Archeologické muzeum v Soluni: Modernizace a inovace /
Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki: Modernisation and Inovation
Christina Zarkada-Pistioli
Archeologické muzeum v Soluni / Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki
The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki was built in 1961–1962 and designed by the architect
Patroklos Karantinos.
The Museum was an important cultural center for Thessaloniki as the city was evolving after the Second
World War. Within this framework, an entire city block (a total area of 12 hectares) was selected as a building
site in the city’s “cultural zone”, which was under development in the eastern section of the city center. During
the 1950s, a number of buildings important to the city were built here, including those of the various faculties of
the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and most of the buildings of the International Trade Fair. These buildings
left their mark on the new, modernized face of the city, since they also comprised expressions of the Modern
Greek architecture of this period.
Karantinos had a relationship with Thessaloniki through his experience designing the buildings for the
Schools of the new university campus and in the same period he was teaching in the School of Architecture.
However, the design of museums as a specific type of building had particularly occupied him. In the early 1950s,
while he was serving as an architect for the Ministry of Education, he was occupied with the completion of the
country’s largest museums. This impressive accomplishment was complemented by a careful theoretical
elaboration of the typology of museums. Thus, in his personal archive there was a special volume entitled
“Museums”, in the introduction to which he refers to an extensive analysis of the museum’s functional system. He
supports the obligatory “educational” path of a visitor through a museum, while the exhibits were organized in
chronological order. He points out the appropriateness of indirect northern light from the roof, and analyzes
issues of orientation, acoustics, and gallery color-schemes. In reference to style, he characteristically stresses out
that museum buildings should be expressions of contemporary architecture, and he rejects the “oppressive and
pompous exteriors” of older museums, which looked like “monumental and ostentatious prisons for works of art”.
The planning of the Museum of Thessaloniki comprised an application of this theoretical approach.
During the spring and summer of 1960, Karantinos prepared four variant designs for this Museum, which
originally had foreseen the co-housing of the Archaeological and Byzantine museums, organized in independent
wings. In these preliminary studies, the Byzantine museum was normally housed in the center of the building,
and surrounded by the (larger) Archaeological museum; a spacious colonnaded entrance was also foreseen.
In the first preliminary study, the Byzantine museum was situated in a large, rectangular gallery, on the
ground floor and elevated, without internal dividing walls, while the larger archaeological museum included three
interior courtyards, presenting a more elongated general arrangement.
In the second study, the archaeological museum was housed in four galleries in shape L, each of these
contained a corresponding tetrastyle courtyard. The Byzantine museum, on the other hand, was designed in the
shape of a cross-inscribed in the building’s center. In a variation of this solution, the entire cross-shaped
Byzantine section of the museum presented an elevated roof in relation to the rest of the building.
In the third preliminary study, the general arrangement was circular, with the courtyard at the center,
followed by the Byzantine museum and then the Archaeological museum on the outside.
In all the preliminary studies, the museum’s spaces are symmetrically arranged on the ground (entrance)
floor, and the separation between the Byzantine and archaeological museum is clearly emphasized – the two do
not communicate with one another – while entrance was foreseen only from the central hall, and the circulation
of visitors through the museum was compulsory and cyclical.
The final solution at which Karantinos arrived in September 1960 resulted from the third preliminary
study, in which the solution involving a circular plan was transformed into a rectangular one. More specifically:
In the museum complex, there was a distinction of functions, since the museum proper was separated
from its ancillary spaces (offices, workshops, storerooms). In the museum proper, a very clearly symmetrical and
“pure” one-story building, the visitor was led (into the building) through a spacious and imposing double
colonnade, circular in section. Opposite the entrance porch was the atrium, a central internal courtyard that
comprised a basic element in the overall design, recalling as it did the typology of the ancient Greek residence.
Around the courtyard was the first wing of exhibition spaces; the second (surrounding) wing began at a slightly
elevated level. A second atrium, this one at a lower level, was formed by the wings of administrative offices on
the upper story and conservation workshops on the ground floor, and the overpass connecting them with the
building’s main core.
In the Museum of Thessaloniki Karantinos successfully managed to negotiate the problem of
presentation within the museum works of art created for outdoor settings, since he believed that “ in Greece and
other Mediterranean countries, the presence of sculpture in the living and pure atmosphere, with its intense light,
imposes an entirely unique formulation for Sculpture Museums. [Here] in Greece, these should not resemble
Museums in London, Berlin, Stockholm and other northern countries where climactic conditions are so different
[ ]. In the Mediterranean, however, and particularly in Greece, outdoor and semi-outdoor spaces must comprise
the chief elements of a Sculpture Museum...”. Karantinos had already had experience with the successful lighting
of the museums in Herakleion and Olympia. In the Museum of Thessaloniki, the natural lighting desirable for the
interior was achieved in the case of the galleries of the interior wing by means of a central atrium, while in the
case of the exterior galleries, which are 0,75 meters above the interior ones, natural lighting was ensured through
horizontal lighting strips below the ceiling, low roof skylights providing oblique lighting, and through glass
surfaces created with the use of glass bricks on the exterior walls.
In 1980 a two-story wing was added to the southern part of the Museum, as an independent mass,
stylistically following in part the design by Karantinos.
The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, as an expression of Greek post-War modernism, with the
plasticity of its individual “pure” masses, its alternation of open and closed spaces, its human scale, and its
adaptation to the architectural and natural environment, was characterized as a listed monument in 2002.
However, the implementation of the plan for the renovation and modernizing of the Museum by the
architect Nikos Fintikakis and colleagues represented a significant intervention in Karantinos’ original work.
Fintikakis’ project was completed in 2001, and the renovation itself was completed in late 2006.
The goal of the new project was to investigate the best possible use of the museum complex through a modern
intervention that redefined the atrium as the core of the main building. Thus, a new multi-purpose hall was created (for
educational activities, events, and periodic exhibits) by lowering the level of the old central atrium and
simultaneously covering it with a light space frame, in a pyramid shape and covered with glass. Other basic
decisions in the renovation were the gathering of all the exhibition spaces on two levels in the main building, with
continuous movement of the visitors around the newly-roofed and sunken “atrium”. At the same time the
arrangement of offices on the upper floor and conservation workshops on the ground floors of other buildings,
with direct access to the outdoor spaces to facilitate the movement of both objects and machinery. The New
Wing (1980) was redefined as a new group of offices according to the logic of the “free plan”. The considerable
height of the upper story allowed the creation of a light-construction open mezzanine, while at the lower levels,
conservation workshops and storerooms for ancient objects were created. In order to join the original core with
the New Wing, the old connection between them, which had distorted Karantinos’ building, was done away with,
and a study was done for a new light metal construction as an extension of the existing office corridor.
As conceived by Karantinos, the facades of the building were characterized by extensive surfaces with
glass bricks, which allowed light to pass through into the exhibition galleries. To adapt the building to
contemporary views about museums – which require solid exhibition surfaces, specific types of natural lighting,
and artificial – partition walls were foreseen to be set near the glass brick walls, to avoid distorting the original
sense of transparency on the exterior facade, while side windows opened beneath the roof and in the ceiling
allowed the exploitation of additional natural lighting in accordance with the requirements of each exhibit.
Within the framework of renovating the Museum, the principles of bio-climatic design were applied to achieve
natural lighting and ventilation. In this context, the space frame covering of the new atrium, with its southern
orientation, allows both natural heating of this space in winter as well as natural cooling in summer. The arrangement
of the blinds blocks direct summer sunlight, while allowing natural northern light to pass into the building. In parallel,
the cross-ventilation provided by the tall apertures in the facades ensures natural cooling for the museum.
The enormous requirements for the mechanical systems (covering 2 hectares) imposed the idea of placing
them underground, to avoid distorting the basic structure of Karantinos’ building. Thus, it was decided to create
a new, independent basement “energy building” at the south side of the museum complex.
The renovation of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki posed again the question of the limits of
interventions in a listed architectural monument, in this particular case a representative work of Greek post-War
modernism. The most intensive critique was directed at the handling of the central atrium and its typological
violation through the creation of a new multi-purpose hall.
The architect supports his design, noting that the interventions – both in the atrium as well as more
generally – were faithful to perceptions of the modern “reading” of a work of Greek rationalism, whereas past
interventions had rendered it ineffective and “illegible”.
It is true that the steel construction of the new “atrium” projects rather negatively into the Museum’s
foyer, as well as into the space encompassed by the original atrium. Karantinos’ design has been distorted mainly
because of the replacement of large windows in the exhibit spaces with small rectangular slits and limiting the
natural light. However earlier, after 1982, the openings had been covered in order to create more exhibit surfaces
due to the many excavations in the greater Thessaloniki area. For the same reason lighting surfaces with glass
bricks had also been “faced”.
At the same time the new heating, cooling and ventilation systems for the interior, arrayed in a space
created by a false ceiling, dramatically reduced wall height in the exhibition galleries, causing problems for how
best to display some exhibits.
The sense of the interior space in the Karantinos building has totaly changed.
It was obvious that to preserve this noteworthy historic building, a use for it needed to be found that
was compatible with its architectural philosophy (e. g. a “Glyptotek”), while for the ever-increasing needs of the
Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, it was clear that a new museum, much larger in size, needed to be
planned.
Nonetheless, efforts to improve the physical facilities of the Museum are continuing. The recent design
for interventions in the area surrounding the Museum represents yet another effort in this direction.
The philosophy of the new plan, responsibility for which was that of the speaker, is to assign
a preeminent role to an outdoor archaeological exhibit in conjunction with zones of green, as well as to provide
an underground link between the Archaeological Museum and the Museum of Byzantine Culture nearby, together
with the discreet incorporation of underground conservation workshops and antiquities storerooms. In this
arrangement, there is a dominant axis of movement, which as an extension of the entrance from the existing
outdoor area of the Archaeological Museum and the ensuing colonnade leads to a stairway and elevator, and
then via an underground “square” to an exhibition colonnade-passageway, which unfolds beneath the road
separating the two museums, concluding in a small underground gallery room that is also connected by stairway
and elevator to the grounds of the Byzantine Museum of Culture. Connecting the two museums aims to highlight
the image of the historical continuity of the ancient and Byzantine worlds, while at the same it offers the
opportunity to create a gallery for periodic exhibits, available for joint as well as independent activities by the two
museums.
As regards the design of the basement conservation workshops and storerooms, the basic element in the
arrangement here is a ramp whose course runs parallel to the southeast edge of the museum property and ends
in an underground “square” leading to the connecting colonnade-passage between the two museums. Along the
length of the ramp’s interior face, there are two underground “masses” of conservation workshops and
storerooms, with an atrium between them to ensure access to natural lighting; the second “mass” also has such
access via the underground “square”. Finally, a third underground storeroom for antiquities, laid out in the west
zone of the outdoor area, is accessible from the Museum via an underground corridor-connecting pass.
The outdoor archaeological exhibit, implementation of which is currently under way, is organized with an
array of sarcophagi and altars on either side of a road recalling that of ancient cemetery, the image of which is
complemented by funerary monuments from other eras, displayed on photographic panels, which simultaneously
create the “visual depth” of the “cemetery”.
There follows, set upon the roof of the underground building containing the Museum’s electromechanical installations, a “reconstruction” of a Roman villa (2nd–4th c. A. D.). The “reconstruction”, which is lifesize, is intended to exhibit authentic mosaic floors from villas in the city belonging to the same period, which in
this manner can be displayed in their “actual” setting.
The large size of urban villas found in “Roman” Thessaloniki prohibits the “reconstruction” of such
a residence in its entirety. Within this setting, a part of it is rendered, and this is deconstructed in the green zone
that follows. However, the partial reconstruction provides the “footprint” of the characteristic organization of the
villa’s spaces around a peristyle. More specifically, the “triclinia” are arraigned on either side of the entrance and
in relation to the peristyle, while the suite of spaces involving personal hygiene (toilets, baths), as well as the
kitchen-storerooms that follow, are isolated and at the same time connected to the peristyle via a passageway.
The villa’s masonry is being created as follows: its outside walls are 1,2 meters thick, and its interior
dividing walls 0,7 meters, dimensions which resulted from actual excavation data in urban villas of Thessaloniki.
They are low – 0,5 meters high – and are built of naked exposed concrete, so that the intervention is clearly
recognizable as a modern one. The peristyle is marked by the reconstruction of a stylobate in white cement;
three authentic marble column bases of the required dimensions from the Museum are being placed on it; the
remaining bases are copies in white cement. The triclinium couches are being constructed of the same material.
In the spaces devoted to hygiene, schematic toilets are being reconstructed using a poured material, while the
floor of the bath is “deconstructed” to show a partial reconstruction of the hypocausts. The kitchen and
storeroom that follow are identified by their equipment (a bench, hand-mill, storage jars, etc.). The mosaic floors
chosen for exhibit are made of large tesserae, and are resistant to outdoor conditions; their display is being
completed with colored tesserae in a color that highlights them and shows them off to particular advantage.
Visitors will “tour” the villa via metal constructions with wooden floors, offering them the opportunity to
gaze down on the mosaics from above.
The Museum zone currently being created closes with a “solid” perimeter fencing of exposed concrete of
different lengths and heights, interrupted by “windows with a view”, affording a glance at the exhibit’s objects
and simultaneously stimulating the viewer to visit the Museum.
Resumé
Archeologické muzeum v Soluni, které navrhl Patroclos Karantinos, architekt, specializovaný na stavby muzeí, bylo
postaveno v letech 1961–1962.
Vstup do muzea, dokonale symetrické a „čisté“ přízemní budovy, vede přes prostornou a impozantní, zdvojenou
kolonádovou síň s kruhovými sloupy. Atrium, vnitřní centrální nádvoří, se nachází naproti vstupní síni a vytváří
hlavní prvek celé kompozice, přičemž odkazuje na typologii starověkého řeckého domu. Druhé atrium, na nižší
úrovni, tvoří administrativní křídlo v prvním patře a dílny konzervátorů v přízemí.
Muzeum obsahuje prvky řeckého poválečného modernismu, plasticitu „čistých“ objemů, střídání otevřených a
uzavřených prostor, lidské měřítko a jeho přizpůsobení architektonickému i přirozenému prostředí. V roce 2001
bylo vyhlášeno chráněným objektem a památkou moderního architektonického dědictví.
Přesto se inovační projekt architekta Nikose Fintikakise a jeho spolupracovníků (1997–2001) ukázal jako zajímavé
doplnění Karantinosovy práce a byl realizován v letech 2001–2006. Cílem tohoto projektu bylo povýšit komplex
muzea moderním zásahem, který, mimo jiné, redefinuje původní atrium muzea.
Bibliography
A. Giacumacatos, Elements of modern architecture in Greece, Patroklos Karantinos, Athens 2003.
P. Tsakopoulos, “The Archeological museum of Thessaloniki. A contemporary view of the museum’s function”,
Constructions in Greece, 116 (2007), p. 96-106.