Heritage, landscape and the stakeholders
The uses and functions of heritage in complex and multi-layered
landscapes
Efi Giannetopoulou
Supervisor: G.J.M. van Wijngaarden
February 2018
3
Heritage, landscape and the stakeholders
The uses and functions of heritage in complex and multi-layered
landscapes
Efi Giannetopoulou
Supervisor: G.J.M. van Wijngaarden
February 2018
5
Contents
1. Introduction... 7 2.The concept of landscape...7-11 3.The stakeholders of heritage... 11-19 3.1The nation as a stakeholder... 14-15 3.2 Archaeology and Nationalism... 15-17 3.3 The public as a stakeholder... 17-19 4. Greek archaeology: past-present-future... 19-25 4.1 Greek past and nation-building... 19-20 4.2 Legislating the past... 20-21 4.3 Greek archaeology and politics... 21-24 4.4 Archaeology and the public in Greece... 24-25 5.The city of Eleusis... 25-29 5.1 A biography of Eleusis... 29-33 5.2 Eleusis in the present... 33-36 6. Cyprus: a contested landscape... 36-45 6.1 Historical background...37-39 6.2 Archaeology of Cyprus... 39-42 6.3 Dealing with heritage in conflict... ....42-45 7. The city of Larnaca... 45-46 7.1 Biography of Larnaca... 46-50 7.2 Larnaca in the present... 50-51 8. Eleusis and Larnaca: two cities with a multilayered past... 51-55 8.1 Valuable to who?... 56-57 9. Conclusions... 58 10. Bibliography... 59-66
6
7
1. Introduction
Everyone has certain personal associations with the landscape that surrounds them, the area where they live, work or were born.1 Consequently, landscape plays a fundamental role in people's lives and perceptions. The significance that individuals and social groups attribute to the landscape is related to their personal and collective background as well as to their identity. The meaning that different social groups give to landscapes changes over time and in that sense, it is not possible to refer to a single ''identity'' of a landscape. As much as people possess different identities, the landscape is assigned to more than one identity.2 In this thesis, I will attempt to present that complex landscapes are attributed with multiple and contested identities. Archaeology plays a vital role in the collective identity of different communities, nevertheless as will be shown, archaeology does not always have a central role in enhancing the ties of the collective memory in a community. The choices of the stakeholders and authors of a landscape, influence the final image that a landscape presents in the present. These stakeholders are divergent and many times compete with each other and as will be discussed below, the residents are significant authors of the landscape since they are the ones that interact in their everyday lives with it.
The two case studies that have been chosen to be presented in this thesis, Eleusis in Greece and Larnaca in Cyprus, are two complicated and multilayered landscapes that each contain different identities that are connected with their ancient and recent pasts. The similarities that these cities present are related to the way heritage and archaeology are being managed and used in both Greece and Cyprus. The national ideology of the two countries is being transferred to the sites.
In the pages that follow, I will try to present how the landscape interacts with its authors and how a biography of landscape is significant in order to understand a place in its complexity. The stakeholders of a landscape will be discussed, as they are the reasons that a landscape is being altered. Further on, the way heritage and archaeology has been developed and is being managed in Greece and Cyprus will be discussed, in order to conceive what is the role that archaeology has played in the enhancement of a national and a local identity.
2. The concept of Landscape
In this thesis, I conceive landscape as an interactive entity where past and present, tangible and intangible notions correlate and create new layers of engagement. Landscape research has been through many stages and different orientations. During the 1960s and 1970s, the holistic approaches of landscape that originated in cultural geography gave way to more progressive theories and models of spatial analysis. These were influenced by the
1 Elerie & Spek 2010: 88 2
8
quantitative and statistical examples that were introduced by the ''new'' human geography as well as the ''new'' processual archaeology.3
The use of the term ''biography'' to refer to something different than a human life story originated in anthropology and was initially used primarily in relation to the history of prestigious objects. 4 It was referred to as the ''cultural biography of things'', or the ''social life of things''. The key to this was the continual passing on of objects from one owner and/or user to another, which meant they were also transferred from one social context to another. In particular, the meaning of objects was also subject to drastic change. Archaeologists adopted the concept of biography, referring to the ''biography of places'' and later also the ''biography of landscapes''.5 The varying perception of places and landscapes by different individuals, social groups, cultures and periods also played a key role in these terms.
Since the 1970s, landscape biography has been the object of various disciplines, including geography, archaeology, and history. One of the first researchers to explore the role of the individual in the landscape was Marwyn Samuels. 6 In his view, individuals continuously ‘’write’’ the ‘’text’’ of urban space. Landscape transformations can be ascribed to social, political or economic developments, as much as they can be the result of ideas and interventions of people. Samuels identified the ‘landscapes of impressions’, layers of ideologies and cultural representation of space, which in turn form the context of the actual creation of landscapes, the ‘landscapes of expression’. 7 This last concept is the physically visible, materialized landscape. According to Samuels, this landscape influences and inspires the experiences of the people. Because of this, there is a continuous dialectical movement in which spatial experience and imagination on the one hand and spatial acting on the other influence and succeed each other.8
One of the pioneer works dealing with landscape was the ''Making of the English Landscape'' published in 1955 by W.G.Hoskins. The book dealt with a detailed history of the ordinary man-made scenery. This new kind of history contributed to a more general appreciation of the landscape. The book resulted in the transformation of the view of landscape into ''a humane, historical art''.9 For Hoskins, landscape appreciation derives from historical understanding. Landscape is the study of localities and it embeds a local form of history. 10
3
Elerie & Spek 2010: 90
4 Kopytoff 1986 5 Roymans 2009 6 Samuel 1979 7 Samuel 1979: 69
8 Kolen & Renes 2015: 255 9 Meining 1997: 196 10
9
The landscape is a perpetual attestation to the lives and works of preceding generations, who have inhabited it and have left a part of themselves.11 A biography of landscape contains historical information trying to make a perspective of a long period of use. A landscape is constituted by many different life-histories so in that sense the methodological framework for using this concept derives directly from Kopytoff's and Appadurai's ideas about the biography of things/objects and their social lives.12 Combining the life stories of the different archaeological and geographical layers can give an in-depth study and an interpretation of a certain landscape. Biography of landscape supports the idea of the coexistence and communication of different layers that build to the final image of the landscape.13
Places are as differentiated as the range of identities and meanings attached to them. Places are more than points on locations, due to the fact that they have unique meanings and values for people. Geographical experience begins in places and formulates landscapes for human existence.14 A landscape is a set of places that are connected with paths, movements, and narratives. It is a cultural code for the lives of people, a text to be read and interpreted in various forms, it is imbued with human significances. Landscape represents a conceptual ordering, a holistic concept in which, in contradiction to a place that privileges singularity, it acts in order to embrace and not to exclude.15
Through living in it, the landscape becomes a part of us, just as we are a part of it. At the same time landscapes shape their own life histories on different timescales, affecting human life cycles. There is a strong intertwining between places and people. Landscape biography implies an entanglement of multiple histories with the enactment of places and spaces. 16 Landscapes are never fully understood from one perspective. As Tim Ingold has described, landscapes are never actually completed but imputed in the life histories of those who inhabit them. 17 Places, like persons, have biographies inasmuch as they are formed, used and transformed in relation to practice. It can be argued that stories acquire part of their value and historical relevance if they are rooted in the details of locales in the landscape, acquiring material reference points that can be visited, seen and touched.18
What landscape is, depends on who is experiencing it, due to the fact that it is differently understood. Space is embedded with temporal experiences because spaces are continuously created and transformed, related to spaces of the past. 19 Societies organise their existence
11 Kopytoff 1986 12
Kopytoff 1986
13
Huijbens & Benediktsson 2015: 100
14
Tilley 1994: 15
15 Tilley 1994: 34 16
Kolen & Renes 2015: 99
17 Ingold 1993 18 Tilley 1994: 33 19
10
in the midst of traces of previous generations and civilizations.20 When it comes to culture, there are processes of transformation that add new meanings and values to heritage. Hence, changing societies make different choices when it comes to remembering and forgetting.21 Each historical period appreciates the different layers of the past in a unique way, the so-called ''past in the past''.22 Heritage is never an objective premise as it is interconnected with the social construction of values and identities in every society.23 The landscape plays a crucial role in these processes of construction of identity for communities.24 The biography of landscape as a concept can be applied to heritage management since the notion of ''layeredness'' represents the temporal dimension of the landscape. Earlier transformations of the landscape can be visible in the contemporary environment, even if these transformations are not only material traces but memories and traditions attached to a living environment. The layered landscape represents a multiple past. Daily journeys through the landscape become biographic encounters for the individual through the traces of past activities and previous events that can be read.25
The 'authorship' of landscapes is one of the most leading points in biographical approach. It is not possible to separate the history and the meaning of a landscape from the lives and works of the individuals that have inhabited it.26 ''Landscapes without authors would be like books without writers. They too might exist, but only as bindings filled with empty pages''.27 The biography of landscape has its central focus on the role of individuals-authors- in the making of landscape. The concept of the biography of landscape deals with what was in the past and is in the present, the actual worlds of individuals in their contexts, worlds of authored landscapes.28 In that sense, landscape biography suggests an interaction between multiple histories of individuals, places, and spaces. Landscapes are worlds-in-formation, never finished but intensely involved in the life histories of those who live around them.29 By tracing the intentions of the individuals it is possible to understand and interpret the meanings they have ascribed to the landscape and the ways they have interacted with it in order to give it the shape that we visualize. By collecting the narratives and the contexts in which people behaved on the landscape, we can discern biographies of landscape.30 Narrative is a means of understanding and describing the world in relation to agency. It is a means of linking locales, landscapes, actions, events and experiences together providing a
20
Meining 1997: 40
21
Anderson 1991: 206
22 Elerie & Spek 2010 23 Roymans 2009: 352 24 Roymans 2009: 356 25 Tilley 1994: 27
26 Kolen & Renes 2015: 32 27 Samuel 1979: 64 28 Samuel 1979: 67 29 Huijbens Benediktsson 2015: 99 30 Meining 1979: 65
11
synthesis of heterogeneous phenomena.31 Through the biography of a landscape, it is possible to understand the contestedness of a place when different actions, emotions, and experiences are all intertwined and compete in a landscape.
A landscape biography depends on the time-depth of the analysis. In addition, as a landscape is constituted of a big amount of individual life stories, using the biography metaphor for understanding the longue-duree of the landscape is related to the individual biographies. The comprehension of landscapes in the biographical approach does not depend on a linear chronology since a landscape is an all-encompassing entity. Biography in this sense entails the idea of a coexistence of very different time-depths.32
Landscape at each point in time as the outcome of a complex interplay between the history of mentalities and values, institutional and governmental changes, social and economic and ecological developments. All landscape transformations necessarily involve a reordering, reuse, and representation of the past which gives landscape development an almost non-linear character.33
3. The stakeholders of heritage
Landscapes consist of sites that are engraved with meanings that represent either a particular individual, a group or a community. They are locations with which people connect, either physically or emotionally and are enclosed with the sense of belonging, exclusion, ownership and identity.34 A cultural landscape is never passive as people interact with it, engage with it, adapt to it and contest it. People attach different meanings to their landscapes and shape them both consciously and unconsciously throughout history. The different layers from which a landscape is composed, derive from constantly changing economic, political, cultural and societal factors and the different values that are placed. Like society, the landscape is in a continuous state of flux since it never stops transforming and developing.35
Populations that are being part of the landscape transformation, reinvent the symbols and signs of the landscape in different contexts. Landscapes are always open to interpretation and contestation. Tangible cultural elements in a landscape such as buildings, monuments, street names, graffiti actually represent interpretations of the past in the public sphere. The cultural landscape is a resource for understanding the interconnected concepts of heritage, memory, and identity.36
31
Tilley 1994: 31
32 Kolen & Renes: 100 33 Roymans 2009: 339 34 McDowell 2008: 38 35 McDowell 2008: 38 36 McDowell 2008: 40
12
In the archaeological landscape that is incorporated in the territorial borders of every country, there are multiple stakeholders that hold different understandings, interpretations, and interests concerning heritage. 37 In theory, all people can be considered stakeholders in a World Heritage context. Nevertheless, there is a number of stakeholders whose voices are particularly strong during the management of an archaeological site. Starting from the government and the local municipality, local officials responsible for safeguarding and conservation of cultural property, the people that follow are the heritage experts, academics, and archaeologists. Interest in archaeological sites claim, also, businesses that are affected by tourism, visitors to the sites and local residents that interact (or not) in their everyday lives with the site. The latter category of people is usually left out of the consultation and management processes of a heritage site.38
Stakeholders are those individuals, groups, organizations or institutions that have an interest in an archaeological place. These interests can be related to ethnic ideas, economic benefits, social cohesion. Due to the number of the stakeholders and their conflicting interests, there can be local tensions, academic competitiveness regarding the scientific exploitation of a site, national and regional conflicts that lead to different perceptions of an archaeological site. 39 The most typical stakeholders of a cultural site are:
Government agencies, such as environmental agencies, tourist agencies, religious authorities or nongovernmental organizations with an interest on the site; archaeologists and other researchers who have done significant work at the site; groups with an affinity or ancestral relationship to a site, such as Native Americans in the United States; local community members who benefit economically or who want to use the site for commercial or social purposes; or conversely, who may be adversely affected by the site as a result of land disputes or influx of tourists and traffic; private tourist agencies representing the interests of tourists and local or regional business interests; specialized tourists, such as religious tourists or pilgrims, or groups who come in large numbers and may have special requirements or may impact the site;40 auction houses, collectors, ancient art dealers, private museums.41
The different stakeholders that claim hold on an archaeological landscape, derived from the different values that are inscribed in it. There are many archaeological sites that retain an ancestral relationship with their local communities, others where tourism interests are the focus of attention 42 and a large number that does not belong to any of the above. The values that are attributed to archaeological sites are the ones that define their meaning and their significance. The multiplicity of values that a site encloses, derives from the large 37 Levy 2007: 171 38 Millar 2006: 39 39 Brian Egloff 2006: 86
40 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 31 41 Lekakis 2012: 685
42
13
number of perspectives and interpretations of people, professional groups, and communities. These values can be generally put into two basic categories: the values that are defined by professionals and academics (historical and artistic) and the values that represent the wider public that deals with the archaeology of the present reality (natural, social, spiritual and economic).43
The values that people attribute to the landscape derive from their beliefs, ideas, and experiences. For example, New Age spiritual seekers, use archaeological sites for rituals or festivals, because they believe that they attract some astronomical energy deriving from the ancient myths. Christian tourists’ pilgrimage to archaeological sites of the Eastern Mediterranean is also another example. 44 In other sites, specific groups of people claim their place in the world through cultural and spiritual connections, as has happened with the Stonehenge, used by pagans’ celebrations.45
The wider community is an important stakeholder since it is also the community, which, directly or indirectly pays for archaeological investigation, research, and management. Therefore they should also have the right to participate in this management if the archaeologists and the rest of the stakeholders would provide an appropriate opportunity to do so. The involvement of the community as a stakeholder has been firmly limited with some projects being inclusive, but the vast majority being exclusive.( The Concept of ‘the Public’ and the Aims of Public Archaeology page 69)REF?? Scientific value and academic publications are considered of great importance while spiritual or symbolic values are communicated in more informal ways.46
The social and educational values of an archaeological site, meaning the ability of a site to provide knowledge and understanding of the past, are often overlooked since archaeological landscapes are thought to be repositories of information.47 The people that inscribe these values into a landscape are, as L. Smith argues48, the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), which ‘’focuses attention on aesthetically pleasing material objects, sites, places and/or landscapes that current generations ‘must’ care for, protect and revere so that they may be passed to nebulous future generations for their ‘education’, and to forge a sense of common identity based on the past’’. The AHD defines who are the people that are authorized to talk about the past while taking for granted the idea that ‘’heritage’’ is by nature, valuable.49 Another value of heritage, that is also being underestimated, is the economic one. Heritage experts perceive the economic value of a site as of secondary importance, and as a result, they tend to exclude it. Nevertheless, for many major stakeholders such as local
43
Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 36
44
Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 37
45 Knowles 2013: 3 46
Mackay 2006: 132
47 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 37 48 Smith 2006
49
14
communities, businesses, government, the most important value of an archaeological site is economic.50 This particular value is an important benefactor, not only as a profitable place but also concerning the investment that it requires for its conservation and maintenance. In the end, local communities often ask, if it is worth it to pay for the conservation of a site if there is no economic profit to be withdrawn.
The historical or artistic values given to a site, coming from professionals, are enhancing memory. When a site complies with the criteria placed by the AHD, the memory of the site becomes authorized. National memory is considered to be in conjunction with official memory in most societies, thus deriving from the state and its institutions that embody the values of the general public. Nation-states play a fundamental role in the construction of heritage, as they channel their ideas through socialization and education. Hence, the state is the official mediator of public commemoration and so of national heritage.51 Consequently, the nation may be considered as one of the prime stakeholders over archaeological sites.
3.1 The Nation as a stakeholder
Every social group needs a collective identity, a shared past with common experiences which have influenced the group over time. This shared past plays a fundamental role in ensuring a sense of togetherness and of solidarity, which is essential for the legitimization of a national identity. National homogeneity necessitates a sense of collectiveness that can be validated through common historical experiences.52 Nevertheless, identities and memories are profoundly selective due to the fact that they serve political and ideological interests. The past is a constructed story, deliberately chosen and subsequently consumed. Monuments, sites, moments and events are ‘’bought’’ for consumption, in order to create a feeling of communal identity.53 Heritage is not given but made. People with political power are able to influence or even define what should be commemorated and what forgotten. Monuments and buildings embedded with specific symbols and signs of identity carry messages that are under competing interests.54
Since the 19th century, the concept of the nation has been developed and used with different perspectives. The essentialist approach of the nation, accepts it as a pre-existing entity, building on a national ideology that is constructed especially when in romantic and historical places. This ideology then results in the construction and perception of the nation itself and mostly in the definition of identities. The construction of a national narrative through selected symbols that are placed in a specific ‘’time’’, presents the nation as a
50 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 38 51 McDowell 2008: 41 52 McDowell 2008: 41 53 McDowell 2008: 42 54 McDowell 2008: 43
15
historical agent that adds to the historical continuity. National identity and historiography represent the memory, which is a crucial feature for the nation.55
The importance of collective memory in the building of nationhood is situated in the creation of a sense of belonging to the national group. The collective memory becomes of the same value for the national culture as the flag or the national anthem.56 A nation defines itself by means of historical symbols, which mark the territory of political membership. Nations present a form of collective memory through a past that has ancient origins or a ‘’golden age’’. This shared history is continuously reaffirmed and reproduced. Social memory and ethnic identity, through heritage affirmations, enhance nationalism, since ancient reproductions for the celebration of a shared past are used to differentiate ‘’us’’ from the ‘’other’’.57
Since the 19th century, ethnic identity in most countries in Europe has become synonymous with national identity. The fact that nationalism in its ideological development has equated modern state political legitimacy with group cultural antiquity, means that the characteristic of exclusion and homogeneity has to be projected onto the past of the people and place. As a result, it has a significant effect on the way that archaeology embedded within a state, operates. 58 Through the manipulation of material or immaterial culture and the symbols that a culture contains, ethnic groups are being formed. On the other hand, these symbols are used by certain political strategies and mostly employed for group manipulation.59
Archaeology provides ideological national narratives especially for states that face a continuous pressure and threat on their territorial borders from outside powers. These states demand a strong internal unity, homogeneity and solidarity in order to confront this imagined ‘’danger’’, with Greece and Cyprus being perfect examples. The archaeological heritage of a region is viewed as one of the key expressions of the uniqueness and a tool for the marketing of a ‘’national signature’’.
3.2 Archaeology and Nationalism
Archaeology is not a neutral or purely ‘’scientific’’ discipline, but it is often driven by the aims of its practitioners who operate in different contexts, such as academic or political. One of these strategies that have been enhanced through archaeology is nationalism.60 The rise of nationalism in Europe occurred with the transformation of antiquarianism into archaeology. During the early 20th century, in a climate of increasing nationalism, the origins of the nations used spatial terms that derived from the descent of people, being 55 Liakos 2001: 28 56 Curran 2007: 104 57 Lalioti 2006: 136 58 Stritch 2013: 150 59 Curta 2014: 2509 60 Kane 2003: 3
16
enhanced from archaeology and philology.61 Nationalism and archaeology made almost a coincidental appearance. Archaeology grew in the 18th and 19th centuries as an integral part of the projects of nationalism and colonialism.62 In modern times, archaeology is being manipulated as a means for the enhancement of national sentiments.63
Archaeology as a discipline has been given the power to question the material evidence for a state's values of continuity and territoriality, therefore the legitimacy of a state.64 Territoriality and continuity are two values that can define the integrity of a state as well as the ethnic or cultural unity of a group. Hence, archaeology and the past in general, are invested with a significance by the state due to the fact that they provide the essential evidence for homogeneity and continuation of the nation. Archaeology and the past are used for shaping the narratives and the symbols that eventually represent the nation-state. Group collective memory, as well as the sense of community, is activated by these narratives.65
Nationalism is a social construction of reality.66 In this context, archaeology plays a fundamental role in verifying national identities. The exploitation of archaeology for political reasons is not only limited in the reconstruction of a national identity but also in the enhancement of certain political strategies, by fulfilling the purposes and interests of national governments when it comes to the appropriation of their power. The archaeological dialectic is manipulated, the archaeological object becomes a subject, archaeology is not an achievement of the past but a social agent.67
In the framework of nationalism, archaeological remains are used to maintain the needs and claims of certain ethnic voices and pasts while silencing and set aside other that are considered less meaningful. This problematic aspect of the presentation of the archaeological remains raises questions of ownership of the past and its material remains.68 Archaeological sites are dichotomous, meaning that they can unify or divide. Not every part of the society is participating equally or remembering a specific past.69 Heritage can become especially contested because it creates feelings of belonging and identity with specific pasts and groups.70 At the same time heritage is based on a history that is seen differently by different interested parties and therefore encapsulates notions of inclusion and exclusion.71
61 Thomas 2004: 109 62 Trigger 1984 63 Stritch 2013: 148 64 Stritch 2013: 151 65 Stritch 2013: 151 66 Athanasopoulos 2002: 277 67 Hamilakis 2016: 240-255 68 Stritch 2013: 162 69 McDowell 2008: 45
70 Pacifico, & Vogel 2012: 1591 71
17
What is important to mention is that the dominance of the bond of nationalism and archaeology is highly variable. Archaeology is being used from many states, such as Greece, Italy or Cyprus as a national legitimating, nevertheless, nationalism is not always connected to archaeology. Countries such as the USA or Russia, that are quite nationalistic for example, do not use archaeology to support the state.
3.3 The public as a stakeholder
An archaeological site, though, does not only serve as a tool of contested ideologies concerning national identity. The state plays a fundamental role in shaping the archaeological landscape of any country and forming the national ideologies by linking archaeology with the present. Nevertheless, there is another major stakeholder, often overlooked when managing an archaeological site and that is the public.
The public is a quite broad term that needs explanation. The ''public'' of public participation is a contested term in archaeology. The sweeping ''general public'' or ''the community'' has been broken down into a catalogue that includes local interests, government groups, academics, tourists, collectors, foundations but also professionals and academic archaeologists.
According to Merriman, the ''public'' has a two-sided definition.72 On the one hand the ''public'' is associated with the state and its institutions, such as universities, museums, cultural heritage directorates and so on, as well as with interpretations and uses of the past associated with the people, for instance as in terms of a broad concept stemming from popular and consumer culture or more specifically associated with political associations and movements or activist groups.73
The public can be considered as a group of individuals who consume cultural products and whose conceptions about archaeology influence the ‘’public opinion’’. The state assumes that this role has been assigned to it, therefore it is accepted that the state can ‘’speak’’ and decide on behalf of the people and act ‘’in the public interest’’. Hence this results in minority interests not being well represented. The public as a multivalent force has the power to influence and bring change. On the other hand, the public is never a coherent faceless mass, but rather a divergent group consisted by people with different age, sex, class, ethnicity, and religion, therefore different interests that can be in conflict with each other.74
The two notions of ‘’the public’’, the state and the people, are often in discordance. The most important debate here is who has the rights to own and interpret the material remains of the past. This internal versus external distinction of archaeological practice, between profession (the state) and the wider public (the people), directs attention to archaeology as
72 Merriman 2004
73 Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192 74
18
a political arena encompassing various stakeholders' interests and needs. Archaeologists are, within this context, one among several stakeholders who want to influence the interpretation and uses of archaeology.75
From the local community perspective, archaeological heritage is just one of several topics and archaeologists are just one group among several actors involved in heritage productions and ownership of the past. A range of elements, such as stories, myths, and archaeological sites are used within a local community for creating collective memories.76
The subject of ownership is one of the biggest debates in archaeology since everyone can claim a heritage site in a globalized context, but, at the same time, no one can own the past. Indeed, no one can own a site. Rather, everyone passes through as scientists, travelers or tourists. Tourists pass through a site in which some spend more time than others, but all engage with the site in some way. The boundaries between archaeologists and travelers become blurred. Local inhabitants often have several years of memories and traditions developed around a site, and they are a part of the long-term history of movement and engagement of the site.77
In the end, the question remains: ‘’Who actually are the owners of the sites and landscapes which archaeologists investigate? The archaeologists in general? The prehistoric occupants’? Present-day legislators and other government officials? The archaeologists who studied the sites? The heritage managers responsible for their care now?’’.78
People attach many different meanings to a place, such as intellectual, conceptual, spiritual. The fact that a group of owners exists in a site, does not exclude other groups that can overlap. The archaeological site itself is a landscape ascribed with parallel, particular layers constructed by the influence of different social, political and cultural parameters. 79
The fact that people are in the center stage concerning archaeological sites, is the result of a need among communities to surpass the limits of cultural diversity and develop a common cultural identity. People can be committed stakeholders of a site as they combine both an understanding and an appreciation of heritage which they can, then, communicate to others. 80
At the same time, archaeology is thought essential for the economic prosperity of the state, as it is an attraction for the people that are seeking for the ‘’exotic’’. 81 As economic stability has grown to be the main focus for every nation’s legitimacy of territorial and political
75
Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192
76
Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192
77 Hodder 2003: 142 78 Boyd 2012 79 Boyd 2012 80 Millar 2006: 40 81 Hodder 2003: 141
19
claims, tourism provides the means for the achievement of that stability.82 On the other hand, tourism is directed to a small number of archaeological sites, due to the distinctive meaning with which they are embedded. The archaeological attractions, which generate the largest number of tourists, receive, as expected, the greatest financial investment, while sites with less ‘’national’’ meaning, are vastly ignored and left in decay.
4. Greek archaeology: past-present-future
Greek archaeology in the latest decades has seen a changing relation concerning archaeology the past decades has changed the relationship between archaeologists and ''living'' people. The meaning of the discipline and its value is now associated with both politics and the economy, as well as with nation-state building.83
For Greece, the connection between the nation-state with ancient Greece has already begun in the War of Independence with the Ottoman Empire during the 1820s. Ancient Greece, and its Classical remains were put into emphasis during the process of the foundation of the Greek national identity.84 This emphasis has resulted in the state being the absolute owner of antiquities since there is a need to protect and safeguard archaeology. This has become a ‘’national mission’’ for Greek archaeology with many results, as it has caused several nationalistic feelings. The public understanding of archaeology has been molded through museum representations, education as well as the media. Archaeology has gained a particular role for Greek people, therefore there cannot be any other kind of relationship. Archaeology is something untouchable for the society, something supreme, glorious and not negotiable, something that is representative of them but does not relate to them since the discipline has not managed to correspond to the society’s needs.85
Let’s first take a closer look at the Greek politics and the relationship with the past, as it has been shaped from the 18th century until today. Below follows a small overview of the historical period that was the most significant for the molding of Greek identity and its relation to archaeology that is still strong even today.
4.1 Greek past and nation-building
The relationship between modern Greeks and archaeology dates back to the 18th century due to the socio-political situation of the period and the developments in both Greece and Europe in general. The Greek past and antiquity were mainly used as a supportive tool in the struggle for independence. 86 Archaeology in Greece was used to legitimize the existence and identity of the nation. 87 A direct cultural link was promoted between the Greeks of the 82 Stritch 2013: 152 83 Sakellariadi 2011: 22 84 Sakellariadi 2011: 23 85 Kotsakis 2002 86 Skopetea 1988 87 Sakellariadi 2011: 71
20
Classical times and the modern people. This link was then exploited and transformed into a nationalistic and political narrative that was used for various political reasons.
Antiquity has firmly been a tool for the construction of identity. From the findings of excavations during the construction of Athens metro, until the opening of the Acropolis Museum, archaeology for the Greeks is a matter of national pride that endures their feelings of what their nation has been (and therefore still is) capable of doing.88
4.2 Legislating the past
The archaeological law (25 of July 1899) of the newly founded Greek state, remained in use until 2002 and it introduced the absolute right of the state to all the archaeological remains in order to safeguard and protect them. ‘’All antiquities in Greece, no matter where they lie, in public or private property, movable or non-movable, from the most ancient time and onwards, are state property’’ (article 1). Landowners that would lose their properties, if antiquities were located in their lands, would receive compensation.89
The contemporary Constitution that was validated in 1975, was the first to refer to the protection of the natural and cultural environment.90 Legal theory is trying to make sure that measurements are taken not only for the protection of archaeological landscape but also for the enjoyment of the people that are in constant contact with these sites in order to improve the quality of life (article 2 and 5).91In 2002 the law was finally implemented (Law no. 3028/2002, On the protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General) and changed the ground of the previous restrictions and prohibitions that had led to a lot of conflicts between private interests and stakeholders.92
The 2002 law is a good illustration of how the state views the cultural heritage. Protection is granted taking into consideration the value and the significance the archaeological site, whether it be architectural, social, industrial, historical or scientific value. Of course, the question that comes next is: who is the one to attribute a specific value to an archaeological site, what are the criteria and what is the goal? The answer is obvious: the state has decided about the specific criteria that make a site valuable and therefore the protection and the preservation of a site depend on the value that has been attributed by the authorities. This value serves particular political/nationalistic ideologies or the interests of specific stakeholders.93
In general, considering the protection of archaeological sites, there is a social dimension, which deals with preservation and prevention of destruction and of illegal processes. This 88 Plantzos 2008 89 Sakellariadi 2011: 79 90 Sakellariadi 2011: 81 91 Sakellariadi 2011: 82 92 Sakellariadi 2011: 82 93 Sakellariadi 2011: 83
21
social dimension aims at making sites accessible for communication with the public and integrates them into the modern social life. Nevertheless what is interesting is that the law supports ‘’visiting’’ as the common way that people would use monuments, added by a final visit at the museum or the archaeological site, two very restricted and controlled places, where only formal and official strategies take place.94
The role that the state, plays concerning antiquities in Greece suggests that the field is not ready to embrace a more wide-ranging social role. The Archaeological Service (that goes hand in hand with the state) is still very suspicious against individual initiatives that are not controlled by them. Therefore the 2002 law validates the way the state manages antiquities. Nevertheless, this position does not take into account the interests of different stakeholders such as the Church, private organizations, local administrations, and inhabitants. This approach does not embrace developments in the management of cultural heritage, such as the right to diversity or interpretation or re-evaluation of archaeological sites. In the end, a conscious choice is made for the limited number of the stakeholders. The nation, the tourists and the archaeologists are involved while local inhabitants and land-owners are being excluded.95
4.3 Greek archaeology and politics
Archaeology in Greece has mainly been used as a tool to correspond to the interests of different political parties and governments. A good example is the dictatorial government of Ioannis Metaxas (1936-1941) and later of Junta (1967-74), made use of antiquity in order to legitimize their power and in order to stay in the public’s memory as something associated with the ancient glory.96 This exploitation of antiquity has not changed in recent years. Consider the example of Antonis Samaras, prime minister of Greece from 2012-2015, who, during the height of a financial crisis that divided the Greek people, used the interesting new finds of the archaeological excavation of a tomb in ancient Amphipolis (located in Macedonia), in order to add to the nationalistic narrative, and even more to ensure that this excavation will be associated with the days of his government.97
Antiquity is not only used as a way to legitimize governments but also to accuse them of their ignorance or their disregard. The past few years, the above mentioned archaeological site has become a sort of game between the different political parties and governments that have been assigned with the role to protect it and preserve it. Amphipolis is the place where political identities and interests are in conflict. Three years after the visit of A. Samaras in 2014 (leader of the right-wing party Nea Dimokratia), the next leader of the same political party, now the opposing party against the government, visits the site in order to accuse the state that the site has been abandoned. In that sense, K. Mitsotakis was trying to promote 94 Sakellariadi 2011: 84 95 Sakellariadi 2011: 90 96 Hamilakis 2007 97 http://rednotebook.gr/2014/08/ethnikh-thisavrothiria/visited: 17-09-17
22
the role that his political party played for the excavations of the site and compare it with the role of the current government.98
Archaeology has different roles and functions in the Greek political system, and these have been transferred to the public ideology as well. A specific image has been cultivated among Greek people which reflects a glorious nation that is supreme. Archaeological excavations and sites are only worthy of mentioning if they confirm this idea. The press and the television will only cover an archaeological site that can be affiliated with a famous person of the past and will promote a distorted story in order to draw the attention of people. As a result, the public receives the information that is covered by the mass news and a specific idea is adopted, an idea of the past as something untouchable, sacred and glorious. Politics aide to further confirm this idea when party representatives are commenting on the monuments that are found, only if they are connected to a historical figure or period in the past.
Even though archaeology is thought as the base for cultural identity and tourism in Greece, there can be interests that are able to surpass it. A recent event at the archaeological excavation of the Elliniko area (Attica, Greece) is an excellent example showing how the stakeholders of a site can vary depending on specific circumstances. The developer (Lamda Development) of a vast area, known to include archaeological remains, refused to pay for the excavation processes (as the archaeological law obliges every developer to do) and accused the archaeologists of sabotaging the building project.99 Elliniko is an area that presents a rich archaeological record, which nevertheless is not well known amongst the public since it has not been excavated completely. As a result, a big part of the Greek society accused the archaeological community that they would obstruct the economic development of the area (Figure 1).
The above examples signify the symbolic role that archaeology plays in Greek society. On the one hand, it provides the nationalistic view that can be used by different political parties. Archaeology constitutes the base for the building of a national identity, a national pride. The past is played on, in order to fulfill different interests at different times. What is interesting, is that while monumental archaeology of the glorious Classic times, as is Amphipolis, is considered a national pride, in the case of Elliniko, where the finds are not as monumental or associated with an eponymous figure of antiquity, archaeology is considered a burden, an obstacle for development. Therefore, archaeology can be both a way of economic growth (as in the case of Amphipolis where tourism is believed to save the area), or as a block of the growth, as in Elliniko.
Archaeology and the past in Greece, probably more than in many other modern countries, are effectively present in the landscape. The past is within reach in everyday life in the
98
http://www.iefimerida.gr/news/339639/mitsotakis-apo-amfipoli-ta-teleytaia-dyo-hronia-den-ehei-ginei-proodos visited: 17-09-17
99
23
numerous and evident archaeological remains and sites around the country, be it in the Athens metro station, in logos, in product advertisements or even in protests (Figure 2). Antiquity is into a constant dialogue with people and this national imagination becomes embedded into their ideas and beliefs in every aspect of their lives.100
It should not come as a surprise, then, that in Greece archaeology is actually thought of as the ‘’heavy industry of the country’’, meaning that Greek economy is very much depended on cultural tourism.101 On the one hand, archaeological sites that are considered valuable and worth to visit, enjoy great reputation that has been ascribed by the state.102 On the other hand, sites that are considered insignificant and are not admired in the same way, are often left abandoned or not given the necessary attention. This selectivity is associated with the way every government or municipality wants to be interrelated with the economic growth of an area or with matters of identity. Subsequently, archaeology becomes significant only when it can be deployed through tourism or can serve as a confirmation of the ancient origins of a place.
The canonization of Classical archaeology is another factor that emphasizes the political role of archaeology in Greece. The Ministry of Culture itself clearly attributes more value to classical remains than any others, as they belong to the most ''valuable'' archaeological period for the discipline in Greece. On the other hand, it is important to mention that in Greece, just as in other European countries, prehistoric archaeology has taken a different path, carrying new theories and methods since the 1970s.103 Classical archaeology, supported by aesthetic approaches, has viewed archaeology as a representation of material culture, appreciated due to the ‘idealised’ past with which it is associated. Further interpretation is not needed and research does not have to be shared since archaeology and its meaning can only be admired by the scholarly few.104 Classical archaeology has been attributed with a national mission in a way, which has resulted in creating a particular image about archaeology, an image rather traditional and retrogressive that does not let the discipline open for interpretation.105
In the end, while archaeology in Greece was initially practiced for the Greek people 106, in reality, it is completely alienated from them. Community outreach and engagement have not been the priority for the Greek bureaucracy but is mostly the result of individual initiatives. At the same time, the Greek administration does not prioritize financial support for the discipline, because of which archaeology in Greece lacks the resources for a 100 Hamilakis 2003: 53 101 Kouri 2012 102 Smith 2006 103 Kotsakis 1991 104 Sakellariadi 2010: 519 105 Sakellariadi 2011: 74
106 The first archaeological law of the Greek State, ratified in 1834 by George Ludwig von Maurer, was stating
that: ‘’all antiquities inside Greece, because they are works of the ancestors of the Greek people, are regarded as the national possession of all the Greeks in general’’ (article 6). (Sakellariadi 2011: 78)
24
sustainable future. Nevertheless, the developments that have occurred in archaeology in the rest of the world have, naturally, started to influence community archaeology in Greece as well.
4.4 Archaeology and the Public in Greece
The sterile relationship that the public has with archaeology in Greece is slowly but steadily changing. The term ''public'' represents a great range of entities and individuals that are hard to trace and to understand. The only way archaeology is presented to the people is by the establishment of museums. The exposure of the archaeological finds of yet another glorious ancient personality such as ‘’Alexander the Great’’(Amphipolis’s case), or another educational project that does not take into consideration how the public receives and engages with archaeological sites. The public is not able to understand the meaning of the ancient remains through their ruinous context, even though they are given the chance in their everyday life.107
As shown above, with the case of Elliniko, the public in Greece is influenced by the way the government and media present archaeology and is very often prejudiced against excavations and archaeological remains. On the other hand, in times of crisis, the argument of the economic development of an area gains additional strength and archaeology suddenly acquires different value and becomes part of everyday life. , archaeology is seen mostly as a ''resource'' than a ''good'' by the people.108
The public understanding of archaeology can be found in more extreme ways. Archaeology has been used not only for touristic and nationalistic reasons but as a symbol for the legitimization of fanatic adherents of antiquity and supporters of extremist right-wing ideologies, such as the political party ''Golden Dawn'' supporters of Adolf Hitler. Fake past symbols, values, and history are re-interpreted and become abused, which have an effect on how archaeology is perceived in Greece. 109 On the other hand, public perceptions become more tangible than just ideas, as it is for example acts of vandalism (Figure 3). As Stelios Lekakis comments ''each society has the monuments it deserves'', nevertheless it is interesting enough that in a country where archaeology has been promoted as the tool for development and fame around the globe, there is still a part of the society that has not appropriated them as such and does not perceive them through a national, imaginative narration. 110
In general, public perceptions of Greek archaeology vary as much as the different communities that have any relation to archaeology.111 While community archaeology has started to occupy more space in the academic circles elsewhere, in Greece, this has not been 107 Sakellariadi 2011: 99 108 Lekakis 2017: 14 109 Lekakis 2017: 16 110 Lekakis 2017: 19 111 Marshall 2002: 215-216
25
the case.112 The Greek public does not fulfill the premises of public archaeology since it does not engage with the remains actively, does not renegotiate and challenge the ownership of the past. The Greek public’s awareness concerning archaeology lies in the hands of various different stakeholders which often results in an abused knowledge and understanding. 113 Whether they are caves that are not closely related to the inhabitants of the community (Franchthi) or modern monuments that are still in use by the inhabitants (Anafiotika, Old Town of Rethymno), there is a great suspicion on behalf of the community against the state and its representatives (as is a commonly thought) archaeologists.114This suspicion, as mentioned above is enhanced by a period of economic crisis and by the latest law of 2002 that obliges the developer to pay for excavation works before building in an area. The nature of the archaeological remains plays a fundamental role in the shaping of the public perceptions. The physical features,(the monumentality of the physical features is the way of measuring their value and therefore their relationship with the public) if they are monumental or not, is the central reason for the value of the remains and the relationship with the public. Therefore, as mentioned above, prehistoric remains are thought inferior to the impressive Classical ones and if the survey does not come with precious and valuable artifacts (as would be in a Minoan or Mycenaean excavation), then the locals do not show any particular interest.115
On the other hand, a reason for interest by the locals is whether a site attracts an important number of visitors. In that case, even if they are not in the position to appreciate their heritage, the fact that the site is admired by tourists installs more pride in the local community and therefore raises the importance of the site. Nevertheless, the more important an archaeological site is, the less is likely that the locals' voice will be heard concerning the management of it. 116 During the last decade's initiatives from either individual, either the locals or organizations and institutes, have started getting involved in the archaeological process. People have started to re-assess their heritage and a good example of this use and re-use of archaeology is the case of Eleusis.117
5. The city of Eleusis
In 1975, just after the seven-year dictatorship of Junta in Greece, Eleusis created its first cultural institution, a festival devoted to Aeschylus (Aeschylia), who was the first dramatist in the history of theatre and was himself born in Eleusis in 525 BC and died in the Gel of Sicily in 456 BC.118 The organizing committee of the festival consisted of various actors of the city: the Municipality, the work center, youth clubs, folk clubs, members of the 112 Sakellariadi 2010: 515 113 Sakellariadi 2010: 521 114 Sakellariadi 2011: 119 115 Voutsaki 2004 116 Caftanzoglou 2001 117 Sakellariadi 2011: 133 118 Stamou 2005: 299
26
educational community, business world, about 40 entities in total. The city's need to draw data from the past, building to forge a new culture-based future started being developed on the conscience of the citizens. Gradually the conditions for transition to a different growth model have been created. Eleusis currently has a large cultural reserve that includes festivals, folklore clubs from all parts of Greece, citizens who are active in the artistic and creative space, as well as many friends of the city that shapes the latest cultural history of the place. They are all those who try to transform an abused city with their work, this "wound of history," as Philippos Koutsaftis mentions in the film Agelastos Petra (Mourning Rock), in a creative city of Europe.REF to movie
Eleusis is a historical palimpsest of different layers engraved in its long history. Ancient settlements, fortifications, places of religious worship, industrial district all compose the multi-layered landscape of the city from antiquity until today. The different layers are inscribed in the memory of the people, making it a place where past, present, and future are submerged. The biographies of the inhabitants-and authors- are perplexed with the biography of the city, and as the movie ''Mourning Rock'' has successfully documented, every new intervention on the landscape, adds another and brings the end of the previous use of it.
There is little today at Eleusis that looks similar to the setting of the religious site of antiquity. Twenty kilometers and a large highway divide separate Eleusis from Athens and a large highway. It is the same route that those who wanted to take part in the Eleusinian Mysteries would use, name the Sacred Way (Ιερά Οδός). Much later, foreign travelers, members of the British Society of Dilettanti and romantic archaeologists would be looking for the ruins of the sacred city. Eleusis' modern history is interwoven with one of the first and well organized industrial structures of the new Greek state. During the 20th century, Eleusis has been evolved into the area with the heaviest industrial concentration of Greece. Today almost 1,000 industries are still at work in the area, while the plain is surrounded by two big highways the Attiki Odos and the Athens-Corinth Highway.119
The city of Eleusis used to be an essential passage through which for from important roads, which led to Attica to and the rest of Greece, were passing through. Adding to this the fertile and cultivable landscape of Thriasio Pedio and the presence of the Kifisos river, it is possible to get an image of the natural landscape of this suburban city of Athens (Figure 4).
Archaeological research has demonstrated that human existence at Eleusis began during the Early Helladic period (3200-1550 B.C.).120 By the Middle Helladic period (2000-1550 B.C.) there is evidence of habitation and graves on the south slope of the hill that later spread. The main acropolis of the settlement that was constructed around the Middle Iron Age, was located westwards of the main hill of the modern city.121 The beginning of the worship of
119 Cosmopoulos 2015: 27 120 Cosmopoulos 2015 121
27
the goddess Demeter is placed chronologically during the Later Iron Age. During the first Geometric period around 1100-1900 B.C., a dramatic reduction of the population can be noticed in Eleusis, as is evident in most parts of Greece. Around 900-700 B.C. there can be seen a significant growth of the settlement.122
Systematic excavation of the Eleusinian sanctuary started during the end of the 19th century until the beginning of the 20th century, by the Athens Archaeological Society under the archaeologists and Ephors of Antiquities: D.Philias (1882-1892) and A. Skias (1894-1907). Between 1917 and 1930 excavations were conducted by K. Kourouniotes, Ephor of Antiquities, and later, from the 1930's until the 1960's, the investigation of the site was continued and completed by K. Kourouniotes, G. Mylonas, and J. Travlos. Since the early 1980s, a great deal of work has been done outside the sanctuary by the Γ' Ephoria of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, under the directorship of Kalliope Papangeli. Papangeli (that who also appears in the documentary of Koutsaftis) has conducted numerous excavations in the modern city, which have brought to light exciting new evidence for the history of Eleusis from the prehistoric period to the end of antiquity.123
The sanctuary of Demeter gains a pan-Hellenic reputation from the 8th century onwards.124 The cult of Demeter and the Mysteries came with time to mark out Eleusis as a great and famous religious center. There is some evidence for an early form of the cult already in Mycenaean times since excavations of the site of the Telesterion have brought to light the remains of a Mycenaean building of megaron type, which is thought by many to be the first temple of Demeter.REF In the days of Solon (650-600 B.C.), a bigger sanctuary was placed outside of the city, which later Peisistratus (550-510 B.C.) enlarged, due to the number of visitors, and build the Telesterion, the place where the Mysteries were taking place.125 During the Persian wars (499-449 B.C.), the prosperity of the town and of the Sanctuary is reduced, as after the end of this period the city, as well as the temple of Demeter, are left in ruins. For several decades the temple was not reconstructed from the residents, on purpose, in order to leave the evidence of the barbarism as a landmark and a memorial of the damage that has been done. Later, in the middle of the 5th century B.C. Eleusis became renowned as one of the most important sanctuaries in Greece.126
During the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the polis of Eleusis is one of the most important in Attica, as the strong fortifications of the city were used for protection not only by the local population but also by neighboring municipalities.127 Due to the fact that Eleusis formed the western border of the city of Athens the Peloponnesian war (431-406 B.C.), inevitably, 122 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 7 123 Cosmopoulos 2015: 39 124 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 8 125 Kanta 1979: 19 126 Kanta 1979: 19 127 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 15
28
affected the town. Interestingly, during the war, Sparta showed respect to the Sanctuary, as did many other conquerors after, that even though they damaged the bigger part of the city, left the Sanctuary intact. 128 Nevertheless, new fortifications are built for the further protection of the city. The Stadium and the Theatre of Eleusis were placed outside the walls of the Acropolis at the southern foothills of the hill, an area that became the industrial zone of Eleusis in modern times.
The advent of Christianity reduces slowly but linearly the respect of the Eleusinian worship that manages to survive until the end of the 4th century A.C. Emperor Theodosius (379-395 A.C.) is the first to forbid the cult practices, while in 395 A.C. Alarichus ruined the Sanctuary of Demeter with his hordes. 129 After the end of use of the Sanctuary, a small community of Christians survives, leaving evidence of Christian temples in the area and Byzantine fortification on the Acropolis hill. The incised crosses found on the Great Propylaea belong to this period. The community probably disappeared due to the advent of the Arabs in Attica during the 9th-century A.C.
Eleusis is referred by Byzantine writers as a ‘’small village’’.130 After the Justinian’s period (527-565 A.C.) a Frankish tower was built on top of the ancient foundations to the west of the citadel which remained until its demolishing by the Titania Cement factory during the 1950s while the western hill was quarried.131 The preservation of the temple as a landmark and a memory-scape in the area is an important mark of continuation and a persistence on the landscape.
During the War of Independence against the Turks in 1821, Eleusis was used as a barrack by the Greek rebels, and again in the time of Kapodistrias (1776-1831), the first head of state of Independent Greece. After the independence, habitations were built all over the hill with material from the ancient ruins. It should be added that a large part of the Demeter sanctuary had already been used as building material both in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods and the Turkish occupation.132
In the 14th century, a new migration of Albanic tribes in Attica affects Eleusis too, but the real development of the city begins after the liberation from the Turks.133 Βasic facilities in the area are constructed and hygienic infrastructures in order to prevent the spread of diseases become the center of attention. Excavations on the site already started from 1811 by the English Archaeological Company of Dilettanti, continued in 1860 by the French archaeologist Fr.Lenormant (1837-1883) and in 1882 are taken over by the Archaeological Service of Athens. The latter’s systematic excavation in the area of the ancient Sanctuary 128 Kanta 1979: 20 129 Legatos 1997: 130 130 Eleusis K.Kanta: 21 131 Sfyroeras 1985: 13 132 Eleusis K.Kanta: 21 133 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 12
29
revealed the old temple of Demeter and the Acropolis of Eleusis. The excavation works as well as the emerging of the first soap factory named ''Harilaos'' in Eleusis, are the main factors that attracted working class people during that period and as a result, great numbers immigrated to Eleusis.134
At the beginning of the 20th century, many soap factories and flour-mills are established, while the two important industries, the wine and alcohol establishment ''Votrys'' (Figure 5) and the cement factory ''Titan'' (Figure 6) are built. Later, during the 1920s, the distillery ''Kronos'' (Figures 7, 8) and the first varnish factory of Greece ''Iris'' are also created. All the above new industries, as well as the pottery factories that are built in the area, are a significant source for employment, not only for the local people but also for refugees that fled from the Asia Minor Catastrophe in 1922.135 After WWII a different era begins for Eleusis since it becomes part of the industrialization course. Due to its geographic position and its function as a physical harbor, economic development starts taking place. As a result, the old factories are renovated and new ones are installed. During the 1950s many industries such as the steel factory and the oil factory are established which cause a massive wave of migration in Eleusis and population increases at full speed.136
5.1 A biography of Eleusis
All these historical and economic changes, altered the character of Eleusis from an agricultural to a rather urban area. This change is also evident from the private houses that are built during this period. New infrastructures in the public domain also seem to augment since new roads and squares are constructed, trees are planted, management of water is improved, signs that the city is transformed into a modern town.137
Until the end of the 20th century, Eleusis has been developed to the second most important industrial zone after Piraeus, with large numbers of people migrating to the city in order to work in the factories. Eleusis has also been the production engine of Attica during the ancient times when agriculture was the dominant economic sector. Eleusis was again the symbolic place of innovations and a city that welcomed migrant workers in ancient times due to the fact that Demeter was also a 'migrant' goddess. This fact might be the reason why Eleusinian Mysteries were the only ancient ceremony that was open to all people regardless their origin, gender or class. In that sense, it seems that Eleusis from ancient times until today has been a city of immigrants and refugees with 4000 years of a history of humans as producers, creators, and workers.138
Despite the fact that Eleusis was rapidly involved and developed into a modern working city, there was one domain that was dramatically affected, and that was the environment of the 134 Sfyroeras 1985: 87 135 Sfyroeras 1985: 93 136 Sfyroeras 1985: 126 137 Sfyroera, 1985: 98 138
