1912013 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings

Underwater Archaeological Parks in Greece: The Cases of Methoni Bay – Sapienza Island and Northern Sporades, from a Culture of Prohibition to a Culture of Engagement

Panagiotis Georgopoulos Tatiana Fragkopoulou

From a policy of restriction to the permission of recreational diving, the process of valorising, representing and managing underwater archaeological heritage in Greece has been a recent development. When previous legal enforcements required the monitoring and control of underwater archaeological heritage, the discipline su!ered from an ine!ective means of communication which a!ected the public image of the underwater archaeologist. "is paper examines the role of underwater archaeological parks in representing an extra-national cultural asset, promoting archaeological knowledge and inspiring cultural memory. Focusing on the cases of Methoni Bay-Sapientza Island (SW Peloponnese) and Northern Sporades it argues that the establishment of underwater archaeological parks are a means to ensure preservation and public access as well consolidating underwater archaeology within the contemporary Greek archaeological discipline.

Introduction

With a coastline of 15,000 km, more than 3000 islands and islets and an archaeologically demonstrable maritime tradition since the 11th millennium BC, Greece is an impressively rich country of underwater cul-tural heritage. Consequently, one would expect to !nd a well-developed situation regarding its management and promotion in the form of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, or maritime heritage trails. Unfortunately, for the time being, there is none of the above. "e present paper discusses the possibilities of managing the underwater archaeological sites in Greece and presents two case-studies. Furthermore, it under-lines the legal complications that impede the course of underwater archaeological enhancement.

Underwater Archaeological Heritage: Legal Complications.

"e minimal progress that has been made so far towards the creation of underwater archaeological parks (UAPs) in Greece could be justi!ed by a series of incom-plete and insu#cient laws and provisions; along with a certain mindset regarding the submerged archaeological heritage. Consequently, to date these have led to legal and bureaucratic dead-ends.

"e complicated geomorphology of the Greek terri-tory comprising in the archipelagic seas of thousands of islands and islets (Dellaporta 2009) as well as the thousands of underwater archaeological sites make their monitoring by the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities very di#cult. "e insu#cient government support to

the Ephorate as well as the consequent lack of person-nel, means and instruments (Tragganidas 2007) have made the monitoring of underwater antiquities almost impossible. Looting of underwater sites continued after the foundation of the Ephorate in 1976. By indirectly admitting its inadequacy, the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities chose the ambivalent policy of imposing an almost complete prohibition of recreational scuba diving for more than two decades; excluding only ten percent of Greek waters (General Port Regulation/1978/258). "is measure was revoked in 2005 with the enactment of the new law for recreational diving (Law 3409/ 2005 Recreational Diving and other Provisions). "is made it possible to dive almost everywhere except on sites that o#cially declared as archaeological areas. "e new leg-islation brought a new era to recreational scuba-diving in Greece.

It is important to note that 27 years of prevention have damaged the public image of underwater archae-ology for divers across the country, with the subject almost a synonym for the abuse of authority or injus-tice. Fortunately, a series of actions have recently taken place in order to bridge such di%erences. "e Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology organized a meeting in 2011, presenting to the public the aforementioned legal complications. Moreover, the Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology and Research in collaboration with Timeheritage Ltd. (cultural heritage consultants) organized two seminars (June 2007 and June 2009) promoting cultural awareness to divers.

Nevertheless, the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities is still suspicious and defensive toward recreational divers, who are considered potential looters. "e continuation

192 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

of such an attitude is justi!ed since the change in the law was not followed by any additional government support for the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities. Moreover, the Ephorate is threatened with complete closure and the absorption of its duties within other administrative branches of the Ministry of Culture. Consequently, the Ephorate’s inability to monitor underwater antiquities, which are now more vulnerable due to the liberation of recreational diving in Greece, is still an unpleasant reality.

Within this context, one would understand the mindset of hesitation by the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities concerning the relaxation of restrictions and the implication for the future formation of UAPs.

Furthermore, the aforementioned law for Recreational Diving and other Provisions also provides for the creation of ‘Areas of Organized development of diving parks’, stating that the initiative for their creation can be undertaken by private entities, public bodies, or the combination of both. However, this contradicts the provisions of Law 3028/2002 On the Protection of Antiquities and by and large of Cultural Heritage, according to which only state facilities have the right to organize activities related to underwater archaeological tourism. Moreover, the Hellenic Council of State has declared that private enti-ties cannot organize visits to underwater archaeological sites. Even if the Ephorate found a way to collaborate with a private entity, according to the law the divers in an UAP should be accompanied by a diver-archaeologist or a diver-custodian. However, there are only about 25 archaeologists, technicians-custodians, and conserva-tors who are able to dive. #e diving personnel of the Ephorate, despite all e$orts, have not yet been o%cially recognized as underwater archaeologists by the Greek Ministry of Culture. So should tourist-divers be willing to follow the letter of the the law, there would not be anyone available to accompany them.

Even if all of the above were eventually resolved in some way, there would still be the problem of delimit-ing the underwater archaeological sites, which could be de!ned as ‘Underwater Museums’ and as such could potentially be included in an UAP project. #e only requirement, according to the law, is a Common Ministerial Decision which is pending since 2005.

Towards a Public Acknowledgement

While the complexity of laws continues along with ministerial delays and postponements, communities are gradually understanding the necessity of consolidating

their underwater archaeological heritage as part of gen-eral cultural development. #e UAP case in Pylos (W. Peloponnese) re&ects such a process where local govern-ment, private bodies, and the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities found a way to cooperate. As a result the !rst UAP in Greece is about to be created. Similar petitions have been made for the prehistoric submerged settle-ment of Pavlopetri (SW Laconia, S. Peloponnese) where the University of Nottingham and the local authorities argued that an UAP is imperative for the preservation of the settlement.

Methoni-Sapientza and Nothern Sporades

Methoni Bay – Sapienza IslandMethoni is a coastal town located at the SW prom-

ontory of Peloponnese and nearby Sapientza Island is located on the important maritime route that always connected the Italian Peninsula to the Middle East. Due to its protected bay and its strategic location, during the Byzantine period (Middle Ages) and under Venetian rule, Methoni became one of the most important com-mercial centers in the Eastern Mediterranean.

#e Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities has been surveying the area as well promoting its development since 1980. From about twenty shipwrecks and a Middle Helladic submerged settlement which have been identi!ed, extending over an area of 12 hectares, two (i.e. the ‘shipwreck of the sarcophagi’ and the ‘shipwreck of the columns’) have been proposed by the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities to become open to the public.

Both shipwrecks are located at the northern end of Sapientza Island, in an area of signi!cant ecological inter-est and declared as a protected site within the NATURA 2000 network. #e ‘Shipwreck of the sarcophagi’ dates to the Roman period and carried a number of tombs made of titanium stone. #e granite columns of the ‘shipwreck of the columns’ (Myrilla 2011) lie in pieces (apart from one that is still intact) and most probably belong to the Great Peristyle of Caesarea, which was among other 'treasures' – looted by the Venetians, after the occupation of Jerusalem in 1099. Both shipwrecks, would seem ideal for the creation of an underwater archaeological park, not only because of their location in shallow waters (<8m), but also due to their close proximity and their heavy cargoes, a fact which would make looting a relatively di%cult task.

1932013 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings

Northern Sporades!e Northern Sporades is an archipelago along the

northern-east coast of mainland Greece, in the Aegean Sea. It consists of 24 islands and islets, four of which are permanently inhabited: Alonnissos, Skiathos, Skyros, and Skopelos. It covers a territory of approximately 2260 km2 including six smaller islands: Peristera, Kyra – Panagia, Gioura, Psathoura, Piperi and Skantzoura. Moreover, there are 20 uninhabited islets and rocky outcrops. It has been a National Marine Park (National Marine Park of Alonnissos and Northern Sporades) since 1992.

!e marine area of the archipelago abounds in shipwrecks and submerged settlements. As such the Northern Sporades island complex would be ideal for the creation of an UAP and the local government and communities have been supportive. Indeed, several ef-forts (both o#cial and non o#cial) have already been made including the most important Proposal for an Innovative Development Plan: Northern Sporades Islands (Magklis 2007). !e latter presents a complete plan of cultural, agricultural, natural and archaeological de-velopment and management of the Marine Park, with special interest in the underwater archaeological sector. However, along with the bureaucratic complications comes an archaeological concern arising from the extent of the proposed archaeological area and the proposal has not yet been accepted.

Northern Sporades Underwater Cultural Material !e archaeological and historical sites that could

be included in the UAP cover a wide chronological range from the prehistoric period to WWII. !ese include the submerged Neolithic site of Aghios Petros (Efstratiou 1985) dated to the 5th millennium BC. Also the ‘Peristera’ classical shipwreck (the biggest shipwreck of the period yet known) carrying more than 3000 amphorae that create a 25m long, 10m wide and 3m high mound. !e Peristera shipwreck has been partially excavated by the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities (Hadjidaki 1996). In addition there is the classical shipwreck of ‘Phagrou’, with a cargo of more than 1500 amphorae.

Concerning the Roman and Byzantine periods, plen-ty of traces of marine commerce are preserved, such as the enormous ‘Vassilikos’ Byzantine shipwreck(s?) with a cargo of more than 4000 amphorae (12th century A.D.); the Byzantine shipwreck with the cargo of plates at Aghios Petros bay (Dellaporta 1999; 1020-22); the Byzantine shipwreck o$ the coast of Peristera (Dellaporta

1999); and the various Roman and Byzantine shipwrecks at Panormos bay (Skopelos island). !e submerged remains of a Roman port can also be found at Skopelos Island. Finally, in the Northern Sporades sea there is a number of historical submerged sites such as the sunken Junker, a German bomber monoplane from WWII which crashed and sunk in 1942 and a German Navy’s battleship that sunk during 1944.

Structure and Organization of an Underwater Archaeological Park

!e establishment of an UAP has a long way to go once it has received the necessary legal approval. One of the main aspects in organizing such an e$ort has to do with the archaeological procedures that ensure the over-all presentation of the site. If the location and delimita-tion are required for the legal approval, the preservation of the submerged area is crucial for the site’s existence itself. Within this context, actions of surveying, exca-vating and archaeologically studying the proposed site should thoroughly prepare the area for potential public presentation and visits. At this point the issue of safety arises as the basic element of the park.

Risks concerning the site's security as well as the visi-tor’s safety should be resolved long before the inaugura-tion of the park. In general, there are both natural and human causes responsible for putting heritage at risk. Looting has been historically one of the main causes of damaging heritage. As such safeguarding, preserva-tion and conservation activities are crucial and need to take place on a regular basis while on a primary level archaeological care, for instance by retrieving submerged movable %ndings and keeping heavy archaeological parts on the seabed discourages potentially illegal action.

Underwater Archaeological Parks: a Mediterranean Perspective

!ere are several cases in the Mediterranean where plans have been formulated for UAPs have been drafted or enacted: Italy, Croatia and Israel already have UAPs while Libya is also due to establish one (Pizzinato et al. 2012). In all cases plans follow the maxim ‘research-safety-preservation-interpretation’.

In terms of interpretation it seems important to emphasize the progress that has been made in Ustica and Baia. !e marine park at Ustica followed one of the most successful models regarding the representa-tion of the ‘exhibiting’ space i.e. maps and explanatory

194 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

signs provide the historical and archaeological concept while proposed paths emphasize the interpretive result (Frost 1990).

In the vast area of the submerged archaeological site of Baia an impressive project has been in development since 2001 (Baia 2012; Stefanile 2012: 57). Following the above model of ‘research-safety-preservation-inter-pretation’, the Baia project seems to work in terms of cultural management. Safety issues have been covered with a security network formed by local community, pri-vate agencies and authorities. Although, Baia’s architec-tural remains are automatically protected against looting as they are immovable and heavy by nature. What is more, preservation in Baia is perceived as a dynamic and continuous work with regards to more e"ective site presentation with less emphasis on conservation of the already preserved archaeological remains of the city (Stefanile 2012: 60). Interestingly, especially regarding the legal implications that concern UAPs in Greece, is the role that private entities (dive centers) play in Baia’s archaeological area. While guidance is provided through the submerged city where the diver is able to see in-situ archaeological remains as in a museum exhibition, dive centers contribute to Baia’s safeguarding (Stefanile 2012: 60).

While Baia’s submerged structures are di#cult to loot, safeguarding shipwrecks in Greece and elsewhere requires a more subtle procedure because of their na-ture. Croatia provides an interesting approach in terms of archaeological safety: security cages (Jurisic 2006); however its suitability in the two Greek cases still needs to be examined. Similarly, it is important to note the substantial surface marking of each sea area, the aim of which is to prevent destruction from external human causes ($shery and anchors).

Establishing an Underwater Archaeological Site

In this paper an UAP is conceived as an open (exhib-ited) concept where interpretive methods aid dynamic integration with the social sphere (Flatman 2003; 151). %is means that UAPs project should include a wide range of participants in terms of management and recreation. Furthermore, it is important for each site to comply with the scienti$c as well as the communicative requirements of an exhibited cultural space. Towards such a ‘musealization’ of the archaeological area there are parameters that need to be ensured. Accessibility and equipment are essential. In terms of presentation, the

site will need to be equipped with explanatory signs as well as marking of proposed paths (Baia 2012). Finally, the creation of an onshore cultural center could pos-sibly provide a repository for mobile artifacts as well as a scienti$c center for the site. We underline here the importance of a museum closely related to each site.

Issues of Further Development

We have already referred to the term ‘multileveled development’ following the organization of an under-water archaeological park. In fact despite the obvious di"erences from an inland archaeological site, an UAP still remains a cultural ‘landmark’ carrying the multiple bene$ts of an organized cultural space. To begin with, it is strongly believed that scienti$c research, documenta-tion and study will gradually change with a permanent cultural context. UAPs could possibly be a medium for an evolution in cultural research in a Greek context. Environmental issues could be incorporated consider-ing the direct connection between environment and archaeological preservation. Finally, it is important to understand the impact that cultural centers can have in terms of social and $nancial development. In a country where tourism is one of the main sources of income, underwater cultural tourism would undoubtedly boost both the local and national economy.

Conclusions – Proposals

%e development and subsequent management of submerged cultural heritage in Greece, sooner or later shall come into existence. UAPs should be seen as a productive opportunity. Whatever their form may be, cultural management should ful$ll the requirements for both preservation and public access as declared by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (UNESCO: 2012), while at the same time it should encourage the visitor to value the submerged cultural resource as a tangible element of the past worthy of preservation.

Safety issues have been the main concern of established UAPs in the Mediterranean. In Greece’s any proposed UAPs could use a combination of social, archaeological, legislative and authority control to provide an adequate security network. Local communities that understand the bene$ts of an UAP in their territory could provide immediate supervision of their cultural asset. Moreover a legislative context orientated toward cultural tourism

1952013 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings

while monitored by local authorities would ensure a bet-ter defense against illegal underwater activities.

!e improvements can be summarized:

1. !e relevant legislation should change to be-come more eloquent, speci"c and complete.

2. !e Greek government should support the Ephorate of Underwater Antiquities with per-sonnel, means and instruments.

3. Divers and underwater archaeologists have to rede"ne their relationship, acknowledging that both sides were justi"ed for their past actions while understanding that it is time to move on in a more collaborative way. Initiatives and actions –seminars, symposia or workshops – ad-dressing this goal would play a substantial role.

In terms of cultural heritage:

4. It is imperative to develop an understanding of underwater archaeological heritage as a multi-leveled cultural asset.

5. While the importance of conducting cultural preservation projects appears more urgent, ar-chaeological preservation should not exclude cultural interpretation.

6. Within this context it is crucial for UAP proj-ects to emerge as a tool for heritage preservation but equally to communication cultural heritage in an engaging way.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the Ephorate’s archaeologists –especially to Mr. Elias Spondylis – who despite the aforementioned di$culties gave us the chance to proceed with the underwater archaeological studies. Without their commitment we would not be aware of the existence of such cultural assets neither would we be able to proceed with any theoretical projects.

References

Dellaporta K.2006 Anafores E.E.A., in Archaiologikon Deltion

(Chronika), pp. 1020-22, T.A.P. editions, Athens.

Manglis, A.2010 I touristiki aksiopoiisi tou enaliou archaeologikou

ploutou – diethnis empeiria. Ano Magniton Nisoi, in Viopoikilotita kai kataditikos tourismos stis hellinices thalasses, Athens 2010.

Myrilla, D.2011 Archaia apo saranta kymata, in Eleytherotypia

newspaper, 24/7/2011, Tegopoulos editions SA, Athens.

Spondylis E.1994 Anafores E.E.A., in Archaiologikon Deltion

(Chronika), pp. 1025-28, T.A.P. Editions, Athens.

Tragganidas, G.2007 “Vythizetai sta provlimata”, in RIZOSPASTIS

newspaper, 6/5/2007, Sygxroni Epochi editions, Athens.

Hadjidaki, Elpida1996 ‘Underwater Excavations of a Late Fifth Century

Merchant Ship at Alonnesos, Greece : the 1991-1993 Seasons.’ In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 120, livraison 2, pp. 561-593, Ecole Francaise d' Athènes, Athens.

Efstratiou, Nicholas1985 Agios Petros, a neolithic site in the northern Sporades

: Aegean Relationships during the neolithic of the 5th Millennium, BAR international series: 241, Publisher: B.A.R., Oxford, UK.

Pizzinato C.and Beltrame C.,2012 A project for the creation of an underwater

archaeological park at Apollonia, Libya, in International Journal of the Society for Underwater Technology, vol 30, No 4, pp 217–224.

Flatman J.2003 Cultural Biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty

old bits of boat: ‘theory’ in maritime archaeology, in !e International Journal of Nautical Archaeology vol 32, no 2. pp.143-157.

Frost H.1990 Museum report-tourism aids archaeology: !e

Ustica experiment. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, vol. 4, no 19 , pp.341-343.

Jurisic M.2006 La protezione "sica dei siti archeologici sommersi

dal fondale merino nell’Adriatico croato in Radic Rossi I. (ed.) Archeologia subaquea in Croazia., Studi e ricerce, Marsilio, Venezia, 2006. pp.147-156.

Stefanile M. 2012 Research, protection and musealization in an

underwater archaeological park: the case of Baia (Naples – Italy) in Actas de las IV Jornadas de Jovens em Investigaçao Arqueologica. Faro 2011. Faro: Promontoria Monogra"ca, pp. 57–63.

196 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

Digital SourcesBaia

2012 #e underwater archaeological park of Baiae – from a commercial port to a protected marine area http://www.parcoarcheologicosommersodibaia.it/parco_text.php?id_lingua=en&id=ST. Accessed February 28

Hellenic Society for Law and Archaeology2011 Underwater Antiquities and the Law < http://www.

law-archaeology.gr/Index.asp?C=224 > Accessed March 1

TIME Heritage2007 #ree-days’ seminar on theoretical aspects of

underwater archaeology by members of the Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology http://en.timeheritage.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=119&language=el-GR. Accessed March 2

United Nations Educational, Scientifc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

2012 Safeguarding the Under-water Cultural Heritage. www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage Accessed February 12

Legal ReferencesLaw 3409

2005 Recreational Diving and other Provisions. in E9meris tis Kyverniseos No. 273, Part I, 4 November 2005.

GENIKOS KANONISMOS LIMENA (General Regulation of Port)1978 in E9meris tis Kyverniseos No. 388, Part B, 27

April 1978.

Law 30282002 Gia tin prostasia ton archaeotiton ke en geni tis

Politistikis Klironomias (On the Protection of Antiquities and of Cultural Heritage) in E9meris tis Kyverniseos tis Ellinikis Democratias, No. 153, Part A, 28 June 2002.

Panagiotis GeorgopoulosArchaeologist, Museologist MAIndependent Researcher in Cultural HeritageExoneon Str. 17 Athens 11851 Greecepangeo2@hotmail.com

Tatiana Fragkopoulou  http://uniss.academia.edu/tatianafragkopouloulo2lecrea@yahoo.gr