- Από τη μία, η προτομή τιμά και αναγνωρίζει το σπουδαίο αρχαιολογικό του έργο, τη συμβολή του στην αποκάλυψη ενός εξαιρετικά σημαντικού μνημείου.
- Από την άλλη, η συμμετοχή του στο Ναζιστικό Κόμμα εγείρει ερωτήματα ηθικής και συμβολισμών: μήπως αποδίδεται τιμή σε κάποιον που συνδέεται με ένα εγκληματικό καθεστώς;
1. Διαχωρισμός έργου και ιδεολογίας
Πολλοί υποστηρίζουν ότι μπορούμε να αναγνωρίσουμε ένα επιστημονικό έργο χωρίς να εγκρίνουμε τις πολιτικές προτιμήσεις του ατόμου. Το σύνολο της προσφοράς του Herzog στην αρχαιολογία παραμένει σημαντικό, ανεξάρτητα από τις πολιτικές του δράσεις. Σκεφτείτε ότι χωρίς αυτόν, πιθανά δεν θα υπήρχε το Ασκληπιείο.
2. Συμβολισμός και δημόσιος χώρος
Η παρουσία ενός μνημείου στον δημόσιο χώρο δεν είναι απαραίτητα αβλαβής: στέλνει μηνύματα για το ποιοι θεωρούνται ήρωες ή πρότυπα. Για πολλούς, κάποιος που ανήκε στο Ναζιστικό Κόμμα — ακόμη κι αν σημαντικός επιστημονικά — δεν είναι κατάλληλος να τιμάται με μνημείο.
- να διατηρηθεί η προτομή ως έχει?
- να αφαιρεθεί η προτομή?
- να διατηρηθεί με κριτική τεκμηρίωση (π.χ να συνοδεύεται από επεξηγηματική πινακίδα ή περιγραφή που να αναφέρει μεν το σημαντικό εύρημα του Ασκληπιείου, αλλά και τη συμμετοχή του σε ένα αποδοκιμασμένο καθεστώς, έτσι, ώστε το μνημείο να λειτουργεί και εκπαιδευτικά και ως αφορμή δημόσιου διαλόγου)?
- ή να δημιουργήσει κάποιο άλλο, πιο ουδέτερο σύμβολο για τον επιστημονικό ρόλο του, αν υπάρχει ευρύτερη συμφωνία ότι δεν πρέπει να τον τιμούμε συμβολικά λόγω της ιδεολογίας του?
A Very Interesting Debate Sparked by the Bust of Rudolf Herzog
A monument as a trigger for public dialogue.
In recent days, the bust of the German archaeologist Rudolf Herzog, created by the Kos-born sculptor Antonis Chatzimichail, was placed next to that of the Kos naturalist Jacobos Zarraftis. Kos owes the discovery of the Asklepieion to these two men.
Rudolf Ludwig Friedrich Herzog (1871–1953) was a German archaeologist, classical philologist, and historian of medicine. He was born on August 31, 1871, and died on March 11, 1953. He was the one who discovered and conducted excavations at the Asklepieion of Kos, roughly between 1900–1907, leaving a remarkable and lasting scientific legacy, as the Asklepieion of Kos is considered one of the most important archaeological sites in Kos, in Greece, and —perhaps— in the world. The excavations were crucial for understanding the history of the area and of ancient medicine. In 1903, Jacobos Zarraftis was hired as a worker by Professor Herzog and contributed significantly to the discovery of the Asklepieion, though all the credit went to Herzog.
However, there is a politically weighty element: according to research easily available online, as well as through AI, citizens of Kos have protested against the installation of the bust, as Herzog was a member of the Nazi Party (NSDAP).
The moral and historical debate about the installation of the bust:
On one hand, the bust honors and acknowledges his great archaeological work and his role in revealing an exceptionally important monument.
On the other hand, his participation in the Nazi Party raises moral and symbolic questions: are we perhaps paying tribute to someone connected to a criminal regime?
-
Separating work from ideology
Many argue that we can recognize a person’s scientific work without endorsing their political beliefs. Herzog’s overall contribution to archaeology remains significant, regardless of his political affiliation. Consider that without him, the Asklepieion might never have been uncovered. -
Symbolism and public space
The presence of a monument in a public space is not necessarily neutral: it sends messages about who is considered a hero or role model. For many, someone who belonged to the Nazi Party —even if scientifically important— is not suitable to be honored with a monument.
Let me give an example:
Do we love a poem for the art itself or for the biography of its author? One of my favorite poems is If by Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), which I taught for many years in class. Recently, I learned that Kipling held views that today are considered racist, and because his ideas about “racial superiority” and the “mission of empire” resembled, in some respects, rhetoric later adopted by the Nazis, some equate him (wrongly) with Nazism. Should I stop teaching this poem, which —if you detach it from its author— still moves readers every time it is read? Especially when we are speaking of ideas from a hundred years ago?
The issue concerns how we manage history, art, and archaeology: what we keep, what we remove, and how we present it so that memory is preserved without glorifying controversial elements. It is also problematic to judge views from 1900 by today’s standards. It is obvious that the bust was placed because Herzog discovered the Asklepieion. For the same reason, the Municipality of Kos named a street after him. For the same reason, he is mentioned in every book concerning the history of Kos.
Nevertheless, it is not the same to read a poem by someone whose views we disagree with, and to erect a monument in a prominent public space.
It is, however, of great interest for specialists —historians and archaeologists— to express their views on the matter.
It should be noted that the bust was created 15 years ago and, for reasons unknown to me, remained in storage, perhaps because it was “known” that its installation would spark major controversy.
So what do you think is the right course of action?
– Should the bust remain as it is?
– Should the bust be removed?
– Should it remain with critical contextualization (e.g., accompanied by an explanatory plaque or description mentioning both the significance of the Asklepieion discovery and his membership in a condemned regime, so that the monument functions both educationally and as a trigger for public dialogue)?
– Or should another, more neutral symbol of his scientific role be created, if there is broad agreement that he should not be honored symbolically due to his ideology?
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου