The Acropolis Museum: Contextual Contradictions, Conceptual Complexities by Ersi Filippopoulou

20 | MUSEUM international rsi Filippopoulou is an architect and a jurist, specialised in archaeological museums planning and programming. She served as Director Eof Museum Studies in the Greek Ministry of Culture, and was also responsible for the new Acropolis museum project over 18 years. She worked as Director of the Greek Managing Authority for the European Union, co-financed cultural projects for six years. She served as an adjunct faculty member at the Departments of Architecture of the Universities of Thessaloniki and Patras, Greece. She was elected chairperson of the ICOM International Committee for Architecture and Museum Techniques (ICAMT) twice on a three‑year mandate. Since 2012, she has been working as an advisor on heritage issues to the Peloponnese Regional Governor. She recently published a book entitled Τo neo Mouseio tis Acropolis—dia Pyros kai Sidirou, which retraces the new Acropolis Museum’s tumultuous history from its inception to its inauguration (Papasotiriou Publishers 2011). Her current research project is a comparative approach to the Greek archaeological museum paradigm.

MUSEUM international | 21 he visitor to the new Acropolis Museum in Athens, climbing to the up- per floor and passing through the exhibition gallery door to an all-glass space flooded with natural light, is suddenly awestruck by the breathtak- ing view of the Parthenon rising up above the surrounding city (Fig. 1). Enjoying the holistic experience inspired by the natural and cultural landscape, the viewer is unaware of past controversies about the mu- seum’s location, and is certain that is the right place to be for anyone wishing to admire the ancient monument together with its architectur- al sculptures. However, tracking in retrospect the multiple factors that contributed to the final outcome can provide useful insights into the multi-faceted relationship between a new museum and its cultural landscape. The strongly picturesqueT Acropolis is understood here as a cultural landscape as articulated by Carl Sauer’s ter- connotation of the term minology, which designates ‘cultural landscapes’ as natural landscape that had been ‘landscape’ incorporates modified by a culture group (Sauer 1925). However, with a history of 2,500 years, its both the visual act character is now mainly monumental and archaeological, with ancient temples rec- and its imaginative ognised by UNESCO as ‘the greatest architectural and artistic complex bequeathed associations that are by Greek Antiquity to the world’ and ‘universal symbols of the classical spirit and deeply intertwined civilization’ (UNESCO 1987). The Acropolis is also an emblem of the modern Greek in many cultural nation-state, and a sense of sacredness therefore persists even in the secular environ- landscapes. ment of today’s metropolitan area of 3.75 million inhabitants (Rossi 1982). Therefore, the strongly picturesque connotation of the term ‘landscape’ incorporates both the visual act and its imaginative associations that are deeply intertwined in many cul- tural landscapes (Cosgrove 1998; Debarbieux 1995; Monnet 2011). The Acropolis museum houses and displays the architectural sculptures removed from their original position on the monuments of Acropolis for preservation rea- sons, as well as the finds from the 19th century archaeological excavations on the site. Consequently, it is an archaeological site-specific museum, but also an art museum when considering the quality of its exhibits and the visitor experience.

Fig. 1. The Acropolis and the Parthenon, viewed from the museum’s Parthenon gallery. © Ersi Filippopoulou 22 | MUSEUM international Fig. 2. The Acropolis and the museum (right), viewed from Philopappou Hill. © Ersi Filippopoulou

The Acropolis of Athens: 5,000 years of continuous history thens, a city both ancient and mod- lthough the hill’s top surface had fter the 6th century AD, under Aern, was erected in a valley that is Abeen populated since the end of the Athe successive domination of the surrounded by mountains on three Neolithic period (3200 BC), it acquired Byzantines, the French, the Catalans, sides, and stretches down to the sea on a religious character in the 8th century the Venetians and the Florentines, the the fourth. Embracing several hills, the BC, dedicated mainly to the city’s patron citadel was used as a fortress and the mid-rise modern cityscape is dominat- goddess Athena, the goddess of wisdom, Parthenon as a Christian church, with ed by the emblematic Acropolis, a flat- connected to the founding myth of the the latter subsequently converted into topped rocky hill that rises 156 metres city-state. Various porous rock temples a mosque in the 15th century under above sea level and up 100 metres from and shrines were erected during the ar- Ottoman rule. Adaptive re-use safe- its base, with overall dimensions of ap- chaic period (7th-6th centuries BC), guarded the classical temples’ structur- proximately 170 × 350 metres. Steep on which were destroyed by the invading al integrity until the 17th century AD, all sides except the western one, the Persian army and replaced in the 5th when it became seriously compromised Acropolis was erected as a citadel and century with the all-marble classical ed- by various human-induced interven- a place of worship with temples of great ifices we admire today: the three temples tions. Following Athens’ independence artistic significance on the plateau at its (Parthenon, Athena Nike, Erechtheion) from the Ottoman occupation in 1833, peak in Antiquity.1 The combined re- and the entrance building (Propylaea). Acropolis was declared an archaeologi- sult of the geological formation and the Smaller shrines and hundreds of votive cal site in 1834 and participated for the human interventions constitute a mon- statues completed the imposing image, second time since antiquity in another umental ensemble and a cultural land- declaring to allies and enemies the city’s strongly symbolic narrative; this time scape of outstanding universal value, grandeur (Korres et al.). it was related to the glorification of the both a landmark and a symbol associ- Hellenic classicism by Europeans and ated with democracy, philosophy and Greeks alike. Athens—a small, provin- art. It is no coincidence that even today cial town of approximately 10,000 peo- Greeks refer to it as the ‘Sacred Rock’ ple at that time—was chosen as the lib- (Fig. 2). erated nation’s capital due to its ancient history. The Acropolis was endowed with the aura of the most glorious land- mark in the monumental topography of the country. In 1987 it was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Acropolis was endowed with the aura of the most glorious landmark in the monumental topography of the country. In 1987 it was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

MUSEUM international | 23 Fig. 3 The ‘old’ Acropolis museum. © Ersi Filippopoulou

The first Acropolis site museum fter the Ottoman additions were espite two small-scale extensions Aretrieved from the site, a small Dat the end of the 19th and in the site museum was constructed (1863- mid-20th centuries, the overall exhi- 1874) just a few metres southeast of the bition space of 1,150 sq. metres and the Parthenon. Dedicated only to the classi- small underground storage room re- cal art of the Acropolis and with its vol- mained disproportionate to the num- ume above ground kept to a minimum, ber and worth of the objects. However, the small edifice’s mission was to retain due to the close proximity to the ancient the excavated findings in a safe havenin monuments, the exhibits were connect- situ.2 For more than a century, the loca- ed to their origin in an optimal fashion tion of the new museum near the classi- and the museum functioned as an inte- cal temples was not disputed, despite the gral part of the site’s cultural landscape, aesthetic ideas inspired by Grand Tour enriching the visitor’s experience with travellers, whose gaze tended to favour multifaceted spatial and historical rela- The first Acropolis ancient ruins as ‘romantic landscapes’. tionships. However, as concepts change museum functioned Nevertheless, almost immediately after over time, the museum’s location, long as an integral part its opening, the small building proved considered as an asset, began to be ques- inadequate for the suddenly increased tioned sporadically in the 1960s and of the site’s cultural needs of its reserve collection, which was 1970s by Greek art scholars, firstly for landscape, enriching extensively enriched with the finds of its close vicinity to the ancient monu- the visitor’s experience the archaic era that came to light during ments of excellence (Fig. 3), and second- with multifaceted the site archaeological excavations of ly for the compact display of the archi- 1885‑1889. Due to space shortage, only tectural sculptures in the small galleries spatial and historical sculptures were housed within the mu- (Prokopiou 1965; Laskaris 1975a, 1975b).3 relationships. seum, while the other items were either transferred to the then‑new National Archaeological Museum (bronze fig- urines, pottery, coins, etc.), or left out- doors (plain architectural members and epigraphic inscriptions).

24 | MUSEUM international Fig. 4. The museum in its urban environment, as viewed from the Acropolis. © Ersi Filippopoulou

An acute space problem he rather relaxed search for more lthough it took years to accept the he prevailing concept for the new Tmuseum space entered an urgent Ainevitability of such a drastic inter- Tmuseum was that of a shelter, a new phase in 1975. It was then that the vention, it was soon obvious that more Noah’s Ark for antiquities, a modest Greek State launched a (still ongoing) museum space was needed, not only space that was expected to guarantee the extensive restoration programme on for exhibition but also for conservation, appropriate indoor air quality and envi- the Acropolis monuments in order to storage and appropriate visitors’ facil- ronmental conditions for safeguarding reverse cumulative natural and human-­ ities. A side extension or storey addition ad infinitum its precious contents. This induced damage (Fig. 4). With the in- to the existing museum building were objective was set long before the muse- tention to protect their exterior surface out of the question because the project- ums’ universal cultural shift from an ob- from environmental decay, a few archi- ed volume would be too dominant in ject-based approach to an audience-ori- tectural sculptures were removed from the historic landscape. Adding an un- ented one (Weil 1999; McClellan 2008). their original position on the temples derground floor, although invisible, was The old approach was even more evi- and placed indoors. At the time, in situ rejected for architectural, museological dent in Greece, where archaeological replacement of authentic parts with cop- and archaeological reasons. Slowly, the museums were rather introverted insti- ies was deemed an extreme measure but idea of removing the museum to a new tutions with limited appeal to the pub- eventually it gained scholarly acceptance facility outside the Acropolis plateau lic, established primarily as depositories (ICOMOS 1964; Petzet 2009).4 gained ground, with the following objec- of excavation finds and aiming mainly to tives: firstly, to host the to-be-removed advance scholarly research. Functioning architectural sculptures in microcli- as integral parts of a centralised heritage mate-controlled conditions; secondly, administration that prioritised antiqui- to better display the objects already ex- ties protection over their communica- hibited in the old museum; and thirdly, tion, they moved rather slowly towards to include in the exhibition other items more visitor-friendly policies. kept in storage at the time. It was 1976, or six years before the Greek govern- ment’s claim for the reunification of the Parthenon sculptures, so this issue had no effect on the decision-making process for a new museum at the time.

MUSEUM international | 25 Choice of location by elimination espite acknowledging that the ide- t was firmly believed at the time that owever, in 1976, no one had imag- Dal location of an Acropolis museum Ithe new museum should be located as Hined these developments, and no was the archaeological site itself, in 1975 near the Acropolis as possible, in order one had realised that the relocation of the authorities started to search for pub- to be part of its cultural landscape, so the site museum could also affect its lic land beyond the site, within the city. that the visitor may visually and emo- character deeply (Moolman 1997). While In Greece, acquiring private land for the tionally connect the exhibited sculp- its former role was definitely that of a erection of public buildings usually cre- tures with their monuments of origin. subordinate annex to the site, its relo- ates a battleground between the State In this regard, few alternative sites could cation changed its profile. The creation and the landowners, who fight tooth and have been chosen. The final choice was a process thus became multi-layered and nail against expropriations, even at high large plot in the densely built residential full of ambivalence, wavering between prices, because it often takes many years Makryianni district on the southeast- rising expectations and pragmatism, de- for the State to pay the indemnities for ern side of the Acropolis, then owned by pendency and autonomy, simplicity and the handing over of their land. the military. The area had been used by complexity. As the new Acropolis muse- the Gendarmerie, with its headquarters um project proved, the path to clarify- ublic land existed in the immedi- in a derelict 19th century listed building ing priorities and defining goals can be Pate surroundings of the Acropolis at (a former military hospital), and was complicated. the foot of the hill, but it constituted a surrounded by post-war blocks of flats; protected archaeological zone per se, as it did not look appealing. At the time, the Acropolis and the Agora were the non-intrusive fieldwork determined centrepiece of ancient Athenian pub- the presence of some archaeological re- lic life, around which the whole ancient mains, which were deemed of no conse- city had developed.5 For example, to the quence to the museum’s construction (an west is the Agora and the ancient cem- assumption that would later be refuted). etery of Kerameikos. To the southwest It was rapidly decided that this would be are Philopappou Hill—an archaeolog- the location of the new museum. ical park in a wooded landscape—and Pnyx Hill, the official assembly venue he built museum was eventually con- of the ancient Athenian citizens. On the Tstructed on this site 33 years later, af- southern slope is the 4th century BC ter four architectural competitions (two Theatre of Dionysus, the first stone the- national, two international), fierce con- atre ever built and supposedly the birth- troversies about its location, dozens of place of Greek tragedy, as well as many court decisions and multiple technical, other monuments. To the north and east archaeological, legislative and urban re- lies Plaka, the city’s old medieval quarter. generation works. During all that time, All of these features provided arguments the original parametres changed. The against the erection of a large building plot surface of 1.7 hectares in 1976 was nearby, so the search was extended to the increased to 2.4 hectares in the 2000s, peripheral zone, in the city fabric. due to extensive expropriation and dem- olition of private properties, despite the original intention to avoid friction with neighbouring landowners. The func- tional programme followed the evolu- tion of the museum’s character from a Noah’s Ark to an extroverted institution of international standards. Building reg- ulations became more flexible in order to serve the new public land use. The quality of the immediate surroundings improved, as the area was made pedes- As the new Acropolis trian. Even when the assumption about museum project proved, the absence of extensive archaeological the path to clarifying remains on the site proved false, the in situ antiquities turned into an asset rath- priorities and defining er than an obstacle. goals can be complicated.

26 | MUSEUM international Optimising museum location, design and identity Fig. 5. The museum entrance façade after the sunset. © Ersi Filippopoulou he decision to remove the museum iven these circumstances, the need design was never built, because it was Tfrom its original position weighed Gfor a new museum building was deemed incompatible with the preser- heavily upon the Greek archaeological even more pressing. However, the pre- vation in situ of archaeological remains community, but once taken, the plan to vious planning model was deemed ob- found during the excavations for the implement it was put quickly in place. solete. The magnitude of change was an building’s foundations. The new location appeared to have been incentive to think outside of usual Greek taken for granted, without anyone—be museum patterns of practice, and a fresh y the time a fourth competition was it the scientific, the wider public or the start with a new approach was undertak- Blaunched in 2000, the political deci- media—expressing any doubts about the en. In 1989, a third architectural compe- sion on the location was solid. The data new building’s future integration in the tition was launched. It was internation- of the archaeological excavations was in- Acropolis’s cultural landscape, focusing al, open to architects from all over the cluded in the competition brief so that solely on the objects’ improved condi- world, who were called to provide an the participants would take this into con- tions. Consequently, a national compe- outstanding original design and imple- sideration, as well as museological spec- tition was launched for the design of a ment a new, much more ambitious brief ifications for displaying the Parthenon building that would be much smaller that would provide ample space not only frieze and viewing the Acropolis from than the present one, which ended with- for exhibition but also for visitor facil- the museum’s interior. The winning de- out a winner because of diverging opin- ities, venues for cultural events, conser- sign by Swiss-French architect Bernard ions among the members of the jury vation workshops, archaeological store- Tschumi in collaboration with Greek ar- concerning the typology of the exhibi- rooms and administrative offices. chitect Michael Photiadis was built on tion spaces. foundation pillars amid the archaeolog- he modification of the museum’s ical findings (Tschumi 2009). The result second national competition, Tscale and philosophy was such that is a museum filled with light and life, A launched in 1979 on the same site archaeologists and architects expressed which, since its inauguration in 2009, with a slightly modified building pro- their doubts as to whether it could be has enjoyed popularity among Greeks gramme, met the same unhappy fate of accommodated satisfactorily by the plot. and foreign tourists, visited by some no winning design, perhaps because at It became obvious that expropriations 1.5 million people annually (1,486,171 in that time doubts started to be publicly and demolitions of nearby private prop- 2015).7 With a direct view to and from the voiced about both the consequent re- erties were unavoidable. The prospect Acropolis, but also of and from the city moval of antiquities from the Acropolis of future deprivation of their property (Fig. 5), its transparent enclosure allows plateau and the urban aesthetic of the fu- alarmed the local residents, who resort- the visitor to feel part of the Acropolis ture museum’s physical context. Due to ed to legal measures. Without attribut- cultural landscape, while at night, when the double failure, the museum project ing all siting disputes to ‘nimbyism’, it is a darkness obscures the building’s com- reached deadlock. The problem of inad- fact that the revision of requirements for pactness, the illuminated indoor sculp- equate museum space was meanwhile the museum activated broad public and tures become a familiar part of city life. aggravated, as the restoration works on scholarly debates about its character and the monuments proceeded and, one af- location, entailing political indecisive- ter another, architectural sculptures were ness.6 To calm things down, two more transferred indoors. Part of the exhibi- alternative locations were added in the tion galleries of the existing museum competition brief, competitors were al- closed to the public in order to serve lowed to choose according to their own conservation needs, thus further down- vision for the museum. Despite the ju- grading the visitor experience. The sit- ry’s difficulty in picking a design based uation grew even more complicated on dissimilar data, a winner was deter- when the claim for the reunification of mined with a concept for a large muse- the Parthenon Sculptures was put for- um of 45,000 sq. metres on the original ward in 1982 by then-Greek Minister of site (Filippopoulou 1991), a selection that Culture, Melina Merkouri. prompted new protests. This winning

MUSEUM international | 27 Fig. 6. Philopappou Hill, as viewed from Odeon of Herodes Atticus, with the proposed Dionysos site. © Ersi Filippopoulou

The Acropolis museum and its cultural landscape ultural landscapes may have gained character as a unity, extending broadly what would be required for the totality Csignificance in museological dis- between two extremes: keeping the ob- of the museum functions.8 This concept course but architects and urban plan- jects on the ‘Sacred Rock’ to rupturing respected the cultural landscape, taking ners have always considered landscape, any connection with it (Filippopoulou into consideration ancient myths and both natural and human-made, a vital 2011). legends, but to the detriment of the mu- component in their work (Schneekloth seum’s exhibition as a whole. and Shibley 2000). Much of its appeal everal proposals considered it im- to them, writes Cosgrove, ‘lies in land- Sperative that at least part of the ex- variation of this dual-site proposal scape’s capacity to combine incommen- hibition should remain on the Acropolis A also provided for part of the exhibi- surate or even dialectically opposed el- plateau, preserving the deep relation- tion on the Acropolis plateau, but with ements: process and form, nature and ship between the museum and the cul- a different approach. The old museum culture, land and life. Landscape conveys tural landscape that holds so many tan- would be demolished and a new subter- the idea that their combination is—or gible and intangible testimonies. In such ranean exhibition space created by us- should be—balanced and harmonious, a case, the museum visit would be part ing the cavities that would result from a and that harmony is visible geographi- of a pleasant archaeological promenade project of rehabilitating the urban land- cally’ (Cosgrove 2006). among the temples high above the city, scape of the Acropolis plateau to its orig- without the visual and acoustic distrac- inal 5th century BC formation. At that lthough it is debatable whether tions of the city below. However, the time, a series of terraces were formed Athese are indeed the priorities of to- extensive modern museum spaces that between the temples by levelling off the day’s architecture and city planning, in would be required in close vicinity to natural bedrock in some places and rais- the case of the new Acropolis museum the monuments led to the rejection of ing the level in others by filling them in they were. The success of the project de- this idea, as it entailed substantial con- with earth, which was almost complete- pended on finding a balance and harmo- cessions in other aspects. ly removed during the archaeological ex- ny between the larger whole and its con- cavations of the 19th century.9 Restored stituting parts removed and transferred, he next alternative suggestion was to landscaping would provide spaces for between the protected heritage site and a Tdivide the exhibition into two build- accommodating museum functions. museum worthy of the high art it would ings in two different locations: using However, both the prospect of such dras- contain. The endeavour raised sever- the old museum on the Acropolis pla- tic intervention on the plateau’s contem- al issues, from the level of the archaeo- teau and developing a new building on porary image and the idea of an under- logical values to the level of the cultur- the public land of the Makryianni plot. ground claustrophobic museum were al landscape to the level of the museum The archaic sculptures would remain altogether rejected. building and that of the exhibits. The in the old museum, thus emphasising initial responses to these issues varied so their unique chthonic mythical charac- much that some of them ended up even ter, while the classical sculptures exhi- challenging the museum’s fundamental bition, together with all the other mus- eum activities, would be accommodated in a new building on Makryianni site, which would be of course smaller than

28 | MUSEUM international t became clear that the initial approach ther, more down-to-earth ap- sites and archaeological areas, which are Ito build the new museum outside the Oproaches, preferred a larger dis- abundant around the Acropolis (Fig. 9). perimeter of the Acropolis site was a tance from the Acropolis, cutting the From a planning point of view and tak- more feasible solution. The aforemen- umbilical cord between the whole and ing all parametres into consideration, it tioned Makryianni plot grew increasing- its parts. Another suggestion was to lo- was the most rational solution. ly popular among many archaeologists cate the museum to the northwest at the because of its vicinity to the Acropolis Theseion metro station, approximately he Dionysian temperament that outside the protected area. Two other 800 m from the Acropolis Hill and at a Tprevailed in the related public dis- sites—the Dionysos and Koile sites, both much lower level, between the archaeo- course for many years did not allow for at abandoned old quarry cavities at the logical sites of the Ancient Agora and the dispassionate decision-making by de- foot of Philopappou Hill—also gained ancient cemetery of Kerameikos (Fig. 6). veloping a location evaluation hierar- support in the 1980s. The first one, at Although it fulfilled the viewing criteri- chy based on prioritising among a set of the northern side of the hill, opposite on, the distance and the difference in desired criteria—cultural, archeological, Propylaea and at the beginning of the level would not facilitate visitors’ emo- museological, architectural and urban promenade leading to the entrance of tional connection to the Acropolis cul- (Filippopoulou 2011). On the contrary, the Acropolis, was very well situated as tural landscape, in addition to the cost intense and often polarised debates were far as the visitors’ route was concerned, increase for the relocation of the metro sparked. A possible explanation for this but the plot was small (surface 0.59ha) station. tension might be that they were never with strict planning restrictions. The sec- really only about territory (Macdonald ond one, on the west side of the hill, was t the same distance but in a differ- 2003). Hellenic Antiquity has always larger (2.54ha), but cut off from the im- Aent direction (to the southeast), a been a legacy open to multiple readings mediate surroundings of the Acropolis proposal to locate the museum in a for- and different interpretations, with new and with visible in situ archaeological mer brewery—fully integrated into the layers of meaning inscribed over time, remains. The idea of a museum building urban fabric—had nothing to do with appropriated not only by Greek but also against the scenic backdrop of the pine- a dialogue with the Acropolis cultur- by European modernity (Hamilakis clad slope appealed to many architects, al landscape. Its main objective was the 2007; Shanks 1996). This glorious past, but objections were raised by many ar- preservation and restoration of the aban- admired throughout the world, has es- chaeologists and environmentalists: by doned industrial heritage building.11 tablished political legitimacy in various the former, because the hill had been an contexts and formed collective identities archaeological park since the mid-1950s; nce the concept of a larger distance since the Enlightenment. Producing a by the latter, because of its unspoilt natu- Ofrom the Acropolis was introduced museological narrative for the represen- ral environment and importance for the in the public discourse, two other radi- tation of this civilisation using its gener- city’s urban wildlife.10 cal ideas were set forth: the first that the ic symbol for arts and philosophy pre- Acropolis collection should be moved sented the first difficulty (Loukaki 1997). t is obvious that making a decision was two kilometres to the north and in- Contextualising it with the stunning cul- Ilargely an issue of subjective evaluation, corporated into the country’s most tural landscape of the Acropolis was the where doctrines and opinions based on representative museum, the National second. Properly displaying the famous different values clashed. Given the emo- Archaeological Museum (to be expand- sculptures admired for their exquisite tional tension, the somewhat false im- ed accordingly). This choice was based art was the third (Corby et al. 2006; pression emerged that from the muse- on the argument that the objects’ funda- McClellan 2008). Building the museum um’s point of view everything could be mental connection with their temples of in the middle of a city that has not es- debatable, so long as the facility would origin had been cut off when they were caped the fate of rapid 20th century ur- not ‘compete’ with the Sacred Rock’s pan- removed from the site; the second reject- banisation, was the fourth. orama. Having stretched minds beyond ed every single functional criterion, ro- normal ways of thinking about museum mantically imagining a museum far away reating a museum under such cir- planning, there was no hesitation to pro- from the noisy big city, in the beautiful Ccumstances can stir up emotions, pose any kind of alternative solution, in- natural setting of Mount Hymettus. Both with the tendency of over-emphasis- cluding the distribution of its functions ideas deliberately ignored the Acropolis ing the main concept of each viewpoint among various locations without much cultural landscape, creating a different and downgrading its disadvantages. The consideration of the impact of such frag- context for its antiquities. same arguments continued to resurface mentation on the museum’s future oper- over the years, fuelling fierce controver- ation. For example, an imaginative pro- he site that came to be chosen was sies, which meant that people were not posal was praised for a museum divided Tthe initially preferred location, effectively convinced to build a consen- into a series of low-storey units, terraces, Makryianni. Due to new urban regener- sus. However, when the museum opened courtyards, patios, small gardens and ation policies in the area, the project met, its gates to the public, the actual expe- passages extending along the approxi- during the construction phase, strong rience became the best argument of all mately 600m-long residential frontage objections from many local residents, ar- (Ouroussoff 2007; Glancey 2007). of Dionysiou Areopagitou street, link- chitects and, following the in situ exca- ing the Makryianni and Dionysos sites vation, a number of archaeologists, too. (including the sites themselves) to the Nevertheless, despite the obstacles, this southern side of the Acropolis hill. site offered the best relationship between the museum and its cultural landscape without affecting green spaces, historic

MUSEUM international | 29 he new Acropolis museum may be the three-dimensional ending of the tumultuous story of its creation spanning 33 years, but the diverging opinions about its location reveal an interesting wide spectrum of opinions, not only on its context with its cultural landscape, Tbut also on its museological concept. The particularity of its case consists mainly of reservations concerning the attempted paradigm shift from the traditional archaeological site museum to a site-specific one as a hybrid approach combining the display of the site’s artefacts with the glamour of a major urban cultural landmark in its own right. This ambiguity sets conflicting goals for the contextual relationship between the new museum and its cultural landscape (Filippopoulou 1988). Societal dynamics add to the complexity. Urban development has changed the very idea of landscape—both natural and cultural—on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. At the same time, the museum paradigm is subject to continuous change, adapting to the constantly shifting social, political and economic environment. The scientific discourse deals with principles and a code of ethics for both heritage preservation and museums, but their interaction is still in need of qualitative criteria that could apply to complex situations like the cultural landscapes and help the various stakeholders with decision-making. Since the notion of ‘context’ includes, besides physical, also cultural, historical and social interpretations—which are indeed the museum’s focus—the chances of mutual benefits will be increased. Siena Charter (2014) is a first step towards establishing guidelines for collaboration and shared responsibilities. However, there is such a variety in cultural landscapes that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unrealistic. The polysemy could be gradually clarified with more research, cutting across a wide range of disciplinary boundaries (Bender 1993). On the one hand, heritage stewardship could consider the museum a significant part of the integrated heritage ensemble, and on the other, appropriate museological concepts could balance the museum’s activities with respect for the authenticity of the heritage and the values of the cultural landscape’s community.

Notes 4 According to the 1964 Charter of Venice 8 In prehistorical and archaic Greek cults, 1 In ancient Greek, ‘acropolis’ for the Conservation and Restoration chthonic deities were mythical creatures that were designates ‘the highest point of the city’. of Monuments and Sites (the international supposed to live in, under or beneath the earth 2 The current discourse on the role of Greek code of professional standards for interventions and were symbolised by serpents and lizards. archeological museums is currently addressed on ancient buildings), the structural integrity Their imaginary role in ancient communities is steeped in history and tradition (Gazi 2011). and authenticity of monuments is of paramount was very important, because they were They cannot look to the private medieval importance. Items of sculpture which form associated with the doctrine of autochthony Wunderkammer as their ancestor; rather, an integral part of a monument may only be (meaning literally ‘springing from the earth’), they are the descendants of the humble removed if this is the sole means of ensuring their thus asserting the right of the city‑state’s archaeological storehouses, originally built to preservation, and even then, under the condition inhabitants to their land. protect excavation finds, near ancient heritage of reversibility. For such a process to be approved, 9 The ancient Acropolis fill of the classical sites under excavation. Eventually, they evolved every other preservation alternative should first era that was, in some areas, up to 10m thick, into small museums, adding to the conservation be scientifically examined, debated and excluded. was composed not only of soil and cobbles and storage facilities a modest display of the site’s 5 Acropolis was the religious centre of ancient but also of broken sculptures, votive offerings most important objects. Their contents Athens and the Agora the administrative and architectural members from the could hardly be defined as a ‘collection’, and commercial one. destroyed anterior edifices. It was in this fill considering that, according to the Greek 6 ‘Nimbyism’ is, according to the MacMillan that archaeologists have found the objects law on heritage, all antiquities belong Online Dictionary, the ‘opposition from local that are exhibited in the Archaic Gallery to the stricto sensu State in terms of ownership people to something such as a new building of the Acropolis Museum. and possession, not to the individual museums or new road being built near to where they live’. 10 Philopappou Hill is also the home of the small or the archaeologists. Available at: http://www.macmillandictionary. owl Athene noctua, which represents the goddess 3 Concepts have changed again, and although com/dictionary/british/nimbyism [accessed and is a symbol for wisdom. the old museum closed in 2009 after the 14 June 2017]. 11 The old brewery, named ‘Fix’ out of the inauguration of the new one, its remaining 7 According to ‘Top 100 Art Museum previous industrialist, has been a landmark in place (with a new role as a research Attendance’, The Art Newspaper, Special Report, of industrial heritage in Athens. Although and information centre) was decided in 2012, Number 278, April 2016, p. 15. the idea of using it as the Acropolis Museum on the basis that it is part of the Acropolis’ was not adopted, the building has been restored historical trajectory until our day. and it now houses another museum, the National Museum of Contemporary Art.

30 | MUSEUM international References ӹӹ McClellan, A. 2008. The Art Museum ӹӹ Acropolis Museum. [Online]. Available from Boullée to Bilbao. Berkeley: at: http://www.theacropolismuseum.gr University of California Press. [accessed 14 March 2017]. ӹӹ Monnet, J. 2011. [Online]. The Symbolism ӹӹ Bender, B. 1993. Introduction: Landscape of Place: A Geography of Relationships – Meaning and Action. In: Bender, B. (ed), Between Space, Power and Identity. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. Berg, pp. 1–17. Available at: http://cybergeo.revues. ӹӹ Bernard Tschumi Architects (ed). 2009. org/24747 [accessed 12 June 2016]. The New Acropolis Museum. New York: Skira/ ӹӹ Laskaris, K. 1975a. Τo Mouseio tis Acropolis. Rizzoli. Kathimerini, 3 January 1975. p.4. ӹӹ Corby, R.; Layton, R. and Tanner, J. 2006. ӹӹ Laskaris, K. 1975b. Τo Mouseio tis Acropolis. Archaeology and Art. In: Bintliff J. (ed), Kathimerini, 15 February 1975. p.4. A Companion to Archaeology. Oxford: ӹӹ Moolman H. J. 1997. Site Museums: Blackwell, pp. 357–379. Their Origins, Definition and Categorisation. ӹӹ Cosgrove, D. 1998. Social Formation In: Museum Management and Curatorship, and Symbolic Landscape. Madison & London: Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 387-400. The University of Winskonsin Press, pp. ӹӹ Ouroussoff, N. 2007. [Online]. Where Gods xi-xxx. Yearn for Long-Lost Treasures. The New York ӹӹ Cosgrove, D. 2006. Modernity, Community Times, 28 October 2007, p. 27. Available at: and the Landscape Idea. Journal of Material http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/arts/ Culture, Vol. 11, No. 1-2, pp. 49–66. design/28ouro.html [accessed 20 July 2016]. ӹӹ Debarbieux, B. 1995. Le lieu, le territoire ӹӹ Petzet, M. 2009. ICOMOS – International et trois figures de rhétorique. In:L’Espace Principles of Preservation. Berlin: Hendrik géographique, No. 2, pp. 97-112. Bäßler Verlag. ӹӹ Filippopoulou, E. 1988. Archaeological ӹӹ Prokopiou, Α. 1965. Τo Mouseion Acropoleos. Museums from the Architect’s Point of View. Kathimerini, 15 August 1965, p. 3. design+art in Greece, Vol. 19, pp. 20-22 ӹӹ Rossi, A. 1982. The Architecture of the City. ӹӹ Filippopoulou, E. (ed). 1991. The New Acropolis Transl. by Ghirardo, D. and Ockman, Museum – International Architectural J. Cambridge: MIT Press. Competition (in Greek and English). Athens: ӹӹ Sauer, C. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. Ministry of Culture. The Morphology of Landscape. Berkleley, CA: ӹӹ Filippopoulou, E. 2011. Τo neo Mouseio University of California Press, (University of tis Acropolis – dia Pyros kai Sidirou. Athens: California Publications in Geography; 2). Papasotiriou Publishers. ӹӹ Schneekloth L. and Shibley R. 2000. Implacing ӹӹ Gazi, A. 2011. National Museums in Greece: Architecture into the Practice of Placemaking. History, Ideology, Narratives. In: Aronsson, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 53, P. and Elgenius, G. (eds), Building National No. 3, pp. 130-140. Museums in Europe, 1750-2010: Conference ӹӹ Shanks, M. 1996. Classical Archaeology Proceedings from EuNaMus, European of Greece. London/New York: Routledge. Museums: Identity Politics, the Uses of the Past ӹӹ UNESCO. World Heritage List. Acropolis, and the European Citizen, Bologna, 28-30 April, Athens. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/ 2011. Linköping: Linköping University list/40 [accessed 15 February 2017]. Electronic Press, pp. 369-399. (EuNaMus ӹӹ Weil, S. 1999. From Being About Something Report, No. 1). Available at: http://www. to Being for Somebody: Thh e Ongoing ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=064 Transformation of the American Museum. [accessed 30 June 2016]. Daedalus, Vol. 128, No. 3. pp. 229-259. ӹӹ Glancey, J. 2007. [Online]. Acropolis now. The Guardian, 3 December 2007. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2007/dec/03/architecture [accessed 20 July 2016]. ӹӹ Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ӹӹ ICOM. 2014. [Online]. The Siena Charter. Museums and Cultural Landscapes. Available at: http://icom.museum/uploads/media/Carta_ di_Siena_EN_final.pdf [accessed 16 February 2016]. ӹӹ ICOMOS. 1964. [Online]. Charter of Venice for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Available at: https://www.icomos.org/ charters/venice_e.pdf [accessed 16 February 2017]. ӹӹ Korres, M.; Bouras, C.; Choremis, A. and Kaimara, I. [Online]. Let’s go to the Acropolis. Athens: Ministry of Culture. Available at: http://www.ysma.gr/static/files/ EN_LETS_GO_TO_THE_ACROPOLIS- EKPAID_1.pdf [accessed 20 September 2016]. ӹӹ Loukaki. A. 1997. Whose Genius Loci? Contrasting Interpretations of the Sacred Rock of the Athenian Acropolis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 306-329. ӹӹ Macdonald, S. 2003. Museums, National, Postnational and Transcultural Identities. Museum & Society, March 2003, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1-16.

MUSEUM international | 31