Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

How to Integrate the Curricula 3rd Edition Robin

J. Fogarty

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/how-to-integrate-the-
curricula-3rd-edition-robin-j-fogarty/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Sales Promotion How to Create Implement and Integrate

Campaigns That Really Work 3rd Edition Julian Cummins

https://ebookultra.com/download/sales-promotion-how-to-create-
implement-and-integrate-campaigns-that-really-work-3rd-edition-julian-
cummins/

Sales Promotion How to Create Implement and Integrate

Campaigns That Really Work 4th Edition Roddy Mullin

https://ebookultra.com/download/sales-promotion-how-to-create-
implement-and-integrate-campaigns-that-really-work-4th-edition-roddy-
mullin/

Strategies to Integrate the Arts in Mathematics 1st

Edition Linda Dacey

https://ebookultra.com/download/strategies-to-integrate-the-arts-in-
mathematics-1st-edition-linda-dacey/

Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula A Practical

Guide 3rd Edition Robert M. Diamond

https://ebookultra.com/download/designing-and-assessing-courses-and-
curricula-a-practical-guide-3rd-edition-robert-m-diamond/
The encyclopedia of child abuse 3rd ed Edition Robin E.
Clark

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-encyclopedia-of-child-abuse-3rd-
ed-edition-robin-e-clark/

How to Research 3rd ed Edition Lorraine Blaxter

https://ebookultra.com/download/how-to-research-3rd-ed-edition-
lorraine-blaxter/

Turn Redundancy to Opportunity How to 3rd Edition Laurel

Alexander

https://ebookultra.com/download/turn-redundancy-to-opportunity-how-
to-3rd-edition-laurel-alexander/

A Textbook of Christian Ethics 3rd Edition Robin Gill

https://ebookultra.com/download/a-textbook-of-christian-ethics-3rd-
edition-robin-gill/

How to Treat Persons 1st Edition Samuel J. Kerstein

https://ebookultra.com/download/how-to-treat-persons-1st-edition-
samuel-j-kerstein/
How to Integrate the Curricula 3rd Edition Robin J.
Fogarty Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Robin J. Fogarty, Brian Mitchell Pete
ISBN(s): 9781412938891, 1412938899
Edition: 3
File Details: PDF, 1.87 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english
 The poet, who navigates the stars . . .
The writer, who touches the soul . . .
The inventor, who notes nature’s ways . . .
The friend, who connects one with another . . .
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin

All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are included, their use is authorized only
by educators, local school sites, and/or noncommercial or nonprofit entities that have purchased
the book. Except for that usage, no part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information:
Corwin SAGE India Pvt. Ltd.
A SAGE Company B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
2455 Teller Road Mathura Road, New Delhi
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 India 110 044
(800) 233-9936
Fax: (800) 417-2466
www.corwinpress.com

SAGE Ltd. SAGE Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard 33 Pekin Street #02-01
55 City Road Far East Square
London EC1Y 1SP Singapore 048763
United Kingdom

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fogarty, Robin.
How to integrate the curricula / Robin Fogarty.—3rd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4129-3888-4 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-1-4129-3889-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Education—Curricula—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Interdisciplinary
approach in education—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title.

LB1570.F655 2009
375—dc22 2008056034

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

09 10 11 12 13 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Acquisitions Editor: Hudson Perigo

Editorial Assistant: Lesley K. Blake
Production Editor: Cassandra Margaret Seibel
Copy Editor: Sarah J. Duffy
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Carole Quandt
Indexer: Jean Casalegno
Cover Designer: Anthony Paular
Graphic Designer: Scott Van Atta
 Contents

Foreword viii
Heidi Hayes Jacobs
Acknowledgments ix
About the Author xii

Introduction 1
What Is This Book All About? 1
Why Bother? 3
The Theorists: Research on the Brain and Learning 3
The Practitioners: Abandonment of an Overloaded
Curriculum and Adherence to Standards of Learning 6
The Parents: What Will Our Children Need
25 Years From Now? 7
The Students: Education Is a Vaccination 9
How Can the Curriculum Be Integrated? 9
10 Models of Integrating the Curricula 10
Agree/Disagree Introductory Activity 10
Four-Fold Concept Development Activity 16
Examples of the Four-Fold Concept Development Activity 18
How Do Teachers Use This Book? 21
Model 1. Cellular 22
What Is the Cellular Model? 22
What Does It Look Like? 23
What Does It Sound Like? 23
What Are the Advantages? 23
What Are the Disadvantages? 24
When Is This Cellular Model Useful? 24
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 1: Cellular 25
Model 2. Connected 31
What Is the Connected Model? 31
What Does It Look Like? 32
What Does It Sound Like? 32
What Are the Advantages? 32
What Are the Disadvantages? 32
When Is This Connected Model Useful? 33
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 2: Connected 37
Model 3. Nested 39
What Is the Nested Model? 39
What Does It Look Like? 40
What Does It Sound Like? 40
What Are the Advantages? 41
What Are the Disadvantages? 41
When Is This Nested Model Useful? 41
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 3: Nested 42
Model 4. Sequenced 48
What Is the Sequenced Model? 48
What Does It Look Like? 49
What Does It Sound Like? 49
What Are the Advantages? 49
What Are the Disadvantages? 50
When Is This Sequenced Model Useful? 50
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 4: Sequenced 51
Model 5. Shared 57
What Is the Shared Model? 57
What Does It Look Like? 57
What Does It Sound Like? 58
What Are the Advantages? 58
What Are the Disadvantages? 59
When Is This Shared Model Useful? 59
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 5: Shared 63
Model 6. Webbed 65
What Is the Webbed Model? 65
What Does It Look Like? 66
What Does It Sound Like? 66
What Are the Advantages? 67
What Are the Disadvantages? 67
When Is This Webbed Model Useful? 67
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 6: Webbed 77
Model 7. Threaded 79
What Is the Threaded Model? 79
What Does It Look Like? 80
What Does It Sound Like? 80
What Are the Advantages? 82
What Are the Disadvantages? 82
When Is This Threaded Model Useful? 83
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 7: Threaded 90
Model 8. Integrated 92
What Is the Integrated Model? 92
What Does It Look Like? 93
What Does It Sound Like? 93
What Are the Advantages? 93
 What Are the Disadvantages? 94
When Is This Integrated Model Useful? 94
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 8:
Integrated 95
Model 9. Immersed 102
What Is the Immersed Model? 102
What Does It Look Like? 103
What Does It Sound Like? 103
What Are the Advantages? 103
What Are the Disadvantages? 103
When Is This Immersed Model Useful? 104
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 9:
Immersed 108
Model 10. Networked 110
What Is the Networked Model? 110
What Does It Look Like? 111
What Does It Sound Like? 111
What Are the Advantages? 111
What Are the Disadvantages? 111
When Is This Networked Model Useful? 112
How to Integrate the Curricula Working With Model 10:
Networked 116
Appendix. Assessing Curriculum Integration: Units of Study 118
Appraising Curriculum Integration 118
Appraising the Integrity of the Breadth and
Depth of the Curriculum Integration Unit 119
Sample Rubric 120
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Unit in
Terms of Student Achievement 124
General Rubric 125
History Rubric 125
Language Arts Rubric 125
Conclusion 127

References 128
Index 134
 Foreword

I n the spirit of continuous learning, Dr. Robin Fogarty has added new insight
into this third edition of How to Integrate the Curricula. Her initial contribu-
tion to the field of education was to give teachers clear and practical images and
exercises that provoked new perspectives on curriculum making. In this edi-
tion, she builds and adds useful suggestions that deepen the work. She has
added refined practices, engaging strategies, and targeted research references
to support her models for curriculum design.
Ultimately, this is a practical book supported by strong theoretical underpin-
nings. It is a useful tool for inservice workshops and personal instructional
growth that teachers and staff developers will find extremely helpful. Dr. Fogarty
has a knack for cutting directly to key points in an engaging style. Certainly the
goal of any professional improvement plan is to eventually help learners. How
to Integrate the Curricula can help educators assist all learners in the classroom
to be thoughtful, creative, and mindful.
Dr. Heidi Hayes Jacobs
President, Curriculum Designers
Rye, New York

viii
 Acknowledgments

T his book took a year—plus a lifetime—to write! The thoughts shared here
represent an accumulation of ideas over time and present the core of the
integrated learner model. Learners must constantly and continually make con-
nections. As they proceed on their journeys, they single-mindedly dig into an
idea and at the same time network with others for breadth across related fields.
As a result, concepts come into focus and emerge as beliefs that propel learners
even further along on their chosen path and into never-ending circles of expert
associates. In my work with curriculum and cognitive instruction, two camps
of expert associates have influenced my thinking about how to integrate the
curricula: expert theorists and expert practitioners.
In the theorists’ camp, I’d like to acknowledge Heidi Hayes Jacobs for pro-
viding the initial impetus for this work. Her “Design Options for an Integrated
Curriculum” (in Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation; Jacobs,
1989) acted as a catalyst for the ideas presented in this book.
In addition, I am especially grateful to David Perkins for an illuminating dis-
cussion on finding fertile themes with which to integrate curricula. With his
rich criteria, this thematic model takes on new integrity. In the absence of
applied criteria, topical themes are often superficial, with content artificially
included or excluded accordingly. David’s “lenses” provide the needed rigor. In
addition, thanks go to David for the idea of the characters placed in a school set-
ting. This sparked the inclusion of the dialogues that appear throughout the
book to illuminate the teachers’ process as they move toward a more coherent
curriculum.
Finally, also in the theorists’ camp, I’d like to thank Art Costa for his initial
review of the integrated models and his timely suggestion for one that illus-
trates how a teacher targets several ideas in a single lesson or nests several ideas
together—thus, the nested Model 3.
Now, in the practitioners’ camp, there are five distinct expert flanks.
Influencing the first two editions of this book were teachers from
Carpentersville, Illinois; the Waterford School District, in Michigan; the
Richmond School District, in British Columbia, Canada; and Virginia Beach
Schools, in Virginia. The final group, which influenced this latest edition, were
Singaporean teachers from Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) Ignite Schools.
Elementary and middle school teachers from Carpentersville, Illinois,
worked on models to help integrate the curricula for lessons and learners. Some
of their lesson designs appear as examples in this book. I thank the following

ix
x HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

teachers for their early efforts in exploring this idea of an integrated curricu-
lum: Carol Bonebrake, Jane Atherton, Suzanne Raymond, Barbara Bengston,
Al Eck, Kathleen Vehring, Roseanne Day, Nancy Blackman, Clifford Berutti,
Linda Morning, Diane Gray, and Terri Pellant.
Thanks to Julie Casteel and her teachers in Michigan, especially Al
Monetta, Chris Brakke, Lori Broughton, and Sue Barber, who provided the top-
ics to fill in the first model in Figure 1.1. A pioneer practitioner leading the
thinking skills movement into action research teams, Julie Casteele was on the
cutting edge with the integrated learning idea. Thanks to both Julie and her
risk-taking staff for letting me test the models with real teachers.
Thanks also to friends and colleagues in Canada, first to Carol-Lyn Sakata,
who brought us there, then to Bruce Beairsto, David Shore, and Darlene
Macklam, for introducing us to the teachers of Richmond. Their heroic efforts
to implement a visionary provincial document, Year 2000: A Framework for
Learning, inspired our work. I am especially indebted to one teacher, Heather
MacLaren. She asked her seventh graders to prepare to talk at their parent con-
ferences about what they had done that year and how all the things they had
learned overlapped and were connected. The students’ intricate Venn diagrams
provided graphic representations of integrating the curricula as perceived
through the eyes of learners. These drawings sparked our thinking about cre-
ative, integrative models.
With 80 teachers in a summer workshop in Richmond called “Teaching for
Transfer,” including John Barell, David Perkins, and our superhero, Captain
Meta Cognition, we had a first stab at trying to help teachers sift out curricular
priorities. This, too, served as an initial springboard for our ideas about how to
integrate the curricula. Also, special thanks to Monica Pamer, Gina Rae, and
Jacquie Anderson for their conversations and encouragement.
The fourth set of practitioners are those from the Virginia Beach Schools.
Their work with student learning standards in designing performance tasks
illuminates the process of designing integrated curricula with the “standards
in mind.” For their robust performance tasks, I am most grateful.
And for the fifth set of pioneering educators, I must salute the Singapore
Ministry of Education leadership, especially Karen Lam and Puay Lim; the
Academy of Principals and the efforts of Ezra Ng; and the TLLM Ignite school
teams for their dedicated efforts in creating more engaged learning models with
the integrated curriculum approach. Working with the 10 models, these teach-
ers are dedicated to the development of an integrated curriculum that demon-
strates richness, rigor, and integrity. We value their work immensely as it
enhances ours.
I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the network of colleagues who
have helped shape this book. Thanks to Jim Bellanca for his mentoring ways;
Hudson Perigo for shepherding the process with skill and charm; and last but
not least, our office administrator, Megan Moore, for her invaluable assistance
in organizing and reorganizing, formatting and reformatting, editing and
re-editing, and submitting and resubmitting. She has been a godsend in this
endeavor.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi

PUBLISHER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

John C. Baker
Eighth-Grade Social Studies Teacher/Department Chair
Salem Middle School
Apex, NC

Julie Prescott
Assessment Coordinator
Vallivue High School
Caldwell, ID

Darlene Vigil
Language Arts Coordinator
Albuquerque Public Schools
Albuquerque, NM

Mark White
Elementary School Principal
Hintgen Elementary School
La Crosse, WI
 About the Author

Robin Fogarty received her doctorate in curriculum and

human resource development from Loyola University of
Chicago. A leading proponent of the thoughtful classroom,
she has trained educators throughout the world in cur-
riculum, instruction, and assessment strategies. She has
taught at all levels from kindergarten to college, served as
an administrator, and consulted with state departments
and national ministries of education in the United States,
Puerto Rico, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Great Britain,
Singapore, Korea, and the Netherlands. She has published articles in
Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan, and the Journal of Staff Development.
She is the author or coauthor of numerous publications, including Brain-
Compatible Classrooms (2009), Literacy Matters (2007), The Adult Learner
(2007), A Look at Transfer (2007), Close the Achievement Gap (2007), Twelve
Brain Principles That Make the Difference (2007), Nine Best Practices That Make
the Difference (2007), and From Staff Room to Classroom: A Guide for Planning and
Coaching Professional Development (2006).

xii
 Introduction

To the young mind every thing is individual, stands by itself. By and by, it
finds how to join two things and see in them one nature; then three, then
three thousand; and so, tyrannized over by its own unifying instinct, it
goes on tying things together, diminishing anomalies, discovering roots
running underground whereby contrary and remote things cohere and
flower out from one stem. . . . The astronomer discovers that geometry, a
pure abstraction of the human mind, is the measure of planetary motion.
The chemist finds proportions and intelligible method throughout matter;
and science is nothing but the finding of analogy, identity, in the most
remote parts.
—Emerson

WHAT IS THIS BOOK ALL ABOUT?

To help the “young mind . . . [discover] roots running underground whereby
contrary and remote things cohere and flower out from one stem” is at once the
mission of the teacher and of the learner. To that end, this book presents mod-
els to connect and integrate the curricula in a more coherent fashion.
Yet the question begging for an answer is, “What
does integrating the curricula mean?” Does it mean Yet the question begging for an answer is,
sifting out the parcels of each overloaded discipline “What does integrating the curricula
and focusing, in depth, on the true priorities, the mean?”
enduring learnings (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998)
(Cellular Model)?
Does it mean integrating or connecting yesterday’s lesson to today’s topic?
Or relating all issues studied in the biology class to the concept of evolution? Or
studying concepts such as power and isolation throughout social studies top-
ics? Does it mean making connections explicit rather than implicit with every
classroom opportunity (Connected Model)?
Does integrating curricula mean targeting multidimensional skills and con-
cepts into one lesson (Nested Model) or mapping the curricula by rearranging
the sequence of when a topic is taught to coincide with a parallel topic in
another content area (Sequenced Model)? Does it mean integrating one subject
with another through the learner’s conceptual eye or selecting an overall theme

1
2 HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

Model Definition

Cellular Model Focusing on priorities of each course

Connected Model Making explicit connections with each classroom opportunity

Nested Model Targeting multi-dimensional skills and concepts into one lesson

Sequenced Model Rearranging sequence when a topic is taught to coincide with a parallel
topic in another discipline

Shared Model Integrating one subject with another through the learner’s
conceptual eye

Webbed Model Weaving natural and obvious themes of a subject (such as the work of
an artist or writer) into the fabric of a discipline

Threaded Model Integrating what is taught with cognitive tools, strategies, and technical
tools that cross disciplines

Integrated Model Involving interdisciplinary team discussions when planning curriculum

Immersed Model Connecting past experiences and prior knowledge with new
information

Networked Model Building new bonds of interest with other experts through networking

(such as persistence or argument) or a simple topic (such as transportation) to

use as a “big idea” thematic umbrella (Shared Model)? Or is it more deductive in
nature, such as selecting a book, an era, or an artist and weaving those natural
and obvious themes into the fabric of the discipline (Webbed Model)?
Does integrating curricula mean integrating the content of what is taught
with cognitive tools (predicting, classifying), cooperative strategies (debating,
finding consensus), and technical tools (computer skills, electronic media) that
cross disciplines and spill into real-life situations (Threaded Model)? Or does it
encompass interdisciplinary team discussions and planning in which concep-
tual overlaps (structures, cycles) become the common focus across departments
(Integrated Model)?
Does integrating the curricula mean exploiting integrative threads sparked
from within the intense interests of the learner (photography, hunting, danc-
ing) to connect past experiences and prior knowledge with new information
and experiences (Immersed Model)? Or does it mean reaching out to build
bonds with experts in the area of interest (hunting, environmentalist, cartog-
rapher) through networking (Networked Model)?
The answer, of course, is that integrating the curricula can be any or all—
and more—of the aforementioned models. Each teacher and each learner views
the integration process differently. Each finds natural and robust ways to connect
the world in search of deeper meaning and richer understanding. Each seeks the
relatedness between and among things to discover “roots running underground
whereby contrary and remote things cohere and flower out from one stem.”
 INTRODUCTION 3

WHY BOTHER?
Why bother being concerned with a coherent curriculum? What is the
rationale for connecting ideas, discerning themes, and threading skills?
The answer lies in the four winds of change, coming from four distinct
directions, that create the urgency for a more integrated curriculum. The
north and south represent the ideas of educational theorists and the chal-
lenges of practitioners; the east and west represent the concerns of parents
and the perspective of students themselves. From the theorists come data
on teaching, learning, and the human brain; from the practitioners, frus-
tration with an overcrowded standards-based and test-driven curriculum.
From opposite vectors, parents are concerned about student preparation
and readiness for real-world issues, while students see learning as fractured
and not very relevant. A closer look at these crosswinds of change reveals
their impact on the current educational climate of school reform in our
nation’s schools.

The Theorists: Research

Supporting the concept of a more
on the Brain and Learning
connected, integrated curriculum is a
Supporting the concept of a more connected, inte- research base that delineates 12
grated curriculum is a research base that delineates principles of the brain and learning.
12 principles of the brain and learning (Caine & Caine,
1994, 1997). Note that some of the principles in Figure 0.1 are common sense, oth-
ers reinforce accepted pedagogy, and still others are just gaining acceptance in the
world of cognitive/neuroscience.

1. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.

2. Emotions are critical to patterning.

3. Learning involves both focused and peripheral perception.

4. The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously.

5. The brain has a spatial memory system and a set of systems for rote learning.

6. The brain is a parallel processor.

7. Learning engages the entire physiology.

8. Each brain is unique.

9. Understanding and remembering occur best when the facts are embedded in natural,
spatial memory.

10. The search for meaning is innate.

11. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.

12. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.

Figure 0.1 Caine & Caine’s 12 Principles of the Brain and Learning
SOURCE: Adapted from Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain, by R. N. Caine and G. Caine,
1994, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Copyright 1994 by Geoffrey Caine. Adapted with permission.
4 HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

Creating the Learning Environment

The first three principles create the learning environment.

1. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat. The brain learns

optimally when appropriately challenged and reacts viscerally when it senses
threat. Therefore, a safe, rich environment fosters a state of relaxed alertness
for learning, whereas threatening experiences, such as testing situations, often
create a state of fear and anxiety.

2. Emotions are critical to patterning. Emotions and cognition cannot be

separated. When emotions kick in, the brain pays attention. Attention is neces-
sary for memory and learning. Therefore, a positive emotional hook, such as an
intriguing question, enhances learning.

3. Learning involves both focused and peripheral perception. The brain

responds to the entire sensory context. Therefore, in an enriched environment,
peripheral information can be purposely organized to facilitate learning.
Learning centers, study stations, and even the way teachers represent informa-
tion on the board are organizational tools that enhance memory and learning.

Using Explicit and Implicit Memory Systems

Principles 4 and 5 involve the memory systems.

4. The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously. Bilateralization of

right and left hemisphere processing, although inextricably linked for interac-
tion, allows the brain to reduce information into parts and at the same time
perceive and work with the information as a whole. Therefore, immediate appli-
cation of direct instruction of skills and concepts allows the learner to perceive
information from both perspectives.

5. The brain has a spatial memory system and a set of systems for rote learn-
ing. There are facts and skills that are dealt with in isolation and require
rehearsal, and at the same time there is natural, spatial memory that needs no
rehearsal and affords instant memory. Therefore, rote memorization tech-
niques are necessary for fostering long-term learning for transfer. Rote memo-
rization requires more conscious effort to remember because the facts may have
little meaning or relevance to the learner. When the brain senses that there is
no need to remember, it tends to let go of the information. Therefore, rote mem-
orization of isolated facts often needs more explicit work to learn and recall
information, whereas spatial memory has built-in cues that help in the retrieval
of information. Teaching that focuses on the personal world of the learner to
make learning relevant taps into the experiential or spatial memory system. In
sum, rote memory is explicit, while spatial memory is implicit.

Processing Incoming Information

Processing is supported by four principles.
6. The brain is a parallel processor. Thoughts, emotions, imagination, and
predispositions operate simultaneously. Therefore, optimal learning results
 INTRODUCTION 5
from orchestrating the learning experience to address multiple operations in
the brain. When all four lobes of the brain (frontal, occipital, temporal, parietal)
are activated, memory is enhanced. And memory is the only evidence we have
of learning (Sprenger, 1999).
7. Learning engages the entire physiology. Learning is as natural as breath-
ing, yet neuron growth, nourishment, and emotional interactions are inte-
grally related to the perception and interpretation of experiences. Therefore,
stress management, nutrition, exercise, and relaxation are integral to the
teaching and learning process.
8. Each brain is unique. Although most brains have a similar set of systems for
sensing, feeling, and thinking, the set is integrated differently in each brain. In
short, each and every brain is wired differently. Therefore, teaching that is multi-
faceted, with inherent choices and options for the learner, fosters optimal learning.
9. Understanding and remembering occur best when the facts are embedded in
natural, spatial memory. Specific items are given meaning when embedded in
ordinary experiences, such as learning grammar and punctuation and apply-
ing that learning to writing. Experiential learning that affords opportunities for
embedded learning is necessary for optimal learning.

Making Meaning
The final three principles address the brain’s way of making meaning.

10. The search for meaning is innate. The search for meaning cannot be
stopped, only channeled and focused. Therefore, classrooms need stability and
routine as well as novelty and challenge. The learning can be shepherded explic-
itly through mediation and reflection.
11. The search for meaning occurs through patterning. The brain has a natural
capacity to integrate vast amounts of seemingly unrelated information.
Therefore, when teaching invokes integrated, thematically reflective
approaches, learning is more brain compatible and, subsequently, enhanced.
12. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes.
Enormous amounts of unconscious processing go on beneath the surface of
awareness. Some of this happens when a person is awake, and much of it
continues when a person is at rest or even asleep. Other learning occurs
when the person is fully conscious and aware of the process. Therefore,
teaching needs to be organized experientially and reflectively to benefit max-
imally from the deep processing.

Profile of Intelligences
In addition to these principles of the brain and learning, another important
fact is that each brain has a unique profile of intelligences (Gardner, 1983,
1999) that reveal both strengths and weaknesses in accessing learning. These
intelligences include verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, interpersonal-social,
intrapersonal-introspective, musical-rhythmic, logical-mathematical, bodily-
kinesthetic, and naturalist-physical world.
6 HOW TO INTEGRATE THE CURRICULA

These principles of learning and the theory of

These principles of learning and the
multiple intelligences provide a profound backdrop
theory of multiple intelligences provide a
of theory-embedded ideas that comprise this first
profound backdrop of theory-embedded
wind of change. What does this forceful wind bring
ideas.
to the educational agenda? It brings the idea of
orchestrating the curriculum into complex experi-
ences that immerse students in multiple ways of learning and knowing
(Kovalic, 1993). These robust curriculum models include integrated, thematic
instruction and ongoing projects and performances, such as a student-
produced newspaper, a school musical, or a service learning project to elimi-
nate graffiti in the community (Caine & Caine 1991, 1994, 1997). This seam-
less learning—curricula that find the “roots running underground”—fosters
connection-making for lessons and learners.

The Practitioners: Abandonment

of an Overloaded Curriculum and
Adherence to Standards of Learning
One university professor tells his pre-med students, “By the time you graduate
and become practicing physicians, 50 percent of what we’ve taught you will be
obsolete . . . and we don’t know which half that will be” (Fogarty & Bellanca,
1989). Curriculum overload is a reality that teachers from kindergarten to
college face every day. Drug and alcohol education, AIDS awareness, consumer
issues, marriage and family living, computer technology, Web and Internet train-
ing, wikis, blogs, podcasts, character education and bullying, the human brain,
and safety and violence prevention programs have all been added over the years to
an already content-packed curriculum. There is no end to it. The myriad content
standards of the various disciplines and the process standards or life skills—thinking,
organizing, assessing information, problem solving and decision making, coopera-
tion, collaboration, and teamwork—inundate the expanding curriculum.

Meeting Standards With Integrated Curricula

There is much concern about how to meet the spectrum of content standards
required by various states. Some think that each standard must be addressed dis-
cretely and within a particular discipline. Yet common
Common sense tells us that if educators sense tells us that if educators try to approach stan-
try to approach standards by laying them dards by laying them end to end in a sequential disci-
end to end in a sequential discipline- pline-based map, they would need to add at least two
based map, they would need to add at more years to the schooling cycle. The only way the
least two more years to the schooling compendium of standards can possibly be met is by
cycle. clustering them into logical bundles and addressing
them in an explicit yet integrated fashion.
It’s not standards or curriculum, but rather standards and curriculum.
Standards help to prioritize content teaching in an overloaded, fragmented, and
sometimes outdated curriculum. They provide the foundation for what students
need to know and be able to do. Well-designed standards help set the curricular
priorities necessary for an integrated, coherent, and authentic curriculum.
 INTRODUCTION 7
With this solid foundation firmly in place, decisions about curriculum
become seamless as teachers decide what to selectively abandon and judi-
ciously include in their planning. Standards champion the cause of a more con-
nected, more relevant, more purposeful curriculum at all levels of schooling.
The sample standards of learning in Figure 0.2 illustrate the types of learn-
ing goals contained in typical state standards for student achievement. A cursory
look at these reveals the broad strokes of the standards and the ease of integra-
tion that can result if they are clustered and layered within robust learning.
This book promotes the concept of a standards-based and integrated curricu-
lum that is reflective of lifelong learning. With standards as the guide for rigorous
and relevant curricular decisions, readers may use the inventories provided later
in this introduction (Figures 0.7 and 0.8) to determine what they are already
doing to foster integration of concepts, skills, and attitudes across the disciplines.
These quick inventories introduce readers to the 10 models that shape inte-
gration of the curricula in myriad ways. As readers learn about the models
described in this book, they discover ways to prioritize curriculum concerns,
methods for sequencing and mapping curricular content, templates for web-
bing themes across disciplines, techniques for threading life skills into all con-
tent areas, and strategies to immerse students in content through self-selected,
personally relevant learning experiences.
The focus on standards-based curricula begins
The concept of integrated curricula
the conversation about what students need to know
continues the conversation with
and be able to do. The concept of integrated curricula
practical ways to transform that learning
continues the conversation with practical ways to
into real-life experiences.
transform that learning into real-life experiences
that transfer effortlessly into future applications.
Remember, it’s not standards or integrated curriculum, but both standards and
integrated curriculum that lead to students who are well prepared for a world
that we as their teachers may never know.
With a multitude of standards as the goal, coverage of content, of course, is
an ongoing concern as traditional evaluations (e.g., “the test”) are supplemented
with more authentic assessments (e.g., portfolios, performances). Yet as Hunter
(1971) so aptly puts it, “Covering the curriculum is like taking a passenger to the
airport—you rush around and get to the airport on time, but you leave the pas-
senger at home” (p. 51). In other words, a teacher finishes the book or curriculum
but wonders if the students came along for the ride. In the flurry of covering con-
tent standards to prepare students for “the test,” teachers leave some students far
behind. As one student said, “Mrs. Smith, may I be excused? My brain is full.”
What does this powerful wind of change mean for schools? It means edu-
cators need to seek ways to “selectively abandon and judiciously include” stan-
dards in the curriculum (Costa, quoted in Fogarty, 1991, p. 65). The standards
are the goals of the curriculum approach, within a single discipline, across con-
tent areas, and in the mind of the learner.

The Parents: What Will Our

Children Need 25 Years From Now?
A father of a 13-year-old describes the typical, cellular model of schooling
in which an eighth-grade student brings home “thirty examples to do for math
Other documents randomly have
different content
Thessaly, and other horse-breeding lands, and formed an attractive
feature of other festivals besides the Thesea and Panathenaea.
There is certainly no ground for connecting it with the Argive
Heraea.
 CHAPTER XVII
THE PENTATHLON

The pentathlon was a combined competition in five events, running,

jumping, throwing the diskos, throwing the javelin, and wrestling.
This is one of the few facts regarding the pentathlon which may be
regarded as absolutely certain. These five events are vouched for by
three epigrams, one of them assigned to Simonides, and by the
repeated testimony of Philostratos in his Gymnastike.[615] Nothing
proves more conclusively the utter unreliability of the statements on
athletics made by late scholiasts and lexicographers, than the
mistakes which they contrive to make on a matter so clearly
established. The lexicon of Phavorinus, following certain late scholia,
substitutes boxing for throwing the javelin; and Photius quotes
certain writers as substituting the pankration for the jump. Stranger
still, such mistakes survive in the present day; and our own standard
Greek Lexicon by Liddell and Scott contains, in the latest edition, the
appalling statement that the five exercises were the jump, the
diskos, running, wrestling, boxing, the last being afterwards
exchanged for javelin throwing. After this we are not surprised to
find quoted the antiquated theory of Böckh, that “no one received a
prize unless he was winner in all five events,” a theory that was
disproved by Philip, years before the first edition of Liddell and Scott
was published. The introduction of boxing into the pentathlon is due
to the mischievous habit of using such inaccurate expressions as
“the Homeric pentathlon.”[616] In heroic days, as Pindar tells us, there
was no pentathlon, “but for each several feat there was a prize.”[617]
 Fig. 107. Panathenaic amphora, in British Museum, B. 134. Sixth
century.

Of these five events, three—the jump, the diskos, and the javelin—
were peculiar to the pentathlon, and formed its characteristic
feature. These three events were regarded as typical of the whole
competition; on the Panathenaic vases given as prizes for the
competition one or more of these three events, on two vases all
three of them, are represented[618] (Figs. 107, 108). The same events
are among the commonest on other vases, especially red-figured
vases; but we are not justified in connecting these with the
pentathlon, or using them as evidence in discussing the pentathlon.
These scenes for the most part represent the daily life of the
gymnasium, and all that they prove is the important part which
these sports played in that life. They were the only three events
which required any form of apparatus; the exercises seem to have
been taught in classes, and were performed both in practice and in
competition to the accompaniment of the flute. If any of the three
was regarded as more representative than another, it was the jump,
which perhaps owed its importance partly to the extensive use of
halteres in the gymnasium. The halteres were the special symbol of
the pentathlon, and were frequently represented on statues of
victorious pentathletes.[619]

Fig. 108. Panathenaic amphora. Leyden. Sixth century.

These three events, together with running and wrestling, were

representative of the whole physical training of the Greeks, and the
pentathlete was the typical product of that training. Inferior to the
specialised athletes in his special events he was superior to him in
general development, in that harmonious union of strength and
activity which produces perfect physical beauty; and this beauty of
the pentathlete won him the special commendation of thinkers such
as Aristotle, who condemned all exaggerated or one-sided
development.[620]
A combined competition like the pentathlon is obviously later than
any of the individual events of which it is composed, and implies a
considerable development in athletics and physical education. Not
that we are to regard it with certain German writers as an elaborate
scheme based on abstract physiological principles evolved with much
expenditure of midnight oil out of the brain of some athletic student.
The pentathlon was the natural product of a number of exercises
which had been familiar for centuries. But before the idea could
originate of combining these exercises into a single competition to
find the best all-round athlete, these exercises must have become
part of the national education. The combination implies a certain
amount of thought and conscious reflexion. There is in it an
artificiality of which we find no trace in the Homeric sports. In view
of this it is remarkable that, according to Greek tradition, the
pentathlon was introduced at Olympia as early as the 18th
Olympiad.
No importance need be attached to the statement of Philostratus
that the pentathlon was invented by Jason. The Greeks always loved
to trace their institutions back to heroic times. As, however, the
passage which contains the statement is of considerable importance
in discussing the method of deciding the pentathlon, it will be useful
to quote it in full:—
“Before the time of Jason there were separate crowns for the jump,
the diskos, and the spear. At the time of the Argo’s voyage Telamon
was the best at throwing the diskos, Lynceus with the javelin, the
sons of Boreas were best at running and jumping, and Peleus was
second in these events but was superior to all in wrestling.
Accordingly, when they were holding sports in Lemnos, Jason, they
say, wishing to please Peleus combined the five events, and thus
Peleus secured the victory on the whole.”[621]
The order of the events and the method of deciding the pentathlon
have given rise to a literature equally extensive and inconclusive.[622]
Almost every combination of events has been tried, and every
conceivable method has been devised. Many of the systems
proposed are so utterly unpractical that they have only to be stated
to be rejected by any one with a rudimentary knowledge of practical
athletics. None can be regarded as established. The evidence is too
scanty and too contradictory. It consists largely in extracts from
scholiasts and lexicographers, and we have seen in considering the
constitution of the pentathlon the untrustworthiness of this class of
evidence. It is well, therefore, to recognise from the outset that
whatever solutions we may accept are only provisional, and that it is
therefore in the highest degree unsafe to use such theories as
evidence in the interpretation of Pindar or other poets.
First, as to the order of events, it must be premised that we are not
certain that the order was fixed, and did not vary at different times
and places. Still, the conservatism of the Greeks in such matters
certainly makes it probable that there was a fixed order at Olympia,
and that this order was generally adopted elsewhere. At all events
we shall assume that this was so. The one fact which we know for
certain about the order is that wrestling came last. Bacchylides
definitely describes it as last, and the evidence of Bacchylides is
confirmed by Herodotus and Xenophon.[623] Describing the attack on
Olympia by the Eleans in Ol. 104, when the Arcadians had usurped
the presidency of the games, Xenophon says: “They had already
finished the horse-race and the events of the pentathlon held in the
dromos (τὰ δρομικὰ τοῦ πεντάθλου) and those who had reached the
wrestling were no longer in the dromos but were wrestling between
the dromos and the altar.” It is generally agreed that τὰ δρομικά are
the first four events, which were held in the stadium, whereas
according to the view set forth in a previous chapter wrestling took
place in the open space in front of the treasury steps.[624] At all
events, it is clear from Xenophon’s words that wrestling came last,
and common sense tells us that this was the only possible position
for it consistent with fairness. After several hard bouts of wrestling
no competitor could do himself justice in the other events.
For the order of the first four events we have to fall back on the
uncertain and contradictory evidence of various passages in which
the events of the pentathlon are enumerated. Now in none of these
passages is the order of events of any importance to the writer; in
the case of an epigram it is obvious that the order is likely to be
modified by metrical considerations. Still, the probability remains
that such passages will in spite of metre and carelessness reflect
more or less the actual order.[625] Thus we find that in five passages
wrestling comes last, in two passages it comes first, and in both of
these the order of events is merely reversed, in one passage it
comes second. The epigram of Simonides gives the following order:
Jump, foot-race, diskos, javelin, wrestling. The epigram quoted by
Eustathius gives the same order except that the foot-race comes
fourth instead of second. Now, except in the epigram of Simonides,
the three events peculiar to the pentathlon are always grouped
together. It is probable, therefore, that they were grouped together
in practice, and that the foot-race cannot have occupied the second
place. Why Simonides put it after the jump is obvious, neither
δρόμος nor ποδωκείν could possibly begin a hexameter. The foot-
race, therefore, came either first or fourth. Once more, if we
examine the lists we find the foot-race first in two lists, last in the
two reversed lists, while two scholia follow the epigram and place it
fourth. As the order in these scholia is identical with that of the
epigram, it is doubtful whether they have any independent authority.
The evidence, therefore, is slightly in favour of first place for the
foot-race, and this order receives some slight support from the
passage in Philostratus already quoted concerning the pentathlon of
Peleus, and the passage of Herodotus discussed below about
Tisamenus and Hieronymus.
For the remaining events the lists appear to support the order of the
two epigrams—jump, diskos, javelin, though there is not much to
show whether the diskos or the javelin came first. Certain passages
in Bacchylides and Pindar have been quoted to prove that the diskos
preceded the javelin.[626] On the two Panathenaic vases reproduced
above, the javelin comes between the jump and the diskos. This is
the position assigned to it by Philostratus when he enumerates the
events of the pentathlon. Unfortunately the value of this passage is
lessened by the distinction which he introduces between light events
and heavy events. The heavy events, he says, are wrestling and
throwing the diskos; the light events, the javelin, the jump, and the
foot-race. The order is obviously reversed, but whether all three light
events preceded both heavy events or not cannot be decided from
this passage. Such distinctions give us no clue to the actual order,
and all attempts to discover the system on which the order of events
depended are absolutely futile. It is easy enough to argue that all
the exercises were arranged in an ascending scale, or that easy
exercises alternated with difficult, that similar exercises were
grouped together, or that leg exercises alternated with arm
exercises, and if we were constructing an ideal pentathlon such
arguments might be of some use. As it is, we are not concerned with
an ideal pentathlon but with that of the Greeks, and there is not a
particle of evidence to prove that the Greeks arranged their
pentathlon on any abstract principle however plausible. All we can
do is to confine ourselves to the actual evidence, and the order
which this evidence renders probable is foot-race, jump, diskos,
javelin, wrestling.
It is unnecessary to discuss in full the various systems that have
been suggested for deciding the pentathlon. These systems for the
most part fall into certain well-defined groups based on certain
hypotheses, and it will be sufficient briefly to examine these
hypotheses.
The old hypothesis perpetuated by Liddell and Scott, that victory in
all five events[627] was necessary, may be briefly dismissed as not
only unpractical but contrary to the little evidence which we possess.
On such a system a victory in the pentathlon must have been an
extremely rare event; for it can seldom have happened that one
competitor won all five events. The idea seems to have arisen from
the epigram of Simonides, and from a misunderstanding of an
important passage in Herodotus (ix. 33), which is in reality a
conclusive proof against it.
“Tisamenus,” says Herodotus, “came within a single contest or fall
(πάλαισμα) of victory, being matched against Hieronymus of Andros.”
Pausanias confirms the victory of Hieronymus (vi. 14), and says of
Tisamenus (iii. 11, 6), “In two events he was first, for he was
superior to Hieronymus in running and jumping, but he was
defeated by him in wrestling and so failed to win the victory.” The
true interpretation of the passage is obvious. “Tisamenus came
within a single contest of victory,” i.e. he won two events but lost the
odd; or perhaps we may go farther still and give to πάλαισμα its
literal meaning, “a fall in wrestling.” He came within a “single fall” of
winning.
Each had won two events, each had scored two falls in wrestling,
and the whole contest depended on the last fall![628] just as we talk
of winning a golf match by a single putt, or winning a rubber by the
odd trick.
Yet obvious as this interpretation is, Hermann and other more recent
German writers have asserted that, according to Herodotus,
Tisamenus won the first four events, and only missed the victory
because he was defeated in wrestling. It is more than doubtful
whether the words of Herodotus can bear the meaning “he missed
victory by wrestling only”; but apart from this, Hermann’s theory is
absolutely contradicted by the very circumstantial statements of
Pausanias. If Tisamenus won all four events, why should Pausanias
expressly state that he won two? If victory in all five events was
necessary, how can Hieronymus have won the pentathlon, seeing
that on Hermann’s showing he only won one event? If victory in five
events was not necessary, is it not ridiculous to suppose that a
solitary victory in wrestling should have not only cancelled the four
victories of Tisamenus, but secured the prize for Hieronymus?
The only inference which we are justified in drawing from the story
of Tisamenus is that victory in three out of the five events was
sufficient. This is expressly stated by a scholiast to Aristides, and is
implied in a highly metaphorical passage in Plutarch describing the
different points in which the letter A is superior to all the other
letters of the alphabet.[629] It has been further inferred that victory in
three events was not only sufficient but necessary. The writers who
have taken this view generally assume that with several competitors
competing against one another it would be unusual for any
individual to win three events, and various elaborate theories have
been devised to get over this difficulty. Of these theories by far the
most reasonable was that suggested by Professor Percy Gardner in
the first volume of the Journal of Hellenic Studies. He supposed that
the pentathlon was treated as a single event, and the competition
was conducted as a tournament, the competitors being arranged in
pairs, and each pair competing against each other in all five
contests. The winner of each pair, and therefore the final winner,
must necessarily have won three out of the five events. This plan
has the conspicuous merit of fairness and simplicity, but it is open to
several serious objections. In particular, the passage of Xenophon
quoted above seems decisive against it, for Xenophon’s words
naturally mean that all the events in the dromos took place before
any of the wrestling. There are many practical objections. The length
of such a competition would have made it tedious to spectators and
competitors alike, and it must have degenerated into a mere test of
endurance, in which the elements of skill, activity, and grace which
made the pentathlon so popular would have been lost. I need not
dwell on the hopelessly unpractical modifications of this theory
proposed by Dr. Marquardt, nor on the ludicrously unfair systems
suggested by Fedde, and more recently by Legrand in Daremberg
and Saglio, the principle of which is the arrangement of all
competitors in groups of three. It will be sufficient to examine the
two assumptions on which these theories rest, viz. that in an open
competition it would be unusual for any competitor to win three
events, and that victory in three events was necessary. If these
assumptions prove to be unfounded, the raison d’être of all these
theories disappears at once; for they have no merit whatsoever
except that they satisfy these supposed conditions.
In considering the first point we must remember that the
pentathlete was not a specialist in any one exercise, but an all-round
athlete who combined strength and activity. Among competitors of
this sort it is not unusual to find one or two men surpassing their
fellows not in one event but in several, especially if most of the
events require much the same qualities and physique. This was
undoubtedly the case with the pentathlon. It is obvious that the
same man might often win the foot-race and the long jump, or the
diskos and the spear. Though less obvious it is equally probable that
the diskos and the long jump might fall to the same man. It is not
uncommon to find a hammer-thrower who is also a good long-
jumper. The reason is that weight-throwing and jumping both
require a harmonious well-timed effort of every part of the body. The
use of jumping weights increased the resemblance between the two
exercises; for the swing of the weights was not unlike the swing of
the diskos. The general development and complete control of the
muscles necessary for these events would give an equal advantage
in wrestling, especially with men of the same weight, for the heavy-
weight wrestler would be excluded by the very nature of the
pentathlon. These considerations make it probable that the five
events would commonly be divided between two or at most three
competitors, and the few details which we know of actual winners
confirms this view. Phayllus of Croton must have won the jump, the
diskos, and the foot-race, for he won the stade-race at Delphi.
Hieronymus won the diskos, spear, and wrestling. So apparently did
Automedes of Phlius.[630] Diophon, the subject of Simonides’
epigram, apparently won all five events. The only example to the
contrary is the mythical pentathlon of Peleus, in which none of the
heroes won more than one event.
The pentathlon of Peleus is fatal to the second assumption that
victory in three events was necessary. We must either reject the
evidence of the story, or abandon the assumption. And inasmuch as
there is absolutely no proof of the assumption, the latter is the only
course. The principal evidence on which the assumption is based has
already been stated. The utmost that we can infer is that victory in
three events was sufficient, and was by no means an unfamiliar
result. We may further add the statement of Pollux that the term
used for victory in the pentathlon was ἀποτριάξαι, “to win a treble,”
a statement confirmed by a quite unintelligible scholion on the
Agamemnon. The word τριάσσειν is properly a wrestling term,
meaning “to win three falls,” “to win in wrestling,” and so generally
“to win a victory” or “conquer.” The cognate words τριάκτηρ and
ἀτρίακτος mean no more than “conqueror,” “unconquered.” There is
no evidence of the connexion of the word in early times with the
pentathlon; but the fact that wrestling was the last event in the
pentathlon is itself sufficient explanation of the late use of the word
ἀποτριίξαι to denote victory in the pentathlon, especially if, as was
frequently the case, the final victory was decided by the wrestling. It
is, of course, possible that the word contained some allusion to a
victory in three events, but this supposition is unproved and
unnecessary, and certainly does not warrant the assumption that
victory in three events was necessary.[631] Such being the case we
may reject all theories based upon this assumption. Above all, there
is no longer any necessity for dividing competitors into heats of two
or three.
A common feature in the systems proposed is the gradual reduction
of the number of competitors at each stage of the competition, so
that in the final wrestling only two or three competitors were left.
The only evidence for the theory in this form is the rhetorical
passage in Plutarch already noticed—evidence as untrustworthy as it
is possible to conceive. There is, however, more evidence for a
modified form of the theory, viz. that only those who had qualified in
the first four competitions were allowed to compete in the wrestling.
This appears to me now the only possible conclusion from the words
of Xenophon already quoted:[632] “The events in the dromos were
already finished, and those who had reached the wrestling were no
longer in the dromos, etc.” Such a system would give an advantage
to the all-round athlete, and exclude the specialised wrestler. But
what constituted qualification? It certainly was not confined to the
winners in the first four events, otherwise Peleus would have been
excluded; nor does it seem to me probable that only the two or
three who had obtained the best averages in the first four
competitions were permitted to wrestle. Speculation is useless; we
must be content for the present to accept Xenophon’s words, and
hope that some inscription or papyrus may be discovered to
enlighten us.
Much has been written by archaeologists about the bye (ἔφεδρος) in
the pentathlon. It is not a little curious that there is absolutely no
evidence for a bye in the pentathlon at all. We hear of a bye in
wrestling, in boxing, and in the pankration, but in no other
competitions. Of course, if all competitors competed in wrestling a
bye was unavoidable. But a bye necessarily introduces an element of
luck, especially in a long competition, and we may be sure that the
Greeks avoided it as far as possible. If only a certain number of
competitors were admitted to the wrestling, the necessity for a bye
could be easily avoided. German archaeologists, with a strange
perverseness, seem to delight in introducing compulsory byes at
every turn.
So far, then, we have established the principle that victory in three
events was sufficient but not necessary. If no competitor won three
events, or two won two events, how was the victory decided? The
pentathlon of Peleus supplies the answer. Each of the heroes won
one event. Peleus, besides winning the wrestling, was second in the
other four events. Only two explanations of the victory of Peleus are
possible. Either wrestling counted more than other events, an
assumption adopted by various writers, but contrary to the whole
spirit of the pentathlon, or in case of a tie at least, account was
taken of second or third places, i.e. the result was decided by marks.
These two principles, that the result was decided in the first place by
victories in the separate events, and in the case of a tie by some
system of marks, are sufficient to explain all possible cases, though
the details of their application are uncertain. Let us try to see how
the competition would work out on these lines.
The pentathlon began with the foot-race. The distance was a stade.
The race might be run in heats if necessary; but there is no evidence
for them in the pentathlon. The starting lines at Olympia could
accommodate twenty starters, and it does not seem probable that
there were often so many entries. The competitions in jumping,
throwing the diskos and the javelin, were conducted as in the
present day, all competing against all. The jump was a long jump;
the diskos and the javelin were thrown for distance, not at a mark.
Wrestling was conducted on the tournament principle. “Upright
wrestling” only was allowed, and three falls were required for victory.
Only those who had qualified in the first four events took part in the
wrestling. If there were only two competitors, one of them must
have won three events. Suppose there were more, at least five, A, B,
C, D, E; there is no evidence that it was possible to win the
pentathlon without being first in at least one event, and, therefore,
what holds good of five will hold good of any smaller or larger
number. There are only four possible cases.
(1) A 3, B 2, or B 1, C 1.—A wins by the first principle.
(2) A 2, B 2, C 1.—The victory would depend on the result of the
fifth event which C won. If this event were wrestling, it would be
reasonable to suppose that other competitors would drop out, and A
and B would be matched together. If the event won by C was one of
the earlier events, the issue must have been decided by the
performances of A and B in that event, or perhaps by marks, i.e. by
their performances in all the events.
(3) A 2, B 1, C 1, D 1.—This is a very doubtful case: the victory
might be awarded to A as having won more firsts than any of the
others, or it might be decided by marks.
(4) A 1, B 1, C 1, D 1, E 1.—In this highly improbable case victory
can only have been decided by marks.
Complications may have been introduced by dead heats or ties: all
such cases would, no doubt, have been settled by the same
common-sense principles. This scheme, which I stated more fully in
vol. xxiii. of the Journal of Hellenic Studies, is not affected by the
modification which I have since adopted about admission to the
wrestling. It is in entire accordance with modern athletic experience,
and there is no passage in any ancient author which contradicts it.
 CHAPTER XVIII
WRESTLING

Wrestling is perhaps the oldest and most universal of all sports. The
wall-paintings of Beni Hassan show that almost every hold or throw
known to modern wrestlers was known to the Egyptians 2500 years
before our era. The popularity of wrestling among the Greeks is
proved by the constant metaphors from this sport, and by the
frequency with which scenes from the wrestling ring appear not only
in athletic literature and art but also in mythological subjects.
Despite the changes in Greek athletics caused by professionalism,
which affected wrestling and boxing more than any other sports, the
popularity of wrestling remained unabated. On early black-figured
vases Heracles is constantly represented employing the regular holds
of the palaestra not only against the giant Antaeus but against
monsters such as Achelous or the Triton, or even against the
Nemean lion, and centuries later the language in which Ovid and
Lucan describe these combats is in every detail borrowed from the
same source. Still more is this the case with the wrestling match
between Cercyon and Theseus which occurs so often on the red-
figured vases of Athens. On coins wrestling types survive into
imperial times. The fight with the Nemean lion is represented on the
fourth-century gold coins of Syracuse, and that with Antaeus on
imperial coins of Alexandria (Fig. 109).
 Fig. 109. Wrestling types on coins, in British Museum. a, b, c,
Aspendus, fifth and fourth centuries. d, Heraclea in Lucania, fourth
century. e, f, Syracuse, circa 400 B.C. g, Alexandria, Antoninus Pius.
(J.H.S. xxv. p. 271.)

These fights are one of the many forms under which Greek
imagination loved to picture the triumph of civilization and science
over barbarism and brute force. To the Greek wrestling was a
science and an art. Theseus, the reputed discoverer of scientific
wrestling, is said to have learnt its rules from Athena herself.[633] The
greatest importance was attached to grace and skill; it was not
sufficient to throw an opponent, it had to be done correctly and in
good style.[634] Hence even when athletics had become corrupted by
professionalism, wrestling remained for the most part free from that
brutality which has so often brought discredit on one of the noblest
of sports. Pausanias records the case of a certain Sicilian wrestler,
Leontiscus, who defeated his opponents by trying to break their
fingers.[635] But such tactics did not commend themselves to the
Greeks, although it does not seem that they were formally
prohibited, and Pausanias expresses his disapproval by the comment
that he did not understand how to throw his opponents.
The very name palaestra sufficiently indicates the early importance
of wrestling in Greek education, an importance which it maintained
even during the Empire. The method of instruction was strictly
progressive.[636] There were separate rules for men and boys; the
different movements, grips, and throws were taught as separate
figures, the simpler movements first, then the more complicated. In
learning them the pupils were grouped in pairs, and more than one
pair could be taught at the same time. In the early stages a
beginner would be paired with a more advanced pupil, who would
help him. Later on the movements were combined, and practice was
allowed in free play. The paidotribes seems to have enforced his
instruction with a free use of the rod. In Fig. 96 a vivid picture of a
wrestling lesson is seen. A pair of paidotribai are engaged in
instructing a pair of youthful wrestlers. One of the latter has seized
his opponent round the waist and prepares to give him the heave;
the other has allowed him to obtain his grip and stands with
outstretched hands waiting for the paidotribes to give his next order.
There were doubtless numerous text-books of drill in wrestling and
other sports for the use of paidotribai. A fragment of such a text-
book has been found on a papyrus of the second century A.D.[637] It
contains orders for executing a number of different grips and
throws, and each section ends with the order “complete the grip”
(πλέξον) or “throw him” (ῥεῖψον). The sections dealing with the
throws are hopelessly mutilated, but considerable portions of four
sections dealing with the grips remain. Unfortunately, the brevity of
the commands, characteristic of all drill books, makes them
extremely difficult to understand accurately, and the interpretation is
too technical to deal with here.
Competitions in wrestling, boxing, and the pankration were
conducted in the same way as a modern tournament. Lucian’s
description of the manner of drawing lots has already been quoted.
In case of an odd number of competitors one of them drew a bye.
This of course gave him a considerable advantage in the next round
over a less fortunate rival, who had perhaps been exhausted by his
previous contest. Thus the crown may sometimes have depended on
the luck of the lot. It is to such an accident that Pindar refers at the
close of the sixth Nemean Ode when he says that Alcimidas and his
brother were deprived of two Olympic crowns by the fall of the lot.
So it is mentioned as an additional distinction for an athlete to have
won a crown without drawing the bye, and Pausanias speaks with
some contempt of such as have ere now won the olive by the
unreasonableness of the lot and not by their own strength.[638] There
is, of course, no ground for the idea that one who had drawn a bye
in the first round remained a bye till the final. To draw a bye in a
single round is quite sufficient advantage, and archaeologists should
really credit the Greeks with a certain amount of practical common-
sense.
The number of competitors varied. Lucian, in the passage referred
to, speaks of five or twelve competitors,[639] and this statement
agrees generally with our other evidence. Pindar’s heroes, the
Aeginetan wrestlers Alcimedon and Aristomenes,[640] were each
victorious over four rivals, that is, in four rounds. The same number
is mentioned in the Olympic inscriptions on the wrestler Xenocles
and the boxer Philippus.[641] Four rounds imply nine to sixteen
competitors. A long epigram on Ariston,[642] who won the pankration
in Ol. 207, tells us that there were seven competitors, and that he
took part in all three rounds and did not owe his crown to the luck of
the lot.
Sometimes a famous athlete was allowed a walk over, in which case
he was said to have won ἀκονιτεί, without dust, that is, without
having even dusted his body with the fine sand which athletes used
before exercise. Such a victory is recorded of Milo at some unknown
festival when he was the only competitor in wrestling.[643] The first
victory of this sort recorded at Olympia is that of Dromeus in the
pankration of Ol. 75.[644] An inscription found at Olympia
enumerating the victories of the Diagoridae at Rhodes records that
Dorieus won a victory in boxing (ἀκονιτεί) at the Pythia.[645] These
instances, which could be multiplied, are sufficient to prove that
Philostratus is mistaken when he asserts that no crown was awarded
at Olympia without competition (ἀκονιτεί).[646] The case of Dorieus
disproves the similar statement made by Heliodorus with regard to
the Pythia.[647] There can hardly have been any necessity for such a
rule in early times, but a rule requiring more than one competitor
may well have been introduced at the time of the athletic revival
under the Empire, if not at the Olympia or Pythia, at some of the
many festivals which bore their names. A rule to this effect might be
reasonably expected at festivals where valuable prizes were offered.
The Greeks distinguished two styles of wrestling, one which they
called “upright wrestling” or wrestling proper (ὀρθὴ πάλη, or
σταδιαία πάλη,[648] or simply πάλη) in which the object was to throw
an opponent to the ground (καταβλητική), the other “ground
wrestling” (κύλισις or ἁλίνδησις) in which the struggle was continued
on the ground till one or other of the combatants acknowledged
defeat. The former was the only wrestling admitted in the
pentathlon and in wrestling competitions proper; the latter did not
exist as a separate competition, but only as part of the pankration,
in which hitting and kicking were also allowed.[649]
In the practice of the palaestra ground wrestling as well as wrestling
proper was freely indulged in. We gather from Lucian that separate
places were assigned to the two exercises. Ground wrestling took
place in some place under cover, and the ground was watered till it
became muddy.[650] The mud rendered the body slippery and difficult
to hold, and so rendered accidents less likely; while wallowing in the
mud was supposed to have a most beneficial effect on the skin.
Wrestling proper took place on the sandy ground in the centre of
palaestra. This was called the skamma, the same word that is used
for the jumping pit. It denotes a place dug up, levelled and sanded
so as to form a smooth soft surface. For actual competitions a
skamma must have been provided somewhere in the stadium,
probably, where such existed, in the semicircular theatre at the end.
In heroic times boxers and wrestlers wore a loin-cloth (περίζωμα),
such as is occasionally depicted on black-figured vases (Fig. 128),
but this loin-cloth seems to have been usually discarded even in the
sixth century. Wrestlers, especially boys, sometimes wore ear-caps
(Fig. 17), but there is no evidence of their use in competitions. For
obvious reasons they always wore their hair short.[651] Professional
athletes under the Empire wore the little hair that was left uncut,
tied up in an unsightly little topknot called the “cirrus.”[652]
In the present chapter we are concerned only with wrestling proper.
Before discussing its rules let me utter an emphatic protest against
the slanderous fallacy implied in the use of the term Graeco-Roman
to describe a style of wrestling in vogue in some of the Music Halls
at the present day. There is nothing in Greek wrestling proper, or in
the pankration, which bears any resemblance to, or can offer any
justification for, this most useless and absurd of all systems, which,
as Mr. Walter Armstrong remarks, might have been invented for the
express purpose of bringing a grand and useful exercise into
disrepute.
We have no definite statement as to the rules of Greek wrestling,
and are forced to infer them from the somewhat fragmentary
evidence of literature and art. The two essential points which
distinguish one style of wrestling from another are the definition of a
fair throw and the nature of the holds allowed.
In most modern styles a man is considered thrown only when both
shoulders, or one shoulder and one hip touch the ground at the
same time; in the Cumberland and Westmorland style he is thrown if
he touches the ground with any portion of his body, or even with his
knee. A throw may be either a clean throw or the result of a struggle
on the ground. With the Greeks it is practically undisputed that only
clean throws counted; if one or both wrestlers fell to the ground the
bout was finished. Further, it is certain that a fall on the back, on the
shoulders, or the hip counted as a fair throw.[653] An epigram on one
Damostratus is conclusive evidence for the back, an epigram on
Cleitomachus for the shoulders.[654] Another epigram relates how
Milo, advancing to receive his crown after a “dustless” victory,
slipped and fell on his hip, whereupon the people cried out not to
crown a man who had fallen without an adversary.[655] The question
of a fall on the knee is more difficult. The passages quoted from
Aeschylus are doubtful, and capable of being interpreted either way.
So is the epigram on Milo ascribed to Simonides, which states that
he won seven victories at Pisa without ever falling on his knee.[656]
The evidence of the monuments is divided. We have a group of
bronzes, apparently copies of some well-known Hellenistic original,
which represent a wrestler who has fallen on one knee (Figs. 130,
131). His victorious opponent stands over him with one hand
pressing down his neck, with the other forcing back his arm. There
can be no doubt that he is in a position to throw him on his back if
necessary, but he seems to make no effort to do so. On the other
hand, we have a group of vases and wall-paintings representing the
throw known as “the flying mare,” in which the wrestler as he throws
his opponent over his head sinks on one knee (Figs. 114, 115).
Various explanations are possible, the most plausible being that
these scenes really belong to the pankration; but none of them is
quite convincing. Where the evidence is so evenly balanced,
certainty is impossible. On the whole I am inclined to abandon the
view which I formerly held and to accept Jüthner’s view that a fall on
the knee did not count.
What happened if both wrestlers fell together? The only evidence for
this is the wrestling match in the Iliad, described in our second
chapter. There it will be remembered that in the first bout Odysseus
fell on the top of Ajax, in the second they both fell sideways, after
which Achilles declared the contest drawn. From this we inferred
that if both wrestlers fell together no fall was counted. The accounts
of wrestling in later writers are merely literary imitations of Homer,
and of little independent value.
One fall did not decide the victory; three falls were necessary. There
are numerous allusions in literature to the three throws.[657] The
technical word for winning a victory in wrestling was τριάσσειν, “to
treble,” and the victor was called τριακτήρ. At first sight it seems
uncertain whether the reference is to three bouts or three falls. But
the latter interpretation is the only one which suits every passage,
and is rendered certain by the categorical statement of Seneca that
a wrestler thrice thrown lost the prize.[658]
So much for the actual throw and the number of throws necessary
for victory. We pass on to the question of the means employed by
the Greek wrestler to throw his opponent. In particular, was tripping
allowed, and were leg-holds allowed? In the artificial “Graeco-
Roman” style of to-day tripping is forbidden and no holds are
allowed below the waist. Tripping is seldom represented in art; but
the frequent references to it in literature from the time of Homer to
that of Lucian leave no doubt that it played an important part in
Greek wrestling, as it has in every rational system in every age.[659]
The evidence for leg-holds is less definite, but it seems certain that
in practice at least the Greeks made little use of them. This is the
natural inference from a passage in the Laws,[660] where Plato
contrasts the methods of the pankration in which leg-holds and
kicking played a conspicuous part with the methods of upright
wrestling. The latter is the only form of wrestling which he will admit
as useful in his ideal states, and he defines it as consisting in “the
disentangling of neck and hands and sides,” a masterly definition
showing a true understanding of wrestling, for the wrestler’s art is
shown more perhaps in his ability to escape from or break a grip
than in his skill in fixing one. The vases show that the omission of
leg-holds in Plato’s definition is no accident. In the pankration one
competitor is frequently represented in the act of seizing another’s
foot in order to throw him; Antaeus and Cercyon, whose methods
Plato in the above passage strongly condemns, are commonly
depicted as grabbing at the feet of Heracles and Theseus. But in
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com