Heritage, landscape and the stakeholders The uses and functions of heritage in complex and multi-layered landscapes

Efi Giannetopoulou

Supervisor: G.J.M. van Wijngaarden

February 2018

2

Heritage, landscape and the stakeholders

The uses and functions of heritage in complex and multi-layered landscapes

Efi Giannetopoulou

Supervisor: G.J.M. van Wijngaarden

February 2018

3

4

Contents

1. Introduction...... 7

2.The concept of landscape...... 7-11

3.The stakeholders of heritage...... 11-19

3.1The nation as a stakeholder...... 14-15

3.2 Archaeology and Nationalism...... 15-17

3.3 The public as a stakeholder...... 17-19

4. Greek archaeology: past-present-future...... 19-25

4.1 Greek past and nation-building...... 19-20

4.2 Legislating the past...... 20-21

4.3 Greek archaeology and politics...... 21-24

4.4 Archaeology and the public in Greece...... 24-25

5.The city of Eleusis...... 25-29

5.1 A biography of Eleusis...... 29-33

5.2 Eleusis in the present...... 33-36

6. Cyprus: a contested landscape...... 36-45

6.1 Historical background...... 37-39

6.2 Archaeology of Cyprus...... 39-42

6.3 Dealing with heritage in conflict...... 42-45

7. The city of Larnaca...... 45-46

7.1 Biography of Larnaca...... 46-50

7.2 Larnaca in the present...... 50-51

8. Eleusis and Larnaca: two cities with a multilayered past...... 51-55

8.1 Valuable to who?...... 56-57

9. Conclusions...... 58

10. Bibliography...... 59-66

5

11. Index...... 67-77

6

1. Introduction

Everyone has certain personal associations with the landscape that surrounds them, the area where they live, work or were born.1 Consequently, landscape plays a fundamental role in people's lives and perceptions. The significance that individuals and social groups attribute to the landscape is related to their personal and collective background as well as to their identity. The meaning that different social groups give to landscapes changes over time and in that sense, it is not possible to refer to a single ''identity'' of a landscape. As much as people possess different identities, the landscape is assigned to more than one identity.2

In this thesis, I will attempt to present that complex landscapes are attributed with multiple and contested identities. Archaeology plays a vital role in the collective identity of different communities, nevertheless as will be shown, archaeology does not always have a central role in enhancing the ties of the collective memory in a community. The choices of the stakeholders and authors of a landscape, influence the final image that a landscape presents in the present. These stakeholders are divergent and many times compete with each other and as will be discussed below, the residents are significant authors of the landscape since they are the ones that interact in their everyday lives with it.

The two case studies that have been chosen to be presented in this thesis, Eleusis in Greece and Larnaca in Cyprus, are two complicated and multilayered landscapes that each contain different identities that are connected with their ancient and recent pasts. The similarities that these cities present are related to the way heritage and archaeology are being managed and used in both Greece and Cyprus. The national ideology of the two countries is being transferred to the sites.

In the pages that follow, I will try to present how the landscape interacts with its authors and how a biography of landscape is significant in order to understand a place in its complexity. The stakeholders of a landscape will be discussed, as they are the reasons that a landscape is being altered. Further on, the way heritage and archaeology has been developed and is being managed in Greece and Cyprus will be discussed, in order to conceive what is the role that archaeology has played in the enhancement of a national and a local identity.

2. The concept of Landscape

In this thesis, I conceive landscape as an interactive entity where past and present, tangible and intangible notions correlate and create new layers of engagement. Landscape research has been through many stages and different orientations. During the 1960s and 1970s, the holistic approaches of landscape that originated in cultural geography gave way to more progressive theories and models of spatial analysis. These were influenced by the

1 Elerie & Spek 2010: 88 2 Elerie & Spek 2010: 88 7 quantitative and statistical examples that were introduced by the ''new'' human geography as well as the ''new'' processual archaeology.3

The use of the term ''biography'' to refer to something different than a human life story originated in anthropology and was initially used primarily in relation to the history of prestigious objects. 4 It was referred to as the ''cultural biography of things'', or the ''social life of things''. The key to this was the continual passing on of objects from one owner and/or user to another, which meant they were also transferred from one social context to another. In particular, the meaning of objects was also subject to drastic change. Archaeologists adopted the concept of biography, referring to the ''biography of places'' and later also the ''biography of landscapes''.5 The varying perception of places and landscapes by different individuals, social groups, cultures and periods also played a key role in these terms.

Since the 1970s, landscape biography has been the object of various disciplines, including geography, archaeology, and history. One of the first researchers to explore the role of the individual in the landscape was Marwyn Samuels. 6 In his view, individuals continuously ‘’write’’ the ‘’text’’ of urban space. Landscape transformations can be ascribed to social, political or economic developments, as much as they can be the result of ideas and interventions of people. Samuels identified the ‘landscapes of impressions’, layers of ideologies and cultural representation of space, which in turn form the context of the actual creation of landscapes, the ‘landscapes of expression’. 7 This last concept is the physically visible, materialized landscape. According to Samuels, this landscape influences and inspires the experiences of the people. Because of this, there is a continuous dialectical movement in which spatial experience and imagination on the one hand and spatial acting on the other influence and succeed each other.8

One of the pioneer works dealing with landscape was the ''Making of the English Landscape'' published in 1955 by W.G.Hoskins. The book dealt with a detailed history of the ordinary man-made scenery. This new kind of history contributed to a more general appreciation of the landscape. The book resulted in the transformation of the view of landscape into ''a humane, historical art''.9 For Hoskins, landscape appreciation derives from historical understanding. Landscape is the study of localities and it embeds a local form of history. 10

3 Elerie & Spek 2010: 90 4 Kopytoff 1986 5 Roymans 2009 6 Samuel 1979 7 Samuel 1979: 69 8 Kolen & Renes 2015: 255 9 Meining 1997: 196 10 Meining 1997: 209 8

The landscape is a perpetual attestation to the lives and works of preceding generations, who have inhabited it and have left a part of themselves.11 A biography of landscape contains historical information trying to make a perspective of a long period of use. A landscape is constituted by many different life-histories so in that sense the methodological framework for using this concept derives directly from Kopytoff's and Appadurai's ideas about the biography of things/objects and their social lives.12 Combining the life stories of the different archaeological and geographical layers can give an in-depth study and an interpretation of a certain landscape. Biography of landscape supports the idea of the coexistence and communication of different layers that build to the final image of the landscape.13

Places are as differentiated as the range of identities and meanings attached to them. Places are more than points on locations, due to the fact that they have unique meanings and values for people. Geographical experience begins in places and formulates landscapes for human existence.14 A landscape is a set of places that are connected with paths, movements, and narratives. It is a cultural code for the lives of people, a text to be read and interpreted in various forms, it is imbued with human significances. Landscape represents a conceptual ordering, a holistic concept in which, in contradiction to a place that privileges singularity, it acts in order to embrace and not to exclude.15

Through living in it, the landscape becomes a part of us, just as we are a part of it. At the same time landscapes shape their own life histories on different timescales, affecting human life cycles. There is a strong intertwining between places and people. Landscape biography implies an entanglement of multiple histories with the enactment of places and spaces. 16 Landscapes are never fully understood from one perspective. As Tim Ingold has described, landscapes are never actually completed but imputed in the life histories of those who inhabit them. 17 Places, like persons, have biographies inasmuch as they are formed, used and transformed in relation to practice. It can be argued that stories acquire part of their value and historical relevance if they are rooted in the details of locales in the landscape, acquiring material reference points that can be visited, seen and touched.18

What landscape is, depends on who is experiencing it, due to the fact that it is differently understood. Space is embedded with temporal experiences because spaces are continuously created and transformed, related to spaces of the past. 19 Societies organise their existence

11 Kopytoff 1986 12 Kopytoff 1986 13 Huijbens & Benediktsson 2015: 100 14 Tilley 1994: 15 15 Tilley 1994: 34 16 Kolen & Renes 2015: 99 17 Ingold 1993 18 Tilley 1994: 33 19 Tilley 1994: 11 9 in the midst of traces of previous generations and civilizations.20 When it comes to culture, there are processes of transformation that add new meanings and values to heritage. Hence, changing societies make different choices when it comes to remembering and forgetting.21 Each historical period appreciates the different layers of the past in a unique way, the so-called ''past in the past''.22 Heritage is never an objective premise as it is interconnected with the social construction of values and identities in every society.23 The landscape plays a crucial role in these processes of construction of identity for communities.24 The biography of landscape as a concept can be applied to heritage management since the notion of ''layeredness'' represents the temporal dimension of the landscape. Earlier transformations of the landscape can be visible in the contemporary environment, even if these transformations are not only material traces but memories and traditions attached to a living environment. The layered landscape represents a multiple past. Daily journeys through the landscape become biographic encounters for the individual through the traces of past activities and previous events that can be read.25

The 'authorship' of landscapes is one of the most leading points in biographical approach. It is not possible to separate the history and the meaning of a landscape from the lives and works of the individuals that have inhabited it.26 ''Landscapes without authors would be like books without writers. They too might exist, but only as bindings filled with empty pages''.27 The biography of landscape has its central focus on the role of individuals-authors- in the making of landscape. The concept of the biography of landscape deals with what was in the past and is in the present, the actual worlds of individuals in their contexts, worlds of authored landscapes.28 In that sense, landscape biography suggests an interaction between multiple histories of individuals, places, and spaces. Landscapes are worlds-in-formation, never finished but intensely involved in the life histories of those who live around them.29

By tracing the intentions of the individuals it is possible to understand and interpret the meanings they have ascribed to the landscape and the ways they have interacted with it in order to give it the shape that we visualize. By collecting the narratives and the contexts in which people behaved on the landscape, we can discern biographies of landscape.30 Narrative is a means of understanding and describing the world in relation to agency. It is a means of linking locales, landscapes, actions, events and experiences together providing a

20 Meining 1997: 40 21 Anderson 1991: 206 22 Elerie & Spek 2010 23 Roymans 2009: 352 24 Roymans 2009: 356 25 Tilley 1994: 27 26 Kolen & Renes 2015: 32 27 Samuel 1979: 64 28 Samuel 1979: 67 29 Huijbens Benediktsson 2015: 99 30 Meining 1979: 65 10 synthesis of heterogeneous phenomena.31 Through the biography of a landscape, it is possible to understand the contestedness of a place when different actions, emotions, and experiences are all intertwined and compete in a landscape.

A landscape biography depends on the time-depth of the analysis. In addition, as a landscape is constituted of a big amount of individual life stories, using the biography metaphor for understanding the longue-duree of the landscape is related to the individual biographies. The comprehension of landscapes in the biographical approach does not depend on a linear chronology since a landscape is an all-encompassing entity. Biography in this sense entails the idea of a coexistence of very different time-depths.32

Landscape at each point in time as the outcome of a complex interplay between the history of mentalities and values, institutional and governmental changes, social and economic and ecological developments. All landscape transformations necessarily involve a reordering, reuse, and representation of the past which gives landscape development an almost non- linear character.33

3. The stakeholders of heritage

Landscapes consist of sites that are engraved with meanings that represent either a particular individual, a group or a community. They are locations with which people connect, either physically or emotionally and are enclosed with the sense of belonging, exclusion, ownership and identity.34 A cultural landscape is never passive as people interact with it, engage with it, adapt to it and contest it. People attach different meanings to their landscapes and shape them both consciously and unconsciously throughout history. The different layers from which a landscape is composed, derive from constantly changing economic, political, cultural and societal factors and the different values that are placed. Like society, the landscape is in a continuous state of flux since it never stops transforming and developing.35

Populations that are being part of the landscape transformation, reinvent the symbols and signs of the landscape in different contexts. Landscapes are always open to interpretation and contestation. Tangible cultural elements in a landscape such as buildings, monuments, street names, graffiti actually represent interpretations of the past in the public sphere. The cultural landscape is a resource for understanding the interconnected concepts of heritage, memory, and identity.36

31 Tilley 1994: 31 32 Kolen & Renes: 100 33 Roymans 2009: 339 34 McDowell 2008: 38 35 McDowell 2008: 38 36 McDowell 2008: 40 11

In the archaeological landscape that is incorporated in the territorial borders of every country, there are multiple stakeholders that hold different understandings, interpretations, and interests concerning heritage. 37 In theory, all people can be considered stakeholders in a World Heritage context. Nevertheless, there is a number of stakeholders whose voices are particularly strong during the management of an archaeological site. Starting from the government and the local municipality, local officials responsible for safeguarding and conservation of cultural property, the people that follow are the heritage experts, academics, and archaeologists. Interest in archaeological sites claim, also, businesses that are affected by tourism, visitors to the sites and local residents that interact (or not) in their everyday lives with the site. The latter category of people is usually left out of the consultation and management processes of a heritage site.38

Stakeholders are those individuals, groups, organizations or institutions that have an interest in an archaeological place. These interests can be related to ethnic ideas, economic benefits, social cohesion. Due to the number of the stakeholders and their conflicting interests, there can be local tensions, academic competitiveness regarding the scientific exploitation of a site, national and regional conflicts that lead to different perceptions of an archaeological site. 39 The most typical stakeholders of a cultural site are:

Government agencies, such as environmental agencies, tourist agencies, religious authorities or nongovernmental organizations with an interest on the site; archaeologists and other researchers who have done significant work at the site; groups with an affinity or ancestral relationship to a site, such as Native Americans in the United States; local community members who benefit economically or who want to use the site for commercial or social purposes; or conversely, who may be adversely affected by the site as a result of land disputes or influx of tourists and traffic; private tourist agencies representing the interests of tourists and local or regional business interests; specialized tourists, such as religious tourists or pilgrims, or groups who come in large numbers and may have special requirements or may impact the site;40 auction houses, collectors, ancient art dealers, private museums.41

The different stakeholders that claim hold on an archaeological landscape, derived from the different values that are inscribed in it. There are many archaeological sites that retain an ancestral relationship with their local communities, others where tourism interests are the focus of attention 42 and a large number that does not belong to any of the above. The values that are attributed to archaeological sites are the ones that define their meaning and their significance. The multiplicity of values that a site encloses, derives from the large

37 Levy 2007: 171 38 Millar 2006: 39 39 Brian Egloff 2006: 86 40 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 31 41 Lekakis 2012: 685 42 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 31 12 number of perspectives and interpretations of people, professional groups, and communities. These values can be generally put into two basic categories: the values that are defined by professionals and academics (historical and artistic) and the values that represent the wider public that deals with the archaeology of the present reality (natural, social, spiritual and economic).43

The values that people attribute to the landscape derive from their beliefs, ideas, and experiences. For example, New Age spiritual seekers, use archaeological sites for rituals or festivals, because they believe that they attract some astronomical energy deriving from the ancient myths. Christian tourists’ pilgrimage to archaeological sites of the Eastern Mediterranean is also another example. 44 In other sites, specific groups of people claim their place in the world through cultural and spiritual connections, as has happened with the Stonehenge, used by pagans’ celebrations.45

The wider community is an important stakeholder since it is also the community, which, directly or indirectly pays for archaeological investigation, research, and management. Therefore they should also have the right to participate in this management if the archaeologists and the rest of the stakeholders would provide an appropriate opportunity to do so. The involvement of the community as a stakeholder has been firmly limited with some projects being inclusive, but the vast majority being exclusive.( The Concept of ‘the Public’ and the Aims of Public Archaeology page 69)REF?? Scientific value and academic publications are considered of great importance while spiritual or symbolic values are communicated in more informal ways.46

The social and educational values of an archaeological site, meaning the ability of a site to provide knowledge and understanding of the past, are often overlooked since archaeological landscapes are thought to be repositories of information.47 The people that inscribe these values into a landscape are, as L. Smith argues48, the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD), which ‘’focuses attention on aesthetically pleasing material objects, sites, places and/or landscapes that current generations ‘must’ care for, protect and revere so that they may be passed to nebulous future generations for their ‘education’, and to forge a sense of common identity based on the past’’. The AHD defines who are the people that are authorized to talk about the past while taking for granted the idea that ‘’heritage’’ is by nature, valuable.49

Another value of heritage, that is also being underestimated, is the economic one. Heritage experts perceive the economic value of a site as of secondary importance, and as a result, they tend to exclude it. Nevertheless, for many major stakeholders such as local

43 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 36 44 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 37 45 Knowles 2013: 3 46 Mackay 2006: 132 47 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 37 48 Smith 2006 49 Smith 2006: 29 13 communities, businesses, government, the most important value of an archaeological site is economic.50 This particular value is an important benefactor, not only as a profitable place but also concerning the investment that it requires for its conservation and maintenance. In the end, local communities often ask, if it is worth it to pay for the conservation of a site if there is no economic profit to be withdrawn.

The historical or artistic values given to a site, coming from professionals, are enhancing memory. When a site complies with the criteria placed by the AHD, the memory of the site becomes authorized. National memory is considered to be in conjunction with official memory in most societies, thus deriving from the state and its institutions that embody the values of the general public. Nation-states play a fundamental role in the construction of heritage, as they channel their ideas through socialization and education. Hence, the state is the official mediator of public commemoration and so of national heritage.51 Consequently, the nation may be considered as one of the prime stakeholders over archaeological sites.

3.1 The Nation as a stakeholder

Every social group needs a collective identity, a shared past with common experiences which have influenced the group over time. This shared past plays a fundamental role in ensuring a sense of togetherness and of solidarity, which is essential for the legitimization of a national identity. National homogeneity necessitates a sense of collectiveness that can be validated through common historical experiences.52 Nevertheless, identities and memories are profoundly selective due to the fact that they serve political and ideological interests. The past is a constructed story, deliberately chosen and subsequently consumed. Monuments, sites, moments and events are ‘’bought’’ for consumption, in order to create a feeling of communal identity.53 Heritage is not given but made. People with political power are able to influence or even define what should be commemorated and what forgotten. Monuments and buildings embedded with specific symbols and signs of identity carry messages that are under competing interests.54

Since the 19th century, the concept of the nation has been developed and used with different perspectives. The essentialist approach of the nation, accepts it as a pre-existing entity, building on a national ideology that is constructed especially when in romantic and historical places. This ideology then results in the construction and perception of the nation itself and mostly in the definition of identities. The construction of a national narrative through selected symbols that are placed in a specific ‘’time’’, presents the nation as a

50 Palumbo & Teutonico 2002: 38 51 McDowell 2008: 41 52 McDowell 2008: 41 53 McDowell 2008: 42 54 McDowell 2008: 43 14 historical agent that adds to the historical continuity. National identity and historiography represent the memory, which is a crucial feature for the nation.55

The importance of collective memory in the building of nationhood is situated in the creation of a sense of belonging to the national group. The collective memory becomes of the same value for the national culture as the flag or the national anthem.56 A nation defines itself by means of historical symbols, which mark the territory of political membership. Nations present a form of collective memory through a past that has ancient origins or a ‘’golden age’’. This shared history is continuously reaffirmed and reproduced. Social memory and ethnic identity, through heritage affirmations, enhance nationalism, since ancient reproductions for the celebration of a shared past are used to differentiate ‘’us’’ from the ‘’other’’.57

Since the 19th century, ethnic identity in most countries in Europe has become synonymous with national identity. The fact that nationalism in its ideological development has equated modern state political legitimacy with group cultural antiquity, means that the characteristic of exclusion and homogeneity has to be projected onto the past of the people and place. As a result, it has a significant effect on the way that archaeology embedded within a state, operates. 58 Through the manipulation of material or immaterial culture and the symbols that a culture contains, ethnic groups are being formed. On the other hand, these symbols are used by certain political strategies and mostly employed for group manipulation.59

Archaeology provides ideological national narratives especially for states that face a continuous pressure and threat on their territorial borders from outside powers. These states demand a strong internal unity, homogeneity and solidarity in order to confront this imagined ‘’danger’’, with Greece and Cyprus being perfect examples. The archaeological heritage of a region is viewed as one of the key expressions of the uniqueness and a tool for the marketing of a ‘’national signature’’.

3.2 Archaeology and Nationalism

Archaeology is not a neutral or purely ‘’scientific’’ discipline, but it is often driven by the aims of its practitioners who operate in different contexts, such as academic or political. One of these strategies that have been enhanced through archaeology is nationalism.60 The rise of nationalism in Europe occurred with the transformation of antiquarianism into archaeology. During the early 20th century, in a climate of increasing nationalism, the origins of the nations used spatial terms that derived from the descent of people, being

55 Liakos 2001: 28 56 Curran 2007: 104 57 Lalioti 2006: 136 58 Stritch 2013: 150 59 Curta 2014: 2509 60 Kane 2003: 3 15 enhanced from archaeology and philology.61 Nationalism and archaeology made almost a coincidental appearance. Archaeology grew in the 18th and 19th centuries as an integral part of the projects of nationalism and colonialism.62 In modern times, archaeology is being manipulated as a means for the enhancement of national sentiments.63

Archaeology as a discipline has been given the power to question the material evidence for a state's values of continuity and territoriality, therefore the legitimacy of a state.64 Territoriality and continuity are two values that can define the integrity of a state as well as the ethnic or cultural unity of a group. Hence, archaeology and the past in general, are invested with a significance by the state due to the fact that they provide the essential evidence for homogeneity and continuation of the nation. Archaeology and the past are used for shaping the narratives and the symbols that eventually represent the nation-state. Group collective memory, as well as the sense of community, is activated by these narratives.65

Nationalism is a social construction of reality.66 In this context, archaeology plays a fundamental role in verifying national identities. The exploitation of archaeology for political reasons is not only limited in the reconstruction of a national identity but also in the enhancement of certain political strategies, by fulfilling the purposes and interests of national governments when it comes to the appropriation of their power. The archaeological dialectic is manipulated, the archaeological object becomes a subject, archaeology is not an achievement of the past but a social agent.67

In the framework of nationalism, archaeological remains are used to maintain the needs and claims of certain ethnic voices and pasts while silencing and set aside other that are considered less meaningful. This problematic aspect of the presentation of the archaeological remains raises questions of ownership of the past and its material remains.68 Archaeological sites are dichotomous, meaning that they can unify or divide. Not every part of the society is participating equally or remembering a specific past.69 Heritage can become especially contested because it creates feelings of belonging and identity with specific pasts and groups.70 At the same time heritage is based on a history that is seen differently by different interested parties and therefore encapsulates notions of inclusion and exclusion.71

61 Thomas 2004: 109 62 Trigger 1984 63 Stritch 2013: 148 64 Stritch 2013: 151 65 Stritch 2013: 151 66 Athanasopoulos 2002: 277 67 Hamilakis 2016: 240-255 68 Stritch 2013: 162 69 McDowell 2008: 45 70 Pacifico, & Vogel 2012: 1591 71 Lowenthal 1998: 230 16

What is important to mention is that the dominance of the bond of nationalism and archaeology is highly variable. Archaeology is being used from many states, such as Greece, Italy or Cyprus as a national legitimating, nevertheless, nationalism is not always connected to archaeology. Countries such as the USA or Russia, that are quite nationalistic for example, do not use archaeology to support the state.

3.3 The public as a stakeholder

An archaeological site, though, does not only serve as a tool of contested ideologies concerning national identity. The state plays a fundamental role in shaping the archaeological landscape of any country and forming the national ideologies by linking archaeology with the present. Nevertheless, there is another major stakeholder, often overlooked when managing an archaeological site and that is the public.

The public is a quite broad term that needs explanation. The ''public'' of public participation is a contested term in archaeology. The sweeping ''general public'' or ''the community'' has been broken down into a catalogue that includes local interests, government groups, academics, tourists, collectors, foundations but also professionals and academic archaeologists.

According to Merriman, the ''public'' has a two-sided definition.72 On the one hand the ''public'' is associated with the state and its institutions, such as universities, museums, cultural heritage directorates and so on, as well as with interpretations and uses of the past associated with the people, for instance as in terms of a broad concept stemming from popular and consumer culture or more specifically associated with political associations and movements or activist groups.73

The public can be considered as a group of individuals who consume cultural products and whose conceptions about archaeology influence the ‘’public opinion’’. The state assumes that this role has been assigned to it, therefore it is accepted that the state can ‘’speak’’ and decide on behalf of the people and act ‘’in the public interest’’. Hence this results in minority interests not being well represented. The public as a multivalent force has the power to influence and bring change. On the other hand, the public is never a coherent faceless mass, but rather a divergent group consisted by people with different age, sex, class, ethnicity, and religion, therefore different interests that can be in conflict with each other.74

The two notions of ‘’the public’’, the state and the people, are often in discordance. The most important debate here is who has the rights to own and interpret the material remains of the past. This internal versus external distinction of archaeological practice, between profession (the state) and the wider public (the people), directs attention to archaeology as

72 Merriman 2004 73 Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192 74 Merriman 2004: 2 17 a political arena encompassing various stakeholders' interests and needs. Archaeologists are, within this context, one among several stakeholders who want to influence the interpretation and uses of archaeology.75

From the local community perspective, archaeological heritage is just one of several topics and archaeologists are just one group among several actors involved in heritage productions and ownership of the past. A range of elements, such as stories, myths, and archaeological sites are used within a local community for creating collective memories.76

The subject of ownership is one of the biggest debates in archaeology since everyone can claim a heritage site in a globalized context, but, at the same time, no one can own the past. Indeed, no one can own a site. Rather, everyone passes through as scientists, travelers or tourists. Tourists pass through a site in which some spend more time than others, but all engage with the site in some way. The boundaries between archaeologists and travelers become blurred. Local inhabitants often have several years of memories and traditions developed around a site, and they are a part of the long-term history of movement and engagement of the site.77

In the end, the question remains: ‘’Who actually are the owners of the sites and landscapes which archaeologists investigate? The archaeologists in general? The prehistoric occupants’? Present-day legislators and other government officials? The archaeologists who studied the sites? The heritage managers responsible for their care now?’’.78

People attach many different meanings to a place, such as intellectual, conceptual, spiritual. The fact that a group of owners exists in a site, does not exclude other groups that can overlap. The archaeological site itself is a landscape ascribed with parallel, particular layers constructed by the influence of different social, political and cultural parameters. 79

The fact that people are in the center stage concerning archaeological sites, is the result of a need among communities to surpass the limits of cultural diversity and develop a common cultural identity. People can be committed stakeholders of a site as they combine both an understanding and an appreciation of heritage which they can, then, communicate to others. 80

At the same time, archaeology is thought essential for the economic prosperity of the state, as it is an attraction for the people that are seeking for the ‘’exotic’’. 81 As economic stability has grown to be the main focus for every nation’s legitimacy of territorial and political

75 Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192 76 Guttormsen & Hedeager 2015: 191-192 77 Hodder 2003: 142 78 Boyd 2012 79 Boyd 2012 80 Millar 2006: 40 81 Hodder 2003: 141 18 claims, tourism provides the means for the achievement of that stability.82 On the other hand, tourism is directed to a small number of archaeological sites, due to the distinctive meaning with which they are embedded. The archaeological attractions, which generate the largest number of tourists, receive, as expected, the greatest financial investment, while sites with less ‘’national’’ meaning, are vastly ignored and left in decay.

4. Greek archaeology: past-present-future

Greek archaeology in the latest decades has seen a changing relation concerning archaeology the past decades has changed the relationship between archaeologists and ''living'' people. The meaning of the discipline and its value is now associated with both politics and the economy, as well as with nation-state building.83

For Greece, the connection between the nation-state with ancient Greece has already begun in the War of Independence with the Ottoman Empire during the 1820s. Ancient Greece, and its Classical remains were put into emphasis during the process of the foundation of the Greek national identity.84 This emphasis has resulted in the state being the absolute owner of antiquities since there is a need to protect and safeguard archaeology. This has become a ‘’national mission’’ for Greek archaeology with many results, as it has caused several nationalistic feelings. The public understanding of archaeology has been molded through museum representations, education as well as the media. Archaeology has gained a particular role for Greek people, therefore there cannot be any other kind of relationship. Archaeology is something untouchable for the society, something supreme, glorious and not negotiable, something that is representative of them but does not relate to them since the discipline has not managed to correspond to the society’s needs.85

Let’s first take a closer look at the Greek politics and the relationship with the past, as it has been shaped from the 18th century until today. Below follows a small overview of the historical period that was the most significant for the molding of Greek identity and its relation to archaeology that is still strong even today.

4.1 Greek past and nation-building

The relationship between modern Greeks and archaeology dates back to the 18th century due to the socio-political situation of the period and the developments in both Greece and Europe in general. The Greek past and antiquity were mainly used as a supportive tool in the struggle for independence. 86 Archaeology in Greece was used to legitimize the existence and identity of the nation. 87 A direct cultural link was promoted between the Greeks of the

82 Stritch 2013: 152 83 Sakellariadi 2011: 22 84 Sakellariadi 2011: 23 85 Kotsakis 2002 86 Skopetea 1988 87 Sakellariadi 2011: 71 19

Classical times and the modern people. This link was then exploited and transformed into a nationalistic and political narrative that was used for various political reasons.

Antiquity has firmly been a tool for the construction of identity. From the findings of excavations during the construction of Athens metro, until the opening of the Acropolis Museum, archaeology for the Greeks is a matter of national pride that endures their feelings of what their nation has been (and therefore still is) capable of doing.88

4.2 Legislating the past

The archaeological law (25 of July 1899) of the newly founded Greek state, remained in use until 2002 and it introduced the absolute right of the state to all the archaeological remains in order to safeguard and protect them. ‘’All antiquities in Greece, no matter where they lie, in public or private property, movable or non-movable, from the most ancient time and onwards, are state property’’ (article 1). Landowners that would lose their properties, if antiquities were located in their lands, would receive compensation.89

The contemporary Constitution that was validated in 1975, was the first to refer to the protection of the natural and cultural environment.90 Legal theory is trying to make sure that measurements are taken not only for the protection of archaeological landscape but also for the enjoyment of the people that are in constant contact with these sites in order to improve the quality of life (article 2 and 5).91In 2002 the law was finally implemented (Law no. 3028/2002, On the protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General) and changed the ground of the previous restrictions and prohibitions that had led to a lot of conflicts between private interests and stakeholders.92

The 2002 law is a good illustration of how the state views the cultural heritage. Protection is granted taking into consideration the value and the significance the archaeological site, whether it be architectural, social, industrial, historical or scientific value. Of course, the question that comes next is: who is the one to attribute a specific value to an archaeological site, what are the criteria and what is the goal? The answer is obvious: the state has decided about the specific criteria that make a site valuable and therefore the protection and the preservation of a site depend on the value that has been attributed by the authorities. This value serves particular political/nationalistic ideologies or the interests of specific stakeholders.93

In general, considering the protection of archaeological sites, there is a social dimension, which deals with preservation and prevention of destruction and of illegal processes. This

88 Plantzos 2008 89 Sakellariadi 2011: 79 90 Sakellariadi 2011: 81 91 Sakellariadi 2011: 82 92 Sakellariadi 2011: 82 93 Sakellariadi 2011: 83 20 social dimension aims at making sites accessible for communication with the public and integrates them into the modern social life. Nevertheless what is interesting is that the law supports ‘’visiting’’ as the common way that people would use monuments, added by a final visit at the museum or the archaeological site, two very restricted and controlled places, where only formal and official strategies take place.94

The role that the state, plays concerning antiquities in Greece suggests that the field is not ready to embrace a more wide-ranging social role. The Archaeological Service (that goes hand in hand with the state) is still very suspicious against individual initiatives that are not controlled by them. Therefore the 2002 law validates the way the state manages antiquities. Nevertheless, this position does not take into account the interests of different stakeholders such as the Church, private organizations, local administrations, and inhabitants. This approach does not embrace developments in the management of cultural heritage, such as the right to diversity or interpretation or re-evaluation of archaeological sites. In the end, a conscious choice is made for the limited number of the stakeholders. The nation, the tourists and the archaeologists are involved while local inhabitants and land-owners are being excluded.95

4.3 Greek archaeology and politics

Archaeology in Greece has mainly been used as a tool to correspond to the interests of different political parties and governments. A good example is the dictatorial government of Ioannis Metaxas (1936-1941) and later of Junta (1967-74), made use of antiquity in order to legitimize their power and in order to stay in the public’s memory as something associated with the ancient glory.96 This exploitation of antiquity has not changed in recent years. Consider the example of Antonis Samaras, prime minister of Greece from 2012-2015, who, during the height of a financial crisis that divided the Greek people, used the interesting new finds of the archaeological excavation of a tomb in ancient Amphipolis (located in Macedonia), in order to add to the nationalistic narrative, and even more to ensure that this excavation will be associated with the days of his government.97

Antiquity is not only used as a way to legitimize governments but also to accuse them of their ignorance or their disregard. The past few years, the above mentioned archaeological site has become a sort of game between the different political parties and governments that have been assigned with the role to protect it and preserve it. Amphipolis is the place where political identities and interests are in conflict. Three years after the visit of A. Samaras in 2014 (leader of the right-wing party Nea Dimokratia), the next leader of the same political party, now the opposing party against the government, visits the site in order to accuse the state that the site has been abandoned. In that sense, K. Mitsotakis was trying to promote

94 Sakellariadi 2011: 84 95 Sakellariadi 2011: 90 96 Hamilakis 2007 97 http://rednotebook.gr/2014/08/ethnikh-thisavrothiria/visited: 17-09-17 21 the role that his political party played for the excavations of the site and compare it with the role of the current government.98

Archaeology has different roles and functions in the Greek political system, and these have been transferred to the public ideology as well. A specific image has been cultivated among Greek people which reflects a glorious nation that is supreme. Archaeological excavations and sites are only worthy of mentioning if they confirm this idea. The press and the television will only cover an archaeological site that can be affiliated with a famous person of the past and will promote a distorted story in order to draw the attention of people. As a result, the public receives the information that is covered by the mass news and a specific idea is adopted, an idea of the past as something untouchable, sacred and glorious. Politics aide to further confirm this idea when party representatives are commenting on the monuments that are found, only if they are connected to a historical figure or period in the past.

Even though archaeology is thought as the base for cultural identity and tourism in Greece, there can be interests that are able to surpass it. A recent event at the archaeological excavation of the Elliniko area (Attica, Greece) is an excellent example showing how the stakeholders of a site can vary depending on specific circumstances. The developer (Lamda Development) of a vast area, known to include archaeological remains, refused to pay for the excavation processes (as the archaeological law obliges every developer to do) and accused the archaeologists of sabotaging the building project.99 Elliniko is an area that presents a rich archaeological record, which nevertheless is not well known amongst the public since it has not been excavated completely. As a result, a big part of the Greek society accused the archaeological community that they would obstruct the economic development of the area (Figure 1).

The above examples signify the symbolic role that archaeology plays in Greek society. On the one hand, it provides the nationalistic view that can be used by different political parties. Archaeology constitutes the base for the building of a national identity, a national pride. The past is played on, in order to fulfill different interests at different times. What is interesting, is that while monumental archaeology of the glorious Classic times, as is Amphipolis, is considered a national pride, in the case of Elliniko, where the finds are not as monumental or associated with an eponymous figure of antiquity, archaeology is considered a burden, an obstacle for development. Therefore, archaeology can be both a way of economic growth (as in the case of Amphipolis where tourism is believed to save the area), or as a block of the growth, as in Elliniko.

Archaeology and the past in Greece, probably more than in many other modern countries, are effectively present in the landscape. The past is within reach in everyday life in the

98 http://www.iefimerida.gr/news/339639/mitsotakis-apo-amfipoli-ta-teleytaia-dyo-hronia-den-ehei-ginei- proodos visited: 17-09-17 99http://sea.org.gr/details.php?id=686 visited: 17-09-2017 22 numerous and evident archaeological remains and sites around the country, be it in the Athens metro station, in logos, in product advertisements or even in protests (Figure 2). Antiquity is into a constant dialogue with people and this national imagination becomes embedded into their ideas and beliefs in every aspect of their lives.100

It should not come as a surprise, then, that in Greece archaeology is actually thought of as the ‘’heavy industry of the country’’, meaning that Greek economy is very much depended on cultural tourism.101 On the one hand, archaeological sites that are considered valuable and worth to visit, enjoy great reputation that has been ascribed by the state.102 On the other hand, sites that are considered insignificant and are not admired in the same way, are often left abandoned or not given the necessary attention. This selectivity is associated with the way every government or municipality wants to be interrelated with the economic growth of an area or with matters of identity. Subsequently, archaeology becomes significant only when it can be deployed through tourism or can serve as a confirmation of the ancient origins of a place.

The canonization of Classical archaeology is another factor that emphasizes the political role of archaeology in Greece. The Ministry of Culture itself clearly attributes more value to classical remains than any others, as they belong to the most ''valuable'' archaeological period for the discipline in Greece. On the other hand, it is important to mention that in Greece, just as in other European countries, prehistoric archaeology has taken a different path, carrying new theories and methods since the 1970s.103 Classical archaeology, supported by aesthetic approaches, has viewed archaeology as a representation of material culture, appreciated due to the ‘idealised’ past with which it is associated. Further interpretation is not needed and research does not have to be shared since archaeology and its meaning can only be admired by the scholarly few.104 Classical archaeology has been attributed with a national mission in a way, which has resulted in creating a particular image about archaeology, an image rather traditional and retrogressive that does not let the discipline open for interpretation.105

In the end, while archaeology in Greece was initially practiced for the Greek people 106, in reality, it is completely alienated from them. Community outreach and engagement have not been the priority for the Greek bureaucracy but is mostly the result of individual initiatives. At the same time, the Greek administration does not prioritize financial support for the discipline, because of which archaeology in Greece lacks the resources for a

100 Hamilakis 2003: 53 101 Kouri 2012 102 Smith 2006 103 Kotsakis 1991 104 Sakellariadi 2010: 519 105 Sakellariadi 2011: 74 106 The first archaeological law of the Greek State, ratified in 1834 by George Ludwig von Maurer, was stating that: ‘’all antiquities inside Greece, because they are works of the ancestors of the Greek people, are regarded as the national possession of all the Greeks in general’’ (article 6). (Sakellariadi 2011: 78) 23 sustainable future. Nevertheless, the developments that have occurred in archaeology in the rest of the world have, naturally, started to influence community archaeology in Greece as well.

4.4 Archaeology and the Public in Greece

The sterile relationship that the public has with archaeology in Greece is slowly but steadily changing. The term ''public'' represents a great range of entities and individuals that are hard to trace and to understand. The only way archaeology is presented to the people is by the establishment of museums. The exposure of the archaeological finds of yet another glorious ancient personality such as ‘’Alexander the Great’’(Amphipolis’s case), or another educational project that does not take into consideration how the public receives and engages with archaeological sites. The public is not able to understand the meaning of the ancient remains through their ruinous context, even though they are given the chance in their everyday life.107

As shown above, with the case of Elliniko, the public in Greece is influenced by the way the government and media present archaeology and is very often prejudiced against excavations and archaeological remains. On the other hand, in times of crisis, the argument of the economic development of an area gains additional strength and archaeology suddenly acquires different value and becomes part of everyday life. , archaeology is seen mostly as a ''resource'' than a ''good'' by the people.108

The public understanding of archaeology can be found in more extreme ways. Archaeology has been used not only for touristic and nationalistic reasons but as a symbol for the legitimization of fanatic adherents of antiquity and supporters of extremist right-wing ideologies, such as the political party ''Golden Dawn'' supporters of Adolf Hitler. Fake past symbols, values, and history are re-interpreted and become abused, which have an effect on how archaeology is perceived in Greece. 109 On the other hand, public perceptions become more tangible than just ideas, as it is for example acts of vandalism (Figure 3). As Stelios Lekakis comments ''each society has the monuments it deserves'', nevertheless it is interesting enough that in a country where archaeology has been promoted as the tool for development and fame around the globe, there is still a part of the society that has not appropriated them as such and does not perceive them through a national, imaginative narration. 110

In general, public perceptions of Greek archaeology vary as much as the different communities that have any relation to archaeology.111 While community archaeology has started to occupy more space in the academic circles elsewhere, in Greece, this has not been

107 Sakellariadi 2011: 99 108 Lekakis 2017: 14 109 Lekakis 2017: 16 110 Lekakis 2017: 19 111 Marshall 2002: 215-216 24 the case.112 The Greek public does not fulfill the premises of public archaeology since it does not engage with the remains actively, does not renegotiate and challenge the ownership of the past. The Greek public’s awareness concerning archaeology lies in the hands of various different stakeholders which often results in an abused knowledge and understanding. 113

Whether they are caves that are not closely related to the inhabitants of the community (Franchthi) or modern monuments that are still in use by the inhabitants (Anafiotika, Old Town of Rethymno), there is a great suspicion on behalf of the community against the state and its representatives (as is a commonly thought) archaeologists.114This suspicion, as mentioned above is enhanced by a period of economic crisis and by the latest law of 2002 that obliges the developer to pay for excavation works before building in an area. The nature of the archaeological remains plays a fundamental role in the shaping of the public perceptions. The physical features,(the monumentality of the physical features is the way of measuring their value and therefore their relationship with the public) if they are monumental or not, is the central reason for the value of the remains and the relationship with the public. Therefore, as mentioned above, prehistoric remains are thought inferior to the impressive Classical ones and if the survey does not come with precious and valuable artifacts (as would be in a Minoan or Mycenaean excavation), then the locals do not show any particular interest.115

On the other hand, a reason for interest by the locals is whether a site attracts an important number of visitors. In that case, even if they are not in the position to appreciate their heritage, the fact that the site is admired by tourists installs more pride in the local community and therefore raises the importance of the site. Nevertheless, the more important an archaeological site is, the less is likely that the locals' voice will be heard concerning the management of it. 116 During the last decade's initiatives from either individual, either the locals or organizations and institutes, have started getting involved in the archaeological process. People have started to re-assess their heritage and a good example of this use and re-use of archaeology is the case of Eleusis.117

5. The city of Eleusis

In 1975, just after the seven-year dictatorship of Junta in Greece, Eleusis created its first cultural institution, a festival devoted to Aeschylus (Aeschylia), who was the first dramatist in the history of theatre and was himself born in Eleusis in 525 BC and died in the Gel of Sicily in 456 BC.118 The organizing committee of the festival consisted of various actors of the city: the Municipality, the work center, youth clubs, folk clubs, members of the

112 Sakellariadi 2010: 515 113 Sakellariadi 2010: 521 114 Sakellariadi 2011: 119 115 Voutsaki 2004 116 Caftanzoglou 2001 117 Sakellariadi 2011: 133 118 Stamou 2005: 299 25 educational community, business world, about 40 entities in total. The city's need to draw data from the past, building to forge a new culture-based future started being developed on the conscience of the citizens. Gradually the conditions for transition to a different growth model have been created. Eleusis currently has a large cultural reserve that includes festivals, folklore clubs from all parts of Greece, citizens who are active in the artistic and creative space, as well as many friends of the city that shapes the latest cultural history of the place. They are all those who try to transform an abused city with their work, this "wound of history," as Philippos Koutsaftis mentions in the film Agelastos Petra (Mourning Rock), in a creative city of Europe.REF to movie

Eleusis is a historical palimpsest of different layers engraved in its long history. Ancient settlements, fortifications, places of religious worship, industrial district all compose the multi-layered landscape of the city from antiquity until today. The different layers are inscribed in the memory of the people, making it a place where past, present, and future are submerged. The biographies of the inhabitants-and authors- are perplexed with the biography of the city, and as the movie ''Mourning Rock'' has successfully documented, every new intervention on the landscape, adds another and brings the end of the previous use of it.

There is little today at Eleusis that looks similar to the setting of the religious site of antiquity. Twenty kilometers and a large highway divide separate Eleusis from Athens and a large highway. It is the same route that those who wanted to take part in the Eleusinian Mysteries would use, name the Sacred Way (Ιερά Οδός). Much later, foreign travelers, members of the British Society of Dilettanti and romantic archaeologists would be looking for the ruins of the sacred city. Eleusis' modern history is interwoven with one of the first and well organized industrial structures of the new Greek state. During the 20th century, Eleusis has been evolved into the area with the heaviest industrial concentration of Greece. Today almost 1,000 industries are still at work in the area, while the plain is surrounded by two big highways the Attiki Odos and the Athens-Corinth Highway.119

The city of Eleusis used to be an essential passage through which for from important roads, which led to Attica to and the rest of Greece, were passing through. Adding to this the fertile and cultivable landscape of Thriasio Pedio and the presence of the Kifisos river, it is possible to get an image of the natural landscape of this suburban city of Athens (Figure 4).

Archaeological research has demonstrated that human existence at Eleusis began during the Early Helladic period (3200-1550 B.C.).120 By the Middle Helladic period (2000-1550 B.C.) there is evidence of habitation and graves on the south slope of the hill that later spread. The main acropolis of the settlement that was constructed around the Middle Iron Age, was located westwards of the main hill of the modern city.121 The beginning of the worship of

119 Cosmopoulos 2015: 27 120 Cosmopoulos 2015 121 Kanta 1979: 18 26 the goddess Demeter is placed chronologically during the Later Iron Age. During the first Geometric period around 1100-1900 B.C., a dramatic reduction of the population can be noticed in Eleusis, as is evident in most parts of Greece. Around 900-700 B.C. there can be seen a significant growth of the settlement.122

Systematic excavation of the Eleusinian sanctuary started during the end of the 19th century until the beginning of the 20th century, by the Athens Archaeological Society under the archaeologists and Ephors of Antiquities: D.Philias (1882-1892) and A. Skias (1894-1907). Between 1917 and 1930 excavations were conducted by K. Kourouniotes, Ephor of Antiquities, and later, from the 1930's until the 1960's, the investigation of the site was continued and completed by K. Kourouniotes, G. Mylonas, and J. Travlos. Since the early 1980s, a great deal of work has been done outside the sanctuary by the Γ' Ephoria of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, under the directorship of Kalliope Papangeli. Papangeli (that who also appears in the documentary of Koutsaftis) has conducted numerous excavations in the modern city, which have brought to light exciting new evidence for the history of Eleusis from the prehistoric period to the end of antiquity.123

The sanctuary of Demeter gains a pan-Hellenic reputation from the 8th century onwards.124 The cult of Demeter and the Mysteries came with time to mark out Eleusis as a great and famous religious center. There is some evidence for an early form of the cult already in Mycenaean times since excavations of the site of the Telesterion have brought to light the remains of a Mycenaean building of megaron type, which is thought by many to be the first temple of Demeter.REF In the days of Solon (650-600 B.C.), a bigger sanctuary was placed outside of the city, which later Peisistratus (550-510 B.C.) enlarged, due to the number of visitors, and build the Telesterion, the place where the Mysteries were taking place.125

During the Persian wars (499-449 B.C.), the prosperity of the town and of the Sanctuary is reduced, as after the end of this period the city, as well as the temple of Demeter, are left in ruins. For several decades the temple was not reconstructed from the residents, on purpose, in order to leave the evidence of the barbarism as a landmark and a memorial of the damage that has been done. Later, in the middle of the 5th century B.C. Eleusis became renowned as one of the most important sanctuaries in Greece.126

During the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the polis of Eleusis is one of the most important in Attica, as the strong fortifications of the city were used for protection not only by the local population but also by neighboring municipalities.127 Due to the fact that Eleusis formed the western border of the city of Athens the Peloponnesian war (431-406 B.C.), inevitably,

122 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 7 123 Cosmopoulos 2015: 39 124 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 8 125 Kanta 1979: 19 126 Kanta 1979: 19 127 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 15 27 affected the town. Interestingly, during the war, Sparta showed respect to the Sanctuary, as did many other conquerors after, that even though they damaged the bigger part of the city, left the Sanctuary intact. 128 Nevertheless, new fortifications are built for the further protection of the city. The Stadium and the Theatre of Eleusis were placed outside the walls of the Acropolis at the southern foothills of the hill, an area that became the industrial zone of Eleusis in modern times.

The advent of Christianity reduces slowly but linearly the respect of the Eleusinian worship that manages to survive until the end of the 4th century A.C. Emperor Theodosius (379-395 A.C.) is the first to forbid the cult practices, while in 395 A.C. Alarichus ruined the Sanctuary of Demeter with his hordes. 129 After the end of use of the Sanctuary, a small community of Christians survives, leaving evidence of Christian temples in the area and Byzantine fortification on the Acropolis hill. The incised crosses found on the Great Propylaea belong to this period. The community probably disappeared due to the advent of the Arabs in Attica during the 9th-century A.C.

Eleusis is referred by Byzantine writers as a ‘’small village’’.130 After the Justinian’s period (527-565 A.C.) a Frankish tower was built on top of the ancient foundations to the west of the citadel which remained until its demolishing by the Titania Cement factory during the 1950s while the western hill was quarried.131 The preservation of the temple as a landmark and a memory-scape in the area is an important mark of continuation and a persistence on the landscape.

During the War of Independence against the Turks in 1821, Eleusis was used as a barrack by the Greek rebels, and again in the time of Kapodistrias (1776-1831), the first head of state of Independent Greece. After the independence, habitations were built all over the hill with material from the ancient ruins. It should be added that a large part of the Demeter sanctuary had already been used as building material both in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods and the Turkish occupation.132

In the 14th century, a new migration of Albanic tribes in Attica affects Eleusis too, but the real development of the city begins after the liberation from the Turks.133 Βasic facilities in the area are constructed and hygienic infrastructures in order to prevent the spread of diseases become the center of attention. Excavations on the site already started from 1811 by the English Archaeological Company of Dilettanti, continued in 1860 by the French archaeologist Fr.Lenormant (1837-1883) and in 1882 are taken over by the Archaeological Service of Athens. The latter’s systematic excavation in the area of the ancient Sanctuary

128 Kanta 1979: 20 129 Legatos 1997: 130 130 Eleusis K.Kanta: 21 131 Sfyroeras 1985: 13 132 Eleusis K.Kanta: 21 133 Preka-Alexandri 2003: 12 28 revealed the old temple of Demeter and the Acropolis of Eleusis. The excavation works as well as the emerging of the first soap factory named ''Harilaos'' in Eleusis, are the main factors that attracted working class people during that period and as a result, great numbers immigrated to Eleusis.134

At the beginning of the 20th century, many soap factories and flour-mills are established, while the two important industries, the wine and alcohol establishment ''Votrys'' (Figure 5) and the cement factory ''Titan'' (Figure 6) are built. Later, during the 1920s, the distillery ''Kronos'' (Figures 7, 8) and the first varnish factory of Greece ''Iris'' are also created. All the above new industries, as well as the pottery factories that are built in the area, are a significant source for employment, not only for the local people but also for refugees that fled from the Asia Minor Catastrophe in 1922.135 After WWII a different era begins for Eleusis since it becomes part of the industrialization course. Due to its geographic position and its function as a physical harbor, economic development starts taking place. As a result, the old factories are renovated and new ones are installed. During the 1950s many industries such as the steel factory and the oil factory are established which cause a massive wave of migration in Eleusis and population increases at full speed.136

5.1 A biography of Eleusis

All these historical and economic changes, altered the character of Eleusis from an agricultural to a rather urban area. This change is also evident from the private houses that are built during this period. New infrastructures in the public domain also seem to augment since new roads and squares are constructed, trees are planted, management of water is improved, signs that the city is transformed into a modern town.137

Until the end of the 20th century, Eleusis has been developed to the second most important industrial zone after Piraeus, with large numbers of people migrating to the city in order to work in the factories. Eleusis has also been the production engine of Attica during the ancient times when agriculture was the dominant economic sector. Eleusis was again the symbolic place of innovations and a city that welcomed migrant workers in ancient times due to the fact that Demeter was also a 'migrant' goddess. This fact might be the reason why Eleusinian Mysteries were the only ancient ceremony that was open to all people regardless their origin, gender or class. In that sense, it seems that Eleusis from ancient times until today has been a city of immigrants and refugees with 4000 years of a history of humans as producers, creators, and workers.138

Despite the fact that Eleusis was rapidly involved and developed into a modern working city, there was one domain that was dramatically affected, and that was the environment of the

134 Sfyroeras 1985: 87 135 Sfyroeras 1985: 93 136 Sfyroeras 1985: 126 137 Sfyroera, 1985: 98 138 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 6 29 area. The concentration of so many factories and industries transformed the town into an industrial zone with catastrophic impact on the nature of the region. The air and water pollution had, as a result, severe consequences on the health of the residents, causing strong protests and oppositions against the expansion of the old factories and the creation of new. The protesters demanded immediate measurements that would reduce the pollution.139 One noteworthy example of the scale of the problem is that at the end of the 1970s the gulf of Eleusis was thought the most polluted sea in the Mediterranean.140

The massive industrial development of Eleusis comes from the activation of a team of mechanics-industry owners, that were named ''The Cycle of Zurich'' due to the fact that most of these people had graduated from the College of Engineering of Zurich during the 1880s'. These people appeared in Eleusis and brought in the heavy chemical industry. Eleusis, after Piraeus (Athen's port and first industrial zone), was a perfect location for industrialization due to its fossils and its agricultural production. These people determined the construction of the manufactures through their choices and shaped the future of the city. N.Kanellopoulos, L.Oikonomidis, E.Charilaos, A.Xatzikyriakos, and A.Zachariou are the people whose contribution was the most influential for the image of the city as it has been developed until today.141

There are certain individuals and groups that are characterized by either wealth or education or of special social differentiation and status that are able to bring into life innovative ideas and make several choices and decisions that affect the whole of the society. What is the main criterion of elitism is choice? Most of the ordinary people are given little or no choice in the matter of where they live or under which conditions they survive. The ability to choose is the necessary basis of the individual responsibility.142

If the ''elites'' are responsible for the choices and determination of an industrial landscape, the Authorised Heritage Discourse meaning the municipalities, heritage experts, archaeologists are responsible for the choices made for an archaeological landscape. They are the main stakeholders that can delineate the management of a site, while people that live in the surrounded area are not in the position to express their opinion and are not taken into consideration when decisions are made. Nevertheless, in the end, it is not only the elites on the top of the social hierarchy that is able to make the choices that will determine the lives of everyone else. Every individual actually constitutes an ''elite'' and gives meaning to the environment. In the case of Eleusis, every worker of the factories, every citizen was responsible for the image that the city was adopting day by day.143

139 Sfyroeras 1985: 131 140 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 5 141 Mpelavilas 2011: 12 142 Samuels 1979: 78 143 Samuels 1979: 79 30

The prominent authors of a city are not inescapably the urban planners or the developers, that might have a more objective view on the space but lack the actual experience of the living place and the impact that this would have in the landscape. The real authors of the landscape are the ones that spend their everyday lives, interacting with the urban space, with the ancient remains, with the industrial residues.144 As Koutsaftis describes (see the following section) the simple people are the ones who move through the city and embody the real authors that experience their landscape in multiple ways.

While the industries have altered the Eleusinian landscape and changed forever the lives of the people that inhabited the place, this practice of the ‘’elites’’ to ignore the local communities has had a long history. Hamilakis in the book A Singular Antiquity145 describes how the ‘’Ceres or Demeter from Eleusis’’ can be seen now in the Cambridge Fitzwilliam Museum, while it was worshiped by the locals and considered as something majestic and sacred.

The artifact that is a first-century (BC) Caryatid, was spotted by travelers and removed in 1801 by don Edward Clarke. The inhabitants of the then small village of Eleusis, treated the Statue with a kind of superstition as they believed that it had supernatural powers that were protecting their fields. People believed that the loss of this statue would bring failure to their harvests, therefore no one had the permission to touch it or unearth it. Nevertheless, Clarke being impressed by the Caryatid, managed to obtain a permit from the local Ottoman governor in order to remove the statue.146

The locals, which used to worship the statue as they would worship Christian icons, were a dynamic obstacle against this removal. They refused to help to unearth the Caryatid and strongly believed that the disturbing of the goddess would have tremendous consequences to their lives and their fields. They even believed that the hand of anyone who would remove the statue would fall off. Eleusinians would mourn the loss of their statue for years to come.147

Ironically enough, the ship that carried the Caryatid to England, sank off on the south coast of the country. After some years, the statue of the Eleusinians, the ‘’Cere of Eleusis’’, would be called the ‘’Cambridge Cere’’ as a colonial award of another collector that needs appropriation. This incident describes the gap existing between the ‘’academic’’ and ‘’appropriate’’ archaeology that needed the Statue in a museum cabinet and the indigenous archaeology of the local people of Eleusis that were keeping the Statue in context and even

144 Kolen & Renes 2015: 33 145 Damaskos and Plantzos 2008 146 Hamilakis 2008: 276 147 Hamilakis 2008: 276 31 treating it with the same way as it would have been treated in ancient times. The western discipline, believing in its own superiority, decided about the faith of this artifact.148

An important tool for the recording of the changes that the landscape and its dwellers have been through during the end of the 20th century, after the city being developed as a massive industrial area, is the Documentary of Philippos Koutsaftis, The mourning Rock. Philippos Koutsaftis, in his film ''Mourning Rock'', presents a research from 1988 until 1999 in Eleusis, capturing the different stages and the different layers that interact with each other and collide with each other. He captures the sense of the authorship and how different people, political parties or the elite that is controlling the industrial zone, have contributed to the Eleusis as it is now known. This movie plays a significant role in the understanding of how people and the landscape of Eleusis have been influencing each other and interact with each other. Koutsaftis has been filming for almost a decade, the constant changes and alterations that the Eleusinian landscape has been through. In a time period of 10 years, Koutsaftis has been documenting the changes in the city, the locals' perceptions of it, even the changes that time brought upon the citizens themselves. This documentation that Koutsaftis is providing is a significant tool for the recording of the different layers that have been engraved on the landscape.

The title of the film refers to a landmark of ancient Eleusis, the mythical stone upon which Demeter mourned the loss of her daughter Persephone. Koutsafis captures scenes from the everyday life of the modern residents of Eleusis, following many of them continuously for the 10 years that he was filming. At the same time, he captures scenes from the excavation works that were going on in the region, due to the constructions of new buildings or roads in the area. Koutsaftis in his film addresses his concern about the development of the natural and the urban environment and more specifically for the degeneration of Eleusis from a sacred ancient place to a kind of dystopia of the modern times. A central idea of the movie is the phrase: ''Memory is our only property''. The film emphasizes that it is the daily interaction with the archaeological site that maintains the memory of the place rather than the novel attempts of the archaeological community.149

The movie seems to adopt a more romantic and spiritual relationship with the past, a relationship that derives mostly from the Greek imagination and nationalism. During the film, the director constantly reminds the viewer about the perpetual historical continuation in the residence of the area. The scattered archaeological excavations let the observe that the manufactures of modern times are actually continuing the life of the ancient structures for almost 2500 years. Nevertheless, what concerns the director and is expressed throughout the film, is that this continuation is disrupted by the destructive advent of the modernization and the industrialization that had a negative impact in the ethical and ontological integrity of the Greek landscape, a landscape that had been, according to the

148 Hamilakis 2008: 277 149 Plantzos 2014: 290 32 director, authentic and untouched for thousands of years. As a result, the past is presented as authentic, alive and important in great contrast with the present that is described as deteriorating, corrupted and poor.150 The ''Mourning Rock'' gives us also the chance to see how the people in the past were comprehending their past. As different people have been interviewed, it is notable that the ancient ruins influence people in different ways, as a result, there are workers that understand the dominant role of the industries and people that interact and are affected by the ancient identity of the city.

The biographical concept of recording the ''past in the past'' is traversing the movie of Koutsaftis because through the camera personal stories of people appear, lives of immigrants, refugees, and workers from different parts of Greece. Koutsaftis interviews people that have been relocated to Eleusis, during the 1930s a period when the identity of the town was equivalent to labor.The biographies of people are collected and used to create this complicated puzzle of this diverse crowd that has affected the landscape of Eleusis.

5.2 Eleusis in the present

During the 21st century, Eleusis is developed into a town that has been rapidly modernized in a way that caused a kind of oblivion of the past. The city's identity has been dominated by the industrialization and the glorious past has been kept aside. Despite the fact that the archaeological site of the Sanctuary of Demeter is an area of international reputation and the municipality of Eleusis, through cultural events like the Festival of ''Aischylia'', is trying to further promote the city, it is rather interesting that the town has been engraved in people's mind and memory as a city of factories and labour.151

The last decades the city of Eleusis is making serious efforts for the improvement of protective environmental measures as well as organizing cultural activities that could boost the promotion of the heritage of the city. Within these efforts, is the proposal and the nomination of Eleusis as the Cultural Capital of Europe for the year 2021. The goal for this nomination is to establish Eleusis as a dynamic cultural center of the region and encourage people visiting the town for its heritage. Sustainable development is the key feature that Eleusis needs, as it is necessary to combine and link the productive sector with art and culture, which will have a great effect for the general development of the city.152

All these different layers of the Eleusinian landscape have contributed to the image of the city as it is now. The glorious past in combination with the several historical and political periods that have passed through and impacted the landscape of the city are evident in the big variability that it presents. The older traces from the different periods are noticed

150 Plantzos 2014: 294 151 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 2 152 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 3 33 through the landscape that is dominated by the later developments. The different traces do not just lie next to each other but have a new function, values, and definitions.153

The archaeological site, the view of the sea with the cranes, the shells of the old industrial units, the waterfront, the accommodation of the foreign immigrants, nowadays make up a history that is constantly rewritten. It is this feeling that is reflected in the "Mourning Rock" for the refugees, the islanders and the landowners who came from all over Greece. Today the same people feel proud of being Eleusinians while still embracing their old local traditions from Crete to Macedonia.

Eleusis as a multi-layered city has been managed by different stakeholders, however, the public has been kept aside of the decisions made. To the present, Eleusis has been engraved in people’s minds as the productive engine of Greece, a stereotypical image of a place that is only considered an industrial city. Eleusis' identity has been associated with factories, pollution, diseases and the working class. The blending of history and industry on the landscape is evident and perceptible to the visitor. In order to break this stereotype, an initiative deriving from the state as well as the citizens of Eleusis is aiming to make the town a cultural center again.

From 2000 onwards, the municipality started investing in culture, an approximately 5%-6% of its annual budget. 154 This was the aftermath of a gradual decrease of the industrial activity in the area which resulted in a loss of an important number of jobs. The turn into a more cultural development was then the consequence of the need for an alternative way to achieve economic growth again became essential. The city has rich cultural resources that, with the right exploitation, could transform the city into the cultural center that used to be since antiquity. Even though the authorities were the ones to take the initiative, the citizens of Eleusis, as well, became aware of the city’s promising future. In a period of economic crisis, people tend to turn to alternative ways to improve their quality of life and re-assess their identity. On the other hand, especially due to the crisis, the cultural development of a city like Eleusis takes a second place compared to more urgent needs.155 Therefore, funding at a national level has not been an easy procedure.

Greece, especially after the crisis, has invested more into tourism for the flourishing of the economy. As cultural tourism is an important aspect for the group of foreigners that visit the country, the authorities have promoted archaeological sites in a combination to an attractive destination, surrounded by the sea, the sun and the famous Greek summer. On the other hand, Eleusis does not fall into this category as an archaeological site. Therefore, authorities have not spend energy and money in order to promote a site that would not attract visitors and so would not have any positive effect on the economy.

153 Renes 2015: 403 154 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 3 155 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 4 34

With Eleusis candidacy and entitlement of the European Capital of Culture for 2021, new plans have been initiated in order to ensure that Eleusis will become the dynamic cultural center that should be and turn the page in its industrial history that marks the city up until now. As the title of the project ‘’Euphoria in transition’’ claims, the city is once again ready to pass through a transition, as it has done many times in its history already.156

The contradictory complexity of a city that has been inhabited by different people in different times has resulted in people getting attached to its history and trying to re-live it. Interestingly through the nomination of Eleusis as a Cultural Capital, it is not only one part of its historical layer that will be put on display but every part of its interrelated layeredness. Therefore, part of the cultural transition includes also the old factories that are already used as concert houses or art galleries. The re-assessment and re-use of industrial buildings in combination with the re-branding of archaeology and the new relationship build with the inhabitants, makes Eleusis' landscape a unique blending of different identities.

Eleusis can be thought in a sense a miniature of Europe, due to its complex cultural identity, the far past, the near past and the present, the industrial environment that has started to decay, the economic crisis. What is more, the different origins of people living in Eleusis is another similarity to Europe as a whole. The population of Eleusis comes from many different backgrounds amongst them immigrants and refugees with not a particular link to their past, or to a cultural identity. Indeed, people that do not have a route with a specific space, are regarded a-cultural, having no identity. 157 Nevertheless, what the city is aiming to is to enhance the dynamics of this multicultural city, a city that combines different histories and traditions. All these different people have something in common and that is the landscape that connects them as well as their common desire to share a space in which they will live and flourish. This great challenge of Eleusis reflects the challenges that Europe as a whole faces today.158

By building on and strengthening a common identity among the society of Eleusis, all the different social groups that exist will be more easily integrated and especially the more vulnerable as are the refugees and immigrants. Cultural activities such as educational projects, architectural and art exhibitions, concerts, and festivals that link the city's tradition with antiquity and industrial heritage, will enhance the creativity of the citizens and invoke them to participate in an entertaining and educational way.159

In the end, this cultural progress in Eleusis will build new collaborations between the various stakeholders such as the local authorities, cultural operators and citizens and will create a sense of pride for the inhabitants. This pride is much different than the nationalistic perception of heritage as mentioned above. This engagement with archaeology and heritage

156Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 4 157 Kaftantzoglou 2001: 40 158 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 9 159 Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook: 11 35 does not involve the separation and the superiority of the different pasts but the sharing of a common past that encloses all parts of the society into one common identity.

6 Cyprus: a contested landscape

Archaeology and politics, as already mentioned, are intertwined and tightly linked. Archaeology is not a neutral discipline, on the contrary, it has a very political role in informing us concerning our past. There is no choice between a political or an apolitical archaeology, there is the only choice concerning which politics are actually practiced and displayed and made explicit.160

The eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus has been dealing with a recent colonial past for the last decades, while at the same time, the island's attachment to Greek antiquity with classical sites such as Paphos, Kition or Ammathus is fuelling a national self-consciousness. 161 What is rather problematic though, concerning official heritage in the Republic of Cyprus, is that the past is distributed/spread within the landscape which is by 46% occupied by the Turkish. The past in Cyprus has clearly taken a political role due to the fact that heritage has the ability to imbue places with certain values and transform them into spaces of contested cultural identity where the past is challenged.162 Heritage includes processes where multiple pasts are intertwined and linked to each other in contradictory ways. Archaeology and heritage in Cyprus involve a multiple blending of different pasts where contrasting cultures, ideologies and nations are interfering in the landscape. Both the Greek and the Turkish political entities on the island, for political or economic reasons each follow different rules that in the end have consequences on the cultural landscape.163

The Turkish invasion of 1974 and subsequent occupation of the northern part of the island has played the most fundamental role in moulding an ideology over the Greek Cypriot Past. Archaeology has been largely affected after the invasion, antiquities have been looted or destroyed while at the same time Greek archaeologists are not allowed to manage any research in the occupied part of the island.164 Turkish Cypriot archaeologists' status has been debated (as will be explained below) while heritage sites of both sides have been either destroyed or re-used in multiple ways. As a result, the cultural history of Cyprus is considered highly contested. After 1974, official archaeological surveys and excavations are limited to the southern part of the island while the northern part is considered inaccessible for archaeological research by not only the Greek-Cypriot archaeological community but the international as well.165

160 Hardy 2011: 32 161 Silberman 1995: 259 162 Jacobs, 1996: 35 163 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 16 164 Hardy 2011 165 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 16 36

In order to understand the multiplicity of issues that have influenced Cypriot archaeology, it is important to review the political and historical past of this country. From Ottoman rule to British imperialism to post-modern capitalism, Cyprus has been through a variety of cultural processes, which have engaged both the local and the foreign, in other words, the Self and the Other.166 The indigenous people of the island have been living in different historical and political situations and have been forced to change social positions, identities, and landscapes.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, new nation-states were being established and anti-colonial movements were re-affirming cultural or ethnic identities. 167 In the same context, Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot identities have been formed and the ''Cyprus Problem'' emerged. A historical and political overview of the situation in Cyprus is needed in order to understand how Cypriot identities have been negotiated and shaped and how the practice of Cypriot archaeology has been developed over the past century. 168

6.1 Historical background

Cyprus has been influenced by a multitude of civilizations in history resulting in a multi- cultural civilization, a mixture of identities and traditions shaping the relationship that people develop with the landscape. The population has always been a blending of different origins and religions.

Cyprus in 1571 became a province of the Ottoman Empire, as most of the south-eastern Mediterranean countries during the 16th century.169 In 1878, after three hundred years of Ottoman rule, the island became part of the British Empire, as a result of Turkey's failure in the Russo-Turkish wars. Cypriots acknowledged positively the British rulers, since Britain was considered a ''philhellenic'' power, which had given over the Ionian islands to Greece in 1864. Cypriots believed that their time to be connected with the Greek mainland would come soon as well. However, the reality was much different as, Britain's colonial agendas were targeting in dominating new territories in order to exploit their raw materials. At the same time Cyprus was a strategic land in an area where Britain did not have much power.170

National identities are not easily adopted neither abandoned.171 Greek Cypriots developed a nationalistic consciousness under the British rule, especially after the foundation of the Greek state in 1830. These ideologies originated from the Greek-speaking Cypriots of the Ottoman Empire, while the Moslems and Turkish speaking Cypriots were the administrative rulers, for whom, consequently there was no need to develop equal nationalistic sentiments or to identify with the British administration. As a result a sense of nationalism was not

166 van Dommelen 1997: 309 167 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 18 168 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 18 169 Harmanşah 2014: 33 170 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 21 171 Banks 1996: 2-3 37 developed simultaneously amongst the Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus and their relationship with the British colonists were different.172 This context was the basis for the relations between the two populations in the island.

As mentioned above, despite the hopes of the Greek-Cypriots, Britain withstood any attempt for enosis (union) of Cyprus with Greece, consequently, the national struggle by EOKA (National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) against the colonial powers, started in 1955. Turkey's disapproval for the enosis resulted in the antithesis of the Turkish Cypriots towards this demand and the creation of the TMT (Turkish Resistance Organization) against EOKA.173

In 1960, the Republic of Cyprus was established, where Archbishop Makarios was the President and Dr. Fazil Kucuk the Vice President. The decolonization of the island brought a demographic restructuring where Cypriot-Greek and Turkish's lives and ideologies were re- shaped. While the British colonialism was using the rhetoric of exclusion and of Otherness against Greek-Cypriots, this rhetoric was now used again the Turkish-Cypriots. 174

The new constitution of Cyprus did permit neither enosis nor division. Cyprus' territorial integrity was assured by Britain, Greece, and Turkey. While the Greek-Cypriots composed the 82% of the population of the island, the ration of the administrative rights given to the Greek and Turkish communities was 70: 30 respectively. 175. The two communities were divided with the establishment of the ''Green Line'' in 1964, a fact that brought the United Nation ''Peacekeeping'' Forces (UNFICYP) in Cyprus. 176

On 15 July 1974, the Turkish military occupied 37,2% of the island, a situation that has not changed up to now.177 The invasion led to demographic changes that forced 200,000 people to become refugees and 1,600 people to disappear. The Greek-Cypriots were ordered to transfer to the south and the Turkish-Cypriots to the north, resulting in the loss and destruction of both populations' property, land, and heritage. The northern part became colonized by new Turkish settlers, with the Ottoman Empire’s deportation method (sürgün). 178 The new settlers even outnumbered the Turkish-Cypriots. The Security Council of the United Nations has tried to deal with the ''Cyprus Problem'' by requesting the evacuation of the foreign troops, however, Turkey ignores these decisions. The latter in 1983 proclaimed the independent ''Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'', a political entity that has not been accepted and recognized by any other nation in the world, with the exception of Turkey. 179

172 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 22 173 Harmanşah 2014: 34 174 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 22 175 Hunt 1990: 28 176 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 23 177 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 23 178 Harmanşah 2014: 33 179 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 23 38

The Turkish Cypriot community has withstood political non-recognition as well as an economic and cultural embargo. This preclusion from access to money, materials, education, and support, in addition to the cultural embargo, has paused the cultural heritage work in the northern part of Cyprus, with heritage workers there being unable to restore historic buildings. After decades of negotiations and bi-communal programmes, the opening of the Green Line and other peace plans. Nevertheless, the island remains divided and its communities alienated.180

The battling between the two communities, during the Turkish army's invasion, caused the displacement of northern Greek Cypriots, which were the greatest victims of the situation. The official administration has not given the right for these people to return to their land, and thus have condemned them to always feel without a ''topos''. Greek Cypriots, from their side, also refuse to cross the Green Line, because in that way they will recognize the illegal entity of the north.181 Those people's greatest loss is their cultural heritage, because as mentioned also later, in today's society, a person without culture, routes, and land, is considered a primitive and does not get accepted by the society.182

6.2 Archaeology of Cyprus

During the 19th century, Cyprus' archaeology has been through extended looting and antiquarianism. Antiquities were exported by foreign officials that were living in the country. The Ottoman Antiquities Law demanded that the finds had to be shared between the excavators, the owners of the land and the government. Nevertheless, most of the finds of the period were exported by collectors and sold to foreign museums such as the Glasgow Museum and the Metropolitan Museum in New York. 183

When Cyprus came under the British rule in 1878, unauthorized excavations were prohibited and permission was initially given only to professional archaeologists. One of those was Max Ohnefalsch-Richter, who on behalf of the British Museum, excavated a big amount of archaeological sites, whose finds were then shared with the museum. Nevertheless, in 1883 the British administration founded the Cyprus Museum in order to expose the shared finds from the excavated sites. Archaeological research in Cyprus changed again when the Swedish Cyprus Expedition (1927-1931) established a new method of analyzing the archaeological data, using stratification and chronology.184 The Swedish mission exported a significant amount of finds in Stockholm in the Museum of Mediterranean Archaeology (Medelhavsmuseet). 185

180 Hardy 2011: 77 181 Hardy 2011: 85 182 Kaftantzoglou 2001: 40 183 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 29 184 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 30 185 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 30 39

Nevertheless, due to the Swedish Cyprus' Expedition, the British colonial government became more active in taking care of the island's antiquities and in 1935 the Antiquities Law was, finally, legislated. At the same time, a Department of Antiquities was established, which would be responsible for all the archaeological research in the island.186 While between 1935 and 1960, archaeological fieldwork by the Cypriote archaeologists was fruitful, still a large number of finds was exported in foreign collections and many of the excavations were conducted by foreigners.187

In order to overcome ethnic nationalism, British colonial administration emphasized an ancient indigenous ethnic group, the so-called Eteocypriots 188, which would work to legitimate a historical existence of the Cypriot nation and thus, a political existence of a (still colonized) Cypriot state. In the end, the Eteocypriot myth was integrated into the Mycenaean's invasion myth, which was trying to prove that the Cypriot community was Cypriot Greek. Hence, archaeology in Cyprus has been dealt as a Hellenistic national archaeology, that remains unchallenged.189

There has been a tendency of connecting ''Greekness'' and ''Cypriotness'', so as to enhance the Greek, Hellenic past of Cyprus, and thus to build upon the memory of Greek Cypriots as 'glorious' ancestors. The link with the ancient Aegean civilization, which has been considered as one of the roots of Western civilization, is a way to imbue the nationalistic sentiment of being 'civilized' and thus, 'superior'. On the other hand, what is then opposed is the 'barbaric ' Other, the Turks, that highlights the supremacy of the Greek Cypriot civilization. Cyprus's political ambition to become part of the EU has been interpreted as a way to reunite with the Hellenic culture that is represented by the mainland. What is more, Turkish Cypriots are presented as the 'remains of the Turkish conquest in 1573', which means that there is a tendency in undermining the 'Other' and present them as not part of the island's history.190

In building its past, every nation chooses what to remember and what to forget.191 In Greek Cypriot historiography, the Cyprus Problem seems to begin after the 1974 intervention, which is seen as the primary cause of it. The before-1974-conflicts and fighting between the two communities or the enclaves where the Turks had to live are kept in oblivion. While the suffering from the 'Turkish occupation' is a central point in the writing of Greek Cypriot history, the Turkish Cypriots' suffering are ignored.192

On the other hand, the Turkish-Cypriots prefer to remember the events between 1963 and 1967, the period during which they suffered the most. They celebrate Turkey’s intervention

186 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 30 187 Knapp & Antoniadou1998: 31 188 Given 1991: 186 189 Leriou 2002: 3-4 190 Çolak 2008: 28 191 Anderson 1991: 206 192 Çolak 2008: 29 40 as, not an ''invasion’’, but as a “Peace Operation’’.193 The Turkish Cypriots exclude from their memory the fact that they co-existed with the other community, and neglect the southern part as if today's part has always been their land. Because the Greek Cypriot connection with the Greek antiquity has been strong, the Turkish Cypriot administration's first goal was to survive on the island. Thus, the Ottoman-Islamic heritage and legacies of the south were totally neglected, elements that were attached to the Turkish Cypriot identity. The strategy of the Turkish Cypriot administration was to reformulate the Ottoman-Islamic remains of the north in order to legitimize 'Turkishness' in this part of the island. The state continues to celebrate, until today, Turkey's national holidays, in order to be identified with the Turkish national identity.194

In 1960 Cyprus became an independent state and P.Dikaios became the first Cypriot Director of the Department of Antiquities, succeeded by V.Karageorghis in 1963. In 1964, a new Antiquities Law was enacted that declared that any new discovery of antiquities throughout excavations in Cyprus, would end up in the Cyprus Museum. However, the 1974 Turkish invasion had an unforeseen influence in archaeological research. All archaeological fieldwork by the Archaeological Service in the northern part of the island was paused and all archaeological sites became unreachable for the Department. Since 1974, there is no legal research going on in the northern part of Cyprus, due to the fact that the Republic of Cyprus (internationally recognized) does not have any power upon the occupied territory. On the other hand, in the southern part archaeological research has been flourishing with fieldwork being conducted in many different sites. The southern part has concentrated all the focus in terms of archaeological work, which has created a sort of archaeological bias since the Cypriot material culture today is only based by the results of the half part of the island.195

Nevertheless, this problem has been the result of the southern administration as well. The 1956 Recommendation on the 1954 Hague Convention, had banned an occupying power from doing any archaeological site preservation, which meant that the occupying power could not even conduct preservation work, without the consent of the occupied power. The Hellenist archaeological community chose to interpret the international law in a different way, shutting down all archaeological and heritage works in the northern part of the island.196 The Greek Cypriot archaeological community, on the one hand, complains about the destruction of the archaeological sites and their abandonment in the northern part, on the other hand the boycott and black listing have blocked any preservation work and have left the sites to decay.197

’Nationalist Cypriot Hellenism’ has idealized Cyprus as a Hellenic homeland that had resisted ‘’barbaric invasion’’ by the Turks. Turkish-Cypriot nationalism has defined itself as a

193 Harmanşah 2014: 39 194 Çolak 2008: 32 195 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 32 196 Hardy 2011: 93 197 Hardy 2011: 117 41 movement of ‘’resistance to enosis’’ by insisting on a new territorially based federal state what would recognize Cyprus as the homeland of the Turks as well as that of the Greeks.198 After the 1974 intervention, both communities have had to redefine their positions. Each state continued to enhance their nationalistic sentiments. For the Turkish Cypriots, the intervention was not only required but a legal effort to safeguard the Republic of Cyprus from division. On the contrary the Greek Cypriots saw the intervention as an invasion.199

6.3 Dealing with heritage in conflict

There has been a lot of debate around the topic of heritage damage and restoration in Cyprus is a lot of discussion around heritage destruction and reconstruction in Cyprus, but the dominant discourse as Constantinou refers to it is: ‘’we’’ protect, ‘’others’’ destroy!’’.200 Heritage in Cyprus is under an endangered status and the policies applied do not solve the problem. What is less discussed is the impact that the heritage discourse has on the formation of identities in Cyprus.201

The destruction of the cultural heritage of Cyprus has been a subject of discussion by the international community and many treaties and conventions have been established in order to protect this heritage. One of the most significant conventions is the Hague Convention (14 May 1954) which was ratified in order to protect cultural property in the case of armed conflicts and therefore fully covers the case of occupied northern Cyprus.202 Nevertheless, archaeological sites and heritage on both parts of the island have been destroyed, antiquities have been looted and traded illegally and cultural property has been lost with irreversible consequences for the archaeological discipline and research.203

In order to understand the changes in the cultural heritage of Cyprus after 1974, it is important to understand the international law that Cypriot archaeologists have implemented. The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions necessitate the occupying power to protect and safeguard immovable property. UNESCO declares that the 1954 Hague Convention about the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict demanded that the powers ''occupying territory must preserve cultural property in that territory''. The Convention did not clearly acknowledge the occupying power to work independently, so the national authorities of an occupied territory had the right to deny any cultural heritage work in the occupied territory.204

The 1956 Recommendation on the 1954 Hague Convention prohibited the occupying power to convey any archaeological site preservation which meant that the occupying power did

198 Çolak 2008: 24 199 Çolak 2008: 25 200 Constantinou 2010: 1600 201 Constantinou 2010: 1601 202 Hardy 2011: 93 203Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 25 204 Hardy 2011: 93 42 not have the right to do any emergency archaeological work. Since 1999, the Second Protocol of the Hague Convention requires the occupying powers to ''prohibit and prevent any archaeological excavation, save where this is strictly required to safeguard, record or preserve cultural property'' and that cultural heritage work ''shall, unless circumstances do not permit, be carried out in close co-operation with the competent national authorities''. The 1999 law was giving permission to occupying powers to convey rescue archaeology, nevertheless many archaeological sites were left to decay.205

The Cyprus heritage destruction is not an accident happening during an armed conflict. As recently witnessed with ISIS (the so-called Islamic State) destroying archaeological sites of Syria (and other countries), the act of obliterating the visible evidence of one culture in another culture's territory, happens as a conscious act of ''cultural cleansing'', which can develop in an ethnic cleansing. A nation's ethnic/cultural identity, its historical past is represented by its material culture and symbolized by its monuments and heritage sites. By destroying these sites, the target it to destruct memory of the place and enforce dominance.

Heritage of Tthe two dominant prevailing communities is used heritage as a way to build up the ethnocultural identity of each community. For the Greek part, identity is associated with Christianity, the Byzantine Empire, and Hellenic civilization. For the Turkish part, identity is connected with Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.206 The mixture of different cultures that this island presents does not conform to either one-sided dominant view and is therefore marginalized.207 What is more, this discourse influences the selection of the sites that will be restored (churches and mosques) or highlighted politically (ancient monuments and artifacts).208

Both sides have lost parts of their heritage during the conflict between the period 1963 and 1974, and especially after the invasion of 1974. An important number of sites were destroyed that were associated with the conflicted ‘’Other’’ and the traces of this violence are still visible in the landscape in the present. Vandalised and ruined Greek-Cypriot cemeteries, churches or houses on the one side and destroyed Turkish-Cypriot cemeteries, mosques, and villages on the other side. This destruction of heritage has affected largely the way that Cypriots feel about the conflict.209

In 2003, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities opened the checkpoints and the Greek-Cypriots refugees were able to visit again their villages from which they had been displaced. However, this brought mostly a disappointment to the Greek-Cypriots, as most of them would find their villages changed or distracted, their churches re-used as mosques or as museums to which they had to pay an entrance fee.

205 Hardy 2011: 93 206 Eide 2007 207 Constantinou 2010: 1603 208 Constantinou, Demetriou & Hatay 2012: 177 209 Constantinou, Demetriou & Hatay 2012: 178 43

When Turkish settlers, after 1974, came to inhabit the northern part of the island, along with the Turkish-Cypriots, many churches were transformed into heritage spaces of museums as a way of promoting tolerance as well as tourism. a number of churches became heritage or museums in order to promote the tolerance against other faiths as well as tourism. Most of them were emptied from their Christian symbols were removed and the churches were reemployed as and re-used as religious spaces of Islam. Muslims symbols were added to the interior and an attached minaret to the exterior of the restored buildings in order to house the new religion under the same roof that the old was worshiped. Decorated with Muslim symbols and an added minaret, the refurbished buildings would serve another religion under the same roof that the old was worshiped.210

During the conflict of the 1960s and after 1974 that resulted in the deportation of many Turkish Cypriots from their villages, there existed 102 mosques in the South. Before the departure of the Turkish Cypriots from their villages, during the conflict of the 1960s and after 1974, there were 102 mosques in the south. A 2006 report by the Turkish government claims that 16 of these mosques were destroyed and only 25 of them were maintained in a good condition. The rest were abandoned and neglected or left to decay or ruined. The Turkish Cypriot Properties Management is responsible for the maintenance of these properties, after the island's division.Since the island's division these properties have been managed under the Turkish Cypriot Properties Management. In the present day, only five mosques are in use in the south and these are where Muslim immigrants have been established. Nicosia, Larnaca, and Limassol are the places where these mosques can be found and they are maintained and used by the Islamic Call Society of Libya.211

The opening of the checkpoints brought pilgrims and old inhabitants that, for the first time, were allowed to revisit the churches and reclaim them as many pilgrims would put candles on their entrances or places icons whenever it was possible. With the opening of the checkpoints, and the entrance of the old inhabitants and pilgrims of these churches were reclaimed, as many pilgrims would put candles on their entrances or place icons wherever was possible. These actions, according to many Turkish-Cypriots, brought a lot of tension and anxiety into the locals that were living around these sites. As a result, after pressures on the administration the old churches-mosques paused functioning and new mosques for the worship of Islam were built. Once again, the old churches were emptied and served as a landmark in the present recalling memories of a past religion.212

The building of new mosques was interpreted by the Greek-Cypriot administration as an ‘’Islamization’’ process coming originating from the intentions of the Turkish-Cypriot state. It is possible that the current Turkish government’s intentions were to legitimize the Turkish presence in the north by building Mosques and establishing authorizing the Islamic religion.,

210 Constantinou, Demetriou & Hatay 2012 211 Dayıoğlu & Hatay 2010: 131 212 Constantinou, Demetriou & Hatay 2012: 181 44 however, if it was not for the Greek-Cypriot and international pressure concerning the use of churches for another religion, this might have been prevented.213

Cultural heritage in Cyprus has been struggling in between a politically charged environment and a divided landscape. Cyprus’ cultural heritage is battling between the memory of the past and the reality of living in a politically divided landscape. Archaeological research, as well as heritage work, is influenced by politico-economic forces, therefore it is essential to safeguard the cultural heritage of each community in order to prevent any kind of hostilities between them. The heritage industry is should be considered as a political process, where certain sites (for example classical temples for example) are embedded into the nationalistic perspective, while others (for example Moslem cemeteries for example) are ignored and neglected because they are considered a threat to the building of a national identity.214

An effective way to comprehend the influence of the past into the landscape is approaching the locals.In order to understand how the past has influenced and is innate in the landscape, it is important to approach the local. The politics of a post-colonial place, implicate imply that there is a dialogue discourse between people and spaces through which they can formulate their understanding of ‘’home’’, even if it is a village, an archaeological site or a whole region. The politics that develop from places that are re-used and re-constructed, build up identities and form specific notions of culture. At the same time, memories of places are also competing and changing, as younger generations become involved and receive notions of the past much differently than their ancestors. The contested landscape is changing meanings and charged heritage is re-appropriated.215

7. The city of Larnaca

Not fully belonging to the Near Eastern culture nor to that of Aegean Greece, Cyprus represents a mixture between these two worlds that have been combined into a heterogeneous landscape of mixed people, religions, and traditions.216 Larnaca is a representation of a palimpsest of cultures where history, archaeology and economic development have created a complex landscape. Larnaca is a coastal city, located in the south-eastern part of Cyprus. Throughout history it has been populated by Turkish and Greek Cypriots as well as Lebanese populations, therefore its history derives from the multitude of many different communities. The island itself has been influenced by Phoenicians, Crusaders, the Levant and Larnaca, in particular, has a sizeable Lebanese community.217

After the independence of Cyprus from the English, in 1960, Larnaca has been through a rapid development that was boosted even more after the Turkish invasion of 1974. The

213 Constantinou, Demetriou & Hatay 2012: 183 214 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 33 215 Knapp & Antoniadou 1998: 33 216 Papalexandrou 2008: 252 217 Hourani 2007 45 closing of the international airport of Nicosia brought the creation of Larnaca’s airport (1936) that is today the biggest among the rest of the airports in Cyprus. The invasion also resulted in losing control of the biggest and most important commercial port of Famagusta, that was substituted by those of Larnaka and Limassol. The deprivation of the, traditionally, touristic areas of Cyprus (Famagusta and Kyrenia) led to the touristic exploitation of other areas, including Larnaka where many hotels were built. In 1963, closely distanced from the city, oil depositories have been established.218 As a result, Larnaca has experienced a significant development that has changed the city's landscape dramatically.

Larnaca today is a modern European city that is constantly growing. Modern buildings are being installed while the historic part of the city is left intact by strict building rules.219 Larnaca is a manifestation of a diverse townscape as it combines a prehistoric civilization, Byzantine heritage and the integration of a Muslim temenos. Each historical layer has left a different landmark in Larnaca's landscape and the remains are visible today (Figures 9, 10).

7.1 Biography of Larnaca

Larnaca is a city with a long history of almost 4,000 years because it has remained in the same geographical space as ancient Kition that is considered the provenance and the ancient source of today's city. Interestingly enough, while today's public memory connects Kition with the creation and the present-image of Larnaca, what archaeological research has demonstrated is that, before the establishment of Kition (Figure 11), a prehistoric settlement existed near the-present Muslim sanctuary of Hala Sultan Tekke (Figure 12) in the western part of the city. Excavations from the Swedish Archaeological Expedition have exposed the existence of a site at Hala Sultan Tekke dating around 1600 B.C. The remains suggest that the town was probably destroyed by fire in about 1175 B.C. perhaps a result of an attack or an accident. After that, the town was occupied by squatters and finally abandoned during the 12th century B.C. 220 What has been then suggested is that the residents of this settlement, were the ones who installed the ancient city of Kition after abandoning their site.221

The inhabitation of Kition dates back to at least 1070 B.C.222 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition was the first to excavate the site of Kition in 1929. Cypriot excavations on the north side of the city at Kathari and French excavation at Bamboula on the east have shown that occupation was continuous from the end of the Late Bronze Age.223 The history of Kition can be divided into two distinct phases: the first, from the Phoenician colonization to the arrival of Persian power at the end of the 6th century B.C.; the second, between the 5th and the

218 Apostolou, 2013: 26 219 Apostolou, 2013: 51 220 Åström 1984: 58 221 Yon & Childs, 1997: 9 222 Nicolaou 1976: 11 223 Yon & Childs, 1997: 9 46

4th centuries until Ptolemaic conquest. Many Phoenician inscriptions have been found on site, dating back to 500 B.C., which is the main reason why Kition is called Cypriot- Phoenician.224

Unlike many ancient sites of the Middle East, which were forgotten when they were rediscovered and identified during modern times-such as Ugarit on the Syrian coast and other Assyrian sites-the city of Kition had not been forgotten even if it was found at the bottom of the south-eastern bay of Cyprus, and covered by the modern city today. The same applies to the whole island which has maintained a strong collective memory.225

Ancient Kition is traced within the limits of the modern city, between Scala and old Larnaca. 226 Classical Kition used to be one of the wealthiest areas in Cyprus, perhaps after Salamis. Well-fortified, having an Acropolis (Bamboula) with its temples dominating the city while overlooking the port. During Hellenistic and Roman times Kition continued as a prosperous city, adding a Gymnasium and a Theatre, however during the late Roman times the city experienced an important decline, probably due to disasters caused by the earthquakes of 76 and 77 A.D. and 332 and 342 A.D. Kition was not abandoned after these disasters and became the seat of a bishop during the Early Christian times, nevertheless the previous prosperity was not regained. The city was expanded to the southeast, as surface pottery-still found today-suggests. During the 647 A.D. the city, as most of the coastal areas of the period, had suffered the attack of the Arabs, however, the city was, still, not abandoned. The creation of Saint Lazarus’ church around the 10th century, proves the expansion of the city. 227 The Ottomans had destroyed the bell tower of the church and its three cupolas, but in 1589 they sold the church to the Orthodox residents of Larnaca since they did not want to convert it into a mosque due to the existence of the Christian cemetery.228

For many centuries (12th-16th), Larnaca experienced a long period of decadence and almost desertification. Under the Francs (1191 - 1571), while the very rich Famagusta became a metropolis throughout the Mediterranean, Larnaca fell into despair. Only when Famagusta was taken over by the Genoese in 1373, Larnaca saw some development. From the 16th century under the Ottoman administration (1570-1878), prosperity finally riches Larnaca.229

During the early Ottoman period, a mosque complex was built in the place that today Hala Sultan Tekke can be found. The Muslim mosque of Hala Sultan Tekke is located in the west bank of the Salt Lake, approximately 6 km southwest of Larnaka. It is the main Muslim pilgrimage site of Cyprus and among the most important holy places of Islam. The mosque was built over a tomb which, according to tradition, belongs to Umm Haram, foster-mother

224 Yon & Childs, 1997: 10 225 Yon 2011: 22 226 Nicolaou 1976: 10 227 Nicolaou 1976: 16 228 Apostolou, 2013: 52 229 Yon 2011: 23 47 of the Prophet Mohammed. The mosque was built before 1787, along with dwellings and water-cisterns, which contributed to the shrine's fame. The mosque's present plan was completed in 1816.230

For the Greek-Cypriots, the “tekke” represents the hostile ''otherness'' and a constant reminder of the traumatic history of division on the island. What is more, after 1974, for a whole generation the mosque was inaccessible to its Muslim Cypriots. Today it is exploited as a main touristic attraction which adds to the economic growth of the city, while its stakeholders, the Muslims in Cyprus, are able to visit it and pay their respects to it, as much as pilgrims can visit the Saint Lazarus church in the center of Larnaca (Figure 13).231

During Medieval times, Larnaca had survived as a village, established on the site and built mostly with the material of the old city. Larnaca in the time period of the Ottoman rule as divided into two different settlements, the one of Scala and the other of Larnaca. During the 15th century the commercial importance of the city declined, since the ancient harbor was out of use and maritime activity was transported to Marina or Scala, an area further to the south. 232 During the Byzantine years, the city was still known by its ancient name Kition.233

During the English rule in Cyprus (1878-1960) Larnaca Larnaca reached an early stage of development, however other cities, like Nicosia and Limassol, were more favored of the English rule. Larnaca still had a maritime importance, nevertheless, when Famagusta and Limassol started to develop during the first decades of the 20th century, Larnaca lost its significance as a port. The English Occupation resulted in building infrastructures and exploiting the natural wealth of Cyprus. As a result, cities that presented natural characteristics were most favored. Larnaca did not belong to this category since the only natural resource was the city’s salt lake, which during that period was not profitable anymore.234

In comparison to Famagusta and Limassol, Larnaca was lacking also the ability for development in cultural tourism. Famagusta was surrounded by the ancient remains of Salamina and Egkomi and Limassol displayed the remains of Kourion and Amathus, two of the most important archaeological sited on the island. On the contrary, since the 19th century, the most significant remains of Kition had disappeared and especially today most of the important buildings are hardly visible among the ruins of the site. 235 Kition did not present monumentality as an archaeological site, a fact that influences, also today, the visitability of the site. On the other hand, Larnaca managed to achieve an important progress in tourism, with the opening of many new hotels. In addition, the industrial sector

230 Papalexandrou 2008: 252 231 Papalexandrou 2008: 254 232 Nicolaou 1976: 17 233 Apostolou, 2013: 29 234 Apostolou, 2013: 46 235 Nicolaou 1976: 17 48 developed in the town, when in 1922 the local Electric Corporation was established. In 1950, the first Power station was installed in the area of Dhekelia, in the north-eastern part of Larnaca (Figure 14).

An important obstacle to the general development of Larnaca was the creation/of a strong Turkish Cypriot enclave in 1964 existence in the north-western part of the city. For almost a decade (1964-1974) the city of Larnaca was almost divided into two parts with the north- western part being used by the Turkish Cypriots that were self-enclosed. During the Turkish invasion, in the summer of 1974, the Greek Cypriot authorities occupied and eradicated the Turkish Cypriot enclave that contained also the city’s castle. The Turkish Cypriot residents of Larnaca left the city in 1975, in accordance to all the Turkish Cypriot population of the free areas of Cyprus. They were transferred to the occupied areas, at the north of the island, following Ankara’s orders.236

The ejection by the Turkish invasion troops, of the thousand Greek Cypriots from the northern part of the island caused a serious refugee crisis. A great influx of displaced people was brought during the summer of 1974 in Larnaca and many rushed refugee settlements were built, made from tents and shacks. Later, refugee settlements were established around the city while an important number of Greek Cypriots installed themselves in the (previously) Turkish quarter of Larnaca. 237 Interestingly enough, it seems that Kition (along with Larnaca) has been a site of resettlement of people throughout its history.238

Besides the above-mentioned events of 1974, there have been developments since then that ended up beneficial for the city of Larnaca. Examples are the establishment of the airport in 1975 and the rise of the tourism business after the occupation of Famagusta and Kyrenia. Tourism was channeled to Paralimnio, Agia Napa, Paphos, Limassol, and Larnaca. These activities towards tourism brought in much new development with the building of new touristic resorts in Larnaca as already mentioned above. This means that the landscape of the city during the last decades has been altered in profound ways.239

The city has developed rapidly the last two centuries and the area between Larnaca and Scala, where the actual ancient city existed, has mostly been built over. What is more, during the end of the 19th century, systematic looting took place both at the city-site and the necropolis of ancient Kition. Subsequently, an important number of findings, as well as tombs, were looted and all surface remains were erased. Sarcophagi and amphoras were used to decorate the gardens of private houses around the area.240 Kition was the first archaeological site to be excavated by the Cypriot Archaeological Department after the

236 Apostolou, 2013: 50 237 Apostolou, 2013: 50 238 Nicolaou 1976: 11 239 Apostolou, 2013: 184 240 Nicolaou 1976: 39 49 independence of the island in 1960. 241 The excavations were directed by Vassos Karageorghis.242

After 1974 the city has been broadened and expanded to different directions, without following a specific plan. The way land is distributed and possessed in Larnaca, constitutes an important obstacle for an organized development. The intensified building activity destroyed many important examples of traditional architecture and created an assemblage of different characteristics, while tourism was featured as the main economic resource.243 Due to high unemployment that was caused in the period after the invasion, a Free Industrial Zone was established, decided by the Government in 1975 on the northern slots of the city. 244 Even before the invasion, in 1963 oil refineries had been installed in the coastal line of Larnaca, which, at the time, helped to boost the economy of the city. Consequently, Larnaca invested a lot in the industrial growth in order to achieve an economic development (Figure 15).

The space between the city of Larnaca and the refugees’ settlements, became the main place of building development. 245 The touristic development created a different ensemble in the area between the oil refineries and the British Army Base in Dekelia. Larnaca today features all the phenomena of Cypriot industrial ensembles, presenting scattered and unorganized development and degradation of the old settlements and their historic/traditional core.246

7.2 Larnaca in the present

Today Larnaca is still a developing city, constantly searching for new ways for economic growth. A big step is a great investment in tourism that has been promoted the last years, by exploiting both the coastal line but also its heritage attractions. What is rather interesting is that while Kition has been engraved in peoples' memory as the place of the origin of Larnaca's history, most tourists prefer to visit the Muslim temenos of Hala Sultan Tekke (as can be seen from sites such as TripAdvisor where Tekke is the first monuments to appear in the highlights of the city), than visiting the ancient remains of Kition. This is not surprising since, as mentioned above, almost nothing is visible from the ancient settlement and the visitor is not able to get an image of how the site would look like in the past. On the other hand, Hala Sultan Tekke, a mosque built during the 17th century and recently renovated (in 2001), attracts more touristic attention and pilgrimage. The Byzantine church of Saint

241 Apostolou, 2013: 64 242 Smith 2009: 8 243 Apostolou, 2013: 26 244 Apostolou, 2013: 180 245 Apostolou, 2013: 26 246 Apostolou, 2013: 27 50

Lazarus reaps the same benefits, as it is much admired both by tourists and by pilgrims that arrive to admire and pay their respects to this Byzantine monument.247

At the same time and in accordance with the tourism-focused economy, the oil refineries are being moved from the area that they were based at for almost 75 years, after complaints from the citizens of Larnaca.248 The oil refineries for years have caused significant damage to the natural environment of the city as well as the health of its residents. The remove of the oil refineries came along with a plan for the development of the gap that these will leave on the coastal line of Larnaca. The oil refineries have created an area of open land between the industrial buildings and the beach, an open space in the city that can become occupied with activities that will be beneficial for the economic growth and the improvement of the locals' lives, promoting community events and local identity.249

In the end, Larnaca is a city that has been inhabited and has a long history of almost 4,000 years, with some unique architectural remains, monuments, and buildings.250 Each historic period has left its own mark on the landscape and its civilization its cultural heritage. The city of Larnaca can only be understood through its various histories, cultures, and environments. Made up by contrasting physical and social areas, daily activities overlap with tourism, the city airport borders to the fragile natural Salt Lake, the former Turkish quarter is surrounded by commercial development, the ancient remains are blending into the city with a mix of Byzantine and Muslim heritage. In this already complex landscape, another element is added, the English Colonial architecture, that was introduced by the English the first years of their rule (1878) and it was based on their vision on how Colonial Administration should be housed. This style refers strictly to the public buildings (Figure 16). All these contrasting conditions have shaped the landscape of Larnaca and have created a city of multiple identities that are all integrated.251

8. Eleusis and Larnaca: two cities with a multi-layered past.

Eleusis and Larnaca were chosen to be compared because of their multi-layered past, long history and modern image that keeps developing and evolving until today. In both Eleusis and Larnaca, it is evident that different authors and stakeholders have played a determining role in the current image of the landscape. From ancient remains of churches and mosques to industrial buildings and different landmarks, reminders of every period are inscribed on the landscape, having an impact on the cities. Throughout history, both cities have accepted the influences of different civilizations and have been places of immigration. The landscapes of Eleusis and Kition were determined, developed and expanded. In the present, the two

247 https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g190379-Activities-Larnaka_City_Larnaka_District.html (last visited: 27/12/2017) http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions-/larnaca-cy-la-larn.htm (last visited: 27/12/2017) 248 Kyriacou-Petrou & Hadjisoteriou 2017: 175 249 Kyriacou-Petrou & Hadjisoteriou 2017: 175 250 Apostolou, 2013: 76 251 Kyriacou-Petrou & Hadjisoteriou 2017: 17 51 cities present an image of multilayeredness. The constructed identities that the cities have been related to, derived from the dominant layers that they preserve.

For a further understanding of the differences and the similarities of these two cases studies, the two cities will be discussed and compared concerning the dominant layers of the landscape, including industrialization, the income of immigrants and the effects on the society and the past and finally the stakeholders of their landscape.

The dominant layers

If we accept that the past exists in the way that is created by people in the present, there can be multiple pasts that derive from different belief systems and concepts. Heritage experts are able to recognize and acknowledge every layer of the multiple representations of the past. These representations of place are sometimes conflicting and often presented through differentially empowered discourses. These various representations of the past derived from academic opinions but mostly from the experience of ‘’being’’ in a place. Identity is related to the place of occupation even if the engagement with a place can derive from either permanent or brief interaction. Local theories of dwelling, such as the ones of Kition and Eleusis, are actually more than just living, occupying a place. The multiple ways in which place is experienced can be understood by actions imbued with events. Places embody memories and therefore are important for the construction of social identities. The past, regardless of how recent or how distant it is, can influence actions and meanings. Heritage is ''not so much about the past as it is about the life of the past as it is experienced in the present''.

Eleusis, even though historically identified as one of the most sacred cities, in the present, the wider area of the city has been connected with the industrial zone. Subsequently, the archaeological remains have not become part of the people's heritage and identity since the industries have added a more dominant layer on the landscape. The current population of the city was attracted there as a result of the industrial zone that was built and their heritage has been determined by their previous past in other regions and landscapes.

In the case of Kition, the remains do not influence the identity of the perspective of the citizens of Larnaca today. Despite the fact that the city has been persistent on the specific landscape for over 4,000 years, most of the remains are either buried under the modern city or vanished by the time. As a result, the ancient remains of Kition are not visible to the passengers and the public has not been as engaged to them as with other monuments such as the Byzantine church of Saint Lazarus or the mosque Hala Sultan Tekke, that are religious monuments. These two religious centers are attracting not only pilgrims but a significant amount of tourists every year, being the most popular attractions in Larnaca.

In both cities, the archaeological sites have adopted different uses. The city of Eleusis for the past years has been using the ancient remains of the temple of Demeter and the ancient

52 legacy of the city for public events and cultural projects, educating and entertaining the citizens. The city of Larnaca has been focusing on making the town an attractive touristic resort, by investing in luxury hotels and on the image of the city. Larnaca's efforts focus on making the city competitive enough compared to the rest of the cities in Cyprus.

On the other hand, people in Larnaca have not been engaged with antiquity, due to the fact that the archaeological remains are not as ‘’impressive’’ as to attract visitors and popularity. Even if the formation of identity has been based on the long dwelling of the same landscape, in people's minds the most considerable monument is Hala Sultan Tekke, which does not collide with antiquity as much as Kition is. Despite that, Hala Sultan Tekke, as mentioned above, is a special monument since it attracts a fair number of tourists every year, and it is considered one of the most sacred places for Muslims. In a multicultural town, where different civilizations have passed and left their mark on, Larnaca is a landscape where the common identity of the past is being shared with the citizens, while a religious monument attracts what the city is economically depended on tourism.

Industrialization has played a vital role in forming the identities of these two multicultural cities. since both Larnaca and Eleusis have been heavily industrialized, the first around the 1960s and the second around the 1940s. Eleusis represented the industrial engine of Greece and adopted an industrial and labor identity, therefore has been engraved in people's minds and memories as the worker city.

While Eleusis is associated with a working-class city, the last years and especially after the city's nomination for European Cultural Capital, there is an effort for making ancient past a shared memory amongst the members of the community. Nevertheless, it is not coincidental that this shift towards an ancient cultural identity and renegotiation of the past happened during a period of an economic crisis in Greece. The industrial production has declined the past years, resulting in unemployment of an important number of Eleusinians. This new order has caused new discussions over the identity and past of the people in Eleusis and has resulted in a cultural production that enshrines the community.

Eleusis has been using both ancient and industrial heritage in order to sustain and enhance the identity of the inhabitants. Regardless of the historical background or the origin of Eleusinians today, they are engaging with these two most dominant heritage in the city and embracing them as part of their own past. Interestingly enough, industrial heritage has been shared more as a common past and common identity among the people living in Eleusis, due to the fact that as they arrived in the city, archaeology and antiquity had not been perceived as their own cultural heritage. Considerably more, the industries, which were the reason why the immigrants that inhabited Eleusis moved to the city, are through a common past as their memory can be shared by most of the population in the present. This fact can be seen from Koutsafti's documentary, where most of the people that are interviewed have been previously workers in the factories, therefore authors in the effective alteration of the landscape of the city. Today, these factories and industries are acquiring new value as they

53 are used for cultural events and festivals. What can be deduced then, is that communities choose which past they will project and with which past will be connected and affiliated with. While the nation, as an important stakeholder of past, chooses specific layers of history as a way to legitimize national sentiments, what can be understood in the case of Eleusis is that the people, as stakeholders of their heritage, are able to select and accept their own shared memory.

The income of immigrants

The past is a complicated entity and a sensitive subject for both of the cities. Larnaca and Eleusis have been accepting immigrants and refugees during periods of serious crisis, economic, social or during war. These people altered the landscape of the towns, their dynamics and formulated a multicultural environment. They carried with them the different cultures and backgrounds and blended them with the city's life. The different communities working and living together in the same environment, were the authors of the landscape that changed the cities. Eleusis and Larnaca were both open to accepting these new cultures and integrate them. Eleusis used to be the city that anyone could visit and find shelter at and Larnaca has been hosting people from many areas of the East, having today a big multicultural society and an important Lebanese community.

Local communities are often considered as a uniform body of social actors that inspire a feeling of familiarity. Cultural groups are also imagined as social entities, on the basis of believing in common, shared past and generating the sense of belonging to a place, therefore validating these entities as communities. In places like Larnaca and Eleusis, where different communities have been inhabiting the same place, boundaries have been kept, in the same way as the immigrant's neighborhood in Eleusis or the Turkish quarter in Larnaca. Nevertheless, these communities are assimilated today in the realm of both cities' lives.

The stakeholders

In Eleusis and Larnaca it is evident that different authors and stakeholders have played a determining role in the current image of the landscape. Both cities present a long-time period history since their inhabitancy counts millennia of persistence at the same area. Every historical period in Eleusis and Larnaca has left its own mark on the landscape. These two cases studies signify the role that the different authors have played in altering the landscape of the cities. While there are groups of elites that are, most of the times, managing the landscape and determining the changes on it, in Eleusis and Larnaca the perception of heritage today and the understanding of it has been formulated by both the people and the authorities. Consequently, the landscape has been a shared ground by the multiple stakeholders, but the present-day inhabitants are the ones that are called to select which layer of their landscape they want to share and project onto.

54

As discussed in chapter 3 (present paper), the main stakeholders of the landscape can be divided into the Nation and the Public. In both Greece and Cyprus, archaeology and heritage landscapes are being ''used'' for different purposes that serve the interests of the state. Greek and Cypriot archaeology are connected to a national identity, that is used to enhance the national sentiments of people and legitimize the authorities' power and role.

Modern nations exercise their sovereignty and homogeneity over the archaeological record, thus over the representation of the past, through the state departments of antiquities, national museums, parks and heritage sites, university archaeological departments, history books in schools, through the integration of archaeology in the city planning and finally through the commemoration of the past with events and festivals. The narratives and the symbols of the past are being constantly presented as a reminder of the common past, and thus preserved.

In local communities, the same narrative is used in order to maintain a collective society linked to a common identity that is being reminded by the archaeological remains of the community's landscape People attach different meanings and attribute various values to the landscape. In Eleusis and Larnaca the past is used for the legitimization and the continuation of the communities, due to the fact that both of these societies are very much multicultural and diverse. In Eleusis this investment in the archaeological past has been the focus of the municipality and heritage experts for the past years, however, in Larnaca, there is not a corresponding interest. The two cities are dealing with archaeology and heritage in diverse ways nevertheless the enhancement of a local identity is common in both cases.

Communities understand and interpret the past in terms of the present. In other words, heritage is valuable for the communities as long as there is a significance in the present or in the future. Apart from the safeguarding of heritage for the future generations, communities in the present use heritage for a number of different social and economic reasons. In the two case studies it is evident that heritage is used to enhance the community's common identity (especially in Eleusis) and to improve the economic development of the city.

Archaeological heritage can encompass the general values of a community and enshrines the community's character and identity. Cultural heritage is involved in the things we do and experience. Heritage embraces places, landscapes, monuments, objects, but also meanings and ways of lives. People either individually or collectively can make a unique relationship with the place. Τhis is evident in the case of Eleusis. Through the movie of Koutsaftis, we can see the relationships that people created with the place, the archaeological landscape and the industrialized space near it. In Kition the relationship between the people and the landscape has not been documented, therefore it is not possible to gain a full image of the interaction. However, the lack of information is already an important indication of any activity concerning the archaeological site. What we can then deduce is that Larnaca's citizens have not developed a similar relationship with the archaeological remains of Kition as Eleusis’ citizens have.

55

8.1 Valuable to who?

For a heritage site to be considered significant, it is important to be able to unify and promote a feeling of personal and group identity. As Hewison (1987, p???) comments: ''the impulse to preserve the past is part of the impulse to preserve the self. Without knowing where we have it is difficult to know where we are going''. The past is constantly reproduced in the present, and its transformation gives meaning to the future. Objects and landscapes become part of the identity formation process. They become cultural symbols and formulate the grounds for a shared memory in the community. 252

There are many communities that do not assign significance to their heritage and there are many reasons for that. Value changes over time and people rely on the fact that something more monumental, sacred and representative will be discovered in future excavations. Therefore, they neglect or ignore their heritage, since there is a specific hierarchy on the value of archaeological landscapes. The value of heritage, as has been mentioned in the second chapter, is not determined by the communities but it is decided for the community by heritage professionals or the authorities, during a process that aims in enhancing the protections of ''important'' places that are considered special. 253

Through heritage events, memories and experiences are created and they are important for the enhancement of the community and the binding of social and cultural groups within the community. A definition of heritage given by Samuel 254 is that it is theatres of memory, “through which ‘’place’’ becomes a locus of performing, mediating and negotiating the meaning of the past for the present’’.

Memory and identity are intangible concepts. The way that a community chooses to remember, or what they choose to remember and to forget is deriving from cultural processes that has an impact to the present. Every event can be remembered in a different way and have a special meaning for different individuals or communities. 255 For immigrants arriving in Eleusis in 1940s, ancient remains and the temple of Demeter were neither meaningful nor connected with their own identity. As seen from Koutsaftis’ documentary, the immigrants of Eleusis remember their past from their previous homes and identify themselves as workers in the industries of Eleusis. While the heritage professionals and authorities in the present, are trying to enhance the identity of Eleusis through archaeology, what the public feels connected to is the industrial heritage of the town. Eleusinians identify more with the old industries, many of which are re-used today as cultural places. The past in Eleusis is painful in terms of the brutality of a working class history but also of pride in terms of community solidarity for the achievements of the past. The renegotiation of identity in

252 Harrington 2004: 7 253 Harrington 2004: 46 254 Samuel 1994 255 Smith & Waterson 2009: 45 56

Eleusis, is an effort started by the heritage experts and authorities, and as Eleusis is being developed as a cultural city, a new identity is being adopted by its citizens.

Heritage, apart from the academic or community value, contains emotional quality. Heritage experiences can be connected to emotional connections that are changing depending on the management of the heritage places. Heritage sites are places where a sense of place is being tied. Heritage places are taken out of the everyday life as they are thought locations of memory and identity formation, locations that have to be remembered, looked after and be visited.256 Nevertheless, communities are able to choose whether they will remember or forget a heritage landscape, due to the fact that contemporary diverse societies deal with heritage in various ways. The idea that heritage is important and meaningful to everyone, cannot apply to every community.

For the multicultural communities living in Larnaca, or the Greek-Cypriot immigrants that moved there after 1963, Larnaca and Ancient Kition do not have the same value and significance as they have for the people living in the landscape before, for the municipalities, the Cypriot nation and the heritage professionals. Hala Sultan Tekke has been valued as important from the Muslim communities of Larnaca and around the island as well, because these communities feel more attached to the monument. Hala Sultan Tekke and Saint Lazarus church are considered two of the most touristic places in Larnaca.257

Consequently, it seems that two religious centres, a Mosque and a Church, have been the central landmarks in Larnaca. Archaeology in a multicultural city where recent history of a conflict is still present in people's minds, does not have a central position. On the other hand two religious centres that serve both religions in the city are appreciated by the public and the tourists because of their monumentality and historical significance. The citizens are identifying with what they find closer to their perception of the past. For the Greek-Cypriots the past is Saint Lazarus, for the Muslims of Larnaca the past is the origins of their ancestor Hala Sultan Tekke and for the municipalities, Kition is the landscape where the above mentioned monuments have been placed as a persistent continuation on the same place for millennia.

What can be concluded from these two case studies, is that archaeology does not always serve as a common identity in a community and does not acquire the same value. In Larnaca religious heritage has been a dominant layer in the city's landscape, while in Eleusis the industrialization of the area has influenced the landscape in an irreversible way. While both cities' ancient -classical-past has been projected from the local authorities, the authorship of both of the cities has altered the landscapes in ways where archaeology is not the dominant past and the main identity of the community.

256 Smith & Waterson 2009: 50 257https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g190379-Activities-Larnaka_City_Larnaka_District.html (last visited: 27/12/2017) http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions-/larnaca-cy-la-larn.htm (last visited: 27/12/2017) 57

9. Conclusions

The research questions posed at the beginning of this thesis were how does the landscape interact with its authors and why a biography of the landscape is important in order to understand the complexity of a place. By using Eleusis and Larnaca as case studies, what has been evident through this thesis is that the landscape is the result of different choices made by different stakeholders. The landscape is an active factor in expressing social order, which has been visible in both Eleusis and Larnaca.

A second research question that has been posed is about the role of archaeology in determining the identity of a community and how much does a national identity influence the local. What has been discussed is that archaeology is often used by the states or municipalities as a narrative intended to nurture a cohesive collective memory, but at the same time is being exploited as a ''good'' on sale, in order to attract tourism and economic development. Eleusis and Larnaca are two cities in which the different uses of heritage can be seen and the different stakeholders that have been involved in the making of the landscape have been presented above. Plurality and diversity in both cities' populations as well as the major alteration of Eleusis' and Larnaca's landscapes have been the focus of the comparison of the two case studies.

The concept of biography of the landscape used in complex places, as Larnaca and Eleusis, has helped us discern each layer of the landscape and understand the processes that are made during its making. Politics, history and modern life alter the values that heritage and archaeology gain in the landscape. What is more, it is important to notify that while Greece and Cyprus are two countries where antiquities dominate life through many aspects, there are examples, as the two cities that we examined, that show that archaeology is not always the dominant layer.

In the end what we have learned is that the landscape is not a static scenery where humans convey their lives. The elements of a landscape such as buildings and spaces that surround them are not immovable because the changes in the landscape and the choices made for these alterations are not always restricted by an existing design, but by many different factors and stakeholders.258 The development of the landscape as has been documented in both Eleusis and Larnaca is an indication that space is a dynamic aspect of material life. Landscape is not just space between geographical boundaries, it is not something detached from the society but is determined by it.

258 Rubertone 1989: 50 58

10. Bibliography

Agnew, N., & Bridgland, J. (Eds.). (2006). Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington, DC, 22–26 June 2003. Getty Publications.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities : Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed. [with a new afterword] ed.). London [etc.: Verso.

Apostolou, A. (2013). Historic and Urban development of Larnaca (In Greek). (Bachelor's thesis at National Technical University of Athens).

Åström, P. (1984). Excavations at Hala Sultan Tekke. Archaeology, 37(2), 58-81.

Banks, M. (1996). Ethnicity : Anthropological constructions. London [etc.: Routledge.

Bauman, Z. (2001). Identity in the globalising world. Social anthropology, 9(2), 121-129.

Boyd, W. (2012). ‘A frame to hang clouds on’: cognitive ownership, landscape and heritage management, in R, Skeates, C, McDavid & J Carmen (eds), The Oxford handbook of public archaeology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 172‐198.

Caftanzoglou, R. (2001). In the Shadow of the Sacred Rock (in Greek). Athens: Ellenika Grammata.

Çolak, Y. (2008). Nationalism and the Political Use of History in Cyprus: Recent Developments. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 23(2), 20-45.

Constantinou, C. M., & Hatay, M. (2010). Cyprus, ethnic conflict and conflicted heritage. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(9), 1600-1619.

Constantinou, C. M., Demetriou, O., & Hatay, M. (2012). Conflicts and uses of cultural heritage in Cyprus. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 14(2), 177-198.

Curran, B. (2007). Collective Memory and its Use in Ethnic Conflicts. In Grabow, S., Hull, D., & Waterton, E. (2007). Which Past, Whose Future?: Treatments of the Past at the Start of the 21st Century: an International Perspective: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of York, 20-21 May 2005.

Damaskos, D., & Plantzos, D. (2008). A singular antiquity. Archaeology and Hellenic identity in twentieth-century Greece. Athens: Benaki Museum (3rd Supplement).

Dayıoğlu, A., & Hatay, M. (2010). Cyprus. In Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, Volume 2 (pp. 125-140). Brill.

Deltsou, E. (2009). Researching Biographies of Archaeological Sites: The Case of Sikyon, Public Archaeology 8 (2‐3), 176‐90.

59

Egloff B. (2006). Interest among many stakeholders to develop the site for visitors. Finding common ground: the role of the stakeholders in decision making. In Of the Past, for the Future: Integrating Archaeology and Conservation, Proceedings of the Conservation Theme at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington, DC, 22–26 June 2003. Getty Publications.

Eide, K. (2007). Turkish identity: national vs state identity in Turkey and implications for US- Turkey relations (Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent University).

Elerie, H., & Spek, T. (2010). The cultural biography of landscape as a tool for action research in the Drentsche Aa National Landscape (Northern Netherlands). The Cultural Landscape Heritage Paradox. Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension, 83-113.

Gogos, K. (2004). Immediate Contact of Citizens with Archaeological Sites and Monuments: Access and Use (in Greek), in Trova, E. (ed.) Cultural Heritage and Law. Conference Proceedings, June 3rd‐ 4th 2003, Athens. Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis Sakkoulas, 297‐318.

Graham, B., & Howard, P. (2008). Heritage and identity. The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity, 1-15.

Gratsia, I. (2010). Citizen and Monument. The Case of the Greek Island of Naxos, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 12 (1), 75‐86.

Guttormsen, T., & Hedeager, L. (2015). Introduction: Interactions of archaeology and the public. World Archaeology, 47(2), 189-193.

Hamilakis, Y. (2016). Some debts can never be repaid: the archaeo-politics of the crisis. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 34(2), 227-264.

Hamilakis Y. (2008). Indigenous archaeologies in pre-modern Greece. in A singular antiquity. Archaeology and Hellenic identity in twentieth-century Greece. Athens: Benaki Museum (3rd Supplement).

Hamilakis, Y. (2007). The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hamilakis, Y., & Duke, P. (Eds.). (2007). Archaeology and capitalism: from ethics to politics (Vol. 54). Left Coast Press.

Hamilakis, Y. (2003). A Life in Ruins: Antiquity and National Imagination in Modern Greece, in Kane, S. (ed.) Archaeology and Nationalism in the Global Context. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 51‐78.

Hardy, S. A. (2011). Interrogating archaeological ethics in conflict zones: Cultural heritage work in Cyprus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex). 60

Harmansah, R. (2015). Performing Social Forgetting in a Post-Conflict Landscape: The Case of Cyprus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).

Harrington, J.T. (2004). 'Being here': heritage, belonging and place making: a study of community and identity formation at Avebury (England), Magnetic Island (Australia) and Ayutthaya (Thailand). (Doctoral dissertation, James Cook University).

Herzfeld, M. (1991). A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Hodder, I. (2003). Archaeological reflexivity and the" local" voice. Anthropological quarterly, 76(1), 55-69.

Hospers, G. J. (2002). Industrial heritage tourism and regional restructuring in the European Union. European Planning Studies, 10(3), 397-404.

Hourani, G. G. (2007). An Abridgement of the History of the Cypriot Maronite Community. Paper written for the Ministry of Education in Cyprus. Lebanon. Hunt, D., & Coldstream, J.N. (1982). Footprints in Cyprus : An illustrated history. London: Trigraph.

Jacobs, J. (1996). Edge of empire : Postcolonialism and the city. London [etc.: Routledge.

Kane, S. (2003). The politics of archaeology and identity in a global context (Colloquia and conference papers 7). Boston, MA: Archaeological Institute of America.

Kanta, K.G. (1979). Eleusis: myth, mysteries, history, museum. Athens. Kanta.

Knapp, A. B., & Antoniadou, S. (1998). Archaeology, politics and the cultural heritage of Cyprus. Archaeology under fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, 13-43.

Knowles, L. (2013). Stonehenge today. In Material Religion, 9(3), 411-413.

Kolen J.& Renes J. (2015). Landscape Biographies: Key Issues. in Hermans, Kolen, Renes Landscape Biographies: Geographical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on the Production and Transmission of Landscapes. Amsterdam University Press.

Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, 68, 70-73.

Kotsakis, K. (1991). The Powerful Past: Theoretical Trends in Greek Archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe: the Last Three Decades. London: Routledge, 65‑90.

Kotsakis, K. (2002). Introduction (in Greek), in Hodder, I., Reading the Past (in Greek), translation by Moutzourides, P., Nikolentzos, K. and Tsoule, M. Athens: Ekdoseis tou Eikostou Protou.

61

Kotsakis, K., Vokotopoulos, L., Lekka, A., and Fourligka, E. (1993). Cultural Heritage and Local Community: The Excavation of Toumba in Thessaloniki. Paper Presented at the Conference, Monument and Society (in Greek), organised by the Technical Chamber of Greece, 1 December 1993, Athens.

Kouri, M. (2012). Merging Culture and Tourism in Greece: An Unholy Alliance or an Opportunity to Update the Country's Cultural Policy? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 42(2), 63-78.

Kyriacou-Petrou A. & Hadjisoteriou M., (2017) Adaptive strategies and Urban Identity: Larnaca Oil Refinery Coastal Area Case Study in Rethinking, Reinterpreting and Restructuring Composite Cities, 173

Lalioti, V. (2002). Social memory and ethnic identity: ancient Greek drama performances as commemorative ceremonies. History and Anthropology, 13(2), 113-137.

Legatos I.S. (1997). The transformation of the population of Eleusis After the war (in Greek). in Z Symposium of History and Folklore of Attica. Demos Elefsinas.

Lekakis, S. (2012). The Cultural Property Debate. A Companion to Greek Art, 683-697.

Lekakis S. (2017). Cultural Heritage in the Realm of the Commons. Paper presented in the 1st National Conference on Commons and Social & Solidarity Economy in Greece 4-7.05.17 AUTH.

Leriou, N. (2002). Constructing an archaeological narrative: the Hellenization of Cyprus. Stanford Journal of Archaeology, 1, 1-32.

Levy, J. (2007). Archaeology, communication, and multiple stakeholders: From the other side of the Big Pond. European Journal of Archaeology, 10(2-3), 167-184.

Liakos, A. (2001). The construction of national time: The making of the modern Greek historical imagination. Mediterranean Historical Review, 16(1), 27-42.

Liapis B. (1993). Eleusis in the Recent Years (in Greek). Editor and Publisher: Mpekakos B.

Lowenthal, D. (1998). The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge University Press.

Marshall, Y. (ed.) (2002). ‘Community Archaeology’, World Archaeology 34 (2).

McClanahan, A. (2007). The Cult of Community: Defining theLocal'in Public Archaeology and Heritage Discourses. BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES, 1633, 51.

McDowell, S. (2008). Heritage, memory and identity. in The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity, 37-53.

62

Meinig, D. (1979). The interpretation of ordinary landscapes : Geographical essays. New York, NY [etc.: Oxford University Press.

Merriman, N. (Ed.). (2004). Public archaeology. Routledge.

Micheal Given. (1998). Inventing the Eteocypriots: Imperialist Archaeology and the Manipulation of Ethnic Identity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 11(1), 3-29.

Millar, S. (2006). Stakeholders and community participation. Managing world heritage sites, 37-54.

Morris, I. (1994). Archaeologies of Greece, in Morris, I. (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge‐New York: Cambridge University Press, 8‐47.

Mpelavilas N. Saiti T. Psarioti K. (2011). Industrial Heritage in Eleusis and the Thriasian Plain (in Greek). Politistiko Idruma Omilou Peiraios.

Nicolaou, K. (1976). The historical topography of Kition (Studies in Mediterranean archaeology vol. 43). Göteborg: P. Åström.

Nixon, L. (2001). Seeing Voices and Changing Relationships: Film, Archaeological Reporting, and the Landscape of People in Sphakia, American Journal of Archaeology 105 (1), 77‐97.

Osborne, B. S. (2001). Landscapes, memory, monuments, and commemoration: Putting identity in its place. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 33(3), 39.

Pacifico, & Vogel. (2012). Archaeological sites, modern communities, and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1588-1611.

Palumbo, G., & Teutonico, J. M. (2002). Management Planning for Archaeological Sites. In Proceedings of the Corinth Workshop, Getty Publications.

Panayiotou M. (2009). Cyprus 1882: Refugee reception center after the Arabian revolution in Egypt. In M. Rossetto, M. Tsianikas, G. Couvalis and M. Palaktsoglou (Eds.)Greek Research in Australia: Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University June 2009. Flinders University Department of Languages - Modern Greek: Adelaide, 481-492

Papalexandrou, N. (2008). Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus: An elusive landscape of sacredness in a liminal context. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 26(2), 251-281.

Papapetropoulos, D. A. (2006). Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and in General of Cultural Heritage. Text‐Comments‐Interpretation (in Greek). Athens, Thessaloniki: Ekdoseis Sakkoulas.

63

Plantzos D. (2014). Archaeologies of classics. Reviewing the rule of thumb (in Greek). Ekdoseis tou eikostou. Athens.

Plantzos, D. (2008). Archaeology and Hellenic Identity: The Frustrated Vision 1896‐2004, in Damaskos, D. and Plantzos, D. (eds.) A Singular Antiquity. Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth‐ Century Greece. Athens: Mouseio Benaki, 11‐30.

Preka-Alexandri K. (2003). Eleusis (in Greek). Tameio Arheologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon.

Renes J. (2015). Layered Landscapes. in Hermans, Kolen, Renes Landscape Biographies: Geographical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on the Production and Transmission of Landscapes. Amsterdam University Press.

Roymans, N., Gerritsen, F., Van der Heijden, C., Bosma, K., & Kolen, J. (2009). Landscape biography as research strategy: The case of the South Netherlands project. Landscape research, 34(3), 337-359.

Rubertone, P. (1989). Landscape as artifact: Comments on “the archaeological use of landscape treatment in social, economic and ideological analysis”. Historical Archaeology, 23(1), 50-54. Sakellariadi, A. (2010). Community Archaeology: A Threat or an Opportunity for Greek Archaeology, Archaeologies 6 (3), 514‑27.

Sakellariadi, A. (2011). Archaeology for the people? Greek archaeology and its public: an analysis of the socio-political and economic role of archaeology in Greece (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London).

Samuel, R. (1994). Theatres of memory Vol. 1 Past and present in contemporary culture. London [etc.: Verso.

Samuels M.S. (1979). The Biography of Landscape. Cause and Culpability. in D.W.Meining The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Oxford University Press.

Sfyroearas B. (1985). History of Eleusis. From the Byzantine period until today (in Greek). Ekdoseis tou Dimou Elefinas.

Shepherd, N. (2007). What does it mean ‘to give the past back to the people’? Archaeology and ethics in the postcolony. Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics, 99-114.

Silberman in Kohl, P., & Fawcett, Clare. (1995). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge University Press.

Skopetea, E. (1988). The 'ʹModel Kingdom'ʹ and the Great Idea (in Greek). Athens: Polytypo.

Smith, J. S. (2009). Art and society in Cyprus from the Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

64

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

Smith, L., & Waterson, E., (2009). Heritage, communities and archaeology (Duckworth debates in archaeology). London: Duckworth.

Stamou D.A. (2005). Sacred Eleusis. The true history (in Greek). Ekdoseis Kadmos.

Stritch, D. (2013). Contested Archaeologies: Archaeology in Politics and Identity Formation. In Ethics for Graduate Researchers (pp. 147-165). Elsevier.

Stroulia, A. (2002). On the Other Side of Kiladha Bay: Local Perspectives on Archaeological Sites and Archaeologists, Aegean Archaeology 4 (1997‐2000), 101‐13.

Stroulia, A. and Sutton, S.B. (2009). Archaeological Sites and Local Places: Connecting the Dots, Public Archaeology 8 (2‐3), 124‐40.

Sutton, S.B. (1997). Disconnected Landscapes: Ancient Sites, Travel Guides, and Local Identity in Modern Greece, Anthropology of Eastern Europe Review 15, 27‐34.

Thomas, J. (2004). Archaeology and modernity. London [etc.: Routledge.

Tilley, C. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape : Places, paths, and monuments(Explorations in anthropology). Oxford [etc.: Berg.

Transition to Eu-phoria: Eleusis 2021. European Capital of Culture Candidate City. Final bidbook. Municipality of Eleusis.

Travlos, J. (1949). The topography of Eleusis. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 18(1), 138-147.

Trigger, B. G. (1984). Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man, 355-370.

Vakalopoulos, A.E. (1979). Modern Greek History 1204‐1985 (in Greek). Thessaloniki-Vanias.

Van Dommelen, P. (1997). Colonial constructs: Colonialism and archaeology in the Mediterranean. World Archaeology, 28(3), 305-323.

Voutsaki, S. (2004). The ‘Greekness’ of Greek Prehistory: an Investigation of the Debate 1876‐1900, in Pim Den Boer (ed.) Greek Archaeology and the Formation of European and National Identities: Papers Presented at the Colloquium Organised by the Netherlands Institute in Athens in October 2002 on the Theme of the Role of the Classics in the Formation of European and National Identities. Assen: Koninklije van Gorcum, 105‐22.

Waterton, E. (2005). Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives with community values: cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(4), 309-325.

65

Yon, M. (2011). Conférence inaugurale: Larnaca et Kition aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes Chypriotes, 41(1), 21-52.

Yon, M., & Childs, W. A. (1997). Kition in the tenth to fourth centuries BC. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 9-17.

Digital sources http://rednotebook.gr/2014/08/ethnikh-thisavrothiria/visited (Last visited: 17-09-17) http://www.cyprushighlights.com/en/2010/09/10/kitio/ (Last visited: 15/12/2017) https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g190379-Activities- Larnaka_City_Larnaka_District.html (last visited: 27/12/2017) http://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions-/larnaca-cy-la-larn.htm (Last visited: 27/12/2017) http://www.elefsinaculture.gr (Last visited: 19/12/2017) https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g190379-Activities- Larnaka_City_Larnaka_District.html (Last visited: 19/12/2017) https://gr.skyscanner.com/news/inspiration/larnaka-ti-axizei-na-deite-kai-na-kanete/ (Last visited: 19/12/2017) http://sea.org.gr/details.php?id=686(Last visited: 17-09-2017) http://www.iefimerida.gr/news/339639/mitsotakis-apo-amfipoli-ta-teleytaia-dyo-hronia- den-ehei-ginei-proodos (Last visited: 17-09-17)

66

11. Index

Figure 1. Newspaper's title: ''Forrest guards and archaeologists govern the country and sabotage the business investments''.

67

Figure 2. Protest of a refugees squad in the archaeological site of Acropolis.

68

Figure 3. Antonis Samaras in Amphipolis.259 From: http://bit.ly/2qRTjlz

Figure 4. Aerial photograph of Eleusis

259 Lekakis 2017: 25 69

Figure 5. Remains of the ''Votrys'' factory

Figure 6. Titan factory

70

Figure 7. Kronos factory

Figure 8. Kronos factory today

71

FIgure 9. Aerial photo of Larnaca

72

Figure 10. Cultural map of Larnaca Source: http://www.cyprushighlights.com/en/2010/09/10/kitio/ last visited: 15/12/2017

73

Figure 11. Ancient Kition

Figure 12. Hala Sultan Tekke

74

Figure 13. Saint Lazarus church

Figure 14. Dhekelia Power Station

75

Figure 15. Oil refineries

76

Figure 16. Example of colonial architecture

77

78