<![CDATA[Source Material]]>Originally written for an Anthropology/Archaeology class in the spring of 2012, this was made in the medium of a scientific research paper presenting differences between two similar archaeological structures in ancient societies.

Symbolic Significance from Roman and Greek Monuments

 

Abstract

            The ancient Greek structure, the Theatre of Dionysus, and the ancient Roman structure, the Roman Coliseum, both represent monumental structures in their respective societies.  This paper explores how each of these structures can be seen as a symbolic representation of the overall character of their societies.  Using the functions of each structure, as well as the history of each structure and their respective societies, this paper aims to show how the Roman Coliseum and the Greek Theatre of Dionysus are symbolic of the societies as a whole.  The focus of Roman society, which tended to be more militaristic, and the focus of Greek society, which tended to be more peaceful, can both be seen symbolically through each of their respective monuments.

 

Introduction

            Many ancient societies are often looked at in terms of their legacy: what they were known for, what contributions they made to the modern world, how long they lasted, etc.  In terms of the Roman and Greek societies, each has a specific legacy: the Roman society is known for its militaristic, gladiatorial ways while the Greek society is known as being a very artful, more peaceful society.  These legacies are not just demonstrated in each of their histories, but are in fact represented in some of their great monuments.

            Research regarding one monument in each society – the Roman Coliseum and the Greek Theatre of Dionysus – has been done by many scholars.  Hopkins and Beard explored the various traditions and the history associated with the Roman Coliseum while Ley examines the different festivals and ideologies associated with the Greek Theatre of Dionysus.

            The archaeological evidence associated with each site has also allowed scholars to figure out how many people each theatre held; how the layout gives evidence of societal stratification; which peoples typically attended performances in each theatre; and also how these particular monuments compare and contrast with other monuments typical of the societies.

            This paper explores multiple aspects of each theatre, including the form in which the theatres were built, the function each theatre served, and the significance each presented to the community as a whole.   The findings are presented in such a way as to expose how each society’s marked differences in the use and creation of theatre varied in such ways that are largely symbolic of the focus of each of the respective societies.

 

Form and Function of the Greek and Roman Monuments

Many theatres existed in the state of ancient Greece.  The Theatre of Dionysus, however, stands out as being both one of the earliest preserved of the Greek theatres as well as one of the most well-known.  Like many Greek theatres, the primary purpose of the Theatre of Dionysus was the performance of dramatic plays, and although during its initial construction the theatre mostly served as a place to watch tragedies, comedies became a more common occurrence later in its timeline.  However, tragedy was the ultimately most notable type of performance held at the theatre, and was such a staple of the Greek Theatre that the advent of tragedy is credited to the Athenians and the Theatre of Dionysus (Wilson 1997).

            The general construction of the theatre is similar to many of the Greek theatres that would later follow.  Its design is roughly in the shape of a semicircle: the “front” end of the semicircle (the middle of the flat part) was where the orchestra was located; not too far behind this was the skene – which means “tent” and was used for scene building; and the largest, arcing part of the semicircle was known as the theatron and was what would be considered nowadays to be the seats of a theatre (Ley 2006).  Of note is the change in material used to create the theatre through the years.  According to Wilson, “Excavations during the 1960s sanctuary of Dionysus provided clear stratigraphical evidence that the foundations of the earliest stone theatre cannot be dated before the mid-fourth century.  The fifth-century theatron was therefore built almost entirely of wood” (2007:98).  Though the theatre is evidenced to have had rows added onto it over generations, modern estimates place the viewing capacity somewhere around 14,000 viewers (www.stanford.edu accessed 3/24/12). Significant also was the location of the Theatre of Dionysus.  As the theatre was ultimately an honor to the god Dionysus, it was constructed just south of the Athens Acropolis, and slightly northwest of the Temple of Dionysus (Ley 2006).   

            Unlike the Theatre of Dionysus, whose history is not entirely understood, the Roman Coliseum’s creation was an especially notable act for the Roman people.  The area on which the Coliseum stands was originally private ground meant only for the elite under the rule of the 5th Emperor of Rome, Emperor Nero (Quennell 1971).  In a way of contrasting Nero’s reign, Emperor Vespasian ordered construction of the Coliseum on the once-private ground, with the intent that it would become public space for all of society.  Not only did Vespasian order the construction of the Coliseum as a political act to show his reign differed from Nero’s (Quennell 1971), but also as a monument to celebrate Roman victories – most likely the recent victory in the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD (Claridge 1998).  The construction of the Roman Coliseum began in 72 AD.  Although it was not completed under Vespasian’s rule, construction finished in 80 AD under his son, Titus’ rule (Hopkins and Beard 2005).  Although construction of the Coliseum was both a political and a monumental act, the Coliseum itself was very special in its own right due to its uniqueness from previous Roman theatres.

            The Roman Coliseum was both similar to and different from previous iterations of Roman theatres; while most theatres utilized a semi-circle-style architecture, the Roman Coliseum was different in that it was created in the form of two theatres together, creating a full-circle design.  This design allowed for a much larger audience – possibly an audience of up to 58,000 (Coarelli et al. 2001) – as well as a staging ground that made one feel as if there were eyes on him/her from all directions.  In this sense, the Coliseum’s design can also be seen as a way to increase tension or adrenaline in the gladiators who competed there.  Much like the powerful and watchful Roman rule, the shape of the arena stands ultimately let gladiators know the eyes of Rome were always upon him.

            In terms of the stands themselves, the interior seating arrangement of the Coliseum was set up in such a way that reflected the stratified nature of Roman society.  The closer one was to the arena floor, the higher status that person occupied in society.  To give a better picture of this setting, Claridge writes,

…Ranged around the same level, on broad platforms to which they brought their own chair (bisellia) sat the senatorial class, all in white togas with red borders.  Above the senators came the night (equites), above them the ordinary Roman citizens (the plebs), all in their togas too….Inscriptions specified the length of seating reserved for particular groups…At the very top, 40 m. above and almost 50 m. away from the arena, was a gallery for the common poor, slaves, and whatever women dared to join them.  There it was standing room only, or very steep wooden benches (1998:279).

 

In this way, the Coliseum itself was much like the Roman society: largely inclusive, but also largely separated by social status.  All in all, the Coliseum’s design – from the unique circular shape, to the noticeably stratified seating, to the grand size and scale – were very specifically created in such a way that only amplified the effect of its ultimate function: the Roman games.

While Roman amphitheatres hosted a large variety of events, the Coliseum is well-known for its demonstrations of gladiatorial-type entertainment and general entertainment based in combat.  The first acts to be held at the Coliseum took place in 80 AD as a celebration of its completion (Roth 1993).  These games were known as the inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre and they lasted for over 100 days.  During the inaugural games, a number of traditional Roman games were played, which followed the regular Roman-games format, beginning with animal entertainment in the morning, executions in midday, and gladiatorial fights later in the afternoon.  These types of games were not only performed during the inaugural games, though, and as Quennell describes, “A typical day in the Flavian Amphitheater began with a succession of bloodless duels, often comic or fantastic.  The contestants might be women, dwarfs, or cripples, and the weapons they used were frequently made of wood” (1971: 45).  While this sort of playful exhibit might seem more in line with laid-back Greek entertainment of the Theatre of Dionysus, an afternoon in the Coliseum tended to be much more violent, and was ultimately a stark contrast to both the Greek Theatre and Greek society as a whole.

            While both the Roman Coliseum and the Theatre of Dionysus function as a means of entertainment for their respective society’s people, most of the overlap stops there.  The Coliseum was the epitome of Roman-style games; it featured violent, murderous acts that are a stark contrast to the Greek tragedies performed in Athens.  In looking at the functions, it is very clear that each monument is symbolic of the focus of its society.  The Greek Theatre is widely known for its memorable tragedies and its celebration of the god Dionysus; Greek society as a whole is a more peaceful society, known for arts and celebration.  The Roman Coliseum is known for the gladiatorial games, executions, and reenactments of memorable battles; the Roman society is known as one of the greatest, most militaristic empires of all time.

            The function alone did not fully represent each society’s focus, however; so too did the differences in form.  The phrase “the sun never sets on the Roman Empire” is one known by many, and it is representative of how large the Roman society was at its peak.  In having such a large, reinforced architecture, the Coliseum can again be seen as a symbol of the Roman society: large, strong, powerful.  Not only this, but the audience in the Coliseum – being over three times as many as the Greek Theatre’s – is a great symbol of the expansiveness of each society.  Rome’s society was powerful and large, and so too was its Coliseum; Greek society was smaller and less expansive, so too was its Theatre.  Examining the form and function of the Coliseum and Theatre of Dionysus – although only two aspects of each – paints clear distinctions, and these distinctions are all extremely symbolic of the respective focus of Roman and Greek society.

 

Attending Communities and Overall Significance of the Greek and Roman Monuments

            Though the form and function are clear ways of finding a symbolic relationship between the monuments and the focuses of the Greek and Roman societies, so too are the ways in which each were used by communities, and their overall significance to the society.  The Roman Coliseum and Greek Theatre of Dionysus were both used by different crowds and for different reasons, and each held a different degree of significance in the history of each of their societies.

The Greek society was one which often paid tribute to its gods.  The Theatre of Dionysus was used in particular as a place of celebration each year; it served as the location of the Dionysia, a celebration of the god Dionysus (Cole 1993).  This event helped to exemplify just how significant the Theatre was to the community and just exactly how it could bring people together in homage.  The Dionysia was broken into two parts, the rural Dionysia and the city Dionysia which took place approximately three months after the rural Dionysia. Especially noteworthy were the performances put on during the City Dionysia.  This portion of the Dionysia, which lasted several days, began with the pompe: a procession of citizens, metics (those who did not have citizen rights), and representatives from Athenian colonies all marching with a wooden statue towards the Theatre of Dionysus (Cole 1993).  Also included in this procession in the mid-5th century BC were gifts and weapons that were used as a showcase of the Athenians strength; bulls to be sacrificed in the theatre; and the chorus leaders who dressed in ornate and expensive clothing (Cole 1993).

The pompe alone can be seen as a very significant act of unification of the Athenian society.  Bringing together many of the people in the society to celebrate helps to not only bring joy and celebration to the society, but also serves as a way to unite the people with a common celebration.  Furthermore, in creating such a vast procession every year, the Dionysia helped to honor a god very important to the Athenian people and create a unified ideological belief in the society.  However, the pompe was not the entire celebration, and the majority of the City Dionysia actually took place in the theatre.

Following the pompe, several days of performances took place at the theatre.  These plays were not only seen and performed in honor of Dionysus, but also served as competition among playwrights.  Each playwright submitted three tragedies and at least one satyr play, which were then judged to determine a winner (Cole 1993).  The winning playwright was not only considered very honorable, but was also rewarded a prize (typically a wreath of ivy).  The City Dionysia served as a way of bringing together many of the Greek people in celebration; however, though it was a grand celebration, stratification still did exist in the Greek society and may give evidence of to whom the Theatre primarily provided entertainment.

While there is no clear evidence as to who exactly the theatron consisted of, there are certain aspects of Athenian life that can be used to get an idea of who may have attended performances.  According to Ley (2006), adult males held a lot of power in Athenian society, with immigrants or those not of Athenian descent holding less power (though they still made up a large portion of society, and women and slaves holding virtually no power.  Ley continues to say that “…the likelihood must be that of all the categories Athenian women and slaves would be the least in evidence” (49).  These uses and exclusivities can be seen as a large contrast to that of the Roman Coliseum, whose significance and uses vary almost entirely from the Greek Theatre.

            The symbolic significance of the Roman Coliseum can be seen all the way from its inception.  Originally commissioned by Emperor Vespasian, the Coliseum’s Latin name was “Amphitheatrum Flavium” named after the Flavian dynasty (Edmonson 2005).  As previously mentioned, it was intended to be built not just as another Roman theatre, but also as a reflection of Vespasian’s power and political policy by upturning the manner in which the land had been previously allocated (Bomgardner 2000).  This is perhaps most greatly evidenced in the block with the engraving that reads (translated from Latin): “The Emperor Vespasian ordered this new amphitheatre to be erected from his general’s share of the booty” (Hopkins and Beard 2005).  Hopkins and Beard’s take on this is that “Vespasian was dramatically making the point that the profits of Roman military success belonged, at least in part, to the common people of Rome; it was not only emperor and aristocracy who were to enrich themselves with the booty of empire” (2005: 32).  While no one knows for sure if it was his original intent, this act of construction served as a way to unite the Roman people and create a stronger, more unified society.  In this sense, from the very beginning, the Coliseum was more than another Roman amphitheatre; it was a symbol.  A symbol of change, unification, and strength; and one that would be influential throughout the ages.

            The Coliseum’s effect on future buildings – and not just those in Rome – can be seen in future architecture.  As previously mentioned, the amphitheatre was the first of its kind to be designed as a full-circle arena; however, archaeological evidence of future theatres built in the same style exist as a part of many other ancient societies that came after Rome.  Hopkins and Beard describe its influence as becoming “…almost an instant archetype, a marker of ‘Romanness’ across the empire” (2005:25).  For example, the Capua ampitheatre in southern Italy exhibits a different style of columnar succession which resembles the Roman Coliseum’s style.  Moreover, El Jem in Tunisia also exhibits a style of architecture much in the same vein as the Coliseum’s.  Hopkins and Beard (2005) place the number of amphitheatres that followed the Coliseum’s model at well over two hundred by the end of the second century.  Even in this sense, the Coliseum was a strong symbol of the Roman society; it was not only original and unique, but also left a legacy whose influence can be seen all around ancient society.

            None can argue that both monuments hold valuable meaning to each society; both serve as ways of uniting people; both are used as a venue for performances; and both have had great impacts on future societies.  Greek society, however, as a whole was less militaristic than the Roman society.  This is not only present in the historical record, but also in the function of the Theatre.  The Theatre can more or less be used as a symbol of the larger Greek society as a whole; from the celebrations honoring ideological deities to the numerous stage performances the Theatre was so well known for, almost everything done at the Theatre of Dionysus is exemplary of Greek society at large.

            In contrast to this is the Roman Coliseum, which may at first seem similar but can be seen to be very much different when its functions are closely looked at.  The Coliseum was built from the very beginning as a political move, meant to overshadow and undermine the rule of Emperor Nero.  Nowhere in the Theatre of Dionysus’ conception was a single political motive.  In this sense, one can see how the Coliseum may also be seen as a symbol of the larger Roman society.  Roman society is known for its conquest and dynastic leadership, and the Coliseum is a small-scale representation of the larger-scale political acts that took place throughout the longer history of Rome.

 

Conclusion

            Both the Roman and Greek Empires utilize the amphitheatre-style architecture in their societies for a number of different social constructs.  However, while the architecture may be generally the same (with still some degree of variation), the functions and communal impact of each is very different.  It is in these differences that one can see a small-scale representation of the focuses of each large-scale society.  The Roman Empire spanned great distances, and consisted of many dynasties and militaristic acts; the Roman Coliseum was originally commissioned as a political act was used for hundreds of years, and honored many emperors of many dynasties.  The Greek society is historically responsible for a number of different modern-day art forms, and is considered the birthplace of tragedies and many other arts; the Greek Theatre of Dionysus reveled in watching tragedies and honoring the gods.  While each is just one monument in each society, their form, function, historical significance, and legend can all be seen as symbolic representations of the overall focus of the societies in which each existed.

 

[Works Cited]

]]>