DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites

217 Pages·2007·6.71 MB·English

NOÉ DISMA : SIG: Gestion des désastres avec l'accent sur le patrimoine c

Sub Project DISMA
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis
on cultural sites

TECHNICAL REPORT: Volume II
GIS FOR HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
EASTERN ATTICA AS CASE STUDY

Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards
& Proactive Planning

National Technical University of Athens

September 2007
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

Place and date: 27 SEPTEMBER 2007, ATHENS, GREECE
Applicant NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
name: ATHENS
Contact
PROFESSOR GEORGE TSAKIRIS
Person:
Signature:

Report compiled by: Amanda Laoupi

National Technical University of Athens
Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards

Iroon Polytechniou 9, 157 73 – Zografou,
Athens, Greece
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]

2
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

THE CONSORTIUM
Applicant

NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS
Centre for the Assessment of Natural Hazards (CANAH)

Partner Team

1 Fundação Gomes Teixeira da Universidade do Porto (FGT-UP)
2 Department of Natural Resources Management and Agricultural
Engineering- Agricultural University of Athens (NRMAE-AUA)
3 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS – CEPAM)

Regions involved

1 Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur (France) X
2 Région Molise (Italie)
3 Préfecture de Est Attique (Grèce) X
4 Région Nord Portugal (Portugal) X
5 Région Sicile (Italie)

3
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

Foreword

This work aims to establish an interregional operation to protect cultural heritage
from damage in the face of natural events under the auspices of INTERREG IIIC-
Sud Initiative and the Regional Operation Framework of NOÉ Programme -
Patrimoine et prévention des risques naturels- with final beneficiary the Eastern
Attica Prefecture. In the framework of NOÉ, the aim of the sub project DISMA is
the risk estimation of selected sites of cultural interest within the specific pilot
case studies of the region of Eastern Attica Prefecture using GIS environment.
This technical report describes the work that was conducted in order to identify
and estimate the impacts of a flood event to selected cultural sites and to the
economic sector of the surrounding affected area.
The research was performed by the Centre for the Assessment of Natural
Hazards (CANAH) of the National Technical University of Athens. The simulation
of the flood events, the model set up in HEC and GIS environment and the
production of flood maps were performed by Aimilia K. Pistrika. She has also
contributed to the building of the risk estimation methodological framework in the
face of flood hazard. Data collection and analysis regarding the selected sites of
cultural interest within the Eastern Attica Prefecture was conducted by Amanda
Laoupi. Software development in GIS environment was performed by Iraklis
Klampanos.
Also, Laboratory of Photogrammetry, School of Rural and Surveying Enginnering,
NTUA contributed the photogrammetric data collection and analysis to the
DISMA sub-project, the Laboratory of Remote Sensing contributed the photo-
interpretation data collection and analysis and finally the Laboratory of
Geography and Spatial Design contributed the building of a GIS database of
selected cultural sites.

The scientific coordinator of the sub-project DISMA and Director of the Centre
was George Tsakiris.

4
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 The cultural landscapes of Eastern Attica: thousands of years of
civilization 8
1.2 Caves with palaeontological / archaeological interest 19
1.3 Open-air Monuments 25
1.4 Museums 43
1.5 Maritime Heritage 46
1.6 Natural Landscapes 48
2 SPATIO-TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDS IN
EASTERN’S ATTICA HISTORY 54
2.1 Hazards’ detection in the cultural landscapes 54
2.2 Natural hazards 57
2.2.1 Local or regional geotectonics...............................................57
2.2.2 Water –related hazards.........................................................66
2.2.3 Flora / fauna within or around the cultural sites.....................77
2.2.4 Climatic conditions.................................................................79
2.3 Human - induced problems 81
2.3.1 Human- induced water -related hazards................................81
2.3.2 Wild fires / Deforestation........................................................84
2.3.3 Accessibility to the cultural sites / Level of tourist
infrastructures........................................................................85
2.3.4 Unsatisfactory management of cultural heritage....................88
2.3.5 Fast development rates and human activities........................90
2.3.6 Industrial threats....................................................................92
3 METHODOLOGY 94
3.1 The methodological framework in Hazard Analysis of Cultural
Landscapes 94
3.1.1 General description ...............................................................94
3.1.2 Main categories of hazards that could affect the patrimony...95
3.1.3 Main scientific fields contributing to hazard’s detection and
evaluation..............................................................................97
3.2 The case studies and the retrieval of information 100
3.3 IESO technique for Vulnerability assessment of cultural heritage
5
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

102
3.4 GIS : a multiple-choice flexible tool - Digitizing data for specific
targets (selected examples) 105
3.4.1 GIS for caves.......................................................................105
3.4.2 GIS for open-air monuments..............................................114
3.4.3 GIS for Memory Institutions.................................................121
3.4.4 GIS for underwater patrimony.............................................130
3.4.5 GIS for wetlands..................................................................140
4 TECHNICAL REPORT OF THE PROPOSED GIS
PRODUCT 150
4.1 Personal Geodatabase 150
4.2 Projection System and Coordinates 151
4.3 Contents of the GIS application 152
4.3.1 Descriptive information of the Cultural Heritage feature
dataset.................................................................................152
4.3.2 Hyperlinks............................................................................159
4.4 Usage of the GIS Application 159
4.4.1 Getting Information for each cultural object.........................160
4.5 Using Hyperlinks 162
5 Assessing vulnerability of Cultural Heritage 163
6 EVALUATION REPORT 177
6.1 Overall estimation 177
6.1.1 Archaeological / historic features.........................................177
6.1.2 Environmental features.......................................................179
6.1.3 Anthropogenic features........................................................179
6.1.4 Local / regional / national features.......................................180
6.2 Technical level 180
6.3 Administrative level 182
6.4 Scientific level 183
6.5 Co-operative level 183
6.6 Socio-educational level 184
7 ANASYNTHESIS 186
7.1 Conclusive remarks 186
7.1.1 Objectives............................................................................186
6
DISaster MAnagement GIS with emphasis on cultural sites Final Report Volume 2

7.1.2 Methodology........................................................................186
7.1.3 Difficulties encountered.......................................................189
7.1.4 Overall evaluation of DISMA...............................................190
7.1.5 Positive trends.....................................................................190
7.1.6 Negative trends ...................................................................191
7.2 Perspectives 192
7.2.1 Perspectives of GIS use in Archaeology and Cultural
Management........................................................................192
7.2.2 Other perspectives for the GIS use in the development plans
of the study areas...............................................................192
7.3 Proposals 193
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 196
8.1 Greek 196
8.2 Other language 197
8.3 Internet accessible 207
9 GLOSSARY 208
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 217
7
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The cultural landscapes of Eastern Attica: thousands
of years of civilization

۩ The concept of place is a vivid entity which embraces human’s perception of
the landscape. Each and every place has its own identity, character and
expression’s patterns, its own language, either tangible or metaphorical /
spiritual. Each and every place constitutes of parallel and overlaying
landscapes that include: rational forms & mythical symbolism, the collective
unconsciousness of people passing by or settling in them, multiple coexisting
cultures, traditions, customs & habits, varying environmental settings (climate,
geomorphology, flora & fauna), visual, acoustic, savoury, smelling and tangible
impressions and memories, as well as events, accidents and changing names.

International conferences have defined the term ‘landscape’ as ‘the
visualization’ of abiotic and biotic elements and parameters within the
environment, that exist in a given geographical area and have a strong relation
to each other, the natural place of ecosystem’s expression, an area, as
perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction
of natural and / or human factors (European Convention, 2000; Palermo
Declaration, 14 - 16 November 2003). This is only a glimpse into the vast world
of landscapes, extended from Neurobiology to Astrophysics, for landscapes are
created out of people’s understanding and engagement with the world around
them, constantly shaped and reshaped, always temporal, polyvalent and
multivocal. They are not a ‘record’ but a ‘recording’ as they provoke memory
and facilitate or impede action. They embrace both the untidiness of spatial
temporalities and structural inequalities, as well as the past embedded in them
(Bender, 2002).
The complex intersections of memory and landscape (e.g. material or idealized,
mental, inner, symbolic, gendered, sacred, familiar, of diaspora, of loss, of
silence) are registered on the pathways of power, fiction, architecture,
symbolism, gender, art, space’s organization and death’s reality. Thus,
landscapes are no longer to be separated from human experience or seen as
purely visual, instead they include movements, relationships, memories and
histories through space and time (Feld and Basso, 1996). Modern
archaeologists try to understand the landscapes that work and are worked on
many different scales (Tilley 1994; Bender, 2001).

Greece, having a complex geomorphological, environmental and geographical
reality, offered the ideal scenery to their inhabitants, since Prehistory, for the
creation of varied physical, biological, abiotic and socio-economic systems.
Mediterranean world is composed of scores of thousand physically
differentiated microregions, the local ecologies of which have separable
identities that continually interact each other. Their evolution and transformation
had to take into account longer time frames, in particular intergenerational and
historical dimensions, along with other socio-cultural parameters, such as the
urban hierarchies and the shift of populations, ideas and products.

Furthermore, the Mycenaean city-states were autonomous physical, socio-
economic and cultural entities dispersed within the Greek landscapes, with their
city-centre, the rural and peri-urban space, the acropolis and the sanctuaries,
the established political alliances and the commercial network. Later on, Homer
describes the natural environments that characterized those centres, by giving
different ecological elements for each of them (i.e. Catalogue of the Ships in Il.,
494 ff.). In the Homeric narration about Achilles’ shield (Il., XVIII.474 - 617),
Achilleus’ shield in Iliad
home.att.net/~a.a.major/wrapup.htm

From the Homeric terms (polis, acropolis, asty, agora, gaia, aroura), gradually,
the perception of urban and peri-urban landscapes gets more and more
differentiated (Pritchett, 1953 & 1956), including various spaces that reflect
human management of the natural and modified environments: A. (1) soil that
is appropriate for cultivation (agros), (2) cultivated field with cereals, vineyards
and other vegetables (ge psile), (3) plot (gepedon), (4) forest of oaks (dryinon),
(5) forest of pines (pityinon), (6) mountainous woody area (orgas), (7) cultivated
area (aroura), (8) pasture land (nomos / nome), (9) woods (hyle), untouched,
aboriginal landscape in the extremity of the city-state (eremia) and B. (1)
sacred space / sanctuary (temenos), (2) city-center (asty around acropolis), (3)
‘market place’ (agora), (4) city as center of the periphery (polis), (5) land
property (chorion), (6) garden (kepos), (7) house (oikia), (8) plot above which a
house is built (oikopedon), (9) cheap & quickly constructed building (synoikia).

Consequently, the categorization of resources and the relevant human activities
within the ecosystems of the ‘polis’ in the form of balance: input / output (water
supply, timber supply, agriculture, pastoralism, hunting, mining, energy
sources, sewage disposal, climate exposure, pollution rates), along with the
hierarchies within human society at geopolitical, religious, socio-economic,
biological, cultural and administrative level, formed the complexity of ancient
cities. These formations, in fact, never stopped functioning in the nucleus of
Greek history, even if larger or different socio-economic patterns transformed
the type of their government Thus the Greek landscapes are from the very