization
that national history contains many elements of myth - sometimes
too many - necessarily mean that it represents an entirely false or
distorted view, as if there was an ultimate truth or a 'real' history,
residing somewhere and waiting to be discovered by impartial
research? h s it mean that every history of continuity is entirely
fictitious and contains no truth? Can we, for instance, daim that the
descent of M&rn k k language from Ancient Greek and the
resulting sense of continuity are entirely mythical and imagined?
What it means, in my view, is that there is a need for a shift in
emphasis from the sweeping perspective of continuity h a t takes
too much for granted, to a closer scrutiny of the details that
constitute che phenomenon. It also means an interest in the ways
and prwesses in which people select, mansform and give meaning
to particular cultural traits, as elements of their identity. One of
Anderson's (1991) principal underlying themes is that the issue is
not so much that colleczive identities are spurious inventions, but
rather that iden ti ties depend for their existence on collective acts of
meaning. Once again, the recent 'Mactcedonian issue' has been
particularly revealing in this respect, since the basic archaeological
argument was selectively built mound the tombs of Philip, the
capital of the Macedonian kingdom and the Greek material culture

IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONTWliPORARY


ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE

63

of the ancient Macedonians. Yet,concerning the medieval petiod, a


critical time of prolonged ethnic turmoil in Macedonist, no
argument of a similar sort was put forward, nor my archaeological
evidence was presented with similar enthusiasm. Here the
perceived - and selective continuity smngly refers to what
Vryonis &scribed with the phrase 'prior tempore, fortior jure.'
Wryonis 1 9 5 ) .
In discussing continuity, the concept of bundedness of cultwe
comes as a logical next step. In the nationalist narrative, culture as
a closed, homogenous and unalienable entity with stable
characteristics is essential in order to secure recognition in rime,
and it is c o k d n o u s with the real or the imagined place of the
state. Cultural entities, herefore, that can function in time and
space as spatial markers are in this sense privileged, becoming
monuments of national significance. Incidentally, classical and
historical monuments, producing clear and easily readable
messages, are once more favoured against the much less
spectacular and readable prehistoric remains. The choices and
concerns in the history of the restoration of Greek monuments
clearly illustrate the consaquences of this particular concept of
culture, within lthe context of national priorities (Malwhou-Tufano
1998). Although still persisting, this distinctive definition of culture
is an easily recognizable mit of the culture-historical approach,
typical of the 30's. an approach that at that time supported the
political agenda of the nation-state. Trigger has meed the origins
and connections of this archaeological concept in the emerging
nationalisms of the nineteenth century (Trigger 1989, 148-206). As
expected, the main archaeological effort then was to &fine cultures
so that their recognition in the past and the present would be
feasible and the nationalist progrim fulfilled.
The perception of any culture - Greek culture in this instanoe - as
a discrete unit in rime and space i s not only a concept that has been
criticized as part of the cul ture-historical approach in archaeslogy,
but also one that has received considerable critique in the field of
social anthropology. According to this critique we can no longer
think of cultures as isolated and self-maintaining systems, but as
systems that are continuously assembled, dismantled and
reassembled (Wolf 1982). Social actors have the M o m to choose
features according to given situations. It is not fixed and stable

KOSTAS KOTSAKIS

characteristics that identify a group, but the maintenance of


boundaries against the other groups. This remark opens up the
discussion about an archaeology of frontiers and bundmies, but so
far, to my knowledge, no attempt has been made to discuss this
issue in the context of classical archaeology (Stark 1998).
Contrary to the primordialist and essentialist mandates of
nationalism, which create images of cultural perfection and
stillnass, archaeology has to realize that the process in which an
ethnic identity is created breaks and rearranges an otherwise
integral social and historical space into segments. It is a process of
empowerment and hegemony, in which one social group claims
and exerts power on a welldefined part, either simply cultural, or
politically concrete and spatially tangible, in those particular cases
when the identity becomes part of a state and evolves into
nationalism. The almost exclusive interest in classical antiquity in
k k archaeology can thus be seen from yet another angle that
builds on its readability r e f e d to above: in order to hegemonize it
is imperative that identity i s immediately recognizable by others. In
this pmess, there is no doubt+ as already discussed, the
inmational concern twk an active part (e.g. HertzfeId 19871, but
we should not underestimate the indigenous power of the emerging
nationalism in Greece for the dominance of classical archaeology.
In many respects this emphasis had a recognizable political content,
j u x t a p i n g a constructed otientalism to the h k culture,
demmracy, science and philosophy that gms back to the
construction of the ideological universe of Greek Enlightenment
(Kitromilides 1996) and represents a specific program of
modernization a d d r e d at a domestic audience. Although these
political objectives remained largely unfulfilled, they had
extremely serious consequences for everything non classical, which
was by definition considered either the result of oriental despotism,
and had to be purged or a pre-hellenic development that was
irrelevant. The denigration of the Byzantine perid, typical of the
nineteenth century, resulted in large scale destruction and neglect
of the relevant monuments (Kokkou 1977). Even when Byzantium
was rest& as part of the national narrative, late in the nineteenth
century, the selective 'rectification' of the past survived in the early
twentieth, when monuments had to be restored to their assumed
original integrity, espeGially the Byzantine monuments used as

1DEOLXX;ICALASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY
ARCHAEOLQGY IN GREECE

65

mosques (Theocharidou & Tsioumi 1985). It still survives


indirectly in the marginalization of prehistoric monuments, which,
by being asmibed to a 'pre-hellenic' universe, never had the chance
to participate in the official narrative of collective identity or forge
their place in the national imagery.
The close relation of classical archaeology with history of art is
another point of interest in discussing the concepts and collective
meanings constituting Greek Archaeology. One has to examine the
reasons for the remarkable absence of concern for anything other
than arr and literar~r sowces that were canonized by cfassical
scholarship, especially in Germany (Marchand 1996) and France
(Gran-Aymetich 1998). One could mention, for example, rural
settlements and hamlets, the archaeology of the landscape or
regional analysis beyond historical topography, aspects which in
other parts of rhe world already form an integral component of
archaeological reseasch. There are many different factors we have
to take into consideration regatding this issue, and this is certainly
not the place to do it. The academic affiliations, for instance., of
powerful figures of Greek archaeology are a very significant point.
Marchand (1996, 341-3521 describes in detail how classicists in
Germany reacted to the impeding dominance of nationalist
'Germanic' prehistory in Nazi Germany and the dwindling of their
academic position by reverting back to the universal aesthetic
values of classical arc. It i s indeed conceivable that for Greek
archaeologists like Christos Karouzos (Pettaka lW5), with their
close intellectual relations with Geman academics, classical art
was a domain of self-evident universaliay, much less amenable to
political use than history. These remarks offer just a glimpse of the
many components that this issue bas, and demonstrate the need for
serious research on the history of she discipline in Greece. In any
case, the long tradition of histmy of art has kept the discipline, up
to the present day, away from contact with anthropological
discussion and has developed an approach which is so selfcontained that it gives the impression of being predominantly
empiricist and largely atheoretical and apolitical (Shanks 1996;
Mark 1994). Byzantine archaeology falls very much in the same
category, and it has still to evolve from a history of Christian
religious mt into a medieval archaeology. This reality is responsible
to a great extent for the relative conservatism of Greek

IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY


ARCHAEOXXK;Y IN GREECE

67

discussion and we have to start exploring it. I believe that it could


be a viable program for the next phase of research, which will
follow the initial descriptive stage. We only need to move away
from verifyrng a unilateral v e s s towards exploring its actual
details. In this way, the ideological aspects of the discipline will be
illuminated from various angles.

KOSTAS KOTSAKIS

REFERENCES
Alexandri, A*, 2002. Names and emblems: Greek archacolog~~,
regionaI identities and national narratives at the turn of the
20Ihcentury. Antiquity, 76, no. 29 1, 19 1-200.
Anderson, B., 1WP. Imalpined Communiries. London.
Banks, M., 1996. Ethnicity: Anthropdogical Constructions.

bndon.
Cartwrigbt, D.,1997. A H h t o ~ c dCommentary on Thucydidcs.
Ann Arbor.
Christopoulos, G., I., Bastias, K. Simopoulos & I=. Daskalopoulou,
(Ms.), 1970. Istoria iou Elknikou Ethtlous. Athens.
Chryssos, E. (Ed.), 1996. Enas Neos Kosmos Gennietai. I eikona
tou ellenikou polirismu ste gemmike episteme kata to 19'

aiona. Athens.
Diaz-Arrdreu, M., & T. Champion, (Eds.) 19%. Naionaltrn a d
Archaeology irt Eatrope. London.
Friedman, J., 1992. The Past in &heFuture: History and the Politics
of Identity. American Anthropologist 4,837-859.

Gellner, E.,t 987. Culture, Iderttiv and Politics. Cambridge.


Gomrne, A,, 1945. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides,
Volume I. fntr&tion
and Commentary. Oxford
Gran-Aymerich, E. 1998. Naissance & 1' archdologie m o d e m
1798-1945. MS.
Hamilakis, Y., 1999. La trahison des archhlogues? ArchaeoIogical
Practice as Intelleclual Activity in Posmodernity. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 12,1,60-79.
Hamilakis, Y.,& E. Yalouri. 1996. Antiquities as Symblic Capital
in Modern Greek Society.Antiquify 70, 117-E 29,
Henfeld, M., 1987. Anthropology Through the h o k i n g Gloss.

Cambridge.
Hornblower, S., 199 1. A Commentary on Thucydides. VoIume I.
&#ks I-III. O x f d .
Kalpaxis, T.. 19901. Archaiologia h i PoIitik I: SamiaRn
Archaiologika Rethymno.
1993. Archaiologika hi Politike III: I anashphe tou h"aou tes
A r s e m i . (Kerkyra 1911). Rethymno.
IW6. E p i m s tes Gallogermanikes Antipamtheses tau l9ou
aiona sten kataskeve tes eikonas tes archaias Elladas. In:
I

Seferis, G., 1974. D d i m s . Athens.


Shanks, M.,1996. Classical Archaeology #Greece: experiences of
the dircipline. London.
Skopetea, E., 1988. To protypo vasikio h i i Megale Idea: Opseis
toll Ethnikou Pmvlernatas sten Elluda. Athens.
Stark, M. (Ed.), 1998. The Archaeology of Social B o u h r i e s .
Washington and London.
Theocharidou, K.& X. Tsiourni, 1985. IAnnstelose ton Vyzanrinon
kai Wetavyzuntinon mnemeion ste Thessalonike. Athens.
Trigger, B., 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought.
Cambridge.
Tziovas, D., 1989. Oi Metamorphoseis tou Eshnisrnou h
i to
ideologma tes ellenikoteias sto mesopoiemo. Athens.
Tziovas, D.(Ed), 1997. Greek Modernism and Beyond. Oxford
Vryonis, S., 1995. Prior Tempore. Fortior Jure: Ethnogenetikes
Diergasies sten NA Europe kata ton 20" Aiona. Egnatia 4,
189-220.
Wallerstein, I., 1991. The Construction of Peoplehood: Racism,
NationaIism, Ethnicity, translated by C. Turner. In: Balibal,
E. & I. Wallmtein (Eds.), Race. Nation, Class: Ambiguous
Identities. Translated by C. Turner. London & New York,
Wolf, E., 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen