Books

Raumordnung im griechischen Stadtebau / K.A. DOXIADIS - Heidelberg: Kurt Vowinckel Verlag, 1937. Architectural Space in Ancient Greece / C.A. DOXIADIS Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.

Presented by Panayotis Tournikiotis Architectural Space in Ancient Greece 1. Introduction In his first book, Doxiaxis' view of the architectural and urban past of ancient Greece approximates to the urban thinking of the great moderns of the inter-War period. The encounter revolved around the prospect of formulating the principles of contemporary urbanism as applied in theory and practice, and as they were projected onto the city of the future. Initially published in Germany in 1937, Doxiadis' doctoral thesis was translated into English thirty-five years later to mark the symbolic culmination of his long way of research relating 'the ancient Greek city and the city of the present'. This was also the title of a seminal article of 1964 and the basis of a major series of studies of Ancient Greek Cities, prepared, under his guidance, in the late 1960s and early '70s by the Athens Centre of Ekistics.

Fig. 1. Delphi, Terrace of Apollo, View from point B, 1968.

Fig. 2. Miletus, Delphineion. View from the west, circa 1914.

Fig. 3. Aegina, Sacred Precinct of Aphaia. Point from point A, 1968.

Fig. 4. Athens, Acropolis. View from point A, 1968.

2. The starting-point was the present Architectural Space in Ancient Greece is a book full of plans, photographs and perspective drawings of ancient Greek cities - dating from the seventh to the first century BC - on which the commentary is a comparatively sparse text. Although, Doxiadis was closely associated with archaeologists when he was writing the thesis in Berlin, it is neither an archaeological treatise nor a history book. Its author's interests were wholly contemporary, focusing on the seach for principles by which space, in its entirety, could be regulated by means of comparative and experimental testing of hypotheses for which no real documentation was available. His starting point was the problematic present, for the treatment of which the ancient Greek city was called upon to provide the means. The line 1

Fig. 5. Cos, Asclepeion, Plan.

Fig. 6. Cos, Asclepeion. Perspective of upper terrace from entrance. (Herzog.)

Fig. 7. Cos, Asclepeion, Hellenistic period. Perspective from Northeast. (Herzog.)

of argument is perfectly clear, and is stated at the beginning of the foreword to the thesis: over the past three decades (that is, the three first decades of the twentieth century), a radical change had come about in the conditions prevailing in cities during the previous three millennia. To Doxiadis' mind, there were two reasons for this: the new building materials which had radically altered the scale and form of buildings, and the mechanization of travel, which had radically altered the scale and form of cities. These two issues - new materials and the new construction methods that followed from them, and the predominance of the machine - also happened to be arguments of central importance for modern architecture, and to form the foundations on which the theoretical principles of modern urbanism were stated. Those principles were formulated at the 4th CIAM, a Congress which reached its climax in Athens in 1933, on the premises of the School of Architecture when Doxiadis was still a student there, and provided Le Corbusier with the platform for his Charter of Athens. The 4th CIAM concept of the contemporary functional city never faded from Doxiadis' mind. Indeed, we could hypothesize that it lay behind his obvious interest in the organisation of the ideal ancient Greek city, an interest which 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 the optimistic resolution of problems than with their pessimistic accumulation) directed him towards a search for, on the one hand, human scale and, on the other, the secret behind the way in which the ancient Greeks had organized space so as to both gratify human beings and uplift their souls. Using comparative typologies and mathematics - both highly topical at the time in any attempt to interpret good architectural solutions - he studied the sanctuaries and markets of cities in order to discover the principles of a system for arranging buildings in space based on the principles of human knowledge. Doxiadis was convinced that such a system existed and, furthermore, that it was a general theory of organizing space, a theory of urbanism whose rules were of direct significance for the present since "the ancient Greeks designed not isolated objects, as we see being done today, but the parts of a dynamic urban environment" (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 the conditions of development and change current at the time, and were not designed to comply with the aesthetic views of an isolated individual about an ideal city which bore no relation to its actual place and time. Indirectly, this was a criticism of some of the more messianic approaches of Modernism, and particularly of Le Corbusier (the ville contemporaine). For Doxiadis, the decisive factor in planning was the human viewpoint: more specifically, the angle of vision of a human being walking through a city and 2

Fig. 8. Priene, Agora. Plan

Fig. 9. Priene, Temple of Athena. Perspective, from the agora.

angle of vision of a human being walking through a city and sensing or perceiving it through the sequence of the organized revelation of its urban entities - of a person turning a street corner, passing through a gateway, or entering a square: the key points on the progression. The aesthetics of the city is not a static matter, but connected with motion. 4. The perceptive power of the eye Doxiadis' studies of the plans of the ancient Greek cities are generally well enough known, and that of the Acropolis of Athens is particularly familiar. We are not concerned here with the archaeological or architectural precision of that study. 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 someone like Camillo Sitte - the man, indeed, whom Le Corbusier had mockingly accused of having got no further than the road of the donkeys. Doxiadis, however, was opposed to the mechanical road, to the motor road, and persevered with the perceptive power of the eye of a human being moving across the ground no faster than his two feet could carry him. Let's have a closer view to three of his typical examples: the Acropolis at Athens, the Classical and Hellenistic Altis at Olympia, and the Agora and the Temple at Magnesia. 5. The Acropolis at Athens, 530-437 B.C. The organization of the architectural space of the Athens Acropolis spread over three phases, beginning with the era of Pisistratus and his successors, when the general layout is already recognizable, and culminating in its golden age, during which the Acropolis was undoubtedly designed as a unity by Pericles and his advisers. A mathematical analysis of the site shows a conformity of relationships between angles of vision and distances between buildings. The viewpoint 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 of the buildings. During the phase II (480-447 B.C.) the entire architectural space is divided into six identical angles, each of 30, and this division, with the equilateral triangle that is derived 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 or twelve parts, or by the angles and sides of an equilateral triangle derived from this division of space. In certain instances, angles of 36 (180/5), 18 (180/10), and 12 (180/15) seem to play an important role. During this phase the field of vision from point A is enclosed on all sides except along the eastern axis. The buildings form two groups, the left group having an opening out into the landscape, which is closed in the distance by the Lycabettos Hill. This layout has many close similarities with that of 3

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

Fig. 11. Athens, Acropolis III, after 450 B.C. Perspective from point A.

phase II. Most important, the open view to the east was retained in all three periods, although its relation to the entrance point differed in each layout. The system was total: voids as well as masses had their form, since together 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 the earliest Greek sanctuaries. The principles on which the layout of the site was organized, the boundaries and especially the entrances to the Altis remained unchanged during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, Fifth and Fourth centuries B.C. There were four entrances. The field of vision from 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 from each point are determined on the basis of the 30 angle. Throughout, one can sense the desire to connect the outlines of the different structures with one another and with the lines of the landscape, to form a continuous unity, and within this unity to emphasize one opening: one clear and unobstructed path leading out into the landscape. Figures show how the mass of the temple of Zeus is balanced symmetrically by the Hill of Kronos, and the Metroon by the Heraion. Both are symmetrically placed on either side of the axis leading to the small Hill of Gaia, which rises only slightly higher than the Heraion and the Metroon. The axial symmetry is clearly strengthened by the two balancing groves of trees, one within the Pelopion to the left, and the other in the Hippodamion to the right. It seems clear that a principal aim of this symmetrically organized layout, in which the landscape is incorporated, was to maintain the importance of the central axial opening. This marks the processional route of the people through the sacred precint from the entrance. Also, from this entrance the peak of the Hill of Kronos lies directly to the north. Thus, one of the cardinal compass points is made an 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 Second century B.C. had an important influence on the layout of the agora of Magnesia. There are three entrances to this site. Points A and B are placed in the center of the two entrances east and west of the southern stoa. Point C is placed at the access through the southern stoa. From point A the spectator has an entirely enclosed field of vision in which he perceives each structure in succession, each as a complete entity. From left to right he sees, without any gaps between them, the propylaeon of the sacred precint of Artemis, the altar of Zeus, and the temple of Zeus with the lower structure containing stone benches in front of it. The 4

Fig. 12. Olympia, Altis, Hellenistic period. Plan.

Fig. 16. Magnesia, Agora. Plan.

position of the temple of Zeus must have been calculated to conceal the larger temple of Artemis, outside the agora, and thus to prevent competition (in the eyes of the observer) of two equally large volumes. The position of the southwest structure seems determined by a desire to interrupt the direct view of the Zeus temple, which would otherwise be very dominant, and lead the eye to the path to the altar and, beyond it, to the propylaeon of the sacred precint of Artemis. Altough the space is entirely enclosed, the route to this propylaeon is kept entirely clear from each vantage point, with the other structures in the agora ranged on each side of it.

Fig. 17. Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point A.

Fig. 18. Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point B.

Fig. 19. Magnesia, Agora. Perspective from point C.

8. The revolving camera The foundations of Doxiadis' thought are only faintly discernible from the pages of his thesis. He can be assumed to have been aware of the geometrical interpretations of the visual organization of the Acropolis as stated by Auguste Choisy, which were taught in Athens, but what is of particular interest in his case is the fact that he articulates the organization of space in the city around the revolving eye of a moving person, which resembles a revolving camera located at different points in the space and describing full circles of 360 with ten or twelve present stops in each instance. "Radii from the vantage point -[the first and most important position from which the whole site could be observed]- determined the position of three corners of each important building, so that a three-quarter view 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. These fell into two categories: angles of 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150, corresponding to a division of the total field of 360 into twelve parts; and angles of 36, 72, 108, and 144, which resulted from division of the total field of vision into ten parts" (Architectural Space in Ancient Greece, p.5). The succession of these points, as a sequence of angles of vision during the continuous movement of the human being in space, converges on the rationale of the cinematic way of seeing and organizing the same space. It is indeed no coincidence that, at about the same period, Sergei Eisenstein was also addressing himself to the same sources - Choisy and the Acropolis - in order to construct an aesthetic theory of cinema montage, with direct references to human movement and the revolving angle of vision in architectural and urban space. 5

9. A projective investigation: the critical past and the city of future Thirty years after the original publication of this book the modern city had changed radically, and contemporary urbanism had moved from conquest to a position in which it was subjected to a first wave of harsh criticism. In international thinking, even so, the two large capitals Brasilia and Chandigarh - had prevailed as original and ideal applications of the principles of modernism. Reviewing the arguments of Architectural Space in 1964, in his article 'The Ancient Greek City and the City of the Present', Doxiadis, on the one hand, presaged the harsh urban questioning of the 'Moderns' by the 'post-moderns' (which would take its final form ten to fifteen years later) and, on the other, prefigured the rationale of the global village. However selfevident or at any rate inevitable that rationale may seem to us today, then, with the development of the media of communication in an embryonic state, it was still primarily a critique of the metropolitan urbanism of modernism. The conclusion is documented by means of comparative and typological analysis, on the same scale, of the fabric of cities selected from all the periods of history, with Brasilia and 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 in ten minutes, which has streets, squares, blocks and a central public space analogous to the ancient agora. Ancient Athens was without doubt Doxiadis' starting point, but Priene played an almost equivalent part in his comparative approach, serving as a model for the contemporary urban situation. Of course, Doxiadis was unable to ignore the motor car and rapid travel, but he dealt with it by proposing that human movement be split between that taking place on foot and that involving vehicles. Comparing ancient Priene with the contemporary megalopolis, he put forward the idea of an articulated and perpetually evolving city, one which would overcome all the defects of modern urbanism. In other words, his proposal was for a network of small cities, on the scale of Priene and in accordance with its rationale, to be located in the interstices of a network for the circulation of mechanical media - that is, motor vehicles. Islamabad is the ideal example of the model: small communities of the Priene type, with populations of 1,000 families or 5,000 people, juxtaposed as the members of a potentially global network, each of whose units is in the simultaneous service of the part and the whole. 10. Conclusion "We cannot build new cities under the influence only of the model of the ancient Greek city, since in that way we will never solve the problems of the modern era. However, we have to create cities which consist of elements based on the human scale. The modern city should be a synthesis of the human scale and the mechanical scale. Only in this way will we be serving humankind while at the same time improving 6

Fig. 20. Priene, General plan.

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 allow him to survey the entire globe and television enables him to hear the news from every corner of the world, the mechanical dimensions of the city will shrink to those of an ancient Greek city. Man will live not only in a small human community and dominate it by human dimensions, he will also live in a world-wide community, which he will dominate by means of the mechanical dimensions which he has created. In the interests of man, we should return to our ancient heritage and see how the ancient Greek city can be of special help to us." ("The Ancient Greek City and the City of the Present," pp.363-364).

Articles Ancient Greek Settlements

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

SYNOPSIS: In order to understand the relationships between 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 man with space. The study of areas where ancient settlements were discovered (Cassopaia, Corinthia, Sicyonia, Cleonaea and Thasos) leads to the hypotheses that the basic settlements in Greece were always small and that their evolution in time took place according to a hierarchical pyramid which is based on a fairly standard ratio between the basic settlements and a larger city.

Chapter 1: Introduction This study has been undertaken to help our understanding of the human settlements and, beginning with Greece, to understand what forces led to their formation and how the settlements developed over time. For such a study to have any real value it is necessary to consider man's relations with space, from every point of view (physical, economic, social, cultural, etc.). For example, man's economic relations with space can show the balance with space that he a-chieved when he had to rely first upon his own muscular powers alone and later upon the assistance of animal power.
Fig. 1. Greece - studies of the first phase A 1a-e Thasos & Peraia 2 Abdera 3 Dikaia 4a-b Samothrace & Peraia 5 Maroneia 6 Amphipolis 7 E. Mac + Thrace (rest) 8 Serrai Dept. (rest) 9 Chalkidiki Dept. B 1 Cassopaia 2 Thesprotia 3 Molossis 4 Paravaia 5 W. Estaiotis 6 Athmania 7 Ambracia C 1 Elis D 1 Megaris 2 Corinthia 3 Cleonaea 4 Sicyonia 5 Phleiasia 6 Argeia 7 Epidauria 8 Ermionis 9 Troizenia 10 Anc. Arcadia E

To achieve the purposes of this study is not easy. From Aristotle's efforts with his students to study the political systems of 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 synthesis which is based on specific cases. Method of the study To achieve our aims it was necessary to find a method to tie together 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 of present-day Greece that are sufficiently small for us to be able to understand the correlation of different phenomena in space and time. As the unit of space, we have therefore chosen the one most characteristic of the Greek world of the Classical period: the city-state. Area covered by the study The whole area covered by ancient Greek city states and colonies, extending from Spain to the Indus river, should some day be the broader area of the study.

1 F 1 2 3

Athens State Keos Thera Delos

Since at the moment this is not possible, we have started with the area of present-day Greece as our first-phase study area. We hope that experts from other countries, from India to Spain and from Egypt to the U.S.S.R., will in parallel and in the near future proceed with similar studies. Only cooperation with them will finally lead to the completion of the picture of life in the ancient 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, and the fact that it is one main area where Greek civilization was developed, it is also of great interest to follow the relation of man to space in an area where the population density reached such high levels at different periods in ancient times that it led to the creation of colonies. Period covered by the study

Fig. 2. Man's elementary relation to space

A big question was what period of time such a study should attempt to cover. The decision was to try and cover the whole period from the first data, which are Paleolithic, to the end of the Roman period. By saying this we want to make it clear that, as we 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 its own initiative, but it has been helped over the last two years by the Ford Foundation, and we are particularly grateful to all those who understood the meaning of this effort and supported it. Special thanks are due to McNeil Lowry for his helpful advice and support. The study has three divisions: the first covers the long term planning of the project and general policy and direction. All the responsible research experts are represented here, as well as Arnold Toynbee, who wrote the first report of the series (to be published as Volume 1), and the author of this article, who is the president of the team. The second division includes the archaeologists and historians who are responsible for studies of particular areas. The studies that have been completed to date (which will appear as Volumes 3, 4 and 5) are the following.

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

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

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 (RRACE 164) These studies are now being published in a preliminary form by the Athens Center of Ekistics for restricted circulation to interested groups, archaeological schools, etc, and other studies covering other areas will follow (Fig. 1). Simultaneously, an archive of data cards for items of a questionnaire and by study

area is under preparation, as well as an archive of maps and drawings, which in the near future will be available to anyone interested. 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 the supervision of Mrs. Maria Zagorisiou. The third division covers an attempt to arrive at a synthesis of all the facts collected by the research experts of the second division 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 many experts are cooperating. b. Studies of areas responsible. for which the research experts are

Fig. 5.

c. Conclusions and synthesis, to the realization of which all the research 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 of ancient Greek space, and it is five years since this project began to be organized. Actual work upon it only started in August 1968, and it is very early for conclusions on such a difficult subject. I am writing this article at this early stage for two reasons: first, to inform others who may be interested in this research study, and second, to present my hypothesis, so that discussions upon it can start immediately which may enable us to arrive at more certain results. For if there is no basic hypothesis 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 statistically accurate averages which can then be constantly adjusted. We shall also be able to observe the range of variations of these averages and in this way strengthen or weaken the original hypothesis. I feel the need to mention that the hypotheses that I use have been based on a general ekistic experience and they are under continuous control through the findings of the studies of the research 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 very specific cases. I am merely trying to give measurements to many of the hypotheses others have made and link them into a single system. This can then be accepted or rejected on the 3

Fig. 6. Sicyonia: demes of Early Helladic period, 2800-2000 B.C. 1 OENOE 2 Kaki Skala 3 Skoinos 4 Zoodochos Pege - PEIRAION 5 Sterna (Ktena) 6 Monastiri 7 Panagia 8 Hagios Vlasios 9 Megalo Lithari 10 Flambouro 11 Hagios Demetrios 12 Vouliagmeni Ca 13 Vouliagmeni Cb 14 Vouliagmeni B 15 Vouliagmeni A 16 HERAEUM 17 Hagioi Theodoroi CROMMYON 18 Moulki 19 Sousaki A-SIDUS 20 Sousaki B 21 Klisiza 22 Hagios Charalambos 23 Kalamaki B 24 Kalamaki Aa Schoenus 25 Kalamaki Ab Schoenus

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Kalamaki Ac SCHOENUS ISTHMIA Hagia Kyriake Aspra Chomata Damari New Corinth Korakou LECHAEUM Hagios Gerasimos ? ASAI Aetopetra Mylos Chelioti

basis of concrete measurements and concrete examples by which the general hypotheses can be adjusted, and we hope to publish these results annually at the beginning of each year. Interpretation of settlements Many interpretations are given of the evolution of ancient Greek settlements, of which two are more prevalent. The first is based on the idea that the geographic and the topographic conformation was the most important cause of the evolution of the Greek city-states. However, concrete studies, especially in the Middle East (where any city-states were created on the plains) have shown that this interpretation is not applicable. The second interpretation is based on assumptions of social organization. This interpretation is influenced by Aristotle, who based the evolution of settlements on their social or political organization. I have personally accepted that the evolution of the Greek city-states resulted from the combination of the following three factors: a. The local geographic and physical conditions which influenced man's life, production and movement, thus creating special kinetic fields. b. Man's social traditions. and political organizational abilities and

c. Many other factors, such as the size of groups of people, their level of education, the progress of their technology, outside forces, etc. We do not know today which of these forces is most important in every case or how far they combine and connect with one another. But if we can systematically study some hundreds of city-states we should have enough data to estimate the value of the different factors. This is an optimistic prediction, but it is quite possible it may come true. Relationships of Man and Space Even if we accept the simplest type of settlement, where Man produces all his own food, clothes and any other article that he needs, we cannot say that man's relationship to space is entirely determined 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 a much larger area. (Fig. 3). Relationships are even more complicated when we see Man live in a group with other men, for we can see that the man who lives in settlement A is affected not only by settlement B with which 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 receives religious influences, space E from which it receives language or

Fig. 7. Corinthia and Cleonaea: Classical period settlements ascertained or presumed, 480-338 B.C.

other cultural influences, etc. (Fig. 4). In spite of all these complications, experience shows that we can understand the relationships of man and space, if we make a hypothesis that each settlement is part of a hierarchical system, although it has numerous other relations with forces and settlements outside it. For instance, a settlement may belong administratively to one hierarchical system and yet depend upon certain economic services it offers to settlements outside this system. 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 of permanent settlements (which can themselves be divided into several categories). This size is considered as the territory that each settlement covers, that is, the whole extent of its living space, not just the cultivated land or the built-up area, because this living space is the only area that can be determined more or less accurately. It is very difficult to arrive at any degrees of accuracy 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 survive from 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 had appeared in Greece thousands of years ago, in the early Helladic period, numerous villages of different sizes appeared all over Greece. In two places that have been carefully examined, the whole area was then covered with villages. These are regions of Corinthia (Fig. 5) and Sicyonia (Fig. 6). These villages disappeared 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 the Classical period, as in Corinthia (Fig. 7) or in the Hellenistic period as in Sicyonia (Fig. 8), Cassopaia (Fig. 9), and Thasos (Fig. 10).
Fig. 9. Cassopaia: Hellenistic period settlements ascertained or presumed, 343/342-168/167 B.C. 1. Bestia 2. Elaphos 3. Toskesi 4. K. Mousiotitsa 5. Gephyra Zeta 6. Derviziana 7. Georganoi 8. Sistrouni 9. Romano 10. Alpochori-Botsari 11. Polystaphylo

Fig. 8. Sicyonia: Hellenistic period inhabited areas, 330-146 B.C.

Today these areas still contain a similar number of villages, though the position is beginning to change, as industry, communications and technological progress attract their inhabitants to the big cities. However, there is no doubt that for thousands of years the basic settlement in Greece has been the village, and even when great catastrophes have led to their disappearance, 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

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

Paliochori-Botsari Assos Kleisoura Voulista-OROPOS? Kerasson Gymnotopos Ammotopos Hagios Georgios Asprochaliko Kokkinopito Rizovouni Thesprotiko Krania Vrysoula Trikastro Glyki Mouzakeika Skaphidoti Kastri -PANDOSIA EPHYRA ELAIA ELAIAS LIMEN (Ammoudia Bay) Kerentza Dromos Skalomatos Aidonia Valanidia Ano Rachi Ano Kotsanopoulo Rizovouni-BATIAI? Pantanassa Palaia Philippias-CHARADRA? BOUCHETION-Rogoi Kastri Stephani Louros Paliorophoro-ELATREIA? CASSOPE Kryopigi Cheimadio Riza Kastrosykia Strongyli Sampsous Michalitsi-BERENICE? NICOPOLIS Pantokrator

settlement, the area from which it is supported; for we have very few records of the numbers of their inhabitants (and these only for certain moments in their history). However, we can be sure that they usually numbered a few hundred and only very seldom, at critical moments, may have exceeded a thousand people; for the area occupied by the land of the settlement would not support more. Hypothesis A1: Type of basic settlement The basic settlement of Greece is therefore a "village", whose size ranges from a few hundred inhabitants to, at the most, just above a thousand people. We have no indications that it ever passed 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 directly links man with space. In terms of the Ekistic Grid, the basic settlement belongs to Community Class III or Ekistic Unit No. 6. In the context of this project, we are calling it Type C. Hypothesis A2: Number of basic settlements We have no complete population figures for basic settlements before the last 140 years, and it is very difficult to find earlier figures for many villages. On the other hand, we know the exact size of the territory of settlements for the last 140 years and we can find corresponding sizes for the past. The basic way of life in basic settlements in Greece did not change appreciably from the Neolithic revolution until the beginning of the twentieth century. We can therefore hypothesize that the size of the villages did not change either and that the land continued to have the same number of places for villages of this type. These places would be filled or left vacant according to the size of the population of the country and the general conditions of life. In accordance with these assumptions (subject to later more exact examination) we now accept that within the borders of the present-day Greek state there has always been space for 6,061 basic settlements; i.e. as many as the present total of all settlements. 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. The country, which then consisted of 47,516 sq. km., was divided by them 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 law divided the land into 2,561 self-governing units, each of which incorporated several basic settlements, and the system worked

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 in detail. In Cassopaia (Fig. 9) 37 ancient settlements have so far been found from the Hellenistic period, 343-168 BC (the time of its greatest density). However, present-day Cassopaia has 63 full communities and sections of 16 others, or the equivalent of 71 communities. This means that either: a. the whole available space was not occupied by human settlements 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 - 25 settlements of the Classical period have been found (21 settlements certain and 4 questionable). The same space today contains 19 whole communities and sections of 8 others, or the equivalent of 23 communities. Consequently it seems that in ancient times there were as many settlements as at present. In Cleonaea (also Fig. 7) only one settlement of the Classical period has been found, though contemporary Cleonaea has two full communities and sections of 8 others, equivalent to 6 communities. This means that we can assume either that the present basic settlements are smaller, or that we have still to find 5 ancient ones. In Sicyonia (Fig. 8) 18 demes of the Classical period have been found - equivalent to 18 basic settlements (15 certain and 3 questionable). Present-day Sicyonia contains 31 full communities and sections of 8 others, equivalent to 35 basic settlements. A similar reasoning shows that the contemporary basic settlements are smaller or we have still to find 20 or 17 basic settlements, or that man did not occupy the whole space available to him. On the island of Thasos (Fig. 10) we have an exact correspondence of the present-day and ancient times, for 10 ancient settlements have been found and there are today 10 communities. Thus we find that these five regions contained a total of 84 or 91 settlements, though today they contain the equivalent of 145 communities (Table 1). That is, the regions which have been studied today contain more that 1.5 communities for each of the ancient 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 and the ancient basic settlements were about 50% larger than the present ones, or we have yet to find 61-66 settlements in these areas. 7

Fig. 10. Thasos and its peraia: Hellenistic period - settlements ascertained or presumed, 350-196 B.C. 1. Thasos 2. AINYRA 3. Koinira 4. Aliki 5. Theologos 6. Kastri 7. Astris 8. Potos 9. DEMETRION? 10. Skala Marion 11. Kallirachi - Sotiros 12. Kazaviti 13. PISTYROS 14. AKONTISMA - Nea Karvali 15. Kara Orman 16. NEAPOLIS 17. ANTISARA 18. Cave of Nymphs 19. OESYME - EMATHEIA

Hypothesis

A3:

area

covered

by

basic

settlements

Since 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. and a diameter of 5,26 km. (Fig. 11a). However, many settlements lie along the coast and (at least in periods of peace) their built-up area is directly beside the sea, evidence that the inhabitants were as much interested in the sea as 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 should represent, but we can assume (and gradually check this assumption) that coastal basic settlements have as much living space on the sea s on the land. As 3,230 or rather more than half of the communities of present-day Greece lie on the sea, we can estimate that the mainland space of Greece is occupied by 2,831 whole settlements and 3,230 half settlements. This increases the average area of each settlement to 29.68 sq. km. as can be seen below:

Fig. 11. The basic settlement

Fig. 12. Uses of total land of Greece, 1958

We can thus imagine present-day Greece covered with basic settlements, 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 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 largest radius of 3.4 sq. km., a smallest one of 2.95 and an area of 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 an area 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 8

Fig. 13.

largest radius of 3.4 sq. km., a smallest one of 2.95 and an area of 30 sq. km. (Fig. 11c). On the other hand, the total length of the Greek coastline is 15,020 km. If this were divided among the 3,230 present-day communities which are on the sea, each community would have 4.63 km. of coastline. The difference between these two numbers shows that either the seaside communities use a larger area of the land than of the sea, or that the inland communities occupy more land than the coastline ones. To complete our picture of an average basic settlement, we need to compare the area of its cultivated and uncultivated land. In 1958, 28% of the total surface of Greece was under cultivation: 46.8% was pasture, 18.6% was forest and the remainder was 6.6% (Fig. 12). It is logical to base the area of the average settlement upon its land surface, but we must bear in mind that radii which show the same length on a map do not necessarily have the same meaning. 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 diminishes sharply. We will now proceed to examine some of our examples. Cassopaia 1. The study showed that, at its largest development, Cassopaia had 37 settlements covering an area of 1,080 sq. km. : i.e. the average 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 of each settlement to 31.6 sq. km. against our theoretical 30 sq. m. We can add 6 x 30 = 90sq. km. to represent the extent of sea 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 marked along the road from Elaia to Mouzakeika (Fig 13). Each new settlement is between 3.4-4.8 km. distant from the older one; corresponding reasonably closely to the diameter shown in our diagrams. Studies now show that these were not only established 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:

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 study we lack 7-8. 4. Figure 9 shows that there are some gaps between the settlement boundaries which may indicate where the missing settlements 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 of mountainous land, where there are few possibilities for settlements to exist. However, in the north, settlements might have existed on the present sites of Bestia, Elaphos and Toskesi. We can therefore conclude that there could have been at least 8 more settlements which have not been found and that the maximum total settlements of the region of Cassopaia could have been 45, each with an average area of 29.7 sq. km. Corinthia 1. The largest number of settlements in historical times appears in the Classical period (Fig. 7) when the city-state (which then included a portion of Megaris but not Cleonaea) had a total of 21-25 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 coastal settlements of the Classical period, we arrive at a total of 991 sq. km., giving an average area for each of the 21-25 settlements of 47.9-39.64 sq. km. as against the theoretical 30 sq. km. (Fig. 11b). 2. We have previously noted that 24-29 settlements were found in 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 an average area of 41.3-34.24 sq. km. per settlement on the land. 3. Theoretically Corinthia, with an area of 811 sq. km. and a coastline of around 120 km., should have: a. 20 coastal settlements (with an additional sea surface of 300 sq. km.)

10

c. This gives a theoretical total of 37 settlements. d. Compared with the 21-25 settlements of the study, we lack 12-16. 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 of the missing settlements. Three at least (Nos. 1, 2, 3) could be on the shore of the Gulf of Corinth; and perhaps another (4) on the shore of the Saronic Gulf. One more settlement on the Saronic Gulf (5) is just possible as well as others in the mountains; but these are not very likely even though some contemporary settlements do exist there. Thus, if we accept a theoretical total of at least 26-30 settlements 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 two settlements (Fig. 5). Ancient texts mention an additional place in Classical 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 data gives the following information. 1. Sicyonia, with an area of 318 sq. km. had its largest number of basic settlements in the Hellenistic period (Fig. 8), when it had 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 estimate the extent of the sea related to the coastal settlements. 2. An area of 318 sq. km. and a coastline of 58 km. theoretically should have: a. 10 coastal settlements with an additional sea surface of 150 sq. km.

11

sq. km. per settlement. d. This corresponds to the preliminary findings of the study. Thasos 1. The area of the island of Thasos is 379 sq. km. and its coastline measures 95.4 km. The study shows that there were at least 10 settlements in Hellenistic times. The length of coastline shows that these would each have an average of 9.5 km., which is much larger than the theoretical average of 5.9 km. The area of 379 sq. km. gives an average 37.9 sq. km. per settlement. If we add an additional sea surface, the average rises to approximately 53 sq. km., which implies they were either very much larger than we have assumed or that other settlements remain 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 95 km. 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 with 30 sq. km. per settlement d. This is double the number of settlements given by the Thassos 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 perhaps another one (4) on the mountains near the mines, as we know that these mines were worked in ancient times, and it does not seem reasonable to believe that all who worked in them went up and down from the coastal settlements. However, it is probable that such a mining settlement would not be a typical settlement, because it would have very little agriculture; but it could have had quite a large income, both from mining and forestry. Thus we conclude that Thasos could reasonably have had 14 settlements. This conclusion conflicts with our Hypothesis A2, which stated that the number of settlements in the past, probably corresponded to the present-day number of basic communities. At the moment, we can point out the conflict and conclude that probably the truth lies between the 10 settlements found, which must have been bigger than our theoretical average (maybe justified by the mountainous character of the island) and the hypothetical location of 14 or more settlements which would correspond in size more closely with the average settlements of

12

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 the same radius of movement for its inhabitants, and the survey of 5 regions of the country shows no major deviations sufficient to discount this hypothesis. I wish now to put forward another hypothesis relating to the evolution of settlements in time. One could say that the area of each basic settlement in the past was larger and that it gradually became reduced; or that the area of each basic settlement remained the same over time and that, as the 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 increased in number without decreasing the average size of their area to an important degree. The reasons are: a. We have no evidence of large basic settlements which were abandoned in order to found several small ones. b. We cannot reasonably accept that farmers walked much greater distances to their fields. c. Though we have every reason to believe that the population of settlements slowly grew larger form the Paleolithic period to the Neolithic, we have no evidence that settlements ever grew smaller in area during an era of the same technology of production. If the settlements had been reduced in area, the number of the inhabitants ought also to decrease because, at this time, they were obliged to produce locally everything they needed for survival. Thus reduction in the area of a settlement would necessarily involve a reduction in the number of its inhabitants. We must therefore accept that the basic settlements did 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 the Classical period (22-27). In between there were far fewer. Thasos, like Cassopaia, reaches its most extensive development in 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 studies have been made of any complete basic settlement, mainly because such studies do not provide impressive enough material for the extensive work involved; people who excavate and investigate prefer to study central places of any civilization from which they get more information. I can therefore only hypothesize that the structure of these basic settlements:

13

a. was similar to today's villages; that is, their buildings were more scattered on the sloping sides where the herdsmen live with 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 not all live in the actual settlement, but that some lived in scattered groups of farm buildings or even isolated farms. c. However, probably all inhabitants would come into the basic settlement from time to time to make contact with others or to stay for certain seasons or periods. It is also likely that all inhabitants were administered in some way from the basic settlement and it is very probable that many of them had one in the settlement, where they lived in times of danger or in times where they did not need to be near the crops, and another amid their fields. All these assumptions are based on present-day practice, which has persisted in Greece for centuries or possibly millennia. Chapter 4: Hypothesis B: hierarchical development of settlements After a certain place in their development, basic settlements tended to be organized in groups. This is inevitably led to one central settlement acquiring more functions than the others. This phenomenon appears probably in the Neolithic period, when arable farming enabled enough food to be produced to allow for the development of other trades and occupations, but we cannot prove anything specific. The hierarchical development of settlements occurred in different ways: a. From down, up: this usually resulted from the exchange of products and labor, which tended to create a central market place. 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. Several other hierarchical relations also affect the organization of settlements:

a. More totalitarian or more democratic relations between the inhabitants. b. The size and functions of the central settlement. c. The strength and the ties which hold the whole hierarchical system of settlements together. 14

In general we can say that the gradual hierarchical development of settlements reflects a hierarchical tendency inherent in man or perhaps even in nature. In the beginning this hierarchical pyramid is often very weak. It is much more vulnerable if it extends from a single central settlement, controlled by a few men who rule over a number of small basic settlements, than if the hierarchy is gradually built-up via a number of intermediate linkages. These linkages can arise from geographical causes- a narrow valley leads easily to the cooperation of neighboring basic settlements; or, there can be social causes, such as the homogenous composition of groups of people; or, there can be other causes such as defense against a common enemy, etc. It seems that men naturally tend to develop a hierarchical pyramid by their demands for larger incomes leading to more services and more ease in life. This social pyramid has a basic relation 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 hierarchical pyramid of ancient Greek settlements was based on a ratio of 7 to 10, which means that there is a central hexagonal settlement surrounded by six similar hexagons (Fig. 14). This means that every 7 basic settlements include one central settlement which corresponds to settlement D (Fig. 14).In other words, there are 6 basic settlements of type C (Ekistic Unit 6) and one larger settlement or small town of type D (Ekistic Unit 7). Further (Fig. 15) every 7 small cities (type D) in turn create a central place which corresponds to a regular city (type E or Ekistic Unit 8). This includes 49 settlements in all: one class E, 6 class D and 42 class C. We can conclude further by showing how a group of 7 cities gives to one large city (type F or Ekistic Unit 9). The territory of mainland Greece does not provide a setting for cities of a larger size. Thus our pyramid has been presented with four levels of composite 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 know very little about them. There are also the non-composite settlements of house and room. Correlating this theoretical pyramid with our project we can assume that a Greek city-state can be a city of level D, E or F and we do have in fact examples of each. At above levels we can also 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 political union as in the Union of Epirus. Finally, at the level of type F, we can have a city-state as well as a "Sympolitia" or Confederation. Geographical and social conditions as well as historical events may prevent the development of a completely regular hexagonal hierarchy. Different degrees of organization will therefore appear at different times and in different places. However, behind each 15

of the actual case studies we can usually discern the basic hierarchical pyramid of settlements which tends to govern their organization. Hypothesis B2: number of settlements We have assumed that the Greek mainland contains 6,061 places for basic settlements; that is for settlements type C and above. This means that one out of every seven of these basic settlements should settlements of type D and above (i.e. 866 settlements). This again means that one out of seven of these (i.e. 124 settlements) should be type E and above, leaving 742 settlements of type D. A similar reasoning leads us to assume the existence of 18 type F settlements, leaving 106 in type E. In the same way we say that Greece could only contain 2 settlements type G which would theoretically leave 16 settlements 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 is only one of several reasons why it would only be profitable to attempt to compare the ranges of sizes of Greek cities before the onset of industrialization. But the total political area of Greece was then so much smaller that there could be no useful comparison of the total number of settlements by size. However, direct comparisons can be made for special areas at certain periods, 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 this number of settlement types, and that such a hypothesis can be justified in many ways if we think of orders of magnitude and not of specific numbers. For instance, if we consider the 866 settlements which belong to the category of small cities and above, we see that the assumption is not unreasonable, because we know from various data that in ancient Greece there were hundreds of such town and cities. We know also that sections of the country were covered by national states, as the states of Thessaly, of Macedonia, of Molossis, of Aeolia, of Acarnania, and others, 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 158 political systems. Many of these had developed outside the

16

Nevertheless, it is clear that at that time there must have been at least 158 city-states with organized political systems. If we assume that these were all the larger cities (i.e. belonging to type E) our assumption shows that we have at most 106 such city-states in the territory we are studying, and, let us say, as many again further out. In other words, Greece at that time would contain about 200 city-states of this size. We know that many city-states were much smaller than this, so that we can assume that there then existed many hundreds of city-states in the 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 (from Crete to the Black Sea, and from the Aegean to Palestine) paid tribute to the Confederation. If we assume that at least half of these 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 either against the Confederation or neutral, we arrive at 600 city-states in our study area, which can be compared with the maximum number 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 by bit, we shall find many relevant facts. At this moment we can only 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 implies that we have some evidence of ratios of 4:1 to 10:1, which does not contradict a general average ratio of 6:1. Hypothesis B3: extent of settlements Proceeding from our earlier assumptions, the size of the total basic settlement (land plus sea) is about 30 sq. km., which means 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 we have built up is not contradicted by such facts as we have assembled, and that we shall continue to test and refine it as more facts come to light. We are simply beginning a process that may prove to be valuable for many aspects of human settlements which we need to understand.

17

Articles The Ancient Greek City and the City of the Present

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

SYNOPSIS: Man was dominant within the framework of the ancient city because it was built according to human dimensions. The modern city, on the contrary is torn between humans and machines and thus man is displaced in favour of machines. The ancient citystates were created in two fashions: the older ones through natural growth whereas the newer ones by the Hippodameian system. Despite their differences, the concept hidden behind both building processes was the same: To take advantage of the natural landscape and to create both public and private spaces according to rational and functional considerations with man at the center. In the cities of the present, by contrast, both human dimensions and coherence among men and among buildings are lost. What men need to do is first, to adhere to human dimensions and create smaller units where man is the master and second, to use machines as the means to control larger units where mechanical dimensions prevail. In other words, to create cities for man.

When I sometimes feel overwhelmed by the problems of the modern city I go to the Acropolis. First I enter the Ancient City and stand in the small plain where the Agora used to be. As soon as I leave the modern city behind, and stand in the Agora, with its arcades and view of the Acropolis, I begin to feel happy. I live in the past, or rather, I live happy in my escape from the contemporary; and then I slowly walk up to the Acropolis, I cross the Propylea and happiness gradually turns into supreme satisfaction. Here I am not just in the ancient city, but in the ancient grandeur. Crossing the Acropolis I come up to the ancient walls surrounding it and, on its eastern side, I lean on the large parapet to contemplate the whole plain around me. Then despair seizes me at the sight of the modern city, the city in which I feel no security at all, the city of noise and polluted air, the city where, at every moment, I am in conflict with the machine. A machine which, although designed to move through space at 150 km per hour, barely manages to cross Athens at 15; exactly the speed at which horse driven carriages used to cross it, before the advent of the automobile. There is indeed a sharp contrast between the ancient city and the present city, and between the knowledge and the understanding we have of each of them. This contrast is natural, however, if we realize that it is not only our knowledge which differs, but that the cities themselves are really dissimilar. They have different magnitudes and different functions. In the ancient city man was the sole inhabitant, while the city of the present is inhabited both by man and machine. The functions of the city have 1

changed, and so have its inhabitant and its dimensions. When man of the present succeeds in relieving himself of the great pressures of his time and turns his attention to the ancient monuments to draw lessons, he confines himself to those still projecting above the ground: that is to say, to the temples and the public buildings. He studies their construction and aesthetic value, whilst overlooking the fact that these buildings only formed individual, though central, elements of a city that expressed a way of life. We take lessons from the monuments, but what kind of lessons? First we copied them and tried to revive the dead city as it used to be. Then we found out that we had only attempted a resurrection of the dead, that we had erected corpses in our towns and we started to laugh at them. What we forgot was that the monuments and the buildings are but the skin of the real city, of real life. Our concern for the skin remind me of the people who once visited the workshop of the sculptor Auguste Rodin and asked him how he managed to create such perfect surfaces for his statues. "Surfaces?" said he, "but I am inside the marble and work from there". That is something we forget when we study the works of the ancients. We confine ourselves to the skin and do not realize that this is the expression of a 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 not only the monument as a unit, but also the whole ancient city as a living organism with heart, lungs and body, and try to understand the human settlement which was created once and which can teach us now. That is what I shall try to do in this study. How can this be accomplished? How can we study the city without falling into the trap of admiration of the old merely because we are disappointed by the present? To do so we study 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 very concrete elements: the scale and the unity of the city. The scale is a feature that can be proved, because it is measured by the dimensions of the city. Here our observations must be very concrete in order to avoid any subjective attitude. Unity, on the other hand, can again be proved by the dimensions of public spaces and of private ones, also open spaces and buildings. Both of these elements, scale and unity, can be studied according to objective criteria, and thus they will form the basis of our study. Since my school years I have studied the ancient city and

have lived in it also. Since my childhood I have lived in the modern city. I have grown and also have suffered in it. By comparing them I therefore wish to draw and support the following conclusions: a. The ancient Greek city was built on human dimensions which 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 in the city of the present. d. The city of to-day also needs other dimensions suitable for the machine and, accordingly, a synthesis of two scales is required: the human scale and the scale of the machine. e. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we give back to the city its human dimensions, even though we have imposed on it the dimensions of the machine. It was a mistake to let the historic continuity of the human dimensions in the city to be lost. We must establish it again, in harmony with the evolution imposed on us by the new factors. THE CITY STATE Greece is divided by mountains into small plains. It is in these plains that the major part of land cultivation takes place and we can roughly say that these do not exceed 22% of the ancient Greek peninsula. The physical boundaries of the small plains form the boundaries of the city-state. These areas range from fairly small states with an area of 100 sq. kms., such as the state of Aegina, to fairly large states, such as the states of Arcadia and Laconia which spread over an area of about 5,000 sq. kms (Ref 1). Diagrammatically, we can thus visualize the ancient Greek states as squares of 10 by 10 km., which could be crossed from end to end in 2 hours or so, to squares of 70 by 70 km., which one needed 14 hours to cross on foot. (Fig. 1). We might perhaps say that the average dimensions of an ancient Greek state were 40 by 40 km., which means that one needed an 8 hours' walk to go from one end to the other and that, as a rule, one did not have to cross mountains, which in almost all cases divided one city-state from the other. If we now consider that the city was placed in the center of each state, we find that in a state of average size the city 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

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

central city and reach the furthermost point even of the largest state, whilst in the case of an average size state one 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 human dimensions, not only because he could walk easily from the city to the borders in one day, but also because he could climb up any summit and view the whole state, appreciate the whole vital space of the city, and even because he could very easily receive news of what was happening throughout the state by cry or torch and other signals, 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 of thousands, perhaps around 30,000, and reached a figure of some hundreds of thousands- perhaps up to 300,000whilst the average population was perhaps in the neighbourhood of 100,000 (Ref 2). THE BUILT-UP CITY The built-up district, that is to say the city, had a smaller population than the state, and of course, a much smaller area. The average population of the ancient Greek city, that may have ranged between 5,000 and 50-60,000 inhabitants, was possibly in the neighborhood of 20,000 inhabitants- and I say possibly because we do not know for certain how many were small and how many were large cities (Ref 3). If, however, we judge from the fact that we know the population of a good number of large cities did not exceed 30,000, we can say that the average population of all cities probably did not exceed 10,000, for there must have been a large percentage of small cities with 5,000 population (Ref 4). The built-up city was very small. Even if we examine some of 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 average area of the ancient city was hardly 1.8 sq. km., that is to say a square whose side was 1.3 km (Ref 5). We might perhaps say that the size of the actually average ancient Greek city was a square whose sides did not exceed 800 meters. (Fig.2). If we now examine the dimensions of the cities, we shall see that, in fact, they did not tend to be square but were adapted to the landscape. They are of circular shape when developed around an Acropolis, as in Athens, or rectangular if they are built on a peninsula, as in Piraeus or Miletus. Their average maximum dimension was equal to 2 km., which means that one could cross the city from end to end by walking 20 to 25 minutes, or that no function or dwelling in the city was more than 800 meters 4

Fig. 2. Area of ancient Greek-city states. Average area 180 ha.

Fig. 3. Ancient Greek City. Evolution of Planning.

distance from the center or a 10 minutes' walk. The density in the cities was fairly uniform, averaging 194.2 inhabitants per hectare, which means that nearly 35 families corresponded to 10,000 sq. meters or some 330 sq. meters to each family. We can realize this if we imagine 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 about 130 sq. m. We can say that this is a normal density, because it allows one house of 100 sq. m. per family, with a corresponding garden and a sufficient area for public spaces (Ref 6). Ancient cities are divided in two categories: those formed through a natural growth and those created on the Hippodameian system.(Fig. 3) CITIES CREATED THROUGH NATURAL GROWTH These are the oldest cities and chiefly the cities of continental Greece. Athens is the most typical and important. Such cities were developed around or near a hill or rock, the acropolis. That is where the god-protector of the town was worshipped. At the beginning it was the seat of the ruler and it was also the place where the inhabitants used to take refuge in case of war or attack. It was the core of the city and originally there was no distinction 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 was formed at its lower part, the Agora. This was the center of political, commercial and social gatherings. The natural position of the agora was near the acropolis, not far from the main entrance to the town. Acropolis and agora therefore formed the double core of the ancient town, but the agora gradually became its most important element (Ref 7). All the main streets of the town led radically to this 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 the monarch to the aristocracy and democracy. Aristotle says characteristically in his Politics (VII, X, 4): "What is expedient is not the same for all forms of constitution alike; for example, a citadel-hill is suitable for oligarchy and monarchy, and a level side for democracy; neither favourable to an aristocracy, but rather several strong positions".

THE HIPPODAMEIAN CITIES To this category belong the cities created according to an organized plan at a given time. These new towns started being 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 of culture. The main difference between organized cities and those which developed through a natural process over a long period of time are the parallel streets and the use of a grid in planning. The grid developed into a rectangular system and was the result of purely functional reasons. The grid presents the simplest solution of layout and with the fewest complications. Here is how, according to Aristotle (Politics, II, V, 2), Hippodamus the Milesian, who was the first to apply this system, viewed the social synthesis of the town: "His system was for a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three classes; for he made one class 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, one public and one private: sacred land to supply the customary offerings to the gods, common land to provide the 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 be more agreeable and more convenient for general purposes if they are laid out in straight streets, after the modern fashion, that is, the one introduced by Hippodamus; but is more suitable for security in war if it is on the contrary plan, as cites used to be in ancient times; for that arrangement is difficult for foreign troops to enter and to find their way about in when attacking. Hence, it is well to combine the advantages of both plans, and not to lay out the whole city in straight streets, but only certain parts and districts, for in this way it will combine security with beauty". 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 itself may place on slopping ground, having regard to four considerations: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of health (for cities whose sites slopes east or towards the breezes that blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face away form the north

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

wind, for these are milder in winter); and among the remaining considerations, a slopping site is favourable both for political and for military purposes". Regarding the alignment of the streets the natural landscape is of outmost importance. When the ground is sloping, the main streets usually follow the contour lines and the perpendicular ones are more steep and narrow, occasionally with steps. The agora is the core of the city. It is usually at the center and occupies a few blocks which are left free for this purpose. The sanctuaries are gathered around the agora or scattered throughout the city. The remaining blocks are occupied by residential quarters. The whole may be surrounded by walls which follow a free line around the city. By studying the layout of the cities which were developed through a natural process and those which were planned according to the Hippodameian system we find that they had one feature in common: the form of the ancient town was generally simple. In both of the above mentioned categories one could easily move from any part of the city to its center, first because one could see it from everywhere- distances being such as to permit this- and because one could move directly towards it either by taking one natural turn in the cities formed through natural growth or by a right angle turn in the Hippodameian cities. The result was that anyone could easily perceive the ancient 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 every inhabitant who dominates over its entire area with all his physical capacities. He could view it, he could hear its messages, he could walk over it very easily. The city belonged to the man, it was built on the human scale (Fig. 4). PUBLIC SPACES (SANCTUARIES, AGORA, BUILDINGS FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES) Religion and worship in general played an important part in the life of the citizen. That is why there is no dividing line between religious and civil architecture in ancient Greece, as there was no distinction between these two notions in everyday life.
Fig. 5. Athens: The Acropolis.

The religious buildings and the various small sanctuaries were scattered all over the town. Many of them were older than the town itself. There were only certain areas where sanctuaries were more numerous, such as the acropolis and the agora. The city was developed around them. The most famous example of a group of religious buildings in a

city was the Acropolis of Athens. The main expression of worship in architecture was the temple. 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 the Roman period. Arcades, for instance, were usually oriented southwards, even if that involved turning their back to a temple. Under the Hippodameian system, special provision was made in the city plan for places of worship and whole blocks 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. The location of temples is determined by the layout of the streets, even if this makes it necessary to deviate from the orthodox easterly orientation, as in Miletus. In earlier temples, the proper orientation is observed and the layout of the streets is adapted accordingly. The synthesis of public places was not determined by artificial geometrical criteria, which may not be directly perceptible, but only by man's own position and movements through these places. Man and his movements were always the measure. From a glance at the plan of the Acropolis 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 in such a way as to be presented correctly to anyone entering by the Propylaea and proceeding towards the Parthenon or the Erechtheum. The synthesis on a human scale 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 were small, there was usually no need for more than one center. There were, of course, a number of exceptions, due to historical causes, as in the case of Athens and certain 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 other centers to serve outlying districts. In fact, 15 minutes was the 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 drainage was the first requirement. Originally, the agora 8

Fig. 6. Ancient Greek cities: Agoras.

accommodated all functions. In due course, however, the development of the city, the growth of the population and the construction of new buildings made it difficult for the agora to serve all purposes. The agora was almost situated at the center of gravity of the city, so that it could be reached with a minimum effort (Ref 8). In each case, the agora had as much open space as was needed to make it possible for the population to assemble there at any give moment. It is noteworthy that the average open space in the center of the ancient Greek cities which are known to us was 1.12 sq. metres per inhabitant. If it is borne in mind that at a large gathering there may be up to six persons to the square metre (in a demonstration, a church, or a crowd assembled to hear a public speaker) it will be seen that the average of 1.12 sq. metres per person allowed ease of movement, even if the entire population of the city assembled at the same moment. It was unlikely, however, that more than half the population would ever assemble at the same time, since children, the aged and infirm represented 40% of the total. Each person must thus have almost 2 sq. metres of open space (Fig. 6). Under the Hippodameian system, the agora is planned and laid out on more functional lines. The basic principle is the same, but a larger proportion of the area is built over and there is a more marked separation of functions. Ionian architects experimented with various ways of laying out and connecting stoas. Usually they form right angles and integrated with the street network, without forming a closed system. The most usual is the P form with stoas along three sides and a street along the fourth. The agora is occasionally bounded by a stoa along the fourth side. The configuration of the ground was important in determining the location of special buildings such as gymnasiums, theatres and stadiums. The ancient Greeks did not construct large-scale engineering works and they were therefore obliged to take the configuration of the ground into consideration. In towns which were grown naturally in the course of time, these buildings are often found close to the acropolis, whose steep slopes were suitable for theatres. In Hippodameian cities, on the other hand, they are located somewhat further away from the agora and the city center. The reasons are, first, that the theatres and stadiums were used by large numbers of people on special occasions, and the movement of large crowds in the city center would have been difficult. Secondly, agoras are usually built on flat ground, which is unsuitable for theatres or stadiums. With regard to the stadium, in the first category of cities, the configuration of the ground and the existence of natural slopes was the deciding factor in the choice of the site. In the case of the Hippodameian cities, the stadium was located on the edge of the residence quarter because of its large size.

PRIVATE SPACES The main difference between the two categories of cities which we have been discussing lies in their road systems. In the former, the settlement develops along the streets, which radiate from the city street- the agora- and lead to the more important neighbouring districts. Hippodameian cities, on the other hand, are designed on a strict grid plan with only slight variations. In the first category of cities, the blocks vary in shape and size, and although the houses were very low, it is almost certain that the residential quarters did not have sufficient sunlight by modern standards. Under the Hippodameian system, the orientation of the streets is of great importance. The blocks are regular in shape and nearly all of the same size throughout the size. The width of the streets varies, depending on their function, and it is generally greater than in the ancient cities. The streets never pass through the agoras or places of worship, as they did in earlier times. All such buildings are located in one block, or more, which is bounded by the streets. The size of the blocks varies considerably, from city to city, being in some as much as ten times as large as in others. In Miletus they are almost square, 1x1.1, whereas in Olynthos they are rectangular, 1x2.5 (Fig. 7). The layout of the streets is never academic or strictly axial, even in Hippodameian cities with their precise grid systems and strict orientation of the streets. Rational considerations prevail everywhere. Often, especially near the agora, there are shops on either side of the most important streets, and there is thus a functional extension of the central agora into the residential quarters. Everywhere, in the agoras and other public places, the streets and small squares are all on human scale. The dimensions are human, the streets three, five or six metres wide, are just sufficient for the needs of man, who was almost their only user (Ref 9). The erection of statues and works of art was always relevant to the activities of man as can be seen from the streets and squares of ancient Greek cities, if we reconstruct them as they really were. Although the general plan of the city reveals a definite scheme and a definite arrangement of various functions, if each block is taken separately, it will be seen that there is no standardization in the construction of dwellings. Private dwellings, like public places, were also on a human scale, in keeping with the overall conception. The average dimensions of the plots, 100-300 sq. metres, are exactly

Fig. 7. Olynthos. Residential Quarters.

10

what is needed for an ordinary house with a small garden even for the present day family (Ref 10). Sometimes there are ten houses to a block, as in Olynthos, in other cases four, as in Priene. Instead of four houses, however, there may be only two larger ones, or even one. The various categories of houses found in Olynthos suggest that there were different social classes in this city. THE CITY OF THE PRESENT Different civilizations created cities of different dimensions than the ancient Greek city. Larger cities were usually the centers of large empires. As an example, we may recall that Rome reached a population of 1,000,000, while Constantinople exceeded 700,000 inhabitants. It is a characteristic feature that these two large cities, which approached the 1,000,000 population mark, that is to say they came to nearly 20 times larger than the ancient Greek city, were the centers of large empires, and both ultimately consisted at least partially of slums and were badly governed, with a mob rule even in the election of emperors. Later on, large capitals of eastern empires reached population marks of 1,000,000 also. Among modern cities, London first attained a population of 1,000,000 in 1800, and, from then on, many cities reached this limit, surpassed it, exceeded the 5,000,000 to reach a 10,000,000 figure - London first, then New York and subsequently Tokyo - and then went much beyond 10,000,000 from the moment metropolitan areas expanded into megalopolitan zones, such as that which extends from Boston to Washington (Fig. 8). At the same time, the areas of the cities record a similar growth, as can be seen from the comparison of ancient and present-day cities.
Fig. 9. Density. Average ancient Greek city - cities of their ages.

Fig. 8. Population. Average ancient Greek city - Cties of other ages.

This is due to the fact that the built-up section of presentday cities has completely changed dimensions. Many of the cities have population of over 10,000,000, and their areas are much larger. We only have to consider that the metropolitan area of present-day Athens is 142 times larger than ancient Athens and that the larger metropolises are 600 (Paris) to 6,000 times (New York) more extensive than the ancient city. We shall have the same impression if we also think in terms of dimensions of length. Whereas the ancient inhabitants had to walk 1,000 metres, at the most, to go to the center of the city, there are at present inhabitants who have to travel 150 km. to reach their place of work. Thus, despite the use of the machine, while the ancient Greek city dweller needed a maximum of 12 minutes to approach the center of the city, the present-day inhabitant, who has a car capable of running at 150 km. An hour, often takes two hours or more to reach the center of his own city. We might thus 11

come to a droll conclusion: the better and faster the means of transport, the more time it takes for man to cross the corresponding city. Another characteristic feature of the present day is that, whereas the cities grow in dimensions and colossal buildings are erected in the center and one would think that densities increase, actually they are considerably diminished in large cities of the present. Thus, whereas the centers might still have 1,500 inhabitants per hectare as compared with the 180-200 figure in ancient cities, overall metropolitan districts have around 17 inhabitants per hectare, as in London, that is to say only 1/10th of the density of the ancient Greek city, or 42 inhabitants, as in New York, and 57 inhabitants per hectare, as in the case of Tokyo (Fig. 9). Concurrently, with the growth of the city, public spaces have begun to be destroyed. The old squares have lost much of their value since they were covered by cars. We are no longer able to view the famous Michelangelo Piazza Di Campidoglio, in Rome, because it is full of parked cars and of other cars crossing at high speed. Human values have deteriorated in the old squares. On the other hand, the new squares and the large roads become inhuman in their dimensions. They are large to permit mechanical traffic, thus completely displacing man. If we compare the dimensions of public spaces that are created at present, with the ancient ones, we find that the necessary area is no longer available to man. There are few physical spaces where man can be certain to have his gatherings and contacts, as in antiquity. Perhaps the only spaces that have not suffered deterioration in the city are private spaces, private housing spaces in particular. The average plot in an ordinary city has retained its physical dimensions, because the average house, too, has not grown much in comparison with the ancient house; it is nearly the same area. There are no precise statistics available, but we might safely say that the average plot in an average modern city, when intended to serve as a family residence - for this is the most usual case - is commensurate in size with the plot in the ancient city. Conversely, plots designed for public functions (public buildings and others), or for production (factories, warehouses), or to serve as office premises for large organizations, have completely different dimensions from these of the ancient city. LOSS OF HUMAN DIMENSIONS In comparing the city of the present with the ancient Greek city, we can reach the leading conclusion that the present-day city has lost its human dimensions. It is no longer dominated by man. The change in size has not allowed maintenance of the human dimensions. If we consider the overall space of the city, the built-up city, the 12

public spaces or the private ones, we find that human dimensions have only been preserved in the interior of the buildings and the small house plots that belong to a family. We have reached a point where we can conceive neither the aggregate city, for we are unable to view it as a whole, nor the small space, or dominate over it. That, too, has been taken over by the machine. We have thus reached the tragic point where, without having conquered the larger space of the city, we have lost the smaller space too, that is, precisely that space that was of greater value to man. In this way, man has lost the scale of the space that belonged to him and, in losing it he has also lost the intercourse he had with his fellow-men who lived in the same space. We talk about the explosion of population and the explosion of so many other phenomena, but we forget that this explosion had all the characteristics of an explosion, that is to say, a scattering of innumerable small fragments in space, which have remained unconnected. The result has been to lose coherence among men and coherence among buildings. People have lost their local communities, and buildings have lost their coherence. The result is that we now see large cities that have a completely anti-aesthetic pattern, for there is no cohesion whatsoever. It is imperative for us to provide once again human dimensions for roads, squares, neighbourhoods, in order that we may again build up human communities. This, of course, may be contested. One may say that the human community of the district, of the neighbourhood, is no longer required, since the communities that nowadays link people are different. They are, for instance, communities of ideas, because one might stand more in need to see his colleagues, the people who have the same trade or the same social or cultural needs, than his neighbours. This argument, however, is not well founded, because the existence among people of linking ties, other than that of neighbourhood, is not something new. In the ancient city, too, there were people who had a community of the neighbourhood. Community of ideas, community of trades, community of religion, community of interests. We have many ancient cities with inhabitants who had different religions, and yet the community of the neighbourhood the local community - played an important role. It was natural community. We see no reason why it should be taken away from man. Additional ties are, of course, necessary, but why should they deprive man of the natural local ties? We have no evidence that the community of the district, the community of the neighborhood, is not required today, and yet we destroy it.

13

COMMUNITIES ON A HUMAN SCALE Working on these principles, we find that, in the city of the present, we can build communities that have roughly the dimensions of the ancient Greek city, and that within these we can recreate the human scale. This experiment has been carried out in various cities. These human communities have the following characteristics: a. They have populations proportionate to those of ancient cities, from the smallest, corresponding to ancient cities such as Priene, of 1,000 families or 5,000 inhabitants, which constitutes the smallest unit of human community in present-day cities, to human communities comparable with the ancient Athens and a population of 40-50,000 inhabitants, as is the case with the new communities of Islamabad (Fig. 10). b. These community dimensions are analogous to those of ancient cities, from a width of 500 m. and a length of 800 m., up to a square with sides of 2km. that would permit the creation of a center at a distance of not more than 1,000m. or of 12 minutes for every inhabitant, even those living at the greatest distance. c. The form may be simple, to enable anyone to view the center, to go to it, needing but a simple turn from any point at which he may happen to be. d. It is not necessary for the automobile to be a dominant factor in such a community. It may be strictly subordinate to man, and leave public spaces free for human traffic. In the smaller of these communities, man and children many walk freely, from home to school, to the market, to friends' houses, or to any other point of the community without crossing cars. In the larger ones, again, one can perform all these displacements without crossing motorcar traffic lines, except in one case, if he wants to go to the large center of the community. Before closing, there is a question which should be answered. It is permissible to arrive at conclusions about settlements, human or otherwise, solely on criteria of physical dimensions? It should not be thought that in my capacity as a "mason", I tend to disregard other considerations and only attach importance to the physical dimensions of the city. There are material reasons why we should pay special attention to dimensions. It is true, of course, that if we limited ourselves solely to criteria of dimensions, we would not be entitled to draw conclusions as to the human qualities of a settlement. The dimensions may be small and on the human scale, yet the community may not have human qualities, because the overall conception is mistaken. On the other hand, if the dimensions are not on

Fig. 10. Ancient Athens and Islamabad: a comparison.

14

a human scale, there will be no chance of creating a human community with human qualities. In order to build human communities, it is vitally necessary to adhere to physical human dimensions. If we do so, we can be sure of creating an environment which will have all the essential human qualities. It should not be forgotten that the communities which we build are the shell within which life grows. If we create a suitable shell, a shell with the right dimensions, we can hope to ensure happiness within it. If we do not create the right shell, there will be no hope of creating a better existence. The human communities which we are trying to create today are not the answer to contemporary town-planning problems. They are, however, the basic elements with which we should build our big cities. If we create human communities, link them together in the right way, and repeat them as often as necessary, we shall be able to create modern cities. The modern city should be a synthesis of the human scale and the mechanical scale. Smaller units, which can be planned on human dimensions, should be based on the human scale, while larger areas are based on the mechanical one. Thus we come to realize that we must employ two scales and two dimensions: a. Those which man creates without mechanical means. In this sphere man is and must be the master. He must impose his own dimensions. b. Those which man creates by mechanical means. Here he must dominate by mechanical means and impose the dimensions and characteristics of the machine. When man succeeds in mastering these large dimensions, the whole world will be one city. When space satellites allow him to survey the entire globe and television enables him to hear the news from every corner of the world, the mechanical dimensions of the city will shrink to those of an ancient Greek city. Not only will man live in a small human community and dominate it by human dimensions, he will also live in a worldwide community, which he will dominate by means of the mechanical dimensions which he has created. It would be a mistake, however, to think that man's mastery of his environment on the mechanical scale does away with the need for a proper relationship between man and his environment on the human scale. If we make this mistake, we shall our human qualities. On the other hand, in order to preserve our human qualities, it is not necessary to reject the opportunities offered by the

15

machine. We must make use of them for the benefit of man. It is imperative to achieve a synthesis on two scales: the human and the human-mechanical. The human scale is determined by our physical human qualities, and we only need to study them. They have been reflected in many cities of the past, especially in the human dimensions of the ancient Greek city. The human mechanical scale, on which larger environments are to be created, will be found gradually, as we study the problems of contemporary cities, realize the mistakes of the past and understand their causes. CONCLUSIONS What is the outlook for the future? It must be admitted that we are undoubtedly moving towards ecumenopolis, a world city. The great metropolitan and megalopolitan complexes which extend over whole countries and continents will gradually merge into one universal city. Our environment will become less and less human, and, in order to function, the city will have to rely to an increasing extend on machines. Within a century at most, this city will be an accomplished fact. The process has already begun in many parts of the world. When this materializes, unless we have taken steps to make this city a human one, the end of our civilization will be near. We are being daily left with less and less of our former human environment. Historical continuity with the environment created in the past has been broken, and today we live in unnatural conditions, like fish out of water. Since the start of the century, leading intellectuals have been conscious of the threat of the machine. "It will always be a threat to all that mankind has achieved, so long as to present in the sphere of the spirit, instead of the sphere of subservience", wrote Rainer Maria Rilke. Other thinkers, however, have taken the opposite view. Saint-Exupery, writing to a fellow aviator, Guillaumet, in 1939 (La terre des hommes), said: "The handling of a highly developed mechanism has not turned you into an arid technician. It seems to me that those who are particularly alarmed by technical progress are mistaking the means for the end. Whoever strives merely in the hope of acquiring material benefits, will certainly never gain anything worth living for. The machine is not an end. The airplane is not an end. It is an instrument, like the plough". We must bear in mind that there are great dangers ahead, but we can avoid them, if we remember than man is the goal. In the interests of man, we should return to our ancient heritage and see hoe the ancient Greek city can be

Fig. 11. Synthesis in two scales.

16

of special help to us (Fig. 11). We must not permit disaster to occur. The battle is not yet lost. We have not yet allowed the machine to master our spirit, nor to dominate the smaller shells which we make for ourselves. We still have a stronghold in which human values prevail, our rooms and houses. This stronghold will enable us to regain strength set out to master the machine, and build human communities with only one purpose in mind: to create cities fit for man.

References
1. 2. For size and population of ancient Greek city-states, see "Population", Oxford Classical Dictionary. Halfway through the 5th Century BC the state of Aegina had a population of 25,000-30,000, including slaves. The state of Attica in 431 BC had a total population of 310,000. The state of Arcadia had a population of 80,000-90,000, and that of Boeotia 90,000-100,000 without allowing for slaves, who were comparatively few. The figures given for the population of the state of Corinth vary considerably According to Freeman (op. Cit., p. 93), the free population in the 5th Century BC was around 40,000-50,000 and there were some 100,000 slaves. According to W. Durant, (The Life Of Greece, New York, 1939, p. 91), in 480 BC there were 50,000 citizens and 60,000 slaves. The Oxford Classical Dictionary estimates the total population at some 80,000 in the 5th and 4th Centuries BC. Concerning population, Wycherley writes: "Hardly more than a score of citystates ever had more that 10,000 citizens, i.e. a free population of 40,000 or more, and most must have had considerably less". (p. 14). The city of Priene had a population of 4,000 (see Wycherley, p.27). Olynthos had a population of some 15,000 (see L. Mumford, The City in History, New York, 1961, p. 164). The population of Selinus is estimated at some 20,000 (see F. Hiorns, Town-building in history, London, 1956, p. 31). The population of Miletus is considered to have been 20,000-30,000 (see K. Freeman, Greek City-States, London, 1950, p. 129). The total population of Delos was 20,000-30,000 (see P. Roussel, "La population de Delos a la fin du IIe siecle avant J.-C." Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Vol. LV, 1931). The population of Athens in classical times is estimated at 36,000 to 50,000 (see Travlos, op.c., p. 72). Wycherley (p. 27) says: "Priene can only have had a population of about 4,000, but we must not let our natural interest in the great and famous cities of Greece make us forget that there were few like Corinth, hardly any like Athens, but hundreds as Priene in size, and they all rightly claimed the name of Polis". The area of these cities in hectares is as follows: Athens 215, Corinth 520.5, Delos 100, Priene 41.4, Miletus 106, Piraeus 420.3, Olynthos 60 and Selinus 63.4. The population density is estimated to have been as follows: Selinus 315.4 inhabitants per hectare, Athens 200, Miletus 236, Piraeus 119, Olynthos 250, Priene 96.8, Corinth 86,5 and Delos 250. In the case of Selinus, Delos and Olynthos, the estimates are approximate. Wycherley, pp. 5-7 "The Acropolis was the historical nucleus of many older cities; the town grew on its slopes. The Agora was the center, the place of "gathering" for political, commercial or social business. The Acropolis and the Agora were a double nucleus, but the Agora gradually emerged as the most vital and distinctive element of the city". R. Martin, Recherches sur L'Agora Greque. (Paris, 1951), p. 544. R. Martin, Recherches sur L'Agora Greque. (Paris, 1951), p. 544.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

17

10. Wycherley, op. cit., p. 179.

18