DOXIADIS_Sobre els assentaments de l'Antiga Grècia (selecció)

7/30/2019 DOXIADIS_Sobre els assentaments de l'Antiga Grcia (selecci)

1/42

Books Raumordnung im griechischen Stadtebau / K.A. DOXIADIS - Heidelberg: KurtVowinckel Verlag, 1937. Architectural Space in Ancient Greece / C.A. DOXIADIS -

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.

Presented by Panayotis Tournikiotis

Architectural Space inAncient Greece

Fig. 1. Delphi, Terraceof Apollo, View from

point B, 1968.

Fig. 5. Cos, Asclepeion, Plan.

1. Introduction

In his first book, Doxiaxis' view of the architectural andurban past of ancient Greece approximates to the urbanthinking of the great moderns of the inter-War period. Theencounter revolved around the prospect of formulating theprinciples of contemporary urbanism as applied in theoryand practice, and as they were projected onto the city ofthe future. Initially published in Germany in 1937, Doxiadis'

doctoral thesis was translated into English thirty-five yearslater to mark the symbolic culmination of his long way ofresearch relating 'the ancient Greek city and the city of thepresent'. This was also the title of a seminal article of1964and the basis of a major series of studies of Ancient GreekCities, prepared, under his guidance, in the late 1960s andearly '70s by the Athens Centre of Ekistics.

Fig. 2. Miletus,Delphineion. View

from the west, circa

1914.

Fig. 3. Aegina, Sacred

Precinct of Aphaia.

Point from point A,968.1

Fig. 4. Athens,

Acropolis. View fromoint A, 1968.p

2. The starting-point was the present

Architectural Space in Ancient Greece is a book full of plans,

photographs and perspective drawings of ancient Greekcities - dating from the seventh to the first century BC - onwhich the commentary is a comparatively sparse text.Although, Doxiadis was closely associated witharchaeologists when he was writing the thesis in Berlin, it isneither an archaeological treatise nor a history book. Itsauthor's interests were wholly contemporary, focusing onthe seach for principles by which space, in its entirety,could be regulated by means of comparative and

experimental testing of hypotheses for which no realdocumentation was available. His starting point was theproblematic present, for the treatment of which the ancientGreek city was called upon to provide the means. The line

1
http://www.doxiadis.org/documents/articles/article05.asphttp://www.doxiadis.org/documents/articles/article05.asp


2/42

Fig. 6. Cos, Asclepeion. Perspective of

upper terrace from entrance. (Herzog.)

Fig. 7. Cos, Asclepeion, Hellenisticperiod. Perspective from Northeast.

(Herzog.)

Fig. 8. Priene, Agora. Plan

Fig. 9. Priene, Temple of Athena.

Perspective, from the agora.

of argument is perfectly clear, and is stated at thebeginning of the foreword to the thesis: over the past threedecades (that is, the three first decades of the twentiethcentury), a radical change had come about in the conditionsprevailing in cities during the previous three millennia. To

Doxiadis' mind, there were two reasons for this: the newbuilding materials which had radically altered the scale and

form of buildings, and the mechanization of travel, whichhad radically altered the scale and form of cities. These twoissues - new materials and the new construction methodsthat followed from them, and the predominance of themachine - also happened to be arguments of centralimportance for modern architecture, and to form thefoundations on which the theoretical principles of modernurbanism were stated. Those principles were formulated at

the 4th CIAM, a Congress which reached its climax inAthens in 1933, on the premises of the School of

Architecture when Doxiadis was still a student there, andprovided Le Corbusier with the platform for his Charter ofAthens. The 4th CIAM concept of the contemporaryfunctional city never faded from Doxiadis' mind. Indeed, wecould hypothesize that it lay behind his obvious interest inthe organisation of the ideal ancient Greek city, an interestwhich led him, immediately afterwards, to the subject of his

doctoral thesis.

3. The aesthetics of the city is connected with motion

The change in the conditions of construction and travel

(which Doxiadis often appeared to associate less with theoptimistic resolution of problems than with their pessimisticaccumulation) directed him towards a search for, on the

one hand, human scale and, on the other, the secret behindthe way in which the ancient Greeks had organized spaceso as to both gratify human beings and uplift their souls.Using comparative typologies and mathematics - bothhighly topical at the time in any attempt to interpret goodarchitectural solutions - he studied the sanctuaries andmarkets of cities in order to discover the principles of a

system for arranging buildings in space based on theprinciples of human knowledge. Doxiadis was convinced

that such a system existed and, furthermore, that it was ageneral theory of organizing space, a theory of urbanismwhose rules were of direct significance for the present since"the ancient Greeks designed not isolated objects, as wesee being done today, but the parts of a dynamic urbanenvironment" (Architectural Space in Ancient Greece, p.4).He went further in explaining his views, saying that as

entities the ancient Greek cities were subject to theconditions of development and change current at the time,and were not designed to comply with the aesthetic viewsof an isolated individual about an ideal city which bore norelation to its actual place and time. Indirectly, this was acriticism of some of the more messianic approaches ofModernism, and particularly of Le Corbusier (the villecontemporaine). For Doxiadis, the decisive factor inplanning was the human viewpoint: more specifically, the

2


3/42

Fig. 10. Athens, Acropolis III, after 450B.C. Plan.

Fig. 11. Athens, Acropolis III, after 450

B.C. Perspective from point A.

angle of vision of a human being walking through a city andsensing or perceiving it through the sequence of theorganized revelation of its urban entities - of a personturning a street corner, passing through a gateway, orentering a square: the key points on the progression. The

aesthetics of the city is not a static matter, but connectedwith motion.

4. The perceptive power of the eye

Doxiadis' studies of the plans of the ancient Greek cities aregenerally well enough known, and that of the Acropolis ofAthens is particularly familiar. We are not concerned herewith the archaeological or architectural precision of thatstudy. We are interested, rather, in seeing it as part of a

wider and absolutely contemporary approach which,allusively, contrasts itself to the thinking of Le Corbusier,

redefining the artistic terms of the urbanism of someonelike Camillo Sitte - the man, indeed, whom Le Corbusierhad mockingly accused of having got no further than theroad of the donkeys. Doxiadis, however, was opposed tothe mechanical road, to the motor road, and perseveredwith the perceptive power of the eye of a human being

moving across the ground no faster than his two feet couldcarry him. Let's have a closer view to three of his typicalexamples: the Acropolis at Athens, the Classical andHellenistic Altis at Olympia, and the Agora and the Templeat Magnesia.

5. The Acropolis at Athens, 530-437 B.C.

The organization of the architectural space of the AthensAcropolis spread over three phases, beginning with the era

of Pisistratus and his successors, when the general layout isalready recognizable, and culminating in its golden age,during which the Acropolis was undoubtedly designed as aunity by Pericles and his advisers. A mathematical analysisof the site shows a conformity of relationships betweenangles of vision and distances between buildings. Theviewpoint from which these measurements are taken is

situated within the main entrance: the western Propylaea.

Arcs of a circle are described from this point A to corners ofthe buildings. During the phase II (480-447 B.C.) the entirearchitectural space is divided into six identical angles, eachof 30, and this division, with the equilateral triangle that isderived from it, forms the organizing principle of the layout.During phase III (447-437 B.C.) the location of the various

buildings is determined by a division of the space into six ortwelve parts, or by the angles and sides of an equilateral

triangle derived from this division of space. In certaininstances, angles of 36 (180/5), 18 (180/10), and 12(180/15) seem to play an important role. During thisphase the field of vision from point A is enclosed on all sides

except along the eastern axis. The buildings form twogroups, the left group having an opening out into thelandscape, which is closed in the distance by the Lycabettos

Hill. This layout has many close similarities with that of

3


4/42

Fig. 12. Olympia, Altis, Hellenistic

period. Plan.

Fig. 16. Magnesia, Agora. Plan.

phase II. Most important, the open view to the east wasretained in all three periods, although its relation to theentrance point differed in each layout. The system wastotal: voids as well as masses had their form, sincetogether they constituted an architectural space entirely

rational and immediately comprehended from the entrance.

6. The Classical and Hellenistic Altis at Olympia, Fifth

and Fourth Centuries B.C.

The large enclosure, or Altis, at Olympia was one of theearliest Greek sanctuaries. The principles on which thelayout of the site was organized, the boundaries andespecially the entrances to the Altis remained unchangedduring the Classical and Hellenistic periods, Fifth and Fourth

centuries B.C. There were four entrances. The field of visionfrom each of these points consists of a central opening

bounded on either side by a continuous series of structures.The position, orientation, and distance of the buildings fromeach point are determined on the basis of the 30 angle.Throughout, one can sense the desire to connect theoutlines of the different structures with one another andwith the lines of the landscape, to form a continuous unity,

and within this unity to emphasize one opening: one clearand unobstructed path leading out into the landscape.Figures show how the mass of the temple of Zeus isbalanced symmetrically by the Hill of Kronos, and theMetroon by the Heraion. Both are symmetrically placed oneither side of the axis leading to the small Hill of Gaia,

which rises only slightly higher than the Heraion and theMetroon. The axial symmetry is clearly strengthened by thetwo balancing groves of trees, one within the Pelopion to

the left, and the other in the Hippodamion to the right. Itseems clear that a principal aim of this symmetricallyorganized layout, in which the landscape is incorporated,was to maintain the importance of the central axialopening. This marks the processional route of the peoplethrough the sacred precint from the entrance. Also, fromthis entrance the peak of the Hill of Kronos lies directly to

the north. Thus, one of the cardinal compass points is madean integral part of the composition.

7. The Agora and the Temple of Zeus at Magnesia,Second Century B.C.

The building of the small temple of Zeus in the Secondcentury B.C. had an important influence on the layout of

the agora of Magnesia. There are three entrances to thissite. Points A and B are placed in the center of the two

entrances east and west of the southern stoa. Point C isplaced at the access through the southern stoa. From pointA the spectator has an entirely enclosed field of vision inwhich he perceives each structure in succession, each as a

complete entity. From left to right he sees, without anygaps between them, the propylaeon of the sacred precint ofArtemis, the altar of Zeus, and the temple of Zeus with the

lower structure containing stone benches in front of it. The

4


5/42

position of the temple of Zeus must have been calculated toconceal the larger temple of Artemis, outside the agora,and thus to prevent competition (in the eyes of theobserver) of two equally large volumes. The position of thesouthwest structure seems determined by a desire to

interrupt the direct view of the Zeus temple, which wouldotherwise be very dominant, and lead the eye to the pathto the altar and, beyond it, to the propylaeon of the sacredprecint of Artemis. Altough the space is entirely enclosed,the route to this propylaeon is kept entirely clear from eachvantage point, with the other structures in the agora rangedon each side of it.

Fig. 17. Magnesia,

Agora. Perspective

rom point A.f

Fig. 18. Magnesia,Agora. Perspective

rom point B.f

Fig. 19. Magnesia,Agora. Perspective

rom point C.f

8. The revolving camera

The foundations of Doxiadis' thought are only faintlydiscernible from the pages of his thesis. He can be assumedto have been aware of the geometrical interpretations ofthe visual organization of the Acropolis as stated by

Auguste Choisy, which were taught in Athens, but what is ofparticular interest in his case is the fact that he articulatesthe organization of space in the city around the revolvingeye of a moving person, which resembles a revolving

camera located at different points in the space anddescribing full circles of 360 with ten or twelve presentstops in each instance. "Radii from the vantage point -[thefirst and most important position from which the whole sitecould be observed]- determined the position of threecorners of each important building, so that a three-quarterview of each was visible. The radii that determined the

corners of the important buildings formed certain specific

angles from the viewpoint, equal in size on each site. Thesefell into two categories: angles of 30, 60, 90, 120, and150, corresponding to a division of the total field of 360into twelve parts; and angles of 36, 72, 108, and 144,which resulted from division of the total field of vision intoten parts" (Architectural Space in Ancient Greece, p.5). Thesuccession of these points, as a sequence of angles ofvision during the continuous movement of the human being

in space, converges on the rationale of the cinematic way ofseeing and organizing the same space. It is indeed nocoincidence that, at about the same period, SergeiEisenstein was also addressing himself to the same sources- Choisy and the Acropolis - in order to construct anaesthetic theory of cinema montage, with direct referencesto human movement and the revolving angle of vision in

architectural and urban space.

5


6/42

Fig. 20. Priene, General plan.

9. A projective investigation: the critical past and thecity of future

Thirty years after the original publication of this book themodern city had changed radically, and contemporary

urbanism had moved from conquest to a position in which itwas subjected to a first wave of harsh criticism. Ininternational thinking, even so, the two large capitals -

Brasilia and Chandigarh - had prevailed as original and idealapplications of the principles of modernism. Reviewing thearguments ofArchitectural Space in 1964, in his article 'TheAncient Greek City and the City of the Present', Doxiadis,on the one hand, presaged the harsh urban questioning ofthe 'Moderns' by the 'post-moderns' (which would take itsfinal form ten to fifteen years later) and, on the other,

prefigured the rationale of the global village. However self-evident or at any rate inevitable that rationale may seem to

us today, then, with the development of the media ofcommunication in an embryonic state, it was still primarilya critique of the metropolitan urbanism of modernism. Theconclusion is documented by means of comparative andtypological analysis, on the same scale, of the fabric of

cities selected from all the periods of history, with Brasiliaand Chandigarh as the culminating examples. Emphasis is

placed on the correct - that is, human - scale of the city,whose centre can be reached on foot from its periphery inten minutes, which has streets, squares, blocks and acentral public space analogous to the ancient agora. AncientAthens was without doubt Doxiadis' starting point, but

Priene played an almost equivalent part in his comparativeapproach, serving as a model for the contemporary urban

situation. Of course, Doxiadis was unable to ignore themotor car and rapid travel, but he dealt with it by proposingthat human movement be split between that taking placeon foot and that involving vehicles. Comparing ancientPriene with the contemporary megalopolis, he put forwardthe idea of an articulated and perpetually evolving city, onewhich would overcome all the defects of modern urbanism.

In other words, his proposal was for a network of smallcities, on the scale of Priene and in accordance with its

rationale, to be located in the interstices of a network forthe circulation of mechanical media - that is, motorvehicles. Islamabad is the ideal example of the model:small communities of the Priene type, with populations of1,000 families or 5,000 people, juxtaposed as the membersof a potentially global network, each of whose units is in thesimultaneous service of the part and the whole.

10. Conclusion

"We cannot build new cities under the influence only of themodel of the ancient Greek city, since in that way we willnever solve the problems of the modern era. However, we

have to create cities which consist of elements based on thehuman scale. The modern city should be a synthesis of thehuman scale and the mechanical scale. Only in this way will

we be serving humankind while at the same time improving

6


7/42

the performance of the machine, exhausting its potential.When man succeeds in mastering these large dimensions,the whole world will be one city. When space satellites allowhim to survey the entire globe and television enables him tohear the news from every corner of the world, the

mechanical dimensions of the city will shrink to those of anancient Greek city. Man will live not only in a small human

community and dominate it by human dimensions, he willalso live in a world-wide community, which he will dominateby means of the mechanical dimensions which he hascreated. In the interests of man, we should return to ourancient heritage and see how the ancient Greek city can beof special help to us." ("The Ancient Greek City and the Cityof the Present," pp.363-364).

7


8/42

1

Articles From Ekistics, v.31, no.182, January 1971, p. 4-21: 21 fig.

Ancient Greek Settlements SYNOPSIS: In order to understand the relationshipsbetween man and space, we have to make a hypothesis

that each settlement is part of a hierarchical system. The"village" is the basic settlement which directly links manwith space. The study of areas where ancient settlementswere discovered (Cassopaia, Corinthia, Sicyonia, Cleonaeaand Thasos) leads to the hypotheses that the basicsettlements in Greece were always small and that theirevolution in time took place according to a hierarchicalpyramid which is based on a fairly standard ratio betweenthe basic settlements and a larger city.

Fig. 1. Greece - studies of the first phase

A

1a-e Thasos & Peraia2 Abdera

3 Dikaia

4a-b Samothrace & Peraia5 Maroneia

6 Amphipolis

7 E. Mac + Thrace (rest)8 Serrai Dept. (rest)

9 Chalkidiki Dept.

B1 Cassopaia

2 Thesprotia

3 Molossis4 Paravaia

5 W. Estaiotis

6 Athmania7 Ambracia

C

1 ElisD

1 Megaris

2 Corinthia

3 Cleonaea

4 Sicyonia5 Phleiasia

6 Argeia

7 Epidauria

8 Ermionis9 Troizenia

10 Anc. ArcadiaE

Chapter 1: Introduction

This study has been undertaken to help our understanding of thehuman settlements and, beginning with Greece, to understand

what forces led to their formation and how the settlementsdeveloped over time.

For such a study to have any real value it is necessary toconsider man's relations with space, from every point of view

(physical, economic, social, cultural, etc.). For example, man'seconomic relations with space can show the balance with space

that he a-chieved when he had to rely first upon his ownmuscular powers alone and later upon the assistance of animal

power.

To achieve the purposes of this study is not easy. FromAristotle's efforts with his students to study the political systemsof 158 city-states up to the present day, numerous studies have

been made by many specialists from the fields of archaeology,history, pale-ontology, etc. What our study is attempting to do is

to create a synthesis of all these types of studies, a synthesiswhich is based on specific cases.

Method of the study

To achieve our aims it was necessary to find a method to tietogether all the data from history, archaeology, geography, etc.that related to every area. Thus, as a start, we decided to

concentrate upon specific places within the boundaries ofpresent-day Greece that are sufficiently small for us to be ableto understand the correlation of different phenomena in spaceand time. As the unit of space, we have therefore chosen theone most characteristic of the Greek world of the Classicalperiod: the city-state.

Area covered by the study

The whole area covered by ancient Greek city states andcolonies, extending from Spain to the Indus river, should someday be the broader area of the study.


9/42

2

1 Athens StateF

1 Keos

2 Thera3 Delos

Fig. 2. Man's elementary relation tospace

Fig. 3. Man's relation to space: effect of

natural forces

Fig. 4. Man's relation to space: effect ofsocial and cultural forces

Since at the moment this is not possible, we have started withthe area of present-day Greece as our first-phase study area.We hope that experts from other countries, from India to Spainand from Egypt to the U.S.S.R., will in parallel and in the nearfuture proceed with similar studies. Only cooperation with them

will finally lead to the completion of the picture of life in theancient Greek world.

We start our study with the area of present-day Greece because,besides the advantage of the easier collection of data for us, andthe fact that it is one main area where Greek civilization wasdeveloped, it is also of great interest to follow the relation ofman to space in an area where the population density reached

such high levels at different periods in ancient times that it led tothe creation of colonies.

Period covered by the study

A big question was what period of time such a study shouldattempt to cover. The decision was to try and cover the wholeperiod from the first data, which are Paleolithic, to the end of the

Roman period. By saying this we want to make it clear that, aswe are missing many data for the earlier periods, the degree to

which we cover every period varies from very low to high.

How the study is done

This study was started by the Athens Center of Ekistics on itsown initiative, but it has been helped over the last two years by

the Ford Foundation, and we are particularly grateful to all thosewho understood the meaning of this effort and supported it.

Special thanks are due to McNeil Lowry for his helpful advice andsupport.

The study has three divisions: the first covers the long termplanning of the project and general policy and direction. All theresponsible research experts are represented here, as well asArnold Toynbee, who wrote the first report of the series (to be

published as Volume 1), and the author of this article, who is thepresident of the team.

The second division includes the archaeologists and historianswho are responsible for studies of particular areas. The studiesthat have been completed to date (which will appear as Volumes3, 4 and 5) are the following.

a. Thasos and its Peraia, by D. Lazaridis (RR-ACE 161)b. Cassopaia, by S. Dakaris (RR-ACE 163)c. Corinthia-Cleonaea, by M. Sakellariou-N. Faraklas (RR-

ACE 164)

These studies are now being published in a preliminary form bythe Athens Center of Ekistics for restricted circulation to

interested groups, archaeological schools, etc, and other studiescovering other areas will follow (Fig. 1). Simultaneously, anarchive of data cards for items of a questionnaire and by study


10/42

3

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6. Sicyonia: demes of Early Helladic

period, 2800-2000 B.C.1 OENOE

2 Kaki Skala

3 Skoinos4 Zoodochos Pege - PEIRAION

5 Sterna (Ktena)

6 Monastiri7 Panagia

8 Hagios Vlasios

9 Megalo Lithari10 Flambouro

11 Hagios Demetrios

12 Vouliagmeni Ca13 Vouliagmeni Cb

14 Vouliagmeni B

15 Vouliagmeni A

16 HERAEUM

17 Hagioi Theodoroi CROMMYON18 Moulki

19 Sousaki A-SIDUS

20 Sousaki B

21 Klisiza22 Hagios Charalambos

23 Kalamaki B24 Kalamaki Aa Schoenus

25 Kalamaki Ab Schoenus

area is under preparation, as well as an archive of maps anddrawings, which in the near future will be available to anyoneinterested.

This division also includes the teams of architect-planners,

topographers, etc. The latter are under the direction of T.Samaras and S. Lagodimos, and the whole group is under thesupervision of Mrs. Maria Zagorisiou.

The third division covers an attempt to arrive at a synthesis ofall the facts collected by the research experts of the seconddivision and is the responsibility of only the author of this article.

Thus the whole study proceeds through the following phases:

a The conception of policy and methodology in which manyexperts are cooperating.

b. Studies of areas for which the research experts areresponsible.

c. Conclusions and synthesis, to the realization of which all theresearch experts have contributed, but for the eventual faults of

which only the author of this article should be held responsible.It is many years since I wrote my first thesis on the synthesis ofancient Greek space, and it is five years since this project beganto be organized. Actual work upon it only started in August1968, and it is very early for conclusions on such a difficult

subject. I am writing this article at this early stage for tworeasons: first, to inform others who may be interested in thisresearch study, and second, to present my hypothesis, so that

discussions upon it can start immediately which may enable usto arrive at more certain results. For if there is no basichypothesis which can be constantly examined and criticized,there cannot be such fruitful discussion.

Chapter 2: the hypotheses

To develop my hypothesis I have used many notions of average

sizes and simplified sketches of settlements. I believe we shall

have sufficient specific examples to lead us to more statisticallyaccurate averages which can then be constantly adjusted. Weshall also be able to observe the range of variations of theseaverages and in this way strengthen or weaken the originalhypothesis.

I feel the need to mention that the hypotheses that I use havebeen based on a general ekistic experience and they are under

continuous control through the findings of the studies of theresearch experts of the team.

I want very much to emphasize that much of what I say here

has been said by others in more general terms or for veryspecific cases. I am merely trying to give measurements tomany of the hypotheses others have made and link them into asingle system. This can then be accepted or rejected on the


11/42

4

26 Kalamaki Ac SCHOENUS27 ISTHMIA

28 Hagia Kyriake

29 Aspra Chomata30 Damari

31 New Corinth

32 Korakou33 LECHAEUM34 Hagios Gerasimos

35 ? ASAI

36 Aetopetra37 Mylos Chelioti

Fig. 7. Corinthia and Cleonaea: Classical

period settlements ascertained or

presumed, 480-338 B.C.

basis of concrete measurements and concrete examples bywhich the general hypotheses can be adjusted, and we hope topublish these results annually at the beginning of each year.Interpretation of settlements

Many interpretations are given of the evolution of ancient Greeksettlements, of which two are more prevalent. The first is basedon the idea that the geographic and the topographicconformation was the most important cause of the evolution ofthe Greek city-states. However, concrete studies, especially inthe Middle East (where any city-states were created on theplains) have shown that this interpretation is not applicable.

The second interpretation is based on assumptions of social

organization. This interpretation is influenced by Aristotle, whobased the evolution of settlements on their social or political

organization. I have personally accepted that the evolution ofthe Greek city-states resulted from the combination of thefollowing three factors:

a. The local geographic and physical conditions which influencedman's life, production and movement, thus creating special

kinetic fields.

b. Man's social and political organizational abilities andtraditions.

c. Many other factors, such as the size of groups of people, their

level of education, the progress of their technology, outsideforces, etc.

We do not know today which of these forces is most important inevery case or how far they combine and connect with oneanother. But if we can systematically study some hundreds ofcity-states we should have enough data to estimate the value ofthe different factors. This is an optimistic prediction, but it isquite possible it may come true.

Relationships of Man and Space

Even if we accept the simplest type of settlement, where Manproduces all his own food, clothes and any other article that heneeds, we cannot say that man's relationship to space is entirelydetermined by the land on which he dwells and works (Fig.2);for, this does not take into account the winds and the water, or

the pollen which fertilizes the plants, all of which come in form amuch larger area. (Fig. 3).

Relationships are even more complicated when we see Man livein a group with other men, for we can see that the man wholives in settlement A is affected not only by settlement B withwhich his settlement has economic or administrative relations,

but also by space C, because B is a center for all this area.Settlement A is also affected by space D, from which it receivesreligious influences, space E from which it receives language or


12/42

5

Fig. 8. Sicyonia: Hellenistic period

inhabited areas, 330-146 B.C.

Fig. 9. Cassopaia: Hellenistic period -

settlements ascertained or presumed,

343/342-168/167 B.C.1. Bestia

2. Elaphos

3. Toskesi

4. K. Mousiotitsa5. Gephyra Zeta

6. Derviziana

7. Georganoi

8. Sistrouni9. Romano

10. Alpochori-Botsari11. Polystaphylo

other cultural influences, etc. (Fig. 4).

In spite of all these complications, experience shows that we canunderstand the relationships of man and space, if we make ahypothesis that each settlement is part of a hierarchical system,

although it has numerous other relations with forces andsettlements outside it. For instance, a settlement may belongadministratively to one hierarchical system and yet depend uponcertain economic services it offers to settlements outside thissystem.

Types of settlements

Although settlements can be classified in many ways- temporary

or permanent; small or large; agricultural or urban; specialized;etc. - the hypotheses made here are based only on the sizes ofpermanent settlements (which can themselves be divided into

several categories). This size is considered as the territory thateach settlement covers, that is, the whole extent of its livingspace, not just the cultivated land or the built-up area, becausethis living space is the only area that can be determined more orless accurately. It is very difficult to arrive at any degrees ofaccuracy if we try to compute social or economic measurements

because we have much less data on them.

Chapter 3: Hypothesis A: the basic settlement

One basic settlement has most certainly continued to survivefrom Neolithic times (or even from the end of the Paleolithic era)

to today. This is the type of settlement usually called a "village",whose inhabitants are engaged in cultivating the soil, rearing

livestock or fishing.

Though small-scale examples of this type of settlement hadappeared in Greece thousands of years ago, in the early Helladicperiod, numerous villages of different sizes appeared all overGreece. In two places that have been carefully examined, thewhole area was then covered with villages. These are regions of

Corinthia (Fig. 5) and Sicyonia (Fig. 6). These villagesdisappeared after the invasion of the Dorians around 1,100 BC.

But the interesting thing is that approximately the same number

gradually grew up again, reaching a maximum either in theClassical period, as in Corinthia (Fig. 7) or in the Hellenisticperiod as in Sicyonia (Fig. 8), Cassopaia (Fig. 9), and Thasos(Fig. 10).

Today these areas still contain a similar number of villages,though the position is beginning to change, as industry,

communications and technological progress attract theirinhabitants to the big cities. However, there is no doubt that for

thousands of years the basic settlement in Greece has been thevillage, and even when great catastrophes have led to theirdisappearance, they have redeveloped again in the same

localities and in the same numbers.

We only speak here of the size of the area surrounding each


13/42

6

12. Paliochori-Botsari13. Assos

14. Kleisoura

15. Voulista-OROPOS?16. Kerasson

17. Gymnotopos

18. Ammotopos19. Hagios Georgios20. Asprochaliko

21. Kokkinopito

22. Rizovouni23. Thesprotiko

24. Krania

25. Vrysoula26. Trikastro

27. Glyki

28. Mouzakeika29. Skaphidoti

30. Kastri -PANDOSIA

31. EPHYRA

32. ELAIA33. ELAIAS LIMEN (Ammoudia Bay)

34. Kerentza35. Dromos Skalomatos36. Aidonia

37. Valanidia

38. Ano Rachi39. Ano Kotsanopoulo

40. Rizovouni-BATIAI?

41. Pantanassa42. Palaia Philippias-CHARADRA?

43. BOUCHETION-Rogoi

44. Kastri45. Stephani

46. Louros

47. Paliorophoro-ELATREIA?48. CASSOPE

49. Kryopigi50. Cheimadio

51. Riza52. Kastrosykia

53. Strongyli

54. Sampsous

55. Michalitsi-BERENICE?56. NICOPOLIS

57. Pantokrator

settlement, the area from which it is supported; for we havevery few records of the numbers of their inhabitants (and theseonly for certain moments in their history). However, we can besure that they usually numbered a few hundred and only veryseldom, at critical moments, may have exceeded a thousand

people; for the area occupied by the land of the settlementwould not support more.

Hypothesis A1: Type of basic settlement

The basic settlement of Greece is therefore a "village", whosesize ranges from a few hundred inhabitants to, at the most, justabove a thousand people. We have no indications that it everpassed this size without changing its character and thus ceasing

to be a "basic settlement".

With the advent of mechanization, the situation changes, but we

can still say that the village is the basic settlement which directlylinks man with space.

In terms of the Ekistic Grid, the basic settlement belongs toCommunity Class III or Ekistic Unit No. 6. In the context of thisproject, we are calling it Type C.

Hypothesis A2: Number of basic settlements

We have no complete population figures for basic settlementsbefore the last 140 years, and it is very difficult to find earlierfigures for many villages. On the other hand, we know the exactsize of the territory of settlements for the last 140 years and wecan find corresponding sizes for the past.

The basic way of life in basic settlements in Greece did notchange appreciably from the Neolithic revolution until thebeginning of the twentieth century. We can thereforehypothesize that the size of the villages did not change eitherand that the land continued to have the same number of placesfor villages of this type. These places would be filled or leftvacant according to the size of the population of the country and

the general conditions of life.

In accordance with these assumptions (subject to later moreexact examination) we now accept that within the borders of thepresent-day Greek state there has always been space for 6,061basic settlements; i.e. as many as the present total of allsettlements.

An example will show that this assumption is not unreasonable.After Greece gained her independence from the Turks, she

acquired a Bavarian King with Bavarian advisors in 1833. Thecountry, which then consisted of 47,516 sq. km., was divided bythem into 457 demes, each of which contained many villages.These demes never worked because they were too big; their

average size was 103.9 sq. km. Thus, in 1912, a special lawdivided the land into 2,561 self-governing units, each of whichincorporated several basic settlements, and the system worked


14/42

7

Fig. 10. Thasos and its peraia: Hellenistic

period - settlements ascertained orpresumed, 350-196 B.C.

1. Thasos

2. AINYRA3. Koinira

4. Aliki

5. Theologos

6. Kastri7. Astris

8. Potos9. DEMETRION?

10. Skala Marion

11. Kallirachi - Sotiros12. Kazaviti

13. PISTYROS

14. AKONTISMA - Nea Karvali15. Kara Orman

16. NEAPOLIS

17. ANTISARA

18. Cave of Nymphs

19. OESYME - EMATHEIA

much better. Their average size was reduced to 47,56 sq. km.,as the total area of Greece in 1913 was 121,794 sq. km.In now turn to the first city-states that have been studied indetail. In Cassopaia (Fig. 9) 37 ancient settlements have so far

been found from the Hellenistic period, 343-168 BC (the time ofits greatest density). However, present-day Cassopaia has 63full communities and sections of 16 others, or the equivalent of71 communities. This means that either:

a. the whole available space was not occupied by humansettlements or,

b. hypothesis A (especially A2) is incorrect and the ancient basic

settlements were bigger than the present-day ones, or

c. in fact there were 71 settlements, though we have found only

37.

In Corinthia (Fig. 7) - the city-state of ancient Corinth - 25settlements of the Classical period have been found (21

settlements certain and 4 questionable). The same space todaycontains 19 whole communities and sections of 8 others, or the

equivalent of 23 communities. Consequently it seems that inancient times there were as many settlements as at present.In Cleonaea (also Fig. 7) only one settlement of the Classicalperiod has been found, though contemporary Cleonaea has twofull communities and sections of 8 others, equivalent to 6

communities. This means that we can assume either that thepresent basic settlements are smaller, or that we have still tofind 5 ancient ones.

In Sicyonia (Fig. 8) 18 demes of the Classical period have beenfound - equivalent to 18 basic settlements (15 certain and 3questionable). Present-day Sicyonia contains 31 full communitiesand sections of 8 others, equivalent to 35 basic settlements. Asimilar reasoning shows that the contemporary basic settlementsare smaller or we have still to find 20 or 17 basic settlements, orthat man did not occupy the whole space available to him.

On the island of Thasos (Fig. 10) we have an exactcorrespondence of the present-day and ancient times, for 10ancient settlements have been found and there are today 10communities.

Thus we find that these five regions contained a total of 84 or 91

settlements, though today they contain the equivalent of 145communities (Table 1). That is, the regions which have been

studied today contain more that 1.5 communities for each of theancient settlements that have yet been found.

The conclusion is clear, either man has not occupied the space

available to him, or Hypothesis A (especially A2) is wrong andthe ancient basic settlements were about 50% larger than thepresent ones, or we have yet to find 61-66 settlements in these

areas.


15/42

8

Fig. 11. The basic settlement

Fig. 12. Uses of total land of Greece,

1958

Fig. 13.

Hypothesis A3: area covered by basic settlementsSince present-day mainland Greece has an area of 131,994 sq.km. and 6,061 communities, the average area of each is 21,8

km., which is equivalent to a circle with a radius of 2,63 km. anda diameter of 5,26 km. (Fig. 11a).

However, many settlements lie along the coast and (at least inperiods of peace) their built-up area is directly beside the sea,evidence that the inhabitants were as much interested in the seaas in the land. We can, therefore, assume that the sea is, in fact,a part of the territory of these settlements. Only careful

economic studies can determine what proportion this shouldrepresent, but we can assume (and gradually check this

assumption) that coastal basic settlements have as much livingspace on the sea s on the land.

As 3,230 or rather more than half of the communities ofpresent-day Greece lie on the sea, we can estimate that themainland space of Greece is occupied by 2,831 wholesettlements and 3,230 half settlements. This increases theaverage area of each settlement to 29.68 sq. km. as can be seen

below:

We can thus imagine present-day Greece covered with basicsettlements, each of which can be depicted as a circle with an

area of around 30 sq. km., a radius of 3.09 km. and a diameterof 6.18 km. and with 26.6% of its surface occupied by sea (Fig.

11b). If we convert these circles into hexagons, each will have alargest radius of 3.4 sq. km., a smallest one of 2.95 and an areaof 30 sq. km. (Fig. 11c).

We can thus imagine present-day Greece covered with basic

settlements, each of which can be depicted as a circle with anarea of around 30 sq. km., a radius of 3.09 km. and a diameter

of 6.18 km. and with 26.6% of its surface occupied by sea (Fig.11b). If we convert these circles into hexagons, each will have a


16/42

9

largest radius of 3.4 sq. km., a smallest one of 2.95 and an areaof 30 sq. km. (Fig. 11c).

On the other hand, the total length of the Greek coastline is15,020 km. If this were divided among the 3,230 present-day

communities which are on the sea, each community would have4.63 km. of coastline. The difference between these twonumbers shows that either the seaside communities use a largerarea of the land than of the sea, or that the inland communitiesoccupy more land than the coastline ones.

To complete our picture of an average basic settlement, we needto compare the area of its cultivated and uncultivated land. In1958, 28% of the total surface of Greece was under cultivation:

46.8% was pasture, 18.6% was forest and the remainder was6.6% (Fig. 12).

It is logical to base the area of the average settlement upon itsland surface, but we must bear in mind that radii which show thesame length on a map do not necessarily have the samemeaning. If the land is flat, a man can walk at a rate of up to

6km. per hour, but if it has a steep slope, his speed diminishessharply.

We will now proceed to examine some of our examples.

Cassopaia

1. The study showed that, at its largest development, Cassopaiahad 37 settlements covering an area of 1,080 sq. km. : i.e. theaverage size of each settlement was 29.20 sq. km. (Fig. 9)

compared with our theoretical 21.8 sq. km. (Fig. 11a).Cassopaia's 6 seaside settlements, which aises the average ofeach settlement to 31.6 sq. km. against our theoretical 30 sq.m. We can add 6 x 30 = 90sq. km. to represent the extent ofsea for. (Fig. 11b).

2. When the colonists came to southern Epirus from Elis in the

N.W Peloponnese, they first established coastal settlements and

then slowly penetrated inland. This sequence is clearly markedalong the road from Elaia to Mouzakeika (Fig 13). Each newsettlement is between 3.4-4.8 km. distant from the older one;corresponding reasonably closely to the diameter shown in ourdiagrams. Studies now show that these were not onlyestablished as commercial settlements (as had often been

supposed) but that they were mainly agricultural settlements,which also played a commercial role.

3. According to our diagram (Fig. 11), Cassopaia, with 1,080 sq.km. and a coastline of about 100 km., should have:


17/42

10

d. For this 1,355 sq. km., the theoretical number of settlements(30 sq. km. each) is 44-45.

e. Comparing these figures with the 37 settlements of the studywe lack 7-8.

4. Figure 9 shows that there are some gaps between thesettlement boundaries which may indicate where the missingsettlements could be located. The location marked (1) on the

map should almost certainly contain a settlement; also (5), (6),(7), (8) and (9). The remaining empty areas consist ofmountainous land, where there are few possibilities forsettlements to exist. However, in the north, settlements mighthave existed on the present sites of Bestia, Elaphos and Toskesi.We can therefore conclude that there could have been at least 8more settlements which have not been found and that themaximum total settlements of the region of Cassopaia couldhave been 45, each with an average area of 29.7 sq. km.

Corinthia

1. The largest number of settlements in historical times appearsin the Classical period (Fig. 7) when the city-state (which thenincluded a portion of Megaris but not Cleonaea) had a total of21-25 settlements upon an area of 811 sq. km. per settlement.This area can be compared with the 21.8 sq. km. of Figure 11a.

When we add the area of surface of the sea for the 12 coastalsettlements of the Classical period, we arrive at a total of 991sq. km., giving an average area for each of the 21-25settlements of 47.9-39.64 sq. km. as against the theoretical 30sq. km. (Fig. 11b).

2. We have previously noted that 24-29 settlements were foundin the Early Helladic period (Fig. 5) when the city-state idea did

not exist, and the total land area was 993 sq. km. This gives anaverage area of 41.3-34.24 sq. km. per settlement on the land.3. Theoretically Corinthia, with an area of 811 sq. km. and acoastline of around 120 km., should have:a. 20 coastal settlements (with an additional sea surface of 300sq. km.)


18/42

11

c. This gives a theoretical total of 37 settlements.

d. Compared with the 21-25 settlements of the study, we lack12-16.

e. We should note here that three additional settlements are

mentioned in ancient texts, but they have not been located.4. Figure 7 shows that it is possible to locate sites for several ofthe missing settlements. Three at least (Nos. 1, 2, 3) could beon the shore of the Gulf of Corinth; and perhaps another (4) onthe shore of the Saronic Gulf. One more settlement on theSaronic Gulf (5) is just possible as well as others in the

mountains; but these are not very likely even though somecontemporary settlements do exist there.

Thus, if we accept a theoretical total of at least 26-30settlements their average area would be 42.7-37.0 sq. km.Cleonaea

1. The study shows only 1 settlement in the Classical period (Fig.7) within an area of 135 sq. km. However, in the early Helladic

period, when Cleonaea was not a city-state, there were twosettlements (Fig. 5). Ancient texts mention an additional place inClassical times, but no trace of it has yet been found.2. Theoretically the area of Cleonaea (135 sq. km.) could

support 4-5 settlements.

Sicyonia

This study has not yet been completed, but preliminary datagives the following information.

1. Sicyonia, with an area of 318 sq. km. had its largest numberof basic settlements in the Hellenistic period (Fig. 8), when ithad 18 demes - comparable to basic settlements - (15 certain

and 3 doubtful) giving each an average area of 21.2-17.6 sq.km. The exact location of the built-up area of each of the basic

settlements is not yet determined, so that we cannot estimatethe extent of the sea related to the coastal settlements.2. An area of 318 sq. km. and a coastline of 58 km. theoreticallyshould have:a. 10 coastal settlements with an additional sea surface of 150sq. km.


19/42

12

sq. km. per settlement. d. This corresponds to the preliminaryfindings of the study.Thasos

1. The area of the island of Thasos is 379 sq. km. and itscoastline measures 95.4 km. The study shows that there were atleast 10 settlements in Hellenistic times. The length of coastlineshows that these would each have an average of 9.5 km., whichis much larger than the theoretical average of 5.9 km. The areaof 379 sq. km. gives an average 37.9 sq. km. per settlement. Ifwe add an additional sea surface, the average rises toapproximately 53 sq. km., which implies they were either verymuch larger than we have assumed or that other settlementsremain to be found and Fig. 10 shows that Thasos has a number

of uninhabited areas.

2. Theoretically, an area of 379 sq. km. with a coastline of 95km. should have:

a. 16 coastal settlements with an extra sea surface of 240 sq.km.

c. This gives a theoretical number of about 20 settlements with30 sq. km. per settlement

d. This is double the number of settlements given by theThassos study, so we lack approximately 10.

3. Figure 10 shows that it is feasible for there to be three or

more coastal settlements in places 1, 2 and 3 and perhapsanother one (4) on the mountains near the mines, as we knowthat these mines were worked in ancient times, and it does notseem reasonable to believe that all who worked in them went upand down from the coastal settlements. However, it is probablethat such a mining settlement would not be a typical settlement,because it would have very little agriculture; but it could havehad quite a large income, both from mining and forestry. Thuswe conclude that Thasos could reasonably have had 14

settlements.

This conclusion conflicts with our Hypothesis A2, which statedthat the number of settlements in the past, probablycorresponded to the present-day number of basic communities.At the moment, we can point out the conflict and conclude thatprobably the truth lies between the 10 settlements found, whichmust have been bigger than our theoretical average (maybe

justified by the mountainous character of the island) and thehypothetical location of 14 or more settlements which wouldcorrespond in size more closely with the average settlements of


20/42

13

the country.

Hypothesis A4:Evolution of settlements in time

Hypothesis A2 stated that the basic settlement of Greece was

always small; it always approximately the same size with thesame radius of movement for its inhabitants, and the survey of 5regions of the country shows no major deviations sufficient todiscount this hypothesis. I wish now to put forward anotherhypothesis relating to the evolution of settlements in time. Onecould say that the area of each basic settlement in the past waslarger and that it gradually became reduced; or that the area ofeach basic settlement remained the same over time and that, asthe number of its inhabitants grew, new settlements were

founded.

General experience as well as the evidence of our studies leads

us to accept the second hypothesis: that settlements increasedin number without decreasing the average size of their area toan important degree. The reasons are:

a. We have no evidence of large basic settlements which wereabandoned in order to found several small ones.

b. We cannot reasonably accept that farmers walked muchgreater distances to their fields.

c. Though we have every reason to believe that the population ofsettlements slowly grew larger form the Paleolithic period to the

Neolithic, we have no evidence that settlements ever grewsmaller in area during an era of the same technology of

production. If the settlements had been reduced in area, thenumber of the inhabitants ought also to decrease because, atthis time, they were obliged to produce locally everything theyneeded for survival. Thus reduction in the area of a settlementwould necessarily involve a reduction in the number of itsinhabitants. We must therefore accept that the basic settlementsdid not get smaller in area during the same era, although their

population could have decreased at certain times.

In Corinthia (including the area of Cleonaea) we find almost as

many settlements in the Early Helladic period (24-29) as in theClassical period (22-27). In between there were far fewer.Thasos, like Cassopaia, reaches its most extensive developmentin the Hellenistic period.

Hypothesis A5: Structure of settlements

Although considerable evidence has been found of houses,groups of houses and a few other buildings, no detailed studieshave been made of any complete basic settlement, mainlybecause such studies do not provide impressive enough materialfor the extensive work involved; people who excavate and

investigate prefer to study central places of any civilization fromwhich they get more information. I can therefore onlyhypothesize that the structure of these basic settlements:


21/42

14

a. was similar to today's villages; that is, their buildings weremore scattered on the sloping sides where the herdsmen livewith their animals around them; more dense on the plains,where the arable farmers live; and even more dense near the

sea, in the fishing villages.

b. It is likely that the agricultural and fishing population did notall live in the actual settlement, but that some lived in scatteredgroups of farm buildings or even isolated farms.c. However, probably all inhabitants would come into the basicsettlement from time to time to make contact with others or tostay for certain seasons or periods. It is also likely that all

inhabitants were administered in some way from the basicsettlement and it is very probable that many of them had one in

the settlement, where they lived in times of danger or in timeswhere they did not need to be near the crops, and another amid

their fields.

All these assumptions are based on present-day practice, whichhas persisted in Greece for centuries or possibly millennia.Chapter 4: Hypothesis B: hierarchical development of

settlements

After a certain place in their development, basic settlementstended to be organized in groups. This is inevitably led to onecentral settlement acquiring more functions than the others. Thisphenomenon appears probably in the Neolithic period, when

arable farming enabled enough food to be produced to allow forthe development of other trades and occupations, but we cannotprove anything specific.

The hierarchical development of settlements occurred in differentways:

a. From down, up: this usually resulted from the exchange ofproducts and labor, which tended to create a central marketplace.

b. From up, down: this resulted from the pressure of the strong

on the weak; a pressure that might be exerted by military,political or religious forces, or any combination of them.

c. Various combinations of the two preceding methods. Severalother hierarchical relations also affect the organization ofsettlements:

a. More totalitarian or more democratic relations between theinhabitants.

b. The size and functions of the central settlement.

c. The strength and the ties which hold the whole hierarchicalsystem of settlements together.


22/42

15

In general we can say that the gradual hierarchical developmentof settlements reflects a hierarchical tendency inherent in manor perhaps even in nature. In the beginning this hierarchicalpyramid is often very weak. It is much more vulnerable if itextends from a single central settlement, controlled by a few

men who rule over a number of small basic settlements, than ifthe hierarchy is gradually built-up via a number of intermediatelinkages. These linkages can arise from geographical causes- anarrow valley leads easily to the cooperation of neighboringbasic settlements; or, there can be social causes, such as thehomogenous composition of groups of people; or, there can beother causes such as defense against a common enemy, etc.It seems that men naturally tend to develop a hierarchicalpyramid by their demands for larger incomes leading to more

services and more ease in life. This social pyramid has a basicrelation with the hexagonal disposition of settlements as was

shown by the theories of Christaller.

Hypothesis B1: hierarchical pyramid

Following Christaller, we can hypothesize that this hierarchicalpyramid of ancient Greek settlements was based on a ratio of 7

to 10, which means that there is a central hexagonal settlementsurrounded by six similar hexagons (Fig. 14). This means that

every 7 basic settlements include one central settlement whichcorresponds to settlement D (Fig. 14).In other words, there are6 basic settlements of type C (Ekistic Unit 6) and one largersettlement or small town of type D (Ekistic Unit 7).

Further (Fig. 15) every 7 small cities (type D) in turn create acentral place which corresponds to a regular city (type E or

Ekistic Unit 8). This includes 49 settlements in all: one class E, 6class D and 42 class C. We can conclude further by showing howa group of 7 cities gives to one large city (type F or Ekistic Unit9). The territory of mainland Greece does not provide a settingfor cities of a larger size.

Thus our pyramid has been presented with four levels ofcomposite settlements (Fig. 16): the large city F, the city E, the

small town D, the basic settlement C, but it has definitely lower

levels of composite settlements for A and B, because we knowvery little about them. There are also the non-compositesettlements of house and room.

Correlating this theoretical pyramid with our project we canassume that a Greek city-state can be a city of level D, E or Fand we do have in fact examples of each. At above levels we canalso have the type of "koinon" as is that of the Cassopaians. At

the level of type E we can find a city-state but also a politicalunion as in the Union of Epirus. Finally, at the level of type F, wecan have a city-state as well as a "Sympolitia" or Confederation.

Geographical and social conditions as well as historical eventsmay prevent the development of a completely regular hexagonalhierarchy. Different degrees of organization will therefore appearat different times and in different places. However, behind each


23/42

16

of the actual case studies we can usually discern the basichierarchical pyramid of settlements which tends to govern theirorganization.

Hypothesis B2: number of settlements

We have assumed that the Greek mainland contains 6,061places for basic settlements; that is for settlements type C andabove. This means that one out of every seven of these basicsettlements should settlements of type D and above (i.e. 866settlements). This again means that one out of seven of these(i.e. 124 settlements) should be type E and above, leaving 742settlements of type D. A similar reasoning leads us to assume

the existence of 18 type F settlements, leaving 106 in type E. Inthe same way we say that Greece could only contain 2

settlements type G which would theoretically leave 16settlements of type F, 4 of which would have no strong central

settlement. Thus the territory of Greece should be covered by:

In present-day Greece, Athens in the south and Salonika in the

north are very much larger than all other settlements. This isonly one of several reasons why it would only be profitable toattempt to compare the ranges of sizes of Greek cities before theonset of industrialization. But the total political area of Greecewas then so much smaller that there could be no usefulcomparison of the total number of settlements by size. However,direct comparisons can be made for special areas at certainperiods, particularly on some of the Greek islands.

We do not say that all settlements above the category of type C

actually existed. What we say is that there were places for thisnumber of settlement types, and that such a hypothesis can bejustified in many ways if we think of orders of magnitude andnot of specific numbers. For instance, if we consider the 866settlements which belong to the category of small cities andabove, we see that the assumption is not unreasonable, because

we know from various data that in ancient Greece there werehundreds of such town and cities. We know also that sections ofthe country were covered by national states, as the states ofThessaly, of Macedonia, of Molossis, of Aeolia, of Acarnania, andothers, which imply capitals of a higher category of settlement.There are several sources for the number of ancient Greek cities.For example, Aristotle and his students wrote a history of 158political systems. Many of these had developed outside the


24/42

17

Nevertheless, it is clear that at that time there must have beenat least 158 city-states with organized political systems. If weassume that these were all the larger cities (i.e. belonging totype E) our assumption shows that we have at most 106 suchcity-states in the territory we are studying, and, let us say, as

many again further out. In other words, Greece at that timewould contain about 200 city-states of this size. We know thatmany city-states were much smaller than this, so that we canassume that there then existed many hundreds of city-states inthe Greek world, of which Aristotle and his students studied 158,including some non-Greek ones.

We also know that the Athenian Confederation contained more

than 150 city-states, and that, in 425/4 BC, 675 cities (fromCrete to the Black Sea, and from the Aegean to Palestine) paid

tribute to the Confederation. If we assume that at least half ofthese cities were in the territory we are studying, it must have

contained 300 cities belonging to the Athenian Confederation.Further, if we accept that an equal number of cities were eitheragainst the Confederation or neutral, we arrive at 600 city-statesin our study area, which can be compared with the maximumnumber of 866 settlements of higher order than category C that

we have assumed could have existed.

Turning to the assumption that every seven basic settlements(type C) give rise to a type D settlement, we believe that, bit bybit, we shall find many relevant facts. At this moment we canonly say that in the territory of Cassopaia, we find a ratio of 4:1;in Sparta, the relation at different times was3, 4, 5, and 6 to 1;

in Thasos, we know there were 7 or 8 "fatries" in all. This impliesthat we have some evidence of ratios of 4:1 to 10:1, which doesnot contradict a general average ratio of 6:1.

Hypothesis B3: extent of settlements

Proceeding from our earlier assumptions, the size of the totalbasic settlement (land plus sea) is about 30 sq. km., whichmeans that the size of settlement D is about 210 sq. km.;settlement E is 1,470 sq. km.; and settlement F is 10,300 sq.km. Thus we have now established average areas for a hierarchy

of settlements, which will become closer to the truth as we test

them against concrete examples (Table 2).

At this point, we can only repeat the theoretical picture that wehave built up is not contradicted by such facts as we haveassembled, and that we shall continue to test and refine it asmore facts come to light. We are simply beginning a process that

may prove to be valuable for many aspects of humansettlements which we need to understand.


25/42

1

Articles From Ekistics, v.18, no.108, November 1964, p. 346-364: 11 fig.

The Ancient Greek City andthe City of the Present

SYNOPSIS: Man was dominant within the frameworkof the ancient city because it was built according to

human dimensions. The modern city, on the contraryis torn between humans and machines and thus manis displaced in favour of machines. The ancient city-states were created in two fashions: the older onesthrough natural growth whereas the newer ones bythe Hippodameian system. Despite their differences,the concept hidden behind both building processeswas the same: To take advantage of the naturallandscape and to create both public and privatespaces according to rational and functional

considerations with man at the center. In the citiesof the present, by contrast, both human dimensions

and coherence among men and among buildings arelost. What men need to do is first, to adhere tohuman dimensions and create smaller units whereman is the master and second, to use machines asthe means to control larger units where mechanical

dimensions prevail. In other words, to create citiesfor man.

When I sometimes feel overwhelmed by the problems ofthe modern city I go to the Acropolis. First I enter theAncient City and stand in the small plain where the Agora

used to be. As soon as I leave the modern city behind, andstand in the Agora, with its arcades and view of the

Acropolis, I begin to feel happy. I live in the past, orrather, I live happy in my escape from the contemporary;and then I slowly walk up to the Acropolis, I cross thePropylea and happiness gradually turns into supremesatisfaction. Here I am not just in the ancient city, but inthe ancient grandeur. Crossing the Acropolis I come up tothe ancient walls surrounding it and, on its eastern side, I

lean on the large parapet to contemplate the whole plainaround me. Then despair seizes me at the sight of the

modern city, the city in which I feel no security at all, thecity of noise and polluted air, the city where, at everymoment, I am in conflict with the machine. A machinewhich, although designed to move through space at 150km per hour, barely manages to cross Athens at 15;exactly the speed at which horse driven carriages used tocross it, before the advent of the automobile.

There is indeed a sharp contrast between the ancient cityand the present city, and between the knowledge and theunderstanding we have of each of them. This contrast isnatural, however, if we realize that it is not only ourknowledge which differs, but that the cities themselves arereally dissimilar. They have different magnitudes anddifferent functions. In the ancient city man was the sole

inhabitant, while the city of the present is inhabited bothby man and machine. The functions of the city have


26/42

2

changed, and so have its inhabitant and its dimensions.

When man of the present succeeds in relieving himself ofthe great pressures of his time and turns his attention tothe ancient monuments to draw lessons, he confines

himself to those still projecting above the ground: that isto say, to the temples and the public buildings. He studiestheir construction and aesthetic value, whilst overlookingthe fact that these buildings only formed individual,though central, elements of a city that expressed a way oflife.

We take lessons from the monuments, but what kind oflessons? First we copied them and tried to revive the dead

city as it used to be. Then we found out that we had onlyattempted a resurrection of the dead, that we had erectedcorpses in our towns and we started to laugh at them.

What we forgot was that the monuments and the buildingsare but the skin of the real city, of real life. Our concernfor the skin remind me of the people who once visited theworkshop of the sculptor Auguste Rodin and asked himhow he managed to create such perfect surfaces for hisstatues. "Surfaces?" said he, "but I am inside the marble

and work from there". That is something we forget whenwe study the works of the ancients. We confine ourselvesto the skin and do not realize that this is the expression ofa whole life, a way of life expressed by the city as a whole.

It is time that we excavated the ruins, removed the

masses of earth which cover them and saw clearer notonly the monument as a unit, but also the whole ancientcity as a living organism with heart, lungs and body, and

try to understand the human settlement which wascreated once and which can teach us now. That is what Ishall try to do in this study.

How can this be accomplished? How can we study the citywithout falling into the trap of admiration of the old merelybecause we are disappointed by the present? To do so westudy the city in a specific way, that is, on the basis of

magnitudes which can be measured.

This is possible if we confine our observations to two veryconcrete elements: the scale and the unity of the city.

The scale is a feature that can be proved, because it ismeasured by the dimensions of the city. Here ourobservations must be very concrete in order to avoid any

subjective attitude. Unity, on the other hand, can again beproved by the dimensions of public spaces and of private

ones, also open spaces and buildings. Both of theseelements, scale and unity, can be studied according toobjective criteria, and thus they will form the basis of our

study.

Since my school years I have studied the ancient city and


27/42

3

have lived in it also. Since my childhood I have lived in themodern city. I have grown and also have suffered in it. Bycomparing them I therefore wish to draw and support thefollowing conclusions:

a. The ancient Greek city was built on human dimensionswhich gave it a human scale and unity.

b. The city of the present has lost its human dimensions.

c. There is an imperative need for human dimensions inthe city of the present.

d. The city of to-day also needs other dimensions suitable

for the machine and, accordingly, a synthesis of two scalesis required: the human scale and the scale of the machine.

e. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we give back tothe city its human dimensions, even though we haveimposed on it the dimensions of the machine. It was amistake to let the historic continuity of the humandimensions in the city to be lost. We must establish it

again, in harmony with the evolution imposed on us by thenew factors.

Fig. 1. Area of ancient Greek-city states.

THE CITY STATE

Greece is divided by mountains into small plains. It is inthese plains that the major part of land cultivation takesplace and we can roughly say that these do not exceed22% of the ancient Greek peninsula. The physical

boundaries of the small plains form the boundaries of thecity-state. These areas range from fairly small states withan area of 100 sq. kms., such as the state of Aegina, tofairly large states, such as the states of Arcadia andLaconia which spread over an area of about 5,000 sq. kms(Ref 1). Diagrammatically, we can thus visualize theancient Greek states as squares of 10 by 10 km., whichcould be crossed from end to end in 2 hours or so, to

squares of 70 by 70 km., which one needed 14 hours tocross on foot. (Fig. 1).

We might perhaps say that the average dimensions of anancient Greek state were 40 by 40 km., which means thatone needed an 8 hours' walk to go from one end to theother and that, as a rule, one did not have to cross

mountains, which in almost all cases divided one city-statefrom the other.

If we now consider that the city was placed in the centerof each state, we find that in a state of average size thecity would be a 4 hours' walking distance from its edges;in the case of the smaller state it would be an hour's

walking distance and, in the larger states, 7 hours'distance from the borders. This means that within a day,between sunrise and sunset, one could set forth from the


28/42

4

central city and reach the furthermost point even of thelargest state, whilst in the case of an average size stateone would be able to set forth from the most distant point,go to the central city and return before sunset.

Man could dominate in his state, with all his humandimensions, not only because he could walk easily fromthe city to the borders in one day, but also because hecould climb up any summit and view the whole state,appreciate the whole vital space of the city, and evenbecause he could very easily receive news of what washappening throughout the state by cry or torch and othersignals, from hill to hill, in a few minutes.

The vital space of the whole state had human dimensions.The population of these states started with a few tens ofthousands, perhaps around 30,000, and reached a figure

of some hundreds of thousands- perhaps up to 300,000-whilst the average population was perhaps in theneighbourhood of 100,000 (Ref 2).

Fig. 2. Area of ancient Greek-city states.

Average area 180 ha.

Fig. 3. Ancient Greek City. Evolution of

Planning.

THE BUILT-UP CITY

The built-up district, that is to say the city, had a smallerpopulation than the state, and of course, a much smallerarea. The average population of the ancient Greek city,that may have ranged between 5,000 and 50-60,000inhabitants, was possibly in the neighborhood of 20,000inhabitants- and I say possibly because we do not know

for certain how many were small and how many werelarge cities (Ref 3). If, however, we judge from the factthat we know the population of a good number of large

cities did not exceed 30,000, we can say that the averagepopulation of all cities probably did not exceed 10,000, forthere must have been a large percentage of small citieswith 5,000 population (Ref 4).

The built-up city was very small. Even if we examine someof the most important ancient cities, such as Athens,Corinth, Delos, Priene, Miletus, Piraeus, Olynthos and

Selinus, of which we have more accurate plans and

information, we can draw the conclusion that the averagearea of the ancient city was hardly 1.8 sq. km., that is tosay a square whose side was 1.3 km (Ref 5). We mightperhaps say that the size of the actually average ancientGreek city was a square whose sides did not exceed 800meters. (Fig.2).

If we now examine the dimensions of the cities, we shallsee that, in fact, they did not tend to be square but wereadapted to the landscape. They are of circular shape whendeveloped around an Acropolis, as in Athens, orrectangular if they are built on a peninsula, as in Piraeus

or Miletus. Their average maximum dimension was equalto 2 km., which means that one could cross the city fromend to end by walking 20 to 25 minutes, or that no

function or dwelling in the city was more than 800 meters


29/42

5

distance from the center or a 10 minutes' walk.

The density in the cities was fairly uniform, averaging194.2 inhabitants per hectare, which means that nearly 35families corresponded to 10,000 sq. meters or some 330

sq. meters to each family. We can realize this if weimagine that each family had a plot of 10 by 20 meters,that is to say 200 sq. m., and corresponding public spaces,roads, squares, sanctuaries that were equivalent to about130 sq. m. We can say that this is a normal density,because it allows one house of 100 sq. m. per family, witha corresponding garden and a sufficient area for publicspaces (Ref 6).

Ancient cities are divided in two categories: those formedthrough a natural growth and those created on theHippodameian system.(Fig. 3)

CITIES CREATED THROUGH NATURAL GROWTH

These are the oldest cities and chiefly the cities ofcontinental Greece. Athens is the most typical andimportant. Such cities were developed around or near a

hill or rock, the acropolis. That is where the god-protectorof the town was worshipped. At the beginning it was theseat of the ruler and it was also the place where theinhabitants used to take refuge in case of war or attack. Itwas the core of the city and originally there was nodistinction between the city and the acropolis. The city

gradually developed in wider circles near the acropolis.With this natural spread of the city a second core wasformed at its lower part, the Agora. This was the center of

political, commercial and social gatherings. The naturalposition of the agora was near the acropolis, not far fromthe main entrance to the town. Acropolis and agoratherefore formed the double core of the ancient town, butthe agora gradually became its most important element(Ref 7). All the main streets of the town led radically tothis main center.

The core of the town was moved from the acropolis to the

agora for two reasons:

a. The development of commerce and handicraft.

b. A shifting of political power from the priests and themonarch to the aristocracy and democracy.

Aristotle says characteristically in his Politics (VII, X, 4):

"What is expedient is not the same for all forms ofconstitution alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable foroligarchy and monarchy, and a level side for democracy;

neither favourable to an aristocracy, but rather severalstrong positions".


30/42

6

Fig. 4. Piraeus (400 B.C.).

THE HIPPODAMEIAN CITIES

To this category belong the cities created according to anorganized plan at a given time. These new towns startedbeing built mainly in Ionia. The big destruction's caused by

the Persians necessitated reconstruction on a large scale.New colonies were built with a subsequent flourish ofculture.

The main difference between organized cities and thosewhich developed through a natural process over a longperiod of time are the parallel streets and the use of a gridin planning. The grid developed into a rectangular systemand was the result of purely functional reasons. The grid

presents the simplest solution of layout and with thefewest complications.

Here is how, according to Aristotle (Politics, II, V, 2),Hippodamus the Milesian, who was the first to apply thissystem, viewed the social synthesis of the town:

"His system was for a city with a population of tenthousand, divided into three classes; for he made oneclass of artisans, one of farmers and the third the class

that fought for the state in war and was the armed class.He divided the land into three parts, one sacred, onepublic and one private: sacred land to supply thecustomary offerings to the gods, common land to providethe warrior class with food, and private land to be owned

by the farmers".

Concerning the Hippodameian system Aristotle, again,(Politics, VII, X, 4) writes:

"The arrangement of the private dwellings is thought to bemore agreeable and more convenient for general purposesif they are laid out in straight streets, after the modernfashion, that is, the one introduced by Hippodamus; but ismore suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary

plan, as cites used to be in ancient times; for thatarrangement is difficult for foreign troops to enter and to

find their way about in when attacking. Hence, it is well tocombine the advantages of both plans, and not to lay outthe whole city in straight streets, but only certain partsand districts, for in this way it will combine security withbeauty".

As far as the orientation of the cities is concerned,

Aristotle writes in the same chapter:

"The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune itselfmay place on slopping ground, having regard to fourconsiderations: first, as a thing essential, the consideration

of health (for cities whose sites slopes east or towards thebreezes that blow from the sunrise are more healthy, andin the second degree those that face away form the north


31/42

7

wind, for these are milder in winter); and among theremaining considerations, a slopping site is favourableboth for political and for military purposes".

Regarding the alignment of the streets the natural

landscape is of outmost importance. When the ground issloping, the main streets usually follow the contour linesand the perpendicular ones are more steep and narrow,occasionally with steps.

The agora is the core of the city. It is usually at the centerand occupies a few blocks which are left free for thispurpose. The sanctuaries are gathered around the agoraor scattered throughout the city. The remaining blocks are

occupied by residential quarters. The whole may besurrounded by walls which follow a free line around thecity.

By studying the layout of the cities which were developedthrough a natural process and those which were plannedaccording to the Hippodameian system we find that they

had one feature in common: the form of the ancient townwas generally simple. In both of the above mentioned

categories one could easily move from any part of the cityto its center, first because one could see it fromeverywhere- distances being such as to permit this- andbecause one could move directly towards it either bytaking one natural turn in the cities formed throughnatural growth or by a right angle turn in the

Hippodameian cities.

The result was that anyone could easily perceive theancient city in all its extent as a synthesis. The outcome

was that the city not only formed a community of people,but that this community was readily perceived by everyinhabitant who dominates over its entire area with all hisphysical capacities. He could view it, he could hear itsmessages, he could walk over it very easily. The citybelonged to the man, it was built on the human scale (Fig.4).

Fig. 5. Athens: The Acropolis.

PUBLIC SPACES (SANCTUARIES, AGORA, BUILDINGSFOR SPECIAL PURPOSES)

Religion and worship in general played an important partin the life of the citizen. That is why there is no dividingline between religious and civil architecture in ancient

Greece, as there was no distinction between these twonotions in everyday life.

The religious buildings and the various small sanctuarieswere scattered all over the town. Many of them were olderthan the town itself. There were only certain areas where

sanctuaries were more numerous, such as the acropolisand the agora. The city was developed around them. Themost famous example of a group of religious buildings in a


32/42

8

Fig. 6. Ancient Greek cities: Agoras.

city was the Acropolis of Athens.

The main expression of worship in architecture was thetemple. Its orientation was ordinarily from East of West.Entrance was from the East, although this was not always

observed in practice and was not emphasized as in theRoman period. Arcades, for instance, were usually orientedsouthwards, even if that involved turning their back to atemple.

Under the Hippodameian system, special provision wasmade in the city plan for places of worship and wholeblocks were allotted to them. Aristotle (Politics, VII, II, I)speaks of a sacred agora, for which a suitable site should

be chosen and which should include all religious buildings.Similar observations were made by Xenophon and Plato,who suggested that religious buildings should be located

around the agora. Under the Hippodameian system,temples are situated at various points throughout the city,in accordance to functional and aesthetic needs. Thelocation of temples is determined by the layout of thestreets, even if this makes it necessary to deviate from theorthodox easterly orientation, as in Miletus. In earlier

temples, the proper orientation is observed and the layoutof the streets is adapted accordingly.

The synthesis of public places was not determined byartificial geometrical criteria, which may not be directlyperceptible, but only by man's own position and

movements through these places. Man and his movementswere always the measure. From a glance at the plan of theAcropolis of Athens, one might think that it is not based on

any specific rules of composition. When one is there,however, one realizes that the buildings are all located insuch a way as to be presented correctly to anyoneentering by the Propylaea and proceeding towards theParthenon or the Erechtheum. The synthesis on a humanscale becomes apparent (Fig. 5).

The agora is the heart of the ancient Greek city,

particularly from the 5th century onwards. All public

business, trade, administration, worship, the law courts,were integrated there, and as ancient Greek cities weresmall, there was usually no need for more than onecenter. There were, of course, a number of exceptions,due to historical causes, as in the case of Athens andcertain other cities. There is no known instance, however,

of a second agora or a second independent city center.Since the main center was no more than 15 minutes' walk

from any point of the city, there was no need for othercenters to serve outlying districts. In fact, 15 minutes wasthe longest distance, and the average was much shorter,perhaps no more than 5-minute walk.

The original form of the agora, like that of the city itself,was very simple. A flat open space with suitable drainagewas the first requirement. Originally, the agora


33/42

9

accommodated all functions. In due course, however, thedevelopment of the city, the growth of the population andthe construction of new buildings made it difficult for theagora to serve all purposes.

The agora was almost situated at the center of gravity ofthe city,

DOXIADIS_Sobre els assentaments de l'Antiga Grècia (selecció)

Documents

Transcript of DOXIADIS_Sobre els assentaments de l'Antiga Grècia (selecció)