SPARTA

IN LACONIA
Proceedingsof the 19thBritishMuseum Classical Colloquium
held withtheBritishSchool at Athens
and King's and UniversityColleges,London
6-8 December1995

W. G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker (Editors)

BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS

STUDIES 4
 Published and distributedby
The BritishSchool at Athens
Senate House, Malet Street,London wcie 7HU
© The Managing Committee,the BritishSchool at Athens

First publishedin Great Britain1998

ISBN 0904887 31 6

No partof this volume may be reproduced

or transmittedin any form,or by any means,
electronicor mechanical,includingphotocopy,
or storedin a retrievalsystem,withoutprior
writtenpermissionof the publisher

This book is set in Ehrhardt1i/i2pt

Designed by CharlotteWestbrookWilson
Printedin Great Britainby lechnical PrintServices Ltd, Nottingham
 Contents

List of illustrations 6
List of abbreviations 8
Abstracts 9
nsQiÀriiJjeiç 13
PrefaceandAcknowledgments 17

1 The workof theBritishSchoolat Athensat Spartaandin Laconia

H. W Catling 19
2 Pellana:theadministrative centreof prehistoricLaconia
Theodoros G Spyropoulos 28
3 Cityand chorain Sparta:ArchaictoHellenistic
Paul Cartledge 39
4 Spartanart:itsmanydifferent deaths
Reinhard Förtsch 48
5 Patternsof bronzededications at Spartansanctuaries,
c. 650-350bc:
towardsa quantified databaseof material andreligious
investment
Stephen Hodkinson 55
6 Exceptional shapesanddecorations in Laconianpottery
ConradM. Stibbe 64
7 Dances,drinksanddedications: theArchaickomosin Laconia
TylerJoSmith 75
8 ArchaicLaconianvase-painting: someiconographie considerations
Maria Pipili 82
9 The AncientTheatreat Sparta
G B. Waywell,jf.J. Wilkes andS E. C Walker 97
10 RomanmosaicsfromSparta
AnastasiaPanayotopoulou 112
11 A Romanportrait of theearlysecondcentury ad fromMonemvasia
AnnaVasiliki Karapanayiotou-Oikonomopoulou 119
12 New findsfromSparta
StellaRaftopoulou 125
13 Diversityin a Greeklandscape:theLaconiaSurveyandRuralSitesProject
G B. Mee and W.G. Cavanagh ^
14 Geoarchaeological studiesof theSpartanacropolisandEvrotasvalley:
somepreliminary conclusions
KeithWilkinson jjn
15 Byzantine Mistra- Spartain themind
Donald Nicol j ¿~

Bibliography l6o
List of contributors I7I
 Listofillustrations

FIGURES Fig. 3.3 LaconiaSurvey:thes andse of the

surveyarea
Fig.2.1 Planand sectionsof theGreatTombat Fig. 3.4 Archaicfigurine fromthesanctuary at
Pellana Tsakona
Fig. 2.2 Planand sectionof Tomb2 at Pellana Fig.6.1 Tube or standfromSparta
Fig. 2.3 Planand sectionof Tomb3 at Pellana Fig. 6.2 Tube or standfromSparta
Fig.2.4 Planand sectionof Karachalios'tomb, Fig.6.3 Tube or standfromSparta
Pellana Fig.6.4 Tube or standfromSparta
Fig.2.5 Pellana,thedromos of theGreatTomb Fig. 6.5 Two fragments of tubeor standfrom
Fig.2.6 An amberbeadfromthedromos of the Samos
GreatTomb Fig.6.6 Atticblack-figured tubeor stand
Fig.2.7 The stomion of theGreatTomb Fig. 6.7 Fragment of olpewithgraffito
Fig.2.8 The Hellenistic lampsfoundin the Fig.6.8 SmallolpefromSparta
GreatTomb Fig. 6.9 Lekythos withelongatedbodyfrom
Fig.2.9 Romancup foundin theGreatTomb Sparta
Fig.2.10 RomanpotfromtheGreatTomb Fig. 6.10 Lekythos withelongatedbodyfrom
Fig.2.11 PalacestylejarfromtheGreatTomb MegaraHyblaea
Fig.2.12 Piriform palacestylejarfromtheGreat Fig. 6.11 Fragment of themouthof a lekythos
Tholos witha globularbodyfromSparta,
Fig.2.13 Alabastron fromtheGreatTholos drawing
profile
Fig.2.14 Alabastron fromtheGreatTholos Fig.6.12 Mouth,neckandshoulder-fragment of
Fig.2.15 Bronzearrow-head, goldfoilandamber a lekythoswithglobularbodyfrom
beadfromtheGreatTholos Sparta
Fig.2.16 The floorof theTombto theleftof the Fig.6.13 Lekythos witha globularbodyfrom
GreatTholos MegaraHyblaea
Fig.2.17 Cistgravecutin thefloorof thesame Fig.6.14 Lekythos-aryballos fromKythera
tomb Fig. 6.15 Two fragmentary lekythoiwithglobular
Fig.2.18 Interiorof theGreatTholosTombat bodiesfromSparta
Pellana Fig.6.16 Fragment of a long-necked jug from
Fig.2.19 Planof theEH tumulus, Pellana Sparta
Fig.2.20 The stonekrepis of EH II tumulus Fig.6.17 Fragment of a long-necked jug from
Fig.2.21 A burialfoundoutsidethekrepis of the Olympia
tumulus Fig.6.18 Fragmentary ivoryfibula-plaque from
Fig. 2.22 The EH II tumulusandbothros Sparta
Fig. 2.23 Partof thesettlement on thes slopeof Fig.6.19 BronzehydriafromGrächwil
theacropolisof Pellana Fig.6.20 Fragmentary AtticC-cupwithgraffito,
Fig.2.24 Excavatedpartof thelatesettlement at fromthesanctuary of ApolloTyritasin
Pellana Laconia
Fig.2.25 Planof theMycenaeansettlement at Fig.7.1 Laconiancup,onceLondonmarket
Pellana Fig.7.2 Laconiancup fragments, Tocra940
Fig.2.26 Sherdsfromthesettlement Fig.7.3 Laconiancup,BritishMuseumB3
Fig.2.27 Sherdsfromthesettlement Fig.7.4 Bronzefigurine, British
recliner,
Fig. 2.28 The monumental roadascending to Museum,1954-10-1-18-1
theacropolisof PellanafromtheE Fig.8.1 Barchartof thefivemajorLaconian
Fig. 3.1 The Spartaof Pausanias vasepainters showingnumbers of
Fig. 3.2 Sitesin Laconia:Protogeometric to vaseswithmythical andnon-mythical
Hellenistic scenes
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSANDABBREVIATIONS 7

Fig.8.2 Barchartof thefivemajorLaconian Fig.9.10 Detailof Doric architecture in

vasepainters showingthenumbers of foundations ofse cornerofw roomof
theirvasesfromtheSamianHeraion stage-building
comparedwiththosefromall other Fig.9.11 Fragments of DoriccolumnsA677,
sanctuaries A678 and A683.
Fig.8.3 Pie chartsshowingsanctuaries where Fig.9.12 Partof Doric capitalbuiltinto
Laconianvaseshavebeenfound foundations ofs wallof stage-building
Fig.8.4 Barchartof thefivemajorLaconian Fig.9.13 Fragment Doric architrave,
of A722
vasepainters showingthenumbers of Fig.9.14 Fragment of Doric triglyph,A767
theirvasesfromsanctuaries and Fig.9.15 Fragment of Doric sima,A799
cemeteries Fig.9.16 Threefragments of Corinthianising
Fig.8.5 Cup bytheNaukratis Painter.London, sima,A693,A786,A679
BritishMuseumB 4 Fig.9.17 Marblepalmette antefix
Fig.8.6 Cup fragments bytheNaukratis Painter. Fig.9.18 Planof stage-building of Spartatheatre
SamosK 1229 by P. de Jong,1926
Fig.8.7 Cup fragments bytheNaukratis Painter. Fig.9.19 Spartatheatre, w endof stagearea.
Samos WallC-C withtwochannelled blocks
Fig.8.8 Fikelluracup fragments, Samos in place
Fig.8.9 Chian chalicefragment, Cambridge Fig.9.20 Detailof channelled blocks
Fig.8.10 Symposium cup bytheNaukratis Fig.9.21 Channelledblocksshowingalignment
Painter.Paris,LouvreE 667 andclampcuttings
Fig.8.11 Cup fragments bytheArkesilas Painter Fig.9.22 Spartatheatre, w stagearea.
(a) Berlin,StaatlicheMuseen478X Fig. 9.23 Detailof Fig. 9.22
(b) SamosK 1203,K 1541,K 2402and Fig.9.24 Spartatheatre, channelled blockat e
Berlin460X,478X endof stagearea
Fig.8.12 Cup fragments bytheRiderPainter, Fig.9.25 Hypothetical reconstruction of
onceBaselmarket arrangements fora movingstageat
Fig.8.13 Fragment bytheRiderPainter.Naples Spartatheatre, and scale-drawingsof
Fig.8.14 Cup bytheRiderPainter. London, thetwochannelled blocksin position,
BritishMuseumB 1 byH. Bulle
Fig.8.15 Cup bytheRiderPainter.Paris,Louvre Fig.9.26 Shortblockfromtheentablature of
E 665 thelowerorder,showinghowitmight
Fig.8.16 Chianchalicefragments. London, jointheinscribed epistyle
BritishMuseum1888.6-1.483,1.508, Fig.9.27 InscribedcorniceblockfromE end
I-5I3 of lowerorder
Fig.8.17 Fragment bytheNaukratis Painter. Fig.9.28 Epistyleand friezeblockfromw
Cyrene71-659 endof upperorder
Fig.8.18 Krater(?) fragments bytheRider Fig.9.29 Spartatheatre, epistyleblocksfallen
Painter.SamosK 1445 fromw end of scaenaefrons
Fig.8.19 'Calyxkrater'.Samos3959 Fig. 9.30 Reconstruction of flankingpierof
Fig.8.20 'Calyxkrater'.Samos3960 scaenaefronswith granitecolumn and
Fig.8.21 'Calyxkrater'.Samos4006 composite capital
Fig.9.1 Spartatheatre, generalviewfromne Fig.9.31 Reconstructed centralpierwith
Fig.9.2 Spartatheatre, reconstructed plan flutedcolumnand Corinthian
Fig.9.3 Spartatheatre, E retaining
wallforcavea capital
Fig.9.4 Spartatheatre, e paraodosandstaircase Fig.9.32 Reconstructed columnfromlower
Fig.9.5 Spartatheatre, remainsof foundations orderof stagewall
of diazomaon E cavea Fig-9-33 Reconstructed columnfromupper
Fig.9.6 Sherdsof reliefpottery from orderof stagewall
construction layerofE cavea Fig. 10.1 Lyberakos plot,detailof themosaic
Fig.9.7 Spartatheatre, upperstaircase V Fig. 10.2 Alikakosplot,thepavement of the
Fig.9.8 Doriccolumnsfromuppercolonnadeof apsidalroom
Spartatheatre, spiralflutedcolumns Fig. 10.3 Paraskevopoulou plot,theMedusa
fromfacadeof Flavianstage-building (?) pavement
Fig.9.9 Spartatheatre, dividingwallbetween Fig. 10.4 Mazis plot,generalviewof the
centraland w roomsof Flavian pavement
stage-building withDoric fragments in Fig. 10.5 Chatzakosplot,generalviewof the
foundations pavement
8 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSANDABBREVIATIONS

Fig. 10.6 Pergantis plot,detailof thegeometric Fig. 12.23 Map of theareaenclosedin the
decoration Hellenisticcircuitwallof Sparta,
Fig. 11.i PortraitheadSpartaMuseumno. 11668, withtheancientsitesmarkedbydate
frontview Fig. 13.1 Map of thes sectorof theLS area
Fig. 11.2 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,profile right showingthetwenty sitesselectedforthe
Fig. 11.3 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,profile left LaconiaRuralSitesProject
Fig. 11.4 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,backview Fig. 13.2 Planof siteLP 1
Fig. 12.1 Mosaicof theBasilica[site i] Fig. 13.3 Artefact densitieson siteLP 1
Fig. 12.2 Publicbuilding, AgidosSt. [site2] Fig. 13.4 Follisof the EmperorMauriceTiberius,
Fig. 12.3 Groundplanof thebuilding[site2] LPi
Fig. 12.4 Wallpainting [site7] Fig. 13.5 Resultsof thegeophysical survey,LP 1.
Fig. 12.5 Pebblemosaic,Triakosion St. [site8] Fig. 14.1 Geology of theEvrotas valley
Fig. 12.6 Detailof mosaic,Triakosion St. [site9] Fig. 14.2 Particlesize analysisof selectsediments
Fig. 12.7 St.
Mosaic,Agidos [site 10] fromthetheatre plottedagainstPliocene
Fig. 12.8 Mosaic,Herakleidon St. [site ii] data
Fig. 12.9 St.
Mosaic,Lycourgou [site 12] Fig. 14.3 Magneticsusceptibility of sediments
Fig. 12.10 Planof theatrium[site 12] fromtheEvrotasvalley
Fig. 12.11 Mosaic,DorieonSt. [site 13] Fig. 14.4 Red graveland underlying yellowsilt-
Fig. 12.12 Planof themosaicgarden[site 14] clays;Spartatheatre,stagebuildings
Fig. 12.13 Mosaicat Chamare touStreet[site 14]
Fig. 12.14 Burialin contracted position[site 16]
Fig. 12.15 Burialofferings [site 17] TABLES
Fig. 12.16 Pithosburial[site 18]
Fig. 12.17 Marbledoorof monumental tomb Table4.1 Formsof Spartanartin chronological
Fig. 12.18 Two-storey tomb[site5] order
Fig. 12.19 The Laconianarchaicvasesoffered at Table 5.1 PublishedbronzefindsfromSpartan
theHeroon sanctuaries
Fig. 12.20 Burialreceptacle in theshapeof a Table 5.2 Chronology of lead figurines
fromthe
Krater[site21] sanctuaryof Artemis Orthia
Fig. 12.21 Romans cemetery [site22] Table 5.3 Publishedbronzefindsof vessels,
Fig. 12.22 Map of theareaenclosedin the andfigurines
jewellery
Hellenisticcircuitwallof Sparta, Table 5.4 Categoriesof publishedbronzefinds:
withtheancientsites,themodern ArtemisOrthia,Acropolis, Menelaion
buildingblocksandstreetnetwork andAmyklaion

Listof abbreviations

PG Protogeometric BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

G Geometric AAA AthensAnnalsofArchaeology
O Orientalizing (AgxaioÀoyixáAvaÃsxraeÇAûr'vœv)
EO EarlyOrientalizing AA Anzeiger
Archäologischer
Cl Classical A. Deh. Deltion
Archaiologikon
HI Hellenistic AJA AmericanJournalofArchaeology
R Roman AR Archaeological
Reports
ER EarlyRoman BCH Bulletin
de CorrespondanceHellénique
N north BSA AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens
s south PAE ngaxrixàrfjçèvAûijvaiç
e east AQxaioÀoyixfjçEraigeíaç
w west RE Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädieder
masl metresabovesea level klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft
8 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSANDABBREVIATIONS

Fig. 10.6 Pergantis plot,detailof thegeometric Fig. 12.23 Map of theareaenclosedin the
decoration Hellenisticcircuitwallof Sparta,
Fig. 11.i PortraitheadSpartaMuseumno. 11668, withtheancientsitesmarkedbydate
frontview Fig. 13.1 Map of thes sectorof theLS area
Fig. 11.2 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,profile right showingthetwenty sitesselectedforthe
Fig. 11.3 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,profile left LaconiaRuralSitesProject
Fig. 11.4 SpartaMuseumno. 11668,backview Fig. 13.2 Planof siteLP 1
Fig. 12.1 Mosaicof theBasilica[site i] Fig. 13.3 Artefact densitieson siteLP 1
Fig. 12.2 Publicbuilding, AgidosSt. [site2] Fig. 13.4 Follisof the EmperorMauriceTiberius,
Fig. 12.3 Groundplanof thebuilding[site2] LPi
Fig. 12.4 Wallpainting [site7] Fig. 13.5 Resultsof thegeophysical survey,LP 1.
Fig. 12.5 Pebblemosaic,Triakosion St. [site8] Fig. 14.1 Geology of theEvrotas valley
Fig. 12.6 Detailof mosaic,Triakosion St. [site9] Fig. 14.2 Particlesize analysisof selectsediments
Fig. 12.7 St.
Mosaic,Agidos [site 10] fromthetheatre plottedagainstPliocene
Fig. 12.8 Mosaic,Herakleidon St. [site ii] data
Fig. 12.9 St.
Mosaic,Lycourgou [site 12] Fig. 14.3 Magneticsusceptibility of sediments
Fig. 12.10 Planof theatrium[site 12] fromtheEvrotasvalley
Fig. 12.11 Mosaic,DorieonSt. [site 13] Fig. 14.4 Red graveland underlying yellowsilt-
Fig. 12.12 Planof themosaicgarden[site 14] clays;Spartatheatre,stagebuildings
Fig. 12.13 Mosaicat Chamare touStreet[site 14]
Fig. 12.14 Burialin contracted position[site 16]
Fig. 12.15 Burialofferings [site 17] TABLES
Fig. 12.16 Pithosburial[site 18]
Fig. 12.17 Marbledoorof monumental tomb Table4.1 Formsof Spartanartin chronological
Fig. 12.18 Two-storey tomb[site5] order
Fig. 12.19 The Laconianarchaicvasesoffered at Table 5.1 PublishedbronzefindsfromSpartan
theHeroon sanctuaries
Fig. 12.20 Burialreceptacle in theshapeof a Table 5.2 Chronology of lead figurines
fromthe
Krater[site21] sanctuaryof Artemis Orthia
Fig. 12.21 Romans cemetery [site22] Table 5.3 Publishedbronzefindsof vessels,
Fig. 12.22 Map of theareaenclosedin the andfigurines
jewellery
Hellenisticcircuitwallof Sparta, Table 5.4 Categoriesof publishedbronzefinds:
withtheancientsites,themodern ArtemisOrthia,Acropolis, Menelaion
buildingblocksandstreetnetwork andAmyklaion

Listof abbreviations

PG Protogeometric BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

G Geometric AAA AthensAnnalsofArchaeology
O Orientalizing (AgxaioÀoyixáAvaÃsxraeÇAûr'vœv)
EO EarlyOrientalizing AA Anzeiger
Archäologischer
Cl Classical A. Deh. Deltion
Archaiologikon
HI Hellenistic AJA AmericanJournalofArchaeology
R Roman AR Archaeological
Reports
ER EarlyRoman BCH Bulletin
de CorrespondanceHellénique
N north BSA AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens
s south PAE ngaxrixàrfjçèvAûijvaiç
e east AQxaioÀoyixfjçEraigeíaç
w west RE Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädieder
masl metresabovesea level klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft
 Abstracts
H. W.CATLING
The workof the Britishschool at Athensat
Sparta and in Laconia.
The BritishSchoolat Athenshas workedin Laconia
and at Spartasince 1904. Whileresearchby indiv-
idual scholarshas been continuoussince thatdate
(apart fromthe interruptions createdby the two
WorldWars) the School's workas an institution
belongsto threephases- thefirst1904 to 1910, the
second1924-28,thelastfrom1973untilthepresent.
There has been much excavationin Sparta itself
(on the acropolis,at the Great Altar,the Heroön,
the sanc-tuaryof ArtemisOrthia)and beyond - at
the Menelaion,the Eleusinionat Kalyvia Sochas,
at theZeus Messapeussanctuary at Tsakona.
the
Furtherafield, Bronze Age settlementat Ayios
Stephanosin the Helos plain has been excavated,
the underwaterBronze Age site at Pavlopetri,
Elaphonisisurveyedand small sites at Koutiphari
and Angelonatested.Much topographicworkhas
been undertaken notablythe surveyof prehistoric
Laconia beforeand afterthe Second WorldWarby
Waterhouseand Hope Simpson,and the Laconia
Surveyof the 1980sby the School in collaboration
withAmsterdam University.All branchesof study
continueat thepresenttime.
THEODOROSG.SPYROPOULOS
Pellana: the administrativecentreof
prehistoricLaconia.
Pellana,a remoteand forgotten village near Mt.
is
Taygetos, proving today to be a prehistoriccentreof
paramountimportance. In the 1930s two rock-cut
tholoiof modestsize had beenclearedat Peleketeby
T. Karachalios.Fiftyyearslaterthreemonumental
tholoiwereexcavatedtherebytheauthor.These date
to the LH II-IIIb/ci period.On the acropolisof
Pellanaimportant findstestify to the significance
of
thesiteduringtheEBA and theLH period:a large
roadascendingtheeasternslopeof thehill;two,pos-
siblymore,tumuli;a Mycenaeansettlement (LH
IIlA-IIlBti); and most recentlya group of shaft
gravesof theMH III/LH I period.
Pellana is veryprobablythe HomericLakedai-
mon, royalresidenceof Tyndareosand Menelaos.
What has still to be found is the Mycenaean
palace,whichlies most probablynear the Pellanis
Spring to the s of the acropolis of historic
Pellana.
PAUL CARTLEDGE
City and chorain Sparta: Archaicto Hellenistic
Whereas the normal and normativeGreek polis
unitedtownand countryin a harmoniouspolitical
symbiosis,Sparta in this respectas so oftenwas
ifnotunique.The Spartansystem
atypical, of urban-
izationwas consciouslydesignedto emphasiseand
reinforcethe centre'sseparationfromand hier-
archicaldomination overtheperiphery. The presence
or (untilthe mid-Hellenisticera) absenceof a city
wall was a clear ideologicaland spatialmarkerof
Sparta'sdifference.
REINHARD FÖRTSCH
Spartan art: its many differentdeaths
The refutation througharchaeologicalevidenceof
the pictureof a Spartawithoutart does not satis-
factorilyexplain the role of art at Sparta. The
declinein theproduction of Laconianartis explored
by means of a synopsisof formally defined'type'
series.
A change-point occursin thethirdquarterof the
sixth centurybe. The numberof new products
declinesand the numberof productscomingto
an end reaches a maximum but the number
of productsco-existing is, forthe timebeing,only
slightlyreduced. At the same time thereappear
threeof the fivemostimportant formswhichwere
to continueinto the fifthcenturybc. I interpret
thisas a statistical
consequenceof a constitutional
change of paradigm: an aristocratic,luxurious
society,with representational art, is displacedby
the egalitarian,anti-luxuriousideology of the
homoioi.
IO ABSTRACTS
STEPHEN HODKINSON
Patternsof bronze dedicationsat Spartan
sanctuaries,c. 650-350BC:towardsa quantified
database of material and religiousinvestment
This essay advocates a new approach to Laconian
material culture, examining the bronze finds from
Spartan sanctuaries ¿".650-350 bc as a record of
material and religious investment.Thefundamental
requirementfor this approach is a complete data-
base of the finds.Obstacles to the constructionof
such a database are noted. Nevertheless,even in-
complete data currentlyavcailable demonstratethe
value of a quantitative approach which permits
comparison of Spartan votive offeringswith those
elsewhere in Greece. Spartan dedication patterns
largelyconformto general Greek trends and offer
little support for the supposed developmentof a
uniquely austere society in the late Archaic and
Classical periods.
CONRADM. STIBBE
Exceptional shapes and decorations in
Laconian pottery
Given the fact that Sparta occupies a ratherexcep-
tional place among the Greek city states in pre-
Hellenistictimes,we mightexpectto findsome reflec-
tion of this special culturaland politicalstatusin its
minor arts, in particularin its pottery.This paper
attemptsto show that this is a realisticexpectation.
The followingexceptionalpieces,some of whichhave
unusual decoration, are considered: five tubes or
stands(one of whichwas exported);a fragmentof an
inscribed olpe; two lekythoiwith elongated bodies
(one exported); a series of lekythoiwith globular
bodies (many of which were exported); a giraffe-
necked jug; and an Attic C-cup with a curious in-
scription,foundin a Laconian sanctuary.The inter-
pretation of these shapes and decorations should
contributeto our understanding of thearchaicculture
of the Spartans.
TYLERJOSMITH
Dances drinks and dedications: the archaic
komos in Laconia
The komastfigureappears in Laconian art through-
out the sixth century BC. The bottom-slapping
revellercommon to Corinthianand Athenian vase-
paintingtakes his characteristicformin the arts of
ArchaicLaconia.
This paper examines the iconography of the
Laconian komosin vase-paintingand in othermedia,
includinglead figurinesand bronze objects. Archaic
Sparta presents the firstand only instance of the
komast figureemployed for religious or dedicatory
purposes. The possibilitythatkomastdancers main-
tain a special local functionin ArchaicSpartan lifeis
questioned.
MARIA PIPILI
ArchaicLaconian vase-painting:some
iconographieconsiderations
An interestingcategoryof archaic Laconian vases
are thosedecoratedwithscenes whichseem to have a
religious character: symposia attended by small
winged daemons, komastssurroundingan imposing
musician,a rider accompanied by winged daemons,
gods on theirown or approachedby worshippers.
Of the fivemajor Laconian vase-paintersit is the
Naukratis Painter who probably introduced most
such scenes, giving to Laconian iconographymuch
of its eccentriccharacter.It is suggested here that
these workswere produced mainlyfor the needs of
particularsanctuaries,especiallythe Samian Heraion,
wherea largenumberof such vases was found.Other
Laconian vases, which may also have been special
commissionsfor cult purposes, are examined, and
the relation between subject-matterand find-spot
considered.
G. B. WAYWELL,
J.J.WILKESAND S. E. C. WALKER
The Ancient Theatre at Sparta
Recent studiesof the remainsof the stage and stage-
buildingof the Sparta Theatre have shed more light
on theirstructuralhistory.The cavea and orchestra,
contructedc. 20 BC,were originallyfaced by a Doric
colonnade (Waywell). In frontof this was a stage-
platformwhich could be moved on stone runnels
out of sight into the west parados (Wilkes). This
arrangementwas replaced in the Flavian period
(an inscriptionof ad 78 is the key evidence) by a
permanentstagefronting a stage-buildingwitha two-
storeyprojecting columnar facade in the Corinthian
order (Walker). Though extensively repaired on
more than one occasion, this arrangmentsurvived
untilthe Theatre ceased to functionat the end of the
4th century.
ANASTASIA
PANAYOTOPOULOU
Roman mosaics fromSparta
Sparta maintaineda prominentposition in the pro-
duction of mosaic pavements.This paper presents
the evolution of mosaic art in Sparta, from the
Hellenisticto the earlyChristianperiod, the charac-
teristicfeaturesto be recognizedin each period, and
decorationboth with geometricpatternsand figura-
 ABSTRACTS
tivescenes.Spartanmosaicsof theRomanperiodare
noteworthy forthe figurativescenes whichusually
appear in the centreof the room.The restof the
pavement is coveredwith multicoloured
varied, geo-
metricpatterns.
Comparisonwithcontemporary mosaics,whether
fromotherGreekcitiesor the restof the Roman
empire,providesevidencethata local workshop was
activein Sparta,whoseacmemaybe identified in the
secondhalfof thethirdcentury and thefirst
decades
of thefourth centuryad.
ANNA KARAPANAYIOTOU
A Roman portraitfromMonemvasia of the
earlysecond centuryAD
This paperdiscussesthe stonecarvingof a man's
head,foundat Monemvasia,datingto thefirstquar-
terofthesecondcentury ad. The styleanditssources
areidentified,
and itssignificance outforour
brought
understanding of socialand culturalattitudesin one
cornerof theRomanworld.The techniqueand the
placethesculpturein theTrajanicor even
hair-style
earlyHadrianicperiod,withstriking similarities
to
theportraitsof Trajanand an earlytypeof Hadrian,
as well as severalassociatedworks,such as the
Arch of Trajan at Benevento,and examples of
foundat Athens.A closerexami-
imperialportraiture
nationofthestyleandtechnique
pointtoan Athenian
product,inspiredby the latestfashions in styleand
fromRome itself.The qualityand
taste,emanating
contextoftheMonemvasiaheadsuggestthatthesub-
jectmightbe identifiable as thesenatorHerculanus,
the last of the well-knownSpartan family,the
Euryclids.
STELLARAFTOPOULOU
New findsfromSparta
This paperoffers a briefoverviewof thefindsfrom
rescue excavations,conductedduring the period
1991-1995in house-plotsand roadsin the modern
town.The results,which rangein datefromProto-
Geometrieto EarlyChristian, and reflect
all aspects
of thelifeof thecity,are groupedaccording to cate-
gory:publicbuildings, sanctuaries,
houses, villasand
tombs.Althoughthe publicbuildingsare not com-
mon,thereare somelargedepositsfromsanctuaries,
whichbetraytheexistenceof sacredbuildings.The
scantyremainsof domesticarchitecture are counter-
balancedby theimpressive mosaicpavements. Geo-
metricburialsfollowthenormfortheS Péloponnèse,
butthearchaictypeand thelatertypeof two-storey,
free-standing, familysepulchres,with ossuaries,
arepeculiarto Sparta.
11
recordrevealsSpartaas a pros-
The archaeological
perous and important centre,which,in mostmaterial
aspects,keptpace with theothercity-states
of main-
land Greece.It is hoped that,howeverfragmentary
this evidencemay be, it will eventuallycontribute
towards ourunderstanding ofthematerialappearance
of theancientcityof Sparta.
WILLIAM CAVANAGH ANDCHRISTOPHER MEE
Diversityin a Greek Landscape: the Laconia
surveyand rural sites project
The LaconiaRuralSitesProjectaimedto investigate
smallruralsitesand theruraleconomyof Laconiain
theprehistoric and historicperiods.A set of twenty
sitesfromthe 400 discoveredin the courseof the
Laconia Survey were selected for very intensive
treatment. Our understanding of thenatureof these
sites is of criticalimportanceto researchinto the
ruraleconomyof Greece over this verylong span
of time.
The siteshavebeeninvestigated as fullyas possible
shortof actualexcavation. Thus all surfaceremains
werecloselyplotted,geophysical
surveyinvestigated
sub-surface features,soil,and magnetic and chemical
characteristicsweretested.The archaeological ques-
tionsaddressedare of greatinterest, notleastgiven
the prominenceof archaeologicalfield survey
projectsin recentyears.
Smallruralsiteshavebeendiscovered intheirhun-
dreds,andthisprojectinvestigates precisely thelimits
of interpretation given the extremely exiguousand
fragmentary nature of the evidence. Our fieldmeth-
odsweredesignedex-pressly withtheseaimsinmind.
This articlereviewsthehistory of researchand illus-
tratesourresultswithone example.
KEITHWILKINSON
Geoarchaeological studies of the
Spartan Acropolisand EvrotasValley:
some preliminaryconclusions
This paper discussesthe resultsof ongoinggeo-
archaeologicalwork within the Evrotas Valley.
Althoughthe valley,and in particularthe townof
Sparta are comparatively well-knownarchaeologi-
cally,relativelylittle is knownof the landscape
historyof the area priorto the nineteenth century.
The geological
history ofthevalleyis alsoonlyunder-
stoodon a broadlevel,withmostsignificant events
takingplace in the Plioceneand Pleistocene.The
importance of the depositsproducedduringthese
time framesis highlighted and the sedimentology
is discussedin an attemptto outline'background
12 ABSTRACTS

characteristics' of thelocalparentmaterial. It is sug- raphybeneaththecentralpartof theEvrotasValley,

gested thatalterationsfrom theseproperties aremost whichcouldpreserveevidenceforlandscapechange
likelyto be the resultof human or
activity relatively sincetheUpperPalaeolithic.
recentdiagenesis, bothof whichareof archaeological
interest.
Attention is thenfocusedupona singlesediment-
ary environment, thatof Sparta'sRomanTheatre. DONALD NICOL
The resultsof detailedsedimentological investigation ByzantineMistra- Sparta in the mind
are presentedshowingthatthe theatrewas deliber-
atelylocatedon clay strataof Pliocene/Pleistocene Sparta was an archaisingname for Mistra. No
date,idealforthelocationof foundations. Evidenceis Byzantine writer,however,not even Gemistos
also putforward fortheexistenceof a terrarossasoil Plethon,wouldhaveagreedwiththelearnedM. de
predating thetheatre whichwaslargely removed dur- Pouquevillewho,about1800,declaredthat,whilethe
ing itsconstruction. Post Roman depositsdating from ancientcityof Spartawaslittlemorethana name,yet
the8thtotheiothcenturies contained within thethe- 'it is evidentthatthemoderntownof Mistrais built
atrebowlarethendiscussed, and it is concluded that uponitsruins'.The Byzantines knewbetterthanthat.
the characteristic green colourof these is inherited To themMistrawasa realandlivelyplace. Spartawas
fromPliocene/Pleistocene parentmaterial whichhas a historicalfact or a politicaland philosophical
sinceerodedaway. abstraction;anditneveroccurredto Byzantineschol-
Finallyit is arguedthatthenextstageof research arsto climbdownand investigate itsmortalremains.
shouldbe a detailedstudyof thesub-surface stratig- Betterletitstayin themind.
 rieQiÀ,r|i|)eiç
H. W. CATLING
To éQyo ttiç AyyXxxT|çAQ3caioXx>yixr|çIxoXi|ç
AOrivcivgtt' LjcaQTT] xai Aaxcovia.
H AyyXixr| Ag%aiota)yixr| I%oÀr| egyaÇexai gtv'
Aaxcovía arcó to 1904. Evco r| égeuva airó |i£jiovco|Lié-
vouç 8Q8Uvr|T8çeivai aôiáxo7ir| ano xóxe (exxóç ano
xa ôiaÀeíjiaxa xcov ôóo FlayxoG^ícov no^éjicov), r|
egyaala xr|ç I^o^Ç coç IÔQÓjiaxoç avrpcei os xgeíç
- arcó xo 1904 écoçxo 1910, r| 5eúxeQr|
cpaGeiç r| 7iQCôxr|
anò xo 1924 écoçxo 1928, r| xeteuxaía arco xo 1973 écoç
GT]|i8Qa. noM,éç avaGxacpéç yívovxai gxt|v íôia xr|
Z7iáQxr| (axr|v AxQO7ioXr|,axov Meyá^o Bcojió, axo
18QÓ xr|ç OQ0íaç AQxéjiiôoç) xai e7U7iÀ,éov gxo
Mevetaxío, xo E^euGiviov Gxa Ka^ußia Só%aç, gxo
18QÓ xou Àióç MeGGdTrécoçGxr|v Tcaxcova. Zxr|v eu-
QÓX8QT17T8QlCp8Q8ia,avaGXÓCpXr|X8O 7TQOÏGXOQIXOÇ
oixigjíÓç Gxov 'Ayio Ixécpavo, Gxr|v Tieôiáôa xou
Ekovq, 8Q8Uvr|0r|X8r| evadia kqoíotoqixx] Qsgv' xou
FIau?iO7i8XQÍou gxo EÀacpovr|Gi, xai 8^8xaG0r|xav
|iixQ8Ç 08G8K; gxo KouxicpÓQio xai xT|v Ayyetóva.
To7ioyQacpixé(; egyaGieç, 8TrÍGr|ç, é%ouv TiQay-
|iaxo7ioir|08Í, lôiaíxega r| égeuva xr|ç 7TQ0ÍGX0Qixriç
Aaxcovíaç tcqiv xai jaexá xov 20 llayxÓG|iio nó>.e|io,
xai rj Laconia Survey xr|ç ôexaexíaç xou '80, TiQay-
jiaxo7ioir|08ÍGa aTió xr| Z^0^1! Ge GUvegyaGÍa jie xo
nav8TiiGxr|jiio xou Amsterdam. 'Otan 01 x^áôoi xr|ç
[LsXéTv'qGUve%íÇovxaijaéxQi xai Gri|X8Qa.
0EOAQPOI snrponoYAOi
IleX^áva- to ôioixtitixó xévtqo ttiç Aaxovíaç
H negava, éva aTiojiaxQUGjiévoxai ^exaG^iévo xwqio
xovxá gxo óqoç Tauyexoç, a7ioÔ8ixvuexai Griega éva
TTQOÏGXOQixo X8VXQ0lôiá^ouGaç Gr||iaGÍaç. Kaxá xr|
ôiÓQxeia xr|ç ôexaexíaç xou 1930 ôuo >.a^8uxoí 0otao-
xoí xácpoi, |í8xqÍo)v ôiaGxaGecov, xa0aQÍGxr|xav ajró
xov T. Kaga^a^io. flevrivxa XQÓvia aQyóxega, xqcíç
livrijicicoôeiç0óXoi avaGxacpi^Gav aTió xov yQai|javxa.
Auxoí XQOvoÀoyouvxaixaxá xr|v TE II- IIIB/Fi 7T8qÍ-
oôo. Ixr|v AxQÓ7TOÀr| xr|ç YisXXávaq Gr|jiavxixá 8UQT|-
iLiaxar|Q0av gxo cpcoç,ttou jiaQXUQoóvxr| Gr|}iaGÍa xriç
TieQioxiíçxaxá xr| ôiaQxeia xr|ç IlQcoï|ir|çEtiox^ç xou
XaXxou xai xr|ç TGxeQoeÀÀaôixriç 7i8Qióôou- évaç
jieyá^oç ôqójíoç 7iou avég^exai xr|vavaxo^ixf| nXevqa
XOU XÓcpOU, ÔUO X] ÍGCOÇ 718QIGGÓX6QOI XUJißoi,
évaç Muxr|vaïxoç oixigjióç (TE IIIA-IIIB/Fi) xai
TiQÓGCpaxa éva guvo^o xá0excovÀaxxoeiôóv xácpcov
xr|çME III/TE I.
H lle^áva 7Ti0avóvxauxíÇexai jie tt' Muxr|vaixr|
Aaxeôaí|iova, xr| ßaGi>.ixr|xaxoixía xou TuvSÓQeco
xai xou Mevétaxou.ATiojiéveiva ßgeOeixo Muxr|vdíxó
aváxxoQO,xo ottoío 7ii0avóxaxa xeíxai xovxá gxt|v
7ir|yr| Fle^avíôa, voxícoç xr|ç AxqóttoXtiç xr|ç
TlsXkávaç, xcovigxoqixcôv%qóvcov.
PAULCARTLEDGE
nóX/nxat xwQ« orti Etwxqttianò xr'vaQxa'txf|
axT|v eXXíiviarixfitteqíoôo
Evcor| Guvr|0r|çxai tcqÓxu7ttí EÀÀr|vixr]Tió^ri-xQáxoç
GUvôuaÇexo ógxu jie xr|vÓ7iai0QOos fiía agjiovixri
GU|ißio)Gr|,r| Z7iáQxr|ano auxr| xr|v anòtyr]r|xav [ir'
xuTcixri,av ó%i |iovaôixr|. To E7iaQxiaxixó GÓGxr||ia
aGxixo7ioír|Gr|ç r|xav Guveiôr|xáG%eôiaG|iévoyia va
xovíÇeixai va eviG^uei xo SiaxíOQiGjió xou (aGxixou)
xévxQouanò xr|v7i8Qiq)éQ8ia,xaOwçenicr'q xai xr|v
i8QaQ%ixr| xuQiaQxíaxou návwos auxr|.H U7iaQ^r|r' r'
aTiouGia (|iéxQi xai xr| Méür| EÀ,Àr|viGXixr|ireQioôo)
8vóç xeí^ouç Trou7T8Q18XÀ818 xT|vttoXt],T|xav évaç
GacpriçlôeoXoyixóç xai x(0Qoxa£ixóçôeíxxriç xr|ç
IjiaQxiaxixriç ôiaq)OQO7ioír|Gr|ç.
REINHARDFÖRTSCH
H LrcaQTiaTixTiTé/vq: 01 rcoMoí tqótcoi ttiç
e^aq)ávtaf|ç xr'q
H avaGxeur)(I8gcôxcovaQ%aioXoyix(áv xr|ç
xex(ir|QÍcov
eixóvaç jLiiáç £7raQxr|çxcoqíç xé^vri ôev s^r|yeí
ixavo7ioir|xixá xo qoXo xr'q xé^vriç Gxr| Unaqxi].
Ai8Q8uváxai r| 7iaQax|ir| xr|ç Aaxo)vixr|c;xé^vriç |H8
|niaçGeigáç oqig^svcûv'xutkdv'.Ixo
(i8G0|iia Guvoi|>r|
xqíxo xéxaQxo xou 6OU aicova nX. GUfißaivei^ia
aM,ayr|.O aQi0(ióç xcovvécovttqoïovxcov ^lyoGxéuei,
xa 7iQoióvxattoueÇacpavíÇovxaicp0ávouvgxo fiá^i-
|LIOU(I, 6VCO O aQl0JLlÓÇ XCOV7IQOÍÓvXC0V 7TOU GUVU71ÓQXOUV
eivai, TTQoç xo TiaQÓv, jióvov eXacpqáç iieicojiévoç.
TauxóxQova eiicpavíÇovxai xgeiç a7ió xiç Tiévxe jioq-
14 nEPIAHYEIZ

Cpéç 7I0U 871QÓX61T0VOIGOVe^lOTOUV |I6Oa GXOV5° aiCO- TYLERJOSMITH

va Ti.X.EQ^ir|V8Ó0) auro to cpaivó^evocoçGxaxiGxixr] Xoqóç, 7UOTÓxai ttcpieQtÓGeiç- o aoxaixóç 'xoiióç'
Gi)V87T8ia |iiaç QiÇixriç xou Tio^ixeójiaxoc*
aXkayr'ç, (lia arri Aaxovía.
agiGxoxQaxixr|,TioXuxeÀriç xoivcovía,(is eixoviaxixr) To jLioxißoxou xcojiaGxriejicpaví^exai gxt| Aaxcovixr]
X8%vr|,^8xaxoTTÍGxr|X8anó xT|v lôeo^oyía x(ov xé%vr|xaxá xov 6 aicóva tt.X. O xußiGxr)cy^ev-
'ópoícov',TrouU7iOGxr)Qi^8 xT|viGOxr|xaxai xaxéxQive xoxÓttoç,Guvr|0r|çGXT|vKoQiv0iaxií xai Axxixri
xr|vTio^uxéXeia. ayyeioygacpía,7iaiQveixr|%aQaxxr|QiGxxr| xou |ioQcpf|
Gxr|vxé^vrixr|çaQxaïxr|çAaxcovíaç.To naqóv óq0qo
e^exáÇei xr|veixovoygacpíaxou Aaxcovixoó 'xcojliou'
STEPHEN HODKINSON Gxr|vayyeioygacpíaxai xiç áXXeçiioQcpéçxr|çxé^vriç,
xcovjio^ußSivcoveiôcoÀícov
GU|i7ieQi^ajLißavo^evcov xai
Eíôt] xá^tvwv avaOéaeœv ara ErcaQxiaxá leQa xcov %áX,xivcov avxixeifiévcov.H aQxaïxr| XTraQxr|
650-3507T.X.:nQpç nia twktotixtjßaaii ôeôo^iévwv
tou uXxxouxat tt|ç 0QTiaxeoTtxf|çenev&vory; 7iaQOUGiáÇeixr|v ttqcoxtixai |iova5ixf| TiegÍTixcoGri
XQTlGecoçxou eiôco^íouxou xcojaaGxri yia 0gr|Gxeuxi-
Auxr|r| TragouGÌaGT) GUvriyoQei 7iqoç|iia vea nqocéy- xouç x] ava0r|jiaxixoóç gxotiouç.A(icpiGßr|xeixai óxi
yvor' Gxo Aaxcovixó uÀixó ttoaaxigjió,eÇexáÇovxaçxa 01 %OQeuxéç-xco|iaGxéç iixcogeíva ôiaxr|Qouv(iía iôi-
%á^xiva euQiíjiaxa airó ZTiaQxiaxixá ieoá xr|ç aíxegrixo7iixr|XeixougyíaGxr|vaQ%aixr)Z7iaQxr|.
7T8QÍOÔOU 650-350 TT.X.|Li8avacpogá Gxr|vu^ixr| xai
0QT|GX8UXlXr| 8TC8VÔUGr|. H 0e^ie>ACoÔr|Ç TTQOÜ7r008Gr|
yia auxr|v xr|v nQoaéyyvar'eivai |iia nXr'Qr'q $áor' MAPIAmniAH
Ô8Ôo|i8vcov airó xa euQr||iaxa.Zr|(iaívovxaixa ejuróôia
AQxaïxf| Aax(ovixf|ay7etoyQaq>ía-fteQixéç
TrouUTcaQxouv Gxr|5r|(iioi)QYÍa(aíaç xéxoiaç ßaGr|c. etxovo7Qaq)ixéç 7raQaxTiQf|oetç
ÍIgxógo xovíÇexai óxi axó|ir| xai xa eXkeinr]gxoi-
Mia evôiacpégouGaxaxr|yoQÍaag^dixcovAaxcovixcov
%8Ía 7IOU8X0UJI8 gxt| ôiá08Gr|jiaç GT||i8QaaTioSeix-
vóouv xr|v a^ía jiiaç ttogoxixtiçTTQOGéyyiGriç tioo ayyeícoveivai auxá ttou cpegouvTiaoaGxáGeiç tuou
vexai tccoçé^ouv 0gr|GxeuxixóxaQaxxr|QaGuji7ió-
87TIXQ87181 GÓyxQiGr| xo)vETiaQxiaxixcov taxxgeuxixcov cpaí
Gia Gxa OTioía(iexé%ouvjiixqoí cpxegcoxoi ôaíjioveç,
ava0r||iáxo)v |i8 7iaQÓ|ioia anó áAÀeç 08G8iç xr|ç
xcojiaGxéç içou xoQeóouv yuQCo arcó jiía e7uß^r|xixfi
E^Àáôaç. Ta eíôr| xov ZjraQxiaxixóvava08G8O)vgují-
cpcovoóv[ie xiç 78VIX8ÇxaG8iç gxt|v EA.Xáôaxai poQcpr)jiouGixou, o iTiTiéaç7iou Guvoôeuexai a7ió
71a xr|vU7ioxi08|i8vr| cpxeQcoxoóç ôaífioveç,0eoí jióvoi xouç r) fieXaxgeuxéç
7iaQ8XOüv 8>.áxiGxr|O7iOGxr)Qi£r|
içou égxovxai tiqoç auxoóç. Attoxouç névxe xuqiouç
8^é^i^r| jiiaç 8^aiQ8xixá 'ixr'c xoivcovíaçxo)vdgx8Q0-
Aáxcoveç ayyeioygácpouç, o ZcoyQacpoçxr|ç Nau-
aQxaïxœvxai xÀaGGixcov XQÓvcov.
xoáxecoç r|xav exeívoç ttou eiGriyaye xiç TieQiG-
GÓxeQeçanó auxéç xiç TcaoaGxaGeic,TiQOGÔívovxaç
Gxr| Aaxcovixrieixovoygacpía jieyá^o |ieQoç xou
CONRADM. STIBBE exxevxQixoó xr|ç %aQaxxr|Qa.IlQoxeívexai eSco óxi
Aauvf|6Ti axT^axa xat ôiaxoa|iTiTtxáOé^axa axr' ayyeía |ie xéxoieç 7raQaGxÓGeiçxaxaGxeuá^ovxav
Aax(ovixf|xeQa^eixf| xuqícoçyia xiç aváyxeç GuyxexQipévcov legcov,iôícoç
xou Hgaíou xr|ç Zá|iou óttoué^ouv ßge0ei noXXáxé-
Àeôeôo^iévouóxi r' ZrcaQxrixaxatax|ißavei jiía iôi-
xoia ayyeía. E^exáÇovxai e7iiGT|çáÀÀa Aaxcovixá
aÎX8QT| 08GT| avá(I8Ga GXIÇ 8^T|VIX8Ç 7TÓ>,8lÇ-XQáxr|
ayyeía, tiouígcoçr|xavxai auxá eiôixéç TiaQayye^íeç
xaxá xouç7TQO-8X,A.r|viGxixoóç xqovouç,0a 7i8Qi|iéva|i8
va ßgoiVe xóttoioü eíôouç avxaváx>.aGr|auxoú xou yia Xaxoeuxixéç aváyxeç xai 0íyexai xo 7rQOßXr||ia
xr|ç G^eGriç jiexa^ó xou 0ejiaxoXoyíouxcovayyeícovxai
lôiaíxeQou TioXixiGxixoó xai Tio^ixixoóxa08Gxcoxoç
xou xótcou euQCGriç xouç.
Gxr|jiixQoxexvíaxr|ç,xai xoqícdçgxt]vx8Qa(i8ixr|.To
7iaQÓvÓQ0QO8711ÔIC0X81 va Ô8i^8i oxi auxT|eivai |iia
Q8a>.iGxixr|TiQOGÔoxía.Ta axó^ou0a e^aiQexixá
G. B. WAYWELL, J.J.WILKESKAI S. E. C. WALKER
avxixeíjnevajne^excovxai, jiegixá ex xwvO7ioicov é%ouv
rrévxeGO)X,r|voeiôri To Aójalo ©éaxQO ttiç ináQT^ç
aGuvr|0r| ôiaxÓG|ir|Gr|: Quxá (tubes)
r' i)7iÓGxaxa(éva tiqoíóv e^aycoyric;), èva 0QaÓG(ia Oi 7iQÓGcpaxeç jieXéxeçxcovXeiil>ávcovxr|çGxr|vr|ç xai
eve7TÍ7Qacpr|ç óXnr'q,ôóo ^r|xu0oi |ie e7ii|ir|xeçGÓjia xr|çGxr|vixr|ç xaxaGxeur|çxou Géaxgou xr|çZ7iáQxr|ç
(ex xcovottoÍwvr|pia eí^e 8^ax0eí), jiía gciqó ^r|xó0o)v é^ouv ôiacpcoxÍGei xr|vxaxaGxeuaGxixr)xouçiGXOQÍa.
jie GcpaiQixóGcojia(noXkéç,7iQoióvxae^aycoyriç), |iía To xoí^ov xai r| oQxrjGXQa, ttou xaxaGxeuÓGxr|xav
ttqó%ouç Xaijióxai |iía axxixrj
|ie eÇaiQexixá eTiijirixr) TieQÍTCOU XO20 7I.X.,OQ^lxá £'%avGXr|V Jiía
7TQÓG0l[)r|
xóÀi^ xóttou C |ie 7iaQá^evr| eTiiygacprir| ojroía AcoQixri xiovoGxoi%ía(Waywell).xE(i7TQOG0ev u7ir|Qxe
pQe0r|xe Ge éva Aaxcovixó lego. H eQjir|veía xcov (iía e^éôQa, r' oTioía jiTioQoÓGeva jiexaxivr|0eíexxóç
G^Tlliáxcov xai xcovôiaxoG(ir|xixcov 0epáxcov0a gdv- 0éaç, rcávcoGe Xí0iveç au^axeç, tiqoç xr| ouxixrj
xeÀeGei gxt|v xaxavór|Gr|xou aQxaixoó Tro^ixiGjaoó tcóqoôo (Wilkes). Auxr| r| ôiaQQÓ0|iiGr|avxixaxa-
xcovZ7iaQxiaxcov. Gxá0r|xexaxá xr|OXaßeia neQÍoôo(jiiíaeTiiygacpr) xou
 riEPIAHYEIZ 15

ITEAAA PATTOnOTAOY
78 7I.X.arcoxeÀeíxr|vxugía a7ió8eii;r|)anó |iía |ióvi^r|
Gxr|vf|[inQOGxáanó |iía xaxaGxeur| (Gxr|vixó) |ue Néa EuQTmara aTrótx' ZnáQrr]
ôicÓQocpri,
rcQoeÇéxouGa, xiovcoxr]7iQÓGOi|)r| xoQiv0ia-
H avaxoívcôGri Tiegiygacpei Guvxojiaxa arroxe^eGiLiaxa
xoó QuGjLioó(Walker).Av xctiexxevcoçe7iiGxeuaG|iévr| gcôgxixcov avaGxacpcavos oixòneòa xai ôqójiouç xr|ç
auxr| eTußicoGe|iéxQi
87iav8^8ijiéva,r| ôiaQQOGjiiGrj ZTTÓQxriç xaxá xa éxr' 1991-95. Ta eugrijuaxaxcov
xr|v7iaóor|xr|çÀeixouQyíaçxou 0éaxQouGxa xéA.r| xou
avaGxacpcov, 7iouxaÀÓTixouv xo XQOvixóôiaGxr||Lia
aruó
4OU aicóva. xa 7TQG)xoyeu)|iexQixá j^é^Qi xai xa TiaÀaioxQiGxi-
avixá XQÓvia, TiegiyQácpovxaixaxá xaxriyoQieç:
ANAITAZIAnANArißTOnOYAOT ôr^ÓGia xai lôicoxixá xxi^Qia, iSQa, xacpoi. Ta
P(O|Liaixá*FTi<piöo>Taanó ttj ZnaQTX] 7i8QiGGÓx8Qa ôr||iÓGiaxxriQiaeivai ÚGxeQOQCDjLiaixéç
ßaGi^ixec, arcó xa lega ßgiGxovxai xaxá xavóva
H l7iáQxr|xaxéxei eÇéxouGa08Gr|jiexa^ó xcovTió^ecov
evó anó xa GTcíxia
Trou TiagouGiáÇouv 7iaQaycoyr| i^ricpiôcoxcov. (ieyá>.oi a7TO0éxeçava0r||iaxo)v,
Gcó^ovxai i^ricpiôcoxáôárceôa.Ta xacpixáé0ijna7iagou-
FlaQOUGiáÇexai eôco r| e^éXií,r' xr|ç xé%vr|ç xou
a;ró xr'v eÄAr|viGXixr| GiáÇouv lôiaíxeQO evôiacpeQOv,ôióxi evó xaxá xr|v
i^ricpiôcoxoó, 8Tro%r|coç xr|v xai yew^exQixr)eTio^T]axo>,ou0ouv
TUQCôxoyecoiLiexQixr)
UGX8QT] agxaióxr|xa, xa xaQaxTr|QiGxixáyvcoQÍGjiaxa xov ôiaôeôojiévo xutto,ano xa ag^áixá XQÓviaxai
xr|çxá0e 7T8QÍOÔOO, o tcàougioçyeco^iexQixóç
ôiáxoG-
xai xa ttou jiexá ejicpavíÇovxaixotuxoí xuttoi:eivai %aQaxTV'Q-
|íoç eixovoygacpixá0é|j.axa éxouv %qt|gi- IGXIXOÍ 01 XXIGXOÍ OIXO-
ÔKOQOCpOl, e>.Àr|VlGXlXOÍ
|iO7TOir|08Í.
Ta v^ricpiôcoxá yeveiaxoí xácpoi,tiou é/ouv avaGxacpeí Ge Siácpoga
xr|ç l7iaQxr|c;xo)vQO)jiaïx(ov XQÓvcov
eivai a^iOGrijLieícoxa GT|(ieía.Ta Qco(ia'ixávexQoxacpeíaeivai jieyá^a xai
yia xiç TiaQaGxaGeiç,ttodgdv- xavovixá OQyavoo|iéva.Ta ag%aio>-oyixá euQr||iaxa
r)0(oçajreixovíÇovxaigxo xévxgo xou ôo)|Liaxíou.To
vnóXoinoôájreôo xaXÓ7ixexaijie yewjiexQixáxoG(ir|- jiaQxuQOÓvjLieGacpr|veia óxi r| 'LnaQTV'r|xav éva
xai TroixiÀíaç.H GÓy- GT]|iavxixóxai ti^ougio xévxQO,7iou axoÀo0oÓGeGe
liaxa, 0au|iaGxr|(;TroÀuxQcojuíaç noXXá Grpeía xov xavóva xcovTió^ecovxr|ç xuqícoç
xQiGíi^e GÓyxQovai^ricpiôcoxá, 7iouTTQoeQxovxai ano
xov UTió^oi7ioeXkr''ixó x^qo r' ano ákXeç Q0)|iaïxéç EÀXáôaç.Ta ?iiyoGxáxai xaxag%r|va7roG7iaG|iaxixá
óxi gxt|v l7iáQxr| 'mr'Q%s Gxoi%eía xr|ç avaxoívo)Gr|çGUjißaX^ouvgxt| jieXéxr|
eTraQxíeç,UTioôriÀœvei
xai r| ji8yáA,r| xr|ç xo7royQacpíaçxr|ç Z7ráQxr|ç,xai ôiacpœxi^ouv
8QyaGxr|Qio7iaQaycôyr|ç i|>r|cpiôo)X(ov
axjir)xou xo7ro08xeíxaigxo ôeóxeQOjiigó xou xqíxou aQxexá GxoxeiváGr||ieíax-qçiGXOQÍaçxr|ç.
xai tic 7iQ(óx8ç
ôexaexíeç xou xéxaQxoi)aicova.
WILLIAMCAVANAGH KAI CHRISTOPHERMEE
Aia<poQpnoír'GX) arryvEX,X,Tivtxf| 'TTraiOQo:ti
ANNAKAPAnANAriÛTOY Laconia Survey xat to Rural Sites Project
'Eva Pc&jiaixóIToQTQaÍTOanó rx]Movejißaaia tou To Laconia Rural Sites Project eí%e Gav gxottó xr|
I1qóI|ioü 2ou alcova n.X. ôieQeuvr|Gr|jiixqcov ayQoxixwv 0éGeo)v xai xr|ç
lo 7iaQovaQüQOeqexaÇei èva avòQixoTioQXQaixo otto aygoxixr|c; oixovojiíaç xr|ç I*náQTr'c;xará xouç
XT]MovsjißaGia, ttouXQOvoÀoyeíxai gxov ttqcoíjío2o ttqoïgxoqixouçxai iGXOQixoóçXQÓV0l)Ç- Mia o(iáôa
aicova |i.X. xai ôi8Q8Uvá xo gxo^, xr|v TiQoéXeuGri anó 20 0eGeiç (ex xcov400 ttoua7ioxa^u(p0r|xavGxa
xa0coçxai xr|GrijuaGÍaxou egyouyia xr|vxaxavór|Gr| 7i^aÍGia xr)ç Laconia Survey) e7ieÀéyr|Gavyia
xou xoivcovixouxai 7ioàixigxixou 7r>.aiGÍouG8 [iía TreQaixeQG) ^enxojieQri |ieXéxr|. H xaxavórjGr| xr|ç
ycoviáxou Qcojidixou xogjiou.H xexvixr|xai r|ôiáxa^T] cpÓGriç auxóv xcov0eGeo)véxei e^aiQexixr| Gr^aGia
xriç xó(ir|ç xo7io0exoóv xo y^U7ixó gxt]v xga- yia xr| 8ieQeuvr)Gr|xr|ç ayQoxixr|ç oixovojiíaç xr|ç
ïavia-7iQcoï|ir| aÔQiáveia 718QÍ0Ô0. IôiaíxeQeç TieQioxiíçxaxá auxó xo jieyáÀoXQovixóôiáGxr|jLia. Oi
o|ioióxr|X8(;ejuôeixvuei xo 8Qyo jie xr|v eixovoyQa- 0éGeiç éxouv eQeuvr|0eí ógo xo ôuvaxó nXr'QsoTSQa,
cpíaxou TQáíavou xai éva 7iqcoï(ioxuttoxou AÔQiavou, eM.eíi|>ei7iQay|iaxixr|çavaGxacpiíç.Qgxogo òXa xa
óttcoçsníor'(; xai 'ie (lOQcpéçarco xr|v aváyA,ucpr| ejcicpaveiaxá Xsítyavaa7ioxu7i(ii)0r|xav, r' yeocpuGixrj
ôiaxÓGjir|Gr|Gxr|vAi|n8a xou TQaíavoó gxo Benevento ^le^éxri ôieQeuvr|Gexa uttó xr|v enicpáveia xaQax-
xá0G)çxai jí8 7iaQaÔ8iyjLiaxa auxoxQaxoQixrjçeixovo- xr|QiGxixáxai xou eôácpouç, xai e^exÓGxr|xavxa
yQacpíaçajró xrjvAxxixr).Ix8vÓx8QT|8^éxaGr| xrjç Xr|(iixáxaQaxxriQiGxixáxou. Ta aQxaio^oyixá eQcoxr)-
xexvoxQOTiíaç xai xr|çxexvixrjçoôriyeíGxr|guvÔ8gt] jiaxa tiou exé0r|Gav eivai |ieyáta)u evôiacpeQOvxoç,
xou yXuTixou jLi'évaa0r|vaïxo egyaGxriQio7raQaycoyr|ç ógo xai r| Gr|jiaGÍa xcoveTiicpaviaxciveQeuvcòvxa
[is Gacpeíç87riÔQáG8iça7ió vecoxega|iir|XQO7ro^ixixá xeteuxaía xQÓvia. MixQeç ayQoxixéç 0eGeiç éxouv
Qeu^iaxagxt]vX8XVT1 xou TioQXQaíxou.H TTOióxr|xaxai ßge0ei xaxá exaxovxáôeç, xai auxó xo TTQÓyQawja
XO 7T8Q18XÓ|L18VO XOU ÔT]Ji0Gl8U(J.8V0U
8QyOU U7TO- ôiegeuvá jae axQißeia xa 7ieQi0(OQiaxr'q eQ|ir|veíaç,
ôr|Àcovouv 7ii0avr|xauxiGT|xou jie xov GuyxXr|xixó ôeôojiévriç xr|ç e^aigexixá |iixQr|ç xai a7iOG7iaG-
HQax^avó, xov xe^cuxaío ajróyovo xr|ç cpr|(iiG|iévr|ç xcovjaaQxuQicov. Oi |ié0oôoi Gxeôi-
^axixriç cpUGriç
GTiaQxiaxixriç aQiGxoxQaxixr|ç oixoyéveiaç xcov ÓGxr|xavQr|xcoç éxovxaç utt'ói¡>r|auxouç xouçgxoxouç.
EuQux^eiôcov. To TiaQÓvÓQ0QOxávei jiía avaGxÓ7ir|Gr| xou igxoqixou
16 riEPIAHYEIZ
xr|ç égeuvaç xai rcagouGiáÇeixa aTTOTe^éajiaxa 'ie
xr|vaváh)or' evóç Tragaôeíyiiaxoç.
KEITH WILKINSON
Feo-aQxatoX^yvxéç jieX^reç anjv AxQ<moX/q ttjç
Etwíqttiçxai axTivKoiXáõa xou EuQOra:
TUQOxaxaQXTixá ov'ineQaa'iaTa
H TiagoÓGa[leXéxi]G^oÀiáÇei xa anoxe^éGjLiaxaxr|ç
ev eÇeÀíÇeiyeco-aQxaioA,oyixr|ç égeuvaç gxt|vxoiAáôa
xou EuQcoxa.Av xai r| xoiXáôa, xai iSiaíxega r| nò'r'
xr|ç ZTrágxriçeivai agxexá yvcoGxr) aQxaio^oyixá,
yvwQÍÇoujie G^exixá Xíya yia xr|viGxogía xou xotiou
ttqív ano xo 19o aióva. H yecoXoyixr) iGXOQÍaxr|ç
xoiÀaôaç eivai xaxavor|xr]Ge yevixéçyQafi^iéç, jie ttio
Gr||iavxixá xa cpaivó|ievaxr|ç llÀeioxaívou xai xr'q
n^eiGxoxaívou TregíoSou.Ocoxí^exai r' Gr^aGÍa xcov
710U5r|^iouQyr|0r|xavxaxá xr' ôiaQxeia
xaGiÇriGecov
auxcovxcovnegióôcovxai GU^rjxáxair| i^r|jiaxo^oyía
Ge |iia 7iQOGTcá0eiava ôoGeí xo TieQiyQamiaxou
yovixou xoTiixou u>.ixou. riQoxeívexai óxi 01
liexaßo^ec ano auxéç xiç iôióxr|xeçeivai 71107ii0avó
va aTTOxe^ouv aTioxé^eG^a av0Q(o7rivr|çÔQaGxr|Qióxr|-
xaç ï) niaç TiQÓGcpaxriç 5iayévr|Gr|ç,Súo GT||ieía iôi-
aíxeQOUaQxaio>.oyixouevôiacpeQOvxoç. Aívexai 161-
aíxeQT]7TQOGOXT] Ge éva |iovaôixó i^rniaxoyevéçiregi-
ßaMov, auxó xou Qco^iáixou0eáxQOUxr|ç IrcáQxriç.
FlaQouGiáÇovxaixa aTroxe^eGjiaxaxr|ç^ercxoiieQOÓç
égeuvaç ttouôeí%vouvóxi r| eniXoyr]
iÇr||iaxo^oyixr|(;
xr'q 0eGr|çxou 0éaxQOur|xav GxÓ7ii(ir| xai éyive Ge
lôavixá yia xr' 0efie^í(OGT|GXQ(û(iaxa7ir|^oó xr|ç
n^eioxaívou xai n^eiGxoxaívou. IlQoßa^ovxai
eniGriçxexjiriQiayia xr|v u7iaQ^r|terra rossa ttou
XQOvoXoyeíxai ttqiv ano xo 0éaxQO r| OTioía
acpaiQe0r|xeGe jaeyáXojiégoc xaxá xr| SiaQxeia xr|ç
xaxaGxeuriç xou. Zxr| Guvé%eia GXOÀiáÇovxaixa
|iexaQ(o|iaixá GXQÓ^iaxaxQovoXoyoó|ievaano xov 8o
coçxo 10o aióva |i.X. hou 7reQié%ovxai gxo xoí^o xou
OéaxQOuxai GU^iTiegaívexai óxi xo xaQa>tTr|QiGxixó
7TQÓGIV0 XQCO^ia jie xo yovixóu>axó xr|ç
eivai GUjicpuéç
n^eioxaívou-n^eiGxoxaívou ttouoiaßQcoOriGav. TéXoç
7TQoßa^ovxai xa eTTixeiQrijiaxayia xo eTrójnevo
Gxáôio xr|çégeuvaç ttou0a 7TQé7rei va eivai jiía Xen-
xojaeQriç|ie^éxr| xr|ç U7róyeiaç GXQO)|iaxoyQa(píaç
xáxco aTTÓxo xevxQixó iiégoç xr|ç xoi^áôaç xou
EuQWxattou0a (iTrogouGe va TTQoßXr|0eiGav aTroôeí^ri
yia xiç ^exaßoAec gxo xottío arcó xr|v eno%r' xrjç
Avcoxegriç naÀaioÀi0ixr|ç.
DONALD NICOL
O BuÇavrivóç MixiTQáç xat r' ZnáQTX)
To óvojia LnáqTT]eí%e 5o0eí gxo Mugxqó otto xogti
aQxaÏGjiou. 'O^icoçxavévaç ßuCavxivocGuyygacpéaç,
ouxe xav o rejiiGxóçnXrj0cov, ôev 0a eí%eGU|i(p©vr|Gei
lie xov ^oyicoxaxo M. de Pouqueville,óxav yugo)gxo
1800 TraQaxriQOÓGe óxi, evco r| agxaía ttóàti xr|ç
iTTÓQxriç 5ev r|xav TTiáxÍTroxaTreQiGGÓxego otto éva
óvo|ia, 'eivai cpavegó óxi o GÚyxQovoç Mugxqóç é%ei
xxiGxeí Tráv© Gxa egeÍTTiaxr|çaQ%aíaç ZTráQxriç'. Oi
BuÇavxivoí eíxav xatóxeQT| avxí^T]i|;r| xcov TTQay-
liáxíuv yiauxouç o Mugxqóç r|xav évaç TTQayjiaxixóç
xai Çwvxavóçxottoç.H ZTTÓQxr| r|xav éva igxoqixo
yeyovóçr' jiía tto^ixixt) xai cpi^OGOcpixriacpriQruiévri
évvoia,xai 01 Bu^avxivoíXóyioiôev Gxécpxr|xav Troxé
va xaxeßouv %a|ir|^óxeQa xai va avaCr|xr|G0uvxa
0vr|xá ^eíi[)avá xtíç. IlQoxí^r|Gav va xr|v cpu^á^ouv
éxGi gxo jiuaXóxouç.
 PrefaceandAcknowledgments

This volumepresentstheproceedings of theXlXth and little-known site of Pellana. In addition,the

ClassicalColloquiumheldat theBritishMuseumon Caryatids,an international groupofsupporters ofthe
6-8 December1995.The successof theColloquium Department,provided further support for the
owes muchto its initiator and organiser, Dr Susan a
Colloquium, fitting tribute to ArtemisCaryatisof
Walker(DeputyKeeper,Departmentof Greekand Laconia.
Roman Antiquities),who workedin collaboration The futureof Spartanarchaeology dependson a
withProfessor G. B. Waywellof King'sCollegeand precarious balance between hard-pressedarchaeolo-
ProfessorJ.J. Wilkesof theInstituteof Archaeology, gistsrecording in theface of destructionfrom modern
UniversityCollege London, and with the British development and an international communityof
Schoolat Athens.The BritishMuseumis particular- scholars,themselves working with verylimitedre-
lygrateful to theManagingCommittee of theBritish sourcesand opportunities forfieldwork.One of the
Schoolat Athensforagreeingto publishthisvolume. benefitsof a colloquiumsuch as this is to bring
The taskof preparing thepapersforpublication has togetherscholarsfrommanycountrieswitha com-
been undertakenby Dr W. G. Cavanaghof the moninterest in Sparta,andtodrawtotheattention of
Universityof Nottingham,aided by Charlotte theiraudiencetheenormity of thetaskin recording
Westbrook Wilson(designer)and Susan Walker(co- and understanding a greatand previously underesti-
editor). matedheritage. As Donald Nicolbrilliantly evokesin
The Department of GreekandRomanAntiquities hiscontribution on Byzantine Mistra,ancientSparta
is also pleased to recordits thanksto the British wasmuchinthemind,butnotinvestigated in thesoil.
Academy, King'sCollegeLondonand theInstitute of Like thesagesof Mistra,moderntourists knowthat
ClassicalStudies,University ofLondonforproviding thegreatsitetheysee is notancientSparta,butfew
grantsthatenabledGreekscholarsto attendand give havetheinclination or timeto seekit out. We hope
papers.Here are publishedMariaPipili'sconvincing thatthepublication of thesecolloquiumpaperswill
demonstration of the religiouspurposeof muchof showreadersthenatureof whathasbeenmissed,and
the finestarchaicLaconianvase-painting, Anastasia thattheywillurgeactionto raiseSparta'sprofile for
Panayiotopoulou's superblyillustrated surveyof the archaeologists andvisitors alike,and,notleast,forthe
workshops of mosaicistsin RomanSparta,and Stella community of modernSparta,whichtakesa lively
Raftopoulou's excitingreportof recentfindsfrom interest
andpridein itsremarkable past.
rescueexcavations. We are grateful to Dr Theodore
Spyropoulos,Ephor of Classical Antiquitiesfor
ArcadiaandLaconia,forpermitting thepublicationof DyfriWilliams,
theseand manyothernewfinds,and forsubmitting Keeperof Greekand RomanAntiquities,
his own most interesting paper on the important The BritishMuseum.
 I
The workof theBritishSchoolat Athens
at Spartaandin Laconia
H. W.Catling

We are all mostgratefulto the Greekand Roman costscommensurate with,say,thoseof the French
Department of theBritishMuseum,andespecially to School at Delphi, or of the GermanInstituteat
the Keeper,Dr DyfriWilliams,and to Dr Susan Olympia.Therehasalsobeena farfromcontemptible
Walker, fororganising thisColloquiumon 'Spartain Britishtraditionof researchprogrammes designed
Laconia',theinterest of whichis so fullof promise. andexecutedbyindividuals - scholarswhohavepre-
How splendidto see so manycolleagueswho have ferredto followtheirown linesof inquiry, by their
takenthetroubleto comefromabroadto participate. ownmethods, ratherthanjoina monolithic enterprise
Wearemuchdisappointed, nevertheless,thatDr Th. witha permanent commitment to it. In sayingthis,I
Spyropoulos,Ephor of Antiquities for Arkadia- am neitherapplaudingnor deploringthe phenome-
Laconia,shouldhavebeenprevented fromjoiningus, non,merely referring toitas a factor thathasplayeda
at theverylastminute.Happily,however, he has sent As
part. part of this tendency, there is a verystrong
hispaperon hisworkatPellanafora colleaguetoread Britishaffection fortopographic work,stronger than
on his behalf.We welcomemembersof his staff, financialconsiderations on theirownaresufficient to
includingMs Stella Raftopoulou, who has recently explain.Perhaps, for Laconia in this
particular, has
done a greatdeal to helpthoseof us herecurrently been an inheritancefromthe toweringfigureof
working in Laconia.I can thinkof no moreappropri- ColonelMartinLeake(Wagstaff 1992).
ate wayin whichto beginthisColloquiumthanbya In anyevent,as I hope to show,Britishworkin
warmand sincereexpressionof gratitudeto them Laconiasincethebeginning ofthecentury hasunder-
and all our otherGreekcolleagueswho have been takenbothextensive and intensive topographic study,
responsiblefor approvingand supportingBritish excavationof both single-period and multi-period
workin Laconia overmanyyears.At thesametime, sites,urban,rural,religious,as well as studyand
let me express our warm appreciationof the analysisof categories of Laconianmaterialremains,
philoxema whichcontinuesto be shownto us in all withprideof place perhapsgoingto epigraphy, but
Laconianquarters. important workhavingalso been done in ceramic
As an introduction to this Colloquium'sserious studies.Morerecently, theBritishhavetakenthelead
businesson ThursdayandFriday, I havebeenaskedto in theapplicationof scientific techniques, applying,
a
give survey of work in Laconia in general,at Sparta forinstance, geo-physical procedures to site-location
in particular,undertaken bytheBritish, especiallyby and investigation, as wellas utilising a widerangeof
the BritishSchool at Athens,over the past nine techniquesin materialsanalysis(Joneset al. 1986).
decades(CatlingH. W. 1986b).I must,ofcourse,dis- The existenceof theFitchLaboratory as an integral
claim any particularvirtuefor Britishworkand partof theAthensSchoolhasmuchto do withthis.
remindyou of the greatimportance of otherwork, Although outsidemybriefthisevening, itmustnot
notablythatby generations of Greekscholars,the be forgotten thatBritishscholarswhohaveworkedin
weightand significance of whichwill certainlybe Greece underthe aegis of the BritishSchool have
highlighted the
during daysahead. played a significant role in elucidatingthe com-
Whilethe word'Sparta' has a majorrole in our plexitiesof Spartanhistory. I thinkof G L. Huxley
Colloquium'stitle,thereis worktowhichI mustrefer (Huxley1962),Paul Cartledge(e.g. Cartledge1979),
on a widerLaconiancanvassince,fromthebeginning, J.T Hooker(Hooker1983),Paul CartledgeandTony
Britishscholarshave been activein manypartsof Spawforth (Cartledgeand Spawforth1989), not to
Laconia,as wellas atmanypointsinSparta.Thismay mentionfundamental studiesof Spartanland man-
to some degreehavebeen the resultof the narrow agementand inheritanceby Stephen Hodkinson
financialconstraintsunderwhichtheBritishSchool (Hodkinson1986,1989,1992).
operated in itsearlyyears,preventing it fromunder- ThoughBritishinterest in Spartaand Laconiahas
taking anyone massive fieldcommitment - massivein been continuousduringthe presentcentury, fora
termsof thecostof landacquisition on a grandscale, numberof extraneous reasonswithwhichI shallnot
massivein termsof the corresponding operational troubleyou,the institutional interestof the British
20 H.W. CATLING

School has been concentrated in threeperiods,the toa depthofthree metres

andmore, a rowof
exposing
firstfrom1904to 1910,thenextfrom1924to 1927, foundation
blocks bank. . . Heavymarble
ineither blocks
thethirdandcurrent phasefrom1973onwards. From andstelaiweredislodgedfromthebedandcarried as
theoutset,thisinterest hasbeencatholic, embracing a muchas 1000yards downstream, whileminiaturevases
chronological of
spectrum study from the Bronze and otherlightdebriswerewashedacrossthemain
Age,viathepinnacles ofArchaicandClassicalSparta, roadtotheEurotas.'
Sparta-Gytheon
to theImperialRomanepilogueand itsLate Antique
and Medievalaftermath. Circumstances havecreated A few weeks ago, I made my firstvisit to the
gaps in this sequence, itis true.Some of them maybe Archaeological Museumof Tarantowherea number
attributed to site-location shift, phenomenonto
a of justlyfamousArchaicLaconian vases fromthe
whichSpartahasbeenparticularly subject.The earli- ancientcemeteries of Tarasaredisplayed (Curcietal.
est'Sparta'seemsto havebeenthelowmoundsiteat 1994).Their greatbeauty is enhanced by theirpristine
Kouphovouno, half-way betweenSpartaand thevil- condition,a condition thatis inmarked contrast tothe
of
lage Ayios Ioannis (Hope Simpsonand Dickinson deplorable state in which much Laconian pottery is
1979: no, no. C. 6). BronzeAge Spartalay on the foundin and aroundSparta,makingstudylaborious
Menelaionspur, of theriver,twomilesor so from
E and frustrating. Local soil chemistry is particularly
the moderntown (Hope Simpson and Dickinson malignant.
1979:107-08,no. C. 1) Dark Age,Archaic,Classical BeforetheBritishSchoolbeganitsworkinLaconia
throughto ImperialRoman Sparta stood on and in 1904, it had achieveddistinctionelsewherein
aroundthe complexof low hills whose existence Greeceforits workat a numberof prehistoric sites,
(excepting theacropolis)is nowmuffled bythemod- includingKnossos,Zakroand Palaikastro on Crete
erntown.The successor, Lakedaimonia, wasrestrict- and Phylakopion Melos. Workin the post-Bronze
ed to theacropolisarea,untilthemoveto Mystras, Age fieldseemedless assuredand lackedcommit-
under the walls of Villehardouin'scitadel. Most ment.If we excludeE C. Penrose'sinvestigation at
recently, Spartareturned toitspresent site,at theend the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens (work,
of theWarof Independence. indeed,on whichhe hadalreadybeenengagedbefore
Beforeweembark on a generalaccountofworkand theopeningoftheSchool),andtheworkinCyprusof
discoveries, thereis a significant extraneousfactor 1887-88,at Paphos,Marionand Salamis,therehad
of whichaccountmustbe taken,forit significantly beena Schoolundertaking atMegalopolisintheyears
affects thequalityand quantity of information about 1890-93,a shortinvolvement (1893) at Aegosthena,
Sparta recoverable from archaeological procedures, inconclusivedigs in 1894 at Abae and Hysiae in
foritmaynotoccurto thosecomingfreshtothesub- Phokis,andthenowalmostforgotten 1896-97workin
ject. The forcesof natureover the centurieshave theKynosarges areaofAthens, underCecilHarcourt-
exacteda terrible tollfromtheregion'sancientsites Smith, during his Directorshipof the School
and theirsurroundings. Withoutfirst-hand experi- (Waterhouse 1986).Wemaybe certainthatthosewho
enceof theextentto whichsitescan be ravagedand begantheSpartaundertaking in 1904fullyintended
degradedbystorm-water in a regionof softgeology to putbehindthemtheselessthanconvincing under-
suchas thesediments on theE bankof theEurotasit takings,and produce something of substance, coher-
to understand
is difficult howlosscan be suffered on enceandlastingvaluein Laconia.
sucha scale.I havemyselfhadpersonalexperience of The School'soriginalstrategy forLaconia in the
thisdestructiveness fromall partsof theMenelaion early1900s was in many ways a preview of procedures
site (e.g. Catling1978) and fromthe sanctuary at nowde rigueur forworking in a newarea,or on a new
Aphyssou, Tsakona (Catling1990b). But the most site.MarcusTod andAlanWacereviewed theexisting
potentillustrationof the degree of destruction materialtestimonia by examining the contents of the
achievable ina singleepisodecomesfrom JohnCook's SpartaMuseum,leading to the publication Wace
of
account(Cookand Nicholls1950)of theworkhe did and Tod, 1906.Tod was responsible forinscriptions,
in 1949at KalyviatisSochás,up againsttheTaygetos Waceforsculpture and minorantiquities. Each man
foothills, not far s of Sparta,at the site of the wrotea generalintroduction to his own section,
Eleusinion,in whichtherehad been earlierBritish showinga matureand thorough graspof theinterest
interest(Dawkins1911). Cook had been invitedto and importance of thematerial.Tod, certainly, was
investigatea findmade in extraordinary circum- alreadyrecognised as an accomplished epigrapher.
stances.This is whathe says: AlanWace'sastonishing versatility is seen to advan-
tage in his account of the sculpture.Had the same
'Theriverbrokeitsleftbankatthemouthofthegorge thoroughness been maintained throughout thecourse
anda torrent
swept the
through village(Cookisspeaking of thisphaseof theSpartawork,it wouldhavebeen
ofOctober,1947),washingaway30 andscores
houses of hardtocriticise.
treesonitsway.
Just belowthe where
point it out
broke The School'sfirstphaseat Spartalastedforseven
thetorrentgougedouta newbedabout10metres wide years.The Annualsof theSchoolforthoseyearscon-
 THE WORKOF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENSA T SPARTAAND IN LACONIA 21

taina miscellany of articlesin whichaspectsof the fullnoteof a greatdefensivewall surviving on the

workweredescribed, withvaryingdegreesof author- acropolis,remarking on theprimitive character of its
ity.Somearticlesarenomorethaninterim accountsof construction andraising, at least,thepossibility thatit
the stages of the excavationsundertaken(e.g. mightdate to theBronzeAge. Their evidentdisap-
Bosanquet1907),thoughin a numberof casesthese pointment at theirresultssuggeststheydid notfully
interimaccountshave provedthe only published appreciate interest
the of whattheyhadfound,which
recordof particularexcavatedsites (e.g. Dickins includedprehistoric depositson theacropolis, and an
1907b).Otherpapers,suchas Wace'sclassification of important Middle Helladic cistgrave, to which Wace
leadvotiveofferingsfromtheMenelaion(Wace1909) was to do greaterjusticein a laterpublication (Wace
weredefinitive,and of permanent value(fora more 1910).It is revealing thatat Gerakithechancefindsof
recentapproachto thestudyof theselead offerings inscriptions(Tillyard 1905) and sculpture(Wace
see Cavanaghand Laxton1984). 1905) made beforethe excavationwerestudiedand
The FirstWorldWarmusthavebeenat leastpart- reportedwitha care and confidence thatis missing
ly responsibleforthe failureof thoseinvolvedin in the accountof the fieldwork. As manyof you
Phase One to have publishedmore than a single willknow,theBritishSchool has recently cededany
monograph describing theirresults.The monograph claimthatit mightbe consideredto haveto future
in questionwas Dawkinset al. 1929,describing the workat Gerakito our Dutch Colleagues.Later in
sanctuary of Artemis Orthia,certainly the most this meetingwe look forwardto hearing from
importantsingle site investigatedin the period Professor JoostCrouwel,of Amsterdam University,
1906-10. concerning the resultsof his firstseason'sworkat
Beforeturningto ArtemisOrthia,however, there Gerakithisyear.
are some earlypapers publishedin Annualof the The thirdminorexcavation tookplaceatAngelona,
BritishSchoolat Athens,10-17, (coveringthe years not far fromEpidaurosLimera, whereWace and
1903-1911)to be considered, fortheyofferan aide- Haslucksalvagedmaterialfroma smallArchaicand
fora of
mémoire miscellany activities. laterheroönwhichhadbeenbrought tolightbyculti-
Tod, 1904is a veryprofessional studyof a number vation.This lastseemslargelyto havedestroyed the
of sphaireis inscriptions,foundin Spartabeforethe site(Waceand Hasluck1905a).The site,whichnow
beginningof Britishwork(latersupplemented by lackssurfaceindications, is inan areaof considerable,
Tod 1907). His mantle as epigrapherwas then butlargelyuntapped, archaeological potential.
assumedbyH. J.W. Tillyard(e.g.Tillyard1906);his Otherpapersdemonstrate theverywiderangeof
place was later taken by A. W. Woodward(e.g. Laconianinterests in theBritishSchoolin thosefirst
Woodward 1909).E. S. Forsterdescribed ancientsites years.In one, Wace consideredFrankishreliefsat
in S. W. Laconia (Forster1904a),and inscriptions Parori and at Geraki (Wace 1905b). Elsewhere,
thathe had recorded(Forster1904b).His workwas Traquair gave an accountof mediaevalfortresses
characteristic ofhistime,beginning withhisthorough (Traquair1906a).Considering therichnessof Sparta
knowledgeof the literary testimoniaforthe ancient itselfin Byzantine andMediaevalremains, itis disap-
siteswhichoughtto existin a particular area,leading pointing that interest in these periods its history
of
to the attemptto identifysuch sites in the field. wasalmostentirely in
suppressed theworkcarriedout
Neitherhe nor his contemporaries thoughtthis there.A six-pagearticleon theByzantine pottery of
mightbe to put the cartbeforethehorse,and opt- Sparta (Dawkins and is
Droop 1911) only a small
ed, instead,to makea thorough examination of the consolation.
terrain,beforereachingfor a well-thumbed copy Full-scaleworkbegan at Sparta in 1906,in the
of Pausanias. handsof manyindividuals whoweretofollowittoits
Threesmallexcavations in widelyseparatedparts end, individuals who would be responsible formuch
of Laconia were reportedin Annualof theBritish thatwas to be written aboutit. The Directorof the
SchoolatAthens 10and 11.GuyDickinsdescribed his School,R. C. Bosanquet,wasin charge,assistedbyR.
search for the site of the dream-oracleof Ino- M. Dawkins,whothefollowing yearwas to succeed
Pasiphaë, placed by Pausanias near the town of him both as School Directorand directorof the
Thalamae,the site of whichDickins believedhe Spartaundertaking. WiththemwereGuyDickins,J.
had foundnear the modernvillageof Koutiphari P. Droop,H. J. W. Tillyardand A. B. Wace.This
J.
(Dickins1905).He considered hisfindssupported the firstyearwasa veryactiveone.Itsprimeobjective was
identification,buttheevidenceis notcompelling. the definition of the city'stopography
AtGeraki(ancientGeronthrae), (Bosanquet
Wace,Tillyardand 1906a;Dickins1906c).Workcentredon theacropolis,
Hasluck,withPausaniasonce more to help them, and the Late Period fortification surroundingit
madetrialexcavations insearchoftheTempleofAres (Traquair1906);thisled to a ratherslightstudyof a
anditsgrove,theAgoraand itssprings, anda temple largestoawithin theSEquadrantofthesefortifications
ofApolloon theacropolis(WaceandHasluck1905b). (Traquair1906),a stoaof whichmorewillshortly be
These efforts wereunsuccessful, but the partytook heard.The first examination wasmadeof theTheatre
22 H.W. CATLING

(Dickins 1906b).Both thesegreatImperialRoman Coldstream 1968;Coulson1985).To thisdayunder-

buildings - Theatre and Stoa- have veryrecently standing oftheearliestdevelopment ofthesiteis very
beenre-examined byProfessor Geoffrey Waywell and restricted,as wouldbe ourknowledge of earlyAthens
Professor JohnWilkes,whohavepublishedaccounts without itsProtogeometric andGeometric cemeteries.
of theirresults(Waywell, Wilkesetal. 1993;Waywell WaceandDickinsdid in factidentify and excavate
and Wilkes1994), and fromwhomwe shall have a smallnumberof builttombsthattheydatedfrom
news of their most recent work during the themid-second to thelatefirstcentury BC.Theylay
Colloquium. not farfromthe so-calledTomb of Leónidas.The
An eleganttopographic studywas made during report, including an accountofan interesting seriesof
1906 of the earlierfortificationcircuit,datedto the clay vases and lamps, was summary(Wace and
thirdcentury BC.In this,as inmuchelse,A.J.B. Wace Dickins1907).
playeda leadingrole(Wace 1906a,1907a).The wall Afterworking on the GreatAltar,Dickinstrans-
wasfoundtohavebeenbetween2.50 and3.00 metres ferredto theacropoliswhere,above(to theN thatis)
wide,hadbeenbuiltofmud-brick on a stonesocle,its and closeto thetheatre, he identified thesiteof the
top weather-proofed by copingof ceramictiles,
a shrineof AthenaChalkioikos, one of themostnoted
many of them stampedat manufacture to showthey of Spartanreligious centres, wellattested in theliter-
had been made forthisparticular contract(and, in ary sources (Dickins1907,1908).Pathetically littleof
so doing,to discouragetheirmisappropriation by the sanctuary remained; associated deposits divided
theunscrupulous). Wacewas able to showthateven intoa Geometric stratum, and a 'Classical'level.The
wherethe remainsof the wall had totallyvanished site, whose identification was confirmedby tile
belowground,itscoursecouldbe established bysur- stamps, had beenlevelled when thetheatrewasbuilt;
face finds of these distinctivetile-stamps(Wace it was furtherslightedby superincumbent Late
1906b,1907b). Romanstructures. Geometric pottery and later offer-
The E sectorof thisdefensive circuitlaynearthew ings (includinggood Archaicbronzes),and a fine
bankof theEurotas,wherein thescarpcutbyriver- Archaicreliefdedicatedby one Anaxibios(Dickins
ineincursions, severalimportant siteswereidentified, 1908)werefoundin washlevels.As we shallsee,the
chiefamongstthemthesanctuary of Artemis Orthia area was furtherexcavatedunder Woodwardin
(Bosanquet1906b),of whichmorewillbe saidbelow. the1920s.
Beforethis,however, wemayremark upona siteiden- Butitwillbe fortheexcavation of thesanctuary of
andexcavated
tified byGuyDickinsclosetotheriver, Artemis OrthiathatBritishworkat Spartawillalmost
notfarS of themodernbridge.Here he foundand certainly longestbe remembered (Bosanquet1906b;
cleared a massivemasonryplatform,nearly24.0 Dawkins1907,1908,1909,1910a,1910b;Dawkinset
metreslong,over6.60 wide,stillstanding nearly2,00 al. 1929).The workwasprolonged anddifficult, yield-
metreshigh.He soughta dateinthestyleofmasonry, ingenormousquantities of material of all categories;
no laterthanmid-secondcentury bc and an identity it seems to have takenheavytoll not only of the
by comparison withthe GreatAltarat Megalopolis School'smaterialresources, but of the staminaand
(Dickins1906a). resolutionof the participants. The site was one of
Stillfurther S, withinthecircuitof theearlierfor- thoseexposedin the scarp of the river-bank. The
tificationwalland closeto it,a successionof deposits earlylevelsowedtheirrelatively goodstateof preser-
wasfoundcontaining pottery, terracotta reliefplaques vationto theconstruction of a théâtral buildingover
and otherfindsfromGeometricto Classicaltimes, themin the thirdcenturyAD. In brief,excavation
includingfragments of a veryfineArchaicrelief uncovered a successionof Archaicand laterdeposits,
pithos decorated with battlescenes(Wace1906b).On containingdecoratedpottery(Droop 1907, 1908,
thestrength of thehero-relief plaques,Waceidenti- 1909; Dawkins et al. 1929), terracottastatuettes
fiedthisas theremainsof a heroön.It is regrettable (Farnell 1908; Dawkins et al. 1929) and masks
thatmoreworkwas notattempted here,and thatthe (Bosanquet1906c;Dawkinsetal. 1929),carvedivories
publication of the material was so eclectic,forearly (Dawkins1907;Dawkins£/al. 1929;Marangou1969),
deposits unencumbered by laterremains are rareat bronzeornaments, etc.,(Droop 1907a;Lamb 1928b;
Sparta. The siteincluded a pithosburial containing Dawkinsetal. 1929),and tensof thousandsof small
two vases. ProfessorConrad Stibbe has recently leadfigures andobjects(Dawkins1906;Dawkinsetal.
reported thattheremainsof thissiteareno longerto 1929) thathad beenoffered toa femaledeityoriginal-
be identified. ly called, simply, Orthia, later ArtemisOrthia
Burialsof anyperiodare rare,notonlyin Sparta (Bosanquet1906c).
itself,but everywhere in Laconia. That the British Recentviewson thedateofthesuccessive phasesof
foundno cemeteries madeit muchmoredifficult to thedecoratedLaconianpottery foundat theOrthia
construct a relativesequenceof decoratedand other site(Boardman1963)suggestthatcultbeganrather
pottery. It has also greatlylimitedwhatcan be said laterthanDawkinsand hiscolleagueshad calculated
about Dark Age Sparta (Desborough 1952; (Dawkins1910;Dawkinset al. 1929).The cultmay
 THE WORKOF THE BRITISH SCHOOL A TA THENSA T SPARTAAND IN LAGONIA 23

havestarted duringtheeighthcentury BC,butthefirst and Droop 1909).In a usefulfirstseason,theymade

altarand templeseemno earlierthan700 BC,whena an excellent planandelevation of theshrine-building,
témenoswallwas also built.The sitewas completely andexcavated previously untouched depositscontain-
reorganised in thesixthcentury, perhapsin thewake ing votive debris on the E side, where theywere
ofa damaging flood(Dawkins1910b).As a partofthe rewardedby finding an important earlybronze stat-
reorganisation, a largertempleand a newaltarwere uetteof a woman(Wace,ThompsonandDroop 1909:
built, the témenos was enlarged,and the earlier PI. X). They returnedin 1910 furtherto explore
remainswerecoveredand sealedbya layerof sterile tracesof Mycenaeanbuildingsfoundthe previous
sand.The newArchaictemplehad cellaand porch, year.This led toR. M. Dawkins'part-excavation of a
withtwo columnsin antis(Dawkinset al. 1929). Mycenaean'house', 200 metres from the Archaic
Thoughhardlyanyof the superstructure survived, shrine,and ratherunproductive trenchingin the
thereis a hintthatthepediment containedthesculp- vicinity.The work was not well done;thesubsequent
turedstonefigures ofantithetic lions(Dawkins1907). report was perfunctory (Dawkins 1910a). It was,
One or other,or bothof thesuccessivetempleswere indeed,timeto stop.
finishedwith decoratedterracottadisk-acroteria PhaseTwoofBritishworkat Spartabeganin 1924,
(Dawkinsetal. 1929),mostfamously seenat Olympia, theyearin whichA. M. Woodwardfollowed A. J.B.
fromthe Hera temple.As Dr Nancy Winterhas Waceas Directorof theSchool,theyearin whichthe
recently shown,suchacroteriawerealmostcertainly ManagingCommittee oftheSchoolapparently decid-
Laconianin origin(Winter1993). ed thata periodofworkinclassicalsitesshouldfollow
No findsfromSpartahaveplayeda moretelling Wace'sbrilliant workat Mycenae(Waterhouse 1986).
rolethanthosefromtheOrthiasitein demonstrating The decisionwas takento returnto Sparta,under
theartistic excellenceof ArchaicSparta,anditsmer- Woodward's direction. He wasassistedbyJ.P. Droop
itedplace amongcontemporary Greekachievement. fromtheoriginalSpartateam,and a numberof new-
Perhapsthe mostimportant Britishcontribution in comers,notleastamongwhomwas Piet de Jong,as
Laconiawillhavebeenthisdemonstration of Sparta's architect-draughtsman. The returnto Spartamust,
involvement in theevolutionof mainstream Archaic surely,havebeencongenialto Woodward, whoseepi-
Greece(Waterhouse 1986). graphicinterests werealmostcertainto be fuelledby
Unlikesome Laconian cults,devotionto Orthia thedecisionto workon theacropolis, particularlyon
remained populardownto,and duringRomantimes. theTheatre(Woodward1926a,1926c,1927a,1928a;
It mayhavebeenlittleor no earlierthanthisthatthe Woodwardand Hobling 1926). If the mannerof
notorious flogging of theephebesbecamea feature of reporting theresultsof theworkof Phase Two is a
thecult.The firstliterary reference to thisoffensive reliableindicator,Woodward in the 1920splayedthe
practice- thediamastigosis - is in a Romansourceof role of project-director far more obviouslythan
thefirstcentury BC.The finalreconstruction of the Bosanquet,orDawkinslookto havedonein theearli-
shrinewas its mostmonumental. During the third er work.From the outside,it seemseach of these
centuryad the templeand altarwereencapsulated actedas a primus interpares,a situation reflected
in the
withinan amphitheatre, theruinsof whichstillsur- allocationof publication responsibilitiesin theSparta
vive. Until the later nineteenthcentury,this sectionsof Annualof the BritishSchoolat Athens
amphitheatre hadbeenone of themostprominent of 10-17. A comparisonwithWoodward'spublication
Sparta's ancient buildings(Bosanquet 1906). The roleinAnnualoftheBritish Schoolat Athens 26-30 is
Kabirionat Thebes was a not-dissimilar complex. instructive. Be thatas itmay,theresumption of work
The suggestion thatthiselaboratereconstruction was at theTheatrewasrewarded bya veryrichharvestof
a responsetothepopularity of thediamastigosisseems inscriptions cuton theE parodoswall,and on a num-
far-fetched. In thisnew form,the Orthiasanctuary berof blocksfallenfromit(Woodward1926c,1927b).
may have survived substantially undamageduntilthe One of hisassistants begantheexcavation ofa church
sackbyAlaricofAD396. E oftheChalkioikos siteand,nearit,oftheremains of
As thisfirstphaseofBritishworkat Spartadrewto a Romanhouse.An areato theN of theacropoliswas
its close,therecame a senseof incipientennui,and tested,and a long sequence of occupationfrom
perhapsthe participants wereby now,if not disap- Geometrictimes onward was noted (Woodward
pointedwiththeirresults,byno meanselated.After 1926a);it has to be regretted thatnothingmorewas
thefirsttwoyearstherehad beenno further casting doneat thislastsite.The chiefpull,itis clear,contin-
aboutthroughout theconfines of thecityforpromis- ued to comefrompublicbuildings, and theimplicit
ingnewsites.Instead,in 1909,someof themmoved hopeof yetmoreinscriptions.
acrosstheriverup to thestanding monument on the Woodward's assistantsreturned totheverycompli-
bluffoverlooking theE bankof theEurotas,longago catedareabetween theChalkioikos siteandtheupper-
plausibly identified as theMenelaionbyLudwigRoss. most part of the theatre(Woodwardand Hobling
Heretheyinvestigated a sitewhichhadalreadycaught 1926;Woodward
theimagination ig26d,1928b).In fourseasons'work
of severalothers(Wace,Thompson an extensive washlevelrichinearlymaterial wasstud-
24 H.W. CATLING

ied, together withthe badlydamagedremainsof a ondaryuse.These hadbeensetup byvictors, chiefly

portico close byS of Chalkioikos and parallelwithit, boys,in musicalandathletic competitions. Theyhave
and, furtherSW, the fragment of a buildingthat considerable prosopographic interest. A secondrich
Woodward suggested could have been another sanctu- sourcehasbeentheLate Fortification Wall,in whose
ary;fragments of disk-acroteria found near it might construction is muchspolia,(eg Woodward1908).
havecomefromitsroof,butcouldequallyhavebeen Thirdly, parodoswallof theTheatreprovideda
the
debrisfromAthenaChalkioikos (Woodward1928b). richquarryof texts,includinglistsof magistrates,
In general, theearlydepositswerefoundmuchconta- and thecursus of individualSpartanofficials (Wood-
minated bylaterbuilding; theupperlevelsseemlarge- ward1926).These datefromthefirst halfof thesec-
ly to have consisted of material redeposited afterthe ond centuryAD, and, again,providean important
construction of thetheatre.Small amountsof early sourceof prosopographic reference. A vividillustra-
Imperialpotterywere foundamong much larger tionis provided by eighteen-line ofC. Julius
the cursus
quantitiesof Archaicand Classicalmaterial(Droop Theophrastos, Ephorin theyearof Hadrian'ssecond
1928;Woodward 1929).It wasfromtheSWareaofthis visit to Sparta,on two occasionsmemberof an
site thatcame the justlyfamousfragmentary Late embassyto Rome,amonga longlineof distinctions
Archaic statue of a warrior - the so-called whichrevealhimas a tireless, well-connected, well-to-
'Leónidas'- and partsof othermonumental sculp- do manof affairswho,in his prime,maywellhave
tures (Woodwardand Hobling 1926; Woodward aspiredto even greaterdistinction (Cartledgeand
i926d) thathavebeen veryfullystudied(see refer- Spawforth 1993).
ences Palagia 1993: nn.13,14). RecentlyProfessor Manyof theArchaicand Classicalinscriptions are
OlgaPalagiahaspublished marblefragments ofa dec- veryconcisededications cut on pottery(Woodward
oratedshieldfromthiscomplexwhichshe attributes 1930b)or bronze(e.g.Lamb 1928a)offerings, telling
to an ArchaicAthena,not fromthe Chalkioikos little.Anexception
us relatively is theso-calledHymn
shrine,buttheshrineof AthenaEr-gane,mentioned to Athena,foundnearthe Chalkioikos sitein 1927.
by Pausaniasin the same breathas his accountof AnnJeffrey considered themutilated text(whichshe
Chalkioikos (Palagia1993).It is veryunfortunate that dated530-500bc) is moreprobablya dedicationto
the archaeologyof the whole Chalkioikos-theatre Athenamade by the victorin some contest,thana
cavea wall area was so opaque,and thatit was not Hymn(Jeffrey 1990).
reported in greater detailbyitsexcavators. Although itwouldbe 45 yearsfromthelastyearof
Woodwardworkedon the Theatre throughout Woodward's workat Spartabeforethe School again
Phase Two (Woodward1926b,1927a, 1928a), and undertooka prolongedperiod of Spartan work,
publisheda detailed account of the architecture muchhappened,piecemeal,in theintervening years.
(Woodward 1930a).Resourcesavailableto himduring ArthurLane publishedwhatwas forlongto be the
PhaseTwo wereinsufficient to permitthebuilding's standardstudy of Laconian vase-painting(Lane
completeexcavation, even had he wishedto makethe 1936),in whichhe combineda re-examination of the
attempt. Further clearance has been undertaken by British material fromSpartawithotherfinds, notleast
the Greek ArchaeologicalService (e.g. Christou thosefromMagnaGraecia.Othercontributions tothe
1962),includingMr GeorgeSteinhauer's excavation difficult of
topic post-Bronze Age Laconian ceramics
in the1970sof Byzantine-period housesbuilton the weremadebyV. R. Desborough(Desborough1948),
NWarc of the cavea. And now,as I mentioneda R. M. Cook(R. M. Cook 1972)andJ.N. Coldstream
momentago, it has been thoroughly re-examined (Coldstream 1968).
during the course of current British School work,by ThoughA. J. B. Wace's chiefinterests had dis-
Professors Waywelland Wilkes(Waywell,Wilkeset tanced him fromLaconia fromthe Great War
al 1995). onwards,he neverforgotor lost interestin it. Dr
Throughout thefirsttwophasesof BritishSchool ElizabethFrenchhas toldme,indeed,thatherfather
workat Spartatherewasintenseinterest inepigraphy, would much have liked to have returnedto the
reference to someof theresultsof whichhas already Mycenaeansiteat theMenelaion.Otherpreoccupa-
been made.Manynew inscriptions came to lightin tionsprevented this,butWacewascertainly responsi-
bothphases;thesewerepromptly reported(Tillyard ble for encouragingHelen Thomas (now Lady
1906;Tod, Tillyardand Woodward1907;Woodward Waterhouse)beforethe Second World War, and
1908, 1909, 1910, 1926c, 1927b, 1929, 1930b; RichardHope Simpson,afterit,tomakea topograph-
Woodwardand Robert1929). Of more than 1600 ic studyof prehistoric Laconia,exploring it on foot,
pages of the elevenvolumesof the Annualof the and recording all theBronzeAge sitesthatcameto
BritishSchoolat Athens in whichtheSpartaworkwas notice.This theydid, severally, and subsequently
reported, over a third were devotedtoepigraphy. The jointlyreported theirresults in a two-partpaper
threeprincipalsourcesof lapidaryinscriptions were, and
(Waterhouse Hope Simpsoni960, 1961). Here
first,the third-century AD amphitheatre at Artemis wasan extensive surveyof theregionwithresultsand
Orthia,wheremanydedicationswerefoundin sec- supporting evidence describedin a much more
 THE WORKOF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENSAT SPARTAAND IN LACONIA 25

sophisticated waythanhad previously beenattempt- tion),this workhas receivedless attentionthanit

ed. The importance of theirfindings forourpresent deserves, and it shouldcertainly be retrievedfromits
understanding of BronzeAge Laconiamustbe given relativeobscurity.
unstinting recognition and admiration, even if, by An eventtookplace in Oxfordin 1970 whichhas
comparison with current surface survey theory, their turnedoutto haveexerciseda profound influenceon
procedures seem simplistic.With O. T. P. K. Dickin- theworkof theBritishSchool in Laconia. Towards
son,Hope SimpsonwouldlaterexpandtheLaconia the end of my serviceat the AshmoleanMuseum,
workin the appropriatesectionof theirGazetteer Miss KatieDemakopoulou, as she thenwas (nowDr
(Hope Simpsonand Dickinson1979). and another K. Demakopoulou-Papantoniou, Director of the
versionof the same fromhis pen alone (Hope NationalMuseum in Athens),Epimeletriain the
Simpson1981). Arkadia-Laconia Ephoreia,came to Oxfordwitha
The BritishSchool was verybriefly involvedin BritishCouncilscholarshipto further her workon
Laconian rescue-excavation in 1949 at Kalyviatis Mycenaean Laconia. I was asked to meet Miss
Sochás (J. M. Cook) and in Sparta itself(R. V. Demakopoulou to discuss her work on a regularbasis.
Nicholls),butthetimesweredifficult, and workwas During this period it became known that I was to
notcontinued (Cook and Nicholls 1950).Another ten moveto theSchoolin Athens,newswhichprompted
yearspassed before the School undertook excavation Katie Demakopoulouto remonstrate withme over
inLaconia.Whenitcame,thestimulus hadbeenpro- British neglect of the Mycenaean site at the
videdbytheWaterhouse-Hope Simpsontopographic Menelaion,in the importance of whichshe firmly
work.In 1959,Lord WilliamTaylourbeganto exca- believed, and in the unfinished stateof theexcavation
vate the important BronzeAge settlement at Ayios of whichshewasconvinced. I tooknoteof thisadvice
Stephanos,on a low hillon the veryw edge of the and,onceestablished in Athens,withmywifeand R.
Helos plain,in the lands of the modernvillageof N. L. Barber,made a firstvisitto the Menelaion,
Stephaniá(Hood i960, 1961;Taylour1962;Megaw whereI was completely captivatedby theambience,
1964; Taylouret al. 1972). The site is close to the the
andstruckby potential of theMycenaeansite.To
quarrysource,in the lands of Krokeai,of lapis cut a long story short, the School's Managing
lacedaemomus, thehighlydecorative harddarkgreen Committee acceptedmyrecommendation thatexca-
stone much sought after at differenttimes in vation should be resumedthere,and the Greek
antiquity (Warren1992).In thesameyear,soundings authorities granted a permitforworktobeginin 1973.
weremadeat another BronzeAgesiteat Asteri,inthe In thismannerPhaseThree- thecurrentphase- of
opposite,e side of the Helos plain. The Ayios BritishSchool workin Laconia began,and I must
Stephanosresultswereas encouraging as thoseat honourthememory of SpyridonMarinatos, whowas
Asteriweredisappointing; workwas temporarily dis- instrumental in bringing thisabout.
continued afterthe 1963season,butwas resumedin Thereis no needfora detailedaccountofourwork
the1970s(Catling1974a,1975,1978;Taylour1970). at theMenelaion,whichendedbyinvestigating sever-
Of particular interestis thestrongMinoanising influ- al discretelocationson whathas provedto be a very
ence on the site's potteryat the beginningof the largeBronzeAge settlement (Catling1974a,1975a,
Mycenaeanperiod,c. 1600BC.Much of thismaterial 1975b, 1976a, 1976b, 1977a, 1977b, 1978, 1979a,
has been separatelypublishedby S. and J. Rutter 1979b,1981, 1982,1983a,1983b,1984a,1984b,1985,
(Rutterand Rutter 1976). Not surprisingly, the 1986a,1988,1989)on a longN-s ridgeabovetheE
Rutterswereable to pointto linksbetweenAyios bankof theEurotas,and parallelwithit. More work
Stephanosfindsand theresultsof theexcavation of has also beendoneat themuchexcavatedMenelaion
the 1960sat the Kastrisettlement on the islandof site itself(esp. Catling1977a). The Late Helladic
Kytheraby G. L. Huxley and J. N. Coldstream (Mycenaean) settlementsucceeded an extensive
(Coldstream andHuxley1972).Thereis a sharedlink MiddleHelladicsiteon thesamespur,fragments of
withCrete.Workon thefinalpublication of theAyios whichhavebeenfound,includingisolatedwalls,two
Stephanos excavation has reached an advanced state; smallpottery kilns,anda numberof inhumation buri-
itis sad thatLordWilliamTaylourdid notliveto see als (esp. Catling1981).Findsof Late HelladicI and
itscompletion. IIA pottery inlaterfillsstrongly suggestsiteoccupan-
In 1968,A. M. Harding,G. Cadoganand R. J. the 1
cy during period 600-1450BC,butall traceof it
Howell collaboratedin the surveyof a submerged wasremovedin an root-and-branch reconstructionof
BronzeAgesettlement siteandassociatedcemetery at thesite,certainly on theMenelaionand Aetoshills.
Pavlopetri,Elaphonisi, close to Neapolis, in SE Full excavationof the complexopenedby Dawkins
Laconia.Theirreport(Harding,CadoganandHowell (Dawkins 1910a) revealedthe remainsof a proto-
1969)is illustrated by excellentplansof theflooded palace,a buildingforwhichthe less emotiveterm
town.Perhapsbecauseof theinevitable uncertainties 'mansion'maybe preferred (Catling1977a,1979b).
the
concerning chronology of thesite(pottery gavea This wasbuiltin thesecondhalfof thefifteenth cen-
widebracket of Earlyto Late Helladicforitsoccupa- tury.The specificdesign (which foreshadows the
26 H.W. CATLING

palace-plans of Pylosand elsewhere in thethirteenth siblespot?Because,I believe,at theendof theeighth

century) of the mansion was apparently of suchover- century therewasa wellfoundedtradition thatindays
ridingimportance that those responsible insistedthe longpasttheridgehadbeenthehomeof therulersof
availablebuildingplatform at theedgeof thehillbe theregion,thegreatest of whomhad beentheHero
artificiallyenlarged.This seemsto havebeen a bad Menelaos,andhissemi-divine andrather erraticwife,
decision, since it seemsclearthatin no timeat all the Helen.These werethefigures tohonourwhomitwas
NEcornercollapsed,thankstotheinexperience of the thedutyof theSpartans,in so doingdemonstrating
The
site-engineer. building was almost immediately thedescentthrough whichtheycameto possessthe
replaced,whatsurvived of theold househavingbeen landsonce theproperty of thesegreatones.Bronze
carefully dismantled, andmuchof itsmaterial reused Age town, Archaic sanctuary complement and illu-
in the construction of its successorwhich,though mineoneanother.
builton a whollydifferent orientation (Catling1977a: Other researchprogrammeshave followedthe
Plan) repeated plan theold houseas closelyas
the of returnto the Menelaion.From 1985, Dr W. G.
circumstances permitted. This time,everyconceiv- Cavanagh,NottinghamUniversityand Dr (now
ableprecaution wastakentoensurethebuilding's sta- Professor) J.H. Crouwelof Amsterdam co-directed a
All
bility. these events had taken placeby 1375BC,at joint British School-Amsterdam University intensive
latest.Itslaterhistory is lessclear(largely as theresult surfacefieldsurvey(Cavanaghand Crouwel1988)of
of the Dawkinsexcavation), except that it was evi- a largespecimentractof land on the E side of the
dentlyfire-destroyed c. 1200, and not re-occupied. Eurotasboundedby Sellasiain theN, Chrysaphain
Elsewhere, however, on theProphitis Elias and Aetos theE and theMenelaionridgeto theS. Severalhun-
Hills(Catling1978,1981)a short-lived re-occupation dredpreviously unknown sites,datingfromNeolithic
continuedinto the twelfthcentury(Catling and timestoOttoman, wereidentified and recorded, their
Catling1981). Then nothing more. sizesestimated bya variety of techniques, theirpossi-
There is disagreement concerning thelocationof bleidentities assessedagainsttheevidenceoflocation,
themajorMycenaeansitein the generalvicinity of size and surfacefinds,and theirperiod(s)of occupa-
Sparta.Many suppose it was at Palaeopyrghi, the tion calculatedfromscrutinyof datable pottery
BronzeAge settlement adjacentto theVaphiotholos (Cavanagh,Crouwel,Catling,R. W. V. and Shipley
tomb(Hope Simpsonand Dickinson1979:Site C.4; 1996).In someareasthisworkwasdonein thenickof
Waterhouse andHope Simpsoni960; Hope Simpson time,just beforegreattractsof land,especiallythe
1981). Dr Spyropoulos is impressed bytheclaimsof marginalland on the Chrysaphaplateauweredeep
Pellana,nnw of Spartaseveralmilesup theEurotas ploughedin advanceof plantingolive trees.Many
valley(Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979:SiteC.56; smallsites,especially EarlyHelladicfarms - or some-
Spyropoulos1982),wherethereis a veryimpressive -
thingof the kind recordedby the Surveyteams,
cemeteryof Mycenaeanrock-cuttombs,some of havenowvanished forever.Interestattachestochang-
themof trulymonumental dimensions. Despitethese ingpatterns of settlement revealed by theSurvey -
alternatives, I am surethatMycenaeanSpartawas at signsof synoikism in thelaterBronzeAge,whenthe
thesitewenowcalltheMenelaion.I takethisviewin scatterof smallEarlyHelladicsiteswas replacedby
partbecauseof thegreatsize of theMycenaeanset- largerandfewer MiddleHelladicsites,andlargersites
tlement there(Catling1977a:Plan),partlybecauseof still(of whichtheMenelaionsettlement is muchthe
thekindsof buildingswe havefoundthere(Catling largest) in the Late Helladic period. No Dark Age
1974a,1988),butchiefly becausethatwas wherethe siteswerefound,butthenumberof smallruralsites
Spartansthemselves, over2500 yearsago evi-
well grewsteadilyfromArchaictimeto Hellenistic. In a
dentlybelievedit to havebeen.The stepsin thesup- secondphaseof theSurvey, Dr Cavanaghand Dr C.
portingargument are few,and straightforward. At a Mee (LiverpoolUniversity)have in collaboration
dateclose to 700 BC,theSpartansbegana hero-cult selecteda smallnumberof thesitesfoundearlierfor
up on thisridge,in theimmediate vicinity of a small muchmorerigorousstudy, makinguse of a rangeof
naturalknollon the edge of the bluff,whichthey experimental techniques, aimingto pushout further
couldbe forgiven forthinking was a tombfromthe andfurther theboundaries of whatcanbe established
heroicpast;the shrineprospered, was enlargedand aboutan ancientsitebynon-invasive procedures.
givenidiosyncratic architectural form (planand sec- In 1988,as wehaveseen,a freshstartwasmadeon
tionin Wace,ThompsonandDroop 1909),attracting thestudyof thelatemonuments of theacropolisof
hugenumbers of votiveofferings. WhowastheHero? Sparta and its immediate environs,underthe joint
We foundinscribedvotivesto answerthatquestion directionof Professor Geoffrey Waywell,of King's
(Catlingand Cavanagh1976;R.W.V.Catling1986)- CollegeLondon, and Professor JohnWilkesof the
it was the shrineof Menelaosand Helen, as most LondonInstitute of Archaeology, withtheassistance
scholars,fromthetimeof LudwigRoss at least,had of Dr Susan Walkerin mattersarchitectural and of
anyway assumed.Whylocateithere,atsuchan incon- Dr A. J.S. Spawforth, NewcastleUniversity, as epig-
venient distancefromSparta,andin suchan inacces- rapher(Catling1989;French1990,1991,1992,1993,
 THE WORKOF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENSAT SPARTAAND IN LACONIA 27

1994;Tomlinson1995).The Romanstoa,SE of the bly damaged,firstby deep ploughing(it had lain

acropolishillhas been partlyre-excavated,restudied unmolestedfordecades previously), thenby forest
and re-interpreted, emerging as one of the most fire.
Re-examination of the site after thesemisfor-
importantImperial Roman of
buildings Sparta,prob- tunes suggested that immediate excavation was
ably constructed c. AD 130, 'no expense spared' if
imperative any further information was to be
(Waywell and Wilkes 1994). The stoa's relationship retrieved from thesite. This was done, thanks to Dr
withtheenigmatic 'RoundBuilding'hasbeendefined Spyropoulos' sympathetic understanding of thesitu-
moreprecisely. The possibility thatthisstoa is the in It
ation, 1989. proved to have been very,verynear-
reconstructed PersianStoa remainsopen. Byzantine ly toolate,thoughit providedan objectlessonin the
reoccupationof the stoa has been interpreted as variouscausesof sitedestruction (Catlingi99oa-c).
the site of the churchand conventualbuildingsof Werecovered - just- theplanofa long,narrowstone
theMonastery of AyiosNikonMetanoeites, correct- construction, roofedwithterracotta Laconian tiles,
ing the alreadysuspect identificationof a much cover-tiles with the
antefixes, gablespickedout by
earlierbasilicanchurchnearerthetheatreas thatof disk-acroteria. Among Late Archaicand Classical
Ayios Nikon. offerings were bronzeweaponsand shieldfittings.
The sameteamhas beenworking on theTheatre, Thousandsof completeand fragmentary handmade
by testtrenching, carefulresurveying, and studyof terracotta statuettes werefound,and a largenumber
thearchitectural members, thosebelong-
particularly of miniaturearyballoi.Several bronze scalpel-like
ingtosuccessive scaenae Twophaseshavebeen
frontes. tangedbladeshavearousedourcuriosity. Tile stamps
- earlyAugustan
identified and Flavian.Closeexami- and other evidenceattributethis shrineto Zeus
nationof theupperpartof thecavea suggeststhere Messapeus.The apparent concernwithmalefitness to
wereseventeenusablerowsof seats,ratherthanthe procreatehas led us to wonderwhetherthis cult
twentyproposed by Woodward,65 years ago had gainedfavourin responseto theperceivedthreat
(Waywell,Wilkesetal. 1995). to Spartaof oliganthropia. The site was desertedin
One of thesitesidentified bytheLaconiaSurvey, Late Hellenistictimes; activityof an uncertain
at the localityTsakona,in the lands of Aphyssou, kindand scale was renewedin the thirdand fourth
somewayENEof Sparta,on highgrounduntilrecent- centuries ad.
ly theproperty of thenearbyMonastery of theAyii That is enough,and morethanenoughfromme.
Tessarakonta, seemedfromsurfacefindstobe a sanc- Thereis no need,in thiscompany, to pleadthecause
tuary,andtohavehada buildingwhosetiledroofhad of Spartanand Laconianstudies,onlyto remindyou
been embellished by architecturalterracottas of theinfinite satisfaction thatawaitsthosewho are
(Cavanagh,Crouwel,Catling,R. W. V. and Shipley willing and able to come to workin surrounding of
1996,Site N415). Manyhandmadeterracotta figures majesticbeauty and incomparable grandeur, where,
of ithyphallichumansand grotesqueswerefoundon indeed,thediffering qualitiespropertoMenelaosand
thesurface.Soon afteritsdiscovery thesitewasdou- toHelenareforeverin equipoise.
 2
centreof
Pellana,theadministrative
Laconia
prehistoric
G. Spyropoulos
Theodoros
TodayPellanais a small,humblevillagein northern
Laconia,some30 kmfromSpartahalfwayalongthe
ancientroadfromSpartatoMegalopolis.To thes and
w thesiteis dominated by thespectacular barrierof
Mt. Taygetos,tothee itis opentoa fertileandhollow
plain,wellwateredandirrigated bya chainofcopious
springs,themost famous of which,namedPellanis,is
locatedat the site of Pellana,just to the s of the
ancientacropolis,whichliesto theE of thehilloccu-
piedby the modern village.
The strategic positionof thesite,controlling the
passage from Laconia to the Megalopolitisand
Messenia,was recognised bytheSpartans,whobuilt
therea tower,calledCharakoma, theruinsof which
arelocatedtothes ofthevillage.Pausanias,whomade
onlyone excursiontowardsNorthern Laconia,after
mentioning the tomb of Ladas, a renowned Olympic
notes'IIqoïovti ôè còçènxxrjvIleAAávav
victor, xcxq-
áxcojia80TIVòvo|iaÇó|j£vovxa! jiexà touto IleMáva,
71ÓÀ1Çto áQxáíov' (iii 21 2).
Fig. 2.1 (above) Plan and sectionsoftheGreat Tombat Pellana (Tomb1)
The passagethrough Pellanawassafelyguardedby
theSpartansduringthecriticaleventswhichpreced-
ed thefamousbattleat Mantineain 362 bc, and the
site was used as the base of operationsby King
AgesilaosagainstEpameinondas. Xenophoncallsthe
townneM.r|vr| (Hell, 5 9), thoughthegeographer
vii
Strabospeaksof a smallLaconianvillage,namedxa
negava 7TQÓÇ xfivMeyatamo^íxiv veuov,i.e. lying
towards Megalopolitis (viii7.5). FinallyPlutarchcalls
thetownrieMir)vr| (Agis8). The identification of the
hillcalledPalaiokastro withtheancientsiteand the
acropolisof Pellana,is strengthened bytheremainsof
a circuitwall,whichsurrounds thehill;partsof this
wallarenowvisibleon theSEsideof thehill,andthey
are datableto fourthor earlythirdcentury bc. The
fieldson and aroundPalaiokastro are coveredtoday
with innumerablesherds, dating from EH to
Mediaevaltimes.The samehillwas also inhabited in
the Mycenaeanperiod,as we shall see below.The
gradualdeclineof thesitehasbeenwellportrayed by
 PELLANA,THEADMINISTRATIVE CENTREOF PREHISTORICLACONIA
Fig. 2.2 (above) Plan and sectionof Tomb2 at
Pellana.
Fig. 2.J (below) Plan and sectionof Tombj at
Pellana.
thereferences oftheancientwritersmentioned above.
The lastto considerit worthwhile the
visiting place
wasPausanias,afterthemiddleof thesecondcentury
ad, who devotedsomeparagraphsto it recallingits
earlierfameratherthanstressingits contemporary
importance. I referto twopassagesin his text.The
firstrefersto the sanctuaryof Asklepiosand the
springPellanis.The siteof thespringis well-known,
althoughit was encasedsomeforty yearsago in con-
crete,the beautifulplane treeswerecut down,and
manyancientfindswereremoved ordestroyed during Karachalios,Pellana.
29
theconstruction of irrigation channelsforthefields.
The siteofthesanctuary is stillunknown, butwemay
assume that it lies somewhereon the hill of
Palaiokastro.This assumption is basedon thefollow-
ing reason. The Asklepieion themain,if notthe
was
onlysanctuary Pellana,and it seemsreasonableto
at
lookforitin theareaof theMycenaeanpalace,which
is supposedtolie on theacropolis.
H. Waterhouseand R. Hope Simpson,in their
important studyon Prehistoric Laconia (1961: 125
ff),note threeplaces with Mycenaeanfindsinthearea
of Pellana.The firstis thecemetery of tholostombs,
thesecondtheplateauof Tryporrachi, 400m totheE,
wheresomeMycenaeanchambertombsare stillvisi-
ble,andthethirdplaceis thehillofPalaiokastro itself.
The firstexcavations at Pellanawereconducted bythe
Ephor Konstantinos Rhomaios and immediately after
himbytheEphorTheodorosKarachaliosin 1926.At
thesitecalledSpelies(Caves)orPeleketetheycleared
twochambertombs,lyingon theN bed of a torrent,
whichflowsin frontof theentrancesto thetombs.
The firstwasalmostempty(fig.2.4),exceptforsome
sherdsofMycenaeanvases,thesecondwasfilledwith
rubbleand containedfourcistgravescutin thefloor
of thechamber. The graveshad beenplunderedlong
beforetheirexcavation andcontainedonlydisordered
skeletalremains,thoughsomeof the offerings were
found dispersed around the floor.The last as
describedbytheexcavator (seeA. Deh. io (1926)par.
42) weremainlyvasesandfragments ofvases,a female
figurine, one sealstoneof amber (with its device
effaced), another seal of semi-preciousstone
(withoutanydevice),25 smalland roundglass-beads
of violetcolour,severalstonebuttonsof different
coloursand some otherbeads of variousmaterials
and colours.The tombmeasures:diameterof the
Fig. 2.4 Plan and sectionofthetombexcavatedby
30 THEODOROSG SPYROPOULOS
ofthe
Fig. 2.5 (right) The dromos(entrance-passage)
Great TombofPellana,fromtheS.
tholos6 m, heightof thetholos5 m, lengthof the
entrance-passage (dromos) 4.50 m, depth of the
dromos 2.50 m and the heightof the stomion
(entrance)2.50 m. The tombhas a relieving triangle
overitsstomion.
Researchintoprehistoric Pellanawas haltedand
only after60 years reopenedbytheauthorof this
was
article(figs.2.1-3). Our ^rstexcavationtookplacein
theareaof theCemetery of theTholosTombs.Our
trialtrenchesbroughtto lightthreerock-cuttholos
tombs.The biggestlies in themiddle,theothertwo
are placedeitherside.All of themwerefoundplun-
deredand disturbed in ancienttimes,theirroofshad
collapsed and the two lateraltombswerefoundhard-
Fig. 2.6 (above) An amberbeadfromthedromosofthe
Great Tomb.
Fig. 2.y (right) The entranceto theGreat Tombwith
theremainsofthestoneblocking-wall.
ly damaged.The centralone- the biggestin the
whole cemetery - deserves special mention and
description.
Wemayreferin somedetailto theGreatTombof
Pellana,theexcavation ofwhichlastedseveralmonths
(fig. 2.5). The long dromosleadingto theTomb is
orientedfromsw to ne. Its stateof preservation is
excellent. Bothwallsofthedromosconverge gradual-
lyupwardswithout, however, meeting,andthisobser-
vationoffers thefirst indication
chronological forthe
construction of the tomb.It is well-knownthatthe
dromoiof theearliertombsof thistype(fifteenth and
fourteenth centurybc) have almost verticalwalls,
while,fromthethirteenth centuryon,thewallsof the
dromostendtoconverge and almostjoinone another
at thetop.
The maximumpreservedheightof the dromos
neartheentranceattains5.60 m. The widthof the
dromosstartsat 2.10 m and reaches2.55 m by the
entranceto the tomb.The lengthof the dromosis
preserved to 12.70 m andis smallwhenseenin com-
parison with thechamberof thetomb,whichexceeds
10 m. This is becausea deep torrent cutintothehill
outof whichthetombwasexcavated, therebyshort-
ening thedromos.
Some veryimportant findsof the earlyMycen-
aean period were found in the dromos,among
thema buttonmade of amber(fig. 2.6). It is lens-
shaped and perforated;probablyimportedfrom
theBaltic.
At theinnerend of the dromostherewas found
themonumental façadeof theTomb.Its stomion, set
in the middleof the façade,formsa rectangular
opening,sloping slightlyat the top, where it is
crownedby a relievingtriangle.The stomionleads
to the chamber,where the burial of the dead
took place, and was sealed with large stones,in
dry-stonewalling (fig. 2.7). The fact that the
 PELLANA,THEADMINISTRATIVE CENTREOF PREHISTORICLACÓNIA
periodfoundin theGreat Tomb.
Fig. 2.8 Lamps oftheHellenistic
stoneshadbeendismantled, whenthetombwasexca-
vated,suggested that the tomb had alreadybeen
robbed.
In different partsof thetomband morespecifical-
lyby itsentrance we foundnumerous objectsof later
date,among them figurines,animal bones and vases
dating to thelateHellenistic and early Roman period
(figs.2.8 and 2.9-10),whichtestify to theuse of the
tombin laterperiodsforcultpurposes.
The vasesas wellas thefigurines are cult-objects,
perhapsusedas offerings to heroisedancestors.
Amongthe exquisitefindsin the tombwe may
mention tworemarkable piriform jars(figs.2.11-12).
Theyaredecoratedwitha marinelandscapeand sea-
weedand withrichivy-leaves, tenderly drawn.Other
findssuch as alabastra(figs.2.13-14),amberbeads,
fragments of gold foil(fig. 2.15) and finepottery
sherdswitnessthe originalrichnessof the tomb.
Thesebrilliant findspresent similarities
withthewell-
knownfindsfromMycenae,Vapheioand Kakovatos
in Trifilia,datedtoaround1500bc.
We havealreadymentioned thatourinvestigations
uncoveredthreetombsin the cemeteryat the site
knownas SpeliesorPelekete. In additiontotheGreat
Tombtwoothersofthesameshapebutofsmallersize
Fig. 2.Q A cupofRomandatefoundin theGreat
Tomb.
31
wereplacedtotheleftandtotherightof it.It is prob-
able thatthesetwosmallertombsbelongedto mem-
bersof theroyalfamily andthistheory is furthersup-
portedby the factthat the graves the 'ordinary'
of
peoplewereplacedat a different siteandmorespecif-
icallyon a slope calledTryporrachi, 400 m E of the
cemetery for the royal family.During our first
excavationswe hadtheopportunity to digone of the
smallertholostombs,thatto the leftof the Great
Tomb.It provedtoresemble theGreatTombinshape
and construction: dromos with verticalwalls,tholos
chamber, anda conicalvault(notintact).It is general-
ly admittedthatthisparticular gravewas used as a
shelterduringmedievaltimes.By the entranceof
thetombwe founda smallnumberof bronzecoins
struckduringthe reign of the EmperorPhokas
(ad 602-610).This is of greatimportance, consider-
ing thatcoins representing the EmperorPhokasin
particularand moregenerallycoins of the seventh
century ad, areveryrarein Greece,due to theSlavic
invasions.On the floorof the tombwe foundfive
cistgraveswithskeletalremains(fig. 2.16-17). The
dead wereplacedin cistgravescut intothefloorof
the tomb,in accordancewitha well-known Mycen-
aeancustom.
Fig. 2.10 A pot ofRomandatefoundin theGreat
Tomb.
32 THEODOROSG SPYROPOULOS
Fig. 2.11 Palace stylejar fromtheGreat Tomb,
decoratedwithmarinelandscapeand sea-weed.
The contents of thesecistgravesprovidechrono-
logicalevidencefortheconstruction of thetombas
wellas forthesurrounding Mycenaeancemetery. The
finds,exclusivelyceramic,date between1350-1200
BC.Thus thistombwasin use 1350-1200bc, and we
mayreasonably concludethatthewholeMycenaean
cemeteryof Pellana was in constantuse from
1500-1200 bc; thisalsoappliestotheGreatTomb.In
the lightof this,we are led to the conclusionthat
Fig. 2.1J Alabastron
fromtheGreat Tholos.
Fig. 2.12 Piriform
palace stylejar fromtheGreat
Tholos,decoratedwithivy-leaves.
Pellana was an importantMycenaean centre in
continuoususe, a conclusionwhichwill help our
understanding ofLBA societyinLaconia,as reflected
in the Homeric epics and the Linear B tablets.
Pellanawasthenat itsacmeduringtheperiodof the
Trojan war and duringthe reignsof Tyndareos,
MenelaosandHelen.
As faras theidentity
of theGreatTombat Pellana
is concerned,we note thatit belongsto the same
Fig. 2.14 Anotheralabastron
fromthesametomb.
PELLANA,THEADMINISTRATIVE CENTREOF PREHISTORICLACONIA 33

category ofcommunal orfamily vaultsas thechamber

tombsand tumuli.These gravesare verycommonin
GreecefromtheEarlyHelladicperiodonwards.
DuringtheMiddleHelladicperiod(1950-1580bc)
theprevailing typeof graveis thecisttomb,though
the
during Mycenaeanperiod(1580-1100bc) thetype
of tombwithchamberand dromosreappears.The
twomainformsof familygravesduringtheMycen-
aean periodare the tholosand chambertomb.The
firsttypeis usuallyconstructedin stoneslabsin the
so-calledcorbelledtechnique(beehivetombs),where-
as theotheris alwayshewnoutof thesoftrock.It has

Fig. 2.15 (top) A fragment

ofa bronzearrow-head,a
fragment ofgoldfoil and an
amberbead,fromtheGreat
Tholos.

Fig. 2.16 (above) Thefloor

ofthetombto theleftofthe
Great Tholos.Thepost-
holesprobablysupported
woodenpostsfora shelter.
Near itsentrancea hoardof
Byzantinecoinswasfound.

Fig. 2.17 (left) One ofthe

cistgravescutin thefloorof
thetomb.{See also Fig.
2.21).
34 THEODOROSG.SPYROPOULOS

generallybeen held thatthe tholostombsrepresent at Mycenae,at Orchomenos in Boeotia,in thePylos

the majesticfuneralmonuments destinedforroyal region,the tomb at Kapakli near Volos,those at
burials.To thisvariety the
belong megalithic monu- Marathonand at Vapheioin Laconiaand so on. The
mentsof mainlandGreece,suchas thefamoustombs chambertombson the otherhandhavebeen found
in their thousandsfromThessaly to Crete and
Rhodes and theywere the gravesof the ordinary
people. The tombsat Pellana belongto a specific
categoryor a variationof the above main types.
Theyarecutoutof therocklikethechambertombs,
but theirchamberstakethe beehiveshape,like the
tholostombs.
The creatorof thistypeof gravemusthavebeen
wellawareof thetechniquesusedin thechamberand
tholostombs.In thetholoithelinearand thecurved
components ofthetombaresuccessfully harmonized.

Fig.2.18 (aboveleft)
The Great TholosTomb
at Pellana seenfromthe
interior.
Fig. 2.IÇ (above) Plan
oftheEH tumulusat
Pellana.

Fig. 2. 20 (left) The

stonekrepisofthe
tumulusoftheEH II
period.
 PELLANA,THEADMINISTRATIVECENTREOF PREHISTORICLACONIA 35

The dromos,thefaçade,thesidewallsof thestomion mentality and significance. The construction of a

and thelintelarerectilinear and straight and wherev- hugetholostombat PellanaduringtheLH IIb peri-
ertheyjoin,theyformright-angles, forexampleatthe od, testifies to greatexpertise and technical virtuosity,
junctionwiththedromos,behindthestomion,with of a kindnotfoundin anyotherfuneral monument of
therelevant partsof thebeehivechamber(fig.2.18). thistypein thewholeGreekmainland.Note,on the
Thesefeatures arenecessary in constructing a normal otherhand, that the Royal Tomb of Mycenaean
tholostomb,bothfromthe technicaland the static Thebes, the administrative and politicalcentreof
pointof view,but whentheyoccurin the rock-cut Boeotia, was also rock-cut, it was notmadeafter
i.e.
tholostombs,likethetombsat Pellana,theyareprop- themannerprevailing in otherpartsof Greece.The
erlycharacterised as stylizations, which show the tombat Pellanais thena RoyalTomb,andPellanawas
effortsof thecraftsman to imitate, withthegreatest an administrative centreduringtheperiod.This peri-
the
possibleaccuracy, shape and appearanceof the od at Pellana,on theevidenceof thefindsfromthe
normaltholos tombs(see Iakovidis1966: 98 ff). GreatTomb and theotherprincelytombsbesideit,
Imitationis also shownin thecuttingof a relieving extendsfromthe LH II to the LH IIIc period,a
triangle,whichdoesnotoffer anysignificant relieffor chronological spanof continuous habitation, whichis
the lintelabove the stomionof the rock-cuttholos encountered in otherplacesin Laconia,evenat the
tombs.It is onlya skeuomorph. On theotherhand, Menelaionitself.Some tombsof thesametypehave
theirregularity in thecircumference of thechamber been excavated by Marinatos at Volimidia in
of the tombis due to the natureof themonument Messenia,some5 kmn of thePalaceof Nestor.The
(fig.2.1). In thecaseoftheGreatTombatPellanathe smallest of thosetombshasa diameter of 3.13 m and
diameterof the chamberfromthe stomionto the the largest,whichhas been characterised as monu-
oppositeside of the tombis 0.60-0.80 m. shorter mental, hasa diameter of 6.13 m. Theyarealsodated
thantheotherdiameterof thechamber, whichruns intheLH II period(Marinatos1952;1953;1954;Das
fromN to S. Altertum 1 (1955): 141ff.)-A similartombwas found
The stomioninthenormaltholostombsis rectilin- some yearsago at Agrapidochori in Elis and has a
ear,thesidewallsperpendicular andthelintelstraight diameter ofc. 4 m (see Parlama1971;Pelon1976:443,
and linear;becauseof thatthestarting pointof the note 7). At the same timethatthe GreatTomb at
domelies muchhigherthanon theoppositeside of Pellanawasmade,anothergreattholostombwascon-
thechamber; theresultis that,in section,thetwoarcs structed at Vapheioin Laconia(see Tsountas1889:p.
of thedomearenotequalandthepointof theirinter- 130-171;Vermeule1964:90 ff.and 127ff.).Twomore
section,at theapex,is nearerto theentranceof the similartombsof thesamedatehavebeenfoundin a
tomb.If thiswerenotthecase staticproblems could widerarea,at Kambosin Messeniaand at Analypsis
arise, even the collapse of the structure'sroof. in Arcadia.
Therefore thecavitywhichis encountered intheinner Withoutdoubtthiswasa periodof greatprosperi-
part of the roof of the Tombs at Pellana is not ty and a climaxin Mycenaeancivilisation. Duringthe
foundin the verycentreof the 'ideal' circleof the thirteenth century bc, when the Mycenaeankingdoms
chamberbutnearerto theentrance of thetomb.This in thePéloponnèsewereconsolidated and theirgeo-
cavityhas no constructional significance for these graphical borders were as
stabilised, theyare por-
rock-cuttholostombs;on the otherhand,it is an trayed in Iliad ii, one of the princesof Laconia
organiccomponentof the normal tholos tombs, becametheking(wanax)of thewholeterritory. The
becausetheiruppercoursesconvergeat an angleof mostprobableplaceforthisto takeplacewasPellana,
30o and thena big horizontalstone,(the so-called whichpresents, amongotherevidence, tobe discussed
key-stone) closestheopening,givingtheshapeof a below, continuous habitation and continuous funerary
shallowcavity. use of the greatTombs untilthe beginningof the
The aboveprovesthattherock-cuttholostombs twelfth century bc.
haveadoptedseveralconstructional features fromthe The prehistoricand the classical acropolisof
stone-built tholostombs.It is thenpossiblethatthe Pellana was undoubtedlysituatedon the hill of
craftsmen whomadetheGreatTombat Pellanawere Palaiokastro, whichlies oppositeand to theE of the
familiar withthetechnicalspecifications of thenor- modernvillage.My excavations at thesiteduringthe
mal tholostombs,someof whichare contemporary last 15 yearshavebroughtto lightruinsof an exten-
orearlier. sivesettlement of theEarlyand theMiddle Bronze
WecanrefertoTholosTomb 1 at Peristeria, tothe Age Periods. On the summitof the acropolisonly
two tombsat Koukounara,to one of the tombsat ruinsof a spaciousbuildingwereunearthed, which
Koryfasion, tothetombsatVapheioandatKamposin was destroyedby fire duringthe EH II Period.
Mani, to the tombat Analipsisin Arcadiaetc. The Everything above thislayerwas removed,probably
imitation of certainconstructional elementsfoundin during the Frankish occupationof the acropolis,to
thestone-built tholostombsdoesnotprove,however, judge from a tower and otherbuildingserectedover
thattheirrock-cutcounterparts are of lessermonu- and amidtheprehistoric ruins.Whethertherewas a
36 THEODOROSG.SPYROPOULOS

Fig. 2.21 (above left) A burialfoundoutside

thekrepisoftheTumulus.
Fig. 2.22 (above) The EH II Tumulusand, in
frontofit,thebothros.

at theS
Fig. 2.22 (feft)Part ofthesettlement
slopeoftheAcropolisofPellana
Fig. 2.24 (below left) Excavatedpart ofthe
latesettlement at theS slopeoftheAcropolisof
Pellana.
Fig. 2.25 (below) Plan oftheMycenaean
settlement at Pellana.
 PELLANA,THEADMINISTRATIVE CENTREOF PREHISTORICLACONIA 37

royalresidencebuilton thetopof theacropolisdur-

ingtheMiddleHelladicortheMycenaeanperiodwill
remaina matterof speculation.On thenextterrace
down,justbelowthesummitof thehill,wheresome
signsof artificialterracingarevisible,thestonekrepis
and the interiorof a tumuluswas excavated(figs.
2.19-21); thiscontainedburialsof theEH II period,
unfortunately withoutgraveofferings. Next to it,
however, a bothros was located(fig.2.22),containing
ashesand a coupleof vasesof thesameperiod.The
bothroswas attachedto the tumulusand contained
theashesfromthesacrificial ritesand thebowlsfor
offerings to those buried under thetumulus.A chan-
nelrunsthrough theinteriorof thesepulchral monu-
mentand recallingtheblood-channels in TombII at
Dendraandotherfunerary monuments ofMycenaean
and later date in Greece (Andronikos1968: s.v.
'Blutrillen').We havegoodreasonsto believethatthe
tumulusat Pellana,thefirstto be foundin Laconia,
was nota singlefuneralmonument. The size of the
terracesuggeststhatmoretumulimighthavebeen
erectedthere,a wholecemetery of tumuli, likethatat
Stavros in Lefkas (Dörpfeld1927; A. Deh. 27 (1972) Fig. 2.26-2/ (above and below) Sherdsfromthe
Chr.:211-6). The placewherethetumulus, ortumuli, settlement{bothgroupssamescale).
at Pellana,weresituated,has a broadviewoverthe
wholeplain,thebeautiful mountain of Taygetosand
themountains of Arcadia.The tumulusoccupiesthe
bestsituation on theacropolis,justbelowthehouses
on thetopof thehill,and undoubtedly containedthe
remainsof thechieftains, whoruledoverPellanaand
perhapsoverLaconia duringthe Earlyand Middle
BronzeAgePeriods.The sitingofthetombsis anoth-
erargument infavour of Pellana'sspecialpositionand
significance in theprehistoriccivilisationofthewhole
areaandarguesfortheprimary roleof thesiteandits
development as an administrative centrein thelater
Mycenaeanperiodas well.The lineof chieftainship
remainedprobablyunbroken untiltheEarlyMycen-
aean Period,whenthe royaltholostombwas con-
structednearbyand survivedup to the end of the
Mycenaeanperiod.
A smallexcavation on thesecondlowerterraceof
the acropolisto the s (figs. 2.23-25), oppositethe
copiousspringPellanis,hasbrought to lightpartof a If we now turnto the epic traditionand more
settlement of theLate Mycenaeanperiod(LH IIIa2 toIliad ii (581-7) weareinformed
specifically thatthe
toLH IIIB2/C1).Despitetheverysmallareaexcavat- following cities
of Laconia took partin theexpedition
ed thediscovery ofa Mycenaeansettlement at Pellana againstTroy, under the leadershipof Menelaos.
becomesa veryimportant elementforthetopography Lakedaimon, Sparta,Pharis,Messe,Brysseai, Augeai,
of the site and presagesfurther valuablefindsand Amyklai,Helos, Laas, and Oitylos.The Homeric
results(figs.2.26-27). poems neverreferto Sparta as the seat of King
The last,butnottheleast,important findatPellana Menelaos,on the contrarythe Odyssey(book iii)
is a monumental road(fig.2.28), whichstartsat the makes it clear that the palace of Tyndareosand
footof the acropolisto the E and ascendsto the Menelaoswas in Lakedaimon,which,in bothpoems
acropolisitself.It is one of thelargestand bestpre- is characterisedas 'xoiArfand'xriTCoeaoa'thatis 'hol-
servedroadseverfoundin MycenaeanGreeceand low'and 'withsubterranean trenches'.
we havegoodreasonsto believethatit led eitherto a Pellanais,inouropinion,MycenaeanLakedaimon,
royalresidence ortosomeotherimportant installation andthetraditional ofxoíàt|andxrixcoeooa
epithets fit
on theacropolis. itsgeographical situationand itsgeologicalstructure
ß THEODOROSG SPYROPOULOS

Fig. 2.28 The monumentalroadascendingto the

acropolisofPellanafromtheE.

verywell.OtherMycenaeansitesin Laconia,which
havebeeninvestigated or excavatedhavenotyielded
positivefinds or indications fortheidentification or
thediscovery ofa palatialcentreofthefourteenth and
thethirteenthcenturies bc. Onlya fewsitesdatetothe
sixteenthandfifteenth centuries bc. Twenty siteswere
inhabitedduring the fourteenth century bc, 39 in the
thirteenthand 17placesintwelfth centurybc (Hooker
1976:60 ff;Furumark1972:49). Two of thesesites
seemedto holdmostpromiseforthediscovery of a
Mycenaeanpalatial centre: the siteof Menelaion and
thePalaeopyrgi nearVapheio,whichis generally iden-
tifiedwiththeHomericcityof Pharis.Unfortunately
neitherof theseplaces supportsthe existenceof a
palaceof thethirteenth century bc. The case conse-
quently remains open and the palace of Tyndareos
andMenelaosis stilltobe found.
The excavations at Pellanaoverthe last 15 years
haveopeneda newchapterand a newperspective on
thisquestion.Westilldo nothavethepalacethere, but
we can pointto theimpressive findsand to theroyal
and administrative ideology,which underliesthe
chieftains' the
tumulus, magnificent tholostomb,the
majesticroad, and the undoubtedly royalresidences
whichexisted at Pellana-Lakedaimon duringthepre-
historicand Mycenaeanperiods of Laconia (Kilian,
1988;Wright 1987).
 3
Cityand chorain Sparta:
Archaicto Hellenistic
Paul Cartledge
EXORDIUM
The vexedproblemsof therise,evolutionand devo-
lutionof the stateare ones to whichancientGreek
historiansand classicalarchaeologists may reason-
ably claim to have a special contribution to make.
Thanksto thepolis(howeverprecisely it be defined)
andtoAristotle, we arein thereat theverybeginning
of the debate,so to speak (Cartledge1996a; cf.
Snodgrass 1977; Runciman 1982; Morris 1987;
Runciman1990;Hansen1993).Fortyyearsago Ernst
Kirstensetthewholeissuein itspropergeographical
framework, mappingthepoliticalecologyof thepolis
as a Medi-terranean phenomenon (Kirsten1956;cf.
Kirsten1984; Murrayand Price 1990; Gschnitzer
1991). Yet- suchare thevagariesof scholarship - it
remained stubbornly thecase that'A generation agoit
wasrareforBritishscholarswriting aboutancienthis-
toryto bringthelandscapeintoplayalongsidepoliti-
cal accounts of antiquity' (Shipley 1996: 4).
Since then,however,the situationhas happily
changed.Human landscapeshave becomea central
preoccupation ofBritishancienthistorians andclassi-
cal archaeologists, withparticularattentionto the
issueof core-periphery ortown-country relationships
(e.g. Rich and Wallace-Hadrill1991; Shipleyand
Salmon 1996). This problematic has been greatly
enlightened in recentyearsbothbyan Englishtrans-
lationof de Polignac'sseminalvolumeon 'thebirth
of the Greekcity'(de Polignac1984/1995) and by
theproperpublication, at last,of someof theinten-
sive field-survey workof the 1970sand 1980s,not
least the BritishSchool/University of Amsterdam
Laconia Survey (Cavanagh et al. 1996-7; cf.
Cavanaghand Crouwel 1988) and the Southern
Argolid survey (Jamesonet al. 1994/1995; cf.
Cavanagh1991; Snodgrass1991). In what follows
I shallattemptto bringto bear the fruitsof these
complementary historicaland archaeologicalapp-
roacheson therelationships betweencityand coun-
tryside(chora) at Sparta duringthe last millen-
nium BC. Specifically, I shall be askinghow the
Spartansof thecentreor coresettlements represent-
ed and conducted themselvesas against the
peripheryof perioikicand helot inhabitantsof
Laconia(andMessenia).
POLITICAL BACKGROUND:
TERMINOLOGYAND DEFINITION
In my earlierworkon Greek self-definition (now
Cartledge1997),I preferred to emphasisecultural,
symbolicand intellectual, ratherthanmaterial, eco-
nomicor socialaspects.Here,I shallattempt to bring
thematerialdimension closerto paritywiththecul-
tural,thoughthetwoareofcoursemutually implicat-
ed and conditioned. Topography, as ArtemisLeontis
hasrecently reminded us,is in themindas wellas on
theground(Leontis1995;cf.Hirschand O'Hanlon
1995; von Reden, forthcoming). Moreover,in the
shapeof thereligioussanctuary, on whichtherehas
been a quite exceptionalconcentrationof high-
qualityresearchpublishedoverthepastquinquenni-
um (Cartledge1996b),thematerialand thecultural
becomealmostone and the same- withintheover-
archingframework of the political,to whichI turn
first
of all.
Whetheror not theancientGreeksinvented'the
political'or 'politics'(Meier 1990 [originally1980];
Finley 1983), theycertainlyused themas a basic
framework of theoryand practicewithinwhichto
definethemselves. For them,it was of the essence
of theirself-definition as Greekcitizensthattheir
primary politicalloyaltyand politicalidentification,
their'nationalism' so to speak,werefocusedalmost
exclusively,not on the nation,let alone the nation-
state,but on their own separateand radicallyself-
differentiated politicalcommunities - as separateand
different fromeachotheras,say,Sloveniaand Serbia,
or Franceand England,are today(Walbank1985;
Cartledge1995).I say'politicalcommunities' advised-
ly.Comparative studysuggestshow difficult it is, if
notimpossible, todefine'state'oreven'city'withsuf-
ficient generality and precision.Nor does sticking to
the Greekwordpolisaltogether help.In our terms,
thatwordwas used to denotebothwhatsomeof us
wouldcall a 'city'and whatsomeof us wouldcall a
'state'(Sakellariou1989; Hansen 1993; Hansen and
Raaflaub1995),and it servedalso bothto distinguish
'town'fromcountryside and to signifythe Greeks'
distinctive meldingin one politicalentityof both
town and country(Finley 1981b, 1985; Morris
1987; Osborne1987, 1991, 1996; Snodgrassiqq?).
40 PAULCARTLEDGE

The polisof Sparta,as we shallsee, affords unusual case thattherehad once beensomesortof parityof
interestand typically complexvariationsfromthis powerbetweenthetwo.However,whatinterests me
pointof view. principally here are the for
grounds Thucydides's
On theotherhand,attention to theGreeks'own prediction regarding Sparta:'thepolisis notregularly
theoreticaland practicalusage, most notablyin plannedandcontainsno shrinesor otherbuildings of
Aristotle'sPolitics(a titlethatmeansveryspecifically great cost or but
magnificence, simplyis a collection of
'matters relatingto thepolis'),doesrevealtheirover- villages(komai)afterthe ancientHellenicmanner'
ridingly concrete understanding. The polis was for (i 10; cf.Hansen1995:52-3, 53-4). Modernscholars
thema questionnot onlyor primarily of someab- havesometimes suspectedthatThucydideswas here
stractentitybut ratherof men,specifically citizen indulging in artistic license,for the sake of his
men(politai).Put differently, thepoliswas a citizen- Athens-Sparta polarity. Certainly, as a self-declared
state(Runciman1990;Hansen 1993),in whichciti- Athenian(i 1) Thucydideswas guiltyof somechau-
zenswere,moreprecisely, thosewhoenjoyedthepub- vinistor ethnocentric specialpleading.His definition
lic rightsand dutiesof judgmentand office.There of civilisation in termsof citification, placing'archa-
wasusuallylittleorno State,capitalS, inourmodern ic' Spartaat theoppositepolefrom'modern'Athens,
senseof a governmental, judicialand military-police doesreflect a thoroughly Athenian viewpoint, andone
set
apparatus apart from and abovethecommonrun withwhichAristotle, forexample,the meticfrom
of citizens(or subjects).Nor- to introduce a specifi- Stageira,wouldsurelyhavetakenstrongissue.On the
callyarchaeological or artefactual
dimension - wasthe otherhand,archaeology apparently bearsThucydides
polisnecessarilyand sufficiently definedby,thoughit out.Therewouldseemto havebeena realdifference
mightbe optionally or optimally equippedwith,cer- betweenthe urbandevelopment of centralAthens
tainmaterial attributes.Severalideologicallyfreighted (Travlos1971;Wycherley 1978) and thatof Sparta
texts (e.g., Thuc. vii 77.7) explicitlydistinguish (Stibbe1989;paceHansen1995:54). What concerns
betweenthepolisin thesenseof its livingcitizenry me noware theoriginsand implications of thisdis-
andthewallsofa polis(in thematerial senseof 'city'). tinction and opposition, which - following theargu-
The specialrelevance of thisdistinctionwilltranspire mentof theprecedingsection - oughtto havebeen
as webringoutthepeculiarities of Spartabycompar- locatedprimarily in thepoliticalratherthanthecul-
isonorrathercontrast withAthens. turalor economicsphere.Thereis no betterplaceto
beginwiththanthecities'verydifferent constructions
of citizenship.
ATHENSV.SPARTA To becomea Spartiate, one hadto passsuccessful-
Therewerein theArchaicto Hellenistic periodswith ly through theeducationalcycleknownas theagoge
whichI amspeciallyinterested perhapsa thousand or (Kennell1995)and be electedto a diningsocietyor
evenmoreGreekpoleisscattered almostall roundthe 'commonmess';and,in orderto retainone's citizen
Mediterranean and Black Seas fromthe Pillarsof status,one hadtobe ableto contribute a certainmin-
Herakles(Gibraltar)in thew to Phasis(in ex-Soviet imumofnaturalproducetoone'smessas 'dues'.In all
Georgia)in thefarne. Butthereareonlytwo,Sparta theseways,the Spartancitizens'qualifications and
and Athens,aboutwhichwe haveanything likethe way of life contrasted with those of the Athenians, for
requisitesort of detailed
evidence to conduct a fruit- whomitwassufficient tobe bornAthenian andregis-
fulanalysiswithinour appointedframework of city- teredas suchat theage of majority. A further differ-
chorarelationships. Anditis precisely intermsof the entiatingrequirement daily was attendance by all
politicsof urbanization that Thucydidesintroduces Spartans at the evening meal eaten communally in the
thepolaroppositionbetweenSpartaand Athensthat messes,which, like the was
agoge, designedprimarily
underlies hisentireHistory. Suppose,he wrotein the toinculcate groupsolidarity, to thedetriment of fam-
so-calledArchaeology, thatthecentralplaces,orcivic ily and other ties and values. This universal dining
centres,ofAthensandSpartawereatsometimeinthe requirement (coupled with an over-night sleeping
future to be utterly destroyed apartfromthefounda- obligationfor the under-thirties) had a cardinal
tionsof somepublicand privatebuildings, observers spatio-political correlate. Not only did all adultmale
wouldthenbe quiteunabletoretrodict accurately the Spartan citizens act together politically in thecentral
formerpowerof the Peloponnesian War'sprotago- place but most of them also resided there moreorless
nists.Instead,theywouldoverestimate thatofAthens permanently. whyBut were there thesecentrally posi-
and underestimate thatof Sparta. tionedcommunal messesandlivingquarters?
Thucydides'prediction is in onesensequiteaccu-
rate: thereis no comparisonbetweenthe physical
remainsof thecentralplacesof thetwoantagonists. FUNCTIONS OF URBANISM
But in anothersenseit is self-refuting, sincethesur- Leavingasidespeculation as to theultimate
originsof
vivalof theliterary workin whichtheprediction is messingas a social
practice (one not to
unique Sparta),
contained is byitselfsufficient to establish an a priori the answerbriefly is thatSpartawas in originsand
 CITY AND CHORAIN SPARTA:ARCHAICTO HELLENISTIC 41

essencea 'conquest'state(Finley1983:61-4). Its ter- helots,thoughthiswasnotwithout a certainparadox.

ritory,some 8000 square km. in all, was easilythe
intheentireGreekworld,andSpartatownwas
largest
mappedideologically in theimageof an armedcamp
on constantmilitaryalert.This stateof alertwas
directednot primarily againstanyexternalenemies,
fromwhomtheywerecushionedand buffered bythe
so-calledperioikoi,
who 'dweltround about' them
withinthebordersof theSpartanstate,in personal
freedombut politicalsubservience(Shipley 1992;
Lotze 1994). The alertwas directedratheragainst
theirenemywithin,themanytimesmorenumerous
For it was thanksto the labourof the helotsthat
Spartancitizenswereenabledto residepermanently
in Sparta,oftenat a considerable distancefromtheir
helot-worked estates.Yet,equally,it was becauseof
thediehardhostilityof at leastthehelotsof Messenia
thattheSpartansfeltconstrained to liveor endurea
barracks
military-style existence in thecentralplace
(Ducat 1990).
Spartatown,in otherwords,functioned politically
to keepthenon-citizens out- and down;to markoff
thecentresharplyfromitsperiphery. Why,then,did

Fig.j.i TheSparta
ofPausanias(second
centuryAD).
16 Temple ofArtemis
Issoria,23 Templeof
Artemis Orthia,
24 Temple ofAthena
Chalkioikos.(After
Stibbeiq8q)
42 PAULCARTLEDGE

Fiç. 1.2(a, h,c andd) SitesinLaconia:(a) Protogeometric, (c) Classicaland(d) Hellenistic

(b) Archaic, (Cavanaghetal. iççó)
 CITY AND CHORAIN SPARTA:ARCHAICTO HELLENISTIC
itnotacquirewhatThucydidesclearlybelievedto be
the normalaccoutrements of urbanization, and in
particular why did the Spartans not surround their
centralplace,or partof it,withone of thosenormal
accoutrements, an enceintewall?Severalreasonssug-
gest themselves.First,the weightof tradition. The
Spartansnotoriously over-valued the in
pastand, part
preciselybecause theytoo werenot immunefrom
change,likedto represent theirwayof lifeas having
beenfrozenlikea flyin amberfromtheearliestmists
of theircity'shistory.Partof thisSpartanideological
myth-history involvedtheprincipled disdainofa city-
wall, as a of
stigma effeminacy, in favour of theciti-
zens' strongrightarms.But actuallynoteverypolis
had had an enceintewall to beginwith,and by the
timecity-walls had becomea normalfeatureof the
GreeklandscapetheSpartanshadevolvedcomplicat-
ed alternative modesof centralself-protection, partly
material andpartlysymbolic.
The perioikoihave been introducedabove; their
strategicpresencerequiredan enemyfromoutside
Laconiaor Messeniato fightthrough thissubstantial
firstlineof resistancebeforereachingSpartaitself, as
no enemyin factdid before370/69,whencrucially
someof theperioikoi of northern Laconiadefected. A
lessobviousbutnonetheless efficacious wall-substi-
tutewasprovidedbya clusterof religious sanctuaries
Fig.3.3 Laconia Survey: theS and SE ofthesurveyarea (Cavanagk et al iççó)
43
aroundor in the close vicinityof Sparta town.A
Greeksanctuary's basicfunction as a placeof human-
superhuman intercommunication was effected most
conspicuously a
through variety of sacrificialrituals,
and mostlastingly through thededicationof a multi-
plicityof votiveofferings(Alcockand Osborne1994;
Cartledge1996b). But althoughhuman-superhuman
communication was a necessaryfeatureof each and
everysanctuary, thisdid not constitute a sufficient
definitionof all Greeksanctuaries' manyand varied
functions.Fortheywerenotmerely placesof worship
andpilgrimage. Indeed,they were not alwaysprimar-
ily,letaloneexclusively,religious(as we wouldputit)
in theirfunctionalsignificance.They mightfunction
also- orrather- as politicalentitiesinsomething like
a secularsense.
Most relevantto us in the presentcontextis the
categoryof the limitary sanctuary. This comprised
sanctuariesthatwereborderline in a literalas wellas
metaphorical sense,beinglocatedon naturalor artifi-
cial boundarieswithinor between communities
(includingterritories
overseas:Malkin1994).As such,
theymightservea variety of purposes:to articulate
thenecessaryorganicrelationship betweencountry-
side(theeconomicbasis)and urbancentre(thepolit-
ical superstructure),
or to markritually thesymbolic
passageof citizensfrom'wild' adolescenceto 'tame'
44 PAULCARTLEDGE

Finds here include an unusual and distinctive

plethoraof ithyphallic terracottavotivesthatmight
wellbe accordeda monitory, territory-marking inter-
pretation (fig.3.4). Sir Kenneth Dover has character-
citedin a comparable
istically connection notonlythe
statuesof PriapusthatdottedRomanorchardsand
fieldsbut the threatening, boundary-marking ithy-
phallicismof 'watchfulmales' in 'some primate
species'(Dover 1978:105). GivenTsakona'slocation
so close to thecentreof Spartaand to Sellasia,the
nearest perioikictown across the border from
Sparta's 'civic land', this sanctuarywas surelya
Spartanratherthana perioikicshrine,and it would
not be implausibleto see it as primarily servinga
limitarypoliticalfunction.
However, byfarthemostimportant of theselimi-
tary sanctuariesin the immediate environs of Sparta
wasthatofApolloandHyakinthos locatedatAmyklai
a fewkilometres se of Spartatown(Laconia survey
GG88, cf 92). Significantly, it was here, at the
O
t ....
5
I
IO cm
Amyklaion, and not in Spartatown thattheSpartans'
|
principal 'national' religiousfestivalwas celebrated.
To this we shall return.More immediately to the
figurine(Archaic)fromthesanctu-
Fig. 3.4 Terracotta
ary at Tsakona
point,this physicalseparation Amyklai, con-
of a
stituentkomeor 'village'of Spartaon a parwiththe
fourcontiguousvillagesof the centralplace (pace
civicmaturity (as inseveralArtemis sanctuaries), orto Kennell1995:162-9;seeratherTausend1992:103fr.;
establish,consolidate or promulgate a state'sclaimto andnowThommen1996:15andn. 38),wasofcourse
border-territoryagainsta neighbour, alwaystheprime another reasonwhytheSpartansdidnotat first build
causeandcontextof ancientGreekinterstate warfare a city-wallroundtheircentralsettlement. For bythe
(cf.Sartre1979;Daverio-Rocchi 1988).The limitary timethatSpartadidfinally decidetodo so,intheearly
sanctuariesthatconcernus hereareoftwomainsorts: second centurybc, its geopoliticalsituationhad
first,thosewhichformeda kindofpomerium (to bor- altered, fortheworse.All theperioikoi
drastically, and
row the Roman term)or sacredboundaryaround mostof thehelotshad acquiredtheirindependence,
Spartaitselfand,second,thosewhichservedtodefine and Sparta'spolisterritory had beenreducedto 'nor-
Spartancitizenterritory, the7toàitixtì yfj,againstthe mal' Greek proportions,comprisingthe terrain
territoryof the perioikoi. immediately surrounding the centralplace in the
So faras Sparta's'pomerium' is concerned, special Spartan plain (Cartledge 1979; Cartledge and
attentionshouldbe drawnto thetwoArtemis sanctu- Spawforth1989). A wall was thereforeno longer
aries- surnamedOrtheiaand Issoria - on E and w, a mereluxuryor frippery thatmightbe pragma-
respectively,(fig. 3.1) Artemiswas herselfamong ticallydispensedwith,and whoseabsencecould be
otherthingsa goddessof boundaries, separating the ideologically glossed.It had becomean imperious
wildfromthetameor cultivated. Regarding the area -
necessity regardlessof the politico-military and
in theimmediate vicinityof Spartatown(fig. 3.2), symbolic costof Amyklai's inevitableexclusion from
attentionmay be directedfirstto the Menelaion itsprotection.
sanctuary (devotedto Menelaosand Helen,together
withHelen's brothers,the Dioskouroi)in the ne
(Laconia Survey,GG 84), and to the Eleusinion ANATHENIANCOMPARISON
(sacredto Demeterand Kore) ratherfurther to thes In orderto bringout furtherthe peculiarities of
GG
(Laconia Survey, 95). Both of those sanctuaries Sparta'streatment of its we
chora, maybriefly return
havelongbeenknownand,in theformer's caseat any to our comparisonand contrastof the politicsof
rate,very well excavated. Much more recently,how- urbanization at Athens,wheretheymanagedthese
ever,a mostinteresting sanctuary of demonstrable thingsverydifferently, especiallyin the democratic
socialandpoliticalsignificance,plausibly identifiedas centuries).
period(fifth-fourth Fora start,mostofthe
a sanctuaryofZeus Messapeus,wasdiscovered by the 30,000 or so (on average)Athenian citizensdid not
Laconia surveyat Tsakonasome 4km to the N of reside permanentlywithinthe City (Astu) and
Spartatowards theperioikic townofSellasia(Laconia Peiraieusarea,enclosedas thisusuallywasbywallsof
cf.
SurveyN405; Catling1990a,1990b).(fig.3.3). variouskindsand periods.They livedinsteadin the
 CITY AND CHORAIN SPARTA:ARCHAICTO HELLENISTIC 45

surrounding choraof Attica,in whichweresituated THE FESTIVE DIMENSION

thevastmajority of the 140constituent demesor vil-
lages(Whitehead1986). Thus whereas Spartanciti- Fromurbanism, withitsvitalreligiouscomponents, I
zenscompulsorily atetogether everyday thecentral
in movefinally andspecifically tothepoliticsof religion,
place as members of a citizen corporation, Athenians withreference to civicfestivals. Religionin ancient
didso voluntarily andonlyon highdaysandholidays. Greecewas essentially, notjust accidentally, civicin
And whereaspresumablyall fit Spartans always nature,theGreekpolisbeingconstituted as a cityof
attendedtheSpartanassembly, at itsrelatively infre- gods as well as of men (Bruitand Schmitt1992).
quentsessions, never did more than a maximum of Indeed,according toa famousbutcontroversial thesis
halfthecitizenry attendtheAthenianassembly, even of de Polignac(1984/1995),the veryoriginof the
thoughthatwasa trulydecisiveorganof government Greekpoliswasowedtoa primarily religiousdevelop-
(Hansen 1987). The AthenianAssembly, in other ment,theintegration of thecentralplacewitha major
words, was not located centrallyin the City(on Pnyx peri-or extra-urban shrineor cult-place.Whether
hill) in order to differentiate and emphasizethe thatthesisholdsuniversally or not- and de Polignac
hierarchy of centreand periphery. Most Athenian himself has
(1994) significantly modified hisownorig-
citizenswereindependent ruralsmallfarmers, and inalposition - religious festivalswereindeedthebeat-
such town-country antagonism as did exist was as ing heartof ancientGreek religion,and festivals
mucha matter of elitesnobbery as a structural factor somehow linking centreandperiphery couldthusper-
integral tothefunctioning of Athenian politicalinsti- forma vitalcivicpoliticalfunction (Cartledge1985;
tutions - withthe admittedexceptionof the strains Robertson1992).I havechosentherefore to compare
imposedbyPericlean policyduringthePeloponnesian andcontrast one Athenian andone Spartancivicreli-
Warperiod. giousfestival in orderto illustrate theverydifferent
The reasonsforthe AthenianAssembly'scentral meaningsand functions theycould haveforcentre-
locationwere partlyhistoricaland symbolic - the periphery interaction.
Pnyx,liketheAgora,was notfarfromtheAthenian The Panathenaia or 'All-Attican /Athenian' festival
Acropolis,whichhad servedas a centralrefugeand annually celebrated thebirthday of thepolis'spatron
rallying-point as wellas the heartof Athenianreli- deityAthenaPolias (Neils et ai 1992). By its very
giouslifesinceatleastthefoundation of thehistorical namethefestival was overtlydesignedbothto cele-
polis; and partlypractical - Athenswas by Greek brateand to reinforce thepoliticalhomogeneity and
standards a remarkably largeand heterogeneous polis integrity of theentirepolisterritory, whichwas both
and absolutelyrequiredcentralizedgovernmental unusually largebyGreekstandards, and byno means
institutions.HenceAthensCitywastrulytheseatofa unitary in itsorigins.Whenthefestival was founded
'national'assembly. Yeteventhatwouldnotbyitself in its'classical'form,traditionally in the560s,homo-
have accountedforthe remarkable urbanization of geneityand integrity were probablya pious hope
AthensattestedbyThucydides.For this,twofurther ratherthanan unmistakable actuality.Genuinepoliti-
factors,neitherof whichapplied to Sparta,were co-territorial unity was not to be achieved untilthe
chiefly responsible: theself-aggrandizing Peisistratid Cleisthenic reforms overhalfa century later,andeven
tyranny of thesixthcentury; andtheAthenian empire thereafter unitymight stillbe seriously (con)testedat
of thefifth. As a result,hugequantities of publicand themargins. Those reforms placed the foundations of
privateresourcesweredevotedto a largelyreligious Atheniancitizenship on thetwinbases of birthand
building-programme rivalledin cost only by the locality,and it was as membersof theirlocal demes
secularreconstruction of the city-wallsand walls thatAthenians participated in thePanathenaia. Every
linkingAthensto Peiraieusat the beginning of the fouryearsthecelebrations wereconductedwithespe-
fourth century. cialmagnificence, partly forthebenefit ofthenon-cit-
On theotherhand,theAthenians' urbanism lacked izensentitledor evenrequiredto participate. Yetthe
one of theprincipal motivations behindSparta'scen- festivalremaineda triumphantly Athenianoccasion,
tripetal concentration. Despitetheundoubtedly large employedto presentthedesiredfaceof Athensboth
numbersof slavestheypossessedbothindividually to itselfand to others.At thecentreof thatimagelay
and collectively, theyhad no seriouscause to feara theAcropolis, thehubof theAtticwheel.Butjustas
servileenemywithin.A continuing and probably un- a hub is uselesswithoutthewheel,so theAcropolis
resolvabledebateragesoverthe precisenatureand deriveditssignificance fromitslocationat thespiritu-
extentof theconnection, if any,betweenslavery and al centreof thepolisterritory, andindeedof thewider
democracy at Athens.Whatis generally agreed, how- GreekworldwithinwhichAthenian citizensmightbe
ever,is thattheAthenianslavebody,beinga hetero- temporarily or permanently domiciled(Loraux 1991;
geneouspolyglotmass, did not pose the constant cf.1986).
threatto the stability, let alone the continuedexis- Spartahad no preciseequivalentof the Panath-
tence,of theAthenian polisthatthehelotsdid to the enaia,withitsinternational as wellas nationalconno-
polisof theSpartans. tationsand reverberations. Its nearestthingwas the
46 PAULCARTLEDGE

Hyakinthia, in thatthatwas theprincipal annualfes- Whereasthenormalandnormative Greekpolisunited

tivalof Spartan'national'orrathercivicidentity. But townandcountry ina harmonious politicalsymbiosis,
in almostall otherrespectsit offers a clattering con- if not
Spartain thisrespectas so oftenwas atypical,
trast.Sparta'spatrondeity, likethatofAthens, wasan unique. The or
presence (until the mid-Hellenistic
Athenaof the Polis (Piccirilli1984), but although era)absenceof a citywallwasa clearideologicaland
SpartanAthenaenjoyedat leastone important festi- spatialmarkerof Sparta'sdifference.
val, the the
Promakheia, Hyakinthia was dedicated
insteadto Apollo,as wereall Sparta'smajorfestivals
(Pettersson1992).The Hyakinthia likewise tookplace CODA: BRITISH LACONIANSTUDIES: PAST,
in thepoliticalcentreof theSpartanstate,butit was PRESENT AND FUTURE
significantlynot a centripetal or monocentric occa-
sion. Spartatownwas,as we haveseen,a dispersed 'HistoricalStudies'
scatteroffivevillages, onlyfourof whichweredirect- UnlessBrutusthe Trojanstoppedoffin Spartaen
lycontiguous. The fifth wasAmyklai, anditwashere, routetobecoming theFirstBriton,thefirst authentic
eccentrically,just out of town, that the Hyakinthia BritonwhosevisittoLaconiahasleftsignificant liter-
wereheld. ary trace is the late 17th-century merchant Bernard
Moreover, itseemstohaveremained a significant- Randolph(an extractdescribing Mistra - subjectof
lyAmyklaian as wellas a 'pan-Spartan' festival.Thus an elegantmonographby Sir Steven Runciman,
onlyservingSpartansoldiersfromAmyklai, and not 1980- fromhis ThePresent StateoftheMorea[1689]
alsothosefromtheotherfourvillages,wereautomat- is printedin RichardStoneman'sPenguinA Literary
icallyreleasedfromcampaignto returnhometo cele- Companion to Travelin Greece, p. 65; otherreportsby
brateit in whatwas afterall the heightof the Randolphfeaturealso in MartinGarrett'sno less
campaigning season. The non-AmyklaianSpartans companionable Greece:A Literary Companion). Ran-
processedsolemnlyfromSparta town down the dolphhad of coursebeenlonganticipated in visiting
Hyakinthian Way,symbolically marking thereby the Laconia by earlymodernscholarlytravellers from
politicalunity but at the same time also the separate othercountries, beginning withCyriacof Anconain
identityof Sparta and Amyklai.Sparta,in other themid-i5thcentury, anditwastobe almosta centu-
words,did notstrictly havea festival whichlikethe ryand a halfafterRandolphbeforeBritainseriously
Athenians' Panathenaia consciously united in a single stakeda claimin theburgeoning fieldof Laconian,or
sharedcult theentirecivicterritory of the Spartan more accuratelyMorean, studies - thanksto Sir
polis.Indeed, the Hyakinthia, thoughnational,yet WilliamGell (1823) and (Colonel) W. M. Leake
retaineda stronglyseparatistand local flavour - (1830):see Hooker1980:24 [ref.below].Evenso,the
harking backperhapsto thecontestedoriginsof the earlyhonoursforthe 'scientific' exploration of the
Spartanpolisin theeighthcentury. Morea includingLaconia in the 19thcenturywent
One finalcontrastwiththe Panathenaicfestival chiefly notto Britainbutto France(PuillonBoblaye,
concernseligibility forparticipation at the Hyakin- Bory Saint-Vincent)and Germany(Ross, Stein,
de
thia.The procession andassociatedgamesof thefor- Philippson). It waspresumably a mercy, though,that
merwereopennotonlyto Athenian citizensbutalso Schliemannin 1888could find'not evena rubbish-
to residentaliensand foreigners; indeed,thepartici- dump' on the SpartanAcropolisand 'no traceof
pation of the latter two groups in certainaspects
was antiquity'in the hillsbearingthe mainMycenaean
required. The Hyakinthia's military-style procession settlement andthehistorical Menelaionsanctuary ...
andmusicalandathletic contests, however, wereopen [allrefs again in Hooker 1980:20-24].
only to Spartan citizens. Indeed, the only non- The 20thcentury, however, doesbelongtoBritain,
Spartanspresent at the Hyakinthia - in contrast espe- well, more so rather than less.Desperatefora histori-
ciallyto the Gymnopaidiai festival, at whichdistin- cal site that would rival the German Institute's
guishedforeignguestsweremade welcome,or the OlympiaandtheFrenchSchool'sDelphi,nottomen-
Promakheia, atwhichperioikoi weregivena significant tion the Greeks'AthenianAcropolisand environs,
role- werehelots.It wasnotmerelyforgeographical and thatwould complement theirown prehistoric
convenience, therefore, thatthe commonmessesin Knossosand Phylakopi; and alarmedperhapsby the
Sparta town, those quintessentially Spartan civic incursions intoLaconiaof Tsountas(prehistoric, esp.
structures,were situated the
along Hyakinthian Way. Vapheio) and Furtwängler (Amyklaion, mainlyhis-
toric),the BSA settledin the firstdecade of our
century on Sparta- or rather, whatis crucialforour
CONCLUSION on
purposes, Sparta as the centrepiece ofLaconia,the
The Hyakinthia,in short,liketheSpartansystemof jewel in the crown. For before beginning excavations
as a whole,was consciously
urbanization designedto in Sparta,especiallybutnotonlyat thesanctuary of
emphasiseand reinforcethe centre's from
separation Orth(e)ia, members of the School had first con-
and hierarchicaldominationover the periphery. ductedextensivesurfaceexploration in sw Laconia
 CITY AND CHORAIN SPARTA:ARCHAICTO HELLENISTIC 47

and sunktheirspades,picksand trowelsat Geraki usedas thetitleofhis1992Festschrift bygrateful col-

(ancientGeronthrai) and Angelona(a heroonsite). leagues,pupils and friends:
OiAotaxxcov.
In theyearthatworkat Orthiaitselfbegan,1906,M. The secondchainis a historicalone.It beginswith
N. Tod and A. J. B. WacepublishedtheirCatalogue John Boardman's seminal re-examination of the(for
of theSparta Museum(still not supersededninety itsday)pioneering stratigraphy of Orthia. Fromhim
yearslater). thetorchwaspassedto hisgraduatepupilCartledge,
So thepatternwas setforthefirstquinquennium who in turnwas fortunate to be able to collaborate
ofcampaigns (1906-1910) underR. C. Bosanquetand withone of theleadingexpertsin the epigraphy of
thenR. M. Dawkins.The listof thoseparticipating Roman Greece,Tony Spawforth.Developingand
bothinsideand outsideSpartareadslikea roll-callof (more often)revisingCartledgeon Archaic and
honourofBritish archaeological andancienthistorical Classical Sparta has been Hodkinson,originallya
scholarship in thefirsthalf of the century- including pupilof Finley,latterlyof Cartledge,whosecurrent
as it does,besidesthosealreadynamed,G. Dickins, researchfocuses principallyon Sparta's Archaic
R. J. H. Jenkins(lateran eminentByzantinist) and archaeology.
A. M. Woodward. The ultimatefruitof workat the Hodkinsonwillnow,as willweall,havetotakeinto
major site of concentration, publicationof which accounttheheapsof newdataand ideasbeingpiled
was delayedby the FirstWar amongotherfactors, up by theinterdisciplinaryintensiveLaconia survey.
wasR. M. Dawkins(ed.),Artemis Orthia(1929,a sup- ButI concludethistoorapidrésuméwitha mention,
plementary volumeof theJHS). By then,however, honoriscausa, of workin progress.JoostCrouwel
theSchool had also completed,underWoodward, a is almosta 'British'scholarby adoption - following
secondquinquennium(1924-28) of archaeological- on fromhis labours on the joint British School/
cum-historical researchin and aroundSparta,the University of Amsterdam survey, he has gonebackto
mostsignificant resultsof whichweretheexcavations wheretheBritishleftoffat Gerakiover90 yearsago.
on theAcropolisand in thetheatre belowit,and fur- Also resumingand developingmuchearlierexcava-
therextensivetopographical surveys,all promptly tions,but in thiscase backin the centralplace,are
publishedin theSchool'sAnnual(vols.26-30). GeoffWaywellandJohnWilkes:muchis hopedfor
It is no exaggerationto say that the School's fromtheircurrent workbothon topof and alongside
laboursin thefirstand thirddecadesof ourcentury theSpartanAcropolis.
transformed notonlyLaconianstudiesas a wholebut
alsogeneralperceptions ofthenatureandsignificance A Selectionof BritishResearch
of earlySpartaand especiallySpartanculture.Guy Andrewes1954; Badián1966;Boardman1963;Cart-
Dickins(killedinWorldWarI) couldevengetan arti- ledge1979;Cartledge1987;Cartledgeand A. Spaw-
cle on Spartanart(sic) publishedin theconnoisseurs' forth1989;Cavanagh,J. Crouwel,G. Shipley,et al.
Burlington Magazine(1908),whileWoodward's gener- 1996; Chrimes1952; Dawkins 1929; de Ste. Croix
al summation of theimplications of thenewarchaeo- 1972; Finley1981a; Forrest1968; Hammond1973;
logicalpictureforthe historyof earlySpartapub- Hodkinson 1983; Holladay 1977; Hooker 1980;
lishedin themostwidelyreadBritishhistorical jour- Huxley1962;Jeffery 1990;Jones1967;Lazenby1985;
nal {History1923) set the agendaand tone forthe Lewis1977;Powell1989;PowellandHodkinson1994;
spateof reappraisals thathas barelyceased to flow Rawson1991;Sanders1992;Toynbee1969[notethat
fromthe 1930s (Alan Blakeway, A. Andrewes)and AJT's workon Sparta began with topographical
T
1940s(H. Wade-Gery) to this day. autopsyin 1911]; Wade-Gery1958; Walbank1985;
Selectionof representative examplesfromthose Waterhouse andHope Simpson1960-61.
fertilesix-plusdecadesis of courseinvidious, buttwo
interlinked chainsofresearch andresearchers seemto
me morethanaveragelysignificant. a
First, prehis- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
toric chain startedbeforeWorld War II, at the The ultimate originsof thisshortpaperlie in a con-
prompting of AlanWace,byHelen Waterhouse (née tribution
to the 1991 Anglo-American Conferenceof
Thomas). Her research, expandedby theindefatiga- in a panelon ^CapitalCitiesandtheState'
Historians,
ble legwork of Dick Hope Simpson,issuedin a two- Another versionwasdelivered at DurhamUniversity
partpublication in BSA i960 and 1961thatwas the inNovember1995.Thanksaredue tomembers ofthe
immediate sourceof all postwarprehistoric extensive audiencesat all threepresentations, Hector
especially
survey in Greece. It was largely due to theirinspira- CatlingandJoostCrouwel,forhelpfulcomments and
tionthatHectorCatlingchoseto devotetheprincipal suggestions.But my main debt is to Susan Walker
energies of hisDirectorship of theSchooltoLaconia, bothfororganising theB. M. colloquiumso skilfully
a wisechoicewhichjustlyearnedhimthesobriquet andforinviting me to participate.
 4
Spartanart:itsmanydifferent
deaths
Reinhard
Förtsch

In thefourth century bc Spartawasconsidered a state POSITION I: SEPARATIONOF HISTORY AND

wherevisualarthadlongsincebeenabolished(Nafissi ARCHAEOLOGY
1991: 227 f.). Remarksmade by Herodotus(ii 167) It was the Britisharchaeologist R. M. Cook who
confirmthat artistsas a social group were more a
adopted provocatively agnosticposition (Cook
despisedin Spartathanin otherpoleis.According to
1962).He maintained thatnotonlyhavetheliterary
Thucydides(i 10 2), theurbanappearanceof Sparta recordsof Spartanausterity beenexaggerated but,in
wouldnotallowanyconclusions tobe drawnaboutits additionandprincipally, he deniesthatthereeverwas
presentor futuremilitary and politicalpower.The
anycorrelation betweenartandausterity.The interest
arts,whichwereflourishing at the timeof Alkman of Finleyin 1975focusedjuston thedevelopment of
andothersin thelateseventh century, seemedtohave theconstitution (Finley1975:161 f.).He deniedthe
come to an end beforethe daysof Herodotusand of archaeologicalsourcesaltogether. His
reliability
Thucydides. hostilitytowardsthe'extremely subjective judgment
The archaeological responseto thispictureis no of thearchaeologists'
andthe'fashionable allusionsto
longer new and for thisreasononemightexpectmore
archaeological evidence,which,in the end, do not
thantherepeatedrepresentation of Spartanmaterial
really prove anything',is quite understandable.
cultureas a purportedly newdiscovery (Christ1996). However,Finleywas notabsolutely up to date with
So thebasicquestionto be raisedis therolethatthe the latest research,for example in the field of
visualartsplayedin Sparta.This is too complexa Laconianvase-painting (Stibbe1972).In hisanalysis
problemtobe dealtwithin one shortpaper,so I wish of thedevelopment of theSpartanconstitution pub-
here to focuson a detailedproblem,namelythe lishedin 1975,Bringmann did notincludearchaeo-
decreasein the production of Laconianart.In the
logicalsources,whichmaybe regarded as thecontin-
mindsof modernresearchers Spartanart has died uationof the aporistictendencyalreadyexpressed
many differentdeaths. Its death is a topicwhichis
by Finley(Bringmann 1975).Untouchedby all dis-
closely connected with the questionof how artwas cussionsabout visualart,a standardinterpretation
conditioned by the development of theSpartancon- of Greek history,the German 'PropyläenWelt-
stitution. In thefirstpart of thispaperI shallconsid- geschichte'by AlfredHeuss, even in its 1979 edi-
er the historyof research,and in the second the tion maintainedthat Sparta became 'Tyrtaic' in
archaeological evidence. the secondhalf of the seventhcenturybc (Heuss
In the development of the Spartanconstitution
1979)-
thereis a clearprocessof change.An earlierperiod
wascharacterized bya tasteforluxuryand apprecia- POSITION II: A DIRECT CONNECTION
tionof artbytheSpartanaristocracy. This was then BETWEENHISTORYAND ARCHAEOLOGY
suppressed by the levelling of
ideology theHomoioi,
hostileto anyformof luxuryand visualart.Thus, Impressed bytheirnewdiscoveriesinthesanctuary of
fromapproximately 600 bc, the visualartsbecame ArtemisOrthia,Dickins and Woodward(in 1912)
to Thatdoesnotmean, connected theevidentinterruptionin theproduction
subject increasing censorship. of artin Laconia,aroundthemiddleof thesixthcen-
however, that artcame to a sudden halt.
Researchcarriedoutso farmaybe dividedinto tury,witha Spartanmovetowardsausterity (Dickins
threepositions: and Woodward1912; Dickins 1913). They saw this
upheavalas a distincteventthattookplacein a rela-
(i) The separation of historicaland archaeological tivelyshort time.This couldnotfittheconventional
criteria. datesof the reformist Lykourgos, who was said to
(ii) The directconnection of historical and archaeo- havelivedin theninthor eighthcentury bc. So their
logicalcriteria. main interestfocusedinsteadon the figureof the
(iii) The dialecticconnection ofhistorical andarchaeo- EphorChilon,who was proposedas theinitiator of
logicalcriteria,i.e. the proposalof a specific thevolte-face.And it soon becameclearthatneither
statusforthevisualarts. thetheoryof a suddendeath,northatof an end of
 SPARTANART: ITS MANYDIFFERENTDEATHS 49

production towardsthemiddleof thesixthcentury, thisprocess.Since 'conspicuousconsumption' in the

couldbe maintained. symposium, as wellas extravagant clothing,private
The assessmentof Dickins and Woodward, property or richvotiveofferings becameevermore
though,had alreadybecomea standardtheme.Even problematical, the Spartansshiftedtheirinvestment
todaythe tendencypersiststo date certainmonu- in thedisplayof personalstatusto quadrigaracesat
mentsbeforethemiddleof thesixthcentury, higher Olympia,at thattimethemostprestigious agonin the
thanis stylistically possible,in orderto makethem ancientworld. In 1980 Fitzhardingeoutlinedan
'pre-Chilonian', so thepictureof Chilonas Lycurgus important counter-model, whichtook into account
redivivus can be keptup. Examplesare the bronze thequestionof thepatronsof art.According to him
kratersand the architecturalfragmentsof the the immediateconsequenceof the victoryin the
Amyklaion (Stibbe1996:128f; Faustoferri 1996).In SecondMessenianWarwas notausterity but,on the
A.
1935 Blakeway triedto explain thisphenomenon contrary, an increase in luxury and the production of
on economicgroundssinceit was obviousthatthe art. He referred to Alkman,to the ivoriesand the
theoryproposedby Dickins did not extendlate bronzestatuettes. Eventsof thefirsthalfof thesixth
enough.The supposedendof Laconianartpresented century, the unsuccessful waragainstTegea and the
itselfas a longerprocess - eventakingintoaccount immediately consequent changeof orientation froma
theconstitutional development, a radicalchangewas of
policy conquest to one of consolidation, did not
no longerconceivable. In 1983 Clauss expressedhis haveanynoticeableinfluence on thedevelopment of
doubtsabout the validityof the archaeological evi- art. Indeed, this periodsaw the beginningof the
dence(Clauss 1983:24, 179 ff). He questionedthe exportof Laconian black figuredpottery, and the
notionof the'decline'of Laconianartandpointedto Olympicvictories continued as well.Afterthemiddle
typescontinuing. Furthermore he wasscepticalabout ofthesixthcentury production inLaconia,as inother
anyrelationship betweenpoliticaldevelopment and centres,was reducedto supplyingthe local market,
theproduction of art. mainlyas a resultof the intensecompetition from
Athens.At the same time,the productionof stone
sculpturehad increased,therewerepubliccommis-
POSITION III: THE DIALECTIC CONNECTION sionsforartistssuchas thenewconstruction in the
BETWEENHISTORYAND ARCHAEOLOGY of Apolloat Amyklaiand theSkias in the
sanctuary
In 1965Starrconsidered therelationship of austerity agoraat Sparta.AfterthePersianwarsthelastsculp-
to art.He comparedtheend of theLaconianblack- tureswerecreated:theStoaofthePersians, newmon-
figureworkshops withtheendof themuchmoresig- umentsattheMenelaionanddedications bythepolit-
nificant Corinthianones.Furthermore he pointedto ically reduced nobility on the occasion of theirvicto-
thepersistenceof Laconianbronzestatuettes intothe ries in Olympicquadrigaraces.In the mostrecent
fifth century.Spartanmilitarism did not necessarily analysisM. Nafissitriestospecify theproduction and
lead to thedeclineof art.Starrrecognizedthatone export of certainforms into certain areasbyquantifi-
had to definethe interaction of both factors,thus cation(Nafissi1991: n, 13,24, 99). He seesausterity
comingcloserto a dynamicconceptof culture.In as a processof sloweffect growingout of a needfor
1977Holladayrepliedto Cook'scontribution. In his socialintegration. It is determined lessbylaworpolit-
viewgrowing whichactedas a stimulus
austerity, for icaldecisionsthanbythemutualcontrolof twosocial
thedamosof hoplites, also representeda returnto an groups of equal importance.In opposition to
agogerevivedfromancienttimes.Regarding thedate, Fitzhardinge, heseesthethriving Hoplitedamosas the
he suggested thatthemilitarycrisiswithTegeain the mainmarket forartistic production inthesixthcentu-
earlysixthcenturyprovokedthe development. He one
ry.However, might raise the questionwhythe
saw no clear-cutbreak in the productionof art, production of arteventually fell,if thesocialgroups
because,due to Sparta'sisolation,this ratherslow who wereits mainconsumerswerestillflourishing.
processwas noticedonlyin retrospect and as lateas Couldit be thatthedamos,althoughit had fora time
thefourthcentury BC,when thewriters of thetime imitated theformer aristocracy, in theend readopted
hadto explainthestriking situationbyhistorical con- an attitude of hostilityagainstall art?
structions.Holladay measured the impact on art and
culturein termsof a partialmilitarization of the
subject-matter anda cutin production. PRODUCTION DATA
In 1979Cartledgesummarized thecurrent stateof The models definedabove outline the principal
research,using a data-base that was unequalled approaches to understanding
theroleof artin Sparta.
(Cartledge1979:155f.).He toodidnotdatethemove In the secondpartof mypaperI wishto confront
towardsausterity anyearlierthanthe sixthcentury, thesemodelswiththeavailabledata concerning the
anddid notrecognizea deepcutin theproduction of courseof artistic The picturegivenhere
production.
artc. 550.He proposeda displacement of thedisplays maydifferfroma morepreciseanalysisof votive-
ofluxurybyrichSpartancitizensas a consequenceof complexesin certainsanctuaries(Hodkinson,this
50 REINHARDFÖRTSCH

conference), and it differsalso froma quantified artisticformsincludestandingfemalestatues - the

analysisof production(Nafissi1991: 252), but its precursor -
of thebronzestatuettesas wellas female
mainaimis to encompassthegreatest possiblerange protomesand ivorykouroi.Combs of typeA and
and consequently thedatacomprisea widevariety of daedalicrepresentations add important votiveobjects
formsand shapesproducedovera longspanof time. to the repertoire of ivories.More and moreSparta
Onlyin theareasof basicneeds,forexamplepottery nowbecomesa centreofivorycarving in Greece.The
and terracotta, doesitnotcovertheoverallactivity of of
range symposium vessels is increased bytheaddi-
workshops. tionof thereliefkrater andtwoLakainatypes,one of
In considering thechronology of worksof artin whichis the significant and long-lived'canonical'
parallel with the politicalsituation, one willhaveto in
type.Increasing size, the reliefkratersnowmark
proceed with caution. The main turning pointsin the theappearanceof thefirst realluxuryobjects.
of
development Sparta aredescribed in the toplineof The obviousincreasein production, alreadyevi-
table 4.1. dent duringthis stage,is not consonantwiththe
modelofferedby Fitzhardinge, accordingto which
(i) SecondMessenianWar,about650-600bc (a thisincreasedidnotcomeaboutbeforetheendof the
profoundcrisis,affecting the futuredefini-
SecondMessenianWar.Moreover, thegeneralscaleof
tionof theSpartanstate).
production does not reflect a fundamental Spartan
(ii) Reformsof thesecondhalfof theseventh
bc and theGreatRhetra(a reaction crisis,and visualartdoesnotseemto be repressed by
century a senseof austerity.
to theSecondMessenianWar).
Elevennewbranchesof production emergein the
(iii) Reignsof kingsLeon and Agasiklessoon last quarterof the seventhcenturybc, whichagain
after600 bc (a phaseof consolidation after
indicatesa slightincreasecomparedwiththepreced-
thevictory in theSecondMessenianWar).
ingquarter. The symposium pottery is enrichedboth
(iv) Military crisiswithTegea580-560bc (a new
by the earliest groups of black figured cups,and also
crisisacting,like(i) above,as a catalystinthe
by the bronze hydrias of the Telestas group,whichare
constitutional of
development Sparta). of preciousmaterialand decoratedwithhandlepro-
(v) Sparta's military-orientated consolidation
tomes.The earlierLaconianacroteria, nowemerging,
around550bc (theculturalsituation record-
area formof monumental architectural decoration.
ed in thefifth/fourth century bc sourcesis
The numberof newlyintroduced typesincreases
nowreached).
dramatically in thesecondhalfof theseventhcentu-
(vi) The Spartanschangefromathleticcontests
to quadrigaraces576-550bc (an indication rybc,fromoneanda quartertonine,a tendency that
continuesinto the firsthalf of the sixthcentury.
of a deep-rooted changein the attitudeof Another changewasbrought aboutbyinnovations in
theSpartans).
vasepainting, whichup to thattimehad notchanged
(For thefollowing see table 4.1.) In thefirsthalfof sincetheLate Geometricphase.It is to thisperiod
theeighthcentury theearliestformof vesselrelevant thattheSecondMessenianWar,thereforms associat-
forthearchaicperiodcameintobeing - theLakaina. ed withtheGreatRhetraand theriseof theHoplite
In thiscase theremayhavebeenan unbroken transi- damosaredated.The introduction oftheHoplitepha-
tion froma geometricpredecessorto the archaic lanxin Spartaaboutthemiddleof theseventh centu-
examples. ry bc could even be seen as a processsupporting the
Approximately 700 bc, the production of cut-out initialrisein theproduction of art.
animalfigures in ivorystarted(Marangou1970: 125 In thefirstquarterof thesixthcentury thelarge-
Cat. No. 72). scale sculptures, the bronzetripodsand the volute
In thesecondquarteroftheseventh century bc the kraters appear,representing important genresof art.
formation of a symposium culturebecomesapparent, Reliefkraters arefollowed by bronze kraters indicat-
withimportant and, as in the case of the stirrup- ing increased luxury in the The
symposium. produc-
kraters, verylong-livedshapes.Giventhatthe pre- tionof metalvesselsacquiresan almostpivotalposi-
dominance of thearistocratic orderin Spartafollow- tionbothon a localand on an interregional scale.In
the
ing victory in the FirstMessenian Waris ascribed thisfielda tremendous increasein quantity and qual-
to this phase,the different kindsof art thatnow itytakesplace.The greatest variety is to be foundin
emergeddo notreallyseemto be as numerous as one bronzestatuettes, including kouroi, figures in motion,
mightexpect. animalsin motion,nakedgirlsservingas mirror sup-
In thethirdquarteroftheseventh century bc,nine portsand runningfigureswearingtheshortchiton.
different branchesof productioncame into being, Ivoryproduction, however, withitsfinalgenre,thelit-
whichis morethantwicethenumber inthepreceding tle tabletsshowingan 'ajouré' pattern,comesto an
quarterof a century. Evenif one doesnotreallyhave end towardsthelastquarterof thecentury. The fur-
a clearviewof thewholesituation, themarkedinten- thertypological development of the drinkingcups
sification in productioncannotbe denied;leading doesnotshowanymarkeddivergences; in thecase of
 SPARTANART: ITS MANYDIFFERENTDEATHS 51

theblackfigure cups,Stibbegroups3 and4 areintro- bronzestatuette. Furtherlinesof production, which

duced.Group4, showingforthefirsttimea bodyon extendrightintoRomantimes,arestarted intheform
a slightly higherfoot,holdssomepromiseforfuture of the firststone reliefsshowingheroesand the
development;the black glazed and black figured Dioskouroi.Alreadyearlierresearchhas established
Lakainaiappearforthefirst time.The introduction of thatinthisperiodproduction hadundergone a change
fourteennew formsrepresents the highestrate of in subject-matter chosen.Most striking is theaccen-
increaseeverreached;at thesametimeno less than tuationof a traditional theme(namelythehoplite)in
thirty of thechosenformsare in contemporary use. associationwith the typesof relief(showingthe
This crescendo builtup almostcontinuously fromthe Dioskouroior heroes),which,onceestablished at this
thirdquarterof theseventhcentury and didnothap- time, was repeatedrelativelyunchanged. Further-
pen all of a sudden at Sparta'svictory in theSecond moremarbleacroteria, havingfullydisplacedtheter-
MessenianWar.In anyassessment, thestandardthat racottaacroteria, proveto be monumental and long-
wasreachedat thistimerepresents a highdemandfor livedforms. A changeis shownbythecrossing of sta-
andacceptanceof artwithinSpartansociety. tisticalthresholds. There is a clear decreasein the
In thesecondquarterof thesixthcentury, theter- introduction of newtypes:whereasin thepreceding
racottaacroteriaare joined by a new monumental quarter centuries nine,eleven,fourteen and fourteen
genremade of marble,a formthatlastedrightinto categories had been introduced, only five new ones
late Hellenism.The black figurecups of Stibbe emergedduring the thirdquarter of the sixth century.
groups 5-9 show the greatestvariation,although The numberof typesdisappearing risesto themaxi-
thereis at the same timea decreasein qualityand mumvalueof fifteen.
quantity foreshadowing theend of production in the In theabsenceof a widerbase of observation, the
following quarterof the century. The bronzestat- in
researchcarriedout thepast has led to a contra-
uettesareenrichedbyseveralnewbasictypes:female dictoryassessmentof the question'termination or
figures wearingthepeplos,koraiwearingchitonand continuation'. In myviewit seemsto be of special
Schrägmantel, goddessesand wreathedkouroi.In the significance thatthisprocessis in a wayambivalent.
classof bronzehydriai thegroupswithanthropomor- Howevergreatthenumberoftypeswhoseproduction
phichandlesand femalehandleprotomesare intro- has terminated may appear,theydo not have an
duced;thekantharoi includegroups3 and4. immediateimpacton the whole spectrum,as the
The numberof new typesreachesfour,as in the numberof existing formsdiminishes onlyfrom37 to
firstquarter;the numberof typesin contemporary 32. This mayindicatethecombination of a far-reach-
use peaksat 37. The development of theblackfigure ing structural changecoincidingwitha delayin its
cups, describedabove, shows that these numbers, consequences. Onlyin thefollowing century doesthe
howeverrepresentative theyare forthewholesitua- recessionmakeitselffelt;thecontinuing abundance
tion,givefewsignsof an incipient decrease.The mil- of types,however, is an inheritance fromthe past.
itary crisis of the conflictwith Tegea does not have This doesnotin theleastleadto a haltin theproduc-
anyimpact on this situation,at leastnotimmediately. tionof art.On thecontrary, thestartof a newepoch
The rateof declinein thenumberof formsincreases is heralded,theoriginsof whichare partially hidden
once more:at 25 yearintervalsfrom650-575 one by thedensity of the totalnumber of types: three of
recordstheloss of five,five,sevenand tenforms.At the fivemostimportant forms, which continue into
firstsightthismightbe interpreted as an effectof the the fifthcentury, and some of themeven into the
growingcapacity of overall the
production: greater Hellenistic period,startexactlyat thepointwhenthe
thenumber offorms produced, themoretheycandis- greatest decrease so farknownis recorded.Especially
appearagain. At this pointhowever, thefirst phaseof in thatgeneralcontext,thenew formscould hardly
thethreegreat'phasesof cessation', a periodthatsaw haveachievedtheirnumbersand persistence without
the end of an exceptionally largenumberof types, strongsupport from the public authorities. The new
makesitselffelt:in the period575-525one records forms emerge with a more distinctorientation towards
ten, fifteen and elevenforms.Here a far-reaching traditionaland military aspects.Here is thepointat
of
change production becomesevident.Fortheserea- whichSpartanartis thought to havedied.How did it
sonsI wouldsuggesta relationship betweenthecrisis liveon afterwards?
withTegeaandtheunderlying fundamental changein The lastquarterof thesixthcenturybringsonly
Sparta,leading to the strict
discipline of thefifthand one newtypeof bronzestatuette: theathlete.At this
fourth centuries. timethereare still18 different typesexistingalong-
In thethirdquarterof thesixthcentury, thelater side each othercomparedto the32 in thepreceding
Laconianterracotta acroteriaemergeand the main quarterof a century.But public projectslike the
production of marbleacroteria nowbegins.The last bronzekraterforKroisosdecoratedwithfigures, the
groupof blackfiguredcups emerges,developingin throne at Amyklaiand the temple of Athena
formout of theprecedingtypes.Representations of Chalkioikos are stillbeingundertaken. This is proof
hoplitesare introducedas the last but one typeof thatitis an anachronism toexpecta generaldeclinein
52 REINHARD FÖRTSCH

%, ■&> ¡iiii^^H ** * * ** ** **
* î* *
% ' ■£ o <*
** «■ ;* ;* * * **** * *
^'a j ^iiiliiii * * *********
Bililfl ** * * *****##**
' Bisll ** ** ** ********
^ "& 5 ***iiÜi^^H ** *** ********
Aj^ ¡i^iilHill *** *********
^o *o :M§IP^^^B *** ********
<* ^ o *** ********
^ o^ iÄÄ^^^^^B
¡iiill^^^S *** *******
^¡± *V' v^s :!:|::::S:iÍ:|:Í:^^^^^^ **********

Vi ^ ^ã *^ *^ p^i^^^^H *****

! 1 lililí! ÎCÎÏ5HSSÏÏ
1 H ¡¡^éÎÎtNAIiiîït|li|i i
s ■■ St"-f!i!Il--ìsili|i||i
I 4H ¡II||si?||l||ls=Ê?lai.4
ï ?H "ÜÜaSlSilltlälllllll
° S WWMÌ ia§8afe0iJia8<S£6"ëS>^)i.g'a?

j« ° 1S.ÍÍí:IÍ1|Í.1IÍíIÍÍ-£.Í^U
á«|
ìbBII I ë 2 2 ë g 2-^ ë ë-^ ë o 2 § s § g-^2 £^
 SPARTANART:ITS MANYDIFFERENT DEATHS 53

00 on as _r
2" ¿2
^&ON

! *s^&ai* «I 11 ito
1 smelali f ti ir* ^

««"Irt ¿££| filiti ««¿ § ««¿S: rfrfS Í ï^, rfP..S? Í¿

OnOnäo ONOO^OÎiS^bDOS^^00^ ^^ï °" ^'S "S 5 °" °"S M
4á D .2 ^ S CT^ ^

??1^1111M ¡ï i11^ti ^|| 1^ I! i1®s11¿il

•c -a T3 .S ?•- SP-Tj faS § g 2 g £P'^ '-s cL ^ '^ *ö £ 2 ^'d 'c n ^ y *5 ä ü c ^ ^ S

a a c »fŒ««g c^22¿S^£22££ l'I» 'S íí'5223££J ' = 22

limi ¡ i ri11m m ¡ m ii ni i ¡i iii-ij 11

54 REINHARDFÖRTSCH

visualartat thebeginning of an age of austerity.But speaksabouthighlyskilledcentresof production still

theundeniable change in the structure of production existingat theend of thefifth century bc, although
was of a farmorecomplexcharacter. If particularly theseare strictly limitedto the productionof very
ostentatious worksof artweretolerated in thepublic basicgoods.These productsexistedalongsidegoods
arena, thatdoes not ruleout the stifling artforper-
of meetingthehighestdemands,whichweremade for
sonaluse. For all thepublicprojects, a resolution of dedicationin sanctuaries. Also in the fifthcentury
theApellaand theagreement of Kings,Ephorsand Spartaplacedimportant in thegreat
votive-offerings
thegerousia maybe seenas a precondition. sanctuariesinside and outsideLaconia: the tripod
In thefirsttwoquartersof thefifth century bc, no commemorating Plataiaat Delphi,thetwoportrait-
newformswerecreatedand thenumberof existing statuesof Pausaniashimselfby thealtarof Athena
onesfelldramatically - to sevenand thentofive. Chalkioikos inSparta,twostatuesofNikeinthesanc-
The changein thefifth century is manifested not tuary of Athena Ergane at Sparta dedicatedby
only in theselectionof the alreadyexisting genres,but Pausanias, thestatues of theDedicationof Lysander
also in thenarrowing rangeof production. This may at Delphi madeby thegreatestsculptorsin Greece.
reflectthe weakeningcompetitiveness of the only Furthermore, thereis a greatdifference betweenthe
half-tolerated cheirotechnai of Sparta, a fate from Spartan choice of publicprojects and those patron-
whicheventhemoreimportant Corinthian artcould ized by otherpoleis: the veryextensivecommunal
notescape.More significant was thegrowing decline projectslike thosecarriedout in Athensor Argos,
at
in clients Sparta itself.
For, if thishad not beenthe whichwerecharacteristic of the Greekpolis in the
case, the losses in productionmight have been Classicalperiod,are missingat Sparta.In brief,the
replacedby the importof goods,or artists.On the Spartans used art in completelydifferentways
contrary, Spartaintensified itsisolationfromtheout- derivedfromdifferent This suggests
traditions. a vari-
sideworld.In anycase,thedemiseofthearchaictypes ety of motives for the of and
groups patrons clients,
doesnotmeanthattheuseof artin Spartastoppedas whichmaybe assignedto twomaincurrents: an aris-
well.Fora longtimeresearch overlooked twofactors: tocratic,luxury-loving tendency and a graduallyper-
artisticproduction of thefifth centurybc in Sparta vadingrestrictiveattitudetovisualart.Spartanartdid
itselfand publicvotive-offerings. Characteristically notdie,butitunderwent fromthe
a decisivetransition
enough,Kritias,quotedby Athenaiosand Plutarch, firstto thesecondapproach.
 5
Patternsof bronzededicationsat Spartan
c. 650-350bc: towardsa quantified
sanctuaries,
databaseof materialand religiousinvestment
Hodkinson
Stephen
ANDBACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
The aim of thispaperis to advocateand describea
new approachto Laconian archaeologywhichcan
shedfreshlighton important aspectsof Spartansoci-
ety.There is of course a varietyof waysin whichone
canapproachthematerial cultureof a society,several
of whichare well-established in Laconianresearch:
forexample, studiesofthetypology andproduction of
Laconianart,of its iconography, and studyof the
socialfunction of particular classesof artefact.The
studydescribedhere,however,adopts a different
approachbyexamining theartefactsfromfourmain
Spartansanctuaries as a recordof expenditure and of
material andreligious investment.
In certainrespectsthepreviousneglectof issuesof
expenditure and investment is surprising, because
severalearlierstudieshaveattempted to use theevi-
denceof Laconianmaterialcultureto documentthe
growthof the austerelifestyle ascribedto Classical
Sparta by ancient writers(e.g. Dickins 1908b;
Blakeway 1935; Stubbs 1950; Holladay 1977;
Fitzhardinge 1980). Indeed,thisconcernarosepre-
ciselyout of the findsmade earlierthiscenturyby
Britishexcavationsat ArtemisOrthia and other
Spartansanctuaries.Logically,issues of Spartiate
expenditure andinvestment, as revealedbypatterns of
dedications at thesesanctuaries, oughttohavebeenat
thecentreof thedebateaboutSpartanausterity. But
instead,fromthe verystart(Dickins 1908b), the
debatewasdeflected towardsa discussionof thepro-
ductionofLaconianartanditssupposeddeclinefrom
the late sixthcenturyonwards.I have arguedelse-
where(Hodkinson, forthcoming) thatthisorientation
ofthedebatewas,fundamentally, a wrongturn.Since
in theClassicalperiodtheSpartiates themselves were
(withperhapsa few,unimportant exceptions)not
directlyresponsiblefor craftactivity, patternsof
Laconianartistic production area lessmeaningful test
of theirausterity thanthe directevidenceof their
expenditure and investment revealedby thematerial
record.But,quiteapartfromitsrelevance
tothispar-
ticulardebate, the question of how wealth was
expendedandresources investedbytheinhabitants of
Laconiain antiquity
is surelyan important
issuewith
significant
implicationsformanyaspectsof theirsoci-
ety.Thereis goodreasontoaddthisperspectivetoour
of approachestowardsthearchaeology
repertoire of
Laconia.
A DATABASEOF BRONZEDEDICATIONS:
OBSTACLES TO A QUANTIFIEDAPPROACH
In thispaperI shalldescribemyattempt toapplythis
perspectiveto a specificcorpusof archaeological
evi-
dence relatingto the Spartiatecitizenbodyin the
Archaicand Classical periods,the excavatedfinds
fromfourmainSpartansanctuaries: ArtemisOrthia,
the Menelaion,the sanctuary of Apolloat Amyklai
andthesanctuaries on theAcropolis. Giventhepauci-
tyof excavatedmaterialfromSpartanhabitation or
burialcontexts,the sanctuaryfinds - althoughnot
unproblematic in character,as we shall see- form
the mostcoherentbody of availablearchaeological
evidence,the productof excavationsgoing back
over 100 years,with the potentialto informus
about the Spartiates'expenditureand investment
of wealthon votiveofferings to the gods.1Among
therangeof finds,I choseto focusuponthebronze
votives.My selectionwas influenced by the status
of bronzeas a relativelypreciousmetal whosevotive
use indicatesa not insignificantinvestment which,
1. The findsfromearly Greek and German workat the
Amyklaionwerereportedin Archaiologike
Ephemeris
1892:
1-26; Mitteilungendes DeutschenArchäologischenInstituts,
Athenische
Abteilung52, 1927: 1-85. For theoriginalBritish
excavationsat ArtemisOrthia, the Acropolis and the
Menelaion,AnnualoftheBritish Schoolat Athens12(1905/6)
-16 (1909/10); Dawkins 1929. Subsequentworkin the
1920s, esp. on the Acropolis, appeared in BSA 26,
(i923/4)-3° (!928/9)-For preliminaryreportsof themore
recentMenelaionexcavations,
Journalof HellenicStudies,
ArchaeologicalReports23 (1976/77) 24-42; Lakontkai
Spoudai 2 (1975) 258-69; 3 (1977) 408-16; 8 (1986)
205-16.
56 STEPHEN HODKINSON

nevertheless,camein theformof a variety of offer- factsand biasedtowardsfindsfromearlierperiods.

ings, large and small, reflecting a wide range of The bronzesfromsomeyearsof the1920sAcropolis
expenditures.2 excavations receivedfullertreatment fromWinifred
I shouldimmediately emphasizethe obstaclesto Lamb (1927a);but,evenso, hercoveragewas biased
this enterprise.First,althoughbronzesurvivesin towardsobjectsof artisticsignificance, withother
greaterquantitiesthanmoreexpensivemetals,the findsmentioned in suchgenericfashion(forexample,
archaeologicalrecord of bronze dedications at 'handlesof varioustypes')as to lackstatistical value.
Spartansanctuaries, as elsewherein Greece,is seri- She did not, moreover,attemptto re-studythe
ously compromised and depletedby severalpost- bronzesfromtheearlierAcropolisexcavations which
depositionalfactors: the meltingdownof votivesby hadreceivedmuchlesssatisfactory coverage(Dickins
the
templeofficials, increasing frequency of plunder 1907a:146-50;1908a:145;Woodward 1925c:266-74).
fromthelateClassicalperiodonwards,and thesus- The earlyreportsfromthe Menelaionexcavations
of bronzeto corrosion
ceptibility and disintegration, (Wace,Thompsonand Droop 1909) weresimilarly
in
especially damp and humid climatic conditions, inadequate,providing littlediscussionof individual
suchas at Artemis Orthiawithitslow-lying situation artefacts
orindication of numbers of bronzes.
by the flood-prone River Eurotas (Droop 1929:196). The publishedevidence,then,providesonly a
Consequently, thenumbers ofexcavated bronzesarea selectivecoverageof the findsgovernedlargelyby
minimumto be multiplied many times overin any considerations of artisticqualityratherthanbycon-
estimationof theoriginallevelof bronzededications. cernforthe assemblageas a whole.To resumethe
An evengreaterproblem, however, is thedifferential analogywithwritten evidence,it is as if theoriginal
effectof theabovefactorsupon votivesof different editoroftheAristotelian Constitution
ofAthens, a work
typesandperiods.Forexample,largeobjectsof sheet discovered on papyrusin 1890,in the same yearas
metal,suchas sizeablevessels,aremoreeasilymelted Tsountas'sexcavations at theAmyklaion, haddecided
downand corrodedthancastobjectsand havethere- topublishonlythosepartsof thetextjudgedto be of
foretypicallysuffered greaterdepletion.(This phe- literarymerit!Ultimately, a comprehensive studyof
nomenonis onlypartlycompensated byfindsof the the bronzevotiveswill therefore need to go back
casthandlesand ornaments of vesselswhosebodies beyondthepublishedreportsto a re-examination of
no longersurvive.)Conditionshavealso oftenbeen thefindsthemselves. Anessential preliminary, howev-
moreconduciveto thepreservation of Archaicthan er,mustbe tobringsomeordertothehaphazard state
Classical material.At ArtemisOrthia the sealed of the publishedevidence,currently scatteredover
depositcreatedwhentheSpartanscoveredthesanc- numerous excavation reports, bycompiling a system-
tuarywitha layerof sand in theearlysixthcentury aticdatabaseof all thebronzesmentioned (however
enabledearliervotivesto escapetheworsteffects of inadequately)in publications to date.The outcomeof
thesite'shumidity, whereastheunsealedClassicaland this exerciseis set out in tables 5.1, 5-3a-c and
laterbronzeshavesuffered muchmoreheavily. 54a-d, wherethe data is presentedin quantitative
The incompleteand differential survivalof the form,coveringthe period c. 650-r. 350 bc. My
originaldedications is not in itselfan unusualprob- chronological focusreflects partlythehistorical peri-
lem. Those of us who workregularly withancient od centraltomypersonalresearch, butpartlyalsothe
written sources,forexample,are well-accustomed to imprecise classification of earlierfindsin theexcava-
the challengesposed by survivingevidencewhich tionreports:typical labels suchas 'Geometric' aretoo
formsonlya smalland partialsampleof theoriginal vague for the finer chronologicalspecification
literarycorpus.The problemis,however, compound- required.The tables,naturally, bearmanymarksof
ed bya seconddifficulty: theincomplete publication the deficienciesof the publishedreports.The fre-
of theexcavated finds.The fundamental requirement quentappearance of the'Ind' and'+' signs,forexam-
fora thorough studyofexpenditure andinvestment is ple, indicates the largenumberof cases in which
a completedatabaseof thefinds,in orderto permit reportsfailto specify theprecisenumberof artefacts.
quantificationof thenumbersof dedications of vari- The reportsalso oftenprovideeitherno information
ous typesmade in different periods.Unfortunately,
fewof the excavationreportsdisplayan interest in
quantificationof the bronze finds and many of the
2. Althoughsome sanctuaryfindswerenot votiveofferings
bronzesremainunpublished.3 The incomplete publi- sensustricto(mostnotably,utensilsand vesselsused in cult
cationof themetalfindsfromTsountas's1890exca-
rituals),suchobjectswereoftengiftsbyworshippers and as
vationsattheAmyklaion hasrecently beendetailedby such constitute evidencefor and
good privateexpenditure
Calligas(1992), and the record of the earlyBritish religious investment.
excavationswas little better.Publicationof the
bronzesfromArtemis Orthia(Droop 1907aand 1929; 3. Spartanexcavationreportsareof coursenottheonlyonesto
Lamb 1927b),in contrastto some otherclassesof sufferfromthesedeficiencies;cf.Simon 1986, 175 on the
finds(Dawkins1929),was confined to selectedarte- variedqualityof publication
of Ioniansanctuary
sites.
 BRONZEDEDICATIONSA T SPARTANSANCTUARIESc. 650-350bc 57

table 5.1: Published bronze findsfromSpartan sanctuaries,c. 650-r.350

Orthia Acropolis Menelaion Amyklaion Total

c. 650-c.600 40+ 3 24+ 5+ 72+

c. 600-r.550 22 7/8 22+ 3+ 54+
c. 550-c.500 6 15-18 6+ 8/9 35+
c. 500-c.450 2 10-14 2+ 1/2 15+
c. 450-r.400 1 5-7 Ind 0/1 7+
¿' 4O(w. 350 - 1 1

EarlyArchaic 1 1
Archaic 13 - Ind 5 19+
Late Archaic 3 3
L. IH-V andlater - - 11+ - 11+

DNG 3 74+ 3+ "5+ ^5+

Key:DNG = Date Not Given;L. = Laconian

The signs'+' and 'Ind' signify whoselimitis not
numberof artefacts
of an indefinite
theexistence
in therelevant
specified excavation
reports.

or onlyvague indicationsconcerningthe datingof
artefacts;hence the large numberof objectswith
unhelpfullabels like CDNG' (Date Not Given) or
'Archaic'.This lack is clearlymost seriousat the
Amyklaion where,as table 5.1makesclear,fully80%
of thefindsareundated.
Does thisprovisionalandincomplete databaseshed
anylight on theissues of Spartiateexpenditure and
religiousinvestment? the
Following catalogue of defi-
cienciesrehearsedabove, it mightbe questioned
whetherthe publishedevidencecan be used to any
seriouseffect.ButI wouldarguethateventheflawed
databasecurrently availablecan suggestsignificant
hypotheses for future, more comprehensive study.
These hypotheses may also servea heuristicrolein
demonstrating theacademicpotential of a morecom-
thus
pletedatabase, encouraging efforts
towards a sys-
tematicre-study of thefinds.The remainder of this
essaywillattemptto put somefleshon thebonesof
thesepropositions.
THE GROWTHOF AN AUSTERESOCIETY?
Table 5.1 presentstheglobalstatistics
of published
bronzefindsfromthefourmainSpartansanctuaries
intheperiodc. 650-r. 350bc,dividedintoperiodsof
50 years.Tables 5-3a-cthenprovidea moredetailed
breakdown of the dedicationof the mostcommon
typesof bronzevotives(vessels,jewellery,
statuettes
and figurines)
acrosstherangeof sanctuaries, while
tables 54a-d examinethedistributionof thesetypes
sanctuaryby sanctuary. What conclusionsdo the
Tablessuggest?Fora start,
theyprovideunambiguous
confirmation thatin the periodto c. 550, and even
downtoc. 500,Spartansexpendedtheirresources on
a range of metal votiveofferings. The published
bronzerecordattestsa numberof relatively grandiose
objectssuch as vessels,furniture withmetalattach-
ments,armour,decorativeplaques,as well as more
modeststatuettes and personaland dressitems.
In theperiodafterc. 550,as table 5.1shows,there
is a declinein thetotalnumberof bronzefinds.At
firstsightthismightseemto document thegrowth of
theausteresocietydepictedintheancientsources;but
thepictureis inrealitymorecomplex.Betweenc. 550
and c. 500 bronze findsactuallyincreaseon the
Acropolis, and possiblyalso at theAmyklaion. There
is also morecontinuity into the fifthcenturythan
mightat firstbe apparent.On theAcropolisdedica-
tionsmaintaintheirhigherlevelson intoearlyfifth
century. Evenin thelaterfifth century theyarestillat
a levelcomparable withvotivesof theearlysixthcen-
tury, andhigherthanthoseof thelaterseventh centu-
In
ry. fact, thereis causeto think thatthefifth-centu-
ry figuresmightbe significantly increased.The
findsinclude between
Acropolis 40 and 50 bronze
bells; but onlyfive of these which boreinscriptions
wereindividually itemised anddatedintheexcavation
reports;theremainder werementioned onlyin pass-
ing.4 All theinscribedbellswere dated bytheexcava-
4. The five itemisedexamples are discussed in BSA 24
(1919-21) 118 nos. 66-8; 26 (1923-25) 273-4 no- 1' 3°
(1928-30)252 no.5; thepassingmentionoff. 40 otherbells
comesin BSA 30 (1928-30)273.
58 STEPHEN HODKINSON

torsto thefifth century.If similardatesshouldapply These changeswerenot confinedto thebronzes.

to theother40 or so (currently includedamongthe Jewellery motifsamongthe leads at both Artemis
category 'Date Not Given'), then the fifth-century Orthia and the Menelaiondeclinedsignificantly in
Acropolis bronzes would outnumber finds of earlier numbers of both types and varieties during Leads
periodsbya considerable margin. III- IV (thatis lead figurines of typesdatingc. 580
It is onlyat Artemis OrthiaandtheMenelaionthat -500), subsequently disappearing entirely in thefifth
thefigures suggest a marked declinein bronze votives century. At Artemis Orthia the textile motifs, which
in thelatersixthcentury. It mightbe arguedthatthis mayrepresent the items of clothing with which dedi-
in itselfbetokens somedegreeof austerity, especially cations of jewellery were often associated, also cease
sincethesetwoshrineshavealso producedthelargest aftertheend of Lead II (c. 620-580).5 Similarly, the
numbersof cheap lead votive figurines(Wace, upward trend of bronze statuettes and figurines finds
Thompsonand Droop 1909: 127-41; Wace 1929; someparallelamongtheleads,although ata somewhat
Cavanagh and Laxton 1984). These leads have been earlier date: leads depicting human and animal figures
citedas proofof theSpartans'increasing disdainfor (realormythical) areveryfewin Lead I (c. 650-620),
morepreciousmetalswhich,it is argued,led themto butincreaseandexceedjewellery motifs fromLead II
opt for cheaper votives(Wace 1929:250). table 5.2 (c. 620-580) onwards (Wace1929:280-1).
documentsthe increasinguse of lead votivesat Tables 5-3a-c and tables 54a-d. also indicate
Artemis Orthiafromthelaterseventhcentury, rising considerable variationin the distribution of various
to a dramatic peakin thesixthcentury, followed by a classes of bronze artefactbetween different sanctuar-
decline duringthe fifthcenturyand later. (The ies.Vessels are found in reasonable numbers at all four
chronological trajectory of the less well published sanctuaries. Jewelleryvotives,however, much are
Menelaionleadsis apparently similar.) Thereis a cer- more prominent atArtemis OrthiaandtheAmyklaion
tainoverlapin the latersixthcenturybetweenthe than on the Acropolis.(There are also significant,
declineof bronzevotivesand thepeakof theleads. thoughunspecified,numbersat the Menelaion.)
Buttheleadsbeganincreasing inpopularity as earlyas Statuettes andfigurines, incontrast, aremostfrequent
the laterseventhcenturyand the periodof their on theAcropolis andquitecommonattheAmyklaion,
greatest use commenced in thesecondquarterof the but less frequentat Artemis Orthia and the
sixth,both developments takingplace beforethe Menelaion.These differences in thedistribution and
decline in bronze dedicationsat the sanctuary. chronology of thevariousclassesof votivesare the
Moreover, theleads themselves declinedearlyin the reasonforthe divergent votivechronologies of the
fifth in
century, parallel with the further fallin bronze various sanctuaries evident in table 5.1.
votives, duringtheperiodwhenSpartansocietywas
supposedlybecomingmore austere.The lead fig-
SPARTANBRONZEDEDICATIONS IN THE
urinescannot,therefore, supportthe notionof an
overallincreasein austerity or explainthe decline WIDER GREEKCONTEXT
of bronze dedicationsat ArtemisOrthia or the If thepatterns ofbronzededications at Spartansanc-
Menelaion.Moregermanetothisdeclineis thesharp tuariesarenotsuggestive of thegrowth of a uniquely
fallin jewelleryand vesseldedications, a phenom- austeresociety, thequestionfollowswhether theyare
enonby no meansuniqueto Sparta,as we shallsee indeeddistinctive to Sparta.The capacitytoposethis
below. questionis oneof themostvaluableadvantages of the
In sum,the presentevidenceindicatesdivergent databasesince,inadequateas thestatistics clearlyare,
trendsbetweendifferent Spartan sanctuaries and they nonetheless have the merit of enablingus to
offers littlematerial support for an overall growth of a the
bring Spartan material record into relationwith
uniquely austere society. This of
picture specific the wider Greek world.Quantifying findscreates
the
change rather than global decline emerges stillmore an independent basis forcomparison withsanctuaries
clearly from the more detailed breakdown of votive elsewhere, us to
permitting go beyondimpressionistic
trendsprovidedin tables 5-3a-cand tables 54a-d. judgements whichmaybe over-influenced byassump-
This suggeststhatjewellery and vesselsformedthe tionsof Spartanuniquenessderivedfromtheliterary
most frequentbronzededicationsin the periodc. sources.
650-r. 550 (tables 54a-d). After c. 550 jewellery In broadterms,thepatternsrevealedhereappear
votivesthenfallaway(table 3b). The bronzevessels notto be unique,butto conform to generaltrendsin
also declineafterc. 550, excepton the Acropolis
wheretheycontinueat an undiminished level into
thesecondhalfof thesixthcentury (table 3a). Free- 5. Wace 1929,esp.279-82;Wace,Thompsonand Droop 1909,
standing statuettes and figurines, theotherhand,
on 127. Wace himselfdid not recognisethe textilemotifsas
increasein numberafterc. 550 and becomethemost such,terming them'pendantplaques'and 'decorative plates
prominent votive,especially on theAcropolis and at (pendants?)':1929:255-6,264-5,27°-I owetmspointtoLin
theAmyklaion (tables 5.3c,5.4b,and 5.4a). Foxhall.
 BRONZEDEDICATIONSA T SPARTANSANCTUARIESc. 650-350bc 59

TABLE5.2: Chronologyof lead figurinesfromthe sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthia

(afterWace1929:251-2,withrevisedchronology)
Period Number No.perannum

LeadO (? -650) 23
Lead I (650-620) 5719 191
Lead II (620-580) 9548 239
Lead IH-IV (580-500) 68822 860
Lead V (500-425) 10617 142
Lead VI (425-250) 4773 27

table 5.3a: Published bronze vessel finds

Orthia Acropolis Menelaion Amyklaion Total

c. 650-c.600 6+ - 6+ 4 16+
c. 600-c.550 8 5 10+ 2 25+
C' 55°-^ 500 1 5/6 2+ 1 9+
C. 5OO-C.45O O/l O/l - - 0-2
c. 45o-¿' 400 0/1 - - 0/1
c. 'oo-c. 350 - -

DNG or Vague 7 5+ 1+ 12+ 25+

table 5.3b: Published bronze jewelleryfinds

Orthia Acropolis Menelaion Amyklaion Total

c. 650-r.600 18 3 Ind - 22+

¿' 6oo-¿' 550 11 - Ind - 12+
c 55°-^-500 1 1
c. 500-c. 450 -
c. 450-*:. 400 - - -
c. 400-c. 350 - -

DNG or Vague 163+ 75 85+

table 5.3c: Published bronze statuette/figurine

finds

Orthia Acropolis Menelaion Amyklaion Total

c. 650-c.600 1 - Ind - 2+
c. (yoo-c.550 2 2/3 0/1 0/1 4-7
c-55°-^-500 2 7-9 - 6/7 15-18
c. 50CW.450 2 6-8 1 1/2 10-13
c. 450-c 400 1 3/4 - 0/1 4-6
c. 400-c.350 - 1 r
DNG or Vague - 9+ 1 ï2+ 22+
6o STEPHEN HODKINSON

bronzevotiveofferings throughout Greece,especially typesof votivesat Spartansanctuaries mirrordevel-

towardsthe end of the Archaicperiod.It has long opments elsewhere in Greece? Certainly, thefrequen-
been notedthattheseyearswitnesseda significant of
cy Spartanearlyjewellery dedications c. 650-550
declineinthequantity of smallvotives atmanyGreek BCfitsinwiththegeneralpattern atArchaicsanctuar-
sanctuaries,including a marked decrease in bronze ies elsewhere(Simon 1986: 198). The subsequent
dedications(Payne 1940: 93; Tomlinson1976: 23; declineof jewellery votivesalso occursat othersanc-
Simon 1986: 106; Kyrieleis1993: 129). Snodgrass tuaries.It maybe relatedto changesin styleof cloth-
(1990a) has argued that this phenomenonreflects ingwhichincludedan increasing simplicity indecora-
majorchangesin thenatureand roleof votiveoffer- tion and ornamentation (Bonfante and Jaunzems
ings resultingfroma profoundchangein religious 1988:1390-91;cf.Herodotusv 87-8); buthowclose-
practice- a furthersignthatwe shouldnotinterpret ly the sixth-century declineof jewelleryat Sparta
theSpartanpatterns intermsofa growth oflocalaus- matchesthetiming elsewhere is at presentunclear.At
terity.As the small
relatively number of statistical Olympia the decline is largelya phenomenon of the
case-studiescitedin Snodgrass'sstudyshows,thereis early fifth century, and even then finger rings remain
needformanymoresystematic, quantitative studiesof relatively numerousin the Classicalperiodaftera
thenatureand precisechronology of thephenome- comparatively undistinguished showing inearliercen-
non.A surveyof publishedreportsfroma scatterof turies(Philipp1981: 8-10). Similarly, theextramural
sitesacrosstheGreekworldsuggests, however, that sanctuary of Demeterand Persephone at Cyrenewit-
the timingof the declinein (bronze)votivesvaries nessed a markedfall in jewelleryfindsafterthe
fromsanctuary tosanctuary, at someplacesbeginning ArchaicandearlyClassicalperiods(Warden1990:14,
earlyin thesixthcentury, at othersnotuntilthefifth. 40). A closerparallelto the Spartantimingcomes
At thesanctuary of Hermesand Aphrodite at Symi fromthesanctuary ofHeraAkraiaatPerachora where
Viannouon Cretethebronzeplaquesdeclinemarked- thenumerousseventh-century jewellery findsat the
ly around600 (Lembesi1985),as do otherofferings. so-calledtempleof HeraLimeniaon theupper,E ter-
Indeed,severalCretansanctuaries - though, note,not racedeclinemarkedly duringthesixthcentury (Payne
-
all showa markeddeclineinvotives inthesixthcen- 1940:124,168).Likewise,at theharboursanctuary at
tury(Morris,forthcoming). Attheharboursanctuary Emporio,as we haveseen,thedeclinein bronzejew-
atEmporioon Chiosfewbronzefindsweredatedlater ellery,as withtheotherbronzefinds,beginsin the
thanPeriodIV, whichterminated c. 600 (Boardman earlypartof thesamecentury.
1967:xii,205-29,257).On theacropolisat Lindoson As regardsSpartanstatuette and figurine dedica-
Rhodesthe declineseemsto commencein thelater tions,a certainidiosyncrasy appears in the infrequen-
sixthcentury, to judgefromtheabsenceof bronzes cy of dedicationsat the startof our period,a phe-
ascribedtotheperiod525-400(Blinkenberg 1931).At nomenoncoinciding witha longdearthof localpro-
theshrineof Artemison Samosvotivedepositspeak ductionbetweenthetermination of Geometric horse
c. 550-525 and startto declinethereafter (Tsakos figurines at the start of the seventh century the
and
1980);whereasat thesanctuary of Hera thedeclineis emergence of statuette in
production theearlysixth
delayeduntilthefifth century (Kyrieleis1993: 129). (Rolley1982: 39, 76 n.201).6 Afterc. 550 Spartan
(Note, again, this exampleof differences between trendsare morein line withthoseelsewhere. Many
sanctuarieson the same island.) At Olympiathe moredetailedstudiesof trendsat specificsanctuaries
declinein helmetand jewellerydedicationsis also areagainurgently needed.At theextramural sanctu-
underwayby the earlyfifth century(Kunze 1958: ary of Demeter and at
Persephone Cyrene bronze fig-
118-51; 1961: 56-137; 1967: 111-83; Philipp1981: urinesare said to decline significantly afterthe
8-10), thoughotherbronzescontinuein forceuntil Archaicperiod(Warden1990:12),thoughno precise
theonsetof a majorrupture around450 (Gauer1991: figures aregiven.At theKabeirionin Boiotiastylistic
169; cf.Rolley1993:394-5). At Isthmiathepeakof of
dating bronzeand lead oxenstatuettes (Schmaltz
armsand armourdedicationscomes in the period 1980)suggesteda hugedropfrom122 laterArchaic
afterc. 550,onlyto be terminated abruptly withthe dedications periodto onlysix Classical.Subsequent
destructionoftheArchaictempleofPoseidonaround epigraphic datingof the37 inscribed statuettes from
470 (Jackson1992: 141-4); and thefollowing period thisgroup,however, a
suggests generalloweringof
witnessesa comparative paucityof othervaluable dates(22 Archaic,12 Classical,3 Hellenistic)and a
dedications(Broneer1959:339).Theseexamplessug- less sharpdecline,focusedmainlyon theearlyfifth
gestthat Spartandedications patterns conform to the century(Roesch 1985; cf. Rolley 1986b: 387-8).
general Greek not
norm, only in the general decline in
bronzevotives, butalso in thevariations betweendif-
ferentSpartansanctuaries in the precisetimingof 6. Thereis, however,
a similartrendat Delphiwherenumbers
thatdecline. of freestanding
humanand animalstatuettes declinefrom
So muchforthegeneralpicture. Buttowhatextent over100in Geometric timesto fewerthan20 in theseventh
do thespecificchangesin thefrequency of different century(Rolley1969).
 BRONZE DEDICA TIONS A T SPARTAN SANCTUARIES c. 650-350bc 61

TABLE 5.4a: Categories of published bronze finds: Artemis Orthia

Vessels Jewellery Statuettes Other
c. 650-c. 600 6+ 18 1 15
c. 600-c. 550 8 11 2 1
c. 550-r. 500 11 22
c. 500-c. 450 - 2 - -
c. 450-c. 400 - - 1 -
e. 40CW.350 - - -
DNG or Vague 71 -9
Total 22+ 31 8 27

TABLE 5.4b: Categories of published bronze finds: Acropolis

Vessels Jewellery Statuettes Other
c. 650-r.600 - 3 -
c. 600-c.550 5 - 2/3
c-550-e 500 5/6 - 7-9 3
c. 500-c.450 0/1 - 6-8 4/5
c. 450-*:.400 - - 3/4 2/3
c. 400-c.350 - 11
DNG or Vague 5+ 6 9+ 54+
Total 15+ 9 28+ 64+

table 5.4c: Categoriesof publishedbronze finds:Menelaion

Vessels Jewellery Statuettes Other
c. 650-r. 600 8+ Ind Ind 14+
c. 600-c. 550 11+ Ind 1 9+
c- SSo-c 500 2+1 3+
c. s°o-c. 450 - 1 Ind
¿'45cw. 400 - Ind
e. 40CW.350 - -
DNG or Vague Ind 3+ 1 ^+
Total 22+ 6+ 4+ 42+

table 54d: Categoriesof publishedbronze finds:Amyklaion

Vessels Jewellery Statuettes Other
c. 650-c. 600 4 _ _ ind
c. 600-c. 550 2 - 0/1 Ind
c- SSo-c 500 1 6/71
<' 50<w. 450 - - l/2
c. 450-r.400 _ 0/1
c. 400-^. 350 - _
DNG or Vague 12+ 75 I2+ 37+
Total J9+ 75 19+ 40+
62 STEPHEN HODKINSON

Generalsurveys of Greekbronzestatuettes suggesta theneedsand statusof worshippers at each shrine;

staggereddeclinein votivescomparableto thatin andSnodgrass's argument (1990a)thatthebroadded-
table 5.3c,occurring at somesitesin theearlyfifth icatorytrendsunderdiscussionreflect a generalshift
century as at the Amyklaion, butat mostplacesin the from'raw'to 'converted' offerings.8Criticalscrutiny
years after450 as on the Acropolis(Lamb 1969:106; of thesetopicswoulddemonstrate evenmoreclearly
Rolley1986a:169). thebenefits of a systematic databaseof findswhose
The Spartandeclinein bronzevesseldedications quantitative character raisesfreshissuesandaddsnew
raisesfurther issuesforfuture research.Atfirst blush, insights to those derived frompurelyqualitative stud-
it is tempting to explainthedeclinein localtermsby ies. In particular, in enablingthe Spartanmaterial
connecting it withtheendof Laconianbronzevessel recordtobe comparedwiththatof otherGreekcities
production c. 530-520 (Rolley1982: 75-8); but the ina moresystematic mannerthanpreviously possible,
linkis notstrong, since(apartfromon theAcropolis) theprocessof quantification hasthecapacityto high-
the declinein dedicationsstartsearlier,aroundthe lightwide-ranging questionsaboutbothLaconianand
middleof thecentury. So, once again,we mustask broader Greek developmentsin urgentneed of
whether it was partof moregeneralchangesin the research.
role of bronzevessels.Modern discussionsof the I wouldarguethattheimportance of theseques-
declineinbronzededications tendtofocuson smaller tionsshouldpromptus to taketheprocessstillfur-
dedications; but there are indications that larger ther, forthepresent studyis merely a toedippedinthe
votiveswerealso affected. At Olympia, vessels reach broadand deep oceanof Laconian,let alone Greek,
theirpeakin the sixth and early fifth
centuries, but materialculture.Withinthe morelimitedsphereof
thensharein the general declineof bronze dedica- Spartansanctuaries, we needa quantified databaseof
tionsafterc. 450 (Gauer1991:1, 169).Moregeneral- thefullrangeof finds - and overa longertimespan
ly,Rolley(1986a: 169) suggestsa shiftin theperiod thanhas beenattempted here;forpatterns of bronze
450-300 BC towardsthe use of bronzevesselsas dedications cansupplymerely partof a picturewhich
funerary objectsand itemsof displayin privatehous- willbe morefullyintelligible onlyin the lightof pat-
es. If thisis so,oneissuerequiring particularclarifica- terns of votives in other media.
tionis whether thedeclineof bronzevesselsas sanc- I amencouraged to findthatmyperception of this
tuaryofferings is connected withtheemergence ofthe needis nomerepersonalidiosyncrasy, but is shared by
life-sizebronzestatueduringthelatersixthandearly a recentreviewer whohascalledfora 'comprehensive
fifthcenturiesas the most prestigiousdedicatory studyof all ArchaicLaconian artefacts withinthe
object(Mattusch1988:58-118).AtSpartansanctuar- framework of the socio-culturalhistoryof pre-
ies thereis at presentno archaeological evidencethat Classical Sparta' (Cartledge 1988: 345; cf. now
statuededicationsdid replaceofferings of vessels. Förtsch1994).Withinmyimmediate fieldof enquiry
Sinceveryfewbronzestatuessurvivefromanywhere into the sanctuaryfindsthereare, indeed, some
in theGreekworld,theirabsencefromtheSpartan promising signsforfuture.The finalpublication of
material recordis unsurprising; buttherealsoseemsa the recentMenelaionexcavationsshouldprovidea
lackof evidenceforthemoredurablestonebaseson morecompletecoverageof therichnew findsfrom
whichsuchstatueswouldoncehavestood.7Literary thatsite;andwearepromised a moreextensive publi-
evidencepresentsa similarpictureto the material cationofoldermaterial fromtheAmyklaion (Calligas
record:thereare no attestedpersonalstatuesof ath- 1992:41). Beyondthat,thepressingneed is forsys-
leticor military victorsin Spartaitselfbeforethatof tematic re-study andpublication of thefindsfromthe
Euryleonis, possiblyin 368 BC(Pausanias3.15.1). We olderBritishexcavations. This would,of course,be
need further researchelsewherein Greeceto deter- no simpleor straightforward task.Boththescale of
mine whetherSpartanpracticeonce again simply the enterprise and the necessaryrangeof expertise
matchesgeneralGreektrends;or whether thisis one wouldrequirea majorcollaborative venture. Butthere
phenomenon which is peculiar Sparta, signof the
to a is nowan unprecedented opportunity, thepro-
with
desireoftheSpartanhomoioitocontrolthedisplayof posed foundation by the British School of a Sparta
wealthand statusin front of fellowcitizens. Study Centre, for the creation of an institutional
framework andlocalbasewhichcouldprovidecoordi-
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS
This paperhasattempted todemonstrate thevalueof
examining the finds from Spartan sanctuariesas evi- I presumethatreferences statuette
to inscribed basesof the
7.
denceof material and religiousinvestment.Limitsof fourth reports therecent
in preliminary
orthirdcenturies of
space preventan examinationhere of important (Catling1977a:41) refer
Menelaionexcavations tosomewhat
issues,pertaining to thereligious
especially aspectsof smallerobjects.
thephenomena in question:mostnotably, themarked
differencesin typesof votiveofferings at thevarious 8. I shalladdresstheseissuesin a chapterof a plannedmono-
Spartan sanctuaries andtheirrelationtodifferencesin graphon Property and Societyin ClassicalSparta.
 BRONZE DEDICA TIONS A T SPARTANSANCTUARIES e. 650-330bc
nationandsupportforsuchan enterprise ina manner
which has not hithertobeen possible. With the
prospectof thesevariousdevelopments, I look for-
wardtothetimewhenan expandeddatabasewillper-
mita morerigorousanalysisof the hypotheses and
comparisons hazarded in this study.For
preliminary
thepresent,however,I hopetohavedemonstrated the
potential value of a quantitativearchaeological
approachto theissuesof Spartiatematerialand reli-
gious investment, and the inherentinterestand
importance of thequestionsto whichitcan giverise.
63
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am gratefulto Susan Cole, CatherineMorgan,Ian
Morris,Robin Osborne, ChristopherSimon and
Anthony Snodgrassfortheiradviceconcerning pat-
ternsof votiveofferingsoutsideSparta.The database
on whichthisarticleis basedwasconstructed during
mytenureof a NuffieldFoundationSocial Science
ResearchFellowship,further researchduringstudy
leavefundedby the HumanitiesResearchBoard of
theBritishAcademy.
 6
Exceptionalshapesand decorationsin
Laconianpottery
ConradM. Stibbe

Whendiscussingexceptional shapesand decorations guishon theone handthosewhichweresuccessfully

in Laconianpottery it maybe usefulto makethefol- exported, suchas kraters,aryballoiand cups,and fol-
lowingpreliminary remarks. GiventhatSpartaoccu- lowed,a longwaybehind,by amphorai,hydriaiand
piesa ratherexceptional placein thethiasosof Greek oinochoai;and on theotherhandshapeswhichwere
city statesin pre-hellenistic times,we mightalso commonon the local market,such as lakainai,
expectto findsomesortof reflection of thisspecial skyphoi,kantharoi, cylindricalmugs,smallgoblets,
culturaland politicalstatusin its minorarts,and in bell-kratersandotherhigh-walled shapes.In bothcat-
particular in itspottery. As I hopetoshow,thereis no egorieswe findexceptionalshapesand decorations,
reason to be disappointedabout this expectation. thoughthesemightbe termed'variants'.
This conviction, however, immediately raisesthe But thereis more.A thirdcategorycomprises
vexedquestionof whoproducedthispottery. Did the shapesand decorations whichare not foundin the
Spartan citizens participate, or were the perioikoi firsttwo categories, and whichwe can describeas
aloneresponsible foritsproduction? In otherwords: exceptionalin the sense that theyare unique or
can we viewtheshapesand decorations of Laconian almostunique.Surprisingly, someshapeswhichare
as
pottery representative of the requirements and commonoutsideLaconia,suchas thelekythos withan
tasteof therulingclassof Spartiatai in thecapital,or elongatedbody or thedinos or the pilgrim bottleor
should we assume that the pots reflectonly the the askos,are exceptionalin Laconia and therefore
predilectionsand conceptionsof the mercenary, belongtothisthirdcategory. Moreover, wehavequite
provincial peopleof theperioikoi? Or do we needto a number ofvase-shapesforwhich,perhapsbychance
considera thirdpossibility whichmakesthe black- of excavation,no parallelsareknown,eitherinsideor
and-white distinctions of thefirsttwooptionssuper- outsideLaconia.
fluous?This thirdpossibility wouldbe thatthepro- As forthedecoration, thisis a storyin itself,on
ductionofLaconianpottery wasnota privilege ofone whichmuchstudyhasstillto be done,particularly in
socialclassor another, butrathera branchof artistic thefieldof secondary ornaments.2 For ourpurposes
industry open to all inhabitants of Laconia,whether today, however,wecanstatethattheornaments areof
free, less free or unfree. less importance, witha fewexceptions whichwillbe
I takeitthatarchaicSpartaoftheseventh andsixth discussedlater,in theappropriate place.
centuries bc wasan opensocietyinwhichartists ofall In thispaperI willstartwitha shapewhichcannot
kindscouldfreely moveandproducewhattheywant- evenbe calleda vase.It is a sortof cylindricaltube,
ed withno othersocialrestrictions thanthosewhich sinceit lacks a bottomand a mouth(fig. 6.ia-b).
applied to all other aristocratic societies of Greece There is no doubtaboutthemeasurements because
during those centuries. This implies the possibility therimsat bothendsarewell-preserved andfromthe
that full citizens,includingwhole families,could decorations we can evendetermine whichside is the
engagein theproduction of pottery, stone-sculpture, top and which the bottom. The presentexamplewas
ivory-carving, bronze-casting and so on. This further
impliesthatfromtheshapesand decorations of sev-
enthand sixthcentury pottery completepictureof
a
thetastesandpreferences ofthewholesocietyoffree, i. Formoreon theseproblems seeP.A.Cartledge,
'Did Spartan
lessfreeandunfree inhabitants of SpartaandLaconia LCM i: 115-119.
citizenseverpractisea manualtekhne?',
canbe gathered.1 2. Aftertheextremely usefulstudyofLaconianiconography by
Movingnowfromgeneralbackground considera- MariaPipiliin 1987,therestillremainsa seriesof unsolved
tionsto themorelimitedones relatingto Laconian problems.In thefieldof secondary ornaments, suchas lotos-
pottery, I wouldfirst liketoexplainthetitleofmylec- palmettecompositions, friezesof animals,of pomegranates,
ture.Whatdo I meanby'exceptional'? To clarifythis of lotosbuds etc.,as producedby the different Laconian
itwouldfirst be usefultoestablish whatis commonin forwhichthematerialhas beenassembledin
vase-painters,
Laconianpottery. In termsof shapes,we can distin- LV,muchresearch remainsto be done.
 EXCEPTIONALSHAPESAND DECORATIONS IN LAGONIAN POTTERY 65

Laconian II period,but shows an additionalgor-

goneioninoutlinetechnique. This examplewasabout
3 cm higher than the first; is shownbya fragment
this
of the rim,now lost,on an old photograph.The
thirdpiece (fig. 6.3a-b) is unpublished.It has no
paintat all but is insteaddecoratedwithmoulded
ridges.Its heightreaches9.3 cm,itsdiameter 9.8 cm
at theupperrim.The fourth piece(fig.6.4a-b),also
unpublished, lacks even moulded decoration.The
shape is reducedto themere skeletonofa tube,butits

Fig. 6.1 (a) TubeorstandfromSparta; (b) thesame,

profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.

foundin thesanctuary of ArtemisOrthiaat Sparta.3

It is datedin theLaconianII period(c. 620-580).4
The heightis 8.3 cm,thediameter11-10 cm. From
the same site we have threeotherexamplesof the
sameshape.The secondpiece(fig. 6.2a-b),likethe
first,is decoratedwithsecondaryornaments of the

Fig. 6.3 (a) TubeorstandfromSparta; (b) thesame,

profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.

wallis notsimplycylindrical:it formsa fineconcave

curve, and from the thicknessof its wall, which
becomesthinner higherup,we mayconcludehowit
shouldstand.
Commontraitsof the fourtubes fromArtemis
Orthiaarethattheyall havea reservedinsideandthat
the preservedor estimateddiametersof the lower
rimsare almostequal (10.0, 9.4, 9.8 and 9.6 cm
Moreoverthreeof themhavetwoholes
respectively).

3. Dawkins1929:80,Fig. 53. Lane 1934:125.

4. Forthedecorative see Lane 1934:124,Fig. 12.

patterns
Fig. 6.2 (a) TubeorstandfromSparta; (b) thesame, 5. Dawkins1929:80,Fig. 53 left.Cf.Lane 1934:123,Fig. 11 g
profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.Museum. (profile
drawing).
66 CONRADM. STIBBE

nearthelowerrim.6Withthehelpof thesedataithas
been possibleto identify a fifth
tubeamongthestill
unpublished Laconianfragments fromtheHeraionat
Samos (fig. 6.5a-b). Here too theinsideis reserved
andthelowerrimhasa diameter of 10.0cm.The dec-
oration,consistingof standing tonguesat the(partly
lost)upperrimand raysat the(slightly setoff)lower
rim,suggestsa tubeof almostthesamedimensions
as thefourexamplesfromSparta.The decoration as
such seemsto be moreadvancedand a production
datein thefirsthalfof thesixthcentury bc wouldbe
appropriate.7
Now,withfiveexamplesat hand,oneof whichwas
evenexported, we arein a positionto tryand explain
thisexceptionalshape. When we look forparallels
outsideLaconia,we are remindedof a black-figured
Attic tube of about the same dimensionsin the
Liebieghausmuseum in Frankfurt (fig. 6.6).8 Its
is
height 12.5 cm. If we areprepared admitthatthe
to

Fig. 6.4 (a) TubeorstandfromSparta; (b) thesame,

profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.

tubeorstand.Frankfurt
Fig. 6.6 Atticblack-figured am
Main, StädtischeGalerieLiebieghaus,inv.no.560.

differences,suchas theslightlymoretapering shape

of thewall,theoffsetrimwithfourknobs,and the
decorationare due to a chronological distanceof
about one centuryand to its non-Laconianorigin,
thenwe can use theAtticexampleas an aid to the
interpretationof theseLaconiantubes.Moststriking,
of course,is therepresentationof Charonsittingon

6. These holescan be explainedas suspensionholes,thetube

beinga votiveobject(see infra),
or forfastening
a lid.

7. I thankH. Kienast for the permissionto publishthis

Fig. 6.5 (a) Twofragments oftubeorstandfrom
Samos ; (b) thesame,profiledrawing(1:2). Samos fragment.
(Vathy),Museum. 8. Eckstein1969:no.65.
 EXCEPTIONALSHAPES AND DECORATIONS IN LAGONIAN POTTERY
Fig. 6.y {a) Fragmentofolpewithgraffito;(b) the
same,profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.
thesternof hisboatamongthewhirling soulsof the
dead. This livelypicturewas usedbythefirstowner
of thepiece,AdolfFurtwängler, toconnecttheshape
withthecultof thedead.9This can onlyhavebeen
intendedtobe a smallreproduction in clay,forvotive
purposes,of thelargestoneéo^ága, thealtarusedin
hero-worship in particular,
examplesof whichwere
alreadyknownat the time fromthe Mycenaean
period.10H.-V.Hermannobservedin hisdissertation
thattheversionin claywouldhavea doublefunction:
'Opferröhre und Untersatzfürdas Grabgefáss', that
is to sayas a tubeforsacrificesand as a standforthe
funeralvase.*1 If thisis correct,
we can surmisethat
thesetubesalso servedas simplestandswithoutany
connectionwiththecultof the dead. In fact,quite
a fewAtticstandsof thistype,decoratedin black-
and red-figure technique,are knowntoday,and do
notseemto haveanyrelationwiththatcult.12The
factthatall theLaconiantubeswerefoundin sanctu-
arieswouldsuggesta non-funerary use.13The two
holesat thelowerrimof threeof thefourexamples
fromSpartashouldperhapsbe understoodas sus-
pension-holes, whichwould underlinetheirvotive
character.
Yet anotherexplanationforthe Laconian tubes
wasoffered byArthur Lane in hisfundamental study
(1934) of Laconianpottery.14 He referred to them
as 'ornamentalpoloi', and comparedthem with
67
some Boeotianpieces;15the latter,however,show
theirpoloscharacter moreclearlythantheLaconian
tubes.16
In conclusion, then,wemustadmititis noteasyto
arriveata clear-cut solutionfortheuseof thesetubes.
I myself the
prefer interpretation ofa doublefunction
as tubeforsacrifices andas a stand.The metallicchar-
acterof thethirdexamplefromSpartaseemstometo
providean additional argument forthelatterfunction;
itsuggests theexistence of bronzetubeswhichwould
be muchmoresuitableforuseas standsthanthefrag-
ile clayexamples.
We now turnto a ratherpuzzlingfragment from
the Spartanacropolis(FiG.6.7a-b).This has been
studiedseveraltimesfortheinteresting graffitobelow
itslip,17butneverforitsshapeand decoration. The
preservedheightis only6.0 cm, and the estimated
diameter of itslip turnsoutto be 9.0 cm. The bulky
shape of its body has no parallelamongLaconian
pots,butitis reminiscent of theAtticround-mouthed
olpe.18If thiscomparisonis correct,we shouldfit
our fragment witha high-swung handleand a low
echinus-ringfoot.
The reservedband, however, arguesagainstthis
solution:on Laconianpottery, thisusuallyindicates
thehandle-zone, thatis thezone to whichthelower
attachment of thehandleis adjusted.19This zone is
also foundon theAtticblack-glazed olpai,butmuch
lowerdownthebelly,wherethe loop of the handle
finishescomfortably. So the handle of our vase
may have been of a less elegant,shortertype.The
metalliclustreof theglazeis also exceptional in our
9. 'Charon',AfRwVIII 1905:19iff.
Furtwängler,
10. Cf. Rohde 1927: 35; Oeconomus1921: 4Óff.;Kinch 1914:
26-34.On theescharain generalseeJ.E. Harrison1908:63.
11. H-V.Hermann,Omphalos
(1959) 53fr.
12. L. Talcott1936:68. R. Lullies 1957.
13. Comparable tubeswerealso foundon Crete,in Gourniaand
Prinias,notin graves,butinsanctuaries;
cf.S. Wide,AM 26,
1901:247,PL XII.
14. Lane 1934:125.
15. E. Langlotz1932:no.67. P. N. Ure,AA 1933,7.
16. Cf E. Simon1969:58.
17. Woodward1930b:251 no. 2. T. A. Boring1979:iof.no. 76,
PI. III.
18. SparkesandTalcott1970:76 withno.252,dated550.Among
the Laconianshapesthereis a certainresemblanceto the
small oinochoai,whichwere widelyexported(cf. Stibbe
but therethe neckis mostlyoffsetand the
forthcoming),
mouthhasa trefoilshape.
19. See e.g. Pelagattiand Stibbe1988: 17 fig.10, 18 figs12-13,
21 figs.29-30.
68 CONRADM. STIBBE
fragment. We wouldonlyexpectto findthison geo-
metricor hellenistic, and notarchaicLaconian,pot-
tery.Since vases with reservedhandle-zones usually
belong to the archaic period, we should seek foran
explanation for this. the
Perhaps potter who imitated
theAtticshapealso imitatedthelustreof theAttic
black-glazed ware?
The Atticround-mouthed olpe-shape,whichwe
would compare,is foundin the GorgonPainter's
workshop and wasalsomadebyAmasis.20It appears
no laterthanAmasisin figuredware,and theAttic
blackexamplesalso agree withthis.The latterare
datedtothemiddleyearsofthesixthcentury.21 Since
the firstclear signs of imitation of Attic models by
Laconianvasepaintersstartexactlyaroundthistime,
it wouldnotbe at all out of placeif an Atticblack-
glazedshapeliketheolpe also happenedto findan
imitatorinLaconia.This wouldalsoallowus toestab-
lishan upperlimitforthedatingof theinscription.22
The well-preserved part of this inscription reads
METPIOZETO,whichmightindicatea measure the or
capacityof thepot,23in thesamewayas suchindica-
tionsarefoundon an Atticolpein theLouvre24and
on an earlyLaconianmugfromKythera intheBritish
Museum.25
That the olpe was not a totallyunknownshape
in Laconia,is provedby a fewblack-glazed jugs of
smallsize.One almostcomplete, unpublished, exam-
ple was found in the Artemis Orthia sanctuary at
Sparta(fig. 6.8a-b),26 and three others in Tocra.27
But eventakingtogether thesefourexamplesof the
smallversion,the shape remainsexceptional in the
Laconianrepertoire.28
Fromthe olpe we makea jump to the lekythos.
Here we mustdistinguish, again withinthe archaic
an
period, elongated and a globularversionof the
shape. The first, which was popularin Corinthand
Athens, did not meet withanysuccesswhatsoever in
Sparta. In fact we have only one Laconian example
Fig. 6.8 (a) Small olpefromSparta; (b) thesame,pro-
filedrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.
fromSpartaitself,and thisdid notturnup in one of
the known sanctuariesof the town, but rather
duringa rescueexcavation nearthebridgeoverthe
EurotasbyGeorgeSteinhauer in 1972(fig.ó.ga-b).29
In this piece the shape of the mouthis remark-
able, being straightand flaringin contrastto the
CorinthianDeianeira-type, whichhas a thickened
roundrimand a bowl-likeshape witha 'drip ring'
at thejunctionof mouthand body.30A datearound
themiddleofthesixthcentury maybe appropriatefor
this piece.31 There is an earlier stage with
a concavemouth,which comes a littlecloser to
the Corinthianmodel: a black-glazedLaconian
lekythos,againwithelongatedbodyand a flatbase,
fromMegara Hyblaea (fig. 6.ioa-b); its context
includestwoCorinthian Deianeira-lekythoi.32There
20. Beazley1956:9 and 11; laterolpai: Beazley1956: 153 and
446. vonBothmer1985:150no.31.
21. SparkesandTalcott1970:77, nos247-253.
intheearlysixth
22. Woodward 1930bwoulddatetheinscription
century.
23. Cf.Sparkesand Talcott1970:2 note6. AlsoBoring1979is
of thisopinion;accordingtohimitwouldindicate'a middle-
sized vessel',followedby the nameof its owner,whichis
partlylost.
24. LouvreF 339,Beazley1956:446, 1.
25. Stibbe1994:45, 141no.B9.
26. H. 11.5,Dm. max.6.3. Threegrooveson theneck.Willbe
published in Stibbeforthcoming.
moreextensively
27. Boardmanand Hayes 1966:88, 91 no. 971-972,pl. 66 and
Boardmanand Hayes1973:40 no. 2112,pl. 21.JohnHayes,
inBoardman andHayes1966,88 thought thesejugletsmade
afterEast-Greek modelsandmentions twoparallelsinDelos
(DélosX. 60,pl. 37 D, nos 132-133);inBoardman andHayes
1973:,35 he alsoseesAtticinfluence. Thereis a bottom-wall
fragment fromCyrene,of whichthe Laconian originis
uncertain;cf.G. P. Schaus1985:2if, no.69, fig.2.
28. The datingof thesejugletsis noteasy.Comparison withthe
of
Atticseries black-glazed jugletsof thesame shapewith
wouldleadto a datingin thefifth
disc-foot, cent.;cf.Sparkes
and Talcott1970:nos 278-281,pl. 13. The examplesfrom
Tocra,however, suggestan earlierdate,somewhere in the
sixthcent.Laconianimportsseemto stopthereaboutthe
530sBe (cf.Boardmanand Hayes1966:12 and 170:Deposit
III). A parallel(withoutfoot)in Olympia(Gauer 1975:23,
109,pl. 14,3 fromthewell29 StN, datedto thethirdquar-
terofthesixthcentury) wouldconfirm theearlierdating.Cf.
alsoWeber1983:i48ff.
1972:242fr,pl. 181.
29. Steinhauer
30. Cf.H. Payne1931:191,324. SparkesandTalcott1970:151.
31. This typeof mouthcomesintofashionwiththe globular
aroundthistime;see belowandStibbeforthcoming.
lekythoi
32. Unpublished.
 EXCEPTIONAL SHAPES AND DECORA TIONS IN LACONIAN POTTERY 69

and angular.This is a forerunner of themorecommon

mouth-shape of the firsthalf of the sixth century,
whichis plain and shallow,as a black-glazedfragment
fromSparta shows (fig. 6.i2a-b): the diameterof the

Fig. 6.g (a) LekythoswithelongatedbodyfromSparta; Fig. 6.11 Fragmentofthemouthofa lekythos witha

(b) thesame,profiledrawing(1:3). Sparta, Museum, globularbodyfromSparta,profiledrawing(1:2).
inv.no 6451/2. Sparta, Museum.

are a few more, probablyLaconian, examples from

Tocra and Selinunte, but in most of these the
mouthis not preserved,and so theyare less usefulfor
comparison.33
By contrast,the lekythoswith a globularbody is
well representedand is a much more successfulmem-
ber of the Laconian black-glazed repertoire.The
series startsquite earlyand goes rightdown through
the sixthand fifthcenturiesBC,asdo the Atticparal-
lels.34 The earliestLaconian example, however,can
be dated to thelast twentyyearsof the seventhcentu-
ry (fig. 6.1 i).35 The mouth is ratherwide, shallow

Fig. 6.12 (a) Mouth,neckand shoulder-fragmentofa

lekythos withglobularbodyfromSparta; (b) thesame,
profiledrawing(1:2). Sparta, Museum.

33. Cf. Boardman and Hayes 1966: 90, no. 969, pl. 66. Others are
unpublished. A black figurefragmentfromOlympia, Gauer
1975: 112, pl. 15,4-6, seems to be a local imitation of a
Laconian model.

34. Cf. Sparkes and Talcott 1970: 151t nos. 1100-1 111.

35. Dawkins 1929: 75 fig.47 q. The decorationof the upper face

of the rim withalternatingblack and purple squares is com-
Fig. 6.10 (a) Lekythoswithelongatedbodyfrom mon in the Laconian II period (620-580), but should fall
Megara Hyblaea; (b) thesame,profiledrawing(1:3). early in that period; cf. Lane 1934: 123, fig. 11 H; Stibbe
Syracuse,Museo Regionale,inv.no 12005. 1994:, 240 no. 96, fig.335.
70 CONRAD M. STIBBE

mouthis 11.8 cm; as a resultthe maximumdiameter

of the bellycan be estimatedat about 30.0 cm, which
makesa ratherimpressivecontainer.The bodyis bro-
ken off exactly where a thick offsetcollar on the
shoulderends.
A completeLaconian examplecomes fromMegara
Hyblaea (fig. 6.i3a-b),36 but here the shape of the
mouthis concave ratherthanconvex. The maximum
diameterof the body is 21.0 cm. This remarkable
changeof mouthshape tookplace not long beforethe
middleof the sixthcenturybc.37
Both mouthshapes recurin small versions,which
we usuallycall aryballoi.The concave mouth,which
is apparentlytheolder,is foundwithLaconian arybal-
loi fromthe firsthalf of the sixthcentury,as the fol-
lowing intact and very fine example from Kythera
in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford demonstrates
(fig. 6.i4a-b).38 Its heightis 10.6 cm and its dia-
meter9.8 cm.

Fig. 6.14 (a) Lekythos-aryballosfromKythera;

(b) thesame,profiledrawing(1:2). Oxford,Ashmolean
Museum,inv.no. 1Q32.674.

Post-archaicdevelopmentsof the globularlekythos

can be illustratedby two examples fromthe rescue
excavationsnear the bridge at Sparta (fig. 6.i5a-c).
These have an average heightof 16.0 cm, which is
rightbetweentheaverageheightsof the archaicglob-
ularlekythoiand aryballoi.They should be dated well
into the fifthcenturybc. Apartfromthe clay and the
glaze thereis littledifferencefromthe contemporary
Atticversionof the shape.39
As I noted earlier,the globularlekythoscannotbe
reckonedamong the exceptionalshapes in Laconia,
unlike the lekythoswith its elongated body. In my
forthcomingstudy of Laconian black-glazed closed
shapes I have catalogued26 globularlekythoi,divided
into four groups, whereas the whole corpus of
Laconian lekythoiwith elongated body consists of
onlyfouror fivepieces.

36. This is one of a pair: cf.P. Pelagatti 1989: 23, 24 fig.98; 5of.
no. 168. Pelagattiand Stibbe 1990: 146 fig.98; 177 no. 168.

37. Cf. Stibbe forthcoming.

Fig. 6.13 (a) Lekythoswitha globularbodyfrom
38. AshmoleanMuseum 1932.674. Unpublished.
Megara Hyblaea; (b) thesame,profiledrawing(1:4).
Syracuse,Museo Regionale. 39. Cf. the Atticparallelsin Hesperia22 (1953) 8of.withpl. 31.
 EXCEPTIONAL SHAPES AND DECORA TIONS IN LACONIAN POTTERY
Fig. 6.15 (a) Twofragmentary lekythoiwithglobularbodiesfromSparta;
(b and c) the same,profiledrawings(1:3). Sparta Museum,inv.nos6451/1,
6451/3-
I would like to inviteyou now to look at one of the
mostexceptionalshapes in Laconian potterywe know
(fig. 6.i6a-b).40 All that survivesis a fragmentof a
decorated long neck and the beginningof a body;
where the two join thereis a plastic fillet.The long
neck is decorated in black-figuretechnique. We can
recognisethe feet and long robe of a human figure
standingto the leftbetweenthe tailsof two upcurling
snakes.There is no slip. The long robe of the stand-
ing figureseems to be a himationwith a carelessly
incised fringe;above the fringethereis a horizontal
zone betweenincisedlines filledwithwhitedots,now
faded.41 A purple band betweenblack bands adorns
the filletat the join of neck and body.
In its firstpublicationin the ArtemisOrthia vol-
ume of 1929 (104, Fig. 78 b) there is anotherfrag-
ment, now lost, belonging to the same vase (fig.
6.16c): this shows part of the neck with a handle-
attachment.We can onlysee partsof thedecorationof
thehead (witha purplebraid) and of theleftarm and
shoulderof the same standingfigure.
The two fragments, takentogether,presentus with
two problems:how should we interpretthe shape of
the vase, and how should we interpretits decoration?
In twodrawingsI have triedto regainas much as pos-
siblefromthepoor remains(fig. 6.i6d-e). Let us start
with the shape. The reconstruction,with a globular
body and a handle going down to the shoulder,is
based on a comparisonwith a series of long-necked
jugs from Olympia, called by Werner Gauer
71
'Giraffenhalskännchen' (giraffe-necked jugs).42
These long-neckedjugs mostlyhavea trefoilmouthat
whichthe handle is attached.The bodies are globular
and the handleruns down to the shoulder.One of the
examplesfromOlympia (fig. 6.17), a fragmentof the
neck like ours, shows not only the same filletat the
join of neck and body,but also a decorationwhichis
clearlyinfluencedby Laconian models. On the shoul-
der are hangingraysof Laconian type,43and on the
necka friezeof stylisedpomegranatesof a typewhich
we often encounter on Laconian pots of the late
seventhand early sixthcenturybc. The combina-
tion of incised and outline details points to a date
between 620 and 580.45 If this is indeed a local
40. Dawkins1929:104,fig.78 b.
41. Clearlyindicatedin thereconstruction
drawingin Dawkins
1929:,fig.78 b. Some lengthywhitedotsare also visibleon
thedownpointing slapof thehimation
in frontof thefigure.
42. Gauer1975:in withpl. 13.
43. Gauer1975:in.
44. Notrecognized as suchbyGauer1975:111. Forthetypesee
Lane 1934:i72f.ifig.21, 1; 119;124,fig.12,26; Stibbe1972:
179no.3; 181.
45. This is theLaconianII period.Cf. Gauer 1975:111'Kaum
weitüberdie Mittedes 7. Jahrhunderts that
hinaufdatieren',
is somewhatearlierthanthedatingproposedhere.
72 CONRAD M. STIBBE

Fig.6.16 (a-btaboveleftand
centre)Twoviewsofa fragment ofa long-necked
jug
fromSparta;(c9 above the
right) same,drawing after
Dawkinsiç2ç: 104,fig.78b; (d-e,rightandfarright)
thesame,drawing and
ofprofile decoration. Sparta,

imitationof a Laconian prototype,then there

musthavebeen quite a long tradition of vesselsof
in
thistype Laconia itself.
Nothing remains of this
traditionexceptourfragment, which,becauseof the
styleof its decoration,shouldbe datedmuchlater,
around500bc.46
A standinghumanfigure betweenupcurling snakes
is not so easy to explain.A similarcomposition is
foundon an ivoryplaque fromthe sanctuaryof
ArtemisOrthia(fig. 6.18), whichhas been datedin
thesecondquarterof theseventhcentury bc.47The
scene,witha standing wingedfemalefigure in a long
robebetweentwoupcurling snakes(one is lost)hold-

inga birdof preyin one hand,hasbeenconvincingly

interpretedas a representation
ofArtemis Orthiaher-
self.8 On thisinterpretation,the snakesshouldbe
understood herenotas symbols of deathbutof fertil-
ity,inlinewiththeirgeneralchthonicnature.49 A well
knownLaconian multifigured handle of a bronze
hydriafoundin the tombof a Celtic chieftainat
GrächwilnearBern,Switzerland (fig. 6.19) offers
a
goodparallel:hereagainwe see a wingedmistress of
animals.The snakesthistimeextendfrombehindher
headalongtherimof thevesselto serveas a base for
roaringlions.This hydriahas beendatedin thefirst

46. For the style, which was labelled 'Laconian V by Droop

(Dawkins 1929: 104) see below.

47. Marangou 1969: 22, withfig.14 (inv.no. 15 503).

48. Marangou 1969: 24 withnote 135.

Fig.6.17 Fragment
ofa long-necked
jugfromOlympia.
Olympia, Museum. 49. Marangou 1969: 24.
 EXCEPTIONALSHAPESAND DECORATIONS IN LACONIANPOTTERY 73

' )k ^f=f^^rf:::rrjj

Fig. 6.18 (above) Fragmentary

ivoryfibula-
plaquefromSparta. Athens,National
Museum,inv.no. 75 503. Drawingafter
Dawkinsiç2ç: 20J,pl. gj, 2.

Fig. 6.1g (right)Bronzehydriafrom

Grächwil.Bern,Bernisches Historisches
Museum.Photographcourtesy ofthemuseum.

quarterof thesixthcentury bc,50stillabouta centu- hero-cult.If thisis true,we stillhaveto envisagethe

rybeforeourneckfragment.
Such representations of thepotniatheron ceasedto
be madein thebeginning of thesixthcentury, a fact
whichis lesssurprising thantheirapparentreturnat
theendof thesamecentury in Sparta.The similarity
of themotifcannotbe denied,evenif therepresenta-
tionis onlyin partpreserved.But whatwe should
mostprobably suspectandexpectis thatthemeaning
of thefigurebetweenthesnakeshas changedin the
meantime. In the firstplace,the figureneed not be
female;51 secondly,ourfragment originatedin a peri-
od, between ^.550and 450 bc, in which the hero-cult
inLaconiafounditsexpression in sculpture
andvase-
painting more than ever before or after.52
In a recent
articleI broughttogether quite a few examplesof the
chthonicand Dionysiacsymbolsas theyaredepicted
on Laconianvasesof thatperiod.Upcurlingsnakes
beforeand behindstandingor sittingfigures in long
robesarerepresented there(fig.6.19) as theyareon
sameproblemas withtheabove-mentioned tubesfor
libations:
howcouldtheyhaveservedas votivesin the
cultof ArtemisOrthia,who,as faras we know,had
nothingto do withthecultof thedead?Arewe per-
haps justifiedin supposingthatOrthia,a goddessof
also
fertility, extended herrealmtothechthonic world
of the dead, as, in a way,we havealreadyobserved
whenlookingatherrepresentation on an ivory-plaque
as a wingedfigurebetweenupcurling snakes?I leave
thequestionopen,hopingto obtainan answerfrom
you,mymostdistinguished readers.
I wouldliketo finishwithan oddity, a vase which
has twicebeen publishedas a Laconiancup,54but
whichon reconsideration turnsoutto be an AtticC-
50. Stibbe 1992: 2off.,25, no. Gì with fig.32.

contemporary stonereliefs. 51. This was alreadystatedby Marangou 1969: 222 note 119.
Sincethecarelessstyleofpainting andincisionand
52. Cf. C. M. Stibbe, BaBesch 66 (1991) 1-44.
the unslippedbackground a
suggests datingaround
500bc,ourfragment shouldbe seenin thiscontextof 53. C. M. Stibbe, BaBesch 69 (1994) 77 fig.1; 78 fig.4; 82 fig.12.
thehero-cult.The shapeof thevasecanbe explained id., BaBesch 66 (1991) 14 fig.8 ff.
inthesameway:itrevivesa modeloftheseventh cen- 54. K. A. Rhomaios, Praktika 1911, 266f. with fig.8 (graffito).
tury,butis usedas jug forlibationsin contemporary Phaklaris1990: 175, pl. 77.
74 CONRAD M. STIBBE
|£ ITO fV'/>A)AN^^^/C^ TolAroAOW
Fig. 6.20 FragmentaryAtticC-cupwithgraffito,
from sanctuaryofApollo Tyritasin Laconia,profile
the
drawing. Astros,Museum
cup (fig. 6.20).55 It was certainlyfoundin a Laconian
sanctuary,and it bears a Laconian graffitoof much
interest.This reads in transcription:
[ETr]EITONIAAX ANE0HKE TQI AI1OAONI OAF
AOPIEOI AOPON
This would mean thata certainEugeitonidasdedicat-
ed the vase to Apollo as a present on behalf of
Dorieus. Now, who mightbe thisimportantpersonal-
ityin whose name an Atticcup was offeredto Apollo?
Since the Atticcup is well datable around 525 bc,56
and since therewas at the time only one well-known
personin Laconia of the name Dorieus, therecan be
hardlyanydoubt thatwe have herestumbledoverthe
unhappySpartan princeof thatname. Beforeleaving
Laconia on his second expeditionto the west around
510 bc, he tookmanyprecautionsto preventa second
failure,as Herodotustellsus (v 43). One of thesepre-
cautions could have been to send his friendsand
supportersto themoreimportantsanctuariesto plead
forthe supportof the god of Delphi, whom he had
passed over and neglected when he startedhis first
expedition.
I won'tgo furthernow intothedetailsof thisexcit-
ing document. I only wanted to present it to you
for furtherdiscussion, because it has not attracted
theattentionit certainlydeservessince beingexcavat-
ed in the sanctuaryof Apollo Tyritas in eastern
Laconia and publishedforthe firsttimeat the begin-
ningof thiscentury.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank the followingpersons and institu-
tions for the permission to study and publish the
objects mentioned in this paper: the Managing
Committeeof the BritishSchool at Athens and the
Ephoroi G. Steinhauerand T. Spyropoulos (for the
material from Sparta and Laconia); H. J. Kienast
(Samos); P. C. Bol (Frankfurtam Main); G. Vozza
(Syracuse); M. Vickers (Oxford) and K. Hermann
(Olympia).
55. When I studiedthe cup at the Museum of Astros,whereit is
keptwithinv.no. 78, 1 discoveredthata foot,whichwas kept
in another box and which was separately published by
Phaklaris(in his dissertationArchaia Kynouria,1985, pl. 148
b, bottom right),joined the body and that it should be an
Attic C-cup. The heightis 8.0, the diameterof the lip 16.0
cms. It was firstpublished in its more complete state by me
in Hermeneus3 (1991) 205-210.
56. Bloesch 1940: iißf. ('Frühgruppe'); Sparkes and Talcott
1970: 91 nos 398-403.
 7
Dances,drinksand dedications:
theArchaickomosin Laconia
JoSmith
Tyler
Laconian vase-paintersinclude the komos figureand
komastscenes in theirArchaicrepertoire.The komast
figure,literallya male 'reveller',is characterizedin
Corinthianand Athenianiconographyby his protrud-
ing featuresand his bottom-slappingdancinggesture
(Greifenhagen 1929; Seeberg 1971; Brijder 1983;
Brijder 1991). Though he is oftencalled a padded or
fat-bellieddancer,we shall see thatin Laconia, as else-
where,thisis notalwaysthecase. A look at theiconog-
raphyof the Laconian komos,both in vase-painting
and in othermedia,mayhelp identifynotonlytherole
of Sparta in the Archaic iconographietradition,but
also the originand place of the komastdancer within
this tradition.An overviewof komos iconographyis
presentedhere, keeping in mind both the formand
the functionof the archaeologicalevidence.Further-
more, the possible role of komast dancers within
the social and religious life of Archaic Sparta
is examined.
KOMASTS ON VASES
When speakingabout the black-figuretechnique for
decoratingpottery,the names Corinth and Athens
mostreadilyspringto mind.However,a fullblack-fig-
ure style also flourishesin Laconia, and the local
artistsof Sparta employ it regularlythroughoutthe
sixthcenturybc. By c. 580 the techniqueof painting
human and animal figuresin black silhouette,and
incisingdetailsor adding these in red paint,is firmly
established. On the whole, the choice of subjects
paintedby Laconian artistsreflectsthoseof the dom-
inant Corinthianschool. It is thoughtthat Laconian
vase-painterscopy both the subjects and the iconog-
raphyfromCorinthianvases. At the same time,a cer-
tain amount of acquaintance with Athenianpainting
(by thesecond halfof thecentury),as well as withthe
iconographyof East Greece, are both obvious in the
subjectsand subsidiarydecorationof Laconian vases.
The same types of mythand figurescenes chosen
by Laconian vase-paintersappear frequentlyin the
craftsof other media, namely stone, bronze, lead
and bone (Pipili 1987). Many of these objects have
been found in the sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthia, and
mustbe some reflectionon the dedicationpracticesof
its visitors.
The evidence for the komos in Laconian vase-
paintingis diverse and plentiful.At least thirty-five
known vases display komast scenes (Pipili 1987:
204-210). The cup is the most common shape, but
two kratersand one hydriaare also represented.The
chosen field for figure decoration by Laconian
paintersis normallythe interiorof the cup. Though
theexterioris oftendecoratedas well,onlyone cup is
known to display a komast scene on its exterior
(Stibbe 1972: no. 64, pl. 26; Pipili 1987: 117,179).
This schemeof decorationdefiesthenormalpractices
of Corinthand Athens,and givesthe Laconian cups a
stronglymarked character of their own (Seeberg
1971; Brijder 1983). The archaeological evidence,
though fragmentary, does not suggest that any one
painter pioneered komos iconographyon Laconian
vases. Rather,thekomosis chosen as a subjectby each
of the major painters,such as the Arkesilas,Nau-
kratis,Hunt and Rider painters,thoughit was not a
particularfavouriteof anyone of them.
Scholars have been as uncertainabout the context
of the Laconian komos as they have been about
Corinthianand Athenian scenes depictingthe same
subject. Sparta, however,poses a slightlydifferent set
of questions. Although Sparta seems never to have
developed dramatic festivalsin the Athenian sense,
the possibilitythat these dancers are mimeticenter-
tainers of same description should be considered
(Parker 1989: 151). We question also whether the
komast scenes present a picture of Spartan dining
practices,syssitia,phiditia, or symposia, or if the
dancersare mythologicalor religiousin origin(David
1989; Murray 1991). Another possibilityexists: the
Laconian komoicopy conventionalscenes,takenfrom
Archaic stock, and are adjusted to local customs or
tastesto createa personalizedproduct.
On a cup attributedto the Allard Pierson Painter
by Stibbe (fig. 7.1), the tondo is dominatedby a nude
male at a prostylebuilding,which could be identified
as a templeor a fountain(once London Market;Pipili
1987: 118, 208). The pose of thisfiguresuggeststhat
he is a komast dancer. He leans his body back and
kickshis leftleg forward.He holds up a cup in his left
hand in such a waythatthe vessel,presumablyempty,
does not inhibit his dancing. With his right hand
he clutches,or slaps, his bottom.Althoughthisscene
76 TYLERJOSMITH
has been connectedwiththe Capture of Silenos, this
humanrevelleris clearlynot Silenos or a satyrof any
kind(Pipili 1987: 38-9). The Spartansatyron vases is
characterizedas a bearded male witha hairybody,a
largephallus,and a conspicuouslymissingtail.If this
man is merelya komast,he mayhaveescaped fromthe
symposiumto the fountainhouse to refillthe water,
needed formixingthe wine.However,a cup seems an
inappropriatevessel forthe job. On the otherhand,if
thestructureis a temple,and his vesselis a phiale,this
might be the scene of a religious event (Greifen-
hagen 1929: 54; Heath 1988, 182). It should be noted,
though,that this painter followsthe Rider Painter,
who uses architecturalsettings in scenes showing
othersubjects(Stibbe 1986).
A connectionbetweenthekomastsand themythof
the Capture of Silenos exists on another Laconian
cup. On the upper friezeof a cup in the Villa Giulia
(57231) a taillesssatyris pursued frombehindby two
men in orientaldress. This scene has been identified
as theCaptureof Silenos (Brommer1941). The scene
in the lower frieze of the same cup displaysseveral
dancing komastsalso in orientaldress, accompanied
bya standingmale figuretotinga wineskin.The poses
of the dancers relate them to more lightlydressed
komasts,but theirelaboratelydecoratedgarmentsare
thus farunique. It is significantthatthe human rev-
ellersshareboththetondoand thedressstylewiththe
mythologicalfigures.This second example suits the
theoryof an East Greek origin for the Capture of
Silenos mythnicely.
On a cup attributedto the manner of the Hunt
Painter,twomales,one beardedand one beardless,are
Fig. j.i Laconian cup. OnceLondon
market.Photojf. Boardman.'Komastat
a templeorfountain'
draped in long belted chitons and are dancing on
eitherside of a large standed vessel (Sotheby's 1993:
10). Althoughthisscene is identifiedas a komos(Pipili
1987: 118,209h), neithertheattirenorthemovements
of thedancersclearlyidentifiesthemas komasts.The
vessel in the centreis not a mixingkraterof the type
seen on many Laconian komos representations
(Stibbe 1989: 18-19). Anotherpossibilityis thatthese
two dancersare competitorsratherthan entertainers
(Bloesch 1982: 20, no. 7). The large vase between
themcould be a tripod-cauldron, a prize forthevictor
in a dancingcontest.Cauldronsof thistypewerestan-
dard dedicationsin sanctuaries,and this dance could
have a religiouscontext.
Another vase by the Hunt Painter,a hydria in
Rhodes (15373), a^so allows fora religiousinterpreta-
tion of its komos scene (Stibbe 1972: no. 219, pls.
76-7; Pipili 1987, 118,209c). Here six nude males
dance around the shoulderof the vase. Two of these
figureshold drinking-horns, and at leastthreeof them
hold objectswhichhave been identifiedas pomegran-
ates. Similarly,on a cup fromTocra (fig. 7.2) by the
same painter,the bottom-slappinghand of a male
komastis visible holding a pomegranate(Boardman
and Hayes 1966: no. 940). Pipili recognizesthe pome-
granateas a fertilitysymbol,and furthersuggeststhat
dances of this kind probablybelonged to the Orthia
cult (1987: 73). As a votiveobject, the pomegranate
was dedicatedat the sanctuaryof Artemisin various
forms,includingterracotta,bronze, bone, ivory,and
lead (Dawkins 1929: e.g. nos. 158, 202, 216, 245 and
257). Perhaps the pomegranate, which had a
particularlocal interestas a votiveobject,made its way
 DANCES, DRINKS AND DEDICA TIONS: THE ARCHAIC KOMOS IN LACONIA
Fig. J.2 Laconian cupfragments,
Toera gqo.
AfterBoardmanand Hayes. 'Komastholdinga
pomegranate^.
into vase-painting for the same purpose. These
dancersperforma religiousdance in honourof a local
cult (Greifenhagen 1929: 55). However, these two
examplesare by the same hand, and both were found
outside Sparta. We should also recognize that the
pomegranate was already a common ornamental
motifin Laconian black-figurepainting(Lane 1934:
119, 172-3). Its is also carried by female 'wor-
shipper' figuresand by komasts on Chian chalices
(Lemos 1993: nos. 735, 890, 1552). It may have been
a particularfavouriteof the Hunt Painter,who at
least twice includes it as an attribute in human
figurescenes.
Plutarchinformsus thatthe helots were obligated
to performvulgarand humiliatingsongs and dances,
and to drinkexcessive amounts of unmixed wine at
the syssitia; under duress the drunken entertainers
served as an example of the consequences of intem-
peranceforyoungSpartan boys (Lycurgus28; Ducat
1990: 107-27; David 1989: 6; Fischer 1989: 34).
Perhapswe see thisunique Spartanritualdemonstrat-
ed on theexteriorof a cup fromArtemisOrthiain the
mannerof the NaukratisPainter(Stibbe 1972: no. 64,
pl. 26). Here severalbeardlesshuman males perform
in the presenceof bearded males and a hairy,tailless
satyr.Lane firstidentifiedthe komastsin this scene
with their unusual capped buttocks and anklets as
women (1934: 160). Although he believed that the
participantsregardless of gender were completely
human, he furtherasserted that this was a repre-
sentationof some 'orgiasticrite'. He also suggested
the possibilitythatthesedancersperformthe kordax,
whichis identifiedby Theophrastus(The Characters
77
6) as a grotesque and undignifieddance (Schnabel
1910: Simon 1982: 29). The kordax was danced at
Elis in honour of Artemis and, interestingly, this
cup was dedicated at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary.
The possibilityof a Dionysian atmosphere should
also be considered,as indicated by the presence of
the satyr (Greifenhagen 1929: 56; Fitzhardinge
1980: 36; Pipili 1987: 52-4; Parker 1989: 150-1;
Stibbe 1992b).
The exampleswe havelooked at thusfarhavebeen,
forthemostpart,exceptionsfromthe Laconian stock
of figurepainted vases. The majorityof the icono-
graphie evidence suggests that the Laconian komos
occurred either before,during or afterthe sympo-
sium. Lane suggeststhatthebanquetingscenes of the
kindfoundon Laconian vases are typifiedby hetairai,
flute girls and padded dancers. He concludes that
these scenes are so like the Corinthianexamples that
theymust have derivedfromthis model. He further
pointsto the flute-girls and hetairaias possible 'artis-
ticmaterialwithoutanyallusionto local Spartaninsti-
tutions' (1934: 158). If Lane believed this to be the
case, why did he not consider the padded dancers a
similarborrowing?There is no doubt thatthe komast
figurein Laconian art,takenalone, would sharemany
of the features of a Corinthian prototype: often
a short chiton, protruding features, the bottom-
slappinggesture,attributesof drinkand song. How-
ever, both komoi and flute-girlswere produced in
Sparta in other media- namely as lead figurines,a
characteristicallySpartan votive item. Furthermore,
at Sparta, wherea school of lyricpoetryis thoughtto
have been organized at the time of Terpandar (late
78 TYLERJOSMITH
seventh century), and where multiple varieties of
dance are also attested,it is easy to imagine events
whichcombinefood,drink,song and dance (Plutarch
Moralia 1i34b-c; Hooker 1980: 71-4). Though dining
spaces of the type found elsewhere in Greece are
absent from the archaeological record at Sparta,
Alemán (fr. 19) describes the standardseven couch
arrangementas he must have know it frompersonal
experience(Berquist 1990). Spartancitizensmayhave
frownedupon excessivedrinking,but banquetingin a
communalsettingwas a well-knownpartof dailylife.
In other words, Laconian artistsneed not to have
copied entire scenes directly from Corinthian or
Athenianmodels, and clearlytheydid not. Everyday
lifeprovidedall the inspirationnecessary.
The representations of komastdancersin a proba-
ble sympotic environmentoccur in several icono-
graphietypes.On a cup by theRiderPainterin Würz-
burg (166), a komast and two pipers entertainat a
symposium(Langlotz 1932: 25, no. 166, pl. 28). The
male dancer is inside the andron, dancing beside a
kline.The compositionis symmetrical withone piper
standingopposite the dancer, and the kline with the
recliningsymposiast and second piper are presented
in the middle.The painterincludes the dancerin the
same scene with musicians,kline, and a symposiast
perhaps to indicate that all eventsoccur in the same
place at the same time.
A similartypeof scene is paintedmore frequently,
where the painter divides the symposiumfromthe
komos by placing each in a separate frieze. A cup
attributedto the NaukratisPainterrevealsone of the
best knownexamples of this arrangementwherethe
komos appears below the symposium (Practica di
Mare E 1986, fromLavinium; Paribeni 1975: 362-8,
Figs. 434-5, pl. 5). The symposiumtakesplace in the
upper friezeof the tondo,completewithrecliners,a
flute-player,attendants,animals,and wingeddaemons
(Lane 1934: 158-9; Pipili 1987: 64-5, 72,^692). This
complicatedscene would catch the viewer'sattention
ratherthan the diminutivekomos friezebelow it. In
the lowerfriezesix males dance around a krater,and
some hold drinking-horns. Their dance is livelyand
fun, but apparentlyseparate from the symposium
scene above, as well as void of its participants'atten-
tion. A compositionveryclose to thisis foundon the
interiorof Taranto 20909, a cup now attributedto the
Allard Pierson Painter (Pelagatti 1955-6: 36-9, Fig.
37). Again the komos occurs in a separate pictorial
space. On thiscup, however,the painterhas even fur-
therdistinguishedthetwoeventsbyplacingan animal
friezebetweenthem.
Anothertype of scene which suggestsa festiveor
sympoticcontextare those in which dancers appear
eitherin the presenceof musiciansor playingmusic
themselves.When thekomasthimselfplaysthemusic
it is normallythepipes as on a cup in Leipzig (T 2177)
by the Rider Painter(Stibbe 1972: no. 314, pl. 112,1),
or on the well known dinos in the Louvre (E662),
where the dancer on the rightwears padding across
his frontand phorbiaacross his cheeks (Stibbe 1972:
no. 313, pls. 110-1 1). A cup in Florence(3879) depicts
threekomastswearingornatechitonsand the one in
the centreplayinga syrinx(Stibbe 1972: no. 227, pl.
80,1). On a cup in the Vatican,attributedto the man-
ner of the Hunt Painter,two beardless,draped danc-
ing males performon eitherside of a large kitharode
(Guglielmi Collection B9; Stibbe 1972: no. 272, pls.
90,2 and 91). Similarversionsof thisscene are found
on vases byotherLaconian painters,such as theRider
Painter(Stibbe 1992b: 145). The image of an over-
sized kitharodein the presenceof komastsis peculiar
to Laconian iconography.This large lyre-playerper-
formingat the symposium or in the company of
human revellershas sometimesbeen considered the
god Apollo or,morerecently, the god Dionysos. Pipili
the of
disregards suggestion padded dancersbeforea
deityas an 'unusual image', stating(and I agree) that
we should regardthese musiciansas ordinarypeople
(1987: 52). It is possiblethatboth the dancersand the
musiciansare ordinaryyouthsperformingin a reli-
gious festivalin Sparta. The factthatthe existenceof
such scenes is specificallyLaconian makesthistheory
a distinctpossibility.While many would choose to
considerDionysos the god of the komos,in Archaic
komoioutsideSparta (i.e. at Athens,Corinth,Boeotia,
and East Greece) the god of wine neverpresides.The
notable exceptionto this is a series of vases by the
Amasis Painter,wherefullyhuman revellersare pre-
sent in scenes with Dionysos (Henrichs 1987). The
identityof the human figuresis uncertain,but they
appear to be takingthe role of satyrsin the worksof
thisparticularartist.Their respectablebehaviourand
sexualrestraint perhapscontributeto theirshort-lived
role in thiscapacity(Carpenter1986: 88).
A sympoticatmosphereis also implied on scenes
where the dancers eitherhold drinkingattributesor
dance in the presenceof a krater(Lissarrague 1990).
The drinking-horn,the most popular drinking
attributeon early Athenianblack-figurerepresenta-
tions of the komos,is not the only preoccupationof
Laconian vase-painters.The dancersbrandisha vari-
etyof shapes: the kantharos(Sparta Museum, Stibbe
1972: no. 244, pl. 85,4) as well as the drinking-horn
and thecup (BritishMuseum B3, fig. 7.3). This vari-
ety of drinkingattributesmay reflecta slightcase of
painter'spreference, but the appearanceof the krater
certainly does not.
The kraterwas a popular shape in Laconia, pro-
duced in both clay and metal. Painters include the
kraterin a largenumberof komosscenes.These vases
not onlysuggesta sympoticatmospherebut also con-
nectthe dancerswiththe mixingor drinkingof wine,
if not the transportingor stealingof it, tasks often
reservedfor satyrs.The frequencyof the kraterin
komosscenes,as well as the prevalenceof the sympo-
 DANCES, DRINKS AND DEDICA TIONS: THE ARCHAIC KOMOS IN LACONIA
Fig. 7.3 Laconian cup,BritishMuseum
B3. PhotoBritishMuseum.'Komasts
arounda krater'
sium indicatesthatLaconian paintersare attempting
to representscenes from Spartan social life rather
thanfromlocal cult ritual(Stibbe 1989: 21). On a cup
in Paris by the Hunt Painter,two beardless, nude
malesdance at one side of a largevolute-krater topped
withan oinochoe (Cabinet des Médailles 192; Stibbe
1972: no. 228, pl. 80,3). The komastsare solelypreoc-
cupied withdance,and do not hold drinkingvesselsor
touch the krater.On the BritishMuseum cup by the
Rider Painter(fig. 7.3) a standing,nude male holds
twodrinkingvessels,a drinking-horn and a cup, while
his friendplays the pipes. Althoughneithermale is
dancing, these attributesof drink and song iden-
tifythemas komasts.The male withthe cups stands
beforethe dominantkrater,which is flankedby two
birds. Shortly,he will help himselfto some wine or
will refill the wine vessels for another dancer or
banqueter.
KOMASTS IN OTHER MEDIA
Among the over 100,000 lead figurinesdedicated to
ArtemisOrthia(winged goddesses,warriors,animals,
etc.), and among the several thousand from the
Menelaion, there are a number of komast figures
(Dawkins 1929: 249-84; Wace 1909b: 127-41; Tod
and Wace 1906: 228-30). Based on the publicationsof
the lead votivesfromLaconia, it is difficultto place
the komastfiguresinto a dated context,or to number
them.The komastsmustbeginas earlyas thelate sev-
enthcentury,and continuethroughoutthe sixthcen-
tury.Wace clearly did not know what to call these
grotesquedancers,who slap theirbottoms.Oftenhis
79
'runningman', 'satyrictype'or 'allied type'male must
be a human reveller,comparableto the typedepicted
on black-figure vases. Wace was himselfaware of the
similaritybetween the lead figurinesand the typeson
vases, but he clearlylacked the currentterminology
(1909b: 130). He recognizesa numberof musicians,
bothmale and female,lyre-playersand pipers,as well
satyrs.By c. 500 the musicians,dancers and satyrs
seem to fade fromthe picture,and the popularityof
mythologicaldivinities,otherthanArtemis,increases.
However,theArchaicappearanceof thelead votivesis
maintainedthroughall periods.
The lead figurinesof komastsare small,onlytwoor
threecentimetreshigh. Like the othertypesin lead,
the dancersare moulded on one side, and were never
meant to stand upright. Like the revellers on
Laconian black-figurevases, the humble lead votive
figurinesare in full-profile;
theirstiffand rigidposes
convinceus of a dancer in motion.Their identityas
komast dancers is indisputable.The dancers are all
nude males, some have large buttocks, stomachs
and/orthighs,and manydemonstratethecharacteris-
tic bottom-slappinggesture(Hooker 1980: Fig. 36).
Some seem to have beards, though these may be
Spartan satyrs,oftenshown withouttails. The lyre-
playersand pipers are no doubt relatedfigures,if not
simplythemselveskomasts,who play musical instru-
ments.From the Menelaion, thereis at least one lead
figurineof a male,possiblya komastdancer,wearinga
kilt(Wace 1909b: Fig. 10, 32). Komasts wearingkilts
are known fromFikellura vases, thoughtto be pro-
duced in Miletus during the sixth century (Cook
1992). Komasts in easterncostume are not unknown
8o TYLERJOSMITH
in Sparta,as we have seen on a vase in theVilla Giulia
previouslydiscussed.
A bronze statuettefrom Corfu stands 11.8 cen-
timetreshigh and representsa male figure(Corfu
Museum 1602; Don tas 1969). The male wearsa par-
tial beard and faces frontally.Althoughhe does not
slap his bottomin the usual manner,his kneeling-run-
ning pose, decorated kilt,and most importantlyhis
drinking-horn associate him with komastfigureson
vases (Dontas 1969: 40-4). The styleof the figureis
Archaic,and it was discoveredin the burntdestruc-
tion levels of the Archaic sanctuaryat 'Mon Repos'
(Dontas 1969: 39-40). The statuetteis workedon all
sides. The flatplates attachedto each foot,withholes
at both the frontand the back, indicatethatthe stat-
uettewas once attachedto the rimof a bronze vessel,
perhapsa large tripod-cauldron,a standardshape for
an elaboratededication(Dontas 1969: 40-6).
Dontas attributesthe bronze komastto Laconian
craftsmanshipon the basis of style (1969: 47-8),
thoughhe distinguishesthisdancer fromthe painted
Laconian versions by his non-padded costume. As
we have seen, the komast dancers of Laconia are
rarely padded, and often appear as nude males
with oversized anatomicalfeatures.The Ionian cos-
tume of this dancer turns our attentioneast, and
recalls also the single lead figurineof a dancer in
similardress.
Connected with the Corfu bronze are a series of
Laconian bronze ornamentalstatuettes,also thought
to be fromtripods or kraters,produced during the
second halfof the sixthcenturyand earlyin thefifth.
The statuetteof a naked male carryinga hydriawas
foundin southernLaconia, and stands8.5 centimetres
high(AthensNM 7614; Fitzhardinge1980: Fig. 126).
Though Beazley suggeststhatthemale is a craftsman,
Fig. j.4 Bronze
figurine, British
recliner,
Museumiç54-io-i8-i.
PhotoBritishMuseum.
perhapsa potteror bronzesmith,thefigurecan just as
easily be considereda komast(Beazley 1946: 7). We
have seen thatkomastsare oftennude,and seem to be
responsiblefor the carryingand mixingof wine, in
addition to the drinkingof it. Also related to vase
imageryis a bronzebanqueterin theBritishMuseum
(1954-10-18-1; fig. 7.4), a bearded, recliningmale
holding a drinkingcup. Satyrs in running,dancing
or recliningposes were also produced in Laconia,
such as the small frontalfigurefromthe Acropolisat
Sparta (3245; Pipili 1987: no. 187, Fig. 100), or the
satyrfromAmyklai(Athens NM 7544; Fitzhardinge
1980: Fig. 149), who poses similarlyto the komast
fromCorfu.
A largebronzevolutekraterfromSicily,now in the
National Archaeological Museum at Syracuse
(23123), displaysa komastscene (Hitzl 1982: no. 7, pl.
8-10; Stibbe 1989: 62-3). The fragmentarykrater
comes fromMonte San Mauro, near Caltagirone,and
it is completelyrestored.It standsover52 centimetres
high,and has a diameterof 37 centimetres. Though it
is describedas 'primitive',if not 'provincial'(possibly
a local imitation),it is theoldestknownbronze volute
krater(Payne 1931: 218; Karouzou 1955: 195). The
kraterwas dated byOrsi to thesecond 11'4 of thefifth
century(19 10: 812-3), but it is now considereda work
of theearlysixthcentury(Stibbe 1989: 62-3). At least
thirteenmale figuresare incised around the neck of
the vase on one side. The opposite side is decorated
withcentaurs.Three of themales are drapedin a long
garmentand play the auloi. These threeare spaced
evenly along the frieze with one on each end and
another in the centre. The other figuresare nude,
dancingmales,some of whomhave beards.Several of
themslap theirbuttocks,or kicktheirlegs highin the
air toward the dancer in frontof them. Humphry
 DANCES, DRINKS AND DEDICA TIONS: THE ARCHAIC KOMOS IN LACONIA
Payne saw a 'distinctlyCorinthian style' in these
engraveddancers,moreon the basis of attitudesthan
costume(1931: 218). Though the krateris identified
as Laconian work,thereis nothingin theexecutionof
thedancersand musiciansthatcan be regardedas par-
ticularto Laconia. Even thekomastfigureswhichdec-
orate the shoulderof a betterknownLaconian black-
figurevase fromSicily,attributedto theHunt Painter,
bear littleresemblanceto these basic incised dancers
on bronze (Stibbe 1990). This is the only known
exampleof a komastscene incised on a bronze vessel
fromArchaicGreece.
CONCLUSIONS
Komast figures and komos scenes produced in
Laconia take a varietyof forms:black-figurevases,
lead figurines,bronze statuettes,and a bronze krater.
Outside Laconia, the Archaickomastfiguredecorates
black-figurevases, and is very rarelyseen in other
media. The black-figurevases of Laconia seem to
indicate that komast dancers participatedin events
connected with banqueting,drinkingand music. We
also noticed that many of the vases hinted,if only
slightly,at a religiousevent. Accompanyingthis evi-
dence are lead figurinesin the formof komasts,serv-
ing a strictlyvotivepurpose,along withbronze tripod
attachments, and incised dancers,decoratinggrander
dedicatoryobjects.
81
ArchaicSparta presentsthe firstand only instance
of thekomastfigureemployedforreligiousor dedica-
torypurposes. Taken as a whole, the archaeological
evidencemaysay somethingabout theArtemisOrthia
cult and theevents(i.e. banqueting,dancing,contests)
connected with it (Pipili 1987: 74-5). This studyof
Spartankomoialso demonstratesthewayin whichthe
komastfigure,or a styleof dancing,may have been
inspiredfromelsewhere(i.e. Corinth),yetwas trans-
formedor consideredsuitableforlocal needs. There is
no need to overemphasize the importance of the
komast dancer as a votive object- particularlyin
lead- or the other subjects represented (e.g. the
sphinx,centaurs,and gorgons)should also be consid-
ered to have special significanceat Sparta. Rather,
these are Archaicmythicalimages,standardon vases
and in other media throughoutthe sixth century.
Similarly,we mustview thekomastas partof a bigger
picture of Archaic Greek iconography - an image
which spread on black-figurevases to all the major
centres of production, Corinth, Athens, Boeotia,
East Greece, and in Sparta found its way into other
media.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wishto thankProfessorJ. Boardman,Dr O. Murray,
Dr M. Pipili, M. Vickers,and Dr S. Walkerfortheir
help at variousstagesin the preparationof thispaper.
 8
ArchaicLaconianvase-painting:
someiconographieconsiderations
Maria Pipili
INTRODUCTION
When, some years ago, the Hamburg Museum
acquired a new Laconian cup (Hamburg 1983.281:
Hornbostel1984; Pipili 1987: 10-11, no. 22a, fig.15),
anotherpuzzling scene came to be added to the long
seriesof unexplainedrepresentations on sixth-centu-
ry Laconian vases. The cup shows on its interiora
richlydressed figurewith an unusual hair-dowho is
attackingmen and youthswell wrappedin theirhima-
tia whichalso covertheirheads. Two are fleeingto the
right,twomorelie dead on theground.The cup is by
the Hunt Painter,one of the leading black-figure
Laconian vase-painters,and can be dated to the years
around 550 bc. Many names have been given to the
hero shownon this vase: the late Hans Jucker,taking
into account the factthat the man's face mightonce
havebeen paintedwhite,thoughtof Talos, thebrazen
giantwho killedthe foreignerswho landed on Crete;
Erika Simon thoughtthatthevictimswereparticipat-
ing at a symposiumwhen attackedbecause of the fact
thattheyare in pairs of a man and a youtheach and
because of their dresses, and suggested Aigisthos
killingAgamemnon and his companions aftertheir
returnfromTroy.1 We could also thinkof a storyof
local Laconian interest:Herakles killingHippokoon
and his sons in orderto restoreHippokoon's wronged
half-brother Tyndareusto thethrone(Pipili 1987: 11),
a scene which was to be depictedlaterin the century
on theAmyklaiThrone (Paus, iii 18 11). There can be
other suggestions(Steuben 1991: 341), but we shall
not insiston thiscup here.If we mentionit at all, it is
because it is a verygood exampleof thepuzzlingchar-
acter of much of archaic Laconian iconography.
There are several such nameless figuresin Laconian
vase-paintingwhich have no close parallel on other
vases: forexample,theman holdinga lion by theleash
on a cup in Rhodes (Rhodes 10711: Stibbe 1972: no.
190; Pipili 1987: 24-5, no. 77, fig.35), theheroattack-
ing a snake on the much reproduced cup in Paris
(Louvre E 669: Stibbe 1972: no. 303, pl. 107, 1; Pipili
1987: 50-1, no. 141, fig.77) and on a replica from
Gravisca(Boitani 1990: 35, no. 18, fig.33), the strug-
glingpair- a man in a shortchitongraspingan elder-
ly figurein a long dressby theneck in the presenceof
anotherman- on a cup in Athens(AthensNM 13910:
Stibbe 1972: no. 103; Pipili 1987: 31-3, no. 88, fig.46),
the youthbetweentwo wingedhorseson a cup in the
BritishMuseum (London B2: Stibbe 1972: no. 96;
Pipili 1987: 37-8, no. 96, fig.52).
Alongside these unique scenes thereare mythical
scenes whichdo belongto thecommonarchaicicono-
graphierepertoireand yetare treatedin a way which
does not follow the standard Corinthian or Attic
schemes: forexample, the originalHerakles and the
Amazons on a cup by the ArkesilasPainterin Rome
(Stibbe 1972: no. 193; Pipili 1987: 5-7, no. 14, fig.9),
whereHerakles is not fighting againstan Amazon, as
usual, but is shown chasing two terrifiedcreatures
who fleewithoutoffering anyresistence,a rarescheme
used also on some Tyrrhenian amphorae; or
Bellerophon and the Chimaera on a cup by the
BoreadsPainterwhichenteredtheGettyMuseum not
manyyearsago (Getty Mus. 85.AE.121: Pipili 1987:
19, no. 57, fig.29; Stibbe 1991), whereBellerophonis
not ridinghis wingedhorse but is shown in a kneel-
ing-runningpose betweenPegasos and the Chimaera
who rear over him. And thereis also one particular
Laconian artist,the Rider Painter,who used elements
fromdifferentscenes to build up new ones without
making it clear what exactly he was depicting: the
Achilles lying in wait for Troilos in frontof a low
prostylebuilding(a sanctuaryor a fountain),a scene
treatedseveraltimesbyhim(Zancani Montuoro 1954;
Pipili 1987: 27-30, nos. 84-6), is veryclose to thewar-
riorattackinga snakeon the Louvre cup thatwe have
already mentioned(in both scenes there is a snake
coiled around the column, one or more birds on the
roof,and on the Louvre cup the exergueis occupied
by a hare, an animal found under Troilos' horse on
one of the Rider Painter'sversionsof the myth);and
the Silenus being capturedat the fountainon a frag-
ment from Samos in Berlin (Berlin WS 4: Stibbe
1972: no. 292; Pipili 1987: 39, no. 98, fig.53) is turned
intoa komastdancingbeforea fountainon a cup once
on the London Market (Pipili 1987: 39, 75, no. 208,
fig. 107)- a worknot by the Rider Painter himself,
however,as we would have thoughtat firstsight,but
by a close imitator,the Allard Pierson Painter,as
1 Jucker'sand Simon's interpretations
are cited by Hornbostel
1984: 148-9.
 ARCHAIC LACONIAN VASE-PAINTING
Conrad Stibbe has shown(Stibbe 1986). We cannotbe
certainif these unexplainedscenes are totallydiffer-
ent subjects or if they are merelycareless, summa-
rized renderingsof the otherrecognisablestories.
Besides the manyunexplainedmythologicalscenes
on Laconian vases, thereis anotherlarge categoryof
puzzlingscenes which,I think,presentmore interest
and whichwill be the subjectof thispaper.These are
scenes whichseem to have both an everydaylifeand a
religiouscharacter;they are typicallyLaconian and
have provokedmuch discussionas to theirreal mean-
ing: symposia attended by small winged daemons,
komastssurroundingan imposingmusician,a single
ridersurroundedby thesame wingedcreatureswhich
appear at the symposia.It is mainlybecause of such
scenes ratherthan the mythologicalones that adjec-
tives like 'unorthodox', 'eccentric', 'original' have
been used forLaconian vase iconographyas a whole.
Of course, symposia,komoi, riding,were everyday
activities,and as such were,togetherwithhuntingand
fighting, favouritescenes on black-figureCorinthian
and Atticvases.But manyof theLaconian sceneshave
elementswhichput themapart fromthe otherarcha-
ic vases and haveoftenbeen givena religiousmeaning.
Of the fivemajor Laconian vase-paintersexhaus-
tivelystudiedby Stibbe in his fundamentalLakonische
Vasenmalerdes sechstenJahrhunderts v. CAr.(Stibbe
1972), it is the Naukratis Painter,the one generally
credited with the introductionof the small winged
daemons in Laconian art, who seems to have been
most fond of such scenes. Fig. 8.1 shows a graphic
representationof the number of vases with myth
scenes (shaded bars) as comparedto vases withthese
'other' scenes (open bars) foreach of the fivemajor
Laconian vase-painters.The 'other' scenes are images
of gods on theirown, and scenes of symposia,komoi
and riding,not only those which can be givena reli-
gious meaningbut all such scenes. The data used is
(6 gods)
20 -1 (10 symp/komoi/riders)
ê^>
16 ^
. .
(6 symp/komoi/riders)
(2 gods)
10 - (2 komoi/riders) /
NAUKRATISP. BOREADS P. ARKESILAS P.
Fig.8.1 Bar chartofthefive majorLaconian vase-painters
mythical{shaded)and non-mythicalscenes{open)
83
from Stibbe's catalogue. As we see, the Naukratis
Painter,with two myth scenes and sixteen of the
'other'scenes(six imagesof gods on theirown and ten
symposia,komos scenes and riders),clearlyfavoured
such non-mythscenes more than the other artists.
What I should like to show here is thatthe Naukratis
Painter, being one of the earliest Laconian vase-
painters,and one who did not imitateothersbut was
on thecontrarywidelyimitated,was probablytheone
who introduced most of these compositions in
Laconian artgivingto Laconian iconographymuchof
its character.If we wish to understandthese scenes
more fully,we should examine them as a whole and
also as partof thisartist'swork.
THE NAUKRATIS PAINTER
Generalcharacteristics
Named byArthurLane in his comprehensivestudyof
Laconian pottery(Lane 1934) afterthe well-known
cup fromNaukratisin the BritishMuseum showinga
goddess surroundedby winged daemons (London B
4: Stibbe 1972: no. 23; Pipili 1987: 41-2, no. 101, fig.
54) (fig. 8.5), the NaukratisPainterwas untilrecently
the least esteemed of the Laconian vase-painters.
Brian Shefton called his work 'unenterprising'
(Shefton 1954: 303), and forPaola Pelagattihe is 'the
least talentedof Laconian vase-painters,certainlynot
veryoriginal'(Pelagatti1955-56: 27). These opinions,
when expressed,were to some extentjustifiablesince
veryfewworksby thisartistwere knownat the time.
It was only afterthe appearance of Stibbe's mono-
graph in 1972, in which many more pieces by the
painterwerepublished,mostcomingfromthe Samian
Heraion, thatwe wereable to assess fullythispainter's
worth.Stibbe listed some 60 vases by the Naukratis
Painter(Stibbe 1972: 269-72), whilein Shefton's1954
articleonly 22 pieces werementioned(Shefton 1954:
r™ MVTH
^ MTm
D "OTHER"
0 god)
( 10 symp/komoi/riders)
V
i73^0™) 11
/ 10
w/s/a í¿ I
HUNT P. RIDER P.
showingnumbers
ofvaseswith
84 MARIAPIPILI
303-4). Stibbe's work is, therefore,essentialforour
knowledgeof thepainter,who emergesthereas a high
quality artist both in miniaturework and in large
scale,and witha verygood feelingforsecondaryorna-
ment.Stibbe showed thatthe NaukratisPainterhad a
relativelylong career(from575 to 550 bc), compared
to the otherearlyblack-figure Laconian vase-painter,
the Boreads Painter,who startedat about the same
timebut did not workformorethana decade. He was
also widely imitated,not only by minor artistswho
painted in his manner until the last decades of the
sixth centurybc, but also by the three other major
painters, particularlythe Arkesilas Painter at his
beginningsand the Rider Painter,while the Boreads
Painter influencedonly the Arkesilas Painter. The
Naukratis Painter also produced a wide range of
shapes, not just cups as the Boreads Painter,and his
workswere foundboth in Laconia and abroad, while
theBoreads Painteris not representedin Sparta at all.
Stibbe showed the painter's artisticmerit as far as
style of drawing, potting and influencesare con-
cerned;his iconographieremarks,however,are neces-
sarilybriefand randomlyexpressedin the discussion
of certainvases only.I should like to emphasizehere
the Naukratis Painter's subject-matterand icono-
graphierenderingsand hope to show thathe was also
a mostinterestingand inventivevase-painterfroman
iconographiepointof view,perhapsmoreso thanany
otherof his Laconian colleagues.
Corinthianinfluences
As one of the earliestblack-figure artistsin Laconia,
using a techniqueobviouslytakenfromCorinth,it is
no surprise that in his early works the Naukratis
Paintershows strongCorinthianinfluencein his lik-
ing foranimal friezeson the exteriorof his cups, as
well as in the use of emblematicdaemonic figureson
theirinteriors(thereare fivecups of his witha winged
Boread [Pipili 1987: 64-5, figs.91-2; 117, nos. 170-4]
veryclose to the Corinthianones, a fragmentary cup
with a Gorgon [Pipili 1987: 16-17, no. 41, fig.24],
and a wholecup witha sphinx[Stibbe 1972: no. 7, pl.
4, 1] ). This likingforCorinthianemblematicfigures
on the interiorof cups is also met in the workof the
otherearly painter,the Boreads Painter,who other-
wise shows few Corinthianelementsand no animal
friezesin theCorinthianmanner.These daemonicfig-
ures decoratingthe tondi of the Laconian cups con-
tinueto the latterpart of the sixthcentury(see, e.g.,
the Chimaera cup in Heidelberg, dated c. 530 bc:
Stibbe 1972: no. 352, pl. 128, 1; Pipili 1987: 19-20, no.
58, fig.30), somethingnaturalsincesuch figuresfitted
wellin theroundspace of thetondo,muchbetterthan
a narrativecomposition.
Also fromCorinththe NaukratisPaintermay have
takenhis likingforsymposia,komoi,fightsand caval-
cades. Was he a Corinthianhimself?On a fragment
found in Cyrene and discussed by Gerald Schaus
(Schaus 1979) (fig. 8.17) next to an enthronedgod-
dess holdinga wreathwho was probablyapproached
by one or more persons,a compositionto which we
shall return,thereis partof an inscription- the only
-
inscriptionby the Naukratis Painter with a three-
strokeiota, a letterunknownto the Laconian script,
but belongingto theCorinthianone. This typeof iota
appears also in the Theran-Cyrenaic script, and
Schaus suggestedthatthe artistmightbe a Cyrenean
workingin Sparta,usingthisas a further argumentfor
the existenceof particularlyclose tiesbetweenSparta
and Cyrenein the archaic period. We shall returnto
thisfragmentand to the inscriptionlater.
East Greek influences
Apart from its early corinthianizingfeatures,the
NaukratisPainter'sworkhas also a verystrongEast
Greek character.This characterhas not been given
much attention,and it is the Boreads Painterwho is
usuallythoughtto have borrowedEast Greek motifs
and to have been imitatedin the East- he has even
been thoughtto have arrivedfromIonia. But the East
Greek elementsin the Naukratis Painter's work are
unmistakable:2
a) Together with the Boreads Painter he seems to
have introduced the exergue under the main
scene; an early example of his is a cup in the
Louvre witha sphinxin thetondoand a fishin the
exergue(Louvre E 664: Stibbe 1972: no. 7, pl. 4,
1). This divisionof the interiorinto a main scene
and an exergue was obviouslycopied fromEast
Greek plates dating from the late seventh and
earlysixthcenturiesbc (see, e.g., Walter-Karydi
1973: nos. 1070, 1121, pls. 133, 136).
b) Anotherarrangement of theinteriordecorationof
his vases is also met on Ionian cups: a concentric
friezerunninground a centralmedallion,as, for
example, on his symposiumcup in the Louvre
(Louvre E 667: Stibbe 1972: no. 13,pl. 6, 1; Pipili
1987: 71 ff, no. 194, fig. 103) (fig. 8.6) or on a
fragmentary cup from Egypt (Alexandria
9362+9390: Venit1985: 395, no. 4, pl. 42, 1). The
Boreads Painteralso used oftensuch concentric
friezesforrows of dancingkomasts,riders,hare-
hunt,etc.3
2 In a recentarticleBrian Sheftonaptlysupportsthe view that
'the intensivecurrentof influenceflowingboth ways across
the Aegean betweenSamos and Laconia in the decade or so
beforethe middle of the sixthcentury... is particularlytied
to the person of the NaukratisPainter' (Shefton 1989: 63).
Stibbe 1972: no. 121, pl. 40, 3 (hounds chasinghare); no. 141,
3
pl. 45, 1 (komos); no. 146 (riders); no. 148 (hounds chasing
fox). For a verysimilarEast Greek friezesee the hare-hunt
on a Samian cup fromthe Heraion dated c. 550 bc : Kyrieléis
1981:46, fig.33.
 ARCHAIC LACONIAN VASE-PAINTING
50 "I
40 - co
30" g gip g-
20 - ¿g|p io ¿gip
E##fl I l%##3 I - ^- ,
l%A#a
0
NAUKRATISP. BOREADS P. ARKESILAS P.
Fig.8.2 Bar chartofthefivemajorLaconianvase-painters
theirvasesfromtheSamianHeraion{shaded)compared withthose
sanctuaries(open)
c) The characteristichigh-stemmed Laconiancup,
probablyan inventionof the NaukratisPainter
(Stibbe1972:68) sincetheearliestsuchvaseis his
Zeus cup in Taranto dated around 570 bc
(TarantoLG. 4988:Stibbe1972:no.8, pl. 4, 4 and
p. 20, fig.5), mayalso havebeen introduced in
Laconian art undereasterninfluenceand have
been maintained becauseof its popularity with
overseasmarkets.4
d) The exteriorof the sphinxcup in the Louvre
alreadymentionedis clearlyimitating
Ioniancups
(Stibbe1972:49-50).
e) Two cups by the NaukratisPainter,one from
Samos, veryfragmentary and now partlylost
(Samos K 1188:Stibbe1972:no. 10,pl. 5, 4), the
otherfromItaly(Stibbe 1972: no. 11, pl. 5, 5),
showpalmettes of theIoniantypewithseparate
leaves.
J) Finally,therichfloralfriezesdecorating theinter-
nal lip of manyof theNaukratisPainter'scups,
something imitatedby theArkesilasPainterand
theRiderPainteron workswhichobviously
copy
worksof theNaukratisPainter, are veryclose to
the rich floralfriezeson some Ionian Little-
Master cups: an interesting parallel,published
recently byBrianShefton, is inOsborneHouseon
theIsle of Wight(Shefton1989:58-9, figs.12 c,
e). Here, as in manyothercases,the currentof
influence seemsto haveflowntheotherway:the
East Greekpainterprobably imitatedthedecora-
tionof theLaconiancups.The Naukratis Painter
well
was,therefore, acquainted with East Greek
and moreparticularly Samian vases,since clay
analysishas now shownthatthe Ionian Little-
Master cups must have been made on Samos
(Shefton1989:44 withn. 4), and was,in turn,
imitated byhisSamiancolleagues.
85
0 SAMOS
D OTHER SANCTUARIES
id i
K%%1 I E%%a I
HUNTP. RIDER P.
showingthenumbersof
fromall other
Sparta and S amos
It is well-knownthatSpartawasin closecontactwith
theeasternworld,and particularly withtheislandof
Samos,alreadyfromtheseventhcentury bc. Thereis
mucheasternmaterial andEastGreekinfluence inthe
votivesfromthe ArtemisOrthiasanctuaryat that
time,and it is generally thoughtthatthesecame to
Samos.The famous'specialrelation-
Spartathrough
ship' betweenSparta and Samos (Cartledge1982)
becomesparticularly obviousfromthe late seventh
whenLaconianpottery
century startsbeingexported
to Samosin quantities. The greatsanctuary of Hera,
patrondeityof Samos,is thesecondsiteafterSparta
herselfto haveyieldedsucha greatamountof sixth-
century Laconianvases.These vasesbelongespecial-
ly to theyears570 to 550bc. About540bc thetyran-
of
ny Polykrates markeda breakin thecloserelations
betweenSparta and Samos and a swing by the
SamianstowardsAthens.As a result,Laconianpot-
terybecomesless commonon Samos fromthattime
untilabout525bc whencommercial relationsbetween
thetwostatesstopaltogether. It wasin 524bc thatthe
Spartans attemptedto overthrowPolykratesand
restore somearistocraticSamianexilesto power.
The Naukratis likehiscontemporaries,the
Painter,
BoreadsPainterand theArkesilasPainter, workedat
thetimeofthebigexportofLaconianvasestoSamos.
Mostofthesepainters' vaseshaveactuallybeenfound
on Samos,andinfig.8.2 we havea graphicrepresen-
tationof thenumberof vasesfoundin the Samian
Heraion(shadedbars)as opposedtovasesfoundinall
othersanctuaries
(openbars)foreachof thefivemain
That the high stem was popular in the East froman early
4
period is indicated by the stemmed dishes dating fromthe
mid-seventh to the mid-sixth century bc (Walter-Karydi
1973: 10), as well as by some otherrelatedshapes (ibid. pl. 23,
no. 265).
86 MARIAPIPILI
whereLaconian vaseshave beenfound
Fig.8.3 Pie chartsshowingsanctuaries
Laconian vase-painters (the data is again from
Stibbe's catalogue). For the three painters who
workeduntilabout 550 bc the vases fromSamos out-
numberby farthose foundin othersanctuaries.The
Hunt Painterwho workedalso in the second part of
the century,untilabout 530 bc, had his vases directed
to otherareas. The pie-diagramsin fig. 8.3 show in
detail the sanctuaries where Laconian vases were
found. Apart from the Samian Heraion, Laconian
vases were dedicated at the sanctuariesof Demeter
and Kore at Tocra and Cyrene,the varioussanctuar-
ies of the emporia at Naukratis, the sanctuaryof
Olympia,and, of course,thelocal Laconian sanctuar-
ies, mainlythoseof ArtemisOrthiaand of Athenaon
theSpartanAcropolis.That theseSpartansanctuaries
are not representedhere verywell is due to the fact
thatthe worksof the main black-figure painterswere
mostly exported. We should note here that most
Laconian vases come fromsanctuaries;in fig. 8.4 we
have a graphicrepresentation of the numberof vases
foundin sanctuaries(light-shadedbars) as opposed to
vases foundin graves (dark-shadedbars) foreach of
thefivemainLaconian vase-painters(the data is again
fromStibbe's catalogue).5
ICONOGRAPHIC THEMES
So, theNaukratisPainter'svases wereclearlydirected
to Samos more than to any othersanctuary.It is nat-
ural to think,therefore,
thatthe East Greek elements
in the shape and decorationof his vases must have
Since 1972, when Stibbe's book appeared, more Laconian
5
vases have been published, a great number of them from
sanctuaries(Cyrene: Schaus 1978 and 1985; Naukratis:Venit
1985; Gravisca: Boitani 1990). Unpublished still,among oth-
ers, are most of the Laconian vases from Olympia (some
appear in Stibbe's catalogue), vases fromBassae, fromthe
templeof Artemison Samos (see below n. 14), and fromthe
sanctuaryof Parthenosat Kavala.
 ARCHAIC LACONIAN VASE-PAINTING
80 1
60-
m
W
*
40- P 8
NAUKRATISP. BOREADS P. ARKESILAS P.
Fig.8.4 Bar chartofthefive majorLaconian vase-paintersshowingthenumbers
theirvasesfromsanctuaries{lightshading)and cemeteries
been due to theartist'sattemptto make his vases pop-
ular with that clientèle. We may thinkhere of the
AthenianpotterNikostheneswho imitatedEtruscan
waresand used East Greek featureswhich were pop-
ular in Etruriabecause his vases were directedthere.
Werethe NaukratisPainter'schoice of subject-matter
and iconographie renderingsalso directed by the
needs of export?
TheNatureGoddess
We mentionedearlierthe painter'slikingfordaemon-
ic beingsof the Corinthiantypeforthe interiorof his
cups. These creaturesfittedwellintothecentraltondo
and were an appropriatedecorationforthis field.Of
his other scenes, there are two possible mythical
sceneson whichwe shall not insist.Then, we have six
imagesof a deityalone, outsideanynarrativecontext.
Most famousof theseis the goddesson his name-vase
in the British Museum already mentioned, dated
about 565-560 BC (fig. 8.5). The vase is sadly very
damaged,and we can onlysee thegoddess' feetin out-
line and part of her long dress and hair. She held
branches and was surroundedby birds and winged
daemons, some bearded, some not. The cup was
foundat Naukratisand was veryprobablydedicated
thereby Samians (in fact,most of the Laconian vases
foundat Naukratismusthave been broughtin by the
Samians who had foundedsanctuariesthereand kept
trade connectionswith the area). That the vase was
originallyintendedforSamos is strengthenedby the
fact that two other cups (and perhaps also a third),
veryfragmentary, by the same artistwhich seem to
preserve part of the same composition come from
Samos itself.One (Samos K 1229: Stibbe 1972: no.
25b, pl. 13, 1; Pipili 1987: 41 ff, no. 102, fig.55) (fig.
8.6) shows two wingeddaemons verysimilarto those
on theNaukratiscup and disposed in the tondoin the
same way; the other (Stibbe 1972: no. 24, pl. 12, 2;
Pipili 1987: 41 ff, no. 103, fig.56) (fig. 8.7) preserves
87
Ê3 SANCTUARIES
BB GRAVES
D UNKN0WN
HUNT P. RIDER P.
of
{darkshading)
part of the impressiveplant held by the goddess, a
bird,and the head of a small figurewhichlooks to the
right.This fragmentalso preservessomethingfrom
the lost partof the Naukratiscup: the end of a volute
which probablysprang from the goddess' head, an
ornament which appears often on Laconian vases,
particularlyon worksby the Naukratis Painter.The
Naukratis goddess has been called Cyrene by those
early scholars who regarded the Laconian vases as
Cyrenaican.She has also been called Persephonesur-
rounded by the souls of the dead, or Aphroditesur-
roundedby Erotes.61 have accepted elsewhereLane's
and Shefton'sinterpretation of the figureas Artemis
Orthia (Lane 1934: 165-7; Shefton 1954: 303, no. 3),
and have suggested that to the dedicator she might
havebeen identifiedwiththeSamian Hera, since both
goddesses had the same character as deities who
favouredgrowthand fertility of plants,animals and
humans, and would thus be appropriatelyshownwith
a plant in hand (Pipili 1987: 42). Tradition says that
Hera was born underan osier treeon thebanksof the
river Imbrasos and this association of the goddess
withthetreeand vegetationin generalmakeshervery
close to theLaconian goddessOrthiawhose sanctuary
was likewise situated in a low marshyplace by the
banks of a river,the Spartan Eurotas. The small
winged daemons would then be symbolsof fertility
and vegetation,daemons of nature who accompany
theGreat Goddess. The otherthreeimagesof gods by
theNaukratisPaintercome fromgraves:theearliest,a
seated Zeus and his eagle, was found in Taranto
(Taranto LG. 4988: Stibbe 1972: no. 8, pl. 4, 3; Pipili
1987: 46 ff.,no. 129); two more come fromEtruscan
tombs- anotherversion,of much higherquality,of
theseatedZeus and his eagle (here facingright)in the
6 For thevariousinterpretations,
Pipili 1987:41-2 withnn.
417-24.
88 MARIAPIPILI

Fig. 8.5 (above) Cup bytheNaukratisPainter.

London,BritishMuseumB 4.
bytheNaukratisPainter.
Fig. 8.6 (left) Cupfragments
Samos K 122g.
Fig. 8.7 (below) CupfragmentsbytheNaukratis
Painter.Samos.
 ARCHAICLACONIANVASE-PAINTING
Louvre (Louvre E 668: Stibbe 1972: no. 31, pl. 15, 3;
Pipili 1987: 46 ff.,no. 130,fig.69), and a Poseidon rid-
ing his hippokamp- a beautifulworkfoundnot many
yearsago at Cerveteri(Cerveteri90287: Stibbe 1972:
no. 35; Pipili 1987: 49-50, no. 135,fig.73).
Small wingeddaemons
The small winged daemons surrounding the
Naukratisgoddess appear also on some otherscenes
on Laconian vases and seem to have been introduced
by the NaukratisPainter.These daemons are perhaps
one of themostinteresting featuresof Laconian vase-
iconography.They are totallyunknownin Corinth,
and in Athenstheyappear as Erotes only at the very
end of thesixthcentury.7The onlyarea wherewe find
early examples of such winged creatures is East
Greece. A Fikellura cup from the Samian Heraion
dated aroundthe mid-sixthcenturyhas a rowof such
Fig.8.8 Fikelluracupfrr.FromtheSamian Heraion.
PhotoDAI Athens,neg.no. Samos içç?.
winged daemons in a frieze surroundingthe tondo
whichis decoratedwitha Gorgoneion(Walter-Karydi
1973: no. 335, pl. 40; Shefton1989: 69, fig.20b) (fig.
8.8), and on a Chian chalice fragmentfromNaukratis
in Cambridge,dated around 575-560 bc, the winged
boots of a similardaemon who flewto the rightare
preservedabove a sirenturnedleft(Lemos 1991: no.
1461, pl. 193; p. 157, fig.88) (fig. 8.9). These works
have sometimesbeen regarded as copyingLaconian
works(Stibbe 1972: 46, n. 1), but the influenceprob-
ably wentthe otherway round (cf. Schaus 1986: 275;
Hermary 1986: 934). East Greek art seems to have
favouredwingedcreaturesof the 'Eros' typefroman
early period. An Ionian plastic vase of the second
quarterof the sixthcenturyhas the formof an Eros
ridinga dolphin (Hermary 1986: 869, no. 178), and
89
Fig.8.Q Chian chalicefr. Cambridge(fromLemos1991,
fig.88).
afterthemiddleof thecenturythereare easterngems,
Clazomenian sarcophagiand even a Caeretan hydria
with similar creatures.The Naukratis Painter,who
introducedthesedaemons in Laconian art along with
manyothereasternmotifs,may have used an eastern
iconographietypeforvases intendedto be exportedto
Samos, as were the three cups with the Great
Goddess. It has been suggestedthat the presence in
Sparta of Ionian poets like Alkmanwho praised Eros
mayhavecontributedto theseimages(Hermary1986:
934), but I do not knowif the Laconian wingedcrea-
turesare meant as Erotes. I preferto call them 'dae-
mons' in general,spritesof some kind,who probably
help to give a higherreligiousstatus to the scene in
whichtheyappear.
Symposia
Anothertypeof scene of theNaukratisPaintershow-
ing winged daemons are the symposia. On his well-
knowncup in theLouvre (Louvre E 667: Stibbe 1972:
no. 13, pl. 6, 1; Pipili 1987: 71 ff.,no. 194, fig. 103)
(fig. 8.10), dated around 565 bc, two such small crea-
turesand two sirensflyover fivemale dinersholding
floralsand wreaths.They are naked and lack their
wingedboots.The othercup was foundratherrecent-
ly at Lavinium (Pratica di Mare E 1986: Stibbe 1972:
no. 19; Pipili 1987: 71 ff.,no. 195) and shows two
recliningmen and threeflyingdaemons who do not
seem to be holding anything.Neither of these sym-
posia by the NaukratisPainterwas found on Samos,
but the factthat on the Louvre cup the symposiasts
reclineon the ground in the orientalway,^as well as
the presenceof wingeddaemons which we have seen
as borrowedfromeasternart,make us believethatthis
type of composition was originally intended for
exportto Samos. This is strengthened by the factthat
7 For the iconographyof Eros see Hermary 1986 withthe ear-
lier bibliography.
8 For oriental elements in the Laconian symposia see Fehr
1971:44.
90 MARIA PIPILI
cupbytheNaukratisPainter.Paris, LouvreE 66j.
Fig. 8.10 Symposium
fromthe Samian Heraion comes a very interesting
cup by the ArkesilasPainter(Samos K 1203, K 1541,
K 2402 and Berlin 478X,460X: Stibbe 1972: no. 191,
pl. 58; Pipili 1987: 71 ff,no. 196, figs.iO4~iO4a) (fig.
8.na-b) which is so close to the Naukratis Painter
that it certainlycopies a workby him. The styleof
drawing is very similar to that of the Naukratis
Painter,and so is the rich floralfriezedecoratingthe
interiorof the rim,and the typeof the wingeddae-
mons. The cup is unfortunately very fragmentary,
with the fragmentssplit betweenSamos and Berlin,
but we can detectsome basic elementsof the compo-
sition:the meal here is held in the open air next to a
buildingand a tree,and thereare also women flute-
players accompanyingthe symposiasts.As on the
NaukratisPainter'sLouvre cup, the dinersreclineon
the ground in the orientalway,and thereis another
easternelement- the woman's headdress,an oriental
mitra.A third,veryfragmentary symposiumwith a
winged daemon, comes from Samos again and is by
the Hunt Painter (Samos K 2073: Stibbe 1972: no.
215, pl. 71, 3; Pipili 1987: 71 ff.,no. 197). I have
explainedelsewherethesemeals as cult-mealsin hon-
our of ArtemisOrthia and the eastern elementsin
them as due to Alkman's presence in Sparta-
Alkman, who had composed songs in honour of
Orthia(Pipili 1987: 73-4). But no such vase has been
foundin Sparta. The ArkesilasPainter'svase was ded-
icated to the Samian Hera and so mighthavebeen his
prototypesby theNaukratisPainter,so it is morelike-
ly that the Laconian paintersdepicted cult-mealsin
honourof Hera.9 These cult-mealsmusthave been a
veryimportantoccasion in the lifeof Samos, and we
maynote herea seriesof contemporaryAtticcups by
the KX PainterfromtheHeraion decoratedwithrich
symposiawithmen and women,10whichindicatethat
therewas probablya demand forsuch vases used and
dedicatedduringthosecelebrations.
TheLyre-Player
We knowthatthe festivalof the Heraia also included
musicaland athleticcontests.An interesting
composi-
tion which I think had its origin in the Naukratis
Painter,althoughno such wholeworkby himhas been
9 In her reviewof Pipili 1987,J. Carterrightlystressesthe fact
that no symposium scene has been found in Laconia, and
suggests that the Arkesilas Painter's cup shows "life on
Samos, women in Eastern caps banquetingwithmen, as the
ArkesilasPainterimaginedit" (Carter 1989: 475).
10
Beazley 1956: 26, nos. 27-28, and at least four more cups
some of which were presented by J. Brijder at the
International Conference 'Athenian Potters and Painters'
(AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens,December
1994). A fullpublicationof the Atticblack-figurevases from
the Samian Heraion is being preparedby B. Kreuzer and will
appear in the Samos series.
 ARCHAICLACÓNIAN VASE-PAINTING
Fig. 8.11 Cupfragments bytheArkesilas
PainterfromtheSamian Heraion
(a) Berlin,Staatl. Museen478X.
(b) Samos K 1203, K 1541, K 2402 and
Berlin460X,478X (fromPipili ig8yy
fig104, afterStibbeigj2, pi 58),
preserved,is thatof a musicianstandingamongdanc-
ing komasts.One is a cup in Florence, badly pre-
served,in themannerof the NaukratisPainter,which
probablycopies a workby the master(Florence 3882:
Stibbe 1972: no. 71; Pipili 1987: 51-2, no. 205a).
Three othersuch worksare bytheRiderPainter- two
come fromSamos and are veryfragmentary: one has a
musicianstandingin the middle, a cock on his lyre,
and komastsof various sizes dancing on eitherside
(Samos K 2522: Stibbe 1972: no. 293, pl. 98; Pipili
1987: no. 2O5d); fromthe otheronly the feetof the
musician and of two of the komasts are preserved
(Samos K i960: Stibbe 1972: no. 315, pl. 112, 4; Pipili
1987: no. 205e); the thirdappeared recentlyon the
Basel Market(Stibbe 1992) (fig. 8.12) and is themost
interestingof all. It is verywell preserved,an early
workof theRiderPainter,of a periodduringwhichhe
was influencedby theNaukratisPainter.This compo-
sitionshows clearlythatthe prototypewas a workby
the NaukratisPainter:the whole design is veryclose
91
to thatof the Naukratiscup- a huge centralfigurein
a long dress (a goddess there- a musician here) sur-
roundedby small creatures(winged daemons there-
komastshere). The interiorof the rim is decorated
with a rich floralfrieze in the Naukratis Painter's
manner.A small fragmentby the NaukratisPainterin
Naples has a komastplaced in the tondo in the same
way (Stibbe 1972: no. 15, pl. 7, 3) (fig. 8.13), so it is
possible that it belonged to a similar scene.11 The
Hunt Painteralso produced thiskindof composition:
we have a small fragmentby him fromSamos (Stibbe
1972: no. 247, pl. 86, 3; Pipili 1987: no. 205b); and
thereis also a workin his mannerin the Vaticanwith
11 Compare especially the Rider Painter's cup from Samos
(Samos K 2522: Stibbe 1972: no. 293, pl. 98) where three
komastsdance to the leftaway fromthe musician who stands
to the rightin the middle of the tondo, or the cup in the
Vatican(Stibbe 1972: no. 272, pl. 90, 2).
92 MARIA PIPILI
bytheRiderPainter.OnceBasel Market (fromStibbeiqç2, pl. 25, 1).
Fig. 8.12 Cupfragments
a more proportionatemusicianin comparisonto the
dancers (Stibbe 1972: no. 272, pl. 90, 2; Pipili 1987:
no. 205c). The huge figureof themusician,especially
in the Rider Painter'sworks,and his similarityto the
Naukratisgoddess could lead to the assumptionthat
we have a god here too. Stibbe saw Dionysos (Stibbe
1992), others Apollo {cf. the works cited by Pipili
1987: 51, nn. 505-6; Stibbe 1992: 141, n. 11). But
there are difficultieswith both interpretations: how
Fig. 8.13 FragmentbytheRiderPainter.Naples (from
StibbeIQ72,pl. 7, 3).
easilycan we accept a Dionysos witha lyre?or Apollo
amongkomasts?I believethatthisscene,likethesym-
posia, should be associated with a real-lifecult cele-
bration. Since most such scenes come fromSamos,
thismightbe a musicianplayingat the Heraia.
TheRider
Let us now come to the enigmaticrider.Three cups
by theRider Painter,one in St. Petersburg,anotherin
the BritishMuseum and a thirdin the Louvre, works
of theperiod550-540 bc, showa singleyouthfulrider
accompaniedby wingeddaemons.The St. Petersburg
cup (St. Petersburg183: Stibbe 1974: pl. 5, 1; Pipili
1987: 76, no. 213) has a wingeddaemon flyingbehind
the rider,carryingin both hands whatlook like cups;
on the London cup (London B 1: Stibbe 1972: no.
306, pl. 108, 1; Pipili 1987: no. 214, fig.108) (fig. 8.14)
thereis a daemonat exactlythesame place, herehold-
ing wreaths;on theLouvre cup (Louvre E 665: Stibbe
1972: no. 307, pl. 108,4; Pipili 1987: no. 215, fig.109)
(fig. 8.15) thedaemonrunsin frontof thehorseswith
extendedarms.The daemonsare verysimilarto those
by the Naukratis Painter,with the wings growing
fromtheirchests as in his works,and this makes us
suspectthatin thiscase, too,theprototypewas a work
bythisartist.Moreover,theSt. Petersburgcup is very
close in styleof drawingto worksby the Naukratis
Painter and has a rich floralfrieze in this painter's
manneron theinsideof the rim.A small fragmentby
 ARCHAIC LACONIAN VASE-PAINTING
Fig. 8.14 Cup bytheRiderPainter.London,British
MuseumB 1.
Fig. 8.15 Cup bytheRiderPainter.Paris, Louvre
E 665.
93
the Naukratis Painter from the Samian Heraion
(Stibbe 1972: no. 48, pl. 23, 2) has preservedpartof a
large horse's head, and Stibbe rightly suggested
(Stibbe 1972: 20, nn. 12-15) ^at thismightbe partof
the prototypeforthe Rider Painter'scups, since the
head is so largethatit can onlybelongto a singlehorse
coveringthe inside of the cup. So, althoughnone of
the Rider Painter'scups comes fromSamos, the pro-
totypeforthescene probablydid, and I am inclinedto
connectthisscene also withcelebrationsin honourof
Hera- perhaps a victoriousathlete in the goddess'
festival;or a young aristocratparticipatingin a pro-
cession at the same festival.A common elementin all
threecups are the many water-birdswhich probably
indicatethe settingas a marshyplace.
So, it seems that the Naukratis Painterproduced
many works intended for a specificmarket,that of
Samos, and forthe needs of a particularcult, thatof
Hera. Hence the easternelementsin his workand the
choice of his themes.Of course,some of the worksto
whichwe have givena religiousmeaningare not from
Samos (the Nature Goddess, forinstance,comes from
Naukratis), but these are few and might have been
exportedelsewhereby Samian merchants.The scenes
created by the Naukratis Painter for cult purposes
seem to have been imitatedby otherLaconian artists
who were influencedby the early master. One of
94 MARIAPIPILI
them,the Rider Painter,presumablycopied mechani-
cally the rider,or the musician,on vases which were
not intendedmainlyforthe Samian Heraion neither
forsome othersanctuary,but were made in a period
when the export to Samos had declined and most
Laconian vases foundtheirway to Etruscangraves.
Godsand worshippers
Let us finallycome to a type of scene on Laconian
vases whichhas a clearlyvotivecharacter,much more
so thanthe worksthatwe have seen: thatof a seated
god or gods approached by worshippers(Pipili 1987:
60-3). The earliest such scenes are by the Boreads
Painterwho seems to have favouredthe composition.
We have an unpublished fragmentarycup from
Olympiawitha seated male figureapproachedby oth-
ers,anotherfromGravisca,a thirdfromCyreneand a
fragmentarycup from Naukratis in the British
Museum known for a long time (Pipili 1987: nos.
157-60). On this cup therewere probablymore fig-
uresbehindtheone preserved,as on theOlympiacup.
The composiition is not new to Laconian art. It
appears on stone and clay reliefsdedicatedto gods or
heroes.But forvases it is somethingnotcommon,and
it is an odd choice forthe interiorof cups wherethe
restrictedspace does not allow the representationof
manyfiguresin a row.Religiousprocessionswithwor-
shippers holding offeringsdo appear, however,on
some East Greek vases; see, forexample,the figures
on some fragmentary Chian chalices of the Grand
Style fromNaukratis:a man witha lotus-flower, or a
woman withpomegranatesquite similarto the youth
on the Boreads Painter'svase (Lemos 1991: nos. 704,
735, pls. 92, 96, and p. 100, fig.54) (fig. 8.16). The
Chian works are contemporary to the Boreads
Painter'svases, dated in the years570-560 bc.
Until recently we knew no such vase by the
Naukratis Painter.We now know that he also pro-
704
737
Fig. 8.16 Chian chalicefragments.
London,British
Museum1888.6-1.48j, 1.508, /.5/J(fromLemos
*99*>fi&54h
Fig. 8.IJ FragmentbytheNaukratisPainter,with
part ofan inscription.
Cyrene71-659 (fromSchaus
1979,pl. 16).
duced vases of this type: we mentionedearlier his
inscribedfragmentfromCyrene(fig. 8.17). The seat-
ed figurehereis femalesince hernakedfleshis in out-
line (probablyDemeter or Kore since the piece was
dedicatedto theirsanctuary),but the inscriptionpre-
sents some problems.It is part of a name- but what
name? A possibilityis that we have an artist'ssigna-
ture,somethingnotmetelsewherein Laconian. If it is
not the NaukratisPainter'sname, thenis it the name
of the figurestanding before the goddess? As the
inscriptionwas writtenbefore the firing,we would
have here a clear case of a special commission,where
the dedicatorwould have dictatedto the painterthe
name to be writtenon the cup. But thereare difficul-
ties with this explanation,too, so the question must
remainopen. Anotherworkby the NaukratisPainter
whichmayhaveshowna seated deity,a goddess- pre-
sumablyHera since the vase comes fromthe Samian
Heraion- is a fragmentary kraterin Samos and Berlin
dated c. 570-565 bc (Samos K 1445 and BerlinSa 138,
462, 479X:Stibbe 1972: no. 37, pl. 19; Pipili 1987: no.
202) (fig. 8.18). The birdon thefigure'sseat indicates
a deity.The figurewas in associationwith a sympo-
sium, as there are more fragmentswith klinai and
tables,so, was thisa cult-mealin thegoddess' honour?
The horsebehindthegoddess' seat probablybelonged
to an adjacent different scene.12 Votivecups of this
type have been found onlyin sanctuaries,so we should
12 Anothersuch figurein association witha symposiumis on a
late fragmentfromthe ArtemisOrthia sanctuary,a workin
the mannerof the Hunt Painter:Stibbe 1972: no. 278, pl. 92,
3; Pipili 1987: no. 166.
 ARCHAICLACONIANVASE-PAINTING
bytheRiderPainter.
Fig. 8.18 Krater (?) fragments
K
Samos 1445.
assume thattheywere special commissionsmade for
dedication.The NaukratisPainterwho favouredreli-
gious scenes and who also painted the seated Zeus
maywellhaveintroducedthetype.Anyway,such cups
continueto the end of the sixthcenturyand mostare
in the Naukratis Painter's manner. A late example
comes fromSamos, one of the rare vases exportedto
the island in the yearsaround 525 bc (Samos K 1428:
Stibbe 1972: no. 102; Pipili 1987: 61 ff, no. 164, fig.
89; most of the fragmentsare now lost). A kitharòde
standsbeforethe seated goddess,probablyHera since
thecup comes fromtheHeraion. It is possiblethatwe
have a worshipperbeforethe goddess, unless this is
Apollo in conversationwith Hera, as on a cup in
Kassel Zeus and Hermes face each other (Kassel T
354: Stibbe 1972: no. 353, pl. 128,2; Pipili 1987: 47-8,
no. 132, fig. 71). On a contemporarycup from
Olympiaa small figurestood beforethe seated divine
pair (Olympia K 1293: Stibbe 1972: no. 101; Pipili
1987: 61 ff, no. 163, fig.88); and on anotherunpub-
lishedcup fromOlympiadatingfromthelate 520s we
have again Zeus and Hera and more figuresstanding
opposite them (Olympia K 2101: Pipili 1987: 61 ff,
no. 165). Most of the late vases found theirway to
Olympia and to the local Laconian market. In a
debased black-figure style,datingfromthe earlyfifth
century bc, are votive cups dedicated to Zeus/
Agamemnon and Alexandra/Kassandra who had
theirsanctuarynear Amyklai.13But we shall not end
withthese degenerateworkswhich are but a distant
echo of theearlierLaconian votivecups. Let us return
to Samos fromwherewe began.
SOME OTHER LACONIAN VOTIVE WARES: THE
CASE OF THE SAMIAN ARTEMISION
In 1979 an importantchance discoverywas made by
thelocal ephoreianeartheancienttownof Samos, just
outside the city-walls.A rich votive deposit full of
good black-figurevases was discoveredand, as many
of the fragmentshad inscriptionsnaming Artemis,
95
the excavator, K. Tsakos, rightly connected the
deposit with the sanctuaryof Artemismentionedby
Herodotus (iii 48) as the place wherethe 300 hostage
Corcyrianyouths,who were being sent by the Cor-
inthiantyrantPerianderto Sardis to serveas eunuchs,
tookrefuge.14The sanctuarywas probablydestroyed
in the late sixth century,either during the Spartan
expedition against Polykratesin 524 bc, or in the
eventsfollowingPolykrates'fallin 522 bc. Among the
Laconian vases foundin thedeposit,thereare vases of
a rather rare shape- Stibbe calls it a calyx-crater
(Stibbe 1994: 55); Lane, a chalice on a highfoot(Lane
1934: 146). There are three quite well preserved
examples(figs. 8. 19-21), one preservingits highfoot,
and fragmentsof more. Until now we knew of only
one whole such example,fromthe Samian necropolis,
withno figuredecoration,dating fromabout 550 bc
(Boehlau 1898: 125-6, pl. 10, 7). From the Samian
cemetarywe also have a contemporarySamian exam-
ple (Boehlau 1898: pl. 6, 1; Walter-Karydi1973: pl.
36, no. 502), but it is not clear if the Samians imitated
the Laconian shape or vice-versa.Lane draws atten-
tion to earlyformsof thisshape fromLaconia dating
from the firsthalf of the seventh century (Lane
1934: no).
Whateverits origin,it is clear thatthistypeof vase
was a ritualone, probablyassociatedwiththe Artemis
cult- and we can thinkhere of the krateriskoidedi-
cated at other sanctuariesof the goddess, especially
thatof Brauron,and of the earlyLaconian formsof
the shape just mentionedfromthe Orthia sanctuary,
an Artemissanctuaryagain. Also, the scenes decorat-
ing these vases are certainlyassociated withcult. On
one vase we have a processionof riders,an old man
leaningon his staff,and more figuresin a row,as well
as a seated figure(fig. 8.19), on anothera procession
of men withflute-playersamong them(fig. 8.20), on
a thirda processionof ridersand women withdrawn
himatiain conversation(fig. 8.21). With these vases
we seem to have anothercase of Laconian vases made
especiallyfordedication.The shape is a veryspecial
one and the date of the vases ratherlate- the decade
530-520 BC, when Laconian vases were not normally
exported to Samos- so, it is very probable that we
have here special commissions for the Artemis
sanctuary.The cycle which had started with the
impressiveworksby the NaukratisPainteron Samos
seems to close with this no less impressiveseries of
votivewares.
13 Some of these cups are illustratedin Stibbe 1972: pl. 132, 7;
Stibbe 1976: pl. 5, 1. On one vase a warriorstands beforethe
seated god; on anotherthe god is seated holding a kantharos
as on manystone and clay reliefs.
14 On the find,Tsakos 1980; cf. also, A. Belt. 35 (1980) B2:
460-4; BCH 107 (1983) 817; AR 1982-83: 50-1.
96 MARIAPIPILI

Fig. 8.19 (above) 'Calyx krater'fromtheSanctuaryofArtemis,Samos. Samos 3959.

Fig. 8.20 (above right) 'Calyx krater'fromtheSanctuaryofArtemis,
Samos. Samos 3960.
Fig. 8.21 (lowerright) 'Calyx krater'fromtheSanctuaryofArtemis,Samos. Samos 4006.

CONCLUSION forLaconian vase-painters.And in this,theNaukratis

To conclude: it is not the mythicalscenes thatare the
most interestingin Laconian vase-painting,but the
manyotherscenes probablyassociated withcult that
we have seen. When considered outside their find-
spots, these scenes mightmake no sense at all and
mightbe totallymisunderstood,but, when brought
into associationwiththe sanctuarieswheretheywere
dedicated,and withtheartistwho createdthecompo-
sitions,theybecome much more clear.It would seem
that archaic Sparta with its religious tendencies
responded more than other centres to the special
demand forparticularscenes or shapes at particular
sitesduringthesixthcentury.Special commissionsfor
sanctuariesseems to have been a flourishing industry
Painterhad certainlyled the way.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to thankDr. Susan Walker for kindly
invitingme to deliver this paper as part of the
Colloquium on AncientSparta,as wellas theInstitute
of Classical Studies and its Director, Professor
Richard Sorabji, for subsidising it. Also, Mr. K.
Tsakos forallowingme to illustratethe calyx-craters
fromtheArtemissanctuaryon Samos, and Drs. C. M.
Stibbe and A. A. Lemos forprovidingme withpho-
tographsand slides and allowingme to use some of
themhere.
 9
The AncientTheatreat Sparta
andS. E. C. Walker
J.J. Wilkes
G. B. Waywell,
I THE FIRST DORIC PHASE OF SPARTA'S
THEATRE
G. B. Waywell
The AncientTheatre at Sparta, which is situatedon
theslopes of the Acropolishill below the sanctuaryof
Athena Chalkioikos, has been a famous landmark
since the eighteenthcentury,being one of the few
buildings mentioned by Pausanias in his tour of
Sparta in the second centuryad whose location is
known for certain (Dickins 1906b; Waywell and
Wilkes 1994: 429). It was partlydug by the British
School at Athens in the period 1906-1 928, mainly
under the directionof A. M. Woodward(Woodward
1925a, 1926a, 1927a, 1928a, 1930a); and then,follow-
Fig. Q.i Sparta theatre.GeneralviewfromNE.
ing supplementaryworkby the Greek archaeologists
Christou and Steinhauer in the 1960s and 70s
(Christou 1960a, 1960b, 1962), excavations were
resumed by the BritishSchool at Athens in 1992-5
under the directionof GeoffreyWaywell and John
Wilkes,the aim being to seek freshevidence forthe
architecturalappearance, date of constructionand
later historyof the theatre (Waywell and Wilkes
1995). In the course of this work a completelynew
survey of extant remains was undertakenby Nigel
Fradgley,trenches were put down in key areas of
the orchestraand cavea, and a catalogue of extant
architectural blocks including many from the
stage-building was compiled by Susan Walker
(figs. 9. 1-2).
98 G. B. WAYWELL,£ Ï WILKES AND S. E. C. WALKER

Fig. g.2 (above) Sparta theatre.Reconstructedplan by

N. Fradgley.
wall
Fig. Q.j (left) Sparta theatre.Easternretaining
for cavea.
Fig. Q.4 (below left) Sparta theatre.Easternparodos
and staircase.

Our excavationsin the sw area of the orchestra

revealedthe lower parts of staircasesII and III, and
confirmedWoodward'sfindingsthat while the front
seats of honour,the walkwaybehind it, and two or
threerowsof benchesabove,are fairlywell preserved
withtheirmarblein situ>the remainderof the theatre
was severelydamaged in the middleByzantineperiod
(9th-i3thcenturies)when most of the marbleseating
and some of the poros foundationswere removedfor
buildingpurposes.
The reconstructedplan of the theatreas suggested
by De Jong in 1925 was found to be correctin the
lower part,althoughwe discoverednew evidence for
the dimensionsof the diazoma, the upper cavea and
the upper walkway(Woodward1925a: pl. 14; Waywell
and Wilkes 1995). Sparta's theatrecan be seen to have
been a handsome,marble-facedconstruction,close in
size to the great Classical Greek theatres at
Megalopolis and Epidauros, and followingin their
traditionsof design, althoughclearlymuch later in
date,belongingwithoutdoubt to the late firstcentury
BC (whetherthe earlier theatreat Sparta, recorded
since 465 BC,was on thissite is stillnot known).Fine
outer retainingwalls, of cushioned ashlar masonry
withdraftedmargins,late Hellenisticin style,and set
 THE ANCIENT THEATRE A T SPARTA 99

147 m apart, support the extended semicircleof the cavea,wherelargeamountsof potteryfragmentswere

cavea (fig. 9. 3). This is 114 m in diameter(compared recoveredfromthemud-brickthatformsthe artificial
with Epidauros' 117 m), and is markedby a wall of make-upof the cavea at this point. Successive layers
poros ashlars restingon concrete foundations.The of this mud-brickwere excavated to a depth of two
orchestra,25.52 m in diameter,was frontedby a metres,to a point below the concretefoundationsfor
detachedstage-building,separatedfromthe cavea by theinnerand outerradial walls whichwereset within
open parodoi. The marble-facedretainingwall of the the mud-brickin curiousfashion.The pottery,which
E parodos,whichcame to be inscribedwiththenames was added to themud-brickas sharpaggregate,is uni-
of Spartan officialsin the later ist-2nd centuriesad, formlylate Hellenistic in date, c. 100-50 bc, and
is interruptedby an open staircase that rose by 55 includes relief bowl fragmentsof 'Megarian' type
steps to the centralgangway(diazoma) that divided (fig. 9.6) (Hayes 1995). This pottery,taken with the
the cavea into lower and upper parts (figs. 9.4 and styleof the theatreand its architecture,stronglysug-
9.2). Remainsof thefoundationsof thediazoma,with gests a constructiondate in the late firstcenturybc.
fragmentsof its marblepaving survivingin position,
were revealed in trenchII on the E cavea, and these
enableditsoriginalwidthto be calculatedas c. 1.80 m.
(fig. 9. 5). Below it were ten radial staircases;while
above it therewere seventeen,as intermediatestair-
wayswereplaced betweenmainstaircasesII-IX in the
upper cavea. This plan conformsquite closelyto that
of the Greek theatreas definedby Vitruviusin his De
Archite ctura(v 7), writingc. 30 BC (Knell 1991; Isler
1989; Sear 1990; Gros 1994a). There wereprobably31
rows of seats in the lower cavea, includingthe front
seats of honourwithhighbacks,and 17 in the upper
cavea, making 48 altogether.This arrangementhas
similarities in many points of detail with the
Megalopolis theatrewhichseems to haveprovidedthe
designinspirationforSparta (Buckler 1986). Fig. Q.5 (above) Sparta theatre.Remainsof
Importantdating evidence for the theatre'scon- foundations ofdiazoma on E cavea.
structioncame fromtrenchIV, located in the upper E Fig. Q.6 (below) Sherdsofreliefpottery
from
cavea betweenthe innerand outer radial walls of the construction layerofE cavea.
100 G. B. WAYWELU£ Ï WILKES AND S. E. C. WALKER

A likelytimeis theperiodimmediatelyafterthebattle
of Actium,c. 30-20 bc, when C. JuliusEurykleswas
rulerof Sparta, which now receivedhighly-favoured
statushavingsupportedOctavian-Augustusat Actium
(Cartledgeand Spawforth1989).
Two aspectsof thetheatre'sarchitecturedeserveto
be highlighted.One is the unusual mixed building
techniqueemployed,whichinvolvesthe combination
of layeredmud-brickand rubble-concreteas founda-
tionsfora theatreof traditionalstoneand marblecon-
struction.This makes Sparta's theatreof some inter-
est in the transitionfromGreek to Roman building
practicein Greece.

Fig. Q.j (above) Sparta

theatre.UpperstaircaseV with
seat-blocks ofupperrows15-17
inpositionon left.

Fig. ç.8 (left) Doric columns

fromuppercolonnadeofSparta
theatre;besidethem,spiral
flutedcolumnspossibly from
facade ofFlavian stage-building.

Fig. g.g (below) Sparta

theatre.Dividingwall between
centraland WroomsofFlavian
stage-building,
showing
fragments ofDoric architecture
fromfirststage-buildingbuilt
intofoundations.

The otherimportantfeatureis the Doric appear-

ance of the theatre in its original late Hellenistic
phase,as expressedin theDoric uppercolonnadeand
in the Doric order of the original stage-building.
Evidence fortheuppercolonnadewas foundin trench
VII beside staircase V (fig. 9.7). Here blocks from
uppermostrows 15-17 survivein place, restingon a
spread of mortarwhich was supportedby a curving
radial wall of concrete-bonded stones which ran
below row 14. Traces of a column settingon the top-
mostblock,c. 60 cm in diameter,suggestthata colon-
nade of Doric columnssurroundedthewalkwayat the
top of thecavea. Doric columnshaftsof Pentelicmar-
ble foundin the orchestrain 1924 are of the correct
dimensionsto have stood here (fig. 9.8). The overall (Bieber 1961: 181-2; Beacham 1991: 157-63; Sear
heightof the colonnade would have been about the 1993; Gros 1994a: 74). Given the evidence from
same as the width of the walkway, c. 4.80 m. Sparta, we may cautiously suppose that an upper
Colonnades at the top of theatresare oftenthoughtto colonnade was a phenomenonof the late Hellenistic
be a Roman feature.One occurredat the top of the Greektheatre,fromwhichit was borrowedforRoman
Theatre of Pompey in Rome, built c. 62-55 BC>^ut theatredesign.A studyof thearchitecturalremainsof
this was consideredin its day to be a Greek theatre thestagebuildingof Sparta theatre,carriedout in the
modelledon the theatreat Mytileneon Lesbos, where course of the 1994-1 995 seasons, supported
it is not yet knownwhethersuch a featureoccurred Woodward'sobservationsthattheelementsof a Doric
 THE ANCIENT THEATRE AT SPARTA 101

Fig. Q.io (right) Detail of

Doric architecturein
foundations ofSE cornerofw
roomofstage-building, showing
sectionofcolumnandfragment
ofDoric capital

Fig g.u (below) Fragments

ofDoric columns A6jj, A6j8
and A68jf builtinto
foundationsofstage-building.
Drawn byN Sunter.Scale
c. 1:20.

Fig g.12 (bottom) Part of

Doric capitalbuiltinto
foundationsofS wall ofstage-
cf.Fig. g.io. Drawn
building,
by N. Sunter.Scale c. 1:20.

^ AÄ77
^

X3? £*f±) Cvgy

y i 11 ixi a I ! '1 , 1 ! ! ! X-i

colonnaded structure,associated with the earliest
phase of the theatre,were deliberatelysmashed into
small pieces, which were incorporated within the
foundationsand fabricof the walls of thethreerooms
forming the later stage building (figs. 9.9-10)
(Woodward1930a: 159). These fragments are of a dif-
ferent(slightlylarger)scale to the Doric of the upper
< different varietiesof corniceand sima. One sima is of
colonnadeand musthavebelongedto some partof the
stage-building.The question of wheretheymay have
been placed is a complexone to whichthereis at pre-
sent no certain answer. The lower column shafts
which surviveare too large to have stood on the two
lines of poros foundationscalled C-C and CC-CC by
Woodward (discussed below in Part II by John
Wilkes). I will confinemyselfto observationson the
natureand styleof the architecture.
Fragmentshave been identifiedof almostall parts
of the Doric order, which is elegantly carved in
Laconian marble.Several fragmentary lowercolumns
(A677, A678, A683, fig. 9.1 1) give a lowerdiameterof
c. 64-65 cm and allow the reconstructionof an order
c. 5.60 m in height,assumingVitruvianproportions.
Other significant elementsidentifiedinclude a capital
block with necking-rings,echinus and abacus (figs.
9.10 and 9.12); architraveblocks (A790, A791, A722,
fig. 9.13); a triglyph(A767, fig. 9.14) and plain
metopes(A804, A805); and- most importantly - two
102 G. B. WAYWELL,J.J. WILKES AND S. E. C. WALKER

A766
'
'
' (TO A722
l
'
' [/ ^^^^ ^
H I I '-i'
A679

/
/
J ] -n
' ¿ i L
[.^...„.jt,...,) ^)~

/Vg.9./J FragmentofDoric architrave, Ay22. Drawn

byN. Sunter.Thescale is dividedin 10 cmsections. A693

(
1
AT H
;;
-:
■ •
••• :.;
•: :':
;;
A767
~J~zu
1 •; ;•■• _
j
■
ÌÌ :.: :-:
Mil 1:11 IJI I..

_ /
1

Fig. Ç.16 Threefragments sima,

ofCorinthianising
Aj86 (abovetop),A6jg (abovecentre),andAóçj
(above), withenlargeddetail.Drawn byN. Sunter.
Fig. Q.i4 FragmentofDoric triglyph,
Ajòj. Drawn by
N. Sunter. standard Doric type, with downward canted soffit
decorated with mutules and guttae (A799, A800,
A806, A793, A796, A802, fig. 9.15). The other is a
A799 Corinthianising sima decoratedwitha designof acan-
thus leaves and tendrils(A693, A786, A797, A679,
A798, fig. 9.16). Comparable simas have been found
at Corinth,belongingto Temple E of Augustandate,
and Temple F of Tiberian date, so confirmingthe
attributionof these fragmentsto the originalstage-
structureat Sparta (Scranton 1951). The existenceof
the two typesof sima suggestseitherthattherewere

r
twostoreysto thestructure,or else it facedin twodif-
ferentdirectionsinwardsand outwardsfromthe the-
atre. That the formerinterpretationof two storeys
may be correctis tentativelysupportedby surviving
fragmentsof smaller Doric shafts,which may have
F*E'9^5 FragmentofDoricsima,Ajqq, withenlarged belonged to an upper order that supported the
detailofsoffit Drawn byN. Sunter.
moulding. Corinthiansima. A finemarbleantefixwithpalmette
 THE ANCIENT THEATRE A T SPARTA
Fig. g.iy Marblepalmetteantefix builtintofoundations
Drawn byN. Sunter.
ofw wall ofstage-building.
decoration(A785, fig. 9.17), whichsurvivesbuiltinto
thefoundationsof thewestwall of thestage-building,
would have decoratedthe roof-line.
If it is true thatthe two lines of poros foundation
blocksC-C and CC-CC carriedthe trackof a rolling
stageplatform(see below,PartII byJohnWilkes),any
permanentDoric-columnedstage-buildingmusthave
been set beyondit to thenorth.This would mean that
theDoric façadewould have been alignedjust in front
of where the stage-wallof the later Flavian building
was constructed,so separatingthe originalmoving-
stage more distinctlyfromthe orchestrathan in the
later Roman phase, and in keeping with normal
HellenisticGreek theatredesign. No certaintracesof
the foundationsfor such a Doric façade have been
observed beneath the projectingstage of the later
building,althoughit is possiblethattheyonce contin-
ued theline of thenorthwall of theskanothekebuild-
ing located by Bulle withinthe west parodos (Bulle
1937:10-11). Furtherinvestigation and studyneeds to
be carried out on this aspect of the originaltheatre
(fig. 9.18).
From all this the conclusion is that the theatreat
Sparta is basicallyof late Greek ratherthan Roman
type,and thatit representsa grandioserecreationof
the fineClassical Greek theatredesign, utilisingup-
to-date features of construction techniques, and
stressingin its appearance the Dorian heritage of
Sparta under Eurykles.In additionits stage arrange-
ments may have originallyincorporatedstate of the
artmachineryof thekinddevelopedin theprestigious
temporarytheatresof metropolitanRome in the first
centurybc.
II THE FIRST STAGE OF SPARTA'S THEATRE:
RECENT OBSERVATIONS
J.Jf.Wilkes
The BritishSchool excavationsof 1992-94 confirmed
an earlierconclusionthatthemarblecavea of Sparta's
theatreis of one build and dates fromthelast decades
of the firstcenturybc, mostlikelyfromthe period(c.
30-20 bc) when Sparta was ruled by the dynastJulius
Eurykles,who enjoyedformuch of his lifethe favour
103
of the emperorAugustus(Waywell and Wilkes 1995).
In 1995 the focusof attentionof the excavatorsshift-
ed to theremainsof thestage-building,revealedbyA.
M. Woodwardin the excavationsof 1925-26 to con-
sist of a complex tangleof structuresdatingfromthe
fourcenturiesof the theatre'sexistence,subsequently
overlain by many houses of the medieval town
(Woodward1925a, 1926a).
Leaving on one side the possibilitiessuggestedby
the shortstretchof limestonefootingslocated within
the area of the stage but aligned 11 degrees fromthe
principaleast-westaxis of the theatre,we can accept
Woodward'sconclusion thatthe survivingremainsof
the firststagestructureconsistof two parallellines of
roughlydressedlimestoneblocksset 5.25 m apartand
which originallyran across the entirestage-area(his
designations C-C for the front [north] line and
CC-CC fortherear[south]line continuein use). The
single courses of blocks, which had been neither
clamped nor mortared,are set directlyupon a natural
soil of orange graveland clay.At the east end of the
stage-areathe two lines may have terminatedwith a
cross-linethat was later incorporatedin the plinth
course of theeast wall of thelaterstage-building(this
is how it appears on the published plan of De Jong
(fig. 9.18), although no referenceto it is made in
Woodward's account of the excavations,nor do the
remains at present visible give any support for the
existence of this cross-line belonging to the first
phase). At the westside of thestage-areait was estab-
lished that the rear line of blocks continuedinto the
west parodos beyond the side wall of the later stage-
building,aligned more or less with the westernlimit
of the orchestra. Here Woodward's excavations in
1927 revealedthe marble-linedpool of a laterRoman
fountain(nymphaeum'constructedlargelyof re-used
bricksbearing the stamp skanotheke, indicatingthat
they had originallybeen manufactured to build the
scenery store which had occupied the site in the first
ad
century (Woodward 1930a: 226-31). With a width
of c. 0.5 m, the blocks which make up the two lines
(C-C and CC-CC) are too narrowand appear too ill-
foundedto have supportedany major structuresuch
as the marblefaçadeor stoa in the Doric order,whose
shatteredremains form the footingsof the Flavian
stage-building(the Doric constructionis describedby
G. B. Waywellin Part I of thisreport,above, and the
Flavian stage-buildingby S. E. C. Walkerin Part III,
below).
As Woodward noted, the only evidence for what
had restedon these two lines consistsof the two con-
joining blocks of conglomeratestone set upon the
frontline (C-C) at thewestend of thestagearea (figs.
9.19-23). The correspondenceof the clamp sockets
and the alignmentof the half-roundedchannels cut
into the top surfacesof the stones indicate that the
blocks are almost beyond doubt still in theiroriginal
positions. The upper surfaces of both blocks have
104 G.Ã WAYWELU
I I WILKESAND S. E. C WALKER
Fig. g.18 Plan ofstage-building
ofSparta theatrebyR deJong,iç2Ó.
been worn smooth,and close inspectionin different
lightsmakes it hard to escape the conclusionthatthe
condition of the top surfaces and of the channels
resultsfroma heavymass beingrolledto and froover
them.Woodwardpreferredto interpretthe blocks as
rainwaterchannelsmovedto theirpresentpositionfor
laterre-use(see Appendix,below).
Althoughmuch of the frontline (G-C) has been
removedby the constructionof threemassivepiers,
withfoundationraftsof mortaredcobbles nearlytwo
metresdeep, which supportedthe projectingporches
of the columned façade of the later stage-building,
thereexiststowardstheeast end, just beyondtheeast-
ernmostpier,a fragmentof anotherchannelledblock
on thesame alignmentand at thesame heightas those
at the west end, which also appears to be in situ(fig.
9.24). This is to be distinguishedfromthechannelled
blocks on the same line furtherto the east which
belongto a laterrebuildconsistingof mortaredblocks
restingon footingsof mortaredrubble.
In 1927 the remainswere inspectedby the distin-
guishedGermanarchaeologistWilhelmDörpfeld. He
informedWoodwardthat he believed the channelled
blocksto representevidencefora 'rollingstage',citing
the term scaena ductilisused by Servius, the late
Romancommentator on Vergil(see Appendix,below).
Woodward,however, adheredto his originalbelief
still
thatthe channelswere forrainwater,a view in which
he was supported by the American archaeologist
Oscar Broneer. A few years after Dörpfeld's pro-
nouncement,HeinrichBulle publishedhis hypothesis
that the early stages of the theatresat Sparta and
Megalopolis had restedon iron-cladrollers,on which
theycould be moved sidewaysbetweenthe orchestra
and the skanothekein the adjacent parodos (Bulle
1928). In Autumn1935 Bulle, aided by the technician
WolfgangWeyhe,had made a freshrecordof the vis-
ible remainsat Sparta theatreand had carriedout new
soundingson the presumedlocationof theskanotheke
in the westparodos.Bulle's monograph,publishedin
 THE ANCIENT THEATRE A T SPARTA
1937, set out in detail the evidence for the moving
stage at Sparta (fig. 9.25). In addition to the blocks
excavatedand recordedby Woodward,Bulle located
and recorded more than three dozen channelled
blocksof conglomeratestone,mostof whichwerere-
used in the rearwall of the Flavian stage-building.A
105
Fig. 9.19 (left) Sparta theatre,
Wendofstagearea. Wall C-C
withtwochannelledblocksin
place.
Fig. 9.20 (below left) Detail of
channelledblocksin Fig. 9.19.
Fig. 9.21 (below) Detail of
channelledblocksin Figs.
9.19-20, showingalignment of
channeland clampcuttings.
soundingby Bulle at the east side of the laterRoman
nymphaeumrevealed a channelled block that was
apparentlyin situ on the line of the frontrow of
blocks (C-C), but unfortunately the line of the rear
row (CC-CC) lay beyond the limit of Woodward's
excavationof the nymphaeum and could not be inves-
tigated by Bulle. At an intermediate point Bulle
located another channelled block, which he judged
to be in situ and fromwhich he inferredthat there
had been a third row of channelled blocks on a
middle line (CCC), althoughno traceof such a third
line has yetbeen recognisedin the excavatedarea of
the stage.
So matters rested until 1986, when Caroline
Buckler publisheda paper entitled'The mythof the
moveableskenai',in whichshe soughtto refuteBulle's
thesisforrollingstages in the theatresat Sparta and
Megalopolis (Buckler 1986). Bucklerpointedout sev-
eral weaknessesin the detail of Bulle's presentation,
while expressingsupport forthe view of Woodward
and Broneer,that the most likelyexplanationforthe
106 G. B. WAYWELL,J.J. WILKES AND S. E. C. WALKER

" -*■ft" *» ^ - - -
+ + + + + + +" ^~ +
^ïïi
1

Fig. 9.22 (above) Sparta theatre,Wstagearea. Detail
ofplan of Wpierand wall C-C withchannelled blocks
inposition.Drawn byAnneH 00ton,1995. Thegrid
squaresrepresentim.
CO
Fig. 9.23 (below) Detail ofFig. 9.22, showingwall
C-C and channelled blocks.
E endofstagearea.
Fig. 9.24 (bottom) Sparta theatre,
Channelledblockinpositionimmediately to theE ofthe
easternmost porch.

" + + + +
^n

channels was rain gutters.Buckler also maintained,

followingWoodward's judgement,that the eastern-
mostblockson the frontline wereoriginaland in situ,
and thatthe differencein level betweentheseand the
two channelledblocks at the west end ruled out the
possibilityof any rollingstage. The 1995 excavations
have established, however, that these easternmost
blocks in factbelong to a later mortaredrebuildand
are not in situ,whereasa singleblockat theeast which
is in situis at the same level as the two westernblocks
(as indicatedabove). The evidenceon the ground,as
recentlyre-examined,tends thereforeto supportthe
hypothesisof Bulle rather than its refutationby
Buckler.
 THEANCIENT THEATREA T SPARTA
byH. Bulle ofthefoundations
reconstruction
Fig. Q.25 (top) hypothetical
blocksnumbered
Sparta theatre;(above) scale drawingsofchannelled
The resultsobtainedin 1995maybe summarised as
follows:
1. The linesof limestone blocks(C-C and CC-CC)
are too narrowand too ill-foundedto have
supportedpermanent architecture
of anysignifi-
cance.
2. The threechannelledblocks of conglomerate
stone,two at the west and one at the east, which
rest on the limestone blocks of the frontline
(C-C), are in situ.
3. The smoothedupper surfacesof the conglomer-
ate blocksand the roundedchannelswithinthem
are consonantwithwearcaused by a heavyrolling
structurepassingover them.
4. The criticismsof Bucklerdo not accord withthe
evidence on the ground, and the hypothesisof
some form of rolling stage constructionin the
firstphase of Sparta's theatreshould be reinstat-
ed and furtherinvestigated.
5. The conclusions outlined above, taken with the
uncertainrecord of Bulk's soundings, suggest
thatthe question is likelyto be resolvedonly by
furtherexcavationin thearea of thewestparodos.
107
and channelledblocks
for a movingstageat
by himas 2, j, 4 and 24.
APPENDIX
Woodward's
accountsof theremainsof thefirst
stage.
1925a: 148-9: '(The) wall is only one block wide and
consists of a footings-courseof roughly-dressedlime-
stone, c. 16 cm high, on which rests a course of hard
conglomerate,which is dressed smooth, and indeed
takesa highpolish. On the upper surface,along the cen-
tralaxis of the block,runs a narrowsemicircularsinking
16 cm wide and 7.5 cm deep. The foundationrests on
yellow gravelly earth, which looks like undisturbed
ground,at a level of .30 m below the Orchestra-paving'.
1926a: 190-1 (describingthe workof the 1926 season):
'But we still lack data for the reconstructionof this
buildingand have no freshclues to the interpretationof
the puzzlingchannelledblocksbuilt into the westend of
thenorthwall. If theywereforrain-water,and therefore
intendedto carryoffthe drippingsfroma roof or possi-
blya colonnade,theycannotbe in theiroriginalposition,
forthereseems to have been no buildingfromwhichrain
could drip,at this date. They mightverywell, on this
theory,be a later addition, to carryoff rainfallfroma
later structurethan the wall ... On the otherhand, if
theyare essentiallypartof theoriginalfabricof the wall,
I08 ï } WILKESANDS. E. C. WALKER
G.B. WAYWELL,

theymusthaveservedsometechnicalpurposein con- numberand varietyof the architectural elementssur-

nectionwithperformances whichis quite
at thetheatre, vivingon the site. To avoid similardifficulties, it is
withourinference
consistent thattheskenotheke
layto presumed here that a logical systemof construction
thewestof thestage.' musthave pertainedat the time the theatrewas built
and, despite the undoubted incidence of re-use of
(footnotei on p. 192):'Professor Dörpfeld,whopaida
visitto thesitein 1927,tellsme he believesthatthey building material,in subsequent periods of its use.
The formin elevationof the originalbuildingmay,at
representthe scaena ductilis(cf. Serv. ap. Verg.Georgics leastin part,be recoveredfromthesurvivingremains:
iii. 24*; Dörpfeld-Reisch,Griech. Theaterp. 138;
to findit,effortmustbe concentratedon theelements
D(aremberg)-S(aglio) s.v.Machinap.1468),and thatin
thatdo forma coherentpatternand join each other;
theearlyimperial periodtherewasno raisedstageinthe no attempthas been made to devise a reconstruction
Spartatheatre.Withall deference to an interpretation
that uses every element now on the site. The out-
offered by so greatan authority, I am stilldisposedto
believethatthesearemerelyrain-water standingproblemsmustthenbe identified,described,
channellingsP. and an attemptmade to solve them.
*'scaena autemquae fiebat,aut versiliserat aut ductilis: For some timeit has seemed likelythatWoodward
versilistuneerat,cumsubitotota machinisquibusdamcon- was mistakenin assigningthe inscribedepistyleIG V
vertebaturet aliampicturaefaciemostendebat; ductilistune, 1 691 to a colonnadebeside thetheatreor portalacross
cum tractistabulatishac atque iliac speciespicturaenud- theeast parodos,of whichno tracewas thenor is now
abaturinterior'. visible on the ground (Woodward 1930a: 202, 209).
The coincidence in date (ad 78) of the text,which
describes the gift of an unspecifiedstructure(of
Ill THE CORINTHIAN PHASE OF SPARTA'S which the epistyleformeda part) to the city of the
THEATRE Lacedaemonians by the emperorVespasian,withthe
S. E. C. Walker startingdates of the inscriptionson the east parodos
wall recordingthecareersof local worthies(Cartledge
In the study season of 1995, considerableprogress and Spawforth1989: 105), and with the apparent
was made in understandingthe Corinthianphase of dates of some of the architecturalelementslyingon
the stage-buildingof Sparta's theatre.This paper the site of the stage building,was too greatto ignore.
offersa briefaccount of the presentstate of knowl- The transformationof the stage-building,Sparta
edge, and an outlineof outstandingproblems. receivingfromthe emperora Roman typeof stage in
The stage-building was carefully studied by place of the Hellenisticbuildingdescribedabove by
Woodward, who received excellent advice from GeoffreyWaywelland JohnWilkes,surelycoincided
Edmund Wiegand on the dates of thecolumncapitals withthe fallof the EurycliddynastyunderNero and
(Woodward1930a: 178-83). However,Woodwardwas the consequent political transformationof Sparta
eventually defeated in the
interpreting phasing and froma kindof independentfiefdomwithintheRoman
appearance in elevation of the stage buildingby the Empire to a more normal Roman provincialtown,

Fig. Q.26 (a)-(c) Section,

topview,and interior
elevationofA6i8; a short
blockfromtheentablature
ofthelowerorder,showing
(b, d) howsucha block
might join A757 (= IG V
1 6gi); theinscribed
epistyle(e). Drawingsby
G. B. Waywell,inkedby
S. Bird.Scale 1:25.
 THE ANCIENT THEATRE A T SPARTA 109

Fig. Q.27 Inscribedcornice

blockfromtheE endofthe
lowerorder:(a) topview
withcutting for circular
plinth;(b) sideelevation;
(c) inscribed
fronteleva-
tion,with(dye) column
baseon a circularplinth.
Drawingsby G. B.
Waywell(a}-{c) and S.
Bird(dy-(e). Scale 1:25.

Fig Q.28 (a) Upperview

and (b)frontelevationof
epistyleandfriezeblock
fromtheWendofthe
upperorder,with(a)
mitredendswithangled
dowelcuttings {compare
Fig ç.2Ód). Drawingsby
G. B. Waywell inkedby
S. Bird.Scale 1:25.

Fig. g.2g Sparta theatre,

Wendofstagearea.
Epistyleblocks
fallenfrom
w endofscaenaefrons.

albeitwithpeculiarmagistraciesand customsredolent It was, then, very satisfactoryto discover in the

of Sparta's extraordinary past (Cartledge and
Spawforth1989: 97-104). The imperialendowment
fitswell withwhatis knownof the betterstudiedthe-
atresof Italyand thewesternprovinces,mostof them
built in the firstcenturyad, and as much a markof
Roman politicaland culturaldominationas the build-
ings of fora,temples to the Capitoline triad and the
imperialcult,aqueducts and baths (Gros 1994b).
1995 season that the finished appearance of the
inscribedepistyleblockcould indeed be matchedwith
a shortepistyle(A619), and that the mitredend and
associatedsystemof dowellingsurvivingon the upper
surface at the left end of the block was evidently
intendedto join it at rightangles to a shortblock of
similar form (compare A618, fig. 9.26), thereby
demonstratingthat the inscribedepistylemust have
I io l Ï WILKESANDS. E. C. WALKER
G.B. WAYWELU

Fig. g.jo (farleft) Reconstruction offlankingpierof

scaenaefronssurmounted bygranitecolumnand marble
composite capital Drawn byS. Bird.
Fig. g.ji (left) Reconstructedcentralpierwithcolumn
baseonplinthsurmounted byflutedshaftand Corinth-
ian capitalofPentelicmarble.Drawn byS. Bird.
Fig. Ç.J2(above) Reconstructed column fromlower
orderofstagewall,withsquareplinthand whitemarble
basesupporting unflutedcolumnshaftofLaconian
marbleand Corinthian capital.Drawn byS. Bird.
Fig. Q.J3(right) Reconstructed column fromupper
orderofstagewall,withcircularplinthand base
supporting shaftofLaconian marbleand
unfluted
Pergamenecapital.Drawn byS. Bird.
 THE ANCIENT THEA TRE A T SPARTA
been partof the projectingcolumnarfaçade set upon
the piers in frontof the stage building.To show the
textto best advantage,it mayhave spannedthecentral
intercolumniationof the lower order, though the
block was found beyond the west wall of the stage-
building(Woodward1930a: 201).
It was also realisedthatthe corniceblockscut with
circulardepressionsin the frontof theirupper sur-
faces,believedbyWoodwardto supportbases forstat-
ues (Woodward 1926a: 207), were originallyset on
these epistyles,the cuttingsholding circularplinths
supportingthe upper order,of which one example
survivesof appropriatedimensions,thoughthe sur-
vivingcuttingsare a mismatch(A535, fig. 9.27). It is
likelythata completeplain epistylewithmitredends
(A684, fig. 9.28), whichnow lies in frontof the west
end of the stage-building(fig. 9.19), spanned the
westernintercolumniation of theupperorder.Indeed,
it appears that much of the westernend of thescaenae
fronslies today near to where it fell in late antiquity
(fig. 9.29).
A new proposed reconstructionemploysthe piers
stillpartiallyintactin frontof the stage,whichwould
havebeen level,whentheoriginalcrowningmoulding
was in place,witha terracecut in thefrontof thestage
wall,on whichstoodmarbleplinthssupportinga free-
standingorderto which the projectingcolumns were
attachedby the aforementionedshortepistyles.This
is a much simpler propositionthan that offeredby
Woodward,who associatedthe piers witha laterrais-
ing of thelevel of thescaenaefrons(Woodward1926a:
195-8, 204). It is not withoutits difficulties, but in
principlemustbe correct.
Such an arrangementoffersthreepairs of project-
ing columns,and a row of twelvecolumns along the
stage wall. To the objection that the order does not
reach the ends of the stage wall (and it should be
pointedout thatthe plinthnow sittingat the extreme
east end of the wall is not in situ),it may be observed
thatthe columnarfaçade was evidentlyrelatednot to
the rooms of the stage-buildingbehind it but to the
ends of the cavea in front(fig. 9.18). Of the project-
ing columns, it may be surmised that the two
flankingpairs were of similar,and the centralpair of
different, form.From the findspotscarefullynotedby
Woodward(1925a: 146), fourshaftsof Troad granite
(of which A 301, 320 are complete) would be well
placed on the flankingpiers,and would neatlyfitfine
compositecapitalsof Laconian marble,of whichthree
surviveon the site (A 154, 289, 598, fig. 9.30). The
centralpiers would thenbe occupied by flutedshafts
of Pentelicmarble,surmountedbyCorinthiancapitals
111
of Pentelicmarbleof outstandingquality(A 151, fig.
9.31). Along the stage wall were unflutedshaftsof
Laconian marble( A 302, 309), withCorinthiancapi-
tals(A 140,668) and whitemarblebases (A 148) set on
rectangularplinths(fig. 9.32). These lastcapitalshave
rounded sepals matchingin formthe acanthusmollis
used in the smallerPergamenecapitals (A 141, 143,
146-7) which surely adorned part, at least, of the
upper order. These were set on unflutedshaftsof
Laconian marble(fig. 9.33); it is not out of the ques-
tion that spirallyflutedshafts(A 303, 307, fig. 9.8)
were used for the central part of the upper order
(Woodward 1925a: 146, fig. n; 1930a: fig. 13).
Such details,and the date of the upper order,need
more study.It is possible that the upper order was
restoredlater,perhaps at the turn of the second and
thirdcenturiesad, and thatat the same timethe but-
tresseswereadded to thesouthwall of thestagebuild-
ing to strengthenthe structure(Woodward 1926a:
302). There is also a difficultyin interpretingthecon-
structionof the frontwall of the stage-building,of
notablypoorersuperstructure thanthe side and south
walls of the rooms. Most likely it was a secondary
phase of the Flavian stage-building;like the other
walls, it rests on foundations of the deliberately
demolishedDoric elementsof the colonnadeassociat-
ed with the Augustantheatre,the location of which
remainsuncertain.
Anotherproblemarises in the assignationof bases
to the orders set on the piers (figs. 9.30-3). Three
bases survive,all set on plinthsevidentlyintendedto
fitthepiers.Two of thebases (A 625, 626) are of equal
height,and one of these(A 626) has an additionalcol-
lar which would fitthe lower end of a flutedcolumn
shaftof the sort proposed for the centralprojecting
order(fig. 9.31). Like the upper surfacesof the other
two bases, the collar is fittedwithdouble dowel sock-
ets,and it is assumed thatthe lowerend of the fluted
Pentelic shaft,apparentlynot survivingon site, had
matchingcuttings.One of theotherbases (A 152) is of
lesserheight;giventhatthe two Pentelicshaftsmight
be assigned to the other survivingbases, this third
base mighthave been intendedforone of the granite
shafts.However,as it stands,the base is too large for
the shaft,and the shafthas onlya singledowel hole in
itsbase. It is temptingto postulateherean errorin the
originalcommissioningof the architecturalelements:
therewas no difficulty withthebases and shaftsof the
central order, which were both supplied from the
Pentelicquarries near Athens,but the graniteshafts
orderedfromthe Troad did not fitthe bases sent to
Sparta fromAthens.
 IO
RomanmosaicsfromSparta
AnastasiaPanayotopoulou
Recent excavationsthat are due to the expansion of
thecontemporary cityhave broughtto lighta number
of mosaics. This paper aims at presentingthe evolu-
tionof the mosaicisti artin Sparta: the characteristic
featuresof each period, the geometricpatternsand
figurativescenes and the particularitiesof the local
workshop.
There are surprisingly fewpublicationson Spartan
mosaics. Most of the available informationcomes
frompreliminary reportspublishedin the periodicals
of either the Greek ArchaeologicalService or the
British School at Athens. The Hellenistic mosaic
representinga Triton remains the best published
(Salz-mann 1982: 40-169). Some mosaics have
appeared in Chrysanthos Christou's article 'The
mosaics of Sparta' which was publishedin the 1968
calendarof the Ionian and Popular Bank of Greece.
Other mosaics have also appeared in Chrysanthos
Christou's archaeological guide Ancient Sparta
(i960). SeveralSpartanmosaicsappearin twoarticles,
which remain essential for the study of Greek
mosaics: 'Catalogue of Roman Mosaics withHuman
Figures in Greece' by Yota Assimakopoulou-
Atzaka (Assimakopoulou-Atzaka1973) and that by
Elizabeth Waywell 'Roman Mosaics in Greece'
(Waywell 1979). The early Christian mosaics are
examined in the respective volume of the corpus
by Yota Assimakopoulou-Atzaka(Assimakopoulou-
Atzaka 1987).
During the excavations in plots of the modern
city,as well as the neighbouringvillage of Magoula,
there have been discovered to date 137 mosaic
pavementsin 98 sites.These sites covera largesector
of thecontemporary city.The boundariesof thissec-
tor comprise Lycourgou Street to the s and
Chamaretou Street to the e (there is only one site
furtherE, near the Eurotas river: Demakopoulou
1967, 202), and the slopes of the acropolis,including
the hill itself,to the n. The sitesappear denserin the
area from the sw of the acropolis to the borders
of Magoula.
Mosaics usuallycoveredthefloorsof roomsin lux-
urious houses, baths, or public buildings.In houses
theywere used to decorate triclinia,corridors,yards
and atria(Spyropoulos 1980: 136, pl. 47b). They also
decorated the apsidal rooms of private or public
buildings.The only example of wall mosaic foundin
Sparta coversa niche discoveredin the Alikakosplot
(Steinhauer1975: 74-6).
The usual techniqueis tessellatum. Recent excava-
tions have also brought to light Hellenistic pebble
mosaics.
The materialused was eithermarbleor stone from
the nearbyquarries. Sometimes the natural colours
of tesseraedid not satisfythe mosaicists.Thus, they
createdtesseraeof glass paste whichtheyused mostly
forbrightblack,olive green,darkor lightblue, crim-
son, orange, or tesserae of faience for olive-green.
Human faces were renderedin great detail by using
smaller tesserae than those used for the bodies, cut
not only in squares but also in othershapes to define
betterthe details of the face. For geometricmotifs,
they used tesseraemuch larger than those used for
figures.
From theHellenisticperiodmosaicsbegin to deco-
ratethefloorsof Sparta. The well-knownmosaic rep-
resentingTriton surroundedby other marine crea-
turesand Dionysiac scenes, togetherwith a recently
discoveredmosaic witha naturalisticscene of a feline
attackinga bull are dated to thisperiod.1
A seriesof mosaics,verysimple in theircomposi-
tionand motifs,as wellas in thecoloursused, is dated
to thefirstcenturyad. Their surfaceis decoratedwith
largeand verysimplegeometricmotifs.The tesserae,
because of theirshape and size, look more like rough
fragments of stone(fig. io.i).
During thesecond centuryad and thefirstdecades
of the third,Spartans made more frequentuse of
mosaics as floor decoration. Their composition
remainssimple:one or two geometricbordersaround
thebackgroundof themosaic,whichis also decorated
withgeometricmotifs,withoutmuch variationin the
motifsor in the colours (Steinhauer 1973-4: 283-5,
fig.i). In addition to white,which is mostlyused to
cover the backgroundof the pavement,two or three
othercoloursare also used: black,red, green,without
any colour tone variations, to compose the geo-
1. Vrakopoulou-Vretakou plot, Dioskouron Street. The mosaic
is unpublishedand all information,as well as the permission
to publish it, is due to the excavator,E. Kourinou.
 ROMAN MOSAICS FROM SPARTA
metricmotifs.Until now we knowof onlyone exam-
ple with figureddecoration (Demakopoulou 1965:
173-4, pl. 155c).
The productionof mosaics increasedmarkedlyin
Sparta duringthe thirdcenturyand especiallyin the
second half of thatcentury,possiblydue to the pros-
peritythatthe cityenjoyedat thattime.The invasion
of theHeruli in ad 267 appears not to have interrupt-
ed themosaicists'production.
At the beginning of the fourth century the
productionof mosaicscontinued,but withmoresche-
matic figuresand with large 'brush-strokes'of the
same colour,withoutsophisticatedcolour tone varia-
tions,as before,and lackinga good sense of propor-
tion (Assimakopoulou-Atzaka1973: no 64, pl. 29a).
The figureslater become even more schematicend-
ing, in the second half of the centuryas sketches
(fig. 10.2).
The productionof mosaics declined dramatically
during the fourth century but had an important
revival in the early Christian period. However, the
mosaicistsdid not stop workcompletelyeven in the
yearswhen productionwas reduced. The example in
Philippopoulos plot supports this observation.This
fourth-century pavementcontinued in use into the
sixthcenturywithseveralrepairsand alterations.An
entire section of the geometric decoration was
replaced by two panels depictingaquatic birds and,
whenin the course of anothersuch repairtheywant-
ed to representa fish,theytriedto incorporateit with-
in the geometric design (Assimakopoulou-Atzaka
1987: pl.159b). A smallfragment of mosaicof thefifth
or sixthcentury,foundin thatsame plot,is an indica-
tion of later production (Assimakopoulou-Atzaka
1987: no. 49).
As far as the organisationof the pavements'sur-
face is concerned,we should note thatfromthe first
centuryad up to the beginningof the third it is
Fig. 10.1 Lyberakosplot,detailofthemosaic(photoA.
Panayotopoulou).
1 13
actuallyverysimple. An all-over carpet covered the
floor,withone or two geometricborderssurrounding
thebackground,thelatterusuallydecoratedwithgeo-
metric motifs as well (Steinhauer 1973-4: 283-5,
fig.1).
This arrangementwas embellished, during the
thirdcentury,by the use of more geometricborders
surroundingthe background(Christou i960: fig.8),
or by adding four rectangularpanels, mostly with
geometric decoration, around an all-over carpet
design. These panels are wider than the bordersbut
theyare used in the same way.In most cases theyare
of the same width(fig. 10.3). In othercases, however,
the widthis different; thereare two narrowpanels on
thelong sides of the room,borderingthe all-overcar-
pet, and the panels on the shortersides are wider
(Nicholls 1950: fig.14). There is only one case where
theseborderingpanels weredecoratedwithfigurative
decoration.2
Concerningthe decorativepatternsof the mosaic
pavements, we note that floral motifs were not
commonlyused bymosaicistsduringtheRoman peri-
od. They would rarelycovera whole panel,beingusu-
ally laurel or ivy leaves restrictedto borders (fig.
10.4). Sometimes theyoccupied the marginbetween
the all-overcarpet design and the walls of the room
(fig. 10.2).
On the other hand geometric motifs are very
common. More than half of the mosaic floorsthat
have come to light in Sparta have only geometric
decoration.
For thedecorationof thebackgroundof an all-over
carpet tangential eight-lozenged stars were used
(Christou 1964b: pl. 138b), also intersectingcircles
(Demakopoulou 1965: pl. 153a), a grid of decorated
bands (Kourinou 1985: pl. 32a), an orthogonalpattern
of meander with swastikasand squares (fig. 10.4),
tangentialoctagonsand squares (Steinhauer 1973: fig.
5) and intersectingoctagons(Demakopoulou 1965: pl.
155c) .
Differentcircular compositions appear as well.
There are simple circles decorated with figurative
scenes inscribed into a square; the pattern known
as the 'vault design' (Christou 1964b: pl. 138a), com-
posed of a circle inscribedin a square and divided
in four equal trapezoidal panels, which appears in
Greek mosaics for the firsttime (fig. 10.3); and the
composition of an inscribed circle with a central
medallion,and dividedintomanytrapezoidalsections
(fig. 10.2).
The panels were decorated with tangentialeight-
lozenged stars, four-pointedstars, an imbrication
pattern,guilloche mat, (fig. 10.5), tangentialhexa-
gons formingsix-pointedstars, wheels of peltae, a
gridof a simpleline of tesserae,a chessboardpattern
2. Chatzisplot,LeonidouStreet.Unpublished.
114 ANASTASIAPANAYOTOPOULOU

Fig. 10.2 (left) Alikakosplot,

thepavementoftheapsidal
room{photoE1 Ephorate).

Fig. 10.3 (below)

Paraskevopoulou plot,the
Medusapavement{photo£f
Ephorate).

Fig. 10.4 (opposite) Mazis

plot,generalviewofthepave-
ment{photoE' Ephorate).
 ROMAN MOSAICS FROM SPARTA
of tangentiallypoised squares, and a chessboard
pattern ot tangentiallozenges (bpyropoulos 1900:
fig.2).
Some compositions are unique, as for example
the oblique grid, in each case with a stylized four-
petalled flower,which decorates the backgroundof
the big panel where the 'Toilet of Venus' is depicted
(fig. 10.6).
Sometimesfamiliarand rathercommon geometric
patterns,as forexample,the eight-lozengedstarsare
treatedin a differentway (fig. 10.3).
The colours used forthe geometricdecorationof
thosepavementsdated to the thirdand the beginning
of the fourthcenturyare alwaysthe same: black,red,
green,yellow,greyand white,thelast usuallyreserved
forthe background.
We have observedthat,up to the beginningof the
third century, mosaic pavements were decorated
mostlywithgeometricmotifs.In contrast,duringthe
thirdcentury,and especially in its second half, the
mosaicists decorated pavements with figurative
scenes. In the choice of pictorial themes one can
observe a preferencefor a limited repertoryof the
usual iconographicalcycles, which were common to
the rest of the Roman world in mosaics of the same
period. Certain scenes are depicted in few examples
whileothersdo not appear at all.
Scenes connectedwithmusic,poetryand the the-
atre were popular.The Muses were depicted two at a
1 15
timein foursquare panels in a pavementfoundin the
w of the city(Spyropoulos 1980: 142-3). In the cen-
tral panel of the same pavementthe ninth Muse is
presentedtogetherwith Apollo. The pavement has
been seriously damaged, so we can only identify
Ourania withKalliope, Thaleia withMelpomene, the
lyreof Erato or Terpsichoreand the double fluteof
Euterpe.
From the representationof the nine Muses in
anothermosaic floor,only Kalliope and Ourania have
been preserved.In square panels of the same pave-
ment the poets Alkman, Anakreon, Alkaios and
Sappho are represented(Christou 1964b: pl. 138c
and 139).
The scene of Orpheus charming the beasts
with his music has been found twice in Spartan
mosaics. In the best known mosaic Orpheus plays
his lyreseated among the animals depicted in super-
posed rows (Waywell 1979: fig. 42). In the second
mosaic the animals are turned to him, attractedby
his music,andthe whole scene is set against a rich
background.3
3. Papadimitriouand Nikoletos plots,Herakleidon Street.This
mosaic, as the previous one, is unpublished. I owe many
thanks to the excavator G. Steinhauer for the information
and the permissionto publish them.
1 16 ANASTASIA PANAYOTOPOULOU
Fig 10.5 Chatzakosplot,generalviewofthepavement{photoE Ephorate)
Six theatremasksare representedin a row at the n
sectionof a bordersurroundingthecentralpanel of a
pavement(fig. 104). The Three Graces decorateda
square panel (Spyropoulos 1980: pl. 48b).
Scenes inspiredby the worldof gods or demi-gods
are also oftendepicted. In the centralpanel of one
such pavementDionysos, seated in a diphros,offersa
phiale to a comic actor who bends to drink
(Demakopoulou 1965: pl. i54b-c). Exactly the same
scene is representedin one of the panels decorating
theatrium,whichwas foundin a plotveryclose to the
previous one, just s of the acropolis (Spyropoulos
1980: 136-9).4
In the scene of the 'Toilet of Venus' (Panayoto-
poulou 1989: 74-5) represented in the centre of
anotherpavement,the goddess stands in the middle
surroundedby four Cupids who are helping her to
dress and put on her jewellery.This scene is rare in
Greekand East Mediterraneanmosaicsbut verycom-
mon in NorthAfricanmosaics,wheremarineVenusis
usuallyrepresented.
Anotherpictorialcycleis inspiredby thegods' love
affairs.We have the representationof the rape of
Ganymedeby Zeus in the formof an eagle (Spyro-
poulos 1983: 90, 92) and in anothermosaic therape of
Europa by Zeus in the form of a bull (Waywell
1979: fig.46).
Pairs of gods or demi-gods decorate the square
panels of a pavementfoundto the s of the acropolis
(Spyropoulos1980: 136-9). Ares,havingleftaside his
weapons, rests in the arms of Aphrodite.Eros and
Psycheare kissing.Ariadneis representedsleepingon
the shoreof Naxos. There is also Daphne's metamor-
phosis into a laurel, to enable her to escape from
Apollo.
From theworldof thechthonicgods comes thefig-
ure of Medusa depicted in fivepavements,a rather
high proportion considering the total number of
mosaics withfigurative scenes. Only threeothersub-
jects,namelyOrpheus charmingthe beasts,the Nine
Muses and Dionysos offeringa drinkto an actor,are
repeatedmorethanonce.
The Gorgoneionis representedat thecentreof two
pavements, withtherestof the decorationsubsidiary
to it. The earliestexample of such a Gorgoneionwas
found in the Paraskevopoulouplot (fig. 10.3). The
central medallion of a large circle, inscribed in a
square, is decorated with a Gorgoneion surrounded
by a borderof particolouredscales,representingthus
a variationon the motifof a shield withimbrication
patternand a Gorgoneionin the centre.On the sec-
ond pavement, which came to light in Haghiou
Nikonos Street in front of the Alexopoulos plot
(Christou 1964b: pl. 137a, i38a-b), a Gorgoneion is
representedin thecentreof a 'vault design' pavement
facingthoseenteringthe room.
In the thirdexample the Gorgoneion had a sec-
ondaryposition.It is depicted in a rectangularpanel
4. In the centralpanel of a mosaic excavated recentlyat Valioti
plot, in Thermopylon Street, is depicted the same scene,
The informationis due to the excava-
slightlydifferentiated.
torY. Efstathiou.
 ROMAN MOSAICS FROM SPARTA 1 17

among scrolls of acanthus, which appear to have

grownfromthe same root(fig. 10.4).
The pavementfound in the Chatzakos plot (fig.
10.5) offersus a completelydifferentrepresentation
of Medusa: the beheading of Medusa, at presenta
unique scene in the repertoryof mosaics (Panayot-
opoulou 1994: 376, 378). The scene appears to relate
themythexactlyas it is told by Apollodorus.The fig-
ure of Perseus, holding his sickle in his righthand,
dominates the scene; he beheads Medusa who is
kneelingbeforehim.The herois aided by thegoddess
Athena, who holds up her shield so he can see
Medusa's reflectionin it and avoid her petrifying
glance. Behind Medusa's head Pegasus can be seen.
The figuresare also identifiedby theinscriptionswrit-
ten above or under them.The femalefigurewiththe
inscriptionAIBTH is probablythe personificationof
the country where, according to ancient writers,
thescene tookplace. The two femaleheads represent-
ed at Medusa's side are probably her sisters,
the Gorgons.
There are fewerexamples of scenes inspired by
Homer's epics, the forces of nature and everyday
life. The scene of Achilles (Assimakopoulou-Atzaka plotydetailofthegeometric
Fig. 10.6 Pergantis decora-
1973: pl. 29a) being discovered by Ulysses in the tion{photoA. Panayotopoulou).
king's court at Skyros, even though he is wearing
women's clothing,is shown on a pavementfound at
the centre of town. The returnof Briséis to Aga- medallionwitha Medusa head, while a fishdecorates
memnon,accompanied by Patroclus and Talthybius the curve-sided squares (Christou 1964b: pl. 138a).
is depicted on another pavement (Christou 1964b: Two dolphins appear in the central panel of a
137-8). pavement decorating a bath (Demakopoulou 1965:
Personificationsof the Sun, Day, Night and the Pi- 155c).
Moon decoratesquare panels of a pavement(Christou The representationof animals is less common.
1964b: pl. 140). In another the figuresof the Sun Free standinganimals are not oftenshown except in
and the Moon also emblazon the centre of a large cases wheretheyare an elementof the scene,as when
circle inscribedin a square. In the remainderof the Orpheus charmsthebeastsor in the 'Toilet of Venus'
circle the Zodiac cycle appears and in each corner, where a pigeon, the goddess' symbol, is depicted
between the circle and the square, a Wind above a half-opencase where her jewelleryis kept.
(fig. 10.2). There are also a fewexamplesof animalsconfronting
Two othermosaicsgivescenes inspiredbyeveryday each other.In a panel of the pavementthatwas exca-
life, such as a hunt and the return with the prey vatedin frontof Alexopoulos' house,twopanthersare
(Christou 1964b: 138-41). standingone on each side of a vase (Christou 1964b:
Scenes inspiredby themarineworldwerealso pop- pl. 137b).
ular. In a large rectangularpanel three Nereids are The mosaicistwould sometimesinscribethenames
depicted riding sea monsters.5In other rectangular of the depicted figuresto ensure theiridentification.
panels of the same pavementthereare cupids playing Evidence of thisappears in the beheadingof Medusa
withdolphins,fishin superposedrows and shell-fish. (fig. 10.5), theHomeric scene of the returnof Briséis
A mythical marine creature seems to have been or the representationof poets and Muses (Christou
depicted in a panel of another pavement,although 1964b: 138-41).
thereweresome problemsin identifying it due to the In studyingthe Spartan mosaics,we observesome
mosaic's bad stateof preservation.6Two superposed distinctivefeaturesin contrastwiththosefoundin the
lines of fishdecoratethreesides of a border,continu- rest of the Greek world or the Roman empire.Such
ing the series of masks thatI have alreadydescribed features include the arrangement of four panels
(fig. 10.4). Fish also decorate the backgroundof a
pavement covering one room of a bath complex
(Demakopoulou 1967: 202). In anothermosaic floor
two dolphinsconfrontingeach otherare represented 5. See noteno 2.
withinthe four semicirclessurroundingthe central 6. StavrosPergantis
plot,KyprouStreet.Unpublished.
1 18 ANASTASIA PANAYOTOPOULOU
around an all-over carpet design, the new rendition
of familiargeometricpatterns,the amazinglydiverse
and multi-colouredgeometricmotifs,originalityin
thechoice of thefigurative scenes and theimaginative
representation of well-known mythicalscenes. All
theseoblige us to conclude thata local workshopwas
active in Sparta during the thirdcentury,and espe-
ciallyin thesecond halfof thecentury.The mosaicists
of this workshop were able to create new motifs
based on the traditionof their art. On the figurai
scenes they used the copy books with patternsbut
theyvariedthem,inspiredby literature.They had the
abilityto exploit all the potentialthat theirprimary
materials could offer.Although they followed the
artisticexpressionof theirtime,some of thefigurative
scenes they created are unique in mosaic art.
Embellishing familiarcompositions with new ele-
ments,theyexpressed theirartisticerudition.They
evoke the paintingsof Pompeii and throughthem
give us a notion of what great art of the Classical
period was like.
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to expressmy gratitudeto mycolleagues
Katie Demakopoulou, Georgios Steinhauer,Theo-
dorosSpyropoulos,Zissis Bonias,Eleni Kourinou and
Yanna Tsirigoti,who kindlygave me permissionto
publish mosaics they have discoveredin Sparta and
encouragedme duringmy studies.This studyis the
subject of my doctoral thesis in progress at the
UniversityParis X-Nanterre.
 II
A RomanportraitfromMonemvasia
of theearlysecondcenturyad
Anna Vasiliki
Karapanayiotou-Oikonomopoulou
The portraithead publishedherewas foundbychance
in the storeroomof a privatehouse in the Kastro of
Monemvasia. It is inventoriedas no. 11668 m the
Museum of Sparta, where it was handed in by
employees of the 5th Ephorate of Byzantine
Antiquities.
DESCRIPTION
The head (fig. ii.i), which has a sturdyneck and a
stone tenon for insertioninto the torso, depicts a
maturebearded man lookingslightlyupwardsand to
theright,a deviationfromthe strictfrontalpose. It is
carved from a fine-grainedwhite marble, probably
Pentelic,and has a yellowishpatina. The figureit
came from was life-sized: the maximum preserved
heightof thewholesculptureis 42 cm and of thehead
25 cm. It is not well preserved:the nose is broken,the
regionsof the eyebrows,the lefteye and the lips are
abraded and the whole face is slightlychipped. The
head was carefullyfinishedand only veryfainttraces
of the rasp are visiblebehind the lobe of the leftear.
The drillwas used sparinglyfortheearholesand inner
cornersof the eyes.
The shape of the head is characterizedby the
stronglycurvedocciputand theelongatedface,which
is roughlypentagonal with the upper parts of the
cheeksaccentuated.The upperpartof theratherhigh
foreheadis covered with long thick falciformlocks,
fallingforwardsfrom the crown of the head, and
arranged in two clusters of unequal width, which
divideovertheinnerpartof thelefteye withthelarg-
er,tripartite,clusteron theleft,and thesmallerone on
theright.In bothprofileviews(figs. 11.2-3) thelocks
spread forwardsfromthe top of the head and stop
abruptlyat the ears; one lock hangs separatelyover
the temple.On the nape of the neck (fig. i i .4 seen in
back view), there are two more bands of crescent-
shaped locks runningin oppositedirections;theseare
intertwined and crownedwithfourconcentriclocksin
the formof a rosette.On the crownof the head the
hair is coarselyrendered.The renderingof the hair
above the foreheadand at theback is, in general,plas-
tic and detailed.The treatmentof the hairin thepro-
file views, however,is schematic and flat,with the
details indicated by shallow incision. The ears are
large and well-shaped,and integral with the head.
The lowerpart of the forehead(fig. ii.i) has a long
horizontalfurrowand a prominentfrontalbone. The
archedeyebrowsturndown at the sides.
The man's large eyes (fig. ii.i) immediatelydraw
the viewer'sattention.Startingwith the betterpre-
served righteye, the upper lids are heavyand fleshy
and descend abruptly,coveringthe outer corners of
thelowerlids. The eyeballsare largeand slightlycon-
vex withthe cornersof the eyes accentuated,the tear
ducts indicatedand the crescenticfoldsincised. The
freeedges of the lowerlids are renderedwitha thick
double line,and thereare bags beneaththe eyes,indi-
cationsof middle-age.
The featuresof thelowerpartof the faceare clear-
ly visiblein spiteof thedamage: a small tightlyclosed
mouth with slightlydown-turnedcorners;above the
rightcorner,small shallow incisions are just visible
indicatinga vestigialmoustache,which has not been
preservedbecause of damage in this area. Below the
mouthis a deep grooveand prominentchin.
The face was bearded.From the templessmall spi-
ral curls in lightrelief,outliningthe cheeks,descend
as far as the angle of the jaw, leaving the chin and
mouthbare. Below the jaw the curls stop suddenlyat
the level of the throat.Here too, as with the hair on
the head, the part of the beard on the rightside is
thickand evenly arranged,while that on the left is
unkemptwithflame-likecurls.
The head has a barelyperceptibleupwardtiltto the
right.Anotherfeatureis the marked prominenceof
the Adam's apple and the line tracingthe throat.
DATE
In spiteof its poor stateof preservation,thereis plen-
ty of evidence forits date. The arrangementof the
hair on the brow carefullyreproduces a favourite
designin portraitsof Augustus(thisis themostwide-
ly distributedportrait-typeof Augustus, the Prima
Porta type,which was probablydeveloped in 27 bc.
(See most recently Böschung 1993: 38-50, 64-5,
li9-9S [cat. nos. 64-217]).
The special attentionpaid by the sculptorto the
treatment of theeye regionshows thatthisworkpost-
dates the classicism of the Julio-Claudian (Kleiner
1992: 16 1-3) and already presupposes the realism
characteristicof the Flavian period (Kleiner 1992:
120 ANNA KARAPANAYIOTOU
Fig.u.i SpartaMuseumno.11668,front
view
202-3). A moregeneraldateafterthemiddleof the
firstcenturyad is supportedby a comparison with
theheadof theemperorDomitian,reworked froma
portrait of Nero, and now in the National
Archaeological Museum of Athens(Cat. no. 345),
whichis directlyderivedfroman imperial typecreat-
ed inRomeat thetimeof hisassumption of powerin
ad 81. The typepersisteduntilthe assassination of
the emperorin ad 96 (Kavvadias1890-92:247 no.
345; Daltrop,HausmannandWegner1966:37-8,97,
pl. 32 c-d; Bergmann-Zanker 1981:365-6;Datsouli-
Stavridi1985:37-8 no. 345, pls. 32-3). If,however,
the shapeof the faceand the expression are exam-
inedmoreclosely,it can be seenthatthefeatures of
the Laconianhead are verydifferent fromthoseof
theDomitianat Athens:notethesquarish, bulkyout-
lineof thehead,and theplump,fleshy skinwiththe
doublechin.
In the noble but distantair conveyedby the
Monemvasiahead,and its severeexpression, ampli-
fiedbythesmall,tightly-closedmouth,theinfluence
of the iconographyof the emperorTrajan (ad
98-117) is clearly apparent (Gross 1940; Baity
1977/1978; Jucker1984; Fittschen-Zanker 1985:
39-43nos.39-44,pls.41-8).
Fig.11.2 SpartaMuseumno.11668,right view
profile
The oval outlineof the face withits elongated
sectionfromtheeyesdownwards is characteristic
of
all theiconographicaltypesof thatemperor. The par-
ticulararrangement of thehairon thebrowcorres-
pondsto a typeof Trajandatedto ad 103/104(the
Paris1250/Mariemont type,so-calledfromthemuse-
umsin whichthechiefexamplesareexhibited: Baity
1977/78;Jucker1984:39-41;Fittschen-Zanker 1985:
40-1, no.41, pls.44-5). Eventhoughin thearrange-
mentof the hairon the browour head adoptsele-
mentsfromearlierportrait-types of Trajan, other
facialfeaturesand particularly the imprintof the
marksofoldageintheregionof theeyesarecloserto
a latertypeof theemperor, knownas the"Opferbild-
nistypus" (Gross1940:105-111;Jucker1984:47-51;
Fittschen-Zanker 1985: 43, pl. 48). Relateddetails,
suchas theshapeof theeyebrows, theheavyupper
eyelids,theimperceptible crow's-feet at theoutercor-
nersof theeyes,the bags underthe eyes,the thin,
closedmouthand thearrangement of thehairat the
sides and in back view,whichare combinedwith
a moregeneralsimilarity in the outlineof the face
and tiltof thehead,pointto a date clearlyafterad
112,whenthisimageoftheemperor wascreated.Our
suggestion of a datefortheportrait after112 is fur-
 A ROMAN PORTRAIT FROM MONEMVASIA
Fig. u.j Sparta Museumno. 11668, leftprofileview
therstrengthened by its close stylisticrelationshipto
certain figuresin the relief decorationon Trajan's
Arch at Benevento,a workdated withcertaintyto ad
114 (Hassel 1966; Rotili 1972; Fittschen 1972; Evers
1994: 56-8); these are, specifically,two portraitsin
which some scholars have recognized the future
emperorHadrian (Wegner1956: 31-2, 55, 64, pl. 1 a,
b; Bracker1968: 77-8, figs.3, 8; Bonano 1976: 83-4,
88-9, figs.159, 168; Evers 1994: 56-8).
A comparison with types of Hadrian makes it
possible to offera firmersuggestion for a closer
chronologicalattribution of theMonemvasia portrait.
In fact,even thoughin its hairarrangementand facial
featuresour head exhibitstraitsof the Trajanic peri-
od, a moredetailedcomparisonin termsof theoutline
of thefaceand themodellingof thefleshwithan early
typeof Hadrian could well argue in favourof a close
connectionof the sculpturewithsecond centurypro-
duction;thisis a typeknownas Rollockenfrisur, prob-
ably created in ad 119 and very popular in Greece
(Wegner 1956: 13-1;. Fittschen 1984; Fittschen-
Zanker 1985: 49-51 no. 49, pls. 54-5; Evers 1994:
233-4°)- The more even outline of the face, oval
rather than elongated, together with the subtle
heighteningof the upper partof the cheeks,the soft-
121
Fig. 11.4 Sparta Museumno. 11668, backview
er modellingof the fleshwith its gentle transitions,
the avoidance of mobilityof the fleshand of hard
characteristics,and the generallytranquilmood, are
sufficientevidence fordating the workto the end of
the firstor beginningof the second centuryad. One
finalcommentconcernsthe presenceof the beard in
the sculpture.It is well knownthatHadrian was the
firstemperorto be portrayedwitha beard,but in the
case of ordinarypersonalportraitsin theRoman peri-
od, men neverabandoned thecustomof havingthem-
selvesdepictedwearinga beard; hence thisdistinctive
featureof the Monemvasia head does not by itself
constitutea safe criterionforthe date (cf.recentlyon
thissubjectCain 1993: 100). Especiallyin Greece,and
more particularlyat Athens, Philopappos is shown
witha beardin thereliefdecorationof his monumen-
tal tomb,a workdated to ad 114 (Kleiner 1983; 1986;
1992: 233-5. Compare also Cain 1993: 139 no. 18 for
an unpublishedportraitof a youngman fromEleusis
datingto the late Flavian period).
ATTRIBUTION TO A WORKSHOP
As regards the provenance of the sculpture, the
appearance of the marble,consistentwith Pentelic,
initiallysuggeststhatit came froman Atticworkshop.
122 ANNA KARAPANAYIOTOU
This is also supported by its close relationshipto
othercontemporary Atticworks.
To startwith,let us citetwooverlife-sizedheads of
the emperorTrajan, one in the Piraeus Museum: no.
276 (Carducci 1933; Gross 1940: 74, 101-102, 130 no.
54, pl. 27 b; Baity1977/1978: 59 no. 67); and theother
in theAncientAgoraMuseum, no. S 347 (Shear 1933:
308, fig.17, 309 [identifiedas Claudius]; 1935: 41 1-13,
figs.35-6; Harrison 1953: 27-8 no. 17, pl. 12 [identi-
fiedas a priest];Vermeule1968: 387-388 no. 4; Baity
1977/1978: 55 no. 3). In thecase of theAgora head in
particular,in spite of the differencein size, it can be
seen thattherelationshipis morethanjust chronolog-
ical. The treatmentof the eye regionis just the same
(we may point out here the special mannerin which
the innercornersof the eyes are rendered,which is
characteristicof Attic earlysecond centuryad por-
traits;cf.Harrison 1953: 27 no. 17); and, althoughthe
arrangementof the hair above the foreheadis differ-
ent, the finishingtechnique is the same: the locks
above the broware renderedmore plastically,are dif-
ferentiated fromeach otherand terminatein finetips,
unlikethe side views,in which the continuouswavy
locks are more simply rendered. In both cases the
head is supportedon a long, sturdyneck, is slightly
tiltedup and turnedto the right,and the throatand
foreheadare wrinkled.Lastly,a cold, distantexpres-
sion togetherwith a classicizingspiritcharacterizes
bothworks.Close similaritiesare also presentedbythe
over life-size head of the emperor Hadrian in the
Piraeus Museum no. 1197, whichis attributedto the
type Rollockenfrisur (Kallipolitis 1964: 69, pl. 66b;
Zoridis 1982: 153-4 no. 8, fig.16). Here theclose cor-
respondencein theshape of thefaceas wellas theexe-
cution of the beard strengthensthe suggestionof an
earlyHadrianic date.
The associationof the head withthe workshopin
questionis confirmedbya comparisonwitha groupof
personal portraits from Attica in the National
ArchaeologicalMuseum at Athensdatingto the early
Hadrianic period; theyare the workswiththe follow-
ing inventorynumbers:372 (Kavvadias 1890-92: 253
no. 372; Hekler 1921-24: 178 fig. 62; Stern 1975:
131-2; Datsouli-Stavridis1985: 53-4 no. 372, pl. 57),
342 (Kavvadias 1890-92: 246 no. 342; Datsouli-
Stavridis 1985, 54-55 no. 342) and 3085 (a portrait
froma graverelief:Kourouniotes,K., 1911: 252, 253
figs.21-2; Hekler 1921-1924: 200-201 fig.71; Stern
1975: 67-8; Datsouli-Stavridis1985: 55-6 no. 3085,
pls. 59-60). It is worthpointingout here the similari-
tyin therenderingof thehair;in everycase incisionis
the sole methodused by the artist:deeper incisionto
differentiate the locks and shallower ones for the
detail. The particularrenditionof the hair above the
brow occurs not only in the portraits372 and 3085,
but also on the Cosmete 416 in the National
ArchaeologicalMuseum (Kavvadias 1890-92: 265 no.
416; Graindor 1915: 311 no. 6, fig. 13; Hekler
1921-24: 177, 178 fig.61; Lattanzi 1968: 38-9. pl. 6 a,
b; Stern 1975: 52, 68, 135-6, 141, 145, 154; Datsouli-
Stavridis1985: 94-5 no. 416, pls. 139-40 a-g; Meyer
1991: 227 pl. 139,2). In the case of the last one, if we
exceptthe more classicizingspiritin the renderingof
the face on the Cosmete,the relationshipboth in the
treatmentof the hair in all views and of the beard is
striking.
IDENTITY OF THE PORTRAIT
In answerto the interestingbasic question of whom
the Monemvasia head depicts,we will tryto use the
directand indirectevidenceaffordedby the work.
From what we have said above, the qualityof the
workmanshipand the typeof marblewould appear to
eliminatea Laconian origin and attributethe head
moreprobablyto an Atticworkshopor,less probably,
to a local one followingAthenianmodels.l We there-
forehave to do witha competentcraftsman, verylike-
lyAthenian, who seems to have known and been influ-
enced by the morerecenttrendsin metropolitanpor-
traitart, as representedin the imperialiconography
and the figureson Trajan's Arch at Benevento.
As to theoriginalsitewheretheportraitwas exhib-
ited, we may presumethat the head and statue were
erected in one of the Laconian cities,in the region
around Monemvasia, which flourished in Roman
times and would have belonged to the
EleutherolaconianLeague (RE 5.2 (1903) 2353 sv
Eleutherolakones (Brandis); Kennell 1985: 24-30;
Cartledge and Spawforth1989: 101, 113, 114, 138,
139, 149, 150, 173-4). At some point,in unknowncir-
cumstances,the sculpture was taken to the Kastro.
This hypothesisis supportedby the following:from
timeto timeotherfinesculpturesand workshavebeen
foundin the Kastro and the sea around it whichhave
been regardedas Laconian works.2Moreover,as we
1. The followingmay be cited as indicative:a. the sculptureno.
6702 in the Sparta Museum whichwas fishedup fromthe sea
in the Monemvasia area; b. a half-finishedmale head froma
statuettepicked up in the Kastro in 1971 (Sparta Museum
inv.no. 6462); and c. partof a Roman inscriptiondiscovered
in 1980 in the church of Ayia Sophia in the Kastro, which
probably came from neighbouring Epidauros Limera:
Hasluck 1908: 178-^; IG V 1 933.
2. For portraitsof the Roman period from Laconia, see the
appended catalogue in Datsouli-Stavridis 1987. For the
sources of Laconian marble, see, recently,Cartledge and
Spawforth1989, 169, 171.The likelihoodthat the workwas
made locallycan be ruled out, if one considersthe Laconian
workshop which made trapezophora: these were no more
than imitationsof theirAtticcounterparts,and the standard
of their workmanshiphardly surpassed that of a manual
labourer; on this subject, see Stephanidou-Tiveriou 1993:
178-81. A finalanswerto the question cannotbe given,since
no analyticalstudyhas been made of the numeroussurviving
Laconian sculptures.
 A ROMAN PORTRAIT FROM MONEMVASIA
know from writtensources and archaeologicalevi-
dence, the medieval town of Monemvasia (RE 15. 2
(1932) 1858 no. 3 sv Minoa (Fiehn). Xanalatou-
Dergalin, Kouloglou-Pervolaraki1976) was built at
the end of the sixthcenturyad by the inhabitantsof
neighbouringEpidauros Limera, a known centre of
the EleutherolaconianLeague.3
The epigraphicevidence recordingthe erectionof
statues in differentcities in Laconia during the
Roman periodgivesfurtherimpetusto thequestionof
the identity of the person portrayed. From the
inscriptionswe learn thatthose honouredwitha stat-
ue wereusuallymembersof a closed aristocracy, cen-
tred in Sparta, and who belonged to distinguished
familieswhich had received privilegesand honours
fromthe Roman conquerors.Their social supremacy
was founded on their economic prosperityand the
propertiestheyowned in differentparts of Laconia
(for the aristocratic families in Roman Sparta:
Spawforth1985, 191-258; Cartledge and Spawforth
1989, 160-5). The statuewas commissionedeitherby
the population of a whole city- in the case of the
EleutherolaconianLeague- or by a member of the
familyof the person honoured (for statues given by
Laconian cities in honour of an individual, see
Spawforth1985: 200, 205 n. 43, 208-9; and inscrip-
tions recordingEleutherolaconiancities which hon-
oured individualsfortheirservices:IG V. I. 931. 954,
955>957>958>959> l lll, I243> I246> I248- For statues
erected by the person's family,see Spawforth1985:
192 n. 3). Moreover,marblewas an expensivemateri-
al and only a cityor a rich familycould meet the cost
of commissioninga marble statue (for the prices of
statues, sarcophagi and other works of sculpture
undertheRoman Empire,see Pensabene 1983: 55-63;
Stephanidou-Tiveriou1993: 214 n. 46).
All the above evidence leads us to an admittedly
bold but not entirelyunfounded theoryabout the
identityof the subject portrayedby our head. Could
we perhapsrecognizein thefaceof thisnoble yetcold
man the personof Gaius JuliusEuryclesHerculanus,
the last importantdescendentof the great Euryclid
dynasty,one of the dominantfamiliesin Sparta and
Laconia during the Roman period [Gaius Julius
EuryclesHerculanus sv Vibullius Pius: RE x 1(1917)
580-5 no. 221 (A. Groag); PIR2 I. 302; Spawforth
1978: 249-60; 1980: 204 n. 7; Kennell 1985: 58, 64-5;
Cartledgeand Spawforth1989: 110-12, 193-4)? The
founderof thedynastywas theancestorwiththesame
name as Herculanus,Gaius JuliusEurycles,who was
the governor of Sparta in the Augustan period
(Bowerstock 1961: 112-18; Kennell 1985: 35-44;
Steinhauer 1988; Cartledge and Spawforth 1989:
97-104). This is not an arbitrarysuggestion,but is
based on the followingevidencepointingto the theo-
rythattheGaius JuliusEuryclesHerculanus,who was
born soon afterad 72 and died in ad 137/137,is the
personportrayed:
123
a) There is epigraphictestimonyto thedevelopment
of special connectionsbetween Herculanus and
the Eleutherolaconiancities,which awarded him
the honorarytitle of protectoror benefactorof
the city,and certainof them,forexample Asopos
and Gytheion,put up a statueto him(IG V, 1 971,
1172; cf. Kennell 1985: 29 n.26). At Asopos,
indeed, his statue was erected beside that of his
ancestorand namesake.
b) Herculanus was the firstGreek togetherwith
Herodes Atticus to be admitted to the Roman
Senate. As a consequence he was resident in
Rome at around the end of Trajan's reign and
would have come into contact with and been
influencedby all the artisticmovementscurrent
in theRoman capitalas well as the latesttrendsin
the art of portraiture.As we said above, the
Monemvasia head had clearly been subject to
influencesfrom early second century Imperial
iconography.
c) It has been shown,on the basis of epigraphicevi-
dence,thatHerculanuswas relatedto thedeposed
kingof Commagene,Philopappos, forwhom the
monumentaltombat Athenswas built(Spawforth
1978). Herculanus' close family ties with
Philopappos would thus explain why the same
workshop as that employed by the Eastern
monarchwas also commissionedto make the stat-
ue of the Laconian aristocrat.The influenceof
the Roman traditionon the Attic workshopis
apparentboth in the decorationof the tomb and
in the portrait(for the Philopappos Monument
see above).
d) The particulararrangementof the hairabove the
brow recalls,as we have seen, a popular type of
the Julio-Claudianperiod which was established
by Augustus (see referenceon p. 119); the reap-
pearanceof the motiflateron in the iconography
of Trajan- in the typeParis 1250/Mariemont -
has been thought to have been deliberately
devised in order to associate the new emperor
withhis gloriouspredecessor(see above, p. 120).
This conscious imitationof a motifwhich indi-
rectlyharksback to the time in which the distin-
guished founderof the Eurycliddynastylived is
also to be expectedin the case of the portraitsof
Herculanus.All the conduct of the last represen-
tativeof the dynastywas based on the principles
and worksof his famousancestor.
3. ForMonemvasia's in theByzantine
specialimportance peri-
od, see Armstrong,
Cavanagh,Shipley1992,302-3 n. 31).
ForEpidaurosLimera,see therecentcommunication bymy
colleague E. Zavvou in the Proceedingsof the 5th
International
Congressof Peloponnesian
Studies(in press).
124 ANNA KARAPANAYIOTOU
Even, however,if the work published here is not a
portraitof this distinguishedearly second century
Spartan aristocrat,it must at least depict a Laconian
noblemanwho was a contemporary of Herculanus.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The sculpturewas foundin the course of tidyingup
and cleaningthestoreroomof theZoumboulakihouse
in the Kastro of Monemvasia. It was handed over
togetherwitha Byzantinecoat of arms by the owner,
Mr Traïforos,to the custodian of antiquitiesof the
5th Ephorate of ByzantineAntiquities,Mr Skangos,
who in his turnbroughtit to the Sparta Museum. I
wish firstof all to thankthe Ephor of Antiquities,Dr
Theodore Spyropoulos, for grantingpermission to
publishthematerial,and myfellowarchaeologist,Mrs
S. Raftopoulou,formakingit availableto me. I am also
indebted to Professor K. Fittschen, Professor E.
Harrison,Dr S. Walkerand ProfessorG. Waywellfor
our discussions on particular questions of the
chronologyof Roman portraits.I also wish to thank
the conservatorof our Ephorate,Mr D. Koukoutsis,
forhis observationson technicalaspectsof the sculp-
ture. Lastly, I am most grateful to Professor G.
Kokkorou-Alevra, who read thetextof the communi-
cation and made many useful comments.The pho-
tographs were taken by my colleague, Dr V. von
Eickstedt,whomI warmlythank.The presentstudy,
in theGreek version,was includedin the Proceedings
of the 5th InternationalCongress of Peloponnesian
Studies whichwas held at Nafplioin September1995
(in the press).
 12
New findsfromSparta
StellaRaftopoulou
Archaeological activityat Sparta has been sparse,
allowing therefore the well known claim of
Thucydides(i io), thatthebuildingsat Sparta did not
havethemonumentalcharacterof theAtheniancoun-
terpartsto burden Spartan studies. Sparta has never
enjoyedthe extensiveexcavationsthattook partelse-
where in Greece. A simple statisticalanalysisof the
historicaland archaeologicalbibliographyon Laconia
clearly shows how great the divide is between the
archaeologicalrecordand thetextualevidence.All the
same, Laconian archaeologyimpressivelyillustrates
manyaspects of local history;more specifically,some
objects can illuminate Spartan society.Nevertheless,
hardlyever is materialevidence used to complement
researchconductedon any social, politicalor military
aspect (see Förtsch,thisvolume).
The 5th Ephorate for Prehistoricand Classical
Antiquitiesof Sparta has been conductingurgentres-
cue excavationson privateplots withinthe modern
cityforthe past 35 years.This activityhas uncovered
fragments of thelowercity,withdifferent phases cov-
ering a long period fromProtogeometricto Middle
Byzantine.Here I shall describefindsand conclusions
of rescue excavationswithinthe modern cityduring
1991-95, the period I spent as Epimeletriaof Anti-
1 il gimnasiodelPlatanistase il TeatroMarítimo"Stipsvotiva,
quitiesat Sparta.
At Sparta, there are no impressiveobjects; occa-
sionallyunique and importantstrayfindsare encoun-
teredin modernhouses and yards.But real interpre-
tativevalue is borne by objects found in meaningful
contextsin our excavations,and of course the ancient
ruinsthemselves.Althoughwe cannotplan our digs in
the directionwe would like to, we constantlyrecord
everything in the hope thatsome day we shallmanage
to collectall informationin a completesurveyof the
ancientcity.Such a comprehensivestudymayeventu-
ally lead us to the most desiredaim, the studyof the
evolutionof the townplan of Sparta,withits peculiar
and locally specificprocess of gradual urbanisation,
leadingto the urbantopographyof theRoman period.
I PUBLIC BUILDINGS
When workingin the lower cityof Sparta, the most
surprisingobservationis the lack of large structures
and grand buildings.Except for the baths, some of
which have always been visible,2 and some other
uncoveredin excavations,3the onlybuildingsof pub-
lic characterare Christian basilicas dated from the
fifthcenturyad onwards.4Recentlya fifth basilicawas
located and partly excavated, s of the Tomb of
Leónidas [site i] (fig. 12.1).5 Anotherpublicbuilding
must have been the peculiar trefoil-shapedstructure
partlyexcavatedby the BritishSchool in 1905. It has
been recentlyrediscovered,but was not found in a
wellpreservedcondition[site 2] (figs. 12.2-3).6 Most
1 . Yearsin parenthesis
refertotheparticular
yearan excavation
tookplace,and a numberafterthe initialsbb refersto the
numberof modernbuildingblocksof Sparta.
official
2. Visibleabovegroundwerethebathsat modernTriakosion
St. (plotDipla, bb 127): K. Demakopoulou,Deltion20 B
(1965) 173-174and Deltion21 B (1966) 155-59.The later
phasethatpresumably belongstoa Byzantine monasteryhas
beenstudiedbyCh. Bouras,Ephemeris1982,99-112.Baths
of Arapissa:A. J.B. Wace "The RomanBaths(Arapissa)",
BSA 12 (1905-6) 407-414;O. Palagia,"Seven pilastersof
HeraklesfromSparta"in S. Walker-A. Cameron(eds),The
GreekRenaissance intheRomanEmpire(1990) 187-192;M.
Torelli,"Da Spartaa VillaAdriana:le termedell' Arapissa,
FestschriftStibbe(1992) 225-232.Fora surveyof theantiq-
uitiesvisiblein theearly19thc. and recordedbytheFrench
de Morée,
Expedition(E. Blouet,L'ExpéditionScientifique
II (1824)see G. Steinhauer, Deltion28 B (1973) 170.
3 . Bathshavebeenuncoveredin theplotof the2nd Primary
School:G. Steinhauer,
Deltion28 (1973) 170 (visiblein the
19tha), and at theKarrasplot,bb 102,Th. Spyropoulos,
Deltion366(1981) 121.
4. 1. Basilicaat theHill: A. Delivorias,
Deltion24 B (1969) 138;
2. Basilica at Kirkirisplot: G. Steinhauer,Deltion 29 B
(1973-4) 287-9; 3- Basilica at Varvitsiotisplot: K.
Demakopoulou,Deltion 20 B (1965), 175; 4. Basilica at
Kleombrotou St.: A. Delivorias,Deltion24 B (1969) 135-7
(partof thecemetery); G. Steinhauer,Deltion28 B (1973)
of an
168-170(part apse withmosaic pavement)and E.
Bakourou,Deltion47 A (1992) forthcoming.
5. Asimakopoulos plot(1992),bb 16, and AgidosSt., westof
thisplot:Deltion47 B (1992) forthcoming.
6. Found at Agidos St., east of bb 8: G. Dickins,
"Topographical BSA 1905-6,435.
Conclusions",
126 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU

Fig. 12.1 (left) Mosaic oftheBasilica at Asimakopoulos

plotand AgidosSt. Detailfromthetrench at AgidosSt.
[SITE i].
Fig. 12.2 (below left) Publicbuildingat AgidosSt.
[SITE 2j.
Fig. I2.J (below) Groundplan ofthebuildingat Agidos
St. [SITE 2] as uncovered in 1ÇQ5.
 NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA 127

of itslargeblockscomefromRomanstructures, but
thelayoutas seentodaymustbe of muchlaterdate,
perhapswell into the Byzantineera. This absolute
lackof publicbuildingsamongthedomesticinsulae,
however untypicalofRomancities,suggests thatallof
themweregathered on thelowhillof theAcropolis.7
Pausanias,whovisitedSpartaaftertheregulartown
plan was applied,describesbuildingsthat housed
publicinstitutionstogether withseveralsanctuaries
withinthe cityitself,all of whichmighthavebeen
comparatively humblestructures. The manyHeroa
he sawmaywellhavebeentheHellenistic monumen-
tal tombsthat belongedto a fairlysystematically
organisedcemetery on thelowlandbetweenthehills,
whichclearlyantedatestheinstitution of theRoman
town-plan (seeinfra). Fig.12.4 Wallpainting
at GuiadasSt. [SITE7/.

All themosaicsuncovered at Spartatillnow,even

II SANCTUARIES
No architectural remainsof sanctuarieshave been
foundin recentyears,andsucha findis notexpected.
Whatremainsof theplacesof cultat Spartais usual-
lythelargedepositsof characteristicvotiveofferings:
miniaturevases and terracottaplaques. A small
depositof miniaturelakainaiand kantharoid vases
withtheoccasionallead wreathhasbeenfoundat the
s flankof the Acropolis[site 3],8 thougha large
depositoffigurines andplaqueshasbeenexcavated in
theE partofthecity,intheareaof theancienthomeof
Limnai,some 200 metresnw of the Sanctuaryof
Artemis Orthia[site4J.9Another smallcultplacehas
beenexcavateds of Toumbano,on theN sideof the
hill[site 5]. This mustbe relatedto a smallarchaic
andclassicalcemetery, witha two-storeysimpletomb,
wheresomesortof worshipwas offered, and should
thereforebe considered 10The actualcontext
a heroon.
of anotherdepositwithfigurines and plaquesis not
clear,but thepresenceof mouldspointsto a work-
shop,ratherthanto theshrineitself[site 6].11 This
ofcourseposesmanymoreintriguing questionsabout
manufacturing inLaconiaandthepresenceof
activity
withinSpartaand thepolitike
perioikoi chora.
of Hellenistic date, have been tessellatedones.
Recentlywe foundthefirstpebblemosaic,datingto
thethirdcentury bc [site 8].13 It has beenonlypar-
tiallycleanedand therefore its size and shape are
unknown: it consistsof a seriesof concentricsimple
bands, a compositionwhich is typicalof pebble
mosaicselsewhere in Greece.One of theouterbands
is decoratedwithwavepattern madeof blackpebbles,
thoughone of thecentralbandshad stylizedvegetal
decoration.However,it is notpossibleto reconstruct
theplanof thehouse(fig. 12.5).
Roman houses in Sparta were large,impressive
mansions,urbandomusin everysense.They some-
timesbecamelargecomplexeswithgardensand pri-
vate baths.They can be dividedin two different
chronological groups;theearlieronesaredatedtothe
7. Mercantileactivityhas been detectedin the area northof the
trefoilstructurein rescue excavations that took part in the
past. There may be an urban market,but the architectural
remainsuncoveredare not explicitenough forrestoringany
building.Possible site of the Makellon?: cf Varro,De Lingua
Latina V, 146.

8. Polychronakosfield.For anothervotive deposit SW of part

III DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE
Domesticremainsat Spartawerefoundthrough the
wholeareathatwe excavated, butunfortunately,
they
areso fragmentary thatit is notpossibleto makeout
the plans of the houses.It is clear though,thatin
Classicaland Hellenistictimestherewas no regular
town-plan, just like Athens,Argos,Eretriaand all
othermainlandarchaiccities.At Sparta the first
attemptat régularisationdatestotheRomanImperial
period.Hellenisticlayersarequiterich,buteventhose
aredestroyed bylaterbuildingactivity. Mosaic pave-
mentsand theoccasionalwall painting[site 7] (fig.
12.4)12remainthemostsolidevidenceof domestic
architecture
availableto date.
of the Acropolis, at Bilidas field, see Th. Spyropoulos,
Deltion 376(1982) 112.
9. This deposit,foundat StauffertSt., betweenbb 97 and 98, is
currentlyunder studyby my colleague Chr. Flouris, who is
preparinga PhD thesis on this subject forthe Universityof
Naples.
10. Zaimis plot, bb 117 A: see infra.
11. Theodoropoulos-Liokaftos plot, bb 120 A: Deltion 47 B
(1992) forthcoming.
12 . This Hellenistic wall-paintingwas found at Gitiadas St.,
southof bb 104. There are furtherwall-paintingsthatshould
be dated to the Roman period.
13. Triakosion St., south of bb 113.
128 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU
first-secondcenturyad, just afterthe foundationof
the Roman city and the establishmentof a regular
town-plan,but most of the mosaics excavatedin the
past fouryearsbelong to a local workshop,(currently
studiedby AnastasiaPanayotopoulou,cf.her paper in
this volume) and are dated to the second half of the
third and the beginningof the fourthcenturyad.
Externalwalls werebuiltof stonesand strongmortar,
but, because we have not located any staircases,it
seems likely that there was no upper floor;houses
could expand at ground level, as therewas plentyof
land availablewithinthearea of thenew town-planfor
the city.Internalwalls were of mudbrick,sometimes
decorated with wallpaintingsor even marble revet-
ment. The general layout of these domusand their
average size remain unknown. Polychromemosaic
decorationis usual in receptionrooms,but sometimes
there are furthertessellated pavements within the
same house.
A fragmentary mosaic,whichpresumablydecorat-
ed a secondaryroom of the domus,has been foundin
the N part of the modern city [site 9] (fig. 12.6).14
The centralpanel has not been preserved,but the
marblerevetmenton the walls pointsto the presence
of water:it mighthave been a courtyard.This floor
has a panel with tangentpeltae,and two symmetrical
side panels with a polychromechessboard pattern,
togetherwithparticolourscales.The centralpart,now
lost,is surroundedbya guillochemat.On theplotjust
s of thisspot,an importantmosaicwas uncoveredsev-
eral yearsago, but it dates to the fourthcenturyad,
and althoughmay belong to the same structure,it is
not clear whetherboth pavementswere in use at the
same time.15
The richestdecorationwas alwaysreservedforthe
triclinium,a roomwheresymposiatookplace. Triclinia
are distinguishedby the characteristiclayout of the
pavement,related to its function,and the arrange-
Fig. 12.5 (above left) Pebble
mosaicat TriakosionSt.
[SITE 8J.
Fig. 12.6 (left) Detail ofthe
mosaicat TriakosionSt.
[SITE gj.
Fig. 12.J (oppositeabove)
Mosaic at AgidosSt.,
[SITE 10J.
Fig. 12.8 (opposite) Mosaic at
HerakleidonSt. [SITE 11J.
mentof couches. There is a centrepiecewithcompli-
cated decorative and figurai representations,sur-
roundedby a frameof decorativepatterns.
A most impressivemosaic belongs to a triclinium
and bears a gridwithgeometricpatternssurrounding
14. TriakosionSt., betweenbb 126-136.
15. Alikakos plot (bb i"6): G. Steinhauer,Deltion 30 B (1975)
74-76. The room withthe mosaic of the zodiac circle has an
apse and a built-infountain.
NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA 129
130 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU

Fig. I2.Q (left)

Mosaic at
LycourgouSt.
[SITE 12J.

Fig. 12.10 (below)

Plan oftheatrium
at LycourgouSt.
[SITE 12J.
 NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA 131

a magnificentrepresentation of Dionysus Nim-

beatus16 [site 10] (fig. 12.7). This central grid is
framedby a garlandof laurel leaves and rectangular
panels decoratedwithtangentfour-and eight-pointed
stars.The figurativecentrepieceof Dionysus with a
Satyr and a half-nakedMaenad must depend on a
Hellenisticpainting,as the representationis an artis-
tic commenton human nature:the dark,manlybody
of the Satyr contrastsvividlywith the soft,bright
appearance of the god, and the feminineelegance of
the Maenad. The aesthetic quality of the average
Spartanmosaicis notimpressive,so thatexampleslike
thisone, despite the occasional clumsydetails,are to
be warmly welcomed. Next to this room another
mosaic with geometricdecoration has been partly
cleared. It presumablybelongs to the same domus,
althoughthe room seems too big fora courtyardand
no impluvium has been found.
Anotherrichlydecoratedtriclinium has been exca-
vatedsome 100 metresn of thepreviousone, nearthe
so-calledtombof Leónidas. Interestingly enoughthis
has anotherDionysiac subjectas centrepiece[site ii]
(fig. 12.8). Judgingfromthe scarcityof the subject
among Spartan mosaics, and the vicinityof the two
mansions, the respectivedomusowners might have
been rivals.These mosaics also indicate how impor-
tantprivatepatronagemusthave been in the compet-
itive society of Roman Sparta, and the degree this
(and its implicitsocial conflict)influencedthe local
workshop.Moreover,this pavementderives directly
from an earlier,somewhat larger and rather more
complicatedfloorthatwas excavatedat Korone, now Fig. 12. 11 Mosaic at DorieonSt. [site ijJ.
kept in the Museum of Kalamata.17 The central
panel, in 'vault design',bears a circularroundelwith thecentralpool. The restof thedecorationconsistsof
the representationof Drunken Dionysus supported intersectingcirclesthatformsaltiresand a zone deco-
by a Satyr,and accompaniedby a Maenad and a goat. rated with a vegetal scroll. The second mosaic was
Othercompartments of the'vault design'are decorat- partiallyexcavatedand mighthave belonged to a tri-
ed with wild cats and kantharoi.The whole central clinium.These are the mostsoutherlymosaics discov-
panel is surrounded by a zone of rectangularand ered to date, and it thereforeseems that this large
square panels decoratedwiththeatricalmasks,pairsof domus stood near thelimitof the Roman town-grid.
birds,varioustableanimals,a roastpig,fishand fruit. The impluvium of another,quite large atriumwas
The frame consists of geometricpatterns: tangent revetedwithmarbleslabs, while the mosaic is rather
four-and eight-pointedstars. simple, with intersectingcircles and a four-strand
Atria decorated with mosaic pavements are not guilloche[site 13] (fig. 12.1i).19 Both the nw and sw
unusualat Sparta. They are characterisedby theshal- walls thathavebeen clearedare verystrongstructures
low pool in the centre, and sometimes by marble and must have been the externalwalls,implyingthat
revetmenton the walls.They seem to have occupied a thiswas theedge of the domus:here too the courtyard
positionat the peripheryof the layoutof the urban was not centrallyplaced withinthe house. On the ne
domus.As there are no water containersunder the side of the atrium,a series of large slabs has been
courtyard, these houses must be considered
'compluviate',althoughtthe basins are usuallycalled
impluvia.
Under LycourgouSt., just n of the centralsquare 16. Foundat AgidosStr.betweenbb 9 and 16.
of the modern city,have been found parts of two
17. M. N. Valmin,The SwedishMesseniaExpeditionIII (1938)
mosaicpavements[site 12] (figs, i 2.9-1 o).18 The one
469-75.
uncoveredin its entiretycoversthefloorof an atrium,
18 . Foundat Lycourgou
St.,southof bb 37.
badly damaged by modernpublic works.It has, quite
appropriately, a friezeof sea animalsand fisharound 19. DorieonSt.,betweenbb 118and 120.
132 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU

Fig, 12,12
(left)Plan of
themosaic
gardenat
ChamaretouSt,
[SITE 14]

Fig, 12.13
(below left)
Mosaic at
ChamaretouSt.
[SITE 14]

uncovered,showingthe side of the triclinium or an

exedra, although nothing was found in the trial
trenchesdug there.
In anothercase, a roomdecoratedwithmosaicshad
a unique and mostunusuallayoutwitha quite original
decoration[site 14] (figs. 12.12-13).20 It was found
partlydestroyed,so it is noteasyto deduce itsposition
withinthe dotnus,althoughthereis negativeevidence
that this too was near the edge of the building.
Nevertheless,it is clear thatthiscourtyard,insteadof
servingas an atrium,had been convertedintoa minia-
ture garden. The layoutof a channel with cut-away
cornersoccurs in some otherlarge gardens foundat

20 . ChamaretouSt., betweenbb 41 and 46.

 NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA 133

Sparta and elsewhere.However,the owner here pre-

sumablytriedto substituteluxuryforsize, coveringall
theroomwithmosaics.In thecentreof theroomcov-
ered with intersectingcircles there is an octagonal
raised structuredecorated with a polychromeguil-
loche mat, dolphinsand sea-monsterssurroundedby
a flower-bedand a low wall, whichformsan irregular
octagonwithconcave corners.The quadrantsformed
by thecut-awaycornersare decoratedwithgorgoneia.
It is possiblethatat thecentreof the elevatedoctagon
therewas a small waterfountain.
Partsof severalancientgardenshave been excavat-
ed in modernplots. A larger,presumablypublic gar-
den was foundse of theBaths, l and mighthavebeen
the garden of the baths themselves[site 15]. It was
walled, decorated with low tower-likestructures,
bearing small shallow quatrefoilbasins, which were
furnishedwithwaterfromspouts above the wall and
whichconductedthiswatereventuallyto a largewater
channelrunningall along the wall.
Numismatic evidence shows that some of these
Roman buildingswere in use throughoutthe fourth
centuryad. All the late mosaic pavementswere cov-
ered witha characteristic fillof red earth,whichpre-
sumablycame fromthe demolitionof the walls,with
a small amountof pottery,and only some of the tiles
fromthe roof above the pavement.This suggests,I
would think,desertionof the building and gradual
destruction.
Fig. 12.14 Burial in contracted
position[SITE 16].
IV TOMBS AND BURIAL CUSTOMS
Tombs and burial customs have alwaysbeen consid- and must have formeda small familycemetery,for
ered an important part of our understandingof betweenthemstraybones werefoundas well,belong-
ancient Greek beliefs about death and the afterlife. ing presumablyto a secondaryburial.23
Nowadays theyare increasinglyused to argue about To the late Geometric period belong two pithos
both religiouspractice and social structure.Sparta, burials with rich metal offerings.A male burial with
however,formsa conspiciousgap in the availableevi- iron weapons (a sword and daggers) and bronze
dence of Greek funerarycustoms.Althoughthereis ornaments was found at Limnai24 [site 17] (fig.
some textualevidence,22actual findsdo not corrobo- 12.15), thougha similarfemaleburialwas excavateds
rateor contradictthe texts.Veryfewgraveshave been of the Acropolis,bearing a large number of bronze
excavatedat Sparta, and as theyare not alwayspub- cylindersand spiral rings,thatmighthave been used
lished,the numberof knownexamplesis surprisingly as hair ornaments[site 18] (fig. 12.16). No skeletal
low. It is possible thatburial practicesin the area are remainswererecovered,norwas thereanysignof fire,
not archaeologicallydetectable,or rather,may not be so we can plausiblyinferthattheseburialswereinhu-
easilydetectable.Over the past fouryears(1991-95) a mations. Pithosburialswenton, as is shown by the
seriesof burialshave been excavated,enrichingcon-
siderablyour knowledgeregardingSpartan customs.
Still, the numberof cases is verysmall to allow for 21. Foundat Triakosion
St.,betweenbb 126and 136.
commentsabout social differentiation. 22. For a comprehensivesurveyof the testimoniasee P.
The earliestknownburialsare a seriesin whichthe Cartledge,
Agesilaos(1987)331-343.
bodylay in a contractedposition,foundin the area of
23. Anothercontracted burialhas been foundnearthebankof
Limnai, where most of the early findsseem to con- Evrotas:G. Steinhauer,
Deltion27 B (1972) 245.
centrate.The body is carefullyplaced, witha stoneas
pillow,and othersmallerstonesaround the body,laid 24. Another pithosburialhasbeenfoundattheabovementioned
in the shape of an arc [site 16] (fig. 12.14). There are trench,nearthebankof Evrotas:G. Steinhauer,
Deltion27
fourof them known,all of them found on natural B (1972)244.
bedrockand coveredby layersrichin Protogeometric 25. See Acts of the 5th InternationalCongress for the
pottery.Three of these tombs were found together, Péloponnèse
(Nafplion1995),forthcoming.
134 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU
ofOrthiasArtemidos
Fig. 12.15 (top) Burial offerings
St. [SITE 17J.
Fig. 12.16 (above) Pithosburialat LeonidouSt.
[SITE 18].
Fig. 12.17 (above right) Marble doorofmonumental
tomb.
presenceof the well knownarchaic reliefpithoithat
havebeen foundbearingdecorationon theside visible
above groundonly.26
Typical of Sparta are two-storeytombs,the lower
partof whichwas used forthe primaryburialand the
upper for gathering the bones of earlier burials
togetherwith the old offerings.This type of tomb
explainsthe impressionPausanias gained when wan-
dering around, that the city of Sparta was full of
heroa. Two-storeytombs continued into Hellenistic
times,and to this period belong a few monumental
tombs of white marble. These were decorated with
doors of the type known fromMacedonian tombs,
imitatingreal woodendoors and usuallymade of rosso
antico,with the characteristicdetails of bosses and
handlesrenderedin relief(fig. 12.17).27
To the archaic period, and more specificallythe
firstdecades of the sixthcenturybc, belongsa simple
two-storeytomb,which later became apparentlythe
site of some sortof worship.28This cemetery, locat-
ed near a ravineand at the lower slopes of the Hill,
continuedin use untiltheRoman period [site 5]. The
archaic tomb stood above ground, with an opening
uphill on the s side. There were extensive works
around it, in an attemptto control water that went
26. Ch. Christou,Deltion 19 A (1964) 123-163.
27. For a fine Macedonian example of such a door see K.
Sismanidis,AthensAnnals of Archaeology15 (1982) 275-9.
28. Zaimis plot (1993), bb 117A.
 NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA 135

down the hill, towards the ravine. A large channel

seems to have been builtin late classical times;imme-
diatelyaroundthe tomba systemof channelsmade of
narrow'laconian' roof tiles,led rain wateraway (fig.
12.18). On one of thesetilesa largeoffering had been
deposited: twenty-twocomplete laconian vases were
carefullydeposited, afterbeing intentionallypierced,
actually'cancelled',in ordernot to be used again. The
vases compriseone oenochoe,fivelakamai, two cups,
seven deep plates,one shallow dish, one baby-feeder,
and four salt bowls (fig. 12.19). I* presumably
consistsof the serviceused at a funerarysymposium
forseven, in honour of the dead, and it was ritually
deposited next to his tomb. This importantpottery
group was preserved because at some point after
the deposition,the course of the s channel changed,
leadingwaterdirectlyto the ravineand the streetthat
run along it.
In the same cemetery,a group of simple burials
withoutofferings was found,covered withfillof late

Fig. 12.18 (above)

Two-storey tombof
ZaimisSt. [SITE 5].

Fig. 12. 1g (right)

TheLaconian archaic
vasesoffered at the
Heroon.

Fig. 12.20 (below)

Burial receptaclein the
shapeofa Krater
[SITE 21J.

fifth-earlyfourthcenturybc. This layercan be used

only as a terminus ante quernforthe burials,and the
lack of offeringsdeprives us of any more reliable
and specific dating. In the law code of Lycourgos
thereis an explicitphrasethatprohibitsnamed funer-
arymonuments,showingthatat theend of the archa-
ic period theremusthave been no monumentalburial
structures.Tomb-stones and monumentsare always
erectedin order to commemoratethe dead and pre-
servethememoryof theindividual,by demonstrating
at the same time the wealth and importanceof his
familyto thepassers-by.At Sparta,however,thereis a
markeddesire to allow no individualisationeitherof
citizens(homoioi),or of thedead. Althoughthereis no
directevidence,it is reasonableto considerthatdur-
ing the period of the Lycurgan so-called 'austerity',
136 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU
burials always took place within the city. Some of
these tombs were excavated in 1907 by the British
School, and were recentlyrediscovered[site 19].29
Anothertwo were excavated in the same area, and
one of themwas foundunlooted.This did not have a
burial in the lower chamber,but preserved a rich
group of plain hellenisticpotteryon the upper floor
[site 20].30
Krater-likestone receptaclesare found at Sparta
containingburials (fig. 12.20). Whetherthey stood
above ground or not is not certain. In one case
found in situ, an upturned Doric capital was used
as a lid, a solution which could not be considered
elegant enough to be conspicious [site 21]. In the
kraterwas placed a lead pyxis containingthe ashes
of the deceased. Simpler urns with lids are found
togetherwiththe kraters.Funeraryreliefswithfigu-
rativerepresentationsand inscriptions,quite typical
elsewhere in Greece, are very unusual at Sparta.
We have recovered only a few of them, in a
fragmentarystate; we should keep, however, in
mind the possibilitythat the anthemiareliefs had
funeraryuse.31
In the Roman period, when the citywas properly
laid out,thefirstsystematiccemeteriesappear outside
thetown,althoughthereis stilltheoccasionalindivid-
ual and isolated burial intra muros. The South
Cemetery,recentlyfoundat the sw part of the mod-
ern town,beside the riverMagoulitsa [site 22] (fig.
12.21), was in use fromthe second centurybc to the
fifthcenturyad.32 It is hoped thata detailedstudyof
theHellenisticpotterywill giveus reliablechronolog-
ical clues fortheconstructionof thefortification
wall,
as there are no domestic finds in the area. The
Cemeteryfollowsthe bank of Magoulitsa (Knakion)
and has been partlyuncoveredfor a total lengthof
morethan500 m. Most of thetombsare simple,built
of bricks and opus caementicium. There are some
graves made in simple oval depressionsdug in the
bedrock,covered with tiles. There are a few tombs
dug in the groundand plasteredwithclay,whichmay
belongto theearliestuse of thearea,but unfortunate-
ly there were no offeringsto date them. The most
importanttombs in these cemeteriesare two built
burial chambers,probablysmall family
free-standing
mausolea.The largerone, whichstood on a smallemi-
nence of the naturalbedrock,has eight or nine cist
graves,builtin the wall of the structureand presum-
ably covered with arches, with the shape of typical
therewere no individualburials in the city and the
dead weredepositedat the Apothetai,the well known
Kaiadas and other caves with precipices on mount
Taygetos.
In the area around the tomb of Leónidas an ex-
tensiveHellenistic cemeteryis under excavation.It
presumablypredates the institutionof the Roman
grid,and its tombswere foundenclosed among later
domestic structures, giving the impression that
arcosolia.There is a second familytomb,smallerin
size, with six tombs undergroundand three larger
ones at the sides of the structures.This was decorat-
ed with marble slabs and bore inscriptions,which
musthave been placed on the facade of the building,
or inside the tomb,on the visible side of the tomb.
The NorthernCemeterylocated near the thirdriver
of the area, Mousga, has tombs that date to the
Roman period (second and third centuryad), and
have preservedmost interestingly wall paintingswith
the representation of Apollo Lykeios and the
Muses.53 Two isolated familytombs,largerthan the
above mentioned,containingmarblesarcophagi,have
been foundon the peripheryof Sparta, perhapsnear
or withinthe familyestate.34
Funerary customs at Sparta seem to have been
quiteregular,withsomelocal peculiarities,liketheuse
of stone kratersand the anthemiareliefs;these show
the expected regional differentiation.There is a
sense of continuity, especiallyin the traditionof two-
storeytombs, from the Archaicto Hellenisticperiods,
despite the possible 'austerity' gap in Classical
times.The most intriguingfeatureis the refusal to
commemoratethe dead by name,althoughveneration
and worshipof the ancestorsis textuallyattestedand
confirmedby our finds. In Roman times, Sparta
becamea typicalprovincialcity,so thatburialcustoms
conformto the norm of the averagetownwithinthe
Empire, to the extent that we cannot distinguish
Sparta frommanyothercitiesof theEmpire.
Finally,we can conclude, in the light of recent
excavations,that the earlier settlementof Classical
Sparta was in the area E of the Acropolis,which was
later called Limnai, where rich Protogeometricand
Geometriclayers,togetherwith parts of the respec-
tivecemeterieshavebeen excavated.In the Geometric
period the settlementexpanded to the s of the
29. The tombsexcavatedby the BritishSchool in 1907 (A. J. B.
Wace-G. Dickins "The Tombs" BSA 1907-8, 155-168) were
relocatedat bb 124, Orphanos plot. From such a tombcomes
a fragment bearing an inscription, published by G.
Steinhauer,"An IllyrianMercenaryin Sparta under Nabis"
in J. Motyka-Sanders(ed) Philolakon,Lakonian studies pre-
sented to Hector Catling (1992) 239-245.
30. TriakosionSt., near the cornerwithAgidos St., bb 125.
31. H. Moebius, Die ornamente der griechischenGrabstelen
klassischer und nachklassischer Zeit (1968) 74-79; A.
Delivorias, in Palagia and Coulson (eds) Sculpture from
Arcadia and Laconia (1992), 205-216.
32. Mavridis plot (1994-5), DD I4&-
33. A. Adamantiou,Praktika1931, 91-96; idem, Praktika1934,
123-128.
34. Tomb at Magoula: Th. Spyropoulos,Deltion 38 B (1983) 94;
tomb at Aphissou: Ch. Christou,Praktika1963, 130-6.
 NEW FINDS FROM SPARTA
Fig. 12,21 Plan ofthe
Roman South Cemetery at
MavridisPlot [SITE 22].
Acropolis,where an importantlady was buried in a
largepithos.Finds fromthe archaic period are scat-
teredall over the N part of the modern city,though
thereare veryfewwell dated classical finds.From the
Hellenisticperiod date a seriesof burialsconcentrat-
ed in small cemeteries,thoughcontemporarydomes-
tic layers come from most of the inhabited area
includingall thehills.The Roman citywas a largeand
137
prosperousone, withpublicbuildingsgatheredon the
hill of the Acropolis,a regulargrid town-planto the
sw of them and in the neighbourhoodof Limnai,
wherevillas and factoriesfollowedthe earlierirregu-
larlayout.Roman cemeterieswerelargeand fairlysys-
tematicallyorganisedoutside of the Hellenisticand,
by that time, disused fortification wall (figs.
12.22-23).
!38 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU

« -5
<4,"«S'S SS <u tenk

a isolili
Pillili
 NEWFINDS FROMSPARTA 139

T OD4O ~
ã //[I / // 1 Wfc'

lililí
140 STELLA RAFTOPOULOU
130 years have passed since the pioneer of the
Greek ArchaeologicalService PanagiotisStamatakis,
a Laconian by birth,was sent to Sparta to gatherthe
first finds that formed the nucleus of the local
ArchaeologicalMuseum,35 and some 90 yearssince
theBritishSchool startedexcavatingdifferent sitesat
Sparta. Nevertheless, the confidence expressed in
1906 by G. Dickins36 that the BSA's 'future'
excava-
tions would solve the controversial questions of
Spartan topographyhas not yetbeen justified.There
is a lot of workahead, both on the Acropolisand in
the lower city,and the collaborationof manyschol-
ars37,and of different specialistsis necessaryto man-
age the task.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I should thank several people for supportingme
duringthatperiodand advisingme about theantiqui-
ties at Sparta. Most of the colleagues that worked
there before me were most helpful, but I should
particularly aknowledge Dr G. Steinhauer, A.
Panagiotopoulou and E. Kourinou, who always
answeredmyquestions,howeverstupidtheysounded.
They all threetaughtme a lot. The mistakesand mis-
understandingsthat remain are mine. I must also
thankT. G. Spyropoulos,presentDirectorof the 5th
EphorateforPrehistoricand Classical Antiquities,for
the years of trulyunforgettable experiencesthat he
has bestowedupon all who have passed throughthe
Ephoreia of Sparti.
35. B. Ch. Petrakos,Lakonikai Spoudai n, Festschrift
Vagiakakos(1992) 642-50; G.S. Korres, Epistimoniki
EpetirisFilosofikis
Scholis Panepistimiou
Athinon(1992-
1995)495-508.
36. G. Dickins,"TopographicalConclusions",BSA 1905-6,
431-439-
37. The formerEphorof Sparta,Dr G. Steinhauer,
is currently
preparinga studyon the Roman town-plan,while E.
Kourinouis readingfora PhD at theUniversity
of Athens
withthesubjectof theurbantopographyof Sparta.
 13
in a Greeklandscape:
Diversity
theLaconiaSurveyandRuralSitesProject
G B. MeeandW.G. Cavanagh
INTRODUCTION
The importantexcavationsat Sparta and othermajor
centres of Laconia such as Mistra, Geraki, the
Menelaion, Ayios Stephanos and Pellanes,have been
illustratedand underlinedin the papers presentedat
this conference.It is our purpose, however,to focus
attentionon the more modest archaeology of the
Laconian countryside.Laconia was and is an agricul-
tural province, and whilst, particularly in the
Classical, Roman Imperial and Palaeologue periods,
resourcesfromwithouthelped transformthe cities,
neverthelessthe relationshipof city and surround-
ing countrysideis importantfor our understanding
of the economy and history of both capital and
province.
THE TRADITION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY IN LACONIA
The resultsof theLaconia Surveyare now availablein
detail(Cavanagh et al. 1996) and it is not our purpose
to recapitulatethe Survey's findingshere. Ratherwe
wish to place the projectwithina broaderstrategyof
investigation and say somethingof the Laconia Rural
Sites Project which has grownout of the initialsur-
vey.Indeed a majoradvantageof theBritishSchool at
Athens' historicconnectionwithSparta and Laconia
has been thelong perspectivein research,allowingus
to shape a strategyinformedby traditionas well as
responsiveto advancesin scholarship.
Of course the studyof Laconia's topographygoes
back to the originsof Greek archaeologywitha long
line of research stretchingfrom Cyriac of Ancona
(Sabbadini 1910; Ashmole 1959), in the fifteenth cen-
tury,throughFourmont(Omont 1902), Leake (1830,
1846; Wagstaff1992), l'Expédition Scientifiquede
Morée (Blouet 1833,Boblaye,1836), via Tsountas and
Soteriadis(1910, 1911), Boite (1929) to our colleagues
in the ArchaeologicalService and Foreign Schools
today,and thisis to selectalmostat randomfromthe
constellation of international scholars who have
workedon Laconia. An honourableplace in thistradi-
tion can be claimed by the BritishSchool's earlypio-
neers,preceding(Loring 1895) and followinghardon
Mackenzie's 'strikingly modern'explorationof Melos
(Mackenzie 1897, quotation fromCherry 1994, 91):
Dickins (1906c), Forster (1904a, 1907), Hasluck
(Hasluck 1908), Hondius (1921), Ormerod (1910),
Scutt (1913, 1914), Traquair (1906, 1907), Wace and
Hasluck (1908, 1909), Woodward (1907), followed
before and after World War II by the important
surveys of Cook and Nicholls (1950), and by
Waterhouse(Waterhouse 1956) and Hope Simpson
(Waterhouseand Hope Simpson i960, 1961; Hope
Simpson 1966).
BACKGROUND TO THE RURAL SITES
PROJECT- THE LACONIA SURVEY
One of the strikingresultsof the 'firstwave' (Cherry
1994) of archaeologicalsurveyin Greece has been the
recognitionnot simplyof alternatingphases of settle-
ment dispersionand settlementnucleation,so much
as of fundamentally differingpatternsof occupation
in the variousphases duringthe millenniainvestigat-
ed. In theLaconia Surveywe can pointto theabsence
of settlementin the Early and Middle Neolithic-
thereis no parallel in the surveyarea to match the
important neolithic settlement at Kouphovouno
(Renard 1989) on the otherside of the Evrotas.It has
recentlybeen argued that spring-fedagricultureis a
keyto our understandingof the location of neolithic
sites in Greece (van Andel and Runnels 1987; van
Andel, Zangger and Demi track1990; van Andel and
Runnels 1995), but thereis certainlystillmuch to be
learnt before we can claim fullyto understandthe
processes.In thiscase surelythenextstep willinvolve
the excavationof a major Middle Neolithic site in
southernGreece.
Not until the Late to Final Neolithic does there
occur a colonisationof the LS area, but an unexpect-
ed one: the sites are located on or close to ratherbar-
ren limestone outcrops, no neolithic site has been
found in the area of richeragriculturalland in the
survey area. This is surely to be linked with the
colonisationof the smaller Aegean islands (Cherry
1990) and the exploitationof caves, such a marked
feature of the LN and FN in southern Greece
(Diamant 1974; Phelps 1975; Halstead 1996; Sampson
1992).
In contrasttheEarlyBronze Age, and morespecif-
icallyEH II, is markedby a much denseroccupation,
I42 C. Ä yW££
.4M) W.G CAVANAGH
s/' J) L ^,7
■^ '
■^•^
v, ,>/
- +"""+W
Fig. ij.i Map oftheS
sectoroftheLS area
showingthetwenty sites 0 1 2 3 km
selected for theLaconia
Rural SitesProject. I i
especiallyin the more southerlytractsof the LS area
(some of the sites in whatare now the bad-landsE of
the cliffsabove Aphyssou,an area thatmay well have
sufferedseriouserosion,no doubtduringor at theend
of the Early Bronze Age, as has been documentedin
otherpartsof Greece- see, forexample,the discus-
sion inJamesetal. 1994). In thisperiodmarkedlydif-
ferentpatternsof historicaldevelopmentand of set-
tlement are being recognised in various parts of
Greece thanksto recentsurveys.The strikingcontrast
betweenKeos, whichshowseffectively one EC II set-
tlementdominatingthe N part of the island, and
Melos witha scatterof small, dispersed,short-lived
farmsteads,has recentlybeen emphasised(Cherryet
al. 1991 esp. 217-32). A comparable diversityis
emergingfromsurveyson the mainlandof Greece:
the slow growth of settlement in the Southern
Argolid throughEH I and EH II might be con-
trastedwiththesudden spurtin theLS area in EH II,
also reportedfromthe Nemea survey(Cherryet al.
1988: 175). Both regions differfromthe sparsityof
EH sites reported from Boeotia and the Attic/
Boeotianborder.
The Middle and Late Bronze Ages witnessed
anotherre-mappingof settlement:the major site of
theMenelaion dominatesa distribution of siteswhich
is verydifferentfromthatof thepreviousmillennium.
The prominenceof the Menelaion, set high on its
ridge above the Evrotas, is echoed in the settingof
second-ordersites likewisepositionedon ridgeswith
precipitouscliffs;though other secondary sites sit
lower in the more fertilevalleys and basins. Once
established,manyof these sites persistforhundreds
of years,reflecting a relativestabilitywhich is unex-
f ) LACONIARURALSITES
ym Aphyssou
yi yy r /¿J/< I V14 rt ^-
I ¿fS/ffV I s ' tChrysapha
' ^ 1RVcLr f
X 7 ^ £»M y 16./
+ + 4- -
lx Li*. ^M Í 7. ï >,. ' .% i
y // /
Wi iT i i
pected giventhe fundamentalstructuralchangesthat
thesecenturiessaw (Cavanagh 1995).
Afterthegulfof theGreekDark Age a new organ-
isation slowlyemerges.Initiallywe observe this not
throughtheDark Age farmsteadslikethatat Nichoria
(McDonald etal. 1983),thoughcontemporary villages
existedacross the Evrotasat Amyklaiand Sparta, but
throughthe cult sites of the Menelaion and Zeus
Messapeus (Catling 1990). It is not untilthesixthcen-
turythat clear signs of the occupation of the land-
scape appear in the LS data, and by the fifthcentury
BCtheLS area showsthatdensityof smallsiteswhich
is so much a feature of the landscape witnessed
through intensive survey elsewhere in Greece
(Snodgrass 1987: 117-9; Bintliffand Snodgrass 1988;
Cherryet al. 1991: 327-47; Jamesonet al. 1995). The
LS findingsindicate that Sparta was evidentlynot
immune to the general economic transformation
which affectedmany other Classical states: another
blow to the view thatClassical Sparta was subject to
an economicprimitivismwhich isolated it fromgen-
eral trends.These observationstake on even greater
significance in the lightof earlyresultsfromthe very
important Pylos Regional Archaeological Project
which suggest that this patternof highlydispersed
settlementin the Classical period is not to be found
in Messenia. Somethingof the varietyof sites from
LS can be summarised: small towns such as
Palaiogoulas(LS A118 probablythe perioikicpolis of
Sellasia), the fortat Ayios Konstantinos(LS Bin),
sanctuariessuch as thatat Phagia (LS U3002), quar-
ries (e.g. LS D50, E49), bridges(e.g. LS H46), ceme-
teries (e.g. LS A120). Neverthelessthese are, to a
degree, special cases, and the majorityof sites have
 THE LACONIA SURVEY AND RURAL SITES PROJECT
been characterised as small farmsteads or rural
dwellings.
Aftera climax in the Classical-Early Hellenistic
phases, the surveydata witnessa markeddecline in
theLate Hellenisticand Roman periods.No doubtthe
politicalhistoryof Sparta had its effect:neitherthe
fort at Ayios Konstantinos nor the town at
Palaiogoulas survivedinto the firstcenturybc ; it is
not fancifulto see theirdesertionas a consequence of
the Battle of Sellasia, and of Sparta's decline as an
independentstate.In the Roman period Palaiogoulas
seems to have been replaced by two modest farm-
steads (LS A 100 and A101); indeed the area around
is not richly endowed with agriculturalland, and
the nearestmodern villages are some distance away.
In the occupation of both village and fortwe can
see a statementof the Spartan state's strategiccon-
cerns; withher militarymightuprooted,both wither
away.
At thesame timethetrendto fewersitesin theLate
Hellenisticand EarlyRoman periodshas been demon-
stratedelsewherein Greece (the evidenceis assembled
in Alcock 1993: Chapter2) we mustseek an explana-
tionin termsthatare widerthanSparta's own politi-
cal history.The sparsityof sites in the countryside
must be real, but so unexpected that archaeologists
havefelta naggingworrythattheremaybe some con-
tributory factorof a purelyarchaeologicalnaturethat
we cannot properlyexplain (again see the discussion
in Alcock 1993: esp. 49- 55). Of NorthernKeos 'it is
worthstressingthatcloselydatablepotteryis especial-
ly rarein the Late Hellenisticand Early Roman peri-
ods (second centurybc to thirdcenturyad ).' (Cherry
et al. 1991: 330). In the later Roman period small
farmsteadsonce more fill the Greek countryside,
thoughtheLS area showsa less dense settlementthan
many other areas of Greece. These findingswere
unexpectedand a closerexaminationof some of these
smallRoman sitesis merited.
THE EVIDENCE OF SURFACE SURVEY
These commentsare briefand superficial.Our inten-
tionis merelyto advertto the issues of interpretation
raised by surveyevidence. Up to now this evidence
has restedoverwhelmingly on sherddensitiesand dis-
tributions,artefacttypologyand datinganalysis;these
toolshavebeen used to estimatesitesize, sitefunction
and theperiodof occupation.Othertypesof evidence
includinggeo-chemical(Bintliffet al. 1990; Buck et
al. 1988; Cavanagh et al. 1988) and geophysical
(Gaffneyand Gaffney1986; Papamarinopoulos,Jones
and Gagalis 1990) havebeen used in combinationwith
the artefactdata, and part of our intention,in the
Laconia Rural Sites Project has been furtherto
explorethesemethods.
These data form the basis for our distribution
maps, and are interpretedwithina contextof land-
143
scape historyand historicalecology (Rackham 1983),
to be understoodin termsof our priorknowledgeof
thehistoricaldevelopmentof Laconia. Surfacesurvey
cannot claim the precision given to excavation
throughstratigraphy, large samples, precise context
and environmentalevidence, but its imprecisionis
balancedby gainsfromtheregionalscale of reference,
the largenumbersof sites sampled and the long time
perspective.
RURAL SITES
Archaeologicalsurveys have identifiedhundreds of
rural sites in Greece. It is assumed that most were
farmsteads(Cherryet al. 1991: 336-7; Jamesonet al.
1994: 249-50; Snodgrass 1990: 125-6), but can we be
certainthatthesesites werein factoccupied and were
not simplysheltersor storehouses?Were theyoccu-
pied continuouslyor only when the agriculturalcycle
made residencein the countrysidemore convenient?
Were theyoccupied by theirowners,by tenantsor by
slaves (see interalios Alcock 1993: 60-2; Alcock et al.
1994: 163; Cavanagh 1991: 113-4; Osborne 1992: 25;
Snodgrass 1987: 117-8)?
Literaryand EpigraphicEvidence
Texts and inscriptionsprovidesome evidence forthe
functionof ruralsitesin theClassical, Hellenisticand
Roman periods. Greek writerswere of course more
interestedin the city than the country.Statements
about rural settlementonly appear occasionallyand
can be ambiguousor even contradictory, as Osborne
(1985: 119) has pointedout. Nevertheless,Roy (1996:
115-6) believes that Euripides' Electra and
Menander's Dyskolos prove that therewere isolated
farmsteadsin the countrysidewhich were owned by
free peasants. Yet we should not underestimatethe
degree of controlwhichthe richwill have exertedon
the ruraleconomy.Osborne (1992: 24) calculatesthat
'7.5% or so of the populationowned 30% of the cul-
tivatedland' in Attica,whileFoxhall(1992: 157) reck-
ons that9% of the citizenscontrolledor owned 50%
of the productiveland.
It seems unlikelythatAthenswas atypical.Men of
high status leased the temple estates on Delos,
Rheneia and Mykonos in the Hellenistic period
(Osborne 1985: 125). Since the leases officially
ran for
ten years but might be held for shorter periods,
Osborne (1985: 125-6) does not believe that the
lessees would have taken up residencebut the slaves
who constitutedthe labour force might have been
based on theseestates.For theRoman period,Foxhall
(1990: 10&-11) argues that rural sites identifiedas
farmsmayhavebeen leased by tenants.From thelegal
textscollected in the Digestit would appear that the
landlord might provide expensive items of equip-
ment- such as olive and wine presses,olive crushers,
grainmillsand pithoi- while the tenantsupplied the
144 C.Ã MEE AND W.G. CAVANAGH

! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + •
-^ |

? ooooooooc5
.' GRID

* O * O *
NORTH

*O + * O * *
LJ

K<1
i O Q* +o O O
J'o
A +
° +

o*
+ + + + + + + ¿">S + + + + + .

*°* + * +
o o* o* +o u + * *
V
■• • • • -o-• ?-Q
"V ■
*O *
-°-/ u° r-,* O ♦ , O, Q /.
+ + + + +O + + + + + + ^*7
o
A

' ° *cr -çf^ç^S^ '

D +
"^^ + + +
c< f*' + + + +GRAVE+ + + +
k
^J í

+ + + + + +
n + + v*y ++/+ + + + + .

B 1 ©datum
rï l

' ' ' ' '

Fig. IJ.2 Plan ofsite
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Î1 12 ?3 14 15 16
LP i. CITRUSGROVE

ephemera.Whetherthe lack of finepotteryon sites Most of the ruralstructureson Keos werebuiltin

should be takenas an indicationof the statusof the
occupants(Foxhall 1990: 109) is a moot point(Alcock
1993: 108-9). Nevertheless, it is clear that the
presenceof equipmentwhichwould haverepresented
a major capital investmentneed not imply owner-
occupiers.
EthnographicEvidence
Whitelaw(1991 and 1994) has undertakena detailed
analysisof recentruralsettlementand land use in nw
Keos, based on documentaryand statisticaldata,
interviewsand studyof the fieldsystemsand struc-
tures.He concludesthatthereis a 'significant distinc-
tionbetweenfullfarms,and limitedactivitylocations
and structures'- that is the spitakia used as store-
houses,animalsheltersand winepresses - 'the limited
function,dispersedfacilitiesare usuallythefocusof a
limited range of activities,leaving a limited and
potentiallydistinctiverangeof debris,and also usual-
ly limitedin termsof frequencyand durationof use,
leading to only minor accumulations of debris,
usuallybelow the recoverythresholdof most surface
surveys'(Whitelaw 1994: 169). He does not believe
that a distinctioncan be made betweenthose farm-
houses which were occupied on a seasonal basis
and those which were the main residence of the
familyconcerned (Whitelaw 1991: 416-7 and 1994:
168-9).
thelater19thand early20thcenturies,apparentlyas a
resultof land reformsin the period afterthe Greek
War of Independence. The estates owned by the
archonsand monasterieswere redistributedamongst
the peasants who had farmed the land as share-
croppers (Whitelaw 1991: 428-^9 and 1994, 164-5).
Formerlythese peasants had commuted from the
Chora but theymusthave feltthatit would be benefi-
cial if theyhad a base in thecountrysideand so in time
settlementon Keos became less nucleated and more
dispersed.'Individual controlover land and agricul-
turalproduce appears to have providedan increased
incentiveforcapital and labour investment,which in
turnfacilitatedmoreefficient exploitationof theland-
scape' (Whitelaw 1994: 164). Ownership spurred
investmentbut it should be noted that the partible
inheritancesystemhad been modifiedon Keos so that
land could be keptin consolidatedblocksand not split
up (Whitelaw1991: 429).
Land Tenureand Rural Residencein Antiquity
In an economicsystemdependenton agriculture,the
practiceof partibleinheritance,in whichsons receive
an equal shareof the property,
mightseem irrational
since farmsshould become progressivelyfragmented
(Lane Fox 1985). However,as Forbes (1976: 240-7;
1989: 90-1) has demonstratedin his study of the
Methana peninsula,scatteredplots of land can min-
 THE LACONIA SURVEY AND RURAL SITES PROJECT
imise the riskof crop failureand may offerscope for
diversification if theycover differentecologicalnich-
es. There is some evidencethatland was held in dis-
crete plots in the Mycenaean period (Mee and
Cavanagh 1990: 230) and Osborne (1987: 37-40) is
sure that this was also the case in Classical Greece,
even amongstthe elite. It mightbe argued thatrural
residence would not make much sense unless the
blocks of land were contiguous (Alcock et al 1994:
147-8). But as Forbes (1995: 336-7) pointsout, rural
sites on Methana were oftensituatedat the interface
betweenfertilesoils and rockyslopes. It seems likely
that the betterland was used for the cultivationof
cereals and olives while sheep and goats would have
been pasturedon the steep slopes. Even if these sites
represent'the nodal exploitationcentres... of the
estatesof the wealthy'(Forbes 1995: 333) ratherthan
farmswhich were owned by peasants,it is clear that
their location would be energy efficientin mixed
arable-pastoralagriculturalregimes,whetherinten-
sive or extensive(Halstead 1987: 83).
It is not onlytheleast effortprinciplewhichdeter-
mines whereindividualswill live. As Osborne (1987:
54) has observed,'social structure,economic factors,
and political institutionsreact to and interactwith
the pattern and organization of settlement'.
Nucleated settlementpromotes integrationand the
developmentof communalties and obligationswhich
provideat least an illusionof securityand otherben-
efits(Alcock 1993: 105-7). Those who were resident
in the country,whetherthroughchoice or necessity,
would have had less politicalpower than theirurban
compatriots.
We can assume thatmostGreekslivedin thecity.It
is reckonedthatrural sites accounted forjust 5% of
the population of the southern Argolid in the
Classical-Hellenistic period (Jameson et al 1994:
553). The figureproposed for Boeotia is 25-30%
(Bintliff1991) and 25% forKeos (Cherryet al. 1991:
337), although Whitelaw (1994: 171-4) believes
that this is an underestimate.Nevertheless,settle-
ment in Greece could be classifiedas more or less
nucleated,ratherthannucleatedor dispersed(Alcock
1993: 61).
LACONIA RURAL SITES PROJECT
The aim of this project has been to investigatethe
surfacecharacteristicsof rural sites as rigorouslyas
possibleand therebyresolve,or at leastdefine,some of
the questions about theirfunction.In the firstphase
of the project in 1992, we revisitedapproximately
sixtyof the sites identifiedby the Laconia Survey.
These weresingleperiodsites,mostof whichcovered
less than2500 m2.We thenselected20 whichseemed
suitableforintensivesurveyand analysis(fig. 13.1).
The range of periods representedis: Early Helladic
(2), Middle/Late Helladic (2), Archaic (1), Classical
145
(4), Hellenistic (3), Roman (6) and Byzantine (2).
Twelve of the sites were examinedin the summerof
1993, eight in 1994 and there was a study season
in 1995.
The procedureadopted on each of the sites was as
follows.A five-metregrid of squares was laid out
acrossthe wholeof the site.The membersof the sur-
vey team, spaced at 5 metre intervals,counted the
number of artefactsand recorded surface visibility
along transectswhichcrossed the site and its periph-
ery.This enabled us to identifypeaks in artefactden-
sityand to decide how we would sample thesite.Then
everyartefactwas collectedfromeach of the squares.
Tile was sortedby typeof decorationand thickness,
the differentcategorieswere weighed and recorded,
and the tile was discardedon site. Sherds,stone arte-
factsand otherfindsweretakenback to our base to be
cleaned,marked,drawnand recordedon our database
for which we have used the SIR Relational DBMS.
This enables us to generatedensitymaps forthe dif-
ferenttypesof artefacton each site so thatwe can see
whetherthereis a correlationin, forinstance,the dis-
tributionof sherdand tile.
In order to identifypossible sub-surfacefeatures,
Neil Brodie undertooka geophysicalsurveyof every
site. A Geoscan FM36 Fluxgate Gradiometer was
used to detect local variationsin the magneticfield.
Readingsweretakenat 1 metreintervalsin a seriesof
20 metre grids. Soil resistivitywas measured on a
Geoscan RM 15 ResistanceMeter with a twin probe
array.The high temperaturesdid affectthe instru-
mentsand the factthat the soil was so dry impeded
the use of the resistivity
meterin our second season.
However,we tookadvantageof the much wettercon-
ditions in the spring of 1995 to complete the pro-
grammeof geophysicalprospection,except for one
site which had in fact been cut off by floods. The
resultsare still being processed but Neil Brodie has
identifiedfeatureson overhalf of the sites.
The third element in our integratedanalysis of
each site has involveddetailed soil studies under the
directionof PeterJames,assisted by JamieMerrick.
They have assessed the likelyimpactof past soil ero-
sion and deposition,and soils have been sampled for
analysis of selected elements and mineral magnetic
properties.The aim of the analyses is to determine
any spatial relationshipsbetween soil propertiesand
artefacts,and to consider whetherthe present soil
propertiesmayreflectpast humanactivitiesassociated
witheach site. Soil samples were takenat a depth of
20 cm fromthecentreof each gridsquare or fromthe
boundariesbetweengridlines.A notewas made of the
soil textureand colour, consistency,stone and root
content,and thenumberof artefactsin thetopsoilwas
recorded. In each of the grid squares sampled, the
gradientand aspect of slope, surfacesoil characteris-
tics, vegetationand soil cover were also measured.
The elementschosenforanalysiswerephosphorus(P)
I46 C. B. MEE AND W.G. CAVANAGH

Fig. 13.3 Artefact

densitieson siteLP 1

and four trace metals,lead (Pb), copper (Cu), zinc ond cluster,while the thirdoccupies squares E8-11
(Zn) and nickel (Ni). These, and a numberof other and F9-11. It was in these clustersthat the highest
elements,have been shownto occur in archaeological numbersof sherdswere recorded,so thereis a close,
soils in the Old and New worlds at concentrations if not exact,correlationbetweenthe potteryand tile
above those off-site.P, Pb, Cu and Zn are associated distributions. The roof tile was unpainted and
with archaeological sites in Greece (Bintliffet al. weighed181.85 kg. At 36 kg of tile per square meter
1990; Buck etal. 1988;Jameset al. 1997). Ni was cho- of roof,a figurewhichwe have calculatedfromcom-
sen foranalysisas an elementwhichdoes nothaveany plete tiles,thiswould have coveredapproximately5.1
obvious link with pre-industrialhuman activity.The m2. There werealso 47.85 kilosof brickand floortile,
total amount of each element was determinedby concentratedin squares B2, Bio, C3, Cío and E8.
nitric and perchloric acid digestion and atomic A highproportionof the potteryfromLPi, possi-
absorptionspectrophotometry. Low frequencymag- bly as much as 90%, is closed. There were pithos
netic susceptibility(%If)(Thompson and Oldfield sherds,especiallyin the squares definedas clusters1
1986) has been measuredin the laboratoryand along and 3, a range of amphorai,also jars, jugs and a lid.
selected transectsin the fieldby 'F probe' at 20 cm
depth and on the ground surface.A comprehensive
rangeof soil magneticpropertieswillbe measuredfor
some of the sites.
It is throughthe integrationof these different
approaches that we hope to understandhow these
rural sites functioned.As the analysisof the data is
stillin progressthis is obviouslynot the momentfor
definitivestatements,but we can offersome com-
mentsbased on the resultsfromLPi.

LRSP Site 1
The site (fig. 13.2) is in an olive grove,just e of the
Eurotas.We sampled99 squaresin totoand so thiswas
one of thelargestsitessurveyed.There is a Romantile
graveexposed in the remmawhich cuts across the E
side of the site.
Artefactdensitypeaks at threepoints (fig. 13.3).
Square Aio standsout in a clusterwhichalso includes Fig. 13.4 FollisoftheEmperorMaurice Tiberius
found
A9, B9-10 and C9-10. B2-4 and C3 representa sec- on LP 1.
 THE LACONIA SURVEY AND RURAL SITES PROJECT
Site : lpl Resistivity Survey
Comp. : lpl
Shade Plot (Clip)
Minimum 15
Maximum 50
Contrast 1 Black
Units Absolute
Fig. /J.5 Resultsof
thegeophysicalsurvey
on siteLP 1.
Open shapesincludebowls,basinsand dishes.A num-
ber of sherdspreservetracesof BG decorationand a
Hellenisticdate is likelybut not certain.Most of the
potteryshould be Roman or Late Roman and there
werealso nine Medieval sherds.A bronze coin, which
was in square D9, has been identifiedby Roger Bland
as a follisof theemperorMaurice Tiberius whichwas
struckin ad 590/591 (fig. 13.4).
Geophysicalprospectionon LPi indicateda large
magneticanomalyin squares A8 and A9, whichcon-
tinuesinto square Aio and coversan area of about 50
square metres (fig. 13.5). The maximum intensity
recorded was in excess of ioonT and suggests the
presenceof a firedstructure,such as an oven or kiln.
There is a linearmagneticanomalytraversingthe site
fromsquare H2 to square Dio, whichis also visibleas
a diffuse,high resistancefeature.This may markthe
path of an old wall or track.
The soil studiesrevealedthatthe numberof arte-
factsin the topsoil, althoughnot correlatingclosely
with the surfaceartefacts,were concentratedin the
same areas of the site,in the sw and se cornersof the
grid.This suggestionof the'reliability'of theground
surfaceartefactsas an archaeologicalindicatoris sup-
portedby the geomorphologicalstabilityof the river
terraceupon whichLPi is situated.Its age is proba-
147
Scale 1:443
Size x 2 Block Off
GreyLevels 17
Palette Positive
High
White Low
bly late Pleistocene or Early Holocene (~ 10,000
years),itssurfaceslopes at less than20,and theremma
to the E, althoughhavingcut laterallyinto the site,is
partof a largeand mainlystablegullysystemdraining
the E side of the Eurotas valley which probably
developed priorto ad 500. Thus despite some lateral
fluvialerosion,the site has been at littleriskfromsoil
erosion and the remma is likelyto have protectedit
from deposition of sediment from the valley-side
slope to the E.
The spatialpatternsof totalP, Pb, Cu Zn and of %]f
show relativelyhigh values in the s part of the grid
wheredensitiesof tileand sherdare highest.The spa-
tialassociationis particularlymarkedforP, Cu and %lf
which highlightthe two centresdefinedby the arte-
facts.However,also relativelyhighin the soil of these
areas are amounts of clay and organic matter,two
importantcontrolson concentrationsof the fourele-
mentsand on %lf.It is possiblethatthe soil conditions
had been modifiedby those who used the site. The
clay might have been broughtin when floorswere
beinglaid, whiletheorganicmattercould derivefrom
mud-bricks.
It would seem that there were two, or possibly
three,structureson LPi, whichwere certainlyin use
in the Roman/Late Roman period. The lack of
I48 ,4M) W.G CAVANAGH
C Ã Af££
domesticpotteryand the high proportionof storage
vesselssuggestthatthiswas notprimarily a residential
site but a complex of storehouses.The magnetic
anomalymay indicate associated 'industrial'activity
and this will be investigatedfurtheras we continue
our analysisof the data.
CONCLUSIONS
The sites which we selected had seemed to us to be
similarin characterif not date. In factwe have been
struckbythedifferences whichintensiveinvestigation
can reveal. We willcertainlybe able to refineour inter-
pretationof the function of these sites once we can
combinethe resultsof theartefactanalysis,geophysi-
cal prospectionand soil studies. Nevertheless,it is
clearthaton a numberof theseruralsites,and notjust
in Laconia, what you see is what you get. The entire
site is in the topsoil. Excavation would thereforebe
pointlessand the methodswhich we have developed
on our projectmaybe theonlyoptionif investigation
of thesesitesis beingconsidered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Laconia Rural Sites Survey was carried out
under a permit issued by the Greek Ministry of
Culture and we are most gratefulto the Director
of Antiquities, Dr. Y. Tzedakis, and to Dr. T.
Spyropoulos,Dr. S Raphtopoulou and colleagues of
the Ephoria for Arkadia and Laconia. We wish to
thankthe directorand staffof the BritishSchool at
Athens for their advice and assistance. Generous
grantsin supportof theprojecthavebeen made bythe
BritishSchool at Athens,the BritishAcademy,the
University of Liverpool and the University of
Nottingham.We are also most gratefulto Dr Neil
Brodieand PeterJamesforsupplyingus withdata and
informationon the geo-physicaland geo-chemical
aspects.
 14
studiesof theSpartanacropolis
Geoarchaeological
andEvrotasvalley:somepreliminaryconclusions
KeithWilkinson
INTRODUCTION
Despite a long historyof the archaeologicalstudyof
Sparta and the Evrotas Valley,comparativelylittle
attentionhas been focused upon off-sitesedimento-
logicalsequences,whichcould providedata to recon-
structpast archaeologicallandscapes. It is true that
the Lvrotas Valley was included within Bintlin s
(1977) surveyof laterHolocene 'YoungerFill' deposi-
tion in Greece, but much of his researchwas based
eitheron accountsof previousarchaeologicalexcava-
tions,or the studyof chance exposureswithinirriga-
tionditchesand othersuch features.It is also truethat
the Laconia Survey of the 1980s included the map-
ping of contemporarysoils and also the examination
of sequences exposed by agricultural activities
(Cavanaghetal. 1996 and forthcoming). However,the
Laconia Survey area did not extendinto the Evrotas
Valley(except veryslightly,to the N of Sparta), and
thereforedid not include the complex Pliocene-
Holocene fluvialsequences dominatingthe valleys of
the town.Thus at presentverylittleis knownof the
sedimentationregimethatoperatedin Sparta and the
EvrotasValleyeven withinthe most recentgeological
time span (i.e. the Holocene, 10,000 BP-present),
whileon currentdata it is impossibleto separatemany
Pliocene sedimentsfromthose accumulatingin the
Pleistocene. This situation is unfortunateas the
detailedarchaeologicalfindingsfromSparta's acropo-
lis hill,theMenelaion,Amyklaiand Mistrascannotbe
set withina knowncontemporarylandscape. Instead
actualistic assumptions have been made (i.e. what
existsnow also existedin the past: Stoddart1986), or
otherwise the Bintliff model and its associated
chronology has been used uncritically.Even the
inabilityto separate Pleistocene fromPliocene sedi-
ments has implicationsfor studyingthe Palaeolithic
period in the area, and it is no surprise that few
remains of this period have been found, especially
withinthe centreof the valley.
One of the major problemscaused by the present
lack of knowledgeof sedimentaccumulationis the
patternof site distributionwithinthe EvrotasValley.
For example,whyare the majorityof sites foundon
hillocksor slightrises above the restof the valley?Is
it because that is their 'real' distribution,i.e. the
remainingpartof the valleywas unoccupied,and was
too valuable as agricultural land to be used for
habitation?Or, is it because formersites in the valley
have become covered by thick sequences of later
sedimentsand are thereforeinvisible?Alternatively,
have the sites simplybeen removed by later erosive
processes? Until a detailed model illustratinghow
sedimentaccumulationwithinthe valley took place
and linked to a chronologyreconstructedfromthe
use of absolute dating techniques (e.g. C14and the
Lumin-escence series of techniques),can be formu-
lated, it is not possible even to begin answeringthese
questions.
In orderto providesuch a model, a programmeof
geoarchaeological investigationwas begun by the
author in 1995. This initiallyinvolved the detailed
studyof a single archaeologicalsite,that would pro-
vide a test bed for a suite of techniques commonly
used in Northern Europe, but rarely used in the
Mediterranean region. The site selected was the
Roman Theatre at Sparta, the architecturaldevelop-
ment of which was then a subject of study by
ProfessorsWilkes (UCL) and Waywell (KCL), and
Dr. Walker(BritishMuseum). Subsequently,in 1996,
a startwas made on a wider surveyof longer time
scale sequences withinthe Evrotas Valleyadjacent to
Sparta. This paper providesa preliminary synthesisof
the surveywork,and a more detailed account of the
application of select sedimentologicaltechniques to
two stratatypeswithinthe theatre.
GEOLOGICAL
STRATA
OF SPARTA
ANDTHE
EVROTAS
VALLEY
The geologyof the Evrotas Valleyhas been the sub-
ject of severalstudies,and a reasonablyaccuratepic-
ture can be built up of the sequence stratigraphy of
featuresthatprojectabove the valleyfloor,including
the acropolishill (fig. 14.1). However,because of the
lack of exposures,and the absence of reliable bore-
hole data, little is known of either the nature or
chronologyof deposition in the base of the valley
itself.
Depositionalhistory
The EvrotasValleyis a gianttectonictroughformed
priorto the Pliocene. The processis stillongoingand
is causing the Parnon and Taygetos massifsto rise
150 KEITH WILKINSON

SSSSsS Present
Evrotas
channel / ' ' ^^Vvv^^. >v■ " • ■ ' •

Modem
settlement ' •
/// /^>^Jyr~>^~-*-x jSy ^v

"Neogene" V- . ' . '

^^^ '

"Alluvium" and"Younger"
("Older" fill) / I /•
^^/^"X ^^^^i

Fig. 14.i Thegeologyof

theEvrotasvalley.
 GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SPARTAN ACROPLIS AND EVROTAS VALLEY
whilethevalleyfloorfalls(Philippson 1959). This has
caused erosionof thevalleysides,leadingto theaccu-
mulationof poorlysortedcolluvialmaterialin theval-
ley.During thePliocene therewas a marinetransgres-
sion causingwidespreaddepositionof distinctivebed-
ded gravels,mudstonesand sands- whichcan be seen
todayin the massivesectionsbelow the Menelaion. A
subsequentregressionduringthe laterPliocene led to
several phases of fan formation,a series of deposits
thatare collectivelyknownas the 'Neogene' (a partic-
ularlyunfortunate termas it is also used as a timedivi-
sion (epoch) fora stage of the Tertiary).These allu-
vial deposits are probably not true fans {sensu
Collinson 1986), but are fluvialrhythmites deposited
in a riverine environment by a proto-Evrotas.
Examples of such depositscan be seen in sectionsin
the central ridge to the N of Sparta town and the
acropolishill.
At theveryend of thePliocene and duringthesub-
sequent Pleistocene, erosion of the Neogene took
place as three phases of glacis formation (van
Berghem and Fiselier forthcoming).The lattertwo
phases (glacis d'accumulation)caused the formation
from re-deposited Neogene of the hillocks in the
Evrotas Valley,such as that on which the site of
Amyklaistands.These featureshave been correlated
withBintliff 's (1977) 'Older Fill', or red beds, by van
Berghemand Fiselier(forthcoming). During thelater
Pleistocene and in the subsequent Holocene, the
hillocksand elementsof the centralridge were dis-
sectedby fluvialprocessesrelatingto theriverEvrotas
and its tributaries.For example,it is likelythatin the
later Pleistocene the acropolis hill became detached
fromtheremainingpartof thecentralridgeby action
of the Mousga Torrent.A formerchannelof the tor-
rentwas noted some 10 m higherand 50 m e of its
present course during survey work carried out in
1996. At present the date of this palaeochannel is
unknown, although it is hoped that Optically
StimulatedLuminescence(OSL) determinations car-
ried out in 1998 on thechannelsedimentswillresolve
the chronologicalproblems.
During the last two millennia,furtheralluvial and
colluvial deposition has taken place in the Evrotas
Valley. The exact mechanism by which this has
occurred has been the subject of intense debate.
Climaticchange,and in particularrainfallvariationis
thoughtto be themajorcontributing factorby Bintliff
(1975; 1977). He notedthatceramicsfoundwithinthe
fewexposuresof this 'YoungerFill' {sensuVita Finzi
1969) knownin the Evrotas Valley are all of similar
age, indicating synchronousdeposition that could
only have taken place by processes operating at a
regional level, and thereforecould only have been
caused by climate change. However, this thesis has
been counteredby Wagstaff(1981) who questioned
Bintliff's chronologyand in turn suggestedthat the
depositionwas as a directresultof erosioncaused by
151
forest clearance and agriculture. 'Younger Fill'
depositsare foundthroughoutthelowerlyingpartsof
thevalley,but are absentfromthe 'Older Fill' hillocks
and the Neogene ridge, including both the town of
Sparta and the acropolis hill. No thicksequences of
'Younger Fill' have been located as much of the
Evrotas valley is under cultivationand thereforeno
sectionshave been availableforstudy.
Withthispictureof therecentgeologicalhistoryof
theEvrotasValleyit can clearlybe seen thatsediments
within the valley ultimatelyhave one of only two
sources.Firstly,if encounteredat theedge of the val-
ley, they could derive from the pre-Pliocene lime-
stones of the Parnon or Taygetos ranges,but other-
wise are of Pliocene marineand/or Neogene parent
material.Since the later Pliocene the Evrotas Valley
has been a closed systemwithlittleexternalsediment
enteringit, but insteadmaterialhas been eroded and
re-deposited.For examplefluvialgravelsof the'Older
Fill' at Amyklaiare composed of re-workedNeogene
conglomerates. Therefore all soils and sediments
(including archaeological deposits) in the Evrotas
Valleywill have common characteristicsto the in situ
Neogene. If theselatterpropertiescan be determined
and filteredout, the differencesfrom undisturbed
Neogene sedimentscan be used in interpreting how a
particular deposit formed. Hence the apparent
concentrationon the studyof geological deposits in
thistext.
of theNeogene- 'Olderfill9
Sedimentology
Samples takenfromvariousNeogene and 'Older Fill'
sectionsduringfieldwork in 1995 and 1996 have been
studied using particlesize analysis,magneticsuscep-
tibilitymeasurement,and calcium carbonateequiva-
lent,as well as detailedfielddescription.The analyti-
cal techniquesused have,in all cases, followedthoseof
Gale and Hoare (1991). Althoughboth thesurveyand
laboratoryanalysisof these depositsis so farlimited,
a fewgeneralconclusionscan be reached as to typical
sedimentstructuresand propertiesof insituNeogene.
Major deviations from these will in most cases be
indicative of re-deposition, either as a result of
Quaternaryfluvialor Holocene archaeologicalactivity.
Further laboratoryanalysis- including the use of
geochemicaland mineralogicaltechniques as well as
furtheranalysisof the typealreadymentioned - and
survey, will be able to definemany sedimentological
propertiesof the Neogene quantitativelyratherthan
qualitativelyas at present.This should allow firmer
conclusionsto be made as to how,and by whatmech-
anism re-deposition has occurred and what role
humanshave playedin thisprocess.
The Neogene as foundin the Evrotas valleytypi-
callycomprisesa seriesof distinctivefacies,consisting
of coarseningupwardsequences of clay/siltand fine
sand interspersedwith thin beds of mixed granular
clasts and coarse sands. Massively bedded gravels
152
^V
jJsTV
60 '
X^vîv ' %
¿ 50 |i ^^
' '
8 40 ^i^QOn
$ N,
^*^Ëy
0 I I I I I
-0.5 1.5 3.5 5.5
Particle
sis ( cp)
fromthetheatre
Fig. 14.2 Particlesize analysisofselectsediments
occur less frequently, usually witherosionalcontacts
to surroundingsediments.Clasts withinthesegravels
are of an extremelylimitedlithologicalrangeand are
almostalwaysroundedor well rounded.These obser-
vationsindicatethatsourcematerialof everyconceiv-
able particle size exists within the Evrotas Valley.
However,most Neogene facies,being eitherfluvialor
marine,are of well sortedsediments(withthe excep-
tionof some of the gravels),as can be seen forexam-
ple in materiallabelled as being fromthe 'yellowsec-
tion' in fig. 14.2. Sedimentscomposed of finesand,
silt and clay also commonlyexhibitsize trendvaria-
tions with depth. Magnetic susceptibilitymeasure-
ments from Neogene (fig. 14.3) indicate that %lf
values (low frequencymagnetic susceptibility)are
8 theatrebuilders.From this initialproblema further
alwaysless than20 10 m3kg1and %fd values (percent-
age frequency differencebetween low and high
frequencyreadings)less than 6%. This is in marked
contrastto Holocene archaeologicaland pedological
material.
THE DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF SEDIMENTS
INFILLING SPARTA'STHEATRE 'BOWL'
Priorto the 1995 studyseason comparatively littlewas
knownof the theatre'ssettingin relationto local geo-
morphological features,geological and other pre-
Roman strata. Indeed a particularlyimportantout-
standingquestion to be addressed was the degree to
which areas of the hillsidebeen removedduringthe
theatre'sconstructionin order to modifythe pre-
existinggeomorphologyto fitthe builders' plans. In
the fieldseasons 1992-3 efforthad been concentrated
on excavatingthroughthickByzantinesequences in
the orchestraand cavea to revealthe theatre'sseating
plan. In only two of the nine trenchesexcavateddur-
ing this time had deposits below the seating been
KEITH WILKINSON
' » ST95XIIIbasalyellow
cby
-O-ST 95XIIIred/brown
gravel
' ' -B-ST 95XIVGreen sand
', - A- Yellow
section
greensand
J.a j^ beneath
-•-Sparta- redsediments cavea
I *^- I
7.5 9.5 11.5
plottedagainstPliocenedata.
revealed (Trenches ST92/93 IV and V- both of
whichwerelocatedin theouterE cavea adjacentto the
retainingwall), and thenonly because of the absence
of seatingblocks in this particularlocation (Waywell
and Wilkes 1995). The presenceof re-depositedsedi-
ments containingLate Hellenistic ceramics in these
locations (Hayes 1995) indicated that the ground in
this area had needed raising.However,when investi-
gations were extended to the orchestraduring 1995
and 1996,observationwas possibleof depositsunder-
lying,and hence pre-datingthe stage buildings.As
partof thiscampaigna seriesof sampleswas takenfor
sedimentologicalanalysis,to determinewhetherthe
depositsbelow the stage representedin situgeological
strata,or had been deliberatelyplaced there by the
seriesof questionscould thenbe addressed:
i. From which geologicalformationdid the sedi-
mentsoriginate?
ii. How did theirpropertiescompare to those of
sedimentspreviouslystudied and dated to the
Byzantineperiod(Wilkinson1993)?
iii. If in situhow old are they?
The analysiswould also providebackgrounddata in
the studyof the sedimentologyof excavatedByzan-
tinedeposits.
Deposits post-datingthe theatrewere studied in
detail during 1992-3 in Trench ST92/93 I
(Wilkinson,unpublisheddata). The mode of forma-
tion of those deposits,which filledstone structures
post-datingthe tenth century,is relativelyeasy to
determineon morphologicalgrounds alone. These
depositsare formed,it seems, frommaterialeroding
from furtherup slope, combined with deliberately
(re)deposited ('dumped') occupation debris, and
 OF THE SPARTANACROPLISAND EVROTASVALLEY
GEOARCHAEOLOGY
industrialwaste frommetalworking activities(Powell
1995). However,below theearlieststonestructurewas
a c. 1.5 m sequence of poorlysortedgreensediments
datingto betweenthe eighthand the late tenthcen-
turies (Sanders 1995), and these were thought to
relate either to pooling of water in the orchestra
(Woodward 1925a; 1926a; 1927a), or to erosion and
diagenesis(Wilkinson1993). Studies during1995 and
1996 have providedfurtherdetailsof the mechanism
by whichtheyformed.
Sedimentspre-datingthetheatre
In 1994 and 1995 a series of trencheswas excavated
throughthe stage buildingsof the theatre.Below the
earliest theatrestructurein ST95 XIII and XIV, a
series of apparentlywell stratifiedsands, silt/clays
and gravelswas noted (fig. 14.4). Sands of a distinct
greenishcolour werefoundas laminaeand finelayers,
up to 4cm thick,withinsilt/claydeposits. However,
there were no signs of trendsin sortingwithinthe
silt/claysthemselves.The appearance of the sands
verysimilarto Neogene
and silt/claysis, superficially,
sedimentsexposed in sectionsbetweenthe village of
Karavas and the Sparta-Tripolis road. But the bed-
dingpatterns,sortingproperties,relationshipsto,and
propertiesof the gravelsare at variance,indicatinga
differentdepositional history.The gravels are sub-
angular with a finer-grainedmatrix of a reddish
colour,and are separatedfromthe silt/claysbelow by
a sharp, irregular(and hence erosional) boundary,
perhaps indicatinga substantialtime gap between
their deposition. No corresponding deposits have
been noted in any Neogene section,but similarsedi-
mentswere foundin 1996 in the town of Sparta, for
example on the Odos Ep. Vresteniswhere a more
recent date of formationis suggested (Wilkinson
unpublisheddata). The sequence of depositsbeneath
/Pleistocene
Pliocene
sediments
Red
14
T // stage
8faV,e!.bcl0W
bu.ld.ngs
6 -. / "- Menelaion
J-*
H y/
+ /+ ^s'
2v J
0-1- ^H 1 | | 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Xlf(10-8rn3kg-i)
Fig. 14.3 The magnetic ofsediments
susceptibility
153
the stage buildings,into which two slots had been
cut by the theatrebuilders,are likely to be alluvial
deposits of the 'Older Fill' in the case of the fine
grained sediments and hence date to the (Plater)
Pliocene/Pleistocene,indicating the presence of a
riverclose to the acropolishill at thisperiod. The red
gravelscould be froma similarsource and have later
undergonediagenesis/sub-aerialweatheringto devel-
op the red coloration(as is the case with terrarossa
soils in the region). But they are more likely to be
the remnantsof a true terrarossa (see below). The
morphology of these deposits and their relation-
shipsto thestagebuildingsindicatethatthesediments
had been greatlytruncatedby constructionof the
theatre.
Samples fromthe depositsweretakenforsedimen-
tologicalanalysisto provide backgrounddata forthe
interpretationof archaeologicalsedimentsoverlying
the cavea and orchestra,to determinetheiroriginand
mode of deposition.They werealso takento compare
with in situ Neogene deposits from the Karavas-
Sparta road, to see what common propertiesexisted
('yellow sectiongreen sand9on fig. 14.2). Analysisis
still ongoing,but the resultsof particlesize analysis
are presentedin fig. 14.2 and of magneticsuscept-
ibilityin fig. 14.3. These indicatethattheparticlesize
properties are quite different,with material from
below thestagebuildingsin generalbeinga greatdeal
finerthan the 'yellow section green sand', which is
actually predominatelyof silt size material. The
coarsestsedimentsare green sands fromST 95 XIV,
whose distributioncompares well with that of the
'greenlayer'in the Stoa (Wilkinson1993). The finest
depositis the 'basal yellowclay' foundin ST 95 XIII,
and into which foundationslots have been cut. This
materialwould have been ideal for the placing of a
largestructure,such as thestagebuilding,so long as it
Reddeposit
below
__
^
cavea
^^ upper
- agricultural
terrace
sediments
1 | 1
120 140 160
fromtheEvrotasvalley.
154 KEITH WILKINSON
Fig 14.4 Red graveland underlying
yellowsiltclays;Sparta theatre,
remainedsufficiently sealed by otherdeposits not to
dry out and shrink,in which case the foundations
would have become unstable.It is notablethatat the
time of sampling,duringa particularlyhot summer,
the yellow clay had a 30% moisture content- far
greaterthan any other deposit the author has ever
sampledin theSparta area. It is of coursepossiblethat
the theatrebuilders specificallytargetedthis deposit
in whichto locate theirfoundations.
The plot of %lf(low frequencymagneticsuscepti-
bility) against %fd(percentage frequencydifference
betweenlow and high frequencyreadings),demon-
strates that sediments on the acropolis- with the
exceptionof the yellow silt/claysbeneath the stage
buildings- can be separated from Neogene/Older
Fill sedimentsas both %Ifand %Mare substantially
higher.These highreadingsare characteristic of soils
(Oldfield et al. 1985). Indeed, both the magneticand
particle size properties of the red gravelbeneaththe
stage buildings are akin to sediments underlyingthe
upper cavea (see below). The differencescan be
explainedawayas factorsof redeposition(of material
below the cavea), and the absence of upper soil hori-
zons throughtruncation(in the materialbelow the
stagebuildings).
Fills underlyingthe theatrein the upper E cavea
havebeen interpreted as deliberatelydepositedhereto
increase ground levels prior to placing seat blocks
stagebuildings
(Waywell and Wilkes 1995). Deposits of a similar
appearance are also found beneath stone structures
relatingto the theatre,adjacent to the underground
reservoirimmediatelyto the N. The sedimentsare of
a brightred colour and are poorlysorted,containing
angularclastas well as ceramicmaterialof Hellenistic
date. These would appear to have been taken from
source materialquite different fromeitherthe 'Older
Fill', as foundbeneaththestagebuildings,or Neogene
strata(which are all well sortedand distinctively yel-
low or green). But, as indicatedabove, theyprobably
equate with the red gravel found in the orchestra.
Both would havean originin a pre-existingterrarossa
soil, thathad developed on the acropolishill priorto
widespread disturbanceduring the Roman period.
Such soils are knownto have an antiquityin the order
of thousandsor even tens of thousandsof years,and
as the red colorationis a productof time-dependant
weathering, theintensityhas even been used as a rela-
tive dating technique (Hurst 1977). If there was
indeed a terrarossasoil on the acropolis priorto the
construction of the theatre, its presence would
argueforonlyslighterosionbeforetheRoman period
and thereforethe absence of intense pre-Roman
agricultureon the acropolishill. Terrarossasoils are
now largely absent from the Sparta area, as
agricultural activity since the Roman period has
caused theirerosion.
 GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE SPARTANACROPLIS AND EVROTAS VALLEY
in thetheatre:
Post-Romansediments
the'greenlayer'
A varietyof deposits overlies the Roman theatre
structure,but in thistextonlya singlestratumis con-
sidered- a 1.5 m thickgreen deposit (context 5217
(Powell 1995))- henceforthtermedthe 'green layer',
overlyingthe orchestraand inner w cavea. Similar
depositswere noted in the stoa duringexcavationsin
1989 (Wilkinson 1993; Waywell and Wilkes 1994).
Many questionscan be posed of thegreenlayerin the
theatre:how,forexample,did it form?What caused
the distinctgreen coloration? From where did the
sediment derive? What does its presence indicate
about usage of the theatrein the eighth-tenthcen-
turies?And whyare thereso manybones in it?To try
and provideanswersto these,a detailedsamplingand
exhaustive excavation policy was implemented.As
analyticalworkis still continuingthe account below
providessome preliminary thoughts.
The base of the depositrestedin parton the stone
seats of the theatreand, elsewhere,on a yellowclay,
of superficiallysimilarappearanceto thatfoundbelow
the stage building and described above. The top of
thegreenlayerwas in turnmarkedbyan area of burn-
ing, including burnt stake holes, that possibly once
definedan enclosure (Powell 1995). In other areas,
sections through the deposit revealed that it was
homogenous.Nevertheless,its formationappears to
havebeen gradualon thebasis of theceramicchronol-
ogy, which shows a pattern of increasinglyolder
potterywithdepth(Sanders 1995). That such a state-
ment could be made at all is possible only because
of the method of investigation,which was through
excavationin 10 cm spits ratherthan removingthe
whole context under a single label. Twenty litre
samples were takenfromeach spit forflotationpro-
cessing to examine artefactand biological variation
with depth. Animal bones were recoveredin great
numbers,and manyappeared copper stained,leading
to suggestionsthatthe greencolour of the sediments
was due to leaching of copper from the debris of
a nearby Roman temple roof. However, despite
occurringover a period of perhaps two centuries,
depositiondoes not appear to have been continuous,
for magneticsusceptibilityprofilesshow an episode
of magnetic enhancement half way through the
sequence (Wilkinson 1997). This magneticsignature
is probablyindicativeof soil formation,suggesting
thatfora time depositionceased. There is no struc-
turalmaterialwithinthe deposit to suggestthe pres-
ence of buildingsduringaccumulation,and therefore
it would seem thatduringthe eighth-tenthcenturies
the area was not used for habitation.However, the
stakeholes mayindicatethatstockenclosureswerein
place by the tenthcentury.
Interpretation of how the 'greenlayer'formedhas,
as statedabove,been a cause fordebate. The idea that
155
the green colour is a direct result of waterlogging
must now be dismissedas particlesize analysisindi-
cates that the sediments are poorly sorted, which
would be unlikelyif theywere graduallysettlingout
fromsuspension.Thus the sedimentsare likelyto be
colluvial, i.e. accumulatingas a result of hill slope
processes,or deliberatelydeposited by man, but in
eithercase originatingas a resultof activityon therim
of the cavea. These activitieswere no doubt associat-
ed with occupation,explainingthe widespreadpres-
ence of the animal bones, brokenceramics,and char-
coal. Indeed, it would seem thatduringthisperiodthe
theatreacted as a giant rubbish disposal facility,as
phosphatereadingsfromthe green layer,althoughat
presentonly carriedout qualitatively, are higherthan
forany othersedimentexcavated on the site. These
data probablysuggestthatthebones werenot clean of
fleshwhen disposed of. It is hoped that a planned
micromorphological studywill help to address these
questions.
The colorationof the depositsis probablya prod-
uct of source material.As statedabove,Neogene sed-
imentsare commonlyof eithera greenor,moreoften,
a yellowcolour.Thereforeit would seem thatduring
the eighth-tenthcenturiesoutcrops of Neogene, or
more likely'Older Fill' sands existedbeyondthe rim
of the cavea, and it was theirerosion that provided
muchof thematerialformingthe greenlayer.Particle
size analysisof the 'green layer'in the Stoa indicates
thatits size distributionis virtuallyidenticalwiththat
of the Green sand found below the stage building
(Wilkinson1993), and which,as statedabove,is likely
to be partof an 'Older Fill' formation.At presentno
similaranalyseshave been carriedout fromthe green
layerin the theatre.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presenteda preliminary viewof recent
geomorphologicalsurvey work carriedout withinthe
Evrotas Valley and provided more detailed geoarch-
aeological data relatingto deposition withina single
archaeologicalfeature,the Roman Theatre at Sparta.
The latterdemonstratethat,when a combinationof
sedimentologicaltechniques is used together with
detailed archaeological recording of the sampled
stratigraphy, a relativelydetailed picturecan be built
up of sedimentationpatterns.Indeed it is probably
true to say that the mechanismby which the 'green
layer'accumulatedin the theatrecould not have been
reconstructedwithoutthe use of such geoarchaeolog-
ical techniques. The data also demonstrate that,
althoughthe majorityof deposits (both archaeolog-
ical and 'natural' [sic]) consist of the same Neogene
parentmaterial,theycan easily be differentiated on
thebasis of fieldmorphologyand othersedimentolog-
ical criteria.
Althoughthese findingsare encouraging,theyare
applicableonlyto sedimentationon a macro-scale,i.e.
156 KEITH WILKINSON
thatof a single site. The surveydata are, of course,
more relevantat a wider scale, but the major gap in
knowledgestill remainsthat of (geologically)recent
accumulation/erosionregimesat the meso-scale,i.e.
thatof the EvrotasValleyas a whole.The mechanism
by whichthe EvrotasValleyhas evolvedto its present
formis relativelywell understoodfortheperiodspre-
datingthe Pleistocene,but, because of the absence of
exposures,landscape developmentsin the Pleistocene
and Holocene have had to be reconstructedusingdata
fromothergeographicalareas. This period spans the
entiretimeof man's occupationof thevalleyand thus
the absence of data is particularlyunfortunate,as
landscapeevolutioncannotbe reconstructed withcer-
for but the most recent
tainty any archaeologicalperi-
ods. It is neverthelesslikelythata considerabledepth
of Holocene/Pleistocenesedimentsexist,but theyare
deeply stratifiedin the centralpart of the valley(the
'alluvium' of fig. 14.1), and have not been exposed
because most of the land in this area is givenover to
olivecultivation.Modern occupation(e.g. thetownof
Sparta) is more oftensituatedon hillocksof redepos-
ited Neogene and, althoughthe settlementpatternof
thearchaeologicalpast seems to mirrorthispattern,it
may well be that formersites on the valleyfloorare
simply too deeply buried by later sedimentsto be
found using conventionalarchaeologicaltechniques.
It is thus of vital importance in interpretingthe
archaeologyof the Evrotas Valley that the Pleisto-
cene/Holocene valley deposits are studied so that
models can be put forwardfor how human- and
climate-induced change occurred. Study of such
sequences would also allow the chronologicalframe-
work of sedimentationproposed by Bintliff(1977)
to be tested. Unfortunatelyin the absence of major
engineeringworkor quarryingto produce the neces-
sary sections,only bore hole studies will be able to
produce such stratigraphies.In 1993 such a study
will commence which it is hoped will enable the
questions highlightedin this paper to be addressed,
and if not answeredthen at least subjected to more
informeddebate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend my thanksto ProfessorsJohn Wilkes and
GeoffreyWaywelland Drs Susan Walker and Eliz-
abeth Waywell for help and encouragementduring
excavationson the Sparta acropolis;to Jane Sidell for
help in samplingand discussionof the results,and to
Nick Branch, JerryLee, Mark Lane and Professor
FrankChambersforhelpingwithlaboratoryfacilities.
Laboratoryanalysiswas undertakenat the Centrefor
EnvironmentalChange and Quaternary Research,
Cheltenhamand GloucesterCollege of Higher Edu-
cation, and the Department of Geography,Royal
HollowayCollege,Universityof London. I also thank
Dr Bill Cavanagh for his helpful commentson an
earlierdraftof thispaper.
 15
- Spartain themind
Mistra
Byzantine
DonaldM. Nicol
The Byzantineswereneverarchaeologistsin themod-
ern sense of the word. They would have thoughtit
odd to go digging up the soil to uncover the past.
They had no antiquarian curiosityin Greece as a
country.They did not go hunting for the site of
Delphi or Dodona, of Thebes or Eleusis. At Athensin
the middle ages the remains of the pagan, classical
past werebetterpreservedthantheyare now and put
to usefulpurposes.The Archbishopof Athensat the
turn of the twelfthcentury,Michael Choniates,was
proudof thesplendoursof theParthenon.It was after
all his cathedraland a shrineof Christianpilgrimage,
forall its ratherincongruoussculpturaladornment.
The Atheniansof his day were surroundedby palpa-
ble remindersof a pre-Christianpast of the Greek-
speakingpeople, the Hellenes; and theywere accus-
tomed to use the word Hellene to mean pagan. At
Sparta,on theotherhand therewas littleleftto see, as
Thucydides had predicted and Ovid had observed.
Even the name of its cityand its bishoprichad been
changed from Sparta to Lakedaimonia. As such it
ranked ratherlow down in the list of metropolitan
citiesof the Péloponnèse; and it was more celebrated
forits miracle-working saint Nikon, who had called
the Slavs to Christianityand repentancein the tenth
century,than it was forits ancient Spartan warriors
and lawgivers.
The Byzantines of the middle ages whetherin
Greece or in Asia Minor were used to livingamong
ruins of a past which few of them knew anything
about. They had no scruples about dismantlingand
recyclingthe well-dressedblocks of those ruins for
the constructionof churches, walls or fountains.
What has been called 'the sentimentof place' meant
littleto them,unless the place were associated witha
Christianreligiousfestivalor the life and deeds of a
saint.Pilgrimagewas theirformof tourism.They did
not experiencethe romanticpleasure of ruins.What
attracted pilgrims to the Parthenon in Byzantine
timeswas not its architecturaland sculpturalbeauty,
nor its evocationof a more gloriouspast of Athens.
They were drawn there by the holy relics and
thaumaturgie icons contained inside it. Like-
wise tourists flocked to Sparta or Lakedaimonia
not to rub shoulders with the shades of Lykourgos
or Leónidas but to sniff the odour of sanctity
of the great St Nikon who had died there about
ad 998.
Mistradid notthenexist.Mistra owed itsoriginsto
the catastropheof the Fourth Crusade, when the
western soldiers of Christ conquered and sacked
Constantinoplein 1204 an^ set about the dismember-
ment and colonisationof Greece and the rest of the
ByzantineEmpire.It was a descendantof one of those
crusaders,William of Villehardouin,who built the
firstcastleon top of thehill of Mistra overlookingthe
plain of Sparta. Mistra is too oftenromanticisedas a
Frankishfortressadvertisingand defendingthe ideals
of western chivalry in an alien land. William of
Villehardouinregardedthatland as his own. He spoke
some Greek. He married a Greek princess, Anna,
daughterof the ByzantineDespot of Epiros, Michael
II. Some of theromanticaura surroundingtheFrench
or Frankishoccupationof Mistra stemsfromthisfact.
For as earlyas the sixteenthcenturyit was suggested
that the marriage of William to Anna was the
medieval equivalent of the tale of Menelaus and
Helen, forMistra was surelySparta. The fancywas
enshrinedin Goethe's Faust. It is certainthatit would
have been lost on the Villehardouin family. For
William knew nothingabout ancient Sparta. He and
his French knightscalled Sparta Lakedaimonia, but
since they found this hard to pronounce they galli-
cised it intoLa Crémonie.Williamlikedtheplace and
held his court there.His castle on the hill at Mistra
was builtto defendthe plain of La Crémonie against
the predatory Slav tribes who infested Mount
Taygetos.It was completedin 1249.
The age of Mistra or of Lakedaimonia as a French
or Frankishsettlementlastednot much morethanten
years.Williamof Villehardouinwas defeatedin battle
and takenprisonerby the ByzantineEmperor'sarmy
in 1259. Not until1262 was he allowedto returnto his
principality in thePéloponnèse,and thenon condition
of surrenderinghis castleat Mistra as well as thoseat
Monemvasia and Mani. It was fromthismomentthat
Mistra became the Byzantine capital of the
Péloponnèse, governed by officialssent out from
Constantinopleand garrisonedby Byzantinetroops.
The Greek-speakingpopulation of Lakedaimonia or
La Crémonie packed their bags and gravitated
towardsthe new townnow being builton the slope of
158 DONALD M. NICOL
thehillat Mistra. The ancientcityof Sparta was soon
deserted.It did not come to lifeagain untilthe nine-
teenth century.Mistra became the administrative,
military, urban and ecclesiastical centre of the
Byzantineprovinceof the Péloponnèse; and as time
wenton, and the Frenchand Italiancolonistsgave up
the struggle,Mistra developed into one of the most
secure, successful and important outposts of a
Byzantine Empire that was in other respects in
decline. In 1349 the EmperorJohnVI Cantacuzene,
whose father had served as governor at Mistra,
delegated his own son Manuel to take it over the
withtheexaltedtitleof Despot, whichrankedsecond
only to that of Emperor. Manuel Cantacuzene, as
ImperialViceroy,governedthe provincewithconsid-
erable success until he died there in 1380. The
Despotate of the Péloponnèseor the Morea, as it had
come to be called, thenpassed to the care of the fam-
ily of Palaiologos, the reigningdynastyin Constan-
tinople, whose members provided the succeeding
Despots at Mistra untilit was conqueredbytheTurks
in 1460.
Manuel Cantacuzenebuiltthechurchof St Sophia
highup on the hillsideat Mistra lookingdown on the
Palace of the Despots. Its name of St Sophia or the
Holy Wisdom emphasised the fact that Mistra was
meant to be a microcosm of the city of Constan-
tinople.And so it became, especiallyduringthe last
century of its Byzantine existence. In that age,
between the years 1350 and 1450, Constantinople
experienceda remarkablere-awakeningof interestin
ancientGreek scholarship,literatureand philosophy.
It has been called, perhaps ratheroptimistically, the
last ByzantineRenaissance.Mistra, the microcosmof
Constantinople,was to become its second home. For,
as thelightsbegan to go out in Constantinople,block-
aded and isolated as it was by the Turks, scholars,
artistsand monks flockedwest across the sea to the
relativepeace, quiet and securityof thecityof Mistra.
The scholars brought their libraries with them.
Scriptoria were established and patronised by the
Despots. Among theirproductswere manuscriptsof
Plutarch'sLives copied at Mistra in 1362; of Hero-
dotus in 1372; of Aristotle,Isocrates and Arrianin
1441; and of the Hellenika of Xenophon in 1456.
When theend came and theTurks walkedintoMistra
in 1460, many of the Greek scholars fled to the
remainingVenetiancolonies in the islands or to Italy,
taking their manuscripts with them. Demetrios
Trivolis, who called himself 'a Peloponnesian from
Sparta', copied a manuscriptof Plato's Timaeus in
Corfu in 1462, and of the Enneads of Plotinus in
Crete in 1465.
The starsamongtheirintellectualeliteof Mistrain
thePentekontaetia of its culturalhistorywereIsidore,
who was to become Bishop of Kiev and then a
Cardinal of the Roman church;Bessarion,Bishop of
Nicaea, who also settled in Italy and was made a
Roman cardinal. Bessarion took all his librarywith
him and left his manuscriptsto the Library of St
Mark's in Venice.The Italianscalled him 'Latinorum
graecissimus,Graecorum latinissimus'.Anotherwas
George Scholarios, later as the monk Gennadios to
become the firstPatriarchof Constantinopleunder
theOttomansafter1453. The greatestand mostorig-
inal of them all was George Gemistos Plethon. All
these men had in some sense 'Sparta in the mind'.
They were aware thatMistra was close to the site of
Ancient Sparta, even though they did not feel
impelledto go down withspades to exploreits ruins.
To most of these neo-Hellenistsof Mistra the word
'Hellene' was still uncomfortablyassociated with
'pagan' or pre-Christian.The odd man out among
themwas George Gemistos Plethon,whose learning
they all respected and admired. For Plethon
Hellenism was the life-bloodof the Greek-speaking
people; and Mistra in the centreof the Péloponnèse
was the focalpointfromwhichit could and should be
revived.As a devotedPlatonisthe based his political
ideas on the Republic; and he sharedPlato's predilec-
tion forSparta over Athens.He lived fornearlyfifty
yearsat Mistra and died therein 1452; and Sparta,on
whoseremainshe lookeddown,was oftenin his mind.
He had an exaggeratedestimationof the ethnicpuri-
tyof theHellenes who lived in thePéloponnèsein his
time. He claimed that it was a countrywhich had
alwaysbeen inhabitedbythesame Greekstock,unsul-
lied by theadmixtureof anyotherrace. He musthave
known that this was nonsense. His contemporary,
Mazaris, who wrote a satirical work about a visit
to Hades, enumerated seven distinct racial types
among the people of the Péloponnèsein the fifteenth
century.Herodotus had been the firstto put the
numberat seven; thereforeit had to stand,although
his seven were quite differentfromthose listed by
Mazaris.
Plethonhad morereverenceforLykourgosthanfor
St Nikon. He evolved elaborate schemes for the
reformof Peloponnesiansocietyand advocatedthem
in prolix and detailed addresses to the Despots of
Mistra and theEmperorin Constantinople.He devel-
oped the fantasythat while Constantinoplewas the
New Rome, Mistra could become the New Sparta. In
Plethon'sversionof the historyof Greece Athensis
not mentioned.He was gratifiedthatHerodotus had
inferred that the Athenians were not birthright
Hellenes like the Spartans. His preferencewas for
Sparta and othersimilarlyauthoritarianregimes.He
was not alone among the Byzantinesin holdingthat
monarchywas the ideal formof government.But the
kind of constitutionthat Plethon recommendedfor
his New Sparta would have produced a veryunpleas-
ant version of militarydictatorshipquite possibly
reinforcedby some 'ethnic cleansing' to uphold the
Hellenic purityof his Lakedaimonians.The Despots
of Mistra and the Emperors of Constantinoplelis-
 B YZANTINE MISTRA- SPARTAIN THE MIND
tenedpatientlyto the greatman's advice and reward-
ed him forhis pains. They were perhaps wise not to
act upon his proposals.
Plethonwas in the end condemnedby the Church,
for his Platonism ultimatelygot the better of his
Christianity;and he renouncedhis ancestralfaithin
favourof a bizarreamalgamof pantheisticHellenism,
Neoplatonism, Zoroastrianism and other oddities.
The anathemaon his finalworkwas pronouncedby
his formerfriendat Mistra, the PatriarchGennadios
Scholarios. It made sure that St Nikon of
Lakedaimonia had triumphed over the new
Lykourgosof Sparta. Plethon'sname and his danger-
ous ideas were obliterated in the post-Byzantine
Greekworldin whichChristianOrthodoxy,notpagan
Hellenism,fortified the humiliatedpeople undercen-
turiesof Muslim domination.It was in the burgeon-
ing world of humanist scholarship in Renaissance
Italy that Plethon was to be most highlyesteemed.
The Italianshad welcomedhim at Florence wherehe
spentsome timein 1438 and wherehe lecturedto the
incipientPlatonic Academy.It was the Italians who
soughthimout at Mistra whenhe was in his declining
years.Among them was one who had ancientSparta
in his sightsas well as in his mind. He was Ciríaco of
Ancona, the antiquarian,humanistand indefatigable
traveller.
Ciríaco has been called the firstclassical archaeolo-
gist.Not thathe wielded a spade; but he was the first
learnedtravelleron Greek soil systematically to locate
and identifythe sitesand ruinsof antiquity,to record
inscriptionsand to collectmanuscripts.On two of his
prolongedvisitsto thePéloponnèsehe metand stayed
with Gemistos Plethon whom he described as 'the
most brilliantand influentialphilosopheramong the
Platonists'.His second visitto Mistra was in 1447-8,
and on this occasion he met the Despot Constantine
Palaiologos who was shortlyto be invested,if not
crownedat Mistra as theEmperorof Constantinople.
It was a poignantmeeting,forConstantineXI was the
ByzantineEmperor.He was killedfightingthe Turks
at thewalls of his capitalfiveyearslater.But Ciriaco's
interestwas not so much in the fateof the Byzantine
Empire,nor in what was forhim the modern cityof
Mistra. He had come thereto see and to explorethe
vestigesof ancientSparta whichwereof littleconcern
to his scholarlyfriendPlethon; and while he was at
Mistra,in February1448,Ciríaco composed an ode to
Sparta in whichhe mused upon its past gloriesand its
fallenfortune,now as he ratherrudelyput it, sunk to
'the little measure of the town of Mistra under
Constantine'('Mysithra sub Constantino'). For him
Sparta was still'in themind'; but it was moretangible,
more than a disembodied politicaland philosophical
159
abstraction.His poem, writtenin Italian,was put into
Greek probablyby Plethon himself.It celebratednot
Lakedaimonia,nor Mistra, but 'the famousLaconian
cityof Sparta, the gloryof Greece and example to all
the world'.
When he was back in Italy, Ciriaco called on
SigismondoMalatesta, the eccentricand extravagant
Princeof Rimini.Sigismondohad admiredGemistos
Plethonfromafar,althoughtheynevermet;and it was
he who led an expeditionto the Péloponnèse in 1464,
fouryearsafterMistra had fallento the Turks. There
he found the grave of the great man. He had the
corpsedisinterredand carriedit back to Riminito rest
in gloryin the wall of his flagrantlypagan temple,the
Tempio Malatestiano; and therethe tomb of Plethon
is still to be seen withits inscriptionentitlinghim as
'the Prince of Philosophersin his time'. Plethon had
died condemned by his church and withoutmuch
honour in his own country.It was Renaissance Italy
thatwelcomedhim,trailinghis clouds of Platonicand
Spartan glory.
The last of the Byzantine historians,some of
whomwere writingafterthe collapse of theirEmpire
and the capture of Mistra by the Ottoman Turks,
quite regularlygive Mistra the name of Sparta. This
was no more than a literaryaffectation, an archaising
gesturewhich theymade withoutwonderingwhat it
implied. It was on a par with the Byzantineliterary
conventionof calling the Turks 'the Persians' or the
Serbians 'the Triballi'. The Emperor Manuel II,
whose brotherTheodore was Despot at Mistra for
twenty-five years,composed an immensefuneralora-
tion on him in 1409. In this he consistentlyrefersto
Mistra as Sparta, though again without giving the
mattermuch thought.He knew thatit was not really
Sparta. He comparesthe manyvirtuesand talentsof
his late brotherwith those of numerousheroes and
warriorsof Greek antiquity,but the only local hero
with whom he can identifyhim was Agesilaos of
Sparta- which shows at least the Emperor had read
his Plutarch.
Sparta thenwas an archaisingname forMistra. No
one, however,not even GemistosPlethon,believedor
claimed thattheywere the same place. No Byzantine
writerwould have agreed with the learned M de
Pouqueville who,about 1800, declared that,while the
ancientcityof Sparta was littlemorethana name,yet
'it is evidentthatthe modern townof Mistra is built
upon itsruins'.The Byzantinesknewbetterthanthat.
To themMistra was a real and livelyplace. Sparta was
a historical fact or a political and philosophical
abstraction;and it neveroccurredto Byzantineschol-
ars to climb down and investigateits mortalremains.
Betterlet it stayin the mind.
 Bibliography

Adamantiou, A., 1931. 'Avaaxcwpr) IjraQTTiç' PAR 1931: Sympotic a: a Symposium on the Symposion: 37-65.
91-6. Oxford.
Adamantiou, A., 1934. 'Avaaxowpf] Znaqxry;'PAE 1934: Bieber,M., 1961. The Historyof the Greekand Roman
123-8. Theater.Princeton.
Alcock,S. E., 1993. GraeciaCapta: The Landscapesof J. L., 1975.'Mediterranean
Bintliff, alluviation:new evi-
RomanGreece. Cambridge. dencefromarchaeology' Proceedings ofthePrehistoric
Alcock, S. E., J. F. Cherryand J. L. Davis, 1994. Society41: 78-84.
'Intensive survey,agricultural practiceandtheclassical J.L., 1977.Naturalenvironment
Bintliff, andhumansettle-
landscape of Greece' in I. Morris (ed.) Classical ment in Greece. British ArchaeologicalReports
Greece: ancienthistoriesand modernarchaeologies: International Series528 (i and ii). Oxford.
137-70.Cambridge. Bintliff,J. L., 1991. 'Die Polis-Landschaften Griechen-
Alcock,S. E. and R. Osborne(eds), 1994. Placingthe lands: Problemeund Aussichtender Bevölkerungs-
Gods.Sanctuaries and SacredSpace inAncientGreece. geschichte'in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend
Oxford. (eds) RaumundBevölkerung inderantiken Stadtkultur
Andrewes, A., 1954.Probouleusis. Spartayscontributiontothe (Stuttgarter KolloquiumzurHistorischen Geographie
Technique ofGovernment. Oxford. des Altertums 3): 149-202.Bonn.
Andronikos, M., 1968.'Totenkult'ChapterW of F. Matz J. L., B. E. Davies,C. F. Gaffney
Bintliff, and A. Waters,
and H.-G. Buchholz (eds) Archaeologia Homérica. 1990. 'Trace element accumulation in soils on and
Göttingen. aroundancientsettlements in Greece'in S. Bottema,
Arafat,K. W., 1996.Pausanias*Greece. Ancient Artists
and G. Entjes-Nieborg and W. vanZeist(eds) Man's Role
RomanRulers.Cambridge. intheShapingoftheEasternMediterranean Landscape:
Armstrong, P., W. G. Cavanaghand G. Shipley,1992. 159-72.Rotterdam.
'Crossingthe river:routesand bridgesin Laconia' J.L., andA. Snodgrass,1988.'Mediterranean
Bintliff, sur-
£^87:293-310. veyandthecity'Antiquity 62: 57-71
Ashmole,B., 1959. 'Cyriacof Ancona'Proceedings ofthe Blakeway, A., 1935.Reviewof F. Ollier,'Le miragesparti-
BritishAcademy 45: 25-41. ate' ClassicalReview49: 184-5.
Assimakopoulou-Atzaka, Y, 1973. 'KaraXoyocQ©¿iaixa>v Blinkenberg,C, 1931. Lindos. Fouilles de VAcropole
ôajréôœv'ie av0Qa>7civeç
iJ)r|(piô©Tû)v ¿lOQcpéçarov 1Q02-1Q14, 1. LesPetitsObjets.Berlin.
EM.r|vixó x<öqo'FXkr'vixá 26: 216-50. Bloesch,H., 1940.Formen Attischer Schalen.Munich.
Assimakopoulou-Atzaka,Y., 1987. Zóvrctypctrœv Bloesch,H. (ed.), 1982. GreekVasesfromtheHirschmann
naXawxQicriavixœv ^cpiõcuráv ôanéôœv rqçFXXádoq IL Collection. Zurich.
neXonowriaog-Zrecea EXXáôa. KévxQOBuÇavrivóv Blouet,A., 1833.Expédition Scientifique de Moréevol. 2.
EQeuvûîv.Thessaloniki. Paris.
Badián, E. (ed.), 1966. AncientSocietyand Institutions. Boardman, J.,1963.'Artemis Orthiaand chronology' BSA
forV.Ehrenberg.
Festschrift Oxford. 58: 1-7.
Bakourou, E., forthcoming. A. Belt.47 A [1992] Boardman,J., and J. Hayes, 1966. Excavationsat Tocra
Baity,J.-C, 1977-78. 'Un nouveauportraitde Trajan' iç6j-iç6^: theArchaicDeposits i. London.
CahiersMariemont 8-9: 45-62. Boardman, J., and J. Hayes, 1973. Excavations at Tocra,
Beacham,R. C, 1991.TheRomanTheatre anditsAudience. theArchaic Deposits2 andLaterDeposits. London.
London. Boardman, J., 1967.Excavations in Chios1Q52-55.Greek
J.D., 1946.'PotterandPainterin AncientAthens'
Beazley, Emporio. London.
Proceedings oftheBritish Academy 30: 5-43. Boblaye,M. E. Pouillon,1836. Expédition Scientifiquede
J.D., 1956.AtticBlack-figure
Beazley, Oxford.
Vasepainters. Morée:Recherches Géographiques surles Ruinesde la
Bergmann, M., andP. Zanker,1981.'Damnatiomemoriae. Morée.Paris.
UmgearbeitetNero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Boehlau,J., 1898.Aus ionischen unditalischen Nekropolen.
Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva' Leipzig.
Jahrbuchdes deutschen Archäologischen Instituts96: Boitani,F., 1990. 'Le ceramichelaconichea Gravisca'
317-412. Bollettino dArteSupplemento al n. 64: 19-67.
Bergquist,B., 1990. 'Sympotic Space: a Functional Bölte, F., 1929. 'Sparta (Geographie)', RE ÜÍA2,
Aspectof GreekDining-rooms' in O. Murray(ed.) 1294-1374.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonanno, A., 1976. Portraitsand OtherHeads on Roman
HistoricalReliefsup to the Age of SeptimiusSeverus.
Oxford.
Bonfante,L., and E. Jaunzems,1988. 'Clothing and orna-
ment' in M. Grant and R. Kitzinger(eds) Civilization
of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome
1385-1413. New York.
Boring,T. A., 1979. LiteracyinAncientSparta. Leiden.
Bosanquet, R. C, 1906a. 'Laconia II. Excavations at
Sparta, 1906. 1. The season's work'BSA 12 [1905-06]:
277-83-
Bosanquet,R. C, 1906b.'The sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthia'
BSA 12 [1905-06]: 303-17.
Bosanquet, R. C, 1906c. 'Laconia II. Excavations at
Sparta, 1906. 7. The cult of Orthiaas illustratedby the
finds'BSA 12 [1905-06]: 331-43.
Böschung,D., 1993. Die BildnissedesAugustus.Das römische
Herrscherbild 1.2. Berlin.
Bouras, C, 1982. 'Eva BuÇavxivó Aoutqó axr|v
Aaxeôaijiovía' Archaiologike Ephemeris:99-112.
Bowersock, G. W., 1961. 'Eurycles of Sparta' Journal of
RomanStudies51: 112-18.
Bracker,J., 1968. 'Ein TrauerbildnisHadrians aus Köln'
AntikePlastik8: 75-84.
Brijder,H. A. G, 1983. Stana Cups I and Komast Cups.
Amsterdam.
Brijder, H. A. G, 1991. Siana Cups II: the Heidelberg
Painter.Amsterdam.
Bringmann, K., 1975. 'Die große Rhetra und die
Entstehung des spartanischenKosmos' Historia 24:
513-38-
Brommer,F., 1941. 'Bilder der Midassage' AA' 49-52.
Broneer,O., 1959. 'Excavations at Isthmia' Hesperia 28:
298-343-
Bruit Zaidman, L. and P. SchmittPantel, 1992. Religionin
the Ancient Greek City, ed./trs. P. Cartledge.
Cambridge.
Buck, C. E., W. G Cavanagh and C. D. Litton, 1988. 'The
spatial analysis of site phosphate data' in Computer
Applicationsand QuantitativeMethodsin Archaeology,
iç88 British Archaeological Reports International
Series 446 (i): 151-60.
Buckler,C, 1986. 'The Myth of the Movable Skenai' AJA
90:431-6.
Bulle, H., 1928. Untersuchungen an griechischen Theatern
(Abhandlungen der bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Band 33). Munich.
Bulle, H., 1937. Das Theaterzu Sparta. Munich.
Cain, P., 1993. Männerbildnisseneronisch-flavischer Zeit.
Munich.
Calligas, P. G, 1992. 'From the Amyklaion' in J. M.
Sanders 1992: 31-48.
Carducci, C, 1933. 'Ritratto dell'imperatore Traiano'
Bulletinodel Museo dell'ImperoRomano4: 37-43.
Carpenter,T. H., 1986. DionysianImageryinArchaicGreek
Art. Oxford.
Carter,J. B., 1989. Review of Pipili 1987. AJA 93: 473-6.
Cartledge,P. A., 1979. Sparta and Lakonia. London.
Cartledge, P. A., 1982. 'Sparta and Samos: A Special
Relationship?'ClassicalQuarterly32: 243-59.
Cartledge,P. A., 1985. 'The Greek religiousfestivals'in P.
Easterlingand J.Muir (eds) GreekReligionand Society.
98-127. Cambridge.
l6l
Cartledge P. A., 1987. Agesilaosand the Crisis of Sparta.
London and Baltimore.
Cartledge, P. A., 1988. 'Review of M. Pipili, Laconian
Iconographyof theSixth CenturyBC and M. Herfort-
Koch, ArchaischeBronzeplastikLakoniens. Classical
Reviewn.s. 38: 342-5.
'
Cartledge, P. A., 1995. "We are all Greeks"? Ancient
(especially Herodotean) and modern contestationsof
Hellenism' Bulletinof the Instituteof Classical Studies
n.s. 2: 75-82.
Cartledge,P. A., 1996a. 'La politica', in S. Settis (ed.) /
GreciI: Noi e I Greci:39-72. Turin.
Cartledge,P. A., 1996b. 'Puttingthe Greek Gods in Their
Places' (Review-articleof Alcock and Osborne 1994)
InternationalHistoryReview 18: 104-12.
Cartledge,P. A., 1997. The Greeks.A portraitof Self and
Others(rev.edn.). Oxford.
Cartledge,P. A., and A. J. S. Spawforth,1989. Hellenistic
and Roman Sparta: a tale of two cities.London and
New York.
Catling, H. W., 1974. 'Arkadia-Lakonia: Sparta' AR 20:
14-15-
Catling,H. W, 1975a. 'Laconia: Sparta' AR 21: 12-15.
Catling,H. W, 1975b.'Excavationsof theBritishSchool at
Athensat the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973-75' Lakonikai
Spoudai 2: 258-69.
Catling,H. W, 1976a. 'Laconia: Sparta' ^4/?22: 13-15.
Catling,H. W., 1976b. 'New excavationsat the Menelaion,
Sparta' in U. Jantzen (ed.), Neue Forschungenin
griechischen Heiligtümern.
Tübingen.
Catling, H. W, 1977a. 'Excavations at the Menelaion,
Sparta, 1973-76' AR 23: 24-42.
Catling, H. W, 1977b. 'Excavations at the Menelaion,
1976-77' LakonikaiSpoudai 3: 408-16.
Catling,H. W., 1978. 'Lakonia: Menelaion' AR 24: 31.
Catling, H. W, 1979a. 'Lakonia-Arkadia: Sparta, Mene-
laion, 1978-79' AR 25: 19-20.
Catling, H. W, 1979b. 'Excavations at the Menelaion,
Sparta, 1973, 1974' A. Deh. 29 [1973-74] B2 Chr.:
302-12.
Catling,H. W, 1981. 'Arkadia-Lakonia:Sparta,Menelaion'
AR 27: 16-19.
Catling,H. W, 1982. 'Excavationsand Study at the Mene-
laion, Sparta, 1978-81' Lakonikai Spoudai 4: 28-43.
Catling,H. W., 1983a. 'Sparta. Excavations at the Mene-
laion'^. Deh. 30 [1975] Bi Chr.: 80-85.
Catling,H. W, 1983b.'Study at theMenelaion, 1982-1983'
LakonikaiSpoudai 7: 23-31.
Catling, H. W, 1984a. 'Sparta, Menelaion' A. Deh. 31
[1976] Bi Chr.: 79-80.
Catling, H. W, 1984b. 'Sparta, Menelaion' A. Deh. 32
[1977] Bi Chr.: 63-65.
Catling, H. W, 1985. 'Sparta. Excavations at the Mene-
laion' A. Deh. 33 [1978] Bi Chr.: 75-6.
Catling, H. W, 1986a. 'Arkadia-Lakonia. Sparta, Mene-
laion' AR 32: 29-30.
Catling, H. W, 1986b. 'H AyyXixri AQxaiotoyixri
I*%okx'A9r|va>vaxr|v LnáQTrf Lakonikai Spoudai 8:
189-204.
Catling,H. W, 1988. 'Sparta, Menelaion' A. Deh. 35 [1980]
Bi Chr.: 153-7.
Catling,H. W, 1989. 'Arkadia-Lakonia.Sparta, Akropolis.
Sparta, Menelaion' AR 35: 35-6.
162 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Catling, H. W, 1990a 'Lakonia. Aphyssou,Tsakona' AR
36: 22-4.
Catling, H.W., 1990b. 'A sanctuaryof Zeus Messapeus:
excavations at Aphyssou, Tsakona, 1989' BSA 85:
15-35-
Catling, H. W., 1990c. 'Zeus Messapeus near Sparta: an
interimreport'LakonikaiSpoudai 10: 276-95.
Catling,H. W., and E. A. Catling,1981. 'BarbarianPottery
from the Mycenaean settlementat the Menelaion,
Sparta' BSA 76: 71-82.
Catling, H. W., and H. Cavanagh, 1976 'Two inscribed
bronzes from the Menelaion, Sparta' Kadmos 15:
145-57-
Catling, R. W. V., 1986 'Excavations at the Menelaion,
1985' LakonikaiSpoudai 8: 205-16.
Cavanagh, W. G., 1991. 'Surveys,cities and synoecism'in
Rich and Wallace-Hadrill(eds): 97-118. London.
Cavanagh, W. G., 1995. 'Development of the Mycenaean
State: Evidence from the Laconia Survey' in R.
Laffineur(ed.) Politela 82-8. Liège.
Cavanagh, W. G, and J. H. Crouwel, 1988. 'Lakonia
Survey,1988' LakonikaiSpoudai 9: 77-88.
Cavanagh, W. G, J. H. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling,and D.
G. J. Shipley,1996. Continuity and Changein a Greek
Rural Landscape: theLakonia Survey.II Archaeological
Data. British School at Athens, Supplementary
Volume 27. London.
Cavanagh, W. G, J. H. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling,and G
Shipley (eds), forthcoming. Continuityand Changein a
GreekRural Landscape: The Laconia Survey.I: Metho-
dologyand Interpretation. British School at Athens,
SupplementaryVolume 26. London.
Cavanagh,W. G., and R. R. Laxton, 1984. 'Lead figurines
fromthe Menelaion and seriation'BSA 79: 23-36.
Cherry, J. F., 1990. 'The first colonisation of the
Mediterranean islands: a review of recent research'
JournalofMediterranean Archaeology3: 145-221.
Cherry,J. E, J. Davis, A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani,
T. F. Strasserand L. E. Talalay, 1988. 'Archaeological
survey in an artefact-rich landscape: a Middle
Neolithicexample' AJA 92: 159-76.
Cherry,J. F., J. L. Davis and E. Mantzourani (eds), 1991.
LandscapeArchaeologyas Long TermHistory:Northern
Keos in theCycladicIslandsfromEarliestSettlement until
Modern Times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16). Los
Angeles.
ChrimesK. M. T, 1952. AncientSparta. A re-examination
oftheevidence.Manchester.
ChristK. (ed.), 1986. Sparta. Darmstadt.
Christ, K., 1996. Review of C. M. Stibbe, Das andere
Sparta. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung 235 [9. io.
1996]: 12. Mainz am Rhein.
Christou,C, 1957. 'AvaoxacpTj"Acpuaou'PAE 1957: 214.
Christou,C, i960. ÄQxaia Znagrrj.Sparta.
Christou,C, 1960a. 'L7iáQTr|AtíqouoXk;'Ergon:173.
Christou,C, 1960b. 'Avaoxacprfeiç Axqo7to>.içl7taQTr|ç'
PAE: 232.
Christou, C, 1963 'AQxaiÓTT|TeçAaxcovíaç-ÀQxaôíaç'A.
Deh. 17 [1961-62] Bi Chr.:83-5.
Christou, C, 1964a. 'Ittoqtioitixoi àQxaïxol xácpoi xai
67riTá(pioçfier àvaYtaxpoi)à^icpoQeóçtoö kaxœvixou
èQyaaTTiQÍou' A. Delt. 19 A [1963-64] Mel.: 123-63
Christou,C, 1964b. 'Avaaxcupixai eQeuvai eiç oixÓTieôa
2jráQTTiç'A. Delt. 19 [1963-64] B Chr.: 135-41.
Clauss, M., 1983. Sparta. Eine Einfuhrung inseineGeschichte
undZivilisation.Munich.
Coldstream,J. N., 1968. GreekGeometrie Pottery:a survey
oftenlocal stylesand theirchronology. London.
Coldstream,J. N., and G. L. Huxley,(eds) 1972. Kythera.
Excavationsand Studies.London.
Collinson, J. D, 1978. 'Alluvial sediments' in H. G.
Reading (ed.) Sedimentaryenvironments and fades:
20-62. Oxford.
Cook, J. M., and R. V. Nicholls, 1950. 'Laconia. Kalyvia
Sokhás. Sparta' BSA 45: 261-98.
Cook, R. M., 1962. 'Spartan history and archaeology'
ClassicalQuarterly12: 156-8.
Cook, R. M., 1972. Greek Painted Pottery(2nd edition)
London.
Cook, R. M., 1992. 'The Wild Goat and Fikellura Styles:
Some Speculations' OxfordJournalofArchaeology11:
255-63-
Coulson, W. D. E., 1985. 'The Dark Age Potteryof Sparta'
BSA 80: 29-84.
Curci, E, et al., 1994. Museo Nazionale Archeologicodi
Taranto.Taranto.
Daltrop, G, U. Hausmann and M. Wegner, 1966. Die
Flavier.Das römischer HerrscherbildII. 1. Berlin.
Datsouli-Stavridis,A., 1985. Pœ^aïxa nocrgaíra aro Eôvixó
AQxaikoyixóMoooeio rqçAûijvaç.Athens.
Datsouli-Stavridis, A., 1987. Pœnaïxa uoqtq aira oro
Moogsío vr'çZnáQTtiç.Athens.
Daverio-Rocchi, G 1988. Frontierae confininella Grécia
antica.Rome.
David, E., 1989. 'Laughter in Spartan Society' in Powell
1989: 1-25.
Dawkins,R. M., 1906. 'Laconia. II. Excavationsat Sparta,
1906. 6. Remainsof theArchaicGreek period' BSA 12
[1905-06]: 318-30.
Dawkins, R. M., 1907. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1907. 4. The sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthia' BSA 13
[1906-07]: 44-108.
Dawkins, R.M., 1908. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1908. 2. The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia- The
excavation'BSA 14 [1907-08]: 4-29.
Dawkins, R. M., 1909. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1909. 1. The sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthia' BSA 15
[1908-09]: 5-22.
Dawkins,R. M., 1910a. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1910. 2. The MycenaeancityneartheMenelaion' BSA
16 [1909-10]: 4-1 1.
Dawkins,R. M., 1910b. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1910. 4. ArtemisOrthia: the excavationof 1910' BSA
16 [1909-10]: 15-17.
Dawkins,R. M., 1910c. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
191o. 5. ArtemisOrthia; the Historyof the Sanctuary'
BSA 16 [1909-10]: 18-53.
Dawkins, R. M., 1910a. 'The Eleusinion at Kalyvia tes
Sochás' BSA 16 [1909-10]: 12-14.
Dawkins,R. M., and J. P. Droop, 1911. 'ByzantinePottery
fromSparta' BSA 17 [1910-11]: 23-8.
Dawkins, R. M. (ed.), 1929. The Sanctuary of Artemis
Orthia at Sparta. Society for the Promotion of
Hellenic Studies, SupplementaryPaper 5. London.
Delivorias,A. 1969. 'AQxaiÓTT|T£çxai MvTmeíaAQxaôíaç-
AaxœviaçM. Delt. 24 B Chr.: 130-41.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Delivorias, A., 1992. 'Aaxoovixá AvGeuia' in Palagia and
Coulson 1989: 205-16.
Demakopoulou, K., 1965. 'Avaoxacpixai ëgeuvai eiç
oixÓ7i6Ôal7raQTr|ç'A. Deh. 20 B Chr.: 170-8.
Demakopoulou, K. 1966. 'AQxaiOTTyrec AQxaôíaç-
Aaxtovíaç'A. Deh. 21 B Chr.: 152-9.
Demakopoulou, K., 1967. 'Avaoxacpai eiç tx'v 7T8qioxtìv
rfjcináQTX]^A. Deh. 22 B Chr.:200-203.
de Polignac,E 1984. La naissancede la citégrecque:cultes,
espaceet sociétéVille- Vile sièclesav. Jf.-C.Paris,
de Polignac, F. 1994. 'Mediation, competition,and sover-
eignty:the evolutionof ruralsanctuariesin Geometric
Greece' in Alcock and Osborne 1994: 3-18.
de Polignac,F. 1995. Cults, Territory, and theOriginsof the
GreekCity-State.Chicago,
de S te. Croix G. E. M., 1972. The Origins of the
PeloponnesianWar.London.
Desborough, V. R. d'A., 1952. Protogeometric Pottery.
Oxford.
Diamant, S., 1974. The Later Village FarmingStage in
Southern Greece. PhD. dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.
Dickins, G, 1905. 'Laconia. Thalamae. 1. Excavations.2.
Inscriptions'BSA 11 [1905-05]: 124-36.
Dickins, G., 1906a. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 4. The Great Altar near the Eurotas' BSA 12
[1905-06]: 295-302.
Dickins, G, 1906b. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 10. the Theatre' BSA 12 [1905-06]: 394-406.
Dickins, G, 1906c. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 13. Topographic conclusions' BSA 12
[1905-06]: 431-9.
Dickins, G, 1907a. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 7. The Hieron of Athena Chalkioikos' BSA 13
[1906-07]: I37-54-
Dickins, G, 1907b. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 9. A sanctuaryon the Megalopolis road' BSA 13
[1906-07]: 169-73.
Dickins,G, 1908a. 'Excavationsat Sparta, 1908: thehieron
of Athena Chalkioikos'BSA 14 [1907-08]: 142-6.
Dickins, G, 1908b. 'The art of Sparta' The Burlington
Magazine 14: 66-84.
'
Dickins, G, 1912. 'The Growthof Spartan Policy Journal
ofHellenicStudies32: 1-42.
Dickins,G, 1913. 'The Growthof SpartanPolicy.A Reply'
JournalofHellenicStudies33: 111-12.
Dontas, G, 1969. 'LAKON KOMASTES' BCH 93:
39-55-
Dörpfeld,W., 1927.Alt Ithaka. Munich.
Dover, K. J., 1978. GreekHomosexuality. London.
Droop, J. P., 1907a. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 5. The early bronzes' BSA 13 [1906-07]:
109-17.
Droop, J. P., 1907b. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 6. The earlypottery'BSA 13 [1906-07]: 118-36.
Droop, J. P., 1908. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta, 1908.
3. The Pottery'BSA 14 [1907-08]: 30-47.
Droop, J. P., 1909. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta 1909.
3. The Pottery'BSA 15 [1908-09]: 23-39.
Droop, J. P., 1928. 'Excavations at Sparta. 4. The native
potteryfromthe Akropolis'BSA 28 [1926-27]: 49-81.
Droop, J. P., 1929. 'Bronzes' in Dawkins 1929: 196-202.
Ducat, J., 1990. Les Hilotes.Paris.
163
Eckstein, A. and F. Legner, 1969. Antike Kleinkunstim
Liebieghaus.Frankfurtam Main.
E vers,C, 1994. Les portraits d Hadrien. Typologieet ateliers.
Brussels.
Farrell,J., 1908. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta, 1908. 4.
Archaicterracottasfromthe sanctuaryof Orthia' BSA
14 [1907-08]: 48-73.
Faustoferri,A., 1996. //tronodiAmyklaie Sparta. Perugia.
Fehr,B., 1971. Orientalische undgriechische Gelage. Bonn.
Finley,M. I., 1975. The Use and AbuseofHistory.London.
Finley M. I., 1981a. 'Sparta and Spartan Society' in Finley
1981C: 21-40. London (=Finley 1975:161^77).
Finley, M. I., 1981b. 'The ancient city: from Fustel de
Coulanges to Max Weberand beyond' in Finley 1981c:
3-24-
Finley,M. I. (ed.) 1981c, Economyand Society in Ancient
Greece.London.
Finley,M. I., 1983. PoliticsintheAncientWorld.Cambridge.
Finley,M. I., 1985. 'Town and country'in M. I. Finley,The
AncientEconomy.2nd edn., ch. V. London.
Fisher,N. R. E., 1989. 'Drink, hubrisand the Promotionof
Harmonyin Sparta' in Powell 1989: 26-50.
Fisher, N. R. E. and H. van Wees (eds), forthcoming.
Archaic Greece: New Approachesand New Evidence.
London.
Fittschen,K., and P. Zanker, 1985. Katalog der römischen
Porträtsin den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen
kommunalen Sammlungen derStadt Rom I. Beiträgezur
Erschliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher
Skulpturund Architektur 3. Mainz am Rhein.
Fittschen,K., 1972. 'Das Bildprogramdes Trajansbogens
zu Benevent'AA 87: 742-88.
Fittschen,K., 1984. 'Eine Buste des Kaisers Hadrian aus
Milreu in Portugal'MadriderMitteilungen 25: 97-207.
Fitzhardinge,L. F., 1980. The Spartans.London.
Floren,J.,and Fuchs, W. (eds), 1987. Die griechische Plastik
I. Die geometrische undarchaischePlastik.Munich.
'
Forbes,H. A., 1976. "We have a littleof everything":the
ecological basis of some agricultural practices in
Methana, Trizinia' AnnalsoftheNew YorkAcademyof
Sciences268: 236-50.
Forbes, H. A., 1989. 'Of grandfathersand grand theories:
the hierarchicalorderingof responses to hazard in a
Greek rural community'in P. Halstead and J. O'Shea
(eds) Bad Year Economics:CulturalResponsesto Risk
and Uncertainty: 87-97. Cambridge.
Forbes,H. A., 1995. 'The identification of pastoralistsites
within the context of estate-based agriculture in
ancient Greece: beyond the "transhumance versus
agro-pastoralism"debate' BSA 90: 325-38.
Forrest, W. G, 1968. A History of Sparta to 1Ç2 BC.
London.
Forster,E. S., 1904a. 'South-western Laconia' BSA 10
[1903-04]: 158-89.
Forster,E. S., 1904b. 'Inscriptions' BSA 10 [1903-04]:
167-S9.
Forster, E. S., 1907. 'Laconia II: Gythium and the
north-west coast of the Laconian Gulf BSA 13
[1906-7]: 219-37.
Förtsch,R., 1994. Kunstverwendung und Kunstlegitimation
im archaischenund frühklassischenSparta (Habili-
tationsschrift, Köln).
Foxhall,L., 1990. 'The dependenttenant:land leasingand
164 BIBLIOGRAPHY
labour in Italy and Greece' Journalof Roman Studies
80: 97-1 14.
Foxhall,L. 1992. 'The controlof the Atticlandscape' in B.
Wells (ed.), Agriculturein Ancient Greece: 155-9.
Stockholm.
French,E. B., 1990. 'Sparta, AkropolisMZ?36: 25-6.
French,E. B., 1991. 'Sparta, Classical City'yi/?37: 28.
French,E. B., 1992. 'Sparta, Akropolis'AR 38: 19-21.
French,E. B., 1993. 'Sparta, Theatre'^/? 39: 22.
French,E. B., 1994. 'Sparta' AR 40: 20.
Furumark,A. 1972 The Chronologyof MycenaeanPottery
(2nd ed.). Stockholm.
Gaffney,C. F. and V. L. Gaffney,1986. 'From Boeotia to
Berkshire:an integratedapproach to geophysicsand
ruralfieldsurvey'ProspezioniArcheologiche 10: 65-70.
S.
Gale, J., and P. G. Hoare, 1991. QuaternarySediments:
Pétrographie Methodsfor theStudyofUnlithified Rocks.
London.
Gauer, W., 1975. Die Tongefdsse aus den Brunnenunterdem
Stadion-Nordwallund im Südost-Gebiet.Olympische
Forschungen8. Berlin.
Gauer, W., 1991. Die Bronzegefasse von Olympia I.
OlympischeForschungen21. Berlin.
Graindor,P., 1915. 'Les Cosmètes du Musée d'Athènes'
BCH 39: 241-401.
Greifenhagen, A., 1929. Eine attische schwarzfigurige
Vasengattung und die Darstellungdes Komos im VI.
Jahrhundert. Königsberg.
Gros, P., 1994a. 'Le schéma vitruviendu théâtrelatin'RA :
57-80.
Gros, P., 1994b.'Les théâtresen Italie au 1ersiècle de notre
ère', in L'Italie d Auguste à Dioctétien.Colloque de
FÉcole Françaisede Romeiç8: 285-307.
Gross, N. H., 1940. Bildnisse Traians. Das römische
Herrscherbild II.2. Berlin.
Gschnitzer, F., 1991. 'Zum Verhältnis von Siedlung,
Gemeinde und Staat in der griechischenWelt' in E.
Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (eds), Stuttgarter
Kolloquiumzur Historischen GeographiedesAltertums 3:
429-42. Bonn.
Halstead, R, 1987. 'Traditional and ancientruraleconomy
in MediterraneanEurope: plus ça change?'Journalof
HellenicStudies107: 77-87.
Halstead, P., 1996. Review of Sampson and Skoteini,
Tharrounia:theCave, theSettlement, and theCemetery
(1993) in AJA 100: 179-180.
Hammond, N. G. L., 1973. 'The creation of Classical
Sparta', Studiesin GreekHistory:47-103. Oxford.
Hansen, M. H., 1987. TheAthenianAssemblyin theAge of
Demosthenes. Oxford.
Hansen, M. H., 1993 (ed.). The AncientGreekCity-State.
Copenhagen.
Hansen, M. H., 1995. 'Kome. A studyin how the Greeks
designatedand classifiedsettlementswhich were not
poleis' in Hansen and Raaflaub 1995: 45-3 1-
Hansen, M. H. and K. A. Raaflaub,1995 (eds). Studiesin
the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschrift95).
Stuttgart.
Harding, A., G. Cadogan and R. J. Howell, 1969.
'Pavlopetri; an underwater Bronze Age town in
Laconia' BSA 64: 113-42.
Harrison,J. E., 1908. Prolegomenato the Study of Greek
Religion.Cambridge.
Harrison,E. B., 1953. AthenianAgora I: PortraitSculpture.
Princeton.
Hasluck, F. W, 1908. 'The promontoryof Malea and
Epidaurus Limera' 167-82 in Wace and Hasluck 1908:
161-82.
Hassel, F. J., 1966. Die Trajansbogenin Benevent: ein
Bauwerkdesrömischen Senats. Mainz am Rhein.
Hayes,J. W, 1995. 'Potteryfromthe ConstructionLevels
of the Upper Cavea' in Waywell and Wilkes 1995:
449-5 1.
Heath, M., 1988. 'Receiving the Komos: the Context and
Performance of Epinician' American Journal of
Philology109: 180-95.
Hekler,A., 1921-24. 'Studien zur römischenPorträtskunst'
Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Instituts
Archäologischen
21-2: 172-202.
Henrichs, A., 1987. 'Myth Visualized: Dionysos and
his Circle in Sixth-CenturyAttic Vase-Painting' in
Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World:92-124.
Malibu.
Herfort-Koch, M., 1986. Archaische Bronzeplastik
Lakoniens.Münster.
Hermary, A., 1986. 'Eros' in Lexicon Iconographicum
Mythologiae Classicae III: 850-942. Zürich and
Munich.
Heuss, A., 1979. 'Hellas', in A. Heuss and G. Mann:
PropyläenWeltgeschichte 1-3 (2nd ed.). Gütersloh.
Hirsch, E. and M. O'Hanlon, 1995 (eds). TheAnthropology
ofLandscape:perspectives onplace and space. Oxford.
Hitzl, K., 1982. Die Entstehungund Entwicklungdes
Volutenkraters von den frühestenAnfängen bis zur
Ausprägungdes kanonischen Stils in derattischschwarz-
figurigenVasenmalerei. Frankfurtam Main.
Hodkinson, S., 1983. 'Social orderand the conflictof val-
ues in Classical Sparta' Chiron13: 239-81.
Hodkinson, S., 1986/Land tenure and inheritance in
ancientSparta' ClassicalQuarterly36: 378-406.
Hodkinson, S., 1989. 'Inheritance,marriageand demogra-
phy;perspectivesupon the success and decline of clas-
sical Sparta' in Powell 1989: 79-121. London.
Hodkinson, S., 1992. 'Sharecropping and Sparta's econ-
omic exploitation of the helots' in Sanders 1992:
I23-34-
Hodkinson,S., forthcoming. 'Lakonian artisticproduction
and the problem of Spartan austerity'in Fisher and
van Wees, forthcoming.
Holladay,A.J.,1977. 'Spartan austerity'ClassicalQuarterly
27: 111-26.
Hondius, J. J. E. and A. M. Hondius-van Haeften, 1921.
'Laconia II: notes on topography' BSA 24-5
[1919-21]: 144-50-
Hood, M. S. F., i960. 'Archaeologyin Greece, 1959-60' yí/?
6: 3-26.
Hood, M. S. F., 196 1. 'Lakonia: Ayios Stephanos' AR 7:
32-33-
Hooker,J. T. 1976. MycenaeanGreece.London.
Hooker,J. T, 1980. TheAncientSpartans.London.
Hope Simpson, R., 1966. 'The seven cities offeredby
Agamemnonto Achilles' BSA 61: 113-131.
Hope Simpson, R., 1981. Mycenaean Greece.Park Ridge,
New Jersey.
Hope Simpson, R., and O. T. P. K. Dickinson, 1979. A
GazetteerofAegeancivilisationin theBronzeAge 1: The
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mainland and Islands. Studies in Mediterranean
ArchaeologyLIL Göteborg.
Hornbostel, W., 1984. 'Erwerbungen für die Antiken-
abteilung im Jahre 1983' Jahrbuchdes Museumsför
Kunstund GewerbeHamburg3: 143-98.
Hurst, V. J., 1977. 'Visual estimatesof iron in saprolite'
GeologicalSocietyofAmericaBulletin88: 174-6.
Huxley,G. L., 1962. Early Sparta. London.
Iakovides, S., 1966. TleQÍ too oxr^aroc tüovXaÇeurov
raqxöveiç xá BoXi^iíôiaMeaar|viac' in XaQwrrfQiov eiç
A K Oçtávõov: 98-1 11. Athens.
Isler, H. P., 1989. 'Vitruvs Regeln und die erhaltenen
Theaterbauten' in Munus non ingratum, Bulletin
AntiekeBeschaving,Supplement2: 141-53.
Jackson,A., 1992. 'Arms and armour at the panhellenic
sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia' in W. Coulson
and H. Kyrieleis (eds) Proceedings of an Inter-
national Symposiumon the Olympic Games: 141-4.
Athens.
James,P. A., M. P. Atherton,A. M. Harvey,A. Firmin
and A. Morrow, 1997. 'The physicalenvironmentof
Methana: formation, exploitation and change' in
C. Mee and H. A. Forbes (eds) A Rough and Rocky
Place: The Landscape and SettlementHistory of the
Methana Peninsula,Greece:5-32. Liverpool.
James,P. A., C. B. Mee and G. J. Taylor,1994 'Soil erosion
and the archaeologicallandscape of Melos' Journalof
Field Archaeology2 1: 395-4 16.
Jameson,M. H., C. N. Runnelsand T .H. van Andel, 1994.
A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from
Prehistory to thePresentDay. Stanfordand Cambridge.
Jeffery L.H., 1990. The local scriptsofArchaicGreece,2nd
edition, revised and enlarged by A. W. Johnston.
Oxford.
Jones,A. H. M., 1967. Sparta. Oxford.
Jones,R. E., 1986. Greekand CypriotPottery.A reviewof
scientificstudies. British School at Athens, Fitch
LaboratoryOccasional Paper 1. Athens.
Jucker, H., 1984. 'Trajanstudien zu einem
Chalzedonbüstchenim Antikenmuseum'Jahrbuchder
BerlinerMuseen26: 17^78.
Karouzou, S., 1955. 'Fragments d'un cratère à volutes'
BCH79: 177-204.
Kästner, V., 1990. 'Scheibenförmige Akrotere in
Griechenlandund Italien' Hesperia59: 251-64.
Kavvadias, R, 1890-92. rXvjtrà roo 'Eûvixoô Movoeíov.
KaráXoyoçTleQVYQacpixóç. Athens.
Kennell, N. M., 1985. The Public Institutionsof Roman
Sparta. Unpublished PhD. thesis,Toronto.
Kennell, N. M., 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue.Education
and Culture in Ancient Sparta. Chapel Hill and
London.
Kilian, K., 1988. 'The emergenceof Wanax ideologyin the
Mycenaean palaces' OxfordJournal of Archaeology7
(3): 291-302.
Kinch, K. F., 1914. Vroulia.Berlin.
Kirsten, E., 1956. Die griechischePolis als geographisches
ProblemdesMittelmeerraumes. Bonn.
Kirsten,E., 1984. Landschaftund Geschichte in der antiken
Welt.Bonn.
Kleiner, D. E. E., 1983. The Monumentof Philopapposin
Athens.Rome.
Kleiner, D. E. E., 1986. 'Athens under the Romans: the
165
patronageof emperorsand kings'in C. B. McClendon
(ed.) Romeand theProvinces:Studiesin Transformation
of Art and Architecture in the MediterraneanWorld:
8-20. New Haven.
Kleiner,D. E. E., 1992. RomanSculpture.Yale.
Knell, H., 1991. VitruvsArchitekturtheorie:2nd edn. 137-8.
Darmstadt.
Kolbe, W., 1913 (ed.). InscriptionesGraecae V.l. Berlin.
Korres, G. S., 1995. 'navcryiarrriçIra^iaTáxriç,AttóotoXoç
eiç ZTraQTrjv (1875)' 'Emarryuovixri 'Ensrr¡Qic
0iÀOGO(pixfjçZxoArjçnavemonyiiov Aût]vœv1992-95:
495-508.
Kourinou,E., 1985. 'Avaaxaqnxéç Epjaaiec', A. Deh. 40 B
Chr.: 102.
Kourouniotes, K., 1911. "EÇ Attixtjç' Archaiologike
Ephemeris:246-56.
Kunze, E., 1958. VI Bericht über die Ausgrabungenin
Olympia.Berlin.
Kunze, E., 1961. VII Berichtüber die Ausgrabungenin
Olympia.Berlin.
Kunze, E., 1967. VIII Berichtüber die Ausgrabungenin
Olympia.Berlin.
Kyrieleis,H., 1981. Führerdurchdas Heraion von Samos.
Athens.
Kyrieleis, H., 1993. 'The Heraion at Samos' in N.
Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds) GreekSanctuaries:New
Approaches:125-54. London.
Lamb, W. W., 1927a. 'Excavations at Sparta, 1927. 5.
Bronzes from the acropolis, 1924-1927' BSA 28
[1926-27]: 82-95.
Lamb, W. W., 1927b. 'Excavations at Sparta, 1906-1910. 6.
Notes on some bronzes fromthe Orthia site' BSA 28
[1926-27]: 96-106.
Lamb, W. W., 1969. Ancient Greek and Roman Bronzes
(reprint with additions of original 1929 edition).
Chicago.
Lane, E. A., 1934. 'Lakonian Vase-painting' BSA 34
[1933-34]: 99"i89.
Lane Fox, R., 1985. 'Aspects of inheritancein the Greek
world' in P. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey (eds) Crux:
Essays in GreekHistoryPresentedto G. E. M. de Ste.
Croix on his jsth Birthday: 208-32. Exeter and
London.
Langlotz,E., 1932. Griechische Vasenin Würzburg.Munich.
Lattanzi,E., 1968. 1 ritratti
dei CosmetinelMuseo Nazionale
di Atene.Rome.
LazenbyJ. E, 1985. The SpartanArmy.Warminster.
Leake, W. M., 1830. Travelsin theMorea I- III. London.
Leake, W. M., 1846. Peloponnesiaca.London.
Lembesi, A., 1985. To Ieçó too Eq^itjxai xr'qAcpçoõírriçarri
Ev^it]Biáwov I. XáXxivaKqt^ixá Toçeófiara.Athens.
Lemos, A. A., 1991. ArchaicPotteryofChios: TheDecorated
Styles.OxfordUniversityCommitteeforArchaeology.
Monograph no. 30. Oxford.
Leontis, A., 1995. Topographiesof Hellenism.Ithaca and
London.
Lewis, D. M., 1977. Sparta and Persia. Brill.
Lissarrague, E, 1990. 'Around the Krater: an Aspect of
Banquet Imagery' in O. Murray (ed.) Sympotica: a
Symposiumon the Symposion:196-209. Oxford.
Loraux, N., 1986. The Inventionof Athens. The Funeral
Orationin theClassical City.Cambridge,Mass.
Loraux, N., 1993. The ChildrenofAthena.Princeton.
166 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Loring,W, 1895. 'Some ancientroutesin the Péloponnèse'
JournalofHellenicStudies15: 25-92.
Lotze, D., 1994. 'Bürger zweiterKlasse: Spartas Periöken.
Ihre Stellung und Funktion im Staat der Lakedai-
monier' Sitzungsberichteder Akademie der Wissen-
schaftenzu Erfurt Klasse 19Q41
y Geisteswissenschaftliche
37-51-
Lullies, R., 1957. Die Spitzamphorades Kleophradesmalers.
Opus Nobile No. 5. Bremen.
Mackenzie, D., 1897. 'Ancient sites on Melos' BSA 3:
71-88.
Malkin, I., 1994. Myth and Territory in theSpartan Medi-
terranean.Cambridge.
Marangou, L., 1969. Lakonische Elfenbein-und Bein-
schnitzereien. Tübingen.
Marinatos,S., 1952. 'Ävctaxacpaièv nóW PAE: 473-96
Marinatos,S., 1953. 'ÄvctoxcKpcti èv nóW PAE: 238--50
Marinatos,S., 1954. 'Avaaxacpai èv ílótao' PAE: 299-306
Mattusch,C. C, 1988. GreekBronze Statuary.Ithaca and
London.
Megaw, A. H. S., 1964. 'Archaeologyin Greece, 1963-64'
AR io: 3-30.
McDonald, W. A., W. D. E. Coulson and J. Rosser (eds),
1983. Excavationsat Nichoriain SouthwestGreeceIII:
Dark Age and ByzantineOccupation.Minneapolis.
Mee, C. and W. G. Cavanagh, 1990. 'The spatial distribu-
tionof Mycenaean tombs' BSA 85: 225-43.
Meier,C, 1990. The GreekDiscoveryofPolitics.Cambridge,
Mass.
Meyer,H., 1991. Antinoos.Munich.
Moebius, H., 1968. Die ornamenteder griechischen Grab-
stelenklassischerund nachklassischer Zeit. Munich.
Morris,I. M., 1987. Burial and AncientSociety.The Rise of
the GreekCity-State.Cambridge.
Morris,I. (ed.) 1994. Classical Greece:AncientHistoriesand
ModernArchaeologies. Cambridge.
Morris, I., forthcoming.'Archaeologyand archaic Greek
history'in Fisher and van Wees, forthcoming.
Murray,O., 1991. 'War and the Symposion' in W. Slater
(ed.) Diningin a Classical Context:93-103. Ann Arbor.
Murray,O. and S. Price (eds), 1990. The GreekCityfrom
HomertoAlexander.Oxford.
Nafissi,M., 199 1. La Nascita del Kosmos.Sulla Storia e la
Società di Sparta. Perugia.
Neils, J. et al.. 1992 Goddessand Polis. The Panathenaic
FestivalinAncientAthens.Dartmouthand Princeton.
Nicholls,R., 1950. 'Sparta' BSA 45: 282-98.
Oeconomus, G. P., 1921. De profusionumreceptaculis
sepulcralibusinde ab antiquissimus temporibisusque ad
nostramaetatemusitatis.Athens.
Oldfield,F, B. A. Maher,J. Donoghue and J. Pierce, 1985.
'Particle-size related, mineral magnetic source sedi-
ment linkages in the Rhode River catchment,
Maryland, USA' Journal of the GeologicalSociety of
London142: 1035-46.
Omont, H., 1902. Missions ArchéologiquesFrançaises en
Orientaux XVIIe et XVI Ile Siècles.Paris.
Ormerod, H. A., 1910. 'Bardounia and north-eastern
Maina' BSA 16 [1909-10]: 62-71.
Orsi, P., 19io. 'Di una anonima cittàsiculo-grecaa Monte
S. Mauro presso Caltagirone' MonumentiAntichi20:
806-15.
Osborne, R., 1985. 'Buildings and residenceon the land in
Classical and Hellenistic Greece: the contributionof
epigraphy'ÄS/i80: 119-28.
Osborne, R., 1987. Classical Landscape withFigures: The
AncientGreekCityand itsCountryside. London.
Osborne, R. 1991. 'Pride and prejudice,sense and subsis-
tence: exchangeand societyin the Greek city' in Rich
and Wallace-Hadrill1991: 119-45.
'
Osborne, R., 1992. "Is it a farm?":the definitionof agri-
culturalsites and settlementsin ancientGreece' in B.
Wells (ed.) Agriculture in Ancient Greece: 21-5.
Stockholm.
Osborne, R. 1996. ''Classical Landscape revisited' Topoi 6:
49-64.
Palagia, O., 1990. 'Seven pilastersof Herakles fromSparta'
in S. Walker and A. Cameron (eds), The Greek
Renaissancein theRomanEmpire:187-92. London.
Palagia, O, 1993 'A marble Athena Promachos fromthe
akropolis of Sparta' in Palagia and Coulson, 1993:
i67-75-
Palagia,O. and W. D. E. Coulson, (eds) 1993. Sculpture from
Arcadia and Laconia. Oxford.
Panayotopoulou,A., 1989. 'Fragmentde sol en mosaïque:
La Toilette d'Aphrodite'in Erosgrec.Amourdes dieux
et des hommes.(Catalogue de l'Exposition au Grand
Palais, 6 novembre1989-5 février1990). Athens.
Panayotopoulou, A., 1994 'Les représentations de la
Méduse dans les mosaïques de Grèce', VI Coloquio
InternacionalsobreMosaico Antiguo(Palencia-Mérida,
Octubre 1990): 369-82. Guadalajara.
PapamarinopoulosS., R. E. Jones and A. Gagalis, 1990.
'Geophysicalsurveyand archaeologicalsitesin Greece:
a new initiative'in E. Pernicka and G. Wagner (eds)
Archaeometryygo (Proceedings of the 27th Inter-
nationalSymposiumHeidelberg 1990): 777-86. Basel.
Paribeni,E., 1975. LaviniumIL Le trediciare. Rome.
Parker,R., 1989. 'Spartan Religion'in Powell 1989: 142-72.
London.
Parlama, L., 1971. '0aXauoeiôr|ç rá<poçeiç ÄYQa7ri5ox(OQi
'HXeíaç' Archaiologike EphemerisChr.: 52-60.
H.
Payne, G, 193 1. Necrocorinthia.
Oxford.
Payne, H. G, 1940. PerachoraI. Oxford.
Pelagatti,P., 1955-56. 'La ceramica laconica del Museo di
Taranto' Annuariodella Scuola Archeologicadi Atene
33-34 (n. s. 17-18): 7-44.
Pelagatti,P., 1989. 'Ceramica laconica in Sicilia e a Lipari'
Bulletinod'Arte54: 1-62.
Pelagatti,P., and C. M. Stibbe, 1988. 'Una forma poco
conosciuta di vaso laconico: il cratere a campana'
Bulletinod'Arte52: 13-26.
Pelagatti, P. and Stibbe, C. M. (eds) 1990. Lakonikà.
Ricerche e Nuovi Materiali di Ceramica Laconica.
Bollettinod'Arte Supplementoal No. 64.
Pelon, O., 1976. Tholoi,Tumuliet CerclesFunéraires.Paris.
Pensabene, P., 1983. 'Osservazioni sulla diffusione dei
marmisul loro prezzo nella Roma imperiale'Dialoghi
di Archeologia3: 55-63.
Petrakos,B. C, 1992. 'O navayiórricZraixaxaxriclôçurriç
roi) Mooaeíou ZraÍQTriç' Lakonikai Spoudai 11
(FestschriftD. V. Vagiakakos):642-50.
Pettersson, M. 1992. Cults of Apollo at Sparta. The
Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia.
Stockholm.
Phelps, W. W, 1975. The Neolithic PotterySequence in
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Southern Greece. PhD. dissertation,University of
London.
Phaklaris,P. B., 1990. Archaia Kynouria.Athens.
Philipp,H., 1981. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia.Olympische
Forschungen13. Berlin.
Philippson, A., 1892. Der Peloponnes: Versuch einer
Landeskundeaufgeologischer Grunde.Berlin.
Philippson,A., 1959. Die griechischen Volume
Landschaften.
3/2. Frankfurtam Main.
Piccirilli,L. 1984. 11 santuario,la funzioneguerrieradella
dea, la regalità: il caso di Atena Chalkioikos' in M.
Sordi (ed.) Santuari e la guerranel mondoantico:3-19.
Milan.
Pipili, M., 1987. Laconian IconographyoftheSixth Century
BC. Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology.
Monograph no. 12. Oxford.
Powell, A. (ed.), 1989. Classical Sparta: TechniquesBehind
Her Success.London.
Powell, A., and S. Hodkinson (eds), 1994. The Shadow of
Sparta. London.
Powell, A. D., 1995. 'The medieval occupation of the
theatre' in Waywell, G. B., and J. J. Wilkes,
'Excavations at the ancient theatreof Sparta 1992-4:
preliminaryreport'BSA 90: 445-7.
Rackham,O., 1983. 'Observationson the historicalecology
of Boeotia' BSA 78: 291-351.
Raftopoulou,S., forthcoming a. 'AQxaiórr|Teçxai Mvrifxeía
Aaxcovíaç'A. Delt. 47 B [1992] Chr.
Raftopoulou,S., forthcomingb. 'Dark Age Burials from
Sparta' Acts of the $th InternationalCongressfor the
Péloponnèse(Nafplion 1995).
Rawson E. D, 1991. The Spartan Traditionin European
Thought.Oxford.
Renard,J., 1989. Le Site néolithiqueet helladiqueanciende
Kouphovouno(Laconia): fouillesde O.-W. von Vacano
(1941). Aegaeum. Annales d'archéologie égéenne de
l'Universitéde Liège, 4. Liège.
Rich, J. and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds), 1991. City and
Countryin theAncientWorld.London.
Robertson,N., 1992. Festivalsand Legends:theformationof
Greekcitiesin thelightofpublicritual.Toronto.
Roesch, P., 1985. 'Les taureauxde bronze du Kabirion de
Thèbes et l'écriture archaïque béotienne' in J. M.
Fossey and H. Giroux (eds) Actes du III Congrès
Internationalsur la Béotie Antique, 197c: 135-52.
Amsterdam.
Rohde, E.,1927. Psyche(7th. ed.) Tübingen.
Rolley, C, 1969. Les Statuettesde Bronze. Fouilles de
Delphes V.2. Paris.
Rolley,C, 1982. Les Vasesde Bronzede l'Archaïsmerécenten
Grande-Grèce.Naples.
Rolley, C, 1986a. Greek Bronzes (English translationof
French original,Fribourg).London.
Rolley,C, 1986b. 'Les bronzes grecs: recherchesrécentes'
RevueArchéologique: 377-91.
Rolley,C, 1993. 'Les bronzes grecs et romains:recherches
récentes'RevueArchéologique: 387-400.
Rotili,M., 1972. L'Arco di Traianoa Benevento.Rome.
Roy,J., 1971. 'Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesianaffairs
370-362 bc' Historia20: 569-99.
Roy,J., 1996. 'The countrysidein classical Greek drama,
and isolated farmsin dramaticlandscapes' in Shipley
and Salmon 1996: 98-118.
167
Runciman, W. G, 1982. 'Origins of states: the case of
Archaic Greece' ComparativeStudies in Society and
History24: 351-77.
Runciman,W. G. 1990. 'Doomed to extinction:the polis as
an evolutionarydead-end' in Murray and Price (eds)
1990: 347-67-
Rutter,J. B., and S. H. Rutter, 1976. The transitionto
Mycenaean; a stratifiedMiddle Helladic II to Late
Helladic HA potterysequencefromAyios Stephanosin
Laconia. Los Angeles.
Sabbadini, R., 1910. 'Ciríaco di Ancona e la sua descrizione
autografa del Peloponneso trasmessa da Leonardo
Botta' M iscellaneaCeriani: 183-243.
Sakellariou, M. B. 1989. The Polis-State. Definitionand
Origin.Athens.
Salzmann, D, 1982. Untersuchungenzu den antiken
Kieselmosaiken. ArchäologischeForschungen,Band 10.
Berlin.
Sampson, A., 1992. 'Late neolithicremainsat Tharrounia,
Euboea: a model for the seasonal use of settlements
and caves' BSA 87: 61-101.
Sanders, G D. R., 1995. 'Potteryfrommedieval levels in
the orchestraand lowercavea' in Waywelland Wilkes,
1995: 451-7.
Sanders,J. M. (ed.) 1992. &1AOAAKQN. Lakonian Studies
in honourofHectorCatling.London.
Sartre, M., 1979. 'Aspects économiques et aspects poli-
tiques de la frontièredans les cités grecques' Ktema 4:
213-24.
Schaus, G. P., 1978. Archaic Greek Pottery from the
Demeter Sanctuary,Cyrene 1969-76: Minor Fabrics
(PhD. dissertation,Universityof Pennsylvania1978).
UniversityMicrofilms:Ann Arbor.
Schaus, G P., 1979. 'A ForeignVase Painterin Sparta' AJA
83: 102-6.
Schaus, G. P., 1985. The ExtramuralSanctuaryof Demeter
and Persephone at Cyrene,Libya. Final Reports.Vol.II:
The East Greek, Island and Laconian Pottery.
Philadelphia.
Schaus, G. P., 1986. 'Two Fikellura Vase Painters' BSA
81:251^95.
Schleiffenbaum,H. E., 1991. Der griechische Volutenkrater.
Frankfurtam Main.
Schmaltz,B., 1980. Metallfiguren aus demKabirenheiligtum
bei Theben(Das Kabirenheiligtumbei Theben VI).
Berlin.
Schnabel, H., 1910. Kordax. Munich.
Scranton, R. L., 1951. 'Monuments in the Lower Agora
and North of the Archaic Temple' Corinth I, 3.
Princeton.
Scutt, C. A. (1913) 'The Tsakonian dialect- I' BSA 19
[1912-13]: 133-73.
Scutt,C. A. (1913-14) The Tsakonian dialect- IP BSA 20
[1913-14]: 18-31.
Sear, F, 1990. 'Vitruviusand Roman Theater Design' AJA
94: 249-58.
Sear, F, 1993. 'The Scaenae frons of the Theater of
Pompey' AJA 97: 687-701.
Seeberg,A., 1971. CorinthianKomos Vases.London.
Shear,T. L. 1933: 'The currentexcavationsin theAthenian
Agora' AJA 37: 305-12.
Shear, T. L., 1935: 'The Athenian Agora: The sculpture
foundin 1933' Hesperia4: 411-413.
168 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Shefton,B. B., 1954. 'Three Laconian Vase-Painters'BSA
49: 299-310.
Shefton, B. B., 1989. 'East Greek Influences in Sixth-
Century Attic Vase-Painting and Some Laconian
Trails' in GreekVasesin thej. Paul GettyMuseum4 (=
Occasional Papers on Antiquities5): 41-72.
Shipley,G., 1992. 'PERIOIKOS: the discoveryof classical
Laconia' in Sanders 1992: 211-26.
Shipley,G., 1996. 'Ancienthistoryand landscape histories'
in Shipley and Salmon 1996: 1-15
Shipley,G. and J. Salmon, 1996 (eds). Human Landscapesin
Classical Antiquity.Environment and culture.London
and New York.
Simon, E., 1969. Die GötterderGriechen.Munich.
Simon, E., 1982. The Ancient Theatre (trans., C. E.
Vafopoulou-Richardson).London.
Simon, C. G., 1986. The archaic votiveofferings and cults
of Ionia. PhD. dissertation,Berkeley.
Sismanidis,K., 1982. 'Néoç MaxeôovixóçTácpoçgtt|vAyía
riaQaoxsuri0£GaaAx>víxr)ç' AAA 15: 267-84.
Snodgrass, A. M., 1977. Archaeologyand the Rise of the
GreekState. Cambridge.
Snodgrass, A. M., 1987. An Archaeologyof Greece: The
PresentState and FutureScope ofa Discipline.Berkeley.
Snodgrass,A. M., 1990a. 'The economics of dedicationat
Greek sanctuaries'in Anathema:Regimedelle Offerte e Instituutte Romen. s. 3: 7-16.
Vita dei Santuari nelMediterraneo Antico,special issue
of Scienze dellAntichità3-4 [1989-90]: 287-94.
Snodgrass,A. M., 1990b.'Survey archaeologyand therural
landscape of the Greek city' in Murray and Price:
113-36.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1991. 'Structural historyand classical
archaeology'in J. Bintliff(ed.) TheAnnalesSchooland
Archaeology, 57-72. Leicester.
Snodgrass, A. M., 1993. 'The rise of the polis. The archae-
ological evidence' in Hansen 1993: 30-40.
Soteriades,G., 191o. 'Tò Ileôíov xfjçèv LeAAaoía Má%r|ç'
BCH 34: 5-57.
Soteriades, G, 1911. 'Anti-Sellasia' BCH 35: 87-107,
241-2.
Sotheby's,1993. GreekVasesfromtheHirschmannCollection
(sale catalogue,December 9th). London.
Sparkes, B. A., and L. Talcott, 1970. Black and Plain
Pottery.The AthenianAgora,Vol. XII. Princeton.
Spawforth,A. J. S., 1978. 'Balbilla, the Euryclids and
memorialsfora Greek magnate'BSA 75: 249-60.
Spawforth,A. J. S., 1980. 'Sparta and the family of
Herodes Atticus'BSA 75: 203-20.
Spawforth,A. J. S., 1985. 'Families at Roman Sparta and
Epidaurus: some prosopographical notes' BSA 80:
191-258.
'
Spyropoulos,T., 1980. Avaaxcupixéçegyaaiec', A. Delt. 35
B Chr.' 135-45.
Spyropoulos, T., 1989. 'IleUava', A. Delt. 37 B Chr.:
1 12-13.
Spyropoulos, T., 1981. 'AQxaiórr|Teç xai Mvr||ieía
AQxaôíaç-Aaxcovíaç'A. Delt. 36 B Chr.: 121-131.
Spyropoulos, T., 1982. 'AQxaiÓTnreç xai Mvrmeía
AQxaôíaç-AaxoovíaçM.Delt. 37 B Chr.: 111-121.
Spyropoulos, T., 1983. 'AQxaiórriTeç xai Mvr|¿ieía
AQxaôiaç-Aaxœviaç'A. Delt. 38 B Chr.:88-97.
Starr, C. G., 1965. 'The Credibility of Early Spartan
History'Historia14: 257-72.
Steinhauer,G, 1972. 'AQxaiórr|Teçxai Mvr|fxeía Aaxtovíaç-
AQxaôíaç', A. Delt. 27 B Chr.:242-51.
Steinhauer,G., 1973. 'AQxaiOTTyrec xai MvrmeíaAaxcovíaç-
AQxaôíaç', A. Delt. 28 B Chr.: 164-80.
Steinhauer, G., 1973-4. 'AQxaiornrec xai Nivr^eía
Aaxtovíaç-AQxaõíaç',A. Delt. 29 B Chr.:283-301.
Steinhauer,G., 1975. 'AQxaiÓTT|T£ç xai Mvr''ieíaAaxamaç-
AQxaôíaç', A. Delt. 30 B Chr.:74-80.
Steinhauer,G., 1988. V. IoúXioç EuQUxA.r|ç- Iu^ßoXr| ott|v
lOTOQÍa tt|ç Qœjiaïxriç2jraQTr|ç.Unpublished PhD.
dissertation,Athens.
Steinhauer,G., 1992. 'An Illyrian Mercenary in Sparta
under Nabis' in Sanders 1992: 239-45.
Stephanidou-Tiveriou,T., 1993. TçaneÇocpoçane 7iXacmxr'
H arcixfiofiáôa. Athens
Õiaxóajur]GT].
Stern, W. M., 1975. Studies in Hadrianic Private
Portraiture.PhD. dissertation,Indiana.
Steuben,H. von, 1991. Reviewof Pipili 1987 in Gnomon63:
340-3-
Stibbe,C. M., 1972. LakonischeVasenmaler des6. Jh. v. Chr.
Amsterdamand London.
Stibbe, C. M., 1974. 'Il Cavaliere Laconico' Mededelingen
van hetNederlandsInstituutte Romen. s. i: 19-37.
Stibbe,C. M., 1976. 'Neue FragmentelakonischerSchalen
aus Cerveteri' Mededelingen van het Nederlands
Stibbe, C. M., 1978. 'Lakonische Kantharoi' Mededelingen
van hetNederlandsInstituutte Rome40: 23-42.
Stibbe,C. M., 1986. 'Eine neue Schale des AllardPierson-
Malers' in H. A. G. Brijder,A. Drukker,C. W. Neeft
(eds) Enthousiasmos.Essays on Greek and Related
PotteryPresentedto Jf.M. Hemelrijk:29-34. Allard
Pierson Series, 6. Amsterdam.
Stibbe, C. M., 1989. Laconian Mixing Bowls. Laconian
Black-Glazed Pottery,Part 1. Amsterdam.
Stibbe,C. M., 1990. 'A Laconian VoluteKraterfromSicily'
Xenia 19: 5-18.
Stibbe,C. M., 1991a. 'Dionysos in Sparta' BulletinAntieke
Beschaving66: 1-44.
Stibbe, C. M., 1991b. 'Bellerophonand the Chimaera on a
Lakonian Cup by the Boreads Painter' in Greek Vases
in theJf.Paul GettyMuseum 5 (Occasional Papers on
Antiquities7): 5-12.
Stibbe, C. M., 1992a. 'Archaic bronze hydriai' Bulletin
AntiekeBeschaving67: 1-62.
Stibbe, C. M., 1992b. 'Dionysos mit einer Kithara?' in H.
Froninget al (eds) Kotinos:Festschriftßr Erika Simon:
139-45. Mainz am Rhein.
Stibbe, C. M., 1994. Laconian DrinkingVesselsand Other
Open Shapes. Laconian Black-Glazed Pottery,Part 2.
Allard Pierson Series, Scripta minora, vol. 4.
Amsterdam.
Stibbe,C. M., 1996. Das andereSparta. Mainz am Rhein.
Stibbe, C. M., forthcoming.Laconian Oil-flasksand other
closedshapes. Laconian Black-Glazed Pottery,Part 3.
Amsterdam.
Stoddart,D. R., 1986. On Geography.Oxford.
Stubbs,H., 1950. 'Spartan austerity:a possibleexplanation'
ClassicalQuarterly44: 32-7.
Talcott,L. 1936. 'A Stand signed by Euthymides'Hesperia
5:68.
Tausend, K. 1992. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie.Formen
zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Griechenland (Historia Einzelschrift73). Stuttgart.
Taylour,W. D, 1962 'Laconia: AyiosStephanos'A. Delt. 16
[i960] Chr.: 104-05.
Taylour,W. D, et al. 1972. 'Excavations at Ayios Steph-
anos' BSA 67: 205-70.
Taylour, W. D., 1979. 'Excavations at Ayios Stephanos,
1973, 1974' A. Delt. 29 [1973-74] Bl Chr-' 3I2~H-
Thommen, L., 1996. Lakedaimonion Politela. Die
Entstehung der spartanischen Verfassung(Historia
Einzelschrift103). Stuttgart.
Thompson, R. and F. Oldfield, 1986. Environmental
Magnetism.London.
Tillyard,H. J. W., 1905. 'Laconia. Geraki. 3. Inscriptions'
BSA 11 [1904-05]: 105-12.
Tillyard,H. J.W., 1906. 'Laconia. II. Excavationsat Sparta,
1906. 9. Inscriptionsfrom the Artemision' BSA 12
[1905-06]: 351-93.
Tod, M. N., 1904. 'Teams of ball-playersat Sparta' BSA 10
[1903-041:63-77.
Tod, M. N., 1907. 'Three new sphaireisinscriptions'BSA
13 [1906-07]: 212-18.
Tod, M. N., H. J. W. Tillyardand A. M. Woodward, 1907.
'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta, 1907. 10. Inscrip-
tions' BSA 13 [1906-07]: 174-218.
Tod, M. N. and A. J. B. Wace, 1906. A Catalogue of the
Sparta Museum.Oxford.
Tomlinson,R. A., 1976. GreekSanctuaries.London.
Tomlinson,R. A., 1995 'Sparta: Theatre: Roman StoaM/?
41: 15-16.
Torelli,M., 1992. 'Da Sparta a Villa Adriana:le termedell'
Arapissa, il gimnasio del Platanistas e il Teatro
Maritimo' in Stips votiva (FestschriftStibbe): 225-
232. Amsterdam.
Toynbee, A. J., 1969. Some Problemsof Greek History
Oxford.
Traquair,R., 1906a. 'Laconia. I. Mediaeval fortresses'BSA
12 [1905-06]: 259-76.
Traquair, R., 1906b. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 12. The Roman stoa and the fortifications of the
acropolis' BSA 12 [1905-06]: 415-30.
Travlos, J., 1971. Pictorial Dictionaryof AncientAthens.
London.
Tsakos, K., 1980. 'Eva icqó rr|çAqt6|iiôoç axr| Zá^io' AAA
13: 305-18.
Tsountas, C, 1889. '"Eqsuvoii èv rrj Aaxœvixfjxai ó
'
TÓcpoçtoo Bacpeíoi) ArchaiologikeEphemeris1889:
129-172.
Valmin,M. N., 1938. The SwedishMesseniaExpeditionIII.
Lund,
van Andel,T. and C. Runnels,1987. BeyondtheAcropolis:a
ruralGreekpast. Stanford,
van Andel, T. and C. Runnels, 1995. 'The earliestfarmers
in Europe' Antiquity69: 481-500.
van Andel, T., E. Zangger and A. Demitrack, 1990. 'Land
use and soil erosion in prehistoric and historical
Greece' JournalofField Archaeology17: 379-396.
van Berghem, J-W. and J. Fiselier, forthcoming.
'Interpretingsite patterns using land evaluation' in
Cavanagh et al., forthcoming.
Vayakakos D. V. and I. G. Taiphakos, 1975. 'Aaxœvixr)
LakonikaiSpoudai 2: 417-87
BißÄ.io-yQct(pia'.
Venit,M. S., 1985. 'Laconian Black Figure in Egypt' AJA
89: 391-8.
169
Vermeule,C. C, 1968. Roman ImperialArt in Greeceand
Asia Minor. Cambridge,Mass.
Vermeule,E. T., 1964. Greecein theBronzeAge. Chicago.
Vita Finzi, C, 1969. The MediterraneanValleys:Geological
Changesin HistoricalTimes.Cambridge.
von Bothmer,D., 1985. The Amasis Painterand his World.
New Yorkand London.
von Reden, S. V. I. A., forthcoming.'The well-ordered
polis: topographies of civic space' in Cartledge,
Millettand von Reden (eds) KOSMOS. Order,Conflict
and Community in ClassicalAthens.Cambridge.
Wace, J. B., 1905a. 'Laconia. Geraki. 2. Sculpture' BSA
A.
11 [1904-05]: 99-105.
Wace, A. J. B., 1905b. 'Frankish sculpturesat Parori and
Geraki' BSA 11 [1904-05]: 139-45.
Wace, A. J. B., 1906a. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 2. The City Wall' BSA 12 [1905-06]: 284-88.
Wace, A. J. B., 1906b. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 3. The Heroön' BSA 12 [1905-06]: 288-94.
Wace, A. J. B., 1906c. 'Laconia. II. Excavations at Sparta,
1906. 8. The stamped tiles' BSA 12 [1905-06]:
344-50-
Wace, A. J. B., I9o6d. 'The Roman Baths (Arapissa)' BSA
12 [1905-6]: 407-14.
Wace, A. J. B., 1907a. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 2. The City Wall' BSA 13 [1906-07]: 5-16.
Wace, A. J. B., 1907b. 'Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 3. The stamped tiles' BSA 13 [1906-07]: 17-43.
Wace, A. J. B., 1909. 'Lakonia: excavationsat Sparta, 1909.
6. The Menelaion. The lead figurines' BSA 15
[1908-09]: 127-41.
Wace, A. J. B., 1910. 'Laconia. III. Early potteryfrom
Geraki' BSA 16 [1909-10]: 72-75.
Wace, A. J. B., 1929. 'Lead figurines'in Dawkins 1929:
249-284.
Wace, A. J. B., and G. Dickins, 1907. 'Laconia. I.
Excavations at Sparta, 1907. 8. The Tombs' BSA 13
[1906-07]: 155-68.
Wace, A. J. B., and F. W. Hasluck, 1905a. 'Laconia. I.
Excavations near Angelona' BSA 11 [1904-05]:
81-90.
Wace, A. J. B., and F. W. Hasluck, 1905b. 'Laconia.
Geraki. 1. Excavations' BSA 11 [1904-05]: 91-99.
Wace, A. J. B. and F. W. Hasluck, 1908. 'Laconia. II:
topography.South-easternLaconia' BSA 14 [1907-8]:
161-82.
Wace, A. J. B. and F. W. Hasluck, 1909. 'Laconia II: topog-
raphy.East-centralLaconia' BSA 15 [1908-9]: 158-76.
Wace, A. J. B., M. S. Thompson and J. P. Droop, 1909.
'Excavations at Sparta 1909. 6. The Menelaion' BSA
15 [1908-09]: 108-57.
Wade-Gery,H. T., 1958. Essaysin GreekHistory.Oxford.
Wagstaff, J. M., 1981. 'Buried assumptions:some problems
in the interpretationof the "Younger Fill" raised by
recent data from Greece' Journal of Archaeological
Science8: 247-64.
Wagstaff,J. M., 1992. 'Colonel Leake in Laconia' in
Sanders 1992: 277-83.
Walbank,F. W, 1985. 'The problemof Greek nationality'
in F W. Walbank,SelectedPapers: essaysin Greekand
Roman historyand historiography. 1-19. Cambridge.
Walter-Karydi, E., 1973. Samische Gefdsse des 6.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,Samos VI. 1. Bonn.
170 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Warden,P. G, 1990. Tart I: The small finds'in D. White
(ed.) The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephoneat Cyrene,Libya. Final Reports,IV: 1-86.
University of Pennsylvania, University Museum
Monograph 67. Philadelphia.
Warren,P. M., 1992. 'Lapis Lacedaemonius' in Sanders
1992: 285-96.
Waterhouse,H. E., 1956. 'PrehistoricLaconia: a note' BSA
51: 168-71.
Waterhouse, H. E., and R. Hope Simpson, i960.
'PrehistoricLaconia, Part V BSA 55: 67-107.
Waterhouse,H. E., and R. Hope Simpson 1961 'Prehistoric
Laconia, Part II' BSA 56: 114-75.
Waterhouse,H. E., 1986. The BritishSchool at Athens;the
first hundred years. British School at Athens,
SupplementaryVolume 19. London.
Waywell,G. B., J. J. Wilkes, D. M. Bailey,and G. D. R.
Sanders, 1993. 'Excavations at Sparta; the Roman
Stoa, 1988-91. Preliminaryreport,Part 1' BSA 88:
219-Ì6.
Waywell, G. B. and J. J. Wilkes, 1994. 'Excavations at
Sparta: the Roman Stoa, 1988-91, Part 2' BSA 89:
377-432-
Waywell,G. B. and J.J. Wilkes, 1995. 'Excavations at the
Ancient Theatre of Sparta 1992-4: Preliminary
Report' BSA 90: 435-60.
Waywell,G. B. and J.J. Wilkes,'Excavationsat Sparta: the
Roman stoa, 1988-91. Part 3' BSA 92: 401-34.
Waywell,S. E., 1979. 'Roman Mosaics in Greece', AJA 83:
293-321.
Weber,T, 1983. Bronzekannen.Frankfurtam Main.
Wegner,M., 1956. Hadrian. Plotina. Marciana. Matidia.
Sabina. Das römische Herrscherbild II.3. Berlin.
Whitelaw,T. M., 1991. 'The ethnoarchaeologyof recent
rural settlementand land use in northwestKeos' in
Cherryet al. 1991: 403-54.
Whitelaw,T. M., 1994. 'An ethnoarchaeologicalstudy of
ruralland-use in north-westKeos: insightsand impli-
cations forthe studyof past Aegean landscapes' in P.
N. Doukelis and L. G. Mendoni (eds) Structures
Ruraleset SociétésAntiques'.163-86. Paris.
Whitehead,D., 1986. The DemesofAttica508/7 to ca. 250
BC. Princeton.
Wilkinson,K. N., 1993. 'Investigationsof past erosional
and sedimentologicalprocesses at the Roman and
Byzantinesite of Sparta' Papersfromthe Instituteof
Archaeology 4: 9-24.
Wilkinson,K. N., 1997. 'The environmentof Roman and
ByzantineSparta' 415-21 in G. B. Waywelland J. J.
Wilkes 'Excavations at Sparta: the Roman Stoa,
1988-91. Part 3' BSA 92: 401-34.
Winter,N. A., 1993. GreekArchitectural fromthe
Terracottas
Prehistoricto the end of the Archaic period. Oxford
Monographs on Classical Archaeology.Oxford.
Woodward, A. M., 1907. 'Taenarum and south Maina'
BSA 13 [1906-7]: 238-67.
Woodward,A. M., 1908. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1908. 5. Inscriptions'BSA 14 [1907-08]: 74-141.
Woodward,A. M., 1909. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1909. 4. Inscriptions'BSA 15 [1908-09]: 40-106.
Woodward,A. M., 1910. 'Laconia. I. Excavationsat Sparta,
1910. 6. Inscriptions'BSA 16 [1909-10]: 54-61.
Woodward, A. M., 1925a. 'Excavations at Sparta,
1924-1925. 2. The Theatre' BSA 26 [1923-25]:
119-158.
Woodward,A. M., 1925b. 'Excavationsat Sparta, 1924-25.
3. The Inscriptions'BSA 26 [1923-25]: 159-239.
Woodward,A. M., 1925c. 'Excavationsat Sparta, 1924-25.
4. The Acropolis. The Finds' BSA 26 [1923-25]:
253-76.
Woodward,A. M., 1926a. 'Excavationsat Sparta, 1926. II.
The Theatre' BSA 27 [1925-26]: 175-209.
Woodward,A. M., 1926b. 'Excavations at Sparta, 1926. 3.
The Inscriptions'BSA 27 [1925-26]: 210-54.
Woodward,A. M., 1927a. 'Excavations at Sparta, 1927. 2.
The Theatre' BSA 28 [1926-27]: 3-36.
Woodward,A. M., 1927b. 'Excavations at Sparta. 3. The
Acropolis,1926-27' BSA 28 [1926-27]: 37-48.
Woodward,A. M., 1928. 'Excavations at Sparta, 1924-28:
2. The Inscriptions'BSA 29 [1927-28]: 2-56.
Woodward, A. M., 1930a. 'Excavations at Sparta,
1924-1 928. I. The Theatre: Architecturalremains'
BSA 30 [1928-30]: 151-240.
Woodward,A. M., 1930b. 'Excavationsat Sparta, 1924-27.
II. Votive inscriptionsfrom the Acropolis' BSA 30
[1928-30]: 241-54.
Woodward,A. M., and M. B. Hobling, 1926. 'Excavations
at Sparta, 1924-25. 4. The Acropolis' BSA 26
[1923-25]: 240-52.
Woodward,A. M., and L. Robert, 1928. 'Excavations at
Sparta 1924-28. PartII. Four Hellenisticdecrees' BSA
29 [1927-28]: 57-74.
Woodward, J. M., 1928. 'Excavations at Sparta. 3.
Terracottas,Plastic Vases, Reliefs' BSA 29 [1927-28]:
75-107-
Wright,J. C, 1987. 'Death and power at Mycenae: chang-
ing symbolsin mortuarypractice'in R. Laffineur(ed.)
Thanatos: Les CoutumesFunérairesen Egée à l'Age du
Bronze: 171-184. Liège.
Wycherley, R. E., 1978. The Stones of Athens.
Princeton.
Xanalatou-Dergalin, E., and A. Kouloglou-Pervolarake,
1976. Moveußaoia (2nd. ed.). Athens.
Zancani Montuoro, R, 1954. 'L'agguato a Troilo nella
ceramicalaconica' Bollettinod'Artt39: 289-95.
Zorides, P., i982.'Aóo TroQTQairatou AÔQiavoótou tóttou
"Rollockenfrisur"arcotov íleiçaiá xai xr|vEttíôouqo'
AAA 15: 115-24.
 ListofContributors

Paul Cartledge, Maria Pipili,

Clare College, Academyof Athens,
CambridgeCB2 iTL. Anagnostopoulou14,
Athens 106-73,
Hector Catling, Greece.
DunfordHouse,
Lanford, Stella Raftopoulou,
Lechlade, 9 G. AthenassiadiStreet,
GloucestershireGL7 3LN. Pendeli 152-36,
Greece.
WilliamCavanagh,
Departmentof Archaeology, TylerJo Smith,
Universityof Nottingham, Departmentof Art and Art History,
UniversityPark, VirginiaTech College of Artsand Sciences,
NottinghamNG7 2RD. 201 Draper Road,
Blacksburg,
ReinhardFörtsch, VA 24061-0103,
ArchäeologischesInstitutder UniversitätKöln, U.S.A.
Albertus-Magnus-Platz,
D-50923 Köln, Theodore Spyropoulos,
Germany. ArchaeologicalMuseum,
Tripoli 221-00,
Stephen Hodkinson, Greece.
Departmentof History,
Universityof Manchester, Conrad Stibbe,
ManchesterM 13 9PL.
Tondensestrasse3,
Anna Karapanaiotou, 6975 AB Tonden,
The Netherlands.
ArchaeologicalMuseum,
Tripoli 221-00,
Greece. Susan Walker,
Departmentof Greek and Roman Antiquities,
BritishMuseum,
ChristopherMee,
School of Archaeologyand OrientalStudies, London WCiB 3DG.
Universityof Liverpool,
14 AbercrombySquare, GeoffreyWaywell,
Liverpool L69 3BX. Instituteof Classical Studies,
Senate House,
Donald M. Nichol, Malet Street,
16 Courtyards, London WCiE 7HU
Whittlesford Road,
Little Shelford, JohnWilkes,
CambridgeCB2 5ER. Instituteof Archaeology,
31-34 Gordon Square,
AnastasiaPanayotopoulou, London WCiH oPY.
National ArchaeologicalMuseum,
Tossitsa 1, Keith Wilkinson,
Athens106-82, King Alfred'sCollege,
Greece. WinchesterSO22 4NR.
 BSASTUDIES SERIES
This newseriespresentsrecentstudies,conference and reviewsof the
proceedings
currentstateof research,
in all areasof Greekstudies.

vol. I THE LATEST SEALINGS FROM THE PALACE AND HOUSES

ATKNOSSOS
M. A. V. Popham and R. Gill
Pp x + 65, 45 pp plates
ISBN o 904887 24 3 jG24*°o

VOL.2 POST-MINOAN CRETE:

of theColloquiumorganisedbytheBritishSchoolat
Proceedings
Athensand theInstituteof Archaeology, College,London,
University
November1ÇQ5
Eds. W. G. Cavanagh,M. Curtis,J.N. Coldstreamand A. W.Johnston
Pp 136,69 figuresand halftones
ISBN o 90488729 4 ¿22.00

vol. 3 THEPALAEOLITHICOF GREECEAND THEBALKANS:

of theICOPAG Conference,
Proceedings Ioannina,September
1QQ4
Eds. E. Adam, G. Bailey,E. Panagopoulou,C. Perlesand K. Zachos
IN PREPARATION

VOL.4 SPARTAIN LACONIA: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF A CITY AND

ITS COUNTRYSIDE
Proceedingsof the19thBritishMuseumColloquiumwiththeBritish
Schoolat Athens,King'sCollegeLondonand University
CollegeLondon,
December7995
Eds. W. G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker
Pp 172,152figuresand halftones
ISBN o 90488731 6 £26.50
vol. 5 KNOSSOS: POTTERY GROUPS OF THE OLD PALACE PERIOD
J.A. MacGillivray
Pp 195,46 figures,156pp plates
ISBN o 90488732 4 £49.00

cover illustration: The ancienttheatre

at Sparta(Photo:G. B. Waywell)
cover design: CharlotteWestbrook
Wilson

ISBN 0-904887-31-6

9 "780904'887310