Tipos de violencia contra los menores de edad (maltrato infantil)

6.2.1 Viokastro, Paros

Structures

The islet of Viokastro is located just a kilometre off the Northeast coast of the island of Paros (Fig. 6.1). It is a barren and desolate islet, the shape of which is almost square, measuring approximately 500 m from North to South and another 500 m from East to West,

while it preserves the ruins of a fortification wall along the full extent of its coastline. Its Southeast side is a gentle slope, reaching its highest point roughly at the centre of the Northwest side of the is- let. The Southwest, Northwest and Northeast sides are very steep, with its Northwest side being particu- larly steep and sharp with rocks rising up to 45 m above the water (Fig. 6.2). The coastline around the islet is bare rock, in places eroded by strong winds and sea-waves, while the soil is very thin, especially along the Northeast and Southeast sides of the islet. Vegetation on Viokastro is almost entirely composed of scrub bush up to knee height, though very thick in certain places. There are definitely no natural har- bours in any place around the islet and access into the fortified area seems to have only been provided through a single gate located on the Southwest edge of the fort. A steep path leading to the gate from the waterfront still does not make Viokastro easily acces- sible. It is evident at first sight that the lack of fresh water sources must have made living conditions on this desert islet even harsher. Herds of goats were seasonally kept on the islet till the 1970s, while large numbers of wild rabbits are nowadays the aim of vis- iting hunters from neighbouring Paros and Naxos. The remains of a perimeter defensive wall are still to be seen very clearly along the Northeast and South- east sides of the islet, and only partly on the South- west (Fig. 6.3). The wall is built approximately 40 m inland on the Northeast side and about 20 m on the Southeast, while the Southwest and Northwest sides of the fortified wall were built on the cliff-edge, fol- lowing the terrain. Part of the Northwest wall must have fallen into the sea as it is obvious there was col- lapse on this part of the islet. The wall is entirely built of roughly cut pieces of creamy limestone ex- tracted from the islet itself, with the exception of the Southwest side where large rocks and blocks of

Fig. 6.1 Map of the Cyclades with sites surveyed by CY.RE.P.

Fig. 6.2 View of Viokastro from the East

limestone form the foundations of the fortification wall. The enclosure wall was constructed without any use of mortar, a practice not unusual during the Early Byzantine period. A building technique of a certain degree is evident amongst the ruined struc- tures, with the wall measuring 1.5-2 m in thickness. Larger stone blocks and rocks were used for the foundations and smaller pieces of stone formed the upper parts of the wall. The interior fill of the wall comprised of smaller pieces of stone and gravel. The preserved height of the wall (Fig. 6.4) ranges be- tween 0.9 m (on the Southeast side) and 1.7 m (on the Northeast side).

Fig. 6.3 Plan of the fortified islet of Viokastro and its ruined structures

Fig. 6.4 View of the external facade of the defence wall on the Southeast side

There was only one gate providing access into the fort. This is located very close to the Southwest cor- ner of the wall, formed by two standing large and roughly-squared rocks, providing a gate with an opening of 1.6 m; one of the gate’s sides is still pre- servedin situand measures 1.5 m in height (Fig. 6.5). The gate was possibly protected by two tower-like structures to the South and North of it, formed by two projecting corners of the fortification wall (Fig. 6.3). Three more towers have been identified around the wall. The Northeast side (roughly at its centre) preserves the foundations of a relatively large tower projecting out of the wall, approximately 15x7 m in

Fig. 6.5 Part of the original gate of Viokastro with Paros in the background

dimensions. Similarly, the foundations of two more of these towers were identified near the centre of the Southeast wall, providing further protection, as this was the most vulnerable side being relatively‘flatter’ and closer to sea-level. Both of them are approxi- mately 12x7 m in dimensions.

Six large stone-heaps or rubble-concentrations at 20- m intervals along the Southeast wall indicate the ex- istence of yet more structures within the fortified area. Only one of them survives in a relatively better condition and can definitely be identified as a build- ing (Fig. 6.6). These structures seem to be formed by two parallel walls built against the fortification wall. These buildings are dissimilar to the structures that have been identified as towers; rather, they must have been used as storerooms for foodstuffs and water. On the basis of the single surviving ‘store- room’, the average dimensions of these buildings were only 2x2 m. No cistern for the collection of rainwater has been identified with certainty on the islet. However, the remains of a long subsurface structure to the East of the fort could possibly have belonged to a single cistern (Fig. 6.7). The average dimensions of the structure are 25x7.5 m, while the thickness of the surviving wall across its Northwest side is 0.7 m. It is quite intriguing, though, that in the interior of this subsurface structure there are only very few remaining traces of plaster, the existence of which provides evidence for the presence of a cis- tern, for the collection of rainwater, so much valued on this barren islet. The walls of the cistern are built

Fig. 6.6 View of a structure built against the Southeast side of the fortification wall

Fig. 6.7 The sub-surface structure identified as a cistern; view from the West

Fig. 6.8 Close view of the Northwest long wall of the sub- surface structure

on top of soft bedrock (Fig. 6.8); the Southeast long side of the cistern is solely dug-out rock (Fig. 6.7).

Fig. 6.9 View of the‘shepherd’s hut’from the East

The remains of a shepherd’s hut (Fig. 6.9) con- structed and used during the past few decades were identified roughly at the centre of the fortified area. The structure measures 9x5 m and its walls stand to a height of about 0.8 m. The walls are rather care- lessly built, without the use of mud or mortar and they measure 0.7-0.8 m in thickness. It is interesting that the hut is built on top of the foundations of an earlier building of exactly the same dimensions. This could have been a central storeroom or a tower-house providing shelter to an individual obviously of a higher status. A first idea would be that this is a purely military site built for a certain occasion and used over a short period of time. There is also some degree of organisation and military hierarchy re- flected in the fort’s layout and the characteristics of the built structures. There is a perimeter wall with towers, a defended gate, a large cistern, buildings possibly used as storehouses and a tower-like struc- ture at the centre of the fort.

Large numbers of pottery fragments are scattered all over the surface of Viokastro (Fig. 6.10). Viokastro was not included in the application for a survey per- mit to the Greek Archaeological Authorities, thus, the collection of surface ceramics was not possible. Anin situexamination of surface ceramics reveals a rather uniform collection of common domestic wares (sto- rage jars and cooking pots) and a great number of am- phora fragments. After a careful examination of the site’s surface, the absence of glazed wares or ceramic material that could be dated earlier than the vast ma- jority of potsherds became clear. The commonest shapes include amphorae of theSarachane 35and36

Fig. 6.10 Pottery fragments from Viokastro

types (Fig. 6.10). On the basis of similar published examples, surface amphorae sherds from Viokastro should be dated between the middle 7th and 8th cen- turies AD.

Historical context

Continuity and discontinuity from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages has been a challenging field of primarily historical and archaeological re- search for the past couple of decades. My contribu- tion here is the presentation of a regional case-study, which offers a rather different perspective of the years of the so-called‘Dark Ages’, lasting for most regions of the Byzantine Empire from the middle of the 7th to the middle of the 9th century.

Hood’s (1966; 1970) contribution about the islets in the bay of Itea, and Gregory’s (1984; 1986; Kardou- liaset al.1995) study of some Late Roman fortified sites in the Saronic Gulf and the Gulf of Corinth have provided the ground for a long discussion on the fate of populations that lived in central Greece and the Peloponnese during the Slav invasions of 578. Sin- clair Hood (1970) has argued that architectural re- mains on the islets of the Itea bay (in the Gulf of Corinth), on Rafti island (off the East coast of Atti- ca), on Pera islet (off the South coast of Salamis) and Sphaktiria (in the bay of Navarino) must have been erected in response to a threat from the Mainland, as a result of the Slav invasions (Kardouliaset al.1995; Rosser 1995). This argument has been challenged, however, by Timothy Gregory (1984, 1986; Kardou- liaset al. 1995), who provides evidence for the use of these islets over a long period of time (from the 4th to the 7th centuries) for commercial and indus- trial purposes. However attractive the idea that these

off-shore islets in the Western Aegean (close to Atti- ca, Boeotia and the Peloponnese) could have been used as refuge places by Greek populations who fled there in despair when invading groups of Slavs deva- stated villages and cities, Gregory’s view seems more plausible. The fact that built structures on the islets suggest permanence of some kind instead of periodic and occasional residence and that the need of water makes them dependable on the Mainland coasts, strengthen the view that such establishments must have functioned as trading posts rather than refuge sites. Moreover, ceramic evidence of transport and storage vessels of the period between the 4th and middle 7th centuries, in combination with harbour establishments and large basilica churches with re- lated buildings suggest a flourishing‘open’commu- nity of traders rather than a small‘closed’ group of refugees.

Similarly, a number of kastra and other smaller or large forts of military function are to be found in many parts of present-day Greece; some of them have been fully or preliminarily studied and pub- lished, dated mostly to the Late Roman and Early Byzantine periods. A systematic study of such forti- fied structures in Greece within a broader and more collective perspective is imperative so that more se- cure conclusions can be drawn about matters con- cerning the organisation of the countryside, social structure and everyday life. Most studies have con- cluded that the period between the 7th and 9th centu- ries saw a dramatic contraction of Late Roman cities and decline of urban life, while populations seem to have retreated into fortified citadels of once large ci- ties, such as Ephesos and Pergamon (Foss 1977, 1979; Radt 1985). The big issues concerning this pe- riod known as the ‘Dark Ages’, however, are pre- vious and current views about dramatic decline of population figures and in some extreme cases the re- placement of Greek populations by invading Slavs from the North and raiding Arabs from the sea a little later.

There is much literature concerning the impact of Slav invasions in Mainland Greece and Arab raids in the Aegean coasts and islands (Haldon 1997; Bruba- ker and Haldon 2011). The fortress of Hexamilion at Isthmia (Gregory and Kardulias 1990; Gregory 1993a) is a well-studied parallel from Mainland

Greece, about which historical hints and archaeologi- cal evidence (e.g.amphorae of the‘Late Roman tra- dition’ found together with the so-called ‘Slavic Ware’) might suggest a rather‘peaceful’co-existence of Slavs and Byzantines. Detailed excavations at Corinth have similarly provided evidence that the city was not abandoned with the advent of the Slavs to the Peloponnese. As argued by Sanders (2000, 154) “imported and local pottery, coins and minor objects attest widespread Late Roman occupation well into the second half of the 7th century”while a small but growing corpus of material belonging to the 8th century suggests continuity into the Dark Ages. Surface survey in the Boeotian cities of The- spiae and Askra in central Greece has produced evi- dence for the transformation of the cities into village communities, which may have survived through the Early and Middle Byzantine periods (Bintliff 2000). The Durham-Cambridge Boeotia Project (Bintliff 2000; Vroom 2003) and the Leiden Ancient Cities of Boeotia Project (Vionis 2008) have also produced limited evidence for the presence of‘Slav’handmade pottery in the province of Boeotia (Fig. 6.11). In the past thirty years, on the other hand, Greek archaeolo- gists have carried out excavation (Etzeoglou 1988), survey (Tsakos 1979) and textual-oriented (Kordosis 1982) projects in Mainland Greece and the Aegean islands that have also challenged the view for a break in continuity in the 7th century AD. The problem of absence of material from the late 7th to the 9th cen- tury remains a major one, although it is generally ac- cepted that it is simply we archaeologists not being able yet to identify pottery of this period.

Fig. 6.11 Slav-Ware fragment from the site of Kastri, Tanagra region (A. Vionis)

Archaeological evidence from and historical refer- ences to the Early Byzantine Cyclades is rather scanty but still invaluable for the reconstruction of

provincial life between the 7th and 9th centuries. The Late Roman era seems to have been a flourishing pe- riod for most of the islands. The church ofEkatonta- pylianiin Paros, for example, was restored under the direction of architects from Constantinople during the reign of Justinian, while large basilica churches, harbour establishments and surface pottery dated to the 5th and 6th centuries testify to the islands’well- being until at least the middle of the 7th. The techno- logical inventions of the second half of the 7th cen- tury were critical for the future successes of the By- zantine fleet in the Aegean. Byzantine warships equipped with siphons that projected the so-called

‘Greek’ or ‘marine fire’ against enemy vessels, as well as the‘expeditionary dromon’were intended to protect the coasts and islands throughout the Euxine, Aegean and Mediterranean seas during the late 7th century (Trombley 2001). Byzantinists (Ahrweiler 1966; Charanis 1970; Trombley 2001) have identi- fied this marine force as theKarabisianoi, a maritime

themeor naval command, which was particularly ac- tive in the Aegean sea-lanes during the second half of the 7th and early 8th centuries.

The 7th century is characterised by the drastic at- tempts of Emperor Constans II (641-668 AD) to re- store governmental control in Southern Greece. Al- though historical references mention that Constans made an expedition to ‘Sclavinia’ (‘Country of Slavs’, possibly referring to the Aegean Balkan pe- ninsula), the fact that he stayed in Athens and Cor- inth in 662/3 suggests that parts of Southern Greece were in the effective possession of the Empire (Char- anis 1970; Gregory 1993a) or at least that the Byzan- tines were capable of re-conquering the Balkans once the army was properly organised (Gregory 2005, 172). Constans was at that time on his way to Sicily; he remained at Syracuse from 663 to 668 AD, a peri- od during which Sicily became the base of operations against Arab naval forces from North Africa (Tromb- ley 2001). This was also a time of a rather intense building activity in the Aegean, which testifies to the general defensive as well as offensive policy of the Byzantine Empire for reasserting control in the Ar- chipelago and blocking any further penetration of the Arabs into the area. Excavations at the fortress of Emporio on the island of Chios have suggested that the site must have been constructed during the reign of Constans II, while the elaborate character of the

defences suggests the initiative of a central authority in respond to the Arabs’growing power (Ballanceet al. 1989). The period of Arab attacks against Con- stantinople between 674 and 678 AD was most pos- sibly when another fortified site on the neighbouring island of Samos was established, that of Kastro tou Lazarou (Tsakos 1979). Kastro tou Lazarou resem- bles Kastro Apalyrou on the island of Naxos in its general layout and the construction of its fortification walls (1.7x2 m in thickness) without the use of mor- tar. Remains of churches and cisterns, rows of rooms built against the inside of the defence walls and diag- nostic surface pottery (mainly imported amphorae) in both Kastro tou Lazarou and Kastro Apalyrou sug- gest a date between the late 7th and possibly early 8th centuries for their construction (Tsakos 1979; Kefalliniadis 1964; Penna 2001). This is obviously a period when a good number of fortresses were being built as regional works directed by the central author- ities in Constantinople against a single enemy, the Arab threat. We should therefore place the building of Viokastro chronologically during this period. I would suggest that Viokastro was built during the second half of the 7th century as a regional response to the general policy in the Aegean for securing By- zantine possessions against the Arabs. The strong fortification wall, each side of which measures 350- 370 m, encircles the whole islet, while five towers along its Northeast, Southeast and Southwest sides provide further protection to the defensive structure. Six rooms built at intervals against the inside of the Southeast wall were used as storehouses of food- stuffs and water provided by the neighbouring island of Paros and transported in ceramic and other con- tainers. The force landed was possibly staying in tents, since there is no visible evidence of built struc- tures that could have provided accommodation to a large army temporarily based on the islet. This force was not staying on the islet permanently; it seems that Viokastro in the middle of the Cyclades and the Aegean had a strong military component and orga- nised activities directed against the Arabs at sea. It may be that such off-shore islets in the Aegean were connected to the activities of theKarabisianoi, who