International Journal of Heritage Studies

ISSN: 1352-7258 (Print) 1470-3610 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Greek nationalism, architectural narratives, and a

gymnasium that wasn’t

Reyhan Sabri

To cite this article: Reyhan Sabri (2019) Greek nationalism, architectural narratives, and
a gymnasium that wasn’t, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25:2, 178-197, DOI:
10.1080/13527258.2018.1431302

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1431302

Published online: 06 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 360

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjhs20
InternatIonal Journal of HerItage StudIeS
2019, Vol. 25, no. 2, 178–197
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1431302

Greek nationalism, architectural narratives, and a gymnasium

that wasn’t
Reyhan Sabri 
Department of Architectural Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper seeks to further the discussion that positions archaeological Received 7 October 2017
interpretation as a practice entangled between professional ethics and Accepted 19 January 2018
political circumstances. Perhaps the most obvious route for the mobilisation
KEYWORDS
of extant architecture is to recruit it into nationalist discourses. An example Greek nationalism;
of this is the case of the Roman Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis architectural narratives;
(Cyprus), which can be used to illustrate how nationalism can call forth gymnasium; official
convenient narratives about material culture. Excavations (1952–1974) archaeology; Salamis; Cyprus
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.

Introduction
Studies of the ideological use of material culture, within both archaeology and heritage studies, have
burgeoned since the 1980s, driven by the advent of early ‘post-processual’ critiques in archaeology
(Hodder 1986; Hodder et al. 1995; Shanks 1992; Shanks and Tilley 1987) and latterly by the critical
heritage studies movement (Byrne 1991; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000; Harvey 2001; Smith
2004, 2006, 2012; Campbell and Smith 2011). A rich theme in these literatures has been the role mate-
rial culture, particularly archaeological and architectural sites, play in the representational practices of
nationalism, which has posed a series of ethical and practical problems for archaeologists and architects
involved in historic preservation. This is particularly pointed when their disciplinary commitment to
positivist methodologies is contrasted to practice in the field, and the complex, ‘interested’ and crucial

CONTACT  Reyhan Sabri  rsabri@sharjah.ac.ae

© 2018 Reyhan Sabri. Published with license by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 179

role archaeology sometimes plays in national imaginations, particularly through ideologically inflected
interpretations of the remains of the past.
Various influential studies have established the role of state-sponsored archaeology and archae-
ologists in deploying archaeological finds as symbols of national or ethnic identities (Barber 2006;
Diaz-Andreu 1995; Diaz-Andreu and Champion 1996; Hamilakis 2007; Harvey 2003; Kohl 1998; Kohl
and Fawcett 1995a; Meskell 1998; Shnirel’man 2014; Silberman 1989; Trigger 1984, 1989). As argued
by Kohl and Fawcett (1995b), amongst others, the last two centuries have witnessed the mobilisation,
if not outright manipulation, of archaeological practices within the culture-historical tradition to
bring historic accounts to life, validated by their location on a real site. Accordingly, while the archae-
ological evidence from certain periods has been highlighted, others have been selectively ignored or
modified in interpretation, to sustain nationalist narratives, and in some cases to strategically direct
broader public attention away from the multi-vocal and multicultural nature of the past. As observed
by Smith (2004, 2006), archaeological practice is seldom as objective as it is claimed to be, and tends
to overlook issues of representation, politics and ideology. Archaeological interpretations, consciously
or otherwise, have often been shaped through the epistemological inclinations of the archaeologists
and the ideological perspectives and political motives of the sponsoring organisations, which are often
state funded, if not state agencies themselves.
Trigger (1995, 269) argued that ‘under the impetus of nationalism, archaeology abandoned a pri-
mary focus on evolution and concentrated in interpreting the archaeological record as the history of
specific people’. This has manifested itself in the kinds of questions archaeologists have been willing to
ask and the kinds of data they have collected. One main reason for this is that official heritage institu-
tions are deeply political, heavily implicated in the construction of cultural identities, and tend to priv-
ilege hegemonic worldviews and voices as they exclude or marginalise others (Bienkowski 2013, 58).
Official archaeology, per Holtorf (2013, 77–80), appreciates the extent to which a narrative is resonant
in the present as it evokes a particular sense of the past, rather than scientific accuracy and empirical
richness. Hence, as pointed out by Shnirel’man (2014, 27, 28), the loyalties and ethical responsibilities
of experts involved in preservation and interpretation is a controversial domain. Zimmerman (2013,
103) argues that archaeological ethics are value conflicted, and therefore political, as they tend to reflect
the concerns of the contemporary broader society in which official archaeology operates. As well, as
discussed by Hamilakis (2007, 22), archaeologists may divest themselves of secondary roles, such as
‘the role of citizen with ethical responsibilities and the role of politically active agent’.
Within archaeology, the influence of nationalist pressures to create ‘useful’ archaeological narratives
has been the main subject of the post-processual critique. There is, for instance, a growing literature on
the use of archaeological services and antiquities to sustain cultural heritage and identity politics within
Greek nationalism (e.g. Hamilakis 2007; Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996), as well as the use of archaeo-
logical data for the valuation and presentation of architectural remains (e.g. Fouseki and Sakka 2013;
Vacharopoulou 2005). However, the way national storylines influence architectural interpretations has
received little attention. There is also less understanding about how archaeological data is organised, in
a step by step fashion, to generate narratives. This paper aims to unpack how archaeological data has
been used by the state archaeology/archaeologists in politically contested Cyprus, which has seen less
research on this subject. It presents a micro-level analysis of the textual interpretation of architectural
fabric, produced by official archaeology/archaeologists in the construction of architectural narratives
that fulfil national and political ends. This paper argues that the interpretation of excavated monuments
is entangled in professional ethics, practice and contemporary political circumstances. This article
examines the case of the so-called ‘Gymnasium’ in Salamis, which provides a detailed case study of
how Classical Antiquity in Cyprus has been interpreted to serve nationalist goals. Having been one of
the most architecturally impressive monuments of the island’s Classical Antiquity, excavated by the
Department of Antiquities (DoA), under the leadership of Vassos Karageorghis between 1952 and 1974,
the Bath-Gymnasium Complex in Salamis has remained in the spotlight as a national symbol ever since.
This research adopts a mixed methods approach, consisting of qualitative content analysis of tex-
tual materials and physical observations of the monument. The analysis aims to reveal the mode of
180 R. SABRI

representation of the architectural finds, during and after the excavation period. The text data has
been organised into three categories: the identification of the excavated monument, the mapping and
dating of the historical layers, and descriptions of its architecture. The classification and coding has
been applied to both the official publications by the DoA and the excavator’s private publications. The
former includes reports on the excavation and conservation, which appeared regularly in the Annual
Reports of the Department of Antiquities between 1952 and 1974, as well as the series of monographs
regarding the archaeological finds. Karageorghis’s private publications consists of short annual accounts
of archaeological excavations in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (BCH) between 1959 and
1974, reports in Archäologischer Anzeiger, monographs on Salamis and on Cyprus, chapters in edited
volumes which appeared from the 1960s onwards, his memoirs published in 2007, as well as an eth-
nography of the excavations in Salamis (1999) and a DVD that is filmed based on this ethnography in
2009. The second stage of the research was fieldwork at the monument, based on physical observations
and graphic documentation, which aimed to verify, compare and contrast the textual representation
of the facts in architectural detail. Interpretation of the content and contextual meanings of the textual
data in the light of knowledge concerning the Hellenistic gymnasium and Roman bath-gymnasium
complex, and physical observations of the built fabric, provide the framework of the present paper.
The paper aims to reveal, by focusing on the historical authenticity of the architectural interpre-
tation, how nationalist sentiments are implicated in this process. This revisiting of the interpretation
of the so-called Gymnasium at Salamis is by no means a concise examination of the architectural
characteristics of the building. It merely aims to highlight the conflicting issues emerging from the
existing architectural narrative, and how ethically sound practice may be compromised to serve nation-
alist aims, especially when narratives are inflected to ‘write out’ inconvenient truths that do not fit
the goals of ethno-nationalist posturing. By examining the published data regarding the supposed
‘Gymnasium’, this paper reveals how, in the absence of hard architectural evidence, Karageorghis’s
interpretation remains largely conjectural. As a prerequisite for contextualising the situation of the
archaeological heritage in Cyprus, the paper firstly reviews the sociopolitical environment of Cyprus
during the twentieth century.

Sociopolitical context: nationalist archaeology and Cyprus

There is a wide acceptance that nationalism has played a catalytic role in the conversion of academic
archaeology into an institutionalised professional discipline, endowed with a significant sociopolitical
role for supplying symbolic links with the past (Diaz-Andreu and Champion 1996; Trigger 1984). The
last two centuries have witnessed the utility of the culture-historical approach in producing material
evidence of lengthy cultural continuity and connection with ancestors, which has been used to sup-
port claims for land and nation (Shnirel’man 2014, 15). This has resulted in generations of official
archaeological narratives reconstructing sterile and glorious pasts for nations, which ignored any
inconvenient historical change via multicultural interaction (Given 1998; Leriou 2007). Studies in
the ethical and sociopolitical dimensions of nationalist archaeological thinking and practice revealed
how architectural records and heritage narratives have been constructed and utilised to meet political
ends (Hamilakis 2007, 18, 19; Kohl and Fawcett 1995b). National-political agendas determined (and
often still determine) the modus operandi of official archaeology and archaeologists, delineating the
context in which archaeological materials are used (Nicholas and Wylie 2009, 28). As discussed by
Hamilakis (2007, 23), archaeological records are selectively assembled and organised, and the process
is conditioned partly by the ability of the finds of the past to extend their agency into the present, which
is significantly constrained by sociopolitical contexts such as colonialism and nationalism. Hamilakis
(2007, 18) argues that the national imagination requires such invented archaeological records to be
‘venerated almost religiously as material truths of continuity and the glory of the nation’, and that
‘within this framework, these objects and artefacts were often devoid of their physical experiential
properties and became instead abstract equivalences that stood for specific time periods, cultures and
ethnic groups. They became the symbolic capital for nations.’
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 181

It is through this practice that factoids, discussed by Maier (1985) and meta-stories of archaeology,
discussed by Holtorf (2010), are created. As Holtorf argues (2013, 77, 78), meta-stories of archaeol-
ogy are created within political realities of the present through the broader issues that engaging with
the past brings up. The subjectivity of this attitude was criticised by processualists. Starting from the
1960s, it was not until after the initiation of post-processual analysis in the 1980s that the significance
of multivocality in the archaeological enterprise, and in the construction of archaeological narratives,
gained visibility (Bauer 2013; Hodder 2008; Leriou 2007; Smith 2004).
In an ethnically conflicted place like Cyprus, where the political use of heritage is par for the
course, the culture-historical approach has unsurprisingly been the dominant tradition throughout
the twentieth century. Cyprus was a British colonial territory (1878–1960), when culture-historical
traditions were dominant in the Western world. The colonised Greek community assumed itself to
be the true descendants of Hellenic civilisation, and had already developed a national attachment to
modern Greece, and fostered romantic expectations for political unification, known as the enosis.
Hence, the British arrived at the island to find the Cypriots expecting to be granted self-determination.
However, although they were sentimentally philhellene, the British did not envisage any immediate
granting of independence (Varnava 2017). Instead, Cyprus was annexed to the British Empire as a
protectorate in 1915, and proclaimed as a colony in 1925, which intensified the enosis movement, and
culminated in an unsuccessful revolt in 1931. Despite all efforts, the Greek resistance remained active
until colonial independence in 1960 and beyond. As discussed by Sabri (2017, 58) after Silberman
(1995, 259), Knapp and Antoniadou (1998, 13, 14) and Scott (2002, 105), ‘the rise of conflicting polit-
ical claims orchestrated the development and mobilisation of heritage narratives, both by the British
colonial rulers and by the Greek community, to reinforce the legitimacy of their continued presence’.
Texts from this era reveal how the British colonial bureaucrats in Cyprus, in line with Enlightenment
ideals, had identified themselves with classical antiquity and mediaeval-Latin monuments (Given
1998; Sabri 2015, 2016). Sabri (2017, 59) argues after Silberman (1995, 259) and Scott (2002, 105–107)
how the Cypriot Greek elites, on the other hand, ‘in concert with the founders of the modern Greek
nation, developed a political attachment to the images of Greek antiquity, blended with religious
devotion to the Byzantine period, and invested in them as symbolic resources.’ The Late Bronze Age,
Classical/Hellenistic periods and Byzantine periods were defined by the Cypriot Greek elites as the
focal points of official archaeology in Cyprus, with a dominant Hellenization narrative aiming for
the consolidation of the longevity and superiority of Greek presence (Given 1998; Leriou 2002, 2007;
Michael 2005; Scott 2002). Locating the introduction of the culture-historical approach to Cypriot
archaeology in the Gjerstad led Swedish Cyprus Expedition’s (1927–1931) fieldwork and research,
Knapp and Antoniadou (1998, 30, 31) argue that it became the dominant approach until the present,
albeit now to a lesser extent. Revealing how historical texts generated during the 1930s by Gjerstad
implicitly aimed to manipulate ethnic identities, Maier (1985, 32–38) highlights how a politically
conflicted Cyprus is prone to the emergence of factoids.
Foreshadowing post-processual critiques, Merilles’ 1975 text criticised the formation of unsubstan-
tiated archaeological narratives in Cypriot archaeology. Subsequent articles reveal an obsession with
the Mycenean colonisation in Cypriot historiography, which forcefully assumed it to be the beginning
of the Hellenization of the island during the Late Bronze Age (Knapp 2001; Leriou 2002, 2007; Voskos
and Knapp 2008). Leriou (2002, 2007,21–23) argues that myths and fact have been mixed in the island’s
historiography, creating archaeological narratives that are useful to the Hellenization hypothesis, which
derives its strength from modern nationalist aspirations. Voskos and Knapp (2008) reveal how the
hybridisation of cultures in the island during the late Bronze Age, which could have only taken place
via social interactions and negotiations, have repeatedly been overlooked. The situation has not changed
since independence in 1960, and as discussed by Michael (2005), meta-narratives of homogeneous
Hellenistic glory and longevity (Hellenization narrative) became the byword of mass education, mass
media, travel literature and state run promotional campaigns in the Republic of Cyprus, undermining
the role of intercultural interactions and translations in the process.
182 R. SABRI

This raised important questions about how the island’s architectural monuments from Classical
Antiquity were perceived, interpreted and mobilised in this milieu. Knowledge about the situation
remains scant and mostly indirect. Despite the increasing scholarly interest in the influence of nation-
alism over the interpretation of myths and archaeological finds to meet political ends, the process of
interpretation of architectural remains, especially of Classical Antiquity, has received surprisingly little
scholarly attention. Particularly interesting is the ambiguous interpretation of architectural remains
of the Vouni Palace, highlighted by Maier (1985), where the author has demonstrated how an imagi-
nary megaron development was described by the excavators in the 1930s in an attempt to show, albeit
forcefully, the implementation of Greek architectural principles. Hellenistic architecture gained further
attention with the beginning of excavations at Salamis (Karageorghis 1968). Having been the capital
of the island from the Late-Bronze Age until the beginning of the Roman period, and later during
the early Byzantine period, Salamis gained an important symbolic place in the construction of mod-
ern Greek identity, both during the British colonial period and after independence. Michael (2005,
131–134) explains the central reasons for this are the foundation myths (symbolising the beginning of
Hellenization), anti-colonial resistance during the Classical and Hellenistic periods (which reinforces
Greek identity), as well as that city’s association with the beginning of Christianity in the island.
By considering the case of the so-called Gymnasium at Salamis, this paper presents an investigation
on how ethnic-nationalist concerns impacted on the interpretation of the island’s architectural heritage
from Classical Antiquity. To what extent is this interpretation a plausible analysis of the past, and how
much is it in service to ethno-nationalist state-building efforts by archaeology and archaeologists?
This is followed by a discussion on the role of political agendas in selectively shaping the architectural
narrative, and the amount of speculation, as well as the degree, to which ethnic-nationalist concerns
contributed to the shaping of textual architectural interpretation.

Excavating for Hellenistic roots at Salamis?

The first legal excavation at Salamis took place immediately after the transition of the island’s adminis-
tration to the British Empire, when a British expedition was dispatched to the site in 1890 (Karageorghis
and Vermeule 1966). The team partially excavated an artificially formed hill at the northern sector
of the city site, anticipating this to be the acropolis of the Hellenistic city, expecting to uncover the
Temple of Zeus Salaminos (Munro and Tubbs 1891). They identified the partially unearthed collonaded
courtyard as the temenos of the Temple of Zeus. However, there were no further opportunities to
continue with their excavations. Sixty years later, in 1952, long-term systematic excavations were
planned to be undertaken on the site by the DoA, and V. Karageorghis was appointed as the principal
excavator (Karageorghis 1999).
As mentioned earlier, Salamis is a symbolic place in Greek nationalism. Hence, with the beginning
of systematic excavations in 1952, Salamis became a tourist magnet as well as a vast ‘educational’ tool,
evoking a strong sense of Greek culture. The significance of discoveries at Salamis were regularly
communicated through mass media and scholarly publications, as well as the private publications
of the excavator (Karageorghis 2007). However, excavations did not reveal a temple, but an impres-
sively upstanding structure from the Roman period. Departing from a line of ashlar wall beneath the
Roman strata, as well as the existence of the evocative palaestra, and the epigraphic materials found
elsewhere mentioning the gymnasia and gymnasiarchs in Salamis, the monument was identified as a
Gymnasium. The fact that the architectural remains were essentially from the Roman period, and a
massive public bath facility was uncovered as part of the structure, did not change the opinion of the
archaeologist, who continued to refer to the structure as the ‘Gymnasium’. Based on the construction
techniques observed from the unearthed remains, Karageorghis deduced a timeline with four build-
ing phases. The earliest one dated back to the second century BCE, and he repeatedly identified the
remains as belonging to a ‘Gymnasium’, which was originally erected during the Hellenistic period,
reconstructed during the Early Roman/Augustan era, and expanded subsequently during the second
century CE, with further renovations taking place during the early Byzantine period. Chronological
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 183

surveying of the DoA’s annual excavation reports (1952–1974) and monographs on Salamis, as well
as Karageorghis’s private publications, reveal that the identification, dating and description of archi-
tectural characteristics of the monument have remained unchanged from the 1950s to the present.
The assumption that this was a Gymnasium, with indisputable Hellenic connotations, was echoed
by Greek Cypriot scholars and received attention in official and unofficial history books. It featured in
tourist brochures and travel books (Michael 2005), and even on banknotes (Alexandrou 2015), making
it one of the most symbolically important archaeological landmarks of the island. Before elaborating
on its politicised use, I will collate and analyse Karageorghis’ propositions regarding the architectural
identification of the monument, and thereby identify the weaknesses within his architectural narrative.

First phase (ca. second century BCE): The Hellenistic ‘Gymnasium’

Partial remains of a limestone ashlar wall, lying 2 m below the Roman layer of the western wall of the
Bath block, are the sole architectural evidence for this phase. Considered along with the epigraphic
evidence on gymnasiarchs, as well as uncovered Hellenistic pottery, it seemed that this wall belonged to
a Hellenistic gymnasium (Karageorghis 1959, 352; Karageorghis 1969, 167; Megaw 1953, 16). Pouilloux,
who collaborated with the DoA to dig in the southern zone of Salamis, was indirectly supportive of
this. He maintained that the city had enjoyed Hellenistic culture with all its institutions during the
reign of the Ptolemies (294 BCE-58 BCE), and that it had not one but three gymnasia during the first
half of the second century BCE (Pouilloux 1966). Epigraphic evidence, such as the base of an honorific
statue of Ptolemy II, mentioning a gymnasium, or another one belonging to the reign of Ptolemy V,
which mentions a gymnasiarch, indeed supports the existence of the institution in the city. Gymnasia
were the official seat of Hellenic education in the Classical and Hellenistic cities and accommodated
the athletic and intellectual training of the young male citizens of the community (Winter 2006, 121;
Yegul 1992, 7). A gymnasiarch, usually a public magistrate, oversaw the maintenance of the gymnasium
(Skaltsa 2007, 452), and while inscription panels were installed in the public places to commemorate
their beneficence, this was not necessarily at the gymnasium itself.
The gymnasium had gained a central position in urban layout of the Greek world starting in the
fourth century BCE. The perfect architectural solution was found in the combination of a palaestra,
consisting of a true quadriporticus with rooms lined up on one or more sides, and a dromos, which
was an outside racetrack (Winter 2006, 117; Yegul 1992, 9). Rooms around the palaestra included
ephebeum (exedra type classrooms), storerooms for oil, and washrooms (occupied with basic cleaning
facilities) (Yegul 1992, 7). Considering the general knowledge concerning the facilities in the urban
layout of the ancient Greek cities and the epigraphic evidence found in Salamis, the existence of the
institution in the city is beyond dispute. However, where exactly was the gymnasium in Hellenistic
Salamis? Karageorghis (1959, 352, 1969, 167) was convinced that its remains were underground, below
the massive Roman baths. His rationale is that during the Ptolemaic period (294-58 BCE) the city
started shifting from the southern zone to the northern, where a new harbour was established, as well
as new public buildings, and the Gymnasium was one of them. However, the scarcity of architectural
remains from the Hellenistic period in the northern zone, which, according to Tatton-Brown (1985,
69, 70) is due to devastating earthquakes in the first centuries BCE and CE, as well as continuous
constructions in the succeeding Roman period, makes it almost impossible to locate its exact position.
It is also possible that there was indeed a gymnasium on the site as postulated by Karageorghis, but
post-earthquake works on existing buildings obscured the original much earlier work. In any case,
I would argue that this single wall of ashlar limestone, albeit associated with Hellenistic pottery and
epighraphic material, would hardly furnish sufficient proof for the existence of a gymnasium exactly
on this site. The evidence of the site is ambiguous and debatable, and short of total excavation of the
lower strata, the picture is unlikely to be clarified.
184 R. SABRI

Second phase: the Augustan ‘Gymnasium’

Cyprus was already a part of the Roman imperial territory when an earthquake shook Salamis in c.15
BCE. According to Karageorghis (1968, 200), this earthquake provided the then Roman Emperor
Augustus with an opportunity to show generosity to the Salaminians, hence instigating extensive
reconstruction activity in the northern zone of the city. Karageorghis (1982, 180) argues that the debris
of the earthquakes was compacted and the new building was erected on a higher level, but on the
solid foundations of the Hellenistic Gymnasium, following at least the line of its facade and extending
slightly in a westerly direction. He also speculates that the new Gymnasium included a bath facility,
which consisted of a series of consecutive chambers running roughly in a north-south direction: three
chambers facing the front facade, where the two lateral chambers flanked the central one, which was
also the largest (Karageorghis 1982, 180). It must be noted here that epigraphy, while it cannot refute,
does not support Karageorhis’ theory that this structure was erected exactly during the Augustan era
(Mitford and Nicolaou 1974).
Once more, however, closer inspection of the mapping of the traces, indicated in Karageorghis
(1959, 351, 1982, 180), renders his proposition questionable. There is no evidence for the erection of
a new gymnasium if what has been shown as Early Roman remains is taken into consideration. In the
first place, that no trace of a true palaestra (often arranged as a quadriporticus), which is the essential
part of a gymnasium layout, has been found is at least suspicious. Instead, the East Portico fronted an
open yard which was presumably used as a sports ground, and this hardly defines the conventional
palaestra of the gymnasium. Secondly, the Hellenistic gymnasia are not known to have large hot-bath
facilities. Instead, they had washrooms, which were occupied with basic cleaning facilities, and arranged
around the palaestra together with classrooms and storerooms (Yegul 1992, 7). Taken together these
points suggest a function for the Augustan period structure quite distinct from the services offered
by the gymnasia.
Epigraphy is not supportive of Karageorghis’ deductions either. A ring stone of chalcedony, found
in 1891 excavations and bearing the signature of Hyllos, who was a well-known gymnasiarch during
the time of Augustus, at least for the years 12-11 BCE, has been the main epigraphic source for his
hypothesis. Epigraphic information concerning a gymnasiarch does not necessarily indicate the exist-
ence of a gymnasium; it could indicate a Roman public bath.
The semicircular recesses in the walls, mapped in Karageorghis’ plan (1959, 351, 1982, 180), are
known to be the characteristic features of Roman public bath architecture, and they usually contained
statues. This is not surprising, as the thermae (large-scale public bath establishments), incorporated
a variety of secondary functions. These could be educational, sporting and cultural, in addition to
bathing, and the thermae had just completed their functional development in Italy during the Augustan
times and started spreading to the provinces (Nielsen 1990; Yegul 1992). It is highly likely that, when
earthquakes in Cyprus gave the new rulers of the island the opportunity to Romanize its public insti-
tutions, they introduced public baths to the city, signalling changes in urban social and cultural life.
On the other hand, even if a Hellenistic gymnasium is securely identified beneath the present build-
ing, it is clear that the early Roman stage did not grow organically on its outline, which renders any
direct Greek-to-Roman transition ambivalent. A reasonable explanation is that this phase marked the
grafting of the already evolved public bath design onto the remains of the earlier Hellenistic structure.
In the absence of peristyle layout with requisite spaces, one may say that rather than a replication of a
Hellenistic gymnasium, phase two was experimental and transformational in some way, presumably
a local and partial adaptation of the more elaborate forms of Roman thermae.

Third phase (late-first-and-early second century BCE): The Roman ‘Gymnasium’ and
the baths
Archaeological examination dates the imposing architectural remains that dominate the site (Figure 1)
to the late first- early second century, erected after an earthquake destroyed the existing building
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 185

Figure 1. (a) View from the palaestra and (b) from the bath block (source: author).

in 76/77 CE (Karageorghis 1982; 180). Karageorghis (1968, 1969) argues that the extant walls were
integrated into the reconstruction of the ‘Gymnasium’. Epigraphic, numismatic and sculptural evidence
is supportive of the allocation of imperial aid for the restoration of the earthquake-damaged public
186 R. SABRI

facilities at Salamis, with donations especially during the reign of Vespasian (69-79 CE) (Karageorghis
1966; Karageorghis and Vermeule 1964; Mitford and Nicolaou 1974).
Most of the upstanding fabric belongs to this stage. Karageorghis published descriptive texts regard-
ing the physical characteristics, such as their dimensions, architectural elements, construction methods
and to some extent their functional identification (see for instance Karageorghis 1963, 1965, 1966).
His main focus, however, was on the decorative elements, such as mosaics and sculptures, focusing in
their sources of inspiration, and highlighting their link to Greek culture (e.g. Karageorghis 1969, 186,
187). This was a ‘Gymnasium’, according to Karageorghis (1969, 189), which was embellished with the
statues of gods and heroes of Greek mythology, ‘erected during the benevolent rule of either Trajan or
Hadrian who were, as we know, lovers of Greek culture.’ Then he continues (1969, 193) ‘The fact that
out of the numerous inscriptions found within the area of Gymnasium only one or two were in Latin,
all others being Greek, testifies that even under Roman rule this city continued its Greek tradition.’
Such an impressive building surely deserves more than a fleeting glance at its architectural charac-
teristics. While the excavator repetitively identified the extant remains as the ‘Gymnasium’ that was
erected in the place of a supposed Hellenistic predecessor; he never addressed the influences evident
in the design of this new structure. This structure, as Yegul has suggested (Yegul 1992, 309, 488) was
a bath-gymnasium complex, a new building type that emerged during the Roman imperial period,
combining the collonaded palaestra of the Hellenistic gymnasium with vaulted Roman baths.
Although an exhaustive investigation on architectural layout and characteristics of phase three is
unnecessary here, some discussion on the design concepts is essential if the excavator’s identification
of the building as a ‘Gymnasium’ is to be assessed.
The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis has similarities with imperial thermae, which is reflected
in its impressive size and clarity of its planning. The plan displays a strictly symmetrical distribution
of spaces on the east-west axis. The published data, especially the plan in Karageorghis (1959, 351,
1982,180), as well as in-situ observations on the building, indicate that the bath block grew organically
on the layout of the Roman structure of the preceding phase (phase two in our case) and expanded
towards the west with the addition of a palaestra. The bath block and the adjoining palaestra occupy
approximately equal proportions of the total area, coequally dominating the visual field. The building
as a whole represents a rectilinear mass (approx.60x80 m), whose monotony is broken by subtle pro-
jections on the eastern façade of the bath block and south-west corner of the palaestra. The compact
body of the bath block is well balanced with the open and semi-open spaces defining the palaestra
(Figure 2).
In the planning and structural organisation of the heated rooms it represents Krencker et al.’s (1929,
Abb.234-240) small imperial type, albeit in a simplified form. Corresponding to the small imperial type,
with an east-west axis firmly set by the room sequence of natatio-frigidarium-tepidarium-and-cal-
darium, the design is characterised by a strong cross-axial organisation (Figure 3). Similar to the
Western Roman thermae, the bath-gymnasium complex at Salamis displays a bold use of curves. This
is reflected in the semi-circular pool alcoves and apsidal projections of the heated rooms facing the
east, elliptical pools of the natatios, semi-circular latrine attached to the palaestra, and perhaps more
strikingly accented in the barrel vaults spanning the bath-halls. As Farrington (1995, 136, 137) argues,
wide vaults – the unprecedented architectural elements for spanning large halls – had emerged as the
concrete expressions of the Roman imperial grandeur and ordered stability, having a prominent role
in the Romanization process in the former Greek world. The amalgamation of the key curvilinear
elements of Western Roman architecture with the rectilinear Greek peristyle and post-and-lintel por-
ticoes created a hybrid architectural language at Salamis’ Bath-Gymnasium Complex. Another feature
that gained visibility is the adaptation of some of the prominent features of the imperial thermae into
the local environment. Natatios, for instance, were conceived as semi-open facilities.
The heated rooms of the bath block at Salamis, indicated in Figure 3, maintain the usual order of
the imperial thermae: the caldarium is placed so its long centre line on the central axis crosses the
bath block. The bath block has the clear room sequence of Roman baths, meeting the demand for
varying grades of heated space and water (Fagan 2001; 419). There are solid traces of a well-established
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 187

Figure 2. Hypothetical view of the Roman Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis in Cyprus (source: author).

Figure 3. Hypothetical reconstruction of the plan of the Roman Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis, c.2nd c CE (source: author,
based on Mitford and Nicolaou 1974 plan 1).

heating system: the entire room was raised on suspensura (brick pillars), and the walls were rendered
with tubuli (terracotta pipes) that allowed for the vertical circulation of hot smoke. Two praefurnia,
situated strategically on each side of the bath block, were connected via underground tunnels to
188 R. SABRI

the hypocaust system of the hot rooms (Figure 4). This is one of the key indications that instead of
being a case of a retrofitted Greek style gymnasium, the building was erected with a well-developed
underground heating system. In fact, the size and scale of the bath block deter any conception of a
traditional bathing facility in the Greek gymnasia.
Turning to the palaestra, one finds an efficiently designed space that met various requirements of
the heterogeneous urban population, such as mild exercising, mental training, and social gatherings.
The open space was suitable for boxing and wrestling, which were popular during the Roman period,
whereas swimming pools were introduced as a new exercise medium, marking a shift from the tra-
ditional gymnasium exercises that aimed strictly for athletic training into the Roman style of mild
exercising ahead of bathing. The north and south porticos had an attached line of rooms (Figure 5).
Originally there were four rooms of approximately equal size and squarish in shape behind each of
these porticos. At least one of these rooms behind the north portico was used as storage for olive oil,
which is indicated by large pithoi excavated in situ. Although the function of others remains uncertain,
it is possible to link them with palaestral functions of sporting, educational, social and even religious
purposes.
Between these squarish rooms, there were narrow oblong halls, five behind each portico. Unlike
the squarish rooms, which do not have access from the streets, these narrow halls were open to the
street, as can be from the doorways on their external walls. These narrow halls were side entrances,
allowing access to the Palaestra from the side streets. It also seems likely that they served as small shops,
selling snacks and bathing necessities. The room next to the Latrine was identified by the excavator
as the propylaeum, the main gateway to the complex, and he presumably based his argument on the
palaestra descriptions of the Roman gymnasia as described by Vitruvius. However, this is unlikely,
as the external wall seems continuous without any traceable gateway over it. Instead, walled on three

Figure 4. View from the Sudatorium with the extant hypocaust floor (source: author).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 189

Figure 5. Photo from the space behind South Portico towards the Palaestra (source: author).

sides and opening to the palaestra through a columnar front, this space is suggestive of an exedra,
functioned probably as an ephebeum (classroom). On the other hand, the main entrance to the complex
was through the ten doorways situated on the street wall of the West Portico. Unlike the Hellenistic
gymnasia, which had controlled access, often through a single propylaeum, the bath-gymnasium
complex was more integrated with the citizens’ lives and catered for more diverse needs. Hence it was
easily accessible from the surrounding streets.
The visually traceable change in wall construction technique on the walls indicates that a renovation
took place after the initial construction of the Palaestra. The strong influence of the Western Roman
architectural culture is implied in the bold use of curves in these newly constructed spaces. The semi-
circular Latrine (Figure 6), located to the south-west corner of the palaestra, was also easily accessible
from the street. The existence of a semi-circular latrine, which are usually found in the Western Roman
territories, especially in the North African ones (Yegul 1992, 233), was a new interpretation, pointing
to cross-cultural relationships and knowledge transfer.1
As Yegul (1992, 308) argues, the bath-gymnasium complex was not only a two-part ensemble but
a rich and resourceful institution. It was a grand layout that merged leisurely hot bathing and athletic
exercising with state religion and education. It offered the citizens a variety of possibilities and functions
to be used with or without a prescribed order. However, as discussed by Thomas (2013, 155), this was
not simply a collision and merging of two different buildings to form a space to satisfy the needs of
both. Accordingly, this should rather be interpreted as the product of cultural flow from one place to
another, which involves a process of negotiation leading to cultural and institutional modifications and
enrichment (Thomas 2013, 158). It is the cross-fertilisation of these ideas that generated the hybrid
architectural expression that emerged in the Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Salamis.
190 R. SABRI

Figure 6. View from the Roman Latrine (source: author).

Hence, Thomas (2013, 159) argues, the bath-gymnasium complex was the product of the interaction
between the western and eastern cultures, and as such, it was free from convictions of untranslatability
that glorify traditional origins. Thomas (2013, 170) argues that this was a process that required the
adaptation of formal and spatial configurations of Western Roman architecture to the existing formal
and spatial language of the Eastern Roman style. The architectural layout and characteristics of the
Bath-gymnasium Complex at Salamis indicate a complicated process of selection and acceptance of
western forms, adaptation to the local context, persistence of local understandings, and invention of
a new tradition which demonstrates a cultural hybridisation between the Roman and Hellenic, as
opposed to an enduring Greek legacy.
This discussion2 suggests that the extant structure does not offer secure evidence concerning the
supposed transition from a Greek gymnasium to a Roman one. It seems more plausible that this
building was constructed as a Roman-style facility in the early 1st c CE, with its sequence of rooms,
hypocausts, and heated communal pools all present from the outset. In the light of this, the recon-
structed gymnasium, invented by Karageorghis, seems largely illusory.

Understanding architectural narrative in its sociopolitical context

According to Zimmerman (2013, 103), since archaeologists cannot escape the influences of their
societies, their ethics reflect what is happening around them. Looking at the case study from this
perspective, one may suggest how the invention of architectural narratives was a way of making a
widely-appreciated contribution to the Greek nationalist cause in Cyprus. Although the empirical
evidence points to a building with a different architectural history, a Roman bath-gymnasium complex,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 191

the notion of the existence of a gymnasium of Hellenistic origin and character has persisted in the
architectural narrative. It remained as one of the key architectural symbols of the island’s classical
antiquity ever since the beginning of excavations, and it occupied a prominent place in educational and
touristic media (Michael 2005). In Maier’s (1985, 32) sense, the endless repetition of this proposition
has created a factoid. The word ‘Gymnasium’ became a patriotic inspiration and was translated into a
key metaphor of Greekness, reflecting a firmly based Hellenistic cultural identity. The reason behind
this belief is nicely captured in Tatton-Brown’s (1985, 69) expression that the Gymnasium in Salamis
‘represented the focus of loyalty to the Hellenistic regime’. This brings us to the political dimensions
of interpretation.
A glance at the gymnasium institution in the ancient Greek world reveals its political/ideological
aspects. Firstly, and most importantly, the gymnasium was the official seat of education (which included
subjects of a general intellectual and ideological nature) as well as military and athletic training in the
Hellenistic East (Skaltsa 2007, 453). As such, it was easily recognisable in the Hellenized territories
(Nielsen 1990, 10, 34). Secondly, participation in gymnasium life, which was exclusively for Greek
males (K. Gross-Albenhausen and Kl. Bringmann cited in Skaltsa 2007, 453), constituted the prereq-
uisite for self-Hellenisation at a political level, preceded by a cultural one, namely the acquisition of
Greek education (Bringmann cited in Skaltsa 2007, 453). The Hellenistic gymnasium was primarily
frequented by the ephebes (18–20 years old) and neoi (20–30 years old), and the involvement of the
former, according to Dreyer (cited in Skaltsa 2007, 453) should be seen as political and not simply
social. On the other hand, as Kah maintains, training in military exercises, closely associated with
gymnasium life from the late fourth century BCE onwards, enhanced the shaping of the identity of
youths (cited in Skaltsa 2007, 452). Although the institution changed over time (L. Burckhardt cited in
Skaltsa 2007, 453), its political and military role in shaping the identity of Hellenic youth retained its
significance (St. V. Tracy; B. Dreyer cited in Skaltsa 2007). The institution’s association with Hellenic
ideals was reconstructed with the emergence of Greek nationalist aspirations in Cyprus, which is
evident in naming the newly opened high schools in the major towns as Gymnasium. The most prom-
inent was clearly the Pancyprian Gymnasium in Nicosia (founded in 1812). Karageorghis’ memoirs
(2007) are reflective of the persistence of Hellenic ideology amongst the teachers and students. His
visit to Salamis while he was a student at the Pancyprian Gymnasium, which led to his decision to
study archaeology, and also enthusiasm for the visits of the students from the Famagusta Gymnasium
while he was excavating the site. This corresponds to the ideological claims of a link between modern
Greek youth and ancient Hellenic youth. The construction of an architectural narrative that promoted
a Hellenistic Gymnasium at the site, albeit at the expense of the originality of the Roman contribution,
appears to have a political motive.
This preferential interpretation has conveniently overlooked the fact that the Gymnasium insti-
tution lost its prominent position in the Roman period. The Romans modified the Hellenistic gym-
nasium according to their cultural ideals, and converted it from an ideological learning centre to a
multi-purpose space, attracting all free citizens into its sphere of learning and entertainment. When
the Roman thermae emerged, as the combination of a public bath and sports area, inspired in part by
the Palaestra of the Hellenistic gymnasium (DeLaine 1989, 111–125; Nielsen 1990, 10–12, 35; Yegul
1992, 183), this new institution had, as Fagan argues (2001, 403, 404), a distinguished identity both
socially and architecturally. Unlike the Greek gymnasia, which were designed with spaces required
for intellectual and physical training and philosophical discussions, the Roman thermae consisted of
a highly organised and symmetrical layout of heated rooms, and a palaestral space that provided for
mild exercising before the bathing process.
Once the thermae model was created in the centre of the empire, it was diffused to the provinces
as a trademark of Romanization (Nielsen 1990). The formulation of the combination of the Roman
bath with the Greek palaestra was decided within the sociopolitical context of each locality, which
generated several typologies (Farrington 1995; Yegul 1992, 270). As Thomas (2013, 156) observes, in
the eastern provinces, most notably in Asia Minor, the bath-gymnasium complex developed during
this process, derived from the re-interpretation of Roman thermae within the local language. Quite
192 R. SABRI

apart from their main function as baths, thermae and bath-gymnasium complexes were different
from Hellenistic gymnasia in one fundamental aspect: even though they might have offered space and
facilities for learning, they were never the official seat of Roman education (Yegul 1992,183). Palaestra
could have linked with educational and intellectual activities such as lecture rooms and libraries, yet,
in no sense, were they purely dedicated to the formal education of youths as was the case in the Greek
world (Nielsen 1990).
Note that, albeit they served a renewed and expanded function, in which they replaced the strictly
educational Hellenistic gymnasia, the bath-gymnasium complexes were often referred to as ‘gym-
nasion’ in localities where there already was an established gymnasium culture (Farrington 1995,
134–136; Yegul 1992, 250, 490). Not surprisingly, the gradual disappearance of the traditional Greek
gymnasium and the transformation of existing ones by the addition of hot baths had caused some
confusion in terminology. Therefore the existence of inscriptions dating to Roman Salamis mention-
ing gymnasia or a gymnasiarch should not be directly linked with a gymnasium in the Hellenistic
sense. Neither Karageorghis’ claims that this is a ‘gymnasium’ or ‘gymnasium and baths’ gives justice
to the building, because it excludes the introduction into Salamis of foreign cultural influences and
the subsequent adoption of those influences into local tastes. As discussed by Thomas (2013), any
definition of the bath-gymnasium complex calls for a complex understanding of these buildings, not
as baths and gymnasiums alone, but as inherently multifunctional and multivalent works of architec-
ture. This, as Thomas (2013, 158–181) argues, was an architectural transformation, resulted from a
cultural flow from one realm to another; a process in which ideas met, were negotiated and evolved.
The new product that was generated through these intercultural exchanges was not a gymnasium in
the Classical or Hellenistic sense anymore. Salamis, standing at the cultural crossroads not only of
Cyprus but of the Eastern Mediterranean, had provided the context for the appearance of the Roman
style bath-gymnasium complex. However, cross-cultural fertilisation and hybridisation have not been
afforded much space in archaeological narratives in Cyprus.
Perhaps the key reason for this is the fact that state-sponsored archaeology in the island started and
continued in a politically conflicted period. The beginning of excavations at Salamis in 1952 by the
DoA coincided with the the acceleration of the Cypriote Greeks’ anti-colonial movement. The com-
munity was mobilised to promote an ethno-nationalist agenda, which aimed to strengthen the sense
of Greekness (Given 1997; Knapp and Antoniadou 1998; Scott 2002). EOKA (National Organisation
of Cypriot Fighters) was founded in 1951, and initiated armed resistance in 1955, aiming for enosis
(Varnava 2017, 301). Independence in 1960 did not change the enosis ideals, hence the Cypriot Greek
and Turkish communities militarised against each other, which culminated in inter-ethnic conflicts
and mass political violence until the de facto separation in 1974 (Varnava 2017, 300). As Varnava
(2017, 301) notes, Independence had not forged a common history of shared memories; as per the
constitution, and the Communal Chambers dealt with the ‘cultural needs of their respective commu-
nities independently of the other.’ This period, echoing Harvey (2003, 478), saw the legitimisation of
each nation through their separate long histories. After Independence, the DoA became the absolute
domain of Cypriot Greeks (Scott 2002), which saw the promotion of historic buildings in Cyprus
which were closely linked with the island’s Greek civilisation (Philokyprou and Limbouri-Kozakou
2015, 269). Echoing Fojut (2009, 14–17) and Holtorf (2010, 80), one would say that this was a context
of accelerated political use, where state-sponsored archaeology and archaeologists had to serve the
nationalist cause. Karageorghis became the head of the DoA in 1963, and he held the post and repre-
sented state archaeology until his retirement in 1989. He maintained a strong hellenocentric identity
(Leriou 2007, 21), and was sympathetic to enosis and Greek nationalist aspirations (Karageorghis
1999, 2007). As well as being an influential archaeologist, he has been a prolific writer, who published
extensively, often with a focus on promoting the Hellenization hypothesis both in and outside of the
island (e.g. Karageorghis 2002, 2003).
Karageorghis was born in 1929 in a village near Salamis, and raised and schooled during a period
when the peasant classes were active in the enosis movement. Unsurprisingly, his secondary school
years in Pancyprian Gymnasium in Nicosia, where he was taught in history classes about ‘the glory of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 193

Salamis and its kings, Onesilos and Evagoras, who waged war against Persians’ (Karageorghis 1999,
12) was formative of his ideological position. The renowned Greek national historian Constantine
Spyridakis (Varnava 2017, 301), was at that time the principal of the Pancyprian Gymnasium, and
Karageorghis had considered himself as his protégé (Karageorghis 1999, 2007). He decided to be an
archaeologist after his school visit to Salamis in 1942, where he was impressed with the remains of
historic Salamis ‘as told by Heredotus and Isokrates’ (Karageorghis 1999, 12). A couple of years later,
at the age of twenty-three, Karageorghis would return to Salamis as the principal excavator, in a period
when the EOKA struggle was taking off. He was proud that the excavations at the ‘Gymnasium’ at
Salamis had excited keen interest amongst the Greek community (Karageorghis 1999, 86) during the
heated years of anti-colonial resistance, stating that (1999, 59) ‘the fact that we were unearthing Greek
inscriptions and statues of Greek gods and heroes gave us, in a way, a very strong satisfaction.’ His
memoirs (Karageorghis 2007) are reflective of how political and religious dignitaries, who regularly
honoured the site, were impressed with the interpretation of the finds (Karageorghis 1999, 2007). That
Salamis had become symbolic capital for the island’s efforts to embrace Greek nationalism is reflected
in the Finance Minister’s impromptu offer, made during a visit to the site, to increase the budget for
the excavations (Karageorghis 1999, 162, 2007, 77). The archaeological record focused primarily on
presenting evidence for promoting the Hellenization of the city during the Late-Bronze Age, and its
enduring legacy during Classical Antiquity (e.g. Karageorghis 1959, 1968, 1969, 1982, 1999, 2007), a
series of ideas that can be mobilised and have resonance in the present political situation.
When the de facto partition of the island in 1974 abruptly stopped the excavations at Salamis, the
site maintained its value in Greek nationalism as symbolic capital for the Greek resistance struggle,
only this time not against the Persians or the Romans, but the Turks (Karageorghis 2002, 40, 41). Not
only had the site became a political symbol, but the excavator had become ‘a Greek patriot, creating
a Greek outpost at an embattled border, an Evagoras of our time’ (Karageorghis 2003, 6). Although,
as Fouseki (2009) argues, archaeologists often tend to identify with certainty archaeological/archi-
tectural remains with locations referred by ancient authors. However, this is often a result of personal
ambitions to be remembered and associated with a significant discovery and to gain academic kudos,
and the case of Salamis has demonstrated how in politically conflicted situations this ambition gains
a new dimension. Karageorghis could not discover the fourth century BCE Hellenic city, which was
described by Isocrates in his famous eulogy of Evagoras. However, in the same way that Isocrates had
described the city of Salamis, based on his imagination and without actually having visited the island,
Karageorghis constructed an imaginary gymnasium as being representative of this city. In 2008, in
his first visit to Salamis since 1974, touching the column at the palaestra, he would say ‘but you are
still standing’ –albeit the foreign conquerors – and continued ‘you are the column of the Salamis
Gymnasium built by Teucer’ (Papapetrou 2009). The statement served a reminder of the longevity
and strength of the Greek presence and resistance in the island and the central role of the gymnasium
in Hellenic ideology.
In a period when the Cypriot Greeks were mobilised for enosis (c.1950–1974) creating an imaginary
gymnasium (with ideological connotations linking the present to the ancient Hellenic world) and
maintaining it through the ongoing conflict that followed the de facto separation in 1974, conveniently
served modern political purposes. The Gymnasium as an institution evoked the Hellenic past very
powerfully and had an impact in contemporary society. When one inspects the evidence, there are
serious problems with the architectural remains the excavator adduces as chief support for his view.
Nevertheless, his opinions have found strong confirmation by other scholars of Cypriot history, from
Keshishian (1993) to Karageorghis (2011, 205), who describes the Roman facility as a true Greek
gymnasium which was reconstructed during the Roman period. The ‘gymnasium’, argues Karageorghis
(2011, 205), was an educational establishment, where young people trained their bodies and minds,
surrounded by wall frescoes and statues representing Greek mythology. Somewhat estranged from its
empirical properties and material evidence, the imagined ‘Gymnasium’ became a symbol of the glory
and continuity of the Greek nation.
194 R. SABRI

As mentioned earlier, Hellenization myths of a single and homogeneous past dominate the island’s
historiography. Highlighting this situation, Voskos and Knapp (2008, 679) argue that these homoge-
neous Hellenization myths need to be replaced by more nuanced considerations of how hybridisation
occurred, and lead to new social and material practices and the formation of new identities. This paper
has expanded the discussion, by revealing the construction of architectural narratives which focuses
on how Hellenism persisted during Classical Antiquity.

Conclusion
Archaeological practice is hardly immune from politics and controversies. This paper examines in
detail the creation and interpretation of architectural data inflected with ideologically charged precon-
ceptions. These preconceptions help generate narratives that the state archaeology/archaeologist uses
for political purposes. The analysis in this paper provides finely detailed evidence of how archaeology
was carried out in a politically conflicted context to serve nationalist purposes.
The excavations at the Salamis Bath-Gymnasium Complex took place during a conflicted period
when nationalist aspirations dominated the agendas of the island’s Greek community. Culture-historical
tradition drove the archaeological practice in the 1950s and 1960s, providing the material ‘truths’ nec-
essary to forge a deep antiquity for the nation, and supporting a preferential interpretation of the finds.
More particularly, the excavator downplayed the importance of the cultural amalgamation and evolu-
tion that the Roman bath-gymnasium complex holds, and focused interpretation of the monument on
the idea of the Hellenistic gymnasium that survived the Roman colonial period, with the addition of
a set of baths and technological retrofits. Overloaded with the role of connecting the ancient Greeks
with the present, the ‘Gymnasium’ became a key component of the glorious and homogenous Greek
lineage and was turned into a metaphor for Greekness. There are several problems associated with this
proposition. Chief among them is the issue of overlooking the role of cultural flow and intercultural
transactions in developing architectural space. Karageorghis’ interpretation followed a conjectural
path and did little to address the range of influences on the design of the Bath-Gymnasium Complex.
Relations between the image of extant buildings and their architectural interpretation is a challeng-
ing issue, especially when interpretative efforts seek to form emotional and intellectual connections.
These can fall prey to the desires of the official archaeology’s narratives and the representational work
of archaeologists. While written descriptions of the excavated architectural ruins help, in a pedagogic
environment, to provide a heightened sense of the past, they also prompt a prescribed/predetermined
imagination. That the layperson barely knows the difference between the architectural characteristics
of different periods (in this case between Hellenistic and Roman) makes it easier for the authorities
to promote the invented meta-stories. The official interpretation of the Bath-Gymnasium Complex at
Salamis provides us with evidence of the controversial position of state archaeology in the construc-
tion of homogeneous ethno-nationalist pictures of imagined pasts, on the expense of others’ role in
creating hybrid histories.
Interpretation of architectural heritage should be viewed as a tool to demonstrate the dynamism
of the past, embodied in transferences and translations, rather than static constructs. However, this
seems to be compromised when political and historical consciousness dominates, and heritage experts
create architectural records and narratives for narrow and sectarian contemporary purposes. It is sad
to say that, in the current political climate in the West, downplaying intercultural communication and
borrowings is fast becoming a feature of nationalism.

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
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 195

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.

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.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Reyhan Sabri is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of Architectural Engineering, University of Sharjah,
UAE. She holds a PhD in architecture from the University of Manchester (UK). Her current research interests concern
the formation and evolution of architectural heritage philosophies and practices in colonial and postcolonial contexts.

ORCID
Reyhan Sabri   http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1543-7451

References
Alexandrou, C. 2015. “The Politics of Currency and the Use of Images of the Past in the Formation of the Cypriot
National Identity.” Chronika V: 56–65.
Barber, I. 2006. “Is the Truth Down There?: Cultural Heritage Conflict and the Politics of Archaeological Authority.”
Public History Review 13: 143–154.
Bauer, A. A. 2013. “Multivocality and ‘Wikiality’: The Epistemology and Ethics of a Pragmatic Archaeology.” In
Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology, edited by G. Scarre and R. Coningham,
176–194. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bienkowski, P. 2013. “Whose Past? Archaeological Knowledge, Community Knowledge, and the Embracing of Conflict.”
In Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology, edited by G. Scarre and R.
Coningham, 42–62. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, D. 1991. “Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management.” History and Anthropology 5: 269–276.
Campbell, G and L. Smith. 2011. Association of Critical Heritage Studies Manifesto. http://www.criticalheritagestudies.
org/history/.
DeLaine, J. 1989. “Some Observations on the Transition from Greek to Roman Baths in Hellenistic Italy.” Mediterranean
Archaeology 2: 111–125.
Diaz-Andreu, M. 1995. “Archaeology and Nationalism in Spain.” In Nationalism, politics and the practice of Archaeology,
edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, 39–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diaz-Andreu, M., and T. Champion. 1996. “Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: an Introduction.” In Nationalism
and Archaeology in Europe, edited by M. Diaz-Andreu and T. Champion, 1–23. London: UCL Press.
Fagan, G. G. 2001. “The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions.” American
Journal of Archaeology 105 (3): 403–426.
Farrington, A. 1995. The Roman Baths of Lycia: An Architectural Study. Ankara: The British Institute of Archaeology.
Fojut, N. 2009 “The Philosophical, Political and Pragmatic Roots of the Convention.” In Heritage and Beyond, 13–21.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Accessed September 2, 2017. https://rm.coe.int/16806abdea
Fouseki, K. 2009. ““I Own, Therefore I Am”: Conflating Archaeology with Heritage in Greece: A Possessive Individualist
Approach.” In Taking Archaeology out of Heritage, edited by E. Waterton and L. Smith, 49–65. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Fouseki, K., and N. Sakka. 2013. “Valuing an Ancient Palaestra in the Centre of Athens: The Public, the Experts, and
Aristotle.” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 15 (1): 30–44.
196 R. SABRI

Given, M. 1997. “Star of the Parthenon, Cypriot mélange: Education and representation in colonial Cyprus.” Journal of
Meditarranean Studies 7 (1): 59–82.
Given, M. 1998. “Inventing the Eteocypriots: Imperialist Archaeology and the Manipulation of Ethnic Identity.” Journal
of Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1): 3–29.
Graham, B., G. Ashworth, and J. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold.
Hamilakis, Y. 2007. “From Ethics to Politics.” In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, edited by Y. Hamilakis
and P. Duke, 15–40. London: Routledge.
Hamilakis, Y., and E. Yalouri. 1996. “Antiquities as Symbolic Capital in Modern Greek Society.” Antiquity 70: 117–129.
Harvey, D. C. 2001. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies.”
International Journal of Heritage Studies 7 (4): 319–338.
Harvey, D. C. 2003. “‘National’ Identities and the Politics of Ancient Heritage: Continuity and Change at Ancient
Monuments in Britain and Ireland, c.1675–1850.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28 (4): 473–487.
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. 2008. “Multivocality and Social Archaeology.” In Narratives, edited by Evaluating Multiple, 196–200. New
York: Springer.
Hodder, I., M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last, and G. Lucas, eds. 1995. Interpreting Archaeology.
London: Routledge.
Holtorf, C. 2010. “Meta-stories of Archaeology.” World Archaeology 42 (3): 381–393.
Holtorf, C. 2013. “The Past People Want: Heritage for the Majority?” In Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives
on the Practice of Archaeology, edited by G. Scarre and R. Coningham, 63–81. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karageorghis, V. 1959. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1958.” Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 83 (1): 336–361.
Karageorghis, V. 1963. “Ten Years of Archaeology in Cyprus 1953–1963.” Archaeologischer Anzeiger LXXVIII 498–600.
Karageorghis, V. 1965. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1964.” Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique 89 (1): 231–300.
Karageorghis, V. 1966. “Recent Discoveries at Salamis (Cyprus).” Archaeologischer Anzeiger LXXXI 210–255.
Karageorghis, V. 1968. Archaeologia Mundi: Cyprus. Geneva: Nagel Publishers.
Karageorghis, V. 1969. Salamis in Cyprus: Homeric, Hellenistic and Roman. London: Thames and Hudson.
Karageorghis, V. 1982. Cyprus from the Stone Age to the Romans. London: Thames and Hudson.
Karageorghis, V. 1985. “The Cyprus Department of Antiquities, 1935–1985.” In Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985, edited
by V. Karageorghis, 1–10. Nicosia: The A.G. Leventis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 1999. Excavating at Salamis in Cyprus. Athens: The A.G. Leventis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 2002 “Hellenism Beyond Greece: Cyprus.” In Greek Archaeology without Frontiers. Open Science Lecture
Series, 31–43. Athens: The National Hellenic Research Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 2003. “The Greeks in Cyprus.” In The Greeks Beyond the Aegean: From Marseilles to Bactria, edited by
V. Karageorghis, 6–22. Nicosia: A.S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 2007. A Lifetime in the Archaeology of Cyprus. Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet.
Karageorghis, J. 2011. Cyprus: There is an Island. Nicosia: En Tipis Publications.
Karageorghis, V., and C. C. Vermeule. 1964. Sculptures from Salamis I. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
Karageorghis, V., and C. C. Vermeule. 1966. Sculptures from Salamis II. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
Keshishian, K. K. 1993. Romantic Cyprus. 17th ed. Nicosia: Romantic Cyprus Publications.
Kiessel, M. 2013. “Spätantike Kapitellausstattungen in Zypern. Das Thermen-Gymnasium von Salamis/Constantia und
der Forumbereich von Kourion.” Adalya XVI: 241–260.
Knapp, B. A. 2001. “Archaeology and Ethnicity: A Dangerous Liaison.” Archaeologia Cypria IV 29–46.
Knapp, A. B. and S. Antoniadou. 1998. “Archaeology, Politics and the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus.” In Archaeology Under
Fire, edited by L. Meskell, 13–43. London: Routledge.
Kohl, P. L. 1998. “Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote
Past.” Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223–246.
Kohl, P. L., and C. Fawcett. 1995a. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kohl, P. L., and C. Fawcett. 1995b. “Archaeology in the Service of the State: Theoretical Considerations.” In Nationalism,
Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Krencker, D., E. Krüger, H. Lehmann, and H. Wachtler. 1929. Die Trierer Kaiserthermen I. Augsburg: B. Filser.
Leriou, N. A. 2002. “Constructing an Archaeological Narrative: The Hellenization of Cyprus.” Stanford Journal of
Archaeology: 1–32.
Leriou, N. A. 2007. “The Hellenization of Cyprus: Tracing Its Beginnings (an updated version).” In Patrimoines culturels
en Méditerranée orientale : recherche scientifique et enjeux identitaires. 1er atelier (29 novembre 2007) : Chypre, une
stratigraphie de l’identité, edited by S. Müller Celka and J.-C. David. Rencontres scientifiques en ligne de la Maison
de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 1–33. Lyon.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 197

Maier, F. G. 1985. “Factoids in Ancient History: The Case of Fifth-century Cyprus.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 105:
32–39.
Megaw, A. H. S. 1953. Annual Report of the Director of Antiquities for the Year. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
Meskell, L., ed. 1998. Archaeology Under Fire. London: Routledge.
Michael, A. S. 2005. “Making Histories: Nationalism, Colonialism and the Uses of the Past on Cyprus.” PhD thesis.,
University of Glasgow.
Mitford, T. B., and I. K. Nicolaou. 1974. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Salamis. Nicosia: The Department of
Antiquities.
Munro, J. A. R., and H. A. Tubbs. 1891. “Excavations in Cyprus 1890, Third Season’s Work in Salamis.” Journal of Hellenic
Studies 12: 59–198.
Nicholas, G. and A. Wylie. 2009. “Archaeological Finds: Legacies of Appropriation, Modes of Response.” In The Ethics
of Cultural Appropriation, edited C. Brunk and J. O. Young, 11–54. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nielsen, I. 1990. Thermae et Balnea: The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths. Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press.
Papapetrou, P.,(Director). 2009. “Excavating at Salamis in Cyprus 1952–1974: 34 Years Later.” Documentary Film.
Nicosia: Anadysis Films.
Philokyprou, M., and E. Limbouri-Kozakou. 2015. “An Overview of the Restoration of Monuments and Listed Buildings
in Cyprus from Antiquity until the Twenty-first Century.” Studies in Conservation 60 (4): 267–277.
Pouilloux, J. 1966. “Les trois gymnases de Salamine de Chypre : note sur une inscription retrouvée.” Revue Archéologique
2: 337–340.
Sabri, R. 2015. “Transitions in the Ottoman Waqf ’s Traditional Building Upkeep and Maintenance System in Cyprus
during the British Colonial Era (1878–1960) and the Emergence of Selective Architectural Conservation Practices.”
International Journal of Heritage Studies 21 (5): 512–527.
Sabri, R. 2016. “The Genesis of Hybrid Architectural Preservation Practices in British Colonial Cyprus.” Architectural
Research Quarterly 20 (3): 231–243.
Sabri, R. 2017. “From an Inconsequential Legacy to National Heritage: Revisiting the Conservation Approaches Towards
the Ottoman Buildings in British Colonial Cyprus.” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 19 (1):
55–81.
Scott, J. 2002. “World Heritage as a Model for Citizenship: the case of Cyprus.” International Journal of Heritage Studies
8 (2): 99–115.
Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the Past. London: Routledge.
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley. 1987. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Shnirel’man, V. A.. 2014. “Nationalism and Archaeology.” Anthropology and Archaeology of Eurasia 52 (2): 13–32.
Silberman, N. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New
York: Henry Holt.
Silberman, N. 1995. “Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology,
edited by P. Kohl, 249–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skaltsa, S. 2007. “The Hellenistic Gymnasium.” Classical Review 57 (2): 452–454.
Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L. 2012. “Editorial: A Critical Heritage Studies?” International Journal of Heritage Studies 18 (6): 533–540.
Tatton-Brown, V. 1985. “Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985. Classical to Roman Periods.” In Archaeology in Cyprus.
1960-1985, edited by V. Karageorghis, 60–72. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.
Thomas E. 2013. “Translating Roman Architecture into Greek Regional Identities.” In Les Grecs héritiers des Romains,
edited by P. Schubert, 147–202. Geneva-Vandoeuvres: (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt).
Trigger, B. G. 1984. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.” Man 19 (3): 355–370.
doi:10.2307/2802176.
Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trigger, B. G. 1995. “Romanticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology.” In Nationalism, politics and the practice of Archaeology,
edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vacharopoulou, K. 2005. “Conservation and Management of Archaeological Monuments and Sites in Greece and Turkey:
A Value-Based Approach to Anastylosis.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 16: 72–87.
Varnava, A. 2017. “The Politics of Forgetting the Cypriot Mule Corps.” In The Great War and the British Empire, edited
by A. Varnava and M. J. Walsh, 291–303. London: Routledge.
Voskos, I., and A. B. Knapp. 2008. “Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis and Colonization or Continuity
and Hybridization?” American Journal of Archaeology 112 (4): 659–684.
Winter, F. E. 2006. Studies in Hellenistic Architecture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Yegul, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zimmerman, L. J. 2013. “On Archaeological Ethics and Letting Go.” In Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives
on the Practice of Archaeology, edited by G. Scarre and R. Coningham, 98–118. New York: Cambridge University Press.