| Abstract |
The target of the present thesis is to shed light on the early years of archaeology in Crete, from the very beginning of its history in the time of the Heraklion Educational Society to the Interwar period (1884-1940).
It is believed that this target has been achieved, at least up to a point, as this thesis, through its different chapters, has presented important figures of Cretan archaeology, beliefs, mentality and tendencies of their times and of course major events that have played a crucial role in the history of archaeology in Crete during the long period examined.
It is a fact that this thesis is mainly focused on the presentation of different archaeological issues that arose during the Interwar years, a period that has been hardly examined until today. Meanwhile, the display of earlier major events has been considered as necessary, in order to have a full understanding of what has followed. Therefore, an introductory chapter deals with the dawn of archaeology in Crete, particularly the early researches conducted by M. Kalokairinos, the work of the Heraklion Educational Society, the years of the Cretan State and the period right after the union with Greece and until 1922, a year considered as a chronological starting point in the Greek Interwar period.
The second part of the thesis is devoted to the presentation of archaeological events and relevant questions that arose during the Interwar period. Here selected archaeological issues are being presented, that have been evaluated as the most crucial ones, exactly because of their duration and importance. They are also considered indicative of the tendencies and beliefs of the period and sufficiently describe the major characteristics of Cretan archaeology.
In Cretan archaeology the Interwar period has been one of numerous and important events, a period both of innovation and continuity, full of success stories but also faults, with various interesting realignments, impossible to ignore. Therefore, after the introductory chapters dealing with the dawn of archaeology in Crete and the general description of the Interwar period, it has been considered as necessary the incorporation of an extended chapter, in form of a timeline, including all major incidents of the Archaeological Service in Crete, so a great number of issues, that preoccupied from time to time all the participants, is highlighted. Although concise, as a matter of fact, this record is extremely useful, as it is the first extensive chronicle of archaeological issues in Crete during the Interwar period.
Several archaeological issues, seen as extremely important ones, are thoroughly examined in chapters 3-10. Due to their characteristics, their duration and breadth it has been thought that they present to a considerable extent the overall archaeological process in Crete, not only during the Interwar period but generally speaking.
It has been attempted to examine these major archaeological issues taking into account previous periods in order to comprehend their management over time, through the change of the people in charge and the change of political and administrative status. Actually, all these questions, although dated in the Interwar period, arose earlier, already in the time of the Heraklion Educational Society, or usually in the years of the Cretan State. The discussion is about all these diachronic issues that have been always preoccupying archaeology in Crete, like the organization of the Archaeological Service and its priorities, the impact of the big earthquakes, the question of Heraklion museum, the Foreign Archaeological Schools, the restorations of the Minoan palaces, the illicit trade of antiquities and many more.
The chapter related to the history of the Heraklion Archaeological Museum deals with the earthquakes that stroke its first building and the treasures kept there and highlights the tremendous efforts of the Ephors, Xanthoudides at first and Marinatos later, to save the antiquities from the disaster that the ramshackle building could provoke, considering also the successive earthquakes of the Interwar period. Moreover, it is accentuated the fact that these three earthquakes and their destructive effects on Cretan antiquities, actually affected the construction of the new Heraklion museum in 1935, which is obviously the museum par excellence in Crete until today. The attention is also drawn to the generally unknown role of the Ephor Sp. Marinatos who was the first to have the vision of a modern museum in Crete and worked with dedicated self-sacrifice and at all costs for its construction.
One comes to useful conclusions about the history of Foreign Archaeological Schools in Crete, from the early presence of foreign representatives during the age of the Heraklion Educational Society to the organized presence of Foreign Schools during the Interwar period. Also, the issue of the concession of important excavations to Foreign Schools in Crete during the period of the Cretan State is examined from a new point of view. To the stereotyped opinion that these concessions where actually the result of a blackmail of the Great Powers, as the new-born state was under their guarantee, it is opposed the opinion that the excavations were really conceded to institutions or persons accordingly by the powerful Ephor Iossif Hatzidakis, that was permanent President of the Educational Society. Besides Hatzidakis was the first from those in charge to conceive the necessity of internationalization of Cretan archaeology, an idea he supported with faith throughout his service.
The generally good relationships between the Foreign Schools and the local Archaeological Service have been also examined in the same chapter. It is emphasized though that several tensions have been attested, basically because of the sovereign perceptions of some members of the Schools. In some cases these behaviors even led to situations that lie beyond the limits of archaeological science, seen in other areas too, where politics interfere with archaeology.
The chapter finishes with an overview related to the absence of the Archaeological Society at Athens in the Cretan archaeological works, here seen simply as the result of unwillingness of the Society and its members. Despite some announcements from time to time and relevant assurance, for example about Aptera at first and about Malia later on, they never undertook the implementation of any excavation programme in Crete.
Some useful conclusions derive also from the chapter devoted to the subject of restoration of the Minoan palaces, especially the case of Knossos. The present thesis did not focus on presenting neither the largely known row of restoration works at Knossos, nor the negative, in general, criticism that Evans’ restoration work provoked. On the contrary, for the first time an attempt is taking place to research and analyse the approach of the Greek state and those in charge, during the long restoration programme that Evans conducted. For this purpose, all the related reports of the Ephors to the Ministry, that have been preserved, are being presented meticulously, some dated already in the first year of excavations at Knossos. For the first time, those facts and perceptions that led to Evans’ extended restoration works at Knossos with the consent, as it seems, of the Greek state, are highlighted here. In fact these restorations have marked the image and understanding of Minoan civilization.
An important chapter is also the one devoted to the archaeological policy adopted especially for west Crete, where constantly poor concern in archaeological matters is attested, throughout the period examined. The mentality that has provoked this neglect of the archaeological importance of west Crete is highlighted. This has unarguably played a role on the penury in archaeological work that characterized the area until recently. The so-called lack of prehistoric finds in west Crete, a belief that has been widely accepted already at the dawn of research in the island, has been the basic cause of this misunderstanding, a fact that was rather impossible to alter, bearing in mind that already from the age of the European travelers in the 19th century Heraklion was considered to be the core of archaeology in Crete.
In the same chapter the history of the museum at Chania is presented, as well as its destruction, largely unknown, because of a fire in 1934, another fact directly related to the general and perennial depreciation of the archaeological importance of west Crete. In any case, this destruction confirmed the general bad luck of this museum, which although was inaugurated with great ambitions, it never gained a better role than that of a provincial archaeological collection.
An important chapter, especially for the conclusions derived, is the one devoted to employees of the archaeological service that played a secondary role in Cretan archaeology in the shadow of the Ephors. The chapter is illuminating both the role of archaeologists that worked as Curators of Antiquities and of teachers of the secondary school that worked periodically as Curators of Antiquities for the archaeological service in Crete in the Interwar period. Their neglected role and their often enormous work in the archaeological matters of Crete are highlighted here. At the same time, it is pointed out how hard their working conditions were, being underpaid, with no scientific rights and a great deal of fair complaints, as they served a science and a state service that maintained the Ephor of Antiquities at the center of attention.
The chapter related to illicit trade in antiquities is probably the first relevant attempt to approach this issue in Crete, especially during the Interwar period. It is being attempted to record and analyze the methods of the illicit dealers, the means they used for their purpose, any difficulties they were facing and of course the ways the state and especially the local responsible Ephors dealt with the issue from time to time. It is quite a surprise to realize that the treatment of this acute problem, that was a scourge for Crete too, was not a result of central planning, but it was directly depended on the personality of each Ephor, his personal vigor and dynamism.
Two case studies have been also examined in the same chapter, as two of the most important relevant incidents of the Interwar period, largely unknown until today: a) the big robbery in Heraklion Museum in 1938 from the museum guards themselves, and b) the extended illicit excavation in Arkalochori cave in 1934. The reference to these two particular cases has been made on purpose, because they reveal the factors that in total made it impossible to fight the illicit trade of antiquities in Crete and elsewhere: on the one hand the impediments of the understaffed Archaeological Service, that occasionally derive even from members of the staff that violated their oath of office and on the other hand the perennial delays of the bureaucratic system of the Greek state or even the often failure of the archaeological legislation that either occasionally obstructed the prosecution from the part of the Archaeological Service or in other cases even protected unintentionally the trafficking of antiquities. Moreover, the two case studies reveal the delays from the part of the Greek juridical system, from the beginning of interrogation to the final imposition of penalties to those found guilty. In many cases the penalties were extremely lenient, based on the barely strict relevant legislation. Anyway, both cases of illicit antiquity trade tested the strength of the state and of the local Archaeological Service and, especially the case of the museum robbery, mainly revealed the fragile relationship between archaeologists and the local community.
The conclusions of the chapter devoted to the extroversion of the different leading figures of archaeology in Crete, both as scientists and as employees of the archaeological service, can be quite a surprise. The various newspaper articles, in local and Athenian press, that are presented here, prove that the archaeologists constantly insisted on maintaining their communication with the local community, even at inconvenient times. Despite differentiation in frequency, all representatives of Cretan archaeology, beginning with Iossif Hatzidakis and later Xanthoudides and especially Marinatos, ranked as a priority among their duties the contact with the local community, to keep people informed about the archaeological matters, their problems and achievements. Actually it is really a surprise to attest that the present movement for public archaeology had been a self-evident scientific and official duty for the former representatives of archaeology, so it is simply desirable to regain it.
The tenth and last chapter is a kind of appendix that completes the thesis. It refers to the preparations of the Archaeological Service in Crete in order to protect the archaeological treasures of the island against the imminent war (Second World War). The chapter is recalling the heroic contribution of the Archaeological Service for the protection of Cretan antiquities that was proved to be a success. It had been an extremely difficult operation that comes at the end of an era when intense effort, willfulness, self-sacrifice, hopeless fights, in short heroism itself, where the elements that usually characterized the representatives of Cretan archaeology.
As a whole the present thesis attempted to contribute to the further understanding of the period examined, even if the research is focusing only on archaeological work. For example, there are useful conclusions about the Cretan society during the Interwar period, especially in Heraklio, that, like the rest of Greece, was struggling under unstable political conditions and division, economic crisis and the huge issue of refugees from Asia Minor. For instance, the public opinion about the erection of the new museum in 1935 and the robbery of the museum in 1939 is extremely interesting and allows a great deal of explanations with respect to politics and sociology.
Taking into consideration the review of Cretan archaeology displayed in this thesis, it is reasonable to compare the present state of archaeology to the past. Anyway, it is easily understandable that many of the basic issues that Cretan archaeology faced at the period examined are not entirely different than what takes place today: the extreme understaffing (with one or two archaeologists for the whole of Crete at that time) and the extreme underfunding (when the State was under a long economic crisis) were permanent impediments for the work of the Archaeological Service, that was proved to be a real labour. Additionally, void priorities and the interventions of politics in archaeology more than often, undermined the Archaeological Service and distracted it from its main mission.
It is though a fact that the Ephors of the period examined enjoyed a remarkable autonomy from the Ministry, in the way they would set priorities both scientific and administrative in their department. An autonomy they guarded with any possible way or sacrifice, as it was proven, in order to claim what they considered fair for their departments. It was often shown that they related this autonomy to their dignity, so they did not hesitate to threaten the Ministry, to which they were only economically dependent, with their resignation, like Marinatos very often did.
This is far different from the present bureaucratic monster, formed of local and central Services and Departments, of local and central Councils, and then the often compulsory interference of ministers, undersecretaries, general secretaries is on the one hand a dramatic impediment for any decision making and on the other hand creates a general behavior of indecision to the local authorities, a fear of responsibility, a lack of vision or even worse in some cases political and official dependency.
In the abovementioned chapters there has been an attempt to make the puzzle of the generally unknown but charming history of Cretan archaeology. Initially born as amateur but passionate hobby of the literate class of Heraklion under the auspices of the Educational Society run by Iossif Hatzidakis, quite soon archaeology evolved into a real science run by the state with admirable attainments and status. A science that has been characterized by the passionate ambition of its representatives to protect and promote with their work, the ancient monuments and culture of their country, despite occasional faults and omissions.
The Greek contribution in Cretan archaeology that has been presented here was actually the work of three Greek archaeologists that offered their service as Ephors of Antiquities in Crete from the years of the Educational Society to the end of the Interwar period, precisely Iossif Hatzidakis, Stefanos Xanthoudides and Spiridon Marinatos. Each of them contributed and participated in a different level to the formation of Cretan archaeology, according to his personality and his era, of course. Characterized by a broad understanding of their responsibilities and duties, they shared as a common feature the heroic endeavor with the goals of their Department and of archaeology in general.
Describing their actions in the different chapters of this thesis the personality, the character and the determination of each of them has been outlined, as well as through the results of their enormous effort to serve their position, a position they extended themselves in many levels under far more difficult conditions than the present ones.
|
Collections
