The Kemenche - Sam Topalidis

The Kemenche

Sam Topalidis 2010

(Author of A Pontic Greek History)

Where music is considered a frill, where no effort in made to transmit a musical heritage to new generations, where it is not cultivated, music and man have been robbed of value and meaning.¹

Description

The bottle-shaped kemençe, pronounced kemenche (see Plate 1), is the beloved instrument of Pontic people from north-eastern Asia Minor bordering the Black Sea. It has strong symbolic value for Pontic Greeks and serves as a symbol of cultural identity.²

Plate 1 Kemenche handcrafted by Terry Topalidis,

Hellenic Club of Canberra, Australia

The word kemenche is Persian in origin meaning ‘little bow’. It is sometimes called the karadeniz kemenchesi (Turkish for Black Sea fiddle) and the Pondiaki lyra (Greek for Pontic lyra).³

The body of the kemenche* is carved from cherry, plum, mulberry, walnut or juniper wood with seasoned plum heart-wood regarded the best.⁴ It is carved in the shape of a trough with rounded ends and covered with a coniferous wood sound-table. The short neck, which may have a fingerboard, tapers to a pear-shaped pegbox. Three strings are played with a short horsehair bow. The strings are tuned in 4ths and played in two-part polyphony (bowing across two strings at once).³ Until around 1920, some, or all of the three strings were made of silk. However, silk strings produce a beautiful but weak sound. Silk made way for gut strings and subsequently replaced by metal strings.⁵

Two classes of kemenche differing in size have been distinguished, but local Black Sea Turks, did not differentiate them. The smaller ones, around 54 cm in length, often have a fingerboard and the larger instruments are around 68 cm in length. Also, the kemane of Cappadocia, is a type of ‘large kemenche’, which, as seen in Turkish Museums, have six strings with a further six sympathetic strings under the fingerboards.⁴

In contrast, according to the Greek kemane player, George Poulantzaklis, the kemane is between 55 cm and 70 cm in length and only larger in volume and shape than the kemenche. The instruments Poulantzaklis uses have four strings with four other strings (sympathetica) which create a vibration (clamour) to the first four.⁶

The kemenche is one of the four basic types of lyra. The other three, the Cretan lyra (see Plate 2), the lyra of the Dodekanisa and the Thrakian lyra, are pear-shaped with three or four metal or gut strings which are stopped from the side by the fingernails (which differs from the kemenche where strings are stopped by the finger tips).⁷ Small pellet-bells attached on the bow (which provide rhythmic accompaniment), on the pear-shaped lyra, were once common (until around World War II), but are now rare³ (see Plate 3).

The pear-shaped lyra is closely related to the medieval rebec and like the rebec, a precursor of the medieval fiddle. The earliest known bowed instrument and the parent of the medieval European rebec is the rabab.⁸

 

Plate 2 A Cretan lyra

Plate 3 A pear-shaped lyra with small pellet-bells on the bow

History

The origin and history of the kemenche are obscure. The earliest known representation of a kemenche appears to be in an album of watercolours of Istanbul painted by Amadeo Preziosi. Preziosi was active in Istanbul from about 1840 onwards and was the chief figure in the Turkish art world in the 1870s. It is important to remember that the lack of images of humans and human artefacts in Islamic countries hinders the dating of the kemenche to an earlier period.⁴

Matthaios Tsahourides, researcher and respected kemenche player, believes the instrument (which he prefers to call the Pontic lyra) and its music has similar roots in Medieval Europe and Byzantium. If the construction of the instrument with other European instruments is examined, the kemenche looks more like a Byzantine or Medieval European instrument, than an instrument of Asian origin.²

The kemenche was taken to the Caucasus in the last half of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century by Pontic immigrants and refugees.⁹ It was also taken to Greece in the first quarter of the 20th century by Pontic Greek refugees. 

 

Playing the kemenche

The sound of the kemenche is sharp and instantly recognisable. It is played in three positions:

• 
  
  While sitting, with the bottom end resting on the knee (although occasionally the fiddler will raise the fiddle above the knee, to obtain maximum resonance).

• 
  
  While standing still, with the fiddle hanging vertically; or

• 
  
  While actively leading a horon (chain dance), with the tailpiece directed away from the fiddler’s body, the long axis of the kemenche being horizontal when the arms are raised and vertical when the arms are lowered.⁴

In the past, kemenche players placed their wrist through a loop made of a ribbon, which was tied to the fiddle’s head. This helped them stabilise the instrument when they played the notes of the upper register with the extension of the fourth finger.²

The string tuned to the highest pitch (on the observers right when viewed in front) is known by Turks as the zil (I) string and is tuned first. The sağir (II) is the middle string and bom (III) the lowest string. Turkish fiddlers choose a pitch at which their instrument, often made by themselves or a local carpenter, is most resonant.⁴

From a Greek perspective, the strings of the kemenche are:

tuned on re, la, re, but their pitch is not absolute. The melody is played on the first or the second string, either while pressing down its adjacent string so as to form two parallel melodic lines, or touching with the bow the other string as a drone. Kementse is mainly played solo or accompanying the singer. Nevertheless, when the dance takes place in the open air it may be accompanied by a second kementse or a daouli¹⁰ [drum].

Playing techniques of the kemenche in Greece have been described.

The strings of the lyra are stopped with the player’s fingertips … using the four fingers of the left hand give expressiveness to the colourful playing of the lyra. In order to produce pitches higher than those of an open string, the string is firmly pressed against the fingerboard with the fingers of the left hand, thus shortening the sounding length, and consequently raising the pitch. The string itself vibrates only between the bridge and the nut. … When the lyra player plays a melody, he often simultaneously stops a neighbouring string with the same fingers. Something similar takes place in the case of the bow. In the course of playing, the bow will often be used to vibrate two strings, the string upon which the melody is played and the neighbouring string.¹¹

In relation to the left hand playing technique:

The most important characteristic left-hand technique in Pontic lyra playing is the trill. The movement of one finger produces a note that alternates repeatedly with a sustained tone held by another finger.¹²

‘The left hand playing technique is also very important in order to evaluate a musical performance, but it is the bowing [right hand playing] that forms the overall acoustic result.’¹³

The bow is held firmly, yet lightly, between the fingers and thumb of the right hand. The third finger is in a position to exert varying pressure on the bow hair. … The bow is drawn at right angles across the strings … The correct bow position on the instrument (about 2 to 4cm away from the bridge) makes a clear and pure sound. … In performance, the performer may need to turn the body of the instrument with his left hand in order for the bow to touch another string.¹⁴

Defining a specific melody in Pontic lyra music is very elusive. There is no authoritative or written version of a melody or tune and each time it is performed by the lyra player, it is played differently. … The use of modulation in Pontic lyra music is common. The lyra player usually modulates by playing a melodic phrase in a different key tonality above or below that of the original tonal centre. In contemporary music repertory, most of the time modulation takes place through improvisation. Thus, the Pontic lyra player may modulate by improvising and changing the mode of the original piece but must always return to the tonic of the original tune.¹⁵

 

Distribution in Turkey^#

It appears that Samsun on the Black Sea coast is the western limit of the playing of the kemenche.⁴ Playing the kemenche continued eastwards, beyond Trabzon (300 km straight-line distance east of Samsun) and Hopa to the Soviet frontier (160 km east of Trabzon). Reinhardt regards the neighbourhood of Machka (25 km south of Trabzon) as having players with the highest technical skill, including the highest frequency of bowing.¹⁶

In Findikli (130 km east of Trabzon):

the average speed [of playing] falls, and extended use of undecorated fourth parallels becomes more frequent. In villages south of Pazar [100 km east of Trabzon], the simultaneous bowing of all three strings may be used extensively. … In the opposite direction, West of Ordu [140 km east of Samsun], the style tends to become more linear, with only occasional use of two voices, and there is perhaps more frequent use of tetrachords that include an augmented second.¹⁷

From the work of Dr Davis in his volumes of Flora of Turkey, the distribution of Turkish folk musical instruments is regulated in part by similar factors that regulate the distribution of wild plant-species. Barriers to the spread of plants are usually also barriers to the movement of men.⁴

Davis notes a break in the characteristic flora between Giresun and Ordu (115 km and 160 km west of Trabzon respectively). This may be correlated with a sharp break in the character of the coastal scenery east of Ordu, where forested hills run down to the sea, and are transected by steep valleys which become more broken than the rolling country to the west. From this break to the Georgian border, there is a distinctive region, extending inland up to the watershed that separates it from the central plateau. This region is floristically linked with Western Georgia and the Caucasus. The same region coincides very closely with the distribution of the kemenche. The fiddle extends into both the Caucasus and Soviet Armenia.⁴

It may be significant that the kemenche appears to be linked with the hazelnut cultivating population of the eastern coastal region.⁴

 

References

¹ Kilpatrick, DB 1980, Function and style in Pontic dance music (A dissertation

submitted in partial satisfaction for the degree Doctor of

Philosophy in Music 1975, University of California, L.A.),

Archeion Pontou [Archives of Pontos], supplement no.12,

Epitropi Pontiakon Meleton [The Committee for Pontic

Studies] Athens, p. 256.

² Tsahourides, M 2007, The Pontic lyra in contemporary Greece, Unpublished

PhD thesis, Goldsmiths College, University of London.

³ The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, In three volumes.

1985.

⁴ Picken, L 1975, Folk musical instruments of Turkey, Oxford University Press, London.

⁵ Anoyanakis, F 1991, Greek popular musical instruments, Melissa Publishing

House, Athens. (Quoted in Tsahourides (2007).)

⁶ Poulantzaklis, G www.kemanes.gr/english/index.php?page=kem-lyra viewed May 2010.

⁷ New Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians, In 29 volumes.

2001,

⁸ Encyclopaedia Britannica,

2005,

⁹ Petrides, Th n.d., ‘Traditional Pontic dances accompanied by the Pontic lyra’, at: www.karalahana.com/english.html edited by Ozhan Ozturk, under the heading Pontic Music, created 2005, viewed June 2006. (Petrides lived 1928-88.)

¹⁰ Raftis, A 199?, Twenty Pontic dances and songs, Booklet on Pontic Greek songs with compact disk, Dora Stratou Greek Dances Theatre, Athens, pp. 18-9.

¹¹ Tsahourides, M 2007, pp. 45-6.

¹² Tsahourides, M 2007, p. 47.

¹³ Tsahourides, M 2007, p. 52.

¹⁴ Tsahourides, M 2007, p. 49.

¹⁵ Tsahourides, M 2007, p. 58.

¹⁶ Reinhardt, K 1966, Quoted in Picken (1975).

¹⁷ Picken, L 2007, pp. 329-30.

* Kemenches can be purchased from The Violineri. Details available from: http://kemenche.pontosworld.com

^# In the future, I look forward to reading information that is more contemporary from accomplished kemenche player, Nikos Michailidis, who is researching for his PhD thesis.

Development of the Greek Pontic Dialect - Sam Topalidis

Development of the Pontic Greek Dialect

Sam Topalidis 2009

History of the Greek Language



According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (2005), the form of Greek written and spoken today evolved in four phases; Ancient Greek, Koine (also called Hellenistic Greek), Byzantine Greek and Modern Greek. [Others may consider there were no breaks in the continuous historical development of the Greek language.]

Encyclopaedia Britannica (2005) states Ancient Greek is divided into Mycenaean Greek (14th–13th century BC) and Archaic and Classical Greek (8th–4th century BC), which date from the adoption of the alphabet. The development of five letters to signify vowel sounds was the principal innovation of the Greek alphabet.

The language of the Archaic and Classical periods consisted of a number of dialects as a result of the Dorian invasions [which began around 1100 BC] of Greece and later of overseas Greek colonisations. These dialects comprised a West group (including Doric), an Aeolic group, an Ionic-Attic group, and an Arcade-Cypriot group.

Koine was spoken from the 4th century BC to the 4th century AD and it arose from the establishment of Alexander the Great's empire. Its main basis was the Attic dialect, with some Ionic features. Koine unified the formerly fragmented local dialects and simplified Greek grammar in the course of its expansion throughout the non-Greek-speaking areas of the Hellenised world. The Atticists, who urged that the Classical language be used for all writing, dismissed Koine as ‘impure’. Their suggestion was adopted, and thus the written form, known as Byzantine Greek (5th–15th century AD), stayed rooted in the Attic tradition while the spoken language continued to develop. A chasm between the written and spoken languages opened and gradually widened. [Mackridge (1985), states Greek became the official language of the Byzantine Empire in the 6th century AD.]

Modern Greek ‘could be considered’ to date from the 15th century and is of two kinds. One includes all the local dialects. The other is Standard Modern Greek, which is the official written and spoken language of Greece. Standard Modern Greek emerged from the convergence of two historical varieties of modern Greek - Demotic, which was understood by almost everyone; and Katharevousa, the ‘pure’, archaizing written language used in administration and other areas of public life. In 1976, Demotic was declared the official language of the state, replacing Katharevousa in government documents, newspapers and education.

Distribution of Pontic Greek in Asia Minor

The north-east corner of Asia Minor, which borders the Black Sea (see Map 1), is known as the Pontos. Greeks colonised this region from the 7th century BC and lived there until the last Christian was forcibly expelled in 1923. These Pontic Greeks spoke a dialect called Pontic Greek.

Mackridge (2007) in Topalidis (2007) states that:
Pontic Greek is a dialect of the Greek language that is largely derived, like almost all the other modern Greek dialects, from the Koine (common) Greek of Hellenistic and Roman times (4th century BC – 4th century AD). It probably began to become markedly distinct from the rest of the modern Greek dialects after the Seljuk invasions of Asia Minor [in the 11th century AD], which split Pontus from the other regions of the Byzantine Empire. However, some older features of the Greek language that disappeared from other Greek dialects were retained in Pontic, while some innovations seem to have taken place in Pontic under the influence of other Greek dialects even after the medieval period. In its vocabulary, Pontic has been influenced by Persian and Caucasian languages, and in recent centuries it has taken on a large number of loanwords from Turkish.

Mackridge (1991) states that when Pontic Greeks moved into Russian speaking areas, Pontic Greek also acquired a large number of Russian words. He also states that although many Pontic Greeks believe their language stems from the ancient Ionic dialect, the linguist Hatzidakis (1892 and 1930) demonstrated that only a couple of undoubtedly Ionic words could be found in Pontic Greek.

The Greek linguist Triandafyllidis (1981 [1938], p. 290) in Nicholas (1999) divided Pontic Greek into three groups. ‘Oinountiac in the western, non-contiguous part of the Pontos from Inepolis to Oinoe. Trapezuntiac on the eastern shore of the Pontos, from Kerasounta [Giresun] to Ophis [Of], Chaldiot was spoken in the Chaldia region, south of the eastern shore, and including Gumushane and its surrounding villages, as well as the southern mining colonies and the coastal town of Kotyora [Ordu]. Dawkins (1937) established that the printed Pontic of Rostov on Don (see Map 1) is also Chaldiot. Nicholas (1999) agrees with Papadopoulos (1955) who limits himself to a two-way distinction between Oinountiac and Trapezuntiac-Chaldiot, given that Oinountiac tends to pattern more closely with mainstream Greek. Nicholas refers to these two variants as Western and Eastern Pontic.

Hionides (1996) believes that the Pontic dialect remained so remote from the other modern Greek idioms that to the ear of the rest of Greece, it sounds like a foreign language.



Map 1 The Black Sea (King 2004, p. xvii)

Pontic Greek Dialect in Of

Dawkins (1937) states the most archaic form of Pontic Greek survived among the Moslems of Of (east of Trabzon, see Map 1). Hionides (1996) states Pontic Greek is spoken by the Turkish people of the provinces of Of and Tonya [south-west of Trabzon]. In 1985, he counted eight villages in the province of Tonya, 21 villages in the province of Of and five villages in the province of Surmene where the Turkish population spoke Pontic Greek. He also mentions that many Turks in Trabzon also fluently spoke Pontic Greek. However, Asan (1996) states that 60 villages in the Trabzon region with 40 of these villages in the Of region speak Pontic Greek.

Mackridge (n.d.) at: www.omerasan.com/eng/home.html accessed on 28 December 2008, describes Ömer Asan’s important 1996 work:
ever since their conversion to Islam, the Greek-speaking Pontic Muslims have not been exposed to any other kind of Greek than their own; nor did they have much close contact even with their Christian neighbours in Pontus. This means that their speech has preserved many archaic features that have now almost or completely disappeared from the Pontic spoken in Greece. (It should be said that their speech has also lost a large number of words that have been replaced by items of Turkish origin.) Ömer Asan's village, like the village where I have carried out my own linguistic fieldwork, is situated in the district of Of, east of Trebizond, which is home to the largest concentration of Greek-speakers in Pontus today. The Of district is the easternmost area in which Greek has been continuously spoken without interruption since ancient times. If Pontic is a peripheral dialect of Greek, then the sub-dialect of Of is a peripheral version of Pontic. Like most peripheral dialects, the speech of Of preserves an exceptional number of ancient words and grammatical features. For this reason the study of the sub-dialect of Of can throw fascinating light on the historical development of the Greek language.

… it has been fascinating to compare the vocabulary and grammar of Çoruh, as he [Asan] records them, with the linguistic material that I and others have collected from other villages in the Of district and from other parts of Pontus both before and after 1922. The variety in vocabulary and grammar between one village and another just a few miles away is extraordinary, and we would ideally like to have such a study of every Greek-speaking village in Pontus.

Ömer Asan’s article, ‘Trabzon Greek: a language without a tongue’ at: www.omerasan.com/eng/home.html accessed on 27 June 2009 (updated 2005), states that:
it was in the Greek language [Pontic Greek] that the inhabitants of the Solaki Valley [near Of] (apart from the late comers) were introduced to Islam and in which the imams in question were educated. … Actually, there is no more natural and logical a way of learning any sort of unfamiliar thought, doctrine or religion than through the mother tongue.

… Of the various Greek dialects in existence at the present day, Trabzon Greek, the language closest to ancient Greek … has been sacrificed to religious, national and political intrigue and impotence. Although there is no prohibition of any kind in place, Trabzon Greek, labelled by religious bigots as a ‘giaour’ [outside the Islamic faith] language, by nationalists as an ‘enemy’ language and by bureaucrats and politicians as a ‘separatist’ language, has the misfortune of being listed at the head of merely local, not national, languages.

Asan’s (1996) ‘courageous’ work in Turkish on the culture of a minority group has been criticised in Turkey, where the government prefers to pasteurise its cultural past. Asan should be congratulated, not condemned for his work. We should all embrace and respect our cultural diversity as an essential part of our identity.

Revithiadou and Spyropoulos (2006) have also studied Pontic Greek spoken by people from Of who had settled in the village of Nea Trapezounta in northern Greece. Drettas (1999) in Bortone (2009) estimated that 300,000 people in Greece speak Pontic Greek.

Romayka

Bortone (2009) states Muslim Pontic Greek spoken around the villages of Of, has no history, especially for its speakers. They have no written records and many of their speakers do not even know that the language is related to Greek. Some do not know which parts of their speech is Turkish and which is their local ‘other language’. Many call it Romayka, but never Pondiaká or Eliniká. Romayka is not formally taught and has no standard of any kind.

Bortone (2009) states that many Pontic Muslims report that they did not learn Turkish until they went to school. He also believes that Romayka will probably ultimately disappear. Interesting to note, from an email I received from a Trabzon local, that in 2008, five and six year olds in a school in a village of the town of Hayrat, near Of, were observed by their teacher to speak Pontic Greek (Romayka) as their native tongue.

Bortone (2009, p.83) states,
Greek peripheral dialects have archaic traits; but the Greek of the Of region has traits lost everywhere else.
… we would do well to emphasize the archaic nature of Romayka, if only because of the implicit irony: its archaic character is due to the very fact that Romayka has been isolated from the Greek tradition.

Pontic Greek in the Soviet Union

Pontic Greeks had been emigrating to the Soviet Union, including Georgia, in significant numbers from the 18th century.

The first census of Imperial Russia, based solely on the criteria of language, suggested that 186,925 Greek-speaking Greeks (105,169 in the southern Caucasus) lived within the borders of the empire in 1897 (Agtzidis (1997) in Sideri (2006)).

Dawkins (1937) states the number of Greek speakers in Russia was considerable. Correspondence he received from Professor Semenov of Rostov on Don (see Map 1) stated that there were 60,000 Greeks at Mariupol (south-eastern part of Ukraine, on the coastal region of the Sea of Azov) and 100,000 at Rostov on Don (the latter all speaking Pontic Greek). Sergievsky (1934) believes there were around 97,000 Mariupol Greeks, of whom some 82,000 spoke Greek. Mackridge (1991) states the Greek dialect spoken by the Mariupol Greeks differs markedly from Pontic Greek, though the two may be distantly related.

Dawkins (1937) states the Pontic Greek dialect of the Gumushane district (south of Trabzon) agrees with the Greek of Rostov on Don. He believes the great mass of the Rostov population came over to Russia from this district in the Pontos.

At the time of the October Revolution in Russia, Karpozilos (1999) estimated that the Pontic population in Russia to have been more than 350,000 concentrated in 34 urban centres and in about 287 villages. He also states that between the two World Wars in Southern Russia and Caucasus that it was a serious issue in which form of Greek would books and Newspapers be written. Formal Greek (Katharevousa), Demotic Greek or Pontic Greek. Karpozilos (1999, p. 148) states:
to raise the Pontic dialect to the level of a language for the Greek minority posed great problems. The dialect had never been systematically written; it had a rather limited vocabulary that lacked the words and idioms to convey abstract and sophisticated ideas; it also lacked the proper words for several new political and social concepts. …

In schools, it was agreed that the children should be taught demotic Greek, but for the instruction of the masses it was thought best to use both dialects - in newspapers, pamphlets and various other publications. This important decision was taken … on 10 May 1926.

Joseph (2003) states, in the 1970 Soviet census, 336,869 citizens claimed Greek ethnicity but only 39%, gave Greek as their native language. In the 1979 census, 344,000 declared Greek as their ethnic status. Hionides (1996) was of the view most of these 344,000 spoke Pontic Greek.

Conclusion

As human beings first, and nationalists a distant second, we should embrace our cultural history and revel in its diversity and not pasteurise it for the benefit of national conformity. With this embrace, we can also learn to respect other people's languages and cultures.

The history of Pontic Greek (and how it probably began to become markedly distinct from the other Greek dialects from 11th century AD) and the Greek language is fascinating and should be documented and studied.

Will Pontic Greek continue to be spoken? Bortone (2009) believes Pontic Greek spoken in the Pontos in Asia Minor today will probably disappear. The challenge is to keep the Pontic Greek dialect alive. The more recent work of researchers like Emeritus Professor Peter Mackridge, Assistant Professor Pietro Bortone, Dr Theofanis Malkidis, Ömer Asan, Dr Anthi Revithiadou and Dr Vassilios Spyropoulos have increased our knowledge of the dialect.

Pontic Greek is still spoken today in Asia Minor, and by the Pontic diaspora in Greece and at least in countries like Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Canada, Australia and the USA. Drettas (1999) estimated 300,000 speakers exist in Greece. Who could estimate how many Pontic Greek speakers actually exist worldwide today? Are you one of them?



References

Agtzidis, V 1997, Parefxinios diaspora. I Ellenikes egkatastasis stis vorioanatolikes periokhes tou Efxinou Pontou, [in Greek, Black Sea diaspora. The Greek settlements in the northeastern Black Sea], Kiriakidis Brothers, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Asan, O 1996, Pontos kültürü (in Turkish), Baski Istanbul, Belge Yayinlari.

Bortone, P 2009, ‘Greek with no models, history, or standard: Muslim Pontic Greek’, in Standard languages and language standards: Greek, past and present, (eds) A. Georgakopoulou and M. Silk, Publication 12 of the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, Ashgate, Surrey UK, pp. 67-89.

Dawkins, RM 1937, ‘The Pontic dialect of modern Greek in Asia Minor and Russia’, Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 15-52.

Drettas, G 1999, ‘To ελληνο-ποντιακó διαλεκτικó σύνολο’, [in Greek] in Χριστίδης, A.-Φ. et al. (eds) Διαλεκτικοί θύλακοι της ελληνικής γλώσσας, Athens, pp. 15-24.

Hatzidakis, GN 1892, Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik, [in German] Breitkopf & Hartel, Leipzig.

Hatzidakis, 1930, ‘Einiges über das pontische Griechisch’, [in German] Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher, no. 7, pp. 383-7.

Hionides, C 1996, The Greek Pontians of the Black Sea, Boston, Massachusetts.

Joseph, BD 2003, ‘Some reflections on Greek in a Slavic context, in both academia and the real world, with an overview of Greek in the former Soviet Union’, in Balkan and Slavic Linguistics, in Honour of the 40th Anniversary of the Department of Slavic and east European Languages and Literatures (Ohio State Working papers in Slavic Studies 2) ed. by D. Collins & A. Sims (2003), Columbus Ohio State University, pp. 93-101.

Karpozilos, A 1999, ‘The Greeks in Russia’, in The Greek Diaspora in the twentieth century, (ed. Clogg), St Martins Press, New York, pp. 137-57.

King, C 2004, The Black Sea: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mackridge, P 1985, The modern Greek language- a descriptive analysis of standard modern Greek, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mackridge, P 1991, ‘The Pontic dialect: a corrupt version of ancient Greek?’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 335-9.

Mackridge, P 2007, Personal email.

Nicholas, N 1999, The story of pu: the grammaticalisation in space and time of a modern Greek complementiser, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Papadopoulos, AA 1955, Ιστορική Γραμματική της Ποντικής Διαλέκτου (in Greek, Historical Grammar of the Pontic Dialect), The Committee for Pontic Studies, Athens, supplement 1.

Revithiadou, A and ‘Ofitika Pontic: a report on the dialect and its people’,
Spyropoulos, V 2006, e-posted paper at: www.revithiadou.gr/files/reports_on_dialects/Report_OP.pdf viewed June 2009.

Sergievsky, 1934, ‘The Mariupol Greek dialects: an attempt at a brief description’, Bulletin de l’ Académie des Sciences de l’ U.R.S.S., Classe des sciences sociales, no. 7.

Sideri, E 2006, The Greeks of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia: memories and practices of diaspora, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Social Anthropology, School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London.

Topalidis, S 2007, A Pontic Greek History, Canberra, Australia. (Available by emailing author at: sam.topalidis@bigpond.com).

Triandafyllidis, M 1981, Νεοελληνική Γραμματική: Ιστορική Εισαγωγή, (in Greek,
(1938), Modern Greek Grammar: Historical Introduction), Salonika, Aristotle University.

I warmly thank Assistant Professor Pietro Bortone for sending me an early copy of his 2009 paper.

Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos - Sam Topalidis

Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos

Sam Topalidis

The Pontos

According to Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the word Pontos stands for the sea, especially the open sea. In time, the word Pontos became associated with the north-eastern portion of Asia Minor that borders the Black Sea (see Map 1).1 The Greeks first called the Black Sea, Aξεινος πóντος (inhospitable, unfriendly pontos), but later it was called Εϋξεινος πóντος (hospitable pontos) when they became aware of its wealth in the lands around it.2

The ancient name Πóντος Εϋξείνος, has the distinguishing characteristics of a hybrid name, part Greek and part Iranian. The Greeks took both parts to be Hellenic, but they also recognised an earlier form, which they took to mean its opposite, ‘inhospitable’ (äξεινος i.e. axenos). However, after studies in the early 20th century, it has become generally accepted that axenos was itself a borrowing into Greek from an Iranian root αχšαēnα meaning dark.3

The Greeks appear to have known about the Black Sea as early as the 13th century BC. This view is based on early Greek legends such as Jason and the Argonauts who set out to find the Golden Fleece in Colchis (modern Georgia, see Map 1). The earliest Greek trade with the lands around the Black Sea was reflected in the Greek legends about the origin of iron.4



Map 1: Miletos and its colonies on the Pontic coast (Hionides 1996, p. 35)
Also, the mythical Amazons were believed to have lived in northern Asia Minor, at the mouth of the Thermodon (Terme) river, although an alternative version states they lived on the Tanais (Don) river in southern Russia.5

Miletos colonising the Pontos

In the late 11th-10th century BC the Ionians (and subsequently the Dorians and Aeolians) migrated from mainland Greece and settled in the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia), where they founded 12 cities.6 Ancient written sources seldom mention reasons for Greek colonisation, but where they do, the emphasis is always on forced emigration and conflict.7

An obvious example of forced migration is from Ionia, a very wealthy region where Miletos (see Map 1) was the main city. From the second half of the 7th century BC, its eastern neighbour, Lydia, expanded taking Ionian territory. At this time, Ionia began sending out its first colonies. In addition, from the middle of the 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Empire began to conquer Ionian territory and then, in the wake of the Ionian revolt in 449-494 BC, laid it waste. There was a shortage of land and food, but this was not from overpopulation, but from a loss of resources to a conquering foe and external difficulties provoked internal tension between different political groups, especially in Miletos.8

In the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, Miletos was supposed to have founded 90 colonies on the Pontos and the Propontis. This, is an exaggeration, but it proves the fame of Miletos as the pioneer of colonisation in the Black Sea.9 However, Miletos was the principal coloniser of the Black Sea, founding its first colonies there in the last third/end of the 7th century BC.10

The territory of Miletos was almost completely lacking in mineral ores. However, the south Pontic region was well endowed in these ores. In relation to commodities such as copper, gold and iron, there were alternative sources in the Mediterranean, yet it was the Black Sea that Miletos appeared to colonise so intensively. Likewise, grain could be sourced from a number of regions, of which the Black Sea was only one. Perhaps, like grain, in times of crisis, metals were too important to rely on a single supply source. Other commodities which the Black Sea region may have traded in, included timber (and charcoal), fish and slaves. However, all these items are archaeologically ‘invisible’.11

A slightly contrary view states the Black Sea was not rich in metals, as has been supposed, and that the Milesian colonies had access to plenty of natural resources close to home. Also, in the Pontos the Greeks did not plant crops known to the locals, instead they planted familiar crops, which they brought with them.7

Sinope to Amisos (Samsun)

In the written historical sources, it is unclear exactly when the Greeks appeared on the southern Black Sea coast. However, Greek pottery from the Halys valley (between Sinope and Amisos, see Map 1) proves the Greeks had contacts there long before the foundation of the coastal cities. Iron Age settlements testify to significant cultural exchange in the late Archaic period (Archaic period c. 750–550 BC). Sites along the Halys basin yielding Greek pottery and architectural terracottas apparently show that the Greeks paid special attention here. The reason was due to this valley’s abundant resources such as red pigments and other minerals.12

The Milesians drove out from Sinope the weakened Leukosyroi. Sinope then conquered land from the natives to the east for her colonists.13 The Greek settlers in Sinope and Amisos had to deal with the indigenous population from the beginning of their colonial activities, since their survival depended on access to the native territory to obtain agricultural products, valuable minerals and metals. The presence of local pottery in Sinope and Amisos suggests that the native Syrians and Cappadocians respectively formed a part of the populations there. These cities may have been founded over the already existing settlements or they could have received people from the surrounding area.12

According to Xenophon (c. 400 BC) Miletos founded Sinope. Sinope in turn founded Trapezous (Trabzon), Amisos (Samsun), Kotyora (Ordu) and Kerasous (Giresun) (see Map 1).14

The Pontic coastline provides very few natural harbours, with the notable exception of Sinope. Its harbour, and its rocky peninsula provided a naturally strong defensive site with a rolling hinterland stretching some 30 km to the south, which provided ample arable and pastoral land to support the city.15

There are inconsistencies between archaeological research of the Black Sea region and dates of its colonisation based on ancient literary sources. For example, archaeological excavation in Sinope has so far produced nothing earlier than the late 7th century BC.16 Sinope’s foundation date is quite confused in written sources. According to legend, it was founded in about 756 BC, but it was destroyed by the Cimmerians and refounded by Milesians in about 631 BC. (A critical re-evaluation of the written sources in the light of archaeological material is needed, as archaeologically researchers are not able to distinguish a Cimmerian culture.) Sinope had little access to trade links with central Anatolia. Its main orientation was towards the rest of the Black Sea.17

Little is known of Sinope after its colonisation until it was under a tyrant, Timesileos, who was driven out c. 436 BC by Athenian intervention under Pericles. A contingent of 600 men was sent there to consolidate Athenian influence and democracy.18

Amisos was founded around 564 BC on the site of modern Samsun. Ancient authors permit two interpretations: a purely Milesian foundation, or a joint foundation by Phocaea and Miletos. The archaeological evidence from Amisos just adds to the confusion. No proper excavation of the settlement has been conducted because of modern overbuilding.19 Amisos had intensive links with central Anatolia and looked more inland than across the Black Sea.20

The city of Amisos, constituted an emporium for the produce of the plateau. The low barrier of hills to the south of it rises only to a thousand metres. The hills come down to the sea for a short distance on either side of Amisos and then, on the eastern side, the coast opens up into a wide plain formed by the deltas of the Iris and the smaller river Thermodon (Terme).21

Amisos lies 165 km east of Sinope. It possessed no fine harbour; nor was it near the mouth of any major river. Its main assets were iron, probably traded from the Chalybes. Its lands produced olives, some local silver from the Pontic mountains, and the overland route across the so-called isthmus of Asia, which led to Tarsos.22

Kotyora (Ordu)

Kotyora is similar in pattern to the other Greek settlements. It stands at the head of an inland route with two wide deltas to the east, which provides ample food supplies, and its sheltered beaches are overlooked by an acropolis.23 Xenophon (c. 400 BC) stayed outside the walls of Kotyora for 45 days. Xenophon states Kotyora had a governor appointed by Sinope and was in the territory of the Tibareni.14

Kerasous (Giresun)

Kerasous’ great rocky peninsula provides with Sinope the best defensive site along the coast. As a harbour and anchorage, it has little to recommend it. The hinterland of Kerasous does not offer extensive arable and pastoral lands, which extend around the towns further westward. It seemed likely therefore, that defense was the prime consideration for the choice of Kerasous as a site. Possibly the historical importance of the town was largely due to it serving as the outlet for the alum exports from Koloneia (Şebinkarahisar)24 located 220 km to the southeast.

Xenophon (c. 400 BC) visited Kerasous for 10 days with his Greek army of 8,600 soldiers. Xenophon stated Sinope had taken away the land from its natives and given the land to their colonists for which Kerasous paid Sinope regular tribute. The food in the houses of the Mossynoeci, at Kerasous, consisted of loaves of bread, corn, pickled dolphin, dolphin fat, chestnuts and wine.14

Trapezous (Trabzon)

The Armenian version of Eusebius (Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo, ed. A Schoene, Berlin, 1866) provides a date for the founding of Trapezous of 757/6 BC, which is wrong. Eusebius was actually referring to another city in the Propontis.25 (According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia Online 1999, Eusebius Pamphili was a Greek Christian writer born about 260 AD who became the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.)

In 400 BC, Xenophon with his Greek Army of 10,000 soldiers visited Trapezous, an inhabited Greek city, for about 30 days and stated that it was a colony of Sinope. The people of Trapezous gave Xenophon’s army presents of oxen, barley and wine.14

From Xenophon’s text, The Persian Expedition, several indigenous peoples who lived near Trapezous in 400 BC can be identified. These indigenous peoples included the Taochi (north of Erzurum), the Chalybes (around Gumushane), the Scytheni (further west), the Macrones (behind Trapezous) and assorted Colchian tribes at the coast.26

Conclusion

The Archaic Greek colonies along the southern Black Sea coast were quite small and often situated on peninsulas. If these initial sites have not survived, the main reason could be due to the rise in sea level. Along the Black Sea coast the sea level has risen several times in antiquity, and it has risen by a further three to four metres since the first century CE.27

Our current knowledge about major Greek cities and local peoples, mainly in the Archaic period (c. 750–550 BC) along the southern coast of the Black Sea includes, not many Greek cities were established in this large area, due to the local geography and the unfriendliness of many local peoples. Also, archeologically, we do not know much about these Greek cities, primarily because they have been built over by modern towns and cities, modern road construction and reclamation works, which have destroyed what, had survived until now.28


References

1 Hionides, C 1996, The Greek Pontians of the Black Sea, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 31.

2 Danov, CM 1979, ‘The ancient Greeks and the Black Sea’, 12th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, 18-20 March 1978, Archeion Pontou [Archives of Pontos], vol. 35, Athens, p. 156.

3 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, ‘The Black Sea area’, in An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, (eds MH Hansen, and TH Nielsen), Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 924.

4 Danov, CM 1979, p. 159.

5 King, C 2004, The Black Sea: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 26.

6 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, ‘Revisiting ancient Greek colonisation’, in Greek,colonisation. An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, (ed. GR Tsetskhladze), vol. 1, Leiden, Boston, p. xxiii.

7 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxix.

8 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxx.

9 Danov, CM 1979, p. 161.

10 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. lxvi.

11 Greaves, A 2007, ‘Milesians in the Black Sea: trade, settlement and religion’, in The Black Sea in antiquity: regional and interregional economic exchanges, Black Sea Studies, 6, The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies, (eds V Gabrielsen & J Lund), Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, p. 11.

12 Summerer, L 2007, ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’, in The Black Sea: past, present and future, Proceedings of the International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Istanbul, 14-16 October 2004, (eds G Erkut and S Mitchell), British Institute at Ankara Monograph 42, British Institute at Ankara, London, p. 35.

13 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 927.

14 Xenophon, 400 BC, The Persian Expedition, (translated by Rex Warner), Penguin Classics, London.

15 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 7

16 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxxiii.

17 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, ‘Greeks and locals in the southern Black Sea, littoral: a re-examination’ in Greeks between east and west: essays in Greek literature and history in memory of David Asheri, (eds G. Herman and I. Shatzman), The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 165-7.

18 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 961.

19 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, pp. 168-9.

20 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 173.

21 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 8.

22 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 954.

23 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 120.

24 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 9.

25 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 964.

26 Nişanyan, S & Nişanyan, M 2001, Black Sea: a traveller’s handbook for northern Turkey, 3rd edn, Infognomon, Athens, p. 11.

27 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 177.

28 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 194.


I wish to thank Professor Tsetskhladze for kindly sending me some of his archaeological papers on the Black Sea.