The extent of spartan territory in the late classical and hellenistic periods

Annual of the British School at Athens

Volumn 95, Issue 101, 2000, Pages 367-390

  Shipley, Graham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012495735     PISSN: 00682454     EISSN: 20452403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0068245400004731     Document Type: Article

References (146)

1. My Peloponnesian research is funded by a grant under the Research Leave Scheme of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Board. I am grateful to the University of Leicester for research leave, and to the Director and staff of the BSA for providing research funding, and congenial facilities, during and after my tenure of the Visiting Fellowship in 1999. Especial gratitude is due to Bill and Lena Cavanagh for practical assistance. Much of the groundwork has been laid in the course of research carried out for the Copenhagen Polis Centre; I thank Dr M. H. Hansen for generous funding, advice, and hospitality. Dr L. A. Holford-Strevens made many valuable suggestions for improving the text.
2. G. Shipley, ‘The survey area in the hellenistic and Roman periods’, forthcoming in LS i; id., ‘Archaeological sites in Laconia and the Thyreatis’, LS ii. 263-313; id. ‘Site catalogue of the survey’, LS ii. 315-438.
3. Of many discussions I can mention here only the most important in English, by Cartledge and Spawforth (see n. 1). Note also N. M. Kennell, ‘From perioikoi to poleis: the Laconian cities in the late hellenistic period’, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives (London, 1999), 189-210. See also Shipley, GWA 140-8, with additional references at 416. Current knowledge of the archaeology of Roman Sparta, with many references to Hellenistic monuments, is summarized by CS 216-25 (map, 214-15); many Hellenistic data are reviewed by S. Raftopoulou, ‘New finds from Sparta’, in W. G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker (eds), Sparta in Laconia: Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium held with the British School at Athens and King's and University Colleges, London (6-8 December, 1995) (BSA Studies, 4; London, 1998), 125-40.
4. Notable among these are the works of G. A. (I. A.) Pikoulas on the southern territory of Megalopolis and the north-western borderlands of Laconia, and the sustained efforts of L. Moschou to elucidate the settlements of the Tainaron region. Several of these studies are cited below.
5. For ‘Lakonike’, and for the use of ‘Laconia’ rather than ‘Lakonia’ (which is not used in Greek sources), see Shipley, OL 272-3 n. 3 ad fin.
6. Shipley, OL 206-11; J. M. Hall, ‘Sparta, Lakedaimon and the nature of perioikic dependency’, in P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (CPC Papers, 5/Historia Einzelschriften, 138; Stuttgart, 2000), 73-89.
7. Strabo, viii. 5.5 (366); Paus. iii. 21.7; CS no; Gitti (n. 9), 196, 201.
8. Not to be confused with Boiotian Leuktra; for the similar names, cf. Plutarch, Pelop. 20. 4, 7. For the attribution of Leuktra and perhaps Kromoi to the Aigytis, see Pikoulas, NMC 143.
9. See n. 64 below.
10. For the date see D. R. Shipley, A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos: Response to Sources in the Presentation of Character (Oxford, 1997), 349.
11. Nielsen (n. 4), 323-34.
12. Plut. Kleom. 4 (25). 1-2.
13. Polyb. ii. 54. 3.
14. Syll. 3 665 = IvO 47, lines 34-6.
15. Nielsen (n. 4), 10, 45.
16. Livy, xxxviii. 34. 8.
17. Polyb. ix. 28. 7, xviii. 14. 7. On the manner of the decision, apparently taking into account the views of the Greeks generally, see Polyb. ix. 33. 10. On Philip's settlement of the Peloponnese see C. Roebuck, ‘The settlements of Philip II with the Greek states in 338 BC’, CP, 43: 73-92, repr. in id., Economy and Society in the Early Greek World: Collected Essays (Chicago, 1979), 131-50.
18. Livy, xxxviii. 34. 8, where Belbinatis, the reading of the MSS, may represent an assimilation of Greek atis to the Latin ethnic ending atis/as (I am grateful to Dr L. A. Holford-Strevens for this observation).
19. B. Niese (‘Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Lakedämons’, Göttingische gelehrte Nachrichten, 1906, 101-42, at 120) thought in terms of the Skiritis and the Karyatis; but ‘Karyatis’ is not an ancient name and Karyai itself may have remained Spartan (see nn. 60, 63).
20. Shipley, OL 232-3 no. 12.
21. Pikoulas (n. 11), 264; Pikoulas, NMC 139-47, no. 95 late 4th-c. BC-2nd-c. AD pottery, esp. 2nd-c. BC-2nd-c. AD; cf. LS ii. 283, CC258, also CC40).
22. Shipley, OL 239 no. 25.
23. Pikoulas, NMC 143.
24. Several of these studies are cited below. 161-4 no. 121, at pp. 162, 164; ‘Classical-Early Hellenistic’ pottery, i.e. mid-5th-c. and 4th-c; no trace of fortifications or cemetery, though the site has natural defences.
25. For the date cf. D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 360.
26. Pikoulas, NMC 161-4 no. 121; see also AR 29 (1982-1983), 28-9; BCH 107 (1983), 764-7.
27. Shipley, OL 239 no. 26; or ‘Leuktron’.
28. Pikoulas, NMC 143.
29. Id., ‘Skiritis’, 145-6.
30. Shipley, OL 239 no. 27.
31. Pikoulas, NMC 144 and n. 440 (where the reference to Xen. Hell. i. 28 is presumably to i. 2. 18).
32. Several of these studies are cited below. 129 31 no. 91.
33. Diod. xvi. 39. 3-7; Paus. iv. 28. 1-2.
34. G. [= W.] Kolbe, in IG v. 1. p. 11.
35. So Kolbe in IG v. 1, p. xiv, followed tentatively by Cartledge in CS 90 and n. 25, referring to Paus. iii. 21. 3; viii. 35. 4; S. Accame, Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), 130 T. Schwertfeger, Der achäische Bund von 146 bis 27 v.Chr. (Munich, 1974), 49 n. 90, but also noting the caution of V. Ehrenberg, ‘Sparta (Geschichte)’, RE iii A 2 (1929), 1373-453, at 1445.
36. Shipley, OL 264 no. 106; see e.g. Thuc. v. 33. 1; Andrewes et al. (n. 16), 33-4, with map 1 (facing p. 34); and see esp. Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’; id. NMC 142-5.
37. Id., NMC 144.
38. Id., ‘Skiritis’, 135. Another Late Classical-Hellenistic site: Kourniákos Rous’ Apidiá, Several of these studies are cited below. 139.
39. Pikoulas (‘Skiritis’, 144) regards the Skiritai as a whole as being of perioikic status, with one urban centre at Oios and smaller settlements in the surrounding area of c. 100 km2. Xen.'s statement, Cyrop. iv. 2. 1, that the Assyrians treat the Hyrkanians as the Lakedaimonians do the Skiritai is not to be taken as evidence that the Skiritai were not Lakedaimonians; they clearly formed part of the Lakedaimonian army.
40. Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 123, 127.
41. This again depends on the Niese-Pikoulas reading: see n. 16. Dr J. Roy (pers. comm.) has observed that Paus. is well aware that not all the sites he lists were, in the event, incorporated into Megalopolis, but that the proximity of Oios to Tegea may not be an obstacle to accepting his statement, since (a) Pallantion is not much further from Tegea and was incorporated and (b) there may have been a desire on the part of those determining the shape of Arkadia not to see Tegea elevated to a position of power. One might add (c) that if ‘Skiritis’ denoted any territory in S. Arkadia captured by Sparta (above) there might be a presumption that all such places should remain within a single geopolitical entity. (I am grateful to Jim Roy, Thomas Heine Nielsen, and Giannis Pikoulas for discussions of this crux; they are not responsible for my views.)
42. W. Loring, ‘Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese’, JHS 15 (1895), 25-89 10.2307/624059, at 60 and n. 141; K. Romaios, PAE 1907, 121; Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 124, 135-7 and n. 35; cf. id. NMC 239 no. I; LS ii. 283.
43. So Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 123-4.
44. Pikoulas, p. 124, takes the silence of the sources as a sign that Skiritis was now Arkadian.
45. ‘Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese’.
46. Id., NMC 143-4 and n. 433.
47. Shipley, OL 238-9 no. 24. Not part of Skiritis: Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 133.
48. LS ii. 284, DD45; Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 137-9.
49. For the date see ‘Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese’., 124; D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 355.
50. The legend that Karyatai was the name of a deme of Tegea in very early times (Herodian, ‘Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese’. (n. 60), also cites the ethnic) can hardly reflect an actual grant by Philip II, which would have made such invention otiose; rather, it reflects a claim concocted on the basis that Philip did give part or all of the Skiritis to Tegea. Niese (n. 26), 120, however, assumes that it was given away by Philip; cf. Kolbe, IG v. 1, p. 172.
51. Shipley, OL 246 no. 44. The text of Paus. viii. 27. 3 is uncertain (Iasaia? Asea?) but refers in any case to Mainalian towns, whereas Paus. vii. 13. 6 places Iasos on the border of Lakonike and Arkadia. See Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 138 n. 41.
52. CS 88, 90.
53. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, n. 7 to Syll. 3 665.
54. If we accept the emendation of Paus. viii. 27. 4.
55. Thuc. ii. 27. 2, vi. 95. 1.
56. Hdt. i. 82. 1; Thuc. iv. 57. 1, 3.
57. Hdt. i. 8a. 2.
58. Cartledge (n. 16), 124-6.
59. Hdt. i. 82. 2.
60. Paus. ii. 38. 5.
61. Shipley, OL 241 no. 30.
62. Goester (n. 78), 77-8.
63. If we accept the emendation of Paus., 57-67; dates at 78-80.
64. LS ii. 278, AAIO; Phaklaris2 185-92.
65. e.g. Thuc. iv. 56. 2.
66. Romaios (n. 74); Meyer, ‘Kynouria I’ Der kleine Pauly, iii. 402.
67. Paus. iii. 21. 7.
68. Syll. 3 407 = FdD iii. 1. 68; Delphi, 275 BC.
69. Paus. iii. 24. 1.
70. Polyb. iv. 36. 5.
71. So Cartledge in CS 63.
72. Livy, xxxiv. 35. 10, xxxv. 13. 2.
73. Shipley, OL 263 no. 101.
74. Hansen, ‘Kome’ (n. 4).
75. LS ii. 281, BB28 and BB29 respectively.
76. Phaklaris2 137 considers that the archaeological evidence confirms close relations with Argos in at least the 2nd c. BC.
77. Shipley, OL 247 no. 50; LS ii. 282, BB35.
78. Shipley, OL 262 no. 96; or Glympeis; LS ii. 281-2, BB31.
79. Shipley, OL 247 no. 49; LS ii. 286, FK263; 287, FF262 and FF66.
80. Plut. Agis, 8 (29). 1.
81. Paus. vii. 13. 6.
82. Shipley, OL 245 no. 41; or Geranthrai.
83. CS 58.
84. A. J. B. Wace, ‘Laconia: Geraki. 2. Sculptures’, BSA II (1904-1905). 99-105 : id. and F. W. Hasluck, ‘Laconia: excavations near Angelona’, Paus. vii. 13. 6. 81-90; LS ii. 291, GG103. Date of wall: preliminary excavation reports by J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent, in Pharos, 3 (1995), 41-65, at 47-52; Pharos, 4 (1996), 89-120, at 90-8; Pharos, 5 (1997), 49-83, at 70. Classical Hellenistic buildings, possible street: Paus. vii. 13. 6. 58-60, 63-5, 70, 72; S. M. Thorne, pers. comm. (July 1999)
85. Shipley, OL 262-3 no. 100; LS ii. 286, FF98.
86. Shipley, OL 233 no. 15.
87. Shipley, OL 234 no. 17 (‘Pellene’).
88. Shipley, OL 239-40 no. 28; LS ii. 321-3, A118 Palaiogoulás, cf. ii. 285, EE54, EE57 and pp. 328, 352. Not part of Skiritis: Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 129.
89. Pikoulas, NMC 144 and n. 437.
90. Shipley, OL 268 no. 126; LS ii. 289. GG85.
91. Shipley, OL 252 no. 64; H. Waterhouse and R. Hope Simpson, ‘Prehistoric Laconia: part I’, BSA 55 (1960). 67-197. at 80-1; LS ii. 290, 291-2, GG87, GG339, or GG101.
92. Shipley, OL 268-9 no. 131; LS ii. 293. GG108.
93. Shipley, OL 269 no. 134.
94. Shipley, OL 262 no. 97.
95. Livy, xxxiv. 36. 2.
96. Or Maleum: a Maleo, Livy. xxxiv. 36. 3.
97. Livy, xxxiv. 13. 1.
98. Shipley, OL 227-8 no. 4. For Hellenistic data from new fieldwork on the island, see C. Broodbank, ‘Kythera Survey: preliminary report on the 1998 season’, BSA 94 (1999), 191-214. at 200, 203, and 206-9 passim.
99. Shipley, OL 259 no. 83.
100. Paus. vii. 13. 6., 230 no. 8.
101. Paus. vii. 13. 6., 259 no. 84.
102. Shipley, OL 233 no. 13.
103. Shipley., 241 no. 31. Kastélli Daimoniás, LS ii. 311, NN239. See too n. 88.
104. Shipley, OL 246 no. 46. LS ii. 309 MM227 Bozá; 309-10, MM228 Kastélli/Goulás.
105. Shipley, OL 246-7 no. 47; LS ii. 308, MM220.
106. Shipley, OL 244 no. 37; LS ii. 308-9, MM219. See too n. 88.
107. Shipley, OL 262 no. 99; the site is probably Apidéa or Apidiá, LS ii. 307-8, MM216.
108. Shipley, OL 252-3 no. 65. Possible sites: LS ii. 298, KK272, KK140; 299, KK143, KK141.
109. CS 138 even allow the possibility that Helos might have been reintegrated into the Spartan state in 146/5 or under Augustus, since rich families in Roman Sparta continued to own land there. See too n. 88.
110. Livy, xxxiv. 13. 1.
111. Livy, xxxv. 13. 3.
112. Shipley, OL 237-8 no. 23.
113. Shipley, OL 245 no. 42; LS ii. 304, LL188. See 100 n. 88.
114. Shipley, OL 228 9 no. 5; LS ii. 300, LL153.
115. Shipley, 0L 229 no. 6; LS ii. 300 1, LL154. On the polis status of Oitylos, see now M. H. Hansen, ‘The use of the word polis in the fragments of some historians’, in P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (CPC Papers, 6/Historia Einzelschriften, 138; Stuttgart, 2000), 141-50, at 148.
116. Kinaithion is otherwise unattested in the word-list of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM. ‘Cinaethium Pr.’ is marked by Kolbe, IG v. 1, pl. 7, as the Tigáni peninsula.
117. Shipley, OL 230 no. 9; LS ii. 306, LL210.
118. Shipley, OL 251 2 no. 63; 296, 11-124.
119. Shipley; OL 241 no. 32; LS ii. 306. LL209.
120. Shipley, OL, 244 no. 38.
121. Shipley., 247 no. 48.
122. Shipley., no. 51; LS ii. 301 2, LL163.
123. Shipley, OL 240 no. 29; LS ii. 301, LL162.
124. Ps.-Skyl. 46; Shipley, OL 234-5 no. 19.
125. Shipley, 0L 243-4 no. 36.
126. Head2 418. Kolbe, IG v. 1, p. xii, adds Pylos (Polyb. xviii. 42. 7), and Kolonides and Methone on the basis of their coins (Head2 432, 433 respectively), but these are dated by Head to the high imperial period.
127. Shipley, OL 242 no. 34.
128. Spawforth, in CS 101.
129. Shipley, OL 241-2 no. 33; LS ii. 299-300, LI.150; MME 290 no. 150.
130. Shipley, OL 266-7 no. 199; LS300, LL 149.
131. Shipley, OL 236 no. 21.
132. CS 139.
133. Shipley, OL 257 no. 79.
134. CS 139.
135. CS 138 locate it astride the Langada pass through Taygetos. It must be border territory and cannot be coastal, since the famous Artemis Limnatis sanctuary in Dentheliatis (Tac. Ann. iv. 43) was situated some way inland (Paus. iv. 31. 3).
136. Kolbe in IG v. I, p. ix, referring to id., Ath. Mitt. 29 (1904), 376, favours Gonatas, noting that Beloch preferred Poliorketes and Niese Doson.
137. The date is suggested by Kolbe, IG v. I, p. xvi, on the basis of IG v. I. 1448, a decree in honour of both Augustus and Tiberius.
138. Cf. CS 138. The actions of Philip, Antigonos, Mummius, the Milesians, Octavian/Antony, and Atidius are known only from Tac. Ann. iv. 43, reporting the decision made under Tiberius, when the Lakedaimonians claimed that the Dentheliatis and Artemis Limnatis were seized forcibly by Philip II. For a discussion of Tac.'s account see CS 138-9.
139. On the date of composition of Paus.'s work, see J. Pouilloux, ‘Introduction, I: l'homme et l’ oeuvre’, in M. Casevitz, J. Pouilloux, and F. Chamoux (eds), Pausanias: Description de la Grèce, i: Attique (Budé edition; Paris, 1992), xiv-xix.
140. CS 117, 139. For horoi of disputed date see IG v. 1. 1371 (Vespasianic) = SEG xiii. 259 (AD 25). Kolbe, IG v. I, on no. 1372 (other horoi N of Langada), argues for a date of AD 78 rather than Tiberian times.
141. Chronology: D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 349 (first invasion Nov./Dec. 370-Mar./Apr. 369), 354, and index s.v. ‘Epameinondas’.
142. In a decree of Tiberian date from Gytheion about the organization of a festival in honour of the city's liberators, SEG xi. 923 (xiii. 257), the long-dead Flamininus is the only non-imperial honorand (ll. 12-13), which strongly suggests he and no other person was responsible for setting up the Lakedaimonian league.
143. For the dissociation of the founding of the Lakedaimonian league from the events of the 140s, see Gitti (n. 9).
144. Paus. iii. 21. 6, with Gitti (n. 9), 196, 201.
145. The event is celebrated in inscriptions from the largest town, Gytheion : IG v. I. 1160, in honour of Tiberius who ‘with his father’ restored their freedom; SEG xi. 923, cited above, where Augustus is called Eleuthcrios (1. 8).
146. Later mentions are anachronistic or reflect an imprecise, or at least non-technical, use of the term perioikos. Polyb. iv. 34. 9 (c. 240 BC), ii. 65. 9 (222 BC). Strabo, vii. 5. 4 (365), refers to the Perioikoi deserting Sparta for Rome; this is to be interpreted in connection with the reign of Eurykles, not the events of 195 BC, but is an imprecise usage reflecting the seizure of the former perioikic poleis by Eurykles and their temporary reintegration into the Spartan state (Gitti (n. 9), 196).