Invisible Archaeologists The Problematic over Cultural Heritage of Thessaloniki

(1)

Invisible Archaeologists

The Problematic over Cultural Heritage of Thessaloniki

Savvina Vezyroglou

Department of ACASA, MA Archaeology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam S.N.: 2673680 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gert Jan van Wijngaarden

Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Heleen van Londen Submission date: 1/2/2021

Number of Words: 22.379

(2)

ii

(3)

iii

During this rather peculiar year for all of us, I made the greatest realization of all. I never felt alone or helpless in challenging times and I am grateful for all the care and attention I got for the time I was abroad. Coming to Amsterdam, I had to deal with physical distancing from my loving family long before the pandemic. Nevertheless, our spiritual connection is proved to be much stronger. I will always be grateful for having these personalities in my life.

Aimilios, Markella, Theodoros and George, have always been supporting every single one of my decisions, in most of the peculiar ways.

My gratitude towards my Professors in Vrije University as well as in University of Amsterdam is undeniable. My special thanks of gratitude though are expressed towards my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Gert Jan van Wijngaarden. All this time he guided me through our exciting conversations without ever being intervening. He gave me the freedom to unravel my ideas and thoughts and to manage my research outcome in a professional manner. He respected me and my beliefs from the first draft. One of the Professors that also inspired me the past year is Prof. Dr. Heleen van Londen. Her Community Archaeology project has triggered my own research directing me to engage to the public’s perspective in a more meaningful manner.

Finally, I am much obliged to all of my dearest friends, my sisters and brothers by choice.

Without them the grey low sky of Netherlands would undeniably mess with my mentalité and my research would feel like a burden. Most importantly though, I will never be able to find the right words to express my feelings about the person who stands by me patiently and quietly, accepting me just the way I am. He makes all the pain and struggles of the last 8 years of my life smoother and lighter. All of my labours will be reminders of his best qualities.

(6)

2

1. Introduction

I was born, raised and studied History and Archaeology in Thessaloniki and I experienced from my early studies onwards the great distance between archaeologists and the society they live, work and produce knowledge in. The distinguishing monolithic intellectual perception of the Academic archaeologists about time, space and society, was quite intriguing.

Consiquently, it was a great opportunity for me to take a step back from my personal academic liminal space and really study the archaeologists and their interrelations. What sparked my interest on this topic was the intense radicalization of the citizens of Thessaloniki. In both of the cases that support my thesis, the archaeological works in the city triggered intense counteractions.

The core of my research is occupied with antiquities and the dynamics that are created between archaeologists and local communities. Especially I am focused in times when cultural heritage is considered to be endangered. For the last twenty years, the citizens of Thessaloniki have been rising up against decisions that in one way or another threaten what they perceive as heritage. Questions about the formation of a unified movement occasioned by heritage are naturally rising from the noteworthy reflexes of the community against these perceived threatening actions.

I consider myself to be an archaeologist operating in the liminal space between Archaeology and Anthropology (Sutton and Stroulia, 2010). As the title of my thesis reveals, I will examine the role of archaeologists within the community of Thessaloniki through the analysis of the way the city responses to emerging cultural heritage issues. Viewing critically the way cultural heritage is interpreted both by archaeologists and citizens in Thessaloniki, I will attempt an archaeological ethnography of my hometown.

To do so, I am focusing on two particular events taking place in Thessaloniki and concerning two archaeological sites namely the Byzantine Wall and the refugee dwellings build on it known as “castroplikta”, and the Venizelou Street antiquities found during the construction of the underground public transport system. By comparing the way these events developed through time, I follow James Paul Gee’s Discourse analysis (2011: 12). This way I am not only trying to understand the way the discourse about antiquities formed the social interactions of both archaeologists and the public. I will also attempt to understand whether these two cases share a deeper connection or not.

(7)

3 The discussion about demolishing refugee’s dwellings on the Byzantine wall started in 1997, the year that Thessaloniki became the Cultural Capital of Europe. Much later, in 2009, the 9^th Ephorate of Antiquities of the Thessaloniki Region along with the Local Archaeological Council decided on the demolition of 16 arbitrary buildings on the wall. The compulsory purchase of 65 other houses was funded by the Organization of Cultural Capital.

This public organization was founded in 1993 in order to prepare infrastructure in the city for hosting the events of the Cultural Capital of Europe¹. Opposing parties, academics as well as a part of the population of the city were opposed to the gentrification planning of the part of Ano Poli bordering the Byzantine Walls, a UNESCO protected monument. They all demanded a sustainable solution for heritage as a whole. Until today, the “Assembly of Residents of Ano Poli” as well as other collectives has never stopped defending the

“castroplikta”.

The construction of the metro of the city can be easily characterized as one of the greatest fiascos of the country. Starting as an inside joke sheared by Thessalonikeans, it has turned out to exhaust and polarize them deeply. A whole generation came of age, knowing the city as an endless construction site. The archaeological excavations occurred in the centre of the city and revealed their impressively well preserved ancient past during 2012. This was also the starting point of the dilemma of “antiquities or metro”, which was also discussed by foreign media². From then on, several forces are acting for the preservation, promotion and substantial integration of the finds in the web of the modern city, in accordance with what is internationally valid for the protection of the monuments and with what is provided by the Greek legislation. In the middle of the Greek financial crisis though, national elections were quite frequent and as is custom in Greece, when governments change so do the decisions for the preservation of the antiquities of Venizelou Street. As a result, the local community was frustrated by the obvious political appropriations of heritage.

Both of these two archaeological sites are perceived as terrains of social interactions. In order to analyze the galvanizing public interest around the city’s antiquities I am focusing on their interpretation about the role of archaeologists in the local community. Both in the cases

¹ Άρθρο 75—Νόμος 2121/1993—Ίδρυση Οργανισμού Πολιτιστικής Πρωτεύουσας της Ευρώπης Θεσσαλονίκη 1997 | Νομοθεσία | Lawspot. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://www.lawspot.gr/nomikes- plirofories/nomothesia/n-2121-1993/arthro-75-nomos-2121-1993-idrysi-organismoy-politistikis.

² Το BBC για το Μετρό Θεσσαλονίκης: “‘Ένα αρχαίο δίλημμα για την σύγχρονη Ελλάδα’” | Το BBC για το Μετρό Θεσσαλονίκης: “ ‘Ένα αρχαίο δίλημμα για την σύγχρονη Ελλάδα’” | ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗ! | ΕΛΛΑΔΑ | Blogs | LiFO. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://www.lifo.gr/guests/thessaloniki/37143.

(8)

4 of “castroplikta” and the 2012 finds of Venizelou Street, the locals raised objections towards authorities and policy makers that tried to manage parts of the city’s heritage actively. This two way interaction will be analyzed through the participation of the archaeologists in those forms of mobilization.

The reasoning of the decision to engage to these particular case studies is mainly based in my personal interpretation about their role in the radicalization of the citizens. First of all, these are two of the most known problematic cases concerning the cultural heritage of the city of Thessaloniki among its citizens. Most importantly though, they were two events that provoked part of the public as much as stakeholders in a way that they organized common actions under a same cause. Exactly this kind of reaction triggered my curiosity on whether citizens that defended the ‘castroplikta’ have also participated in the mobilizations over the antiquities of Venizelou Street.

The radicalization of the citizens is only one aspect of my research. Through my thesis I am also trying to give answers about how archaeology as well as archaeological sites that are part of the urban landscape are perceived by the locals. The archaeologists’ participation in the public discussion over cultural heritage and whether it is decisive enough in order to shape social events is questioned in this analysis. To which extent did archaeologists shape the public’s ideas about heritage? Did they actively participate in the mobilizations against government action in both cases? Has the importance of antiquities affected the archaeologists’ agency? Did the continuous threatening events create a radicalized pattern of reactions? Are these two cases connected in a way that the one affected or even developed the other or they are non- recurring and isolated from each other?

The structure of my research is based on a historical retrospection of events. By intertwining the personal memories and experience of my informers, as well as my own with factual information, I believe that a rather interesting outcome is emerging. Not in basis of finding the truth, however in basis of inquiry about their coherence. My informers are in their majority citizens of Thessaloniki that have vivid memories about the period which I am examining.

Through this reflection, the choices and proceedings of key political personalities as well as the city’s relation to European organizations and institutions will be commented upon (as European Cultural Capital or UNESCO), in an effort to explain socio- economical frameworks which led to certain attitudes. Another intriguing aspect of this analysis is the

(9)

5 variety of “spatialities” emerged within the urban scape. They are connected to political entities that owe their existence to the controversy over the antiquities of the city.

By comparing the two cases, I expect to come to an understanding about the way archaeologists communicate with the rest of the public over the years. By such a comparison, the development of the interrelations between archaeologists and local inhabitants can become visible. Hence, I am confident that I will identify the way in which archaeologists responded to these cultural issues concerning the city of Thessaloniki. This way, conclusions are extracted about the reformulated key role of the archaeologists’ involvement to the local community.

Producing an archaeological ethnography based in the Thessalonikean interpretation about antiquity and archaeologists is rather challenging. The greatest obstacle in such a research was the limited bibliography referring to heritage practises in Northern Greece. In addition, with regards to the bibliography that did exist, the frequent renegotiation of the given meanings of antiquities would set them out of date. The following thesis is a result of my personal memories and experiences, of people who lived or worked in Thessaloniki as well as the way the press approached the cases.

Making a recap of my research question I would say that it acts in two levels. On a first level, by comparing two of the major events that affected the cultural heritage of the city the dynamics between archaeologists and the rest of the public are coming to the surface. On a second level, I am analyzing those dynamics in order to clarify the entanglement of archaeologists within the society they operate in. Driving question of my analysis is whether the roots of the citizens’ contemporary radicalization can be traced in the ‘castroplikta’ case.

Thereby, part of my conclusions concerns the results of the involvement the archaeologists’

with the local community over the years.

My own relations with colleagues, professors, locals or statesmen as well as the reasoning from my consistent and long participatory observation of my birth town, led me to proceed to this research. In the first part I refer to the practises through which I collected information, as well as to the methodology I followed in order to analyze the interrelations of archaeologists with the public. This way my theoretical framework and the intention of my inquiry will become clearer.

(10)

6 The chronological presentation of the events in the next three chapters of my thesis has more than a descriptive aim. Through this scheme I will be able to neatly form the main analysis of the case studies that shaped the events in Thessaloniki. The basis of my analysis for both of the case studies is the way the press, archaeologists and the rest of the public reflected on these issues. As a result, the outcome of my research will provide to the reader a socio- economical frame in which the underlying forces relate to each other. The tripartite analysis in this part of my thesis concerns the way archaeologists think about the case studies, what the rest of the public think of them and finally, what the rest of the public think about archaeologists.

The connecting part between the retrospection of events and the analysis of the informers’

analysis consists the two final chapters. Both these chapters are based on data collected by the interviews which along with the academic bibliography, support my analysis as effectively as possible. In the first chapter of this part, “Archaeologists within society”, archaeologists are drawing a picture of what it is like to be an archaeologist in Greek society. On the other hand, in the chapter “Participatory observation or seminal presence?”, the rest of the public describes the idea that people have about the participation of archaeologists in burning issues concerning archaeological sites. Finally, my research is carried through with my overall conclusions, in which I will address my first intensions in the beginning of my research and the actual results that came out of it. Additionally, I cite my personal thoughts about the data I collected and the way I have worked through them.

2. Methodology

2.1 Theoretical framework and academic bibliography

This paper is not only a thesis completed within the context of the MA programme that I attended. After my first semester in Aristotle’s University during my Bachelor Studies, I started wondering about matters beneath the surface of the science of Archaeology. The involvement of archaeologists in the community is an issue that troubled me for far too many years. Since then, I am convinced that a politically aware archaeologist who is able to understand the contemporary society is better equipped to face emerging challenges. I commence this thesis as an articulated critique with the expectation to align with similar efforts that propose a different direction for the archaeological practice.

(11)

7 In order to ascertain my sense about the way archaeologists interact with the public in my home town, I will analyse and compare two of the most problematic cases concerning its cultural heritage in terms of comparison. My theoretical base in comparing these seemingly discrepant cases, was the analysis of collective action on Social Movements by Donatella della Porta and Mario Dianni (della Porta & Dianni, 2006). Their categorization of forms of mobilization with their special characteristics has an international impact. Therefore, it is my basic tool in order to answer to my driving question on whether these case studies are connected to each other mainly in terms of continuity.

By exploring the characteristics of the public’s efforts to preserve its cultural heritage in this twenty three years period of time under the lens of social movement theory, I am also able to distinguish the way archaeologists responded to the challenges of the community. In this second level of my research, I perceive archaeologists to be a specific community of individuals themselves, connected by their common interest in the science of Archaeology. In this level, their societal role is on the spotlight.

Managing Cultural Heritage in Greece in general and specifically in Thessaloniki is a matter of political initiative (Hall, McArthur, 1992: 157-158). The political appropriation of archaeological sites in order to serve specific goals is frequently researched among Greek and foreign scholars. Grounding in Hamilakis’ (2013), article “Double colonization: The Story of the Excavations of the Athenian Agora (1926-1931)”, as well as considering the modern history of the city’s relation to its minority populations, my analysis is based on dominant narratives and subaltern cultures.

The general socio- political framework of both cases could not be absent in this research. I perceive the archaeological sites as controversial “scapes” in which people from varied political backgrounds, construct or reshape their identity (Rancier, 1992: 61). The role of archaeologists is researched in a way that their interrelations with the communities defending parts of their cultural heritage are visible. Getting to know who are the stakeholders in each case and in what way archaeologists are involved in their assertions, useful conclusions are extracted for their role in the formation of events in Thessaloniki. Also, David Harvey’s analysis on Postmodernity (1989), offers me the theoretical framework through which I explain the course of events in my hometown.

(12)

8 For Ian J. Robertson (2012), heritage is not only the sense (collectives or individuals) of inheritance from the past. It is also the way people use this sense of inheritance. This inquiry has driven me to portray in the best possible way the mobilization of the citizens in order to defend the city’s cultural heritage. Not separating archaeologists from the rest of the citizens of Thessaloniki, my aim is to understand their role in the city’s course of events.

Following Appadurai’s (1986: 67), perspective about the social life of things, the biographies of antiquities as well as Kopytoff’s perspective on the ways in which humans’

classify objects (1986: 70), are enlightening for my research. Additionally, a Foucauldian way of discourse analysis (Ayllon, Walkerdine, 2017), about the case studies will be used in order for the antiquities of the archaeological sites to be seen as producers of dynamic processes and significations that are shaping the embodied human experience. This kind of perspective gives me the opportunity to analyze the way cultural heritage as well as identity and memory, are perceived in the city of Thessaloniki.

Finally, “Archaeology in Situ: Sites, Archaeology and Communities in Greece” (2010), is a valuable tool for this thesis. By reading ethnographies from all over the country, I clarify the way archaeologists respond in variant cases within different local communities. Sutton and Stroulia in this volume are making an effort to explain the gap between the archaeological past and the present of the country. Their thoughts on this matter offer me an intellectual guideline in order to form my own conclusions about the inquiries of my research. I find myself to be aligned with their perspective of how archaeologists should actively get involved with local communities (2010: 32-39). Most importantly though, I am able to crystallize the reasons why the archaeologists’ presence in the community of Thessaloniki differentiates from any other case study.

2.2. Interviews and web sources

Regarding the method of conducting the interviews, my academic training, my personal interests as well as myprofessional experience in Oral History, gave me no choice in the way in which I ethically approached my interviewees and analysed my sample. All of this time, my intention was to provide a research based on the references, the experiences, the memories and the interpretations of the general public of the city, including my own.

Applying a sterile library- based theory would not easily reflect the contrasts and the peculiarities of the people who actually affected the course of events. For analysing my data I followed the principals of grounded theory by Kathy Charmaz (Charmaz, 2014). This way,

(13)

9 the collected data are coded, compared and categorized around a certain concept. Her constructivist approach offered me a well-defined context in which I manage to neatly cite my finds about the perspectives of archaeologists, the rest of the public of Thessaloniki and most importantly the perspective of the public about archaeologists as far as the two cases concern.

In order to test my hypothesis about the differentiation of archaeologists in approaching the public of Thessaloniki in terms of its cultural heritage problematic, I conducted seven interviews. I chose to categorize my interviewees in archaeologists and in people belonging to the rest of the public, meaning that they are not or were not academically trained to be archaeologists. They represent different groups of citizens that are involved in the case studies in different ways. A clarification I would like to make is that I am completely aware of the diversity of the positions existing in the field of archaeology as well as of the individuals constituting it. I choose to focus on the homogeneity of a distinct group, identified by its academic specialization from the rest of the general public. Archaeology is a pluralistic science and that is why I reached to a variety of archaeologists with several positions. My academically specialised interviewees cover a range of positions from prehistoric archaeologists, byzantinologists and administrative archaeologists to contract archaeologists and Phd student’s. The only interviewee who never lived in Thessaloniki is Dimitris Koufovasilis. Nevertheless, through his position he represents the urgent archaeologists of Northern Greece as well. Accordingly, understanding that the public includes a mixture of groups of people with different interests, I tried to collect a diverse sample of non specialised citizens.

Apart from the interviews that I conducted, I communicated informally with one archaeologist and one former worker of the excavations of the metro in the Agia Sofia station. Due to bounding confidentiality agreements as well as legal juxtaposition with the constructor, we could not conduct a proper interview as I would like to. Despite the fact that, our conversations were not formally organized, I collected information that proved valuable in order for me to understand why the public turned so passionately against archaeologists at a certain period of time. Additionally, I manage to clarify some of the reasons why archaeologists insist in working occasionally in a formalist manner. Other characteristics like age, gender or financial status were not relevant to this particular analysis. The majority of the interviews took place in a digital environment through Skype or Facebook Messenger with me being in Amsterdam. The first wave of the pandemic kept me away from my

(14)

10 hometown until late August. When I managed to return though, due to the physical distancing and obligatory state measures against Covid- 19, Skype or Facebook Messenger was still the safest way to interact with the people who kindly accepted to talk to me in these conditions.

After my arrival in Thessaloniki, I was lucky to attend two of the activities in favour of the in situ preservation of antiquities conducted by the “Citizens’ of Thessaloniki Movement for the Protection of Cultural Heritage”. The first one took place in front of the White tower on 11th of September and it was a part of many other informational gatherings in the city’s famous coffee places. By that time, banners were available with the slogan “Crime in Venizelou Station”, for the citizens who are interested in hanging them at their balconies³. From then on, after every one of my leisure walks in Thessaloniki, I detected more and more new banners hanging out of the balconies. The captions that I cite (Figure 1), were taken in the centre of Thessaloniki. The second event took place in the area of the famous Umbrella’s by Zongolopoulos one month later on 11^th of October⁴. This time the gathering was massive with younger generations participating distinctively. Most of the participants were holding their own umbrellas, as a reminder of their first demonstration outside the municipality building of Thessaloniki the year before.

Figure 1. Captions taken from citizens and posted by the “Citizens’ of Thessaloniki Movement for the Protection of Cultural Heritage” on their Facebook page. Source: Κίνηση Πολιτών Θεσσαλονίκης για την προστασία της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς—Home | Facebook. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/Kinisi.Politon.Thessalonikis/.

With me being in Amsterdam, I was deprived both of the physical connection with my informers but also of any possible personal archive connected to the cases. I managed to overcome this obstacle by my extended research on the web. I was able to find a great variety of newspaper articles and media reports that supported the course of events that also I

³ Θεσσαλονίκη: Διαμαρτυρία με τύμπανα για τα αρχαία στη Βενιζέλου (ΦΩΤΟ+VIDEO) | Typosthes. (n.d.).

Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.typosthes.gr/thessaloniki/227785_thessaloniki-diamartyria-me- tympana-gia-ta-arhaia-sti-benizeloy-fotovideo.

⁴ Θεσσαλονίκη: Διαμαρτυρία για τα αρχαία στη Νέα Παραλία (ΦΩΤΟ + VIDEO) | Typosthes. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.typosthes.gr/thessaloniki/230580_thessaloniki-diamartyria-gia-ta-arhaia- sti-nea-paralia-foto-video.

(15)

11 experienced all the years that I have lived in Thessaloniki. I have to admit that the times when articles evoked details in my memory were plenty. The most interesting part in this kind of research was for me the realisation of how deep the division is in a community by the way the press is handling a case. The newspapers of the city most of the times highlighted aspects of the cases that serviced the interests of the one or the other side. In both of the cases, the lack of objectivity was more than apparent. For example, for part of the press the recent mayor of Thessaloniki, Konstantinos Zervas, was presented as a decisive mayor who has taken quick actions by commanding the demolition of dangerous shacks and repulsive dwellings⁵.

In the web research I am also including the social media pages of movements, events and collectives, where specific communities of individuals are formed based on their common interests. The discourse analysis (Gee, 2011), in social media of those sub- communities was decisive for the anthropological aspect of my research. The media and social media research complement my field research, which has been severely impacted by the Corona virus outbreak.

Official municipal decisions, state laws and policy reports work in my thesis in the same manner that media reports, newspaper articles and the academic bibliography do. They are strengthening my theoretical background and especially my arguments about the importance of adverse political circumstances concerning the cultural heritage. Just like multifocal lenses, they are reflecting the interrelations of all the active parties and stakeholders of the endangered antiquities within the community of Thessaloniki. Hence, I believe that they support the ethnographical approach of this research in the most productive way.

Finally, as a practical advice, I would recommend to the readers to pay attention to the chapters before “Bibliography and web source”. After the main chapters, I chose to provide a list with the acronyms of the several institutions, organizations or political parties that I mention in order to be able to use the Greek initials and not their English translation. My intension is to stay as close as possible to their originality. Many of them are mentioned not only by my interviewees but in the Greek press or even in slogans used in demonstrations.

Right after the “List of Acronyms” I am providing an “Appendix of Interviewees”. This way the reader can get familiarized with the people who accepted to talk to me, to better

⁵ Θεσσαλονίκη: Κατεδαφίζονται κτήρια και παράγκες σε Άνω Πόλη—Χαριλάου. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://www.voria.gr/article/thessaloniki-paremvasis-gia-anavathmisi-tou-astikou-istou-apo-ton- dimo.

(16)

12 understand their connection to both of the cases as well as their role as samples of this research.

3. Thessaloniki. Cultural Capital of Europe

«Ὡστόσο - ποιὸς ξέρει - ἴσως ἐκεῖ ποὺ κάποιος ἀντιστέκεται χωρὶς ἐλπίδα, ἴσως ἐκεῖ νὰ ἀρχίζει ἡ ἀνθρώπινη ἱστορία, ποὺ λέμε, κι ἡ ὀμορφιὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάμεσα σὲ σκουριασμένα σίδερα καὶ κόκκαλα ταύρων καὶ ἀλόγων, ἀνάμεσα σὲ πανάρχαιους τρίποδες ὅπου καίγεται ἀκόμα λίγη δάφνη κι ὁ καπνὸς ἀνεβαίνει ξεφτώντας στὸ λιόγερμα σὰ χρυσόμαλλο δέρας.»

Γιάννης Ρίτσος, Η Ελένη, 1972

«However- who knows- maybe there where someone fights back without a hope, maybe there the human history starts, how we say it, the beauty of human among rusty irons and bull and horses bones, among ancient tripods where still some bay burns and the smoke rises fading in sunset like Golden Fleece⁶»

Yiannis Ritsos, Helen, 1972

Founded in 315 before Christ, Thessaloniki was one of the first centers of Christianity. The city’s privileged geographical position in the Thermaic Gulf, defined its development (Σταυρίδου- Ζαφράκα, 2005: 44). The group of 15 Paleocrhristian and Byzantine monuments that were listed in World’s Heritage List during 1988 includes mostly churches which are fine examples of Christian architecture⁷. The city’s walls are also included in that list.

As the second largest city of Greece, Thessaloniki always claimed to be the capital of youth and culture of the country as well as the meeting point of East and West (Αγγελόπουλος, 2003: 4). The announcement that the city would become Europe’s Cultural Capital in 1997 came to seal this consideration. Moreover, for the authorities, it was another opportunity to redefine the relation of the Thessalonikean population with its historic past.

Following a Eurocentric perspective about Greek antiquities (Lianeri, 2014: 60), the Slavic, Turkish or Jewish parts that form their identity would be abolished. Hence, this constructed multicultural identity, is rather problematic (Αγγελόπουλος, 2003: 13).

6 Translation made by me.

⁷WH Committee: Report of 12th Session, Brasilia 1988. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom88.htm.

(17)

13 The high cost as well as the successfulness from the urban re- generation perspective of the mega European event of “Cultural Capital of Europe”, which was considered to be parallel to the preparation of the Olympic Games, is discussed by several scholars (Deffner and Lambriniadis, 2005; Lambriniadis, 2010; Palmer et al 2009; Papanikolaou, 2012), and of course by the press⁸. Especially Lambrianidis stated the absence of a beneficial administrational project for the city (Λαμπριανίδης, 2001: 66).

The Prime Minister that year was Costas Simitis and in a speech he gave for 40 European, Mediterranean, Black Sea and Balkan Ministers of Culture, he stressed the Hellenic character of Thessaloniki. He especially referred to its role as host of different people and traditions⁹ through 23 historical centuries. The Minister of Culture Evangelos Venizelos, saw an opportunity of re- building and improving the façade of the city by adding 233 infrastructures to a 350 million dollars project and to “discover materials with which it is building its modern appearance¹⁰”.

Additionally, at the opening ceremony, Evangelos Venizelos announced the formation of a network connecting culturally Thessaloniki with the Balkans (“Balkan Countries Cultural Network”)¹¹. This was the first serious effort for the city to open up to the world and get introduced to extraversion. Tooling the cultural capital, the city was aiming to touristic development, modernization of infrastructures and multiculturalism. From then on, the notion of “big businesses” (Hall & McArthur, 1993a: 8), of heritage started to develop at Thessaloniki as elsewhere.

George Aggelopoylos in his article (2013: 12), deconstructs the multicultural character of the event. He proves that through main festivities, the byzantine past was presented in a way

⁸ European Capitals of Culture you’ve probably never heard of. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/city-breaks/obscure-european-capitals-of-culture/,

Rodolfo Maslias: Η Πολιτιστική από μέσα (εκδ. ΙΑΝΟΣ 1998). (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://www.maslias.eu/2007/11/1998.html,Thessaloniki 1997: A lost opportunity—Ποιειν Και Πραττειν—Create and do. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://ecoc.poieinkaiprattein.org/european-capital-of- culture/thessaloniki-1997-2/thessaloniki-1997-a-lost-opportunity/, Θεσσαλονίκη: 20 χρόνια συνεχίζει με την ίδια ατζέντα... (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.voria.gr/article/thessaloniki-20-chronia-sinechizi- me-tin-idia-atzenta,Παραλογισμός 17 χρόνων για μια φιέστα 220 εκατ. | Ελλάδα | Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ.

(n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from

https://www.kathimerini.gr/796818/article/epikairothta/ellada/paralogismos-17-xronwn-gia-mia-fiesta-220-ekat.

9 Greece. A news review from the Embassy of Greece, Press and Information Office. Embassy of Greece Press an Information Office, Washington. February 1997, Vol. 3, No 2. p.1

10 Greece. A news review from the Embassy of Greece, Press an Information Office. Embassy of Greece Press and Information Office, Washington. February 1997, Vol. 3, No 2. p.1

11 Greece. A news review from the Embassy of Greece, Press an Information Office. Embassy of Greece Press and Information Office, Washington. February 1997, Vol. 3, No 2. p.1

(18)

14 that other cultural aspects of the city were undermined. Promoting the Byzantine culture is considered to be a compromise. This period of time, two opposing spheres were created in the city. Each one was promoting either the nationalistic, Greek- orthodox culture or the Balkan, cosmopolitan and modern one (2003:11). Eventually, after the constant local as well as national political pressures and the frequent changes of personalities in key positions the events were described to encourage the “glorification of everything for everyone¹²”.

Indeed for the citizens it was a festive year in the city, during which a blast of cultural events altered their everyday life. As E.X. remembers, “The Cultural Capital played an important role as the Biennale of Young Artists that was conducted earlier. (...) And it is true that those two events marked the direction of the contemporary culture and the one of mega events in Thessaloniki”.

After several years, in 2010, the mayorship of Giannis Boutaris perpetuated the perspective of an extrovert city, respecting this time the subaltern histories (Kornetis, 2019:31). Believing that “If you don’t know your past, you cannot build your future¹³”, he smartly connected Jewish and Turkish population to their Thessalonikean heritage¹⁴. This political choice though, set him in physical danger during 2018 as he was attacked by far- right extremists¹⁵. The attack took place after the annual memorial service for the Genocide of Pontiac people¹⁶ and constitutes an example of the contested political past in Thessaloniki.

12 Nikos Ksidakis, in Aggelopoylos, 2003, pp. 11.

13Γιάννης Μπουτάρης: Το ρεσιτάλ ενός διαφορετικού δημάρχου. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.makthes.gr/giannis-mpoytaris-to-resital-enos-diaforetikoy-dimarchoy-234912.

¹⁴Μπουτάρης: Με τους Τούρκους είμαστε αδέλφια, με τους Εβραίους συνέταιροι—Πολιτική | News 24/7. (n.d.).

Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.news247.gr/politiki/mpoytaris-me-toys-toyrkoys-eimaste-adelfia- me-toys-evraioys-synetairoi.6341378.html.

15An accurate example of how conservative circles handle the city’s issues and the way they polarize the community is the following: ‘Το ξύλο στον Γιάννη Μπουτάρη βγήκε από τον παράδεισο;’—ΒΗΜΑ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΙΑΣ. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.vimaorthodoxias.gr/arthrografia/to-xylo- ston-gianni-mpoutari-vgike-apo-ton-paradeiso/.

¹⁶ Μπουτάρης: Οργανωμένη η επίθεση εναντίον μου, υπήρχε ενορχηστρωτής—CNN.gr. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://www.cnn.gr/ellada/story/131262/mpoytaris-organomeni-i-epithesi-enantion-moy-ypirxe- enorxistrotis.

(19)

15

4. The Byzantine Wall and the gentrification planning 4.1. The role of UNESCO

Greece signed the UNESCO treaty for the protection of monuments and sites of the world’s cultural heritage in 1981¹⁷. This way, the country aligned with UNESCO in order to protect monuments from erosion or destruction so they could be preserved for future generations. All the monuments listed in the World’s Heritage List, are recognized for their artistic, scientific, aesthetic as well as their ethnological or anthropological importance¹⁸.

National Committees for UNESCO, are national bodies set up by member- states for communicating programmes and priorities. They also create links between governmental and non- governmental organizations and inform UNESCO about national needs, priorities as well as peculiarities. In Greece, the National Commission for UNESCO “works closely with six co-responsible Ministries (…), for the implementation of its actions and initiatives, organizes International Conferences and Workshops, sponsors educational, cultural, environmental and scientific activities, participates and is represented in major International Conferences and Forums, develops new partnerships, cooperates with the private sector, establishes UNESCO University Headquarters throughout Greece, promotes the institution of Collaborating Schools (ASPnet), organizes exhibitions, creates City and Parliamentary Networks¹⁹.”. Greece is also involved in the Commission for the Protection of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

The perspective of UNESCO on the “World’s Heritage” is critically evaluated by various scholars over the years. Lynn Meskell is one of the most incisive writers engaging with how the politics applied by this organization, set the heritage on a privileged position (Meskell, 2013: 483), disengaging it eventually by the wider public. The results of the implication of UNESCO’S perspective in this case of restoration of the Walls of Thessaloniki are a representative example of Meskell’s analytical outcome. Eventually, a “see but do not touch”

effect, alienated the residents of the area from the monument.

17Conventions—Greece | UNESCO. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://en.unesco.org/countries/greece/conventions.

18 Hellenic Ministry of Culture | Hellenic World Heritage Monuments. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/2/eh21.html.

19 Hellenic National Commission for UNESCO | Ελληνική Εθνική Επιτροπή για την UNESCO. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020 from https://unescohellas2.wordpress.com.

(20)

16

4.2. Administrational responsibilities

The monuments of Thessaloniki that were built from the 4th to the 15th century and constitute an architectural typology that lasted in the centuries and influenced the Byzantine world. The mosaics of Rotonda, St. Demetrius and Aheiropoiitos church are among the most important masterpieces of early Christian art²⁰. Their Outstanding Universal Value is recognized through “their outstanding design and major artistic value” and so “these monuments are included among the most significant of the Byzantine period²¹”.

The city’s extrovert character played an important role in the formation of artistic flows, creating a cultural reality similar of those of Constantinople or Rome. Throughout the Byzantine Period Thessaloniki became a significant cultural center, influencing the artistic production of the Christian world. The authenticity of the monuments listed in World Heritage List is clear from the fact that all their phases and most importantly their primary ones are intact. The constant use of the most monuments protected them from destructions;

the city walls are the only exception to this²².

As part of the fortification of Thessaloniki the walls were surrounding the whole city until the Ottomans opened it up to the sea by demolishing their South part (Figure 2). Nowadays, only 4 kilometers of wall are still standing to various extent heights in the neighborhood of Ano Poli. The Wall is divided into parts, the North, the Northwest, East and finally the Heptapurgio²³ and parts of it belongs to the municipality of Thessaloniki as well as to the municipality of Neapoli- Sykies.

20 Paleochristian and Byzantine Monuments of Thessalonika—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (n.d.).

Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://unescohellas2.wordpress.com/politismos/ellinika-mnimeia/

Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/456/.

22Paleochristian and Byzantine Monuments of Thessalonika—UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (n.d.).

Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/456/

23 Qantara—The walls of Thessaloníki: A monument of Late Antique and Byzantine fortification. (n.d.).

Retrieved July 9, 2020, fromhttps://www.qantaramed.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=1495&lang=en.

(21)

17

Figure2. The only picture of the South part of the wall. Source: Για πρώτη φορά: Η μόνη φωτογραφία της Θεσσαλονίκης με παραθαλάσσια τείχη -Από το 1860 [εικόνα] | STORIES | iefimerida.gr. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.iefimerida.gr/news/365170/gia-proti-fora-i-moni-fotografia-tis-thessalonikis-me-parathalassia-teihi- apo-1860.

The conditions of the protection of the monuments are always set by Ministerial Decisions or Presidential Decrees. Henceforth, responsible vectors are the Ministry of Culture mainly through the General Directory of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage²⁴, the Ephorate of Antiquities in Thessaloniki, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece for the churches function, the municipality of Thessaloniki as well as the Central Macedonia Region- Metropolitan Area of Thessaloniki²⁵.

The Archaeological Law 3028/2002 “On the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in general” is protecting the monuments along with ministerial decisions²⁶. The regional Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City is responsible for the protection and management of the monuments. They all are parts of the Ministry of Culture and they cooperate with the Education and Religious Affairs Ministry²⁷.

The Aristotle’s University of Thessaloniki also contributes to the research of the monuments offering fruitful projects or surveys. As the Dean of the University states, the relations between the university and the city are symbiotic, as the researchers are offering

²⁴Υπουργείο- Προβολή Υπηρεσίας. (n.d.). Retrieved September 6, 2020, from

https://www.culture.gov.gr/el/ministry/SitePages/viewyphresia.aspx?iID=1304.

25 Η Εφημερίς της Κυβερνήσεως της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας, Τεύχος Πρώτο, Αρ. Φύλλου 87, 7 Ιουνίου 2010, σ. 1863.

(22)

18 solutions when it is necessary²⁸. Conservational works have been carried out to the city’s walls surrounding landscape in Heptapyrgio in 2002. The change of use of Heptapyrgio created a vivid scape, accessible to the public as well as to people working in the area, as the Ephorate of Antiquities of Thessaloniki City is hosed there. The Tower of Trigonio is open to public and the area is hosting various events²⁹.

4.3. How the Cultural Capital of Europe affected the monuments of Thessaloniki

The city was not only troubled by the way which its cosmopolitan character would be promoted in 1997. Thessaloniki also experienced a period when the discussion about urban re- generation (Παρθενόπουλος et al., 2010:19), and the renovation of important monuments started³⁰. “The Cultural Capital it is true and we have to admit so, it was one of the positives, and that is that we manage to renovate”, E.X. says.

From then on, various studies and redesign works have been carried out. Their main aim is always to connect the monument with the modern present of the city as well as to project the multiplicity and complexity of its historical phases (Χαστάογλου, 2008:152). As the supervisor of the Department of Byzantine and Post- Byzantine Antiquities and Museums of Thessaloniki informed me “(…) the city Walls are under maintenance for many years now (…) it is continuous, running, and never ending³¹”. Eventually in 2010, an extensive rescue operation for the total of the 4 kilometers Byzantine wall was decided by the 9th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities with the consent of the Central Archaeological Council³².

The principal of 9th Ephorate, B. Koniordos stated that this operation was urgent as “It is not uncommon for locals to go out in the morning in order to pick up their car and see that one of the ramparts has fallen on them. Wild trees, figs and wild walnuts grow on the walls

²⁸ Periklis A. Mitkas, Dean of Apth in his article addressed to the mayorship candidates of Thessaloniki. Το ΑΠΘ και η Πόλη: Δέκα Ερωτήματα στους υποψήφιους Δημάρχους της Θεσσαλονίκης | Σύλλογος Αποφοίτων ΑΠΘ. (n.d.). Retrieved September 6, 2020, fromhttp://alumni-association.auth.gr/node/267.

30 1997-2017: Η Πολιτιστική Πρωτεύουσα της Ευρώπης 20 χρόνια μετά—Parallaxi Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki/reportaz/1997-2017-politistiki-protevousa-tis-evropis-20- chronia-meta.

31 Meaning the project of the Walls’ maintenance.

32 Θα σωθούν τα βυζαντινά τείχη της Θεσσαλονίκης—Αρχαιολογία Online. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2010/01/21/θα-σωθούν-τα-βυζαντινά-τείχη-της-θεσσα-2/ .

(23)

19 and their roots grow as well, they swell and are causing cracks³³”. The degradation of the walls of Thessaloniki was caused by the attachment of arbitrary buildings, while their aesthetic alteration was caused by the installation of fences and TV antennas. Most importantly though, disintegration in the entire fortification was caused due to the demolition of parts of it in order for new roads to be build.

For a part of the population of the city, an upsetting issue was the refugees dwelling that were built in the perimeter of the walls after the population exchange with Turkey since 1923; these were considered for a long period of time to degrade the value of the Byzantine monument.³⁴

Archaeologists, who had to inspect the condition of the Byzantine Wall were confronted with peculiar incidents. As S. G. told me, some of the dwellings were rather small and as a family expanded so did their square meters by entering through its depth and creating cavities inside the Wall. As a result, among the archaeological discoveries were the “caves” of the Wall.

Nevertheless, even archaeologists of my generation, who had no former knowledge about the case of “castroplikta”, are sceptical about a perspective that places the outstanding value of a monument above the possibility of the general public to interact with them. As K. K., states, “But, I think that it sounds terribly wrong. Terribly wrong not only from a social perspective but also archaeologically speaking (…) That is, I cannot imagine how, man alive, since 2000 and on we don’t think that the houses, the refugees houses would be part of cultural heritage”. Or D. K. saying “Well I don’t think I agree with the demolition. Because I think that they are also part of the city’s History. And from the moment that they were already there, I think that no, it is not a good idea to demolish them”.

The municipality of Thessaloniki in 2010, run by mayor Vasilis Papageorgopoulos, made a great campaign so that as many houses as possible would be demolished and the renovation of the Wall could start. The main assertion was that the monument was metaphorically speaking drawn or hidden by those dwellings and the citizens would not enjoy a walk along

33 Θα σωθούν τα βυζαντινά τείχη της Θεσσαλονίκης—Αρχαιολογία Online. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2010/01/21/θα-σωθούν-τα-βυζαντινά-τείχη-της-θεσσα-2/ .

34 Κάτοικοι της Άνω Πόλης θα εμποδίσουν το γκρέμισμα σπιτιών στα Κάστρα. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from http://www.thestival.gr/policy/self-government/item/14255-katoikoi-tis-ano-polis-tha-empodisoyn-to- gkremisma-spitizrhhrdkwoownvnxzfjjewiiwcebfzrhhrdkwoownvnxzfjjewiiwn-sta-kastra, 3 Νοε: Συνέλευση ενάντια στο γκρέμισμα των Καστρόπληκτων / Θεσσαλονίκη. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.kinimatorama.net/event/14394.

(24)

20 its full length³⁵. It is rather interesting that in contrast, the municipality of Neapoli-Sukies was able to reuse and redesignate the refugees’ dwellings as communal spaces. The financial sources were found from EU and the Ministry of Culture³⁶ proving the results of different political approaches.

Despite the reactions of the citizens of the neighborhood of Ano Poli, along the Byzantine walls, as well as of the opposing parties, the demolition started with only 16 dwellings left standing (chosen with aesthetic criteria), as reminders of the city’s refugee past.³⁷ Due to the delay of the payment of compensations as well as several other bureaucratic drawbacks the demolition was a long lasting process (Figure 3). All the dwellings that were endangered by the renovation of the wall were called “castroplikta” (Figures 4a-4b), meaning those which were hit by the castle.

Figure 3. Demolition in 2018. Source: Συνεχίζει να γκρεμίζει ο δήμος Θεσσαλονίκης τα “καστρόπληκτα” της Άνω Πόλης (ΦΩΤΟ)—

Unban. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://www.unban.gr/topiki-epikerotita/synechizei-na-gkremizei-o-dimos- thessalonikis-ta-kastroplikta-tis-ano-polis-foto/.

35Κατεδαφίζονται τα καστρόπληκτα | Ελλάδα | Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.kathimerini.gr/382063/article/epikairothta/ellada/katedafizontai-ta-kastroplhkta.

36 Τα βυζαντινά τείχη, νέος πόλος έλξης στη Θεσσαλονίκη | Ελλάδα | Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.kathimerini.gr/435726/article/epikairothta/ellada/ta-vyzantina-teixh-neos-polos-el3hs- sth-8essalonikh, Γκρεμίζονται τα προσφυγικά στο Κάστρο Θεσσαλονίκης—Ειδήσεις—Νέα—Το Βήμα Online.

(n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.tovima.gr/2010/01/15/society/gkremizontai-ta-prosfygika-sto- kastro-thessalonikis.

37 Τα βυζαντινά τείχη, νέος πόλος έλξης στη Θεσσαλονίκη | Ελλάδα | Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.kathimerini.gr/435726/article/epikairothta/ellada/ta-vyzantina-teixh-neos-polos-el3hs- sth-8essalonikh, Γκρεμίζονται τα προσφυγικά στο Κάστρο Θεσσαλονίκης—Ειδήσεις—Νέα—Το Βήμα Online.

(n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.tovima.gr/2010/01/15/society/gkremizontai-ta-prosfygika-sto- kastro-thessalonikis, Μπουλντόζες για προσφυγικά του κάστρου | Eλλάδα | Ελευθεροτυπία. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2020, from http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.ellada&id=121374.

(25)

21 The anachronistic way of managing the monument is obvious. So far, authorities and archaeologists served the nationalistic narrative that binds them together (Kotsakis, 1991: p 68, 1998: 45; Morris, 1994: 11; Hamilakis, Yalouri, 1996: 118), in an effort to racially and culturally relate the ancients with the modern Greeks; a relation that is argued both by Veloudis and Herzfeld in 1982 (Roudometof, 2001: 114).

The artistic and aesthetic values were prioritized over the inhabitants’ needs; as many of them were still living in the dwellings, and over a part of the city’s history which was not considered to be a glorious chapter. When asked about the relation between the two cases of defending the cities heritage that are dealt in this thesis, Κ. Κ., answered graphically

“Because it is one thing let’s say, the antiquities of Venizelou have, man alive, a more glamorous aspect that says that having all these marvelous antiquities in the center of the city upgrades your city, but refugees (meaning dwellings), are just the opposite (…), speaking from a heritage point of view”.

It is not the first time that monuments are dehumanized in Greece, confirming that “(…) a historical account claims to be complete and authoritative and also serves the interests or self- image of a powerful group with access to the material or symbolic resources to destroy alternative ways of seeing” (Lianeri, 2005: 3). Furthermore, the “universal value” perspective of heritage is often criticized for forcing a Western way of cultural management (Coombe, 2013, Labadi, 2013).

Figure 4a-b.Refugee dwellings known as “castroplikta”.Source: 4a: Προσφυγικά: «Τα παράσιτα» του τείχους | Εικόνες απ’ το

δρόμο... (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2020, from

https://revolutionimages.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%86%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B9

%CE%BA%CE%AC/, 3b: Αγκαλιασμένα με τα τείχη—Parallaxi Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki/maties-ston-poli/agkaliasmena-me-ta-tichi.

(26)

22 A comparable case in Greece, which many of my informers mentioned, is that of the Agora of Athens where since the 1930’s many citizens have been losing their housing for the monument to be revived and become a tourist attraction (Sakka, 2008; Hamilakis, 2013). By that time, public participation in decision making as is defined by Renn (1996), Bouzit and Lumbier (2004), was not a possible strategic design option.

As the former deputy mayor of Architecture in Thessaloniki, Veniamin Karakostanoglou stated to the press “Once they (the “castroplikta” houses) are expropriated, there is no law or provision that oblige or entitles the Municipality of Thessaloniki that allow residents to live inside of them, even after the payment of a token rent³⁸”. The owners of those dwellings negotiated for the amount of compensations that the state would offer.

4.4. Defending “castroplikta”. Formation and activities 4.4.1. Presidential Decrees

The roots of the problems of the citizens of Ano Poli are traced deep in the past of the city.

In 1931, a Presidential Decree suggested the formation of a green zone alongside the city Walls (Kefala, Samaras, 2019: 44). From then on the possibility of demolishing the houses in that area has been discussed. In 1975 the Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities conducted the first research for finding a solution to the problems caused by the former Turkish dwellings, problems that grew bigger with the involvement of the state as from 1979 onwards, owners were not allowed by law to renovate their dwellings (Παρθενόπουλος et al., 2010:14-20). As a result, many of them were abandoned over the years, creating a scenery of abandonment and discomfort for many residents³⁹.

By 1980, Ano Poli was designated as a traditional settlement, making the renovation of the residences much more difficult (Kefala, Samaras, 2019: 44). One year later, the government tried to give a solution by suggesting the leasing of land in the area of Polichni in order for the residents to rehabilitate without any success though (Kefala, Samaras, 2019: 45).

³⁸ Μπουλντόζες για προσφυγικά του κάστρου | Eλλάδα | Ελευθεροτυπία. (n.d.). Retrieved July 9, 2020, from http://www.enet.gr/?i=news.el.ellada&id=121374.

³⁹ ΑΝΩ ΠΟΛΗ Εστία μόλυνσης δίπλα στα τείχη. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2020, from

https://www.makthes.gr/ano-poli-estia-molynsis-dipla-sta-teichi-41798, Θεσσαλονίκη:Υπό κατάρρευση κτίρια στην Άνω Πόλη—Αρχαιολογία Online. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2020, from

https://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2012/05/11/%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%83%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE

%BF%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%BA%CE%B7%CF%85%CF%80%CF%8C-

%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%81%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B7-

%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84/.

Invisible Archaeologists The Problematic over Cultural Heritage of Thessaloniki