Geo-trails at cultural sites – interpreting geological and geomorphological components at cultural sites and establishing relationships between natural and cultural values.

Irini Theodossiou-Drandaki
Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME) of Greece

Case study:

From Eleusis to the Acropolis in Athens, via Iera Odos (the 'Sacred Way')

Objectives of the project

The project is to focus on the geological and geomorphologic and landscape interests, and generally on how natural values relate to cultural values, of two archaeological sites (Eleusis and the Acropolis of Athens) and along Iera odos ('The Sacred Way'). This was the procession road that initiates of the sacred Elefsinia Mysteria ('Elefsis Mysteries') used to take in ancient times.

The project aims to uncover and interpret the geology and geomorphology, as well as the sights, panoramas and views, which participants in the procession passed by or visited. At a later stage, walkers or cyclists on the road will be introduced to this road 'geo-experience'.

Rationale

Both archaeological sites – Eulesis and the Acropolis of Athens – besides their important archeological value (the Athens Acropolis is on the list of UNESCO World Heritage cultural sites), are also very interesting from a geological point of view, with tectonic, morphologic, and karst features. There are also interesting panoramas to interpret, for example from the Eulesis archeological site views extend towards Salamis island, the gulf, and Eulesis modern industrial town; and from Acropolis hill views stretch towards the plain of Athens and the surrounding mountains. Another point of interest is the origin of the materials for the structures (buildings, roads, etc.) in both archeological sites. Along the 'Sacred Way' (Iera Odos), pedestrians passed by geological and geomorphological sites from various geological ages, phenomena and processes, some of which were also used for cultural purposes.

What works?

1. Integrating additional values, dimensions, and approaches to already existing initiatives and institutions. In the 'Iera Odos' case there is a structured programme over many years for guided visits to archeological sites, for lots of participants. Some of these may be potentially interested in new knowledge, interpretation and information.
2. Promoting geological heritage values inside already protected sites, such as World Heritage sites and MAB (Man and Biosphere) sites. This will provide more possibilities for networking, funding and promotion, and a potential infrastructure for education and training.
3. Encouraging existing initiatives in areas such as database compilation and electronic applications in cultural heritage promotion, to provide a new dimension.
4. Providing interpretative material on the local environment (sketches, leaflets, brochures, interpretive panels), using modern technology and concepts. Ensure interpretative panels are simple, and preferably with pictures and graphical examples rather than large amounts of text.
5. Explaining mythology in terms of geology and geological processes. Most of the myths were invented in order to explain, or give reasons for, natural phenomena that were difficult to explain with existing knowledge at that time.

What doesn't work?

1. Use of jargon, complicated language, large amounts of text rather than illustrations and drawings.
2. Data hidden and forgotten in drawers and desks. A huge amount of information of all kinds is not being used.
3. Isolation and introversion – discussions and decisions between geoscientists rather than integrating with a wider field of expertise.
4. Working outside the existing conservation system, even if this is mostly focused on biotic and landscape values. Attempts should be made to incorporate geoscientific values into currently existing systems rather than creating new ones.

What could we do better?

1. Argue for the importance of integrating geological heritage in future considerations for nature conservation and protection.
2. Address all geoconservationists on the need to accomplish this integration.
3. Renovate, update (e.g. tourist) products, reconsider policies, and adapt them to take into consideration new points of view.
4. Provide selected information of different and various types in different and numerous locations – from books, reports and audio guides, to panels and signs in streets, gardens, tourist sites and buildings – to allow people to learn and discover in their own time and at their own pace.
5. Compile a network of urban geotopes for cultural, educational and tourist purposes. This will help to:
• Understand better environmental impacts. If, for example, there are signs at sites of previous torrents, or river beds now covered with roads and buildings etc., this can help people understand more clearly reasons for flooding. This will lead to an increase in public awareness and a motivation to protest against new unwise land use and potential new disasters, leading to a degree of protection for sites not officially safeguarded, due to public concern.
• Improve environmental education, with geotopes (and relevant educational material) being easily accessible and close at hand for schools and teachers.
• Understand the geological history and of urban areas, a topic which is currently often not well known.
• Encourage walking in and around cities, leading to a decrease in car usage.