During this time, there were two corresponding kinds of migration: migration by laborers and would-be landowners to existing currant-growing regions, and migration by colonists to undeveloped land and non-currant growing regions. With these two types of migration taken together, it is evident that, in the currant growing region of the Peloponnese, there was a general shift in the population from upland and mountain villages to lowland, coastal plains. Not only was the currant zone of Greece expanding to encompass more land, but more people from other parts of Greece were moving into the currant zone to settle inside. Alexis Franghiadis writes that population growth in the currant-growing parts of the Peloponnese indicates “the continuous resettlement of families from the arid and overpopulated highlands of the Peloponnese to the previously desert and marshy northern, western, and southern coastal plains.”Lowland settlement in previously uncultivated parts of the Peloponnese was achieved through a form of regional chain migration. In the first half of the nineteenth century,square plastic pot transhumant pastoralists built temporary dwellings, called exospitia, in the coastal plains of the Peloponnese.
These were not considered separate settlements at this time because they were small and temporary. Then, the intensification of currant cultivation in the nineteenth century caused these temporary settlements to spread and expand. In census records, some of them began to be designated as the “winter capital” of their respective municipalities, with the older, upland settlements designated as the “summer capital.” Toward the end of the century, as currant cultivation continued to spread due to increased global demand, these temporary settlements grew into permanent settlements in their own right. Pastures disappeared from the coasts as they were replaced by vineyards, and transhumant pastoralism declined in the region as it was replaced by permanent lowland settlement.The lowland plains of the coastal Peloponnese were colonized through this process. This transformative process had a greater effect in parts of the peninsula where currant cultivation was not already strong. This can be seen by comparing municipalities along the northern coast of the Peloponnese. In some of these places, especially in the hinterlands of the currant-exporting port cities, currant cultivation was already strong in the eighteenth century. In others, currant cultivation was not prevalent until the second half of the nineteenth century. Aigialeia, in the North Peloponnese, was well-populated at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and lowland settlement was already present.
Its capital, Aigio , was part of the traditional currant-growing core and was thought to produce the highest quality currants. Looking at population movement from 1879 to 1896, the trend is one of general demographic growth in the hills as well as in the coastal plain. The capital, Aigio, is the largest settlement during this period and also grows the most. Yet new settlements emerge on hills and plains alike, and they all seem to have been growing . Moving east along the northern coast of the Peloponnese, however, an examination of the same census records shows how lowland colonization advanced. An analysis of census records for the municipality of Krathis, near the middle of the Northern coast of the Peloponnese, illustrates how this worked. In the early nineteenth century, the only settlements listed in censuses for the municipality of Krathis were all located at higher elevations. A Venetian census from 1700, a French census from 1829, and a Greek census from 1836 all omitted any mention of lowland settlements in this municipality. These censuses recorded only five permanent settlements in this municipality, and all of them were located above 700 meters above sea level . Then, in the middle of the century, censuses began to list lowland settlements. A Greek census from 1845 mentioned nine settlements in this municipality: the five upland villages as well as four new settlements in the currant-growing region of the coastal plains. These new settlements, however, were not categorized as autonomous villages—they were listed as annexes of the original villages.
They were bracketed together with the older settlements, and their populations were counted together, indicating that the new lowland settlements were considered colonies of these original villages. By the end of the nineteenth century, the brackets disappeared and the new settlements each got their own line in the census, designating these as autonomous settlements.A similar pattern is visible in the deme of Voura, which neighbors Krathis to the West . The 1700 Venetian census lists four main neighborhoods located “at some distance from one another” that comprised Villa Diacoftò and its belongings . These were Chierniza, Vrostena, Piscopi, and Castro .20 In the 1879 Greek census, there were only two settlements with population counts listed in the deme of Voura. These were Diakopto and Stavria. Despite only providing two population counts, the 1879 census also showed that these settlements were themselves subdivided. Kirinitsa, Vrosthena, Kalyviti, Katholikon, and Pera Machalas were bracketed together in the census, together constituting the settlement of Diakopto. Each of these subdivisions were upland or mountainous, located between 477 MSL and 1,525 MSL. The second settlement listed in the 1879 Greek census, Stavria, was also an upland settlement, located at 512 MSL, but it was bracketed in the census with a coastal, lowland settlement named Tripiá. Ten years later, in the 1889 census, there is evidence that the process of lowland colonization had advanced. First, the five upland Diakopto settlements have divided into separate villages, each listed in the census with its own line and its own population count. Second, there were three new lowland settlements. Diakoptitika has emerged in the coastal plain, and it was labeled in the census as the “winter capital” of the deme; Kirinitsa was the “summer capital.” The fact that the census lists a “summer capital” and a “winter capital” supports Stamatoyannopoulou’s argument about seasonal migration during this period. Finally, in the 1896 census, we see that the lowland settlements grew, and a new one, Trapeza, also emerged. These examples from the Northern Peloponnese show the experience in the traditional currant growing core. Later in this chapter, a case study of Messenia in the Southwest Peloponnese shows the experience of a place where currant cultivation only began late in the nineteenth century. Tracking settlements in these municipalities, we see settlements concentrated in upland and mountain settings,25 liter pot then lowland settlements emerged as colonies for seasonal migration, and then they became permanent settlements. But was this because of the advance of currant cultivation?
While this is hard to prove definitively, there is good reason to believe it was. First, we know from production figures that currant output was growing in this part of Greece—it makes sense that this was accomplished through the search for more agricultural land. And second, population growth was greater in the currant-growing zone than in the other parts of the Peloponnese.From 1856 to 1889, the population grew by at least half in the currant-growing provinces of Korinthia, Achaia, Ilia, and Messenia . Population grew by a smaller percentage in the parts of the peninsula outside of the currant growing zone. It is also interesting to note that that population actually shrank in the eparchy of Kalavryta. This is compelling because Kalavryta is a mountainous region just adjacent to the currant-growing region in several places, as it abuts Korinthia, Aigialeia, Patras, and Ilia. This seems to indicate that people were moving from the mountains of Kalavryta to settle in the currant zone. In sum, in this part of Greece, there is evidence of demographic movement from uplands to lowlands, and population growth was greater in regions that were most suitable to currant viticulture. The narrative of lowland colonization in the Peloponnese due to the extension of currant vineyards needs to be qualified to avoid simplistic generalizations about upland and mountainous parts of the peninsula. It might be assumed that mountain villages in the Peloponnese and elsewhere in Greece became stagnant backwaters. If demographic growth was greater in the plains than in the mountains, does it necessarily follow that inland mountain communities disappeared or declined? It bears emphasizing that this was a regional phenomenon, mainly applicable to the northern and western coasts of the Peninsula. Different patterns were evident in other parts of the Peloponnese and elsewhere in Greece. This is not to suggest that, before this time, everyone in Greece lived in the mountains, then they all moved down. There was much more regional diversity than that, and upland villages remained populated and economically important. Doubtless, some inland mountain settlements did decline or disappear as their residents resettled in low-lying plains to grow currants. Nevertheless, Greek mountain villages on the whole did not become stagnant, “closed,” backwards, or isolated because of the demographic growth in the currant-growing zone of the coastal Peloponnese. On the contrary, mountains assumed important new roles in the changing economy. Some mountain villages became intensive agricultural producers in their own right, growing cash crops such as figs and olives, sometimes through the use of extensive terracing. Other mountain villages thrived because they provided useful resources to support the currant industry, such as timber. The currant industry required materials made from wood, such as wooden stakes used to support the vines and crates and barrels to transport currants.The expansion of the currant industry entailed a greater demand for these commodities as well, and they were likely made from locally-grown timber.
Steamdriven saw mills opened in that city in the second half of the nineteenth century to cut wood to be made into currant crates.In 1858, there were also 100 barrel factories in that city.The construction of railroads in Greece in the second half of the nineteenth century also created more demand for timber. Moreover, these railroads, as elsewhere in the Mediterranean, facilitated further timber extraction when they were completed. Mountain villages also served as important centers for industrial production. Mountains had long been useful in this role because of their water resources which were useful for activities such as tanning and textile production. Water flowing down sharp drops in elevation was used to power water wheels in mills. In the currant economy, mountain industry gained greater significance because of the timber extraction mentioned above. In addition to being sent to Patras to be processed at steam-powered saw mills, lumber was also locally processed at the place of extraction through the use of water-powered saw mills. These mills were established in forested mountain areas where there was access to moving water to power the saws. Logs were rolled down shoots to the mill, cut into planks, and carried by mules to be sold in cities.It is wrong to assume that all mountain villages generally declined during this period. Ulf Brunnbauer makes a useful distinction between “open” and “closed” mountain communities. If closed communities were isolated and economically backwards, open communities were integrated into larger social, cultural, and economic systems. They often specialized in crafts, relying on the surrounding plains for agricultural subsistence.Closed mountain communities may have declined during the golden age of currants, but open mountain communities remained viable. Like the plains, they were transformed in ways that supported commercial agriculture. Another form of land improvement that may have altered the landscape of the Peloponnese during this time was deforestation. Contemporary accounts by European travelers provide anecdotal evidence for deforestation in the Peloponnese. In 1855, Edmond About observed that Greece had such an abundance of trees that it “ought to export timber.” However, Greece imported timber instead. About blamed the lack of roads and the fact that peasants and shepherds burned down entire forests to clear land for grazing and for growing currants.The practice of “fire farming,” or burning forests to clear land for agriculture, was not unique to Greece, however—it was prevalent throughout Europe and the Mediterranean in the nineteenth century, as were state efforts to quash it.Occupational burning is also often necessary for shepherds, as it clears plants that animals cannot graze, and it promotes the growth of plants that they can. Moreover, Mediterranean vegetation is highly adapted to fire, and some Mediterranean plants require fire in order to germinate.In addition to clearing forests to make new land, it is also possible that deforestation was tied to the expansion of the currant economy in other ways.