Archaeological Ethics and the Roman Metro Line C

Naples

        Naples began work on its 2-line subway system in the late 1980s, but work on the €1.8 billion (about $2.6 billion) project is not scheduled to finish until 2011. The subway’s route is currently 13 kilometers long with 14 stations, but this comprises only about half of one line. As in Athens and Istanbul, the extreme delays over the last 20-odd years have been almost exclusively due to archaeological finds such as a second-century ship, medieval tombs, and the mosaic floor of an Augustan palace. In fact, stations at sea level above the ancient city remain unopened while all of the stations on the Vomero hill are completed, although making a subway change elevation requires much more complex engineering than building a subway at sea level.

City planners, engineers, and archaeologists are collaborating to complete the excavation carefully and are highly concerned about the artifacts they uncover. Archaeologists have already restored three ships and plan to both return them to where they were found and make them visible to the public. As in Athens, Naples has built a mini-museum in the “Museo” metro stop, directly below the enormous National Archaeological Museum (see photo 4). Two more metro-museums will open in 2008. Also, Giannegidio Silva, president of Metropolitana di Napoli, says, “We will rebuild the temple that we found [at the Duomo station] and include it in the station.  It will be very striking.”

Still, such meticulous work is at the cost of efficiency. If city officials were not as concerned with Naples’ cultural patrimony, surely they would have completed the metro by now. Interestingly, the official website of Metropolitana di Napoli mentions nothing about the cause of the delays nor the amazing artifacts and monuments that workers have found. It would seem, then, that at least in the eyes of the metro authorities commuters in Naples are not interested in the archaeology behind their subway system. If it is true that commuters are uninterested, should Naples excavate so slowly and meticulously or just push ahead with construction?

THE ROMAN “C” LINE METRO PROJECT

        Rome is currently expanding its metro system with a third line, “line C.” City officials have decided that a third subway line is needed to accommodate the smog and street congestion due to Rome’s growing population of over 2.5 million. In addition, as Fiona Winward writes, the C line will reach further into the suburbs than the existing two lines and cover the “‘hole’ in the city centre that is bypassed almost entirely by the existing metro A and B lines” (see map in photo 5). But such an expansion carries a hefty price tag: at an estimate of three billion euro (about $4.3 billion), the C line will cost significantly more than even Athens’, Istanbul’s and Naples’ undergrounds.  According to Metroitaliane, the company in charge of the project, the state will cover 70% of this cost while the city and province will pay 18% and 12%, respectively. So why will the project cost so much? For one thing, workers are removing 17.5 million cubic feet of dirt by hand so as not to damage any artifacts, an expensive and time-consuming process as we have seen in the building of other subway systems. In fact, the first part of the line is not expected to be open until 2011 and the entire line until 2015, but those dates could change based on what archaeologists uncover. But as lengthy and costly as the project might be, the newest addition to Rome’s underground is providing an excellent forum to discuss the ethics of metro-building in an archaeologically rich metropolis.

        As we have seen in the above subway projects, archaeologists and city planners must strike a balance between efficiency of transportation in a modern city and respect for the history of an ancient one. Including all involved parties in every step of the process, beginning with the planning phases, helps to achieve understanding between dissimilar groups and to promote solutions that satisfy everyone. During the initial planning phases of the project, archaeologists and engineers decided to build the C line 30 meters below street level to avoid tunneling through strata with evidence of human habitation. Still, as technical director Giovanni Simonacci says, “The issue is not the metro itself, which is going to run far enough below the surface that there is no risk” but rather “how to get people from the surface of the city down to the metro line without disturbing an important historic structure.”

        Archaeology has changed a lot in the past few decades. Lately there has been an increasing care worldwide for the recording and conservation of artifacts, as well as interest in involving all affected groups at sites, worry about looting and debate about the merits of salvage archaeology. With metro projects in particular, there are the additional concerns of storing or destroying all the material uncovered in such an enormous excavation. In 2008, then, as Rome builds its third metro line, it is encountering issues that people simply did not worry about when Rome built the existing two lines B and A, inaugurated in 1955 and 1980, respectively. When Mussolini began construction of line B in the 1930s, there was little concern for the artifacts uncovered as he worked toward his goal of quickly creating a modern Roman Empire. Piles of dirt and artifacts were thrown away and diggers even broke off a piece of the Colosseum. The preservation office became much more involved thirty years later when in 1962 workers began construction on line A of the metro. When workers chanced upon the massive Baths of Diocletian, they “moved some [artifacts], destroyed some and changed [their] plans to avoid destroying more.” Despite the growing awareness of the archaeological value of the sites, city planners and archaeologists were completely at odds. In order to expedite construction, workers tried to cover up any finds to avoid interference. Simonacci, who also worked on line A, recounts the lack of cooperation between engineers and archaeologists: “We’d find something and the [preservation office] would swoop in…we would have to cover it over and change the route of the line. We lost years.” Construction of line B resulted in the loss and destruction of countless precious artifacts that may have added to our knowledge about ancient Rome, while the story of line A highlights the frustration and loss of time that occurs when archaeologists and city planners do not work together. Forty-some years after construction first started on the A line, archaeologists and city planners are finally attempting to work together on the C line.  In this joint venture, they are not using the construction models of Rome’s first two metro lines, but rather contemporary work in Athens, Istanbul, Naples, and other cities.

        Although barely into the project, archaeologists have already made some amazing discoveries.  Besides the expected Roman coins, toys, and pottery, they have also uncovered a 2,000 year old compass and a skeleton possibly belonging to a woman who ruled the area 3,000 years before the founding of the city. Archaeologists have also found a 15th century glass factory in Rome’s largest square, Piazza Venezia (see photo 6), that they deemed important enough to move the station that was planned there. In addition, they have unearthed what is possibly the Stagnum of Agrippa built in 25 BCE, a huge artificial pool in which, during a dinner party, “Nero and his guests were towed on a raft” filled with exotic animals while being seduced by prostitutes on both banks of the pool. In a historically significant find in November 2006, workers even uncovered part of the Aurelian Wall, through which discovery we now know that the walls defending Rome were twice as tall as previously believed. Archaeologists are bound to discover countless more artifacts as construction continues, and the excavation may continue to change the known history of Rome.

        The main question that metro building raises, both in Rome and in other cities, is what to do with archaeological finds once they have been uncovered. Documenting finds and maintaining their context is of great concern to archaeologists, so they record the position and photograph everything they find. As far as displaying the objects they do decide to keep, Roman archaeologists are faced with the challenge of finding museum space and storage in a city already teeming with artifacts. In December 2006, the Olearie Papali, previously a papal warehouse, opened the exhibition Memories from the Underground: Archaeological Finds From 1980-2006, which displayed artifacts uncovered in Rome over those years (see photo 7). In a wonderful collaboration of archaeologists and city workers, the exhibition was primarily financed by the construction companies that unearthed the artifacts. Plans are also underway for at least one metro-museum mimicking those in Athens and Naples. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to save, publish, store and display every find from such a massive excavation.  In fact, Angelo Bottini, the chief Roman archaeological official, admits, “for a lot of this stuff, all we need to do is document it and then destroy it.”

        The other significant concern that the construction of the metro’s line C raises is how much or how little time and money to devote to archaeology as opposed to quickly creating transportation. In Rome’s past experience, the public seems quite supportive of the archaeological attention going into the metro. In Italy, nothing happens quickly but people accept that as a fact of life. In addition, Silvana Rizzo, top aide to Minister of Culture Francesco Rutelli, says, “In the last 10 or 15 years there’s been enormous attention on the part of the public” to ancient Rome. Italians are increasingly both aware of and proud of their cultural patrimony, as one can see in cases such as that involving the Getty Museum, which recently returned stolen antiquities to Italy. In addition, Bottini suggests that globalization produces countries with a “greater desire to establish an identity, and archaeology is an identity.”

Officials are also generally in favor of meticulous excavation prior to metro construction. Although it would drastically change the look of Rome’s main square, Mayor Walter Veltroni has agreed to change part of Piazza Venezia into a museum if an important discovery is made there. Unlike during the construction of the previous metro lines, in Rome today “archaeologists are not aligned against development as a matter of course,” says Bottini. Still, attention to archaeology can be very frustrating for city planners. “There are treasures that are underground that would stay buried forever,” says Enrico Testa, chairman of Roma Metropolitane SpA.  “But as soon as we uncover them, our work gets blocked.” As with any public works project through an archaeological site, the only way for both city planners and archaeologists to be satisfied is for both groups to be willing to collaborate and make sacrifices.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHICS OF THE PROJECT

        Like all archaeological excavations, the digging of line C of the Roman metro brings to light a host of ethical considerations. In fact, due to the vast amount of material being unearthed, ethical considerations regarding the metro’s construction are of utmost importance. The field of archaeological ethics stresses the need to satisfy all affected groups. Though ancient Rome does not have any immediate descendant groups or living communities that share its culture, various groups do still have a vested interest in the project. On the one hand, urban planners and the government constitute one group, while archaeologists and the Italian Ministry of Culture make up another. Perhaps left out, however, is the largest group of all: common citizens, commuters, and tourists who will make up the ridership of the completed metro. Most archaeologists, of course, would favor more thorough digging and the publication of all finds. If the government and city planners could have their way, the metro might be built much more quickly and inexpensively, but at the cost of lost knowledge and the destruction of valuable archaeological material. Commuters would doubtlessly also like the metro to be available immediately, but commuters are the same citizens who have recently become interested in their cultural patrimony.

        Archaeologists also face the ethical consideration of how best to treat artifacts. As stewards of the past, we as archaeologists and enthusiasts feel a responsibility to protect the dwindling archaeological record. There is no space to display or even store every find from such a large-scale excavation. Some archaeologists might even be inclined to call the Ministry of Culture irresponsible or unprofessional for allowing a project that, for lack of space, will inevitably destroy thousands of artifacts. And in this case there is no need to excavate in order to protect artifacts from looting; the modern streets and buildings above the material make looting virtually impossible. As long as there is little danger of looting, it is always best for the artifact to leave it in situ for future archaeologists with more advanced technology. But leaving everything in situ does not let us learn from the artifacts; what is the purpose of protecting the archaeological record if we cannot also learn from it? But as journalist Fiona Winward points out, “the great irony of…a new metro is the opportunity to dig in areas that would otherwise be off limits” and to learn from that otherwise inaccessible material. Moreover, smog from cars and buses severely damages monuments above ground. As we have seen, underground transportation can cut above-ground traffic significantly and therefore help protect precious archaeological material that is already exposed in Rome. Most importantly, if we as archaeologists condemn construction of the metro, we are disregarding the wishes of urban planners and commuters, the two other significant groups affected by the metro line.

        The final ethical consideration archaeologists must face in construction of the metro line C in Rome is whether they are obligated to publish finds. Logistically, it would be impossible to study and publish every artifact that workers uncover as they clear the path for the subway. With limited time, money and labor, archaeologists and city planners must work together to develop a standard for publication. If not every artifact can be published, should archaeologists choose only the most interesting finds, an even sample of unusual and commonplace finds, or perhaps only everything uncovered at a single entrance shaft? It is unfair for archaeologists to say that we are ethically obligated not to dig at all if we lack the time, money and labor to publish and study the finds extensively. Outweighing the unfortunate destruction of artifacts and the unfeasibility of publishing every last find is archaeology’s responsibility to the living community, the 2.5 million people who need a third metro line to get to work and school every day.

CONCLUSION

Every archaeological dig poses problems. Be it a living community that claims cultural affiliation to a particular site, a lack of economic resources to complete a study, rampant looting of a site or two groups with opposing goals, each site comes with a particular set of challenges which the developing field of archaeological ethics aims to mediate. A third metro line is certainly needed to increase public transportation to the city center and the suburbs of a city as big and congested as Rome, yet the archaeological material beneath the city is irreplaceable and distinct from any other in the world. In the case of the C line of the Roman metropolitan subway, then, metro officials face the struggle of accounting for the wishes of the public as well as those of the government, urban planners, archaeologists and themselves. While this is no easy task, effective communication is the only means to ensure that everyone’s concerns are heard. As we have seen in Athens and Naples, good communication between all parties, beginning in the early planning stages, can lead to a successful metro project which benefits both urban planners and archaeologists. Unfortunately, as seen in Istanbul, groups do not always consult with each other about decisions. If this is the case, subway construction can face much criticism and encounter unforeseen problems such as a lack of funding and unclear protocol about what to do with finds. Luckily, Rome has learned from the mistakes of Istanbul and followed the good examples of Athens and Naples in its own project. Though some artifacts must be destroyed and not everything can be published or excavated thoroughly, archaeologists are still able to gather new and exciting information every day from sites that the metro has uncovered. Thanks to the cooperation and communication between urban planners and archaeologists, the construction of line C of the Roman metro is setting a new precedent for creative and collaborative efforts in archaeology.

Photo 1

Cross-section of archaeological strata at Syntagma Square, Athens

Photo from

Photo 2

Bronze studs from a dog collar, 1st-2nd century CE

Photo from Athens: The City Beneath the City

Photo 3

Yenikapi, the site of a 4th century port in Istanbul

Photo from http://hubpages.com/hub/Archaeology_v_Engineering_A_Byzantine_Tale

Photo 4

Mini-museum at “Museo” metro stop in Naples

Photo from

Campania/Naples147332/Off_the_Beaten_Path-Naples-BR-1.html?frdir=yes

Photo 5

Map of the Roman metro; gray lines represent the

current lines A and B, green line is the new line C

Photo from http://www.metrocspa.it/index2.asp

Photo 6

Aerial view of excavations at Piazza Venezia

Photo from

Photo 7

 

Poster for the Olearie Papali exhibit in December 2006

Photo from

Bibliography

“Istanbul: Past and Future Colliding,” HubPages. 2007.          (10 November 2007).

Kahn, Gabriel.  “When Rome Builds a Subway, It Trips over Archaeologists; Tiny         Spades and Artifacts Eventually Will Give Way to Massive Earthmovers.” Wall         Street Journal, 27 January 2007, sec. A, p. 1.

Landler, Mark.  “In Istanbul, A Race Against Progress.” International Herald Tribune, 2         August 2005.

Matthews, Jeff. “Next Stop—Neapolis!” Around Naples. 2005. .         edu/ ~jmatthew/naples/neapolismetro.htm (10 November 2007).

        

Metro C S.p.A. Metro C. n.d.  (8 November 2007).

“Metro Project Provides Look at Rome’s Past.” China Daily, 6 December 2006.

“Metrò, pronta la prima galleria della linea Dante-Centro Direzionale.” Il Mattino, 4         January 2006.

“Next Stop: Second Century A.D.” Archaeology 57, no. 2 (2004).

Provoledo, Elisabetta.  “Rome’s Ancient Treasures Inspire a New Generation.”         International Herald Tribune, 25 December 2006.

Randall, Frederika.  “Eye on Athens: ‘The City Beneath the City’—Excavations for         Subway Tunnels Reveal Strata of Lost Worlds; Art on the Morning Commute.”         Wall Street Journal, 20 July 2007, sec. A, p.24.

Rohde, Mike. “Archaeology and Metros,” Metro Bits. 23 August 2007.         ro.com/metro/archaeology.html (10 November 2007).

Roma Metro.  “Linea C,” Roma Metro. 2007.                  (8 November 2007).

Rose, Mark and Sengul Aydingun. “Under Istanbul.” Archaeology 60, no. 4 (2007): 34-        40.

Silva, Giannegidio.  “L’intervisa Silva: «Toledo, Municipio e Borsa tre nuove stazioni         entro il 2008».” Il Mattino, 27 January 2005.

“Sistema Metronapoli,” Metronapoli. 28 February 2007.          November 2007).

Stampolidis, Nicholas, and Liana Parlama, ed. Athens: The City Beneath the City.         Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture and Museum of Cycladic Art, 2000.

Winward, Fiona.  “The Metro C Slalom,” Wanted in Rome.  18 April 2007.         (8         Nov 2007).

Biography:

I am a senior at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. I will be graduating in May 2008 with a Classical Languages major and a Hispanic Studies minor. Upon graduation, I hope to travel and teach English abroad, probably in Latin America. During my junior year of college, I studied abroad in Rome and saw signs and construction sites all over the city for the new metro line C that is being built. I became curious about how the city was handling the archaeological material uncovered, and whether people were interested in the archaeology behind the project, so I chose to research this for my senior seminar class.

Abstract:

As Rome builds the third line of its subway, workers continually chance upon archaeological material. This paper discusses the ethical considerations behind the project. Some of these considerations are the necessity to satisfy all groups affected by the project, including archaeologists, commuters, the government, and construction companies, and the obligation to publish and study the finds. Other questions of archaeological ethics that arise are what to do with the plethora of artifacts uncovered, how to store and conserve them, and what should and should not be destroyed. The paper begins by discussing and analyzing the archaeological discoveries and ethical considerations of metros in other Mediterranean cities, namely Athens, Istanbul, and Naples. It goes on to discuss the lack of emphasis on archaeology during the construction of Rome’s first two metro lines as compared to the methods and findings so far from line C. Finally, the paper outlines the ethical problems above and suggests solutions, stressing that solutions should be both feasible to implement and satisfactory to everybody involved.

---