Going into this week I was both excited and exhausted. As we approached the end of the term, I saw that the work for finals was starting to stack up, and I was starting to get a bit homesick, yearning to be back in my own bed. However, the trip I had been looking forward to was fast approaching–– a trip to the famous islands of Santorini and Crete. It certainly did not disappoint. Both islands were beautiful, but I personally enjoyed Crete more as it was more peaceful, less expensive, and less touristy than Santorini. Despite me finding Santorini to be a tourist trap, at both islands I was struck by the incredible nature of the archeological sites we visited–– they were some of the best of the whole program.
These sites raised several questions in my head, both about the societies that first built the sites and our present-day society and the role that archeological sites play in it. First, on the more academic side, from our discussions at Akrotiri, and Knossos, I was curious about the nature of Minoan cultural travels and whether or not Akrotiri might be one of the first “diasporic groups” in society after the eruption of Thera. In our modern-day society, I am curious to wonder what the role of restoration of and even excavation of archaeological sites is.
Academically, the connection between Akrotiri and Knossos was fascinating to me. We discussed how the relationship was most likely not one of a colony empire but it made me wonder what the relationship between the Minoans and the rest of the Agenian were. The way I am currently conceiving it is that Akrotiri was a “diasporic” member of Minoan culture. The reason I chose this term is because it seems that they still have a relationship with the motherland of Minoa, but they are sufficiently independent and engaged with others to also develop their own distinct cultural practices. This seems similar to how many modern-day diasporic groups operate around the world––where they exist in sort of a liminal space of several cultures at once. This would also potentially help explain the village’s travels after the eruption, where they were both refugees, but also sort of part of the culture in other ways. I am not fully sure if I buy my own deception, or perhaps it could be refined much more, but I think it is interesting trying to map the Akrotiri-Minoan relationship into a modern-day group relationship dynamic.
Moving to the slightly less academic, what prompted my curiosity about the ethics of restoration and excavation was our discussion about Aurthor Evans and Knossos. It was stated that he restored the site in order to make it a site of learning and interest. First, why was that for him to decide? Second, if creative liberty is taken in the restoration are we truly providing a learning experience? I guess I would equate this to a movie that is a historical dramatization, and the answer to the question depends on whether you think that people consuming the media still is an important educational opportunity, even if not fully accurate.
Moreover, archaeological sites in general seemed to be displayed for consumption in order to promote a very specific way to think about Greece and history in general. This intention is not all for noble reasons. The attention paid to such sites likely takes away from understanding and learning about important sites from other countries or parts of the world. On the one hand, historically learning isn’t a zero-sum game but also in some ways it is. I suppose this is all to say that I need to spend more time thinking about the role of public monuments, especially historical ones, in our modern-day society.