The Olympic Games revival took place in Athens in 1896. The plan of de Coubertin was to hold the first modern Olympics in Paris but the presence, and the speech, of Vikelas at the 1894 meeting of the Union of French Societies of Athletic Sports thwarted his plans.
Curiously (in view of the ancient greek tradition) the organisers in Athens decided to reward not only the winner but also the runner-up. The winner received a silver medal and an olive brach while the second received a copper medal and a laurel branch.
The medal exhibited in the Athens, Fokianos, museum is the commemorative one, and thus has a different design from the medals of the winners.
In some cases additional prizes were bestowed to the athletes, the most famous among them being the silver cup of S. Louis who won the first marathon race. The idea of a race from Marathon to Athens was that of the french philologist M. Bréal who offered also a special cup for the marathon winner.
The Paris, 1900, Olympics were a total fiasco. Spread out over 6 months they were part of the 1900 Exposition Universelle (World's Fair) which smothered them. There was not even an official opening ceremony. Many athletes, even among the winners, did not know that they were competing in the Olympic Games. The Paris Games were a hodgepodge of events among which one finds automobile racing, live pigeon shooting or ballooning. Some women did participate in the games (that's great) but professionals were also allowed to compete, in fencing, receiving a monetary (!) prize (that's not so great given the hypocritical standards of the time). There are also some unknown olympic champions, as in some rowing events the coxswains were local boys, the names of which were never recorded.
There were no gold medals in the Paris games. The winner obtained a silver medal and the runner-up a bronze one. In fact, most of the winners did not receive medals. Instead they were given cups or trophies. Quite expectedly, there is no mention of the Olympics on the medals: the medals were those of the World Fair. In that sense there are no commemorative medals from the Paris Games: the ones we consider today as the olympic medals are the commemorative ones.
At moments I phantasise about what would have happened if the Paris Games had not been preceded by the Athens ones. It is my belief that as the Paris organisation had totally escaped the control of de Coubertin and the Games were more of an entertainment added to the World Fair, the Olympic idea would have died then and there. In fact even thus it was moribund and the next Olympics almost brought upon its demise.
The 1904 St. Louis Games were again combined with a World's Fair. (The Games were initially awarded to Chicago but St. Louis forced de Coubertin to rescind this decision). Again, the Games were spread over 5 months and again the Games were a side-show of the World's Fair, overshadowed by other events. The pinnacle of shame were the "Anthropology Days". According to the Wikipedia,
Critics have argued that the Olympics have engaged in or caused: erroneous anthropological and colonial knowledge production; erasure; commodification and appropriation of indigenous ceremonies and symbolism; theft and inappropriate display of indigenous objects; further encroachment on and support of the theft of indigenous lands; and neglect or intensification of poor social conditions for indigenous peoples.
And it all started with the Anthropology Days. Indigenous people from all over the world were displayed in anthropological exhibits that showed them in their natural habitats, in a kind of human zoo. The idea was to show that the white, Anglo-American was at the top of the racial hierarchy in brains and brawn. The European-style athletics competitions for the "savages" were a disaster and the “savage-friendly” exhibitions did not fare much better.
Going back to the medals, the 1904 Games brought two innovations. First, there were medals for the first three of each event, in the metals known today, gold, silver and bronze And when we say "gold" we mean gold: it did remain such for the Olympiads of 1908 and 1912. (But not in the 1906 Olympics where the gold medal was gilt silver, just like from 1920 onwards). Second, the medals came with a ribbon and could be pinned on the breast of the winner (as in the case of military decorations).
We are not going to retrace here the history of the Olympic Games. Suffices it to say that what saved the Olympics after 1900 and 1904 were the intercalatory 1906 Olympics in Athens. The design of the 1896 medals was used anew but now a gold medal did exist.
Then came the Olympics of London and Stockholm, and the one thing that can be said about englishmen and scandinavians is that they are experts in sports. With these two organisations the Olympic Games were definitely out of the woods. There is no point in presenting the design of all the medals. The interested reader can find all the details in the website of the Olympic Museum. They have all the details of all the olympic and the commemorative medals from 1896 to 2016 (and most probably the 2020 ones will soon be added to the collection). In fact they have photos of the diplomas, badges, posters as well as pdfs of the official reports (up to 2008, where, alas, they ceased to exist!).
The obverse of the olympic medals was standardised starting from 1928. The design was that of G. Cassioli, who, being italian, decided to depict the goddess Nike (Victory) with crown and palm, next the wall of the Coliseum (!). This presence of a roman-inspired element (and in particular of a site known for gladiator games) was a pure heresy but it was curiously (?) accepted by the IOC. The reverse of the medal featured a crowd carrying a triumphant athlete on their shoulders.
Of course that was the "canonical" design but every organising country had a sculptor produce a version of the medal, while respecting Cassioli's design. Still, deviations started to crop up. The most notable are the 1956 equestrian games. Australia had at the time a six-month quarantine on horses and the authorities were not willing to relax it for the Olympics. (I do not think any country could bid for the Olympics today under such conditions). So the equestrian games were held in Sweden and the design of the medals had nothing to do with Cassioli's.
In the 1960 Rome Games the organisers introduced an innovation: the medal was encircled by a bronze band composed of laurel leaves allowing it to be placed around the neck of the athlete. While the italian bronze design did not survive beyond the 1960 Olympics, the idea of placing around the neck was adopted and since that time all medals come with a ribbon.
A first departure from Cassioli's design was at the 1972, Munich, Games, where the reverse of the medal represented Castor and Pollux in Bauhaus style. Since that time the host city can choose the design of the reverse of the olympic medal and, while all medals are from metal, China, for the 2008, Beijing, Olympics, presented a design which included a ring of jade.
The one major departure from Cassioli's design was that of the 1992, Barcelona, Olympics, where the Coliseum was totally absent and the greek element was stressed by the presence of a meander in the background.
In 1996 the design went back to the traditional one but when it came to the 2000, Sydney, Games people started realising that the roman Coliseum had nothing to do with the Olympics. At long last, in 2004, for the Athens Olympics, an error that persisted for 76 years was corrected. The new obverse represents the Nike of Paeonios with a branch of palm in her right hand, in front of the Panathenaicon Stadium with the Acropolis hill with the Parthenon in the background.
While the affair of the medal was settled, my compatriots made what I consider a major blunder. They decided to reward all three medal winners with a "kotinos", an olive wreath. So, what, in the ancient times, was something exclusive, a winner-only emblem, became, thanks to the petty-bourgeois tendencies of modern Greeks, an almost commonplace thing. And in any case it decorated the heads of a slew of doppers. Gatlin is the leading figure (and he got to keep his wreath), followed by all the winners of the "heavy" throws in field events. We should have dispensed with this folkloric element, and do as in the 1896 Olympics i.e. reward the winner with a branch of olive (and perhaps a branch of laurel for the two other medalists).
In my previous post I explained that I like the copper colour of the bronze medal. This does not mean that a bronze-coloured medal is not aesthetically pleasing, on the contrary. The Athens commemorative medal is a case in point: the medal is really very nice. Simply, personally, I prefer the "bronze" medal to be of copper colour.
The medals for the 2020, Tokyo, Olympics were recently presented and, to my eyes, the design is better than the one of 2004. Somehow I find the presentation more airy than that of Athens. It has probably to do with the design of the upper tier of the stadium but, in any case, the Tokyo medals are an absolute success.
Curiously (in view of the ancient greek tradition) the organisers in Athens decided to reward not only the winner but also the runner-up. The winner received a silver medal and an olive brach while the second received a copper medal and a laurel branch.
The medal exhibited in the Athens, Fokianos, museum is the commemorative one, and thus has a different design from the medals of the winners.
In some cases additional prizes were bestowed to the athletes, the most famous among them being the silver cup of S. Louis who won the first marathon race. The idea of a race from Marathon to Athens was that of the french philologist M. Bréal who offered also a special cup for the marathon winner.
The Paris, 1900, Olympics were a total fiasco. Spread out over 6 months they were part of the 1900 Exposition Universelle (World's Fair) which smothered them. There was not even an official opening ceremony. Many athletes, even among the winners, did not know that they were competing in the Olympic Games. The Paris Games were a hodgepodge of events among which one finds automobile racing, live pigeon shooting or ballooning. Some women did participate in the games (that's great) but professionals were also allowed to compete, in fencing, receiving a monetary (!) prize (that's not so great given the hypocritical standards of the time). There are also some unknown olympic champions, as in some rowing events the coxswains were local boys, the names of which were never recorded.
There were no gold medals in the Paris games. The winner obtained a silver medal and the runner-up a bronze one. In fact, most of the winners did not receive medals. Instead they were given cups or trophies. Quite expectedly, there is no mention of the Olympics on the medals: the medals were those of the World Fair. In that sense there are no commemorative medals from the Paris Games: the ones we consider today as the olympic medals are the commemorative ones.
At moments I phantasise about what would have happened if the Paris Games had not been preceded by the Athens ones. It is my belief that as the Paris organisation had totally escaped the control of de Coubertin and the Games were more of an entertainment added to the World Fair, the Olympic idea would have died then and there. In fact even thus it was moribund and the next Olympics almost brought upon its demise.
The 1904 St. Louis Games were again combined with a World's Fair. (The Games were initially awarded to Chicago but St. Louis forced de Coubertin to rescind this decision). Again, the Games were spread over 5 months and again the Games were a side-show of the World's Fair, overshadowed by other events. The pinnacle of shame were the "Anthropology Days". According to the Wikipedia,Critics have argued that the Olympics have engaged in or caused: erroneous anthropological and colonial knowledge production; erasure; commodification and appropriation of indigenous ceremonies and symbolism; theft and inappropriate display of indigenous objects; further encroachment on and support of the theft of indigenous lands; and neglect or intensification of poor social conditions for indigenous peoples.
And it all started with the Anthropology Days. Indigenous people from all over the world were displayed in anthropological exhibits that showed them in their natural habitats, in a kind of human zoo. The idea was to show that the white, Anglo-American was at the top of the racial hierarchy in brains and brawn. The European-style athletics competitions for the "savages" were a disaster and the “savage-friendly” exhibitions did not fare much better.
Going back to the medals, the 1904 Games brought two innovations. First, there were medals for the first three of each event, in the metals known today, gold, silver and bronze And when we say "gold" we mean gold: it did remain such for the Olympiads of 1908 and 1912. (But not in the 1906 Olympics where the gold medal was gilt silver, just like from 1920 onwards). Second, the medals came with a ribbon and could be pinned on the breast of the winner (as in the case of military decorations).
We are not going to retrace here the history of the Olympic Games. Suffices it to say that what saved the Olympics after 1900 and 1904 were the intercalatory 1906 Olympics in Athens. The design of the 1896 medals was used anew but now a gold medal did exist.Then came the Olympics of London and Stockholm, and the one thing that can be said about englishmen and scandinavians is that they are experts in sports. With these two organisations the Olympic Games were definitely out of the woods. There is no point in presenting the design of all the medals. The interested reader can find all the details in the website of the Olympic Museum. They have all the details of all the olympic and the commemorative medals from 1896 to 2016 (and most probably the 2020 ones will soon be added to the collection). In fact they have photos of the diplomas, badges, posters as well as pdfs of the official reports (up to 2008, where, alas, they ceased to exist!).
The obverse of the olympic medals was standardised starting from 1928. The design was that of G. Cassioli, who, being italian, decided to depict the goddess Nike (Victory) with crown and palm, next the wall of the Coliseum (!). This presence of a roman-inspired element (and in particular of a site known for gladiator games) was a pure heresy but it was curiously (?) accepted by the IOC. The reverse of the medal featured a crowd carrying a triumphant athlete on their shoulders.
Of course that was the "canonical" design but every organising country had a sculptor produce a version of the medal, while respecting Cassioli's design. Still, deviations started to crop up. The most notable are the 1956 equestrian games. Australia had at the time a six-month quarantine on horses and the authorities were not willing to relax it for the Olympics. (I do not think any country could bid for the Olympics today under such conditions). So the equestrian games were held in Sweden and the design of the medals had nothing to do with Cassioli's.
In the 1960 Rome Games the organisers introduced an innovation: the medal was encircled by a bronze band composed of laurel leaves allowing it to be placed around the neck of the athlete. While the italian bronze design did not survive beyond the 1960 Olympics, the idea of placing around the neck was adopted and since that time all medals come with a ribbon.
A first departure from Cassioli's design was at the 1972, Munich, Games, where the reverse of the medal represented Castor and Pollux in Bauhaus style. Since that time the host city can choose the design of the reverse of the olympic medal and, while all medals are from metal, China, for the 2008, Beijing, Olympics, presented a design which included a ring of jade.
The one major departure from Cassioli's design was that of the 1992, Barcelona, Olympics, where the Coliseum was totally absent and the greek element was stressed by the presence of a meander in the background.
In 1996 the design went back to the traditional one but when it came to the 2000, Sydney, Games people started realising that the roman Coliseum had nothing to do with the Olympics. At long last, in 2004, for the Athens Olympics, an error that persisted for 76 years was corrected. The new obverse represents the Nike of Paeonios with a branch of palm in her right hand, in front of the Panathenaicon Stadium with the Acropolis hill with the Parthenon in the background.
While the affair of the medal was settled, my compatriots made what I consider a major blunder. They decided to reward all three medal winners with a "kotinos", an olive wreath. So, what, in the ancient times, was something exclusive, a winner-only emblem, became, thanks to the petty-bourgeois tendencies of modern Greeks, an almost commonplace thing. And in any case it decorated the heads of a slew of doppers. Gatlin is the leading figure (and he got to keep his wreath), followed by all the winners of the "heavy" throws in field events. We should have dispensed with this folkloric element, and do as in the 1896 Olympics i.e. reward the winner with a branch of olive (and perhaps a branch of laurel for the two other medalists).
In my previous post I explained that I like the copper colour of the bronze medal. This does not mean that a bronze-coloured medal is not aesthetically pleasing, on the contrary. The Athens commemorative medal is a case in point: the medal is really very nice. Simply, personally, I prefer the "bronze" medal to be of copper colour.
The medals for the 2020, Tokyo, Olympics were recently presented and, to my eyes, the design is better than the one of 2004. Somehow I find the presentation more airy than that of Athens. It has probably to do with the design of the upper tier of the stadium but, in any case, the Tokyo medals are an absolute success.
No comments:
Post a Comment