¹ JHS 32 (1912), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Review of Oilier, , Le Mirage spartiate, in CR 49 (1935), 184 f.Google Scholar

³ Boardman, J. in BSA 58 (1963), 1–4, dcmndates the end of Laconian II to 580 B.C., and hints at downdating of other objects from c. 700 to c. 650 B.C.Google Scholar

⁴ JHS 71 (1951), 85 ff. (Jacobsthal) and 156 ff.(Robinson).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Greek Coins ² (1955), pp. 33 f.Google Scholar

⁶ Kraay, C. M., The Composition of Greek Silver Coins (1962), p. 33.Google Scholar

⁷ Some of these points were foreshadowed by Cook, R. M., Historia 7 (1958), 257 ff,,Google Scholar but argued at greater length by Kraay, C. M.JHS 84 (1964), 76 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Corinth and Athens themselves did not follow Aegina's lead for half a century and even in fourth-century Athens exchange of goods could be talked of as the most natural form of international trade: Xen. Poroi 3.2.

⁸ This view was touched on by Chrimes, K.M.T., Ancient Sparta (1949), p. 307,Google Scholar though she also entertained the Blakeway hypothesis to some extent. A more elaborate treatment followed from Stubbs, H.W., CQ 44 (1950), 32 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar His view seems to have been adopted by Huxley, G.L., Early Sparta (1962), pp. 73 f.Google Scholar and something similar is to be found in Wolski, J., Rev. Ét. Anc. 69 (1967), 31–49.Google Scholar

⁹ Hdt. 1.153.1–3.

¹⁰ JHS 48 (1928), 20–1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ploug, G., Sukas, ii (1973).Google Scholar

¹² Perachora ii (1962), 369.Google Scholar

¹³ JHS 58 (1938), 32.Google Scholar

¹⁴ BSA 48 (1953), 29.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Sinope (1956–1959) and AA (1959), 17–18.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Arch. Reports 1959/60, p. 54.Google Scholar Now published in Metzger, H., Fouilles de Xantbos ii (1972).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Shefton, B.BSA 49 (1954), 299.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lane, , op. cit. 178.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Shefton, , op. cit. in n.17,Google Scholar and Cook, R.M.Jahrb. des Deatsches Arch. Inst. (1959), 114 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Chrimes, K.M.T., Ancient Sparta (1949), pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar

²¹ Graham, A.J.JHS 91 (1971), 43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² FGrHist 65 F 4.

²³ CQ 12 (1962), 156 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Artemis Orthia (1929). p. 113.Google Scholar

²⁵ In later excavations on the Spartan Acropolis a small group of Athenian pots was found which probabiv comes from the temple of Athena (BSA 28 (1927). 81).Google Scholar They are all of one tvpe-Panathenaic amphorae of the sort originallv given as prizes in the Hanathenaic games. They depict a stylized Athena on one side and a representation of the relevant sport on the other. Some of these have been found in places where Panathenaic victors were unlikely to be found and presumably had been sold commercially so we cannot safely assume that the pots on the Acropolis were dedications by victors, although it is tempting to think so. Cf. Croix, de Ste, The Origins of the Peloponneswn War (1972), p. 255 n.5. But these pots are not the normal aesthetic examples of Attic pottery, so hardly provide a significant exception to the general rule that Sparta failed to emulate the rest of the Mediterranean world in the importation and use of Attic pottery after the middle of the sixth century.Google Scholar

²⁶ No kantbarot have been found at Orthia and it was suggested (Artemis Orthia, p. 112) that, as vases of this shape appear regularly in Spartan tomb-reliefs, a religious taboo might be the reason.Google Scholar

²⁷ Buck, C. D., Greek Dialects (1955), pp. 268–9 no. 71.Google Scholar

²⁸ M.I. Finley points out that the prohibition on silver and gold may only have applied to coinage and not to bullion. The chariots, or at least the metal components (if wood and craftsmen come from a Spartan's estate) had to be bought either with natural produce, iron spits, or bullion. See Problemes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne, ed. Vernant, J.-P. (1968), pp. 150–1.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hell. 6.4.11.

³⁰ Plut, . Alcib. 11–12.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. Croix, de Ste, Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972), pp. 137–8 and Appendix 28.Google Scholar

³² Xen. Ages 9.6; cf. Plut, . Apophth Lac. 212 b. Ironically, those contests which did require manly qualities did not produce many Spartan victors after c. 560. There is no reason to think they were not competing, given their resentment when the Hleans tried to exclude them (Thuc. 5.49).Google Scholar

³³ Pausanias describes statues of the horses and charioteer and of Cynisca herself by Apelles (6.1.6). A poem celebrating the victory was the only poem celebrating an achievement by a member of the royal houses of Sparta except that of Simonides on Pausanias' victory at Plataea (3.8.1–2).

³⁴ Xen. Mem. 1.3.61; cf. Plut, . Cimon; 10.5.Google Scholar

³⁵ Thuc. 4.119.2.

³⁶ This was an ancient family connection as Thuc. 8.6.3 reveals. Aicibiades was a family name of Endius and borrowed by the Athenian family; cf. also 5.43.2. Kndius was active in peace and other negotiations with Athens on many occasions (Thuc. 5.44.3; FGrHist 324 F 44; Diod. 13.52.2).

³⁷ Plato, , Laws 642 b.Google Scholar

³⁸ Plut, . Ages. 29Google Scholar says that Sparta was celebrating a festival and full of foreigners when the news of Leuctra arrived. Plato, , Laws 953, thought it desirable to restrict the number of tourists for festivals in his ideal state.Google Scholar

³⁹ As was the image of Artemis Orthia; Lippold, C., Die Gr. Plastik in Handb. der Archanlogie ⁵ (1950), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Pausanias 8.45–7 for Athena Alea.

⁴¹ Lane, , op. cit. pp. 157–61;Google ScholarShefton, , BSA 49 (1954), 299–310;Google ScholarCook, , op. cit. p. 156 n.2.Google Scholar

⁴² There are, of course, plenty of nonmilitary themes in the bronze, lead, and terracotta objects–particularly, as one would expect, statuettes of Artemis. But there remains a strong military element, especially after c. 580.

⁴³ It has generally been assumed that all the craftsmanship was in perioecic hands in Laconia because of the rule that no Spartiate could engage in such activities. Mr. J. Boardman, however, has drawn my attention to a group of rich sixth-century graves found in the city alongside a potter's kiln. (Intramural burials were accepted in Sparta.)A. Delt. 19 (1964) A 123, 283–5.Google Scholar If this is taken to be a rich Spartiate potter then the backsliding in Sparta must have gone very far indeed. The graves are dated by sherds and a funerary amphora to c. 610–590 Plutarch, B.C., Lycurgus 27.2,Google Scholar says that Lycurgus forbade the burying of objects with the dead. If this was an early ban, and part of the ancient system, these graves provide evidence of a double infringement–the engaging in manufacture by what is presumably a Spartiate family, and the burial of objects in its graves. All the funeral amphorae of this type that have been found in Sparta date from 625 to 5 50 B.C., and it is suggested in the publication report that the ban was enforced again from the middle of the sixth century. The tightening up of the system would also put a stop to Spartiate manufactures and these would revert to perioeci.

The view that it was the perioeci who were normally the craftsmen and traders is nowhere directly attested, as was pointed out by Hampl, F. (Hermes 72 (1937), 31–2)Google Scholar and more recently by Ridley, R.T. (Mnemosyne 27 (1974), 281 ff.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar But Hampl's suggestion that all perioeci were landowners is not very compelling. Much of the land in perioecic territory was not very fertile and there are indications that some Spartan manufactures were associated with areas in perioecic territory. No doubt there were grades of wealth and distinction amongst the perioeci and there is no need to seek craftsmen and traders among disfranchised or bastard Spartans. If the cooks (Hdt. 6.60) and engineers (Xen, . Lac. Pol. 11.2) were indeed Spartiates they still need not be regarded as commercial operators.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Frühgr. Bildhauer-Schulen (1927). p. 92.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Aspects of the Ancient World (1946), pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ There are also terracotta figures of warriors the vast majority of which are after 580. The popularity of lead hoplites also comes at that time (Artemis Orthia, pp. 167, 274).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Lane, (op. cit., pp. 157–61) comments that the orgiastic vases (with prostitutes) seem to be borrowed from Corinth and do not allude to Spartan life. There are plenty of hunting scenes on Laconian pots but curiously few battle scenes, aithough these were popular in Corinthian vase-painting.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Dedications at Orthia would presumably have been made by Spartiates not perioeci as the latter had their own temples in perioecic territory. So the material found in the Orthia deposit will have been purchased by Spartiates. Of course it is true that most of the best specimens of Laconian pottery have been found in foreign sites, but the same is true of Corinthian and Attic.

⁴⁹ This need occasion no surprise. Mr. Boardman points out to me that a very high proportion of the pot painters at Athens were non-citizens but their work is pure ‘Attic’.

⁵⁰ Arch. Reports 1963/1964, pp. 25–6, 1965/1966, p. 21.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Thuc. 4.53.3

⁵² Thuc. 4.54.3 shows that some of the inhabitants of Cythera were in contact with Nicias before the attack in 424, and some of them went with the Athenian expedition to Sicily nine years later (7.57.6). They were not, therefore, wholly loyal to Sparta.

⁵³ Thuc. 5.67.1.

⁵⁴ Jones, A.H.M.Sparta (1967), Chap. XIV.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Xen. Hell. 6.5.25 mentions the poss- ibility, but the promise misfired.

⁵⁶ This point was noted by Pavel Oliva, , Sparta and her Social Problems (1971), p. 62.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ 8.22.1.

⁵⁸ Hell. 5.3.9.

⁵⁹ Xen, . Lac. Pol. 14 and Plato and Aristotle passim, especially Arist. Pol. 1270^b.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Nilsson, , Klio 12 (1912), 308–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Arist. Pol. 1338^b also severely criticizes the principles of this system.

⁶¹ Hdt. 1.65. Herodotus puts the defeat in the reigns of King Leon and Agasicles. Their dates are usually given as c. 590–560 and 573–550. By 556 Anaxandridas is king, if we can trust the Rylands papyrus to that extent. It was in Anaxandridas' and Ariston's reigns that Tegea was finally dealt with, but Herodotus implies that there had been some years in which Sparta has struggled unsuccessfully with Tegea. It seems probable that the settlement with Tegea preceded the intervention in Sicyon in 556 so the original defeat may date before c. 570. If a Spartan campaign with Elis against the Pisatan control of Olympia is credited and put between 01.50 and 01.51 (580–575) then the defeat by Tegea probably comes after this. (Wade-Gery, , CAH 3.545).Google Scholar

⁶³ Jacoby, F., CQ 38 (1944), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. Thuc. 2.39.1, 4.80.4, 5.68.2. Even Sparta's foreign friends would not be able to observe in intermittent visits the subtle tightening of an existing set of rules, and if they asked about them, they would be told, as Thucydides was, that the Eunomia was 400 years old (1.18.1).

⁶⁵ I am grateful to Professor A. Andrewes and Mr. J. Boardman for helpful suggestions and criticisms though neither of them should, of course.be thought to endorse everything in this paper.