50 archaeologists indeed are responsible for delays; as a result two of them, in charge of the Sintrivani and Agia Sofia station were fired the next day, satisfying the public demand109.
The depositioning of Giorgos Skiadaresis, is also an incident highlighting how Archaeologists are treated by the State. He was the former head of the Ephorate of Antiquities of the City of Thessaloniki. Recently Lina Mendoni, the minister of Culture decided to replace him to his former position as head of Byzantine and Post- Byzantine antiquities of the Ephorate of the Antiquities of the City after not permitting the removal of the protective sand in the station of Venizelou in February of 2020110. His position was filled by Ioannis Kanonidis, who was found by the former government insufficient for this position and also will be retired soon.
Another example of how multiple readings, complicates the dynamics of the relation of the public with the Archaeologists is that of M. Tiverios. His involvement in the case as a supporter of the metro construction was surprising enough for archaeologists. The way he was referring to the antiquities was considered both by the greater public and archaeologists to be unethical. The intense reaction of the antiquities defenders forced him to point the finger to the archaeologists who did not react when the planning was at its formation stage, implying office politics111. This time the archaeologist Tiverios, was the one who aligned with corporate interests, not caring for the antiquities he was trained to reveal and protect.
The technocratic perspective that he adopted, was rather different from that of the archaeologists that proposed the demolition of the refugee dwellings back in 2010.
51 general national participation in the European integration112, the city craved to prove that its future was facing the West, leaving behind its past which was (and still is), undeniably actively related to the East. This change was much supported by the citizens who expected a wider improvement of their everyday life.
I was pretty young by that time, nevertheless the discussions about whether Thessaloniki could be truly considered as a European city, lasted long enough to be remembered by me.
And while the citizens were still wondering about the city’s direction, the administration was clear enough. The municipality of the city, using the monument’s Outstanding Value as a main argument, imposed a solution that was the most distressful and painful for the residents that happened to dwell in the façade of the Byzantine Wall. Along with the residents many more citizens as well as scientists reacted strongly to this aggressive decision. And so, a cohesive social group emerged reinforced by a supporting social network (della Porta &
Dianni 2006: 37).
The outcome of my research shows that when the issue of demolishing the dwellings first emerged, the individuals who opposed by organizing against this decision were the residents of these dwellings. They created a core of collective action, around which all the other actions were formed. By the emergence of new solidarities, they became vectors of change in the values system (della Porta & Dianni, 2006: 12). However, the connections were not immediate. My interpretation is that the way this case evolved, gradually affected the course of events around the antiquities of the metro. The confined distress about “castroplikta”, which cannot be considered as a social movement, set a base for the decisive mobilization of the public against the hazardous governmental decisions towards the cultural heritage of Thessaloniki in the following years.
Unfortunately, I am not in position to prove an indisputable connection between these two forms of mobilization through my field research. For doing so, I would have to apply a pure sociological methodology which is outside the scope of this thesis. The specific focus of my inquiry here concerns the participation of archaeologists in this socio- cultural process.
The gentrification planning of the neighborhoods of Ano Poli, quickly evolved in a political conflict between the city’s major parties. The stakeholders being in the middle of
112 H πορεία της Ελλάδας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση—Η Ελλάδα στην ΕΕ. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2020, from https://www.mfa.gr/exoteriki-politiki/i-ellada-stin-ee/i-poreia-tis-elladas-stin-europaiki-enosi.html.
52 this controversy never had a chance for justifying their cause. “Most of them were willing to answer113 because it is still a burning issue, even now that I talk to them as their neighbor; it is still a burning issue. Additionally, the fact that their demands weren’t justified all these years when they were turning to the Ephorate of Antiquities and to the municipalities and to whoever is involved legally and authoritatively, they found me to be a kind of solution. “Oh.
The University came. It will help us; the scientists will help us now”. Because they didn’t have the result they expected from all the rest (…) What would happen is for a group to be composed from volunteers; in the group a lawyer, a sociologists an archaeologist, a residents’
representative, representatives from different sides should participate in order to decide what would they do. One resident with papers and the contract on hand, cannot figure it out. No one so far figured it out”. A. F. described their lonely and exhausting struggle of the inhabitants vividly. As for their relations to the archaeologists, she explained “They didn’t have the best relationship with the archaeologists. But, additionally, the thing with the archaeologists is, ok, it’s the peoples’ job, so they supported what was happening from their point of view. They supported that the restoration was the solution”.
For A.D., Ano Poli holds the memories of his grandparents and their story of migration.
His family was dwelling in the west side neighborhoods and he has rather vivid memories of his grandfather distributing poultry in all the neighborhoods of Ano Poli. Nevertheless, his knowledge about the “castroplikta” case is pretty confined. He was only superficially informed about this issue. He represents the part of the citizens of Thessaloniki to whom the details of this cultural heritage problematic case didn’t reach. What interests me the most is his answer about ever meeting a professional archaeologist. He replied humorously as follows, “Yes I have met both in Greece and in Spain. The truth is that we had no problems at all. There were no contradictions with me”. What I understood is that through his academic specialization, he has an idea that archaeologists are frequently causing conflicts and he was lucky so far that he could avoid such scenes.
As I already mentioned, E.X., was an active member of the municipality during the implication of the demolition decisions of the forthcoming administration. Through her position as Vice Mayor of Culture, she collaborated with many archaeologists under several circumstances. What she stated about her total experience was that as A.D., she was glad that she has not taken part in conflicts so far. Especially for the “castroplikta” case she believes
113 Meaning the questionnaire based on her thesis research.
53 that it was possible for archaeologists to find a way to collaborate with the residents and with architects for finding a sustainable solution for both the Walls and the dwellings, but there were no such intentions.
As the “castroplikta” case evolved, the issue of the construction of the metro started to concern the public of Thessaloniki for several reasons. Until 2015, archaeologists were accused for all the city’s suffering from a never ending construction work. On the other hand, archaeologists not only had to face the hostile antilabor actions of the government, but the public’s frustration as well. What described the public’s reaction to the local archaeological work best, was the complete ignorance (Deltsou, 2009: 181). This seems not to be the case in Thessaloniki during this period of time. After the “Citizens’ of Thessaloniki Movement for the Protection of Cultural Heritage” established, archaeologists who supported the in situ preservation of the antiquities of the metro, found an organized ally. As the “Citizens’
Movement” grounded on the standpoint of various scientists, among whom several were archaeologists, the public’s opinion softened towards them. Synchronously, the passing of time without any sustainable solution being applicable brought the stakeholders to the point that any solution would be acceptable. The most common phrase describing the recent public’s view about the in situ preservation is “What is to be done? The archaeologists are right but something needs to be done already114”. The “castroplikta” case developed in the same manner.
In the beginning of my research I was skeptical about whether the archaeologists are responsible for the softening of public’s interpretation towards them. Frankly, I have not managed to clarify yet whether the conclusions that I extracted respond to the majority’s perspective. What I can say though, is that the results of the slow adaptation of the administrative archaeologists to more democratic schemes of collaborations is obvious to other professionals. My fellow specialized interviewees recognize as well that archaeologists have changed with the times, even if this change is not significant. Yet, is this low profile change appreciable for the public as well? As an archaeologist that worked in the public sector, K.K. stated over the matter insightfully “(…) the new generations pretty much differ (…) it’s just that the establishment is so deep with subsidy mentality that has a bottom down structure, especially in public sector due to permanency of positions, (…) that I don’t know what needs to be done, a nuclear destruction maybe for this mentality to be vanished or we
114 After my arrival, people from my neighborhood as well as members of my family eager to know about my research. That was the most frequent response.
54 indeed have to wait for people to die (…) because they will stay in their positions until they are dead”.
On the other hand, D.K. who is an academic archaeologist described an even slower change within the archaeologists. “I don’t know, I believe that things are starting to change a bit. I believe that more new people have entered the field. I believe that it goes to show, I don’t know yet”. When I specifically asked her if she realized if archaeologists around her were more permissive in other people’s viewing she replied as follows, “I cannot tell you this. I didn’t understand something like this”, giving me the impression that changes in this matter are much more slowly paced.
From his position as president of S.EK.A., K.D pointed as a significant change among the archaeologists the pessimistic approach of reality along with the fact that due to the financial straits, the competition within the field has risen. “(…) to a certain extent we lost our positivity and our hope to collective efforts and to collective struggles. It is not a burden just for archaeologists to bear, but burdens them115 as well. The unemployment that stroked the field, especially the contract archaeologists, has expanded antagonisms among us and that is pretty bad”.
G.S. is the living example of how public servants are punished for just defending a standpoint that does not serve the establishment (as it was described before by K.K.). As he told me, “I believe in the doctrine of extroversion. The problem of the service, and of archaeologists in general, is that they are very inward looking. Many of my colleagues are introvert and this causes several misunderstandings in the rest of the wider community. (…) We, as a service, as the Ephorate, we created two and a half years ago (…), a page, “Ephorate of antiquities of the city of Thessaloniki”, where we promoted our activities considering that the Ephorate’s web page is under construction (…). So the easiest mean of promotion and communicating with the citizens is Facebook. The last two years we made good use of it and the Ephorate has now six thousand followers. I was amazed by how the information was immediately dispersed after its upload. It is very important. The now heading team of the Ephorate is not in favor of this dispersion. This is a matter of personnel selection”.
In cases like the one of the in situ preservation, when the public shows discontent he wonders: “Are we advertising our work? Are we presenting how important is what we do?
115 He refers to the public.
55 Scientifically speaking as well as for the city’s cultural heritage perspective. My opinion is that the field needs extroversion”. Now, especially for the case of the metro activities, when I asked him whether archaeologists have tried to inform the public, he replied as follows:
“Believe me they have taken great action and actually without it being noticed. Because in some cases we must protect ourselves. This moment we are resisting trying to support people that are in the front, movements of citizens and so on, but we are trying as much as we can to help in all of this and they are trying to protect us as well”.
Some years after the “castroplikta” issue first emerged, the archaeologists took indeed drastic actions for the public to be properly informed. As G.S. admitted, these actions took place behind the scenes. The aggressiveness they faced for so many years, pushed archaeologists away from the burning issues of the community. Their timid and attentive involvement in the case of the metro’s antiquities, has double reading. Firstly it shows that the public is still cautious about the archaeologists’ role in the development of emerging issues within the community and secondly, the same archaeologists have not developed yet proper communicational skills in order to peacefully involve to such matters and finally resolve them.
It is not by chance that most of my interviewees believe that their main source of information about the case of the metro were the media, the journalists as well as foreign archaeologists who were most viewed by the press. When I asked A.F. if she was getting informed by archaeologists she replied “No I am not seeing any archaeologists talking! I am seeing only citizens talking. Whatever I learned is from social media by the disputants of these politics”. A.F. along with E.X., are the ones who had to cooperate with archaeologists after 2015 and until 2019. They both had positive experiences with the archaeologists they had to cooperate with. They both recognized an extrovert and a friendly manner in handling their cooperation. Nevertheless, archaeologists have a long way ahead of them in order to cover the space between the field of Archaeology and the rest of the public.
The progress made from the archaeologists’ side, is of course appreciated by the part of the public that contacts them for any reason. This can be considered as the first step for them to
“come out of the closet”, if I may use this expression. What really concerns me is the acceptance of all of my interviewees that archaeology is so deeply and strongly connected to how politics work in Greece, that what is needed to be done will eventually be done.
Especially I would like to point out that Lina Mendoni, the recent Minister of Culture, an
56 archaeologist herself, is following the most conservative approaches that also are aligned with the governmental wishes that serve mostly neoliberal interests.