In this Internet assignment, three different websites on Ancient Olympics were reviewed. This review was conducted based on a comparison and contrast of the following criteria: audience, relevance to the intended audience, credibility, sources of information and graphics. The reason that this topic (and these specific websites) was chosen was out of pure curiosity. I have always wondered how the Olympic games of the past were transformed into the games that we have today. Also, the information we have covered in lecture on the Ancient Greek society led me to want to know more about the people that lived during that time period. These sites helped to find that information. They can be used not only to learn about the Ancient Olympic games, but also about the type of people that lived during the time period and about the society in which they lived.

For the sake of clarity the websites will be referred to as: Tufts (http://olympics.tufts.edu), Upenn (www.upenn.edu/museum

/Olympics/olympicintro.html), and Princeton (www.princeton.edu/~grevelle).

On the basis of audience, I found that the websites all had very similar intended audiences. I think these sites could be used by anyone, probably middle school students or above, who wanted information on the Ancient Olympic games. "Princeton", however, differed slightly from the other two in that this site contained not only information on the Olympic games, but also on other games that were present during the Ancient period. This would change the audience slightly to include anyone that wanted information on any kind of Ancient games, not just the Olympics. I believe that "Tufts" and "Upenn" presented their information in a more interesting manner than "Princeton", therefore making these two sites more effective for reaching their intended audiences. "Tufts" contained a tour of ancient Olympia as it stands now. There are many interesting photographs and other images that made the reader want to continue learning more. "Upenn" contained a quiz in which it tested the reader’s knowledge of the Olympic games and of Ancient society in general. These features make these sites more interesting to everyone that visits them. Their approach makes learning more fun; it’s not just reading, but interacting. "Princeton" had nothing like this. This site was text with a few images included. Although some of the images were interesting to look at, there was no interaction as with the other two sites.

This was not all the information that these sites contained. "Tufts" gave a brief overview of each of the sports that occurred within the Olympic games. It also showed pieces of pottery and other artifacts that depicted participation in these games. In addition, this site also shared some humorous quotes from men like Xenophanes and Aristotle and from plays like Homer’s Odyssey. On the tour, there were maps to help the reader understand the location of different buildings, and this will be discussed in more detail later.

"Princeton" differs from the other websites in that it contains more history of how the Olympics came about and less information on the games themselves. The home page had the events listed, and when each event was opened, there was a very brief description of each. This site also contained information on the Pythian games, the Nemean games and the Isthmian games

"Upenn" used the technique of posing questions (instead of listing the events) to capture the reader’s attention. It would have categories such as, "When were the first games?" and "Were women allowed to compete?" that could be opened to reveal the answer. As with "Tufts", it also contained maps to help the reader’s comprehension which, again, this will be discussed in more detail later.

Although the three sites differ in content and presentation, all three are very credible sources. They all were created at major academic institutions which grants them credibility. "Tufts" and "Princeton" receive most of their information from the Perseus Project. This is a project that has an extensive list of names that contributed to it, many with Ph.D’s and other advanced degrees. It is a secondary source that contains some primary sources. "Upenn" also gets its information from a secondary source, however, it is not from the Perseus Project but from an article that appeared in Expedition Magazine titled, "Exploring 5,000 years of Athletics" which was written by Dr. David Gelman Romano. This man has received numerous degrees from different schools and has extensive education in this field, making his article very credible. This, too, is a secondary source that makes use of primary sources in its content. All three of the sites used images of artifacts which can be considered primary sources. "Tufts" incorporated quotes from Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle and Plato, all of whom can also be considered primary sources. Overall, these three sites are very credible and make very good use of both primary and secondary sources.

Not only were the credits of these sites impressive, so were the graphics that were contained in two of them. "Princeton" contained few graphics and will not be included in this discussion. "Tufts" and "Upenn" however, made use of maps to help the reader understand where buildings were located in Olympia. Additionally, "Upenn" utilized a map of today’s Europe to show exactly where the city was located.

Although it was interesting that both sites made use of maps, "Upenn" made much better use of the maps in several different ways. First, all of the maps were in color. This is very important as it enables the reader to better isolate the region (which is labeled) that is being discussed. (See Histpics file) "Tufts" used small black and white pictures. The contrast made it difficult to observe the area being discussed since some structures seemed to blend in with others. Second, "Upenn" used one map to label everything. Having every building labeled on one map was much easier to understand than eight different maps. It all came together as a town, rather than eight individual buildings. Third, "Upenn", as mentioned above, made use of a map of today’s Europe which helped the reader see exactly where Olympia was located. It became real and not just a part of the Ancient World.

Overall, all three of these websites were very useful sources of information and would be excellent for anyone that has an interest in the Ancient Olympic Games. However, some are more developed than others, but each can accommodate specific individual needs of the reader.

Robin Bushnell

A+ = Outstanding paper!!! Your work is very well-written, interesting, analytical. Your review is particularly good, based on your integration of key ideas and information, use of examples, and variety of evaluation criteria. Nice job!!