GO BIG OR GO HOME: ANCIENT GREEK ENGINEERING THROUGH UNTRAINED EYES, by David Charters

Let me preface my remarks by emphasizing that I am neither a Classicist nor a Civil Engineer. So, this is strictly an amateur’s perspective.

Whether it is a magnificent temple atop a mountain or a massive fortification astride a plain, one cannot help but be impressed by the achievements of ancient Greek engineering. The sites that have endured wars, political and geological earthquakes stand as testaments to Greek tenacity, ingenuity, engineering skills, and sheer dogged industriousness. But it was not all simply to fulfill a function and nothing more. They had a commitment to architectural design that often exceeded any practical needs. Finally, there is the matter of scale. The ancients did nothing by half-measures; it was “Go big, or go home.” So, how can we explain this? I’m not in a position to give a definitive answer. What follows are a few observations through my untrained eyes.

Materials. The ancient Greek builders were purely practical in one sense. Out of necessity, they used every material that came to hand. Fortunately for them, as Spee and Mawforth point out, owing to the area’s geological development there was an abundance of building materials. Even though much of Greece is arid, there was sufficient water and soil in certain locations to make remarkably durable mud-brick. The terrain was littered with rocks of all shapes and sizes, and where it was not lying about it could be hacked or hammered out of mountainsides. No rock was too small to be left unused when construction demanded. And of course, geology had blessed Greece with vast quantities of marble – the preferred material for the stunning temples that speak to the heart of ancient Greek religious, political, social and cultural life. For those not so blessed there was ‘marble in the making’: limestone – not as attractive or as durable, but easier to work with. And it could be covered with stucco to improve its appearance. For roof supports the Greeks relied on wood. Despite the relatively dry climate there were substantial forests with large trees that served that purpose.  But the ancients may have imported wood from the Levant and the Black Sea.

Building Sites. Ask any modern realtor what determines the value of a home or property and they will answer: “Location, location, location.” The fact that so many of their sites we visited have survived so long could easily suggest that the Greeks understood this instinctively. Their successors, whether Roman conquerors or Christian pilgrims and clerics, clearly recognized that they had chosen well, since they often preferred to build on the same sites. And if any one pattern stands out to the eye of a military historian it is this: whether it was a temple to honour Zeus or Apollo, or a fortress to keep enemies at bay, the Greeks built with a keen eye for the religious and/or strategic value of high ground, the Parthenon being the exemplar. Others included the temples of Apollo Epikourios (Bassae), Poseidon (Sounion), and Delphi. Height placed one farther from one’s enemies, and perhaps closer to the Gods. Hillside sites also lent themselves to the construction of theatres and stadiums, since the slopes could be used to seat the audience, with or without built-in seating (the theatres and odeions on the slopes of the Acropolis or at Epidaurus; and the stadiums at Messene and Nemea). But apart from practical considerations, it is important to remember that the agonistic mentalité emphasized being better than everyone else. Height conferred status – so, the higher the better.

Design. Temples. To the untrained eye, they seemed to follow a standard design: oriented east-west; three steps; Porch; Naos; Metopes and Triglyphs; Friezes; Columns six by twelve plus one. You seen one, you seen ‘em all! Not so. As Dr. Murray pointed out, each displayed subtle (and some not so subtle) deviations (e.g.s the Parthenon – no straight lines; the Temple of Aphaia – one can see through it; some columns were built with stacked ‘drums’, others with single piece units; the Temple of Poseidon had no interior columns; Temple of Apollo Epikourai at Bassae faces north-south owing to land available, and has an unusual side door). We also noted visible shifts in column design over time from the simpler Doric through Ionic to the more elaborate Corinthian. Dr. Murray also highlighted variations in the fluting on columns, and that some columns are thicker than others. Temple designs were shaped by many things, such as location, weather and availability of materials. We can see the influence of architects such as Iktinos at the Parthenon and the temple of Apollo Epikourios, but also that of powerful ‘enthusiasts’ of the classical style, such as Herodes Atticus and Hadrian, at many sites. But for the visible expression of the Agonistic spirit it is hard to beat the Parthenon. It is the quintessential physical manifestation of the ancient Greeks’ self-image of the greatness of their civilization and of a celebration of its military power. It might also be fair to suggest that many of the ancient temples survived because their designs were so malleable. They could be re-purposed by subsequent rulers and religious factions. It did not take a lot of imagination or renovation to convert a temple site into a Christian church.

Fortresses. The design of forts was largely dictated by topography and availability of materials. But designs also changed over time from the Mycenaean to the Classical and beyond. This reflected both the evolving skills of the many builders – a learning curve, with knowledge and skills being passed on (or re-learned if necessary) to those who became artisans – and the changing tactical threats, such as the emergence of artillery (catapults), battering rams, and siege towers. The Mycenaean era fortress at Tiryns (curiously shaped like a modern chainsaw) incorporates multiple design features: materials such as mud-brick, rock conglomerate, and massive stone blocks, some roughly fitted and others more carefully shaped and placed; massive walls (7.5m thick by 7.5m high); a steep approach ramp; narrow gated entryways with double doors that could trap invaders in ‘killing zones’; bastions, and a postern gate for use as a sally port. Although Tiryns lacked the advantage of significant high ground, it would have posed a serious challenge to an attacking force. Messene, a 4^th Century BC fortified community on the imposing west side of Mt. Ithomi, was protected by double layer block walls and towers. The walls, which extended for nine kilometers and were constructed of shaped blocks, enclosed the entire city, its temples and agricultural areas, and were designed to withstand a prolonged siege, even by catapult artillery. A student of Early Modern fortresses would recognize many of the same features of the Vauban-style in the Parthenon, which was as much a fortress as it was a religious site. But as Professor Sears noted, however impressive they might have been, fortresses weren’t necessarily signs of strength. Rather they were indicators of communities facing conflict or regional instability. For example, the walls of Athens were extended to Piraeus to ensure that the city could survive a siege. This would not have been necessary if Athens had felt secure.

Engineering. The scale of the Parthenon, the 9 km walls of Messene built in 90 days, the 120-ton (estimated) lintel block of the Treasury of Atreus… More times than I can now count Doug, Scott, and I, among others, commented to each other: “How in hell did they do it?” Today, the construction of large buildings involves mechanized machinery, such as tower cranes and earth-moving equipment, capable of lifting moving, and placing large, heavy pieces of metal or concrete. Our texts and the lectures told us quite a lot about the what, where, when, and why of ancient Greek construction, but not much about the how. So, we are left to speculate on the engineering techniques they employed to create such impressive works. But ours need not be ill-informed speculation, because the evidence is all around. The rocks are not silent; they speak to us. In fact, they speak volumes about how these structures came to be. The rocks tell us that the ancient Greeks had more resources, tools, and skills at their disposal than we might give them credit for. This seems to be a reasonable assumption, because they made seemingly impossible tasks possible.

First, construction was labour-intensive, but the Greeks had ‘people power’. They had slaves, by the hundreds in some locations, by the thousands in others. However, in certain situations, entire communities were mobilized, as was the case at Messene. Only that kind of collective effort could have built its walls in such a short time. Nor was it simply a case of having a critical mass of unskilled labour. The increasingly sophisticated structures and the preparation of materials to build them speak to a workforce with considerable skill and ingenuity. How did they come by that? Probably they experienced a lot of trial and error learning, which was passed on to subsequent generations. But it is important to remember that Greece was part of a network of ‘countries’ scattered around the Mediterranean. Its’ trading and other connections would have exposed them to the work and knowledge of experienced temple and palace builders, such as the Egyptians, who had mastered the fundamentals of construction engineering. So the visual evidence tells us that the Greek builders grasped, for example, the principles of weight distribution when building walls and arches – shifting it laterally/horizontally and downward through vertical structures like pillars and walls. Likewise, it may be fair to propose that the massive rock lintel at the Treasury of Atreus might not have been moved at all. Rather, as Dr. Sears suggested to me, after it was quarried, moved, and cut (nearly incredible feats in themselves), it could have been put on the ground or an elevated mound of earth. Then its supporting pillars could have been shoved into place under it as the Treasury was being excavated, rather than the block being hoisted into position.

Second, they had animals (horses and oxen) that– given sufficient numbers – could provide the pulling power and torque that humans lacked.

Third, upon looking at the structures we can surmise that the Greeks had tools and machinery. Rocks initially just jammed into place regardless of shape were increasingly shaped or cut to exact proportions. So, they must have had skilled artisans to do that work. Slots carved into some rock blocks show use of slings. Using slings could imply that they had small cranes or other lifting devices with counter-weights or even swivels to lift blocks into place. Marble or limestone columns or column drums that had been carved out of their parent rock could have been rolled to the temple site before being lifted or stacked into place. The Greeks almost certainly would have used wedges and levers, ramps, ladders, and scaffolding. Given the materials they used to build their temples and fortresses, it is doubtful that the buildings could have been constructed without the tools and techniques mentioned above.

Finally, the Greeks had time. Constructing a temple or a fortress could take years. The speed of construction was dictated by politics, financing, and the influence of personalities. Moreover, threats did not emerge overnight, as they do today. So, the rapid wall construction at Messene was the exception, not the norm. It simply was not necessary to work that fast in every instance.

The Greeks did not invent construction engineering. But the geology, politics and climate of Greece, and their drive to be the best, caused them to work to a simple engineering ethos: “Go big or go home.”

Sources: Mee and Spawforth, Oxford Archaeological Guides: Greece; Van Wees, Greek Warfare; notes from travel study lectures by Dr. Sears and Dr. Murray; and personal site observations.

Built by the Cyclopes: The Walls of Tiryns and Mycenae, by Geoff Sayre

The Greek Bronze Age has always held fascination for me. It was an age of mythical heroes, hoards of treasure, and mysterious architecture. Over the course of the trip I’ve been awe-struck by the carved gems, polished gold, and inlaid swords stored in the countless Greek museums. Finally getting our chance to visit the origins of these treasures was extremely exciting. Despite my previous reading on the walls of Mycenae and Tiryns I was not prepared for their colossal scale. Attributing the walls to the work of mythical giants was more fitting than I realized.

Why would agricultural city states go to the trouble of building such walls? They serve a clear defensive purpose for the citadels they encircle. However, the width and height of the walls represent severe over-engineering for the period. Clearly these cyclopean walls fill more than just defensive rolls. Rival states would be easily impressed by the time and man-power required to construct the fortifications at Tiryns and Mycenae. This sort of political power-play would clearly state that the Mycenaeans in the Argos plain were a force to be reckoned with. Awing enemies was not the only sort of political message the walls send. Subjects of the Mycenaean rulers would think twice about questioning a dynasty that could afford walls of such a magnitude.

The motivations behind cyclopean masonry makes for interesting discussion, but I am more concerned with the logistics of actually building them. The Bronze-Age has the perception of being less advanced than the Classical period. Clearly the engineering knowledge possessed during this time was more than sufficient to construct structures to awe Classical and later writers. Moving massive stones without damaging them must be challenging. Today we have powerful machines that can move stupendous weights. Mycenaeans moved the same weights with nothing more than beasts, rope, wood, and men, all over 3000 years ago.

Experimental archaeology is a passion of mine. Stone working, pottery, cordage, and archery are all disciplines I’ve tested to glimpse the lived experience of past peoples. When looking at massive structures I can’t help but wonder how I might go about building them myself. How long did the walls take to build? What was the size of the work force? Where were the stones quarried and how were they moved to the site? Questions like these can be estimated based on analogy. However, there is much to be said for empirical testing through the experimental method. Even moving a single block would help to refine our understanding of how early state powers constructed their colossal monuments.

Getting the manpower, materials, and space to practice cyclopean construction techniques would require substantial funding and expert supervision. The value of such testing is purely academic. As such, I find it doubtful that anyone would give me the space and money to play architect any time soon. Understanding lived experience is my favorite part of experimental archaeology.  For the time being I will have to remain ignorant to the techniques of the cyclopes.

Mycenae: A Civilization of Influence, by Moya MacDonald

Mycenae is the site of a great Bronze Age city. It is most popularly known for the large lion gate and the supposed grave of Agamemnon. It consists of a marvelous citadel on top of an acropolis dominating the Argive plain with large walls, a palace, two grave circles, nine tholos tombs, and a surrounding residential area. Mycenae is thought to have been the leading city in the area of the Argive plain. The Mycenaean “empire” consisted of Mycenae, Tiryns, and Midea. Mycenae didn’t necessarily rule over these other civilizations; it is believed that they had the most power concerning the alliances between the different Bronze Age cities. In particular, Mycenae probably used Tiryns as a port city.

Mycenae was first excavated by the notorious Heinrich Schliemann in the 1800s. He managed to knock down all of the structures that wasn’t Bronze Age just to get down to the Bronze Age layer. He was not concerned with any other time periods. He was obsessed with the Homeric poems and was convinced that this was where Agamemnon lived after the Trojan war. He excavated Grave circle A, finding a gold funerary mask in the grave of a very wealthy warrior. He went on to famously say “I have seen the face of Agamemnon”. Excavations were picked up again in the 1930s by Carl Blegen and he finished during the 1950s because he had to stop during World War II.

The grave circles are very important. They are from the 16^th and 17^th century BCE. Grave circle A was discovered first, but grave circle B is earlier than grave circle A. When the grave circles were first dug they were placed outside of the walls, because this was the tradition of the Mycenaean people at the time. Then in the 13^th century BCE later Mycenaean people built another wall, this time including grave circle A. It is thought that the later Mycenaean people thought of grave circle A as the tombs of heroes or great elite warriors that must be included in their ancestry and thus the citadel. The question is why not grave circle B? A theory is that grave circle B contained people of Minoan descent and were then not included in Mycenaean heritage. Another theory is that grave circle B contained elite that did not treat the lay people as well as the would have liked so when the people of grave circle A arrived they were treated as the new elite and were then included in Mycenaean heritage. Either way, the later Mycenaean people were not fans of the people in grave circle B and did not want them to be a part of their city.

The aforementioned 13^th century BCE walls are very impressive and were used for just that: to impress. These walls were made of ashlar masonry, whereas the earlier walls were cyclopean masonry. The walls are split at the entrance by the famous lion gate. Very impressive and beautiful. The walls only encompass the citadel and not the residential area. The dimensions of the lion gate are the same as the one at Tiryns, which is why we believe that Mycenae and Tiryns had a relationship of some kind.

Mycenae acts as a significant cultural area to the later Greeks. Mycenae was thought to be a city of heroes from the great Homeric poems. This is what gave the Greeks of the Classical Period their agonistic ethos, their intense need to be great. The Mycenaean people were represented as very wealthy, great warriors. They had these huge tholos tombs filled with gold, weapons, and many other things that would describe the person who died as an elite warrior. This is what gave the Greeks the drive to be great.

Similar to other Bronze Age cities Mycenae collapsed at the end of the 13^th century BCE. It was later reoccupied as a polis and had participated in the battle at Plataea with Athens and Sparta against the Persians. It was destroyed again in the 400s BCE by Argos and the site never fully recovered after that.

The Palace of Nestor, by Shannon Fellows

The Palace of Nestor is a large site that once was inhabited by the Mycenaeans.  This site is huge and can be photographed from above or from below at ground level.  However, you cannot walk on this site like some of the others.  It is still a fascinating thing to look at from above, and I actually prefer the layout and presentation of this site because it is covered by a metal and plastic cover and when viewed from above you get to see more detail than when you are positioned behind a barrier.  This also protects the site fairly well from the weather conditions and tourists accidentally damaging something. Other sites, due to the sites’ larger sizes, are open and exposed to rain.  Though maybe most sites are not covered because they are not as fragile in materials as the Palace of Nestor. There are metal walkways, that move slightly when walked upon, which scared me a little because I personally am not a fan of high places or hanging structures. I cannot deny the beautiful view from the hanging walkways, but I still don’t like the height.

The king and queen both had separate megarons, which have three parts – a porch, a waiting room and throne room.  The king’s megaron is significantly larger and has four columns in the center of the throne room.  This site would have been highly decorated with frescoes and is one of the best sites when it comes to written records. The stairs and an old bath tub on this site are wonderfully preserved. The stairs look like they could have been made last week.  There was also a large amount of written records that were written upon wet clay at the time because these slabs would have been reused.  However, thanks to a fire, theses slabs were baked and have left us with a large collection of writing from the time in Linear B.  The destruction of this site left us with a great collection of information that can be translated and tells us about life in the palace. The site can be compared to the size of a Sobey’s store.

The megarons contain gutter-like indents around the edges of the rooms.  These indents are dug into the ground around the edges of the rooms in order to drain olive oil into them that was placed upon the ivory sculptures and to catch libations.  The throne was positioned off to the side of the room, so the center could hold the four columns that had indents much like the sides of the room to drain fluids.   The four columns also covered the hearth, which is a built-up circle in the center.  It would have held a fire in the center of the room used for heating the room.

The site is very close to a tomb that resembles a beehive.  It is called a tholos tomb and is massive. When you go into them it is like being in a cave.  It is very dark, and it echoes.

Reconstructing the First Battle of Mantinea, by Hayley McLellan

As a site where some of the most bloody battles in Greek history have taken place, the plain of Mantinea is more than just a field, it is an iconic piece of hoplite Warfare. There were at least three major battles fought here: two in the classical Greek period and one in the Hellenistic period, therefore we shall call this the first battle of Mantinea.

The plain is a figure-eight shape with the waist of the eight between two mountains; north of the waist is Mantinea and south is Tegea. Mantinea was normally against the Spartans and Tegea was with the Spartans and they always fought over control of the plain. In battle, the important thing to remember is that you do not want to be outflanked, therefore this fertile plain is ideal for hoplite warfare because there is a neck, it is flat and bounded by mountains to constrict and ensure that an army does not get outflanked.

In 425 BC, the Spartans were humiliated in Pylos where 300 surrendered, but in this interesting and strategic battle in 418 BC, Sparta redeemed itself. The Athenians and Spartans weren’t supposed to be fighting; they were supposed to be in a period of truce but this didn’t happen because Athens had a new leader named Alcibiades who wanted to make his mark. He also was insanely handsome and tried to make a move on his teacher Socrates who, to Alcibiades surprise, rejected him, but that is another story for a different day.

Alcibiades was mad that the war had come to an end, therefore he decided to scheme so that there was some military action that he could take credit for. He decided to make a personal alliance with Spartans’ enemy, Argos, Mantinea, Elis and several others. This way Sparta could be completely cut off and the Peloponnesian war could end very quickly however, Alcibiades’ enemies in Athens did not like him and did not want to engage in these campaigns so when the battle finally happened, Athens only sent 1000 soldiers instead of its full complement.

We stood on the hill where Argos, Athens and other allies lined up. I pictured the Spartans coming into the plain and trying to lure us down by diverting water and causing havoc on the plain as they did in the battle. The Spartans did this for a while by coming up and offering battle but the other Greeks would just stay on the hill until it eventually looked like the Spartans were retreating. The Greeks then came down the hill as the Spartans wanted to make one more move but because of all the trees in the area, they met each other unexpectedly with about 10000 soldiers on each side.

This battle is important because it contains some of Thucydides’ iconic descriptions of hoplite battle. He stated that the alliance led by Argos began to scream and shout and charge at the Spartans but the Spartans marched slowly and calmly to the sound of flute players because they are disciplined and well trained which is amusing to hear about but would have been a terrifying experience. As we have learned over the course of this travel study, the general principle of hoplite warfare was that as they advance, then battle lines tend to move to the right because the right side is unshielded. Thucydides said the Spartan king Agis wanted to compensate for this so he had his left wing extend further to the left which made a gap, therefore he tried to order his contingents to fill that gap. Although he tried, Spartan warfare law is not to give up your ground, therefore they refused to move and fill the gap. Thucydides said that the Spartans made up for in courage the damage done by their tactical mistake.

As the right wings were victorious, the Spartan right wing stopped, turned inward and began to march in a perpendicular way across the plain which meant that the anti-Spartans would have the Spartan phalanx coming up on their flank. When this happened, they tried to turn and run but many ended up being killed. This was a huge win for the Spartans and a way to reestablish the credibility they lost. They set up a trophy, Alcibiades’ alliance crumbled and were ashamed and the Spartans had control over the plain (probably to be used for more eerie flute playing).

I felt that it was important to discuss the history of this battle for you, the readers, to understand the context of hoplite warfare and what really happens in these plains. Although some may see it as a grassy field peppered with farms and sheep, I see it as a place where strength, courage, and loyalty shone brightly and the Spartan victory allowed them to stand tall and proud after being knocked down in the battle of Pylos.

The Battle of Pylos and Thucydides’ Fake News, by Beatrice Devlin

In 425 BCE, the Battle of Pylos took place in the Bay of Navarino and on the Island of Sphacteria. This Battle was one of the most important in all of the Peloponnesian war, and was a momentous victory for the Athenians. Not only was it important for the Athenians, but Thucydides called it the greatest shock of the Peloponnesian war due to the Spartans’ surrender to the lightly- armed Athenian allies. Thucydides’ depiction of the battle, however, sparked controversy because of the errors in the topography. This inaccuracy inspires thought on how we gain knowledge and which events we accept as the truth. Thucydides most likely retold the events which would help him tell the story his way. The Battle of Pylos lends itself well on the study of Thucydides’ distortion of the battle plan, the Spartans’ great surrender, the idea of ‘fake news’, and how we gain knowledge.

Today we consider Thucydides one of the greatest historians of the Classical period. Unlike Herodotus, the father of history and anthropology, who told plenty of stories and digressions, Thucydides relied on eye witnesses and wrote about events that were contemporary to his own life. He did not, however, see the topography of the battle in the bay of Navarino first hand. When writing about the battle, he made an error in the width of the passage, saying it could be blocked by two triremes. We now know that the passage is much wider than that, spanning a kilometre and a half or more, and would have been that way at the time of the battle. I find this interesting because Thucydides’ writing is considered a primary source, yet it gets vital details about the battle wrong. He seems to choose the details which suit his version of the battle,  deliberately distorting the plan in favour of the Spartans. This reminds me of the rise of ‘fake news’ in today’s media, as we are struggling with the same epistemological clash the Greeks faced even in ancient times.

The battle itself was a great upset for the Spartans, as it contradicted their number one rule: never back down. The catalyst to the final battle on Sphacteria was Athens’ fortification on Pylos. The Spartans didn’t like this, so they sent their naval fleet to try and rid the bay of the Athenians, but were defeated. This is perhaps where Thucydides argued that the passage to the bay of Navarino could be blocked by a few triremes, excusing the Spartans’ loss on the water. After the defeat, there were 300 Spartan hoplites left on Sphacteria, and the Spartan commander simply told them to not do anything dishonourable. The Athenians set the island on fire and burned all the trees so that the Spartans were wide in the open. The Athenians attacked and the Spartan hoplites had nowhere to go, so they surrendered— to lightly-armed troops no less.
The Spartans’ surrender was shocking because only a few generations earlier, 300 of them had fought strong and honourably to the death at Thermopylae. The surrender was also a first for the Spartans, as their code of conduct is to never give up their land. The Spartans were notorious for their agonistic ethos, which is why they couldn’t just sit back and watch the Athenians take hold of the land at Pylos. This eventually backfired on them, as they ended up losing to the Athenians.

The battle of Pylos intrigued me because of Thucydides’ inaccuracy in depicting the battle between the Spartans and the Athenians. Perhaps he depicted the passage as more narrow because he wanted to make the Spartans’ surrender seem more courageous or their defeat less embarrassing. Either way, he relied on the evidence which would support his story.

At Pylos, I learned the importance of first-hand evidence and accuracy in reporting. There are holes in history because of Thucydides’ mistake and if no one had questioned it, we would not realize that to this day. Because we were studying the battle while gazing out at the bay of Navarino, it was obvious that the kilometre and a half wide passage could not have been blocked by a few triremes. Whether Thucydides got the information mixed up because of errors in word of mouth communication or deliberately distorted the information, he was a primary source that was trusted with wrongful information. This is interesting because even thousands of years later, we run into the same problem. News outlets and trusted sources are feeding us information with varying interpretations or even false facts. We need to be critical of others, who we trust with our information, and how we gather such information.

Tiryns – Walls to Behold, by Scott Fellows

This wonderous Mycenaean (Bronze) Age settlement is located a short distance from the beautiful Nafplion.  It gives you another opportunity to peer into the more distant Greek past. Pausanias, the travel writer, claimed Tiryns was as marvelous as the Egyptian pyramids and, while that might be a bit of an exaggeration, the settlement is remarkable.  It is different from other Bronze Age palaces like the Palace of Nestor or Mycenae in that it had the most remarkable of defenses – huge walls with several massive gates.

The walls are truly a wonder in their size, thickness and construction as they dwarf anything built later. Construction seems relatively simple as it is made up of large unworked stones surrounded by small stones to fill in the gaps. How they moved these massive stones around would have been something to behold and, as an indication of the size, the style of masonry was called Cyclopean.  This was a term used by Pausanias as he believed they had to have been placed by giants.  Such grand and imposing construction could not have gone unnoticed by the locals and any visitors, including other potential competing groups. Even after a thousand years they still impressed someone like Pausanias with their 10m height and 7.5m width or thickness. The citadel itself is only 18m off the ground and when compared to other locations, it might explain the need for a sizeable defensive wall. However, this wall is so massive and over-engineered it was obviously built to impress and surely to intimidate. Of course, what wall would be complete without a steep ramp and a couple of massive gates set up like locks on a canal to funnel in enemies where they could be isolated and attacked from above?

Walking up the steep ramp you walk through a couple of massive well fitted gates. The rock that goes into the gate structures have been worked and cut with amazing precision lest you think the Cyclopean masonry is all they know. Finally, reaching the top, you pass through a large impressive propylon into a large forecourt, another propylon, the main court, and finally the megaron where court was held.

The megaron followed the standard layout in that it had a porch with two columns, a vestibule, and a throne room with a large circular hearth surround by four columns with a throne probably on the right side opposite the hearth. There is a second smaller megaron that could possibly have been used by the queen, and we see a similar layout at the Palace of Nestor and Mycenae.  They all seemed to have followed a similar pattern of leadership.

There is some debate whether this upper structure would have been a formal palace or not.  Personally, I don’t know how you could build such a massive wall, that obviously took supreme effort and cost, and then put an ugly plain building at the top. One could assume this would be a palace or at least a palace in quality of art and décor to be suitably as impressive as the walls and gates. So, while this site may not be as grand as a pyramid, Tiryns is certainly worth the trip if you have even the slightest interest in the fascinating early history of Greece or in seeing really big walls.

Maxima cum aggravata, by David MacMullin

Coming to Delphi I knew that it held the Pythian Games, one of the four great Panhellenic games in ancient Greece; however, I had no idea that it was a site so rich in mythology and military victory monuments. Even though the site held games and provided a venue for dedications, first and foremost the shrines served a religious purpose. One main myth mentions Delphi as a location of refuge for Orestes following the killing of his mother Clytemnestra in the play the Eumenides of Aeschylus. The story of how of how Apollo came to be master of this site is a curious one. A four-day old Apollo arrived at the spring Castellia. There he met a snake named Pytho who had come to kill his mother. Unfortunately for the snake it was no match for Apollo. Then he decided to stay at Delphi. Turning himself into a Dolphin he interrupted a ship travelling from Crete to Pylos in order to convince the passengers that they should come to Delphi and serve as his attendants. They agreed and came with Apollo to Delphi. And in this way Delphi was named after the form he took, the Dolphin.

The competition at the Delphic site was twofold. The first was between competitors themselves. Honor was a very important factor in athletic competitions. Athletes did not represent their city states. If an athlete were victorious only then would he be accepted as a representative of the polis. Upon returning home, bronzes would be set up on the acropolis of the victor’s hometown. There are even instances where the walls of the city were torn down to allow for a larger procession to pass into the city. Individuals did not compete in the games simply to represent themselves. If an athlete did not think they could win they would withdraw and there are instances in the literature where athletes were intimidated into pulling out of the competition. This is because you were dishonored if you lost. There were no silver or bronze medals. If you came second you were the first loser. Besides having a monument erected in your hometown, a statue could be dedicated at the Delphic site. Even after Nero took 500 bronze statues from the site, 3000 remained. It is not surprising that the site became known as the ‘the battle of the bronzes’. Unfortunately, these sculptures do not survive but through the remains of statue bases we can get a picture of the vast volume of them.

The second competition was between states. This was separate from the games themselves, but because the sanctuary was visited by Greeks from all over the Mediterranean it was a perfect place for states to assert themselves over one another. These were often victory monuments but rather than being related to the games they were from battles between the city states and elsewhere. This advertising took place along the sacred way of the precinct. The city states built bigger and better monuments to show their prowess over one another. These could be direct responses to other monuments just across the sacred way. An example of this is the Spartan dedication celebrating the battle at Aegospotami in 405 BCE. In response to this the Arcadians also from the Peloponnese erected a monument to their victory against the Spartans in 369 BCE. So too did the Athenians assert themselves by building the Stoa of the Athenians. The Stoa was erected in honor of their victory over the Persians and housed the hopla, cables used by the Persians for the pontoon bridge they made to cross the Hellespont, and prows from the Persian ships. Attending the Pythian games at Delphi, a place steeped in myth, meant marching yourself along the sacred way in between monuments erected to aggravate other states.

Torches in the Night, by Mharie Scott-Henderson

By now, most of the pertinent battles for our course have already been discussed in other blog posts. We have visited the sites of the Battle of Marathon, Thermopylae, Plataea, Leuctra, Chaeronea, and today, Pylos. At each site our professors spend a great deal of time explaining to us the context of the specific battles, the layout of both armies, and their positioning on the battlefields. And, while everyone seems to be mesmerized by the trophies at certain battles, or the tumulus at Marathon, I have been having difficulty picturing the enormous volumes of soldiers that would have been required for these massive battles.

We, first, traveled to the site of Marathon. Here we discussed the birth of hoplite phalanx, its significance in Greece and the role it played in the idealization of men and citizens. We also revisited the formation and equipment of the hoplite phalanx. The phalanx consisted of tightly packed heavy infantry soldiers stationed eight ranks deep. Athenian soldiers were farmers and other citizens of the polis ­– citizen amateurs – whereas Spartan soldiers were a professional standing army. Soldiers had to provide their own equipment, the standard of which was a 7-9-foot dory (spear) that had a squared spike on the end – a lizard-killer – to serve as a counterweight and finish off enemies that were trampled on. The spears are thought to have been held in the right hand and overhand ­– not underhand as some suggest – for maneuverability, range, and most importantly, not accidentally stabbing the rank behind on the withdrawal. The other standard piece of equipment was the large, circular shield. The Greek aspis shields were so large and heavy that they required a dual grip that allowed the shield to rest on both ends of the left forearm. Most other equipment is optional and only worn by the wealthy members of the army.

From Herodotus, we are left with the presumed knowledge that the initial collision at Marathon took place after the Athenian soldiers charged at the Persian troops for 1 mile carrying minimum 32 kilograms – or 9 kilograms heavier than the limit for a checked bag at airports. Now, go to Marathon and have a professor show you how far the battle spanned on the plain and see if you can picture the armies clashing together. Imagine the battle waging for so long that the tumulus where the majority of Athenian soldiers died is so far away that we needed a bus to take us to the trophy. Now, go to Thermopylae and imagine 300 Spartans and their various allies facing off against an often-exaggerated number of Persians. If you can find it, try to do the same at Plataea, where they spent far too much time sacrificing goat after goat until they finally presented good omens. These good omens coincidentally occurred the same time that the Tegean allies began to attack the Persians who had not been waiting patiently for their enemies to receive the gods’ blessing. If you can’t, well, I couldn’t either – until I went to Delphi.

You might read that and find it odd, considering no battles took place in Delphi, but this is where my eyes opened to the past – please overlook how sappy that sounds. Myself and two other students decided that it would be a smart idea to start walking down a mountain path along the cliffs at night. We had intended to go down to a little ledge but decided against it when we saw how far down it went. Instead, we stayed on the first little plateau. Everything clicked when the sky grew darker and the lights of the nearby towns grew more visible. It is hard to explain, and no picture could capture it, but in the direction opposite to where we were standing in the far distance was another mountain. The flickering of the lights from the town by the mountain looked like a mass of torches. That was the moment, the moment where I experienced what it might have felt like to see an army moving closer to your city.

We had been in Greece for 10 days at that point and had seen enough to know why certain territory was worth keeping. I can now stare out at the Bay of Navarino and see the triremes of the Spartan and Athenian fleets during the battle of Pylos and the Athenian ships sailing around the Island of Sphacteria in 425BCE. The stubborn pride of the Spartan hoplites who ran around the island until the light-armed troops pinned them down and forced the Spartan retreat is a fun episode to imagine. I can imagine the Spartan hoplites lined up in the mountain pass at Thermopylae when the water would have been further inland. The Athenian troops running along the plain of Marathon with their insanely heavy armor for such a great distance, no, that one still throws me off. That’s too much running. I’m glad I saw the lights of the city and mistook them for torches.

Size and Motion: The Olympia Museum, by Cat Squires

Upon entering the city of Olympia you realize immediately that Olympia is a global city. Flags from the countries that participate in the Olympics today adorn poles and line the streets. The city itself feels vibrant and is tourist motivated ( it’s full of gift shops and
places to eat – my mother would have loved it!) But, best of all, Olympia is more than just a tourist destination, it is a monument to living history. The Olympics began here and that sense of competition and challenge continues to occur around the world.

Now, sure, Olympia has great shops and the locals are nothing but friendly, but (you knew there would be a but), the best thing about Olympia, from my humble perspective, is visiting its history at the Olympia Museum.

The site of the Olympic games was huge. It was packed full of buildings, statues, trophies – everything you might think of to accommodate a long period of competition, religious rites, and games. In classical times the games happened every four years so it wasn’t a small event by any stretch of the imagination. The site contained apartments for athletes and their entourages, eating places, training zones and a stadium. It had monuments, shrines, temples and even treasuries.

So, taking that all into account, it makes sense that the archaeological finds from it would be immense – and they are. I won’t go into detail about everything there is to see but I will tell you about three things that I promise will make you stand back in awe if you take the time to look.

The first thing you should see upon coming into the museum is the model of the grounds. It’s under glass, so don’t lean on it, but take a good look at it and absorb how massive the grounds really were. For a few minutes imagine how many people would have come from all over Greece to attend. And imagine them walking through the propylaea and extending out through the grounds as they went. Venturing to Olympia to complete in the Olympics was a big deal for both the individual and the places they represented (just like they still are today) and in classical times there was no prize for second place.

The second source of interest, as you walk into the adjoining room just past the model, are the East and West Pediments from Olympia’s Temple of Zeus. If you didn’t already know – Zeus was a big deal. As ruler of the gods, the East pediment is a visual representation of that lofty position and the status and elevation of the gods above men. When standing in front of the pediments from the Temple of Zeus, magnificent is the only word that comes to mind. Intimidating in their size alone, they have effectively captured the excellence of Greek sculptural skill.

Depicting the chariot race between Pelops and King Oinomaos of Pisa, Zeus stands at the centre of the scene, his posture stoic and serene. All of the figures in the scene appear motionless and still as well, separate from each other despite being in the same space – these free standing severe classical style sculptures convey an air of calm and lack of concern as Zeus presides over the imminent chariot race. Well…except for one figure – the seer. If you know the story of Pelops and King Oinomaos, you know it doesn’t end well and involves a chariot race, cheating, and death. This one figure, the seer, knows what is about to unfold – his posture, with his hand to his head, suggests knowledge and foresight. This pediment effectively juxtaposes gods and men.

In contrast, if you take a look behind you, The West Pedimental sculptures depict a mythological pub brawl that breaks out between Centaurs and Lapiths at a wedding feast. When you set your eyes on the scene you, if you’re like me at all, will feel a sense of unity as well as an immediate sense of chaos and commotion. Limbs askew, the faces of the centaurs twisted, aggression and tension in the muscles – solid marble statues look to be in motion right in front of you. Most impressive within the scene is Apollo, still and sure, conveying with the outstretch of an arm an immense sense of power. Apollo stands serene yet firm among the chaos and the faces of the human figures, the Lapith women who are being taken fight, while maintaining that calm as well.

I’m being honest in saying I have never seen a statue so beautiful (as the central statue of Apollo) in its juxtaposition of strength and serenity. The tranquility achieved in his features, the sculptors articulation of his posture, the relaxation depicted in his muscles, and the slight canting of his head to the side truly coveys what power is and what was
godlike to the Greeks.

The final thing that I feel you truly shouldn’t miss from this museum is the statue of Hermes holding Dionysus. If you appreciate the human form, and view it as art, this sculpture is for you. Thanks to the museum’s choice in lighting (a warm light does wonderful things on marble), and the skill of the sculptor, Hermes looks alive. The sculpture shows texture and asymmetry, which tend to make things feel more believable as we look at them: Rough texture through the hair, subtle texture changes on the knees, and the remaining areas supple and smooth with the marble appearing lifelike. The
body also shows accurate distribution of weight and muscles that are finely detailed. The statue of Hermes, for me, is an example of high artistry and skill.

So, I’ve given you a list of to do’s. Do go to Greece, the experience will change your life. Do visit Olympia because, even if you don’t like sports, the fusion of art and history will leave you breathless. And in Greece, there’s always more to see.