E. Norman Gardiner in 1917 wrote: As to the origin and character of the festival itself, the only evidence is to be found in the actual customs of the festival, particularly the time of the year when it was held, the four years cycle, the olive crown, the sacred truce, the exclusion of women. Are these still the decisive considerations for an understanding of what the Olympics Games meant in the eighth century BC?

By reference to the Gardiner quote, one is at risk of reading too much into the exclusion of women. The quote suggests that this was a defining and significant feature in our understanding of the character and origins of the games, however as Nigel Spivey states, women were highly domesticated in ancient Greece and were generally segregated from men. If we take this into account, the exclusion of women is not at all remarkable and arguably tells us nothing about the character of the games at all. In addition, Pausanius in his Guide to Greece notes that female virgins were not refused entry into the games and that it was actually only married women who were forbidden. Again, one should be careful when using the exclusion of women for understanding the character of the games.

Gardiner neglects to comment on the military aspect and the role it may have played in the origins of the games. In his book, The Ancient Olympics, Nigel Spivey discusses the concept of these games as being ‘war minus the shooting.’ It is based on the idea that sport is inherently violent which is cemented by the fact that in the 8th century BC, ‘wars encroachment on athletic activity was overt and frequent.’ The potential link between milititarism and athletics is an important point because it provides us with another aspect to consider when thinking about the origins of the games. Spivey argues that all games were understood to be war games which is indicated by the ability to rationalise each athletic contest with cavalry drills and infantry fighting. This link is not given by Gardiner in the given quote, but should nonetheless be considered an important factor in these early games.

Gardiner does indirectly point to the honour bestowed upon Olympic victors when he mentions the olive crown however again, this brief mention does not sufficiently explain the significance of Olympic glory to the athletes, where it was not the taking part that counted, but the winning. The importance of victory is indicated by an epitaph belonging to Agathos Daimon stating ‘he died here, boxing in the stadium, having preyed to Zeus for victory or death.’ Losing was therefore not considered an option and as Dawson correctly states, this inscription along with others of a similar character, ‘epitomises the Greek sense of perseverance in honour and zeal for victory even to the point of death.’Again, this is a significant character of the ancient Olympic Games and the given quote does not adequately explain the importance of the olive crown to ancient athletes.

It is clear Gardiner has pointed to some significant features of the Olympic Games, points which give us an insight into the nature of the event. There is a major flaw with the argument that the actual customs of the games provides us with the only evidence of the character and origin of the games however.  There is much in the way of evidence of sculptures and accounts of ancient Greek writers such as one important work by Phlegon of Tralles titled History of the Olympic Games which gives us evidence of the origins of the games. This work states that the origins lie in the neglect of the cult of Zeus by the Peloponnesians during the ninth century BC. Disharmony broke out and peace was brought by Lycurgus the Spartan and Iphitos the Elean by reviving the old Olympic festival according tradition, adding the Olympic agon and track and field events.  To ignore these accounts in favour of the rituals and traditions is to not understand the complexity of the character of the games.

Further, the cities which wished to participate had to announce a truce, in this respect the Olympics was also about bring peace to ancient Greek cities. This is an interesting point to be made alongside the earlier suggestion by Spivey that there was a link between militarianism and the games, however the Olympics, as it has been argued by modern historians, were re-established to ‘promote friendship, harmony and peace among the Greeks’ and arguably to unite them in the event of an attack from outsiders. 

There was also a deep religious aspect to the games which should not be ignored. As Spivey claims, in Greek Myth all the events which appeared at the Olympics during the eighth and seventh centuries BC were first participated in by gods or heroes. For this reason, the Olympic Games were primarily a religious festival and the competition was a way of worshipping the gods, most notably Zeus who came to Olympia in the tenth century. 

The Olympic games played an important role in ancient Greece, as Wendy Raschke states, the games were the cultural, religious and political forum of Hellenism’ and the meaning of those games cannot be understood merely in the confines of the rituals and traditions of the games. Although they provide significant insight into the meaning of them in the eighth century BC, they are not the only evidence which can be used to determine the origins and character of the Olympics. This essay has discussed some other aspects of the games as well as drawing on some other evidence to help explain the nature of the games.

---

Bibliography

Dawson, K, ‘Victory or Death: Ancient Olympic Sports,’ VFW Magazine, August 2012, accessed 16/09/2012, available < >

Irving, J, ‘War Minus the Shooting: Ideals behind the Ancient Olympic Games’, GraecoMuse accessed 16/09/2012, available <>

Raschke, W, Archaeology of the Olympics: The Olympics and other Festivals in Antiquity, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

Sacks, D, Oswyn Murray and Lisa Brody (ed), Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World, New York: Facts on File Inc, 2005.

Spivey, N, The Ancient Olympics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

---