This week was action packed and so exciting! We started off the week with a visit to the Athenian Agora on Tuesday. We got a super interesting tour by the director of the Agora, John Papodopoulos. It was super interesting to see how the geography of the Agora played out in relation to the Agora itself, both Ancient and modern. We started outside the Agora where we discussed both how there are modern train tracks that go through the excavations of the Agora and also how the Agora used to be more swampy or marshy and had to be drained, hence The Great Drain that we were repeatedly warned not to fall into. It was incredible to see how the train tracks had, at least partially accidentally, been built in the best way they could have been to destroy as little of the ancient remains as possible, even if it meant that the excavators had to work in short increments running onto and across the tracks in between trains. We also saw the painted stoa that is across the modern street that extends the excavations out of the area of the fence and further into the modern city of Athens. The Director also brought up how he had recently raised money and bought land near to the painted stoa to continue to expand excavations, but that he was leaving that for the next director so that they had something to excavate. This of course inspired additional conversation of the theirs of excavation itself, as it is destructive and has a lot of colonialism tied to it, but also of when to excavate what as techniques continue to improve so that perhaps we can get more out of excavations but those advancements cannot really happen without excavations continuing; we cannot just wait for better techniques to excavate anything more. This buying up property is also them working with and around the current geography of the place—the city is still occupied and there must be a balance between current people’s lives and the history beneath them. He did not go into it in great detail but I wonder what kind of pressure the previous owners of that land faced to sell it—were they truly given a choice and did they want to or was there pressure from the government that they were unable to resist. This is also true of what existed before the excavations began. This was super interesting to hear about because there is an exhibit that will be going up soon about the neighborhood that had to be destroyed to excavate the Agora initially and it raises many of the ethical questions that I have with archaeology generally. These sites are wonderous to see and truly irreplaceable, but so are peoples’ lives and it is difficult to see what the proper balance between archaeology and modern lives should be, as everyone seems to find different balances.
The Agora was the only site that we saw this week that seemed to have been built in opposition to the geography and landscape around it instead of taking advantage of it. It was built so that there had to be a large drain that ran through the Agora so that it did not and does not flood when it rains. This seems kind of silly and incredibly difficult, but it makes sense to want the Agora so close to the Acropolis and there were other factors that led to its placement – whether it was initially purposefully or developed there naturally. We also have done similar things in the much more modern US. Washington D.C. used to be a swamp that had to be drained for the capital be to placed there and many other cities are built in precarious places that are partially at the whim of nature for survival despite human attempts to protect and shore them up. Sometimes, it seems, a location is worth fighting nature for.
Almost all of the other sites that we saw later this weekend seemed to be built with the advantages of the landscape more in mind and took advantage of the natural bottlenecks, passes, high places, and protective qualities, especially with where we think the shoreline used to be. This was clear with Thermopolae, as there was a mini-hike up to the walls that survive and once up there it was clear how the walls were not built to cut off the pass and make it impossible to pass through but instead to control it. It is a narrow pass when the shoreline is added back in and so it would be difficult to move, either an individual or an army, through without people guarding the wall to know and be able to attack from the wall. Contrarily the wall itself seemed difficult to attack and well protected, so much so that there are stories of betrayal attached to the wall being taken.
This was also clear at Lamia at the end of our weekend trip. When we reached the top of this site and were able to explore the palace itself it was clear how easily defensible the palace could be, similar to the fortresses we saw last week at the Mazi plain. The palace was built at the top of a mountain and surrounded by plains and then more mountains so it creates not only a beautiful place but also a defensible castle surrounded by potential agricultural areas that are then protected by mountains. This place, as with the modern town and agriculture around it, seemed to be taking full advantage of the surrounding geography.
There was discussion here of potential other sites and multiple palaces and centers of people, for similar or different purposes, which mirror discussions we have had all weekend about the different central sites that we have seen (not all of which I have or will discuss), but whether or not this is the only palatial building or center in this area it is certainly strategically placed. We also discussed how the strategic value of these sites has remained throughout time. Not only is this area still used for agriculture and as a town but throughout history it has changed hands in dowries, as gifts, and through sieges. These spots that were identified as valuable in antiquity remain valuable now. This is true not only of Lamia but also of a number of other sites that we saw this weekend in and around Volos and it is incredible to get to see such ancient sites right next to modern cities and infrastructure, even if we have to visit separate sites and museums to see the finds from the sites. This does require removing the artifacts from their find spots, but putting them in a more centralized museum can help immensely with their display and our understanding of them, especially having been to the sites.
There is a secondary advantage to the placement of these fortresses and palaces in their geographic location. They are clearly primarily placed there for protection and their ability to be defended and see the approach of an approaching army, but additionally they have beautiful views that are difficult to beat. These views also make clear some of the descriptors that the poets will use to describe the landscape. We can read about the cliffs in class and look at pictures but nothing is quite the same as being faced by them. I repeatedly found myself awestruck at the view when we (sometimes by a small hike) reached these fortresses. These historic landmarks now are able to showcase both the incredibly long history of Greece, as many of the sights we saw this weekend had Neolithic roots, but also the great beauty of the modern country. I found myself having several conversations about these places being a great place to ponder or to read or write poetry. These activities make more sense when faced with the beauty of the views than with the classroom. There is such great beauty here, of the mountains, the plains, and the sea, but all of it can also carry such danger, both from the natural world and from others taking advantage of the natural world for martial purposes, and that was also omnipresent. If one did not already understand the innate and intimate connection between beauty and terror, it would become clear upon visiting Greece, one of the first places where we see this connection in human literature.