Emotions as Factors of Social and Cultural
Change in Museological Discourses
A Caryatid, Black Pete, and the Display of Rape Culture as
Emotional Topoi
Submitted to the Graduate School of Humanities at the University of Amsterdam in
partial ful lment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts in
Heritage Studies: Museum Studies
Supervisor: Mw. Dr. M.H.E. Hoijtink
Second Reader: Mr. Dr. DJ Elshout
Iliana Tatsi
11735236
For Zak
Table of contents
Preface Acknowledgements Introduction 11. Chapter I | The Parthenon Marbles 10
1.1. Emotions in Archeology 10
1.2. The Elgin Marbles: Discourses of Return 15
1.3. The Caryatid(s) 28
1.4. Research Method 30
1.5. Discussion 31
2. Chapter II | The Tradition of Black Pete 40
2.1. Perception of Slavery in Contemporary Netherlands 40
2.2. The Figure of Black Pete 43
2.3. Afterlives of Slavery 48
3. Chapter III | Exhibiting Rape Culture 62
3.1. What Were you Wearing 62
3.2. What Were you Wearing Crosses Borders 65
3.3. What Were you Wearing Goes Public 72
3.4. What Were you Wearing as Activism 74
Epilogue 80 Bibliography 83 Appendix 104
Preface
The basis for this research, as well as the passion for exploring emotions in heritage, stemmed from my time as a research intern at Imagine IC. During my internship, I had the opportunity to become acquainted with many aspects of Dutch culture and history, that were previously unbeknownst to me. I came to realize how the the concept of “we make our own heritage” can function in an utterly participatory and inclusive manner.
This thesis is intended as an exploration of emotions and a ect in museological discourses, focusing especially on groups that are traditionally overlooked. The tradition of Black Pete combined with the out t choices of assaulted people, along with a Caryatid, might sound as the introduction to a Tom Robbins novel, but for me they are small universes ripe in emotions; emotions that when analysed, could not only produce valuable insights for how museums and institutions should display heritage, but also highlight the sense of responsibility that accompanies that mission.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Mirjam Hoijtink for supervising this thesis and my second reader Dr. Dos Elshout, for their valuable guidance. Also, all of my colleagues at Imagine IC, for their helpful insights and support. This thesis could not have been written without all the knowledge that my professors provided me with, the support and friendship of my classmates, my family’s and my boyfriends’ unwavering love and understanding.
I am immensely grateful to you all.
Introduction
A turning point for Dutch society came when the Rijksmuseum acquired the gun used in the assassination of the populist politician, Pim Fortuyn (Pieters, 2017), who became widely known for his anti-Islam opinions. His assassination elicited feelings of outrage across the country, and triggered the collective emotion, with people's (supporters or not) most frequent concern being that his loss rendered them voiceless, since he always "said what [they] thought" (Margry, 2011, p. 328). By acquiring the gun, the Rijksmuseum, implicitly a rmed the "lasting importance of the [nationalistic] movement and of Fortuyn's legacy" (Margy, 2011, p. 334). This outburst of 1 "strong emotions", that can be even capable of producing violent behaviours (Burke, 2008, p. 110), has been also extended to the Black Pete discourse, with the appearance of nationalistic tendencies within the Dutch society. In particular, some people also exhibit strong emotions for the Black Pete discourse, because they feel that they have been overly tolerant so far; to the point that they are in risk of losing a part of their national myth and narrative; their traditions (Wekker, 2016, pp. 149-150).
In like manner, for the Greek government and society, the quests for the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles, usually "personi ed" by the Caryatid(s), have been associated with a banal sense of nationalism, originated by Melina Merkouri in the 80's, having as a central axe the notion of returning to one's roots (Papatheodorou, 2014). This notion of romantic populism is able to trigger people's emotions and sensitivities, while simultaneously concealing political and mercenary incentives, by constantly reminding people of the glorious past and triggering the national imagination by posing the question of what would have been . The case of the Parthenon marbles is not the only instance of emotional debates, regarding the repatriation of artifacts. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron issued a statement in 2018, asking for the return of many African objects removed during France’s colonial period, currently on display in various French museums. This plea caused a ripple of reactions in society and relaunched a new round of heated debates and discourses regarding the repatriation of looted artifacts. This debate is not only limited to France, but it also extends to other former colonial powers, such as the United Kingdom. However, the British Museum, currently housing a huge amount of colonial artifacts, is still resistant to the idea, legitimising their denial on the basis of their function, as a world
1 According to De Witte (2013), "even ordinary objects may be elevated to the level of the extraordinary and achieve
museum, even though many African countries have been pushing for the restitution of their own heritage. Maybe the most famous case are the Benin bronzes, decorative metal plaques removed by British troops from the palace of Benin in Nigeria in 1897, and currently on display at the British Museum, in London (Maclean, 2018). Heritage is an accumulation of things that people feel that are meaningful -thus denoting them as such- and want to preserve for the future. This means that heritage is ultimately, self-made; also it never applies to a single object or concept, but rather to an assortment of elements, either tangible or intangible. Consequently, since heritage is made to what it is by people, it is only natural that emotions are a signi cant part of it, with people experiencing a wide range of emotions in the presence of a heritage item (Dibbits & Willemsen, 2017).
The instances described above are enmeshed within hegemonic narratives, strongly connected with the idea of the nation and consequently, nationalism. However, amongst other debates, emotions in museums can also be relevant in discourses that strive to disrupt power structures, incorporating feminist theories. "What Were You Wearing?" is a clothes installation that was created at the University of Arkansas in 2014 -a rather urban context-, aiming to dissolve the myths around rape culture and victim blaming. Feminism has been gaining momentum over the last decade, with more and more museums and galleries, exhibiting feminist art and artists. A contemporary example would be the Naked exhibition in the Kranenburgh Museum, in the Netherlands. Interestingly enough, the exhibition is not on display in one of the major cities of the country, but in Bergen, a smaller, wealthy area in the North. The exhibition mostly deals with the image of the female naked body as the emotional topos of controversy and censorship, since the naked image of the body is often judged by society, considered to be vulgar. It should be noted that the display could raise more awareness and instigate public social debates or even acts of activism, if it was exhibited in a more urban setting.
This thesis aims to critically explore the role that emotion and a ect currently play in the heritage eld, as well as the social dimensions of feelings that might emerge when discussing a particular heritage item or a piece of intangible heritage. How can emotions in cultural landscapes, cultivate empathy and aid with the establishment of multiform connections between di erent people, with possibly diverse opinions? Also, it will be investigated to what extent emotions in the heritage eld, a ect opinion making and instigate social change and activism in the cultural sphere. Hence, the research question: To what extent do museological discourses as a
result of societal and historical discussions, contribute to social and cultural changes in the 21st century, when perceived from an emotional perspective?
Firstly, the research will focus in the range of emotions and their implications, that the Parthenon marbles from Athens, with a focus on the Caryatid, currently located at the British Museum in London, still impose upon Greek and British people. Secondly, the exhibition
Afterlives of Slavery at the Tropenmuseum, will be analysed in regard to the legacy of slavery in Dutch society and the Black Pete controversy, that is still very much relevant in a contemporary context. At last, the art installation that originated from the University of Arkansas in 2014 titled "What Were you Wearing?" , showcasing the out ts of sexual assault and rape survivors, will be analysed on the basis of emotions and its sociopolitical context in the transnational landscape. All of the above case studies follow a very similar social trajectory, what Smith (2012) called the "bottom up approach". Feelings and emotions multiply while remaining bottled up, a process that quite often can be manipulated by the public authority to favour political ideologies and dominant power structures. Also, the production of narratives is de ned by a ective practices (Wetherell, 2012, p. 53), which are worldly “situated” (Bauman, 1986) and could be entangled in hegemonic battles. Nevertheless, given the fact that narratives are essentially constructed by humans, they can easily add to the perpetuation of past narratives that have excluded groups of people -or even cultures-, all the while being reinforced by the "emotionally authentic" signi cance they hold for dominant social groups (Munroe, 2017, p. 115). Therefore, emotions applied and stabilised through heritage and cultural practices might be in position to (de)stabilize that repetitive pattern and allow the narratives of previously excluded groups, to
nally move to the forefront.
Museological discourses evolved and adapted in direct relation to changes in society and culture. In particular, starting from the 1980s, a shift from the dominant narrative of the Western canon was observed. Matters of race and colonial biases directed towards underdeveloped countries ghting for their independence, as well as feminism striving to highlight the female contributions to culture, while exposing male discriminations, constituted two main challenges that brought upon a new approach to cultural history; known as "New Cultural History" (Burke, 2008, pp. 48-52). New issues as such, brought up by the academic world, were thus moved to the forefront of discourses, simultaneously becoming a part of the public debate, being
acknowledged and instigating awareness; treating the collective in a more comprehensible manner, while providing a new approach to perceive the individual (Burke, 2008, p. 51). Bakhtin introduced some signi cant notions on the "polyphony or polyglossia" that one can introduce in texts or speeches, emphasizing the importance of many di erent voices, ranging within di erent tones and being either male or female, in order to provide a language to express sensitivities in society; all the while highlighted by the establishment of New Cultural History (Burke, 1988, pp. 85-90). According to Freyre (1950), "the study of social and cultural history’ is, or might be, a way ‘to bring people together’ and open ‘ways of understanding and communication between them" (Freyre, 1950, pp. 139-165).
The feminist, postcolonial and postmodern critiques of the New Cultural History, also extended to the modern museum, shaping the concepts that Vergo (1989) introduced in the academic world, with the anthology called "New Museology"; marking the museum's distancing from its own institutional context. "[C]ollections and processes of museaIization [were] radically re-signi ed and re-posited in the cultural arena" (Andermann & Arnold-de Simine, 2012, p. 1). According to Marstine (2006), the "post-museum" (p. 19) turned into a starting point of recti cation for social inequities:
"[T]he transformation of the museum from a site of worship and awe to one of discourse and critical re ection that is committed to examining unsettling histories with sensitivity to all parties, [looking towards] a museum that is transparent in its decision-making and willing to share power. New museum theory is about decolonizing, giving those represented control of their cultural heritage. (p. 5)
Smith (2006) posits that the meaning-making of heritage in museums, is "a cultural and social process ... [de ned by] using the past, and collective and individual memories, to negotiate new ways of being and expressing identity" (p.2). Nevertheless, the e orts to render heritage as a potential way of community-building, are marked by various approaches, usually manipulated by dominant hierarchies (Rassool, 2018, p. 218). The methods to dispute and alter the hierarchies of heritage, lie with "critical heritage studies", in particular deriving from "agency, experience, memory, locality and performances in and of community" (Smith, 2012, p. 538). Smith goes on to conclude that this "bottom up" approach to the politics of heritage, derives
from the academic world, something that would also explain the analytical aspect of the process (p. 538).
Therefore, new museology altered the museum's functions and mission, not merely by altering a narrative, but by rede ning the narrative-making process and the ways of communicating with the public. Museums served no more as "disciplinary spaces of academic history", but rather as "places of memory", open to the public; raising awareness for socio-cultural issues, focused on locality and the community (Andermann & Arnold-de Simine, 2012, p. 1). The Athens Museum of Queer Arts (AMOQA), serves as a prime example of how museums can transcend their sometimes rigid academic functions, raise awareness for current social issues, instigate social changes by engaging in activism, and make meaningful contributions to society. The sta of the Museum was deeply a ected by the brutal murder of queer activist and drag performer Zak Kostopoulos, on the streets of Athens in 2018; the reason being he did not t in society’s strict patriarchal and traditional frameworks. The museum not only organised a march in his memory to raise awareness on problems that are deeply ingrained in the collective social consciousness, but also organized fundraising events to help cover the legal expenses for the murder trial. Both initiatives received signi cant support from the community, including even people that were not connected to the Athenian LGBTQ scene.
The concept of emotional interaction and exchange of feelings between di erent people, can be facilitated in the heritage eld, consequently engendering discourses that are able to produce divergent feelings. Collective memory is an "overtly political and emotionally invested phenomenon" that is heavily in uenced by historical and societal events; therefore it is logical that nations -and consequently their citizens- develop di erent cognitive mechanisms to come to terms with con ict and memory (Weiser, 2015, p. 392). By incorporating emotions in the cultural or heritage process, it it possible to observe not only whether or not people’s opinions can be altered, but also how far individuals can be brought closer together by instances of collective memory, and cultivate a sense of empathy. Museums are institutions that not only re ect society and historiography, but are also in uenced by cultural and political interests, that derive from the sensitivities of the past; and can therefore create collective memory, which as a function, can be more prominent than merely displaying historical and objective "facts" (Aronson & Elgenius, 2015, p. 2).
When discussing emotions in museums, it is signi cant to have a clear theoretical demarcation between a ect and emotion. Ideas and attempts to term what is "a ect" and emotion and establish their in between relationship, have emerged over the last decades across di erent disciplines, something that is visible in the terms produced. Massumi (2002), while presenting his notion of the relationship between a ect and emotion, de nes a ect as more inclusive than emotions. Emotion for him is a partial expression of a ect, as it incorporates only some aspects and inclinations of memory, no matter how e ectively it can embody the full richness of a potential experience. It is interesting to consider the emergence of a ect as a noun, "a phenomenon or sensation that can e ect how we feel, our wellbeing and so on" (Crouch, 2015, p. 181). The a ective can take place in things, in non-human life, internally or amongst di erent people, intentionally or not.
Each individual reacts di erently before heritage sites and is capable of creating their own meanings; “museums and heritage sites are places where people go to feel” (Smith, 2014a) and handle their emotions. Museums often establish dynamic, reciprocal relationship with their visitors, something that means that museums also act from an emotional point of view. Besides working actively with visitors' emotions, museums have also focused on the relationship between the visitor and the objects, a relationship that has changed in the 21st century. Museums should prompt the visitors to get curious. According to Thomas (2016), in order for museums to improve the world, they need to transmit to their visitors an "interest in what is novel, singular, or di erent [which] is conducive to empathy, to a readiness to acknowledge and encounter di erence" (p. 143). Nevertheless, the emotional aspect of museum visiting, the root question of
why people visit museums still persists. People go to museums to cherish familiar memories, reinforce identities, learn about the past, discover new narratives or stabilise existing ones, and pay respect to di erent cultural groups (Smith, 2014b, p. 2). The reinforced emotional role of the museum can be attributed to empathy; a rather important emotion for many visitors that can be triggered not just by following guided tours or reading interpretive material, but also simply by being present on location.
As it has been established above, museums are emotional places; “even the most ordinary museum settings can become emotional arenas” (Silverman, 2010). Emotions can be traced not only between visitors, but also between dialogues with visitors and objects or even between the conservators/curators and objects they feel particularly close to. The a ective turn in the
museum world, relies upon work based on the "emotional nature of our interactions with heritage sites and museums" (Schorch, 2014). It is rather important to consider that the "relational" patterns of heritage provide useful frameworks for comprehending the embodied and felt expressions of the heritage experience that materialises out of the relations between texts, people, sites and objects (Latour, 1993, Actor Network Theory).
Since this thesis will be focused not only in museological discourses related to emotions, but also on the social and cultural contexts framing them, the research will move away from art historical and aesthetic concepts, and instead focus on cases related to wider social and cultural concepts, that in uence how people perceive not only objects, but also other people. Therefore, the research will present the above mentioned three case studies, ergo three chapters, each one re ecting a signi cant historical and cultural period or incident of the 21st century. The research will not be limited or contained within a speci c type of museum or cultural institution, but instead will incorporate an expanded sampling area, so the in uence of a ect and emotionality could be observed and analysed, in various types of cultural practices. The research methods incorporated for the case studies, are literature analysis, observations, on-site display analysis, photographs, and an exclusively for this thesis developed questionnaire, which was administered electronically, and then processed using the data analysis library pandas and the python programming language.
The rst chapter of this research, will focus on the politics of display and the emotional and social implications of exhibiting contested archaeological artefacts, by analysing the a ective state of the Parthenon marbles; in particular the relation between the Caryatids located at the Acropolis Museum in Athens, in regard to the Caryatid, currently located at the British Museum in London. What kind of feelings and emotions does the process of encountering the Caryatid(s) in both sites engender for Greek and British people alike? What are the a ective claims of repatriation and what could be the incendiary rhetorics behind such claims? Moreover, the sociocultural and political implications of the emotional separation of the Caryatids, in regard to the formation of a collective cultural and national identity for Greek people, will be elaborated on.
The second chapter will concentrate on the perception of slavery in contemporary Netherlands and the discourse around Black Pete. Racialised groups can experience a heritage site as
alienating, since feelings of experiencing yourself as the “other”, coupled with the absence of power to express your opinion, leads them to develop a double sensitivity; one that is allowed and one that is not (Tolia-Kelly, 2016, p. 901). Therefore, it will be examined to what extent the voice and the body of the postcolonial subject on display, is capable of producing waves of empathy, in terms of emotion. Would this be enough to challenge “authorised heritage discourses” (Waterton, Smith & Campbell, 2006)? Furthermore, it will be analysed what kind of emotions the depiction of the slavery past in the Netherlands, and the gure of Black Pete, as displayed in a heritage institution, produces for di erent groups of people. The above questions will be exempli ed through the display techniques and the narratives of the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam, and in particular of the semi-permanent exhibition Afterlives of Slavery, whose primary aim is for visitors “.. [to be] confronted with today’s legacies of slavery and colonialism in the Netherlands” ( Afterlives of Slavery, 2017).
The third chapter will focus on the topic of gender inequity, rape culture, and the social and cultural consequences for women still present today. The University of Arkansas created a student-survivor art installation titled "What Were you Wearing?" (2014), recreating the out ts that assault survivors, were wearing on the day the were assaulted. These out ts serve to demolish the myth that the victim should be held accountable, and the underlying notion that the assault would not have happened if they were wearing clothes, that are not considered provocative. Each out t is accompanied by a note narrating a personal story. During a time of political and social turmoil in an ever-changing global landscape, where gender stereotypes still pervade rape culture in social and cultural levels, museums and heritage institutions have to steer away from neutrality and adopt a distinct political stance. How can museums and heritage institutions become vocal in a way that allows not only victims to speak out and come forward, but also visitors to be more aware and open to hear their voices? Furthermore, the extent to which heritage institutions can aid in the dismantling of stereotypes regarding rape culture, will be examined. In particular, the a ective connections forged between the visitors and the objects and the empathy and emotions they can produce, will also be analysed.
The case studies described above, are matters of general interest and are situated within the public sphere, instigating discourses, eliciting reactions, and acting as mediators between the general public and the public authorities. Museums as described above in the dawn of the 20th century were in uenced and "a ected by changes in economic, social, and education policies of
the period: they were not immune to the broader political contexts of the times"; they are therefore functioning in the public sphere (Barrett, 2011, p. 4). Museums can "provide inspiration, motivation, and resources for change, the other half of the social foundation of identity", processes that render them institutions which promote social change between individuals and their relations to society (Silverman, 2011, p. 60).
1.
The Parthenon Marbles
1.1. Emotions in Archaeology
The academic archaeological community considers its aims and e orts as broadly scienti c. Emotions have been demonised and overlooked as objective and compromising, in a eld that above all, cherishes rationality and precision (Stocker, 2002, p. 285). However, there are cases of archaeological excavations, that would not be comprehensible without emotions. For instance, an excavation led by the University of Leicester in 2012, resulted to the exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, with the process being widely commemorated by the general public (The Discovery of Richard III, n.d.). The excavation of human remains can often be highly challenging and emotional, especially when the remains in question are recent (Thompson, 1998). For instance, forensic archaeologists in Argentina in 1992, were trying to nd the bodies of the people that had disappeared under the military regimes between the 1970s and the 1980s; attempting to simultaneously rebuild both individual and collective memory (Crossland, 2000, p. 146). Emotions are de ned as elementary, common or culturally distinct and innate. However, this dualist notion of emotion and reason has been challenged by neurologists and psychologists alike. In particular, neurophysiologist Damasio deduced that "emotions and feelings may not be intruders in the bastion of reason", but rather suggesting "that certain aspects of the process of emotion and feeling are indispensable for rationality" (Damasio, 2006, pp. xii-xiii).
What is interesting to mention in this discourse is the emotional engagement that archaeologists feel today, towards artifacts of the past. Artifacts hold values, which can range from economic to aesthetic and even emotional. Objects can be ripe in emotions, especially through their intimate associations with individual bodies and personal histories (Harris & Sorensen, 2010). Archaeological artifacts analysed through semiotics, can contain visible and invisible layers of information, functioning as "semiophores", semiotic links between the present and the past (Pomian, 1991, pp. 30-37). In addition, even though specialists and journals might be exponents of rationality’s hold over emotion in archeology, they omit the excessive "satisfaction" that heritage specialists draw from ”reconstructing the past” (Tubb, 2011, p. 290). Archeology’s ulterior aim is to not only develop a deeper understanding of the past, but also to form links with the present. Archaeologists use the knowledge they derive from material remains, in order to
recreate emotional and analytical ancestral landscapes (Tubb, 2011, p. 295). Similarly, it is only logical that the destruction of archaeological sites is "met emotionally with anger, frustration, and disgust, since it thwarts archaeologists’ rational goals" (Tubb, 2011, p. 295).
Tarlow (2012), stresses the importance of knowing how material things and places are involved in the process of forming and expressing emotions (p. 169). Her opinion derives from the notion that emotion is culturally constructed and highly volatile and that the distant past is considered uncharted territory. However, as mentioned previously, that does not mean that places and objects cannot become sticky with emotion, with their signi cance being potentially ampli ed to mend memories (Tarlow, 2012, p. 174). While exploring the a ective capacities of material things, Gosden (2004) concludes that emotions are materially established and material culture is emotionally established, while emotions often forging associations with spaces (pp. 34, 39), a notion that is being supported by the literature in di erent disciplines that elaborates on how "human beings and things reclusively shape each other" (Latour, 1993). Emotions can exist in the individual, personal plane or in the collective, national plane, nevertheless they often are inextricably linked by a causal relationship. Sometimes, members of a community are not familiar with other fellow members, without that meaning that they all stop sharing their common, imagined ideals of what makes them a community. This imagination, often deriving from emotions moving from the individual to the national plane, allows for the forging of national myths and traditions that bind the community together, with bonds of fraternity (Anderson, 1991, pp. 6-7).
Archaeology, similar to many other disciplines was also in uenced by the arrival of New Cultural History in the 1960s, with archaeologists showing a renewed interest in cultural theory, centering around symbols, images, and language (Hodder, 1986). This new turn called for the establishment of an archaeology that was more "social, anthropological, contextual, interpretative, [and] cognitive"; a cultural archaeology, adept and informed about current debates in the eld (Burke, 2008, pp. 138-139). Moving forward, during the 1990s the dominant notion that the past as depicted through archaeological practices, was 'run' by people that were
anaisthitoi, "people without faces" -or without bodies capable of sensory- (Tringham, 1991, p. 94), called for some changes. In particular, the development of -innovative at the time- sensory studies, aided by a climate that favoured debate and the existence of many diverse voices in academia, produced a new archaeology; "more sensory, sensual, emotional, and [more focused
on] the experiential past" (Day, 2013, p. 20). Archaeological studies that are focused on memory, incorporate Bourdieu's notion of habitus , meaning rstly that corporal methods not only display but also emulate di erent societal elements, and secondly that material culture can be perceived as a way of "storing memory in extrabodily form" (Jones, 2007, p. 1). This exact property of 2 archaeological discoveries, is capable of rendering archaeology a vehicle to reinforce nationalist notions and imaginations, with actual remains providing materialized support to contemporary ideologies; being perceived as emotional, tangible gateways to the past (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 29). Nevertheless, people approach the past in di erent ways; however, sometimes these approaches meet at the interjection of temporality and spatial locality. Therefore, approaches to the past, are not consistent; instead they are shaped according place and time (Lowenthal, 2015).
However, the principles on which traditional archaeology was established were quite di erent. To an extent, archaeology was developed to constitute a representational apparatus of modernity, a "collateral cultural institution[s]", within which the context of depiction, power, and truth were established; an "exhibitionary device" (Bennett, 1995, p. 6), that closely collaborated with various cultural institutions. According to Preziosi (2003), "since the late eighteenth century, these co-implicative practices have functioned to render an object domain called 'the past' synoptically visible so that it might operate in and upon (while at the same time distancing itself from) "the present" (p. 104). 3
Archaeology in Greece, dating back to the establishment of the Greek modern state in 1828, served a distinctively similar purpose. Greek archaeologists, heavily in uenced by Bavarian Neoclassicism, commenced to construct and erect Greece geographically and ideologically, as a
topos , a Foucaldian heterotopia, "a space of illusion that exposes every real space" (Foucault, 1986). According to Leontis (2015), Greece constitutes a heterotopia, as a "space set apart precisely
4
because it contains classical ruins", a space sequestered by the Western colonial imagination and eventually reconstructed, hence "self-colonized" by Greek writers in modernity, who believed
2 " Habitus is one of Bourdieu’s most in uential yet ambiguous concepts. It refers to the physical embodiment of
cultural capital, to the deeply ingrained habits, skills, and dispositions that we possess due to our life experiences" (Habitus, n.d.). For more information, please see: http://routledgesoc.com/category/pro le-tags/habitus , Retrieved on 16.12.2018.
3 A distinctive example that attests to that, is the depiction of archaeological materialities in 19th century exhibitions
and international fairs, such as the "universal exhibition" in 1851, at the Crystal Palace (Hamilakis, 2015, p. 41).
4 Greek archaeologists were in uenced by Bavarian Neoclassicism, due to the appointment of the Bavarian prince
that their intellectual properties were attributed to a grandiose past (p. 44). Archaeologists, 5 heavily in uenced by this exact magni cent past, strived to promote its classical element -for which they were its guardians-, as one of the main building ingredients of the modern Greek state, in order to increase the nation's intellectual uniqueness, while simultaneously connecting the past and the present (Plantzos, 2008, p. 14). Therefore, the maintenance, enrichment, and reverence of Classical remnants, combined with the way that Greek archaeologists strived to reconstruct the present, based on a reassessment of the past, did not just constitute a visual notion in the realms of aesthetics, but also a political one. Hamilakis (2007) posited that material monuments of this kind of heterotopia "operate not simply as the iconography of the national dream, but also as the essential, physical, natural, and real, and thus beyond any dispute, proof of the continuity of the nations, a key device for its naturalization" (p. 17).
The way of assembling the Hellenic heterotopia, relied heavily on a long procedure of "purifying" national monuments -of classical nature- and removing anything foreign, striving to highlight "the national, emblematic character required by Greeks as the foundation of their national identity" (Valavanis & Delivorrias, 2007, p. 13). The puri cation procedure started with the rst project that Greek archaeologists took on, right after Greece became an independent state; the demolition of the Frankish Tower from the Acropolis, a symbolic landmark of a foreign settlement (Plantzos, 2008, p. 7). This process of removing anything foreign, laid the foundation for the formation of an international symbolism for Classical Greece; a symbolism that was "researched, ostentatious, and thoroughly modern" (Plantzos, 2008, p. 15). Archaeologists in modern Greek culture became the safekeepers of the nation's aesthetics, essentially designating what would be permitted to exist in the present; their power founded on an impromptu hierarchical scheme of values, that above all cherished a -sensed- ideal of classical aesthetics (Hamilakis, 2007, pp. 35-36). According to Plantzos (2008), "archaeology thus provides the theatre and the props for a strategically placed production of modern Greece as a continuation of Hellas" (p. 16). Furthermore, behind the ideological plane of modern Greece's dependance to its Classical past lies a more sobering notion; that ancient sites and monuments dotted all over the countryside could be perceived as economic assets for the advancement of the state; being perfectly preserved while waiting for the 'West' to visit, automatically rendering the development of the Greek landscape as a medium to satisfy foreign, western expectations, that
5 The process of self-colonizing the past, allows one to promote what they consider to be their rights of the past, to
would help the nation not only achieve global acceptance, but also gain nancial assets (Plantzos, 2008, p. 15, 16).
However, the relationship between the people and antiquities in Greece during the Ottoman Empire, was rather di erent than in 'national' archaeology as it came to be established in the consequent years. Antiquities were not perceived as great ancestral achievements, proof of a grandiose past, but rather as praiseworthy works that were made by the people that used to inhabit the same piece of land as they; the Hellenes. Due to the size of the classical ruins, that were considered to be metaphysical, especially when compared to the human body, Hellenes were also constructed as giants in the contemporary imagination. Statues, sculptures, and inscriptions were incorporated in daily life by being positioned amongst religious and regular buildings, where people treated them as important agents with protective abilities. People also "anthropomorphised classical statues, and attributed human qualities, emotions, and feelings to them" (Hamilakis, 2015, p. 40).
According to Hamilakis (2011), this kind of narrative that lies at the intersection of the materialities of Classical Antiquity and the way that they are perceived by everyday Greek people, could be characterized as an "alternative, indigenous" archaeologies (p. 61). This term is used to characterize the pro-modern relationship of the locals with the material remnants of the past, which originates not only from their incorporation in everyday life, but also from the ritualistic nature and the traditions of the local communities. The indigenous archaeologies of Ottoman Greece, consist of processes of analysis, elucidation, collection, reappraisal, demonstration, and sometimes even reverence. For instance, it was quite common to nd objects of the past, such as stelai hanging carefully above house doors. Their placement at such a liminal place, the threshold between public and private, transcends the merely re-contextual and demonstrative reasons, and assigns protective properties to the objects. Hence, Ottoman Greeks believed in their power and agency (Hamilakis, 2011, pp. 57, 61), establishing a multiform, polysensory, and rather imaginative connection with them.
During modernity, the focus shifted from the symbiotic existence of the locals with antiquities -de ned over di erent historical timelines- and instead focused on their monumentalization; antiquities were integrated in the historic linear time, being venerated from afar as objects of the highest aesthetic value. Hence, a need was born, that dictated from them to be collected,
preserved, and exhibited in museums, as sacred ancestral heirlooms; tangible proof of the nation's ancient origin (Hamilakis, 2008, pp. 66-74). Where Greece is concerned, elements of pre-modern archaeology where absorbed into formal discourse, to create a "modernist hybrid archaeology" where "older, folklore narratives, [...] were appropriated and modi ed from folklorists, so they could attune to the national narrative and hence serve as evidence that locals were not only the descendants of ancient Greeks, but also the rightful guardians of their ancient heritage" (Hamilakis, 2008, pp. 278, 280).
1.2. The Elgin Marbles: Discourses of Return
The term "Elgin marbles" refers to a group of marble statues, sculptures and other antiquities that were removed from the Acropolis in Athens between 1801 and 1802 by Thomas Bruce (widely known as Lord Elgin), ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Ottoman Empire and his associates. The Parthenon sculptures are the largest and most famous part of the collection 6 that Lord Elgin accumulated, and are currently located at the British Museum, in London. The rest of the collection is exhibited at the Acropolis Museum in Athens. In particular the British Museum owns half of the authentic Parthenon frieze, seventeen pedimental pieces, fteen metopes, a Caryatid and a column from the Erechtheion, as well as some other fragments from the Acropolis (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 246). The sculptures depict mythological scenes, local 7 traditions, and heroic battles, all deriving from the Athenian temple, built in the 5th-century BC ( Fig. 1 , Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 ).
The sculptures were originally created following an initiative by Pericles, as a part of a broad edi ce to serve decorative purposes on the Acropolis in Athens, following the militant victory against the Persian invasion. The project was grandiose, involving a large labor force, well-renowned architects and sculptors, and a ghastly amount of resources and gold (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 248). This project had a clear political purpose and symbolism; to give prominence to the "Athenian political hegemony", its status, fame, and ambition for posterity (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 248). According to Spivey (1996, p. 136-140) their desired message aimed to reach much further than the Hellenic society, in particular it was destined to exhibit the Athenian power and
6 The British Museum used to be legally obliged to refer to these speci c group of artefacts, as Elgin marbles
(Hitchens, 1997, p. 17). For the rest of this chapter, the terms Elgin Marbles and Parthenon Marbles, will be used interchangeably.
7A small number of the sculptures' fragments are located in museums at various locations, such as France, Denmark,
greatness to their defeated enemies, the Persians. 8
Fig. 1 : The surviving gures from the East Pediment of the Parthenon, currently at the British Museum
in London. Photograph © Andrew Dunn, 3 December 2005. Retrieved from http://www.andrewdunnphoto.com/ .
Fig. 2 : Part of the central section of the east frieze. From left to right, Hermes (sitting), Dionysos, Ares,
Iris (standing), Hera and Zeus. The British Museum. Retrieved from www.britishmuseum.org , on
8 However, without a direct reference to Persians in any of the iconography, the only signs that might point to the
preceding wars and the Athenian prominence, would be the battle of the centaurs or with the Amazons, which pointed at the inferior 'Other', which in this case would translate to the Persians being "barbarians" (Spivey, 1996, p. 150).
15.12.2018
Fig. 3 : Head of a horse, part of the collection of the Elgin Marbles. The British Museum. Retrieved from
www.britishmuseum.org , on 15.12.2018
Elgin's associates removed parts of the "upperworks" of the temple on the north, as well as the south, breaking some triglyphs in the act. Their removal has caused much controversy over the years both in Greece and in the United Kingdom. European historical sources have registered that the Ottomans were rather indi erent to the matter, hence providing Lord Elgin with the
firman he needed to remove the sculptures, without any objections (Williams, 2009). According to Eldem (2011) though, it is not impossible that Lord Elgin might have 'misinterpreted' the restricting text of the firman , that only allowed the removal of some "pieces of stone with inscriptions or gures" (p. 286). He goes on to posit, that the firman certainly did not allow lord Elgin to remove parts from existing sculptures, but rather only authorising him for the retrieval of measurements, in order for casts to be produced. Eldem (2011) suggests that the disparity between the content of the firman and the consequent action is possibly attributed to a bribe (p. 287), a notion that would render Lord Elgin's act of removing the sculptures, highly immoral
from the very start. 9
Nevertheless, similar procedures of disassembling continued over the next four decades, with the temple enduring "constant diminution and sifting at the hands of demolition workers, stone-masons and collectors of antiquities" (Korres, 1994, p. 156). Elgin's original intentions with the marbles, supposedly revolved around the creation of casts and drawings, in order to provide information as to "improve contemporary art and design" (St. Clair, 1998, 399-401). However, due to his unfortunate nancial situation, Lord Elgin submitted a proposal through a committee to the English Parliament, in order to sell his collection to the nation. After many rounds of negotiation and the examination of the marbles by various prominent artists of the time, as well as notable antiqueries from all over Europe, who were called to estimate their value, the collection became national property in 1816, declaring that Britain is the most appropriate country to honour, preserve, and exhibit the magnitude of ancient Greece (Jenkins, 2018, p. 107). The marbles were transferred to the British Museum in 1816, and situated at a temporary10 gallery previously constructed to house the Bassae frieze (Cook, 1984). The Parthenon marbles were amongst the rst "complexes" to be purchased by a government, and situated in a museum, instead of adorning an individual collection, as was the usual case (Boardman, 2000, p. 241). Even though the British Museum did not have any archaeological collections when it rst opened its doors, there was a great amount of pride accompanying the acquisition of the Elgin Marbles. The museum's initial predicament changed in the 19th century, when it altered its mission and o cially transitioned from being a "cabinet of curiosities" to an institution focused on archaeology and art (Jenkins, 2018, p. 84). In the 19th century the Elgin Marbles were venerated by the general public, with what could only be described as "near religious awe" (Sloan, 2004, p. 17), with Rothenberg (1985) describing them as a "universal shrine" of Classical Antiquity, dedicated to its greatest time; Athens in the fth-century BC.
While at the British Museum, the Parthenon Marbles were not only be admired by the general public, but they also served scholarly purposes. This symbolic gesture clearly paved the way for
9 According to Ellis (1833), "when the rmaun was presented to the Vaivode of Athens, presents of value were
acknowledged to have been delivered to him". For more information, please see: Ellis, H. (1833). The British Museum: Elgin and Phigaleian Marbles . London: [Published under the Superintendence of[ The Society for the Di usion of Useful Knowledge.
10 For more information on the story of the negotiations between Elgin and the Government, as well as the
estimation of value of the Elgin Marbles by various artists, please see: Cook, B. F., & British Museum. (1984). The Elgin marbles . London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications, pp. 61-66.
the role of such sculptures to be considered rst and foremost, educational and instructional; "[they] had changed the social function of rare antiquities from decorative to educational, and from private to public purposes" (Rothenberg, 1985, p. 3,7). The gallery room in which the Parthenon Marbles were situated, was proving to be quite impractical, due to the large amount of visitors that rushed to the British Museum to admire the antiquities of the Classical Past. Therefore, Lord Duveen, a wealthy art connoisseur, dealer, and supporter of the museum, was gracious enough in volunteering to fund the creation of a new gallery room to house the Elgin marbles. He had very clear ideas on how to display works of art; he strongly disliked the11 discoloration in the marbles and wanted them to be monochrome, in particular white; hence he hired workers to clean the marbles, while the administration of the museum timidly succumbed to his purist whims (Boardman, 2000, p. 246). The over-cleaning of the marbles in late late 1930s supposedly cannot serve as proof of bad maintenance, but for Duveen it was necessary, in order to construct the pure, "pristine white" that was expected at a museum display.
Boardman (2000) suggests that in order to deduce if any signi cant impairment has taken place, the sculptures needed to be evaluated on two levels, as "works of art and as archaeological documents" (p. 256). The rst level, he believes to be a matter of personal taste, since the surface that was removed to achieve a monochromatic result was minimal; minus 150 microns. On the second level, he believed that their educational and instructional role -which supersedes the value of the authentic image- to be greater and more valuable, in their current state. Secondly, he evoked his authenticity and experience, after spending hours of meticulously studying the originals and the casts, where he found no important or visible signs of damage (Boardman, 2000, p. 257-258). The Parthenon marbles are exhibited up to this day at the British Museum in the Duveen Gallery (room 18).
According to Weiner (1992), artifacts such as the Parthenon marbles, can be described as "dense objects", with their density in this case, originating from their rich and emblematic biography as masterpieces of the Classical Antiquity, from their sensory and a ective properties, and their contemporary signi cance as a contested asset between two countries; Britain, a global force, and Greece, a country that considers itself an imperial power of culture. The Parthenon Marbles have acquired di erent meanings over the years, and di erent roles in allegorical transactions. They
11 For more information on the history of Lord Duveen and the controversy regarding the Duveen gallery, please see:
Kehoe, E. (2004). Working hard at giving it away: Lord Duveen, the British Museum and the Elgin marbles.
started o as examples of Athen's imperial power; moving on to aesthetic depictions of both identity and otherness, then turning into a transactional commodity between Britain and the Ottoman regime, and ultimately becoming the jewel in the British crown of imperial might. Their stay in London has turned them into an expression of the British national identity, directly linked to imperialism and colonial practices, while they are simultaneously perceived as maybe the most signi cant symbol of the Hellenic national identity. The latter would explain the strong reactions they elicit from the Greek public, everytime their role in gurative transactions "o ends "their sacred stated, in the eyes of Greek citizens (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 31).
A point that could only be emphasized by the strong reaction the Greek public had, once the Duveen over-cleaning scandal broke out. The unauthorized cleaning of the sculptures in the 1930s by Duveen's workers, signi ed more than an arbitrary intervention on some of the most important works of Classical Antiquity. The sculptures were such signi cant symbols of the Hellenic national identity and played such an important role in the national myth, that people had attributed metaphysical powers to them, essentially treating them as living and breathing creatures, that were capable of human emotions. Frequently in the Greek press and media, appear texts that highlight the pain and sadness that the marbles have experienced -and continue to do so- from the forceful separation and mutilation from their natural habitat. Therefore, their scraping, apart from the removal of the "patina of age" that rendered them authentic (Yalouri, 2000, p. 17), guratively signi ed the loss of their human skin in the eyes of a large part of the Greek public, making them unable to establish a "haptic" connection with the people that are expecting them back in the homeland (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 280).
Over the past decades both public debates and formal claims for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece have been instigated, with a detailed timeline presented in Fig. 4 . The rst round of public outcry was instigated by Lord Byron's poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage
(1812-1818) , with Lord Byron publicling characterising Lord Elgin's act not as a heroic protection of "historic treasures" as many others did, but rather as a "vile desecration" (Jenkins, 2018, p. 97). In comparison, public criticism also against the British Museum, has been steadily 12 growing since the acquisition of the Elgin Marbles. During the 1980s Melina Merkouri, a Greek
12 Lord Byron's poem titled Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, A Romaunt instantly became famous and launched a
heated round of debates, regarding Lord Elgin and the return of the Marbles to Greece. Lord Byron, a well-known Philhellene , de ned the 'tradition' of emotional tears as a reaction to the tragic de lement of the Acropolis -even though he was not the rst to write about it (Beard, 2010, pp. 11, 15).
actress who had also served as minister of Culture, launched a political campaign asking for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens, therefore turning the matter into an o cial government issue. According to Merkouri when asked for the return of the Elgin Marbles: "The very name of our country is immediately associated with the Parthenon. The Parthenon has become a symbol of democracy". After the discourse o cially entered the nation's agenda, it 13 became a sacralized topic; unfaltered of any sense of criticism. This change to how the matter was perceived, could be attributed to the global "transition from modernity to late modernity, when post-nationalistic tendencies gave place to the resurgence of the nation-state: neoliberal tensions evoke new dimensions for the national narrative and create a new space for tourism to become a dominant economic asset" (Angouri et al., 2017, p. 211). Ever since Merkouri brought the return of the Parthenon Marbles on the surface, the discourse of their return had a constant but
uctuating presence in the media’s sphere and national imaginary (Hamilakis 2010 [1999]).
Fig. 4 : Timeline of the history of debates for the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece. (Angouri et
al., 2017, p. 212)
In more recent years, the Parthenon Marbles have o cially been a topic of negotiation between Greece and the United Kingdom, under UNESCO's aegis, since 2001. Greece's perseverance in demanding the return of the Parthenon Marbles throughout the years, has rendered the
13 Merkouri, M. (June 1986). Speech to the Oxford Union. Retrieved from
discourse a topic of international acknowledgement. Greece managed to be able to revisit the negotiations every two years -and until a nal solution is reached- through UNESCO'S ICPRCP. However, the United Kingdom has o cially refused to accept UNESCO's14 mediation so far. A fair reason for that would be that the UK does not value UNESCO's role enough to acknowledge any possible intervention as signi cant; a notion that was met with callousness from both the Greek and the international press. What can be deduced however with certainty is that previous public declarations of willingness to reach a solution, made by the British Museum or the Government, currently seem like nothing more than pretenses (Stamatoudi, 2016, pp. 450-451).
As mentioned previously, the Parthenon marbles have become the emblematic manifestation of a national imagined linear connection between contemporary and ancient Greece. This exact ethnically constructed sacralised belief, has rendered the Parthenon Marbles a symbolic article, as a product of national labeling. Therefore, the debate's inclusion in the national agenda of the Greek government, not only made the discourse more signi cant for the ethnic political stage, but also originated a "new era of national narratives", naturally situated within Greece's current social and economic situation (Angouri et al., 2017, p. 215). While the initial demands for the return of the Parthenon marbles by the Greek government were made on the basis of ownership, recently their agenda and diplomatic approach has changed. In particular, they have adopted a stance that does not treat the objects as artefacts and possessions, but rather as breathing bodies, in need of empathy and compassion, while they are away from home (Hamilakis, 2007, p. 282); bodies that need to be reunited to create the 'whole' that has been absent for all these years. An interesting analysis of the discourses of return could be ensued by following the sociological trajectories of the debates. If roles were to be assigned to the two poles of the argument, in a rather liberal and allegorical manner, based on their position in the global power structure, then according to hegemonic hierarchies, Greece could be viewed as the general public and the UK as the power structure, rooted in authority. Therefore, in a transnational context, Greece strives to achieve the return of the Marbles by following a bottom-up social approach; applying pressure
14 " UNESCO Member States which have lost certain cultural objects of fundamental signi cance and are calling for
their restitution or return, in cases where international conventions cannot be applied, may call on the
Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation ", Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/restitution-of-cultural-property/intergovernmental-committee/ , on 06.01.2019.
and demanding social change from the public to the authority. However, in a national context the trajectory followed is top-down, where the authorities apply pressure to the public, so it will demand with more fervour their return, especially during times of political opportunities, essentially manipulating the sentiment surrounding the Parthenon marbles, and what they symbolise for contemporary Greeks, for their own political gain. Public debates and acts of protests, are still a highly recurring event. For instance, associations of Greek students who reside in the UK have often visited the British Museum with signs, asking for the return of the sculptures to Greece ( Fig. 5) . Melina Merkouri's death also instigated a new round of heated protests; an actress turned politician, with her name inextricably linked to the campaign for the return of the marbles. On the day that she died, many Greek people visited the British Museum to deposit owers on the Parthenon sculptures, as if they were her own grave. A highly sentimental notion, which reveals that people not only had aligned Merkouri's life cause with the Parthenon sculptures, but they also considered her to be their most prominent modern "safekeeper" ( Fig. 6 ). More recently, six women dressed as Caryatids, led by the soprano Sonia Theodoridou entered the British Museum looking for their long-lost sister ( Fig. 7 ). This protest-march, as a sign of banal nationalism, renders the passion for the return of the sculptures as the grotesque exoticism of a country, that spends its cultural capital in museological farces (Papatheodorou, 2014). According to Hatzis (2005), Greece needs to nd its place in an ever-changing globalised world; a place that won't be acquired with ancient Greek togas or
fustanelle , but rather with creative and meaningful contributions to the world (p. 183). 15
Fig. 5 : From the student demonstration for the restitution of the Parthenon marbles, outside the British
Museum, 5 December 1997, (Hamilakis, 2009, p. 45)
Fig. 6 : Greek demonstrators leave owers on the sculptures of the east pediment in 1994, a few days after
the death of Melina Mercouri, (Hamilakis, 2009, p. 255).
Fig. 7 : The "Caryatids"protesting at the British Museum, Retrieved on 26.01.2019, from
https://www.tovima.gr/2014/06/10/culture/eksi-karyatides-sto-londino-zitoyn-pisw-ta-glypta-toy-parth enwna/#commentForm .
This sentiment as described above, dictates that the Parthenon marbles under the scope of romantic nationalism are perceived as the exiled, abducted children to a defenseless mother, a metaphor that has been perpetuated following their removal, and nding its peak within the campaign for their return. A rhetoric gesture, usually repeated within the political, the social, 16 and the cultural realm, demands the return of the marbles, incorporating their own agency, their
voice . The sculptures demand their re-uni cation with the motherland. For example in 2009, during the opening of the Acropolis museum, the minister of Culture at the time, stated that "The Marbles seek the other Marbles.. The Parthenon and its sculpture were victims to looting. This crime can be amended today. The [Acropolis] museum is the moral voice that calls them back" (Gkotsi, 2015, p. 58). This statement highlights the museum's own agency, by assigning it,
16 Metaphors between the ancient and the contemporary Greeks have appeared in various philhellenic writings. For
example, Chateaubriand (1969, p. 902) while gazing at the marble and rock ruins of Attica in 1806, was moved by the sorrow of the living remnants ("où des ruines vivantes détournent à chaque instant votre attention des ruines de marbre et de pierre").
