Greek nationalism, architectural narratives, and a gymnasium that wasn’t

Abstract

This paper seeks to further the discussion that positions archaeological interpretation as a practice entangled between professional ethics and political circumstances. Perhaps the most obvious route for the mobilisation of extant architecture is to recruit it into nationalist discourses. An example of this is the case of the Roman Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis (Cyprus), which can be used to illustrate how nationalism can call forth convenient narratives about material culture. Excavations (1952–1974) revealed the remains of a massive structure, and Vassos Karageorghis, the principal excavator, identified it as a ‘Gymnasium’. This paper demonstrates that Karageorghis’ hitherto well-accepted interpretation remains largely conjectural due to the absence of hard archaeological evidence. By examining the architectural characteristics of the remains and analysing the published excavation data, the paper explains how the present structure belongs to a bath-gymnasium complex, erected during the Roman period, and is an amalgamation of Roman and Greek culture. The paper revolves around the argument that the Romans’ role in negotiating the socio-cultural differences, which ultimately enriched the existing structures, has been systematically downplayed in the architectural narratives for the sake of presenting a homogeneous ethnic-cultural continuity from the Homeric Greek world down to the contemporary Cypriote Greek society.

Keywords:

• Greek nationalism
• architectural narratives
• gymnasium
• official archaeology
• Salamis
• Cyprus

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Omar Nasif for his contribution towards the preparation of images presented as Figure 2 and 3 in this paper.

Notes

1. Albeit in a different context, Kiessel (2013, 246) mentions the possibility of Egyptian influence on the foliage designs of the Roman capitals, which further highlights such relationships.

2. I have reviewed the first three phases in some detail, because they are critical in identifying the structure and establishing the architectural translation between the Greek and Roman. The difficulties primarily lie in Karageorghis’ three phases, which are critical in identifying the building. The remaining fourth phase, which identifies the structure as Byzantine Baths, rests on more solid ground, because interventions at this phase are mainly renovations. Apart from his insistence that the former structure was a Roman Gymnasium, Karageorghis (1968, 1969, 1985) interprets the evidence as renovations to convert the structure into public baths during the early Christian period.