This week, and especially this past weekend’s trip to the Peloponnese, have really made me think a lot about history. We have been learning Greek history mostly chronologically, starting with the Neolithic and working our way up to the beginning of the Classical period. Even from the start of this term, I’ve been constantly amazed at the amount of history within the region. The archaeological experience that I have has often related to Latin America more than Europe and the Mediterranean, and the way in which large civilizations developed is very different between the two. Just learning about how social complexity and hierarchies were being developed way back in the Neolithic is startling, not to mention the idea that writing systems were used over three and a half thousand years ago for an early form of ancient Greek. Despite my almost constant state of amazement in the face of Greek history, what I’ve been thinking about most recently is the way in which history itself is perceived, desired, and accessed.
The first time that I recognized and was able to put my thoughts into something understandable was this weekend when we visited the Tholos Tombs at various sites in the Peloponnese. We talked in class and on site about how these are some of the first instances in which people in ancient Greece are concerning themselves with being remembered after death. These tombs, which were incredible to see and walk into, dramatically change the geography of the land signaling to people passing by that there is something there. The architecture is complex, and the labor required to build them would have been incredible, not to mention the difficulty of gathering the resources needed for construction. That’s all not even mentioning the wealth that would have been added to the tomb, not to be inherited but instead accompany the body of the deceased into the tomb. All of what we learned about in relation to these tombs makes me wonder about the why. Why did people start making these elaborate tombs? What changed socially that made people value displays of wealth? Why did people literally take their wealth to the grave? And perhaps the question I am most curious about, why were people suddenly concerned with being remembered, in some way, after they died? In its simplest form, history is recording the past, which includes those who have lived before us. Everyone wants to “be in the history books,” and it seems like these ancient Greeks placed a similar value on what happens after death.
The preservation, and especially the recording, of history is also of a special character here in Greece. We’ve mentioned the distinctions between “pre-history” and “history” and the importance of written records in providing information about the past. It is an interesting comparison, once again, to the ancient Latin American history that I am familiar with, in which there is little “record keeping” until the Spanish colonization and conquest. In contrast, Greece does have historical records going back more than two thousand years. And, while we’ve discussed how these records are not always truthful or accurate, they provide information about the politics, conflicts, and lives of these ancient cities and people. Even going into prehistory, the Linear B tablets provide information about the economics and early bureaucracy of ancient Greece, even if they don’t record history as we perceive of it. It is interesting to think about the actual recording of history and what gets written down and what does not. We don’t consider the Linear B tablets to be part of “history” in terms of time periods, yet they provide information about the past. So, what exactly qualifies as history? Who gets to decide what gets preserved as history (beyond the basic “history is written by the victors”)? And who decides what parts of recorded history are inaccurate?
Something else that I’ve been thinking about, in terms of history and its preservation, is when that preservation begins. We’ve been to many sites throughout Greece by this point, and they all have varying levels of protection, preservation, and reconstruction. Three instances have especially sparked my interest: the Parthenon, the Temple of Poseidon, and Olympia. The first is interesting along similar lines to what has been discussed in terms of modern Greece’s emphasis on the Classical period. The Parthenon that we see is not what it was last used for, and parts of its construction have been removed or changed in order to fit the Classical image. I am especially intrigued by the fact that, when Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire, there was a mosque within the Parthenon. This period of Greek history spanned centuries, and obviously had an impact on the people who lived through it. Yet, today, there is only one official mosque in Athens, and the actual practicality of it is questionable. The history of the Parthenon has changed, and what was erased from the architecture has also been erased in other aspects of life.
The Temple of Poseidon presented me with a different aspect of preservation. Perhaps because we were able to approach the Temple much closer than in the Parthenon, or perhaps because the preservation of the Temple is less so than the preservation of the Parthenon, one of the things I noticed was carved graffiti on the columns. It struck me as I was looking at it, and realizing what that people had scratched their names and the year into this ancient structure, that people perceive the importance of history differently. It is not necessarily a new thought, but it was interesting to think about all of the aspects this graffiti contains. First, in order to carve one’s name into the columns at the Temple of Poseidon, one would have to be close enough to do so. This means that when the names were carved, the site was not guarded or closed off as it is now; its importance as an archaeological and historical site was not something an entity of authority was concerned with. Secondly, I would presume that the people carving their names into ancient Greek temples had a certain disregard for “protecting” history. They were making permanent marks on marble that had last been carved over two thousand years ago—drawing on walls isn’t so bad in comparison, though it carries the same sentiment. Finally, despite this disregard for what is history, there is a simultaneous desire to become history. People carved their names and the date the same way teenagers write “I was here” on the whiteboard, just more permanently. People wanted other to know that they, specifically these people, were there. They wanted future generations to see that date and know they were visiting somewhere that others had visited in the past. This type of graffiti is not unique to the Temple of Poseidon, I’ve seen it in a few other locations, but it struck me there that history is not a simple concept. One can both disregard history and desire it. What will visitors centuries from now (if indeed the site and planet still exist) think about what others have carved? A visitor in 3000 may be able to get two visits in one: the three thousand old Temple and the one-thousand-year-old graffiti. Both may be seen as history.
While the acknowledgment and interaction with history of those in the present and future is always intriguing, our visit to Olympia made me think about how people interacted with history in the past. If the games at Olympia truly lasted for around a thousand years, then the original architecture that we still see today would have been there, most likely even more structurally sound than now. How did the athletes or spectators perceive these structures? Were there any efforts at preservation? Was preservation or protection not considered necessary, perhaps because everything was “history”? Did they even think about it as history, something that might be more removed, or did they merely see it as their past or predecessors? We also know that around this time is when written historical records were being written, so it would stand to reason that these ancient Greeks had a conception of recording important events. How then did they perceive of “history”? Were they recording with the assumption or belief that these accounts would be read in thousands of years, or were they simply spreading the word of important events for contemporary people or perhaps their children and grandchildren? And, something I thought of after seeing Olympia is, how did people see these sites after they were abandoned? We’ve discussed how some sites’ locations were always known, and others have been discovered. We’ve seen how tourism to some of these sites has been structured today. Was there tourism to the known sites in the past? Did people walk around Olympia like we did, admiring the history and structures of the past?
I’ve always loved history, but being surrounded by history feels different than learning in a classroom. Walking through Olympia, or above the ruins of the Palace of Nestor, or into a Tholos tomb, reminds me that I am walking the same paths of ancient peoples. It makes me consider my own perception of history and my own position within history. There are places in Greece that I have visited that many Greeks may not have. What gives one person the right to experience history over another? What role does how we perceive history play in how we act today? When did history begin?