Data extracted from the interviews

5.2.7.1. What do archaeologists think about this case?

The political dimension of archaeology is not a phenomenon occurring only in Greece (Silberman, 1995: 249). Nevertheless, the involvement of politics in the archaeological process, in the country is characteristically profound. All of my informers recognize the case of antiquities of Venizelou Street as a strongly political one above all. Some of them were pretty confident about the use of archaeology for serving several political or even corporal interests while others implied this fact modestly.

For D. K., publicity has been proven harmful for the archaeologists in this case. Without ignoring the part of the public that understands the utilization of archaeology, she believes that another part, claims that archaeologists and the antiquities are causing drawbacks that the city cannot support financially.

The head of S.E. K.A., believes that in this case, the interests are several and conflicting.

Therefore, the public along with archaeologists have to suffer the several changes of decisions as well as the frequent beheadings and rises of personalities in key positions. He was pretty confident that the majority of Greek archaeologists of any working status, was in favor of the in situ preservation of the antiquities of the Venizelou Street. “(…) even the supporters of the right-wing government were opposed to the decision of displacement (…) approaches for which is the best solution for implying the in situ preservation are various and definitely welcomed”. He also stated confidently that “the closer someone is to Mendoni, the more possible is to support the displacement”. In his opinion, an abysmal distance separates archaeologists with the head of the current Ministry of Culture, as there is no intension for productive discussion from behalf of it. A worth-noting detail is that Mendoni is an archaeologist herself.

G.S., also faced administrational disputes as his new supervisors were not willing to continue the communication of the Ephorate via social media. Additionally, he relates the quality of the communication of archaeologists to the harsh critique they often receive by part of the public. “I am personally in favor of extroversion. Are you doing something? Show it.

45 Are you showing it? You promote it. Not to promote who you personally are, but because the public has to know what does the Ephorate do. (…) It is not acceptable for archaeologists to be pray for anyone”. In spite of the realization of the fact that the public is not always respecting the archaeologists, G.S., finds this reaction almost natural. For all these years, only a small part of the press presents the cultural preservation perspective. The majority of the people addressing to mainstream sources of information are bombarded by the governments or the corporate perspective. Taking in account that this concerns the press of the city for over twenty years, it would be difficult for the public opinion to stay unbiased.

5.2.7.2. What does the rest of the public think about this case?

For anyone who grew up in Thessaloniki, the news that important antiquities were found beneath Egnatia Street, were not surprising. Knowing the history of the development of the city, is not difficult to speculate that the central city planning would not have changed dramatically. Therefore, as E.X. told me, most of the citizens joyfully believed that Thessaloniki would eventually have a leverage comparing to other cities with Byzantine monuments. Specifically, her first thought was that the in situ preservation would be inevitable due to technical difficulties. When ATTIKO METRO Ltd., revealed its intentions, it was challenging for her to believe that scientists could prioritize the transportation mean over the cultural capital of the city. But so it happened and in this case, the antiquities of the city were not used by the authority in order to impose the dominant narrative (Hamilakis &

Yalouri 1996: 119). In this case, as she admits, political and mostly economic interests have the highest priority.

A.D., belonging to a younger generation, explained that the public “simply does not care”.

The financial hardship made people neglect its past. For him, the majority of the public is not in touch with the cultural capital and only few specialized individuals are involved with cultural issues. From his experience as an Airbnb host, the foreign tourists visiting his apartment were far more informed and interested for visiting archaeological sites and museums than the Greek ones. “Greeks just want to have fun. They are not attracted by culture or museums”. His opinion is that a future displacement of the Byzantine antiquities would definitely have an impact on the tourism of the city, as the Byzantine museum is the most visited and better reviewed museum.

46 All of informers support zestfully all the actions that defend the in situ preservation, as they recognize that it is a successful way for the greater public to get aware about the cultural capital of the city and the way it is utilized by governments. It is not the first time that the authority uses antiquities in relation to national political circumstances (Μούλιου, 1996: 181).

On the other hand, it is not common to set their authenticity in danger in order to favour a certain lobby in such a profound way.

Recently an opinion poll was released to the press. It seems that most of the Thessalonikeans, informed or not for the case of the antiquities of Venizelou Street, want them to stay in situ. Specifically, 15% stated that knows nothing for the case, 29% wants the displacement and 54% of the participants do not want the displacement¹⁰⁰.

5.2.7.3. What does the rest of the public think about archaeologists’ role in this case?

As much as the public things negatively for archaeology or neglects cultural bodies, it is quite unlikely to completely ignore issues for which it gets informed for (Zimmerman, 2010:478). A.D. states, “They (meaning the archaeologists) many times exaggerate and many of the things they ask are not feasible. But sometimes there is no other way”. It seems that in this case the characteristics the public attached to the archaeologists (and were not always positive), in this case they provide a certainty that the assertions will last in time.

In this case, my informers recognize that archaeologists are involved in this issue in a more decisive way. The logical positivism of processual archaeology has deeply influenced the archaeological practice in Greece as it happened to the rest of the western world (Smith, 2004:34). The opportunities that are given to archaeologists to conspicuously differentiate from stereotypical characterizations are not plenty. They use strict methodological frameworks and the administration of archaeological services has always been inflexible.

Additionally, Greece much later than Anglophone archaeology, experienced only recently and not extensively its period of epistemological critique concerning how relevant the archaeological science is to the society (Smith, 2004:35). For the people who are actively involved in the activities in favor of the in situ preservation of the antiquities, archaeologists were not only present, but valuable as they contributed to the scientific analysis of why the

¹⁰⁰ Το 56% του πληθυσμού κατά της απόσπασης των αρχαιοτήτων—Parallaxi Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2020, from https://parallaximag.gr/epikairotita/to-56-tou-plithysmou-kata-tis-apospasis-ton-archaiotiton.

47 antiquities should stay in situ. The issue of the shift in archaeologists’ involvement to the city’s cultural issues will be further analyzed bellow.