Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T17:25:20.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New light on Thracian Thasos: a reinterpretation of the ‘Cave of Pan’*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Sara Owen
Sara Owen
Affiliation:
Magdalene College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This short article concentrates upon a very small part of the material culture of Thasos in an attempt to show how knowledge and discussion of the local archaeology can not only elucidate the study of Greek ‘colonization’, but also is vital to a clear understanding of the process. The Greek colonization of Thasos, and indeed of Thrace, is currently written from a wholly Hellenocentric and text-based perspective, behind which lies an unspoken and pervasive comparison with Western European colonialism. Behind my discussion lies the opposing conviction that Greek colonization must be considered at the local level, and in the context of an understanding of social developments within the area settled. This discussion of the cave of Pan thus indicates both how an archaeology that concentrates only upon Greek material culture can miss important features, and how an awareness of the archaeology of local populations can elucidate the processes of Greek ‘colonization’.

Type
Shorter Contributions
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 120 , November 2000 , pp. 139 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, Baker-Penoyre, J., JHS 29 (1909) 215–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 7, pl. XX; Déonna, W., RA 13 (1909) 11ff.Google Scholar; Conze, A., Reise auf den Inseln des Thrakischen Meeres (Hannover 1860) 10Google Scholar, pl. VII, 2. For further bibliography, see Devambez, P., ‘La “grotte de Pan” à Thasos’, in Mélanges d'histoire ancienne et d'archéologie offerts à Paul Collart (Lausanne 1976) 117–23 at p. 117Google Scholar.

2 Devambez, (n.1); Guide de Thasos (Athens and Paris 1967)Google Scholar.

3 See Devambez (n.1) 119.

4 Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria: Their Relations to Greece from the Earliest Times down to the Time of Philip Son of Amyntas (Oxford 1926) 257–8Google Scholar. The relief was found in secondary use: fig. 88.

5 Devambez (n.1); Guide de Thasos 58

6 Devambez (n.1) 117.

7 Borgeaud, P., The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (Chicago 1988 [1979]) 49.Google Scholar

8 The Champ Heralis and Champ Dimitriadis sondages (1960–1). In the former was found an apsidal or oval house with Thracian, Macedonian and Aeolian ceramic. These sondages have been fully published by Bernard, P., ‘Céramiques de la première moitié du Vile siècle à Thasos’, BCH 88 (1964) 77–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similar ceramic was also found in the lowest levels of the Artemision, see Weill, N.La plastique archaïque de Thasos I (Et.Thas. XI, Athens and Paris 1985)Google Scholar. See also Graham's analysis of this material: Graham, A.J., ‘The foundation of Thasos’, ABSA 73 (1978) 61–98.Google Scholar

9 Bernard (n.8) 80–3; Weill (n.8).

10 The early burial record of Thasos town is not well known. The location of the Hellenistic and Roman cemetery is known, the fourth century is well represented, but only a few stray Late Archaic and fifth-century BC graves have come to light. Graham (n.8) 61. For a full discussion of Greek cemeteries on Thasos, see AEMTH 10, 769–78.

11 Hoddinott has suggested before that this cave could have something to do with Thracian cult, but did not suggest that it was in fact a rock-cut tomb: Hoddinott, R., The Thracians (London 1981) 79.Google Scholar

12 Delev, P., ‘Problemi na Trakiyskite megalitni pametnitsi’, in Megalitite v Trakiya II, Trakiiski Pametnitsi 3 (Sofia 1982) 398–423Google Scholar; Fol, A. (ed.), Megalitite v Trakiya I, Trakiiski Pametnitsi I (Sofia 1976).Google Scholar

13 E.g. Skorpil, K., ‘Arheologicheski belezhki ot Strandja planina’, Izvestia na Bulgarskoto Arheologichesko Druzhestvo 3 (1912/1913) 235–62Google Scholar; Skorpil, K., ‘Megalitni pametnitsi i mogilishta’, Starini v Chernomorskata oblast 1 (Sofia 1925)Google Scholar; cf. Fol (n.12).

14 See Fol (n.12); Delev, P., ‘Megalithic Thracian tombs in south-eastern Bulgaria’, Anatolica 11 (1984) 17–45.Google Scholar

15 Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford 1998) 65.Google Scholar

16 So Skorpil 1912/13 (n.13); Venedikov, I., ‘L'architecture sépulcrale en Thrace’, Pulpudeva 1 (1976) 56–62Google Scholar; cf. Archibald (n.15) 65. It should also be noted that Thasos' built tombs at Kastri, although different from dolmens, have some striking features in common with them: e.g. the occasional use of a large plate of schist as a roof for the grave chamber. See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., Protoistorike Thasos (Athens 1996)Google Scholar.

17 Zdravkova, Z., ‘Some newly discovered megalithic monuments in the Rhodope mountains’, Pulpudeva 5 (1986) 195–203.Google Scholar

18 The recent discovery of a cemetery of three rock-cut tombs near the village of Pchelari (Stambol region) has given us a set of burials which were undisturbed and could be excavated properly. All three can be dated, by both fibulae and ceramic evidence, to the ninth/eighth century BC (Nekhrizov, G., ‘Prinos kum prouchvaneto na skalnite grobnitsi v iztochnite Rodopi’, Minalo 2 (1994) 5–11Google Scholar). Cf. Fol (n.12); Delev (n.12); Delev (n. 14); Mikov, V., ‘Proizhodat na kupolnite grobnitsi v Trakia’, Izvestia na Bulgarskia Arheologicheski Institut 19 (1955) 15-48 at p. 29Google Scholar for rock-cut tombs at Shiroko Pole (eighth/seventh centuries BC).

19 Stoyanov, P., Mogilen Nekropol ot Rannozhelyaznata Epokha: Sboryanovo I. Early Iron Age Tumular Necropolis: Sboryanovo I (Sofia 1997) 123.Google Scholar

20 Gotsev, A., ‘Characteristics of the settlement system during the Early Iron Age in Ancient Thrace’, in Andersen, H. Damgaard, Horsnaes, H.W., Honby, S. and Rathje, A. (eds.), Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the Ninth to Sixth Centuries BC (Acta Hyperborea 7, Copenhagen 1997) 407-21 at p. 411Google Scholar.

21 See Gotsev, A., ‘Contacts and interactions across the Eastern Balkan Range during the Early Iron Age’, Helis 3 (1994) 53Google Scholar; A. Gotsev (n.20). These megalithic forms have been divorced too far from other modes of burial in the Southern Thracian area, and it is only through a thorough study of all the forms—a study yet to be undertaken—that one might obtain a greater understanding of the ritual landscape of EIA Thrace.

22 See Gotsev (n.21) 53. I am indebted to Alexei Gotsev for discussing this material with me.

23 See A. Gotsev (n.20) 412 and (n.21) 53.

24 Edmonds, M., Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments and Memory (London and New York 1999) 134Google Scholar.

25 See my PhD thesis: ‘A theory of Greek colonisation: EIA Thrace and initial Greek contacts’ (University of Cambridge 1999)Google Scholar. I argue there that the pathways through the landscape are charted by both rock-cut tombs and rock art such as cupules (which often appear within rock-cut tombs), ‘sacrificial stones’, and other elaborations such as niches. The distribution of rock-cut tombs along the pathways towards the Sakar mountain, and the degree of elaboration of that mountain indicates, I argue, the existence of a high level of communication across Southern Thrace. This is also indicated by the initiation of contacts with others, evidenced by the appearance of Greek, Phoenician and Balkan objects in graves.

26 See n.25. This thesis suggests a new theoretically informed approach to Greek colonization which highlights the entanglement of even recent approaches with concepts developed for the discussion or justification of modern imperialism. I suggest an approach which places emphasis upon the local context, discussing changes within local societies prior to and during contact with Greeks and others, with particular attention to how local populations not only adopt, but adapt the meanings of imported objects.

27 Moutsopoulos, N., ‘Les sgraffites du Pangaion’, in In Memoriam Panayotis A. Michelis (Athens 1971) 482–9Google Scholar.

28 5 km north-east of Maroneia: see ADelt 33 Chr 306-7; AR 1985-6,71.

29 See e.g. Delev (n.14) 28.

30 Baker-Penoyre (n.1) 218; cf. Devambez's (n.1) discussion (118-19), which suggests that such a structure would not be stable!

31 Balkanski, I., Krumovgrad, arheologicheski pametnitsi (Krumovgrad 1978) 10Google Scholar. Cf. also the large rock-cut complexes at Malko Gradishte and Gluhite Kameni: Fol (n.12).

32 Some have even gone so far as to assume that the whole complex should be dated to the late fifth/early fourth century. For example, Nikolov, N., Zlatev, S. and Vasileva, K., ‘Astronomicheskiyat smisul na trakiiskiya pametnik Tatoul’, Arheologiya 30.2 (1988) 28–31Google Scholar, in their archaeoastronomical analysis, claim that the whole complex apart from the sarcophagus-shaped ‘tomb’ on the top dates from the fifth/fourth century. However, this idea is based upon the fact that the sarcophagus tomb on the top of the rock seems more eroded than the rest. Against this is the fact that the ‘sarcophagus’ is simply in a more exposed position and that sarcophagus-type rock cuttings are often found in association with rock-cut tombs. At Gluhite Kameni, for example, the sarcophagus cutting appears also on the flat rocky surface above a rock-cut tomb: Fol (n. 12). Excavations around Tatoul rock-cut tomb have uncovered EIA II pottery (eighth–sixth centuries BC) and some Classical material: Balkanski (n.31) 10; Delev 1984 (n.14). For Tatoul, see Fol (n.12) 94-5. Similar examples are found at Ovchevo and Raven (see Fol (n.12) 90-4).

33 The cult of Pan is not, however, known outside the Peloponnese before the fifth century BC: Borgeaud (n.7) 48.