1. Introduction

This paper will address the concept of the Olympian stadium in relation to its location and the built environment. It will present the research work of Kiuri and Teller (2013) from the laboratory “Local Environment Management & Analysis” (LEMA), University of Liège (ULg). The work, under the title “The stadium of Olympia, from the perspective of dialogical architecture” is presented online published by the International Scientific Workshop-COAC 2012 of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC). The first results were presented at the international seminar “Stadium 2012”, organized by the University of Liège, under the personal patronage of Dr Jacques Rogge. These results complement other scientific publications on Olympic stadiums.

Our approach is based on an analysis of the relationship between the stadium and the Altis of Olympia during the Hellenistic period as a paradigmatic case. It was suggested that the terms “distancing and separation” referring to the relationship between the Olympian stadium and the Altis after its departure from the Sanctuary, do not reflect the richness of the conception of the whole. The objective was to present a broader reading of the stadium architecture in relation to social and cultural values. The social dialogue and the respect for diversity that characterized the Hellenistic period and the universal significance of the Olympic Games influenced the stadium location, orientation and configuration, its own archetypical essence. The site of Olympia belongs to World Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 1989).

Section 2 concerns the description of the site, followed by the interpretation of the Olympian stadium in terms of its mechanism of composition, significant location, functional routes, perceptions, role of architectural elements and spatial characteristics, from a dialogical perspective, more prominent during the Hellenistic period. Plans and views¹ illustrate this interpretation. The final part of the presentation examines the historical archetype of the Olympian stadium and the significance of its space.

2. Description of the site of Olympia

The Olympian stadium is the most ancient of all Greek stadiums (Charkiolakis, 2002). Initially the site of Olympia included the entirety of the sanctuary of the gods (Altis) and the Archaic stadium that had been part of the sacred precinct. This first stadium was located inside the sanctuary. There was only one dromos (Romano, 1993). Its finishing line faced the altar of Zeus.

Later, the stadium was moved to the east. Embankments were provided for spectators of the second stadium. Due to the secularization of the Games and the great interest people had in them, the third stadium was relocated outside the Altis, to the east and to the north, at the time when the great temple of Zeus was built. This is the position “in which it can now be seen” (Valavanis, 2004, p. 100). The two principal temples were the Temple of Hera (6th century BC) and the temple of Zeus (5th century BC). The Echo Colonnade (Stoa), erected in the second part of the 4th century BC, was the multipurpose building situated between the Altis and the stadium. The main entrance for the athletes (Crypte) was erected at the west side of the Stoa in the late Hellenistic period (UNESCO/CLT/WHC, 2012; Yalouris & Yalouris, 1991). In front of the Stoa a “dominating dedication” (columns) was built in 270 BC (Valavanis, 2004, p. 122). The final structure of the stadium at Olympia is part of the late Classical period and the Hellenistic period, rebuilt during the 1st century AD. This stadium and the other facilities (official housing, assembly rooms, sports structures, thermal baths, lodgings, accommodation for guests) make up a U-shape around the site of the Altis, open towards Mount Kronion (Figure 1).

This third and definitive stadium of Olympia, the late Classical stadium, has been most precisely examined and studied by scholars thanks to the precision of archaeological data. These confirm in large measure the descriptions left by Pausanias (Pausanias, 174 BC/2002). “Archaeological and historical records show that little has changed at this site over the past few millennia” (Kenderine, 2001, p. 46).

The late Classical stadium and the Hellenistic stadium are well known thanks to historical and archaeological writings. Our study is based on this data insofar as the analysis of the space of the stadium is concerned. The plans analyzed are: after Lackenbach (Romano, 1993) and after Adler (Doxiadis, 1972). In his description of the Altis of Olympia, Doxiadis explains how the position, orientation and distance of the buildings from important points, as for example the entrances, “are determined on the basis of the 30° angle” (Doxiadis, 1972, p. 72). At the same time, the analyses of Doxiadis regarding the Altis show that the space of the sanctuary was designed in accordance with principles of composition and perspective that had been established through a visual study (Tsiambaos, 2009).

The measurements of the track in the late Classical stadium were 192.28m x 30.74m, but in order to facilitate visual perception; the track with its width of 34.33m on the middle line has a slightly curved-in form. The space of the stadium was the object of visual studies from the point of view of the sporting event. Mathematical and visual studies were possible as early as the Archaic period, as noted by Romano (1993), thanks to the use of simple technical means. The stadium at Olympia is an important reference point for many writings about sports and the historical development of sports facilities. The establishment of the stadium of Olympia outside the sacred rectangle of the Altis is often interpreted as an act of “separation” and “isolation” from the built environment of the sanctuary (Durántez, 2004). The term “definitive separation” from the Stoa is often used to describe the development of the Olympian stadium over time (Finley & Pleket, 2004, p. 90; Yalouris & Yalouris, 1991, p. 15). However, the playing field was not taken into consideration in many of these studies as a spatial form of porosity between the two areas.

“Olympia is directly and tangibly associated with the Games, an event of universal significance” (UNESCO/CLT/WHC). The rhetorician Isocrates highlighted the tradition of a place for reassembling people on the occasion of the 100th Olympiade (Chamoux, 1977 p. 223). Concerning the final stadium, the Hellenistic period is of particular interest because it was marked by cultural diversity, inspiring the dialogical philosophy of Bajtin (1982) and the architectural dialogical concept (Leddy, 1994; Muntañola, 2010). This stadium, part of the Classical period and the Hellenistic Era, is determined by the willingness to reflect the values of one’s epoch, being the emblematic place of the Games, the place for meeting people and for remembering (Kiuri, 2009). We will therefore focus on the last stadium of Olympia, so as to illustrate the possible dialogue between the stadium and the built environment of the Altis.

3. Interpretation of the stadium of Olympia from a dialogical perspective

Taking into account the basic principles identified by Doxiadis (1972, p. 72), the description of the sanctuary site (ibid., p. 84) and the fact that visual studies have probably been applied to the stadium (Romano, 1993), we can proceed to an interpretation of the site from a dialogical principle. We consider the starting line of the east side of the stadium as a significant point. We analyze spatial perception from the point of view of the athlete, the protagonist in this space and his specific route, i.e. the dromos. We describe the functional, visual and symbolical role of the temples, the Stoa, the Crypte and other elements, in terms of the stadium space and the site as a whole.

Our purpose is to present visually the possible functional connection with the stadium. Through the elaborated plans we wanted to show the scenographic effect of the sanctuary as a result of the visual composition between buildings and the stadium’s significant east starting line.

3.1 The starting line of the racing track (dromos) in the eastern part of the stadium as a significant location and the dromos as a functional route

The location of the starting line has a meaning in terms of the space of the stadium. Foot races were the only sport during the first Olympic Games. This course was called “stadion” and did correspond to the length of the “dromos” of the stadium between the lines (Valavanis, 2004). The name of the winner of the stadion course would be used to identify the Olympiad (Van Looy, 1992). This course is oriented towards the west. In the later Classical and in the Hellenistic stadium, even for competitions called “diavlos” and “dolichos”, the last course was always oriented towards the west, towards the sacred rectangle of the Altis. The bands and posts, elements at the lines of the racecourse, dromos, confirm this (Vanhove, Laporte, Bultiauw & Raepsaet, 1992). The dromos is the principal route in the stadium space. The point of view of the athlete and his movement turns out to be a determining factor in the composition of the ensemble. In the stadium it is the racecourse, in its space, which plays an important and distinctive role. This makes us choose the (starting) line in the eastern part of the stadium as a significant location (Figure 2).

At this point the athletes have before them the finishing line as a distant point in perspective, either at the start, or before the final race. Visual perspectives will be calculated in regard to the extremities of the point of vision.

The silhouette of the Altis forms part of the visual frame of the stadium and its embankments: Temple of Zeus (I) (5th century BC), Temple of Hera (II) (6th century BC), the Metroon (III) (4th century BC), the Treasury buildings (IV) (6th and 5th centuries BC). From the northeast point 1, the Temple of Zeus appears to be framed by two columns situated in the Altis and erected in 270 BC in front of the Stoa (Valavanis, 2004), (Figure 3).

From the southeast point 2 a perspective opens up toward a visual composition, in which the space of the stadium and the silhouette of the Altis still form one group. The Stoa remains in the frame of the stadium as a pedestal for the main temple. The rise of the land to the north of the stadium ”supports” the Temple of Hera and the Metroon, while the Stoa “rests” upon the southern incline of the same. The northern façade of the temple of Zeus appears to be framed by two columns situated in the Altis. The silhouette of the sanctuary (Altis) forms part of the visual frame of the stadium and its embankments (Figure 4).

The views of the finish line confirm the possible visual connection between athletes and Stoa spectators. The two columns, situated in the Altis remain visible as reference of the location of the main temple.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

3.2 The Stoa as a dialogical element between the Stadium and the Altis

The finishing line of the racecourse remains oriented towards the west and the sanctuary. Views from the finishing line confirm the possible visual connection between athletes and persons standing in the Stoa. The sanctuary as a reference for the course suggests a relation that is maintained between the two spaces. The physical separation of the stadium from the Altis is transformed into an instrument for generating a dialogical space, permeable on the visual level where perspectives open up towards the whole. The Stoa was a multipurpose building (Valavanis, 2004). So it could have become a double-oriented area between two spaces, the Altis and the stadium. It is possible that the Stoa communicated with the stadium by its second storey, which dates back to the Hellenistic period. The construction of two upper storeys of the Greek Stoa, during the Hellenistic period, was mainly intended to afford a panoramic view of the place to someone standing on the upper floor (Coulton, 1976, p. 56). “The Hellenistic period is normally and rightly considered as the period of stoas par excellence” (Coulton, 1976, p. 55).

The Stoa, more than a separating element, is an element that belongs to the Altis and to the stadium. Interpretations agree that there was a separation from the sanctuary, which resulted in the construction of the Stoa. In fact, this portico replaced an existing wall. A wall by definition causes a separation, while the Stoa is also by definition, is a place for communication. In Olympia specifically, it was the place for heralds and trumpeters during the Olympic event.

3.3 The Crypte – a Porte as a dialogical element

At the north-west point of the stadium the monumental entrance for the athletes (Crypte stoa) was built in the late Hellenistic period, defined by an arch as its architectural accent upon this point of connection and exchange between different spaces, that of the Altis and that of the stadium (figure 4). This entrance is accentuated from the side of the Altis by the statues (the Zanes) that led to it.

The Porte communicates, suggests and intrigues. Thus, a more subtle and creative level in terms of conception and connection between spaces is in the process of opening up.

3.4 The athlete’s perception, a mechanism of visual composition

Vision, position and human motion are essential instruments for the perception of space. The stadium at Olympia is probably one of those cases where the interaction between immobile space and bodies in movement is best taken into consideration. The point of view of the human being and his motion turns out to be a determining factor in the composition of the ensemble (Altis, Stoa and Staduim). The analyzed characteristics of point 1 and point 2 on the east line could lead to further studies of the Olympian athlete’s ritual and motion. In the stadium it is the racecourse, in its space, which plays an important and distinctive role, revealing unique spatial characteristics.

4. Significance of the Olympian stadium space

The terms “distancing” and “separation”, referring to the distance between the Olympic stadium and the Altis, as presented in different texts, do not reflect the richness of the conception of the whole.

The stadium gets further away from the Altis for functional reasons and because of its progressive secularization, yet the sanctuary remains present in the stadium through the scenographic effect of its monumental silhouette. This can be appreciated at a key location, that is, from the starting line of the racecourse, or from the last part of the course before the finish, lending distinction to the entire space. The silhouette of the sanctuary gives a cultural identity to the space of the last Olympic stadium. The entire space of the stadium is made to seem more significant in this way. At the same time, it belongs to a real location. The space of the stadium engages in dialogue not only with the natural but also with the built environment, highlighting specific functional (sport) points within the stadium. This dialogue allows the creation of spaces in relation with a tradition that has become culture. It establishes communication between different spaces.

Therefore the notion of dialogue between different areas and actors is real. Thus, the stadium, as an emblematic space for meeting people, is tangibly associated with the value of respect of diversity, belonging to the Hellenistic period and issued by the Games.

The stadium is linked to the site through a dialogical architectural language, expressing a synthesis between nature and culture. The Olympian stadium is yet another example of the union of the absolute with the local in Greek architecture (Martienssen, 1984). The suggested relation between Olympian stadium space and built environment allows us to better understand the object stadium within its broader context in terms of its “cultural significance”, i.e. multiple heritage values (Mason, Avrami & de la Torre, 2000, p. 7). Thereby this characteristic could be part of the archetypical definition of the Olympian stadium because it gives identity to the stadium space and could open a new approach in conceiving contemporary Olympic stadiums (Kiuri & Teller, 2012; Kiuri & Reiter, 2013). Contemporary Olympic legacy conditions must be also related to the Olympic values code (Georgiadis, 2013).

The stadium at Olympia not only received its name “Stadium” at this particular place but also left us a model for the enclosure of a sporting event, a lesson about the integration of a stadium in the manner of architecture of the void. Key elements are: perceptions and pathways on a human scale, permeability between spaces, dialogical architectural elements, and notion of place.

5. Conclusion

The message inherited by antiquity concerning the Olympian stadium refers to the permeability between stadium space and the built environment by principles of visual composition and dialogical architecture.

The emplacement of the last Olympian stadium outside the Altis, the distance and orientation of its track, were probably the result of a visual composition related to the sport activity. The stadium at Olympia is possibly one of those cases where the interaction between immobile space and bodies in motion are taken into consideration in the best possible way. The stadium, although independent in relation to the sanctuary, it remained linked to the site of the sanctuary through a dialogical architectural language: composition, perspectives, built and natural elements, symbols.

The Hellenistic stadium is possibly based on principles of visual composition with the build environment. The dialogical space conceived for the Olympic event is a symbolically configured space that gives significance of the whole stadium.

We consider this characteristic as a principle that could be part of the archetypical definition of the Olympian stadium and consequently reinterpreted in modern Olympic stadiums. As recalled by Hernández León (2010),

“Architecture also depends upon the historical archetypes it has created, although it has to assume a requirement of perpetual transformation. It cannot leave its origins without destroying its own status as a discipline. What remains is the modelling of the resemblance, that brings us closer to the limits of formal dissolution and to the possibility of representing sensations as a basic content of spatial experience” (p. 24).

In conclusion, the dialogical approach in interpreting the Olympian stadium within a build environment reveals a precious historical message from the case of Olympia. This message could also open a creative approach in conceiving future stadiums closer to Olympic values.

‍

1. The plans presented were realized in the Lucid – University of Liège with ©“Sketchup 7” and the views with ©“Artlantis studio 3”. The plans and the views are based on the dimensions and layout of buildings as documented by archaeological studies. The heights of temples and the Stoa building were estimated from the existing solid model of the site. Various sections explore the Stoa’s floor opening to the stadium. Some models of the sanctuary of Olympia include the Stoa looking out to the stadium space. Our images/views are not meant as an archaeological reconstruction of the buildings. The heights are approximations derived from our studies, after considering several possible versions. The cross-section of the Stoa is also schematic.

‍

References

Bajtin, M. (1982), Estética de la creación verbal. Siglo XXI, México, 396 p.

Charkiolakis, N. (2002), “Sport, Sites, Cultures”, in ICOMOS, Nationalkomitee der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.), Ancient Greek Stadia, ICOMOS Journal of the German National Committee XXXVIII, 96 p., pp. 11–14.

Chamoux, Fr. (1977), La civilisation grecque. Arthaud, Paris, 476 p.

Coulton, J. J. (1976), The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford Monographs in Classical Archaeology), Oxford University Press, 308 p.

Doxiadis, C. A. (1972), Architectural Space in Ancient Greece, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 184 p. [Originally published in German: Raumordnung im griechischen Städtebau, Vowinckel Verlag, Heidelberg, 1937].

Durántez, C. (2004), “Historia de las instalaciones deportivas olimpicas. Instalaciones deportivas”, Ingeneria y Territorio – Revista del colegio de ingenieros de caminos puertos y canales, n°66, pp. 4–11.

Finley, M. J. & Pleket, H. W. (2004), 1000 ans de Jeux olympiques, Perrin, Paris, 240 p. [Originally published in English: The Olympic Games: The First Thousand Years, Chatto & Windus, London, 1976].

Georgiadis, K. (2013), “Keeping the flame alive at the IOA – The ‘Legacy’ in education”, Journal of Olympic History, vol. 21, n°2, pp. 64–65.

Hernández León, J. M. (2010), “El malestar de la forma”, Iluminaciones, revista de arquitectura y pensamiento, n°1, Éditions Fundacion Arquitectura y Sociedad, Madrid, 68 p., pp. 18–24.

Kenderdine, S. (2001), “A Guide for Multimedia Museum Exhibits: 1,000 Years of the Olympic Games”, Museum International (UNESCO, Paris), vol. LIII, n°3, pp. 45–52.

Kiuri, M. (2009), Estadio olimpico, Espacio cultural, Cuadernos de pensamiento, n°2, Éditions UCJC, Madrid, 100 p.

Kiuri, M. & Reiter, S. (2013), “Olympic Stadium design: past achievements and future challenges”, ArchNet–IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, vol. 7, issue 2 (2013), pp. 102–117.

Kiuri, M. & Teller, J. (2012), “Olympic Stadiums in their urban environment: A question of design and cultural significance”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2(2), pp. 115–129.

Kiuri, M. & Teller, J. (2013), “The Stadium of Olympia, from the perspective of the dialogical architecture”, International Workshop – COAC 2012, Jornadas Cientificas, Éditions UPC, Barcelona.

Leddy, T. (1994), “Dialogical architecture”, in Michael H. Mitias, Philosophy and Architecture, Éditions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 183–199.

Mason, R., Avrami, E. & de la Torre, M. (2000), “Report of Research”, in Marta de la Torre & Erica Avrami (Eds.), Values and Heritage Conservation, Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 120 p., pp. 3–12.

Martienssen, R. D. (1984), La idea del espacio en la arquitectura griega, Nueva Vision, B. Aires, 156 p.

Muntañola, J. (2010), Arquitectura y dialógia, Éditions UPC, Barcelona, 82 p.

Pausanias (174 b. JC) (2002) Description de la Grèce,VI. L’Elide (II). Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 438 p.

Romano, D.G. (1993), Athletics and Mathematics in Archaic Corinth: The Origins of the Greek Stadion. Memories of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 206 p.

Tsiambaos, K. (2009), “The Creative Gaze: Doxiadis’ discovery”. The Journal of Architecture 14(2), pp. 255–275.

UNESCO (1989), Decision 13 COM XV.A, Archaeological site of Olympia, The World Heritage Committee, Internal report, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/ en/decisions/3634, accessed on 6/2/2012.

UNESCO/CLT/WHC (2012), http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/517.

Valavanis, P. (2004) Games and Sanctuaries in Ancient Greece. Getty Publications, Los Angeles, 447 p.

Van Looy, H. (1992) Le sport dans la Grèce Antique. Les Festivales, Université de Gent/Société des expositions du Palais des Beaux Arts, Bruxellels, pp. 79–97.

Vanhove, D., Laporte W., Bultiauw P. & Raepsaet Hemelryk, J. (1992), Le sport dans la Grèce Antique. Les disciplines sportives, Université de Gent/Société des expositions du Palais des Beaux Arts Bruxellels, pp. 99–124.

Yalouris, A. & Yalouris, N. (1991) Olympie, Guide du Musée et du Sanctuaire. Ekdotike Athenon, Athens, 182 p.

Plan sources (figures 1–4): Kiuri, M., Teller, J., Hamoir, L. (ULg); Horcajada, R. (UPM) (after plans “i” & “ii”: Luckenbach (Romano, 1993) and Curtius & Adler (Doxiadis, 1972); after picture “iii” from the Olympic Museum, Barcelona (Kiuri, 2010); (source: model Sanctuary of Olympia, Gent, Bouwhuis).

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

KIURI Miranda, "The Stadium of Olympia", in: K. Georgiadis(ed.), Olympic values: Respect for diversity, 54th International Session for Young Participants (Ancient Olympia, 15-29/6/2014), International Olympic Academy, Athens, 2015, pp.109-120.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍