Factors influencing community participation in management plan drafting for World Heritage Sites
2. Overview of the Greek Archaeological Resource Management
2.1. Historical Background
The political circumstances under which the Modern Greek state was founded together with the way antiquities were used to support the claim of independence from the Ottoman Empire are the key in the relationship of modern Greeks with classical antiquities and their protection and management. Multiple scholars have approached this thematic of how archaeology was used for a variety of aims and scopes both by Greeks and Europeans parallelly (Kotsakis, 1991;
Lowenthal, 1988; Morris, 1994; Hamilakis & Yalouri, 1996).
The interest in classicism has been traced in the work of J.J.
Winckelmann where the idealisation of the classical antiquity became the basis of the idea of Hellenism (Sakellariadi, 2008; Lowenthal, 1988). This took place through association of the artistic stages with the development of other aspects of society. “It was this idea of the relationship between political liberty and artistic excellence that led to the idealisation of the golden classical age and to Hellenism (Sake-llariadi, 2008, p. 132)”. Ancient Greece and the relevant romanticised
ideas became the answer to the question of provenance of the European spirit (Morris, 1994). Europeans favoured the ideology of classicism and European powers were competing to associate them-selves with the glorious civilisation (Morris, 1994). Visits to Greece became part of the Grand tour and travellers searched for the classical ideals with visits to the monuments which were later com-municated to the rest of the word through poetry and literature (Sakellariadi, 2008, p. 132).
The idealisation of classicism was imported in Greece through a Greek merchant middle-class before the foundation of the Modern Greek (last decades of 17th century) (Hamilakis & Yalouri, 1996).
Their commerce activities kept them connected with other centres in Europe and except goods they imported the ideology of classicism.
The group started to support economically an educational revival in Greece with schools, libraries and publishing houses as an oppo-sition to the “dark era” of the Ottoman Empire (Sakellariadi, 2008, p.131). Hamilakis & Yalouri interpret the use and return to the appreciation of classical as a deliberate move of this a social group (the merchants) to legitimise their authority and its political and economic programme. This would not only lead to liberation from Ottomans but would create a middle-class with similar charac-teristics to the European one (Hamilakis &Yalouri, 1996, p. 121).
At first the idealisation of antiquity was a used as the way to gain support from Europe in the struggle for liberation that was later internalised as an article of faith (Lowenthal, 1988, p. 733-734).
Return to classical antiquities through this import process from Europe provided a link of continuity with the past, strengthened national consciousness and led to the liberation from Ottoman Empire. The development of Greek national identity should be viewed parallelly with the development of Western European identity that identified Greece as its idealised ancestor (Friedman, 1992; Kotsakis, 1991). For this reason, the Greek war of independence was unique and different from any other, because it would restore the glory of classical civilisation (Lowenthal, 1988).
2.2. Establishment of public interest
Thus, one of the first responsibilities of the newly founded Greek state was to establish the first national legislation that would protect the antiquities that became symbols of a whole nation and of the Western World. The law “About scientific and technological collec-tions, about the discovery and conservation of antiquities and their
that all antiquities should be treated as national property of its people.
With this article, the foundation of state ownership of antiquities was introduced and was never abandoned in the following updates of the legislations too. In case antiquities were found on public land they belonged to the state. Despite that, in other articles private owner-ship was recognised for already existing collections. Moreover, in case antiquities were found on private land a division between state and landowners took place (Voudouri, 2010, p. 549). The protec-tionist nature of the first law, its foundation on public interest and the State’s responsibility to protect antiquities are the most important characteristics that would affect the following heritage legislations and cultural heritage management in Greece through the centuries.
This law was replaced by the Law 2646 in 1899 due to the “failure to recognise and act within the law across the country” (Sakellariadi, 2008, p. 135). This one has been characterised stricter in comparison to the previous one and a possible remedy for the increased illicit trading of antiquities (Voudouri, 2010, p. 550). The exclusive right of ownership over all antiquities was introduced and consequently, all antiquities found in Greek territory even in private land were owned by the state. The Law 2646/1899 remained active for more than a century followed by Law 5351 of 1932 “On antiquities”. It incor-porated the absolute right of state ownership of antiquities together with other provisions like compensation to landowners and private collectors and dealers (Voudouri, 2010). For 70 years the field had not undergone great updates until 2002, when the current law in force was passed.
2.3. Law 3028/2002
The law 3028/2002 “On the protection of antiquities and of the cul-tural heritage in general” replaced the previous obsolete legislations including codifications of provisions dating back to the 19th century (Garezou & Psycharis, 2003).The current law has been charac-terised as innovative since it covers all aspects of cultural heritage regulating its protection and management (Voudouri, 2010, p. 553) but at the same time adherent to elements resonating its two hundred year old history. Sakellariadi states that the essence of this law reflects the approach of all the previous regulations that their main aim was to prioritize public interest over possession of antiqui-ties in Greek territory (Sakellariadi, 2008, p.136). It establishes legal provisions for the museum sector, regulations for archaeological research, access to cultural heritage, sanctions for illicit actions, rewards for cooperation with authorities, strict supervision of
collec-tors and provenance of imported cultural objects, lending and exhibiting Greek heritage abroad. In other words, the law defines clear terms with all the subjects that somehow are involved in her-itage. As Voudouri states, “the 2002 law undertakes to improve the relations between citizens and the administration for its implemen-tation” (Voudouri, 2010, p. 555).
Its first article sets the tone and reveals the main characteristic of the current legal framework. The responsibility of the state to protect cultural heritage from antiquity up to nowadays is clearly stated and continues according to the already set tradition. A territorial criterion for the linkage to the country’s cultural heritage is introduced. Then comes the broadening of the definition of cultural objects – the time periods under protection and the notion of protection. These elements constitute also the innovations of the law and what differentiates them from the previous versions. The definition of cultural objects is expanded including not only immovable monuments and sites can movable cultural objects but also intangible cultural heritage. More-over, protection under this law is given to cultural heritage from pre-history to the present times (1830) broadening the time span of protection in general. The degree of protection varies from element to element mostly based on chronological criteria with the ones dating up to 1453 getting augmented protection.
In its third article the law broadens the content of the protection by moving on from conservation as the only aim and by giving emphasis to the social function of heritage (Voudouri, 2010, p. 554). Except conservation, restoration and protection from looting; research, recording and cataloguing of protected elements, accessibility to the public, their enhancement and integration in contemporary life and sensibilisation of the public are part of the actions broadening notion of protection (Law, 3028/2002). Garezou and Psycharis also agree that a holistic approach is adopted, and greater emphasis is put on public access, awareness and participation (Garezou & Psycharis, 2003, p. 435) By broadening the definition of cultural objects, the time span of protection and the content of protection the State undertakes greater exclusive responsibilities towards cultural heritage which are administered by the relevant bodies of the Ministry of Culture and Sports.
2.4. Characteristics of the administrative system
Responsibility of policy in the fields of cultural heritage such as protection, conservation and enhancement lie with the Ministry of
State Archaeological Service which exclusively regulates the archae-ological heritage management in Greece. For this reason, the her-itage administration has been characterised as state centric (Kouri, 2017; Voudouri, 2010). The administration is divided between central and peripheral services: “The central services are the General Directorate of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage, the General Direc-torate of Restoration, Museums and Technical Works, and several special services” (Sakellariadi, 2008, p. 322).The Ministry is assisted in the various procedures of policy (preparation, planning, funding, control) by four collective consultative bodies: The Central Archaeo-logical Council, the Council of Museums, the Central Council of Recent Monuments and the Local Councils of Monuments.
The Council of Museums provides their advisory opinion on the principles of the museum policy of the country, the foundation of state museums and in general about all the matters regarding museums.
The Local Councils of Monuments provide their advisory opinion on all matters regarding local monuments under their jurisdiction how-ever they are excluded from advising on matters of a greater impor-tance such as export of monuments, major interventions and the protection of monuments inscribed in the World Heritage List (article 49, L.3028/2002). This indicates their limited authority and the con-centration of power towards the central bodies rather than the local ones.
The Central Archaeological Council and the Central Council for Modern Monuments are the “main scientific advisory bodies and are consulted on issues related to works and interventions carried out on the monuments” (Garezou & Psycharis, 2003, p. 435). Their divi-sion is chronological and among the competences of the Central Archaeological Council, in contrast to the Local Council of Monu-ments, is to give its advisory opinion on the protection of monu-ments that are inscribed in the World Heritage List, as well as, other monuments, and archaeological or historical sites of outstanding importance. (Article 50, L.3028/2002).
On the peripheral level, the regional services called Ephorates, are services of the Ministry of Culture and Sports responsible for the implementation of policies on the protection, preservation and val-orisation of cultural heritage (Council of Europe, 2020). They are dependent regional services of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage. In brief, they exercise their responsibilities locally within the boundaries of their regions, and carry out projects, which are included in the annual Operational Plans or Action Pro-grammes as approved by the Minister, after consulting the relevant
Councils (Greece, 2018). Practically, they have limited authority, not able to handle major interventions without the prior opinion of the Central Council and an income that is administered centrally (Garezou & Psycharis, 2003, p. 441-442) Thus, their peripheral character, their dependence from central services and their limited autonomy in decision making processes confirms the concentration of power in management of the archaeological resources with the State’s central bodies.