Manolis Korres: The man who rebuilt the Parthenon

38 years ago, the Acropolis Monuments Conservation Committee (ESMA) was founded. What was its purpose?

In 1975, ESMA was established, marking a new era in the restoration history of the Acropolis. The committee included several archaeologists and professors from the Polytechnic University, with Charalambos Bouras serving as the chairman. Our foundation was the renowned Venice Charter, a globally recognized heritage document outlining principles for work on historical monuments. These principles emphasize that historical monuments are a societal asset, a legacy for citizens, and a global heritage. Moreover, interventions on these monuments are a highly scientific matter, not left to the discretion of one individual, but decided through a dialogic process in which each scientific discipline contributes its expertise. An internationally recognized initiative, credited to our chairman Mr. Bouras, was the international conferences held in Athens in 1976, focusing on the significant project of the Erechtheion’s restoration. This established an ethical model that has been applied to numerous other restoration projects across Greece. It’s worth noting that Greece is a pioneer in this field.

– When did the restoration projects begin?

The restoration efforts commenced in 1834-35, using common industrial iron. Since then, various restoration projects have been undertaken on the Parthenon and other monuments on the Acropolis. The most extensive restoration project started in 1922, aiming to restore the entire section that had been destroyed during the Turkish-Venetian War in the 17^th century. Following the Second World War, it became evident that the industrial iron used was causing oxidation and swelling in the restored parts, necessitating further intervention. This was delayed due to the dictatorship, although in 1969, Unesco issued a warning about the impending danger to the Acropolis monuments.

Today, everyone desires more comfort and leisure within the museum. I am entirely satisfied because we live in a Greece with unfinished projects, and finally, one of them has been realized.

– Did they make a mistake by using industrial iron?

Yes, indeed. In 1895, the German Minister of Public Works wrote a historic text attempting to persuade the Greek state against using such iron in construction. Nowadays, only titanium is used in new projects, following the recommendation of Professor Skoulikidis, an early member of the ESMA.

– What was your role?

I was responsible for the restoration of the Parthenon from 1983 to 1999. A detailed investigation was necessary before we could begin. For each stone, we had a file with documentation, sketches, measurements of deformations, swellings of the iron elements, and numerous other observations, such as colour changes. Texts about the interventions were included alongside photographs of all these stages. One can only imagine the size of this archive in a monument undergoing such a major intervention.

– What were the biggest challenges?

The most significant challenges were primarily institutional. We had to address various concerns raised by political actors and convince them step by step. Fortunately, due to the prestige of the ESMA members, we received favourable treatment, which benefited both us and the state leadership, as they were able to see the works before they were completed. The technical difficulties arose during the process. It’s similar to performing surgery in a hospital. You can never predict what you’ll encounter in a person’s body during an operation, and often the procedure changes as it progresses. In the case of the Acropolis monument, despite thorough investigation, some damages only became visible during the operation, while others became apparent afterwards, resulting in the work being extended. Professor Bouras once said, “constant progress in research creates information, and information creates new needs”. The extension of time was a result of this deepening research uncovering new issues.

– If there had been no restoration, what condition would the monument be in?

Firstly, we have a testimony from Plutarch, who lived when the Parthenon was already five hundred years old. Plutarch once mused, unable to decide whether he was more awestruck by the technical prowess or the timeless youth of the Parthenon. The monument’s unique quality lies in its construction from a singular material, both in surface and mass. This is a rarity, as most structures incorporate various materials, which succumb to weathering over time. Yet, the Parthenon remained indifferent to the passage of time. The damage it suffered was solely due to extraordinary events.

– The first museum wasn’t that impressive?

On the contrary, it was one of the world’s most remarkable museums at the time of its creation. Unlike other multifaceted museums, it was solely dedicated to preserving, highlighting, and promoting the artifacts of the Acropolis. It boasted a unique internal unity, with every piece ‘in conversation’ with the others, rather than feeling like strangers among strangers. Keep in mind that when it was designed, it was intended for a select few visitors, not the mass tourism of today. It catered to scholars, not the general public. Of course, there were the occasional “casual” visitors, but the majority were intellectuals. This museum was ideal for its time, as it offered the thrill of viewing the collection in the very place it was discovered, especially the Archaic artifacts. Today, with the new museum, one could argue that these artifacts have been alienated from their familiar surroundings, now enveloped by an urban landscape dense with apartment buildings, water heaters, and antennas. This is the unfortunate price of progress. If Cleanthi’s vision of a European Athens, replete with gardens and open spaces, had been realized, without rampant privatization, we could have had a New Acropolis Museum a thousand meters away. If the current environment is mediocre, it is not the fault of the ancients or Professor Pandermalis, who devoted himself to this project a decade ago. It is a collective responsibility, a result of our own shortcomings.

– Are you satisfied with the opening of the New Museum?

Absolutely. Times have changed. Tourism is more prevalent than ever. People are accustomed to a constant stream of images, and their demands are ever-increasing. Today, everyone expects more comfort and leisure in a museum. I am entirely satisfied because we live in a Greece with many unresolved issues, and finally, this is a project that has been completed. Time will judge the rest. As an architect, I would have favored a more refined approach, but as it stands, the Museum is a remarkable achievement. This would not have been possible without the relentless determination of Professor Pandermalis.

– Can our city support such a monument?

.

In the Skye’s Great Greeks vote, Karasmanis made an insightful point: “This vote didn’t reveal the stature of the candidates, but rather the character of the voters.” Our ability to judge the greatness of Plato or Aristotle is not the issue. This speaks to your question of whether we are deserving of such a legacy. Who are we to judge? Each era belongs to those we admire, and what remains is for us to introspect on our identity. The builders of the Parthenon were all key players of their time, while we occasionally find ourselves under the lens of current affairs.

THE GREATEST DISASTERS OF THE PARTHENON

.

– The most catastrophic event was the explosion of seven hundred barrels of gunpowder by the Turks when a Venetian projectile pierced the roof. It is estimated that the building was reduced to rubble on the rock within four seconds. The fallen stones of the Parthenon were subsequently used to repair the earthquake-damaged Acropolis wall.
– The building remained roofless for centuries due to both the explosion during the Turco-Roman War and a devastating fire in 267 AD following a barbarian raid.
– Visitors often took pieces of the Parthenon back to their homelands, especially after the French Revolution when national museums were being established. These desecrations were later completed by Elgin.
– The Greek-Turkish hostilities during the 1821 Revolution. Ironically, Elgin was somewhat vindicated in this instance, as if he had left the marbles, they would have been destroyed by cannon fire.

THE ACROPOLIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY’S HISTORY

.

– From the Middle Ages until the Turkish occupation, a settlement existed around the Parthenon and within the walls of the Acropolis. Some of the three-story houses even leaned against the capitals of the temple. The Turks demolished all of them and whitewashed the Parthenon with lime. Later, as the Ottoman state declined, a small village reemerged, only to be destroyed in various conflicts.
– The first proposal for the location of Otto’s palace was the Parthenon. The integration of ancient monuments into the architectural landscape was initially planned. However, this attempt was halted by German architect and archaeologist Klenze, who persuaded the authorities to preserve the monument in its original state. He advocated for the site to remain an archaeological treasure, to be excavated and developed as a World Heritage Site. The saying, “Even if Athens disappears, its name alone is enough to rebuild it,” is often attributed to him. Klenze also envisioned the creation of the first Acropolis Museum.
– Since 1833, the monument has undergone nine restoration processes.