‘IMPRESSIVE BUT NOT VERY PRACTICAL.’ DO YOU THINK THIS APPLIES MORE TO THE BUILDINGS AND LAYOUT OF THE SANCTARY OF ZEUS AT OLYMPIA OR THE SANCTUARY OF APOLLO AT DELPHI? (25 MARKS)

Overall this statement applies more appropriately the sanctuary and buildings of Olympia as it is less practical with no clear sacred way but is indeed very impressive as seen most clearly in the chryselephantine sculpture of Zeus by Pheidias. Delphi on the other hand, I believe is extremely impressive, if not more so than Olympia but also very practical because of its compact nature and tiered landscape. Thus the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi does not apply to this statement as greatly due to it being both practical and impressive. Although it perhaps seems less practical because of its very packed nature with no systematic planning over time as people kept building, however its organic growth is still very much tied by the practicality of the ‘z’ shape of the Sacred Way that ties together the different tiers of the sanctuary. The landscape furthermore is utterly beautiful and I believe make sit more impressive than Olympia, with its incredible harsh mountain setting and steep ascent, which only serves to enhance this ‘sacred landscape.’ One impressively begins the route past impressive treasuries of which there are over 30, such as most memorably the small (distyle in-antis) yet luxurious Siphnian treasury built lavishly of 3 different types of marble, and with incredibly detailed caryatids that can be practically viewed from the forecourt. Furthermore the Athenian treasury is also very impressive with its practical commanding position at the turning point of the sacred way, allowing it to be viewed from a ¾ angle to show off all the sides, especially the intricate metopes of Herakles and Theseus celebrating the foundation of democracy. The main area, close to the upper part of the tiers, separated by the impressive Polygonal wall was the Temple of Apollo himself and the altar outside it. Built in an impressive archaic style (6x15 columns) with awesome massive Doric columns, holding the separate adyton for oracular consultation, the ‘omphalos’ (bellybutton) as well as many famous inscriptions such as ’know thyself’. Thus the temple itself was very rooted in emphasising the sacred history of the sanctuary as well as stressing the importance of the god with its massiveness. The sanctuary itself also held many awesome features such as a theatre, the stoa of the Athenians, a gymnasium outside the temenos area (although much smaller than that in Delphi- only holding 5,000), several altars and dedications, the sheer abundance of which was tightly packed and hence very impressive to a visitor. What made the sanctuary particularly impressive was the second sanctuary of Athena Pronaia, with its most impressive tholos of purely white marble emphatically contrasting the black marble strip of limestone, and exterior Doric colonnade corresponding to inner Corinthian colonnade. Thus these elements were hugely beautiful and their size and abundance stressed their sanctity making them so impressive especially in such a natural landscape, while the tiered system and ancient structure created by the sacred way makes this temple very practical considering its harsh mountainous environment making the statement not apply to this sanctuary. The sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia on the other hand aims solely to impress and does so very successfully, while the lack of a sacred way and rebuilding that was not limited by such a wide plain made it much more spacious and hence in my opinion less ordered and practical, making the statement most applicable to this sanctuary. Again the antiquity of the sanctuary meant there was no formal planning and no axial line up and the spacious landscape allowed for much expansion, as seen by the moving of the stadium or the building of the palaestra, as well as the impractical natural route between monuments with no sacred way. The fact that the temple of Zeus itself was only completed in 457 BC and that the temple of Hera was the oldest building of the sanctuary is wholly impractical itself although the temple of Hera was very impressive. It was very archaic (16 x6) with impressive individual columns dedicated by select states to replace those of the rotting wooden ones. Hence the style itself with non-matching columns was very historic and impressive. The temple of Zeus itself although seemingly dull, becoming the standard of proportion (6 x 13) was very impressive due to its huge size (30 x 64 ms), emphasised only further by the sturdy column shafts and squatness, and this dullness acted as a perfect foil for the huge chryselephantine statue of seated Zeus that was 12 metres tall and with incredible details such as a sceptre or mythical beats. Its beauty was itself enhanced by the pool of oil before it that reflected the material. However it was rather impractical to have something that took up 2/3rds of the cela, as can be seen by the attempted double-tired inner colonnade creating a viewing point for the statue. Furthermore both temples were planned to be in parallel and roughly facing the spectacular ash altar that was the religious heart of the Altis. Perhaps more impractically the treasuries at Olympia are hidden away and not in the central temenos area although also very impressive. For example the huge hexa-style Doric treasury of Gela with its ornately painted geometric patterns brought from Sicily impressively celebrated their wealth. However, the treasuries also may have had a more practical effect as they acted as good viewing areas for the stadium, which itself was impressive being able to seat over 45,000 spectators. Other buildings such as the echo stoa with its long double corridor that was Doric on the exterior and Ionic on the interior was very impressive as well as the ancient sanctity surrounding the Pelepeion and the Hippodemeion close by. Similar to the tholos at Delphi there is also the later addition of the Philippeion that is extremely impressive not only standing out with the audacity of having an Ionic colonnade of 18 columns as well as the chryselephantine statue of Philip- a mortal, the sheer fact that it was apart from other treasuries makes it stand out more obviously. Thus the many impressive features of Olympia, most obviously that of the temple of Zeus himself makes this statement so applicable as the impracticality of the site, with little guiding nature for visitors made it impressive but not entirely practical. Therefore I believe that the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia is impressive most evidently by its buildings and size however also largely impractical due to its sheer antiquity but also the lack of axial line up seen by the absence of a sacred way and an ever expanding sanctuary, that seemingly did so right up into the Roman period. Delphi I find is more impressive however, particularly due to its tiered landscape and sanctity of the mountainous terrain as well as the abundance and beauty of the buildings there. I find it does not apply to the statement because it indeed has been made to be practical because of the limited space centred on the z-shaped sacred way and the tiers that are inherently created by the landscape.