University of Athens and Archaeological Studies: the Contribution of Archaeology to the Creation of a National Past (1911-1932)

VANGELIS KARAMANOLAKIS University of Athens and archaeological studies: the contribution of archaeology to the creation of a national past (1911-1932) ‘I woke up with this marble head in my hands; it exhausts my elbows and I don’t know where to put it down’. G. Seferis, Mythistorema(1935). IT WWASAS NNOTOT OONLYNLY the poet George Seferis who was at a ologists and was an active agent in the excavation work. loss as to where to lay down ‘this marble head’; the Greek On the other, through the work of its academic staff, it state too has struggled throughout its history to come to played an active part in determining the ideological frame- terms with a heritage which, though precious, was also work within which Greek archaeology developed. To a hard to bear, something like a boundary it would seem large extent institutions such as universities impose struc- unable to cross. In this ambivalent relationship, the angst tures and operating procedures on the various subjects was principally related to the connection with ancient they offer. They are also instrumental in shaping their Greece, as seen through the eyes of the foreigners. In the governing principles, their methods of awarding status early years of the Greek kingdom Jacob Phillip Fallm- and in determining the internal balance of power, as well erayer’s theories dealt some severe blows to this imagined as relations with political power and society at large. This genealogy, and triggered numerous responses over many was all the more so in the case of the University of Athens, years. But this was not all. Managing the heritage and which enjoyed exceptional prestige and authority in Greek studying the material representations of the past had to society at the time owing to its place in public life. It was become the primary task of an academic discipline that connected from the outset with the ‘Great Idea’, that is followed in the footsteps of the nation-state.1 to say it contributed greatly to forming and articulating In this context, archaeology, the effort to locate and the newly-established state’s aspirations with regard to the bring to light all remnants of a glorious past, the ex- territory of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire. At the cavation and study of ancestral traces, acquired great same time, as the oldest University in the country, it was, importance from the outset for all stakeholders: state in- at least until the inter-war period, the main agent for the stitutions, academic associations and learned societies, as construction and diffusion of academic discourse. It was well as individuals. One of the first and most important also proactive in defining and organizing its disciplines, associations of scholars in Greece was in the field of ar- and in establishing their independent academic status. chaeology. This was the Archaeological Society at Athens, The University of Athens performed these functions ei- founded in 1837,2 which in the course of time organized ther independently or in collaboration with other agents and ran, in collaboration with the state and its Archaeo- and institutions, such as (in the case of archaeology) the logical Service, all excavation work on Greek soil. And Archaeological Society and the Archaeological Service. the University of Athens, the only university in the Greek My paper focuses on the inclusion of archaeology in the state until 1926 when the University of Thessaloniki was curriculum of the School of Philosophy at the University established, made a decisive contribution to this work. of Athens in the early twentieth century, and the School’s The University’s contribution was multifaceted. On the contribution to forming a past of shared values, a national one hand, it provided the means to educate young archae- ancestral heritage. The period mentioned is bounded in 3rd SU PPL EMEN T, AT HENS 20 08 185 A SINGULAR ANTIQUITY VANGELIS K AR AMANOLAKIS institutional terms by two significant legislative measures math of political developments to be discussed below. of great importance for the University and its archaeologi- In 1909, archaeology was taught at the University of cal studies. In 1911, about 80 years after the University’s Athens by three professors and two readers.6 The success foundation, its statutes were amended and the first chair of of the so-called ‘Goudi coup’ – a rebellion mounted by Byzantine Archaeology and Art was established. In 1932 disaffected army officers seeking to modernize the coun- the Department of Archaeology and History was founded try – upset former balances and led the provisional gov- in the School of Philosophy under a new university regu- ernment of Stefanos Dragoumis to make the most severe lation. These were two important developments related cuts in university staff to date. Downsizing cost archaeol- to broader changes introduced by Eleftherios Venizelos ogy one of its three most dynamic and eminent professors, – one of the most prominent Greek political figures of the Panayiotis Kavadias (1850-1928), Secretary General of the twentieth century – in the framework of a reform plan Archaeological Society. The other two professors, Chris- which defined the direction the Greek state was to take. tos Tsountas (1857-1934), professor of Ancient Greek Art, In those twenty years or so, the profile of archaeological and Nikolaos Politis (1852-1921), professor of Archaeol- studies at the University changed significantly with the ogy and Mythology, remained. However, the hardest establishment of Byzantium as a legitimate ‘Hellenic’ field blow to the teaching of archaeology was the abolition of of study, alongside the already firmly established ancient the institution of readers, since until 1911 a large number Greek master-paradigm.3 of archaeology courses, double the corresponding average The changes in the curriculum and the nature of the in the Faculty of Philology, had been taught by junior courses it offered were related to developments in the staff. Even though the post of reader carried no salary, it political field. At the same time, however, they were also had been very important up to then, not only because of connected to a number of other factors relating to the a shortage of teaching staff but because it gave young ar- overall role of the University, European models, the teach- chaeologists the additional qualifications they needed in ing staff, the curriculum of studies, the university com- order to advance their career in the Archaeological Service munity and its profile. They were inextricably entwined and the Archaeological Society. with the everyday operation and historical background of The advent of the Eleftherios Venizelos government in the institution. To make sense of them we must look back 1911 brought a new charter of statutes and regulations at earlier developments. In this context, I will make some to the University.7 The following year another professor general observations about the presence of archaeology in of Byzantine Archaeology and Art, Adamantios Ada- the curriculum from the establishment of the University mantiou (1875-1937), joined the teaching staff, while in 1837 up until 1932, based on statistical analysis of the Panayiotis Kavadias was soon reinstated. In the twenties overall course titles in the School of Philosophy’s Philol- after N. Politis’ death, and P. Kavadias’ and Ch. Tsoun- ogy Department during the same period.4 tas’ retirement, two new professors of classical archaeol- From the outset and up until 1932 archaeology had ogy were elected: Apostolos Arvanitopoulos (1874-1942) been one of the main disciplines in the curriculum of in 1925 and Georgios Oikonomos (1883-1951) in 1928. the Faculty of Philology, accounting for approximately Students could also attend courses in numismatics taught 1/6 (16.56%) of all courses. Philology led the field with by Ioannis Svoronos (1862-1922), an archaeologist and an impressive 45.81%, archaeology was second with P. Kavadias’ rival in the Archaeological Society, who had 16.56% and then came philosophy (14.85%) and history managed with the help of the Eleftherios Venizelos gov- (13.95%). The other subjects taught accounted for much ernment to be appointed professor in 1918, though only smaller percentages.5 The amount of archaeology in the for a very short time. They could also benefit from the curriculum fluctuated, but on the whole the numbers of archaeological information in the lectures of the archae- teachers, courses offered and teaching hours tended to ologist Antonios Keramopoulos (1870-1960), who held increase. This tendency reflected the broadening of the the chair in TheLifeoftheAncientGreeks. university programme as a result of the overall growth of The teaching by professors at the University of Athens the University. In this respect, it is worth noting a small was based around lectures and tutorials. From the outset decrease in archaeology courses after 1911 in the after- archaeology had a more practical orientation than other 186 ΜΟUSEIO BENAKI ARCHAEOLOGY AND HELLENIC IDENTITY IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY GREECE University of Athens and archaeological studies: the contribution of archaeology to the creation of a national past (1911-1932) fields: it involved displays of pictures, study of replicas chaeology professors focused their teaching on ancient and visits to archaeological sites. In the last quarter of Greece. According to all archival evidence, there were no the nineteenth century the introduction of tutorials and visits to Byzantine monuments at least until the founding workshops into the university

Load more