Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 1: Methodology and Interpretation (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 26)

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN A GREEK RURAL LANDSCAPE

THE

LACONIA

SURVEY

VOLUMEI METHODOLOGY

AND INTERPRETATION

AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens Volume26 Supplementary William Cavanagh Joost Crouwel R. W. V Catling Graham Shipley withcontributions by

PAMELA ARMSTRONG JASPER FISELIER OLIVER RACKHAM

JAN-WILLEM VAN BERGHEM MALCOLM WAGSTAFF

andmapsby

DEBORAH MILES-WILLIAMS DAVID TAYLOR

with LUCY FARR ANNE SACKETT GUY SANDERS

LONDON · BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS · 2002

PublishedbytheBritishSchoolat Athens,SenateHouse,Malet Street,London,WCiE7HU © The Council,BritishSchoolat Athens,2002 ISBN (thisvolume):0-904887-22-7 ISBN (setoftwovolumes):0-904887-21-9

ProducedbySuttonPublishing,Stroud,Glos. GLj 2BU Printedin GreatBritainon acid-free paper by J.H. Haynes & Co. Ltd, Sparkford

In memory of ElizabethCatling and DavidSmyth

PREFACE This VOLUME Data (publishedin 1996),presentthe and itscompanion,subtitled Archaeological was led a jointBritish-Dutch resultsoftheLaconia Survey(1983-9).The survey, undertaking, in the fieldby WilliamCavanagh and JoostCrouwel under the supervisionof Dr H. W. Catling,CBE,at thattimeDirectoroftheBritishSchool at Athens.The projectgrewout ofDr and the Iron Age sanctuaryat the Catling'sown excavationsof the BronzeAge settlement Menelaion(1972-82),and itwas he who originally suggestedtheidea ofa survey. the seven and surveycampaigns studyseasons in Laconia and the subsequent During of the we incurred manyotherobligations.In the firstplace, many preparation publication, ofCulture,and to Dr Th. thanksare due to theArchaeologicalServiceoftheGreekMinistry and for theirpermissionsand of for Lakonia Arkadia), Spyropoulos(Ephor Antiquities in Dr Eleni Kourinouand Mrs Voula Rozaki,thenEpimelitries assistanceduringthe survey. the Lakonia Ephoreia, were especiallyhelpful.IGME (the InstituteforGeological and MineralResearch)kindlysupportedour applicationto carryoutthegeomorphological survey. The HellenicArmyGeographicalServicesuppliedtherelevantsheetsofits 1 : 50,000and 1 : 5,000map series,and withaerialphotographs. The successiveofficersand staffof the BritishSchool at Athenswere helpfulin every of theirtimeand advice duringand between possibleway.Variousexpertsgave generously Chris Mee, Jim Roy,and Kathleen Slane. In the preparatory surveyseasons,particularly Mr voor Prae- en Protohistorie, Albert Visser of this volume, Amsterdam) (Instituut stages are to thestaffofSuttonPublishing with electronic mail. We valuable assistance grateful gave Anne Bennett,ChristopherFeeney,and (for fortheirpatienceand guidance,particularly Fiona Thornton. VolumeII) Richard Catling,who directedthe thirdfieldThe two directorsalso thankparticularly sections of Volume Two dealing withthe hellenistic, walkingteam and later revisedthe Roman,and Byzantinepotteryin additionto writinghis own section;and GrahamShipley, whoeditedtheentiretextofbothvolumesforpublication. the financialsupportreceivedfromthe following We also wishto acknowledgegratefully bodies:the ManagingCommittee(now Council)of the BritishSchool at Athens,the British Academy,the Societyof Antiquariesof London, the Universityof Nottingham,the UK Science and EngineeringResearchCouncil (projectgrantGB/E/30263),the Universityof Amsterdam FacultyofArts,theAllardPiersonFoundation,the Dutch PhilologicalResearch Fund, the Dutch Organizationforthe Advance of Pure Research(NWO), the Amsterdam University Society,and theDutchPhilologicalResearchFund. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SURVEY

and dedicationofourmany The presentstudycouldnothavebeen written withouttheefforts colleaguesand collaborators,severalof whom have also contributedchaptersor partsof a composite,year-by-year list,whichwe hope is complete,represents chapters.The following listofpersonnel(manyofwhomalso tookpartin thestudyseasons).

viii Preface Apothikiassistants

Neil Brodie(1989) HayleyHodges(1988) WendyKnowles(1985) PamelaMarshall(1988-9) Marco Overbeek(1989) Chemists

AndrewFricker(1988) SimonHirst(1984) JillSymes(1988) Draughtspersons

|ElizabethCatling LucyFarr(maps)(2001-2) Deborah Miles-Williams (1995-6,2001-2) David Taylor(1995-2002) CatrionaTurner(1988-9) Sara Wild(1988-9)

Field teamleaders

RichardCatling WilliamCavanagh JoostCrouwel Field-walkers

PamelaArmstrong (1983-5,1987-8) Ros Bailey(1984) LesleyBeaumont(1985) Laura Bloemendaal(1983-4) Neil Brodie(1988) TristanCarter(1988) SaskiaDeluy(1984) Liesbethden Boer (1985) MarionDijkman-Dulkes (1988) Roald Docter(1987) CallyFord(1985) DirkGielen(1983) GordonHamilton(1983) RobinHanley(1983) StephenHarrison(1984-6) David Hibler(1983-5) ChristineKoch (1987) Ab Koelman(1983) Ron Leenheer(1984) Sarah Lucy(1984)

Neil McLynn(1985) MiekePrent(1985) RichardRussell(1985) GrahamShipley(1983-5,1987-8) NathanTravers(1985) van derPut(1985) Winfred Heleen Visscher(1983-5,1987) Sean Wakeman(1984) MarkYdo (1983-8) Geomorphologists

JasperFiselier(1988) van Berghem(1986) Jan-Willem Henkvan Bremen(1986) Geophysicists

RichardJones(1989-90) JohnMitchell(1990) Lia Sarri(1990) ApóstolosSarris(1990) Historicalgeographer

MalcolmWagstaff(1986) Historicalgeographer's assistants

RosemaryBraithwaite ElizabethDouglas RuthMcCarthy SimonCapper SimonLee

Housekeepers

BrendaHampton(1987) PamelaMarshall(1989) RhiannonRoberts(1985) JanMotykaSanders(1986,1988) Paula Suttle(1983-4) Palaeobotanist

OliverRackham(1984)

computer operator Photographer,

Ron Leenheer(1984,1986-9) Potterysamplingadviser

ChrisMee (1983)

Preface ix Publicationassistants

Statisticians

OdetteHaex (drawings) Ron Leenheer(photographs) AnneSackett(maps,slides)

CaitlinBuck CliffLitton

Romanpotterystudy

Guy Sanders(1983-9) fDavid Smyth(1983)

Jo Lawson(1988-9)

Surveyors

Mr Finally,we are deeplyindebtedto Mr PanagiotisTragas and Drs Anna Poelstra-Traga, and manyotherpeople in Aphysou,thevillagewherewe livedduring IoannisKonstantelos, and forhelpofmanydifferent our sevencampaignsin Laconia,fortheirunstinting hospitality kinds. 1 May 2002 Nottingham Amsterdam Oxford Leicester

W.G.C. J.H.C. R.W.VC. D.GJ.S.

CONTENTS VOLUME I PREFACE

VÜ

LIST OF TABLES

XIV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ABBREVIATIONS MODERN PLACE-NAMES A NOTE ON SITE NUMBERS SELECTED ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME II

1.

THE LACONIA SURVEY: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

WilliamCavanagh,GrahamShipley, andjoost Crouwel(witha notebyMalcolmWagstaff)

The surveyarea, ι Sourcesand previousresearch,15 The progressofthesurvey, 1983-9,34 and samplingprocedures, 38 Field-walking Conclusion,54

2.

OliverRackham

THE SURVEY AREA IN THE PREHISTORIC PERIODS

57

73

WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel

121

THE SURVEY AREA FROM THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE CLASSICAL PERIOD ^.1050-^.300bg) R. WV Catling

151

The Neolithicperiod,121 The EarlyHelladicperiod,128 The MiddleBronzeAge,135 The Late BronzeAge,142

5.

ι

OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF LACONIA The land ofLaconia,73 Modernplantcommunities, 77 Relictwildtrees,97 Written sources,99 111 Picturesand photographs, Conclusions,112

4.

XXIV XXVÜi xxix

SOILS AND LAND USE POTENTIAL

andJasperFiselier Jan-WillemvanBerghem

methodsand tools,57 Landscapereconstruction: The landscapehistory ofthesurveyarea, 60 Land evaluationand soilsuitability history, 65 sitepatterns, 69 Interpreting Discussionand conclusions, 71

3.

XVI xviii

The Early Iron Age (i-.1050-c.700BC), 153 The early archaic period (C.700-C.600BC), 155 The later archaic and early classical period (C.600-C.450BC), 157

xii Contents The classicalperiod(C.450-C.300 BC),175 Evidenceforsitecontinuity and discontinuity, 185 Siteclassification and function, 187 Evidencefordifferential 193 prosperity, Evidenceforstorage,195 The ruraleconomy,196 Distribution and interpretation oflow-density 200 scatters, Populationestimates, 205 211 Communications, The religiouslandscape:sanctuaries, 218 Summaryand discussion,224 Epilogue,255

6. THE SURVEYAREAIN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMANPERIODS GrahamShipley

257 Methodology, The hellenistic data,274 The Romandata,288 Furtherinterpretation ofsitedata,298 data,and conclusions:hellenistic, Summary, 310 comparative data,and conclusions:Roman,326 Summary, comparative Epilogue,336

7. THE SURVEYAREAIN THE BYZANTINEAND OTTOMAN PERIODS PamelaArmstrong

Introduction, 339 Late Romanto earlyByzantine(sixthto eighthcenturies AD),350 MiddleByzantineI (ninthto earlyeleventhcenturies AD),353 MiddleByzantineII (eleventhcentury AD),358 MiddleByzantineIII (AD1081-1204):theKomnenoiand Angeloi,361 Late Byzantineor Palaiologan(AD1204-1460),368 FromtheOttomanconquestto thenineteenth century, 372 Discussion,380 Conclusions,398

257

339

8. THE FORMATIONOF THE MODERN LANDSCAPEOF THE SURVEYAREA MalcolmWagstqff

403

Historicalintroduction, 403 Settlements, 405 Population,412 land use,415 Agricultural Conclusion,418

9.

THE LACONIA SURVEY: AN OVERVIEW Parallelcommunities and paralleleconomies,422 Settlement 423 hierarchy, Centralplaces,428 Siteabandonmentand siteduration,430 Technology, 432 434 Marginality, 435 Concludingremarks,

William Cavanagh

421

Contents xiii INDEXEScompiled byGrahamShipley

5. SelectindexofGreekwords,460 6. Listofsitesand findspots, 461 7. Addendato indexin VolumeII, 465

ι. Generalindex,439 2. Selectbotanicalindex,458 3. Ancientand medievalsources,459 460 4. Selectepigraphicreferences,

439

inpocket

soil map VOLUME II 10. THE NEOLITHIC

POTTERY

11. THE EARLY HELLADIC

WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel

POTTERY

12. THE MIDDLE HELLADIC AND LATE HELLADIC WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel 13. THE MYCENAEAN (LATE HELLADIC 14. THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL 15. THE HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

16. THE ROMAN POTTERY

21. THE EPIGRAPHIC

17 JoostCrouwel

RichardCatling

Heben Visscher

MATERIAL

24. SITE CATALOGUE

33

in POTTERY

PamelaArmstrong

TristanCarterandMark Tdo

STONE

125 141 183

AND SCULPTURAL

FRAGMENTS 199

GrahamShipley

213

22. PHOSPHATE AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Richard Sarris WilliamCavanagh, Jones,andApóstolos 23. ARCHAEOLOGICAL GrahamShipley

27

91

Marco Overbeek

20. THE STONE ARCHITECTURAL David Hibler

5

POTTERY

Jo Lawson

AND GROUND

19. THE SMALL FINDS

III

III) POTTERY

POTTERY

17. THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN 18. THE CHIPPED

1

WilliamCavanagh

235

SITES IN LACONIA AND THE THYREATIS 263 OF THE SURVEY

INDEXEScompiled byGrahamShipley

GrahamShipley

1. Generalindex,439 2. SelectindexofGreekwords,456 3. Indexofsitenumberswithzonesand subzones,456

FIGURES PLATES MAPOF THE SURVEYAREA

315 439

following page460 II at endof Volume II inpocketat endof Volume

TABLES Table ι.ι Table 1.2 Table 1.3

Average of potteryand tile counts per sq m fromsingle-periodsites. Data fromrewalked areas. Site U490: resultsof 'clickercounts' and 'hands and knees' counts.

TABLE2.1 TABLE2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4

Diagnostic soil units. Land-formsin chronological order. Land use requirementsand agro-ecological zones. Numbers of findspotson stable soil units.

61 63 68 70

TABLE3.1

Comparative figuresforthe extentof woodland in Lakonia, Messinia, and Arkadia.

117

Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Late-Final Neolithic sites. Main Early Bronze Age sitesin seriated order. Possible multi-phaseEarly Bronze Age sites. Middle and Late Bronze Age sites.

123 132 134 136

Table Table Table Table Table Table

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Late archaic-early classical sites. Classical sites. Archaic and classical siteswith functionalcategories of artefacts. Archaic and classical non-sitefindspots. Population estimatesforthe archaic and classical periods. Archaic and classical cult sites.

TABLE6.1 TABLE6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 TABLE6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 TABLE6. 11 Table 6.12 TABLE6.13

Numbers of hellenisticand Roman sherds. Numbers of hellenisticand Roman findspots. Hellenistic non-settlementsites. Roman non-settlementsites. size categories. Numbers of hellenisticand Roman sitesin different Hellenistic settlementdata: SE sector. Hellenistic settlementdata: W sector. Hellenistic settlementdata: Ν sector. Roman settlementdata: SE sector. Roman settlementdata: w sector. Roman settlementdata: Ν sector. Hellenistic non-sitefindspots. Roman non-sitefindspots.

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 TABLE7.3 TABLE7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 TABLE7.8 Table 7.9

Definitionsof site categories in Byzantine and Ottoman periods. Medieval locations other than churches. Comparison of sherd counts on K247 and P284. Probable or possible Middle Byzantine churches. Post-Byzantinechurches. Settlementsrecorded by Grimani. Settlementsnoted by the Commission Scientifique. Comparative population statistics. Type (i) sites.

42 45 52~4

159-60 176 188-90 201-3 205 219 260 260 262 262 264 274~5 280 284 290 292 295 3°3~4 3°5~6 347 348-50 3^5 367 378 378 379 382 395~6

Tables xv Table 7.10 Table 7.ιι Table 7.12

Type (ii) sites. Type (iii) sites. Type (iv) sites.

396 397 398

Table 8.1 TABLE8.2 Table 8.3 TABLE8.4 Table 8.5

Modern and historicalsettlementnames. Number of familiesin settlementsin the studyarea, £.1830. Number of familiesin settlementsin the studyarea, 1700. Settlementsshowingpopulation growth,1940-51. Agriculturalland use data foreparchiaof Lakedaimon and the studyarea, 1911-71.

408 409 410 414 417

TABLE9.1

Size ranges of levels of the settlementhierarchy:Neolithic to modern.

424

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT Map of Laconia and periphery,showing ancient settlements (various periods) and principal routes. Map showingthe surveyarea in relation to Laconia. Map showingtoponymsin the surveyarea. Taygetos at sunrise,fromAphysou. The riverEvrotas in spring. A burntlandscape the day aftera fire. A burntolive-treeeightmonthsafterthe fire. Graphs of mean monthlytemperatureand precipitationat Sparta. Graph of interannualvariabilityof precipitationat Sparta. Simplifiedmap of surveyarea showingsoils and base rocks. Map showingsites in Laconia mentioned by Strabo and Pausanias. deMorée. scientifique Map of part of the surveyarea afterpl. 45 in Expédition area. of the zones survey Map showing Map showingsectorsof the surveyarea. Map of the surveyarea showingre-walkingtractsLAR01-LAR08. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR01. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR02. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR03. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR04. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR05. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR06. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR07. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR08. Contour map of clickercounts at U490. Contour map of total tile and sherd counts at U490.

2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 23 30 37 39 46 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 55 55

III. 2.1 III. 2.2

Examples of a chronosequence and toposequence fromthe field. A palaeosol on a terracewithpotteryfragments.

58 60

III. 3.1 III. 3.2 III. 3.3 ILL. 3.4 III. 3.5 III. 3.6 III. 3.7 III. 3.8 III. 3.9 III. 3.10 III. 3. ιι III. 3.12 III. 3.13 III. 3.14 III. 3.15

Map showingplaces mentioned in Chapter 3. Desert of crumblyschist,Vervena. unedoand Quercuscoccifera. Maquis of co-dominantArbutus A prickly-oakturningfroma shrub into a tree. Deciduous oak {Quercusbrachyphylla) invadingex-cultivatedland. Valonia oak {Quercusmacro lepis). Interiorof the Skotitasoakwood. Old black pine {Pinusnigra)hemmed in by youngertrees. Black pine invadingformerpasture. Area of youngishblack pines killed by a fire. The southernmostalder in Europe. Patch of maquis or woodland isolated on a huge boulder. Ancient lime-tree,the southernmostin Europe. View of Taygetos fromthe kástroat Sparta, £.1908. Similar view of Taygetos in 1984.

74 77 79 81 83 84 86 89 90 91 93 94 97 112 113

III. 4.1

Map showingNeolithic sitesin the surveyarea.

124

III. i.i III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III.

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 ι.ιο i.i 1 ι.ι2 ι.ι3 1.14 1.15 ι.ι6 ι.ι7 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.2 1 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25

Illustrations in the text xvii III. 4.2 III. 4.3

Map showingEarly Bronze Age sites in the surveyarea. Map showingMiddle and Late Bronze Age sites in the surveyarea.

III. 5.1

Map showingtoponyms,main arterialroutes,and hypotheticalterritorial boundaries in central Laconia. Map showinglate archaic-early classical sites in the surveyarea. Map showingclassical sitesin the surveyarea. Map showingroutes in the surveyarea. Map showingprime arable land, secondary arable land, and pasture in central Laconia.

III. III. III. III.

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

III. 6.1 III. 6.2 III. 6.3 III. 6.4 III. 6.5 III. 6.6 III. 6.7 III. 6.8 III. 6.9

Graphs showingnumbersof sitesby size and sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Graphs showingmedian and quartile measures of site size by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Bar chartsof total settledarea by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Map showinghellenisticsitesin the surveyarea. Bar chart representingtotal settledarea by geological zone and period (late archaic to Roman). Map showingRoman sitesin the surveyarea. Pie chartsshowingproportionsof potteryuse-typesby sector: (upper) hellenistic,(lower)Roman. Pie chartsshowingnumbers of siteswith each use-typeof pottery,by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Combined histogramsof notional population by sector: hellenisticand Roman.

131 138 152 158 177 212 245 265 267 268 276 287 289 299 300 307

III. III. III. III. III. III.

7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.ιι

Map of central Laconia in medieval times,showingthe area of the survey. Map showingMiddle Byzantine I (gth-earlynth-cent.) settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingMiddle Byzantine II (nth-cent.) settlementsin the surveyarea. Diagram of nth-cent,site hierarchy. (a) Map showingMiddle Byzantine III (Komnenian) sitesin the surveyarea. (b) Detail of south-eastof surveyarea. Map showingLate Byzantine (Palaiologan) settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingearly i8th-cent.settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingearly igth-cent.settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingmodern settlementsin the surveyarea. Old olive-treenear Voutianoi. Plan and elevation of wine-pressat Sto Lino.

III. III. III. III. III.

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Map showingthe administrativestructureof the studyarea in the 1980s. Plan and elevation of house and mándraat Morou. Graph of population change in the eparchiaof Lakedaimon, 1848-1981. Graph of population change in the studyarea, 1879-1981. Map of agriculturalland use in the surveyarea, 1986.

406 411 413 413 419

III. III. III. III. III. III. III.

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

EBA sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. MBA-LBA sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. Archaic-earlyclassical sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Classical sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Hellenistic sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. Roman sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Byzantine (Komnenian) sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank.

427 427 427 427 428 428 429

III. 7.1 III. 7.2 III. 7.3 III. 7.4 III. 7.5

343 354 359 361 362-3 370 375 376 381 383 384

ABBREVIATIONS See also, forvol. ii, the listsof generaland bibliographical abbreviations at LS ii, pp. xix-xxx.Abbreviations of ancientauthorsand theirworksfollowOxford Classical Dictionary. #

ist LaconianStudiesCongress ist LaconianTreatises Congress

ist Peloponnesian Congress 2ndPeloponnesian Congress jrd MessenianCongress 3rd Peloponnesian Congress 4thPeloponnesian Congress jth Peloponnesian Congress 6thPeloponnesian Congress 12thClassicalArchaeology Congress AA AAA A. Delt. AgAJA AM Ar AR Arch.Eph.

etal., 'Crossingtheriver' Armstrong

andAssemblage Artifact Avraméa, Péloponnèse

to number)'zembil',a groupoffindsfromone location (prefixed Πρακτικά του Α' Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Σπουδών (Σπάρτη-Γνθείονy-ii 'Οκτωβρίου igyj) (Athens,1979)52 v°ls = Λακ. σπουδ. 4-5 (!979) Πρακτικά του Α' ΤοπικούΣυνεδρίου ΛακωνικώνΜελετών (Μολάοι$-y 'Ιουνίουig82) (Πελ. suppl.9; Athens,1982-3) Πρακτικά του Α' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών (Σπάρτη, 7-14 Σεπτεμβρίου igyj) (Πελ. suppl. 6; Athens,1976-8),3 v°ls Πρακτικά τού Β' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών (Πάτραι, 25-31 Μαΐου ig8o) (Πελ. suppl.8; Athens, 1981-2),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Γ' ΤοπικούΣυνεδρίουΜεσσηνιακώνΣπουδών (Φιλιατρά-Γαργαλιανοι 24-26 Νοεμβρίου ig8g) (Πελ. suppl. 18;Athens,iggi) Πρακτικά τού Τ' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Καλαμάτα,8-ij Σεπτεμβρίουig8$) (Πελ. suppl.13; Athens,1987-8),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Δ' ΔιεθνεούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Κόρινθος,g-i6 Σεπτεμβρίουiggo) (Πελ. suppl. 19; Athens,igg2),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Ε' Διεθούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών ("Αργος-Νανπλιον,6-ΐο Σεπτεμβρίουiggj) (Πελ. suppl.22; Athens,1996-7),4 vols Πρακτικά τού Στ' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Τρίπολις, j-14 'Οκτωβρίου2οοο)(Athens, forthcoming) Πρακτικά τού XII Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής 'Αρχαιολογίας('Αθήνα, 4~10 Σεπτεμβρίου ig8j), 4 vols (Athens,1988)

Archäologische Anzeiger

'Αρχαιολογικά ανάλεκτα εξ

Archaeology '

Annals of 'Αθηνών /Athens

ν δελτίον Αρχαιολογικό Agia,Agioi,or Agios

American JournalofArchaeology desDeutschen athenische Instituts, Mitteilungen Archäologischen Abteilung

archaic

Archaeological Reports(supplement to JHS)

'Αρχαιολογική εφημερίς P. Armstrong, W. G. Cavanagh, and G. Shipley,'Crossingthe river:reflectionson routesand bridgesin Laconia fromthe archaicto Byzantineperiods',BSA 87 (1992),293-310 C. Runnels,D. J. Pullen,and S. Langdon,Artifact andAssemblage: The Finds from a Regional Surveyof the SouthernArgolid, Greece

Calif, 1995) (Stanford,

A. Avraméa, Le Péloponnèsedu IVe au Ville siècle: changements et

de la Sorbonne:ByzantinaSorbonensia, (Publications persistances 15;Paris,1997)

Abbreviationsxix ΒΑ Besch. BAR BCH

BeyondtheAcropolis BG NaturalEnvironment Bintliff, RecentDevelopments Bintliff,

Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey' and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition' Bintliff Blouet, Architectures BMGS

Boblaye, Recherches

Bölte,'Geographie' Bonias,Αιγιές BSA Byz CAH2iii. 3

Bulletinvan de Vereeniging totBevordering der Kennisvan de Antieke Beschaving

British Archaeological Reports (Oxford); int. ser. = International Series(formerly Series) Supplementary

Bulletinde correspondance hellénique

A Rural T. H. van Andel and C. Runnels,Beyond theAcropolis: Greek Past(Stanford, Calif.,1987) black-glazed

and Human Settlement in Prehistoric NaturalEnvironment J. L. Bintliff, Greece:Based on OriginalFieldwork (BAR int. ser. 28; Oxford, 1977) in theHistoryand Archaeology of J. L. Bintliff,RecentDevelopments CentralGreece:Proceedings BoeotianConference of the6th International

(BAR int.ser.666; Oxford,1997) J. L. Bintliff, 'Regional survey,demography,and the rise of in the ancientAegean: core-periphery, societies neocomplex Malthusian,and otherinterpretive models',JFA24 (1997),1-38 and A. M. Snodgrass,'The Cambridge/Bradford J. L. Bintliff Boeotian Expedition: the firstfour years', JFA 12 (1985), 123-61 et vuesdu G. A. Blouet, Architectures, sculptures, inscriptions des Cycladeset de l'Atlantique, 3 vols (Expédition Péloponnèse, de Morée; Paris,1831-8) scientifique ByzantineandModem GreekStudies sur les ruinesde la Ε. le Puillon de Boblaye, Recherches géographiques

Morée(Expéditionscientifique de Morée; Paris,1835) F. Bölte, 'Sparta: Geographie', RE 2nd ser., iii (1929), cols 1294-373 Ζ. Bonias, Ένα αγροτικό ιερό στις Αιγιές Λακωνίας του αρχαιολογικού δελτίου,62; Athens,1998) (Δημοσιεύματα

AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens

Byzantine Ancient J. Boardmanand N. G. L. Hammond(eds),TheCambridge History(2nd edition), iii. 3: The ExpansionoftheGreekWorld,Eighth

CAH2 xiv

toSixthCenturies DC(Cambridge,London,etc.,1982) F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin,M. W. Frederiksen,and R. M. Ancient (2nd edition),vii. 1: Ogilvie (eds), The Cambridge History TheHellenistic World (Cambridge,London,etc.,1984) A. Cameronand P. Garnsey(eds), The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd edition),xiii: The Late Empire,AD337-425 (Cambridge, London,etc.,1998) A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins,and M. Whitby(eds), The

CAWi. 2

I. E. S. Edwards,C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond(eds),The

CAR1vii. ι CAH2xiii

Cartledge,SL Cartledgeand Spawforth Catling,'Menelaion' Catling,'AlessapianZeus' Cavanaghand Walker

AncientHistory(2nd edition), xiv: Late Antiquity: Cambridge Empire and Successors, AD425-600 (Cambridge, 2000) AncientHistory(3rd edition), i. 2: The EarlyHistoryofthe Cambridge

MiddleEast(Cambridge,1971)

P. Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A RegionalHistory1300-362 BC

(Statesand CitiesofAncientGreece;London,1979) P. Cartledgeand A. Spawforth,Hellenistic andRomanSparta:A TaleofTwoCities(London,1989) H. W Catling,'Excavationsat theMenelaion,Sparta,1973-76', AR 23 (1976-7),24-42 H. W Catling,Ά sanctuaryof Messapian Zeus: excavationsat Aphyssou,Tsakona,1989',BSA 85 (1990),15-35 W. G. Cavanaghand S. E. C. Walker(eds),SpartainLaconia:The

ofa Cityand its Countryside Archaeology (Proceedings oftheigthBritish

xx Abbreviations MuseumClassical ColloquiumheldwiththeBritishSchoolat Athensand King's and University Colleges,London, 6-8 Decemberiggj) (BSA

Cl CMS CPCActs4 CPCAds6 CPC Papers 2 CPC Papers 3 CPC Papers 4 CPC Papers 5 Cd CR

Davis etal., 'Pylos Γ

Dawkins, AO Ε EH FGH Forsén etai, 'Asea valley' G GAC

'Geraki1' 'Geraki2'

'Geraki3' 'Geraki4'

Studies,4; London,1998) classical

undmykenischen Siegel(Berlin, 1964- ) Corpusderminoischen M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an UrbanCentreand as a Political

(Actsof the Copenhagen Polis Centre,4/HistoriskCommunity filosofiske Meddelelser, 75; Copenhagen,1997)

Arkadia:Symposium,■ Ancient T. H. Nielsen andj. Roy (eds), Defining

April, 1-4 igg8 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 6/Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, 78; Copenhagen,1999) Greek in theAncient M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub(eds),Studies Polis (Papers fromthe Copenhagen Polis Centre,2/Historia Einzelschriften, 95; Stuttgart, 1995) in theAncient M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds),MoreStudies GreekPolis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 108;Stuttgart, 1996) 3/HistoriaEinzelschriften, T. H. Nielsen (ed.), YetMoreStudiesin theAncientGreekPolis (Papers

fromthe CopenhagenPolis Centre,4/HistoriaEinzelschriften, 117;Stuttgart, 1997) P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), FurtherStudiesin theAncientGreekPolis

(Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 5/Historia Einzelschriften, 2000) 138;Stuttgart, Classical(Quarterly ClassicalReview

J. L. Davis, S. E. Alcock,J. Bennet,Y. G. Lolos, and C. W. 'The PylosRegionalArchaeologicalProject,part Shelmerdine, I: overviewand the archaeological survey',Hesp. 66 (1997), 39!-494R. M. Dawkins (ed.), The Sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthiaat Sparta

(Societyforthe Promotionof Hellenic StudiesSupplementary Papers,5; London,1929) to date codes) early(prefixed EarlyHelladic Historiker dergriechischen F.Jacoby etal, Die Fragmente (Berlin, etc.,

!923- ) J. Forsén,Β. Forsén,and M. Lavento,'The Asea valleysurvey:a 21 Atheniensia, reportof the 1994 season', Opuscula preliminary (!996)>73-97 Geometric R. Hope Simpson and O. T. P. K. Dickinson,A Gazetteer of in theBronzeAge I: The Mainland and theIslands AegeanCivilisation

(SIMA 52; Göteborg,1979) J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,S. M. Thorne,G.-J.Wijngaarden,and D. Sueur, 'Geraki: an acropolis site in Lakonia. Preliminary season(1995)',Pharos, 3 (1995),41-65 reporton thefirst J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent, S. M. Thorne, N. Brodie, G.-J. Wijngaarden,and J. A. K. E. de Waele, 'Geraki: an acropolis sitein Lakonia.Preliminary reporton thesecondseason(1996)', Pharos, 4 (1996),89-120 J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,J. Fiselier,andj. A. K. E. de Waele, 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the thirdseason(1997)',Pharos, 5 (1997),49-83 J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent,R. Cappers, and T. Carter (1998), 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the 6 (1998),93-118 fourth season(1998)',Pharos,

Abbreviations xxi 'Geraki5'

Kourinou, Σπάρτη

J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent,J. van der Vin, P. Lulof, and R. Dooijes, 'Geraki: an acropolis site in Laconia. Preliminary season(1999)',Pharos, reporton thefifth 7 (1999),21-49 J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,S. M. Thorne, and J. van der Vin, 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the sixthseason(2000)',Pharos, 8 (2000),41-76 M. H.Jameson, C. N. Runnels,and T. H. van Andel,A Greek theSouthern lidfromPrehistory to thePresent Countryside: Argo Day Calif.,1994) (Stanford, Hesperia hellenistic S. Hodkinson,'Land tenureand inheritance in classicalSparta', ClassicalQuarterly, 80 [n.s.36] (1986),378-406 S. Hodkinson,Property and Wealth in ClassicalSparta(Londonand Swansea,2000) C. Renfrewandj. M. Wagstaff, AnIslandPolity: TheArchaeology of inMelos(Cambridge,1982) Exploitation Science Journal ofArchaeological desDeutschen Instituts Jahrbuch Archäologischen Journal ofFieldArchaeology Studies Journal ofHellenic Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology A. Jochmus, 'On the battle of Sellasia, and the strategic movements ofthegeneralsof antiquitybetweenTegea, Caryae, and Sparta' in id., 'Commentaries', Journalof the Royal Geographical 27 (1857),1-53,at 34-53 Society, Journal ofRoman Archaeology desRömisch-germanischen Mainz Jahrbuch Zentralmuseums Journal ofRomanStudies D. R. Keller and D. W. Rupp (eds), Archaeological in the Survey Mediterranean Area(BAR int.ser.155;Oxford,1983) E. Kourinou,Σπάρτη: συμβολή στη μνημειακήτοπογραφία

L

late (prefixed to date codes)

'Geraki6' Greek Countryside Hesp. HI Hodkinson,'Land tenure' Hodkinson,Property IslandPolity JAS Jdl JFA JHS JMA 'Sellasia' Jochmus,

JRA JRGZM JRS Kellerand Rupp,Archaeological Survey

Λακ. σπουδ. Landscape Archaeology

Leake,Peloponnesiaca Leake, Travels LH Lohmann,Atene Loring,'Routes' LS LS

LSÚ

M

της (διδακτορική διατριβή) (Athens,2000)

ΛακωνικαΙ σπουδαί J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,Landscape

as Long-term Keosin theCycladic Northern Islands Archaeology History: until Modern Times (Monumenta from Earliest Settlement Archaeologica,16;Los Angeles,1991) W. M. Leake, Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in theMorea (London,1846) W. M. Leake, Travelsin theMorea,3 vols (London, 1830; repr. Amsterdam, 1968) Late Helladic H. Lohmann, Atene-Ατήνη: Forschungen zu Siedlungs-und desklassischen Attika(Cologne, Weimar,and Wirtschaftstruktur Vienna,1993) W. Loring,'Some ancientroutesin the Péloponnèse',JHS 15 (1895),25-89 Laconia Survey to 5-figure (prefixed number)non-sitefindspot W. Cavanagh,J. Crouwel, R. W. V Catling,and G. Shipley, andChange ina Greek RuralLandscape: TheLaconiaSurvey, Continuity ii: Archaeological Data (Annualof the BritishSchool at Athens, supp.vol. 27; London,1996) middle(prefixed to date codes)

xxii Abbreviations McDonald and Rapp,MME Law MacDowell,Spartan Macreadyand Thompson,FieldSurvey MH MME mod. MystrasCongress Nl

OJA Ott Πληθυσμός Panagiotopoulos, Pauly-Wissowa PCPS Πελ. Πελ. suppl. PH Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2

Φιλολήκων Pikoulas,NMX Pikoulas,'Skiritis' PLi PLÛ R r. RE RG

Roughand RockyPlace

SAGT

SandyPylos

McDonald, W. Α., and Rapp, G. R., jun. (eds), TheMinnesota

a BronzeAge RegionalEnvironment MesseniaExpedition:Reconstructing

(Minneapolis,1972) D. M. MacDowell, SpartanLaw (Scottish Classical Studies; Edinburgh,1986) FieldSurvey S. Macreadyand F. H. Thompson(eds),Archaeological in BritainandAbroad(Societyof AntiquariesOccasional Papers, n.s.6; London,1985) MiddleHelladic W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp jun. (eds), The Minnesota

Messenia Expedition: Reconstructinga Bronze Age Environment

(Minneapolis,1972) modern(place-name) Πρακτικά του εκτάκτουΠνευματικούΣυμποσίου (ΣπάρτηΜυστρας2J-29Μαου ig88):από την φωτεινήκληρονομιάτου Μυστραστην Τουρκοκρατία(Πελ.suppl.16;Athens,199o) Neolithic Oxford JournalofArchaeology

Ottoman V. Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοποννήσου: ΐ^ος-ΐ8ος αιώνας (Ιστορικό αρχείο ΕμπορικήΤράπεζατης Ελλάδος;Athens,1985) see RE oftheCambridge Philological Society Proceedings Πελοποννησιακά Πελοποννησιακά,παραρτήματα prehistoric P. V. Phaklaris, Αρχαία Κυνουρία: ανθρωπινή δραστηριότητα και περιβάλλον (Δημοσιεύματα του αρχαιολογικού δελτίου, 43; Athens, 199°) (revision of publishedPh.D. thesis,Thessaloniki,1985) J. M. Sanders (ed.), Φιλολάκων:LakonianStudiesin Honourof HectorCatling(Oxford, 1992)

G. A. Pikoulas,Ή νότια μεγαλοπολιτική χώρα από τον 8° π.Χ. ώς τον 4° μΧ- αιώνα(Athens,1988) G. Α. Pikoulas,'Συμβολή στην τοπογραφίατης Σκιρίτιδος', Hows,5 (1987)5121-48 Η. Waterhouseand R. Hope Simpson,'PrehistoricLaconia: partΓ, BSA55 (i960), 67-107 H. Waterhouseand R. Hope Simpson,'PrehistoricLaconia: partIF, BSA56 (1961),114-75 Roman reigned

Wissowa, G., et al. (eds), Paulys Real-ency clopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart,1893-1 981) red-glazed C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds), A Rough and Rocky Place: The Historyof theMethana Peninsula, Greece Landscape and Settlement bytheBritishSchoolat (ResultsoftheMethanaSurveyProjectSponsored Athensand theUniversity ofLiverpool)(Liverpool, 1997) i-vi (University W. K. Pritchett,StudiesinAncientGreekTopography,

of California Publications: Classical Studies; Berkeley,Los Angeles,and (iv-vi) London, 1965-89), vii-viii (Amsterdam, 1991,!992)

fromNestorto History J. L. Davis (ed.), SandyPylos:An Archaeological Navarino(Austin,Tex., 1998)

Abbreviations xxiii SF

'Laconia' Shipley, '"OtherLakedaimonians'" Shipley, 'Perioikos' Shipley, 'Territory' Shipley, Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes

Ven Wells,Agriculture WellswithRunnels,Berbati-Limnes Wrightetai, 'Nemea'

smallfind G. Shipley,'Laconia', in M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen(eds), An Inventory (Oxford, ofPoleisin theArchaicand ClassicalPeriods forthcoming) G. Shipley,'"The other Lakedaimonians": the dependent perioikic poleis of Laconia and Messenia', in CPC Acts4, 189-281 G. Shipley,'Perioikos:the discoveryof classical Lakonia', in Φίλολάκων,2ΙΙ-26 in thelate classical G. Shipley,'The extentof Spartanterritory and hellenistic periods',BSA 95 (2000),367-90 in Classical G. Shipleyand J. Salmon (eds), HumanLandscapes Studies Environment and Culture (Leicester-Nottingham Antiquity: in AncientSociety,6; Londonand New York,1996) Venetian(date) in Ancient Greece: B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture oftheyth Proceedings Institute at Athens at theSwedish International (16-iy May, Symposium iggo) (Stockholm, 1992) B. WellswithC. Runnels(eds), TheBerbati-Limnes Archaeological i Athen, ig88-iggo(Skrifter Survey utgivnaav SvenskaInstitutet seriesin 40,44; Stockholm,1996) J. C. Wright, J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani,S. B. Sutton, and R. F. Sutton, jun., 'The Nemea Valley ArchaeologicalProject:a preliminary report',Hesp.59 (1990), 579"659

MODERN PLACE-NAMES Forancientplace-names,wherea well-established Englishformexistsit is generallyused (e.g. form is preferred whereit willnotgiverise a Greek-like Otherwise Athens,Corinth,Sparta). to ambiguity(Achaia, Arkadia,Aigina, Keos, Lakedaimon, Lakonike). The use of khis avoided,as chis a familiaraspirateto mostreadersof English.Hybridssuch as Attikaand Korinthare eschewed.For reasonsbehindthe use of Laconia ratherthan Lakonia forthe indicatedbyê regionin theancientperiods,see Chapterι, η. ι. Eta and omegaare sometimes and o. For modernplace-names,as the surveycoveredthewholetime-spanof Greekculture,we wishedto retainindicatorsof linguisticcontinuity(such as in Panagia) and etymological We have accordingly developeda systemclose to that (as in Geronthrai-Geraki). continuity of modernGreek',BSA 15 (1908-9), recommendedby R. M. Dawkins('The transliteration 214-22).We retaing forgamma,d fordelta,phforphi,and chforchi; thesehave thevirtueof We links(as in Chrysapha,Kephalas,Anthochóri). familiaretymological generallypreserving and for most double vowels and medieval the ancient (e.g.ai, oi diphthongs digraphs preserve has changedat least once since the forαι, 01) even where,as is usual, theirpronunciation eta by i (ratherthan e, classical period. We followDawkins'spreferenceforrepresenting BSA minded the recommendedby Managing Committeeof those presumablyclassically and have different resonances,we havebuiltin additional origins days).Because place-names ratherthan with Greek to preservesimilarities forms,permitting e.g. Konstantinos flexibility Δ Ντ or a name with When the phoneticallycorrectKonstandinos. (e.g. Δίχοβα, begins transliteration. Ντουφέκια),we sometimes givean explanatory For α, ε, ζ, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ, ο, π, ρ, σ/ς, τ, ψ, and ω we use their'natural' roman as equivalentsa, e, z, th,i, k, /,m,n, x, 0,p, r,s, t,ps, and 0. Otherlettersare transliterated in a judgementhas been made each case. below;ifthereare alternatives, Greek

transcription

(ifdifferent) pronunciation approx.

αι αυ

ai

e as in get

Y

g (Ágios) ng

ß

γγ Γκ (initial) γκ (medial)

ΥΧ

δ ει ευ η Μπ (initial) μπ (medial) νδ

af or αν ν

G (Goritsá) ngovg nch d ei efor ev(Efstrátios,Evrótas) i (Kokkinórachi,Prophítis) Β (Bakáli) mb,mp,or b (Roubaíika) nd

ν

ghbeforea/o/u; y beforee/i g as in got nkh thas in the eeas in meet ee as in meet η + thãs in the

Modern place-names xxv Ντ (initial) ντ (medial) OL

ου φ χ υ (alone) vi

D (Douphekiá) ndor nt(Konstantínos) oi (Ágioi Anárgyroi) ou

eeas in meet oo as in hoot

ph

chas in loch ee as in meet ee as in meet

ch(Chrysapha,Ochtaïmero) y yi

Stress is indicated by an acute accent, normallyonly at the firstmention of a name in the main text of a chapter (and at firstmention in the notes if it is also the firstmention in the chapter) or in special contexts such as specific discussions or catalogue entries. Where a diaeresis would coincide with the stress,the diaeresis is retained in all contextsand the stress accent is not marked (e.g. Taygetos). The followingselectionof alternativesexemplifiesthe systemof transliterationin actual use.

ALTERNATIVE

FORMS

OF PLACE-NAMES

We give here a selection of alternativetoponymsfor places in Lakonia and the surrounding areas. In general,we have preferredthe formscommon in everydayspeech, while recognizing that these oftendifferfromformsused in maps and officialtexts,and that both popular and officialnames may well change in future.Alternativespellingsof names listed below can be found in earlier works, such as those of Leake. For other names recorded by the Venetian censuses and the French Expédition de Morée, see Chapters 7-8 and TABLES7.6-7, 8.1. For extensiveinformationabout changes in modern place-names, see G. A. Pikoulas, Λεξικό rcw οίκισμών της Πελοποννήσου: παλαιά καΐ νέα τοπωνύμια (Athens,2001). With the aid of thatinvaluable referencework,we take thisopportunityto correctsome equivalences given or implied in Chapters 23-4. official

colloquial (if different)

Ágioi Anárgyroi Agios Phokás Agrapidoúla (also Agrapidiá) Aigiés Aigíai Alesía Ambelochórion Ambelochóri Amyklai Amykles Ano Glykóvrisi Anthochórion Anthochóri Aphisión Aphysoú (also Aphisioú) Areópolis Areópoli Asopós Astéri

formermodernname

Zoúpena Voútama Mitátova Chánia Koutoumoús Léle Grámousa Sklavochóri Vezáni Katsouléika Tsímova Kondeviánika Bríniko{Leake:Príniko)

xxvi Modern place-names official

Astros Cháradros Gytheion Dáphni Drymós Elaphónisos Ellinikón Ellinikón Elos Éxo Nymphion Glyppía Kallithéa Kalloní KalyviaTheológou Kamára Karyaí KastríTyroú Káto Glykóvrysi Keraséa Kokkinórrachi Koutrí Krokéai Kryonérion Latomeíon Lefkóchoma Mavrovoúni Metamorphosis Moní Agíon Tessarákonta Martyron Neápolis;Neápolis Voión Oítylon Panigyrístra Pellána Pentauloí Peristérion Pháros PlákaLeonidíou Plátanos Plytra Polydroson Prosílion

colloquial (if different)

Gytheio (E)laphonísi;Nisi Ellinikó(inThyreatis) Ellinikó(inMaléa) Lymbiáda

Karyés Kerasiá Krokées Kryonéri Latomí Metamórphosi ÁgioiSaránda

formermodernname

Agiannítika Kalyvia Trestená Marathonísi Kamínia Drialí Cervi;Tsirigo Teichío Kouléndia Douralí (Δ-or Ντ-) Éxo Nyphi;Níphi Kástro;Palaióchora Zaraphóna Pérpeni KalyviaServéika;Kalyvia Serviánika Giannaíoi Aráchova Lygariás Káto Vezáni Arvanitokerasiá Tsoúni Kokóretsa Levétsova Poliána Vigláphia Karáspai" Melíssi Katávothra

Neápoli

Vátika

Oítylo

Vítylo Alaibeï(ratherthanSaidali) Kalyvia;Kalyvia Georgitsánika Georgítsiou Koumoustá Tsási Alaibeï Nisi Límberdo (medieval)Asópolis Tzí(n)tzina Strotzá

Peristéri

Polydroso

Modern place-names xxvii official

PyrgosDiroú Pyrrichos Sellasía Synora Thalámai Timénion Tripolis Vapheió

colloquial (if different)

Timénio

formermodernname

Pyrgos Kávalos Vrouliá;Vourliá Koutoumoú Koutíphari Káto Vérvena;Tseréni Tripolitsá Barbali D.G.J.S.

A NOTE ON SITE NUMBERS is explainedin fullat pp. 34-8 below The systemof numberingof sitesand otherfmdspots and at LS ii. 315-16.Beloware examplesoftypesofserialnumbersused in thesurvey. M348

sitenumber,i.e. sampledfindspot designatedas 'site'(numbersin range1-534; see surveysitecatalogue,Chapter24); letterprefixindicatesgeographicalzone

Π1384 *P284 ?R42I ??Fi43 Ã34

non-sitefindspot probablesite(inChapter6 only) possiblesite(in Chapter6 only) site(in Chapter6 only) doubtful findspotdesignatedas a sitein a periodotherthan thatunderdiscussion(in Chapter6 only) site(i.e. withinsurveypermitarea butoutsideintensively sampledOut-of-area' in range3000-26) numbers area; surveyed site known prior to survey(withinpermit area; either inside or outside surveyedarea) but not located or not sampled;numbersin range intensively 4000-8) site reportedby earlier sources but with unknownlocation or uncertain existence(numbersin range5000-10) site in all-Laconia catalogue (Chapter 23); double-letterprefixindicates geographicalzone (see ILLS23.1-10) series zembil(groupoffinds)in originalfieldwork non-sitezembil(e.g.zembil#36with10,000added to serialnumber,indicating also citedwithlower-casezone letterprefix(e.g.1110036) an off-site findspot); see previousentry sherdor lithicitemfromLS site(see artefact studies,Chapters10-18) smallfindfromsite(see Chapter19) or epigraphic sculptural, potteryor artefacttype,or individualarchitectural, artefact (see Chapters10-20)

A3018 L4001 A5001 AA296

#36

LS IOO36

hioo36 M348/64 SF2 14 a

(see ILL. 1.13)

Fora tableofsiteand findspot numbers,see Indexes6 and 7 below,and LSii. 456-9.

1 THE LACONIA SURVEY: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY GrahamShipley, WilliamCavanagh, andjoostCrouwel The Laconia SURVEY,1 a multi-disciplinary carriedout between projectbased on fieldwork a an area near Sparta in the 1983 and 1989,combines systematic archaeologicalsurveyof in and south-easternPéloponnèsewithrelatedstudies historicalsources,sedimentology, historical settlement Laconia ecology.Itsprincipalaim was to clarify changesin north-central ofthemodernGreekstatein theearly betweenthelateprehistoric periodsand thefoundation nineteenthcentury;in particular,the relationshipbetweenthe traditionalheartland(the Evrótasvalley,or Spartaplain)and theneighbouring rurallandscapes,bothin theplain and in the neighbouringhills. The project was designed to set in a regional context the programmeof excavationsby the BritishSchool at Athens:both those at Sparta and the and historicalsitesin and aroundthe Menelaion,and theSchool'searlierworkat prehistoric the surveywas also intendedto further the long traditionof topographic plain. Indirectly, researchin Laconia. It was also our hope that ultimatelythe surveymightlead to the excavationof one or moreruralsitesin Laconia to shed further lighton the issuesoutlined above. The information illuminatetheinterplay between presentedin thesevolumeswilltherefore cultural and human over a of Laconian circumstances, society physicallandscape, long span history. The Survey Area description of the survey area in thecentreoftheterritory The surveyarea is situatedapproximately ofancientSparta,and thus in the centralpart of the modern nomós(province)of Lakonia (ill. 1.1). The area examinedby thesurveyconsistsofa roughlyrectangular blockofland about twiceas longas itis wide,withitslongaxis orientedfromnorth-west to south-east (ILL.1.2).It generallyslopes 1 The name 'Laconia' is the regularancient post-classical; name forSparta'sterritory, whetherΕ or W of Taygetos,was Lakônikê, ή Λακωνική(firstin Herodotos,i. 69. 4; also e.g. iv.53. 2; Aristophanes, Peace,245; Strabo,v. 1. 1. Thucydides, 363; Pausanias,iii. 1. 1).The LatinneologismLaconiaseemsto vi. 34. 39. 214, occurfirstin Plinythe Elder {Natural History, here;xvii.18. 30. 133),yetevenhe thoughsomeread Lacónica also uses Lacónica(e.g. xxv.8. 53. 94). The Greek-likeform Laconice occurse.g.in Nepos (Timoleon, 2. 1) and Mela (ii. 3. 4). the officialmodernname of the province{nomós), is Lakonia,

thusa post-classical ofa Romanname.We adopt readaptation theanglicized(orlatinate)spelling'Laconia' as a neutralterm to avoid prioritizing any period- especiallythosewhen the area had quitedifferent namesor nonethatwe knowof. We are grateful to Dr Yanis Pikoulasforadviceabout the In thelightofhisinformation, ofmodernplace-names. spelling we havereadoptedtheformAphysoú'forthevillagewherethe Surveywas based,ratherthanAphisioú',used in LS ii. GS is gratefulto Graeme Barkerand the late Donald Shipleyfor comments on an earlierdraftofthischapter.

2 Chapter ι

from fromvariousperiodsand principalroutes(D. Miles-Williams, III. i.i. Laconia and periphery, showingancientsettlements an originalbyA. Sackettand D. Taylor,withadditionsbyRWVC and DGJS).

Backgroundand methodology3

'

'-^

,^i

^^i

τ r--^

rii.

GYTHEIQ

|

::

γ

WIlJ^ -

*"'_/^- *^'

Main roads

^ - *"""*^-

Rivers

.

J

1

Hs **'

'

J

vV

600m

. :'.V"V/^ '"'^Sv r^

0

II

DRS

'^

Land above 1000m do

monemvasia

kJ^x

LACONIASURVEYAREA : "

^*'

II

il

li

li

20

« Kms

I

III. 1.2.The surveyarea in relationto Laconia (G. D. R. Sanders).

'

s

4

Chapterι

III. 1.3.Toponymsin thesurveyarea (D. Taylor).

Backgroundand methodology 5

to south-west and is situatednorthand east of Spárti,the siteof the down fromnorth-east ancientand moderntownof Sparta.That has not alwaysbeen thelocationforthecapitalof theregion;forseveralcenturiesthatrolebelongedto theFrankishand Byzantineacropolisof of Mystrásat thewesternedge oftheplain,untilin thenineteenth centurythetown-planners laid out an urban on the ancient of new Greek site The modern the kingdom grid Sparta. townadjoinsthewest(right)bankoftheriverEvrotas(theclassicalEurôtas);acrosstheriver, almostwithintouchingdistanceof the town,the surveyarea beginsfromthe east (left)bank and stretches up intothehillsbeyond.2(Forplace-namesin thesurveyarea, see ILL.1.3.) The area presentsa variedtopography, geology,and vegetation,owingto the varietyof Withinthelargerarea enclosedby theboundariesofa land-forms and elevationsit contains.3 (communes)specifiedin the surveypermit (see ILL. 8.1), a group of adjacent koinótites was studiedintensively between1983and 1989.4 contiguoustractofsome70 squarekilometres The northernmostpoint of this tract lies not far beyond the limestone hill of Agios thisis the highpointof the Konstantinos (818 m; ILLS24.4-7)wl^ ^tsclassicalfortifications; To thesouththearea endsat theplace wherea long,erodedridge,bearingtheBronze survey. Age mansionknownas Dawkins'House and the classicalsanctuaryof Menelaos and Helen, runsout intothe Sparta plain. Here, wherethe Evrotasrunsclose up againstthe hills,the surveyarea reachesitslowestpointat around170m above sea level.Turningback northwards along the river,we can tracethewesternboundaryof the surveyupstreamthroughthelowlyingfieldsnorthof Sparta,includingthe area of Geladári (LS siteH45),siteof a probable of the Evrotasvalleyfloorat this ancientvillage;it thusincludesseveralsquare kilometres At the north-western limit the river and cold (ILLS24.15-16),fromthe point. emerges,deep limestonefoothillsborderingthe Sparta plain on the north.Finally,in the east the survey climbsthewesternoutliersofthePárnonrange,embracingthelowerslopesofKoutsovition the roundhillof Phagiá to its south,and comprisesmuchof the dry the northand skirting basin overlooked bythevillageofChrysapha(ILL.24.56). upland The twogreatmountainrangesofLaconia, Mt Taygetosto thewestand Mt Parnonon the east,dominate(at a distance)the landscapeof all thispartof Laconia, and providethe first foranycontextualization elementofa framework ofthesurvey. To talkfora momentonlyof it was how the of visibility: striking highestpeaks Taygetos,notablythe pyramidalProphitis Ilias (2,404m), werevisiblefromalmosteverypartof the surveyarea (ILL. 1.4). In termsof mobilityand resources,the mountainsare farfromthe least importantamong economic thesettlement factorsinfluencing ofthestudyarea. history Two riversalso dominatethearea. The Evrotasformsthewesternmargin,whileitstributary theKelephina(theancientOinous)flowssouthalongsideourarea,thensouth-west it,to through with the Evrotas a few kilometres north of in Both are their converge Sparta. perennial, though lowercoursestheydivideintobraidedrivulets beds,and can shrinkto spreadingovergravelly in late summer(ILL.1.5).Otherwaterresourcesare numerouscomparedto many meretrickles Greeklandscapes;oftenthe visitor'sfirstimpressionof Laconia is thatit is surprisingly un2 For an excellent general geographical descriptionof Laconia see AdmiraltyNaval IntelligenceDivision, Greece (Geographical Handbooks, BR 516, 516 ab; London, 1944-5),iü-177-86. 3 A fullzone-by-zonedescriptioncan be found in the surveysitecatalogue(Chapter24),whilethegeomorphology and naturalecologyare discussedfullyin Chapters2-3.

4 Some 1.65sq kmwas coveredby recentpine plantations and provedcompletely barrenofarchaeologicalremains(see below);modernvillagescoveredc.0.5sq km;fencedorchards and other inaccessible areas would have brought the unsurveyed portionto r.2.5sq km. Thus the surveyedarea, havingtakenaccountoftheseinaccessibleportions,amounts to c.68 sq km.

6

Chapterι

III. 1.4.The southernpartofMt Taygetosat sunrise,lookingSWfromAphysoú(G. Shipley).

ofthevalleyfloorare so greenand becausesprings 'Spartan',becausetheolive-and citrus-groves and fountains abound.Thisis particularly trueofthewestoftheplainat thefootofTaygetos.On theeast,however, and in thefoothills ofParnonwhereour surveytookplace,springsare more The whole area is in somethingof a rain-shadowresultingfromthe widelyspaced. survey of which the winds.The geologyofmuchof presence Taygetos, intercepts prevailing rain-bearing thecentraland southern is less conducive to the formation ofspring-lines. area,too, survey Various'natural'routescrossour surveyarea. One is the valleyleadingENEfromSparta acrossdry,erodedhillsto theChrysaphabasin;fromthereit ascendsto theuplandvillageson thecrestofParnon,and beyondto theKynouriaor Thyreatis, a coastalshelfanciently disputed betweentheSpartansand Argivesbutnowassignedto thesprawling nomos ofArkadia.Southof some40 kmaway,has usuallyfollowedthewest Sparta,theland routeto thesea at Gytheion, bank the of across the river from thesurveyarea,downto theVardouniahillsat Evrotas, (right) thelowerend oftheSpartaplainand onward.On theeast (left)bank,withinour surveyarea, themain route(likethemodernmotorroad) has traditionally turnedeast,firstwiththe river and thenawayfromit,pasttheByzantineacropolisofGerákito Monemvasiaon theeastcoast and into Maléa, the remotesouth-easternpromontoryof the Péloponnèse.Less easy to determine forsomeperiodsis whichwas thenormalrouteto and fromeasternArkadia,northof a main Laconia.The Kelephinavalleyis difficult to pass at certainpoints.Morelikely, therefore, land traffic to routeskirting Konstantinos and to the Evrotas carried Agios descending valley and fromArkadia,as itdid untilrecently whenitwas supersededbya moredirectmotorroute in different fromTripolis(modernTripoli).The place whereit met the plain was different sometimes at the north-western remains of our where there are periods: extremity surveyarea,

Backgroundand methodology 7

III. 1.5.The riverEvrotasin April1989,lookingnnwfromtheMenalaion(G. Shipley).

in thecentreofthesurveyarea nearthe ofRomanand Ottoman-period and sometimes bridges, modernroadbridge.Forperiodswithoutbridges,eitheris possible.Anotherroad,againoutside oursurvey thewest(right) bankoftheEvrotasto Megalopolis(modernMegalópoli) area,follows and western Arkadia.Whileroutesto thenorth,to south-eastern of Laconia,and to theinterior Parnonall pass through thesurveyarea today,theywereprobablynotas important in thepast southcorridor thatpassedthrough as thisnorthbankoftheEvrotas. Spartaon thewest(right) The surveyarea,sensu was sparselysettledin the1980swhenourfieldwork was carried stricto, out,and remainsso today.Mostpeoplelivedin a villagewitha populationofup to a thousand or two,forming thecentreofa koino'tis and administering a definedterritory which (commune)5 contain a few smaller settlements or of isolated might outlyinggroups houses; permanent dwellingswere,and are, rare.In the north,our area stoppedshortof the koinoticcentreof Sellasia(formerly Vourliáor Vrouliá),butwithinitwas thesizeablevillageofVoutiánoiastride the Sparta-Tripolisroad and, furtherinto the hills,the koinoticcentreof Agios Ioánnis and east-central Theológosand itsdependency KalyviaTheológou.The north-east partofthe where are contained no settlement. The west-central area, slopes mainlyverysteep, large part, in theEvrotasplain,containedthe'commuter villages'ofKladás and Aphysou(in thelatterof whichthe surveywas based), as well as the ribbon-development settlement of Kokkinórachi and above the main In road. the south-east we are Tsouni)along (formerly again in almost unihabitedhill-land;the substantial of with its smaller village Skoura, neighboursof Zagáno, 5 In the late 1990s, afterthis volume was drafted,a ofkoinótites intodimoitookplace. We have not reorganization

to adjustthetextsystematically to reflect this. attempted

8

Chapterι

III. 1.6.BurntlandscapenearVoutianoi,theday aftera majorbushfirein August1988, lookingSSW(G. Shipley).

Platána,and KephalásdottedalongtheGerakiroad,lieswellto thesouthofthatbroadofarea ofdissected hillsand valleyswhosenorthern as edgeformsthesouthern partofourarea. Finally, ofthesurvey reachesto theuplandvillageofChrysapha. alreadynoted,theeasternextension Land use in the surveyarea covers a wide range.6Agriculturein rural Laconia has and muchof undergonea patchyrecessionsincethehighpointofthemid-twentieth century, the landscapeis no longeras intensively farmedas before.7Possiblesignsof older farming fashionsabound, such as an apparentvogue at some timein the past forpear-trees(now mostlygone wild)or,aroundVoutianoi,forhedgesof the Americanprickly-pear plantthat bearssuchsucculentbut fearsomely fruit. The of cereals with olives protected inter-cropping is rarelypractisednow,thoughin thenorthernSpartaplain and aroundthelowlandvillages the olive-groves are stillcarefullytendedand the fieldsploughedto assistwater-retention.8 of Manyfig-trees venerableage are stillcropped,notablyon thespursbelowVoutianoi,where theyare sometimes grownin largenumbersratherthansinglyas is theruleelsewherein the in late summer, whilefield-walking we would come acrosspeople from Often, Péloponnèse. Athenswho had returnedto theirancestralvillagesto collectthe familyharvestof figsor walnuts.We recallwithgratitude and spontaneous towardstheteams. theirfrequent generosity The othermainaspectofland use is pastoral.Most ofour encounters withlocalsout in 'the field'werewithherdsmentakingtheirsheepor goatsto browsethehills.Generallytheflocks returned to thevicinity ofvillageslikeAphysouor Chrysaphaat night;but some,as could be () See also Chapter8. Furtherdetailsin the introductions to individualzonesin thesurveysitecatalogue(Chapter24).

7 See Chapter8. 0 See Chapter3.

Backgroundand methodology 9

inferredfrompens of brushwoodor more remainedon the hills permanentstructures, forprolongedperiods.Some herdsmenwere membersof local communities,but one educated who repeatedly individual, friendly us in local toponymy guided (and incidentally us to several findspotsof archaeological we had notyetsurveyed), materialin localities came downon horsebackfromArkadiaeach summerto graze his animals on the late summer steppe plants and garigue of Geladariand on thelimestonespurs.In formertimes,perhaps,he wouldhaveexploited thestubbleleftbythecerealharvest. Duringour workwe weremade aware of the various importantroles played by the uncultivatedcountryside,apart fromits contributionto agriculturaland pastoral production.9The dexterous weaving of spinybroomand otherbrushwoodto plug gaps in hedgesand thussave livestockfrom as it fallsprovedas ethnologically impressive Over the inconvenient. was archaeologically years of the survey,several countrymen demonstratedtheirskillat makingherdsand crooksfromshoots man'swalking-sticks nearVoutianoi,eightmonthsafter III. 1.7.Burntolive-tree of wild olive. Much of the landscape is ofthetreeand thesamefire,showingregeneration dottedwithdisusedlime-kilns. surrounding vegetation(G. Shipley). But we werealso aware of changein the Farmingpracticeshavechanged, countryside. effects offire(ILLS and a possibleconsequenceis whatappearto be theincreasingly devastating butthe scrub to controlled of the no burning promotegrazingresources, 1.6-7): longer periodic, hillsides. This is theresultofa declinein grazing acrossproductive uncheckedspreadofwildfire of wild grassesand gariguethatallowsfireto whichhas led to a re-growth and ploughing, oftheruralproductive also aware that facets We were economyconcern many spreadrapidly. their more now earn a of livingin offices, Aphysiots shops, only minority peopletoday:probably to assume is without land. While economic from the or garagesthan precedent, system today's that 'agriculture'was the universalpreoccupationin everypast period would be to beg questions. important A NOTE ON CLIMATIC DATA (BY MALCOLM WAGSTAFF)

about the climateof the surveyarea is derivedfromthe meteorologicalseries Information maintainedat Sparta and kindlymade availableby the GreekMeteorologicalService.This 9 Cf. H. Forbes,'The uses of the uncultivatedlandscape in modernGreece: a pointerto the value of the wilderness

in antiquity?',in Shipley and Salmon, HumanLandscapes, 68-97.

ίο

Chapterι

III. 1.8.Mean monthly and precipitation at Sparta(datasuppliedbyGreekMeteorologicalService). temperature

allows the area to be classified as having a warm sub-humid climate of the classic Mediterranean type. exceed20 °C from The meanannualtemperature is 17.7°C, butmeanmonthly temperatures Theyfall Juneto September(ILL.1.8),and Spartais one ofthehottest placesin GreeceinJuly.10 to 9 °C inJanuary. FrostoccursfromNovemberto March,butthemeannumberoffrost daysis greatestinJanuary(2.8) and February(2.4). Severedamage can resultto citrusand, if the The economicconsequencesare serious. fallsbelow-13 °C, evento olive-trees. temperature 10B. Kayser and K. Thompson (eds), Economicand SocialAtlas ofGreece(Athens, 1964), 104.

Backgroundand methodology n π π

1000-

-

800

4^-Μ-^Η-·.

600 - i;

:

400 - ;;

;

;

2 0 0 - ;!

Ι;

j:

Γ

ΜΜ4Η».

:

**

MEAN

:

: .

·; ; ; ;

'' '

ο oï

ο ιg>

ο cm ο

:

i:

;

ο oo ο

ο ^f ο)

ο un Ο}

[iilij

ο to ο

i ■

;

;

o '' 1111Π If l,li.l.l.l.lJ.llll.l.l.l.l.f.lH.l.i[,Μ,,Ι rro en co

-■-=

η

'■ :_

mm

Π

i

: :

[J.J.U.U.M.i.l.

ο r^ σ>

ο oo ο)

ο σι ο^

III.. i.(). Intcraiiinial variabilityolprccipitatimi at Sparia.

Mean annual precipitationis 801.6 mm (ill. 1.9). Most of it arrivesas rain duringthe butsnowalso fallsin DecemberandJanuaryand lies forseveralmonthson thepeaks winter, in precipitation. The of Taygetosand Parnon.There is considerableinterannualvariability historical series,suggeststhatit does notfallbelowthe 240 evidence,thougha discontinuous mm whichis criticalto a successfulcereal harvestin much of the Near East,11thoughthe existenceof a graincommissionat ancientSparta suggeststhatfoodsupplywas a recurrent worryin the past.12The Taygetosmountainrange to the westof Sparta (summit2,407m) createsa crainshadow'ofsucha sortthat,as Rackhamobservesin Chapter3, thesurveyarea 'drier'thanthezone on thewesternsideoftheEurotas. is noticeably fallsbetweenOctoberand March (inclusive), No less than78 per centof theprecipitation with16.7percentin Decemberand 15.6per centinJanuary(ill. 1.9).In someyears,however, stormshave raised the precipitationvalues well above the means forparticularsummer months;forexample,over62 mmwas recordedin August1915and inJune1921. effects oftheEvrotas windsprevailat Sparta,partlyas a resultofthechannelling Northerly in winds onto the Gulf of Laconia. These are which out summer, drying chilling opens trough in winter.

J.M.W.

SELECTION

OF THE STUDY AREA

The relationshipbetweenpeople and the land theyoccupyis once more an issue,raising to land,nationality, and statehood. Overthelastcentury, withinthe oflegitimacy, questions rights 11C. C. Wallen,Arid zone methodology',in E. S. Hills (ed.),AridLands(London,1969),31-51.

12P.

Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman

World (Cambridge,1988),15.

12

Chapter ι

ofarchaeology, theissuesofrace,ethnicity, imperialism, religion, language,and culture discipline timesto be itsproperstudy,an unachievableaim, or an anathema. have seemedat different These concernsof territory, or more broadlythe relationshipof people to landscape,are have turnedin conductingregionalsurveys. By classicallythe themesto whicharchaeologists in thepoliticsofcomplexsocieties;and themesno less theirnaturetheseissuesariseas conflicts or 'populationhistory, and declineofcivilizations,13 economyand the grandthantheemergence in haveprovidedtheimpetusand targetofsurveys ofpastsocieties',14 development socio-political betweenperiodsofdispersed Greece.Not infrequently thedebatehas focusedon thealternation ofsurvey to analysisin such and ofnucleatedsettlement, and theresults lendthemselves certainly terms.Nevertheless, to expressthe analysismerelyin termsof thisdichotomywould be to The modelneedstobe mademorespecific to thehistory ofLaconia. oversimplify hopelessly. It would be redundantto tryto listbaldlythe historicalissueswhichconnectLaconian withthe historyof itslandscape;thesewillformthe contentof some of the politicalhistory following chapters.All thesame,therewereproblemsthatinspiredtheprojectof theLaconia than,and in additionto, the contextof intensivesurveyresearch Surveymoreimmediately and historical describedabove. Each of the prehistoric periodsdetailedin laterchaptershad address:thehistory ofNeolithic that evidence might alreadypresented properly questions survey the Early-Middle colonizationin Laconia, the natureof EarlyBronzeAge 'proto-urbanism', theMycenaeanstateand therelationship of and therootsofcivicculture, BronzeAge transition of and the crisis the thesurveyarea to theMenelaionexcavations, Laconia, perioikic Spartiate hinterland of Roman Sparta,ByzantineLaconia beforeand thirdcentury BC,theagricultural thatmulti-period underthePalaeologues,and theTurkishoccupation.In thelongperspective when the there are contrasts and allows, challenges:periods Spartan statewas an survey of colonial and colonial of and obscurity; phases supremacy power, periods provincial important the last the effect of the for considerable 2,500years, 'Spartan subjection;and, spellsduring and victimofitsownmythology. mirage',or Spartaas bothbeneficiary in theplanningofthesurvey, overand above the These veryquestionsmade fordifficulties venture of limited resources and remit. encountered on anyarchaeological practicalproblems In the theoryof surveya strongemphasishas veryproperlybeen placed on the ideal of so that a proper sampling strategycan underlie selecting a representativeterritory, to meetin the data.15In practicethisideal was difficult inferences drawn from archaeological our case, notleastbecause thesize and boundariesof theLaconian 'state'at variousperiods and indeedoftenlackcleardefinition. havevariedconsiderably, To take one periodas an example:the classicalcity-state (polis)of Sparta consistedof an ruled a few thousand of by two kingswho were tightly Spartiatai,notionally assembly councilof elders,the Gerousia.The monitoredby fiveelected'ephors' and an aristocratic to military devotingthemselves 'Spartiates'played(in theory)no partin primaryproduction, and politicallife.They ruled over a much largerpopulationof 'helots' (είλώται,roughly Sparta had equivalentto stateserfs),mainlydescendantsof the Messenianswhose territory much of the in BC. This helot cultivated the agricultural population conquered eighthcentury ofMesseniaas wellas partsofLaconia. territory 13See e.g.C. Renfrew, in IslandPolity, i- 8; J. 'Introduction', F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,'Patternsin the 457-79. Archaeology, landscapeofKeos', in Landscape 14J. L. Bintliff, 'Greece: theBoeotia Survey',in Macready and Thompson,FieldSurvey, 196-216,at 196.

15J. F. Cherry,'Frogsaround the pond: perspectiveson currentarchaeologicalsurveyprojectsin the Mediterranean Survey, 375-416. region',in Kellerand Rupp,Archaeological

Backgroundand methodology 13

ofLaconia, In addition,theSpartansexercisedmoreindirect poweroverthefreeinhabitants in in who lived thepenoikoi (poleis) human-geographical ('dwellersaround'), separatecity-states smalltownsand villages-whichwerepolitically terms, organizedas poleisto somedegree mostly made up the butwerecloselydependentupon Sparta.16Togetherthe Spartiatesand penoikoi or Lakedaimon;17 but onlySpartiates (Lakedaimones) 'polisof the Lakedaimonians5 over-arching whichmade all important decisionssuch as about war, had a voice in the Spartanassembly, name forthe centralsettlement of Sparta peace, and treaties.Lakedaimonwas an alternative inwhichitlay,theEurotasvalley. district and couldalso be appliedto thegeographical (Sparte), and helots(whowerenot)formed The penoikoi (whowereincludedamongLakedaimonians) calledtheLakedaimonian,armythatdominated a majorpartoftheSpartan,morecommonly - a situationthatmayhaveinfluenced settlement mostofthePéloponnèseforseveralcenturies areas such as Arkadia.In a strictsensethe Lakedaimonians'ruled' patternsin neighbouring the namewas Lakônikê, onlyLakedaimonand Messenia,a regionwhosepolitical-geographical WithinLakoniketherewill have been a land of the Lakones(a shortformof Lakedaimones). centralcoreofSparta'sownpolisterritory, thoughtheterm'Spartiateland',Σπαρτιατικήγη, a invention.18 This centredon theupperEvrotasvalley to be modern chora, naturally, appears and extendedsouth-east perhapsas faras the choraof perioikicGeronthrai(wherethe kings of Spartawouldhelpto had therevenuesfromcertainland). The existenceofa definedchora in of communities the of the the absence vicinity city,thoughtheremayhave perioikic explain frontier. been no hard-and-fast ofSparta,evenin a periodas welldocumentedas theclassical,thus Defining'theterritory' matter. to be no simple Quite what,then,would we be sampling?Elsewherevarious proves sometimesbecause the solutionshave been foundto the problemof defininga territory, on a historical with the was based Megalopolis Survey)or specific question (as strategy because it has been possible to sample a natural 'Siedlungskammer'(Boiotia) or a clear entity(Methana,Melos).None oftheseoptionsseemedappropriateor feasiblein geographical Laconia, giventhatwe wishedto coverall periodsand giventhattherewas no naturalor stablepoliticalboundaryto definean area forus. Laconia is not a naturalcatchmentin the in have changedconsiderably way that,say,Atticacan be viewed,and itspoliticalfrontiers recent work has the not to mention times. Furthermore, historical, emphasized prehistoric, importanceof samplinglargesitesin orderto put the ruralpatternin itscontext.Here, too, of whatwas practicablepreventedus frommeetingthe theoreticaldemand the constraints in our region,Sparta,liesunderthemoderntownofSpartiand onlya few The chief site fully. monumental major complexeshave been fullyexcavated.Whileit is reasonableto hope that useful data will be derivedfromrecordsof emergencyexcavations,the townwas not many forpracticalreasons. to open archaeologicalsurvey;norwas Mystras, indicatedclearlyhow we should these certain considerations factors, Despite complicating defineour area. The centralaim was to locatesitesofall periodsin an area thatwas relatively l() Shipley,'Perioikos'; id., '"Other Lakedaimonians'"; amongearlierworks,B. Niese,'Neue Beiträgezur Geschichte

und Landeskunde Lakedämons', Göttingische Nachrichten, gelehrte 1906, 101-42; F. Gschnitzer, AbhängigeOrte im griechischen

Altertum (Zetemata,17; Munich,1958),esp. 61-7; F. Hampl, 'Die lakedaimonische Periöken',Hermes, 72 (1937),1-49· On a thecategoryof 'dependentpolis',see M. H. Hansen,'Korne: settlements studyin howtheGreeksdesignatedand classified which were not poleis',CPC Papers2, 45-81.

17On thebinarystructure ofLakedaimon,a poliscontaining otherpoleis,see J. M. Hall, 'Sparta, Lakedaimon and the in CPC Papers natureofperioikic 5, 73-89. dependency', 18Bölte, 'Geographie', 1321-40.Post-Clauthorsreferto 'the land belongingto the astu1(Plut.Lyc.8. 5) or 'the civic land', πολιτικήχώρα (Polyb.vi. 45. 3); see MacDowell, Law,91-2; Hodkinson,'Land tenure',385. Spartan

14

Chapterι

III. ι.ιο. Soils and base rocksin thesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams and L. Farr,fromoriginalsbyA. Sackettand D. Taylor).

Backgroundand methodology 15

To this end, the complete unknownfromboth ancient sourcesand recentinvestigation. and the of an area was our integrated guidingprinciple, techniquesof intensive coverage The of other have shown that there are real were projects applied. experiences survey was designedas in a and the accordingly surveyterritory advantages working contiguousarea, and that we wanted to the overall aims of the an unbrokenunit.19Given survey, given in it was to the major knownsites a widerruralsetting, contextualize logical includesome land close to ancientSparta.The densityofmodernsettlement, however,combinedwiththe in the plain aroundthe townand the use of irrigation for of recentconstruction frequency citrusgroveson extensiveareas of heavilytilledalluvium,made thatarea problematicand to survey(thoughnot withoutinterest, particularly regardingabovepossiblyunrewarding to make the Evrotasour boundaryand to groundremains).It was reasonable,therefore, thisarea was one of the less kindsof landscapebeyondit. Archaeologically sampledifferent in Laconia,butit enjoyedthedistinction ofhavingtheimportant excavatedsite well-explored oftheMenelaionwithinit. The surveywas designed to include lowland, hill, and at least the lower mountain a range of vegetativecoverand land use and a It contains,correspondingly, environments. range of geologiesincludinglimestone,schist,Neogene (the Miocene-Pliocene marl-andseries),and colluvialslopesas wellas alluvialvalleyfloors(ILL.1.10;see also the conglomerate SOIL MAPat the end of the volume). It included knownor likelynucleated settlements, includingmodernvillagesand whatprovedto be an ancientVillage' at Geladari; religious complexes,such as the Menelaion and the workingmonasteryof Agioi Saránda; major 'natural' routesand rivervalleys;and, in termsof political and economic geography,a via of an ancientand modernurban settlement spectrumof situationsfromthe outskirts extensionof the area was designedto farmedslopesto uplandpasture.The south-eastward of Chrysaphain its enclosedbasin, fascinating territory incorporatesome of the potentially whetherSpartan or perioikic,was knownto lie, but whereno named classicalsettlement, thatwe mightfinda nucleatedcomplex.As it turnedout, thereseemeda strongprobability we foundmajorsitesin theChrysaphabasinnotonlyofthearchaicand classicalperiodsbut also ofprehistoric and post-Romandates. Sources

and Previous

Research

fromsome otherruralsurveyprojectsin thatwe began The Laconia Surveyis distinguished witha relativelyhigh degree of knowledgeof the historyand archaeology.We were not samplingan unknownpopulation. This prior knowledgeconsistedof the productof an understandingof three things:the historyof Sparta and Laconia, the geographyand of thisparticularpart of Laconia, and earlierresearchinto its archaeology. environment muchoftheevidenceconcernsspecifically ancientSpartaand ByzantineMystras, Admittedly, about ruralsettlement, but theimplications and tellsus littledirectly ofthosesystems require ofthearchaeology. It was recognizedfromtheoutsetthat to be workedintoanyinterpretation thispriorexperiencecould,and should,informour understanding and interpretation of the of the past. In all parts of this report, surveydata and hence the furtherinterpretation we attemptto bringtogetherinformation therefore, gatheredbypreviousresearch.This both demonstrates thelimitsof our knowledgeand providesthe necessarytoolsforan integration ofall availablesourcesofevidencewiththeresultsofthefieldsurvey. 19BintlifT(n. 14),195-200.

i6

Chapterι

In thischapterwe briefly outlinethehistoryof Laconia, and withinit the surveyarea, for each period,and summarizethe evidenceforhumangeography. It mightbe thoughtstrictly correctto restrict thispart of the enquiryto the 'scientific'researchof the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies.In the firstplace, however,the scholarsof thatperiod did not come innocentto the subject- theirview of the landscape was formedin the lightof whatwas - and, in the second already written,includingancient literature place, there may be in close that critical which makes to gulf advantages attempting past writingan object of discoursebut not part of that discourse.Rather,therefore, than produce a compositeof settlement foreach periodwhichconcealstheweavingofancientevidenceand modernfinds an into illusory seamlessrobe,we attemptto showhowLaconia was represented, described,or in (sometimes)explored each period, and how we believe the landscape to have been administered. This allowsus to place theregionalgeographyofLaconia in a longerhistorical and incidentally perspective, providesan outlinehistoryof all thethingsthatmaybe termed will 'landscaperesearch'whichhavegoneon in thestudyarea. At thesametimethesummary in raiseissuesaboutthenatureoflandscapecontrol,includingcontrolthroughrepresentation; thisrespectwe are dealingpartlywithmapsnoton paper. CATALOGUES AND EPITHETS:

THE EARLIEST PERIODS

to the topographyof Laconia,20but no Ancientliterature containsmanypassingreferences survive.In additionthereis the 'problem'of Sparta:not onlywas Spartan systematic surveys historical about written it also tendsto dominateand overshadow writings history byoutsiders, thatare specifically focusedon Laconia Lakedaimon;and the fewwritings Sparta'sterritory, outsideSparta(allfromlaterthantheclassicalperiod)are notas helpfulas theymightseem. To beginwiththe BronzeAge: it is generallybelievedthatthe Pyliankingdomdid not extendevenintothewesternmost thoughGerenianear Kalamáta was partof theprovince,21 identified as theplace wherekingNestorgrewup or tookrefugelater(Pausanias,iii. 26. 8). AlthoughLinearΒ archivesmusthaveexistedin Laconia,nonehas been found.22 For writtenrecordsof Sparta and Laconia we muststartaround 700 BC withHomer, has an thoughitwouldbe a mistaketo suggestthathisgeographyofLakedaimonnecessarily of the formation The ninth to seventh centuries were the historical referent.23 period objective ofthecitizencommunities or poleisof Greece;in Laconia theyculminatedin theconquestof ofcoloniesoverseas,and thegrowthofa disciplinedmilitary Messenia,thefoundation society. an earlierworld,thenamesin theCatalogue seems to be reimagining Homer Though chiefly of Ships- Pharis,Sparta,Messe ofmanydoves,Bryseai,lovelyAugeiai,Amyklai,thecoastal city(εφαλον πτολίεθρον)of Helos, Laas, and Oitylos(Iliad,ii. 581-5) and the sevencities offered by Agamemnonto Achilles Kardamyle,Enope, grassyHire,24sacredPherai,deepmeadowedAntheia,fineAipeia,and vineyPedasos(ix. 150-2,292-4)^- do suggesta political 20See thefundamental surveyin Bölte,'Geographie'. 21See convenientlyJ. Chadwick, The MycenaeanWorld (Cambridge,1976),ch. 3. 22ForLakedaimonios in LinearΒ tablets as a possibleethnikon from Thebes, see J. M. Hall (n. 17), 85-6, citing V. L. Godart,and A. Sacconi, 'Sui nuovitestidel Aravantinos, palazzo di Cadmo a Tebe: note preliminari',Rendiconti deWAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Classe dei ScienceMorali, 9th ser., 6 (1995), 809-45. 23 Significantly,it has been observed that, for example,

Pausanias 'uses no less than four Homeric passages ... for a conclusive demonstration that at the time of [the] poems there was no city,only a region, called Messene'. C. Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to AncientGreece(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and

London,1985),143. 24eIpT]vποιήεσσαν,also understoodas 'holyPoieëssa'by someancientreaders. 25 R. Hope Simpson, The seven cities offered by Agamemnonto Achilles(Iliad ix. 149 ff.,291 ff.)',BSA 61 to earlierliterature. (1967),113-31,withreferences

Backgroundand methodology 17

worldwherethe stateis defined,ifnot by terrainand boundaries,at leastby the controlof townsand henceoftheirpeople and lands.26Telemachos'svisitto Spartain Odyssey iv cannot be construedinto a map of ancientLaconia. Rather,the impactin Homericpassageswas fromthedescriptive intendedto comefromtheirsensibility, poweroftheepithetsused:κοιλή of Lakedaimon(κοιλην (hollow)and κητώεσσα (fullof gorges?)are both used specifically Λακεδαίμονακητώεσσαν).27Pedasos, as we saw, is άμπελόεις(rich in vines),Antheia Hire ποιήεσσα(grassy).Epithetsare also drawnfrom βαθύλειμος(deep in water-meadows), the religiouslandscape: Pherai is ζαθέαι (extremelysacred),Sparta is one of threecities ofagricultural and wellfertility 'especiallydear' to Hera.28Otherscomefromtheobservation wateredland,as in Telemachos'sadmiringsketchdeliveredto Menelaos:

. . . σύ γαρπεδίοιοάνάσσεις εύρέος,ή ενιμενλωτόςπολύς,ενδε κύπειρον, πυροίτεζειαίτείδ'εύρυφυέςκρϊλευκόν.

Foryoulorditovera broadplain, in whichthereis muchclover,thereis galingale, and wheatsand one-seededwheatsand wide-growing whitebarley. {Od.iv.602-4) The powerof Homericprecedent,the shieldofAchilles,and the ethnography of the Odyssey a programme established forscholarly Nevertheless the geography. beyond earlygeographers, theirliterary the limits,size,and aims,seem to have been moreconcernedwithestablishing and withgraphicaccountsof the ethnography of the shape of the world,withexploration, theirown landscape,the Spartansseem to have had neither barbarians.But in constructing theseaims nor the listsof towns(whichdo not make the mostrivetingreading)foremost in theirminds;insteaditis Homer'sexamplethatloomslargest,in termsofbothdescription and - lands are usually scattersconventionalepithets religion.Tyrtaios,in the seventhcentury, his themeof conquestin a broad,Spartais ίμερόεσσα(delightful)thoughhe can reinforce bluntvocabulary: Μεσσήνην, αγαθόνμενάρουν,αγαθόνδε φυτεύειν. . . ήμισυπαντόςόσον κάρποναρουρα φέρει Messene,bothgood to ploughand good to plant. . . Halfofall thecropthattheploughbringsforth

(frs3-4 Gentili-Prato)

Notethatliterally Messeneis not'good' (άγαθήν),itis a good (αγαθόν),as itwerea benefitor evena merepossession.The landscapeis notmerelyconqueredbutdenatured.In therhetoric ofwarfaretheSpartiatesare fighting forthecityand itsfields,and thereis a hardmaterialism in theimageof thewarriorlyingdead in the dust,blood runningfromhis genitals(fr.7), or thatofthehoplitefirmly treadingtheearth(fr.9). A) On these reputed earlypoleis,see Shipley,'"Other Lakedaimonians"', esp. 2^1-8. 27Od. iv. 1; //.ii. 581. Both of thesehave been thoughtto

be linkedwiththe sea: S. P. Morris,'Hollow Lakedaimon', HarvardStudiesin ClassicalPhilology, 88 (1984), 1-11.

aH φιλταται. . . πολήες,//.iv.51-2.

i8

Chapterι

A richerand more specificsense of place and natureis to be foundin anotherseventhSerapna (Therapne),thewine of centurypoet. Alkmangivesus the templeat 'well-towered' the sanctuaryof the Graces by the river and (probably)the Dentheliatis, the Oinous district sense and a graphic,ifoftenunspecific, Tiasa, and thenightingale bytheEurotasat Amyklai, ofplace and natureis evidentin manyofhissongs.29 LAND, COMMUNITIES,

AND BOUNDARIES IN CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC

LAKONIKE

The contributionof classical writersto our knowledgeof Lakonike is mainlylimitedto by particularly passingmentionsoftownsand harboursin the courseofmilitarynarratives, Thucydidesand Xenophon. Epigraphymakeslittleimpactin thisrespect,eitherin Sparta beforethehellenistic or in theperioikicterritories, period.Spartawas apparentlynotwholly passed by in the developmentof classicalGreekgeography:Anaximander(c.610-540 BC) is - evidence of an awareness of said to have set up a sundial in or near the town30 fora citythatwas a colonizingstatebothwithinGreece geographicalissues,appropriately and a reminderthatthepolisat thisdate was not so cut offfrommainstream and overseas,31 Greek culturaldevelopmentsas it later became. In the classical period we begin to have about administrative more information geography,thoughwe are heavilydependenton post-classicalsources(and, as has oftenbeen observed,none of the survivinghistoryof bya Spartan). Spartawas written In archaic and classical Sparta it appears that real propertywas adjudicated through traditionallaw,32and scholarlyopinion suggeststherewas no centralregistryof land.33 - the conquestof new territory, Occasions forcompilingcadasterswere not lacking treaty of and of the redistributions with allied land, states, redrawing drawing possible arrangements and the disposalof the propertyof political the boundariesof Spartanterritory, mortgages, exiles- but no suchdocumentssurvive.In the eighthand seventhcenturieswe maysuppose land.34The notionof thatthe Greekcolonial experienceprovidedmodelsfordistributing BC a fiction of third-century attack as has come under inalienable plots 'Lykourgan' core or all of the that some it seems view but whatever Spartan likely prevails propaganda;35 and therefore some or all of the surveyarea, was dividedintocitizens'plotsat the territory, and Roman periodsthese In the classical,hellenistic, timeof the Messenianwars or later.36 thepolis;there level of the at the control to were politicalcommunity, subject socio-legal plots was no feudalpyramidto negotiatetheparcellingof land. Althoughthe exact denotationof of 242 BC is unclear as far as it concernsthe redivisionof land 'in the Lysander'srhetra directionfrom(την από) the ravineat Pellana towardsTaygeton(sic),Malea, and Sellasia' Agis,8. 1),the textmakesit likelythatsome land withinthe surveyarea willhave (Plutarch, formedSpartiateplots.37It is possiblethatthe klaria(ibid. 13) delimited,or even mapped, of the mechanicsof the land distributions mortgagedland. All the same,our understanding 29'Serapna',fr.14(Page/Campbell);wine,fr.92; Graces,fr. testimonium 62 (Paus.iii. 18. 6); nightingales, 9; senseofnature, and esp.89 (a landscapeall asleep). e.g.frr.26 (thekêrylos) 3°O. A. W. Dilke,Greek andRoman Maps(London,1985),23.

34A.J. Graham,'The colonialexpansionofGreece',CAH2 iii. 3, ch. 37 (pp. 83-162),at 151-2. 35Hodkinson,'Land tenure',382. 36Cartledge, SL 135, contraΚ. Μ. Τ. Chrimes,Ancient

(Cambridge,1994). 32Hodkinson,'Land tenure'; MacDowell, SpartanLaw. Hodkinson, Property, appeared too late to be taken into accountsystematically. 33Cartledge,SL 168.

37Malea maydenotetheParnonridge(Bölte,'Geographie', polisin 1322),ratherthaneithertheformerSpartanperioikic sectionofParnonthat SW Arkadiaor thesouthern, peninsular formsCape Malea. Taken in thisway,the textcould denote orpossibly ofSpartaitself, thecoreterritory onlyitsΝpart.

31 I. Malkin, Mythand Territory in theSpartanMediterranean

oftheEvidence(Manchester, 1949), 424. Sparta:A Reexamination

Backgroundand methodology 19

proposedbyAgisIV and carriedout by KleomenesIII and Nabis38is so nugatoryas to make Recordstheremusthave been, but no ancientauthority seemsto have speculationfruitless. referred to them. In general,it seemspossiblethatperioikictownswere firstdemonstrably founded,or at no earlier than the sixth The leastbecomearchaeologically recognizable, century. mid-fourthattributed to of or Circumnavigation, calls falsely Skylax Karyanda explicitly centuryPeriplous, eightplaces in Lakedaimonpoleis(ch. 46 Müller)39and names a furtherthreesettlements, the authoralso besidesSparta itself,thatwe knowor believeto have been perioikicpoleis'^0 aversthatthereare 'manyother'poleisin the interiorofLakedaimon.41 It is uncertainwhen the traditionof one hundredLakedaimoniancitiesfirstsurfaced.Strabo (viii. 4. 11. 362) 'townships'(πολίχναι)in his own day and notesthatLakonikeis said speaksofabout thirty in olden times.Froma combinationof to have been called 'hundred-citied' (έκατόμττολις) archaic or classical sourcesand archaeology,we can identifyat most twenty-three places (besidesSparta)thatweredefinitely, probably,or possiblypoleisbeforethehellenistic period. A further settlements existedbeforehellenistictimesbutmaynothave beenpoleis. thirty-two namesfromarchaicto Roman times,the Even ifwe includeall knownor allegedsettlement Of these,nine are probablyspurious,whileanothernine totaldoes not exceed eighty-four. were probablygeographicallocationsor cult places ratherthan nucleated settlements.42 we have onlyan imperfect JacobyconsidersthatStephanosof Byzantion,of whose Ethnika and who several times describes a Laconian as 'one of the hundred',43 polis may epitome fromAndrotion,who wrotein thefourthcenturyBC,44though have derivedhis information The figureofone Stephanosalso uses otherauthorsof similardate,such as Theopompos.45 hundredis certainlynotional,not to say bookish,but listsof perioikicpoleisdo appear to havecirculated. The loss of individualpoleisafterthe battleof Leuktrain 371, and theirincorporation, (Paus. viii. 27. 4) and into the Arkadian presumablyby name,intoMegalopolitanterritory broke down their as apparenthomogeneity a unitedmassunderSpartanhegemony, league,46 and preparedthegroundforPhilipII ofMacedonia'sfurther oftheboundariesof redrawing theSpartanstatein 338.47 Traditionalterritories, were probablydistinguished earlier: especiallyin the borderlands, and Belbinatis52 and Skiritis,48 certainly Kynouria,49 Thyreatis,5° Maleatis;51 probably Aigytis;53 38Fordiscussionsee Cartledgeand Spawforth, chs4-5. 39 Las, Boia, Kythera on its island, Side, Epidauros (Limera),Prasia,Methana(i.e. Anthana?),and Sparte. 40MessenianAsine,Mothone,and Gytheion. 41See P. Flensted-Jensen and M. H. Hansen, 'Pseudoj, 137-67. Skylax'use ofthetermpolis' in CPC Papers 42Data in Shipley,'Laconia'. 43This or a similarphraseis used ofthefollowing poleisin Lakonike(somein theMessenianpartthereof): Aithaia(from Philochoros), Amyklai, Anthana (perhaps from Philostephanos),Aulon, Aphrodisias,Epidauros Limera, Krokeai,and Tenos(possiblyspurious). 44FGH 324 F 49. Androtionis citedbyStephanosforthree Laconianpoleisor allegedpoleis:Aitolia(existencedoubtful), Oinous,and possiblyThyrea. 45Theopompos(4thcent,bc) is citedbyStephanosforthe Laconianplaces (notall necessarily poleis),and may following have listed many more: Aigys, Eua, Karya(i), Helos, Messapeai,Sellasia,and Thalamai.

4<)J.Roy,'Arcadiaand Boeotia in Peloponnesianaffairs, 20 (1971),569-99, esp. 576. 370-362BC',Historia, 47Cartledge,SL 319;Shipley,Territory . 48e.g.Thuc. v.33. 1;Xen. Hell.vi.5. 24; Pikoulas,'Skiritis'. 49e.g. Thuc. v. 14. 4; cf. Κ. A. Romaios,'Κυνουρία και Κυνούριοι', Πελ. ι (1956), 1-22 (Englishsummary, 470~I)î Phaklaris,Κυνουρία:2 32. 5°e.g.Thuc. ii. 27. 2. Cf. Phaklaris,Κυνουρία2ΐ8, 88. For the issue of whetherKynouria extended furtherS than Thyreatis,see Bölte, 'Geographie', 1304, 1307; Shipley, 'Laconia'. 51Xen. Hell.vi. 5. 24. •r>a Or Belminatis,Polyb.ii. 54. 3 (224 bc); Belbinates, Livy, xxxviii.34. 8 (189 bc). ForBelbina(or Belemina),see Shipley, '"OtherLakedaimonians'",237no. 22; Shipley,'Laconia'. 53Polyb.ii. 54. 3.

20

Chapterι

lesscertainly Dentheliatis54 These are sometimes, notnecessarily (butprobablynotKaryatis).55 If territories of the for the annexation of always, arguments perioikicpoleis. Aigytisin the hold the the good,56 territory probablypreceded Spartanpoliticalconstitution, eighthcentury whilethe mainpolisin the Skiritiswas Oion (not Skiros,if any such townexisted).57 It may evenbe thatlaterin theirhistory theSpartansfoundit convenient notto identify suchregions witha singlecity,as in the case of the Skiritanhoplites,58 who mightbecome a dangerif with one The identified obscure of Pellana59likewisefalls tripolis specifically perioikicpolis. mosteasilyintothisgroupofgeographicalunitswhich,at leastbeforethefourth need century, nothavecorresponded to anypoliticalunit. Boundary-stones maywellhave markedsanctuariesand agricultural holdings,but it is not if a clearwhen, ever, preciseline came to be used to delimitthestate'sterritory; thisis all the moreproblematic since'wildland' and commonpastureprevailedin the maquis-dominated eschatiai thatoftenmarkedthe boundaryareas betweenGreekcity-states. In the (outfields) ofthepolisthesacredlandscapeseemsto havebeen important in thisconnection; earlyhistory hence, no doubt, the existenceof the archaic and later sanctuaryof the Hermai on the northern borderof Lakedaimon,6° thoughin Pausanias'sday the riverAlpheioswas also the border(viii.54. 1).LikewisethesanctuaryofArtemisLimnatis,at leastin latertradition,61 was the focusforthe disputebetweenSparta and Messenia.In a somewhatparallelfashionthe sanctuaryof Poseidonat Tainaronservedas a liminalsanctuaryat the southernend of the notleastin itsroleas an asylumforfugitive helotsand slaves.62 territory, IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION

AND IMPERIAL GEOGRAPHY: LAKONIKE IN ROMAN TIMES

SpartalostMesseniaand mostof the helotpopulationin 369 and 338 BC,and manyof the The perioikictownsat thesedates and at variousjuncturesduringthe nexttwo centuries.63 was to an end in the Macedonians and the 222, independent monarchy effectively brought by Romans enrolledSparta in the Achaean league in 192. Some fifty later the whole years Péloponnèsecame under Roman sway,thoughthe provinceof Achaia was not formally created until the end of the firstcenturyBC. From this period we have only scattered information about Spartanterritory,64 such as the townsmentionedin Polybios'snarrative, and are again relianton laterauthors.There are more epigraphicdata fromthe formerly perioikictowns,manyofwhichwerenow enrolledin a Lakedaimonianleague.This endured intoRoman timesand was reorganizedas the Eleutherolaconian (FreeLaconian) league by Augustus.65 Sparta itselfbecame more integratedinto the empire-wideélite networkthat formedthe skeletonof Roman rule,exemplified by contactswiththe philhellenicemperor 54 Tac. Ann. iv. 43 (ager Dentheliates),referringto

in thetimeofPhilipII ofMacedonia.Steph. arbitration Byz. has an entryon Denthalioi.See furtherG. A. και το οδικό της δίκτυο: Pikoulas,'Ή Δενθελιατις Messenian σχόλιαστηνIG Vl5Ι431''3r
5Γ)Karyatis is not attested as a toponym,despite its occurrencein modern scholarship;referencesin Shipley, '"Other Lakedaimonians'', 238 no. 24; Shipley,'Laconia'. 5<)Cartledge,SL 99-100,103. 57Skirosas a κατοικίαis attestedbySteph.Byz.575. 7-8. On Oion as the onlydefinitesettlement withinSkiritis, see Pikoulas,'Skiritis',135. "lM Skintai:lhuc. v. 07, 08, 71;Xen. Hell.v. 2. 24.

59Polyb.iv.81; see Bölte,'Geographie',131Q. (K)Paus. ii. 38. 7; see LS ii. 280, siteAA24. 01Paus. iv. Tac. Ann.iv. 4; 43; W. Kolbe, 'Die Grenzen Messeniensin der erstenKaiserzeit',Ath.Mitt.29 (1904), 364-78; Cartledgeand Spawforth, 138-9;Pikoulas(n. 54). 02 IG v. 1. 1227-34; Thuc. i. 128; N. Papachatzis,

ii (Athens, ΠαυσανίουΕλλάδος περιήγησις, 1976), 443. ('3Shipley,'Territory'. <»4 Furtherdetailsin Chapters5-6.

■» Ν. Μ. Kennell, rrom penoikoito poleis:the Laconian cities in the late hellenisticperiod', in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta:New Perspectives (London, 1999), eh. 7 (pp. 189-210).

Backgroundand methodology 21

and withAntoninusPius on an occasionwhich Hadrianand hispanhelleniccultorganization, of 11, 15 y).66 (see inscriptions promptedmanyexpressions gratitude at the timeof The geographicalcontrolexercisedby the Roman imperialadministration is scattered and Nicolet.67 The evidence Augustus has recentlybeen scrutinizedby in one area were the methods found to be surehow universally and it is difficult fragmentary, soli,tributum capitis, appliedin others.Brunthas summarizedthe sourcesof revenue:tributum leviesand cash.68The census as wellas extraordinary and vicesima vicesima libertatis, hereditatum, aimed at harvesting has been characterizedas 'the keystoneof the Roman civic system',69 itslowesttierformedofthosecitiesthat a civicsystem, Yetthiswas necessarily theseresources. censusreturnswillnothave coincidedin detailwiththe supporteda municipalorganization; of the populationoverthe landscape.Moreover,in the famousdescriptionof a distribution censusinJudaeaby St Luke,7°thetribalmodelis notreplacedby one ofresidence,evenifin the mobilityof documentsforthe mobilityof Italyone ofAugustus'saimswas to 'substitute in the κατ' οίκίαν Even άπογραφαί (censusesby household)in factmixed Egypt people'.71 domicileand residencein a way whichwould not,even if the censusresults administrative ofan archaeologicalsurvey. be reconcilablewiththefindings survived, The Peutinger Table,a Byzantineroad map oftheRoman empirederivingfromtheperiod in effect showsroadsand stationsusedbytheimperialpost,butis probably oftheprincipate,72 its oftheAugustanideologicalprogramme. a reflection Imperialpropagandathusunderwrites to knowwhetherthetownsselectedforinclusion(Sparta,Gythion, visualimpact.It is difficult Asopos, and Boiai) were the mostpopulous.73Some geographicalwritersmay have seen as servingthe empire(Strabo,forexample),but some had theirown concerns. themselves was Ptolemy's large-scale nothingless than mappingthe world and his sourcea periplous coastalplaces (iii. 14. 31-2, 14.43). He hencehe listsalmostexclusively usingdead-reckoning; thusgivesno realaccountofLaconia as a whole. ofthefirstcenturyBCand first ofthemore'academic'geographers The extantdescriptions is not too helpfulto our purposes. than exhaustive. Strabo AD anecdotal rather are century His pageson Laconia (viii.4. 11.362 to 6. 1. 368; cf.ILL. 1.11)read somewhatlikea draft;they but leave gaps, much of the interiorhardlybeing mentioned. lay down a basic framework ofa lack ofothersources,74 Thereare extensive givingtheimpression quotationsor summaries His workincludesthe unexpected,such as the strangelinguistic of concernforchronology. excursuson apocope(5. 3. 364), and thereare small asides which sometimesseem to be is notan artificial creationbuta regionwitha inaccurate.75 If,forPausanias,'a Greekdistrict a and with distinct ethnic in as well as element,oftenwitha particular history, past, myth dialect . . . and specificformsof religion,cult and patternsof life',76some of the same m LS'û. 218, 221-2. ('7 C. Nicolet, Space, Geography and Politicsin theEarly Roman

Lectures,19;AnnArbor,Mich.,1991). Empire (Jerome t)HP. A. Brunt,The revenuesol Rome', JMS 71 (1981), 161-77,at 161. 69Nicolet (n. 67), 126.

70Luke2: ι, καιεπορευοντοπάντεςαπογραφεσθαι έκαστοςειςτηνεαυτούπόλιν. "' Nicolet

(n. 07), 202.

72Κ. Miller,Itinerária Romana(Stuttgart, 1916); Pritchett, SAGTin (1980),eh. 6 (pp. 197-288);G. D. R. Sandersand I. Κ. Whitbread, 'Central places and major roads in the Péloponnèse',BSA 85 (1990), 333 62; G. A. Pikoulas, "H

Tabula Peutingerianaκαι ή χερσόνησος του Μαλέα', Hows, 2 (1984)5 ιΊ$~&&'

ΤλPaus,emphasizesthehighpopulationS ofBoiai (iii.23. 2). 74The principalsourcesforthe geographicalsectionsof Strabo's chapters on Greece were Apollodoros and v: LivreVIII Artemidoros:R. Baladié, Strabon:Géographie, (CollectionBudé; Paris,1978),13. 75 Baladié (n. 74), 231, writes of the 'style de notes élaboréesdonton trouvedans le livreVIII incomplètement to de nombreuxexemples',and indicatesthatthe reference the sanctuary of Διόνυσος εν Λίμναις (5. ι. 363) is a confusion. /wHabicht (n. 23), 20.

22

Chapter ι

can be recognizedin Strabo,thoughnotthereligiousaspect.Hence theproblems programme of anachronism:the textis pepperedwithHomeric asides. He mentionspopulation(4. 11. 362), but it is not clear thathis figureof about thirtyπολίχναι,'townships'(ratherthan thatmightcorrespondto theirpoliticalstatus is a precisecategorization πόλεις,city-states), of the Lakedaimonian league?).77A physicaldescriptionof Laconia follows, (members and themajorpeninsulasofTainaronand Maleai and the Taygetos Spartafurrow mentioning in Parnon but not onlybyPausanias).The regionis measuredin (named antiquity (i.e. Malea) relationto therestoftheworld,distancesbeinggivenfromTainaronto Cyrenaicaand Sicily. Strabo'spurpose in describingthe coastlineis to establishthe bounds and outlineof the For the historyand mythologyof district,and forthis he has used an earlierperiplous. Lakonike,Strabo(at 5. 4-5. 364-6) quotesEphorosto explainthe ethniccompositionof the and helots (the Dorian-Achaean-Ionian state: Dorian Spartiates,non-Dorian perioikoi of later,or different, divisionsof classicaland laterwritersmay of coursebe a retrojection It appears thatforStrabo thisethnictensionunderliesthe strugglesfor social divisions).78 he seemsto be autonomythatfollowedthe settingup of the Spartanstate.As a geographer, concernedwiththepeoplingand theboundariesofthestate,thoughhis aimsare notentirely clear since the textdoes not seem to have been workedup. It has been observedthatthe in thispartofthebook (in spiteoftheAugustanprogramme) ofeconomicobservation poverty His mostspecific maybe a consequenceofitsbeingdraftedearlyin thework'sdevelopment.79 theland ofLaconia withthatofMessenia,turnson a economicjudgement(5. 6), contrasting thequarriesof quotationfromEuripides.The importanceoftheRoman marketin exploiting shouldnot whose it is an isolated remark aside but is an 7), significance (5. interesting Taygetos The finalsections(5. 7-8) returnto Homericquestions,whichseemimportant be overstated.80 intohis overallplan. We mayconcurwith to Strabo'sconceptionbut are notwellintegrated Leake's judgement: 'The descriptionof Greece ... by Strabo, althoughluminousand when comparedwiththatwhich accuratein particularinstances,is extremelyimperfect, Pausaniashas leftus'.81 withsayingthatat Cape Taenarumbeginsthe 5. 16)contentshimself PlinytheElder(jV7/iv. Eleutherolaconian of the of the libera the Laconicus league- and thenmerely territory gens ager beginningwithwhat givesus thedimensionsoftheLaconian gulfand a listoftowns(oppida), tradition ofa periplous: takesforcoastalones,perhapsin thetime-honoured he evidently ofthefreepeople,and the(Laconic)gulf,106milesroundand 38 Thence fromTaenarum(is)theLaconic territory across.The towns(are) Taenarum,Amyclae,Pherae, Leuctra,and inland Sparta, Therapne,and (the places) the place Thyrea,Gerania,Mount Taygetus,the river wherewere Cardamyle,Pitane,and Anthea [sc.Anthene], fromthetownout ofwhichis Eurotas,thegulfofAegila,thetownofPsamathus,(and) theGytheategulf(starting) thesurestvoyageto theislandofCrete.And all are enclosedbyMaleus promontory. The gulfthatfollows,to (Cape) Scyllaeus,is called theArgolic,50 milesacrossand 162 round.The townsare Boea, EpidaurussurnamedLimera,Zarax, and Cyphansharbour. (iv.5. 16-17)

to be muchhelp, and topologically toojumbledchronologically His trulylaconicdescription, and Romanimperialcompendiums. a blendofclassicalantiquarianism reflects 77Cartledçeand Spawforth, 141. 78Later,as suggestedby P. Levi, Pausanias:Guideto Greece 1971),ii. 14 n. 14 (on Paus. iii. 2. 6); cf.J. (Harmondsworth, H. M. Alty,'Doriansand Ionians',JHS 102(1982),1-14.

79R. Baladié, L· Péloponnèse de Strabon (Paris,1980),173-4; cf.id. (n. 74),232. 80C artledere i6o. and Spawforth, 81W. M. Leake, The (London,1841),32. Topography ofAthens

Backgroundand methodology 23

<-$

^^

' (_Λ

'

ΓJ

(

^ Λ sw/ûS''" ^? ^λ C/wrütomA_ Τ Λ-ν ^^

r Si )

} (

n

^-^

ν ζ7 PGlyppia

'

ολ ' fv rO ^Γ^

/ f

.--κΧλ äf^,ClC,

Ä' λΡ

>

/

' d?*'- Sam

<' '

Vs Wir Vi^ ^««»»i^>

rato«,S)

■iw X

V' Jl^ k. '' X ^.-V,^ )/) r4 I S <Λ><*"»«? '.

ht11"'"" ^Ía.«·!.»»«^«-.)

rJ/)

»>«<.<.'

1V

V

' '

y '

¥Ä*

ΓV (cJ/ /fn '

_ f^~'

^

^^

<^ ^

1_ ,

O'tvlos •Amino.s? PyrrhichosR SkyrflsAsjne?

-WA

S'

Helos?

^~n

'S^

'Λ''

■" ""

*^^

'' W /^C'/ S ' IMlamai J^

c?.

ü^ Kyparissia

I

JkTeuthrone

? Zarax ' Limera

f

>

Asopos Jf '

Minoa

y* /Irfem/s Limnatis

^'

ν ^

Messa^Á (Ù j ThyridesK ^/

V

'

^^ ' ^Vf

' )

^>

S

V.

V

γ V

X^i

^

S

^-^

Achilleios^p ^ Psamathous Plutunistous

iP^Tainaron

'

Kythera

ç

0

10

^_______^

^~X

50 Kms

S

^

Skandeia

S

or botli(Underlined) III. i.ii. SitesmentionedbyStrabo,Pausanias(italics) (I). Taylor).

Malea

24 Chapterι

Pausanias'sdescriptionof Laconia occupieshis thirdbook. (The places he mentionsare in ILL.i.n.) As suggestedabove,thereare pointsofcontactbetweenhisprogramme illustrated and that of earlierwriterssuch as Strabo and Pliny.The culturalworld of the Second Sophistic,however,was consciouslyarchaizing,even escapist,82and sets the contextfor Pausanias's rejectionof the contemporaryworld.83In politics this cultural settingwas important: of the Panhellenionlay chieflyin itsprovisionof a new It was suggestedin PanhellenionI thatthe significance outletforthe social and politicalambitionsof upper-classGreeks.. . . the league's importanceshouldalso be tiesof soughtin the 'ideological'plane. Its termsof reference emphasizedthe recollectionof foundation-legends, and thehistorical kinship, primacyofcertaincentresin old Greece.84

Nevertheless,althoughPausanias mentionsGreek colonial foundationsin his historical to Book iii, the likesof the Synnadansand Alabandanscertainlyfindno place introduction of Lakonikethroughthe separate there.85 He adoptstheliterary deviceof relatingthehistory storiesof the Agiad and Eurypontidroyaldynasties.Their extinctionbeforethe Roman givenhis literaryaims,manydetailsof the conquestallowshim to glossover,appropriately ofthelandscapedescriptions byPausanias, periodbetweenthenand hisownday.The contents and theirhistory, worksofart, embracedtopography, monuments and indeedotherperiegetes, Pausanias'sreligious votiveofferings, and anthropological characteristics.86 landscapeis rootedin and heroeswhoseveryrepresentation thepast;87 itis inhabitedbygods,goddesses, posesto him, in theage oftheSecondSophistic, a cruxofbelief.88 This criticaldistance,increasedbyhisrole eventhough as a 'tourist', to ascribea senseofreligiousspace to hiswritings; makesit difficult in the text,89 thereare cross-references the progressis linearas each monumentis met.His thegreatmajority is in markedcontrast withthatofStrabo;nonetheless, coverageoftheinterior of his sites are in townsand the coverage of the countrysideis sporadic, with marked ofthe concentrations aroundSpartaand to a degreearoundLas.9°At theend ofhisdescription in of the and the cities each he 'those are the divisions division, Péloponnèse, Péloponnèse, says and the mostmemorableand interesting thingsin everycity'(viii.54. 7). He describesthe While agreeingwithLeake that outsidethe cities,but sees it as less important. countryside 82See E. L. Bowie,'Greeksand their past in the Second Sophistic', in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studiesin AncientSociety 46 (London,1974),166-209(earlierversionin PastandPresent, B. suggests(pp. 173-4= (1970),3-41),forthegeneralsetting. werealtered:'Longus's to thecountryside p. 9) thatattitudes DaphnisandChloe(? late secondcenturyAD) showsthe same fortheprimitive and "unspoilt"lifeof the Greek hankering countryside (now considerablyaffectedby imperialestates) thatwe findin Dio of Prusa'sEuboeanTaleand in Herodes Atticus'scultivation oftherusticAgathion'(cf.p. 197= p. 30, ii. 1,pp. 552-3). to Philostratos, LivesoftheSophists, referring 83See Habicht (η. 23), eh. 5 and passim:'He is almost in the historyof independent Greece' (p. interested exclusively 102;cf.Bowie(n. 82), 188-90 = 22-4). 84See A. J. Spawforthand S. Walker,'The worldof the Panhellenion,I: Athensand Eleusis',JRS 85 (1985),78-104; 'The worldofthePanhellenion,II: threeDorian cities',JRS 86 (1986),88-105 (quotationfromp. 104).They also observe that'admissionto thePanhellenionwas based on theability of member-communities to provetheirGreeknessin terms, not only of culture,but also of race' ('Panhellenion,Γ, p.

82); see also 'Panhellenion,ΙΓ, 88-92, on kinship;92-4, on cultural ties. Note also Polyb.'s referenceto works on of cities,and tiesof kinship'(ix. 1. 4, 'colonies,foundations 2. 1-2).

85Cartledge and Spawforth, 114. 86Habicht (n. 23), 2-3. 87Κ. W. Arafat, 'Pausanias' attitude to antiquities', BSA 87 ^992), 387-4!0· 88 See Habicht (η. 23), 158, on Paus. vii. 23. 7-8: 'In this passage Pausanias seems not to conceive of the gods ... as divine beings with distinctpersonalities ... as ... in the old myths.They exist, they are venerated, but their true nature is beyond human comprehension.' For Marcus Aurelius and his view of the supernatural, see R. B. Rutherford, The MeditationsofMarcusAurelius:A Study(Oxford, 1989), 178-220.

09e.g. the linkbetweenthe rhoibaionand rlatamstas(111. 14.8-10),or theChitonand Amyklai(iii. 16. 2). 90ImpressiveR remainshave been foundin the area of Las; could it be thatPaus, was entertainedat a villa in the vicinity?His account containsa good deal of hearsayand observation (iii.24. 6-25. 10).

Backgroundand methodology 25

to us is farsuperiorto thatofStrabo,we mustrecognizethathisvaluefor Pausanias'susefulness ofplace-namesand cults. as a recorder an analysisoftheLaconianlandscapeis chiefly POST-ROMAN LACONIA

The Eleutherolaconian league endureduntilthe laterthirdcenturyAD,by whichtimethe Péloponnèsehad been invadedby the Gothsand Heruli.91The need fortaxesto defendthe in thecountryside, empireproveda heavyburdenupon thegeneralpopulation,particularly oftheplague thatassailed tiedto theland.92The effects wereincreasingly wherecultivators Corinthin the early540s may have been feltin Laconia.93The easternemperorJustinian (525-65)recapturedItalyand NorthAfricaforthe empire,but the 'barbarians'overranthe Greek peninsula. Ultimatelythe imperial economy systemcould not save itself,for Justinian'sgains were soon lost. By 590 the Avars had separated the Péloponnèse from and itwouldremainseparateformorethantwohundredyears,beingviewedas Byzantium, Slav land.94 can be foundin Chapter7. Here the aim is to A fullaccountof Byzantineadministration setthesceneforthesurveyin termsof changingperceptionsofthelandscapeof Laconia. In theanarchicyearsofthelate sixthand seventhcenturiesAD,Byzantinesourcesperceivedthe and the empire.It was Péloponnèse,and indeedmuchof the Balkans,as lostto Christianity of Leon the of civilization. Skleros, appointedgovernor the Péloponnèseby beyond pale controland ecclesiastical I started the processwherebygovernmental Nikephoros (802-11), were reimposed;the two wenttogether.Sparta appears once more to have administration operatedas the bishopricof Lakedaimonfrom£.810.A vague and incompletepictureof saints'lives,95 and listsof sees. In time,however,it is Laconia emergesfromthe chronicles, and ecclesiastical and the variouslandholders, machine of that the fiscal Constantinople plain of the land and the of a close and had throughout quality lay, preciseknowledge landholdings in its fullestdetail fromthe the empire.A pictureof thisapparatuscan be reconstructed archivesof the variousmonasteriesof Athos in northernGreece,96thoughotherarchives tax containrelevantpapers.The documentsincludeedicts(chrysobulls), probates(diathekai), records(such as the 'Cadaster of Thebes'), legal judgements,and contractssuch as those Such documentscan listthe listingthe obligationsof peasantsto theirlandlords(praktika). to in modii of £.0.08-0.10 extentoflandholdings ha), varyingfromestates(proasteid) (measured More are and sometimes these defined (periorismoi). by perambulations (staseis), smallholdings theByzantinestate'srevenues as putbyHarvey,97 generally, were largelybased on a verycomprehensivesystemof land taxation,whereland was graded accordingto its of everyfiscal unit were revised qualityand use and the tax paymentfixedaccordingly.The tax-registers regularly. . .

was used in officialdocumentsto mean 'fiscalunit' as well as 'village', The word chorion of the whole structure, that the though building-block villagewas a fundamental indicating 91See further Chapter6.

92 See C. M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece:A ShortHistory*

(London and Boston,Mass., 1984),36, and workscited in Chapter6, n. 183. 93Corinth:Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 46. 94Woodhouse(η. 92), 37-8. For the Péloponnèsein this M. Whitby, 'The period,see generallyAvraméa,Péloponnèse;

Balkansand Greece,420-602',in CAHZxiv,ch. 23 (pp.701-30). 9">Though note the usefuldetail in the Vitaof St Nikon, outlinedin Chapter7. 9<)For a recentaccountand interpretation, see A. Harvey, EconomicExpansion in the ByzantineEmpire goo-1200 (Cambridge,iq8q). 97Harvey(n. 96), 2.

26

Chapterι

and theidiosystaton, forexample)whichseemto relateto therewereotherfiscalunits(thektesis The hearthtax (kapnikon) scatteredratherthan nucleatedsettlements. impliesthatlistsof households were maintained.Althoughthis wealth of detail has now been lost forthe it servesto illustratean agriculturallandscape mediatedthroughvillages, Péloponnèse,98 tax documentswill concernthemselves estates,and ecclesiasticalestablishments. Inevitably, All withthe economicstatusof the taxpayers. the same, it is clear thatlandholdingswere wovenintothe social fabric.The richlandowners{archontes), peasantsworkingquite a large 'with a plot 'withtwo oxen3)or a smallerholding(boidatoi, or zeugalateion, holding(zeugêlateion and thelandless(ateleis) are enumerated. one ox'),impoverished peasants(aporoî), This is thereal inhabitedlandscape;but otherfactorsaffected perceptionsat thetimeand today.Religious ideals perhaps influencedthe formationof the inhabitedlandscape in differentways. The Christian ideal of the eremite,living in the wildernessfar from suchas the civilizationand close to God, maywellhave influencedthe sitingofmonasteries earlyrock-cutcellsof Agioi Saránda Palaiomonástiro(L4001)in the surveyarea. Ultimately these 'uneconomic'locationswere to make themselvesfeltin the patternof occupation. the Iconoclastcontroversy ultimately inspireda cosmicview of churchdecoration Similarly, in the dome at the centreof the Pantokrator and theplace ofthechurchin the community: betweenmankindand God, thecommunionofsaints theuniverse,thePanagia as intercessor clusteredon the walls of the church,the congregationassembled within.The symbol extendedto the houses around the church,and thisvision in turnwould encourage the and St The villageand the churchwenttogether, nucleationof housesintothe settlement. foundednew churchesin Nikonknewexactlywhathe was doingwhen he so energetically and aroundSparta. There is, finally,anothergeographyof settlementwhich can be distinguishedin the ofethnicgroups.It is harderto analyse:thegeography Byzantinesources,butwhoseinfluence whichled to flight, to pointto the numerousfailuresof centralgovernment is not difficult ofpopulations:theMilengoiand Ezerites,theTzakones, migration, conquest,or thetransfer theJews,theplantationsunderNikephorosI of settlersfromAsia Minor and Armenia,and latertheFranks,Venetians, Albanians,and Turks. notedthatthe Máni (Maina) remained In the tenthcenturyConstantinePorphyrogenitus as a whole had been restoredto Byzantine the but now by Péloponnèse independent;" fromtheFourthCrusadeand the the Frankish which lasted until control, conquestsfollowing Laconia was At this sackofConstantinople powers.The splitbetweencompeting (1204). point Laconia (siteNN237),but the Venetiansmaintaineda fortat Monemvasiain south-eastern centredon the de Villehardouinmade Laconia into a principality Frankishbaron Geoffrey in at Passava but hemmed his fort Mani was the (ancientLas, by independent, Spartaplain; siteLL153). Laconian societyin detail,but one overriding In thisperiod it is difficult to reconstruct trendin the early and middle Byzantineperiods is the rise of local large landowners, eitheron behalfoftheremote baronsofa particulardistrict exercising jurisdiction essentially In of the second or system period Byzantinerule theprónoia emperor purelyindependently. to seniorofficerson conditionthatthey lands were arose,whereby grantedquasi-feudally 98The sourcesforthe Péloponnèseat thistimehave been characterized as poor in statisticaldata, scattered,and uneven.See Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός, 14.

99P. Greenhalghand E. Eliopoulos,DeepintoMani:Journey

totheSouthern Tip ofGreece(London, 1985), 22.

Backgroundand methodology 27

Ethnicdivisionsalso became a factor: suppliedthe imperialarmywithtroopsas needed.100 some of the Slavs expelledfromthe lowlandsby the Frankshad takenrefugein Taygetos, while the Tzakonianswiththeirhalf-Greek,half-Slavdialect were now a presencein the oftheplain.We mightexpectto see boththesemajor Parnonrange,hostileto theprincipality in patternofour area. changesreflected thesettlement In the1240sthefourth Monemvasia,CastleMaina in princeofAchaea,WilliamII, fortified the westernMani (probablyat Tigáni), and mostimportantly Mystrasas defencesagainst and withthemtheMani, reverted Laconia and theFrankishforts, thesevariousneighbours.101 to theeasternRomanempirein thepersonoftheemperorMichaelPalaiologosin 1261.While remained muchofthePéloponnèsewas in Latinhands,thesouth-east including'Lakedaimon5 as a culturalcentre,and was noted one of thelastByzantinestrongholds. Mystrasflourished radicalschemes above all fortheworkofthephilosopherGemistosPlethon,who formulated As Woodhouse and Platonism.102 forrejuvenating Byzantinesocietyby fusingChristianity thePeloponnesianprovinceoftheempire,whileat mosttimesrulednominallyby a remarks, son oftheemperoras Despot,was takingon a politicaland culturallifeofitsown.103 in Lakedaimonremainedin the empirerightup to thefallof Constantinople Nevertheless 104 in rebellious Mani Then even the until the Turks reached and indeed 1460. Mystras 1453, Veniceheldon to itsstrong-points, was sooncrushedbythesultan;and thoughat first by 1540 ithad lostMonemvasia. As notedlaterin thisvolume,we do notyethavedetailsofthelocal Ottomanadministration in our part of Laconia forthe sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies,but it is likelyto have of largelanded withinthe framework followedthe normalpatternof devolvedtax-collecting individuals or bythelargelyautonomousOrthodoxchurch.105 estatesownedbypowerful Turkishpowerin Greeceexpandedinexorably. Doge Morosini DespiteVenetianresistance, at the briefinterlude. Resentment seizedthePéloponnèsein 1684,butitwas to be a relatively the to theTurks'successin recapturing Venetians'stricttaxationregimemayhavecontributed Maniats to In the Orthodox Russia later.106 1770 encouraged years Péloponnèsethirty-one in to the sultan force achieved little but Orlov's rebel, bring beyond provoking meagre even the Albanian troops,some of whom settledin the southernPéloponnèse.Ultimately, rebelliousManiats founda sortof accommodationwiththe Turks,thoughtheyremained in Laconia's incorporation turbulent. Finallythewar ofindependencebegan in 1821,resulting into the kingdomof Greece, thoughit took severalgovernmentexpeditionsto pacifythe settlement Mani.107The biggestsinglechange indirectlyaffectingthe nineteenth-century in the refoundation of of our area was Sparta 1834.108 probably pattern ANTIQUARIANISM:

FROM CYRIAC TO THE BEGINNINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Withthe workof Cyriac of Ancona, friendof the sultanwho took Constantinopleandof the idea of a freeGreece,we enterthe secondgreatage of withoutparadox- progenitor I()O Woodhouse(n. 92), 67. "" Greenhalghand Eliopoulos(n. 99), 24. 102R. ofModernGreece Clogg,A ShortHistory (Cambridge, 1979),10,11. 103 Woodhouse(n. 92),89. 104See map in Woodhouse(n. 92),71. 105Furtherdetails of the Ottoman fiscalsystemcan be

foundin Chapter7. See also Chapter8, p. 405. Iu() Greenhalghand Eliopoulos(n. 99), 29; thoughin the view of Clogg (n. 102), 16-17,Venetianrule was relatively henicm. 107All the above summarized from Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos(n. 99), ch. 1. 108 Chapter8, pp. 404-5.

28

Chapterι

writingsabout Laconia. The classical cityof Sparta now lay deserted,thoughits site was have been vindicatedin visitwas to show).Cyriac'sobservations remembered (as Fourmont's in thatthe manuscript accountof his visitto Sparta in recentjudgements.We are fortunate buthis remarkson thearchaeologyofancientSparta(inscriptions aside) 1447has survived,109 are ratherbriefand he devotesmore attentionto his tripto Messenia and around Cape Tainaron.Perhapstherewas littlehe could add to his previousvisitin 1437,the accountof was drawn or perhapshis attention whichis lost(he recopiedsome of thesame inscriptions); ofwhosebookwas to thecoastbytheemphasisplaced upon itby Strabo,a prizedmanuscript in thepossessionofGemistosPlethon. Sir Thomas Roe, the Earl of Buckingham'sagent at the Sublime Porte,took marbles fromSparta in 1627-8.II0Randolph'swork,publishedhalfa centurylater,is mostlya brief portolanwith interestingethnographicsketches;Mystras('Misithra') and the supposed The nextlandmarkin the antiquarianrecordingof ruinsof Sparta occupybarelya page.111 Sparta comes withthe Abbé Michel Fourmont(1729),who was takenfromMystrasto see the ancient city.His excavations were concentrated in Sparta, but he also recorded (Omont mentionsexamples from inscriptionsfromAmyklai,Bryseai,and Gytheion.112 Fourmontseemsto if have come from our which, surveyarea.)113 may genuine, 'Therapnai' have followedCyriac in his concern for inscriptions:he did his utmostnot merelyto transcribethembut also to representthe stonesaccurately.He also has a reputationfor inventing some texts and destroyingothers, allegedly to prevent future scholars Perhaps urged on by nationalistrivalry,however,he was contradictinghis readings.114 as is indicatedin the memorandumpresentedto Maurepas ambitions, inspiredby larger forthepublicationofhis researches:'un voyageutile,on peut direillustre,si conformeaux idées du grand ministrequi l'a procuréet si propre à mettreles Anglois,envieuxde la France,dans la nécessitéd'avouerqu'ils ne sontpas aussi heureuxdans leursrecherches'.115 enGrèceis certainlybroaderin scope than Fourmont'splan forthepublicationof his Voyage It was to include 'Produitdes terresdu Péloponnèse, an account of the antiquities. simply ou abandonez,combienil y a de monde,ce qu'il le commercede ce pais,ses portsfréquentez de soldatset combien donne au Turc, combienle Grand Seigneury laissa véritablement il rester'.116 peut Sparta does not featuremuchin the rivalrybetween,on the one side,Stuartand Revett not of antiquities,"7 and, on the other, J. D. Le Roy overthepicturesqueand the illustration least because the formerdid not visitSparta. Le Roy seems to have made more than one in a map of the Sparta area, a view of the theatre,and some drawingsof journey,resulting in thetopography ofancientSparta,and in particular inscribedpedestals."8He was interested was concernedto establishPlatanistason theleftbankoftheEvrotas.

109R. Sabbadini,'Ciriaco di Ancona e la sua descrizione autografadel Peloponnesotrasmessada Leonardo Botta', Miscellanea Ceriani (Milan,1910),183-243. IIÜR. Stoneman, Land of Lost Gods: The Searchfor Classical

Greece (London,Melbourne,etc.,1987),49.

111B. Randolph, The PresentStateoftheMorea, CalledAnciently

. . . (London,3i68g;repr.Athens,1966),8. Peloponnesus 112Part of Fourmont's descriptionof his visitto Mystras and Sparta is translatedin R. Stoneman (ed.), A Literary inGreece toTravel (Harmondsworth, 1984),66-7. Companion

113H. Omont, Missions archéologiques françaisesen Orientaux X Vile etX Ville siècles(Paris, 1902), 647.

114On Fourmont'sdepredationsand inventions see e.g. A. 'Fourmontiana:IG v1.515,anotherforgery J. S. Spawforth, "fromAmyklai"',BSA 71 (1976),139-45,and refsin hisn. 1. "ί Omont(n. 113),653. 116 Ibid. 658-61. 117 Stoneman,LandofLostGods(n. no), chs 6-7. 1

de la Grèce,ii J. D. Le Roy, Ruinesdesplus beauxmonuments

(Paris,1770),ii. 29-34,pls 12-14.

Backgroundand methodology 29

ofthe The firststageofthemovetowardsmodernsurveycan be discernedin thetravellers William As Sir Gell century. putsit, earlynineteenth whilethe tilesare sometimesthe only Blocksof stonealwaysindicatethe site of a temple,a cityor a fortress; memorialsof a moderntownimportantto the historyof the lowerages, or of the wars betweenthe Turksand have suffered to existon the Venetians,whichtheperishablenatureof thematerialsemployedin itsconstruction spot. serveto pointout thesitesoffortresses ofthemostremoteages,fromwhich Brokenpottery mayalso sometimes theblockshavebeen removedfortheerectionofcitiesofa lessancientdate."9

This is interestingforits assumptionsthat the travellersprimarilyobserved cities,that ancientones werealwaysbuiltofstone,and thattilebyitselfis usuallya signoftownsofthe 'lowerages'. Unlikethe otherDilettanti,it appears,Gell was not a collectorbut aimed to in his drawings120 In thelatterrespecthe uses travel and itineraries. recordhis observations to locate findsreasonablypreciselyin the absence of timesin the same way as Leake,121 usefulmaps. But it was William Martin Leake's workthat was to have the greaterimpact on the and intelligence.122 ofscholars,because ofitsthoroughness Althoughhe following generations oftheMenelaionwithreference to Polybios'saccount,he seemsnot discussesthetopography on Agios to have visitedthe site, and neitherhe nor Gell was shown the fortification in thathe site It was on Leake's second 1806 Konstantinos (Laconia Survey Bin).123 journey recordedancientremainson his way throughChrysaphaand Agioi Saranda, addingsome The politicalpurposeof hisjourney detailwithinthe narrowconfinesof our surveyarea.124 as Such nationalist has recently been explored.125 rivalries, has been seen,could be called on for his work. Fourmont as some justification by de Morée of 1829(ILL·I·12)· Similarculturalpoliticslie behindtheExpéditionScientifique and Lt.-Gen. Pelet The map of the Morea was commissioned by producedby Boblaye.The there are detailed drawingsof itself and of Sparta (pl. 46) plots standingremains, plan The smaller-scale of and architectural fragments. map the Sparta area (pl. 45) buildings in few monuments the records relatively surveyarea, amongthemsomeruinsin unfortunately thebankoftheEvrotaswhichwe wereunableto locate:thechapelat 'Pavleika',perhapsto be and thetracesofa temple,notpreciselyindicated equatedwiththechurchat Kokkinorachi,126 butpossiblyto be associatedwiththetempleofZeus Messapeus(LS siteN415).127 to explorethe area when he was laying Lt.-Gen.Jochmusplainlytook the opportunity out thegridforthe townof Sparta,and mentionsa numberof siteswithinand adjacentto the surveyarea in connectionwithhis thoughtson the battleof Sellasia and Pausanias's

119W. Gell, Itinerary oftheMorea (London, 1817). 120At least, by the time he was in Italy he saw these as a record of antiquities which would otherwise be lost. Cf. Dictionary ofNationalBiography (10,21edn), vii. 044-6.

121See M. J. Wagstaff,'Colonel Leake in Laconia', in Φιλολάκων,277-83.

122 Leake, Travels,esp. i. 120-326, ii. 511-34, iii. 1- 31; id., Peloponnesiaca:A Supplementto Travelsin theMorea (London, 1846; repr.Amsterdam, 1967). Stoneman, Land ofLost Gods(n. no), 255, mentions that Carl OttfriedMüller wrote to Ernst Curtius 'that he would be glad to find an abridged version of Leake's eight or nine volumes'.

12:5 Gell (η. ιig), 226-7; L·ake, Travels,i. 125-6. 124And, alas, one of his less successful attempts at 'confrontingthe text of the ancient authors with the actual locality to which they relate', his identification of Sellasia with the monastery of Agioi Saranda: ibid. ii. 526; Leake, Pplnbnnnpsinrnqaq- 8

125WaffstafT (n. 121). I2() Boblaye, Recherches,75; for the identification with Kokkinorachi see Armstrongetai, 'Crossing the river', 310. 127Blouet, Architectures, ii. 62; for the link see Armstrong et ai, 'Crossing the river', 310.

30

Chapter ι

' L·'//

Mali C/~^ Kok^no

y IJj^Jv

Pavleika^"

NNV^XNr

'

Church

/Tsouni towerhouseΤ *yC^'^ -
^^> ::%>

α^ __ I-l'WAncient

k s^

bridge

~ ^_ Marsh ^^*

*<^^

*-

-'

0 i

y

'

inbank Foundations

Z~Z~>^

i

'

^

1 i

^

'

j

/^^

ν V

'^__-« ^7^·^

J_

jm

2 I kms

ILL. ι.ι2. Partofthesurveyarea, afterplate45 in Expédition deMorée(D. Taylor). scientifique

Backgroundand methodology 31

Much the same groundis coveredin the relevantpart of LudwigRoss's routeto Sparta.128 ReisenimPeloponnes;129 indeed,thereare indicationsthatJochmusfeltthatRoss had stolen histhunder. accounts followthe patternset by Leake (not to say These earliernineteenth-century and discussmonuments, a route sites,or battlesas theyarise, Pausanias)in thattheyfollow Curtius was able to marshalall and withasideson presentland use, topography, population. The traditionof the pre'LacedaemonV30 these sources into a historicalgeographyof the likes of to mention revolutionarytravellerssuch as Dodwell·31and Gell·32 (not and Clark,136 Vischer,134 Wyse,135 Chateaubriand)continuedin accountslikethoseof Mure,133 his travelsin 1865,overtwenty Welcker, yearsafterhe had visited thoughthelast,publishing to Greece,plainlyfeltthe need tojustifya book which,thougherudite,had fewpretensions academicoriginality.137 a Lakonianmember Professional archaeologyin Laconia was seton itsfeetby Stamatakis, of theArchaeologicalService,who assembledthe core of the SpartaMuseum'scollection.138 Fieldworkreceiveda major impetusfromTsountasthroughhis campaignsat the Vapheio laid the foundationsforthe excavationsthat effectively and Amyklai,140 tholos tomb139 Tsountas thereextendsa long line of Laconia. From of and classical archaeology prehistoric of Sotiriadis, Karachalios, Orlandos, Romaios, Skias, including antiquities, ephors whom excavationhas extended under and Steinhauer, Christou, Spyropoulos, Stavropoulos, overthewholeofLaconia as wellas, at varioustimes,Messeniaand Arkadia. LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY: THE TWENTIETH

CENTURY

Withthe twentieth centurycame a renewedBritishSchool interestin the Greeklandscape Laconia. Britishworkseemsto have startedwithtopographicalresearchin and specifically one aim ofwhichseemsto havebeen to findinscriptions.141 Laconia byForster, south-western In tandemwiththiswentWace's workon sculpturesin the museumat Sparta and Tod's mainlyepigraphicstudies,publishedtogetherin 1906.142By 1904 theseoperationshad been 128 but to givea sketch or epigraphy, architecture, numismatics, Jochmus,'Sellasia', publishedin 1857 but writtenin ofGreecein themannerofDodwell. 1830and 1834. 130S. Raftopoulou,New findsiromSparta, in Cavanagh 129L. Ross, Reisenim Peloponnes, i: Der AgerDentheliates, and Walker,125-40,at 140;V. Ch. Petrakos,Ό Παναγιώτης Theilevon TheilevonArgolis, Arkadien, Phliasia, Thyreatis, Sikyonia, Lakonikae Σταματάκης, ιδρυτής του Μουσείου Σπάρτης', Λακ. (sir,Berlin,1841),173-90;firstpublishedin Annal. σπονδ. 11 (ΐ992)> 642-50; G. S. Korres, 'Παναγιώτης Inst.Arch.8 (1836),1^-21(whichwe havenotseen). 130E. Curtius, Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographischeΣταματάκης, απόστολος εις Σπάρτην (1875)', derHalbinsel 'Επιστημονική επετηριςτης ΦιλοσοφικήςΣχολήςτον (Gotha,1851-2),ii. 203-332. Beschreibung 131W. Dodwell, A Classicaland Topographical Tourthrough Άθηνα/ν Πανεπιστημίου 495~5°8· (ΐ992~5)> Ι39Ch. Tsountas,'Έρευναιεν τί] Λακωνικήκαιό τάφος 2 vols(London,1819). Greece, 132Gell (η. ιig); id., Narrativeof a Journey in theMorea του Βαφείου',Έφ. αρχ. 1889,129-72· Ι4°Id., "Εκ τοΰ Άμυκλαιου','Εφ αρχ. ΐ8ο2,1-26. (London,1823). 141Ε. S. Forster,'South-westernLaconia: sites',BSA 10 '33w. Mure,Journal in Greece and the Ionian Islands a Tour of Laconia: inscriptions', (Edinburgh, 184.2). (1903-4),158-66; id., 'South-western '34w. Vischer,Erinnerungen aus Griechenland ibid. 167-89.These werethefirstpaperson Laconian topics undEindrücke in the Annual.For a fullaccount of the School's workin (Basel,1857). 135T. (Sir Thomas) Wyse,ed. W. M. Wyse,AnExcursion in Laconia, see H. W. Catling,'Ή 'ΑγγλικήΑρχαιολογική thePeloponnesos intheTear1858(London,1865). Σχολή Αθηνών στην Σπάρτη'. Λακ. σπουδ. 8 (1986), 136W. G. Clark, Peloponnesus: in section G. Notesof Studyand Travel 189-204; Shipley, Laconia In the followingnotes,references (London,18^8). http://www.bsa.gla.ac.uk. 137F. G. Welcker,Tagebuch Reise(Berlin, to someBSApapersare in abbreviatedform. einergriechischen '*a M. N. Tod and A. J. B. Wace, A Catalogue in hisforeword oftheSparta (v-ix)thathe is notsettingout 1865),Stresses Museum to rival,forexample,Curtiusor presentan expertstudyon (Oxford,1906).

32

Chapterι

whichwenton to coversystematically theMani,144 concertedinto'The SurveyofLaconia',143 and eastern Laconia.147 Excavation south-eastern took Laconia,145 Vardounia,146 place in eastand Geraki.149 centralLaconia at Angelóna148 OtherepigraphicworkcoveredGeraki150 as well as Thalamai in the Mani/51and culminatedin a magisterialseriesof publicationsfromthe These excavationshad started Spartaexcavationsand elsewherebyWoodwardand others.152 in 1906 under Bosanquet,153 withthe firstof fiveseasons' workat ArtemisOrthia, a dig An interestin medievalLaconia, already regardedas technicallyadvanced forits time.154 in a on Frankish was signalled paper sculptures,155 developedby Traquair'sstudyofLaconian conducted the firstmodernexcavationsat the Menelaion,discovering fortresses.156 Dawkins theMycenaeanmansionthatnowcolloquiallybearshisname.157 Activitiesin Laconia by the DeutschesArchäologisches Institutin the earlyyearsof the twentiethcenturywere focusedon the site of Amyklai(thennamed Sklavochóri),where Fiechter,and laterBuschorand von Massow workedin associationwiththe Furtwängler, GreekEphoreiaunderSkias.158 Later,duringthesecondworldwar,von Vacano notonlydug Kouphóvounobut also reportedthe Late NeolithicfindsfromPapagiannákouSpílaia, south of Goritsá.159 At thesame timetherewas a growingtraditionoflocal topographical research, in different fromwhoseoutputwe havebenefited The antiquarianand archaeological ways.100 in the distinguished traditions have intertwined periodicalΛακωνικούσπονδαί,and in the proceedings of Laconian and Peloponnesian conferencesorganized by the Etaireia to Πελοποννησιακά.161 Peloponnisiakon Spoudonsince1975and publishedas supplements Wace was instrumental in encouragingboth Waterhouse(mainlyin 1936-9) and Hope Simpson (in 1956-8) in theirexplorationsof prehistoricLaconia. The Homeric problem formed one incentive,but the broader aims saw prehistoricsettlementagainst its environmentalsetting.They comment,forexample, on geology and land use, notinga 143See BSA n (1904-5),309, 311-12. 144Forster,BSA 13 (1906-7), 219-37; A. M. Woodward, ibid.238-67. !« Wace and F. W. Hasluck,BSA 14 1907-8, ibi-82. 14(1 H. A. Ormerod,BSA 16 (1909-10),62-71. '4?Wace and Hasluck,BSA 15(1908-9),158-76;cf.Forster, A geographicalnote on Thucydidesiv. 54', CR 23 (1909), 221-2;J.J. E. Hondius and M. A. Hondius-vanHaeften, 'Laconia, II: notes on topography',BSA 24-5 (1919-21), 144-50. 148 Wace and Hasluck,BSA 11:81-00. 149Wace and Hasluck,BSA 11: 91-9; Wace, ibid. 99-104 (sculnturesV '5°H. J.W Tillyard,BSA 11:104-12. '5' G. Dickins,BSA 11:131-6. 152Wace, BSA 12 (1906-7),344-50 and BSA 13 (1907-8), 17-43 (stamped tiles); Tillyard, BSA 12: 351-93, 440-79; Tillyard,Woodward,and Tod, BSA 13: 174-218;Woodward, BSA 14: 74-141;15:40-106; 16: 54-61; 26 (1923-5),159-239; 27 (1925-6),210-54;29 (1927-8),2-56, and (withL. Robert) 57-74; 30 (1928-30), 241-54. Note also Tod, A surveyof Laconianepigraphy, 1913-1925',BSA 26: 106-15. 153BSA 12: 277-83, and thirteen articles by R. C. Bosanquet,R. M. Dawkins,Dickins,Tillyard,R. Traquair, and Wace,ibid.284-479. 154R. J. H. Jenkins, Richard MacGilhvray Dawkins 1871 1955', Proceedings oftheBritishAcademy,41 (1955), 373-88,

at 376-7,citedby P. Mackridge,'"Some pamphletson dead Greek dialects": R. M. Dawkins and modern Greek BSA 85 (1990),201-12,at 204 and n. 22. Final dialectology', publicationcame in 1929:Dawkins,AO. 30vvace,ώοά 11:iqq-4-^. 156 Traquair,BSA 12:2^8-76. '57Dawkins,BSA 16:4-11. 158Tsountas(n. 140);E. Fiechter,Amyklae:der Throndes Apollon', Jdl 33 (1918), 107-245; E. Buschor and W. von Massow, 'Vom Amyklaion',AM 52 (1927), 1-85; P. G. in Φιλολάκων,31-48. Calligas,'FromtheAmyklaion', ■59 A4 IQ4.2.1*6:PLI 8*. Ibo P. Doukas,Ή Σπάρτη διαμέσον τον αιώνων(New e.g. York,1922;repr.Sparti,<:.1985);Ph. I. Koukoules,Πέρα κει στο Βασαρα- ηθογραφία (Athens,1954)5Ι· Κ. Tzannetos, Οί Βουτιανοι της Σπάρτης (Voutianoi, 1968); Τ. Ρ. Tzortzakis, Ή πρωτεύουσα της Μάνης: ΓύθειονΜαραθωνησι (Athens,198 1); T. A. Gritsopoulos,'Ιστορία του Γερακίου (Athens, 1982); P. G. Roumeliotis, H Μπαρπίτσα και η Σκούρα: ιστορία και λαογραφία (Athens,1983)5Ρ· Ε. Giannakopoulos,Tò Γύθειον (Athens, 21 987); Ν. D. Karavias,Λακωνικήβιβλιογραφία:συμβολή πρώτη (içqq-iq87) (Athens,iq88). 161Besidesthe International Congressesof Peloponnesian Studies,thesixthofwhichwas heldin 2000,noteistLaconian irr

TAT

Γ*

/"* A

TreatisesCongress(1979); ist Laconian StudiesCongress(1982-3); MystrasCongress (1990).

Backgroundand methodology 33

formarlin thelocationofprehistoric settlements.162 The researchesby Cook and preference Nichollsin 1949,afterthecivilwar,werepromptedpartlyby theneed forrescueexcavations Three articlesbyWaterhouseand at theEleusinionat KalyviaSochás as wellas at Sparta.163 Laconia, based on non-intensive surveyof mostof the region, Hope Simpsonon prehistoric of ruralLaconia- of all periods,indeed.164 were a huge step forwardin the understanding andAtlasof data fromtheirworkwerecataloguedin Hope Simpson'sGazetteer The prehistoric Greece Sites(1965) and Mycenaean (1981)and, withDickinson,in the authoritative Mycenaean GazetteerofAegean Civilisation(1979).

Topographicresearchhas receiveda boost in the last two decades witha shortprojectin ofUtrecht,105 a seriesofarticlesbyChristien,166 and Phaklaris's theThyreatis bytheUniversity The long-term solo explorations of Pritchett have vastlyenhanced workon the Kynouria.167 in theThyreatisand Kynouria.168 In the our knowledgeofLaconian topography, particularly of work Pikoulas to have settled the extensive decade, by body appears important past The publicationof Bintliff 's surveyworkbrought problemsin Laconian topography.169 and twentieth-century at the same time theprevioustraditionof nineteenthsurvey, together the for surface His concerns were environmental forward to survey.170 agenda change looking and settlement, inspiredby Vita-Finzi'sworkon sedimentation,171 geographicaltheoryon and its applicationin site-catchment locationalanalysisand ruralsettlement/72 analysis.173 researches have been carriedout by Moschou-Tsiomi,174 whileother Importanttopographical the resultsof membersof the Classicaland ByzantineEphoreiasat Sparta have synthesized in and undertaken researches the and at excavationsin thetown175 topographic Spartanchora I(" PL i. 69.

I(':*R. M. Cook, 'Kalyvia Sochás', BSA 45 (1950),261-81; R. V. Nicholls,'Sparta', ibid. 282-98. Cf. Dawkins,BSA 16: 12-14;Tod, BSA47 (1952),118 22 (inscriptions). I(>4H. Waterhouse,'PrehistoricLaconia: a note', BSA 51 (1956), 168-71; followed up by Waterhouse and Hope Simpsonin PL i-ii. Ι(>Γ) Υ. C. Goester,'The plain ofAstros:a survey',Pharos,1 (1993),39-112(including pp. 97-106,'Surfacefinds',byC. T. F. VermeulenWindsant). 'Eua et la Thyréatide: J. Christienand T. Spyropoulos, topographie et histoire', BCH 109 (1985), 455-66; J. Christien,'Promenades en Laconie', Dialoguesd'histoire ancienne, 15 (1989), 79-105; ead., 'L'invasionde la Laconie in 3rd (370/69a.C.) et les routesdu nordde l'étatSpartiate', Pelnbonnesian Conpress. ii. Q2^-q6: and otherworks. I()7Phaklaris, Κυνουρία*. I()H See thereviewofPritchett, CR SAGTv'iWû, byG. Shipley, thevariousLaconianpapers. 107[η.s. 43] (1993),I3I^4, listing I()()Amongmanyrelevantworks,see esp. G. A. Pikoulas, 'ΤοπογραφικάΑϊγυοςκαι Αίγύτιδος',ist LaconianTreatises . . .' (η. 72); Pikoulas, Congress, 257-67;'Tabula Peutingeriana

Ή νότιαμεγαλοπολιτική 'Skiritis'; χώρααπότον 8° π.Χ. ώς τον4° μ.Χ. αιώνα(Athens, 1988);'Ή ανατολική ακτή Λακ.σπουδ.g (1988), τουΜαλέα:κόλποςΜονεμβασίας',

has developedthisworkin new 36 (1970),1-37.Bintliff Society, and directions: e.g. Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey';id., 'Settlement of territory',in G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia (Londonand New York,1999),i. 505-45. Archaeology 174See interalia L. Moschou, 'Τοπογραφικά Μάνης: ή πόλις Ταίναρον', ΑΑΑ 8 (ΐ975)> 160-77; L. Moskou, 'Topographiedu Magne: à proposde la régiondu Ténare ii. Κιστέρνες-ΆγιοιΑσώματοι', ist Peloponnesian Congress, 45-54; L. Moschou and T. Moschos, 'Κιόνια Α': μια τοπογραφική και αρχιτεκτονική ερευνά', Πελ. 13 (1978-9)5 72 U4; iid., 'Το αρχαίο φρούριο της Τευθρώνης', Arch.Eph. (1981), 10-22; L. Moschou, 'Μια αγροτική περιοχή της ανατολικήςλακωνικής Μάνης στην κώδικα AmbrosianusTrotti373%XVI- Internationaler

(Wien, 4.-9. Oktober1981): Akten,ii. 4 ( = Byzantinistenkongress Jahrbuchder Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 32.4; Vienna, 1982),

and P. N. Moschos,'The 639-56; L. Moschou-Tsiomi Palaeomaniatika:the transition fromancientpolis to chora',Ekistics, Byzantine 295 (1982),261-71;L. MoschouTsiomiand T. N. Moschos,'ΚιόνιαΒ': προβληματική κατασκευής τηςύστερηςελληνιστικής δωρικών κτιρίων περιόδουκαιτωνπρώτωναυτοκρατορικών χρόνων.Ή περίπτωσητων δύο ναών στα Κιόνια της νοτίας Λακωνικής', 12th Classical Archaeology Congress,iv. 140-7; L.

'Οικιστικά τωνπεριοικίδων Moschou-Tsiomi, συστήματα καιτωνέλευθερολακωνικών πόλεωνστηνχερσόνησο '7° Bintliff, του Ταινάρου',ibid.148-54;eacU 'Πόλειςκαι μνημεία NaturalEnvironment. 171 C. Vita-Finzi, TheMediterranean της αρχαιότηταςστην λακωνικήΜάνη',Αδούλωτη 1969). Valleys (Cambridge, 172 M. Chisholm, RuralSettlement andLandUse(London,1062). Μάνη,ΐ9 [1997-3] (July-Aug. 1997),17-32. I7:ie.g. E. S. Higgs and C. Vita-Finzi,'The prehistoric 1/;) Kounnou, e.g.Kaítopoulou (n. 130);mostimportantly ofthePrehistoric Σπάρτη. economyof the Mt Carmel area', Proceedings 277-8^

34

Chapterι

In thelast thirdof the twentieth centurythe BSA resumedexcavationat perioikiccentres.176 in personnelbetween whilethereis a continuity theMenelaionand the Spartanacropolis,177 our survey,the Dutch excavations at Geraki, and the British-French collaboration at Kouphovouno.178 CONCLUSIONS

REGARDING SOURCES AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Certainlythe body of historicaland archaeologicalevidence summarizedabove, though and in somerespectsextensive, givesneithera completepictureofland use in past impressive historyof the surveyarea. We are not,forthe mostpart,told periodsnor a fullsettlement about the 'silentmajority'of Laconia throughthe ages, but about the top of the social architecture behind,or whosenames pyramid:thosewho livedin townsand leftmonumental that are recordedin historical annals.Our multi-disciplinary projectaimedpartlyat rectifying imbalance. above a history ofstudyoftheLaconianlandscapein thepast.There We havesummarized is an obviouspointin recordingthehugegaps in our understanding caused,notleast,by the destructionand loss of historicalarchivesover the centuries.One hope in settingup the Laconia Surveywas thatarchaeologycould in some degreemake good thoselosses,indeed supplyforthe prehistoricperiod the data that were never recorded. There is another and echoes of thisliterarypast have struckchordsdown the motivation: the reverberations corridorof time.The westerntraditionof antiquarianresearchwas largelypredicatedon of Roman writings, and thosesourcesthemselvesechoed the earlierwritingand re-writing the constant reinventions of the state the from Homer, during through Spartan Sparta'spast of Roman classicaland hellenistic periods.Spawforthhas shownhow the heritageindustry with serious for the nurtured this Sparta myth, consequences Spartan economythrough Nicol has givenus a timelyreminderthatthistraditiondid not patronageand tourism.179 flockedto Sparta,'not to rub shoulderswiththe alwaysdominate,and thatmedievaltourists shadesof Lykourgosor Leonidas but to sniffthe odour of sanctityof the greatSt Nikon'.l8° The attitudesof sentiment,religiousawe, or antiquarianreconstruction not only have a of the but could be forces whichin part for the scholarly interpretation landscape, significance that shaped landscape. The Progress

of the Survey, 1983-9

field-walking and study seasons took place in 1983-5 and 1987-8. Seasons usuallylasted five Explorationof new territory it was usuallyearlier.A weeks.In 1983the seasonwas in Augustand September;thereafter of a the identification task was the creation of existingtrigonometric surveygrid, preliminary 176e.g. E. Zawou, 'Ή χώρα της Επιδαύρου Λιμηρας', ii. 497-508; Α. Α. Themos, 'Tò ßthPeloponnesian Congress, ρωμαϊκό υδραγωγείο του Γυθείου: μία πρώτη επανεξέταση των στοιχείων', ibid. i. 4ΟΟ~9· See ^so see Bonias,Αιγιές.For otherworkon Laconian settlements, Shipley,'"OtherLakedaimonians'";Shipley,'Territory'. 177H. W. Catling,'Excavationsat the Menelaion,Sparta, 1973-76',AR 23 (1976-7),24-42; id., 'Excavationand study at the Menelaion,Sparta 1978-1981',Λακ. σπονδ. 6 (1982),

28-43; G· Β· Waywellandj. J.Wilkes,BSA 88 (1993),219-86; 89 (i994)>377-432;9° (i995)>435"6°; 92 (i997)>4OI~34; 94 (1999), 437-55; iid., 'The ancient theatre at Sparta', in Cavanaghand Walker,97-111. 170 Preliminary reportsin Pharos:}.H. Crouwel,M. Prent,et al, 'Geraki1' to 'Geraki6'; BSAAnnual Report, 2000-1,28-q. 179 Cartledçeand Spawforth, esp. ch. 8 (pp. 10^-26). 180D. M. Nicol, 'ByzantineMistra:Spartain themind',in Cavanaghand Walker,157-9.

Backgroundand methodology 35

and themarkingup of the Greek1 : 5,000 map seriesforuse in pointsusingthe theodolyte, thefieldand in the apothiki (the'store'of the dig-house,wherethe surveyarchivesand finds weretemporarily housed).181 in threelocalities.The three Aftertrainingexercises,field-walking began simultaneously teamsoffour(from1984five)memberseach, designatedRed, Blue, and Yellow,wereled by Cavanagh, Crouwel, and Catling respectively.The Red Team startedin the northern (Am)- bothamongthesites includingPalaiogoulás(Ai18) and AgiosKonstantinos highlands, designatedas Large Sites, to which special samplingstrategieswere applied and then The Blue Team workedsouth,laterroundingoffthe southernlimitof the surveyterritory. coveredtheriverplainand theadjoiningspurs,pausingto carryout severaldays'samplingof acrosstheNeogeneplateau.The YellowTeam theGeladariLargeSite(H45)and laterworking in around Kokkinorachi and workedeast,eventually the lowlands coveringtheeastern began and the basin. The rate of varied Neogene plateau Chrysapha coverage greatly;a typical a team was hectares took on for 5-10 per day.Field-walking place Monday to Friday range 1 from sunrise to when the teams returned to Aphysouto and partofSaturday, p.m. generally was usuallyoccupiedin completingthe notebookforthatday from rest.The late afternoon in themorning, an area surveyed thefinds,or revisiting or on themorning's notes,processing a previousday,in orderto examinespecificsites. in separate Sherdspickedup werebagged and labelledwitha unique 'zembil' number,182 seriesof one hundredeach. Zembil numbers,in fact,formthe primarydata seriesof the survey, beingused to allow the separatelabellingofpotterycollectedin areas provisionally of deemedto be Όη-site'and 'background'withina singlesequence,and thedistinguishing areas of a site. Zembil numberswere also used forspecial groupsof findsfromdifferent finds,certain small finds or other non-ceramic material such as chipped stone and obsidian,and so on. Any noteworthy 'stray'artefactsor groups of findsfromareas not sites were collected and as broughtback foranalysis.Findspotsprovisionally designated deemed to be 'sites'were numberedin separateseriesof one hundredeach.183Small finds were recordedin separate series,and 'sample' numberswere created formiscellaneous materialsuch as ore or plaster.A continuousnotebookwas keptby each team as it moved across the landscape; thesehandwritten records,as well as being the primarydata set of the survey, containa sketchplan of each 'site' as well as outlineplans of standingremains Material collected was transferredto Sparta such as rural stores and folds (mandres). Museumat theend ofeach season. In orderto understandthe 'given' landscape, it was decided to investigatethe surface sediments,vegetationhistory,and recent population and land use of the surveyarea. Rackham'ssurveyof thehistoricalecologyof Laconia (1984),and the soilssurveyby Fiselier and van Berghem(1986),werecarriedout duringfield-walking seasons,muchto our mutual In addition,thecollectionofsamplesforthesoilphosphatetestingexercisetookplace benefit. in 1984-7.The soil sampleswereprocessedin thedig-houseand duringnormalfield-walking theresultsprocessedin theUK.184WagstafT's surveyofthevillagesin thesurveyarea, usinga

181These taskswere performedby the late David Smyth and byGuy Sanders. 182 'basket'. ζεμπιλι, 183Site numbers1-99 and 300-369 wereused by theBlue Team, 100-194bytheRed Team, and 200-299 and 400-534

by the Yellow Team. During subsequent study and the creationof a computerdatabase,zembilsof 'off-site' pottery had 10,000added to theirserialnumbersto forma nominal continuation ofthesitenumberseries. 184See Chapter22 forresults.

36

Chapterι

of Southampton,tookplace duringthe Eastervacationof 1985. team fromthe University in carried outtheresistivity surveyon selectedsites.185 Finally, 1988-9,Jones one thatdifferentiates itfromsomeearlierprojects, ofthesurvey, It was alwaysan intention to and otherfindsin fullin orderto allowfutureresearchers thatwe wouldpublishthepottery criticizeand reevaluateour conclusionsas necessary.In 1986, therefore,we suspended of the finds,so thatthe final to beginthe long processof studyand interpretation fieldwork in information directed the of the generated.The light mightbe best stagesof field-walking in in and was concluded firststudyseasontookplace 1986;'on-the-spot' studycontinued 1988 in 1989. had alreadybeen recordedbyteammembersin The potterycollectedduringfield-walking a preliminary fashion,usingworksheets('pot sheets')to recordsherdnumbers,formand searchesweremade beforethe and provisionaldates.Extensiveliterature fabricdescriptions, studyproperbegan, to establisha workingcorpus of comparanda. In the studyseasons themselvesthe potteryspecialists,startingfromthe 'pot sheets',studiedmaterialof their period,comparingnoteswithone anotherand, in particular,discussingthe assignmentof betweenadjacentperiods.Preliminary materialthatseemed transitional 'studytypes'were created(theseare theST numbersappendedto thefinalpottery typesin Chapters11-18). collectedfromthe and sculpturalfragments The studyand cataloguingofthearchitectural field,and of the chipped and ground stone (includingthe large collection of obsidian fragments), began in 1986. So did the studyof the epigraphicmaterial,some of whichhad been recoveredfromthefieldand someofwhichhad to be studiedwhereitwas found(in the We also undertookat thistimea major case of inscriptions builtinto standingstructures). a selectionof all classesof finds, of and programme drawing photographing representative Betweenstudyseasons, whichwenton throughout the remainingstudyand fieldseasons.186 workalso wentahead on a summarycatalogueofknownsitesthroughout Laconia, designed to providethenecessaryregionalcontextforthesurvey'sown sites(a revisedformappearsas Chapter23). Duringthelastfewseasons,plansor elevationsofa selectionofstandingremains weredrawnand finalplansofseveralLarge Sitesdrawn. a BBC Acorncomputerwas To assistin theanalysisof thefinds,bothon-siteand off-site, used to beginassemblinga detaileddatabaseof siterecords.Map coordinatesand toponyms werechecked,zembilnumbersand potterydata enteredundersites,selecteddata fromthe extendedand continually and so on. The databasewas subsequently notebookssummarized, in the UK between and research 1987 1994;thisprocessinvolved, updatedduringfollow-up sherd information about other everysingle keptfromthesurvey(some among things, entering in thousand all). twenty To facilitatethe studyof the survey'sown sites,the area was dividedat thisstage into topographiczones, letteredfromA to U (omittingI and O), beginningin the northand endingin the south-east(ILL. 1.13).A choice had to be made betweendividingzones at sitesin watershedsor at watercourses.Eitherchoice would have placed some neighbouring remata at the bottom of were often the watercourses but since different zones, steep-sided valleys,and were hard to cross,whereaswatershedswere oftenflat-toppedridges,it was feltthatto dividezones at watercourseswould createfeweranomalies.(Zone K, however, 185See Chapter22. The Laconia RuralSitesProjectled by fromtheseexercises. Gavanaghand Mee developeddirectly 186Also in exercisein collectionof 1986,an experimental

dendrochronologicaldata was carried out on standing the resultswere buildingsin the surveyarea. Unfortunately, negativeand are notpresentedhere.

Backgroundand methodology 37

III. ι.13.Zones and subzonesofthesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams).

38

Chapterι

straddlesthe Kelephina.) At a later stage in the preparationof the Site Catalogue, each relatedsites zone was further subdividedinto numberedsubzonesso thattopographically would be presentedas groups in the Catalogue. During furtherstudy,the zones were amalgamatedintothree'sectors'to facilitatebroaderanalysis(ILL. 1.14). in the 1988 season we combinedstudyand fieldwork. In 1987we resumedfield-walking; WhiletheYellowTeam concludeditsfield-walking, forthesetwoyearsmembersoftheRed and a selectedtractsof Blue Teamswerecombinedinto PurpleTeam forthepurposesofrewalking land,samplingthetworemaining 'LargeSites'(Menelaionridge,Q360; PanagíaChrysaphítissa, sites.(Further detailsoftheseexercises are givenbelow.) 'out-of-area' U490),and recording Followingthefinalstudyseason in 1989,researchworkcontinuedat home in theUK and the Netherlands.Given the constraints on researchtimeforthosein academic postsor in thatprogresshas been slow; but it may be otherfull-time it is not surprising employment, and a usefullessonforfuturesurveyors, to realizethatmanydaysofstudyhavebeen sobering, generatedbyeach dayoffieldwork. 'OUT-OF-AREA'

EXPLORATION

In 1988,withthe aim of settingthe findingsof the intensivesurveyin a somewhatwider sitesand localities immediatecontext,we selectedforspecialexaminationsome twenty-seven walked,but stillwithinthe area alreadyintensively beyondthe boundariesof the territory coveredby the surveypermit(see ILL. 24.1). We referto these as 'out-of-area'sites.To from themfromsitesin the core territory we gave themserialnumbersstarting distinguish 3000. Theyare listedin thesitecatalogueofthesurvey(Chapter24),wheretheyare giventhe prefixletterofthesurveyzone closestto them(e.g.U3005,just outsidezone U). The treatment of these'out-of-area' siteswas morecursorythanin themain survey:there We are nevertheless was, forexample,no attemptto record sherd densitiesstatistically. satisfied thatthenatureand extentsof the sitesare recordedwithsufficient accuracyforour in Our out this exercise included whether aims purposes. carrying testing regularpatternsof As it turnedout, the distribution could be predictedfromsiteswithinthe main territory. and the numberofsitessampledwas probablytoo smallto formthebasisforreliablestatistics, list of twenty-seven sites (two of which were later demoted fromsite status)was overofsitesat the'upper'end ofthegeneralspectrum. representative The majorityof thesesitesare attachedto zones A and U, at the northernand southwalked area. Amongpreviouslyunknownsitesare several easternlimitsof the intensively substantialones of prehistoricdate (e.g. U3005-6,A3018-19)and the potentiallyimportant archaic hilltop site of Phagia (U3002).187We also took the opportunityto examine sites noted during earlier work, including Hope Simpson's classical hilltop site of Palaiókastro(U3001). Field-walking

and Sampling

Procedures

The aims of thesurveyhave grownout of thehistoryofpreviousresearch.The collectionof the identification of major sitesfromhistoricalsourcesand throughextensive inscriptions, The and research excavationhad provideda base map of settlement. and survey, emergency in the work in a next Within Greece of detail was clearly stage. pioneering systematic filling 187 See also inscription i, LS'n. 214.

Backgroundand methodology 39

III. ι.14.Sectorsofthesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams, L. Farr).

40

Chapterι

thesouthernArgolid,188 on Melos,189 and in BoiotiaI9°providedmodels.There has developed an extensiveliterature on all aspectsoffieldprocedure,fromtheselectionoftheregionto be and thesamplingofthatregion,to thedetailsoffield-walking surveyed, methodology. SITE

PROSPECTION

Withintheboundsof the surveyarea, our methodwas guidedby the aim of locating'sites'. Even in 1983,and perhapsmore so in the lightof recentprogress,thisaim was possibly and theterm'site'mayappear to need further definition.191 These pointswillbe contentious, in whatfollows. discussedfurther Our procedurein thefieldwas to coverthecountryside and as completely as systematically torrentbeds frequentthroughout possible.In the eventcertainareas,such as the overgrown the area and some tractsof impenetrablemaquis, were not walked. Even where brave was so low as to attemptswere made to fightthroughthe vegetation,the groundvisibility make the attemptseem pointless.Part of the northernmost tractof the area had in recent yearshad been bulldozedintoterracesand plantedwithpines:it,too,was eventually givenup it was concludedthatthe surfacewas so when,aftersome daysof unproductive exploration, disturbed thatno remainswouldsurvive. hopelessly The pathfollowedbya teamoffouror fivewalkerswas rarelya straight one. In viewofthe in theseplaces to adjust highlydissectednatureofmuchofthearea, it was farmoreefficient theline of travelaccordingto the contours,oftenproducingcurvingtransects whilekeeping the spacingbetweenwalkerseven,ratherthan to tryto imposerectilinear movementon a oftensteep,and highlycomplexland surface. recalcitrant, The backgroundscatterof materialwas registeredby team memberscallingout when and a roughscale of backgrounddensitywas measuredon every theyobservedartefacts, transect.Other relevantfeaturessuch as land use, visibility,and angle of slope were recorded.An increasein the frequencyof calls was takenas a possiblewarningsignalof a concentration offinds. In prospecting,the success of field-walking and recordingprocedureswill relate to a numberof considerations.Spacing the field-walkers every20 metres,as we did, oughtin m a of or moreare pickedup, three-quarters of to ensure that all sites with diameter 20 theory thosewitha diameterof 15 m, halfof thosewitha diameterof 10 m, and so on. Indeed, allowinga range of good visionof,say,3 m on eitherside of each walker,thesenotional diametersbecome 14, 10.5,and 7 m. Giventhata halo of findsnormallyencirclesthe main concentration ofa site,thisspacingshouldhavebeen stillmoreadequate. takenacrossareas designatedas When we look at the 956 artefactdensitymeasurements falls at 16 and the lower of site diameters m, 'sites',192 only10per centofsitesare less quartile than 14 m acrossin both directions.This 10 per cent can be explainedin fourways.(1) It sitessuchas sanctuaries, (2) bridges,and isolatedtile-graves. partlyrepresents special-function 188See van Andel and Runnels, BeyondtheAcropolis]see also GreekCnuntrvsidc

189IslandPolity. definition NoteJ.F. Cherry,Ά preliminary of site distribution on Melos', ibid. 10-23, esP· ϊ6-ι9>w^tn references to earlierliterature J. W. Mueller(ed.), including inArchaeology (Tucson,1975);S. Plog,F. Plog,and W. Sampling in M. B. Schiffer Wait,'Decisionmakingin modernsurveys', Methodand Theory,i (New York, (ed.), Advancesin Archaeological

1978),383-421.

190Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition'. 191V. L. Gaffneyand M. Tingle,'The tyranny of the site: method and theoryin field survey',Scottish Archaeological Review, 3 (1984),134-40;R. C. Dunnelland W. Dancey,'The sitelesssurvey:a regionalscale data collectionstrategy',in Methodand Theory, M. Schiffer(ed.), Advancesin Archaeological

vi (NewYork,1983),267-87. 192i.e. 428 locationswithtwodiameters.Note thatnot all werejudged to be truesitesin thefinalanalysis.

Backgroundand methodology 41

In othercases, vegetationcoverand artefactvisibility may explainthe limitedextentof the and (4) the burialof sites.The last threefactorsin measurescatter,as may (3) the erosion discussion. meritfurther particular Visibility

can be affected It has been pointedout thatvisibility by weatherconditionsand the timeof in Our surveyseasonwas always the summer(theonlytimeavailableto us), so these year.193 factorsoughtto be broadlyconstantfromyearto year,ifimpossibleto calculateon present evidence.Some variationwas notedfromyearto yearin how advancedthe cropsor steppe plantswere at the startof our season. Otherwise,apart froma possiblegradual trendto cultivatedland (see next paragraph),therewas no increasinggroundcover on formerly coverin anygivenarea. The weather, too,was reliablysunny changein vegetation perceptible almostall our seasons;therewere onlya fewcloudydays and veryinfrequent throughout thunderstorms. smallsiteswerelocatedin a small,clearpatchofland thatwas otherwise Some apparently (e.g.G160,E308); theywerefoundthroughaccidentsof disturbance.It was noted overgrown thatthe neglectof cultivationis leadingto the colonizationof manyfieldsby a wild flora, of are no longerploughedand are thusleftwithan undergrowth whilemanyolive-groves be would otherwise which the surface (and incidentally high visibility grasses,reducing fire:cf.p. 9 above).It was also foundthat a readysupplyoftinderforuncontrolled providing citrusorchards,forsome reason,tendedto be sterileof finds.194 Unfortunately, vineyards, have been whichare normallyverycarefullytendedand hence give highsurfacevisibility, almostentirelygrubbedup in the surveyarea.195The naturalvegetationis a mosaic of the typesdescribedbelow by Rackham,even thoughon the 'dryside' of the Péloponnèsethe maquis can be dense. In short,the numberof sitesmustin generalbe under-represented. is anotheraspectof thisproblem:obsidianwas of certainkindsof artefacts The recognition to distinguishfrom foundonly rarelyin schistareas, perhaps because it can be difficult of schist. splinters Erosion

fromerosion.Certainly severely periods,havesuffered Manysites,especiallyoftheprehistoric excavationhas shownthatlargepartsofmansionI at theMenelaion(siteQ360) havebeen lost to erosion.196 Among sites found by the survey,clear cases of the movementof sherds include hilltopproducedjust a fewEarlyHelladic G154,wherethe (overgrown) downslope The majority LS the on the 'non-site' while sherds, 10170 steepslopebelowwas richin pottery. have washed downfrom to fromsiteM322was likewise oftheMiddleHelladicpottery judged an originallocation.A less certaincase was thatof M349,whereit was thoughtthatthe was Middleto Late Helladicsitehad once crownedtheridge,eventhoughmostofthepottery foundon the terracesbelow.The EH site C126 measuredjust 4 X 8 m, yetit was richin 193A. J. Ammermanand M. W. Feldman, 'Replicated collection of site artefacts',American 43 (1978), Antiquity, 734-40. 194This may also be due to methodsof cultivation. Ν. Τ. W. Mills,'Surveyin Provenceand Languedoc',in Kellerand 165 7, at 166,has notedhow the Survey, Rupp,Archaeological ploughingregimein vineyardshas affectedartefactvisibility in S. France.

195Soteriadesmentionsthevineyards whichexistedbefore the firstworldwar in the Ν sectorof the surveyarea: G. Soteriadis,'To πεδίοντης εν Σελλασία μάχης (222 προ Χριστού)', BCH 34 (iQio), 5-57,at 8-9. It)(> It has been observedofmansionI at theMenelaionthat the detailof the southfacadeand the 'erosionhas destroyed havefaced'. courtyard(s) uponwhichit mustin all probability H. W. Catling,'Excavationsat theMenelaion'(n. 177),29.

42

Chapterι penod Byz

R Hl Ar + Cl MBA + LBA EBA

count 1,187

^050 I,Ö54 1,829 297 211

average 5-41

3-02 3-03 2.66 0.99 1.55

Table i.i. Countand averageofpottery and tileper sq m fromsingle-period sites.

thatit was not a 'non-site'but the vestigesof a pottery;thissuggestedto the field-walkers eroded settlement. Severe erosion also affected theEH sitesC126,P263,P265(possibly severely not a 'site'),R280,and 8448,and theMH and LH sitesR424,R457,and R525.In thesecases we imaginenot onlythe loss,throughdeflation,of the soil matrix,but also a breakdownof surfaceartefacts, especiallypottery.197 For the earlierprehistoric period,it was clear thatthe Late Neolithicsite E48 was also and it is doubtful whether thereare anyarchaeologicalcontextsintacton thesite,let eroded, alone architectural remains.SitesBin and B116produceda greatdensityand varietyofLate Neolithicchippedstonetools,butno potterythatwas diagnostically unlikeE48. It prehistoric, in be that the difference is due to differences but erosion and the total function, may destruction of the evidentlyfriableLate Neolithicpotteryis not improbable.198 These cases make findssuch as LS 10496,an isolatedcache of Neolithicpottery, perhapsrathermore than isolated concentrations of classical and later finds.A similar similarly significant EH of finds seems to be the case at the site and it is R289, depletion possiblethatsomeofthe obsidianscatters notedelsewhereare all thatremainfromoriginalsites. The sherdcountsalso supportthe idea thattherehas been a gradualerosionof pottery. The table (TABLEi.i) showsthe averageof potteryand tile countsper square metrefrom single-periodsites(Middle and Late Bronze Age figuresare combined).There is a clear decreasingtrend,as one goes back in time,in the numbersof ceramicfinds.Makingevery allowance forpossible complicatingfactorssuch as different durationsof occupation in different phases,degradationof findsstillseems periodsor the absence of tilein prehistoric the best generalexplanation.The low counts on Middle and Late Bronze Age sites are it appearsthatpotteryis especiallysparseat thesesites,forreasonsthat especiallynoteworthy; are notyetclear. Burial ofsites

to instance,thoughthe geomorphologicalstudyhas The burial of sitesis more difficult in the Aphysoubasin thatmust and glacisd'accumulation revealeda patternofglacisd'érosion involvesiteburial.At M194the siteitselfwas onlyrecognizedwhena mechanicalexcavator of findshad earlierbeen notedbut recordedas exposedthe subsoil;a smallconcentration Likewisetrenchesin the glacisarea, excavatedto lay water-pipes,revealeda insignificant.

197See T. M. Whitelaw, at theNeolithic 'Investigations sitesof Kephala and Paoura', in Landscape Archaeology, 199-216, esp.204-6. 198Note the carefullydocumentedcase recently E. discussedbyJ. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis,A. Demitrack,

Mantzourani,T. F. Strasser,and L. E. Talalay, 'Archaeological surveyin an artifact-rich landscape:a MiddleNeolithicexamplefromNemea,Greece',AJA92 (1988),159-76.

Backgroundand methodology 43

forburiedsiteswouldbe by clusterofsitesaroundM325.The onlyeffective wayofprospecting shoveltestsor trialtrenches.1" SITE SAMPLING AND AUTHENTICATION

The main effortof registrationwas concentratedon the sites themselves.The normal procedurewas to make a sketchof the extentof the main site,beingguidednot onlyby the on the sherdscatterbut also by any otherindicationjudged reasonableby the archaeologist of the densityof sherdson the sitewas takenby countingall spot.A reliablemeasurement sherdswithin1 sq m at 2 m intervalsalong fourtransectsat rightangles to one another, The limitsofthesitewere usuallydirectedtowardsthefourcardinalpointsofthecompass.200 butwhenthereadingswerelaterenteredontoa databasea cutdecidedby thefield-walkers, offpointwas selectedwhen a continuousseriesof zero readingswas found:wherethree cells contiguouscellshad zero and therewas no indicationthatthesitecontinued,all further on thebasis of artefactcountsand the siteplan, thesize of wereomitted.Duringlaterstudy, thesitewas calculatedby assumingthatit was an ellipsebased on thelengthand breadthof thescatter(usingtheformulaπ X ab,wherea and b denotethesemi-majorand semi-minor axes respectively). a generousselectionofthemostdiagnosticbeing The siteswerethensampledforartefacts, and (where tilefragments, were made ofpotsherds, counts later for analysis.Separate bagged In the the site. A was also made of sketch stone tools. 1984 samplesofsoil plan found)chipped forphosphateanalysiswerecollectedat thesame timeas the1 sq m sherdcountsweremade. Mediumto largesitesweresubdividedintosmallerareas accordingto thejudgementofthe field-walkers.Each of these areas was then treated in the same fashion as the 'sites' Each 'area' ofa sitewas denoted and sherdedseparately. themselves: thatis,itwas transected In it was in a few cases A118 a letter judged expedientto separateoffthe pottery (as B). by numberdenotesthesub-area(e.g.U500B4). intolocalities,in whichcase a suffix further The fieldproceduresput at our disposala numberofcriteriathatcan be used to recognize a site as 'authentic'.First,and in particular,the orthogonaltransectcountsindicatethe densityof sherds,whichis recordedin the Site Catalogue as the averagenumberof sherds plus or minusthestandarddeviation.Some 329 sites(countedby theoriginalserialnumbers; themeansherdcountwas 2.8 sherdsper somehavesincebeen amalgamated)weretransected; a to It is difficult the median 2.1. pointbelowwhichsitesbecome suggest singlecut-off sq m, in sitesthe the case of prehistoric and of are discussed Problems above; visibility 'suspect'. countsseemlow,notleastbecause oftheabsenceoftile.The Menelaionridge(siteQ360),for occupationsite(withtile),yetit example,had been provenby excavationto be a multi-period scoredonly1.14overall,the densitiesrangingfrom0.4 to 1.8 per sq m in the variousareas counted(somewereheavilygrassedoverwhensampled).The MH-LH siteN410-13had very low densities(0.63,0.68, and 0.45),yetsuch a richassemblageofpotterywas recoveredthat LikewiseEH siteswerenotabundant therecan hardlybe anydoubtthatit was a settlement. 199K. W. Kintigh,'The effectiveness ofsubsurfacetesting: a simulation Antiquity, 53 (1988),686-707; approach',Amencan M. J. Shott,'Shovel-test samplingin archaeologicalsurvey', ibid.54 (1989),396-404; N. Terrenatoand A.J. Ammerman, Cecina valleysurvey, and siterecovery: 'Visibility Italy',JFA 23 (1996),91-109;J. M. Steinberg,'Ploughzonesamplingin site signaturesfrom Denmark: isolatingand interpreting disturbed contexts', 70 (1996),368-90. Antiquity,

200 Orthogonaltransectsare less accurate than grids;in particular,theyare sensitiveto an incorrectplacingof the site centre. However,theyare more rapid. The Boeotia transected sitesat 2.5 Survey,usingclickercounts,effectively m intervals:Bintliff and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition', and gridshavebeen used at 134-5.Bothorthogonaltransects Nemea: Cherryetal. (n. 198),163.

Chapterι

44

in pottery, siteshavingdensitymeasuresrangingfrom1.23to 2.27.But siteswith single-period or ofprehistoric date are plainlyspecialcases. For theremainderof sparsesites low visibility the with fewerthan 1.25 sherds per sq m) we are leftwith rival lower (say quartile, The of sherds humanactivity other maybe theresultofsomeintensive explanations. presence than permanentsettlement,such as manuring,201 or storagehuts,202 seasonallyoccupied of animalshelters.Alternative explanationshave been advancedin termsof the destruction habitationremainsthrougherosionand potterybreakdown.203 Althoughrecentresearchhas advancedour understanding of thesefactors,204 it is stillfarfromclear how to discriminate betweendifferent The statistical analysisdiscussedbelowwas unableto separate hypotheses. M356,witha countof 1.03,fromthebackground.In thecase ofsiteswithlow densities(notto mentionsiteswhere,fora varietyofreasons,it was decidednotto recordsherdcounts),their statusas permanent habitations mustbe in doubtunlesssupporting evidenceis available. Second,as an indicatorofthespreadofsherdsthereis thearea ofthesite,as calculatedon in thefield.Third, thebasisofthetransectcountsand, whereappropriate, otherobservations ofsherddistribution, calculatedas theindexofcellswithzerocountsas thereis thecontinuity a proportion ofthetotalnumberofcells.205 thereare theconsistency and thevarietyof Finally, the potterycollected:the more consistently the potterybelongsto a givenperiod,and the greaterthenumberoftypesofthatperiodthatoccur,thegreaterthechancethata truesiteis represented.Thus it was the experienceof the NorthernKeos surveythat amphorae of and wereoftenthe onlypotteryat locationsthat Saraçhanetype61 werewidelydistributed, in suchcases thesupporting werenotsites;206 evidenceofotherpottery typesand tilewouldbe to confirm a site's status. required Where all four criteria are met we can be very confidentthat a habitation site is however,giventhe problemsof visibility, erosion,and burialoutlinedabove, a represented; a score on even one criterion is indicator that thesiteis authentic. high good The essentialproblemfacedin the interpretation of the resultsof fieldsurveyis how well whatis observedreflects the'true'archaeologicalpicture.Forconveniencetwoaspectscan be how well whatis on thesurfacerepresents thearchaeologyofwhatis buried (1) distinguished: - and (2) how well whatis recordedin the fieldreflects below- the problemof representation - theproblemof visibility. since whatis presenton thesurface (In fact,thedivisionis artificial thetwointerconnect; butitaids discussion.) The problemofrepresentation can onlybe fullyaddressedby a programmeofexcavation, in sites different whereby physicalsettingsand of variousperiodsare excavatedand their with surface counts.Even thenit mustbe conceded thatmanysitesare findings compared As the nowcompletely erodedor ploughedout,and thedesiredinformation beyondrecovery. 201S. E. Alcock, F. J. Cherry,and J. L Davis, 'Intensive survey,agriculturalpracticeand the classical landscape of Greece', in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece:AncientHistoriesand

ModernArchaeologies (New Directions in Archaeology; Cambridge,1994),137-70,withA. Snodgrass,'Response:the archaeologicalaspect',ibid. 107-200. 202R. G. Osborne, 'Buildingsand residenceon theland in classical and hellenistic Greece: the contribution of BSA80 (1985),119-28. epigraphy', 203Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',137-8. '"* Whitelaw(n. 197); r. A.James, U. 15.Mee, and U. J. Taylor,'Soil erosion and the archaeologicallandscape of ...

.

t

ι τι

·

1

/

'

-w-v

L·

-w

*~ **

t~±

■»

m-

1

s~*

-w

Methana,Greece',JFA21 (1994),395-416;A. M. Snodgrass a regional and J. L. Bintliff, 'Off-sitepotterydistributions: and interregional Anthropology, 29 (1988), perspective',Current 506-13. 205The ideas of densityand continuity in relationto Όηsite' and background are discussed by T. W. Gallant, 'Background noise and site definition:a contributionto surveymethodology', JFA 13 (1986),403-18. His continuity indicesare calculatedon the basis of 25 sq m, not 1 sq m, cells(p. 416). 206 LandscapeArchaeology, 356-7: they may have been beehives.

Backgroundand methodology 45

accountof our morespecializedstudieswillhelp to illustrate(Chapter22), geophysicaland thepicture. conditions, helpto clarify geochemicaltechniquescan, in favourable In above. orderto correctforthe some consideration has received The problemofvisibility wouldbe processesofburialand erosion,an extensiveresearchprogramme geomorphological necessary.Not only would the broad factorsof soil type and angle of slope need to be would need to be taken calculated,butverylocal details,forexampleof reliefand terracing, intoaccount.As faras densityofvegetationand relatedfactorsare concerned,mostsurveys on a to assess visibility have attemptedto cut the Gordianknotby requiringfield-walkers simplescale, say from1 to 10. Again, ideallymore researchis needed, essentiallyinto the scoreis,say,2, 5, or thatthevisibility howdoes an assessment ofsuchobservations: psychology on into20, 50, and 70 per cent)correspondto whatis objectively 7 (whichmightbe translated the ground?Equally,it is clear that methodsof recordingaffectsherd count totals:our at siteU490,in comparingcountsmade on handsand kneeswithinan area of 1 sq experiment while walking30 X 15 m transects,showed a m with those taken using event-counters in The visibility issuewas also confronted the former case. by the considerably higherdensity exercisedescribedin thenextsubsection. area rewalking EXTENDED

AREA SHERD COUNTS AND BACKGROUND DENSITIES

To givesome controloverour field-walking, quite eighttractsofland (TABLE1.2),distributed of different and land-forms,land uses, and archaeological widely representative were chosenforrewalkingin a season subsequentto theirinitialrecording. characteristics, to recordtheartefacts and used event-counters Walkerswerespacedat 15m intervals (pottery and tile)observedovereach stretchof 30 m walked.A totalof twelvepasses (actuallythree passes by a team of four,the fifthmemberkeepinga record)were made along parallel transects600 m in lengthand 15 m apart,so thatin ideal conditions240 countswould be tract

lar 01

background density 7.0

on-site

sites

date

size (ha)

326 327 328 356

H cHb CrB b

0.30 0.45 0.28 0.05

4.22 1.03

density 44

density

continuity index

2.28 0.33

LAR02

0.5

52

230 367

c Cb

0.08 0.22

1.67 3.63

0.35

LAR04

0.2

16

142

H

0.03

1.77

0.36

lar 05

0.2

433 443

C Cb

2.12

444

C

0.18 0.02

0.32

6.40 2.03

0.20

2.6

LAR06

1.9

113

29O

Β

0. 20

LAR07

0.4

13

184 186 188

C H C

0.05 0.03 0.06

LAR08

0.6

0.13

II

R = Roman,Β = Byzantine. Lower-caseletterindicatesminimalpresence. TABLE1.2.Rewalkedareas.C = classical,H = hellenistic,

46

Chapterι

/

LAR4 !^ ρ

/^Tlar3'ΙΊν

^"Λ '

LAR2 <'

rJ L

J367

'

*z )

"fh

?

^T

j

0 ■

■

j^V

»

y

II

)

<έγ fT

^-^

(

L

'

Jr?LAR7

^''

Ν1β4 4t^N18é/o^>

''

LARS( '

Γ^

)

^y

ι

/ ^ ι

/^

<έ

Γ

sí^^^

<j-*CfZry '^

LARl/

'

l

V^

'^

1

'

LAR6

5000 > Metres

I

^v^

III. 1.15.TractsLARoi-LAR08 (D. Taylor).

S433''^"^

S443WVy?>'^

^'^^

/ /

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

SOIL MAP OF LACONIA SURVEY AREA (Laconia Survey,vol. i, annexeto Chapter2). D. Miles-Williams,froi

r 2). D. Miles-Williams,froman originalby J.-W.van Berghemand J.Fiselier.

Backgroundand methodology 47

recordedwithinan area a fractionunder10 hectares(0.1 sq km).In additionto makingthe on a five-point scale (o, 25, 50, 75, artefactcountsthewalkerswereasked to assessvisibility such as fenced-inareas or buildingspreventedsome and 100per cent).Variousimpediments countsfrombeingtaken;thesewerenotedas missingvalues. thereis no standard,accepted correctionfactorforvisibility, and further Unfortunately, workneeds to be carriedout. Reluctantly, we concludedthatit was wiserto experimental sherddata. Wherethedata are complexwe haveproduced publishanalysisoftheuncorrected change-point analysesoftheartefactcounts;but,especiallywherethebackgroundis close to and a simpletableofthecountsis presentedhere. zero,sophisticated analysisis notjustified, The eighttractsare shownon themap (ILL.1.15),and are discussedin turn. LAR01 (ILL.ι.ι6). Close to Aphysou,thistractis located on the marlglacis,in one of the most area.A group usedpartsofthesurvey intensively in the of threesites(M326-8) was distinguished ofthearea; theircentresall lie originaltreatment In addition,M365 within30-50m ofone another. lies at theNE cornerof thearea, M356near the centre.On analysingthe sherdcountsthrough analysis, M326-8arepickedup as a change-point single block, as is M365, but M356 is not itsstatusas a sitemaybe therefore distinguished; be questioned.The statistics suggestcountsof44 (+ 17) sightingsper 30 m as indicatingthe presenceofsites,7 (± 6) as background. LAR02 (ill. 1.17)again agreeswiththeprevious J230,a small, not veryprolific field-walking. classicalsite,is pickedup;J367andj36g are not on sherdcountsbutin factbelong distinguished to two different periods, classical and Byzantine.Sites are indicatedby countsof 52 (± 31),thebackground by5 (± 5). LAR 03 (ill. i. 18) is a special case. H45 is confirmed as a contiguousLarge Site (Geladari) with some very high and some very low it has highand low concentrations of visibility; sherdwithinit. LAR04 (ILL. ι.ι9) is situatedon a spurrunning N-S in an area ofverylow background. The site in is SE the with counts corner, F142 pickedup of30 artefacts. There is an anomalouscountof 16 close to a modernhut,and in the western halfthebackground is as low as 0.21. LAR05 (ILL.1.20)is on thelimestonefoothills of Koutsoviti.The backgroundsherd densityis

III. i. 16.Change-pointanalysisofartefact densitiesin tract LAR01. Uncorrectedforvisibility.

48

Chapterι

000020000000 000000001

000

10000000*

000

00

oooooooo* 00000000000* 16

1000000

o*

0*

122000001322 000000010001 00000000000* 0*·

0*

00

00*

0*

000*'

0*

000000000000 010010002000 040010000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0*

0000000100

1

III. ι.17.Change-point analysisof artefact densitiesin tractLAR02. forvisibility. Uncorrected

III. ι.ι8. Change-pointanalysisof artefact densitiesin tractLAR03. Uncorrectedforvisibility.

1

31

104

000021 1

0

2

0

1

7

12

1 28 28

9

III. 1.19.Artefact densitiesrecordedin tractLAR04.

3), while those units includingR290 have an averageof66 sherds.

verylow (0.2). Disregardingthe high counts associatedwitha modernbuilding(45 and 95), concentrationscan be linked with sites S433, T443, and T444, respectivelyat the NWend, centre, and SE end of the tract. T444 in particular is not well supported, though conditionsof severe erosion in this area may explaintheverylow backgroundand low on-site density.

LAR07 (ill. 1.22)includesN184,N186,and N188. The firstand second have counts ranging between16 and 24 in areas of low to medium whereasN188has some highercounts. visibility, The averageof unitsincludingsitesis 25. The backgroundis low,about0.3 on average.

LAR06 (ILL.1.21) includesR294,centredupon a ruined building in the SW corner, with archaic-classicalpotterynot directlyassociated withtheruin;and R290,a Middle Helladic site, whichshowswell in the NWcorner.There are due to modern highcountsin the centre-west, material.Backgroundnoise in thistractis 2 (±

LAR08 (ILL.1.23)is setin an area wherewe had judged thereto be no sites.The highestreadings, 30 and 63, are anomalous.The averageoverthe whole tractis 2 sherdsper unit. Some of the highercounts are to be explained by modern features:forexample,the stringin the second rowindicatesthelineofa moderntrack.

Backgroundand methodology 49 3^

2

50

4|

1|

5

18 2

16 21

2600000

0030001

1

1

0

24

1000000

1

20000000000

21

0001

000000000000

000000000000

000000001

3:

0

0

0

000000000

39 1 1

1

1

'

000

101

1

0! *

1 45

00040002

101

95

II. I., i.jo.

31 0

1

101

1

Oj 0

0

0

0

oj

ojo

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

00000000 420

1

0000

0001

Artefact densities recorded tract '..''' o").

000

10

0

2

014

1

0

0

1

0000

21 10

4

0

4

0

63

13

0

25

0070406

17

050:'

0011000

13

061!'

0

00

003042200000 211001*'

1

0000

30

1

0Î00000000200 1

Oj

000092001100

0000300001

1!

0

000000041

2000000

Õ" 0200000

0

0001

0000

1030000020

•JO

o|

4

0

004004

000000000000

125200000000

0

430002000100

0000000000

01 r- -

4

0000

030002300000

00000

000000100100 1Í0000

5

701

14020000

1

' ; *

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

12

0

3

1

2

1

1

4

15

19

4

6

2

0

6

1

2

8

26

1

2

2

0

1

1

'

2|

9 j

4

Il.l.. i.'j'j. Artefactdensities recorded in tract l.AR07.

in

ι. ( lliante -point analysis of III., ι.·_> artefact densities in tract Ι.ΛΚ o(». I nc< »rrected l<»r visibility.

A numberofpointsemergefromthisexercise.The firstis thelow levelofbackgroundnoise withinthesurveyarea,from0.2 to a maximumof7 (± 6) in transects 30 m in lengthand with an estimatedarea (assuminga walker'sview of 3 m eitherside) of 180 sq m. The resulting densityis from11 to 400 artefactsper hectare. Units with sites withinthem vary in concentration from20 to 70, or 1,100to 4,000artefacts per hectare.207 It shouldbe stressedthatthe Laconia Surveydid not set out to investigate the causes of sherd at the time when the started it was that thisproblem scatter; background survey judged stillrequiredmuch basic researchand would demand a methodologydifferent fromthat directedsimplyat locatingsites.Indeed, various explanationshave been put forwardto accountforthebackgroundscatter:manuringoffields,208 erosionand othergeomorphological 207Cf.Snodgrassand BintlifTfn. 204). 2(>HBintliffand Snodgrass, 'Boeotian Expedition'; Gallant (n. 205); P. Murrayand N. Kardulias,Ά modern-

sitesurveyin the southernArgolid,Greece',JFA 13 (1986), 21-41.

50

Chapter ι

000000000100000000000002 00000000001010000020062 24 1111

1000002011

00000000001 000001000001021 1

1

1

00003001

4 16

4

0

3

0000000001 0

0

0

0

1

00001 000001

11

10320105

7 10 10

0

0

0

0

4

33

23

9 20 166

0

23 64 18

7

21 21

02054

001

000000011200024*

2

12 16

20570

40023001 9000001

0

2 12

124

22 14

11307200112

0112****·***·

III. 1.23.Artefact densitiesrecordedin tractlar 08.

and otherhumanactivities.210 As the complexity of the problemis processes,209 agriculture, it has increasingly appreciated,so theneed fora specificresearchdesignaimed at unravelling becomeevermoreapparent.Thus thoseworkingin thisarea have underlinedthedesirability of distinguishing artefacts of different dateswithinthe background.211 Surveypracticevaries in decidingthesize and intervals ofsamplingunits;ourfield-walker spacingof 15 considerably m, withcountstotalledevery30 m as describedabove, is towardsthe lower end of the on sitesare a different for'background'counts(samplingstrategies matter).Even so, spectrum thatin the mostdenselyoccupied tractsit was notjudicious to our exercisedemonstrated concentrationsmerelyby inspection.In this context, distinguishΌη-site' fromcoff-site' changing the sampling intervalsbetween off-siteand on-site areas would have been unsound.212 methodologically LARGE SITES

The treatment of sitesdesignatedas Large Sites developedpragmaticallyand adapted to conditionsin the field.In 1983,when the surveystarted,a numberof projectsfacedsimilar problemsbutno standardprocedurehad been established.Our initialplan was to dividethe sitesintoareas accordingto the lie of the land and thejudgementof the team,and sample each of theseareas as if it were a site:by transecting it, recordingfeatures,and collecting In Sites the first three sherds. (3-12 ha) were treated;two morewere year Large diagnostic 2°9T. van Andel, C. Runnels and K. O. Pope, 'Five thousand years of land use and abuse in the southern Argolid,Greece',Hesp.55 (1986),103-28. 210 Cherryet al. (n. 198); B. Wells, C. Runnels,and Ε. Zangger,'The Berbati-Limnesarchaeologicalsurvey:the 18 (iQQo),207-38. iq88 season',Opuscula Atheniensia, 211 F. J. Cherry and J. L. Bintliff,unpublished papers of Bradford, deliveredat 'GreekSurvey'meeting,University 24-5>ne 1989.

212Statistical analysis is still at an early stage, but the image processingtechniquesdevelopedforphosphateand othersuchdata have herebeen successfully appliedto sherd countdata, wherethe data warranttheiruse. Plainly,where the backgroundis close to zero,image processingis simply C. E. Buck,W. G. Cavanagh,and C. D. Litton, unnecessary.

Data (Chichester, Archaeological BayesianApproachto Interpreting

i996)>253-92.

Backgroundand methodology 51

as meriting at an early dealtwithin 1988,thoughtheyhad been identified specialtreatment in the Site the results are set out outline the We here only samplingproceduresused; stage. Catalogue. is a special case, clearlydelimitedby its fortification (Bin),2'3a hilltopfortification, AgiosKonstantinos LN1-EBA and classical-hellenistic. The samplingareaswere wallsand occupiedin twodistinct periods, ratherlarge,but sincethematerialfrombothoccupationperiodsis spreadoverthewholesite,notto itis notclear mentionthatlargepartsofthesurfaceoftheuppercitadelhavebeen gradedbybulldozer, ofthesite. thatfinerprecisionwouldhaveyieldedmoreaboutthehistory (A118),214 Palaiogoulas probablyancientSellasia,was dividedintofiveseparateareas. This was the first Whilewe are confident thatwe have a reasonableoverviewofthe largesiteto be treatedbythesurvey. site,itis plainthata moredetailedsurveywouldyieldusefulresults. Geladari (Η45),2Ι·Γ) possiblyancientThornax,is an altogethermorecomplexsite:largerin extent(some The extremely variable 12 ha), witha numberof standingmonumentsand architectural fragments. visibility, largelydue to the lush grass cover when surveyed,in some ways lent itselfto the 'area' different and sherdswerecollectedfromsometwenty-nine locations,thoughsome approachto sampling, of thesampleswereverysmallbecause of thepaucityof the material.In a subsequentseason,clicker countsweremade overthemainarea ofthesite(see LAR03 above),butit is notclearthattheycan be thanthatthevisibility is patchy.This problemis compoundedby made to conveyanymoreinformation In particular, therarityofcertainclassesofpottery. diagnosticLate Helladicsherdswererecoveredin a and thecentralpartsofthesite.Elsewherein thesurveyarea LH smallnumberfromboththenorthern siteslikeH45. materialtendsto be verysparse,and maywellbe swampedin largemulti-period TheMenelaion withmore intractable ridge(036o).210In treatingthissite in 1987,we were confronted nature.The siteis a narrowN-S ridgeabout terrainthanat Bin or A118,mainlybecauseofitsirregular 1 kmlong,frequently in manyplaces,either interrupted bygullies.The groundwas denselyovergrown withtallgrasseson theupperterracesor withgarigueand maquison slopes.It was, however, possible to walka seriesoftransects coveringthespineofthehillfromsouthto north.Countsweretakenofthe sherd densitiesin each 30 m transectby fourwalkersspaced at 15 metres,each grid-blockthus measuring30 m S-N by 60 m W-E. The resultsare illustratedin ILL. 24.51 and indicatethe very in blocks1,3, 11-13,16,23-5,31-5,and distribution ofthesherds,withmarkedconcentrations irregular however,thatformanytransectsthe countsare verylow indeed:valuesof o or 1 43. It is noteworthy, occur,low even for'background'.It mustbe concluded that,because of the poor and extremely variablevisibility, as wellas otherfactors,thisprehistoric and archaic-classicalsitedoes notlend itself method. to investigation this by The site was next sampledfordatingevidenceusing the methodapplied to medium-sizedsites elsewhereon the survey:it was subdividedinto 'areas' suggestedby the contoursor vegetationcover. excavatedMenelaionsanctuaryand theMycenaean (Samplingdid nottakeplace withinthepreviously A reasonable of material was recoveredfromthese areas, allowing a mansion.) sample dating oftheridge'ssettlement reconstruction history. At thissitethe terrainis even and the visibility was extremely PanagiaChrysaphitissa (U490).217 good in X A m of 60 was set as at and walkers 1987. grid sixty-five 30 rectangles Q360, up, sampledby spacedat

*KiLS'n. 32^ 8 (plan, ILL. 24.4 on p. 326). 214LS'û. 321-3. **■> LS 11.352, 355-7 (plan, ill. 24.23 on p. 354).

2I()LS'û. 4.01-^ (plan, ill. 24.^1 on pp. 4.02-3). 217LSû. 428-9 (plan, ILL. 24.58 on pp. 430-1).

52

Chapterι easting 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 !59O !59O 1590 !59O

northing

1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282

clicks

tHein 2 sqm

sherdin 2 sqm

ιHie+ sherdin 2 sqm

ο ο ι

ο ο ο

ο ο ο

2

I

2 I

I

ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο *

ο

1285 1288 1291 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 1255 1258 I26I 1264

ο ο ο ο ο ο Ι

12

7 * 2

3 22

67 98 93 35 3' 46 II

8 5 ι 3 5 7 194 35 ! 88

ο * ο ο Ι

ο 4 4 Ι

ο 3 Ι

ο ο Ι

*

ο 2 Ο 2

5

II

4

50

2

131 112

3 3 4 ι

37 9 6

Ι *

4 ο

ο

2

2

27

Ι

58 !53

149 164

64

223

98

Ι

3 5 7 4 4

2

5

ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο 2 Ι

3 4 ο ο ο ο *

4 4 Ι

Ι

ο Ι

*

ο 2 Ο 2

5 ΐ3 5 5 7 3 4 ι Ι *

ο

5 ο 8

ΙΟ

13

ι7 4 ο

ο

Ι

3

3 5 i8 60

Ο Ι

Ι

ο

ο ο ο ο ο

Ο

3

ο ο

Ι

ο *

19 32 27

Ο

Ι

ο *

ο

2

12

Ι

ο ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

2

2 *

Ι

Ι

*

ο ο ο ο

2 Ι Ι

3 7

12

4 3 * ο ο Ι

3

Backgroundand methodology 53 easting !59O 1590 !59O

!59° !59O

!59° 1590 !59O !59O 1590 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 !593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1596 1596 1596 1596 !596 1596 !596 1596 1596 1596 1596 1596

ι$Φ '596 !599 1599 !599 1599 !599 1599 1599 *599 !599 1599 1599 *599 1599 1599 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602

northing 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1255 1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1255 1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294

I255

1258 1261

1264 1267 1270 1273 1276

clicks »5 166 371 348 524 212

158 154 67 77 6

tilein 2 sq m

sherdin 2 sq m

tile+ sherdin 2 sq m

6

ο ο ι

6

5 6 4

5 3 3 1 * I

4 60

I

85 5!5 342 454 631 695 381 239 278 70 61

I

7 24 16 40 181 169 293 340 773 291 500 154 106

33 5 5

32 7 47 129 169 307 434 531 386 343 42 l9

I

5 6 2 12

6 2

4 ο 2 * I Ο

5 ο

5 3 3 11

3 ο *

ο ο ο ο ο 8 8 5 5

2Ο

4

II Ι *

ο ο ο ο

8

14 6 ι * I I I I

5

14 10 l7 II 22

8

II

3 * 1

ο 5 ο

I

Ι

2

2

3 2

5 8

3 3 4

i4 ίο

6 6 II 6

9

I

7

4 8

I *

2 *

3 *

2

2

2

Ο

2

Ο

Ο

Ο

2 Ο

ο ο

Ο

Ο

Ι

Ι

ο ο

Ι

Ι

Ι

Ι

5 5 3 5 4

Ι

6

2

7 3 7 5 4 * * *

ο 2 Ι

1

*

3 3 8

*

2 * * *

39 13 45 74

5 7 9 14

2 *

Ι

Ο

Ο

Ο

3 ο ο

Ο

Ι

2

ι ο

ο

3 ο

3 3

3 4

54

Chapterι easting 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605

northing 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294

clicks 234 462 288 187 22

7 5 ο 2

ϊ3 5 36 27

59 170 490 625 i38 80 II

tilein 2 sq m 3 4 8 6 2 * *

sherdin 2 sq m 11 2

6 1

ο *

tile+ sherdin 2 sq m 14 6 14 7 2 * *

ι ο

I

ο ο ο ο

4 4

3 5

1

2

3

7 9 3

7 5 ι ο

1

ο I

2 1

ο *

I I

10

7

2

ο *

Table 1.3. Site U490: comparisonof resultsof 'clickercounts'and 'hands and knees'countsfor140 squares,each 30 X 30 m. Coordinatesreferto S'v cornerofeach square(cf.ILL.24.58).

thenumberofsherdsseen every30 m. These countswererecordedusingevent 15m intervals, totalling countersand are referred to, in whatfollows,as clickercounts.At the same time'hands and knees' countsweretakenovera gridin samplingpointsmeasuring1 sq m in area; thegridcovered260 (26 X 10) samplingpoints,though8 could not be sampled,leavinga totalof 252. Tile and potsherdswere countedseparatelyat each samplingpoint.In whatfollows, pairsof clickercountshave been summed forsquaresmeasuring30 X 30 m, and thetwo1 sq m samplesare also summedforthesame squares(as in both cases, of averagingout the sampleswere countedby different individualsthishas the effect, The data are givenin TABLE1.3. variations betweenindividualrecorders). In a statistical sensethereis no close correlationbetweentheclickercountsand thosetaken,in the same squares,by collectingand countingthe artefactsat 1 sq m samplingpoints.In thiscrudesense the two methodsof recordingsite densitiesare not comparable.Whythisshouldbe so is not clear, moreresearchis requiredon thisproblem. but it is probablybound up withtheproblemofvisibility; Such a crudecorrelationtest,however,takesno accountof the spatialdimension.In ILLS 1.24-5we illustrate contourplotsfortheclickercounts(column3 in the table,TABLE1.3)on theone hand, and forthetotaltileand sherdcountsmade in thesamplingpoints(column6 in thetable).The contours are plottedin the formerat 90, 250, and 500 artefactsper 900 sq m, and in the latterat one, four, and eightcountsper 2 sq m. The maps of siteU490 are broadlysimilar,thoughthe samplingpoints technique probablyunderestimatesthe extentof the site. We are thereforeencouraged by this in thebeliefthat1 sq m spotsamplesgivea reasonablerepresentation of surfaceartefact experiment concentration. in was collected,and thedensitiesaccordingto thedifferent periodsare illustrated Diagnosticpottery foreach rectanglegive ill. 24.58.Totalsofpotterydatableto thevariousperiods(Neolithic-Byzantine) an indicationoftheintensity ofoccupationduringtherelevantperiods.

Conclusion offieldsurveyhas advancedrapidlyin thelastfifteen The methodology years.In particular, and sherd of distributions has been laid on the recording background increasingemphasis

III. 1.24.Contourmap ofclickercountsat U490.

III. 1.25.Contourmap oftotaltileand sherdcountsat U490.

densitiesovertheentirelandscape.The aim has been twofold:firstto definemorerigorously and second(or,perhapsmore themfrom'non-sites', theoccurrenceof 'sites'and distinguish the first to human what is intended by activityoverthe whole strictly, approach) investigate The intensive of artefacts has the artefact concentrations. analysis 'off-site' landscapethrough withtheirsystematic collectionand dating.On theLaconia Survey, moveda stepfurther only highlyselectivecollectionsof 'non-site'materialwere made. Though thesehave produced - forexamplea fewMycenaeansherdsfroman ill-defined collectionin occasionalsurprises - theΌη-site'materialseemsto reflectreasonablythedistribution sector of thenorthernmost areas more intensive described above. as was borne out the of sites, by sample investigation has focusedon theissuesofthedispersion ofsherdsand howeffectively the attention Recently In theirrecentreviewof artefact surfacematerialcan reflectthe archaeologyunderground. Yorstonand othershave suggestedthatthereis no room for movementdue to cultivation, considerations havebeendiscussedbyWhitelawin hisimportant Further analysis complacency.218 of the sitesof Kephala and Paoura on Kea:219he focuseson the destructionof potteryby and abrasion,thedeflation of soil througherosion,and theproblemsofvisibility comminution discussedabove. In the currentstateof knowledgeit seems unwiseto claim over-refined withinsites.We hopenevertheless thattheLaconia conclusions on thebasisofartefact dispersion will both its and as a be valued for and indication Survey findings methodological technological forfuturework.As in all surveyprojects,the definitionof any one site is a judgementof in thesitecatalogue(Chapter and theevidenceforourjudgements is summarized probabilities, and of the Laconia The 24). samplingstrategy Surveywerea carefulcompromise projectdesign betweentheneedtomaximizearea coverage(inpursuitoftheoverallaims)and therequirements whiletakingaccountofpracticalconstraints. of investigative We are confident thatthe rigour, in and broader set will essential conclusions out the robust. findings following chapters prove 218R. M. Yorston,V. L. Gaffney,and P. J. Reynolds, 'Simulationof artifactmovementdue to cultivation', JAS 17 (ϊ99°)>67-83.

219Whitelaw(η. 197).

2 SOILS AND LAND USE POTENTIAL vanBerghem andJasperFiselier Jan-Willem The LANDSCAPE as perceived today is not what early settlerspenetrated in search of as a resultof naturalprocesses,in which land; it has been changedcontinuously agricultural humansplayeda roleas well.Whichsitesfarmers and occupiedthroughout theages preferred was largelyinfluencedby theirown agriculturalactivities.Erosion may have sweptaway fertilesoils,leavinghillsbare and dissected;terraces,arduouslyconstructedand formerly maintained, mayhave accumulatedenoughsoil to makeagriculture possibleon slopeswhere flourished before. onlywildvegetation Ruined houses or shatteredpotteryare not the only marksleftby human occupation. Truncatedsoils,colluviallayers,and alluvialdepositsare man-inducedhistoricalevidenceas well. These marks,thoughoftenbarelynoticeableand difficult to interpret, may help to ofsherdsand ruinedfarmsteads. A landscapeanalysismayevenallow explainthedistribution foran estimationof the capabilityand importanceof the ruralareas in sustaininglarger settlements suchas Sparta. The mainpurposeofthesoilsurveyconductedwithintheframework oftheLaconia Survey was to studythe suitability, and of the soils within which artefactsare stability, history embedded, in order to facilitatethe interpretationof site patterns. In the following paragraphs, methods of landscape reconstructionand land evaluation will be briefly described,and thentheiruse in analysingsitepatterns. Landscape

Reconstruction:

Methods

and Tools

general method of soil mapping The entireLaconia Surveyarea was mapped,usingair photointerpretation (at ι : 25,000)and fieldsurveys,in the summersof 1986 and 1988. A physiographicsoil map at a scale of 1 : 20,000was made,witha legendadaptedin sucha way that,in additionto soil suitability, soil age and soil stability werealso differentiating Since differences of parent characteristics. in land-formsand soil types,severalland-systems materialgeneratedifferences have been on the basis of theirgeology.For the land-system distinguished designated'hills,ridges,and have been combinedinto one footslopesin limestone',two different geologicalformations - a hard crystalline - forthepragmatic limestoneand a softerlayeredlimestone land-system reasonthatsimilarunits(e.g. steep slopes) show similarcharacteristics withrespectto soil and slopestability. The SOILMAPand legendare presentedat theend ofthevolume, suitability and represent an annexeto thischapter. Soil profiles,mostlyexposed along road cuts, eroded terraces,incisions,and recently bulldozedterraces,were describedin more detail,while auger bores were set to map the

58

Chapter2

coverage of the importantsoil units. Detailed soil descriptionscovered (among other colour,texture,structure,and carbonate content.In manyplaces, multicharacteristics) ofseverallayers,eithercolluvial so-called layeredprofiles, 'palaeosols'- consisting (depositedby erosion on slopes) or alluvial(deposited by rivers),representingdistinctphases in soil - wereencountered.Profileexposurewas, however,erratic,and development auger samples do not allow detailedanalyses;coverageof soil chronosequences,therefore, was farfrom In the distribution of older covered is still unknown. However, complete. particular, sequences theexposedprofiles theidentification ofdifferent permitted phasesin landscapedevelopment, ofdifferent periodsoferosionand stability. INTERPRETING

SOIL

PROFILES

Theformation ofsoilprofiles

Recordingthe featuresof ancientlandscapesis subjectto muchspeculation;the land-forms and soils found today functionmerelyas starting-points for reconstruction.The most reveal of soil indicators are soil important profiles.They stages developmentduringperiods of stability, erosion,and subsequentsedimentation. Stages of soil developmentare mainly recognized by soil colour, texture,structure,and the presence of calcite, CaCO3. In Mediterranean climates,soil developmentstartswith the leaching of CaCO3 and the formationof a soil structure.Gradually the soil becomes more reddish owing to the caused by the oxidationof clay-minerals, and clay is washed out formationof ferro-oxides in in of soil. soil accumulated distinct lower the After due timedifferent and layers parts Ά and the an characterized humus formation horizon', by layerscan be distinguished: in 'B of eluviationofclayand minerals;a horizon',eitherreddish colourbecause weathering or ofheaviertextureand distinctstructure as a resultofclayaccumulation;and a 'C horizon' of largelyunweatheredparentmaterial.Soil developmentis fasteron easilyweatherable parent materials,in stable positions where natural erosion is limited,and under high (ILL.2.1). precipitation Acceleratedsoil erosion

can mature,non-eroded, deep Only on flatsurfacessuchas terracesand broadwater-divides soilsbe encountered.Owing to erosionon mostslopes,formerly completeABC profilesare nowadaystruncated, exposingtheΒ horizon;in thecase ofsevereerosioneventheΒ horizon U-shapedval ey (N4c) Steep transportation slopes (N2d) Plateau remnants Colluvial footslope (N4b) ^* A> Middle glacis level(N3b) Upperglacis level(N4d) Middle glacis level(N3b) y τ gr Youngerlowerterraces(A2a) V-shapedsteep /Γ^ΑίΜΕ U-shapedvalley valley(N2d) 4//'^^^^^^ EvrotasyoungestAlluvialfandeposits(N3c) , . (?4c) level , , ' Α οφβκΚ^^^^ Upperglacis riverbed(Ala) O|(jer higher ν _^-«^^^^^^^^^

Il.I.. 'j.i. Examples

ni a elironoseíjuenee

and toposequenee

from the field.

Soils and land use potential 59

may have been washed away. Erosion is most intenseon steeperslopes withtheireasily soilswhichhaveonlya limitedinfiltration erodible,oftenfiner-textured capacity. As a resultof the impactof raindrops, Different kindsof erosioncan be distinguished. smallersoil particlesin particularare slowlyand graduallycarrieddownslope,forminga homogeneouscolluviallayer;thisprocessis generallycalled 'rain-splasherosion'.When the exceedstheinfiltration soil is saturatedor rainfallintensity capacityofthesoil,overlandflow will transportsoil particlesin a sheet of water; this is 'sheet-washerosion'. In thiscase, tonnesof soilsper velocitiesallow the transportation onlyof smallerparticles;nevertheless, hectaremaybe displacedannually.In thiscase also, thetransported particlesare depositedin texture.When overlandflowconcentratesin one place, rillsform, finelayersof different whichmay deepen into gullies.The flowvelocitiesin rilland gullyerosionalso allow the of largersoil particles,whichare normallywashed directlyinto streamsand transportation rivers.Each kind of erosionresultsin a different typeof sediment(colluvium):fineand formsof homogeneous,layered,or largelywithoutany sorting.Besidesthe aforementioned soilsmaybe transported forceswithoutthehelpofflowing erosion,(saturated) bygravitational water,whichalso leads to unsortedand unlayeredtypesof colluviumin whichlargerstones and boulderscan evenbe embedded. Undervegetation, onlylimitedformsof rain-splasherosionoccur,and erosionis normally theresultof accelerated The exposureof a B horizonis therefore slowerthansoil formation. soil erosion,oftentriggeredby sparse vegetationcover resultingfrom(over)-grazingby or ploughingby man. Agricultural domesticanimals,deforestation, expansionhas resultedin in erraticbutintense basin.An increase,however, intenseerosionall overtheMediterranean in otherwise rain-showers semi-aridconditionswillalso lead to an increasein erosion.Intense neverbe ruledoutcompletely. erosionofclimaticorigincan therefore Theformationofpalaeosols

Eroded materialmay be depositeddownslope,coveringformersoil profiles.In thisnewly severalcolluviallayers depositedcolluviuma newABC profilewillform.On somefootslopes someoftheformercharacteristics oftheerodedsoilssuch havebeen deposited,stillretaining as theircolourand theabsenceofcalciumcarbonates.The repeatedcoveringofsoilsleads to ofcomplex,multi-layered theformation palaeosols.In placeswithintheLaconia Surveyarea, colluvial especiallyon gentlyslopingfootslopesand old terraces,more than threedifferent Some ofthemmaybe datedbypotteryand maybe attributed layershavebeen distinguished. to human activitiessuch as wood-clearingand ploughing.Others, especiallythe oldest colluviallayers,mayreflectclimaticchanges.Superimposedalluvialsoilsare presentin some smallervalleys,and appear to coverlargeareas in the Evrótasvalleyand the intermontane alluviallayerscan be distinguished. basinsouthofChrysapha.Oftentwodistinct Soils may show characteristics thatreflectformerclimaticconditionsor ground-water levels.Soilswithan intensered colourwereoftenformedduringperiodsofhightemperature and excessiveprecipitation.Higher ground-waterlevels resultin continuousor seasonal saturationof the soil; thistriggerspedogeneticprocessesresultingin greyishhues and the ofsmallconcretions ofmanganeseand iron.Examplesoftheseindicatorsofformer formation are presentin a coveredpalaeosol near the Evrotasriver.Ground-water levels soil saturation also determinethe flowand depositionof dissolvedmineralssuch as calcium carbonate. Layersof precipitatedcalciumcarbonatehardenupon exposureto the air intopetrocalcic ('carbonate-rock') layersthatlook likelimestone.On the Neogene plateau withinthe survey levels.Today in area, severalpetrocalcichorizonsindicateformerly higherground-water

6o

Chapter2

soil has been eroded,exposingthepetrocalcicwithlargerstones severalplaces the overlying on top. and artefacts The aforementionedpedological indications,however,do not allow accurate dating. studies,usingpollen and wood as datingindicators, Palynologicaland dendrochronological have not been carriedout in thisarea forlack of suitablesitesand materials;neitherhas encountered radiocarbondating.Only in a veryfewplaces were datable potteryfragments more withinexposedsoilprofiles, precisedating(ILL.2.2). permitting INTERPRETING

LAND-FORMS:

THE FORMATION

OF GLACIS

Severalgeomorphological processeshave playedan importantrole in formingthe Laconia creation of 'glacis'- flatland-formswithverysmall angles of slope- is area. The Survey erosional processes.These glacis, therefore,normallyslope largelydue to retrogressive towardsthe river,whereasalluvial terracesslope in a downstreamdirection.Glacis can fromolderalluvialterraces.Usuallytwotypesofglaciscan be therefore easilybe distinguished is characterized The so-calledglacisd'érosion byshallowsoilsand occasionalrock distinguished. directions. The glacisd'accumulation generallyhas outcrops,and sometimesslopesin different ofa glacismayhavebeen deepersoils,and slopestowardstheriver.Sometimestheformation influencedby a harder,nearlyhorizontalgeologicallayeror petrocalciclayer.Examplesof determined thesestructurally glacisare presentneartheMenelaion(Q360). in the Laconia studyarea. The A minimumof threeglacis levels can be distinguished the smoothing Neogeneplateauis in facta glacisformedin alluvialfandeposits,thusfurther Alongthe easternside of the Evrotastwomoreglaciswere originalgentlyslopingfan-form. formedand then largelyeroded, leaving only relativelysmall remnantslike secondary watersheds pointingtowardstheEvrotas. The Landscape

History

of the Survey Area

geological history a chronological For thepurposeoflandscapereconstruction, sequenceof severaldistinctsoil profilesof differentage has firstbeen established (TABLE2.1). Soil units have been whilethepresenceofartefacts and land-form, on thebasisofsoilcharacteristics differentiated indicatestheirpossibleage.

Section J

J

Originalsurface

*L^^

/^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^SC^i^

II.I.. -2.2.Λ palaeosolon a terracewithpotteryfragments.

Soils and land use potential soil colour(B horizon)

soil unit

limestone(Lia, Lib) Neogene(Nia, Nib) schists(Sia, Sib) glacisι (N3a/S3a) glacis2 (N3b/S3b) alluvialfanlower1 alluvialfanupper(N3b/S3b) basinfilllower1 basinfillupper(L4a)2 colluviumι (N4.C/S4.C)2 colluvium2 (N4.b/S4.b)2 colluvium3 (various)2 colluvium4 (various) riverterrace1 (A2b) riverterrace2 (A2a) riverterrace3 (Aia)

2.5 YR 2.5 YR 2.5 YR 5YR 5 YR-2.5 YR 5 YR-2.5 YR 7-5 YR 2.5 YR 5 YR 2.5 YR 7.5 YR-5 YR 10 YR 10 Y 10 YR 10 Y 10 Y

struc. Ca content

ontop) (oldest artefacts

Bt Bt,slsi Bt Bt,pris. Bt Bt,ang. Bw Ca-, platey Ca+ Ca-, ang. cc, CaCa+, Bw Ca+ Bw,Ca+ Bw,Ga+ none,Ca+

Nl Nl Nl EH LH notfound Cl notfound
61

est.age

pre-Pliocene Pliocene pre-Pliocene Pleistocene Pleistocene
1 Onlypresentas coveredpaleosol. 2These unitsare representative. 3 Older artefacts encountered on theseunitsmaybe ofallochthonous origin. Basinfillsare twodistinct layersofalluviumfoundS ofChrysaphain a nearlyflatbasin. Key Bt Bw slsi pris. ang. Ca+ Ca< >

textureΒ colourΒ slickensides (shinysoilsurfacesformedbyfrequent rubbing,caused byswelling) structure prismatic angularstructure withCaCO, withoutCaCO, earlierthan laterthan

Table 2.1.The mostimportant diagnosticsoilunits.

The limestone hills,schisthills,and Neogeneplateau

The Laconia studyarea is partoftheSpartavalley,whichhas a complexgeologicalhistory. As Bachmannand Rischassume,1thevalleywas formedby important tectonicsubsidenceofthe pre-Pliocenelandscape.The loweringof the valleybottomwas accompaniedby the heavy erosionof the adjacentslopesand the depositionof slope materialin thevalley.Duringthis tectonicsubsidencea marinetransgression tookplace,inundating thevalley;consequently, the base oftheMenelaionconsistsofmarinedepositsofPlioceneage. These marinedepositswere coveredbyalluvialfandepositsofvarioussourcesduringat leastthreesuccessivephases.2This complexofveryold alluvialfansis called the'Neogene'. Some ofthewater-divides presentin thelimestone(Li units)and theschists(Si units)are consequently olderthantheNeogene. 1 G.-H. Bachmann and H. Risch, Die geologische Entwicklung der Argolis-H albinsel (Peloponnes,Griechenland)(Geologisches

B 32; Stuttgart, Jahrbuch, 1979). 2 A. Panagos,G. Pe, and N. Kontopoulos,Analysisof the

sedimentsofAfissos,Sparta',Bulletin oftheGeological Society of Greece (Δελτίοτης 'ΕλληνικήςΓεωλογικήςΕταιρείας),12.2 (1976),3-28.

62

Chapter2

LANDSCAPE HISTORY Glacis of theEvrotasvalley

Afterthe formationof a large alluvial fan (the Neogene), threesuccessivestagesof glacis occurred.The oldestlevelledtheNeogenealluvialfan;duringit,variouspetrocalcic formation wereformedon were formed.At the same time,or afterwards, U-shapedvalley-heads layers similarto theoriginalfan-shapeoftheNeogene. theNeogeneplateau,withan orientation be The latertwoglacislevelsmaycoincidewithVita-Finzi's'olderfill',and maytherefore datedto theend ofthePleistocene.These glacisare situatedwellbelowtheNeogeneplateau, Bintliff and are separatedfromit by a steepcliff, probablyformedby recenttectonicactivity. in theSpartavalleywererestricted to moundsofNeogene settlements noticedthatprehistoric parentmaterialsurroundedby 'youngerfill',dated by Vita-Finzito AD 400.3 These mounds in Neogenematerial,and are appear to coincidewiththelatterstagesof glacisdevelopment the date than the formation of of a much later Neogeneitself. consequently Alluvialfans and terraces

intothevalleyoftheEvrotas,whichoriginates There is a complexofalluvialfans,protruding Its formationhas at least two distinctphases,as can be fromvarioussmallerriver-valleys. earlierthan froman olderpalaeosol. Its surfaceis nowherestrewnwithartefacts interpreted and maycoincidewithVita-Finzi's theBronzeAge. It maybe the resultofhumanactivities, youngerfill(above). Vita-Finzi'sfillshave been stronglydisputedby severalauthors,who The youngeralluvial indicatethatan anthropogenic origincannotbe ruledout completely.4 as a similar to the Lower be of date Flamboura, distinguished by van Andel and phase may othersand dated300-50 BC. basin southof Chrysapha,which A similaralluvialdepositis presentin the intermontane was also formedduringat least two phases. The two deposits,however,need not be of a similarage. This meansthatmostoftheflat,lowerpartsofthemainvalleyand basin,where alluviumcould have been deposited,have been coveredtwiceduringthe period of human occupation. riverterraceshavebeen formedalongtheEvrotas.The youngest Threedifferent maybe no to morethan 200 yearsold, the oldestno morethan500-700 years,according pedogenetic characteristics.In places, ancient artefactshave been found on the upper terrace; it is thattheywerepartofsoilbroughtin fromelsewhereand used forlevelling probable,however, up and soilimprovement. The presenceofcolluvium

An old, reddish,weatheredcolluvium(colluvium1) is presenton someofthelesssteepslopes; its highcontentof stonesand gravelpointstowardsa periodof severeerosion,probablyof soil structure climaticorigin.The red colour(2.5 YR) and well-developed implya date much older than the Neolithic.Its thicknessin generalexceeds50 cm, and can exceed 1 m. It is butnotin a positionbelow foundmainlyas a palaeosolin theNeogeneand schistformations, theglacislevels. 3 BintlifT, NaturalEnvironment.

4 e.g. T. H. van Andel,C. N. Runnels,and K. O. Pope, 'Five thousandyearsof land use and abuse in the southern Argolid,Greece', Hesp.55 (1986), 103-28;J. M. Wagstaff,

of some problemsin the interpretation 'Buriedassumptions: the "youngerfill"raisedby recentdata fromGreece',JAS 8 (1981),247-64.

Soils and land use potential 63

At least two, sometimesthree,later colluvial layers have been formedthat may be attributedto human activities.Oftenseverallayersare presenton older terracedslopes. Van Andel and othersarguethatin recenthistorythereis no evidenceforclimaticchanges in Greece thatcould account forstrongerosionand colluviation.The thicknessof these youngercolluviallayersin the Laconia Surveyarea rangesbetween20 and 50 cm. The presenceoflayersofveryfinegravelindicatesthatsome colluviumhas been depositedby a Some showtracesofRoman potteryofAD 200-300, whileothers successionofsheet-floods. are probablynot olderthan300 BC (see TABLE2.1). Only a limitednumberof exposuresof earliercolluviallayershave been found,so no coherentpicturecan be the aforementioned drawnoftheirfullcoveragein the area. The youngestcolluvium(colluvium4) coverslarge areas ofthefootslopesand valleysbetweentheglacisin theEvrotasvalley,and is stillin the processof formation.It may be expectedthat earliersites,such as those of Bronze Age date, could have been buried by one or even several colluvial phases, especially on to explainthe absence of footslopesand in colluvialvalleys.This, however,is not sufficient whichare mucholder.Erosionmayhave taken BronzeAge sitesfromtheglacisthemselves, away sites fromthe smallerremnants,but not fromthe veryflatbroader glacis in the Evrotasvalley(TABLE2.2). The chronological and geomorphological levels found correspond with the levels by Bachmannand Risch. The middleglacis level correspondsin heightand distinguished withtheleveloftheacropolisofSparta. formation THE ROLE OF HUMANS IN LANDSCAPE HISTORY Landscape historybeforetheappearanceofhumans

date fromthe Pliocene(Neogene As can be deducedfromtheabove,mostof theland-forms to Pleistocene and (lowerglacislevels)periods.The alluvialfandepositsin the glacis) plateau Evrotasvalleyand the riverterracesare exceptions.In termsof allocatedvolume,the oldest a fargreatermass of erodedmaterialthanthe more colluvium(layer1) probablyrepresents colluvium. of recentand thinner layers Erosionand depositioncaused byhumans

Some yearsago, extensivestudieswere carriedout in the southernArgolidin the northa chronologyof easternPéloponnèse.Using moderndatingtechniquesand detailedsurvey,

Bachmannand Risch

estimated age

Laconia soil units

upperglacissystem

Quaternary upperPliocene/early

Neogeneplateau(Nia-b; N2a-b); corresponding (Sia-b; Lia-b)

erosionaldepositsand structural terraces

latePleistocene

(Sßa; Lßa) upperglacis(Nßa); corresponding

terraces erosionalfoothill

late Pleistocene

middleglacis(Nßb; S3D)

terraces intruding

LH/C1

alluvialfandeposits(N3C)and basinfill(L4a)

alluvialterraces

Ott/recent

alluvialterraces(A2a-b)

in chronological Table 2.2. Different land-forms order,accordingto Bachmannand Risch(1979)and in theLaconia Survey.

64

Chapter2

an analogouschronology datableeventswas established.5 However,establishing solelyon the basis ofB-horizoncharacteristics wouldbe speculativeand bound to fail:precipitation varies, and parentmaterialsdiffer withrespectto weatherability and ironcontent.Furthermore, the in in the is based on alluvial which are absent the Argolid entirely layers, chronology largely Laconia Surveyarea. two different to sheet-flood typesof alluvium,attributed Pope and van Andel distinguish and gullyerosion respectively.These are thoughtto be representativeof overgrazing, and the total collapse of terracesystemsbecause of land abandonmentor deforestation, neglectin periodsofpoliticalunrestor economicdecline.Bothtypeshave also been observed withincolluviallayersin the Laconia Surveyarea. Erosional eventsattributedto human activityand distinguishedby Pope and Van Andel are (1) the seventeenthto twentieth centuriesAD (Kranidhi),(2) the Middle Byzantine(upperFlamboura),(3) 300-50 BC (lower The last is thoughtto represent the result Flamboura),and (4) £.2500-2000BC (Pikrodhafni). ofthefirst majoragricultural expansionin thearea. A comparisonbetween the Argolidand the Laconia Surveyarea on the basis of soil in parentmaterialand climate.Most is notpossible;theareas are too different characteristics of the man-influenced alluvial events,however,have causes of regionalorigin.Declining Mediterraneaneconomiesand politicaldisturbances may also have influencedland use and erosionin thecentralpartofthePéloponnèse. The possibleimpactoftheEarly Helladic agriculturalexpansion

Some of the alluvialfansand colluviallayerspresentin the Laconia Surveymay therefore have similarcauses and dates of origin.The loweralluvialfan,now covered,as well as the loweralluviallayerof the basin fill,may have been formedduringthe same period as the Pikrodhafni. Some of the older colluvium(layer2) may have been formedduringthe same in As the Argolidduringthisperiod,a fairnumberof Early Helladic sitesin the period. Laconia Surveyarea may indicatean agricultural expansion,followedby a reductionin the numberofsitesin theMiddleHelladicperiod.MostoftheBronzeAge sitesfoundare situated in a positionupstreamof the alluvialfancomplex,in an area of whatare nowadayseroded and truncatedsoilprofiles. of EH siteshave notbeen occupiedsince,which Nearlyone-third as a resultoferosion. indicate that these sites have become unsuitable may The possibleimpactoftheclassical agriculturalexpansion

The upper alluvial fan and upper basin fillmay have been formedduringand afterthe similarto the formation of the lowerFlamboura,a period classicalperiodin circumstances thatsaw a rapidincreasein the numberof sites.Moreover,a declinein sitesduringthe late hellenisticto Roman period can be seen in the Laconia Surveyarea (Chapter 6), and, a large numberof the archaic and classical siteson the Neogene were not furthermore, afterwards (c.50 per cent).The drawingof parallelswiththe southernArgolid, reoccupied remains however, speculative,since an accuratedatingof sedimentsin the Laconia area is lacking. Besides provokingerosion, humans have also built terraces; some are doubtless of considerable age. The oldest are on the footslopesof the limestonehills and south of 5 K. O. Pope and T. H. van Andel, 'Late Quaternary alluvial and soil formationin the southernArgolid: its

history,causes and archaeological implications',JAS 11 (1984),281-306.

Soils and land use potential 65

of the land foragriculture mayhave gradually Chrysapha.On the schisthills,the suitability more colluvium. accumulation of with the improved The impactofhumansin recenttimes

Human influence,however,has been verylarge in recentyears.Many slopes,especiallyin the Evrotasvalley,have recentlybeen bulldozedintonew terracesto permitthe expansion of irrigated olive and citrus cultivation. The impact of this bulldozing in terms of landscapingis probablymore extensivethan any impacthuman societieshave had in the lasttwothousandyears. Land Evaluation

and Soil

Suitability

History

land qualities and land use requirements of an area fora given and soil qualitiesdeterminethe suitability Bothland use requirements water of the land is determined The of (a function availability by type agriculture. suitability and soil of climate,soil textureand depth, and sometimesgroundwater),soil fertility, and sometimes content, stoniness, plotsize). (controlled byclay slope, workability and evaporation Precipitation

is crucial. In Mediterranean climateswitha pronounceddryseason,soil moistureavailability mm with less than in to c.8oo is 630 mm in per year, Precipitation Sparta reported average one in fouryears.The averageannualrainfallforAphysou,whichis only2 or 3 kmnorth-east betweenOctober of Sparta,is only£.550mm (c.30per centless),and occursdiscontinuously and March. Movingeastwards,precipitation may again increase,thoughdata are lacking. is verysteep,and slightchangesin climaticconditionsmay This gradientin precipitation resultin large changesin agriculturalproduction,renderingvariousrain-dependent crops unreliableand unsuitable. radiation,and wind.Temperatures vary Evaporationis largelycontrolledby temperature, of 300-400 m mayaccountfora temperature withexposureand height.A heightdifference in averagedailywind fallof 1-3 °C and a drop of 6-8 per centin evaporation.Differences in classesbetween0-2 and 2-5 metresper secondmay also accountfora similardifference between and sites. Maximum differences between sheltered exposed exposed evaporation where difference valleysand sheltered plateauxare expectedto be £.20per cent,an important in the area. is as study precipitation low, therefore varywithinthestudyarea. Althoughclimatological Evaporationand precipitation lower data are lacking,thehigher,easternpartsof the area maybe expectedto have slightly than the lower and are therefore less and 'dry' temperatures probablyhigherprecipitation, are forests to the Evrotas. Several zones near up 400 m, agro-climatic present:evergreen parts semi-deciduousat 400-550 m, and deciduous forestsat 550-850 m. These zones largely activities. coincidewithdifferent agricultural Wateravailabilityand soil water-retention capacity

and The amountofwateravailableforplantgrowthdependslargelyupon rainfalldistribution of most shallow soils is less than The water-retention soil water-retention capacity. capacity deep soilsitrangesfrom 50 mm,or at most100mm,forloamycolluvium.Amongmoderately mm mm and coarser soils to for soils. for 150 50 sandy stony loamy Deep, loamysoilsmay

66

Chapter2

have a water-retention capacity of more than 300 mm. With discontinuous rains, and precipitationvaryingbetween 400 and 800 mm, and with the water requirementsof many agriculturalcrops exceeding 300-450 mm, soil water-retentioncapacity is a very important factor,more so than differencesin evaporation. Most shallow soils, especially in exposed positions,are thereforeunsuitable for agriculture and are covered with shrubs and patchy grasses. With respect to agriculture the most favourablesoils are: (1) Fine-texturedcolluvial footslopesand older terracesin the limestonearea, and colluvial soils in between the glacis of the Neogene and schist area; also some of the U-shaped valleysin the Neogene plateau. (2) Un-eroded, deeper soils on the broader water-dividesand on slightlysloping terrain, especiallyon schistsand Neogene. The (3) easily rootable, but less loamy and nutritious,soils of the siltstonesand alluvial terraces.These are suitable fortree crops. (4) Soils within reach of ground water, such as the lower alluvial terraces, the fringesof alluvial valleys,and soils near seepage zones. These are suitable fordeep-rootingtrees. of many upper and steeper slopes has oftendeterioratedas a result of erosion. The fertility The impact of erosion is mainly feltas a decline in the water-retentioncapacity of the soil, since usually the weathered,loamy,upper soil has been lost. Land use requirements (TABLE 2.3)

The erraticrainfallrepresentsa seriousconstrainton manyformsof rain-fedagriculture, rainfall. ofwheat,whichrequiresat least250 mmofwell-distributed exceptforthecultivation it be limited because of more than have a of cereals 150days; may growing-season Manytypes temperaturesare too low (below 6-10 °C) or too high (above 25-30 °C), or because of moisture. insufficient Olive grovesmay be presentat less than 200 mm of The olive is verydrought-resistant. and are mostlyfoundat 400-600 mm. The optimumis £.800mm,and annualprecipitation, and frost rainfall.Olive-treesare sensitiveto waterlogging productionfallswithdiminishing are with olive-trees frost increases incidence of Since the height, during flowering. at altitudesofup to 850 m in thispartofGreece(see Chapter3). Wheat,barley, encountered as determinedby tables.Workability, to higherground-water and oats are medium-tolerant in thepastthanit is stoniness and plotsize,maybe expectedto havebeen lessofa constraint todayformechanizedagriculture. GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY OF THE SURVEY AREA

is present,rangingfrom Withinthe Laconia Surveyarea, a steep gradientin precipitation rainfallamountstoo smallformanyrain-fedcrops(< 400 mm) to sufficient (> 750 mm).In withinthe in therain-shadows addition,a slightchangein climaticconditions maylead to a shift allow and thereby Spartavalley.This willlead to an enormouslocal increasein precipitation, withlimitedriskof crop failure.These climaticchanges, mosttypesof rain-fedagriculture, in cannotbe recognized however, maynotbe noticeableon a widerregionalscale,and therefore to make.The difficult are therefore pollendiagrams.Estimatesof the generalland suitability willbe based upon of the land foragriculture of the generalsuitability following description and agricultural and uponpresentvegetation actualamountsofprecipitation practices.

Soils and land use potential

67

in limestone Hills,ridges, andfootslopes

Isolated hillsof massivelimestoneare foundin the northernpart of the studyarea. They and steep to moderatelysteepslopes thatoftencurve normallyfeaturebroad water-divides and in pocketson thewater-divides, are The soilson thesefootslopes, intocolluvialfootslopes. In in viewoftheirhighwateravailability and nutrient content. many excellentforagriculture have been laid out in terraces,probablymanycenturiesago. In places places thesefoothills whereterracewalls have been eroded away recently,palaeosols of considerableage are In thesepositions,erodedsoil materialis easilytrappedand manyerosion-cumencountered. sedimentation incisions,steepto verysteepslopes phasescan be observed.Near fault-induced wereformed,onlythinlycoveredwithsoil. The scatteredlimestoneunitsare underlainby schistformations, renderingthemunstablenear the edges and eventuallycreatingsmall, All suitablesoilsare coveredwitholive-trees. water-sources. temporary moreeasilyweatherable, and consequently ofChrysaphaa lessconsolidated, To thesouth-west and marls.Broad is found,showingalternating formation lessstablelimestone layersoflimestone withgood deep soilsdo but colluvialvalleysand footslopes are less prominent, water-divides flatintermontane basinis found, southofthesurvey area an almosttotally occur.In theextreme because colluvialand alluviallayers.In placesthesoilsaremoderately filledwithdifferent suitable, on betterarablepalaeosols.In thisarea, too, of stonyalluviumnear the surfacesuperimposed Withintheintermontane olive-trees basin,cerealsmaybe growninwetter years. predominate. limestonemountainsnot farto the east generatesemi-perennial The massivecrystalline bodies wheretheytouchupon less permeablemarlsand schists; streamsand ground-water these water resourcesmay help to extend the growingseason. The mountainsare also responsibleforslightlyhigherprecipitationand lowerevaporation,makingconditionsfor lessharshnearChrysapha. agriculture The land systemoftheschistsand quartzites

of easilyweatheredlayersof schist, Almosthalfof the studyarea consistspredominantly and quartzites.These soils are oftenunstable,young,and stony,witha limited siltstones, In steeper suitableforagriculture. water-retention capacitythatrendersthemonlymoderately weathered On water-divides and erode surfaces, deeply gentlysloping easily. positionsthey moreclayeyand moresuitable oldersoilswithreddishhuescan be found,whichare generally Small patchesof limestonealso occur,whichgive rise to more clayeysoils. foragriculture. recentdate. Mostterracesappearto be ofrelatively As a resultof erosion,the suitabilityof the deeper,well-developedsoils more suitedto throughtheages. Treescan easilydevelopan extensiverootmayhavediminished agriculture on these weatherable soils,and are thedominantvegetation.Olive-trees growon most system terraces. Plateau remnants;valleysin JVeogene deposits

The Neogeneconsistsof interlayered sands,and siltsand is heavilydissected, conglomerates, In manyplaces soilformation and water-divides. has remnants leavingonlysmallplateau-like ofpetrocalcichorizonswhichoftenfunctionas cap-rocks(harder givenriseto theformation easilyerodiblestrata)afterthe originaltopsoilhas underlying, layerscoveringand protecting been erodedaway.This impliesthatin placessoilsweremoresuitablein thepast. Soil suitabilitydepends upon the typeof parent material,whichvaries greatlyin the Neogene. In places, clayeysoils suitableforagriculturehave developed,especiallyon the water-divides and the broad valley-headswithcolluvialfills.In the Neogene landscape,the

68

Chapter2 (mm)1 requirements

Naturalvegetation

suitablesoil units2

700-1,050

all exceptshallowsoils(< 300 mm)

barley wheat

300-450 300-450

oats vegetables vineyards

300-450 250-600 450-900

nearlyall soils,butcoarserand shallow soils in units Sia-b, S2a-b, S3a-c, and 84b are less suitableto unsuitable; neitherare youngriverterraces(A2a-b) withlow loam content;withless than 400 mm of precipitationonly deep loamy soils are suitable enough (see vineyards);the same holds for the Neogene plateau, where shallow (on soilsoccuras resultoferosion petrocalcic)and coarse(on conglomerate)

deciduoustrees

Rain-fedcrops

Rain-fedtreecrops

onlydeeper,loamysoilsare suitablesuchas 84b, N4b,I4.b-c and olderterraces

olive

200-1,000

walnuts citrus

700-1,000 600-1,000

nearlyall unitshave potential,exceptforverystonyand shallowsoils in the schistarea, thelowerriverterracesand erodedpartsoftheNeogeneplateau nonewithoutirrigation, exceptwherein reachofground-water nonewithoutirrigation, exceptwherein reachofground-water

800-1,000 600-1,000

notrelevant notrelevant

crops Irrigated

olive citrus

1 forsoils withsmallwaterretentioncapacityand are givenas wateravailabilityforplantgrowth.Particularly Requirements can onlybe metbylargeramountsofrainfall. theserequirements rainfall, irregular 2 Soil at Aphysou.Soils on steepand verysteepslopesand the present is givenat the averageannual precipitation suitability Fromtheviewpointofworkability, river-beds are notconsideredforcerealsand tree-crops. steep strongly slopingto moderately and terracedslopes(unitsS2C,L2C,N2c) are also notconsidered. zonesin thesurveyarea. Table 2.3. Land use requirements and agro-ecological

was probablydeeperthantoday,but it has soil thatcoveredthe higherbroad water-divides eroded gradually,leavingthe heavierstonesand human artefactsbehind.The uppermost partsofthevalleysin theNeogeneare U-shapedcolluvialvalleys.Some ofthesehave loamy, themmoresuitableforagriculture. deepersoilsand are lessexposedto thewind,rendering Glacis and alluvial terracesof thevalleyof theEvrotas

Near the Evrotasvalley,glacishave formedin both the schistand the Neogene formations. The soils are usuallydeep and suitableforagriculture.The alluvial fansmay have been for formedin two main phases,the Early Helladic and classicalperiods.Their suitability At their formation. limited after been soil development has improved, just having agriculture tree for and are suitable for suitable the momentthesesoilsare moderately wheat, cropsin in the have been the Evrotas viewoftheirdepth.This area near past;evidence, irrigated may to speculateaboutthephysicalconditionsoftheformer is lacking.It is difficult valley however, floor,nowcoveredand partiallyeroded. These are Alongthe major river,the Evrotas,severalriverterracescan be distinguished. The sedimentation. dominant a of formed during period newlyincisedformervalleyfloors, The soils of well but are their soils relatively developed. young upperterracesare the oldest; terraces the whereas at suitable theseupper terracesare moderately are, younger present, suitableonlyfortreecrops. withoutanyformofirrigation,

Soils and land use potential 69 Summary

As can be seenfromTABLE 2.3,mostcerealsare criticalcropsin thestudyarea. Shallow,stony, at foragriculture capacitieshaveonlya limitedsuitability youngsoilswithlowwater-retention and are not suitableat less than400 mmper year,which 550 mmper yearoferraticrainfall, mayoccurin largepartsofthestudyarea and in drieryears.The averageannualproduction be expectedto be low,perhapsoftheorderof400-600 kilograms ofwheatcan therefore per hectare.This is lessthanhas been estimatedforBoiotia,whereproductionis assumedto have reachedas muchas 800-1,000kg/ha.6Consequentlythe averagesize of a farmin the study area,withfivepersonsand 50 per centfallow,musthavebeen in theorderof4 ha or morein historical periods,in orderto producea surplusfortheurbanpopulation. Vineyardscan also be consideredmarginaland willbe confinedto deep and loamysoils, can extendtherangeofvines suchas trenching and terracing thoughtechniquesofviticulture to less suitableareas. Olive cultivationwill have to endurereducedproductionwhenever is lessthan400 mm,and especiallyon shallowerand coarsersoils. precipitation is verylimited.Arableland is concentrated The surfacearea ofsoilssuitableforcultivation in thevalleyoftheEvrotasnearAphysou(lessthan500 ha), on theNeogeneplateau(lessthan 500 ha), and near Chrysapha(200 ha). The last area, however,formspart of a largerbasin withmoresuitablesoils.The Neogeneplateau(especiallythesteeperslopesand valleys)and a largepartoftheschisthillsare coveredby shrubsand wildoats,and maybe suitableonlyas Grazinghappenedto be an importantactivityseveraldecades ago, involving grazing-land. areas. betweenvalleysand mountainous seasonalmigration on rainfall distribution is information lacking.There are indicationsthatin the Adequate rainfall increases withaltitude.The actual land use the amount of mountains surrounding treeson schistsin thenorthern showsthepresenceofmulberry partofthesurveyarea. Some cereals and vegetablescan be foundon well-developedschistsoils throughoutthe area. Agriculturalproductionin the past was probablylow and unreliable.The agricultural potentialof the easternpart of the Evrotasvalley,and on similarsoils near Sparta,can be to be twicethatofthesurveyarea. estimated Interpreting

Site Patterns

the presence of artefacts and sites whichyieldeda The studyarea has been surveyedforartefactsby intensivefield-walking, of When no artefacts were of sites different found,theymayneverhavebeen periods. pattern the land has been because unsuitable;however,artefacts mayonce have been always present or over. but afterwards eroded covered present Erosionmayhave occurredon steepand moderately steepslopes;it is notverylikelythat from the flat water-divides and broaderglaciswithout sites have been washed away complete trace. The of artefacts found on pattern steeperslopesmostlyhad an elongated leavingany sitestheelongationmaybe oftheorder forolderhistorical formwitha downslopeorientation; thatlargerartefacts are farlessmobilethansoilparticles.However,very of20-40 m,indicating old sites,notablyof Neolithicor BronzeAge date,mayhave been erodedaway fromsteeper Fragments maybe presentonlyin remaining patchesofold slopes,leavingno tracesofpottery. (>Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition'.

70

Chapter2 Ml

EH

MH

LH

Cl

HI

Schists

waterdivide mod. slopes

2

2

6

l9

25

■φ*

5 31

0«

I

1

18

4

1

Limestone

waterdivide mod.slopes coll + terr.

1

Neogene

waterdivide mod.slopes

1

3

1

Glacisand alluvialfans waterdivides alluvial fans basin fill

3

1

1

21

8

3

2

1

1

1

3

2

1

!5 8

12

II

2

4

5

38

18

13

!3

*5

1

9 7

2

14

16 8 4

*9 5

8

1?

1?

104

103

1

!9

I

8

I

7

11

2

4

I

Alluvialterraces

upperterrace middleterr. lowerterr.

Totalsites

2

33

18

*3

132

66

7

Tablk 2.4. Approximate numbersoffindspots on themorestablesoilunits.

soils.7In fact,on somevalleyspursoftheNeogenetheoriginalsoilhas probablybeen washed ofartefacts ofpottery remain.The covering whilelargerfragments byalluvium awaycompletely or colluvium mayhavehappenedon colluvialslopes,on terracedslopes,and underalluvialfans area.The numberof Withinthesurvey thesesoilunitscovera substantial and basinfills. territory havebeenunderestimated. and on valleyterraces oldersiteson footslopes maytherefore LAND SUITABILITY

AND ARTEFACT

PATTERNS

(TABLE

2.4)

Generally,with increasingdemographic pressureless suitable siteswill be occupied. The areal distribution, especiallyon marginalsoil units,thereforegivesa strongindicationof demographic on natural resources.About the surveyarea the followingremarkscan be made. pressure are found on the Neogene plateau and, in places, in the limestone Neolithic artefacts (1) area. The number of sites,however,is too small to justifyany statementsabout occupational preferences.Similarlylow densitiesof Neolithic siteshave been encounteredby others.8 (2) A firstpeak in the number of sites occurs during the Early Helladic period, with the emphasis upon the Neogene water-divides(Nia, Nib). The occupation of the schistarea and glacis near the Evrotas valley duringthe Neolithic and the Early,Middle, and Late Helladic is stillvery limited compared with later periods of occupation. The Evrotas valley during the Early Helladic period may have been either too wet and thereforeconducive to diseases, or too dry for most crops, while the Neogene plateau offeredbetter conditions. Some Early 7 See e.g. J. F. Cherry,J. L. Davis, A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani,T. F. Strasser,and L. Talalay,'Archaeological landscape: a Middle Neolithic surveyin an artifact-rich

examplefromNemea,Greece',AJA92 (1988),159-76. 0 e.g.bintlinand önodgrass,boeotianExpedition.

Soils and land use potential

71

Helladic sites,however,may have been presentbut later buried by colluvium or eroded away, since most Middle and Late Helladic sitesappear to be severelyeroded on these soil units. (3) The Neogene plateau is again importantin the late archaic-early classical period, but its (relative)importancediminishesafterwards.A verylarge proportionof Bronze Age siteswere not reoccupied during the classical period, and many classical sites were not used during the hellenisticperiod. Many Early Helladic artefactsare found in places that must be considered unsuitable for agriculture today. It must thereforebe assumed that this area has seriously deterioratedas a resultof erosion. (4) With the exception of the alluvial fan, most soil unitslike the glacis date back beforethe Neolithic. The absence of Bronze Age artefactson these soil units cannot be attributedto soil characteristicsalone; perhaps climaticconditions,strategicconsiderations,or settlementtypes can explain it. (5) During the hellenistic and Roman periods the schist and glacis areas become more important.These schistsoils are mainly suitable forthe cultivationof trees,such as olive and mulberry, preferablyon terraces.

Discussion

and Conclusions

the impact of humans The Laconia studyarea has witnessed severalstagesoflandscapedevelopment. The alluvialfans in theEvrotasvalley,as wellas threecolluvialphases,mayhavebeen formedduringand after BronzeAge occupationand caused by human activities.During or shortlyafterthe Early Helladicand thelater,latearchaic-earlyclassicalexpansionofagriculture, erosionmayhaveled ofalluvialfansand colluviallevelsand thelossofsuitablesoils,especiallyin the to theformation manysoilsin the schist Neogeneplateauand thebasinfillsouthof Chrysapha.Furthermore, a area deteriorated the classical as result of as can be seenfromthemany erosion, during period soilprofiles. The riverterraces wereprobablyformedaftertheByzantine truncated period. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SURVEY TERRITORY AS AN AGRICULTURAL AREA

The mostsuitablesoils,deep and of heavytexture,are foundon colluvialfootslopesand on Arablesoilsoccupya relatively smallpartof the surveyarea. The thebroaderwater-divides. soilson theNeogeneplateauweremoresuitablein thepast.The alluvialfansprobablycover more suitable,maturesoils. Rainfallis erraticand slight,and the cultivationof cereals in particularmusthavebeen uncertain.Agricultural productionwas unreliableand low,and far lowerthanin thecomparablearea closeto and westofSparta. SETTLEMENT

DIFFERENCES?

artefactpatternsis slightlyhamperedby erosion and sedimentation,which Interpreting remove and coverolderartefacts. The presenceof older occupationphases will respectively tendto be underestimated. The area has undergoneat leasttwodistinct phasesofagricultural The first took the Helladic and concentrated on theonce deep expansion. place during Early soils on the Neogene plateau, thoughothersoils were suitableas well. Aftera period of abandonmenta second expansiontookplace duringthe late archaic-earlyclassicalperiod; but also the schistarea and the Evrotasvalley, again the Neogene plateau was preferred, whichhad not been extensively before. It is not knownhow farclimaticvariation occupied have this may governed preference.

3

OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF LACONIA OliverRackham This WORKcomprisesthebotanicalstudycarriedout in Augustand September1984as part of the workof the Laconia Survey.1 Much of the surveyarea consistsof wild vegetationof some ecologicalinterest;but in orderto includea widerand more representative rangeof thebotanicalstudywas extendedto a muchlargerarea ofsome 80 by 30 plantcommunities, withadjacentpartsofArkadiaand km,coveringall ofLaconia exceptthesouth-east, together itseasternplain.(The Arkadianpartwas revisited byDr J.A. Moody and theauthorin 1985.) The wildvegetation whichis thesubjectofthisstudyformerly coveredabout halfofLaconia, buttheproportion is rapidlyincreasing.2 The Land of Laconia Laconia (ILL. 3.1) consistsof the basin of the riverEvrótas,lyingbetweenthe two great mountain ranges of Taygetos and Párnon. The plain of Sparta is the only large, continuouslycultivatedarea, about 10 by 4 km. The restof the lowlandsis of hillyand ratherrugged topography,with Pliocene conglomeratesand marls, Older Fill, andespeciallyin the north- tractsof hard limestone.There are frequentsmall plains and pocketsofcultivablesoil. The Taygetosmountainsriseveryabruptlyand reacha heightof2,407m (ILLS3.14-15).In manyplaces theyrisein twostages:a lowerrangeof cliffsrisesto a terrace-like highlandat All the such as with about 1,000m, carrying the behind them. villages Anavryti, upperslopes are hard but rocks and are abundant at the lower limestone, metamorphic higherpeaks flysch and middleelevations, to about m. Mt Parnon is more and less 1,500 up abrupt,a complex of foothills and with much most of the tangle valleys metamorphicrock,although higher In thenorththestudyarea extendsintothegreatinlandbasinofTripolis peaksare limestone. withitskarstsinkholessuchas Lake Táka. (Tripoli,formerly Tripolitsa), 1This in 1986,and takesno written chapterwas originally accountof laterchangesin the landscape.Though updated, it has not been fullyrevised to incorporatesubsequent advancesin knowledge. The photographs weretakenin 1984. Formorerecentworkin thisfield,see O. RackhamandJ. A.

Moody, The MakingoftheCretanLandscape(Manchester, 1996); A. T. Grove and O. Rackham, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe:An EcologicalHistory(New Haven, Conn., 2001).

2 The studywas conducted on similarlines to that of Boiotia in 1979-81;see O. Rackham,Observationson the historical ecologyofBoeotia',BSA 78 (1983),291-351and pis

34-8. Many of the vegetationtypesare similar,although Laconia is more complex than Boiotia. I shall also draw parallels with observations made when I took part in archaeologicalsurveysand projectsin Korinthía(Neméa:J. C. Wright, J. F. Cherry),Macedonia (Grevená:Ν. Wilkie), and Crete (Myrtos:P. M. Warren; Chaniá: J. A. Moody; Vrókastro: Β. Hayden;and theSphakiáSurvey:J. A. Moody, in Southern L. Nixon,S. Price),and in the 'Desertification Europe' projectin Crete (A. T. Grove,V. Papanastasis).I have receivedmuch help fromdirectorsand colleagueson theseprojects,especiallyΑ. Τ GroveandJ.A. Moody.

74

Chapter3

III. 3.1. Places mentionedin thetext(D. Taylor).

Historical ecology 75

Laconia is quite richin cliffsand gorges,whichare importantin the studyof vegetation becausetheycontainareas too steepforgoatsto climb.Some ofthesein Taygetos,suchas the GreatLangáda and the Gorge of Paróri,are comparableto the gorgesof Crete.There are other gorges in Parnon and a few in the interveninglowlands. A gorge (φαράγγι) is whichlacks cliffs.All Laconian gorgesare in froma ravine(ρε(ύ)μα,ré(v)ma) distinguished hardlimestone. In itspresentsettlement patterntheregionis dividedabruptlyintoa populouswesternhalf and an emptyeasternhalf.On theTaygetosside,despitethe mountainousterrain,thereis a and ruggedfertility. To thesouth smallvillageon averageevery3 km;thisis a land ofterracing characteristic of the northern farmsteads thismergesintothe hamletsand isolated,fortified Máni. In thelowlandsand on theParnonside,villagesare biggerand are spaced about 6 km difference. Althoughthe apart.This appearsto be a cultural,ratherthanan environmental, showthateveryeffort east is morearidand lesscultivablethanthewest,remainsofterracing has been made to use the land fully.When the villageswere fullyoccupied,the difference was probablynotgreat. betweeneastand westin populationpersquarekilometre Fieldwallsare common,buthedgesinfrequent. have declinedin Laconia, overthe last thirty yearsor so, to a Farmingand shepherding in is a fromthesteeper, Greece known to me. There retreat than else extent anywhere greater and morearid soils.On mostof the Parnonside littlebut olivesand fruittreesis lessfertile, one can go farwithoutseeinga ploughedfieldor terrace,or a goat.There is now cultivated; ratherlessdeclineon Taygetos.Only aroundSpartahas thecultivatedarea been maintained. the remotevillageof Vérroiain Sometimesthisgoes withdepopulation,but not necessarily; Parnonis utterlydeserted,but the more remotePolydroso(formerly Tzitzina)mysteriously Even the irrigatedAphysoudoes not have agriculture retainsan air of modestprosperity. withitspopulation. commensurate are turningintowoodland.This increase Vastareas ofland,no longergrazedor cultivated, not to ofwildvegetationis offset, anylargeextent,by forestry plantationson former though and Vlachokerasiá.3 in Ioánnis the of Theológos,Vasarás, roughland parishes Agios CLIMATE

are fewand sincestatistics fromthevegetation, The climateof Laconia can bestbe inferred main with warm wet winters It is of Mediterranean (the growing type, unsatisfactory. mostly season)and hotdrysummers. In temperature, Sparta is exactlythe same as lowlandBoiotia:Januarymean 9 °C, July mean 21 °C. Gytheiois probablya littlewarmer.Slightfrostsoccurin mostyears,but severe are confinedto highaltitudes.Spartahas occasionalsnow-daysand once had a frostof frosts which -6 °C.4In 1805therewas a frostnearMonemvasiaas late as 1 April.5Olive cultivation, to never be a more severe than that there should frost -13 °C, goes up 850 m in requires at has no is for Greece.6 The which olives,but Parnon, unusuallyhigh Tripolisplain, 700 m, be a frost hollow. remote from the and also has harder sea, winters, may being probably ι Fordetailsof similarchangesin Cretesee O. Rackham, 'The greeningof Myrtos',in S. Bottema,G. Entjes-Nieborg, and W. van Zeist (eds),Alan'sRolein theShaping oftheEastern Mediterranean (Rotterdam, Landscape 1990),341-8. 4 A. Philippson,Die griechischen Landschaften (repr.Frankfurt am Main, 1989),iii.479.

5 Leake, Travels, i. 221. 6 Olives subsidized by the European Communityhave been plantedat 1,000m, but thisdoes not countas serious cultivation.

76

Chapter3

betweenthe'wet' In rainfall, Laconia is bisectedbythegreatdivision(notedbyPhilippson)7 and the'dry'sidesofGreece.The easternhalfoftheprovince,exceptforParnon,is semi-arid, like Boiotia. The westernhalfhas muchmorelush vegetationwithcontinuousmaquis and manymoisture-demanding plants.The dividingline is oftenveryabrupt;forinstance,it can in Arkadia.Spartalieson the'wet'side; be seento bisectthelimestonemountainAgriokerasiá Aphysou,2 kmaway,on the'dry'side. There is evidentlya systemof rain-excessbeltsand rain-shadowssimilarto thatwhichI havebeen able to inferfromthemuchmorecopiousrainfallrecordsof Crete.8The Taygetos fromwhichthereresults winds,createa rain-excess, mountains, westerly abruptly intercepting a rain-shadowto the east. Several timesin late summerwe witnessedstormson Taygetos soakingSpartabut missingAphysou.Mt Parnonmakesa second,thoughlesser,rain-excess, in an outlierofnon-aridvegetation.The east coast (e.g.Monemvasia)is in a double resulting and is veryarid. rain-shadow, By comparisonwithBoiotia and Crete,the drypart of Laconia shouldhave an annual rainfalloflessthan550 mm;thewetside oughtto have at least800 mm,in places morethan 1,000mm.This is borneout by suchfiguresas I can muster.In 1894-1929 themean annual rainfallat Sparta,neartheedge ofthewetzone,was 817mm;at Gytheio,neartheedge ofthe dryzone,534 mm.9 rainfallfigures forSpartafrom1894to 1981.Because ofgaps in I haveseenofficial monthly ofthoseyears(running fromSeptemberto therecord,annualtotalsare availableforonlyfifty in half In half the total was more than 810 it was less.One yearin the and mm, years August). fourhad a rainfalloflessthan630 mm,and one yearin fourmorethan930 mm.The wettest yearwas 1920-1with1,167mm?tne driestwas 1913-14with270 mm- less thanthetotalfor somesinglemonths,ifthiscan be believed.Most oftherainfellfromOctoberto March,with a maximumin December.Rain was uncommoninJulyor August. tella storyofviolentand erraticrainfall, The statistics varyingmuchfromyearto year.This in rates of is confirmed variations the by growth plants.Wetyearshave becomelessfrequent is at of a climatic but since the region,thesefluctuations may be of recently; Sparta edge in wet and on shifts the between local dryregions, boundary merely significance, depending ratherthanon anychangesin theweatherofthePéloponnèseas a whole. SOILS

In the dryhalfof Laconia thereis littlescope forsoil-forming processes.The climateis not and calcium carbonateis drawn and oxidizing, so thathumusdoes persist any evaporative rossain materials lack Soils consist of clay. pocketsof terra up towardsthesurface.The parent in rocks. As rendzinas on softer ofhardlimestone, or ofill-differentiated fissures Boiotia,soils non-calcareous rocks.Some above even where overlie are typically calcareous(pH 7.0) they 6.1 schistsoilsgo downto pH (myobservation). In the wet half,soils are betterdeveloped,especiallyat high altitudes.There is some tendencyto formbrownearths,as in centralEurope. Soil aciditydependsmore closelyon whetheror not therockis acid. On schistsoilsin the mountains, pH is sometimesas low as Greek standards. 5.0,whichis unusuallyacid by

7 Philippson(n. 4), 415. On the climate,see Chapter 1, pp. 9-11.

8 Rackhamand Moody(n. 1). 9 FiguresafterPhilippson.

Historical ecology 77

III. 3.2. Desertofcrumblyschist,Vervena.It was notedbyPhilippsona centurybefore.

The drierthe climate,the less the vegetationdepends on soil chemistryand the more retainlittlemoisture, and Hard limestones and depthofthesoil.10 thewaterretention important Fill and rainfall. Older is more on the thedegreeto whichtheyare vegetated retentive, depends evenin a dryclimate.However,thenearestapproachto desertin mostschistsarewellvegetated facièsofflysch thestudyarea is in south-eastern Arkadia,on a schisty (ill. 3.2).The climatehere a rock that breaks is but is evidently arid, up intoa sandyscreeand, by verycrumbly aggravated water than limestone. retains even less as Philippson remarked, Modern

Plant

Communities

thereis no trace of the complexzonationof In Laconia, as in southernGreece generally, in middle altitudes which is oftenthoughtto be characteristicof low and vegetation zones.The lowlandsand uplandsare countries. Thereare onlythreealtitudinal Mediterranean ofevergreen treesand shrubs(maquis),deciduoustreesand coveredwithvariouscommunities shrubs,undershrubs (garigue),and grassesand herbs(steppe):nearlyall theplantcommunities withothers.Altitudeplayslittlepartin their describedforBoiotiaare represented here,together at between 800 and there is a rapidtransition to a beltofmountain distribution 1,200m, until, to about m. Above these and firs there is an alpinezone, conifer woods,continuing 1,800 pines on Taygetos11 butofverysmallextenton Parnon.This I shallnotdeal with. extensive 10Rackham of (n. 2); id.,'Land-useand thenativevegetation Greece',in M. Belland S. Limbrey(eds),Archaeological of Aspects Woodland (BAR int.ser.146;Oxford,1982),177-96. Ecology

11 Described by P. Quézel, 'Végétation des hautes 12 (1964), montagnesde la Grèce méridionale', Vegetatio, 289-385.

78

Chapter3

MAQUIS, GARIGUE, AND STEPPE

These are the commonestplant communitiesin Laconia, and closely resemble their in Boiotia.Maquis (λόγγος)consistsof shrubs; thatis to say,of evergreentrees counterparts reduced as and wild form.These are lentisk, olive) bybrowsingto a shrubby (such prickly-oak, of underskrubs: lowand consists long-lived usuallydeep-rooted.Garigue(φρύγανα,phrygand) of the families Cistaceae (e.g. growingwoodyplants,chiefly Leguminosae(e.g.spinybroom), cistus),and Labiatae (e.g.Jerusalemsage), oftenaromatic,whichare relativelyshort-lived, and incapable of growinginto trees.Steppe(λεβάδεια,levádeid) consistsof shallow-rooted, all and herbaceous two of or as these, three,growtogether a mosaic. grasses plants.Usually The typicalLaconian hillsidein summeris a patchworkof dark-greenshrubs,grey-green and yellowsteppe. undershrubs, As in Boiotia,thesecommunities can be describedin termsofproportion, and composition, which are to be moisture. Where determined stature, largelyindependent. Proportion appears by retentive wateris abundant(highrainfall, or northerly soil,good rootpenetration, aspect),there willbe muchmaquisand littlegarigueor steppe.OvermuchofthewethalfofLaconia,maquis an exampleis thearea ofcontinuous is continuous overwideareas,evenon limestone: maquis, severalmilesacross,to thenorthofVoutiánoi.Conversely, to thesouth-east ofAphysouthereis a veryarid tractof garigueand steppewithverylittlemaquis.For an extremeexample,the - the only schist'desert'of Vérvena(ILL.3.2) consistslargelyof bare rockwitha littlesteppe undershrubsare theverydrought-resistant hermanniae and Astragalus Anthyllis sempervirens.

- the species presentin each Composition componentof the mosaic- depends on soil and distance from the sea, and more subtlefactorssuch as mineral composition depth, which cannot as be resolved. nutrition, yet Stature Most maquis turnsintowoodlandifnot browsed;the dependson browsinghistory. surroundinggarigueis oftenreplaced by steppe. From the size and shape of the maquis ofa tractofvegetation can be inferred. bushes,therecentbrowsing history Typesofmaquis Laconian maquis consistof six co-dominant evergreentrees or shrubs.These are interspersed in a wide and continuous range of proportions,but can be reduced to seven series. Four of these are the same as fourof the six seriesof maquis in Boiotia. (1) Oak-Lentisk Series. Quercuscocci/era (prickly-oak,ancient πρίνος, modern πρινάρι or and Pistacia lentiscus Often accompanied by Phillyrea mediaand co-dominant. πουρνάρι) occasional wild olive. One of the common maquis typesof dryLaconia. Not confined(as in Boiotia) to low altitudes:near Vasaras, lentiskreaches the exceptionalaltitudeof 720 m. as sole dominant, either alone or with occasional (2) Pure Oak Series. Quercuscoccifera individualsof other shrubs. Common in dry Laconia, as in Boiotia; also occurs on dry (especiallylimestone)soils in the wet belt. latifoliais more abundant in Laconia than in Boiotia, and (3) Osk-PhillyreaSeries. Phillyrea in about one-thirdof the dry maquis is co-dominantwith Quercuscoccifera. Distinctlyless arid than (2); oftenaccompanied by small amounts of arbutus. (4) Arbutus Series. Arbutusunedoco-dominant with prickly-oakor Phillyrea;many other shrubs, some of them deciduous, present in small quantities as well (ILL. 3.3). As in Boiotia, this is the common maquis of water-retaining, chieflymetamorphicsoils, both in the wet and the drybelts. On the wet side of Laconia it occurs on limestoneas well. I regard the occurrence of arbutuson limestoneas an indicatorof non-aridity.

Historical ecology 79

Arbutus unedo and Quercus nearAphysou.Note patchesofgarigueand III. 3.3. Maquis ofco-dominant coccifera, steppein gaps.

unedo;oftenno othershrubs. (5) Erica-ArbutusSeries. Erica arbóreaco-dominantwithArbutus wet and dry belts. An outlierof schist soils or near the between Scattered on boundary in is the west of the island. a Cretan plant communitywhich extensive with Erica arbórea;usually littleor no arbutus. Fairly (6) Oak- Erica Series. Quercuscoccifera common in northernLaconia in similarsituationsto the above. Not recordedin Boiotia. andrachne co-dominant withArbutusunedoand Quercuscoccifera. (7) Andrachne Series. Arbutus

A luxuriant, well-watered typeofmaquis,rarebothin Boiotiaand Crete.Occasionalin north-eastern Laconia, just insidethe wet belt,usuallyon limestone.(Andrachneis morewidespreadas a clifftree.)

The coastalOak- Olive andJuniperus phoenicea maquisofBoiotiaand Cretewerenotrecorded in Laconia; at Gytheio,theOak-Lentiskand PureOak seriesgo rightto thesea. In Laconia, unlikeBoiotia,mostmaquis containa smallproportionof deciduousshrubs. but Technicallythismakesthem'pseudomaquis',thehigher-altitude maquisoftheBalkans,12 thereis no tendencyfordeciduousshrubsto be morefrequentat higheraltitudesin Laconia. The driermaquis,especiallyOak-Lentisk,are associatedwithwildpear [Pyrus amygdaliformis) . Pear, indeed, is the most drought-tolerantof all and hawthorn(Crataegusheldreichii) Peloponnesiantrees,and scatteredindividualsextendintotheArkadian'desert',whereeven - despitethename,itis notevergreen) fails.Maple (Acer oftengoeswith sempervirens prickly-oak it is nota mountaintreeas in Crete.The arbutusmaquisoftencontainmaple, Oak-Phillyrea; and Cotinus terebinth, Judas-tree, coggygria. 12L. Dalmatiens(Leipzig, 1911); W. B. Turrill,The Plant-life Adamovic, Die Pflanzenwelt oftheBalkanPeninsula(Oxford, 1929).

8o

Chapterj

Maquis in woodland is miniature,and patches of it oftencontainwoody climbers(e.g.

Smilaxasperd)and herbaceous plants (e.g. Brachypodium retusum). Sibljak

On the steep east-facing slopes below the castle of Mystras,the maquis componentof the is vegetation replacedby deciduoustreesand shrubs.The commonesttreesare maple and terebinth. thinly Judas-treeand wild almond are frequent,and hackberry(Ceitisorientalis) scattered. Thereis muchwildalmond.Evergreens are quiteuncommon. (chiefly prickly-oak) - exceptprobablyforthealmond- is nota consequenceofMystras This plantcommunity beinga desertedcity.It is repeatedall overtheouterscreesand talusofthelowerTaygetos,of whichMystrasis a part. A more typicalexample,behindAgios Ioannis,has terebinthcomuchmaple,occasionalCeitisand Paliurus dominantwithJudas-tree and Cotinus, Christi, spinaand sparseindividualsof the uncommonand historically importantLaconian treesOstrya ornus. The deciduoustreesformthemaquiscomponentofa mosaicin and Fraxinus carpinifolia whichthereis abundantgarigue;Jerusalemsage is dominant.Evergreensare limitedto occasionalprickly-oak and Phillyrea, and patchesοι Juniperus oxycedrus (normallya mountain treewhichseldomdescendsso low). It has very Such an assemblageofdeciduoustreesoccursneitherin Boiotianor in Crete.13 littlein common with the deciduous oakwoods to be described later. It does, however, knownby theCroatian approximate verycloselyto theBalkandeciduousshrubcommunities In thearea offormerYugoslaviait termsibljak. Its occurrencehereis somewhatofa mystery. is supposedto be the nextaltitudinalstageabove pseudomaquis.That is not so here:sibljak goes all thewayfrombottomto top oftheAgiosIoannisslope (300-750m),and at thetop is abruptly replacedbyOak-Phillyrea maquis. The sibljaksites,thoughon the wet side of Laconia, are on limestonetalus,screes,and rockswithpoor waterretention but good rootpenetration. The predominantly easterlyand a and the rule out frost-hollow south-easterly aspects, steep slopes, explanation.The high the a of and proportion garigue steppe gives vegetation decidedly arid aspect, but the occasional planes and oleanders indicatethat thereis ground-waterwhich,possibly,the deciduoustreescan reach. NeverthelessI am at a loss to explainwhythesenot especially remarkable slopesshouldnotbe coveredwithPureOak maquis. In theupperpartoftheParorigorge,sibljakis expandingintodisusedoliveterracesto form invadesand becomesco-dominant withprickly-oak, a kindofsecondarysibljak.Ostrya already in the walls. Fraxinus ornus and are and terrace present maple frequent, thereis some Spartium. is on a Clematis is an abundantwoodyclimber.This exceptionalplant community flammula soil more with a blackish limestone-scree rather sunless,NW-facing typicalof deep steep, slope, northern than of Greece. Europe Garigueand steppe

These are of severaldifferent typesof maquis. types,weaklyassociatedwiththe different areJerusalemsage,spinybroom(Calicotome Commondominantundershrubs villosa), Anthyllis associated small of and thyme(Thymus The hermanniae, capitatus). generally pockets garigue or Hypericum withthe arbutus-containing empetrifolium, maquis oftenhave Cistussalvifolius can broom the tall undershrubs Calicotome and junceum) compete (Spartium Spanish although withthelowerstatesofmaquis. 131 haveseenan examplein Korinthia;thereare a fewfragmentary patchesin Parnon.

Historical ecology 81

Steppe includes many grasses such as

Dactylis glomeratassp hispânica and Avena thistles(e.g. Scolymus annual sterilis, hispanicus),

clovers,and otherherbs. Stabilityand change

In Boiotia I argued that the mosaic of maquis,garigue,and steppewas createdby humanactivitiesout ofa previousmosaicof evergreenwoodland and steppe.The chief activities are grazing, woodcutting,and burning(eitheraccidental or deliberatethe latterin orderto improvethe pasture). If thesecease, the mosaic revertsto woodland and steppe(notnecessarilyidenticalto theoriginals). whichcan be seenhereand This reversion, therein Boiotiaand Crete,is almostuniversal in Laconia. Woodcuttingalmost ceased decadesago. In onlya fewplaces,otherthan in the Arkadianpart of the studyarea, are enoughsheepand goatsnowkeptto holdthe maquisin check.In consequence,shrubsare now growingup rapidlyinto treesalmost thestudyarea exceptforArkadia. throughout has been rapid,and has been The reversion favourable yearsin 1982and 1983. helpedby III. 3.4. A prickly-oak at AgiosKonstantinos whichputon For instance,betweenVoutianoiand Sellasia a spurtofgrowthin thefavourable and has year 1983 grewin heightby50 cm in 1982 prickly-oaks reachedthe'get-away'pointat whichitwillturnfroma and 40 cm in 1983insteadoftheusual 10-15 shrubintoa tree. cm a year,whichat once puttheirtopsout of reachofgoats(ILL.3.4). The totalarea thusturningintowoodland,in 1984,amountedto at leasta quarterof the wholeofLaconia. (On a smallerscale,maquiscan turnintodeciduousoakwoodor mountain pinewoodbyinvasion;see below.) The partplayedbyfireis as yetunclear.As in Boiotia,all maquistreesand shrubsare not killedby burning,but sproutfromthebase; manyundershrubs, are killed; notablyCalicotome, in Fires Laconia were are until the later remarkably 1980s(well grasses encouraged. infrequent under1 per centofmaquisper year),butthisstateofaffairs could nothave been expectedto last long,and indeedtherewere extensivefiresin the VoutianoiAphysouarea in 1986 and later.Experiencein Korinthiain 1985 showsthatalthoughGreek vegetation(otherthan inflammableas it looks,well-grown pinewoods)is not as exceptionally maquis nevertheless As Laconia growsup intowoodland,fuelswillaccumulateand firewillplay a burnsmerrily. greaterpartin itsecology.14 14This is happening all round the European Mediterranean: see Grove and Rackham (η. ι), ch. 13.

82

Chapter^ LOWLAND PINEWOODS

The lowlandpinesof Atticaand the northernand westernPéloponnèsedo not extendinto in the studyarea formspart of the mountain Laconia. The only native Pinushalepensis 800 between at about m, Zaraphóna)- an Agriánoi and Kallithéa (formerly pinewoods, anomalyI havenotinvestigated. DECIDUOUS OAKWOODS

In Laconia, as in Boiotia,thereare fourdeciduousoaks: Quercus ζλ Q^frainetto, brachyphylla, whose last is the Valonia Oak The and ζλ (βελανήδι,velanídi), acorn-cups macrolepls. pubescens, are and pubescens articleof commerceas a sourceof tannin.Frainetto used to be an important zone well centralEuropeanoaks,whichin theBalkansare regardedas typicalofan altitudinal are Asianoaks,hereneartheirwesternlimit. and macrolepis abovethemaquis.Brachyphylla it maybe a relicof In Boiotia,macrolepis is a non-woodlandtreeoffieldsand churchyards; The otherthreeoaksare confinedto theValleyoftheMuses,wheretheyformone cultivation. and probablyno smallwood at highelevation.In westernCrete thereis verylittlefrainetto tree of wateris the commonest (and increasing)woodland-forming pubescens^ brachyphylla in the same behaves soils of low and middle altitudes;macrolepis exactly way and retaining oaks has in The of Cretan deciduous of the island. behaviour it one part completely replaces attractedadverse commentand various attemptsto explain away what is regardedas a anomaly.15 phytosociological treein thelowlands Quercus brachyphyllaas afieldand recent-woodland

fieldand villagetree is thecommonest and fruit-trees, Quercus brachyphylla Apartfromcypresses and to be in Laconia. It growsas big as an Englishoak. Its functions firewood, shade, appear of treeshave been croppedforfirewoodby the occasionalbeam or lintel.A largeminority or pollarding.Some ofthebigpollardsare presumably shredding (croppingtheside-branches) severalcenturiesold. Examples are the manypollard oaks and oaken hedges of Kalyvia villageof Verroia;the Theológou;the innumerableshreddedtreesaroundthe near-deserted Nikólaos at and thelone giantpollard of sacred of the Kaltézes; monastery Ágios big pollards m Varvára at of thatstandsbythemountain-top (871 altitude). Anavryti chapel Agia is a veryinvasivetree.Its acornsare transported, Çhiercus bybirdspresumably brachyphylla jays havebeen seen and growin abandonedfarmland.Ifthereare parenttreescloseat hand invaderofold fields(ILL.3.5),followedbypear oak is thestrongest km),brachyphylla (withinV-2 oak. On mostcultivatedsoilsit growsfastand producesitsownacornswhenonly and coccifera aboutfifteen yearsold. It also invadesthelessaridkindsofmaquis,especiallythosewithErica when notbrowsed. arbórea, thewethalf oakwoodis growingup on and nearformercultivation throughout Brachyphylla overat A extends somewhat older old. ofLaconia. Mostofitis lessthantwenty example years in Anavryti, on formeroliveleast 1 sq kmoftheplateaubelowthe Phaneroménimonastery groveson schist,withan easterlyaspect at 600-700 m. The oaks are now up to 25 cm in Occasional relicsof old cultivation. diameter;theyare mixedwithbig olivesand chestnuts, and of nearbysibljak(Ostrya, othertreesare representatives Fraxinus) mountain Judas-tree, is abundantas an understorey. woodland {Abies).There are a fewelms in gullies.Spartium Brackenand ivyare frequent. 15W. Greuter,'Die Insel Kreta: eine geobotanische

Instituts des Geobotanischen ΕΤΗ, Skizze', Veröffentlichungen

Rubel(Zürich),55 (1975),141-97. Stiftung

Historical ecology 83

III. 3.5. Deciduousoak {Quercus land at KalyviaTheologou. brachyphylla) invadingex-cultivated

Older oakwoodsare to be foundin ravines.There is a well-established one among the in a bigNE-facing schistravinewithsteepbrokenslopes.The oaksare terracesofPikouliánika, about 12m highand 40 cm thick,and ratheruprightin habit;theytendto die in thetop and of prickly-oak and Erica understorey maybe pinchedby drought.There is a well-developed retusum withsomebracken arbórea. The rathersparsegroundvegetationis mainlyBrachypodium and Asplenium and brambleand a littleivy and Smilax.Ferns,such as Ceterach ojjicinarum are abundant rocks. Tree and adiantum-nigrum, among seedlings saplings are frequent, and cocci/era. Fraxinusgrows up into including Fraxinusornus,maple, and Quercusbrachyphylla

treesand is evidently This wood has a quitewell-developed woodlandsoil(pH 6.2) increasing. as I and a fewspecifically woodlandplantssuch Brachypodium and Digitalis ferruginea. sylvaticum which hesitateto claimit as ancientwoodland,however:it showsno signof thewoodcutting wouldsurelyhavehappenedhad itbeen longin existence.Possiblyitis a stagein a succession wherebyOak- Erica maquis turnseventuallyinto sibljak. A ravine grovein Voutianoi is buthas Spartium insteadoftree-heather somewhatsimilar, and mapleinsteadofash. These Laconianwoodsare partofa deciduous-oakinvasionto be seen in manypartsofthe Arkadia thereare whole landscapes which appear to be Péloponnèse.In south-western oakwood- theoaks come fromexistingwoods ratherthanfromfield turningintobrachyphylla trees.The brachyphylla oakwoodsof Crete are older than mostof thosein Laconia, and are with lianes and ivy). denselytangled {Smilax The ecologicalrequirements ofQuercus coincideso closelywiththoseofcultivation brachyphylla thatitwouldriskextinction at timesofhighfarming, unlessfavoured as a fieldtree.The ravine not illustrate howitmighthavesurvived suchperiods. woods,thoughprobably ancient,

84

Chapter3

- is turninginto III. 3.6. Valoniaoak ((hiercus at Passavacastle.The formersavanna- big treesscatteredin grassland macrolepis) woodlandthroughinfilling withyoungertrees.

Oakwoods withQuercusmacrolepis all overLaconia as a fieldtree.It is muchlessabundantthan is encountered Quercus macrolepis - thoughit extendsfurther intothe drybelt. and there a handful of trees here brachyphylla The treescould,as in Boiotia,be relicsof old valonia cultivation, thoughtheyare rarelyof or greatage pollarded. In Vardouniaand the northernMani, the valonia oak suddenlybecomesthe commonest treeoffieldsand woods.It outnumbers {λ brachyphylla, thoughseldomreplacingit completely. in ecologicalbehaviour, is perhaps The twooaksare almostindistinguishable thoughmacrolepis m its own when it can acorns of 2'Λ an even stronger invader; only high.Although produce verylarge,theacornsare dispersedno lesseasily. oak has been presentas a fieldtreeforseveralcenturies:thereare manybig old Macrolepis and coppicestools.A stoolover2 m in diameterwas foundnear Gytheio.Big trees pollards are sometimesfoundcloselyset as ifin an orchard,forinstanceat the castleof Passava,but to producevalonia. cultivation thereis no positiveevidenceofsystematic a less from Vardouniaand the Mani than from receded little cultivation has Although has much opportunityto formnew woodland by invading Laconia proper,(λ macrolepis For example, the arbutusmaquis or old farmland,eitherby itselfor with brachyphylla. Passava 'orchard' is turninginto a wood, withnew trees(valonia and terebinth)arising amongthe gariguebetweenthe old trees(ILL.3.6); thisprogressesslowlydespitecontinued grazingand fires.

Historical ecology 85

Macrolepisis also a tree formingestablishedwoodland, much more extensivelythan Deciduous oakwoodis relatively commonaroundtheMani border,and replaces brachyphylla. of the of on north-facing slopes southernTaygetos;the castleof Passava is a maquis many - Rothmalerreportedon for such woods. These woods are long-established good viewpoint sourcesindicatethattheyare ancient. themin 194216 and,as we shallsee,somewritten BetweenPassavaand thesea thereis a groupofsuchwoodsat low altitude,on steepnorthThe dominanttreesare macrolepis and brachyphylla facingslopes of schistand conglomerate. and maple;prickly-oak and Ceitisare rare.At the oaks.There is a littleterebinth, Judas-tree, - all the bottomof the slope thereis a littleelm. The wood has a definitecoppice structure speciesoccur as stoolsup to ι'Λ m across and thereare also signsof irregularpollarding. been Groundvegetationcomprisessparsebrambleand bracken.These woodshave evidently resourceto a degreewhichis unusualin Greece.They have a stronger managedas a definite woods. claimto be ancientwoodlandthananyofthebrachyphylla mountain oakwoods Quercus frainettoand theancient

is the typicaldeciduousoak of southernArkadia.In the south-westof the Quercus frainetto woods near Megalópoli, the railwayruns formanymiles throughmagnificent province, of hill some of this arcadian is the result and recent, valley;although landscape very clothing is invasionmentionedabove, thereare also greatwoods in whichfrainetto the Q brachyphylla dominant.We are less concernedwiththe south-easterngroup offrainetto woods, in the ArkadianpartoftheParnonrange.These extendintoLaconia onlyin one place,butthatis of in thata wood mentionedby name in a classicaldocumentis stillin veryspecial interest, existence(see below).The treeappears otherwiseto be absentfromLaconia, apart froma singlespecimenneartheGreatLangada. It is seldoma fieldor or brachyphylla. Frainetto is muchmoreofa woodlandoak thanmacrolepis in the of old oakwood at and then (as Vourvoura). only neighbourhood Althoughits villagetree, it has of invasion. Our observations weak acornis smalland easilytransported bybirds, powers indicatethatittakesmuchlongerto produceacornsthantheotheroaks(atleastfifty yearsafter In even wherea from and is not as and seed) prolific. consequence, coppicing, probablylonger muchofthemarginalinvasionis brachyphylla.17 woodis mainlyοιfrainetto, northin Greece,itis is veryrarein Creteand was discovered onlyin 1990.Further Q frainetto in and wood-pastures the of oak the woods oftenthecommonest manyspecies among coppice thatcovermanythousandsof square kilometresin the Pindos mountains.The Laconian zone (700-1,300m),in high-rainfall mountain woodsfallwithinthetopofthemaquisaltitudinal Soilsaresandy, oftenofa curiousorange areaswithvariousaspects.The geologyis alwaysschistic. with a surface humus and are acidic definite colour, layer(mor), (pH 5-6). They are veryunlike Greeklowlandsoils,and areakintotheacidbrownearthsofnorthern Europeanoakwoods. Skotitas

The wood thatI shallcall by thisclassicalname is, as we shallsee,possiblytheoldestnamed wood to haveits woodlotin Europeknownto be stillin existence.It is also theonlysurviving own god. It lies in the extremenorthof Laconia, extendingfromthe village of Karyés 16 W. Rothmaler, 'Die Waldverheit im Peloponnes', Intersyba, 3 (1943),329-42; id., 'Floristische Ergebnisseeiner botanische Reise nach dem Peloponnes',Englers Jahrbücher, 73 (1944),418-52.

17As observed by Rothmaler,'FloristischeErgebnisse'

(n. 16).

86

Chapter3

III. 3.7. Interioroftheoakwoodanciently calledSkotitas.

Aráchova)to thewestof themain Parnon range.It is a verylargewood,being3% (formerly kmfromeast to westand at least5 kmfromnorthto south.It coversratherruggedterrain, witha generalsouth-westerly aspect but continuingwithlittlechange throughtwo main and ravines and gullies. valleys many Skotitasconsistsalmostentirelyof oak (ILL. 3.7). The oaks are veryvariable,apparently of those Pubescens formsa largeminority has hybridized with(λ pubescens. because Qfrainetto in is uncommon. oaksthatcan be definitely identified, especially thevalleys,ζλbrachyphylla The wood has been regularly coppicedlikea Welshoakwood.Many of theoaks are in the formof stoolswithseveralstems.Some of the stoolsare over 1.5 m across and represent and regrowth; othershavebeen cutonlyonce.The lastregularwoodcutting centuries offelling to have takenplace between1870and 1900. Since then,single annual rings) appears (from trunkshave been cut hereand there.In the last fewyearstherehas been a moresystematic to growon and the ofthestems,leavingtheremainder downabouttwo-thirds policyofcutting are crookedand All is for as the oaks this mainly fuel, woodcutting presumably stumpsto sprout. in In a ofshredding. there is a exceed cm diameter. evenafter century seldom 30 history places are a the oaks fruit and sparingly oaklings few.Growthis growth, Despitebeingof century's die back at the as top, oaksdo whenpinchedbydrought. veryslow,and someoftheoaks Othertreesare veryfew.Especiallyat the higheraltitudes,thereare groupsof mountain thesewould be alternative and scatteredindividualfirs{Abiescephalonicd)' pines (Pinusnigrd) elevation. The firs are trees at this slowlyincreasing.Chestnutslowly woodland-forming

Historicalecology 87 in thelower groves.There is someprickly-oak spreadsintothewood fromadjacentcultivated in With these with and occasional Ostrya valleys. exceptions,Skotitas plane partsofthewood, overitsvariedtopography. uniform is surprisingly ofattenuated The wood is richin flowering maquis plants.In placesthereis an understorey Brackencoversotherareas, and Genista acanthoclada. Cistussalvifolius, and garigue,withEnca arbórea,

dominated woodlandvegetation, thereis a morespecifically noton south-facing slopes.Elsewhere

or Chamaespartium sagittale all relativelynorthernplants sylvaticum, Brachypodium by Luzulaforsten,

- occurat theloweraltitudes. - ivyand Clematis cirrhosa notcommonin Greece.Woodyclimbers As in north-western European coppice woods, much of the floraof Skotitasconsistsof plantswhichare dependenton woodlandmanagement.Thoughwoodlandspecies,thesedo not flourishin continuousshade,but flowerin profusionin the yearsof lightaftera felling. Some of these'coppicingplants'are the same speciesas behavein thisway in Britain.One in abundance,primrose richarea yieldedwild strawberry (Fragaria vesca)fruiting particularly or reichenbachiana, and the Violariviniana and elatior), and oxlip {Primulavulgaris eupatoria, Agrimonia

also behave Some specifically Mediterranean plants,suchas Cistusincanus, grassMelicauniflora. in shade of the the in thisway.The occasional junipers (Juniperus oxycedrus), languishing undisturbed wood,are probablyto be regardedas coppicingplantswhichinvadedfelledareas a century ago and havepersisted. Also as in north-western Europeanwoods,muchof the florais to be foundon roads and tracksthroughthe wood, and here too thereare many species in common,forinstance

Trifolium pratense, Clinopodium vulgäre, perforatum, Filaginellauliginosa, glomerata, Hypericum Campanula

and Tussilago farfara.Other roadsideplantsare more specificto Greekwoods, such as the also seenon Mt Parnassos. Digitalis ferruginea, foxglove, The wood is richin lichensand to a lesserextentin mosses.It maywell have a complete pallidus,Russulacf fungalfloralike thatin northernwoods: we foundLactarius mycorrhizal and Boletuscf luteus. atropurpurea,

Loranthus whichhowever On theoaksis occasionallyto be foundtheoak mistletoe, europaeus, outsidethewood. is commoneron chestnut Skotitashas no definedwood boundaries.On the north-eastit reachesthe ridgeof Mt of Karyes;it abutson grassland Parnon,whichformstheboundaryof the township(koinótis) it is slowlyadvancing,but much of the advance is of pines ratherthan and ex-cultivation; oaks. TowardsKaryesthe wood meetscultivationand abandoned terraces.On the south, withSpanishbroom.Althoughin towardsVarvitsa,itpetersoutintosteppeand ex-cultivation we did not findany evidence(e.g.terraces) now at the the wood is edges, expanding general thatithas everbeen muchsmallerthanitis now. frainettooakwoods Other

Skotitasis one of a groupof woods close togetherin northernParnon.They covermuchof the mountainsbetweenMesórrachi,Voúrvoura,and Varvitsa.The area has an unusual numberof villages- it is by far the most populous part of Parnon- and the woods are squeezed in among terraces,chestnutgroves,and pastures.There is only a small, and area ofmaquisand garigue. shrinking, These woodsare generallysimilarto Skotitas.They have a greatpreponderanceof Quercus and are withbrachyphylla roundtheedges.Theyvaryin structure pubescens), frainetto (doubtfully not alwaysdefinitely coppiced; shreddingwas sometimesnoticed.Under the treesis some and others)or bracken,or northernplants such as strawberry. garigue {Cistussalvifolius Chestnuttendsto invadetheoaks.

88

Chapters

In other The woodsare expandingat theiredgesthroughinvasion,chiefly by £λbrachyphylla. in for a revival of has made small encroachments the woods cultivation chestnut, hazel, places limitedto schist;thereis not much or apple orchards.The oakwoodsas a whole are strictly woodlandon thelimestoneand otherrocksaround,and thatis ofpineand fir. The schistmassifbetweenArvanitokerasiá, Kollines,and Kaltezes has one oakwoodat its around the of (1,119m)· ^ ls about 2'Λby ΐ'Λkmin highestpoint, chapel AgiosChristophóros extentand coversall sides of thisratherruggedmountaintop.The wood is of almostpure but at the edges.It has no definitecoppice structure, witha littlebrachyphylla Quercus frainetto, mostofthetreesappear to be of similarage, datingfrom1905-15.They are now some 14 m slopes- and partlydead in the tops. Some of the treesat the high- less on south-facing wood's edge are shredded,apparentlyforbrowsewood.Acornsare producedverysparsely. Othertreesare veryfew:pear,arbutus,youngfirs,and cherries.In mostplaces thereis an ofshadedEricaarbórea, slope.The florais replacedby brackenon theeast-facing understorey not so rich as thatof Skotitas,but includesthe same mixtureof garigue,woodland,and This wood appears to northernplants (e.g. Cistussalvifolius, vulgäre, Luzulaforsterî). Clinopodium

be in a drierlocationthanthoseofParnon. The restof the Kollines schistmassifis coveredwith£n£tf-Arbutus maquis withmuch whichsufferbadly with mountain has been of it Much nigra), (Pinus pines garigue. planted offrainetto fromdrought.There are scatteredfragments oakwood,and probablymore are hiddenamong the forestry plantationsor were destroyedto make way forthem.The oaks and are {brachyphyllafrainetto) slowlyexpanding.In the westof the massif,whichis evidently oakwood invadingold terraces,originatingfrom much wetter,thereis much brachyphylla around oaks Kaltezes. pollard histories.They are probablyancient These frainetto oakwoods evidentlyhave different withtherecentwoods of otherspeciesofoak- thoughthe woodland- theycontraststrongly all been felledat least evidenceis notquiteso strongas it is withSkotitas.Theyhaveevidently ofsystematic once withinthelasthundredyears,butmaynothavea history woodcutting. ofbrowsing; Frainetto oakwoodsat presentshowlittleeffect probablytheycontainlittlethat is edible. Deciduous oakwoodsandfire

It is veryunlikelythatdeciduous oak-treeswill burn,even in the Greek climate;any fire forfuel. or perhapsleaf-litter, amongthemmustdependon othervegetation, A smallpartof the edge of Skotitaswas burntearlyin 1985.The oaks had advancedinto Genista acanthoclada garigue,whichhad thenburntand had killedtheoaks (15 cm in diameter) forthetimebeingby downto groundlevel.The oaks had all sprouted,and weresurrounded and Galactites hispida. steppe of Stipabromoides

In theoakwoodsofsouth-western Arkadia,near Chránoi,therewas a largebutlightburn oak and is at leastpartlyon old terraces.The in 1984.Here thewood is mainlybrachyphylla and drybracken.The smalleroaks werekilledto the groundbut sprouted; fuelwas Spartium unaffected. onessproutedall thewayup thetrunk;bigoneswereapparently middle-sized accessibleto are rendered but their be killed deciduous oaks cannot sprouts byfire, Evidently A is invulnerable animals. well-established oakwood throughlack of fuel; probably browsing evenifa firecan occurat all,itwillnotbe hotenoughto harmthetrees.Firesare mostlikelyin can youngor patchyoakwoodswheretheshadeis lightand bracken,garigue,Erica,or Spartium well if with could combined accumulate fuel. and grazing, Burning,especially growvigorously offelledareas. theexpansionofoakwoodsintomaquis,and coulddelaytherecovery prevent

Historicalecology 89 MOUNTAIN CONIFERS

and These are theGreekfir,Abiescephalonica, the black mountain pine, Pinus nigrassp

grows on most of the pallasiana.A. cephalonica

higherGreek mountains;it is endemic to Greece. Populationsof P. nigraare widely scatteredoversouthernEurope;thepinesof Taygetos and Parnon are rather remote fromothers,althoughthetreeoccurson Mts Boiotia has firbut Chelmós and Kyllini.18 not pine. Neither reaches Crete. Beech, whichin northernGreece is an alternative to pine and fir,does not now reach the Péloponnèse. Firs and pines cover most of the high Taygetos,especially on the westernside, fromtheArkadianborderto the latitudeof Gytheio,and most of the higherparts of Parnon.They can occur on all aspects,but thereis a strongtendencyto favourwestfacingslopes in Taygetosand north-facing slopes in Parnon. Firs grow mainly on limestone,pines on schist,but there are exceptionsand mixtures.The woods range from1,000to 1,800m on Taygetosand from 750 to 1,600m on Parnon;youngtreesoften invade well below the lower limit of the at Mt Laganou, III. 3.8. Old blackpine {Pinusnigra) woods. Taygetos,whichgrewup in savannawithplentyofroomto spread,nowin forestand hemmedin byyoungertrees.It is Coniferwoods usuallycontainfewor no scarredbymanyfires. othertrees.In glades theremay be patches of prickly-oak(up to 1,400 m) or Juniperus On Taygetosthe pinewoodsare being colonized by youngchestnut.As already oxycedrus. at theirlowerlimitin the mentioned,the pinewoodsmergeinto a standof Pinushalepensis Kallitheaarea. Pines and firsare killedby fellingor burning(but see p. 92), but have some capacityto sproutwhenpollarded.Theygroweasilyfromseed. Mostofthemorereadilyaccessiblestands butmanagement is notintensive and maywellbe on Taygetosare used fortimberproduction, traditional. The woodsofParnonare less accessibleand appear to be under-used;pollarding ofpinesand firswas notedat Polydroso. Pinewoods

Pinesare long-lived and veryadaptable;theirvaryingsizes,shapes,and ages forma recordof of areas of even-agedtrees, thehistoryoftheirsurroundings. Usuallytheyforma patchwork On felledstumps from or colonizations. where fires, recently resulting past fellings, Taygetos, lHRothmaler, 'Floristische Ergebnisse'(η. 16).

90

Chapter3

III. 3.9. Blackpine invadingformer Taygetos. pastureat Avavryti,

fordatingtrees,suchclosedpinewoodsare ofall ages as farback as AD provideopportunities 1800.The olderof suchwoods,forinstancein shelteredvalleyswestof the GreatLangada, havepinesofmagnificent size,up to 30 m highand 80 cm in diameter. Scatteredamongthepinewoodsare occasionalindividualpineswhichare mucholder.Their spreadinghabitand massivebranchescontrastwiththenarrowcrownsand shortbranchesof thesetreesbeganlifewhenthepinewoodsdid not thewoodlandpinesaroundthem.Evidently exist;theywerenon-woodlandtreesscattered,savanna-like, amonglow vegetation.Some of divideintoup to twenty-five these,whosetrunks greatboughs,maybe pollards.Theymayhave crownsspreadingup to 24 m wide and trunksup to ΐ'Λm thick,but are no morethan 15 m to date,but high(ILL.3.8). These immensetreeshaveseldombeenfelledand henceare difficult generationof appear to be at least250 yearsold, some of themmuchmore.An intermediate pines, datingfrombetween 1730 and 1800, has a semi-spreadinghabit. These pines are describedfromaround Mt Laganou near the Great Langada; but thereare othersnear and yetothers, Anavryti perhapsnotso old,in Parnon. been expandingsincethe mid-eighteenth The pinewoodshave evidently century(ILL.3.9). is notclear,butmuchoftheirpresentterritory Whethertherewereanypinewoodspreviously can have had only scatteredtrees.Some of the land was cultivated:thereare remainsof terracesaroundMt Laganouup to 1,500m in altitude. - usuallybrackenor The vegetationunderpinewoodsis sparseand notverycharacteristic woodlandplantsare few attenuatedgarigue.Spartium goes up to about 1,350m. Specifically In flushesin ravinesthereis a widerrangeofplants,manyofthemof rotundtfolium). (e.g.Galium

Historical ecology 91

III. 3.10.Area ofyoungishblackpineskilledbya fire,at Mt Laganou,Taygetos,witha thicketofpine seedlingsspringing up in thegap.

as in themountainoakwoods:forinstanceprimrose, northern distribution coltsfoot, strawberry, and Hypericum Carexpêndula,self-heal{Prunellavulgaris),Juncus effusus, tetrapterum.

Fir-woods

These are mainlyon thinlimestonesoils,and are similarto thoseof Boiotia.The woods are and usuallysmaller;no big oftenless dense than thoseof pine. The treesare shorter-lived which ancientfirswereseen (as thereare in thePindosmountains).On thehighermountains, intorockypasturesand alpinevegetation. are usuallylimestone, thefirsthinoutirregularly Fir growsreadilyfromseed, and does not suffer fromdroughtin youthas it oftendoes in in discussingthisproblem,citesthe fir-woodof Mainalon and northernGreece. Graikiotis, Taygetosas an example of 'perfectnatural regeneration',which is attributedto a welltheseedlings.19 layerprotecting developedbryophyte Relationsbetween pineandfir

The schistsoils of pinewoodstend to be more acid (pH 5-6) than the limestonesoils of firwoods (pH > 6), but thereis a good deal of overlap.It maybe lack ofmoisturethatmakes reluctant to colonizelimestone. pine 19P. Graikiotis, 'La régénération naturelledes sapinièreshelléniques',Vegetatio, 9 (i960), 328-38.

92

Chapterj

shadeitis oftento be seengrowing Firgrowsperfectly wellon schist,and sinceitwithstands thereasonwhythisdoes be Pinewoods under mighteventually replacedbyfirwoods; pine. up fire. is nothappen undoubtedly Fires are verycommonamong Pinusnigraon Taygetosand Parnon; nearlyall the older woods have been burntat least once. The pine producesa copious, moderatelycompact leaf-litter whichis the main fuel.When ignited,thisproducesa groundfirewhichpasses underthe majorityof pines withoutkillingthem.Sometimesit flaresup into a crownfire whichkillsa treeor an area oftrees.Middle-agedand old pinesare protectedby theirthick bark (up to 10 cm thick),but this is oftencharredthroughon one side, especiallyby a subsequentfire,to killpartof the cambium.The treeis well able to survivethisinjury,and old pines oftencarry a succession of such scars, which would date the firesthat have occurredin theirlifetimes. Areasofpinelessthan35 yearsold seemseldomto be burnt,perhapsbecausetheyhavenot Pinesover70 yearsold supportfiresbutare yetaccumulatedenoughlitterto be combustible. seldomkilled.There is a vulnerableperiodbetweentheseages: it appearsthatpinesof35-70 lowerbranchesto enable the fireto climbintothe crownand years'growthretainsufficient killthetree.This is illustrated by a firewhichin about 1979burntabout 1 sq kmofpineson Mt Laganou. Most of thiswas a surfacefirewhichdid littledamage,but twolargeareas of pinesin late youthwerekilled.However,pines are veryprolificfromseed, and by 1984 the ofsaplings(ILL.3.10). intothickets burntareaswereturning Pinusnigrais moretolerantoffirethananyofitscompetitors, especiallyAbies.Everytimea fir otherwise all that would it the burns, replaceit. The onlyfirdestroys saplings pinewood treeswithinpinewoodsare eitheryoungerthanthe mostrecentfire,or are in gladesand on or in woodswhichforsomereasonhavenotburnt. rockyknobsthathaveescapedburning, is no exception. Mostoftheworld'spinesare in somewaydependenton fire,and Pinusnigra survivaldependson burningits It cannotproducesaplingsunderitsown shade; itslong-term Old pines litteris to be seen as an adaptation,nota misfortune. The combustible competitors. The treeis wellprotectedagainstits in thePindosmountainsare oftenseton firebylightning. Cones failsthelossesare replacedbyprolific butwherethatprotection ownfires, germination. old. are producedbytreesno morethantwenty years butappearsto be supersededtherebyfir.Forinstance,on the Pine can growon limestone, Neraidóvrachos by theGreatLangada thereis a mixtureofold pinesand youngfirs.Firsare moreeasilykilledbyfirethanpines,butare muchlesscombustible; althoughfiresin firwoods are known(e.g. in Boiotia),theyare rare,and replacementof the treesis slow.A possible reasonfortheprevalenceoffiron limestoneis thatthegroundis morerockyand brokenand firesdo noteasilyspread. Pine andfir versusothervegetation

Pines,and lessoftenfirs,continueto advanceintotheremaining pasturesand gariguewithin limitis steadyor perhapsslightly theiraltitudinal receding. range.The upperaltitudinal The lower limitis quite rapidly advancing, especially in Parnon. Pines and firsare stands.Two examples on a quitelargescale,varioustypesofmaquisbelowexisting colonizing, will illustrate the range.Above Anavryti(c.8oo m), pines and occasionalfirsare invadinga and pear thinlyscatteredamong decidedlyarid limestonemaquis-gariguewithprickly-oak On thenorthside ofMt Kópa nearAgrianoi(850 m), and Phlomis hermanniae fruticosa. Anthyllis and pine and firare spreadingdownhillinto lush, continuousmaquis of Arbutus,Cotinus, withsomeandrachneand maple. prickly-oak,

Historical ecology 93

In northern Parnon the boundary oakwoods is betweenconifersand frainetto - oaks on schist,pinesand firs usuallysharp on limestone.The conifersappear to be slowlyinvadingtheoakwoods. STREAMSIDES

AND RIVERINE WOODS

These are betterdevelopedthanin Boiotia; even minorand seasonal watercoursesare markedby oleanderbushesand occasional plane-trees.Where there is more definite access to ground-water,as in the ravines below Voutianoi and Vourliá (Sellasia), riverinethickets develop.These may consist of oleanderand lentiskgrowingup to 6 m high,withsome Vitexand maple, impenetrablytangledwithSmilaxand bramble.The travelleravoidsthem.Wherewaterreaches the surfacetheremaybe patchesof bulrush [Typhasp).

Elm is frequentalong lowland seasonal watercourses, especiallyon theMani border. It is a formof Ulmusminorwhich suckers stronglyand formsthickets(e.g. below the castle of Passava). It is rare in Boiotia and occasionalin lowlandCrete. alderin Europe,bythe III. 3.1i. The southernmost riverEvrotas. The Evrotashas much the best developEven in summer mentofriverine vegetation. it is a large,fast,and verycold riverby Greekstandards.It is borderedby woods of white standsof elm,and in a poplarand plane,theplanesoftenpollarded.There are intermittent to in Europe (ILL. 3.11). The understorey alders- the southernmost fewplaces well-grown thesehave thickets of the kinddescribed.In the flood-plains thesewoods is oleander-lentisk thebestsurvivalis in thegorgebetweenPáliouras longbeen encroachedupon by cultivation; and Karavás. CLIFFS AND GORGES

As in Crete,cliffsare a refugefromgrazing,browsing,and to some extentwoodcutting.20 are evidenceof what the landscape mighthave Their relictwoods and plant communities been had itnotbeen modifiedbyhumanactivities. This studyis based mainlyon threegorges.The GreatLangada is a complexgorge6'Λkm cliffs at the top. It is notverynarrow, long,mainlyin limestonebutwithsome metamorphic and muchof it is accessibleto grazing,whichat presentis probablymoresevereon the less steepslopeswithinthe gorgethan outsideit. The Parorigorgeis shorterand steeper,with huge verticalcliffsand overhangs;it is verylittlegrazed. The gorgeof Palaiomonástiroin 20Rackham and Moody (η. ι); Rackham, 'Land-use' (n. 10).

94

Chapter3

frommaquisexposedto III. 3.12.Patchofmaquisor woodlandisolatedon a hugeboulder.It is notverydifferent browsingand burning.

Chrysaphais steepand narrow,withconglomerateand limestonecliffs;it has an accessible pointat whichflocksare drivento waterin it. Plants ofholesand crevicesin verticalcliffs

withPtilostemon In the Parori gorge there is a plant communityof NW-facing cliff-faces Onosmasp., and a form of Silènecucubalus.Such rock-face Campanulaversicolor, chamaepeuce,

is similarto thatofCrete,butis poorlydevelopedin Laconia. In Cretemanyofthe vegetation are endemics,and in Laconia thereare onlya fewendemicplantsthatreplacethem; species commonon inaccessiblecliffs. theseincludeStachys relatively chrysantha, treeofverticalcliffs Andrachneis thecharacteristic Laconia, oftengrowingout throughout ofwhatlookslikesolidlimestone. Gorgewoods

The north-facing cliffsand talus of the Great Langada have a complex seriesof woods, is usuallydominant,either some ofthemrelatedto maquis and othersto sibljak.Prickly-oak by itselfor withandrachne.In less accessibleplaces or on deeper soils (oftenlowerin the gorge) it gives way to Ostrya.Terebinthand Fraxinusornusare abundant,with scattered maple. The cliffsextendwell intothe coniferzone (1,000m) but have onlya fewfirsand a and the curious Ruscusaculeatus, veryfewpines. Undershrubsinclude Coluteaarborescens, umbelliferBupleurum fruticosum.

ilex oftheLangada are thehomeoffouruncommontrees.Quercus cliffs These north-facing stream. itstypicalhabitatis thebrinkofthelowestprecipiceabove the (holm-oak)is frequent;

Historicalecology 95 cliffs Lime (Tiliarubrifolia highin growsin inaccessibleplaces on metamorphic ssppseudorubrd) One tree of in to ilex. similar is Laurel thegorge(see below). (Laurusnobilis) rare, Pyrus places (λ seenon a cliff just abovetheriver. pyrasterwas of The gorgewoodsoftheLangada are low and notverydense,partlybecause ofa history deciduous of the in all buttheleastaccessiblespots.Most trees,especially species, woodcutting are coppice stools; there are pollard limes, and occasional pollard maples and Ostrya. Regrowthis slow,probablybecause ofdrought,and althoughtherehas been no recentfelling fewtreesyetexceed10m in height. The south-facing slopesoftheGreatLangada are drierand lessprotectedagainstbrowsing. and Spartium. is dominant,eitherby itselfor withPhillyrea prickly-oak Maquis predominates; are frequentin thelowerpartof the Cercis and Ostrya ornus. The cliffs generallyhave Fraxinus and a fewgullies.In thebottomofthegorgethereis a gorge.Andrachneis confinedto cliffs ofhugepollards. ribbonofplane-woodconsisting The woodsoftheParorigorgehavea broadlysimilarrangefrommaquisto sibljak.Pricklywherethereis moremoistureor tendto be dominantin drierplaces, Ostrya oak and Phillyrea less grazing.Fraxinusornusoccurs on the drier cliffs;Quercusilexand laurel in damper, inaccessibleplaces.A featureof thisgorgeis elm,whichis frequenton smallcliffsand steep monastery slopeswithwaterseepagesnearthePhaneromeni The gorgeis woodedwithdense arbutus In thePalaiomonastiro prickly-oak. replaces gorge of often and arbutus of size, is mainlyon verticalcliffs Andrachne, great Phillyrea. maquis treesare lesscommon.There Deciduous as in the it occurs well). surrounding maquis (though is rare;one largetreeis and maple. Ostrya and a littleFraxinus is some terebinth ornus, Cercis, cliff. oftheconglomerate rootedin a fissure Deciduousoaksare veryrarein thegorgesofLaconia, as in thoseofCrete. Inferences

Althoughthere are many trees and other plants which are more or less confinedto inaccessibleplaces, these are not normallydominantin the vegetationof such places. Andrachne,whichis perhapscommoneron cliffsthan anywhereelse, turnsout, in grazed lesspalatablethanmostotherevergreens, includingprickly-oak. maquis,to be distinctly fromordinary not to be turn out often tracts of cliff-bound verydifferent vegetation Wholly it a wood of pricklyin has on the Great boulder A Langada maquis. verylargeflat-topped In inaccessible the and Colutea withLonicera oak, andrachne,and terebinth, (ill. 3.12). implexa but are ornusand some Ostrya, bottomof the Parorigorgethewoods have abundantFraxinus or Phillyrea. dominatedbyprickly-oak This suggeststhat,as faras Laconia is concerned,browsingand grazinghave not had on limestonevegetation.The gorgesdo notsupportthetheory effects radicaland irreversible the naturalvegetationof all Laconia wouldbe forests that,in theabsenceofhumanactivity, in the presentclimate,the dominatedby greattreesof palatable species.On the contrary, woodson limestonewouldonlylocallygrowbeyondthe statureoftallmaquis;and although treessensitiveto browsing,such as ilex, laurel, and Judas-tree,would doubtlessbe more abundantthan theyare now,the dominanttreesin limestonewoods would not be very fromthosein thepresentmaquis. different HEDGES

Hedges are not a commonfeatureof Laconia, but thereare a fewby villagesand rivers. composed of brambles,wild pear, and so on. Occasional bushes of They are irregularly

96

Chapterj

Paliurus,rare in othersituations,suggestthatthesemay be relictsof a timewhen hedges were a more deliberate feature of cultivated land. One or two hedges are made of deciduousoak. In thesouthoftheArkadianplainthefieldsare dividedbyregularhedgesofalmond,briar or cypress,oftenmanagedby coppicingor pollarding.Usuallytheydo {Rosaspp),hawthorn, not formcompleteenclosures,but the fieldsystemsof whichtheyformpartappear to have of Boiotia or thosearoundChaniá (Crete).The been set out in a grid,like the hedge-grids and and are hedges flimsy drought-pinched, do not appear to be old. They may have been plantedwithalmondalone. originally OLD CULTIVATED TREES Olive

The oliveis widelycultivatedin Laconia, and in 1984 it was almostthe onlyfarmlandcrop Wild olivesare thinlyscatteredthroughmanykindsofmaquis,evenin remote notdeclining. musthave gone on as theseare descendedfromcultivated is trees,cultivation likely, places;if, forcenturies. are muchrarerthanin Creteor Boiotia.At Chrysaphathereare a few Ancientolive-trees all theolivesin Laconia appearto be lessthan200 withtrunks1.8m in diameter.21 Otherwise, shouldbe is not clear,unlessan exceptionalfrost this most less than 100. and Why yearsold, shouldhavecarriedoffall theoldertrees. Chestnut

ofschistvalleysin wetparts This treeis absentfromBoiotia.In Creteit is verycharacteristic ofthewestoftheisland;it is unlikelyto be nativeand does not formwoods,but is a treeof withbeautifuland historicgiantpollardsand coppicestools. ancientcultivation, In northern Parnonthetreeis abundantaroundmostofthevillagesfromVrésthenato Ano cultivatedtreegrowingon Dolianá and westwardsto Vlachokerasia.It is an orchard-like a for different made on terraces schistsoils,often purpose.The alternative originally perhaps muchof the side of cover chestnut for naturalvegetationis deciduousoak; instance, groves Parnonoppositeto theSkotitasoakwood. In Taygetos,chestnuts are morethinlyscattered,and mostof thoseI have seen represent disusedcultivation;forinstance,thosenow embeddedin recentoakwood below Anavryti. reach1,340m in Taygetosand 1,200m in Parnon. Chestnuts In Laconia and Arkadia,chestnutis unlikelyto be native.Saplings commonlyinvade mountain pinewoods and mountain oakwoods, but full-growntrees are very rare in woodland.Possibleexceptionsare theoccasionalchestnuts, established includingbig pollards, in high valleys at the westernend of the Great Langada; these are very remote from and has generatedat least four habitation.Chestnutis probablyan ancientintroduction, near in Kastaniá namesofvillages:Kastánitsa Parnon, Cape Maléa, Kastánia in Vardoúnia, lack ofancienttrees.In all thechestnut an and Kastaniáin theMani. But thereis unexpected and has old stools, and these are not so pollards countryof Parnon, only Vourvoura as thoseofCrete. impressive

21Near Voutianoiare a fewthatexceed2 m; one (ill. 7.10)was measuredat 2.40 m (DGJS).

Historical ecology 97

Relict

Wild Trees

holm-oak betweensouthernand A striking difference middle Italy and southernGreece is that ilex(holm-oak)and Italyis a land of Quercus Ilex Greece of Quercus cocci/era (prickly-oak). is absentfromBoiotia.In Creteit is a rarity, confined mainly to the wet part of the island and there to cliffsand gorges. It appears to be verysensitiveto browsing. it rarelysurvivesin a bittenUnlikecoccifera In maquisit existsonly state. down'topiary' wherethereis enoughmoistureto enable it to growup into a tree betweensuccessive visitsoftheflocks.22 In Laconia,as we haveseen,holm-oakis a treeoflimestonegorges,usuallyon thevery in rathercool, damp places.It edge of cliffs growsnotonlyin theGreatLangada and the Parorigorge,but in inaccessibleplaces in small gorges as far south as Melissa in in limestone of cliffs Vardounia.It is frequent Parnon around Vasaras. All thesehabitats itsCretanlocalities. resemble Holm-oakis also occasionallyto be found in Europe,on thesouthernmost III. 3.13.Ancientlime-tree, in ordinarymaquis.The biggestconcentracliffin theGreatLangada. N-facing tion is in the much-brokenslopes of the Kelephínavalleyat KalyviaTheologou.Here theilexesforma zone on thelowerslopesofbig lushand ravinesand in thebottomsofsmallones.The treesare coppicestoolsamongunusually Erica-Arbutusmaquis.As in similarplacesin Crete,theyhave grownmorerapidly continuous abovethem. sincelastcutor burnt,and nowtowerconspicuously thantheircompetitors ilexappearsto be an indicatoreitherof freedomfrombrowsingor of As in Crete,Quercus soil. pluswater-retaining highrainfall LAUREL

is rarein Laconia as in Boiotia,and is a treeofdamp places in gorges.In Crete, Laurusnobilis areas,itis locallyquitecommonand entersintohedges. althoughlimitedto high-rainfall LIME

in souththe specieswhichreplaces77cordata This is probablyTilia rubrifolia ssppseudorubra, forlimepollenconsistently easternEurope.It is ofthegreatesthistoricalinterest, appearsin Cretan and Boiotianpollen diagrams,and the treewas evidentlynot uncommoneven in times.It is notnowknownin Crete;thelimesoftheGreatLangada lowlandsin pre-Neolithic in Boiotia. also on mountaincliffs, in Europe.Thereis one locality, are thesouthernmost 22Rackham,'Land-use' (n. 10).

98

Chapter^

Lime growsin twoplaces in the GreatLangada, on thecliffcalled Kotsiliésjust insidethe Messenianborderat 900 m, and at 1,000m on anothercliff1 kmto theNW.Bothare NNWrock(ILL.3.13).The withmuchshattered ofmetamorphic rock,mainlylimestone, facingcliffs are difficult fora man to reachand Kotsiliescliffseldomsees the sun. Most ofthelime-trees impossiblefora goat. Lime is verypalatable,and anyfoliagecomingwithina goat'sgraspis devoured.There are about thirty lime-trees; theyare all old and showevidenceof instantly There are several or both. or huge,ancientstools2 m across,and one of coppicing pollarding, base withboughsthatindicatethreesuccessiveheightsof thepollardshas a massivefissured ratherthanwood; thelastcuttingwas The treeswereprobablycutforleaf-fodder pollarding. the at leasttenyearsbeforethisstudytookplace. Theygrowslowlyand showsignsofdrought, in flower leavesturning freely. yellow August,althoughthey Lime is accompaniedby otherrelicttrees,mainlywithsibljakaffinities. Ostrya, maple,and and and Terebinth There is some Fraxinus ornus common associates. ilex are (λ coccifera. Quercus and were noted of laurel individuals are occasional. Pyrus pyraster. oxycedrus Single Juniperus and Ruscus. Undershrubs includeSpartium (abundant),ivy,Bupleurumfruticosum, and lichens,forinstanceIsothecium Lime is one of the richesttreesin epiphytic bryophytes cool atmosphere. These indicatea damp,unpolluted, and Lobaria relatively pulmonaria. myurum I have not seen Tilia in Parnon,althoughthe place-namePhlámbouraforan east-facing hollowin themountainsofKallitheamayreferto thetree. OSTRTA

in pollendiagrams.It was evidently treeofsibljak,is also represented This,thecharacteristic It is now unknownin Creteand reduced in and Crete. Boiotia abundant pre-Neolithic quite to one localityin Boiotia. bothto In Laconia it is commonin thenorthern Taygetos.It appearsto be moreresistant and where accessible it is browsed than and to Tilia, although severely drought browsing showsdroughtsymptoms.It sets abundant seed and, unlikemost relicttrees,easily gets fromseed;as we haveseen,itlocallyformssecondarywoodland. established is Ostrya abundantonlywithinabout 8 km westand southof Mystras.In Parnonand in southernTaygetosit is rare: singleindividualshere and thereon damp cliffsand in gorges, oftenwithilex. FRAXINUS ORNUS

whose pollen appears in This southernEuropean speciesof ash is presumablythe Fraxinus Boiotianand Cretandeposits.It is nowrarein Boiotiaand veryrarein Crete. to cliffs rareand confined itis commonin northern Ashin LaconiagoeswithOstrya: Taygetos, non-cliff sites it can on in Parnon(e.g.at Polydroso). providedit grow Althoughverypalatable, It frombrowsingat the base (e.g.by growingthroughtall prickly-oak). has some protection on some and better than resists south-facing slopes. Ostrya, grows drought apparently PALIURUS SPINA-CHRISTI

This is anothersibljakshrub,rare in Greece. In middleItaly it is common,especiallyon Roman sites,and is a traditionalhedgingplant (cf.above, 'Hedges'); it is also abundantin nativein Boiotia,and absentfromCrete.It has Croatiaand Serbia.It is rareand doubtfully no knownpollenrecord. In Laconia it is thinlyscatteredin the Evrotasvalley.In some places (e.g. near the great have been introduced.There is a springat Vivári)it is foundin hedges,and may originally

Historical ecology 99

place called Páliourasin Soustiánoiin whichPaliurusis frequentin abandoned olive-groves and nearbymaquis. PT RU S cf PT RAST ER

of fromthecommonP. amygdaltformis and centralEuropeis distinct The wildpear ofnorthern in the bottom of Greece.It is veryrarein Laconia (as in mostofitsrange).One treewas seen theGreatLangada,anotherin a dampgorgeat Polydroso(Tzitzina). ELM

reduced.Theyare rare butare nowgreatly Elmsare generally presentin Greekpollendiagrams, lessrareinLaconia,butcommonin thePindosmountains. inBoiotiaand Crete,somewhat Elms,as we have seen, are riverinetreesalong the Evrotas;theyalso occur along some as farsouthas the Mani. Some big elmswere seen on a schistcliff, seasonalwatercourses near the Phaneromenimonasterynear Anavryti.Althoughelms are with springs, probably most of themare in accessibleplaces; but grazingaround themis usually verypalatable, farmland. ofsurrounding because controlled strictly a group of microspecieswhich Most Laconian elms can be referredto Ulmusminor, and central elms of southern the smooth-leaved Europe and northwardsto comprises of whichhas large rough two kinds of the second Evrotas there are the elm, England.By leavesand belongsto anothergroup. occurrencesof Dutch Elm The Evrotaselmsat Kladás displayedone of the southernmost in It had been Disease (Ceratocystis ulmi) Europe.23 evidently presentforseveralyears; its treesare killed. suckers are as fast as is and new produced existing progress slow, ALDER

ofthenorthern This is perhapsthemostremarkable Europeantreesin Laconia. It appearsin aridpartofsouthernCrete. thepollendiagramforAgia Galini,in whatis now a particularly In the Evrotasgorgethereare about a dozen large alderson the edge of the river,among There are several planesand elms(ILL.3.n). They growto 10 m highand fruitabundantly. banks and at the water's alders on edge. gravel young This is thesouthernmost dependson a localityforalderin Europe.Its survivalpresumably in somewhat unstable its course so that youngalders large,cold,permanentriver,preferably can colonizeexposedgravel. Written

Sources

classical authors Verylittlehas come downto us fromGreekand Roman writerson theland of Laconia. We are toldrathermoreabout Arkadiaand the Péloponnèsein general,but even thisis meagre and generalizedcomparedto theevidenceforBoiotia. There are some indicationsof mostof the morewidespreadvegetationtypesnow extant. iii. 16. 2-3) and Pausanias (viii.12. 1 and elsewhere)tellus plantarum, Theophrastos(Historia 23The discolouredstreaksin the wood, which provide of the disease,were lacking;but they certainidentification werepresentin diseasedelmsin Korinthia,whichhad all the

othersymptoms oftheKladas elms.In 1990I discoveredthe diseasein Crete.

ioo Chapterj thattherewere severalspeciesof oak in Arkadia.Some of theseare recognizable:πρίνος whichmay be holm-oak(for whichis Quercus πλατύφυλλος(platyphyllos), coccifera; (prinos), and δρυς (dry whichis ζλmacrolepis; whichthe usual Greekwordis άρια); φηγός {pkêgos), s), The and Qfrainetto. whichis a generalwordforotherdeciduousoaks such as Q brachyphylla was the proverbialdiet of the Arkadians,who were called βαλανηφάγοι, acorn ofpkêgos 'acorn-eating'. Pinushalepensis, was saidto be rarein Arkadia whichis undoubtedly theπίχυς, Amongconifers iii. Arkadians werefamiliar withthe as it still is and commonaroundElis, 9. 4, 5). today(HP in Yew is said to be common Abiescephalonicá). (μίλος,milos) Ρ nigrd) and ελάτη(elatê, πεύκη(peukê, fir album xvi.20). Plinymentions the mistletoe Arkadia(HP iii. 10.2; Pliny, Natural (Viscum History, calledhyphear whichtheArkadians (ibid.93). sspabietis), buthad The σμϊλαξ(smilax) was likeprinos Two Peloponnesiantreenamesare mysterious. ofthe leavesand softwood (HP iii. 16. 2). Theophrastosgivesa longdescription non-spinous betweenprinosand 'cork-oak'(ibid. 16. 3), whichwas intermediate φελλόδρυς (phellodrys), and was used as a substitute forthe timberοιprinosin was regardedas a femaleprinos, drys, did notgrow.Pausaniasadds thatthe places,suchas aroundSpartaand in Elis,whereprinos s was used forbuoys(viii.9. 1). The genuinecork-oak,whichdoes not corkybarkofpheHodry now groweast of Italy,can hardlybe meant,forTheophrastosdiscussesit separatelyas a as namesfor Tuscan tree(HP iii. 17. 1). I regardsmilax(ifit was an oak at all) and phellodrys and ζλilex.The ancientshad the bizarrehabit of givingthe names variantsof (λ coccifera 'male' and 'female'to what were oftenminorvariantsof the same species. Theophrastos second-hand.The taxonomyofoak is probablydid notvisitArkadiabutgothis information foreasternMediterranean stillconfused;writerstoday oftenuse the name Q calliprinos variantsofcoccifera. to sibljak,nor to arbutusor There appear to be no specifically Peloponnesianreferences andrachne.Theophrastoswas familiarwithall the treesconcerned,but does not givethem localities.He calls Ostrya (ενυδρον δέ και φοφαγγώδες,HP iii. 10. 'wateryand gorge-living' in Laconia. well describe its behaviour which would 3), in Pausanias and otherauthorsto the extentof cultivatedland, The scatteredreferences have notyetbeen collatedand fullycomparedwithwhatis and woodland maquis-garigue, therenow.They do not give the impressionthatLaconia and Arkadiawere verywooded lands. Pausanias mentionsany woods thathe encounteredin termswhichimplythatthey were somewhatof a rarity:for instance, the sacred wood of Marios in south-eastern Parnon(iii. 22. 8). Sometimesthereare stilltreesin theplaces wherehe mentionsthem,as forinstanceon the Tegea-Argos road (viii. 54. 5). ProbablyPausanias, like the modern the extentofwoodland,forit tendsto growin remoteplaces; but underestimated traveller, he givesthe strongimpressionthatmostjourneys,then as now,were throughcultivated land or maquis. notin large butpresumably timber, TheophrastosmentionsArkadiaas a countryexporting The it was of 2. whether he cannot since templeaccounts good quality(HPv. 1). say quantity Strabo(viii.8. 1. 388) remarks ofDelphi recordpurchasesoftimberfrompeople at Sikyon.24 thatArkadiahad been muchdepopulatedbywarsand was famousforhorsesand asses.25 24 R. Meiggs, Treesand Timberin theAncientMediterranean

World (Oxford,1982),430-1. 25Contraryto the statementof A. Beuermann, 'Die im PeloponnesunterbesondererBerückWaldverhältnisse

10 Erdkunde, sichtigungder Entwaldungund Aufforstung', of the (1956),122-36,who both exaggeratesthe statements extentofwoodlandin antiquityand playsdownthemodern presenceoftrees.

Historical ecology ιοί

AD Two othertextsare of uncertainapplication.Hermas, the first-or second-century thus(78.4-10): hisninthParable divine,introduces The angel of repentance. . . tookme away to Arkadia,to a breast-like mountain,and sat me on the top of the in mountain,and showedme a greatplain,and roundthe plain twelvemountains,and the mountainsdiffered appearancefromone another.The firstwas blacklikesoot.The secondwas bare; it had no plants.The thirdwas The fourthhad half-dry plants,the top of theplantsgreen,but towardstherootsdry; thornyand fullof thistles. mountainhad greenplantsand was rough. partoftheplantsbecamedrywheneverthesun singedthem.The fifth The sixthmountainwas all fullofravines,somesmalland somegreat;theravineshad plants,buttheplantswere The seventhmountainhad happyplants,and all themountain but rathershrivelled-like. not too well-nourished, and everykindofcattleand birdspasturedupon thatmountain;and as muchas thecattleand the was flourishing, and every fowlsfed,moreand moretheplantsofthatmountainsprouted.The eighthmountainwas fullofsprings, kindof creatureof the Lord drankof the springsof thatmountain.The ninthmountainhad no waterat all and men.The tenthmountainhad verybig trees, was all deserted;and ithad in itbeastsand deadlyreptilesdestroying The eleventhmountainwas very and undertheshadelaysheeprestingand ruminating. and was all overshadowed, so thatone seeingthemwould adornedwithdifferent thickwithtrees,and thetreeson itwereveryfruitful, fruits, mountainwas all white. . . The twelfth wantto eat oftheirfruits. ix. 1) (ShepherdofHermas,Parable

of based on the Eclogues is a Renaissancedevelopment, The Arcadiafamiliarfromliterature the real was that this It is temptingto suppose inspiredby passage, by contrast, Vergil.26 of mountainsand their The diversity Arkadia.Hermas sayshe was himselfan Arkadian.27 wouldagreeverywellindeedwithsouthernArkadiatoday. vegetation AD biographerPhilostratosputs these words into the mouthof his The third-century subject,ApolloniosofTyana: Arkadiais fullof crops and grassyand woody,not onlythe highlandsbut also the lowlands,and needs many and shepherds,and cowboysbothforcattleand horses,and the place farmersand manygoatherds,swineherds, needsmanyoak-cutters (δρυτόμοι)who are trainedfromboyhood. (VitaApollonii,8. 7)

This also wouldfitmodernArkadiaexceptthatthereare now fewcattleor horses.However, an sage, is defendinghimselfon a chargeof sacrificing Apollonios,who was a first-century fromunemployment and that to showthatArkadiadoes notsuffer Arkadianboy,and is trying its inhabitantshave no need to earn a livelihoodby gettingthemselvessacrificed.Neither norApolloniosseemsto havebeen to Arkadia. Philostratos Conclusions

ofthe forwhattheyare worth,suggestthatthelandscapeand vegetation These textstogether, in classicaltimesfromwhattheywerejust before middlePéloponnèsewerenotverydifferent the recentagriculturaldecline. Whethertherewas any change duringthe course of the land classicalperiodtheevidencedoes notallowus to say.Kahrstedtclaimsthatthecultivated in Arkadiacontracted and thatforests and pastureincreased;28 thisis apparently based on the and Strabo texts,whichare hardlystrongenoughto bear thatinference.The Philostratos 26 P. J. Mahaffy,Ramblesand Studiesin Greece(London, 1907), 290-2.

27J. B. Lightfootandj. R. Harmer,TheApostolic Fathers (Londonand New York,1891).

28U. GesichtGriechenlands in der Kahrstedt, Das wirtschaftliche Kaiserzeit: Kleinstadt, Villa und Domäne (Dissertationes

Bernenses,1.7;Bern,1954),161.

102 Chapter j

MegalopolisSurveyappears to show a markeddeclinein numbersof sitesfromclassicalto Roman. hellenistic One certainchange since Theophrastos'stimeis the decline of yew,whichis now very I havenotseenit. rare;29 A notableomissionfromthe classicalrecordis the woods of Taygetos.Sources of good timberin Greece werefew,and such an obviousone, quite easy of access on the Messenia side,oughtto havebeen mentionedhad itbeen available.I inferthatthewoodsofTaygetosin thantheyare now. and lessmagnificent classicaltimeswereprobablylessextensive The Skotitas text

In one place we can be specificaboutthelandscapenothavingchangedsinceclassicaltimes. oaks.The name oftheplace, On thewayfromtheHermai [sc.towards Sellasia]theentireplace is fullof [deciduous] Skotitas[TheDark],did not come fromthe densityof the trees,but fromZeus surnamedSkotitas;and thereis a tenstadia.Goingbackfromhere, ofZeus Skotitason theleftoftheroad ifyouturnaside approximately sanctuary Heraklesis supposed find]thereis an imageofHeraklesand a trophy. goingon a littleand turningleftagain, [you to haveput it up afterkillingHippokoönand his sons.The thirdturningoffthedirectroad,to theright,leads to Karyai and the sanctuaryofArtemis.For Karyai is a place sacredto Artemisand theNymphs,and an imageof ArtemisKaryatisstandsin theopen . . . (Pausanias,iii. 10.6)

The topography is certain.The Hermai wereat thejunctionof Laconia, Arkadia,and what was thenthe Argolid(Paus. ii. 38. 7; iii. 1. 1). The spot is on the crestof Mt Parnonabove wereidentified byjochmusand thepriestofVresthena AgiosPétros.The Hermaithemselves in 1834. They were apparentlythreebarrowsor 'pyramids',called Phoneménoifromthe beliefthattheywerethetombsofmurderedmen.30Littlenowremainsofthebarrows,butthe The wood in 1985began directlyon the Laconia side of the barrows sitesare unmistakable. and had overrunone of them.It is verylikelythatthebottomend of thewood is about the same as in Pausanias'stime,fortheancientname ofKaryai('Nuts')has nowbeen givento the and whose name knownas Arachova,withwhichit is generallyidentified villageformerly means'nuts'in Slavonic.I am temptedto locatethesanctuaryofArtemisand theNymphsat the siteof a beautifulchapel and springat the bottomof the wood. Here are threeancient whichare amongthebiggestin Europe,withgirthsof11m. plane-trees MEDIEVAL AND LATER RECORDS

AND TRAVELLERS

Settlement and population

During theiroccupationof the whole Morea from1685 to 1715,the Venetiansattempted severalcensuses,one of whichincludesa completelistof villages(or moreprobablyof civil parishes)around1700.3I Anothercensus,witha listof villages,is due to the Frenchin 1830, afterGreekindependence.32 thesettlement pattern Exceptin theMani, whichpresenteditsownproblemsofrecording, littlein threehundredyears.The greatmajorityofmodernvillages has changedremarkably 29Rothmaler, 'Floristische Ergebnisse'(η. 16). 3° Κ. Α. Romaios,'Laconia, IV: the Ερμαι on the N.E. BSA 11(1904-5),137-8. frontier', 31Ε Sauerwein,'Das Siedlungsbild der Peloponnesum das 23 (1969), 237-44 and supplement; Jahr 1700', Erdkunde,

Πληθυσμός, 144-5,lbl~^ 231-89. Panagiotopoulos, 32J. B. G. M. Boryde Saint-Vincent, Expédition scientifique de Morée:sectiondes sciencesphysiques(Paris, 1832-6), ii. 1,p. 61.

Historical ecology 103

are recognizablein the Venetianlist.There are some desertedor unidentifiable settlements those with Turkish and some other for (especially names), changes: instance,Aphysouappears in £.1700as twotownships, Affissù-Cartali' and Afïïssù-Sardari', whichcouldmean eithertwo or two subdivisions or within the same village.But the generally villages (parishes manors) dense settlementof the wet belt and the sparse villages in the drybelt go back beyond Venetiantimes.This is remarkable,consideringthatboth censuseswere done when the Péloponnèse had recentlybeen ravaged by plague, wars, and the loss of the Muslim inhabitants oftheplains. In 1830 the highestdensityof populationin all the Péloponnèsewas in ArkadianParnon aroundAgiosPetros,a clusterofhugevillages(or townships withmorethanone village)and a densityof around50 inhabitants per sq km. This was probablyalso the case in 1700,albeit witha lowergeneraldensityof population.There were severallarge villagesin Laconian Parnon,and a generalscatterof middle-sizedvillagesthroughout Taygetos.In contrast,the drylowlandseastofmodernSpartahad onlysome5 inhabitants per sq kmin 1830. Cropsand land use

In theMiddleAges,Messeniato thewestbelongedto Venice,and something is knownofits The chief were and oil. Other corn,legumes,wine, economy. crops productswere cotton, orchardfruit, and various wild honey,'acorns', crops.33 Fromtheseventeenth centuryonwards,travellers regardedLaconia as in parta fertileand cultivated land. lists the highly Randolph(1680) productsoftheMorea as usedforshoeuppers], Olive-Oyl,Raw-Silk,Wax, Honey,Soap, Cordovan skins[finegoatskin Sheep-skins,Butter, call Valania, Cheese,Raisons,Currans,Figgs,Wines,Wheat,Barly,Rye,Oates, dry'dAcorns,(whichthe Venetians . . .) FustickWood [Cotinuscoggygria usedas a dyestiiff], and PernicokeSeed [crimson-grain; seebelow]. . ,34

He says that oranges,lemons,citrons,pomegranates,apricots,peaches, plums,cherries, and walnutsweregrownin gardens;therewerefewapples and pears (whichis cypress-trees, notso now).Of Mystrasin particularhe says: The Plain is verypleasant,fullof smallVillages,Olive,and MulberryTrees.This Place and Calamatamakemore Silkthanall theotherpartsoftheMorea.35

Leake visitedLaconia in 1805. Since Pococke'svisittherehad been two disastrouswars, although if the censuses are to be believed the total population must have increased. at leastin theplains,was evidently in decline,thoughnotso severelyas it is now. Agriculture, In south-eastern Laconia theland had fallento Muslims, who,thoughhalfstarvedand clothedin rags,have inheritedthe notion. . . thatit is the businessof the rayáh [Christian peasant]to cultivatethe land, and have, therefore,let theirestatesgo to ruin; the massacres and persecutionswhichfollowedthe insurrectionexcitedby Russia [in 1770],havingdeprivedthis cornerof the peninsulaofitsGreekinhabitants.36

33P. W. Topping, FeudalInstitutions as Revealedin theAssizesof Romania,theLaw Code of FrankishGreece(Philadelphia, 1Q48):

id., 'The post-classical documents',in MME 64-80.

34Β. Randolph, The PresentStateoftheMorea, Called Anciently

. . . fardedn, London, i68q), 17. Peloponnesus 35Ibid. 8. 36Leake, Travels,i. 221.

104 Chapterj

a NorthAmericanplant,had becomea considerablecrop. By Leake'stimemaize (kalambokki), before1770therehad Olive oil was stillthemainarticleofcommerce.Silkwas stillimportant: been an annual exportof 50,000 okes (60 tons),but in Leake's timehalfthatquantitywas producedin a goodyear.Cottonwas muchin decline. In Leake's timeTzitzina(now Polydroso)was perhapstypicalof the prosperousmountain villages. The sidesofthehillsbelowand aroundthevillageare coveredwithvinesin narrowterraces.. . . Tzitzinacontains who possessa considerablequantityof land, grownwithwheat,barley,rye,and vines;theyhave eightyfamilies, near Sparta,and manyflocks,whichare now feedingon the also some lands and a kalyvia[secondary settlement] in the plain of Elos [fardistant] winterpasturesin the low lands,particularly ; fromthe milkof theseflocksthey in thisarticle.37 makecheese,and carryon a considerabletraffic

When Chateaubriandcame to Laconia in 1806 he was veryimpressedby his firstsqualid khannear Sellasia,whoseinnkeeperreceivedhimon an upstairsdunghill.Laterhe foundan at 'Sclabochorion'(nowAmykles): oasisofcultivation We tooktheway of theplain at the footof Taygetos,following shadyand verypleasantlittlepathswhichpassed whichcame down fromthe mountain,were planted betweengardens;thesegardens,irrigatedby watercourses We saw theremanywater-melons, and sycomores. withmulberry-trees, cucumbers,and eating-grapes, fig-trees, we could have different kindsofvegetables.Fromthe beautyof the skyand almostthe same kindof cultivation, ofChambéry38 thoughtourselvesin theneighbourhood

The landscapedoes indeedstilllook likethe outerFrenchAlps aroundChambéry.The one whichis whatChateaubriandwouldhave meantby plantno longergrownis Ficussycomorus, if he identified it correctly.Aphysoustillhas an elaborate systemof irrigation sycomore, channelssharedbetweenitshouseholders. in 1888) saysthatcottonand silkwere seldomgrown;theymusthave Philippson(visiting ceased not long after.The whitemulberrytrees,however,were maintained;theyare still pollardedtodayon a one-yearcycleand theleavesare used forfeedingassesand goatsrather In 1888muchCannabis was grownin easternArkadiaas a drugplant;hashish thansilkworms. was exportedto orientalcountries.39 Maquis andgarigue

in records;theyweretoo commonplaceto be We cannotexpecttheseto be muchrepresented their uses weremainlyforpurposes(firewood, notedoftenby travellers and, althoughuseful, and thus involve so that did not and escape record. money on) goats, from and which wax, garigueflowers,appear in the medieval originatemainly Honey In 1805 the Mani and Vardouniaexported10,000 Messenia recordsand in latertravellers. okes(ΐ2!Λtons)ofhoneya year,besideslambskinbags ofsaltquails.40 A specificproductofmaquisis mentionedbyRandolphas a productoftheMorea: PernicokeSeed, whichSeed is forDyeingofScarlet.It growson a Shurb-Oak-tree [sic],risingat thestemmofthe Leaf,likea Blister,something biggerthana Pea, out of whichcomesDust (or Powder)whichbeingdryturnsto smallWorms,whichwhenquicknedtheykillwithWine.41 37Ibid. ii. 515-16. 30F. R. de Chateaubriand (ed. E. Malakis), Itinéraire de Pans à Jérusalem(Baltimore, Md., 1946), i. 124.

39A. Philippson, Der Peloponnes (Berlin, 1892), 541, 545. 40Leake, Travels,ii. 242. 41Randolph (n. 34), 17.

Historicalecology 105 This is crimson-grain, thecoccusinsect(Kermococcus whichliveson prickly-oak. There vermilio) was doubtas to whetherit was a fruitor a worm.Leake saysit was calledprinokókki and was It was boughtfrompeasantsat 15-20piastresan oke;thisworksout (in gatheredon Taygetum. - buta kilogramrepresents 1985values)at about 1,000drachmasper kilogram manyhoursof and prickly work.Laconia probablyyieldedmuchlesscrimson-grain thanBoiotia.The fiddling Bey of the Mani had a monopolyof the export;it was shippedat Marathonisi(Gytheio)for Tunisand Leghorn.At Tunisitwas usedfordyeingthefezzesthatall Turkishmenwore.42 The in coccusinsectappearsalmostto havevanished.I havetravelled muchin prickly-oak country thegathering season(Augustto October,accordingto Randolph)and haveseldomseenit. was Randolph's'FustickWood5,thewood of Connus Anothermaquisdyestuff coggygria. Firewoodcouldbe a commercialproduct.Leake saw 200 assesloaded withthe'brushwood5 thathad been importedvia PortoKágio in the Mani one Easterforthepurposeof roasting lambs.43 He describesvariouskindsofmaquis: The hillsabove Gythium and Trinisa,as well as thoseof Laconiain general,abound,in all the uncultivated parts whichare notshadedwithforest-trees, withtheholley-leaved oak shrub,fromwhichis gatheredtheprinokókki, or scarletdye,exportedfromMarathonisibythemerchants ofMistrá.The prinári,or prinusoftheancientGreeks,is of everysize, froma greatforesttreeto a low shrub:but it is onlyfromthe shrub,I believe,thatthe grainis . . . thevermilion is farfrombeingequallyplentiful in all situations.44 gathered.[Footnote']

NearVrontamás he noticedOak-Lentiskmaquis:'a barrentract,rockyand coveredwithbushes of mastic[lentisk], He remarked'scatteredtrees,chieflyof ilex5 holly-oak,and wild olive.545 betweenParnonand Sparta,whilearoundÁgios Theódoros,in the verydrysouth-eastof withmountains coveredinwildlavender.46 Laconia,he encountered terrain, garigue-only entirely Chateaubriandwas veryimpressedby the uninhabitedlandscape on the hillsbetween Laconia and Arkadia: we entereda desertwhichendsonlyin thevalleyofLaconia. The dried-upbed ofa torrent servedus as a road;we wentalong withit intoa labyrinth of low mountains,all like each other,showingeverywhere nothingbut bare peaksand slopescoveredwitha sortofdwarfgreenoak,withhollyleaves.47

The area is now muchless arid in aspect.The hillsvaryin vegetation, geologyand climate, and someofthemare moderately lush,withconspicuousarbutus,andrachne,and Cotinus. Chateaubriand continued towards the Evrotas gorge, and there found that 'the mountainsbegan to riseup and to be coveredwitha fewclumpsof trees;thevalleyswere narrowand broken;some of themremindedme, but on a verysmall scale, of the site of the Grande Chartreuseand its magnificentcover of Forests5.48 The peculiar featureof the Chartreusemountainsin France is the limestonecliffssoaring out of the forests. ProbablyChateaubriandhad in mind smallerlimestonecliffsrisingout of lush maquis and riverinewoods, as in the Evrotasgorge itselfand its tributaryravineson both sides below Vourlia(Sellasia). Boryde Saint-Vincent,who touredtheMorea in 1830and made a catalogueofitsplants,is theonlytraveller to mentionburningofmaquis: 42Leake, Travels, i. 132. « Ibid. i. 289. 44Ibid. i. 249-50. « Ibid. 1. 194.

46Ilex: Leake, Peloponnesiaca, ii. Travels, 341,supplementing 515.Lavender:ibid.i. 202. 47Chateaubriandin. 38). i. 111 48Ibid.

io6 Chapterj This arbutuswouldbecomea veryeleganttreein theMorea, iftheshepherdsdid not have thecustomof setting fireto the area whereit grows,because of the local idea thatthe ashes of burntplantsmakesthemabundant season.49 pastureforthefollowing

Saint-Vincentregardedandrachneas a rareplant:hisonlyLaconian localitywas thegorge to mentionilex: coneof the dominanttreesin of the Evrotas.He is one of the fewtravellers theMorea ... itformsthebasisofmostofthebigwoodsoftheloweror middleelevations'.50 and thoughNeumannand Partschsay the same51I can only This is a surprising statement, as that on ilex, Quercus throughotheroaks manyoccasions,has been over-recorded suppose mistaken for it.52 being Saint-Vincentsaysthatcarob, Ceratonia siliqua,grows'in all the Morea', whichis now no not This almost true. tree, certainly indigenous,is now abundantin the lowlandsof longer Cretebutrarein Laconia. The travelsofPhilippsonin 1888 givemanyparticularsofmaquisin specificplaces.Many are stillrecognizablenow.Wherenotinvadedbydeciduous ofhisdescriptions and distinctions thevegetationis eithermuchthe same todayor is now talleror denser.For oaks or conifers, example,on thewayfromVoutianoitowardsTripolis, and lack of waterbegin at once. The vegetationis wretched,partly Withthe dominanceof limestone,sterility So thearea showsa thereare cornfields. , partlylow maquis;in thelittlevalleysand depressions phrygana[garigue] and cheerless monotonous appearance.53 very

This is thearea visitedby Chateaubriand;mostofthechangesin it have evidently happened time. sincePhilippson's BetweenVlachokerasiaand KaltezesPhilippsonreports: of the rock,the vegetationis Despite the abundance of water,that is broughtabout by the impermeability it is somewhatbetterthanon thelimestone Nevertheless as tendsusuallyto be thecase on mica-schist. wretched, as longas theseare notwooded.It consistsmainlyofdryphryganaundershrubs. mountains, Onlyon thewestside whichspeciallybelongsto ofthehighestridgeeastofKaltezai is it suddenlyreplacedbya lushmaquis-vegetation, fromhereto Leondari.We have therebyleftthe dryeast westernside of Greece,and predominates the moister, halfofthePéloponnèse.54

The contrastis stillveryclear,but the dryschistcountryis not quite so barrenas in 1888; thereare wide areas of bracken,tractsof Ericaarbórea, plane-treesin valleys,and occasional after which the Kerasiá villages are and the cherries deciduous oaks, chestnuts, young has vanished beneathforestry wild of the named. plantationsof vegetation (Much apparently blackpine,whichhavenotprospered.) and travellers Earlyevidenceforsibljakis hard to come by; it is a local plantcommunity, seldomvisiteditslocalities(otherthanMystrascity,whichwouldthenhavebeen lessvegetated and than it is now). Saint-Vincentfailsto mentionOstrya, thoughhe does referto Cotinus terebinth as commonplants.

49Bory de Saint-Vincent (n. 32), i. 115. 50Ibid. i. 272. 51 C. Neumann and J. Partsch, Physikalische Geographievon Rücksichtauf das Alterthum Griechenland mitbesonderer (Breslau, 1885), 380.

52Rackham (n. 2), 327 n. 82, 337. 53Philippson (n. so), 166. 54Ibid. 165.

Historical ecology 107 Deciduousoakwoods

The fourteenth-century law-codeofFrankishGreece,theAssizesofMorea,55 containsprovisions relatingto woods. There were 'wild forests'commonto all and privateforests56 'anciently reserved5 and attachedto castles.Common-rights includedcuttingtimberand dead wood, and feedingpigs on acorns.There was an acorn harvestafter14 September.Unfortunately, laws are a notoriously it is not clear how fartheseare imported poor sourceof evidence;57 fromFranceor Germanyand howfartheycodifyactualMoreotpractice. More definiteare the medievalrecordsof Messenia,whichmentionacorns,valonia,and Valonia was a monopolyof the Byzantineemperorin the galls as articlesof commerce.58 fourteenth century.59 In the seventeenth centuryRandolphmentions'severalsortsof Oaks' and valonia.There was a large oakwood in the middle of Messenia, which may stillexist.60The ArkadiaMesseniaborderis mentionedas an area ofoakwoodsbyBrue,interpreter to thegrandvizier, in 1715;he had notmetwiththemanywhereelse in thevizier'sPeloponnesianwar.61 Theystill existand have recentlyincreased.Leake mentionsthe macrolepis oakwoodsof the northern Mani, and describesthe trade in valonia. It was a considerabletrade: Greece was said to valuedat 40 piastres(about2,000drachmasat exportsome 1,400tonsofacorn-cupsannually, ton. The the Mani had a monopolyof the exportof valonia from of 1985values)per Bey a it fetched one-third than valonia fromtherestof Greece.Much ofit Gytheio; price higher went to England.62Valonia was gatheredon the Mani border,forLeake says: 'Further a long root of Mount Taygetum westward[from stretchesto the south,called Mavrovoúní], Makriá a forestoftheveláni-oak,and or it is covered with Makryaráki[se. Ráchi', Long-ridge; is supposedto producehalfthevallonéashippedat Marathonisi'.63 I cannotidentify Makria but it at least with the area of the oakwoods Rachi, evidently agrees, macrolepis approximately, behindPassavatoday. These woodswerealso used fortimber.The inhabitants ofTzitzinacame hereas travelling as 'In Leake observes: Bardunia and the north-eastern craftsmen, partofMani, theycutplank and timberfromtheoak and poplarofMount Taygetum'.6* Saint-Vincentsaysthatvaloniawas speciallycommonbehindGytheio,butgrewalso in the Evrotasvalley.He spenta disagreeablenightin a valoniawood bytheEvrotasdelta: Some enormousValoniaswerescatteredin thisplace,withthebiggestLentisksI have everencountered. The well, wherewe had hoped to finddrinking built water,was dry;thatwhichused to fillthebasinsofa quitebig fountain ofstone,whichwe discoverednearthebed ofa torrent borderedbyOleandersand Vitex 20 feethigh,had been all muddiedbya flockwhichhadjust drunkfromit.We therefore had to giveup quenchingour thirst. Whenwe had thrownourselvesdownon our scorching beds,newmyriadsofMosquitoesbegan to tortureus. Innumerablepacks ofJackals,runningup fromall sidesin thedeep darkness,incessantly made us listento a concertofpiercingwails, ofwhichI was terrified.65

55Topping, FeudalInstitutions (n. 33).

56The word'forest'is Topping'stranslation; I do notknow theexactmeaningoftheoriginalword. 57O. Rackham, 'The countryside:historyand pseudoTheHistorian, history', 14(1987),13-17. 58Topping,'The post-classical documents'(n. 33).

59 P. Thiriet, Régestes des délibérationsdu sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie(Paris, 10,^8),1^6.

60Ibid.; Rothmaler, 'Floristische Ergebnisse'(η. ΐ6). 61 Β.

Brue, Journalde campagneque le grandvésirAli Pacha a

de la Morée(Paris, 1870). faiteen iy15pourla conquête

62The Englishleather-tanning industrywas boomingat the time: L. A. Clarkson, 'The English bark trade 22 (19,74), 1660-1830',Agricultural History Review, 136-^2. 63Leake, Travels, i. 251,cf.240. 64Ibid. ii. 516. 65Boryde Saint-Vincent(n. 32),i. 455.Jackalsstillhowlat near Sparta;theauthorsaw one notfarfromSaintnightfall Vincent'ssitesin 2001.

io8 Chapterj time.The woods, The valoniatradestillexistedin Philippson's west and northof brokenup by fieldsand olive-treesinto separate scatteredgroups,cover the hill-country ofMalevriand thesouthernpartof [Vardounia]) up towardsStephaniaand Krokeae. . . The Gytheion(thedistrict valonia-oakis notplantedin thePéloponnèse,butitswoodsare probablycarefully protectedand stabilizedin part theground,sincethevaloniayieldsa valuableexportcropalmostwithoutanylabour.66 byterracing

woodedwith In 1888,as now,thehillbetweenthe castleof Passava and the sea was 'thickly valonia-oaks'.67 oakwoodsin our studyarea,butdescribesseveralotherselsewhere Leake missedthefrainetto in the Morea. For instance,a largewood in Elis 'consistssolelyof oaks,manyof themvery This wood maystillexist.69 large,butall withverycrookedstems5.68 Skotitaswas apparentlyfirstrediscoveredby the French expedition of 1830, and is mentioned byseveralothertravellers. We noticed,likePausanias,thatthewholesouthslope of theseschistmountainsis coveredwithlittlegreenoaks; combinedwiththe colour of the rock,theygive the countrya sombreappearance whichcontrastswiththe whiteness ofthelimestonemountains.Fromthiscomes,perhaps,thename of Skotitas,althoughPausaniasgivesa forit. different etymology Boblaye(1830)7° thenorth] . . . thecountry ; beginsto be woodedaboutthreequartersofan hourbeforereaching'AghiosPetros[from and the oak-forest, properlyso called, extendsto beyondVambakouon the south. . ., as faras the villageof Vourvourato thenorth,and to theconfluenceoftheriverofVresthénawiththeŒnus to thewest.This fineforest diminishesannuallyin densityas well as beauty,in consequence of the cuttingdown of timberforbuilding purposesand forfuel. Jochmus(1834)71 on bothsidesare grownwithgnarledoaks,theremainsoftheancientoakwoodSkotitas. [At]Aráchova. . . The heights Ross (1834)7* This region,evennowcoveredwiththickoak scrub... in antiquity. . . had thename Skotitas.

Bursian(c.1835)73

Skotitasand its neighbourshave clearlynot changedmuch in extentsince the end of the Turkishperiod.As we would expectof such a denselypopulatedarea, muchuse has been but made ofthem,and at timesmuchof thiswoodlandhas been in earlystagesofregrowth; thedocumentsdo notjustifyus in regardingthepresentwoods as remnantsofa muchvaster historic wood. some Fiedlerin the 1830sreportsthat'halfan hourfromVlacho Kerasia [towards Kollines] he would is theAgiosChristophoros This presumably oak-woodlandbegins'.74 wood,although havehad to ridefastto gettherein thetime.Philippson(inhis 1959book)treatsthewood as a 66 Philippson(n. 39),530. A littlevaloniawas stillimported to England in 1984, but was said to come fromTurkey (BotanicalSocietyoftheBritishIsles). b7Ibid. 223.

68Leake, Travels, ii. 234. 69Rothmaler, 'Floristische Ergebnisse'(η. 16). 70Boblaye,Recherches, 72. 71This includesthenearbywoodsas wellas Skotitasitself. The 'confluence' does not make topographical sense

'Sellasia'). (Jochmus,

72 L. Ross, Reisen im Peloponnes,i: Der Ager Dentheliates, Theilevon Phliasia, Sikyonia, Arkadien,TheilevonArgolis,Thyreatis, Lakonikae(sic; Berlin, 1841), i. 173. 73G. Bursian, Geographie vonGriechenland (Leipzig, 1868-72),

ii. 116.

74 K. G. Fiedler, Reise durch alle Theile des Königreiches Griechenland . . . in denJahren1834 bis 1837 (Leipzig, 1840- 1).

Historicalecology 109 (He also missedthe Parnon thingof the past; evidentlyhe missedit on his 1888 travels.75 It is first noted at about the same time.76 oakwoods.) definitely byLoring The oak thatis conspicuouslyabsentfromall travellers'accountsis (λ brachyphylla. This does not mean it did not occur. It is not a verydistinctivekind of oak- it looks like the familiarfarmlandoaks of westernEurope- and it yieldsno special product,so thatif,in woodsit mightwellnotbe thoughtworthrecording. Even as addition,it formedno extensive lateas 1942Rothmalercouldobserve: In thePéloponnèsejust as widespreadas [frainetto], whereit existsas singletrees.Seldomformswoods particularly with[frainetto]. This speciesappearsto be less sensitiveto drought,and so oftenforms and is mostlyinterspersed sparsestandsat theedge ofwoodsof ζλFrainetto.7'1 Chestnut

As an anciently cultivated treethisis confirmed byplace-names:threevillagesare namedafter it in the Venetiancensus.There is a smallpuzzle, in thatseveraltravellers mentionit as a woodlandtree.Randolphincludes'wildChesnut'[sic)amongthe 'Treesin theWoods' ofthe Morea in 1680.78Leake mentions'a forestof chestnuttrees,mixedwitha fewoaks' above Kastanitsain Kynouria.79 Even Agios Petros'lies in a chestnut-wood' accordingto Ross.80 There is a similarproblemin Crete,wherethechestnut-woods referred to by writershave so I inferthattravellers farprovedelusive.Pendingfurther oftendid not knowthe discoveries, betweenorchardsand woods. difference Mountain conifers

These are littlenoticedbeforethenineteenth century. Randolphremarksthat'The Province ofArcadiais all surroundedwithMountains,mostof whichare coveredwithWoods.Yearly theyburnthe Grass and Bryersto clear the groundagainstthe Spring,and thenverygood Pasturegrowsup in itsstead.'He mentions'Pine,Firr'amongthewoodlandtrees.81 Leake knewthe coniferwoods of Taygetos:forinstance,at Mystras,Ά loftysummitof behind the castle,threeor fourmilesdistant,is clothedwitha forest immediately Taygetum, offirs'.82 He saysmuchabouttheconifers ofParnon.A mountainnearTzitzina is coveredwithfirsmixedwitha fewpines;on thesummitthereis somecultivated ground,and thetreesare burnt to preparethegroundforsowing.These woodlandsare said to have been morecultivatedin formertimes,when Tzitzinawas a muchlargervillage.83

Leake's accountsgivetheimpression thathe could distinguish fir(ελάτη)frompine,and that firwas thenmuchthecommonerofthetwo.The woodsofParnonwereprobablya littleless extensivethan theyare now.They were also more used than now,formakingplanksand torches.In thesame passageLeake mentionswildstrawberries; in his timethere illuminating werestillwolveson Parnonand wildswineon Taygetos. Saint-Vincentfailsto mentionpine and misidentifies fir.The latter'formsa regionor zone aroundthehighpeaksoftheTaygetos... It getsdestroyed there,butthereare stillsomethick forests ofit.A fewpersiston theMalevos'(inParnon).84 75Philippson(n. 4), iii.467. 76Loring,'Routes',61. 77Rothmaler, 'Floristische Ergebnisse'(n. 16). 78Randolph(n. 34), 18. 79Leake, Traveis, ii. 511.

80Ross (n. 72),174. 81Randolphin.
83Ibid. ii. CL16-17. 84Bory de Saint-Vincent (n. 32).

no Chapterj Accordingto Neumann and Partsch,'the mountainrangesof Parnon, Maenalon, and woodless,exceptthaton Taygetosat a certainheighta zone of Taygetosare almostentirely white-firs appears'.85 Philippsonin 1888 describesthe mountainwoods in more detail.At the westend of the In Anavryti, 'the micaGreatLangada therewas 'woodlandofblackpinesand a fewfirs'.86 schistis partlywooded withblackpines and firs,partlycoveredwithcorn and maize-fields. On the limestoneclifffir-woodascendsto about 1,900m'.87In a remotecirqueon the east side ofthehighestpeak ofTaygetoshe found'a splendid,stilluntouchedwildwood(Urwald) is covered Close by,on the Mani side,'the wholemountain-range of blackpinesand firs'.88 with a wood of black pines called Vasiliki,formerlyfamous,but which is now through destruction dividedinto scatteredclumpsseparatedby wide gaps'.89In general, thoughtless on themiddleTaygetos, in the higherpartsthe wood coverwas muchmoregeneral[than as faras one can judge fromthe further north], smallclumpsthatstilllie scatteredaround. Fromabout 800 to 1,900m is the zone of the coniferwoods,and whichsubordinately accompaniesthefir.Only in thehighestplaces ofthe especiallyofPinusLaricio [i.e.P. nigra], On the east side thesewoods includea partof the micawoodlandzone does thelatterpredominateexclusively. coversthemica-schist schistterrace,and ascendin scatteredgappybandsontothemainridge.Dense conifer-wood east of St Elias [Prophítis Bias,thehighest peak], also the east side of the ridgebetweenXerokampiand Kardhamyli extendedovera greatpartofthehighermountains;nowthereare . . . On theeastside thewood Vasilikiformerly which onlymiserableremainsof it at the sourceof the Kardhamylistreamand on a fewremotemountain-tops, to a sawmillthatis sitedthere.90 graduallyare sacrificed

AboveVamvakou on and aroundMt Malevós.91 On Parnon,Philippsonfound'thickfir-wood' wood ofPinus[nigra] thatis onlyrarelyaccompanied theschistwas coveredwith'an extensive on limestone'a splendid,thickwood of firscoversall the mountainsaround'.93 by firs';92 wherethereis now muchrecentpine and fir,in BetweenChrysaphaand Agrianoi,however, In scrub.94 general,Philippsonregarded'fir1888 therewas onlyprickly-oak woods,partly oftheupperaltitudesofParnon;thehighestparts mixedwiththeblackpine' as characteristic sidewerewooded. and mostofthenorth-east show thattherehave alwaysbeen pines and firswithin These accounts,takentogether, roughlytheirpresentlimitsof altitude.Despite what the travellerssay about thesebeing remnantsofonce muchlargerwoods- a claimwhichcan hardlybe based on firstshrinking - theywereundoubtedly once muchless extensivethantheyare now.Pines hand observation have increasedmorethanfirs;the increasehas probablybeen greateron Taygetosthan on limithas advancedbuttheupperhas probablyretreated Parnon;theloweraltitudinal slightly. The woods have,of course,been used fortimber,and thismay have resultedin local overthe generalchange. of thekindinferred by Philippson;but thishas not affected exploitation Much oftheincreasehas been in thelasthundredyears:thescatteredclumpsofPhilippson's time(which,on fieldevidence,may well have increasedalreadyfromscatteredsingletrees) havenowjoined up intocontinuouswoods. Further,undated, witnessesto the increase of woodland in Taygetos are the many mountainscalled Xerovouni,'Dry Mountain'.This is the usual Greekwordfora mountain 85Neumannand Partschfn.*i), 360. 86 Philippson(n. 39),207. 8?Ibid. 210. 88Ibid. 211. 89Ibid. 219.

9°Ibid. 24e». s'lbid. 158. 92Ibid.161. 93 TKÍH

TÍV7

94Ibid. 170.

Historicalecology in withouttreesor shrubs;yetsome ofthemountainsso called (e.g.at Pigádia in theMani) are nowwhollyor partlywooded. Gorges in Laconia havebeen interested in cliffs Fewtravellers or gorges.PhilippsonsaysoftheGreat Langada: The bed ofthestreamis in places surrounded bybeautifultree-growth (planes,in theupperpartalso blackpines in contrast, and firs);on thecliffs, scrubtakehold. The so-calledpath(one of onlymaquisbushesand prickly-oak theroughest, and mostslippery naturalpathsofthePéloponnèse,on whichone has in places to holdon to stoniest, themanesofthehorsesas theypicktheirwaydown,in orderto givethemsomeprotection fromslipping)goes in otherwise between highin thevalleysides. . . The heatofthesun [reflected] placesthroughtherockystream-bed, in the middleof a calm summerday and the torturing thepale cliffs thirstmake thepassage of the Langáda an ofnaturecan hardlycompensate.95 unpleasantburden,forwhichthemagnificence

The lime-trees, ilexesand Ostrya musthave existeda centuryago, but wereprobablycut so low as notto attractnotice.Philippsonwas unluckyin the road; thereare remainsof a wellconstructed butitmayhavefallenintoruinbyhistime. mule-path, Pictures

and Photographs

The manyviews of Mystrasgive some evidence of the surroundingvegetation.Prosper Baccuet's view of 1831,when the medieval citywas newly depopulated, shows sibljak alreadywell developed on Mystrashill itself,but the hills behind stilltreeless.Edward Lear's viewpointforhis sketchof the Pantánassa convent(1849) *s now obscuredby the growthof terebinthsand a Judas-tree.The Ceitisby the Perivleptos monastery,just is now a large tree.(Lear's viewpointfor recognizablewhen Lear sketchedthe monastery, this sketchis now completelyhidden in a pine plantation.)Sibljak bushes have further increasedin recentyearsand have growninto trees,as can be seen fromthe photographs in Runciman'sbook.96 The traveller Wyse(1851-2)publisheda viewof thelowerpartofthe GreatLangada. The viewpoint(about2 kmwestofthelasthouse in Trypi)can be identified exactly.The original pictureshowspatchesofmaquisand bare slopeswithsparsetrees.It appearsto be accurate; in particular, thesparsetreeshave thecharacteristic below shape,withthecrownterminated oftreesthathave been exposedto goatssincetheygrewup.97In everypart by a browse-line, oftheviewthereis now moregrowthoftreesand maquis:on theaccessibleslopes,thecliffs, and amongthecultivated fieldsofTrypiin thebackground.The changeis probablylessgreat thanin mostareas,forthereis stillsomegrazingin theGreatLangada. Pritzelin 1906 photographedthe pinewoodssomewherenear the westend of the Great Langada. I have not locatedthe viewpoint.He chose a spotwherethe woods were already ofyoungones are quitedenseand expanding;scatteredold pinesand at leasttwogenerations In Achaia he photographed visiblein thephotograph.98 oak maquisinvadedbyfir.99 95Philippson(n. 39),208. 96 All these illustrationsare in S. Runciman, Mistra:

ByzantineCapitalofthePéloponnèse (London, 1980).

97Sir Thomas Wyse,ed. W. M. Wyse,An Excursion in the

in theYear1858 (London, 1865), i. 179. Peloponnesos

98E. Pritzel,'Vegetationsbilderaus dem mittlerenund südlichen Griechenland', Englersbotanische Jahrbücher, 41 (1908), 180-214, pl. 11. 99 Ibid. pl. 10.

112 Chapter3

toArtemis Orthia. III. 3.14.ViewofTaygetosfromthekâstro at Sparta,taken£.1908.Reproducedfromthefrontispiece

The frontispiece to the excavationreportof thetempleofArtemisOrthiais a magnificent of Sparta around1908 (ILL.3.14).It givesvery of photograph Taygetostakenfromthe kástro clearevidenceofthevegetationchangesin thelasteightyyears.The coniferzone ofTaygetos was thenonlypatchesof woodlandand isolatedtrees;thesehave now increasedto forma Pasturenow remains continuousbelt,excepttowardstheupperlimitof conifers(ILL.3.15).100 Much woodland has also at the middle altitudes (900-1,200m). appearedin theregion chiefly was Phaneromeni deciduous oakwood the ofsibljakand deciduousoak; thebig monastery by little and has in then as was notthere 1908.The foreground, now, apart olive-groves, changed fromthegrowthofSpartatown. Conclusions the original pre-neolithic vegetation comesfromidentifying, recordsthemainevidenceforlandscapehistory Beforewritten counting, and datingpollengrainspreservedin peat and lake mud. No suitabledepositsare knownin in Greece. Laconia;a fewhavebeenstudiedin Boiotiaand Crete;thereare otherselsewhere The last glaciationwas a dryas well as a cold period. In the pre-Neolithicpart of the Holocene (theperiod since the last glaciation,fromabout 10,000calendaryearsBC to the 100Groveand Rackham (η. ι),fig.4.24.

Historical ecology 113

III. 3.15.SimilarviewofTaygetostakenon 27 August1984.

present)vegetationwas not much less varied than it is now, but the followinggeneralizations can be drawn. (1) Prehistoricforest(wildwood) was not continuous,but formeda mosaic with patches of steppe,and probably also savanna (scatteredtreesamong grassland). (2) Oaks were probablythe commonesttrees. (3) At least halfthe oak was deciduous the species cannot be furtherdistinguished. (4) Other maquis treesare represented:lentisk,juniper,Erica,or Arbutus. (5) Many otherdeciduous treeswere present,including: Cercis, Fraxinus; (a) sibljah.Ostrya,Carpinus, (b) semi-aquatic: elm, poplar; (c) northern:lime, alder,birch. (6) Garigue was apparentlynot part of the normal vegetationmosaic, but was restrictedto special localities.101 The modern vegetation of Laconia does much to explain the ecological relations between differentclasses of tree, and especially the behaviour of trees in category (5), which are now extinct,or nearly so, in both Crete and Boiotia. Maquis, deciduous oakwoods, sibljak, and 101 andG. Rapp,'Environmental 273-97;Rackhamand Moody(n. 1); Groveand Rackham J.Moody,O. Rackham, NW Crete',JFA23 (1996), (n. 1), ch. 10. archaeologyof prehistoric

114 Chapterj

different riverinewoods are fundamentally plant communitieswhich do not easily mix. kindsofwildwood.To some extentwe can four different from derive almost certainly They reconstructthe kinds of terrain on which each would representthe natural climax vegetation. ofLaconia probablyconsistedofthefollowing: The originalnaturalvegetation (1) Evergreen wildwood, from which maquis is derived, on hard limestone and maybe some of the drierschistsand conglomerates.There may have been several types. (2) Deciduous-oak wildwood, on much of the schist and the softerrocks which are now cultivated. (3) Deciduous wildwood of sibljak trees, also mainly on schists, probably in damper situations. (4) Riverinewoods along all the watercourses. (5) Steppe, formingpatches among the preceding vegetation types,frequentlyin eastern Laconia and rarelyin the west (supposing that the presentdifferenceof climate already existed). (6) Northerntrees,not uncommon in the lowlands but thererestrictedto speciallycool and damp localities. On the mountain vegetationthere is littledirect evidence. If, as I conjectured in Boiotia, the presentAbieswoods had once a greatervarietyof treesand shrubs,the same ought to apply to Laconia. Pine would have been less common than in recent centuries:it depends on fire,and natural sources of ignition(e.g. lightning)would probably not be frequentenough to preventit frombeing displaced by less combustibletrees. It must not be supposed that in pre-Neolithic times the vegetation was unaffected by human activities. Already in Palaeolithic times elephants - the only animal capable of breaking down a large tree had been exterminatedthroughoutEurope. Mesolithic people,

even in small numbers,could have created what would have amounted to a cultural landscapeby alteringthefireregime,muchas theAboriginesofTasmania did in a similarly combustible landscape. The presenceof northerntreesestablishesthatthe climateof Boiotia and Crete- and by inference thatofLaconia- was appreciablylessaridin thefirsthalfoftheHolocene thanitis now.This is confirmed (ratherthanon cliffs bytheirpatternofsurvival:on speciallycold cliffs in general,as theywould survivehad browsingbeen responsiblefortheirdecline),and by a speciallycold river. Most of the changesbetweenthe 'aboriginal'landscape of Greece and the presenthad records.They conformto a patternrepeatedall overat least alreadyhappenedbeforewritten the northMediterranean(but strongerin Spain and Greece than in Italy). In the early the seasonalthannow: in effect, Holocene theclimatewas wetterand probablyless strongly the third fifth to the From km southward. some limits were 500 displaced vegetation likethe to something BC therewas a gradualchange,knownas theAridization, millennium - the LittleIce Age fluctuations there have been then Since climate. Mediterranean present - butnotenoughto leavea clearmarkin thepollenrecord.102 and itspredecessors 102O. Rackham,'Ancient landscapes',in O. Murrayand S.

Price (eds), The GreekCity:FromHomer to Alexander(Oxford,

1990),85-111;Rackhamand Moody (η. ι),ch. 10; Groveand Rackham(η. ι),ch. 9.

Historicalecology 115 FACTORS CONTROLLING MODERN VEGETATION Climate

in wild plant-life betweenone part of Laconia and anothercan be Most of the differences in intensity ofland use can to climateand soil;excepton cultivated attributed land,differences influence on the Moistureappearsto be thepredominant seldombe shownto havemucheffect. - the densityof maquis,the presenceof arbutusand and composition of vegetation structure relaxes.It is and so on- and on howrapidlybushesgrowintotreeswhenbrowsing andrachne, in thelast been a small towards a less arid climate that there has to change tempting suppose fromthepoorstatistics thatare to hand. hundredyears,butthiscannotbe supported Browsing

As in mostofGreece,browsinghas had a verygreatinfluenceon thelandscape:woodshave havebeen favoured been reducedto maquis,and unpalatableplants(e.g.garigueundershrubs) overpalatablespecies(e.g. deciduoustrees).Cessationof browsingis undoubtedlythe main cause ofthechangesofrecentdecades. in Laconia ofbrowsing do notappearto havebeenquiteso overwhelming theeffects However, In Crete(whereseverebrowsing well back before human since as elsewhere. may go occupation, butno carnivores) thedifferences betweengorges thenativemammalsincludedlargeherbivores are greaterthanin Laconia. In Boiotiathemoreedibletreeshave and therestofthevegetation In Laconia palatabletreessuchas ash,elm,Cercis, exterminated. been ratherthoroughly Ostrya, arenotparticularly and andPhillyrea rare, sometimes persistin accessibleplaces. Woodcutting

fuelis commonlysupposedto have Fellingoftreesfortimberand fordomesticand industrial on the'deforestation' ofGreeceand otherMediterranean lands- on the had a greatinfluence This conversionof wildwood to maquis and then on the destructionof maquis itself.103 in it the form of a is overstated. generality, easily argument,presented(as usually is) is tree-felling notbalancedby regrowth; it willhave dependedon thelocal rate Deforestation of regrowth,on the factors(notablybrowsing)that hinder regrowth,on the densityof population,and on whetheror not therewas a fuel-usingindustry.The importanceof is emphasizedby Forbesand Kosterin theirstudyofMethanaand thesouthern woodcutting but as an export Argolid;104 thisarea has a historyof dense populationand of lime-burning and evenso itretainedmuchofitsmaquis. industry, Laconia appearsto have had onlydomesticuses fortimberand wood. In the dryregion, whereregrowth wouldhavebeen slow,populationhas been verysparsein relationto theareas of roughland.There are relatively fewlime-kilnsand no historyof any fuel-using industry Most woodland survivesin areas with a historyof servinga more than local market.105 denseto verydensepopulation,especiallynorthern Parnon. moderately 103This thesishas been restatedbyJ. D. Hughes,'How the ancientsvieweddeforestation', JFA 10 (1983),437-45; T. A. Wertime,'The furnaceversus the goat: the pyrotechnic industriesand Mediterraneandeforestationin antiquity', ibid.445-52. 104H. A. Forbesand H. A. Koster,'Fire,axe, and plow: human influence on local plant communities in the southern Argolid', Annals of theNew YorkAcademyof Sciences,

268 (1976),109-26.

105 There are nowlime-kilns sited(forno evidentreason)at Aphysou;theirfuelis grape-pipsand wood, both collected bylorryfromvariouspartsofthePéloponnèse.There is also a not insubstantial numberof small,disusedlime-kilns next in the surveyarea; it is impossibleto gauge their to rémata or output. longevity

ii6

Chapterj

in itselfto keepup can onlylocallyhavebeen sufficient In Laconia as a whole,woodcutting withthegrowthoftrees;itcan be onlya minorfactorin themakingofthemodernlandscape. However,it is verylikelythat some woods, especially mountain oakwoods, have been through beingsetaside as reservesoffuelor timber. preserved Burning

is a major influencein the mountainwoods. At middleand low altitudes, Fire undoubtedly Laconian vegetationwould formerlyhave been less combustiblethan it is now,because browsinganimalswould have eaten the fuel;but firewould probablyalwayshave been a at leastin thenon-aridregion.There is someevidenceofitsuse as a management possibility, to the methodto improvethe pasture,but thishas not attractedthe attentionof travellers if been a it had we should regularpractice. expect degree Erosion

In some regionsof Greece, such as the northernPéloponnèseand the Pindos mountains, In others,such as erosionappears to be veryactive,and gulliesdominatethe landscape.106 Boiotia and Crete, the presentlandscape is stable: visible erosion is confinedeitherto patchesof speciallyerodiblerockor to places wherebulldozingor road-makinghas eaten intotheslopes. Althoughthepresentstudydid not deal witherosionin detail,therecan be no doubtthat Laconia is a regionof the second kind,in whicherosionis not now a major factorin the and climateratherthanofthe ofgeology,tectonics, landscape.This is likelyto be a function in Crete is Where concerned, suggeststhat(as in southexperience vegetation vegetation.107 easternSpain) theplantsthatcontrolerosionare nottreesbutcrusts,a fewmillimetres thick, a was lost from that soil asserts of lichens,mosses,and otherhumbleplants.108 (Beuermann had been convertedto pastureforty limestoneslopein middleArkadiawherea fir-wood years before;buthe does notestablishthattherehad been soil in thewood whenit existed,or that thelossoftreeswas thecause ofthelossofsoil.)109 THE MAKING OF THE LACONIAN LANDSCAPE The classical landscape

The biggestchangesin the landscapeof our studyarea happenedbeforethe age of written records.By classical times,as in Boiotia, the originallyless arid climatehad changed to fromthepresentone; and theoriginalwildwoodand steppehad notverydifferent something in extentfromwhatitis now. or to roughlandnotverydifferent to cultivation, been converted Even in Mt Taygetos,woods had apparentlybeen reduced to insignificantremnants. Woodlandsurvivedelsewherein thePéloponnèse,butas isolatedwoodlotsofnotmorethana each. One of these- a classicalwood withits own name and its own fewsquare kilometres discussedabove). god stillexists(Skotitas,

106por erosion in the tectonically active northern Péloponnèse,see Groveand Rackham(η. ι),chs 14,16. 107 J. Hutchinson,Erosionand land use: the influence01 agricultureon the Epirus region of Greece', Agricultural

History Review, 17(iq6q), 8^-qo; Groveand Rackham(n. 1). 108R. Bulletin,68 (1991), 8. Alexander, BritishLichenSociety

109rieuermann (n. 25). 1 am indebtedto EberhardZangger forthisreference.

Historical ecology 117 Recentchanges Woodland is increasingin Laconia in at least six different ways: (1) Maquis shrubsturninginto trees. oaks and otherfieldtrees. (2) Invasion of cultivatedland by brachyphylla (3) Invasion of cultivatedland by sibljak. oaks. (4) Invasion of maquis by brachyphylla and macrolepis oakwood into maquis. (5) Expansion oïfrainetto (6) Expansion of mountain conifersinto maquis and mountain pasture. All these can be attributedto a decline in cultivation,or in pasturage,or in both. There have been attemptsto measure the woodland area. In TABLE3.1 I compare the figures of £.1929by P. Kontos110 withthose fromthe agriculturalstatisticsfor1981.111 However,woods in Greece do not have sharp edges, and it is a matterof opinion at what point a shrub counts as a tree.Measurementsof woodland area depend entirelyon the definitionof woodland, which is liable to shiftfromone date to another.These figurescertainlyunderestimatethe increase in woodland in Laconia, and probablyoverestimatethe increase in Arkadia. c. 79.29 sq km

Lakonia Arkadia Messinia

226 440 120

iq8i

% ofland area 6.2 10.1 4.0

sq km 249

1,188 674

% ofland area 6.9

27.2 22.5

TABLE3.1. ComparisonofKontos'sfigures Greekagricultural statistics (c.1929)fortheextentofwoodlandwiththosefromofficial for1981.

In mostofLaconia thechangesbelongto thelastforty yearsor less.In themountainsthe woodshave been increasingforlonger:in Taygetosthepinesapparently began to expandin theearlyeighteenth and have been ever century increasing, intermittently, since. The changesin Laconia are similarto, but greaterthan,thosein otherpartsof Greece;I have seenwoodlandincreasingin Macedonia,Boiotia,Crete,and Aigina,as wellas in other partsofthePéloponnèse. The intervening centuries

Had I been writingabout eitherBoiotia or Laconia in 1950, I would have said thatthe ofat least2,500years.The greatchanges landscapehad had a remarkably unchangedhistory tookplace wellback in prehistory. Wheneverwe are toldwhatthelandscapelookedlikesince classicaltimes,it is difficult to detectany difference fromthe present.I would thenhave on the inherent of and of a enlarged stability maquis patternofvegetationand land use that had survived millenniaofhumanprosperity and adversity. The changes of the last fortyyears have exploded such a theory.Wild vegetationcan We mightsupposethattherehave been respondveryquicklyto changesin humanactivity. 110 Quoted in Beuermann(n. 25). 111 EthnikiStatistiki Ypiresia[NationalStatisticalService],

Κατανομήτης εκτάσεωςτης χώρας κατά βασικές κατηγορίες χρήσεως(Athens, 1986).

ii8

Chapterj

manysuchchangesin thepast,and thatwoodshavewaxedand wanedin accordancewiththe of farmersand shepherds.This would suggesta theorythatthe landscape varyingfortunes to be appears relativelyunchangingbecause recordsare kept only at timeswhen thereis thestatethatitwas human to holddownthegrowthoftreesto approximately activity enough in 1950. We do have recordsfromafterthe Venetian This, however,would be an overstatement. war of and the Greek independence.Both of thesewerehumandisasters,causing conquest and casualties,destruction, refugeeson a scale at leastcomparablewithanythatare likelyto have happenedin earlierhistory(especiallyas one if not both of thesewars coincidedwith likethesame scale as plague).Yettheydid notresultin changesto thelandscapeon anything of the of whether the stability I resolve the still cannot thelastforty question yearsofpeace. record. lack of a continuous caused the by landscapeis realor is an illusion Some warnings

to thewell-known Laconia, likeBoiotia,is a counter-example theorythatthe originalforests of Mediterranean countrieshave been gradually and irreversiblydestroyeddown the centuries,and that much of them survivedand was destroyedas late as the nineteenth forthatwouldbe to committhe I willnotclaimthatthetheoryis therebyrefuted, century112 as is inherentin the theoryitself.But Laconia illustrates same errorof over-generalization whichmaybe ofwiderapplication. somefallaciesand weaknessesin theargument Travellersand authorstakenote ofthefellingoftrees,whichis a conspicuousand sudden event,butfailto noticethegrowthofnew trees.Boryde Saint-Vincent,forinstance,claimed whereasin facttheywere almost certainly thatthe conifersof Taygetoswere shrinking, expanding.Even Philippson,acute observerthoughhe was, recordedthe depredationsof a wereon Taygetos sawmillbutnotthelargeareas ofyoungpinesand firswhichtherecertainly as withJochmus'saccount of Skotitas,is oftendescribedin in 1888. Regularwoodcutting, ofthewood. Beuermann,in termswhicha hastyreadermaywellconfusewiththedestruction of the Péloponnèse,"3emphasizes his vehementdenunciationof the supposeddeforestation thatyoungtreesmaybe encouragedto the treesdestroyed by maraudingarmies.He forgets that would have eaten the trees!When he had eaten the armies because the goats growup travelledaroundthe Péloponnèseafterthe second worldwar,the woods had undoubtedly begunto expand,yethe writesas iftheywerestillcontracting. Scholarswho assertthatclassicalor medievalGreecewas heavilywoodedrelyon evidence fromancientauthors.But theytendto referto secondarysourcesratherthanquoting,stillless - whereit can be traced- oftendoes not say what the originaltexts.The original criticizing, thewoodland habitofexaggerating themodernwriterclaimsit says.The resultis a consistent of the past and playingdown thatof the present.The formeris judged by the standardsof Athens,thelatterbythoseofcentralEurope. In the nineteenthcenturythe population of the Péloponnèse rose, and there was morepressureon land thantherehad been; but the theorythatthisproduced undoubtedly extensiveand permanentdestructionof woodland rests,in part, on there being more numerous travellersat that time to record whatever tree-fellingwas going on. The thatwoods survivedonly to the sub-theory Péloponnèseprovidesexcellentcounter-examples 112 ofthetheoryisj. V. Amongthenumerousrestatements

Forest(London, 1981). Thirgood, Man and theMediterranean

113 Beuermann(n. 25).

Historical ecology 119

in remoteplaces wheretheywere difficult to get at. One of the biggestconcentrations of in woodland is northern Parnon Skotitas and its at least for a surviving neighbours which, was the most all of the who subscribes to time, denselypopulatedpart Péloponnèse.Anyone the view that railwaysfinishedoffthe forestsshould take the train fromArkadia into Messenia. Manyauthors,nothavingthebenefitofrecentexperience, supposethattreesonce felledor burntare gone forever.Neumannand Partsch,forinstance,enlargeon how 'extraordinarily difficult' it is to producea new generationof trees.Hence the fallacythatdeforestation is and that woods never recover lost necessarily progressive, ground. In defaultof pollen analysis,the onlyway to reconstruct landscapehistoryis to compare written accountsofdifferent dateswitheach otherand withwhatis therenow.We shouldnot accept someone else's statementthat a wood had disappeared withoutgoing to see for ourselves;our informant mayhavelookedin thewrongplace,as Leake did withSkotitas.We shouldbe on our guardagainsttheprevalenttendencyto assumethateveryearlymentionof 'trees'impliesa forest,stillless a greatforest.Pausanias says that Skotitaswentfromthe HermaitowardsKaryai;laterauthors,magnifying theirerrorsbymisquotation, have made it stretch fromAgiosPetrosnearlyall thewayto Sparta."4

114 WiththeselastparagraphscompareBintliff, Natural i. 66-83. Environment,

THE SURVEY AREA IN THE PREHISTORIC PERIODS WilliamCavanaghandjoostCrouwel1 The Neolithic

Period

the general setting - the ownershipof land, the relationship betweensocial groupsand the areas they Territory settle will have been revolutionized by the Neolithicprocess:by man's domesticationof of plantsand animalsand (as Goody in anothercontexthas expressedit) his domestication himself.The processwas underway in Greece nine thousandyears ago, but no remains datablewithinthefirstthirdof thatspan have been recoveredin the surveyarea. Indeed,at startsforthe whole of of the Neolithicperiod effectively the momentour understanding Laconia in theMiddleNeolithic2 (probablyitsmiddlephase)3withthesiteofKouphóvouno,4 2 km outsidethe catchmentof the surveyon the otherside of the riverEvrótas,and in It is difficult to believe southernLaconia withthefindsat Apidiá and evidently Alepótrypa.5 elsewherein thatLaconia was passedbyin theEarlyNeolithic,at a timewhensitesflourished the Péloponnèse(Franchthi, Lerna, Nemea,6and Corinth).Even forthe Middle Neolithic, we haveno preciseindicationoftheextentofKouphovouno;itappearsto cover unfortunately, 2-3 hectares,however,7and would thereforebe comparable in size with contemporary in Thessaly.8Surveyhas occasionallylocated Early and Middle Neolithicsites settlements fromthesurveyarea is hard and in thelightofthistheabsenceofearlysettlement elsewhere,9 theevidenceforsevereattrition to dismisssimplyas totalloss due to erosion,notwithstanding 1 The authorsare most gratefulto JeanetteForsén for information aboutAsea and theAsea ValleySurvey. 2 In this respectevidentlycomparablewiththeArkadian sites of Asea and Ayioyoryitika:E. Holmberg, The at Asea in Arcadia(Lund, 1944); W. W. Phelps, Excavations 'The Neolithic pottery sequence in southern Greece' (unpublishedPh.D. diss.,Univ.of London, 1975);J. Forsén, 'PrehistoricAsea revisited',OpusculaAtheniensia, 21 (1996), MuseumStudies, 41-72; C. W. Biegen,'Gonia', Metropolitan 3 3 It is possiblethatthe variegatedware iromÄsten and Goulás (Plytra)is EN1:PL i. 91 n. 116;PL ii. 140n. 175. 4 J. Renard, Le Site néolithique et helladiqueanciende Laconie:fouillesde O.-W. von Vacano(1Q41) Kouphovouno, (Aegaeum,4; Liège,iq8q), Q7-8. 5 Apidia was evidentlyoccupied in the MN1 period, thoughthe sherdsdecoratedin 'brownishpatternson buff' mightbetterbe compared with Nl Urfirnisthan central Greek red-on-whitewares: PL i. 86. Alepótrypa: G. in Greece Culture (Athens, Papathanassopoulos(ed.), Neolithic 1996),220 pl. 24.

6J,F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, A. Demitrack,Ε. Mantzourani, T. F. Strasser, and L. E. Talalay,Archaeologicalsurveyin an artifact-rich landscape: a Middle Neolithicexample from Nemea,Greece',AJA92 (1988),159-76. 7A map ol thesiteis givenin Kenard(n. 4), pl. 2. A dense scatterof Nl sherdscertainlycoversthe top of the mound and extendsas far as the Paroriótis;Hope Simpson and Waterhouse{PL i. 72) estimatethediameterofthesiteas 170 m (area c.2.<'ha). 8 P. Halstead suggests0.5-1.0 ha forThessalian Nl sites ('Strategiesforsurvival:an ecologicalapproachto social and economic change in the early farmingcommunitiesof Thessaly, N. Greece'; Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1985), whereasJ.-P.Démoule and C. Perlésincreasetheestimateto 2-5.5 na ('The Greek Neolithic:a new review',Journalof World 7 (1993),355-416,at 370). For Treuil etai, Prehistory, MM settlements in Thessalytendto cover8-10 ha: R. Treuil, P. Darcque,J.-C. Poursat,and G. Touchais,Les Civilisations etde l'âgedu bronze(Paris, 1989), 128. égéensdu néolithique

9 Cherryetal. (n. 6); WellswithRunnels,Berbati-Limnes, esp. 65-8; Forsénetal, 'Aseavalley'.

122 Chapter4

ofsitesin thesurveyarea summarizedin theprecedingpages.Withsuchuncertainevidenceit would be prematureto attemptwide-rangingconclusions; but the contrastwith the observedin the Nemea regionsuggests of smallMiddle Neolithicsettlements configuration culturalprovince.In Laconia,perhaps, withinthebroad 'Urfirnis' distinctive regionalpatterns would have takenoverthe villagesettlements by the Middle Neolithicperiodmedium-sized land. primary Onlyat thetimeoftheLate or FinalNeolithicdoes oursurveyevidenceplaya morepositive at facevalue,thousandsofyearspassedbeforethearea part;thatis to say,takingour findings was firsteffectively settled.It has to be stressedthatthe Laconia Surveyis not uniquein this have indicatedsimilarfindings.In respect.Other surveyson the mainland10and islands11 Laconia itself, evidencein additionto thatfromthe Surveyhintsat an increasingnumberof nearAreópolis,whichmaywell cave sites.As wellas thesitesat Alepotrypa sites,in particular cave siteshavebeen reported havea supra-regional possiblyas a religiouscentre,12 significance, at In additionto theopen settlements and at Goritsá(PapagiannákouSpílaia).14 at Alepochóri13 at Geráki.15 has been Final Neolithic the and recently recognized Kouphovouno Apidia, How is thischangein settlement patternto be explained?In a broad sense,a numberof tookplace in the Late Neolithic,a scholarshave arguedthata major culturalre-alignment in of settlement the alteration not to be seen patternsbut also in moregeneral only change culturalchanges: thereare indicationsof broadeningculturalcontacts,a realignmentof Halstead and Cherry, culturalboundaries,and perhapsalso an incipientmetal industry.16 more have advanced the in other than areas specificallyeconomic Péloponnèse, though modelsforthe changes.In consideringthe Late Neolithiceconomy,Halstead has suggested whichwould thatthe Greeklandscape was subjectto gradual but extensivedeforestation, of Late Neolithic model for land suitable areas of expansion Cherry's grazing.17 open up large is morecloselyboundup withthenatureoftheAegeanislands,theirsmallsize and marginal too fragileagainstthe chance of failure.Only withthe makingearlysettlement productivity the securityof exchange and logisticlifelinescould and of denser populations backup 10See W. G. Gavanagh,'Revenonsà nos moutons:surface surveyand thePéloponnèsein theLate and Final Neolithic', ethistoire(actesde la in J. Renard (ed.), L· Péloponnèse: archéologie de Louent,12-15 mai igg8) (Rennes, 1999), rencontre internationale

See also Démoule and Perlés(n. 8), 1-35, withreferences. esp. 386-407. Ο*1tne otherhand, the Nemea Surveyarea sees a decline in FN1: Cherryet al. (η. 6), esp. 174-5. For III: Crete,cf.L. V. Watrous,'Reviewof Aegean prehistory Cretefromearliestprehistory throughthe end of the Protopalatialperiod',AJA98 (1994),695-753,at 700-1;J. Moody, O. Rackham,and G. Rapp, 'Environmental archaeologyof NW Crete',JFA23 (1996),273-97;K. Branigan, prehistoric in theZirosregion, 'Prehistoric and earlyhistoricsettlement easternCrete',BSA93 (1998),23-90,esp. 80-4.

11Melos: Island Polity,24-34. Keos: LandscapeArchaeology,

'Patternand processin theearliest 217-32;see alsoJ. Cherry, colonisationof the Mediterraneanislands',Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric 47 (1981),41-68; id., 'The firstcolonisation Society, of the Mediterraneanislands:a reviewof recentresearch', JMA 3 (1990), 145-221;J. L. Davis, 'Review of Aegean prehistoryI: the islands of the Aegean', AJA96 (1992),

699-756; A. Sampson,Η νεολιθικήπερίοδος στα

Δωδεκάνησα(Athens,1987).

12Dirós cave: N. Lambert,'Grotte d'Alépotrypa(Magne)', BCH 96 (1972),817-71; G. A. Papathanassopoulos,'Dirou cave: the excavationsof 1970-71',AAA4 (1971),12-26; id., 'Dirou cave', ibid. 149-53;id., 'Dirou cave', ibid. 289-303; id. (η. 5), 8o~4, 175-7.Diros, Katozíki,and Áno Katozíki: ibid.206. ■3 Ibid. 206. 14AA 1942,156. 15Crouwel,pers.comm. 16S. R. Diamant, 'The later village farmingstage in southernGreece' (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Cincinnati,1974); Phelps(n. 2); C. L. Zachos, 'AyiosDhimitrios,a prehistoric in the southwestern settlement Peloponnesos:the Neolithic and Early Helladic periods' (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Boston, andJ. 1987).On metals,see also W. W. Phelps,G. Varoufakis, E. Jones, 'Five copper axes fromGreece', BSA 74 (1979), 175-84; G. Nakou, 'The cuttingedge: a new look at early JMA8 (1995),1-32. Aegeanmetallurgy', 17P. Halstead, 'Countingsheep in Neolithicand Bronze ofthePast:Studies Age Greece',in I. Hodder etal. (eds),Pattern inHonour (Cambridge,1981),307-39,at 326-7; ofDavidClarke BSA id., 'Man and otheranimalsin laterGreekprehistory', 82 (1987),71-84,at 82.

Prehistoricperiods 123 site

pottery

Bin B116 E48 E77 e8i

128 12undiag.

L401 R429 T480 T481 U487 U489 LS 10496

14 undiag. 7 undiag. [R?] [Cl?] [Cl?] 6

chippedstone

104 70 520 38 14 13 9 5 5 37 82

groundstone

9 1

celt

Table 4. 1. Sites of Late-Final Neolithic date.

settlement Others have suggestedthata move from prosperon such small land-masses.18 to rain-fed the irrigated agriculture explains openingup of the southernGreeklandscapein thelaterNeolithic.19 In the development of thesemodelsit is possibleto recognizecommon themesof reciprocity and exchange,in whichan important part is playedby the raisingof and sheep especiallygoats.20 SETTLEMENT

(ILL.

4.1,

TABLE

4.1)

The major Neolithicsite £48(80)and its satellites,E77 (E78) and E81, have producedboth potteryand chippedstonetools. Sites B116,N363,L401,R429,T480, and 481 have yielded stoneassemblagesconsistentwitha Late or Final Neolithicdate, but eitherno potteryor simplycoarse undiagnosticsherds;Bin and probablyU487/489have stonetoolswithinthe LS 10496yieldeda lotofsherdsfroma fewpots.It is difficult rangeLN1-EH I.21The cnon-site' to be surewhetherthosesiteswithlittleor no potteryweredifferent in function and statusor have suffered even more severelyfromerosion.Densitiesof artefacts on all thesesiteswere verylow,and theirstatusas sitesofpermanentoccupationis open to dispute.Unfortunately, mereassertioncan onlymaskour ignoranceof the effects of post-depositional degradation. The varietyof artefactsrecoveredfromE48 (domestic,cooking,and storagewares; a great and polishedstonetools)indicatesa muchwiderrangeof varietyof chippedstoneartefacts activitiesthanis impliedby the morecommonnon-sitedesignations of 'chipping-floor', 'kill site',and thelike. Marked featuresof the distribution, certainlymuch distortedby fivethousandyearsof erosionand colluviation,are the concentration of siteson the fewlimestoneoutcrops,the and a preference forsituationson the topsofridges.WhileBin rarityofsiteson theschist,22 and B116maybe termeddefensive, the E48 cluster,L401,R429,T480, and T481 seem,more to be placed to command(drovers'?) routesand haveaccessto water.FindsfromE48 critically, 18 workscitedin n. 11. Cherry, 19Beyond theAcropolis, 69-71,83-5; C. Runnelsand T. van in the southernArgolid, Andel,'The evolutionof settlement Greece:an economicexplanation', Hesp.56 (1987),303-34;M. Johnson,'The Berbati-Limnesarchaeologicalsurvey:the Neolithicperiod',in WellswithRunnels,Berbati-Limnes, 37-73. ^ Diamant (η. ib); Zachos (n. ib), 151-b; r. Halstead, 'Dimini and the "DMP": faunal remains and animal

exploitationin Late Neolithic Thessaly', BSA 87 (1992), 29-59. Fora different emphasissee Cavanagh(n. 10). 21Even lesscertainare Q360,U490,U532,and R3012,with a sherdor twowhichmightbe Nl. 22On the margins,E81 and L401, whose remains are probablynotinsitu.

124 Chapter4

■ Largersite • Smallsite (Lithics) * aMonsite" (Pottery)

'

I

(

/

)

/ 0

''til

J^^s ' ' <<* k' ^/ / '''

Vv-otf»10496

j7

* f

/

1 ^

> U48e

/^

^^"Λ

'

5000

^"N.

J Metre»

III. 4.1. Neolithicsites(D. Taylor).

U4«7·^

^V^/

/

Prehistoricperiods 125

coversome 1.5 ha. Certainlythe siteis erodedand artefacts, especiallythe stonetools,have been washed downhill,but the lengthwisespread along the ridge confirmsextensive In thelightofWhitelaw'scarefulstudyofKephala and Paoura on Keos,23itwould settlement. be unwiseto takethe extentof the chippedstonetoolsalone as a guide;at E48 bothpottery and obsidianweremuchlessdenselydistributed thanon theKean sites,buttheirdistributions moreor less coincidedand it was notpossibleto distinguish different patternsof disposalor areas. Giventhe absenceofpotteryat Bin, itsdatingis evenless securethanthatof activity E48,butthesiteis similarin extent(and resemblesE48 in havinga satellite, B116). ECONOMY

SiteE48 is conspicuously setin an area ofpoor soils,todaycoveredin maquisand garigueand exploitedonlyforgrazing.Probablythesoilsweresomewhatbetterin theNeolithic,thoughit is difficult to see how any changespecificto thissite'scatchmentcould be quantified.The quernfromBin, theceltfromR429,and thecelt,polishers,and poundersfromE48 (itseems reasonableto accept theseas Neolithic)hintat agriculturalactivity. An expansionby the Neolithicpeople onto land of lowerfertility seemswidelyattestedat thistime,24 and sites similarto E48 can be cited fromelsewhere.25 In the southernArgolid,researchershave underlinedthe association of Final Neolithic and Early Helladic sites with the deep autochthonous soilsofthearea,26butthisis evenmoremarkedin theEarlyBronzeAge,and it is noteworthy thata numberof thecertainFinal Neolithicsiteslie outsidethedistribution of such soils.27Of course it is impossibleto tell,afterthe event(s),preciselywhere the soils the Nemea surveyarea strippedin later Holocene erosionmay have lain.28Interestingly, suffered a declinein theLate Neolithic,thoughheretoo Late Neolithicflintscattersoccuron An increasinguse of caves in southernGreece at thisperiodhas also prominent ridgesites.29 been notedas moresuitedto herdingthanagriculture.30 A radicalrealignment in agriculture has been proposedforthe LN1/EBAperiod,31 but the mostsober recentassessmentof the botanicalevidence32 in the EarlyBronze suggestsno morethanan increasein crop diversity of southern Greece. a so marked of Nevertheless, Age re-siting settlement,and a use of locationswhichhave seldomattractedhabitation,seemsto demandexplanationin termsof 23T. Whitelaw,'Investigationsat the Neolithic sites of Kephala and Paoura',in Landscape Archaeology, 199-216. 4 C Kenirew, lhe Emergence oj Civilisation:1 he Cycladesand the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC (London, 1972); P.

Halstead, 'Prehistoric Thessaly: the submergence of civilisation', in J. Bintliff(ed.), MycenaeanGeography (Cambridge,1977),23-9; Cherry,workscited in n. 11; A. Sampson,'Late Neolithicremainsat Tharrounia,Euboea: a modelfortheseasonaluse of settlements and caves',BSA 87 (1992),61-101;Cavanagh(n. 10). 25e.g.sitesFS 28, 31,40, 42, and 44 in theBerbati-Limnes survey(WellswithRunnels,Berbati-Limnes, 37-73);sitesS2 and S41 in theAsea valleysurvey(Forsénetal, 'Aseavalley',86 fig. 11); Plakari, near Karystos on Euboia (D. Keller, 'Final NeolithicpotteryfromPlakari,Karystos',in P. Spitaels(ed.), Studiesin SouthAttica(Ghent,1982),i. 47-67); Kephala and Paouraon Kea (J.E. Coleman,Keos,i: Kephala (Princeton, NJ, 1977); Whitelaw (n. 23)). Maritime resources might be importantat sites near the sea, though C. Gamble has caution('Surplusand self-sufficiency in theCycladic expressed subsistence economy',inJ. Davis andJ. Cherry(eds),Papersin

Cycladic Prehistory(UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monographs,14;Los Angeles,1979),129-34,at I25~7)· 20 1. van Andel, C. Runnels, and K. O. Pope, 'Five thousand years of land use and abuse in the southern Argolid',Hesp.55 (1986),103-28,at 113. 27Ibid. 114fig.7, 115fig.8. 28T. van Andel,E. Zangger,and A. Demitrack,'Land use and soil erosionin prehistoric and historicalGreece',JFA17 (toooV q*7o-ofi

29Cherryetal. (η. 6), i7Qfisr. 12. 30J. Cherry,'Pastoralismand the role of animalsin the economiesof the Aegean', in C. R. pre- and protohistoric Whittaker (ed.), PastoralEconomiesin Classical Antiquity (PCPS

theAcropolis, supp. 14; Cambridge,1988),6-34, at 23; Beyond 75-7; Sampson(n. 24); Cavanasrh(n. 10). 31Renfrew(n. 24). 32J. Hansen, 'Agriculture in the prehistoric Aegean: data versusspeculation',AJA92 (1988),39-52; Ν. Liphschitz,R. Gophna,M. Hartman,and G. Biger,'The beginningofolive in theOld World',JAS 18 (1991), (Olea Europaea) cultivation 441-54.

126 Chapter4

thesubsistence This willbe takenup below,butfirstit willbe helpfulto consider economy.33 thequestionofpopulation. POPULATION

In a recent review of the period in Thessaly,34it has been suggestedthat almost one thousandNeolithicsitesare to be foundin an area of some 400 sq km. Nothingremotely approachingthisdensityis knownfromLaconia, or indeed fromany otherregionof the Péloponnèse. We must conclude eitherthat southernGreece was much more sparsely populated, or that the archaeological evidence fromLaconia and southernGreece is subjectto some bias whichdoes not apply to the plains of centraland northernGreece. Researchershave been alertto the loss of sitesovertime;35the thickstratigraphy of multiperiod tell sites such as those of centraland northernGreece will tend to protectearly levels. If settlementin the south was predominantlyin single-period sites, a larger othersurveysin thePéloponnèsehave proportionofthemwillhave been lost.Nevertheless, establishedthatsmallEarlyand Middle Neolithicsitescan survivein certaincircumstances even withoutthe protectionof later overburden.36So surveyin the Péloponnèse has confirmedthenorth-southdivide.There was an increasein thenumberofsitesin thelater Neolithicperiod, and an expansion of settlementinto parts of the landscape whichhad previouslynot been occupied; but the inferenceof some increasein populationin the Late Neolithicperioddoes notnecessarilyfollow. Recentlythe Late-Final Neolithicperiod has been seen as one of populationgrowth;37 but the Middle Neolithic is considerably shorter(perhaps 500-1,000 years) than the Late- Final Neolithic (1,500-2,000 years). Consequently, simple site counts must be correctedto allow forthe timeoverwhichtheyoccur.In addition,Middle Neolithicsites oftenappear richin artefactsand seem to have been ratherlong-lived,in contrastwiththe and relativelyshort-lived durationof manyLate and Final Neolithic sparserepresentation sites.Finally,we mustbear in mindthe natureofthe Late and Final Neolithicfinds,and in particular'special-purposesites'and theuse ofcave sites,some ofwhich(suchas Franchthi and Alepotrypa)may have been used all the year round38while othersmay have been in the sense of the exploitationof seasonallyoccupied.39In brief,expansionof settlement, areas previouslyunoccupied, is clearlyindicatedby the evidence but need not implya significantincrease in population. Certainly, although the calculation of absolute populationdensitiesis not possible on our evidence,habitationwould seem to have been verysparse.

33Halstead, 'Man and otheranimals' (n. 17); Cherry(n. 30). 34J.-P.Démoule and K. Gallis, 'L'un des plus anciens 159 (1991), néolithiquesd'Europe', Les Dossiersd'archéologie, 8-15,at 8. 35J. Bintliil, lhe rJoeotiadurvey, in Macready and Thompson, Field Survey,196-216, at 214-15; Bintliffand Snodgrass, 'Boeotian Expedition', 137. More recently, cautionhas been expressed:Cherryetal. (n. 6), 171-5. 36Nemea valley:Cherryetal. (η. 6). Berbati-Limnes: Wells withRunnels,Berbati-Limnes, 57 (siteFS 23). 37Cherry(n. 30), 23; GreekCountryside, 343; P. Halstead, 'The north-southdivide: regionalpaths to complexityin

prehistoricGreece', in C. Mathers and S. Stoddart(eds),

Developmentand Decline in theMediterranean(Sheffield, 1994),

195-219, at 211; C. L. Zachos, 'Metallurgy', in Papathanassopoulos (n. 5), 140-3. Before the advent of surveydata the evidence,if anything, pointedto a decline: Diamant(η. 16), 363-9. 38HaisteaH 'Crmntincrsheen' (u t*7Vqq6>.

39 A. Sampson, 'Periodic and seasonal usage of two Neolithic caves in Rhodes', in S. Dietz and I. in the Dodecanese Papachristodoulou (eds), Archaeology (Copenhagen,1988),11-16.

Prehistoricperiods 127 DISCUSSION

Johnsonhas recentlysuggestedthatthe move fromthe highlyintensivehoe agricultureof Earlyand Middle NeolithicGreece to patternsof extensivefarmingwas essentiallya twophaseprocess.The firstphase,in theLate Neolithic,saw 'contrasting adaptationsto thelocal intensified The environment,involving second, in the Final (animal) husbandry5. in Helladic he associates with the Neolithic-Early period, particular developmentof plough In the of the Laconia evidence we would wish to developthismodel agriculture.40 light Survey further and draw a sharperdistinction betweenFinal Neolithicon the one hand and Early in the surveyarea the sitesoccupied and the patternsof Helladic on the other.Certainly, settlementin these two periods are entirelydifferent. Today the locations of Late-Final Neolithicsitessuchas E48 and Bin are not ideallysituatedto exploitarable (thoughthereis reasonableland not faraway),but seemwell suitedforanimalhusbandry(modernmandras now occupythe siteE48, whoseproximity to the Evrotaspermitsthe wateringof livestock, is close to Bin, whichmay also have been servedby wells).The other whilethe spring-line contemporarysites also occupy locations which have not recommendedthemselvesfor habitationsince that time; hence theyserve to confirmthe notion of ratherspecialized adaptations.41The Laconia Surveyarea does not stand alone in this respect.Both the Methanaand theNemea Valleysurveysshowa verysparserecordof occupationin theLate and FinalNeolithic,whileeffective is a featureoftheEarlyBronzeAge.42 (re-)colonization Just as strikingly, theAsea valleyin Arkadiaenjoyeda modestexpansionin theFinalNeolithicand concentrated at the siteofAsea itselfand at three then,in the EarlyBronzeAge, settlement othersettlement sites.43Consequently,althoughthe evidenceof the southernArgolidand Berbati-Limnessurveysshowsa processof gradual transformation fromFinal Neolithicto are markedand the sophistication of culture EarlyBronzeAge, elsewherethe discontinuities fromtheearlierphase. (and agriculture) duringtheEH II climaxsetsitoff,veryclearly, theLate and Final Neolithicagricultural communities of How,then,are we to characterize southernGreece?Highlyspecializedtranshumant has been ruledout: it demands pastoralism urbanmarkets and an infrastructure whichsimplydid notexistin theNeolithic.44 Nevertheless the specializedadaptationsindicatedby our sitelocationsmustfalltowardsthatend of the whereanimal husbandrywas more dominant.This in spectrumof agro-pastoralstrategies turnhas promptedthesuggestion thatparallelcommunities occupiedthePéloponnèseat this time.45 On the one hand,forthosewhichcontinuedto occupythe old Middle Neolithicsites and similarlocations,the primaryemphasiswould be on traditionalmixed farmingwith intensivecultivation of in-fields.On the other hand, there were semi-autonomous communities whichplaced greateremphasison animalhusbandryand mightuse variousless intensive forexploiting whatarabletherewas in thevicinity oftheirsites.Exchange strategies networksinvolvingmetals,obsidian, polished stone axes, stone vessels,millstones,and 40Johnson (n. iq). 41Sampson (n. 24) has arguedfora purelytranshumant occupation of the contemporarycave at Tharrounia, Euboia: 'it musthave been onlyfora fewdaysor hoursthat people stayed in the cave' (p. 95). Such a view seems extreme. 42Cherry etal. (n. 6); Roughand RockyPlace, 42.

4JWe are most gratetul to Jeanette rorsen tor this In additionto thethreesettlement information. sites(S 15-16, sitesofEH date. S23, S47-61),thereare twospecial-purpose

44Halstead, 'Counting sheep' (n. 17); 'Pastoralism or householdherding?Problemsof scale and specializationin 28 (1996), earlyGreekanimalhusbandry',World Archaeology, 20-42; id., 'Presentto past in the Pindhos: diversification and specialisationin mountaineconomies',Rivistadi studi 66 (1990),61-81;Cherry(n. 30). liguri, 45Cavanagh(n. 10).

128 Chapter4

ceramicsare also markedfeaturesof Late-Final NeolithicGreece. For theseto workon a scale acrossthe Balkansand theAegean,theywouldalso need to be effective supra-regional on the local scale, revealednot least throughregionalsurvey.Certainlyobsidianis found Perhaps,then,in widely,even at the inland sitesof the Laconia and Asea valleysurveys.46 which or less additionto distinctions of culturaltradition emphasison the mightput greater Final Neolithictransformations keyto theLate and ownershipofanimals,anotherimportant in southernGreeceinvolvedexchangebetweenthedifferent communities. The Early

Helladic

Period

the general setting The end of the Neolithicand the beginningof the EarlyBronzeAge are a darkage in the It has been questionedwhetherany (at least of the southernGreekmainland.47 prehistory in Greece has a continuousstratigraphy spanningthe published)site centraland southern or to involvethe and settlements of EH I seem to be entirelynew foundations transition,48 reoccupationof sites aftera gap. The degree to which the Péloponnèse saw a cultural fromFinal Neolithicto EarlyBronzeAge is also not clear,not least because the continuity of culturalsequencefromFinal Neolithicto EarlyHelladic is so obscure.It is symptomatic EH I ceramicphase in theArgolid,theTaliotiphase,has thisstateofaffairs thata distinctive Older been defined,and thatlargelyon the basis of surfacesurveymaterial.49 onlyrecently in theEarly whoperceiveda breakand recognizednewfeatures ofarchaeologists, generations Bronze Age, interpretedthemas introducedby invaders,50 thoughtheyand othershave intotheAegean area at this of originsof thosewho filtered tendedto stressthe multiplicity has come a tendencyto emphasize time.Withthe reactionagainstthe invasionhypothesis at theexpenseofdiscontinuities. and long-term continuities ofdevelopment51 Now, processes52 in some areas of Greece such as the Cyclades,it is plain fromthe excavationof siteslike Kephala53and Grotta54that Early Cycladic developmentsare anticipatedin the Final need not be generalto thewholeof Greece.Indeed,amongthe Neolithic.The interruption Keos surveyhas foundthesequencebrokenaftertheFinalNeolithicwith islandsthenorthern no EC I materialat all;55so that,whileKephala (and Paoura) look forwardto the ensuing was desertedat thattime.On the 'Grotta-Pelos'(EC I) culture,it appearsthattheirterritory 46 See Chapter 18; Forsén et al, Asea valley', 85-8. Note also the red-brownflint,LS ii. 156; Forsén etal., 86. 47So described by Phelps, quoted in H.-J. Weisshaar, 'Die und Berichte,xi. Keramik van Talioti', in Tiryns:Forschungen 1-34 (Mainz, 1990), 21. See J. Rutter's recent appraisal, 'Review of Aegean prehistoryII: the pre-palatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek mainland', AJA 97 (1993), 745-97, esp. 760-1; J. Renard, L· Péloponnèseau bronzeancien (Aegaeum 13; Liège, 1995). 40 Doubts have been cast on the integrityof the sequence et le bronzeancienégéens:les at Eutresis: R. Treuil, L· Néolithique les techniqueset les et chronologiques, problèmesstratigraphiques hommes (Paris, 1983), 68. There may be both FN1 and EH I at Tsoungiza: D. J. Pullen, 'The Early Bronze Age village on Tsoungiza hill, ancient Nemea', in P. Darcque and R. Treuil (eds), L'Habitat égéen préhistorique:actes de la table ronde internationaleorganiséepar le CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique,l'Universitéde Paris I et l'École Française d'Athènes

(Athènes, 23-25 juin ig8y) (Paris, 1990), 331-46, at 336. 49 A. Dousougli, 'Makrovouni-Kefalari Magoula-Talioti: Bemerkungen zu den Stufen FH I und II in der Argolis', Prähistorische 62 (1987), 164-220; Weisshaar (n. 47); Zeitschrift, see J. Forsén, 'The Early Helladic period', in Wells with Runnels, Berbati-Limnes, 7^-120, at 118. 50 e.g. J. L. Caskey, 'Greece, Crete and the Aegean islands in the Early Bronze Age', CAW i. 2 (1971), 771-807; E. T. Vermeule, Greecein theBronzeAge(Chicago, 1964), 26. 51Renfrew (n. 24). 52Halstead, 'Counting sheep' (n. 17). 53Coleman in. 2O. 54 O. Hadjianastasiou, Ά Late Neolithic settlement at Grotta, Naxos', in E. B. French and K. Wardle (eds), Problems in GreekPrehistory (Bristol, 1988), 11-21. 55LandscapeArchaeology, 226.

Prehistoricperiods 129

otherhand,withinthe Péloponnèse,as pointedout above,whilesome areas saw a smooth fromLate Neolithicto EarlyBronzeAge,56reflecting development steadypopulationgrowth and continuallyevolvingeconomic factors,it will be seen below that the evidence from Laconia can be reconstructed to givea ratherdifferent picture. The EH II phase has been accepted widely as a climax period in the Aegean, with increasedcraftspecialization,complexsocial organization,elaboratearchitecture, and the a of more elaborate social The extent of urbanism this development hierarchy.57 during 'protourban5stageis disputed,58 but sitesof some considerablesize are reported:Manika (45 ha), Thebes (20 ha), Eutresis(8 ha), Tiryns(5.9 ha),59and perhapsPlatiyaliin Aitolia.60 As yet,we are notin a positionto saywhethersuchlargesettlements existedin Laconia; Dickinsonhas siteits suggestedthatPavlopetrimayhave been important,61 thoughsinceit is a multi-period size in the EarlyBronzeAge is impossibleto guess. Sites in the vicinityof the surveyarea includeKouphovouno(4 ha?), Palaiopyrgi, cthelargestprehistoric sitein the Spartanplain'62 whileGerakicould (20 ha?),and AgiosVasileios,whichlikewisecould coverseveralhectares,63 extendover4 ha and one sitesouthof Goritsa64 are however, mayreach3 ha. These figures, in theextreme, tentative and onlyprecisesurveywillrevealthesize ofthesitesand theextent ofEarlyBronzeAge artefact scatters. The end oftheEH II periodand theEH III periodare also phasesofuncertainty, and are controversial. thereis a transformation fromtheEH II cultureto a MiddleBronze Essentially, Age culturethatis sometimestermed'Minyan5.65 Caskey'smodel of a verysharpchangeat theend ofEH II, developedin thelightofhis excavationsat Lerna,has been erodedbymore recentdiscoveries,in particularat Tiryns,suggestingthe existenceof a transitional phase betweenEH II and EH III and a muchmoregradualtransformation fromone cultureto the next.66Whateverthe processand the time-scale,thereis certainlya radical realignment in settlement patterns,so thatby the Middle Bronze Age propera new orderis established throughthe Greek mainland, one which lays the foundationsfor the developmentof Mycenaeancivilization. CHRONOLOGICAL

OVERVIEW

fromtheNeolithicto the EarlyBronzeAge is not documentedwithinthe survey Continuity area. A fewsitesare chronologically uncertain,thosewhose onlydiagnosticfindsare stone 56Johnson(n. 19). He also comments(ibid.66) thatmany of the FN1 sitesin the Berbati-Limnessurveyalso have EH findsin some quantity.Note, however,the more cautious commentsofj. Forsén(η. 49), ii8. See also Greek Countryside, theAcropolis, esp. 347-9; Beyond esp. 83-93. A 'significantly EH I ceramicassemblage'has been recognizedin different the area: see D. J. Pullen in Artifact andAssemblage, 10-19 (quotationfromRutter(n. 47),761n. 60). 57 For recent reviews see D. J. Pullen, 'Social organization in Early Bronze Age Greece: a multidimensional approach' (University Microfilms International;Ph.D. diss., Indiana University,1985); M. Wiencke, 'Change in Early Helladic ΙΓ, AJA93 (1989), 495-509; S. G. Harrison,'Domestic architecturein Early Helladic II: some observations on the form of nonmonumentalhouses',BSA 90 (1995),23-40. 58See e.g. R. Hägg and D. Konsola (eds), EarlyHelladic

Architecture and Urbanization (SIMA 76; Göteborg, 1986).

59D. Konsola, 'Settlementsize and the beginningsof in Darcque and Treuil(n. 48), 463-71. urbanisation', 6oA. Delaporta, 'Platiyali-Astakos:a submergedEarly Helladic sitein Akarnania',EnaliaAnnual, 1 (1990),44-6. 61O. T. P. K. Dickinson, 'Reflectionson Bronze Age Laconia', in Φιλολάκων,109-14,at 109-10. 02PL 1. 7b.

63PLi. 81. 64 PT ; po

65 R. J. Howell, 'The origins of the Middle Helladic culture',in R. A. Crosslandand A. Birchall(eds),Bronze Age

and LinguisticProblemsin Migrationsin theAegean:Archaeological GreekPrehistory (London, 1972), 73-101. bbFor the EH II- III transition see, recently,Rutter (n. 47), 763-6, 774; J. Forsén, The Twilightof theEarly Helladics: A StudyoftheDisturbancesin East-centraland SouthernGreecetowards the End of the Early Bronze Age (SIMA Pocketbooks, 116;

Jonsered,1992).

130 Chapter4

tools.67Excavated sites in Laconia give no more certainty;it would seem occupation at Alepotrypadid not survivethe Neolithic,and at Kouphovounotheremay have been a gap followed by reoccupation. EH I potteryis known elsewhere in Laconia fromÁgios theAmyklaion,69 and perhapsElaphonisi.71 As faras can be Stephanos,68 Ágios Efstrátios,70 and the evidenceis not veryreliable,settlement in Laconia beyondthe judged, therefore, surveyarea was sparsein the EH I period.There maywellbe a hiatusin occupation;at the verybest,exiguoussettlement.In the surveyarea, it is only at the end of EH I thatthe landscape beginsto fillout (siteC126),and the main recolonizationis a featureof EH II. Likewisein therestofLaconia, EH II seemsto represent a climaxofsettlement,72 withsitesin coastallocations,a chain of hilltopsitesin the centralSparta furrow, and acropolissitesin eastern Laconia such as Geraki and Apidia. In the surveyarea it has been possible to butno diagnostically EH III pottery has recognizean earlierand a latergroupofEH II sites,73 been identified. On presentevidenceit seemstherewas realignment, indeedabandonment, of settlement at theend oftheEH II period. SETTLEMENT

(ILL.

4.2,

TABLE

4.2)

The EarlyBronzeAge distribution is considerably denserthanthatoftheprecedingphase.A markedfeatureofthespreadofsitesis theirrarityin thewesternhalfofthesurveyarea. The markedexceptionis M357Aphysou,whose finds,perhapssignificantly, were dug up in the courseof buildingworks.This may well be due to the processesof glacisformation having buriedEarlyBronzeAge sites.The main concentrations have been foundon the Neogene plateauand in the Chrysaphabasin,thougha scatterof sitesin thenorthern partshowsthat thelessfavourable schistsoilswerealso used. The majorityof sitesare small,0.1 ha or less, thoughthe effectsof erosionhave been severeand manysitesare probablyrelictsof theiroriginalextent.It would be possibleto dismisstheseas 'non-sites',but we shouldurge cautionagainsttoo readya dismissal.It is plain thattherehave been quitemarkedperiodsoferosionin different partsofGreece since the Early Bronze Age,74and these could well have destroyedsites.75Nor is occupation coveringan area of 100-1,000 sq m implausible for a single household; Harrison has establishedthatnon-monumental housesin EH II Greece rangedin size from£.40to c.8o sq m, perhapshousingup to nine people.76Material froma small farmsteadmay well have coveredonlya smallextent. A subsetof 'medium'sitesrangesfrom0.2 to 0.7 ha: P267,P285,R287,R289,N333,R428, and U500,together withthe cout-of-area' sitesU3001,U3006,and R3012.Site P284,at about

67

E78, Bill, Q36O, U487, U489, U532.

68 A. J. MacGillivray, pers.comm. »9PL 1.74-5. 70PL i. 89 n. 107(misnamed'AyiosStrategos').The 'Redslipped' ware similar to that from Palaia Kokkinia is evidentlyEH I. This sitedoes presenta prima faciecase for ofoccupation. continuity 71Site C: Waterhouseand Hope Simpson (PL ii. 146 n. 208) mentiona rimsherdwithslantingincisionswhichmight just be Taliotiware. 72See the recentdiscussionin Renard (n. 47), 80-90 and map,pl. 33,listing32 EH sites,mainlyEH II.

73W. G. Cavanagh and R. R. Laxton,'Seriationof noisy data fromthe Laconia Survey:a knowledgeengineering

approach', in J. Pavuk (ed.), Actesdu XIIe CongrèsInternational des Sciences Préhistoriqueset Protohistoriques(Bratislava, i-y

septembre iggi) (Bratislava,1993),350-66. Note thatp288 and includedin theseriationbut S431weresparsesites,originally consequentlyjudged not to be true sites,and are omitted here. 7*van Andeletal. in. 281 75Bintliff and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition'. 76Harrison(n. 57).

Prehistoricperiods 131

■ Largersites • Smaller sites

y^ <^C 7 >v /^ / ι'

r

''

As^y

^^^ L

L·, J Ι

Λ

M357# yJ~^f'^

Y '

'

1 ? /

/

j'

er> J

/^I? JL,,

C126 · ' M

N333B

N191 >p

^ί284^

'

R289 "

^''

£'

·8448)' S459 * ■". * 'V R280 ' ^""*-'

R3012 R4281 <J?ft A.

'^^^y0

/

(+10170) / f /^

ΛΛ J^L/^l ^/ /^^^ r^x ίί / S^SX

Í

ν1 ■

I


^>k U50°

«U504 'i ^T U520.· · / Vu49o/

III. 4.2. Early Bronze Age sites (D. Taylor).

^~^~- Ο

132 Chapter4 site C126 P285 R287 N333 U520* U500 P262*

size (ha) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0-3 0.05 0.2

1diagnostic pottery 31 14

16

22

69 7 2

64

26 64 6 36 45 4 26

U490 N191 Q360+ L400 U504 U300 S448+ R529* Gi54§

0.03 0.05 60.6

R280

0.01

61

S478 C128

0.02 0.01

R462* P263 M357* P267* K414 P289 C131*

0.01 0.01

35 l9 9 104 12

0.07

0.01

0.01 0.04

0.03 0.31 0.03 0.20 0.01

chippedstone

querns

X

X

14

X X

X

X X X

I

10

5

X

X X X

47

18 14

pithoi

?

1

142 14

3 63

celts

3

7 2 2 10

49

cores

X X

1

I

3 !3

X

32

* only. Sparsesitesnotseriatedbutlocatedon proximity + Siteswhosechronological positionis veryuncertain. § G154includestheerodeddepositLS 10170. Table 4.2. Main EarlyBronzeAge sitesin seriatedorder.Thereis an earliergroup(C126to G154)and a latergroup(R280to C131).

This would ι.ο ha, is the largest,perhapsa villagesiteratherthana hamletor farmstead.77 sometimes withinthesurveyarea,withtheindividualfarmsteads hierarchy suggesta two-level If we wereto seekan equivalentto P284 in the north, largerclusters.78 growingintoslightly but the site todayis, in the firstplace, quite G154may have servedas a largersettlement; eroded. was low;and ithas been severely so thatvisibility denselyovergrown, This probablyrepresentsthe lowerend of a site hierarchythatmay have threeor four tiers.79 Whetherlargersitesstill,comparablein size withManika, EH Thebes, or Tiryns,80 77Occasional findswere made of EH pottery(sitesH45, biO5,R291,N312,P405,S474)and chippedstonetools(P265, P364, n366, U501,U502, U532,U3000, A3018,A3019).The firsttwohintat EH occupationin areas wheresiteswerenot located.U501and U502 probablyrepresentstraysor a halo fromU500. U532 and A3018could representspecial activity sites,butsevereerosionmightexplaintheabsenceofpottery; theirdatesare notcertain. 78Perhapson the model proposed forMyrtos-Fournou at FournouKorifi, Korifiby T. Whitelaw,'The settlement in Myrtos,and aspectsofEarlyMinoan social organisation', O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds),MinoanSociety (Bristol, ιΦ$)> 323-45·

79Similarto the Berbati-Limnesresultswhere,however, the Mastos site mightjust representa thirdlevel: Forsén (η. 49), ιig. Cf. the three levels proposed for the S. theAcropolis, 90-1). Note, however,a more Argolid[Beyond cautious view regardingMethana: 'The existence of a settlementhierarchyis likelybut not certain' (Roughand RockyPlace, ^1).

80 Perhapsalso Fournoiin the S. Argolid,thoughthere seemssomeuncertainty whethera clusterofsitesofdifferent periods might not form part of the area distinguished (Runnelsand van Andel(n. 19),313-14).

Prehistoricperiods 133

to be sure(see above),thoughitis not existedin Laconia beyondthesurveyarea itis impossible It has been for the that the proposed Argolid81 growthoflargesitesoccurredin a improbable. in a processofpolitical EH of at the of others which were abandoned laterstage II, expense smallsites nucleation.It is notclearthatour surveycan givea plainanswerto thissuggestion; It is also occurin thelateras wellas theearlierphasesof EH II recognizedfromthepottery. siteswereobserved(P267,P284,P285;R287, thatwhereclustersof 'medium'-sized noteworthy R428,R3012),both earlier(P285,R287)and later(P267)or 'multi-period' (P284,R428,R3012) we havesuchdifficult data thatno conclusioncan be pressed. siteswerepresent.In truth, The patternrecoveredforthe surveyarea has been observedelsewherein Laconia. On Elaphonisi,Waterhouseand Hope Simpson82recognizedsmall farmsteadsservicedby the largersitesofPavlopetriand Panagia.The densityofsiteshereis comparablewiththatin the settled.In theArgolid, schistsectionofthesurveyarea,theNeogenebeingrathermorethickly certaintypesoffindmayindicatesitesofhigherstatus,in particularstampedclayhearthsand roof-tiles.83 Neitherclass of findhas so farbeen recoveredfromLaconia, but to judge from theirdiscoveryat Akovitikaand Agios Dimitrios84theymay turnup in the future.An recentfind,reflecting theeconomicsignificance ofa site,is thediscovery ofsealings important withseal impressionsfromGeraki,85 whichparallelssitesoutsideLaconia, notablyLerna. Obsidiancoreshavebeen foundat sitesofall sizes,86 and indeedas strayfinds. Sites with special functionsare hard to distinguish.The ox figurinefromU3001 in whichcase shrineswere sited may have servedsome religiousfunction,88 (Palaiopyrgi)87 A fewsiteshave producedchippedstonetoolsand/orlittle withinthehamletsand villages.89 or no diagnostic buttheseseembestexplainedin termsoferosion.90 pottery, ECONOMY

A mixedagricultural economyis securelyattestedfortheEarlyBronzeAge,and is confirmed withinthe surveyby the discoveryof querns,celts,storagejars, and possiblyindicationsof sicklegloss.The sitesin the northare locatedabove thelimitof oliveculturetoday,and the morerobustalmondsand mulberries are todaypreferred as fieldtrees,thougholivegrovesare accessiblefairlyclose by.The Neogene soilswereprobablymoresuitedto agriculture in the In so far as we can from the Neolithic distribution a there is marked generalize past. changeof concentration: thelimestoneridgesand hillsno longerpredominate,91 and situations on waterdividesratherthanslopesare preferred. The evidencefromotherpartsof Europe generally supportsthe suggestionthat ox tractionwas used in Greece by the Early Bronze Age;92 donkeysare reportedfromLerna in EH II, buthorsesare notattesteduntilEH III.93 81Wiencke(n. ^7),4.QQ. 82PLii. 14.6-8:cf.G4Ci 18-10. 83Tiles could be used in non-monumental buildings: J. W. Shaw,'The EarlyHelladic II corridorhouse: problemsand possibilities', AJA91 (1987),59-79, at 61 n. 7; J. L. Caskey, 'The EarlyHelladic periodin the Argolid',Hesp.29 (i960), 285-303,at 289. 84Fortiles,see themap byPullenin Hägg and Konsola (n. see Zachos (n. 16),213. 58),fig.3. ForAyiosDhimitrios, 85D. Blackman,'Archaeology in Greece 1997-98',AR 44 (1997-8),1-128,at 35. 86 P267,P284,A3018. 87LS ii. 189,SF55, pl. 11 a. υοAs has been ri. lzavella-lwjen, Limares: arguedtorLithares:

An EarlyBronzeAgeSettlement inBoeotia(Los Angeles, 1985).

89Notethefivefigurines fromKouphovouno,Renard(n.δ). 90See n. 23 above. 91U500/504and U490 are limestoneknollsprojectinginto theChrysaphakarstbasin.

92 S. Piggott, The Earliest WheeledTransport: FromtheAtlantic

CoasttotheCaspianSea (London, 1983),36; D. J. Pullen,'Ox and plow in the EarlyBronzeAge Aegean',AJA96 (1992), 45-54; Wiencke(n. 57),500. 93Horses are presentat Tirynsby EH III; see A. von den Driesch and J. Boessneck, 'Die Tierreste von der mykenischen BurgTirynsbei Nauplion/Peloponnes', Tiryns, xi (1990),87-164;Rutter(n. 47),754 n. 32,766.

134 Chapter4 site P269 P284 R428 U3001 S459** U3005 R3012

size (ha) 0.10

diagnostic pottery

Ι. Ο

194 128

0-5 0.7 ο. οι

141 30 6

O.I

53

0.7

142

chippedstone 33 29 20

cores

X

querns

X X X

celts X

pithoi

X X X X X X

1

l3

Table 4.3. Possiblemulti-phase EarlyBronzeAge sites.

The surveyarea seemswellintegrated intothewiderEH II worldand, by association,into an economywhichsupporteda redistributive infrastructure and a networkoftrade.Thus the artefacts, especiallythe potteryincludingthe table wares,are comparable,and hence their makersconversant, withthoseelsewherein Greece.Obsidian directlyattestscontact.All the at the time,and the relatively of overlandtransport isolatedpositionof same,the difficulties the Neogene plateau and the Chrysapha basin, warn against over-emphasizingthe oftrade. significance POPULATION

Contemporarysettlementsin the Early Bronze Age Cyclades are argued to have been short-lived. Excavationsuggeststhaton the mainland,at least in the case of sites relatively of0.2 ha and larger,occupationlastedlonger(thoughit maybe thatour potterychronology siteswhichweresettledand resettledintermittently). is notyetrefinedenoughto distinguish Confirmationof multi-periodoccupation of sites in the surveyarea has come fromthe seriationanalysisof the pottery,94 wheresitesP284, P269, R428, U3001,U3005,and R3012 indicatethatmediumto largesiteswerequitelong-lived(TABLE 4.3). Sitesofa littlelessthan 1 ha havebeen excavatedin Greece.The EH II settlement at Lithareshas been estimatedto cover0.7 ha and was certainlyoccupiedby a numberof households;95 Agios Kosmás,a not dissimilarvillage,coveredsome 0.9 ha.96Harrison,in a carefuldiscussionof the evidence fromthe mainland, suggeststhat there may have been a change fromEH I to EH II - a warning withtheformerrathermoreopen,thelattermoredenselypacked97 settlements, againsttoo simplistica correlationbetweensize and population,even in similarperiods. to relateto EarlyBronzeAge artefactscattersis also difficult How thesesizesforsettlements associated the settlement the Melos for that On the one hand, surveyfound, example, say. withthe Pelos cemeterycoveredabout 0.4 ha,98a sitewhichon the cemeteryevidencehas On theotherhand, been thoughtofas ca settlement occupiedby a singlefamily5.99 typically has been excavated since its Fournou which discoveryby (extensive)survey, MyrtosKoryfi, estimatedat 80 X 30 m (roughly0.2 ha; excavatedarea £.50X 25 m, at least was originally 0.09 ha)100and was occupied,on a modestestimate,by 25-30 people. Kephala in the Final 94Cavanaghand Laxton(n. 73). 95Tzavella-Evjen (n. 88); S. G. Harrison, 'Settlement patternsin Early Bronze Age Greece: an approach to the study of a prehistoric society' (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of 1992),150-2. Nottingham, 9bKonsola (n. 59); G. Mylonas,AghiosKosmas:An Early inAttica(Princeton, NJ, 1959). and Cemetery HelladicSettlement

97Harrison (n. o^), esp. iqq. 98Island Polity,298.

99Ibid. 138,thoughresurveyoi the area has indicateda smallerEH siteadjacentto the cemetery(R. W. V Catling, per epist.). 100S. Hood, P. Warren,and G. Cadogan (1964),'Travelsin Crete,1962',BSA59 (1964),50-99, at 95; Whitelaw(n. 78).

Prehistoricperiods 135

Neolithicperiod has been estimatedto have occupied 0.7 ha and housed seven to ten ofpotterythoughthe obsidiancovers families,an area thatagreeswellwiththe distribution On this a ratherlargerarea.101 admittedlyfragileevidence,our best estimateis that the EH II was occupied by a scatterof hamletsor smallvillages(a pattern surveyarea during which,on the evidence of the Out-of-area'sites,continuedin the adjacent terrain)and farmsteads;verycoarsely,no more than 500 perhaps twice the numberof single-family people. Even makinggenerousallowancesforthe totalloss of sitesdue to erosion,and for thepopulationof the surveyarea musthave runto hundreds theproblemsdue to visibility, ratherthan thousands,perhaps of an order similarto its population in the eighteenth centuryAD.102

The Middle

Bronze

Age

the general setting In recentyears it has become increasinglyclear that most of the cultural differences associatedwiththe Early-Middle Bronze Age transitionin the southernand traditionally centralGreek mainlandgo back to the earlierEH II- III transition.In fact,the changes ofthematerialassemblage,as well in thearchitecture, and othercomponents manifest pottery, as in the organizationof society,are not to be viewedin termsof eventsbut as a processof regionaldifferences.103 changeovera longerperiodoftimeand withdistinct A morenuancedpictureis also emergingas regardsthe Middle BronzeAge in southern and centralGreece. It has generallybeen regardedas a periodof a lowerlevel of material wealthand social complexitythan EH II. It stillappears to be true thatformost of the in Crete,withitspalatial period'sdurationmainlandGreece 'lagged behind' developments in At the same Middle Helladic societyis the and and even time, centres, Cyclades Aigina.104 While morevariedand complexthanitsconventional now seen as considerably portrayal.105 mosthabitationsiteswere probablyon the hamletor village level, some, like Argos and Thebes, appear to have been importantcentres.Variabilityin burialpracticesis apparent fromthewidespreadtumulusand cisttombs.There is also evidence,especiallyat coastalsites, forcontactswithAigina,Crete,and otherislandsin theAegean. areas foran Towardsthe end of the Middle Helladic periodthereis evidencein different in the transitional between Middle and Late increasingpace of change,culminating phase II A in MH IIILH to as theShaftGraveera (equivalentto ceramic BronzeAge oftenreferred 101 Whitelaw(n. 23). 102See Chapter8. 103See, forrecentdiscussionand further references, esp.

Forsén (η. 66); J. Maran, Die deutschen Ausgrabungenauf der PevkakiaMagula in Thessalien,iii: Die mittlere Bronzezeit(Bonn,

1992),369-72;Rutter(n. 47),763-6,776. IO4See, interalia, Ο. T. P. Κ. Dickinson, The Originsof Civilisation (SIMA 49; Göteborg,1977),32-8; id., Mycenaean 'Parallels and contrasts in the Bronze Age of the Péloponnèse',OJA1 (1982),125-38,at 133-4. 105 See

esp. J. Maran,

Kiapha Thiti: Ergebnisse der

ii. 2 (MarburgerWinckelmann-Programm; Ausgrabungen, Marburg,1992),301-74; Rutter(n. 47), 774-85; C. Zerner,

'New perspectiveson trade in the middle and earlyLate Helladic periodson the mainland',in C. Zerner,P. Zerner,

and J. Winder (eds), Wace and Biegen: Potteryas Evidencefor Trade in theAegean Bronze Age ig^g-igßg (Proceedingsof the held at theAmericanSchool of Classical InternationalConference Studies,Athens,Dec. 2-3, ig8g) (Amsterdam, 1993), 39-56; I.

Kilian-Dirlmeier,'Reiche Gräber der mittelhelladischen Zeit', in R. Laffineurand W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Politeia:

of the5th Societyand State in theAegeanBronzeAge (Proceedings International Aegean Conference /je Rencontre EgêenneInternationale, Institut,10-13 April igg4) of Heidelberg, University Archäologisches

(Aegaeum,12;Liège,1995),i. 49-53.

136 Chapter4

The ShaftGrave era does not representa sudden clear break withthe Middle terms).106 Helladicpast.The varioustombswhichformour main bodyof evidenceindicatetheriseof who became a warriorélite.This riseis stillnotfullyunderstood, but vigorouslocal chieftains can be observednotonlyat Mycenaein thenorth-eastern Péloponnèsebutalso in otherparts of mainlandGreece,mostnotablyMesseniain the south-west. The rulingfamiliesnot only had closelinkswitheach otherbutalso withtheCycladesand particularly withCrete,whence came muchoftheirremarkable wealthand portableprestigegoods. CHRONOLOGICAL

OVERVIEW

thatis diagnostically EH III has notbeen identified in thesurveyarea or in therestof Pottery Laconia. This suggestsa hiatus in occupation afterEH II. Certainly,this part of the thattookplace in theArgolid Péloponnèsemaynothave followedthe ceramicdevelopments and centralGreece;but the preceding(EH II) and succeeding(MH) stylesare recognizable, and neithersurveynor excavationhas producedan independentEH III regionalstyleto fill thegap. Moreover,a breakor sharpdeclinein occupationis notinconsistent withthepattern observedelsewherein the Péloponnèse.107 Thus, often MH sitesin the surveyarea (M322, M349,N191and N413,Q360, R292 and R424,S434 and S478; add a couple of MH sherdsat mostofthese U514)onlythree(N191,Q360,S478)have also producedEH II finds.In contrast, site

size

B123 H45 M322 M349 N413

0.13 ?

N191 Q360 Q3009 R424 R291 R292 R457 S434 S478 U490 U514 U3006

0.07 25.00 0.60

0.05 0.07 0.40

O.OI

0.24 O.OI O.OI

0.06 O.O2 0.10? 0.02 O.6O?

soil

S2C S4D N4C

MBA sherds LHIII sherds 1

N3b

Nib

72 31 51

Nia Nib

3 34

Nia Lib Lib L2b L2a Nia L4a L4a

2

22

!3

8 5 5 2

7 4 58 2

M/LBA sherds 3 3 117 146 133 1

1

242

49 7 46 3

21

9 6 8

160

27

4 61 39 36 6 4 9

tableware

cookware

pithosetc.

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

other finds

figurine crucible, potlids

X X

figurines

X

quern?

X

X X

Table 4.4. Middleand Late BronzeAge sites.

106For a fuller see Dickinson,Origins (n. 104); bibliography id., 'The originsof Mycenaeancivilisationrevisited',in R.

au bronze Laffineur(ed.), Transition: le mondeégéendu bronzemoyen de récent de l'Université (actesde la 2e Rencontre EgéenneInternationale

Liège,18-20 avrilig88) (Aegaeum,3; Liège, 1989),131-6;M. K. Dabney and J. C. Wright,'Mortuarycustoms,palatial society and state formation in the Aegean area: a comparativestudy',in R. Hägg and G. C. Nordquist(eds),

Celebrationsof Death and Divinity in the Bronze Age Argolid

at theSwedishInstitute (Proceedings ofthe6thInternational Symposium

at Athens,11-13 June,iq88) (Skrifterutgivna av Svenska in Athen,ser.in 40,40; Stockholm,1990),45-53,at Institutet

to theMycenaeanAge 48-51; S. Dietz, The Argolidat theTransition

(Copenhagen,1991);Rutter(n. 47),774-5,785-97. 107 Compare the results of the Nemea valley, and Methanasurveys: Berbati-Limnes, Wrightetai, 'Nemea', andRocky 609, 640-1 withn. 135;Forsén(n. 49), 119-20;Rough Place,45-6. In general,see Rutter(n. 47),772-3,795.

Prehistoricperiods 137

siteshave yieldedmaterialof LH date. So the Middle BronzeAge settlement of the survey area is markedbya sharpdiscontinuity. Whileno sitescan, on presentevidence,be firmly datedto earlyMH, othershave yielded and Πto its middle later ΙΙΙ).108We note the presenceof 'fineparts(ΜΗ potterydating kantharoiand similarvesselswithroundedrims,110 incisedAdriaticwares',109 and classicDark MH II and other consistent with at sites such as the Burnished111 pottery occupation = Menelaion(Q360),M322,theN413cluster, rests,in R457,and R291( R525).This chronology on similarities withmaterialexcavatedat Agios Stephanosin the Helos plain,at particular, Nichoria in Messenia, and at Lerna and Asine in the Argolid. The sequence at Agios Stephanos also helps to date occupation at several of our sites to the time of transition betweenMH and LH or to earlyMycenaeantimes(e.g.M322,N413).112 Given the relatively smallsamplesof pottery, and the overlappingphases of mostMH the lack of stratigraphy, we hesitateto proposea finerchronology ofour sites.Once established, fabrics, however, they seem to have been relativelylong-lived,in thatmost MH sitesproduced late MH-early Mycenaeanand laterceramics(theMenelaion,M322,M349,N191,N413,R291,R457,S478). SETTLEMENT

(ILL.

4.3,

TABLE

4.4)

The distributionof Middle Bronze Age sites is far less dense than in EH II. Without exception,MH sitesare situatedin the southernpartof the surveyarea."3 (One certainand threeless diagnosticMH potsherdswere among the Iron Age findscollectedat Β123 in the area in the north.)It is not impossiblethatin the less stableschistarea AgiosKonstantinos Middle BronzeAge siteshave entirely erodedaway,thoughwe note thatsome earlier,Early BronzeAge and evenNeolithic,siteshavesurvivedtheforcesoferosionin thenorthern half. Even withinthesouthernarea thereare markeddifferences. The strongEarlyBronzeAge presenceon theNeogeneplateau(zone P) is notrepeatedin theMiddle BronzeAge (indeed, thisarea was notto be favouredagainbeforethemid-first millennium BC).Nor was muchMH materialfoundin themain Chrysaphabasin (zone U: a littlefromU514),likewisein contrast withtheprecedingepoch.It wouldbe tempting to suggestthatEarlyBronzeAge farming had exhaustedtheland in thesezones,or thatsoilshad been depletedby severeerosion.Neither suggestionseemsto bear examination,forthesezones were foundperfectly acceptablefor 108Fora few fromthe possiblyearlyMH pottery fragments Agios Stephanosand Menelaionexcavations,see Dickinson (n. 61), no withn. 7. The earliestoccupationof the Aëtos hill,whichbelongswiththeMenelaionridge,was in MH II; see H. W. Catling,'Archaeology in Greece,1980-81',AR 27 (1980-1), 1-48, at 16. IU9e.g. LÒ ii, FIG. 12.b, 11-13. 110See fSi'. τη. under tvne 2 a.

111 LSn. 18 and n. 8, 10n. 12,FIG.12.1,16-17. 112We owe much to the expertadvice of Dr C. Zerner, who has studiedtheMH pottery frombothLerna and Agios see Stephanos.For recentadvances in potterychronology, East ofthe e.g. S. Dietz, Asine,ii: ResultsoftheExcavations theMiddle Acropolis, igjo-igj4, 2: TheMiddleHelladicCemetery, Helladicand EarlyMycenaean Deposits(Skrifterutgivna av i Athen,ser.in 40,24. 2; Stockholm,1980); SvenskaInstitutet id. (n. 106); R. J. Howell,'The Middle Helladic settlement: pottery',in W. A. McDonald and N. C. Wilkie (eds), Excavationsat Nichoria in SouthwestGreece,ii: The Bronze Age

Occupation (Minneapolis, 1992), 43-204; Maran (n. 103); Maran (n. 105); G. C. Nordquist,A MiddleHelladicVillage: Asinein theArgolid(Boreas, 16; Uppsala, 1987);J. Rutter, 'PotterygroupsfromTsoungiza of the end of the Middle Bronze Age', Hesp.59 (1990), 375-458; C. Zerner,'Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I potteryfromLerna', Hydra,2 (1986), 28-74; ead., 'Middle Helladic and Late Helladic potteryfromLerna, part II: shapes', Hydra,4 (1988), 1-44; ead., 'Ceramics and ceremony:potteryand burials from Lerna in the middleand earlyLate BronzeAges', in Hägg and Nordquist (n. 106), 23-34; ead. (n. 105). For the transitional materialfromthelattersite,see alsoJ. B. Rutter and S. H. Rutter, The Transition toMycenaean:A Stratified MM II- LH IIA PotterySequencefrom Ayios Stephanos in Laconia

(Monumentaarchaeologica,4; Los Angeles,1976). 113For what follows, see also W. G. Cavanagh, 'Developmentof the Mycenaeanstatein Laconia: evidence fromthe Laconia Survey',in Laffineurand Niêmeier (n. 105),i. 81-7,at 84-5.

138 Chapter4

y^

//

^^'

Í8QQS I

f

[

/


1yv^

^7/ S U ΛΝ7

( )

ri

/

f '

Λ

Β Maj°rsite

Γ ί/

#
S / // V^y ijX

XSherdW

/ *-^X^-^J) C

^^°

' K414S^'

"^^

χΜ172 Μ322 /J'XT^

j

M349" f k

)

^^

J

0 '

'V

V

R424±M78a ''^

^ λ J/^ 108Λ24

s>^ ΧΒ3025

,'

S '

r3/' t/^^h ι

ι

;

f

''

^y

^Js ^>f£ (If (ζ^10083

X10112

>

1

Λ

I

mm

I Metres

*i 10815 UM0-iU5,4^ ^^*>^y

III. 4.3. Middleand Late BronzeAge sites(D. Taylor).

^S ν

'

Prehistoricperiods 139

cultivationin laterperiods(forexample the archaic),and the intervalof severalcenturies betweenthe abandonmentof the EH sitesand the reoccupationof the area in the Middle haveallowedthefertility oftheland to return. BronzeAge wouldcertainly of sites- is to be foundon theMenelaionridge(Q360), The main site- or conglomeration highabove theeastbankoftheEurotas.The ridgein factcomprisesfourconnectedhills:the NorthHill, the Menelaionitself(withthe remainsof the Iron Age sanctuaryof thatname), the north-southaxis of Q360 extendsover about a ProphitisIlias, and Aetós. Altogether, MH has been found all overit; thewidthis at presentnowheremore and material kilometre, thanthat. than300 m, and in placesmuchnarrower MH surfacematerial, end oftheridgeyieldedsomeEH II pottery, Whilethesouthernmost a likeMycenaean,was dispersedover verymuchlargerarea (Q360,areas Α-D, G,J-L, AA, Thus thesurveyfindsneatlyaugmentthe 1973-82excavationswhichhad revealed AC-AF).114 scrapsof MH wallson theMenelaionand NorthHill, as well as two smallkilnsfollowedby several burials on the south flankof Aetos."5 It is not clear, however,how denselythe Menelaioncomplexwas occupiedin MH (or in LH), because of the oftendensevegetation and highlevelof erosion.The questionalso remainswhetherthevariousareas of settlement as theyprobablydid in Mycenaeantimes.Excavation alreadybelongedto a singlecommunity, thattheMH Menelaionwas notunlikeMH Lerna or Asine: suggests The appearanceofthesettlement wouldhavebeen similarto thatofmodernGreekvillageswithruinssidebyside withhousesin good repairand newlyconstructed ones. Open spaceswereused forgravesor as disposalareas for rubbishand as grazinggroundfordomesticanimals."6

All the same,fromits size alone, we believethatthe Middle Helladic marksthe startof a whichwas well processby whichthe populationconcentratedwithinone large settlement, its east and west sides. With its protectedby steep dropsalong commandinglocation,the in of the Menelaion a definite interest defenceas well as in the occupation ridgesuggests Evrotasvalley. Furthernorththereare twoothersites(M349and M322)in a similarpositionon theglacis and foothillsoverlooking the Eurotasvalley,thoughnot protectedby steep drops.In both surface material of MH and laterdate, foundover an area of 0.07 and 0.05 ha the cases, have washed downfromtheoriginalsite. respectively, may No otherofthesurveysitesofMH date remotely compareswiththeMenelaionin size,but itis possibleto recognizetwolevelsofsitehierarchy belowit. (1) N413(plus associatedsites)and R291(+ R292) representsitesof 0.25-0.5 ha in extent. eroded,and hencesubjectto thelossofpotterydue to Althoughthesesiteshavebeen severely abrasionand comminution, we believethatthesettlement was originally ofthismagnitude, as is partlyconfirmed oftheland. They can be interpreted as small bythenaturalconfiguration hamletsconsisting ofa numberofhouseholds.In bothcases,liketheMenelaionitself, theyare defensible sitesprotectedby cliffs. Site N413represents theamalgamationofa series naturally ofpotteryscatters(N413,N412,N410,N411),and mayhave had theratheropen plan suggested 114 LSÛ. 402-3,ILL.24.51. 115Catling,'Menelaion', 28-9; id. (n. 108), 16 withfigs 23-5· 116 Nordquist(n. 112),29. W. D. Taylour,'Excavationsat AyiosStephanos',BSA 67 (1972),205-63, at 240, 244, has

commentedon breaks,at varioustimes,in theoccupationof thedifferent sectorsexcavatedat AgiosStephanos.

140 Chapter4

in the previous paragraph for the Menelaion. It commands the route fromSparta to Chrysapha,thoughthis is a route of only local significance,while R291 dominatesthe Loutsoremavalley.Because of theirdefensive locations,neitheris surroundedby agricultural is describedas 'largelyuncultivable5 and N4i3'sveryimmediatecatchment land,117 (LS ii. 390), though,againliketheMenelaion,thereis arableland in thevicinity. oferosionin destroying (2) The remainingsitesare smaller(0.1 ha or less;again theeffects sitesmustbe bornein mind).They are wellsitedforagriculture, and generallydo notseemto be locatedin naturallydefensiblelocations:M322,M349,N191,R457(evidently a satelliteof R291),S434(locatedalso to exploitgrazing?),and S478. The Menelaion(Q360),M349,M322,and N413forma stringspacedjust overa kilometre one fromthe other.In the Chrysaphaarea, the spacingis less regularbut the sitesare still separatedbylessthantwokilometres. Elsewherein Laconia, severaloftheEH II sitesshowno signsofMH occupation.Others, such as Amyklai,Palaiopyrgi,and Agios Vasileios(all on the chain of hillsin the Evrotas valley),and the acropolissitesof Geraki(adjoiningthe south-western slopes of the Párnon MH and the Helos have At all except plain), produced range) Agios Stephanos(in pottery. Geraki,as at the Menelaion ridge,occupationmay well have been continuousinto Late Helladictimes.118 ECONOMY

A mixedagricultural economymay be assumedforthe Middle Helladic occupationof the soilsin thesurveyarea. Sitesare quitewelllocatedforarable and limestone-derived Neogene we have soils,though suggestedthatdefenceratherthaneasy access to good land governed thechoiceoflocationfortheMenelaion(Q360),N413,and R291.Some explanationin termsof thesubsistence sector,for economyseemsdemandedbythepaucityoffindsfromthenorthern to reasonaway entirelythroughthe loss of sitesunderthe forcesof erosion. thisis difficult of the schistsoils,theirinstability Perhapsa combinationof the relativeunproductiveness the at the and, (demandingterracing?), highestelevations, dangeroffrostdamageto olivesis sufficient to explainwhythearea was avoidedin theMiddle BronzeAge. On theotherhand, in werelargelyoverlooked do notapplyto zonesΡ and U, which,similarly, suchconsiderations likethosein zones the Middle BronzeAge (or at least do not seem to have had settlements M-N and Q,-S). Access to arable was not the only factorin deciding the location of a numberof the sitesare close to good sitedon ridge-tops, settlements. Althoughfrequently watersupplies:Q360, M349,and M322to the Evrotas;N413to the Kelephína;R291-2 to the wellsin TsiliotouRéma; Ni91 near therichspringsin Kastorórema;and S434 and S478 near the copious springsin Kataphygiórema.Perhapswateringanimal stockwas particularly to theseMiddleBronzeAge villagers. important Schistslabs encounteredat N413may have servedas lids forstoragevessels.In general, vesselsare wellrepresented amongMH potteryfromthesurveyarea. The variety pithos-type of table,kitchen,and storagewaresfoundat the sitesindicatesgeneralizeddomesticactivity is indicatedbya claycrucible.119 ratherthanspecializedloci.At M413,metalworking As forthe Menelaionridge,nowadaysthereare not a lot of good soilsin the immediate some of the terraceson the ridge environs.If theMiddle BronzeAge houseswerescattered, 117 LSii, ills 24.46,24.^2. 118 See PL i and ii; GAC107ff.withmap C.

119 LS ii. 194,SF 102. Forcruciblesand otherevidencefor in MH Greece,see Nordquist(n. 112),44. metalworking

Prehistoricperiods 141

itselfcould happilyhavebeen cultivated.Otherwisetheinhabitants presumably exploitedthe Evrotasvalley,sharingtherichsoilsto the northwiththe inhabitants of siteM349and using the riverforwateringanimals(shepherdsstillbringtheirflocksfromas faras Chrysaphato waterthem).The floodlands near (classical)Limnai may also have been exploited.On the otherhand,itwouldnothavebeen convenient to haveto crosstheEvrotasin orderto exploit the area southof Sparta. It is possiblethatalreadyin the Middle BronzeAge producewas afieldas a consequenceofthesite'simportance. broughtin fromfurther The studyarea was clearlyin touchwithotherpartsofLaconia and ofthePéloponnèseat large,judgingfrompotteryfindsand theshaftgravetypeoftombfromtheMenelaionridge. fromthatin EH II withits remarkableuniformity in Still,the situationis quite different wares,types,and decoration.Insteadoftheclassic'Minyan'waresoftheArgolidand pottery central Greece, we findimitationsof their shapes and incised decoration, as at Agios Local pottery Stephanosand elsewherein Laconia.120 productionis indicatedby thetwokilns excavatedon theMenelaionridge. findsfromthesurveyarea indicatecontactswithMinoan Creteor with Some ofthepottery its colonyon Kythera.This minoanizingpotteryhas counterparts at the portsite of Agios or to earlyLH.121 Stephanos,whereitmostlydatesto theMH-LH transition POPULATION

It is veryuncertainwhethertherewas continuedhabitationfromEarlyto Middle Helladic times,thoughthe balance of evidence suggeststhatthe surveyarea- and otherparts of - wererepopulatedin theMiddleHelladic Laconia and indeedofthePéloponnèse period.We haveseen thatMH sitesare notat all numerousin our area as comparedwithEH II and are a notableexception.The usuallyof smallor mediumsize,the Menelaionridgerepresenting overallpictureis offairly lowpopulationnumbers, limitedto thesouthernpartofthearea and concentrated on theMenelaionridge,in thesmallvillagesN413and R291,and in a apparently scatterof smallersites.What evidencewe have may well suggestan increasein population duringand at theend ofthisperiod. SOCIO-POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

CONSIDERATIONS

Afterthewidespreaddistribution ofEarlyHelladic sitesofmoreor lessequal status,thereis a in our studyarea in theMiddle BronzeAge. The Menelaionridgeis the notablecontraction major settlement,or cluster,as it was to be in Mycenaean times.Smaller sites at other locations,mostlynewlyfoundedin MH and also inhabitedin LH, are presumably subsidiary. WhiletheMenelaionridgeclearlyranksabove thislevel,too littleis as yetknownto attempta settlement rankingwithMH siteselsewherein Laconia, includingthosein the Evrotasvalley and to thesouthoftheMenelaion.Here,as in thesurveyarea, sitesare oftensituated opposite on hilltopsor ridgesthatcontinuedto be occupiedin theLate BronzeAge.122 Possibleevidencefora hierarchy of settlement, whichis providedin Messenia and other of Middle Bronze Greece the occurrence of burial tumuli,is absent from parts Age by Laconia. We do have a smallcemetery, a shaft including graveand fourinhumations nearby, excavatedon the Aetos hill of the Menelaion complex.Burial giftshere are confinedto a 120See Rutterand Rutter (n. 112),6-10; R. E.Jones, Greek and CypriotPottery: A Reviewof ScientificStudies(Fitch LaboratoryOccasionalPapers,1; Athens,1986),416 (withC. B. Mee).

121 Ibid. 122 FortheMH periodin Laconia, see especiallyDickinson (n. 61),109-12.ForMH sites,see PL i and ii; GAC107ff.with map C.

142 Chapter4

terracottaspindle-whorl and a minutescrap of gold- the onlypre-Mycenaeangold from Laconia- bothofwhichare associatedwiththesingleburialin theshaftgrave.Such signsof materialwealthare rare,anotherbeingthedecoratedbronzepin fromone ofthreecisttombs (Schistslabs fromM349,not farnorthof the Menelaion dug on the acropolisof Geraki.123 - cist graves.)Slightas theseindicationsare, they to have ridge,may belonged destroyed to confirm would whatwe help judge simplyfromits size: that,at least by the end of the Middle BronzeAge,theMenelaionwas developingas an important centre.It is probablyno coincidencethatthesefindscome fromtombsdatingto late Middle Helladic,whichis also a timeofincreasingevidenceforMinoan potteryconnections, at thecoastalsiteof particularly northin Laconia,includingour surveyarea. AgiosStephanosbutalso further The Late Bronze

Age

the general setting ShaftGraveera, The earlyMycenaeanperiod(MH III-LH III Ai),includingthetransitional is characterized withideas and craftsintroduced by a blendingof Middle Helladic traditions fromMinoan Crete.At the head of the variousprincipalities fromthe Aegean,particularly stooda wealthywarriorélite,whichwas also involvedin economicand religiousactivitiesas well as in the procurementand manufactureof prestigegoods. For reasons stillnot well understood,some of the centresof powerdevelopedintofull-blown palatial establishments The palaces,withor ceremonial,and a varietyof otherfunctions. combiningadministrative, statewerein turnthecontrolling centresofhighlystratified, withoutimpressive fortifications, thatthispoliticalsystemoperatedon thesame lines likesocieties.124 It is notcertain,however, in everypartoftheMycenaeanworld. oftheMycenaeanstatesofthemiddleMycenaeanperiod(LH The stability and prosperity III A2-B)in the Péloponnèseand in centralmainlandGreece began to be disturbedin the laterthirteenth centuryBC. By the end of the centurythe palatial centres,as well as many other sites, had been destroyedand/or abandoned, resultingin the break-up of the LH III B-c). As yetthereis no fullexplanationforthese Mycenaeanpalace system(transition developments:a combinationof factorsratherthan any singlecause, whetherhuman or The demiseof Mycenaeanpalace organizationwas natural,was mostlikelyresponsible.125 in othersby continuedhabitation,albeitat a lowerlevel followedin some areas by desertion, and contactsin the later Aftera fairlybriefperiod of increasedprosperity of complexity. twelfth century(LH III C Middle),the end of the BronzeAge is markedin much but not all of the mainlandand the Aegean by seriousdepopulation,a declinein materialwealth, and disruption ofcommunications. CHRONOLOGICAL

OVERVIEW

Late Helladic has been foundat variouslocations.Ten of these Potterythatis diagnostically as definite be Mycenaeansites(H45,M349,N413,Q360, R292 and R424,S434 may regarded I23H. W. Catling(n. 108), 16 (Aëtoshill);A. J. B. Wace, 'Laconia, II: topography. EarlypotteryfromGeraki',BSA 16 Nadelnder (1909-10),72-5, at 75 fig.4; I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer,

frühhelladischen bis archaischen %eit von der Peloponnes

xiii. 8; Munich,1984),no. 103, Bronzefunde, (Prähistorische pl. 4 (Geraki);see also Dickinson(η. 6ΐ), ΐΐΐ-ΐ2.

124For an importantrecentoverviewof the Myc palatial period, see C. W. Shelmerdine, A review of Aegean VI: the palatialBronzeAge of the southernand prehistory, centralGreekmainland',AJA101(1996),537-85. 125See O. T. P. K. Dickinson, The AegeanBronzeAge (n. 124),580-4. (Cambridge,1994),307-8; Shelmerdine

Prehistoricperiods 143

and S478,U490 and U514;see TABLE4.4). At certainsitesoccupied in otherperiodssome thattheywereoccupied forus to be confident was found,butinsufficient Mycenaeanpottery at thattime (K414B, 1^515,Mi72, M322,N418,R425, R3025,U520). In addition,thereare isolatedfindsofMycenaeanpottery(ls 10083,10112,10179,10493,!O7o8,10815,10824,IIIO75 sites(U3006,Q3009,R3025). 12503)and threeOut-of-area' In one case, the Menelaion ridge (Q360), excavations confirmactual continuityof at theend ofLH III B,or ratherin habitationfromMH downto a large-scalefiredestruction LH III B2-C Earlyphase,apparently followedbybriefand partialreoccupation a transitional in early LH III C.126At the other sites,known only fromsurfacematerial,the typical Mycenaeantableware usuallydates to the middleMycenaeanperiod(LH III A and III B), later.On the butnotdefinitely N410/77), rarelyearlier(a possibleLH II alabastronfragment, withtwo 'out-of-area' sites otherhand,all but threeofthesesites(H45,R424,U490),together in MH much have also Indeed, material, usually greater quantity. yielded (U3006,Q3009), certainMH potterytypeslasted into earlyMycenaeantimes,and on currentevidencewe wouldsuggestcontinuedratherthaninterrupted occupationat thesesites.Certainofour MH sitesappearto havebeen abandoned,perhapsa littlewayintoLH II. Thus theN413complex and M322producednone of the verycommonLH III ceramicssuch as kylikesand deep be dated to LH III.127R457likewise bowls,or,indeed,any sherdthatcould withcertainty LH III. producednothingdistinctively Elsewherein Laconia, severalof the MH sitesshow occupationin early(LH I- II) and while other sites seem to have been newly middle Mycenaean (LH III A-B) times,128 At one extensivelyexcavated site, Agios Stephanos in the Helos plain, established.129 habitationlasted untilearlyLH III C.I3°In her studypublishedin 1982, Demakopoulou LH III Β sites in Laconia estimatedthat only betweennine and sixteenof the fifty-two continuedto be occupiedin LH III C. The Middle and Late LH III G sitesare widelyspread, includingEpidaurosLimeraon thecoast,and Amyklaiand Pellana in the centraland upper AfterLH III C (£.1050BC) thereappears to be a hiatus in Evrotasvalleyrespectively.131 126GAC no. C 1; Catling, 'Menelaion', 24-35; (n· I0^), 16-19;id. and E. A. Catling,'"Barbarian"potteryfromthe Mycenaean settlementat the Menelaion', BSA 76 (1981), 71-82; R. Catling, 'Excavations at the Menelaion: 1985', Λακ. σπουδ. 8 (1986), 205-16, at 207-9; Ε. S. Sherratt, 'Regionalvariationsin potteryofLate HelladicIIIB', BSA 75 (1980), 175-202, at 189. For the revised dating see P. A. Mountjoy, 'The destruction of the palace at Pylos BSA92 (1997),109-37,at no-11, 123. reconsidered', 127 n4.11/1 mightbe therimof an LH III Β basin (FS 294), buttheattribution is uncertain;thealabastron^10/77 could be LH II. M322/67-8 were body sherds of Myc fabric, M322/78a jug fragment,M322 A/187a large wheelmade bowl;noneneed implyoccupationin LH III. C 37,C 39, C 58; theseall continueintoLH III. Sitesknown onlyfromsurveyand withevidenceforbothMH and LH III maywellhavebeen occupiedin theinterim period:C 7, C 12, C 18-21,C 26, C 30, C 32, C 57 (?), C 62 (?). On thesefigures, some43 percentofsitescontinuein use.

For Myc Laconia in general,see GAC,are new foundations. especially GAC 107 ff.with map C; PL i and ii; Bintliff, chs 3-4; Cartledge, SL 40-5, 60-73; NaturalEnvironment, Dickinson(n. 61), 112-14.For recentGreekexcavations,see Th. G. Spyropoulos, A. Delt.36 (1981),Chr. ι, 111-13,126-9, 130-1, and A. Delt. 37 (1982), Chr. ι, 111-12,127-30. For recentpublicationsof earlierfinds,see W. D. E. Coulson, 'Mycenaean potteryfromLaconia in the collectionof the American School of Classical Studies at Athens', in Φίλολάκων, 87-94; K. Demakopoulou, 'Some early MycenaeanvasesfromAsopos,Laconia', ibid.95-107. ■3°GACno. C 17. P. A. Mountjoy,'The LH ΠΙΑ pottery fromAyiosStephanos,Laconia', in Frenchand Wardle(n. 54), 185-91,at 186; Mountjoy(n. 126),123;Dickinson(n. 61), 114η. 33. 131For LH III C Laconia, see K. Demakopoulou, To μυκηναϊκον Ιερόν στο Άμυκλαΐον και ή ΥΕ ΠΙΓ of Athens, περίοδοςστη Λακωνία'(Ph.D. diss.,University 1982),withfig.1 (map); P. A. Cartledge,'EarlyLakedaimon: themakingofa conqueststate',in Φϋιολάκων,49-55, at 51;

c 33, c 34 (?), c 36, c 40-5, c 47-8 (?), c 49, c 59-61, c 63. in LH II (nos C 8, C 14, Includingprobablenew foundations C 35 (?),C 38, C 56), some57 per centofsites,on thebasis of

der MykenischenKommission, 17; (Veröffentlichungen Vienna,1998),92-8.

128G^CnoS

C q-4, C II, C 16-17, C 24, C 27, C 2Q, C Qc: (?)

I29GAC nos C 2, C b, C 13, C 15, C 22-3, C 25, C 28 (?), C 31,

Dickinson (n. 61), 114; B. Eder, Argolis,Lakonien,Messenien:vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderungder Dorier

144 Chapter4

or 'Laconian Dark occupationin thewholeof Laconia down to £.950,whenProtogeometric to at and one or In two other sites.132 our Age' pottery begins appear Amyklai surveyarea, the 133 first IronAge findsdo notdatebefore£.700. SETTLEMENT

(ILL.

4.3,

TABLE

4.4)

The distribution ofLate Helladic sitescompareswellwiththatin theprecedingperiod,since halfofthemor morehave also producedmaterialofMiddle Helladic typesand are similarly situatedon the Neogene and limestonedepositsin the southernpart of the surveyarea.134 part,apartfromH45downbytheEvrotas.To Againthereare no certainsitesin thenorthern the sitesabove the Loutsoremavalley(R292,S434, S478) is now added R424, close to the modernroad to Chrysapha.Two more are foundedin the centralChrysaphabasin (U490 and U514;also Out-of-area5 siteU3006).The low,broad hillofU490, Panagia Ghrysaphitissa in EH a in the historicalperiod, was to become II, previouslyoccupied major settlement in ha some times.135 here 7.0 reaching Byzantine Mycenaeanoccupation appearsto havebeen scattered an area ha the few surface finds over of £.0.1 limited, (areas AM, AN, AQ, being AX). AnotherLH sitewithoutMH finds,H45 Geladári,is exceptionalin beingsituatedin the morenorthern partofthe studyarea; it lies on gentlyslopingfieldsby the Evrotasriverand commandsa routeto the north.This sitewas also firstoccupied in EH II and was to see extensiveoccupationin latertimes;Mycenaean surfacefindsare fewin number,if rather fromMH to LH we mightpointout widelydispersed.Againsttheoveralltrendofcontinuity thatthe'acropolis'N413was abandonedin theearlyMycenaeanperiodand thatthenewsites (H45,R424,U490, U514,U3006) tend to occupy shallowspursor flattishhill tops withno defensivepotential;onlyQ3009 is protectedby a steepbluffand a gully,and even thissite couldhardlybe calleddefensive. The acropoleisoftheMenelaionand R291(perhapsreduced in size- no LH pottery was recordedfromR292)continue. sparsein the surveyarea. Even whenwe are reasonably Mycenaeanmaterialis altogether sureof a site,the concentrations are usuallythin.Amongthe exceptionsto thisis the newly founded 'out-of-area'site of Melathriá (Q3009), not far south of the surveyarea. The locatedby theLaconia Surveyon fairlygentleslopesin a corridorlinkingSkoura settlement, withthe Chrysaphabasin,belongswitha groupof six chambertombsthatwas excavatedin 1966.13βThe spreadof the fairamountof surfacepotteryis sharplydefinedby thelie of the land and coversroughly0.7 ha. ConsequentlyMelathriaseemsto be at theupperend ofthe scale of sitesizes;theMenelaionapart,sitesin the surveyarea are small(0.2 ha or less),and onlythe 'out-of-area'sitesQ3009 and U3006 (0.6 ha?) could be describedas villages.The belowthat alreadyobservedfortheMH period,oftwolevelsofsettlement pattern,therefore, in LH III; the can also be distinguished of theprimarycentre(sc. 'village'and 'farmstead'), SE oftheMenelaion,thesmaller fiveand tenkilometres 'villages'Q3009and U3006lie roughly and thatthe 'village'at N413mayhavebeen suppressed, R291about5 kmNE.Note,however, On the other thatR291is reducedin size. The remainderof our siteswould be farmsteads. 132W. D. E. Coulson, 'The dark age potteryof Sparta', BSA 80 (1985), 29-84; id., 'The dark age potteryfrom Sparta,II: Vrondama',BSA 83 (1988),21-4; P. G. Calligas, 'From the Amyklaion',in Φιλολάκων, 31-48, at 40-6; Cartledge(n. 131),51-5; Eder (n. 131),99-113.. •33See Chapter5. 134 see also Cavanagh(n. 113),84-7. Forwhatfollows,

I35LS'û. 430-1,ill. 24.58.

136GACno. C 5; W. G. CavanaghandJ. H. Crouwel, inLaconia', a smallMycenaean ruralsettlement 'Melathria: in Φιλολάκων, 'Μυκηναϊκον 77-86;K. Demakopoulou, Arch. νεκροταφειονΜελαθριαςΛακωνίας', Eph.1977, 29-60 (tombs).

Prehistoricperiods 145

hand, the variousisolatedfindspotsof Mycenaean potterymay be regardedeitheras the activities of some sort,or all thatremainsof sitesthathave been totally residueofsubsidiary lostto erosion.137 As in the Middle BronzeAge, thereis one primarysettlement: the Menelaion (Q360) on cornerofour the chain ofhillsrisingsteeplyabove the Evrotasvalleyin the south-western studyarea. Mycenaean surfacematerial covered an area as large as that of MH finds (some 20-25 ha), while being much greaterin quantity(areas Α-D, F-G, J-L, Q, AB, AD- AI, AL- AM). Excavations,firstin 1909 and then in 1973-82,have broughtto light extensivebuildingremains,datingto LH II B-III Ai and LH III B2. There can be little doubt thatthe variousareas of settlement, severelydamaged by erosionas theynow are, - the resultof a processof concentrationthathad apparently formeda singlecommunity startedin MH.^8 The spacingofsitesvariessubstantially, as a lookat thedistribution map willshow(ILL.4.3). Sitesmaybe isolated(H45),whileothersare in clusters(R292and R424,U490 and U514are in LH - as in MH - is farlessdensethanin EH sitedistribution 250-300m apart).Altogether, II (thoughin thesurveyarea thereis no siteofthatperiodto matchtheMenelaionin extent); on thefaceofit,thisindicatespermanentMycenaeanhabitationon onlya smallscale.Apart fromsettlementsites,the Laconia Surveymay have located the remainsof Mycenaean chambertombsat thefootoftheMenelaionridge(Q360,area E), recallingthegroupofsuch tombsfromMelathria(Q3009). Elsewherein Laconia, severaloftheMH sites,suchas Kouphovouno,Amyklai, Palaiopyrgi, - and and AgiosVasileios- one hour'swalkapart on a seriesof hillsin the Evrotasvalley139 AgiosStephanosin the Helos plain,had alreadybeen occupiedin MH, ifnot in EH. In the showremarkablelongevity surveyarea we have seen thatquite smallsitescan, nevertheless, and medium size was no (M349,R291,S478,U514(?)), guaranteeof durability(N413).To a such histories can in Mycenaean Laconia: we be elsewhere degree unexpected paralleled MH a centre such as Geraki to have been ofsomesignificance mightexpect possible regional in LH III, butrecentfieldwork has yieldedno certainfindsofthelatterdate.140 On theother characterized a as centre of hand,Amyklai, by Bintliff, debatably, secondaryimportance,141 showsremarkable Othersitesseem to be newlyestablished, such as the complexof tenacity. low hillscomprisingancientSparta.142 In additionto settlements, plentyof LH gravesand cemeterieshave been discovered.Chief among them are the characteristicMycenaean chamberand tholostombs,whileothersappearto be local variantsofthesetypes.143 Pendingmore excavationof settlementsites and more intensivesurfaceresearch,it is difficult to establishnumbersand sizes and to detectpatternsamong the LH sitesin the different of Laconia.144 Howeverthismaybe, certaintypesoffind,likeelaborate sub-regions 137 Cf.thepatternrecently described,fortheNemea valley and thevalleysto theS ofit and Mycenae,byj. L. Davis, 'If there'sroomat thetopwhat'sat thebottom?Settlement and hierarchyin early Mycenaean Greece', BICS 35 (1988), 164-5.Here theexcavatedsiteofTsoungizais theonlyMyc settlementof any large size, while numerousfindspotsof isolatedsherds,locatedbysurvey, clusteraroundit. 130ror erosion on the Menelaion ridge, see Catling, 'Menelaion',29; R. Catling(n. 126),209. 139For walkingdistances,see Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 407.

140'Geraki 3', 72. Accordingly,the oft-repeatedLH III date ascribed to the enceintewall may now be seriously nnestinned. 141Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 407.

'^ ror aparta,see UALno. C 2. 143Dickinson, 'Parallels' (n. 104), 135; id. (n. 61), 112 to findsat Pellana, forwhichsee n. 145 below). (referring Add Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Delt.36 (1981),Chr. 1, 126-31 and at Ansrelona). (chambertombsat SpilákianearAmyklai, 144For a division of Laconia into a dozen or so subsee Shipley,'Perioikos',214-21. regions,based on land-forms,

146 Chapter4

tomb architectureand/or burial gifts,indicatesitesof higherthan average status.Good examplesare the tombsof Pellána and Vapheio, in the upper and middle Evrotasvalley The well-known wealth,no doubtbelonged respectively.145 Vapheiotholos,withitsimpressive in EH and MH times. which had been inhabited withtheprominent hill, already Palaiopyrgi This mustsurelyhave been a large and importantsite, estimatedto cover some 20 ha. only7 km(one hour'swalk)to thesouthis AgiosVasileios,anotherlarge,multiInterestingly, hill period site.146 theLaconia Surveydid notproduceevidencefora clearincreasein thenumber Altogether, of sitesin the Mycenaeanperiod,such as has been noted by surveysin otherpartsof the wereabandonedand othersnewlyfounded. Instead,somesitesapparently Péloponnèse.147 ECONOMY

As in earlierperiods,a mixedagriculturaleconomycan be assumedforthe Late Helladic occupationof the Neogene soils in the surveyarea. Most sites,includingH45 (Geladari) further northin theEvrotasvalley,are welllocatedforarable soils.Such a mixedeconomyis attestedfortheMenelaioncomplex,itselfwithouta lotofgood soilsin itsimmediate explicitly environs:excavationshave yieldedbone refuseof domesticanimals,spinningand weaving and some remainsof lentils,olives,and grapes,as well as storagefacilitiesand implements, at thesite.)148 vessels.(The excavationshave also producedevidenceformetalworking pottery At thisperiodtheMenelaioncomplexmusthave controlleda considerabletractofcultivable land, both in the Parnon hinterlandand in the Evrotas valley below, to support its itwouldstraintheevidencefromtheLaconia Surveyto claimthat Nevertheless, population.149 in the exploitationof the landscape accompanied the rise of a palace changes significant in the Chrysaphabasin occupyan area which,in new settlements the economy.Certainly, fortranshumantshepherdsexploitingParnon. historicaltimes,servedas the kephalochóri forthepalace Moreover,we knowthatin someMycenaeanstateswool flockswereimportant But it would be merespeculationto claim thatsitessuch as U490 and U514 textileindustry. in the survey None of the newlyfoundedsettlements werefoundedto servesuch an end.150 area or nearby(Sparta, Melathria, our U3006) can plausiblybe linkedwith specialized undera palace. production as well as the Mycenaeantable-warepotteryand otherfinds The Menelaionarchitecture, fromthe surveyarea, testifiesto close connectionswithotherparts of Laconia and the in early Péloponnèseat large. There is also evidenceforcontactswithCrete,particularly have Menelaion excavations times. the Thus, yieldedimportedpotteryand a Mycenaean of dressed with reused terracotta porosblocksveryreminiscent figurine, together Minoan-type :45For Pellana (GACno. c 56 Pellanes),see PL ii. 125-7; A. Belt.371 (1982),Chr. 1, 112-13;id., Th. G. Spyropoulos, centreofprehistoric 'Pellana:theadministrative Laconia', in Cavanagh and Walker,28-38. For the Vapheio tholosand the adjacent Palaiopyrgihill (GAC no. C 4), see esp. PL i. 76-8, 80; Spyropoulos(above), 112(recentexplorationson Palaiopyrgi);I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer,'Das Kuppelgrab von Vaphio: die Beigabenausstattung in der Steinkiste. in späthelladischer zur Sozialstruktur Zeit', Untersuchungen JRGZM34 (1987),197-212. 146GACno. c 7; PL i. 80-1. 147See Cavanagh(n. 113),81-7,withtables1-2; Rutter(η. 47), 748, table ι; Shelmerdine(η. 124),õõ1"^ witntable 2;

also A.-L. Schallin,'The Late Helladic period',in Wellsand Runnels, Berbati-Limnes,123-75; Rough and RockyPlace, 52; GreekCountryside, α.^ί.

148Catling, 'Menelaion', 27-8 (animal bones, etc.), 31 (metalworkine·). 149So also Bintliff, Natural Environment, 408-9. '5° On Taygetosthe sitesat Arkines(PL ii. 128-30) and Árna (ibid.; Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Delt.37 (1982),Chr. 1, m- 12)suggestexploitation ofthehighmountain(800 m asl), thoughWace's findof celts(PL ii. 128 and n. 105) hintsat pre-Mycoccupation.

Prehistoricperiods 147

Cretan connectionsare, of course,clearlyapparentin the burial Minoan craftsmanship.151 assemblagefromanothersitein centralLaconia: theVapheiotholos.We can evenpointto an LM III kylixstemrecoveredin thecourseofthesurvey,152 surelya case ofcoals to Newcastle. and tombfindsthroughoutLaconia- and thusincludingour survey Indeed, settlement area showthatformuchoftheLate BronzeAge theprovincewas notonlyquiteprosperous intothewiderMycenaeanworldand,byassociation,intoan economy butalso wellintegrated In thisconnection, infrastructure and a networkof trade.153 whichsupporteda redistributive referencemay be made to quarries in southernLaconia which were firstexploited in and anticorossowere in Mycenaeantimes;the finestoneslaterknownas lapisLacedaemonius demandin bothCreteand theArgolid,to whichtheywereprobablymovedbysea.154 POPULATION

overthe ofBronzeAge siteshas been totallydestroyed, thata proportion We can be confident whatproportion has thereis no reliableway of calculating and lostto archaeology; millennia, Relativefluctuations are less survived,and absolutepopulationestimatesare not possible.155 to argue,in thefairly difficult grosssense,advancedabove,thatthenumberof sitesdiscovered and theirrelativesizes are knownforthe Middle and Late BronzeAge. Even grantedthat wereratheropen in plan duringthe earlierperiod,and moredenselyoccupiedin settlements LH III, it is difficult on thisevidenceto envisagea markedrisein population.Of course,there MH sitesare morelikelyto havesurvived and to havebeen in be some biaswhereby may theory LH III covers butitis hardto imaginewhatsucha bias mightbe. Certainly, foundin thesurvey, but a shorterspan thanthelaterMiddle Helladic and earlyMycenaeanperiodsput together, in our sites the relative difference of at most of the duration time-span occupation given long wouldseemnotto undermineour conclusionthattherewas no dramaticrisein populationin the surveyarea. Thus we have seen above thathabitationat the Menelaionridgecontinued fromMH, and thesameis trueofotherlocationsin thestudyarea. We havealso uninterrupted seen thatLH sites- like those of MH - are not at all numerousand usuallyof small size. ofoccupationat sitesas smallas M349,whichmaywellhavepersistedthrough 500 Continuity is ofcourse,itneednotimplycontinuedoccupationbythesamefamily. years, striking; site'ofMelathria Some notionofthenumberofinhabitants maybe givenbythe'out-of-area a Here the sherd material covered well-defined area of about 0.6-0.7 ha. This could (Q3009). families five members havehousedat mostsomefifteen (of,say, perfamily), probablyfewerthan in small chamber-tomb associated with the six the that; settlement, tombshavebeen cemetery and a maximumpopulationfora siteofthissize. excavated.156 These suggesta minimum 151Catling, 'Menelaion', 28-9, 31-2 with figs. 7, 13; id. (n. 108), 19 with fig. 30; id., 'Minoan and "Minoan" pottery at the Menelaion, Sparta', in D. Evely, I. S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt (eds), Minotaurand Centaur:Studiesin theArchaeology of Creteand Euboea Presented toMervynPopham(BAR int. ser. 637; Oxford, 1996), 70-8; R. L. N. Barber, 'The origins of the Mycenaean palace', in Φίλολάκων, 11-23; S. Hood, 'Cretans in Laconia?', ibid. 135-Q, at 137. 152LS1ii, FIG. 13.1./0. 153See esp. Dickinson (n. 61), 112-13. For the Myc (palatial) economy, see recentlyP. Halstead, 'The Mycenaean palatial economy: making the most of the gaps in the evidence', of the CambridgePhilologicalSociety,n.s. 38 (1992), Proceedings 57-86.

•54 PL i. 105-7; υ- XI9? I21? R· A. Higgins, R. Hope Simpson, and S. E. Ellis, 'The façade of the treasury of Atreus at Mycenae', BSA 63 (1968), 331-6; P. Warren, 'Lapis lacedaemonius', in Φίλολάκων, 285-96; C. Gorgoni, I. Kokkinakis, L. Lazzarini, and M. Mariottini, 'Geochemical and pétrographie characterization of "rosso antico" and other grey-whitemarbles of Mani (Greece)', in M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens (eds), AncientStones:Quarrying,Trade and Provenance (Leuven, IQQ2), 155-66. 155Though note the work in Messenia, where the Linear Β tablets help; see J. Bennet, 'Space through time: diachronic perspectives on the spatial organization of the Pylian state', in Laffineurand Niemeier (n. 105), ii. 587-602. 156See n. 136.

148 Chapter4

In otherpartsofLaconia, populationmaywellhave been increasingin LH, tojudge from and whatis knownoftheirsize.AfterLH III Β or earlyLH thenumberofsitesand cemeteries III C thepopulationleveldeclinedthroughout it seems,by to be followed, Laconia, eventually a periodofvirtualdepopulation. SOCIO-POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

CONSIDERATIONS

ofthesurveyarea,and ofLaconia as a whole,at thebeginning The socio-political organization As forotherpartsofthePéloponnèse, thisis a oftheLate BronzeAge is notwelldocumented. ofthedistinct, Cretantimeofincreasing contactswithMinoan Creteand oftheintroduction influenced, By the LH II A period,centresof wealthand earlyMycenaeanpotterystyles.157 in theEvrotasvalley,to as Pellana and Palaiopyrgi have been established at such places power tomb architecture and/or burial from their elaborate gifts.The Vapheio tholos, judge of an with the latter testifies to the existence associated site, earlyMycenaeanwarriorélite in Messenia and theArgolid.158 knownalso fromburialselsewhere, and particularly in Anothersuchcentreofpower Laconia was situatedon theMenelaionridgein our survey not by tombsbut by a seriesof buildings,includingthe monumental area. It is represented mansionsI and II on theMenelaionhillitself, (The datingto LH II Β and III Ai respectively159 reused dressedporos blockswill have belonged to an otherwiselost structureantedating laid out, consisting of threeparallelunitsseparatedby mansionI.) Mansion I was carefully The centralunitwas ofmegarontype,itsmainhallprecededbyan anteroomand a corridors. court.There is evidenceforan upperstorey, porchwhichopened onto a (largelydestroyed) and somewallsweredecoratedwithpaintedplaster. The ambitiousbuildingprojectsofLH II B-III Ai on theMenelaionand adjacentAëtoshills findparallelsof similardate at sitessuchas Nichoriain Messeniaand Tirynsin theArgolid. of The plansofa buildingat Tirynsand ofmansionI at theMenelaionare clearlyprototypes thecentralpartsofthemuchlargerpalacesofTiryns,Mycenae,and PylosofLH III B.l6° and Thanksto the Linear Β tablets,we knowthatthesepalaces servedas administrative It is verylikelythatthe Menelaion complexand as well as culticcentres.161 redistributive as regionalcentresby the fifteenth centuryBC. The PalaiopyrgiVapheioalreadyfunctioned model and of of a house or a of few female terracotta sanctuary figurines fragments recovery to recognizean It is more difficult at the Menelaionpointto religiouspracticesas well.162 withinits catchmentin the impactof the rise of the Menelaion on subsidiarysettlements

157See Dickinson, Origins(n. 104), 90-1 (Laconia); id., Origins' (n. 106); id. (n. 61), 112 (Laconia); also Demakopoulou(n. 129)(LH I and II A Laconia). It has been suggestedthatthe LH I potterystyleactuallyoriginatedin thispartof the Péloponnèse;see Rutterand Rutter(n. 112), 63-4;Jones(n. 120),441 (withC. B. Mee). 158 I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer, 'Beobachtungen zu den von Mykenaiund zu den Schmuckbeigaben Schachtgräbern JRG^M 34 (1986),159-98;ead. mykenischer Männergräber', (n. 145). ■59 For what follows,see Catling,'Menelaion', 28-32; id. (n. 108), 16-18; id., Some Problems in Aegean Prehistory

BC (J.L. MyresMemorialLectures,14; Oxford, 0.1450-1380 Hausarchitektur 1989), 7-10; also G. Hiesel, Späthelladische (Mainz am Rhein,1990),134-5;Barber(n. 151),11-13. 160K. Kilian, 'L'architecture des résidencesmycéniennes:

origineet extensiond'une structuredu pouvoirpolitique pendantl'âge du bronzerécent',in E. Lévy (ed.), L· Système

palatial en Orient,en Grèceet à Rome (actesdu colloquede Strasbourg

ig-22juin ig8j) (Leiden,1987),203-17;id., 'The emergence ofwanax ideologyin theMycenaeanpalaces', OJA7 (1988), 291-302; Hiesel (n. 159), 133-8, 246, 249; Barber (n. 151); McDonald and Wilkie(n. 112);also Shelmerdine(n. 124), 558-9. For an overviewof the LH II B-III Ai period,see H. W. Catling,SomeProblems (n. 159). 161 See esp. Halstead(n. 153). 162 Catling, 'Menelaion', 31-2; id., Ά Late Bronze Age house- or sanctuary-modelfromthe Menelaion, Sparta', BSA 84 (1989), 171-5.The Laconia Surveycollectedone or on theMenelaion twofragments ofMyc terracotta figurines: see ridge(Q360, area A) and at Geladari (H45)respectively, LS il 189,SF56-8.

Prehistoricperiods 149

surveyarea. SitesN413and M322bothdeclineat aboutthetimemansionI is built,so thatitis to interpret the collapseof thissubsidiaryacropoliscentreand its satellite(?) as a tempting of the Menelaion's rise. Equally,giventhe close controlthatthe Mycenaean consequence to have exercised over theirimmediateterritories, centresseem the foundationof new settlements can hardlyhave takenplace withouttheircognizance. Nevertheless,central controlseemsto haveoperatedlargelythroughpre-existing settlements and centres.163 Byway Bennethas proposeda three-tier ofcomparison, ofsitesin thePylosregion:(1)large hierarchy - theMenelaionwouldstandat thetop ofsucha group;(2) ca middletierofsitesof2 ha sites or smaller'- thismightencompassR291 and the cout-of-area5 sitesQ3009 Melathriaand U3006;and (3) thebottomend,whichwouldcomprisetherestofour sites.164 The Menelaionseemsto have gone intodeclineafterLH III Ai withthe abandonmentof mansionII, therebeingno tracesofLH III A2-Bi architecture. This is preciselythetimewhen Mycenaean culturegenerallywas at its height.Laconia, too, appears to have been quite witha proliferation ofsettlement sitesand cemeteries.165 The Surveyhas collected, prosperous, at the Menelaion and othersites,fragments of potterytypesfallingwithinthe LH III A-B datableto LH III A2-Bi comesfromthecemeterybelongingwith morefirmly range.Pottery 'out-of-area' siteQ3009Melathria.166 At the Menelaion, excavationshave produced ample evidence forrenewed building in LH III B2.167 activities terraceand a largebuilding Thus,on Aëtoshillarosea monumental withpaintedplaster.Anotherbuilding(mansionIII or 'Dawkins5House'), on the Menelaion hill,clearlyhad an administrative function,to judge fromjar sealingswithmultiple-seal and of impressions fragments largestoragestirrup jars.168 It has been suggestedthatat thistimethe Menelaioncomplexwas the chiefsettlement in In thisconnection,attentionhas been drawn the centralpart of Laconia, if not beyond.169 to itsnaturally location.It commandsa wide viewhighabove the particularly well-protected Evrotasvalleyand withtheParnonmountainrangein itsback,and is therefore moresecure thantheseriesofhillsitesat Sparta,Amyklai, and in Vasileios the centreof Palaiopyrgi, Agios thevalley170 while the Menelaion was an administrative in centre However, clearly important LH III B2 as in earlierMycenaeantimes,it is notclearexactlyhow fardownintotheEvrotas valleyits authorityextended.Here the interestsof the Menelaion communitymay have clashedwiththoseofAmyklai, knownas a hillsitesanctuarybut recently called a previously centre on the basis of the LH excavation of a of III A-B palatial brieflyreported group 163See J. Bennet, 'The structureof the Linear Β administration at Knossos',AJA89 (1985),231-49;id. (n. 155). 164 Bennet(n. i^O, SQS-6. 165 See GAC 107 ff. with map C; PL ii. 170-3; Demakopoulou(n. 131),102;Dickinson(n. 61),112-13. 166 Demakopoulou(n. 136),47-^8. 167For whatfollows,see Catling,'Menelaion', 33; H. W. Catling(n. 108),16-18. 168R. M. Dawkins, 'The Mycenaean city near the Menelaion',BSA 16 (1909-10),4- 11,at 9- 11,fig.5 and pl. 3 = CMS ν suppl. i B, no. 348; BSAAR 1989-90, 25 (another sealing,fromtherecentexcavations).Cf. also the seal found in a dumpof LH III B2 date,but includingearliermaterial: Catling,'Menelaion',14; CMS ν suppl.i B, no. 339). Two of the coarse-ware stirrup jars appear to have been in or nearChania in Crete;see H. W. Catling, manufactured

J. F. Cherry,R. E.Jones, and J. T. Killen, 'The Linear Β inscribedstirrup jars and westCrete',BSA 75 (1980),49-113, at no, nos 107-8 (SM 1-2);Jones (η. ΐ2θ), 489 withtables 6.10b, nos 107-8, and 6.12. For mansion 3 ('Dawkins's House'), see also Hiesel (n. 159),131-4,249. 169Forwhatfollows, see Catling,'Menelaion',28, 34-5 (JC is mostgratefulto Dr Catlingforallowinghim to read the textofhislecture,'Wherewas MycenaeanSparta?',givenat the Mycenaean Seminar,London, 15Jan. 1992); Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 403-14; Cartledge,SL 65-6, 338; id. (n. 131),51; Demakopoulou(n. 131),103. 170None of these or otherLaconian sitesseems to have had fortifications in Myc times.It is onlyat theacropolissite of Geraki (GAC no. C 12) that the defenceshave- almost - been thoughtto go back to this certainlyincorrectly period;see now 'Geraki3', 72.

150 Chapter4

On presentevidence,then,it is chambertombsand buildingremainsof similardate.171 to decidewhethertherewas anysinglecentralplace in Laconia comparableto Pylos difficult in LH III Β Messenia.Otherpossiblerivalsin centralLaconia rangefromAgiosVasileiosat end. to Pellanaat itsnorthern thesouthend oftheEvrotasfurrow other thataffected Our surveyarea- and therestofLaconia- did notescapethedifficulties BC onwards. from the later thirteenth Greece as a whole and of the century Péloponnèse parts oftheMenelaioncomplexweredestroyed Excavationhas shownthatthebuildings byfirein late At three LH III B2/III G Earlyphase,and not rebuilt.172 LH III B, or ratherin a transitional a characterized are of brief there on the Menelaion locations by reoccupation, signs ridge to earlyLH III G and by the appearance of so-calledDarkMycenaeanpotteryattributed not onlyby itsnew surfacedHandmadeBurnishedor 'Barbarian'ware.This is distinguished if even it is probablylocallymade.173 butalso by itsshapesand (plastic)decoration, technology ofthiswarehavebeen recognizedin otherpartsofmainlandGreece,thefind Smallquantities contextsrangingfromLH III B2 to LH III C. So far,no convincingargumentshave been letaloneDorians.174 as evidenceforforeign thisnewpottery forregarding immigrants, presented oftheMenelaionbuildingsmusthavemarkedthebreak-upofthepolitical The destruction systemin the Laconia Surveyarea, and in those parts of the Evrotas valley that were controlledby the Menelaion complex.Accordingto excavationand surfaceresearch,the surveyarea was desertedcompletelyafterearlyLH III G, sometimein the earliertwelfth centuryBG.This indicateshow closelythe historyof Mycenaeanoccupationin the area was boundto thatofthecentreat theMenelaion.A similarpicturehas been revealedbysurveyin theregionofthepalace of Pylosin Messenia,whichwas also destroyed by fireat theLH III and the concomitant Nemea B-G transition.175 the Tsoungiza Valley survey Equally, excavations in Korinthia, as well as the Berbati-Limnes surveyin the Argolid, have - and collapse- of the largercentresof the demonstrated close linkswiththe development north-eastern Péloponnèse,and Mycenaein particular.176 In the Laconia Surveyarea, findsreappeararound700 BG,whenthe one-timesettlement site of the Menelaion sees the foundationof a shrinearound a naturaloutcrop.By being thatthereis indeeda gap in the Laponia Surveyhas demonstrated intensiveand systematic, On presentknowledge, havedone forotherpartsofmainlandGreece.177 as surveys habitation, thatsitesand potterypreciselyofthisintervening theprobability period as ofEH III have seemssmall. missedor goneunrecognized been systematically 171GAC no. c 3. Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Belt. 36 (1981), Chr. 1, 126-9 (localitySpilakia). For LH III A-B material fromearlierexcavationsat the site,see Demakopoulou (n. 131),54, 66, 70-1;Dickinson(n. 61),113n. 31. 172Sherratt(n. 126),189,201-2;K. Kilian,'Zum Ende der mykenischenEpoche in der Argolis',JRG^M 27 (1980), 166-95; id., 'La caduta dei palazzi micenei: aspetti dei Greci(Rome, archeologici',in D. Musti (ed.), Le origini iq80, 7^-1Ie»;and see nowMountiov(η. 126). I73Η. W. Catling and Ε. Α. Catling (η. 126); Ι. Κ. Whitbread,'Pétrographieanalysisof barbarianware from theMenelaion,Sparta',in Φιλολάκων,297-306. 174jHOr recentdiscussion,seej. b. Kutter,bornecomments on interpretingthe dark-surfacedhandmade burnished potteryofthe 13thand 12thcent.BCAegean',JMA 3 (1990), 29-49; D. B. Small, 'Handmade burnished ware and Aegean economics:an argumentforindigenous prehistoric

appearance', ibid. 3-25; id., 'Can we move forward? Commentson the currentdebateoverhandmadeburnished ware'. IMA 10 (1007).22Q-w. 175 Davis etal, 'PylosΓ, 422-4,451-3. 176Wrightet al, 'Nemea', 641; Μ. Κ. Dabney, 'Craft as an economicindicatorof sitestatus productconsumption in regional studies',in R. Laffïneurand P. P. Betancourt

in the and Craftsmanship Craftswomen (eds), Τέχνη: Craftsmen, Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedingsof the 6th InternationalAegean 18-21 April igg6) Philadelphia, Temple University, Conference,

(Aegaeum,16; Liège, 1997),467-71 (Tsoungiza);Schallin(n. 173;B. Wellsand 147),in Wellsand Runnels,Berbati-Limnes, ibid.453-7,at 457. C. Runnels,'Some concludingremarks', 177 , 041; Greek 372-3; Wells Countryside, Wrightetal, JNemea and Runnels(n. 176),457; Davis etai, 'PylosΓ, 424, 451-2; Bintliff and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition',139. But cf.

Roughand RockyPlace, 53-4.

5

THE SURVEY AREA FROM THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE CLASSICAL PERIOD {c.1050-^.300bc) R. W.V.Catling1 This CHAPTER coversa periodforwhich,at least in its latterstages(£.550-360),thereis a relativeabundanceofevidencefromliterary sources,coincidingwitha timewhenSpartawas a leading politicaland militarypower in a regionmuch wider than Laconia or even the Péloponnèse.Therehas been a correspondingly largevolumeofresearchdevotedmainlyto its and social whose elucidation proves to be a continuing political, institutional, history, to historians. The contribution of challenge archaeologicalevidenceto thestudyofSpartaand from the fifth Laconia, especially centuryon, has been surprisingly slight.The reasonforthis is that remains from this are ratherscarce (in Sparta neglect partly archaeological period overlain of the hellenistic to middle largely by deposits Byzantineeras) and, witha few are features of the exceptions, inconspicuous contemporarylandscape. But much more left no cultural significantly, Sparta great legacy in the formof monumentalbuildings, and the other material arts to match thoseofitsgreatrivalAthensor otherleading sculpture, centressuchas Argos,Corinth,or Thebes. In thiscontext,the surveyhas been important in one of the few bodies of data for the studyof archaic and providing large archaeological in itsway as thepioneeringworkof Britisharchaeologists classicalLaconia, as important in thecityofSpartaat thebeginning ofthetwentieth century. This chaptersetsout to describein detailthe evidenceforsettlement, land use, and other in thesurveyarea. Beyondthat,itpointsto someofthewaysin which formsofhumanactivity thesurveydata can be understood to relatechangesin patternsofsettlement and byattempting land use to theirhistorical contextand by placingthemagainsta widerregionalbackground to in thetext).Close attention is givento evaluationofthetypes (see ILL.5.1 forplacesreferred ofsettlements and, as faras is possiblewithsurfacefinds,ofthematerialassemblages, relating 1I shouldliketo thankthe directorsof the W. G. survey, Cavanagh and J. H. Crouwel, for allowing me to participate in the original fieldworkand subsequently forthestudyand publicationofthe givingme responsibility archaic to classical pottery,as well as the writingof the presentchapter.In thelattertaskI have benefitedfromthe valuable suggestionsand criticismof the same two and of my thirdfellowauthor,D. G. J. Shipley. I have greatly appreciated their encouragement and patience in the course of its long gestation,due in large part to my own deficiencies,but made no easier by workingforthe past elevenyearsin an academic environment in whichthereis no provisionforresearchleave. My greatregretis thatmy so muchto the mother,ElizabethCatling,who contributed

illustration of the potteryin volumeII of the surveyreport, did not live to see completion of its publication. I am indebted to several scholars for providing information about theirown fieldwork and forgenerouslyallowingme to consulttheirwritingsin advance of publication:Susan Alcock,John Bintliff, Cyprian Broodbank,and Jeannette and Björn Forsén. I am also gratefulto David Hibler, Robin Osborne, Ioannis Pikoulas,and Eleni Kourinoufor readingand commentingon a finaldraftof thischapter.I am gratefulto the GoverningBody of Lincoln College, Oxford, the Craven Committee,and the Committeefor of Oxford Archaeology(Meyerstein Fund) in theUniversity forgrantsthatmade it possibleforme to take part in all sevenyearsoffieldwork and study.

152 Chapter5

L. Farr). territorial boundariesin centralLaconia (D. Miles-Williams, III. 5.1.Toponyms, mainarterialroutes,and hypothetical

Early Iron Age to classical period 153

theseto theirenvironmental The setting(landscape,soils,waterresources,and accessibility). in integrating difficulties the archaeologicalrecordwithhistoryderivedfromliteraryand sourcesinevitably mean thatthe historicalinterpretation of the surveydata is documentary if The has been to a range of advance rarely, ever,straightforward. general approach firm in alternative often without at conclusion favour ofone or the explanations, arriving any other.Whilein somerespectsunsatisfactory, suchcautionis reasonablewhereso muchremains uncertain or unknownand wherecomparative data are largelyor whollylacking. Forthesakeofconvenience, thislongperiodis dividedintofoursub-periods, which,witha fewminordifferences, culturaldivisionsused in Greek correspondcloselyto theconventional archaeologyand history:the Early Iron Age (£.1050-700BC), the early archaic period classical(£.600-450BC),and theclassical(£.450-300BC). (^.700-600BC),thelaterarchaic-early The Early

Iron Age (c. 1O5O-£.7OO bg) Ifitis no longerquiteappropriate to referto thisperiodas a DarkAge in otherpartsofGreece, thetermremainsapt to Laconia and thecentraland western In Laconia therewas Péloponnèse. desertion ofsitesoccupiedduringtheLate BronzeAge,and isolation fromtheleading widespread culturaldevelopmentsoccurringin the Aegean. In the plain of Sparta the breakwiththe oftheprimesettlement fromtheMenelaionto the Mycenaeanpastis markedby therelocation low groundaroundtheacropolisofSparta.Dependingon thechronology adoptedforLaconian it is that even at and there Protogeometric pottery, probable Sparta Amyklai mayhavebeen no substantial settlement beforethesecondhalfofthetenthcentury.2 In thisrespectthearchaeological evidenceis at oddswiththelatertraditions, whichplacedthearrivaloftheHerakleidaiand the of dual several aftertheTrojanwar.On a morepositivenote, origin Sparta's kingship generations it is worthstressing the apparentculturalhomogeneity withinLaconia fromthe earlieststage, the existence of links its scattered communities. Itscultural relations suggesting uniting laywithina WestGreekkoine, the western North-West and the Ionian islands. Greece, embracing Péloponnèse, Contactsseemto havebeenprimarily directed towardstheneighbouring of Messenia and regions southern close in in involvement these areas later maritime Arkadia,3 prefiguring Sparta's periods; linkswiththeoutsideworldwouldappearto havebeenminimal. Evidenceforcloserrelations with thewiderGreekworldis foundonlyfromthemid-eighth at a time it is when, century, generally thought, Spartabeganitsterritorial expansion beyondthebordersofLaconia.4 The surveyhas, in a negativesense,amplyconfirmed thisimageof a 'Dark Age' Laconia. There is no indicationof occupationin thisperiodwithinthesurveyarea, evenin theeighth whensignsof settlement century growthmighthave been anticipated.Not a singlesherdcan be ascribedto thisperiodofsomethreehundredand fifty that years.It is especiallynoteworthy thelargestsite(A118),consideredin latertimesto have been a perioikictown,was apparently notsettledat thisdate.The onlytraceofactivity in thesurveyregioncomesfromexcavations at thetwolargestcultsites,theMenelaion(Q360)and thesanctuary ofZeus Messapeus(N415), and is confined to theveryend oftheeighthcentury.5 The possibility thatthematerialevidence 2

Cartledge,SL 83-90; W. D. E. Coulson, 'The darkage potteryof Sparta',BSA 80 (1985),29-84, at 63-6; B, Eder,

Palastzeitbis Argolis,Lakonien,MessenienvomEnde dermykenischen zur Einwanderung der Dorier (Veröffentlichungen der

Kommission,17;Vienna,1998),99-113. Mykenischen 3 Cartledge,SL 92 ff.,112;Eder (n. 2), 100-2. 4 Cartledge,SL 102ff.The date ofthefirstMessenianwar

is reviseddown to thefirsthalfof the 7thcent,in V Parker, 'The datesoftheMessenianwars',Chiron, 21 (1991),25-47. 5 Menelaion: (H. W.) Catling,'Menelaion', 35; R. W. V fromthe Catling,Ά votivedepositofseventh-century pottery Menelaion',in Φίλολάκων,57-75.Zeus Messapeus:(H. W.) Catling, 'Messapian Zeus', 34. Subsequent studyof the has produceda fewLG sherds. pottery

154 Chapter5 forthis period has not been recognized mustbe discounted. Protogeometricand Late GeometricLaconianpotteryare normallyverydistinctive and, had theybeen present,should in identification.6 have providedno difficulties The conclusionmustbe eitherthatthe survey area was inhabitedin sucha wayas to leavefewmaterialtracesor,morelikely, thatthiswas an era ofextremesettlement with the in nucleation, populationofthe Spartaplain concentrating thearea of Spartaitselfand at Amyklai.The size ofthispopulationmusthavebeen relatively ofProtogeometric and Late Geometricpottery overthesite small,thoughthewidedistribution of Spartashouldbe a warningagainstunderestimating the numbersof itsinhabitants. Most likelythefourvillages(κώμαι)ofclassicalSpartahad theiroriginsin thisformative period.The location of the site in low-lyinggroundand the absence of defensivewalls indicatethat was notthereasonforthisconcentration ofhabitation. insecurity Withonlytheabsenceofevidenceto workon, one can butspeculateabout thesurveyarea in thisperiod.It is likelythattheforestnaturalto muchof theuplandsquicklyreestablished itselfat theend oftheLate BronzeAge: deciduousoak in theschistarea ofthenorth,maquis overtheNeogeneofthesouthand east.Agriculture was probablyrestricted to the vegetation plainofSparta,leavingthehillsas thepreserveofhuntersand herdsmen.The narrowstripof theplainon theeastsideoftheEurotaswas presumably farmedfromSparta. foundin thesurveyarea is typicalofmostpartsofGreeceuntilthe By and large,thesituation finalphase oftheEarlyIronAge. This was characterized of a few,often by thepredominance thebulkofthepopulation, locatedin widelyspaced,nucleatedsettlements, apparently containing an underpopulated come as an So it should no that area so close to twoof landscape.7 surprise theseearlynucleatedsites(Sparta and Amyklai)remaineduninhabiteduntilthe mid-eighth ofsettlement centuryFromthemiddleoftheeighthcentury divergent patterns beginto emerge in variouspartsof Greece.In manyareas therewas an expansionof settlement, apparently an increasein thenumberofnucleatedsites,beginning accompanying risingpopulation, through theprocessoffilling thevacantspacesoutsidethecatchment oftheearliestsettlements. Forthe mostpartthesewerethesitesthatwereto evolveintothecentralplacesand subordinate villages In a fewplaces,therewas a notableexpansionofdispersed ofthearchaicand classicalperiods.8 in thisperiod(suchas in theBerbativalleyin thehinterland ruralsettlement oftheArgiveplain, thereare someregionsin whichthereis no and on Melos and Thera).9At the otherextreme, with evidenceforsettlement ofanykindearlierthantheseventhor sixthcenturies.10 Continuity 6 The principal studies of Laconian EIA potteryare Coulson (n. 2), for PG; J. N. Coldstream, GreekGeometric

A Surveyof TenLocal Stylesand theirChronology (London, Pottery:

1968), 212-19, forMG-LG. See also I. Margreiter,Frühe

lakonische Keramikdergeometrischen bis archaischen £eit (10. bis 6.

v.Chr.)(Schriften aus dem Athenaion der Jahrhundert KlassischenArchäologieSalzburg,5; Waldsassen-Bayern, 1988), 19-56, fora morewide-ranging survey.Some of the fromtombsat Amyklaiis rather newlydiscoveredPG pottery less diagnostic, consisting largelyof monochromedecoration metallicsheen. I am gratefulto lackingthe characteristic Elena Zawou forshowingme someofthismaterial. 7Fora wide-ranging ofsettlement, ofregionalpatterns survey see Bintliff, esD.q-io on thelateEIA. 'Regionalsurvey', 8 See and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition', e.g. Bintliff 'Patternand processin thecitylandscapes 139;J. L. Bintliff, of Boeotia fromgeometricto late Roman times', in M. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des citésgrecques:actes de la table ronde

internationale organisée par l'Ecole Françaised'Athènes(ji octobre-^

novembre iggi) (BCH suppl.34; Paris,1999),15-33,at l5~I7'i GreekCountryside, 374; Roughand RockyPlace, 57; Wright et al,

'Nemea', 616-17. 9 G. Ekroth,'The Berbati-Limnesarchaeologicalsurvey: the late geometric and archaic periods', in Wells with Runnels, Berbati-Limnes, 179-227, at 219-22. Melos: M. Wagstaffand J. F. Cherry,'Settlement and population change', in IslandPolity,136-55, at 142-4, with R. W V. Catling'sreviewin CR 98 [n.s. 34] (1984), 98-103. Thera: in 1980. author'sownfieldwork 10 F. J. CherryandJ. L. Davis, 'NorthernKeos in context', in L. G. Mendoni and A. I. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), (Proceedings of an Kea-Kythnos:Historyand Archaeology International 22-25 June igg4) Kea-Kythnos, Symposium, (Μελετήματα,27; Athens,1998),217-26,draw attentionto the absence of EIA settlementin the resultsof intensive in SE Attica,S. Euboia, and NW Keos. surveys

Early Iron Age to classical period 155

characterizesour surveyarea and perhapsLaconia in the preexisting patternof settlement in the settlement little evidence for theprofound there is where changesthattransformed general, the and of moreadvancedpartsof the north-east Attica,Boiotia, many Aegean Péloponnèse, islands.In thisway Laconia has muchin commonwiththoseareas in whichthe evolutionof was retarded.To whatextentthiswas influenced settlement by Sparta'sconquestof Messenia the for the first Messenian war,butif,as is normally thought, adopted dependson thechronology have substituted for external the warbelongsto thelastquarterof eighthcentury, expansionmay In a later the to much whichcouldbe postponed ofinternalresources, thedevelopment period. sitesin thoseextra-urban oflargecultsitesat theend oftheeighthcentury, including emergence whichhavebeenwidely thesurvey area,itis clearthatSpartawas notisolatedfromdevelopments and thestructures ofthenascentpolis.11 associatedwiththeearlystagesofstateformation The Early

Archaic

Period

(c.700-£.600 bc) The late eighthand seventhcenturiesare a crucialstagein the developmentof the Spartan are normallythoughtto havetaken state.Duringthisperioditspoliticaland socialinstitutions shape, largelyas a response to territorialexpansion in Laconia and Messenia and the acquisitionofextensivearableland workedby a subjectlabourforce(thehelots).At thesame timethe isolationthathad characterizedmostof the EarlyIron Age is brokenand Sparta Furtherterritorial expansion,especiallyto the northand emergesinto the lightof history. in southernArkadiaas well as with its into conflict north-east, neighbours broughtSparta in cultural are reflected Its wider connections developments. Althougha certain Argos. in Laconian whethermaterial manifest itself of to continues culture, manyaspects idiosyncrasy is a much greater there or architecture, Alkman), sculpture)12 literary(Tyrtaios, (pottery, mention of not to awarenessof mainstream and, perhaps,the developments, imports goods wealth of the and other artists. The increased skilled craftsmen of Spartanélite immigration of the first manifests itselfin the dedicationsmade at its sanctuariesand the construction in Messenia and the The of estates prosperity derivingfrom templebuildings.13 acquisition themperhapsengendereda rapidincreasein population. 11A. M. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece:The Age of Experiment (London, 1980), 52-65; F. de Polignac, La Naissance de la cité grecque:cultes,espaceset sociétéVIIIe-VIIe sièclesav. J.-C. (Paris, and the Originsof theGreekCity-state 1984); id., Cults, Territory,

(Chicagoand London,1995). 12On Laconian architecture, see R. A. Tomlinson,'The Menelaion and Spartan Architecture',in Φίλολάκων,

Terracottas from the 247-55; N· A. Winter, GreekArchitectural Prehistoric to theEnd oftheArchaicPeriod(Oxford, 1993), 95-109;

R. W. V. Catling,A fragmentof an archaic templemodel fromArtemisOrthia, Sparta', BSA 89 (1994), 269-75; id., 'ArchaicLakonian architecture:the evidence of a temple see C. M. Stibbe, model',BSA 90 (1995),317-24.On pottery,

LaconianMixingBowls: A Historyof theKraterLakonikos fromthe BC (Laconian Black-glazed Pottery,1; Seventh to theFifthCentury Allard Pierson Series, Scripta Minora, 2; Amsterdam, 1989); id., Laconian DrinkingVesselsand OtherOpen Shapes (Laconian

Black-glazed Pottery,2; Allard Pierson Series, Scripta OilFlasksandOther Minora,4; Amsterdam, 1994);id.,Laconian Closed 3; AllardPierson Shapes(LaconianBlack-glazedPottery, Series,ScriptaMinora,5; Amsterdam, 2000); LS ii. 88. On

sculpture, see J. Boardman, GreekSculpture:The ArchaicPeriod

(London, 1978),25-6, 76, 165; C. M. Stibbe,'Dionysos in Sparta',BA Besch.66 (1991),1-44;J. M. Sanders,'The early LakonianDioskouroireliefs',in ΦίλολΔκων,205-10;papers by Dörig, de la Genière,Palagia, Bonias, Salapata, Hibler, and Delivorriasin O. Palagia and W. D. E. Coulson (eds),

of an International Sculpture fromArcadia and Laconia: Proceedings heldat theAmericanSchoolof Classical Studiesat Athens Conference

10-14,I992) (OxbowMonographs,30; Oxford,1993). (April 13On dedication patterns,see A. M. Snodgrass, The economics of dedication at Greek sanctuaries', Attidel

e vita dei convegnointernazionale Anathema: regimedélie offerte santuari nel mediterrâneo antico, 15-18 giugno 1989 ( = Scienze delVantichità:storia, archeologia,antropologia,3-4; 1989-90),

287-94; S. Hodkinson,'Patternsof bronze dedicationsat Spartan sanctuaries,c.650-350 BC: towardsa quantified in Cavanagh database of materialand religiousinvestment', and Walker,55-63. (Hodkinson, Property, unfortunately appeared too late to be taken into considerationin the ofthischapter.) writing

156 Chapter5 The absence of EarlyIron Age sitesin the surveyarea comes as no greatsurprise,when set against the scarcityof evidence for occupation in the rest of Laconia. However,to theseventhcenturyis somethingofa shock. discoverthatthispatterncontinuedthroughout It would have been natural to suppose that Sparta's expansion outside Laconia was accompanied,if not preceded,by internalexpansionand a more extensiveexploitationof the agricultural resourcesavailablein the immediateneighbourhoodof the city.Apartfrom the twomajor sanctuariesat theMenelaion (Q360) and at Tsákona (Zeus Messapeus,N415), to in the precedingsectionand discussedin greaterdetailbelow,and one alreadyreferred straysherdfroma site near Agioi Saránda (1400), thereis nothingto suggestany change fromthe situationestablished in the previous fourcenturies.There is still no sign of occupationat theperioikictownsiteof Sellasia (A118).As alreadysuggested,an explanation lack ofsettlement forthiscontinuing expansionmaybe soughtin theconquestofMessenia. The possessionof extensivetractsof arable land of the highestquality,combinedwiththe and helotsneeded to workit, perhaps obviatedthe need forthe expansionof settlement ofthe Spartaplain. Even intothearid,marginalland to the east and north-east agriculture thanthosefoundin ifthe soilsin some partsof the surveyarea are not muchless attractive withthe fieldsof the central the Sparta plain, theycannotcomparein extentand fertility Messenian plains, where the wetterclimate of the westernPéloponnèse is yet a further advantage.What is more,therewas no local subjectlabourforceto employin the slowand arduous work of bringinginto cultivationland that had probably revertedto natural vegetationcovercenturiesbefore. Fromthe littlethatis knownof the restof Laconia, thereis nothingto suggestthatthe Withthe exceptionof findsfroma few resultsfromthe surveyarea are unrepresentative. was any morewidespreadin the seventh thereis littleevidencethatsettlement sanctuaries, centurythanit had been in the EarlyIron Age. This appliesas muchto the majorperioikic of our centresas to the restof the rurallandscape.To a largeextentit mustbe a reflection has been these small where there of of the towns, only archaeology inadequateknowledge forexample, excavation.Recentworkat Geráki(ancientGeronthrai), occasionalsystematic has produced the evidence for seventh-century occupation that was hithertolacking.14 Nevertheless,there should be no preconceivedassumptionthat this componentin the and politicalgeographyofLaconia had becomefullyestablishedby this settlement hierarchy a remarkable fact date.Makingall due allowanceforthelack ofexcavation,it is nevertheless thattownssuch as Gytheion,Asopos,EpidaurosLimera,and Boiai shouldhave yieldedno evidenceforoccupationin theseventhcentury.15 in otherpartsof Greece,including as problematic The seventhcenturyhas been identified in thelatereighthcentury16 and exists for where evidence development rapidchange regions whereeasily ofidentifying Partoftheproblemmaylie in thedifficulty seventh-century pottery are and Corinthian as Protocorinthian wares such absent; styles Subgeometric recognizable perhapssurvivedforlongerthan is generallythought,at the same timethatmonochrome in theseventhcenturyare also made more Patternsofsettlement warescame to predominate. ofthebroad term'archaic',foundin a to determineby theunfortunate difficult employment betweenthe seventhand sixth numberof surveyreports,withoutany attemptto distinguish it is clear refinement. of let alone Nevertheless, centuries, any greaterdegree chronological 14'Geraki3', 69-72.

15LS'n. 296, JJ128;310-12, MM230, NN235,NN251.

16See R. G. Osborne,Ά crisisin archaeologicalhistory? The seventhcenturyin Attica',BSA 84 (1989),297-322.

Early Iron Age to classical period 157

werenotmaintainedand thatthepace and scale ofgrowthdocumentedfortheeighthcentury a characterized a favoured this was that,outside few by instabilityand period regions, to a much more sustained betweenrivalcentres,as a sortof prelude territorial competition The pictureof divergent phase of growthfromthe sixthuntilthe end of the fourthcentury. settlement patternsthathad begun to emergeat the end of the eighthcenturycontinues throughthe seventh,but generallythereseems to have been littleradical change in the createdat thattime.In Boiotia,forexample,thereis no signofanyfurther expansion patterns whilein Atticathenumberof sitesmayactuallyhave beforethesixthcentury,17 ofsettlement contracted.18The main exceptions in what might be termed a phase of settlement On severalislands(notablyMelos and consolidationare in the Argolidand the Cyclades.19 in hamletand farmstead sitesexistedalongside Thera)a highlydispersedpatternofsettlement the urban centresthroughoutthe seventhto early sixthcenturies,thoughit should be When emphasizedthatthebasic patternhad alreadybeen establishedin theeighthcentury.20 in the the lack of settlement this broader growth survey background, continuing against placed whichmaybe typicalofmostofLaconia,becomesratherless area duringtheseventhcentury, in an at first than it sightappeared.All the same,the totalabsence of settlements surprising area of70 sq kmuntilsucha latedateis farfromnormalin thiswidercontext. The Later

Archaic

and Early

Classical

Period

(c.eOO-cAòO bc) The sixthcenturysees a radicalchangefromtheprecedingfourto fivehundredyears,setting Put briefly, it consistsin a shift a patternthatlastsin varyingdegreesto the end of antiquity. to a patternof widespreadsettlement fromnucleatedsettlement dispersionin sitesof small and medium size, rangingfromfarmsteadsto small towns (ILL. 5.2, TABLE5.1). This whosehistorical willbe consideredlater,is setout in detailin what implications phenomenon, the ofthesitesconcerned. with reference tö size,location,and function follows, particular to date and timescaleofthis some must be the of the First,however, thought given question colonization. it is the on which one mustrelyforthe of rural Inevitably pottery process answers.The near-totallack of decoratedpotteryfromthese rural sites(the finepottery almostexclusively ofthelesseasilydatedmonochrome and black-glazed wares),and consisting and worn conditionof what was recovered,precludeany degree of the veryfragmentary Not onlyis thechronology butmostofthedatingevidence refinement. chronological imprecise, If material fromthe smallsitesmaywellbelongto thephase of abandonmentor destruction. of there is a riskof fromtheearliestand intermediary is stages occupation poorlyrepresented, the date of the of rural colonization. the ofsites misled over start had However, being majority earlierin theseventhcentury, been occupiedsignificantly itis hardto believethatitwouldhave leftno trace.In spiteof the uncertainties, the generalimpression is thatthereis verylittle,if that need be earlier than the mid-sixth and much thatbelongsto itssecond century anything, 17Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139;R. G. in theMaking, Osborne,Greece i2oo-4jg BC(Londonand New York,1996),200. 10Osborne (n. 16),303-9; id. (n. 17),200-1. 19Continuingexpansion of townsand villages is most Countryside, 374-7.The same apparentin theS. Argolid:Greek phenomenonis foundon Keos, whereonlyin the 7thcent, was the fullcomplementof primarysettlements established: T. M. Whitelaw and J. L. Davis, 'The polis center of

Koressos',in Landscape Archaeology, 265-81,at 276-8; Cherry and Davis (n. 10),218-19.In otherpartsof the Argolid,the degreeof change seemsto have been minor:Ekroth(n. 9), andRocky Place,57-60. 213,224 (Berbati);Rough 20Melos: Wagstaffand Cherry (n. 9), 142-4, with R. conductedin Catling(n. 9); unpublishedresultsof fieldwork in 1980. 1989(seeAR 1989-90,67). Thera: author'sfieldwork This was also a phase ofnotablesiteabandonments on other Cycladicislands:Osborne(n. 17),200.

158 Chapter5

>/ BI21

/( o(b107

" .··^^

/""

y/ χ

'

K»fa L

y

S '

qA

o^T J^L

site fort> f^11*^» ■ Lar8c

fi-

· Hamlet, offarms cluster A*viüaMargefarm ° Farmstead φ Largesanctuary small 0 Shrine/ sanctuary

><SN· ^U J ' αS uaíí / Γ /·' N,H^ Μ Λ1000 ^ Γ'(ί// / DH29/ /;'/ / l^/V* / il' ' '~~s-J (f(/^? β ft J ■·.·/ ^L

' J230

XSpHllß

y^0^"300"^

^, OJ316 Γ

/

'

N312D fC* AF2HS ■ VJbo V J3Í9 Jp^Ss» p27jAÃ -**hP273 P286 DM171 M322 .·/ ' ΛΝ» ,·■■-□■ W4 ^5^

P27 ;^W

> pamm8 öÄäC

( M32sA M347 '

f J 0 1

J*

!>./

<>* /rC& N3|4 ,JT2 N985 N193

. R420.

N&â?]98/MR296 S r5

-/VW çté^îHV /fáAmn

' ,·

,

/

/

*

k- ' ''

,S521''

R275ASS22Xü*»3Zis434 8458^8459 ^sisS

U493U494

V^ir^/'/àWl

Αϋ4^49ΐΑΑ

^'t51D2

-f

í

- ι

»

5000 ==a Metres ^'^

AU490 ^Νν*^/

classicalsites(D. Taylor). III. 5.2. Late archaic-early

Early Iron Age to classical period 159 LS no.

zone

Large Sites (2)

Bin

Bi Ai

A118

villas(4) Hamlets/large P272 R281 S524 U494

Pi R3 Si Ui

size (ha)

L S

1-37 0-75 0.63 0.50

LAr-ecl LAr-Hl LAr-EGl LAr-Hl

N/L Ν Ν L/S

3 9 5 3

LAr-EGl LAr-ECl LAr-ClByz LAr LAr-Hl LAr-ClByz LAr-ECl LAr-Hl LAr-EClHI EH LAr-cl LAr/Cl LAr-LCl EH LH LAr-R LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EClHI LAr-ECl

Ν Ν Ν Ν L/S S Ν L L/S N/L Ν Ν L L L S Ν

11

ehlarbyz LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr/Cl LAr-ClByz LAr-ECl LAr-EClHI LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EClR LAr-ECl LAr LCI LAr-LCl LAr-Cl LAr-Cl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-Cl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl ;ci MH-LH,LAr-E LAr LCI MHLAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl

Ν N/S Ν L Ν Ν S Ν Ν S S Ν Ν S S S Ν L/S Ν S Ν L

S3

0.30

S527 M328

S3 M4 Ri

0.30 0.28 0.28

U499 H40

U2 H2

0.27 0.25

M347 U491

M5 Ui

T471

T4 Pi P2

0.25 0.25 0.21 0.20 0.20

S4

0.20

S437/440 U490

U3

A3014

A3

5433 J2I3 R420

Singlefarmsteads (64) N312

J224 N314 U3022 J369 N354 C114

S4 J2

N2

0.14 0.13 0.12 O.II 0.10 0.10

Ci

M2

N185 D301

N4 D2 H2

J230 R526 B103 J3i6 K235 P274 R294 S523 D96 N188

5434 C169 M322 N503 N184 N187 P262 R473 R518

0.16 0.15

M171

H29

0.20 0.18 0.18

Ri

J5 N4 U3 J6 N3

J6 R4 B2

J5 K3 Pi R2 S4 D3 N4 S4 C4 Mi N2 N4 N4 P2 R2 R2

slope(degrees)

LAr-EHl LAr-EHl

6.0

S458

P285 P271

soiltype

3-0

Villas /clusters of farmsteads (17)

R275-7

date

0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

s

Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν

6 10

II 3 I I

6 3 ι I

7 5 11

5 6 9 7 2

11

8

9 2

1

14 3 10

18

9 2 2

3 8 7 8 16 11 22 14 29

l9

22 2 12

5 8 1

I

i6o Chapter5 LS no.

zone

size (ha)

S431/432 S459/460 S508 B107

S2 S3 S3 B3 G2

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

GI57 J22I K203 S5O9 U493

J5

K3 S3 Ui B2 P3 T4 U3

BI2I

P279 T512 U53I U3OO6 N183 P268

u4

N4 PS

Ti U3 U3 Ji Ji

T443 U3OOI U3024 J2I9 J22O K200 M194

Ki M2 M4 N5 Pi Pi

M325 N193 P273 P286 P278 R427 S442

O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI

PS

S4 T3

O.OI O.OI

u4

U3OO3 J223 R461

O.OI

O.OI O.OI O.OI

R2

T484

O.OI

J6 R6

O.OI

< O.OI < O.OI

date

LAr-Cl EH LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EHl LAr-LCl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr LAr LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-Cl lar-eclhi LAr-ClR LAr-ECl ear-LAr LAr-LCl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl

soiltype

slope(degrees)

Ν Ν Ν L S N/S S Ν L L Ν L L S Ν Ν L L L S S S Ν Ν Ν N/L Ν Ν Ν Ν S S Ν Ν

20

8

18 19 28 15 18 3

10

5 3 !5 6

4 8 2

9 3

2 20

9 ΐ8 7 3 26 2 12 2

ι5 ι 9 9 7 6

Keytosoil types

L Ν S

limestone Neogene schist

Table 5.1. Siteswithlatearchaicto earlyclassicaloccupation,orderedin descendingsize (H45omitted).

beforethe half.On thisbasisit seemssafeto concludethattheprocessprobablybeganslightly observedfortheEarlyIronAge and and thattheabsenceof settlement middleofthecentury theseventhcentury continuedwellintothefirsthalfofthesixth.Once begun,colonizationof the surveyarea. There is thisvirginland spreadveryrapidly, thoughnot evenly,throughout of a infiltration it involved to that settlement, beginningin those progressive nothing suggest areas mosteasilyaccessiblefromthe Eurotasvalleybeforespreadingintothe remoterparts. with Withinfifty landscapemusthavebeentransformed, years,and perhapsless,an uninhabited in its natural remained that it had to cultivation. converted largely Assuming large parts in labourand manpowerand conditionup to thispoint,thischangerequireda massiveeffort need. social or economic in to some occurred pressing response presumably Froma standingstarta minimumof eightyThe numberof sitesinvolvedis impressive. sitesappear in thisperiod,as well as nine new sanctuariesor shrinesto be sevensettlement Includedin thisnumberare Sellasia, the-one site in the surveyarea consideredseparately. of Agios Konstantinos. identified as a perioikictown,and perhapsthe fortress convincingly

Early Iron Age to classical period 161

further siteswhereevidenceforarchaicBesidesthesedefinitecases, thereare seventy-two classicalactivityis found.In some cases these are clearlyhabitationsites,lackingpottery allowingcloserdating;but in manymorethe archaic-classicalpotteryformsan insignificant or laterdate. on a siteon whichthebulkofthematerialis of an earlier(prehistoric) fraction of small of and tile which were not exclude the occurrences These figures groups pottery habitationsites. consideredto represent and analysisof thisnew evidence,some cautionary Beforeproceedingto the presentation remarksare necessary.In what follows,site numbersare used forassessingthe extentof ofthesurveyarea in theperiodunderreview,and sitesize as the occupationand exploitation of the sites.The materialassemblage,of main parameterfora basic fourfold categorization notonlythe whicha samplewas collectedfromeach site,is used as thebasisfordetermining ofthesite,as wellas fordistinguishing differential levelsofaffluence. datebutalso thefunction natureofsurveydata,familiarto all In so doing,it is essentialto bear in mindtheproblematic who have been involvedin surveyin Greece. Post-depositionalprocessesmean that site to theactual are no morethanan approximation numbersand sizes,as recordedbythesurvey, in antiquity. In an area wheretherehas been extensive situation erosion,manysiteshavebeen of their largelystrippedof theirculturalremains,leavingonly small pocketsas testimony existence.The largenumberofverysmallsites(0.01-0.05ha) fromthe Laconia Surveymay indicatethatthishas been a widespreadphenomenon.Some of the smaller,short-lived sites, where were not with tiled are to have been those roofs, buildings equipped likely especially thesizesofothersitesmayhave been enlargedby the obliterated. Simultaneously, completely thoughthisappears downslopespreadofsherdand tilefromtheiroriginalplace ofdeposition, to have been less significantin the presentcontext.In addition, apart fromthose sites it mustbe assumedthatan unquantifiable numberhavebeen buriedby destroyed, completely revealedbymodernterracing colluvialdepositswithoutleavinganysurfacetraces(occasionally not to mentionthosewhichweremissedon accountof eithertheirsmall or road-building),21 In thecase ofmulti-period size or thedense,concealingvegetation. sites,especiallylargeones for it is difficult to estimate their size in anyparticular occupied manycenturies, particularly in without careful two cases the Laconia Survey(Q360 phase sampling,applied only during An assessmentof the materialassemblageis also Menelaion;U490 Panagía Chrysaphítissa). as wellas affected factors, byextraneous varyingaccordingto surfaceconditionsand visibility, theconditionof thepotteryand otherfindsthemselves. It is also easy to over-interpret small of often of to sherds of which a few are datable,in composed onlythirty fifty samples pottery, in for how site was use. as as these However, long determining long any problemsare a in the data remain vital source our acknowledged, survey developing knowledgeofchanging of and a broad time-frame. settlement of the area within The factthat exploitation patterns a are the evidence them Their value lieslargelyin they onlysurviving gives uniqueimportance. where in theircumulative inferences that be or weaker the case of any force, might stronger site from the all combined evidence of the sites, allowing gain cogency particular to be made abouttrendsin settlement and thefactorsinfluencing them. generalizations On the basis of size, the sites can be ordered in four basic groups, each perhaps to a distinctcomponentin the patternof settlement. corresponding They are dominatedin numericaltermsby the smallestsites,which may be classed as small rural habitations, as single-household or single-family farmsteads. The possibility thatnonprobablyidentifiable 21 e.g. B121 (LAr-ECl), J210 (Hl), G252 (R).

i62 Chapter5 habitationsites (such as mortuaryand industrialsites or agriculturalinstallations)are the in thisgroup(especiallyamongthe smallest)is treatedbelow in considering represented ofthe sites(pp. 187-93).This categoryis takento embraceall siteswhichfallin the function ofthetotal(74 somesixty-four size range0.01-0.14ha, comprising sites,nearlythree-quarters half of the range, in fall the bottom of sites the Within it, (fifty-two) majority per cent). ha. The than 0.01 of them are no seventeen upperparameteris somewhat larger 0.01-0.07ha; the next markedbya steepdrop-off line with to the but correlates category, dividing arbitrary lowerthan TABLE It ha in 0.10-0.18 the in thenumberof sites 5.1). is substantially (see range to where sites to define this used the upper size limitsgenerally 0.5 ha are up category, rankedas simplefarmsteads.22 commonly severalfactorsmightaccountforthisdiscrepancy. Ifourdefinition has anyvalidity, Manyof of the basis for these the classicaland hellenisticfarmhouseswhose knownsizes formpart calculationsmayhave belongedto familiesof above averagewealth,and are perhapsbetter classifiedamong the large farms considered below. It is more than likely that many farmhouseswere rathersmaller,perhaps coveringbetween50 and 125 sq m. Nor should 22Until recently,littlehas been done to establish the range of site sizes that can be correlated with Cl and in some cases thereseems to have been a farmhouses, of the classificationof rural sites. grossoversimplification of all non-urbansitesin NW Keos The uncriticaltreatment as farmsteads{Landscape 336-7) has been rightly Archaeology, criticizedby T. M. Whitelaw,'An ethnoarchaeological study of rural land-use in north-west Keos: insights and implicationsforthe studyof past Aegean landscapes',in P. ruraleset N. Doukellis and L. G. Mendoni (eds), Structures sociétésantiques: actes du colloque de Corfou(14-16 mai igg2)

(Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne, 126; Paris, 1994),163-86, at 171-4;id., 'Colonisationand competition in in the polis of Koressos:the developmentof settlement Keos fromthe archaicto late Roman periods',in northwest Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian (n. 10), 227-57, at 230-1. siteson Melos, ofthelower-order See also, on thetreatment R. W. V. Catling(n. 9), 100,withreferenceto IslandPolity, evidence,Whitelaw 143.On thebasisofethnoarchaeological has suggesteda rangeof 0.25-0.5 ha forthe surfacescatters and theirassociatedinstallations, thatrepresentfarmhouses and 0.5-1.0 ha forexceptionallylarge or prosperoussites ('Ethnoarchaeologicalstudy',171-2; 'Colonisation',230-2). These figuresare accepted by P. E. Acheson, 'Does the and "economicexplanation"work?Settlement, agriculture, of Halieis in the late classical-early erosionin the territory hellenisticperiod',JMA 10 (1997),165-90,at 176-8 withn. 4. Known Cl farmbuildingsin Attica range in size from 0.014 to 0.1 ha: Lohmann,Atene,184 tab. 9. Most of those included in that sample are large-scale establishments, perhapsassociatedwithwealthylandownersand not likely A further to be typicalof all farmsteads. examplefromthe ofKarystosin Euboia is 0.012ha, with9 ha ofland territory associated withit (D. R. Keller and M. B. Wallace, 'The Canadian Karystia Project: two classical farmsteads', Classical Views/Echos du mondeclassique,32 (1988), 15 1-7). A

long-lived,large farmhouseon Delos, firstbuiltin the 5th cent., is slightlyless than 0.03 ha: interimreportsby M. Brunet, BCH in (1987), 644-6; 112 (1988), 787-90; 113 (1989),754-9. A Cl farmin a marginalupland locationon

Ancientfarmhouses Chios is 0.026 ha: V Lambrinoudakis, on Mount Aipos', inJ. Boardmanand C. E. Vaphopoulouat theHomereionin Chios Richardson (eds), Chios:A Conference

ig84 (Oxford,1986), 295-304, at 299-303; E. SimandoniBournia, 'Αρχαίες εγκαταστάσεις στο Αίπος3 Τημόκαστρο-Καμπούρη το Γύρισμα', 'Αρχαιογνωσία, (1982-4)5 l95~222· Four LC1-EH1 farmhouses in the of CrimeanChersonesosrangebetween0.025 an<^ territory

0.05 ha (S. J. Saprykin, AncientFarms and Land-plots on the Taurike:Researchin theHerakleianPeninsula, Khora ofKhersonesos

igj4-iggo (McGill UniversityMonographs in Classical Archaeologyand History,16; Amsterdam,1994),13,33, 37, 48), thoughmuch largersizes (0.06-0.16 ha) appear to be typical in the HI period (M. Dufková and J. Pecirka, 'Excavationsof farmsin the chora of Chersonesosin the 8 (1970),123-74,at 138if.);a fewverylarge Crimea',Eirene, farms(0.2-0.8 ha) shouldbelong to our categoryof villas. in the chora ofMetapontionin S. ExcavatedCl farmhouses Italy seem to range fromabout 0.015 to 0.03 ha: J. C. Carter, 'The decline of Magna Graecia in the age of Pyrrhos?New evidencefromthe chora', in Τ Hackens,N. D. Holloway,R. R. Holloway,and G. Moncharte(eds), The

Archaeology, Historyand Culturein Early Hellenistic Age ofPyrrhus: held at Greeceand Italy (Proceedings Conference of an International Brown University, April 8th-ioth ig88) (Publications d'histoire

de l'art et d'archéologie de l'Université Catholique de Louvain, 75: Archaeologia Transatlântica, 11; Louvain, 1992),97-145, at 109-11.These figuressuggesta range of of Allowinga multiplier 0.012-0.03ha forsmallfarmsteads. between 5 and 10 for the area over which the surface remainsassociated with such buildingshave been spread would produce a notionalrange of 0.06-0.30 ha forsmall farmsteadsites.By thiscalculationall sitesup to 0.30 ha could be treated as a single category,in which case the divisionmade above betweensitessmallerand largerthan 0.15 ha mightbe questioned. Some supportfor our low estimate of farmsteadsite size may be found in the S. Argolid,wheresmall sitesidentifiedas farmsteadsare less fromthe muchless than 0.2 ha and clearlydistinguishable numerouslargersites(Greek 544-6, tableB.2). Countryside,

Early Iron Age to classical period 163

and regionalfactorsbe ignored.Farmhousesofthesixthcentury mayhavebeen chronological and economic reasons for social their classical successors. smaller than Likewise, generally have been smaller than their Laconian farmhouses to the may counterparts region, particular houseat in Attica,wherethemajorityofknownclassicalfarmsare located.The fifth-century of a rural establishment is the known in Messenia likelyto only example Kopanaki northern a and models.23 It is be associatedwithLaconian large complexbuildingcovering515 sq m, underconsideration. and is unlikelyto be typicalof the smallfarmsteads It, too, shouldbe classified amongthelargefarms. Ratherlargerthantheprecedinggroupis a smallernumberof sitesrangingin size from 0.15 to 0.30 ha, seventeenin total (19 per cent). Provisionallythese mightbe regarded ruralhabitationsitesor large farms,forwhichwe shall adopt the eitheras higher-ranking An attemptis made below shorthandterm'villas',or as smallclustersofsimplefarmsteads. betweenVillas' and clustersof smallfarmsteadson the basis of evidencefor to distinguish differential prosperity. Clearly on a largerscale are the remainingsix sites (7 per cent) which may be listed U494 (0.50 ha), S524 (0.63 ha), R281(0.75 ha), P272(1.37ha), A118(3.0 ha), and individually: on the heightabove Bin (6.0 ha). The largestsite(Bui) is thefortress ofAgiosKonstantinos in the ordinarysense.Apartfromthe factthatits size was Sellasia,and is not a settlement mainlydeterminedby militaryneeds, it is probable thatat least part of the fortifications postdatethe archaic period. Nor is thereany easy correlationbetweenthe extentof the area and thesize ofthegarrison,whichis anywaylikelyto have variedconsiderably fortified withthe perioikic accordingto changingpoliticaland militaryconditions.A118is identified townofSellasia.If 3 ha is regardedas typicalfora smallperioikictown,as Sellasiais assumed clear thatthe remainingsites,none largerthan 1.37ha, must to have been,it is immediately be rankedbelow it. They may be classed as hamletsor small villages withpopulations probablylessthan100.24 Taken in a widercontext,thesesitesseem to fitinto a three-tier of settlement. hierarchy as the dominant centre where and social activities economic, political,religious, Sparta, wider of Laconia and Messenia were stood at the top. the concentrated, throughout region Below thiswerethe smallerperioikictownsand villages,ofwhichSellasia is an example.At a mixtureofsmalland largefarms,clusters thebottomwerethevariousruralsites,comprising of farms,and hamlets, none of which need have performedany organizational or administrative functions.Those in perioikicterritory were dependenton the secondary while the relations of the remainder were centres, presumablyconducteddirectlywiththe centralplace. The distribution of thesesitesis uneven,both in raw termsand as categorieswithinthe area. For the survey purposesof the following analysis,the surveyarea is dividedintothree sectorsof broadly similarsize, correspondingto the main geographical and geological divisions:the north(27 sq km),the west(20 sq km),and the south-east(23 sq km),each of whichis definedbelow.Since thedensestoccupationis foundin thesouth-eastern sector,our accountwillbeginthere,followedbythewestand thenorth. 23N. Kaltsas,'Ή αρχαϊκήοικίαστο Κοπανάκιτης

Μεσσηνίας',Arch. Eph.(1983)?207-37?at 208-19. 24Unfortunately, it is not possibleto estimatethe size of the site at Geladári (H45) in thisperiod. The amountsof

Ar-Cl pottery collected and its relatively restricted distribution surest thatit was not a lame site,certainlvnot a perioikicvillage. More likelyit belongs in the group of largefarmsor villas.Cf.n. 28 below.

164 Chapter5 THE SOUTH-EASTERN PERIODS

SECTOR IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL

The south-eastern sectorcomprisesthe dissectedNeogene plateau and the Chrysaphabasin and partsofitsperiphery one-third ofthesurveyarea (zonesL, N- P,R- U), together forming is all While none of the sites located four classified as hamletsand here, (23 sq km). largest two-thirds of the villas out of and small farmsteads seventeen, (twelve 70 per cent) roughly in Within this out of 60 are concentrated this district region. (thirty-eight sixty-three, per cent) uninhabited themajority ofsitesfallintofourmoreor lessdistinct each clusters, separatedby tractsofland. The firstclusteroccupiesan area of £.1.25sq kmin thenorthern corner,eitherside ofthe the lower of Koutsoviti to the east and theNeogene of the on Loutsórema, slopes upperpart one it eleven of which one (P272)is a large to its west. outlier sites, comprises plateau Including hamlet(1.37ha, itssize perhapsexaggeratedby erosion),two (P271and P285)are villas(both 0.20 ha), and the othereightare smallfarmsteads (N503,P262,P268,P273-4,P278-9,P286); thelatterare mostlyverysmall(five0.01-0.03ha, two0.05 ha, one 0.07 ha). Fourofthefive siteseastofLoutsorema,whichincludeP272and P285,are locatedat thejunctionbetweenthe arid limestoneslopes of Koutsovitiand the Neogene. Today thisarea is mostlycoveredin dense maquis,and in recenttimesit has been used forextensivegrazingof large flocksof withsmallparcelsof goats; thereare numerousdesertedand severalactivefolds(mandres), arable land confinedto the tops of spursand valleybottoms.On the Neogene the banksof cultivation to theexposures are no less aridthanthelimestoneterrain,limiting conglomerate on thewestside,where ofthefertile red clays.The situationis morefavourableto cultivation all fivesitesoccupythe morestablesoilson theleveltopsof theplateau.Here theNeogene depositsare dominatedbythered clayswhichin recenttimeshavebeen used forarablecrops and the steep-sided, and olivecultivation, withgrazinglimitedto the areas of conglomerate in this is located at theedge ofa zone the outlier and group, valleys gullies.N503, overgrown Close at extensive is the modern where of arid conglomerate terraces, activity. grazing only and of most suited to arboriculture of handto itsnorthis thesteepschistridge Chatzarórachi, in that their this area limitedvalue forarable crops. The location of the sites suggests arable withthe potentialforcombining were occupiedwithmixedagriculture, inhabitants cropswitholives,vines,and animalhusbandry. The second clusterof eightsiteslies in a heavilydissectedpart of the Neogene plateau, closeto thesouthernboundaryofthesurveyarea, and coversan area of£.0.75sq km.All eight three(N185,N314,N354)are in the (N183-5,N187-8,N193,N314,N354)are smallfarmsteads; upper size range (0.09-0.12 ha), the remainderbetween0.01 and 0.06 ha. Six of theseare situatedon the top or upper slopesof one ridge,fiveof themforminga stringof sitesthat mighthave lain close to the courseof an ancientroutebetweenthe Eurotasvalleyand the Chrysaphabasin.The twoothersites(N354,N193)occupyparallelridgesto thewestand east. All have access to theNeogene clayswhichare extensively exposedalong theupperpartsof is confinedto olivesand somecerealson thissystemofridges.Recentand moderncultivation the tops and terraced upper slopes of the ridges and spurs, but the area is otherwise dominatedby densemaquisvegetationutilizedforgrazing.Whiletheagricultural potentialis one ofthesesites(especiallyN193)to theKastoróremaspring, ofthefew limited,theproximity partofthesurveyarea, shouldbe emphasized. copiousperennialspringsin thesouth-eastern In the uppermostreachesof the Kastororema,wherethe valleyfloorwidens,its plentiful ofirrigated waterswouldhaveallowedthecultivation cropsand trees.Assumingthata spring itsexistencemayhavebeen theprincipal existedin moreor lessthesamelocationin antiquity,

Early Iron Age to classical period 165

in thisdistrict. It is verylikelythatthesurveyhas onlyrevealedpartofa to settlers attraction it is safe to presume,extendedbeyondthesurveyboundaryonto widerclusterofsiteswhich, of the Kastororema. theupperparts theridgesfringing The thirdclusterofseventeensites,coveringc.2 sq km,comprisestheareas on eithersideof the lower end of the Loutsorema.Eight occur on the lower slopes and outlyingspursof Phournáraand thehillofAgiosTheódorosto the east and northofLoutsorema,whileto its westand souththereare nine siteson the top of the plateau and the seriesof steep-sided to theChávos gorge,whichservesto draintheeastpart ridgesand valleysrunningsouth-west of the Neogene plateau and the Chrysapha basin. The area is distinguishedby the discussedin large size of the sitesand theirevidenceformaterialprosperity, comparatively twoare hamlets(R281,0.75 ha; S524,0.63 ha), six are greaterdetailbelow.Of the seventeen, villasrangingin size from0.15 to 0.30 ha (R275-7,R420,S433,S437/440,S458,S527),and the nineremainderare smallfarmsteads (R526,S431-2,S434,S422,S459-60,8508-9,S523,T443). Most of the latterfallin the middlepart of the size range (0.05-0.08 ha), withonlythree smallerthan0.05 ha. Althoughone ofthehamletsand twoofthevillasitesoccuron theeast of thoseon thewestis striking, side,the size and affluence especiallythe tightgroupofvilla siteson theleveltop of theplateau (R275-7,R420,S458,S527).This contrastis explicablein termsoftheprevailingsoilson eitherside oftheLoutsorema.The lowerslopesofPhournara forman arid limestonelandscape withsignsof limitedrecentcultivationin the formof theirprimeuse is forextensivegrazing.Three sites(S433-4,T443)lie in abandonedterracing; to theNeogeneclayslowerdown.The otherfiveoccupythese thiszone butin closeproximity threeon thehillof there is extensiverecentand moderncultivation: where morefertile soils, one of the narrow and the hamlet another on (S524)situatedjust spurs, Agios Theodoros, below the intersectionof the limestoneand Neogene, givingaccess to arable soils and ofdeep beds oftheNeogene mountaingrazing.The top oftheplateauconsistsalmostentirely at horizons of and is with thin conglomerate present mostlycoveredwitholive only clay soil conditions are also foundon theridgetops, of considerable The same age). groves(some wherethe hamletS281 and long-livedfarmsite R526 are located. Apart fromthe more to the main naturallinesof communication level,cultivablesoils,proximity extensive, along thetopoftheplateaufromNWto SE musthavebeen a further advantage. In thiscontextthegap in occupationofsome 1,100m alongthetop oftheplateau,between of the third(R420),is the southernmost siteof the firstcluster(P278)and the northernmost in no variation the or extent of the cultivableland. as there is pronounced quality surprising, be noted the between and The samephenomenon R281,wherethereis a may along P278 ridge in over about there is an abundance of land suitablefor 1,750m, though gap occupation cultivation. As in the case of the secondcluster,the existenceof a perennialspringat Agios mayprovidepartoftheanswer.Though Geórgios(S450-1),closeto theflooroftheLoutsorema, notas copiousas thatin theKastororema, itmightnevertheless be a keyfactorin favouring this area forsitelocation,especiallyforthelargervillasites.This wouldbe an evenmoreimportant factorifanimalhusbandry ofthesesites. playedan important partin theagrarianactivities cornerofthesurveyarea, comprising The fourth clusteris in thesouth-east ninesitesin the northern of the basin and the hills around its part Chrysapha includingthe large periphery, hill of Aï-Lias. Withinit may be includedfoursitesinvestigatedbeyondthe limitsof the intensively surveyedarea in the same basic geographicalunit(U3001,U3003,U3022,U3024). This area is separatedfromthe thirdclusterby the schistridge,whichrunsfromNE to SW betweenthe modernvillageof Chrysaphaand the basin drainingintothe Chavos gorge,an area almostbarrenof archaic sites.This clusteris not as concentratedas the otherthree

i66 Chapter5 groups,spreadingoverc.2 sq kmwithinthe surveyarea butprobablycoveringa muchwider area in theChrysaphabasinand itssurrounds. Casual field-walking overthesouthernpartof thebasinrevealedevidencefornumeroussitesofthisdate,especiallyon thefootslopes ofthe hillssurrounding thelevelfloorofthebasin.The sitesare generallyon a largerscale thanin theotherclusters. Amongthenineare one hamlet(U494),fourvillas(T471,U490,U491,U499) four small and farmsteads (T484,T512,U493,U531).Theirlargersize mostlikelyaccountsfor theirwiderspacing.All the sitesexaminedbeyondthe boundariesof the surveyare small threebetween0.01 and 0.03 ha, thefourth(U3024)0.11ha. The Chrysaphabasin farmsteads, consistspredominantly oftheweatheredproductsfromthesurrounding limestoneformations, buttheagricultural rossasoilsis adverselyaffected potentialofthedeep terra byitsdrynessand stoniness.Althoughnow largely abandoned, in recent times it was cultivatedalmost withcerealsand, to a lesserextent,withvines.The massofabandonedthreshingexclusively floorsand attachedstoresforstrawand chaff,the systemof mule tracks,and the extensive fieldterracingare eloquenttestimony to itsimportanceto the farmersof Chrysapha.Once again theexistenceofspringsin severalofthevalleyssouthof Chrysapha(notetheOttoman U513),appearingat thejunctionof the limestoneand schist,perhapsattracted spring-house settlement of thebasin (U493-4, U491).Anothergroupof threesites along theeast periphery (T471,T512,U499) is locatedaroundthe base ofAï-Liasat thejunctionof thelimestoneand wellsare a schist,whereit may be suspectedthatwellswereused to tap the ground-water; commonoccurrencein the contemporary landscapein areas wherethe impermeableschists A further indicationof the importanceof the Chrysapha are overlainby porousformations. basin at this date is the presence of two cult sites larger than simple rural shrines:at hill (U3001)on theeastedge ofthebasin,and at Phagiá(U3002)on a prominent Pikromygdaliá its west side. dominating be reviewed.A Outsidethesefourmainclustersis a smallnumberofsiteswhichmaybriefly occurs at thesouthedge farmstead sites of three small (R427,R473,R518;0.01-0.05ha) group of the surveyarea on a steep-sidedridge top overlookingthe north-westcorner of the Chrysaphabasin,wherethe exposed Neogene claysare suitableforcultivation.Two more smallfarmsteads groundto the east of this (R294,R461;< 0.01, 0.07) occur in the low-lying meet. Schist soils are foundin the low and the schist basement where the ridge, Neogene available around its but are periphery. ground, Neogeneclays THE WESTERN SECTOR IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

land on theperipheryoftheEurotasvalley,fromthe This sectoris made up ofthelow-lying north-west limitof the surveyarea to the Menelaion ridgeat the south(zones D, H-J,M, and Q,5and smallpartsofK; 20 sq km).It includestwentysites,almosta quarterofthetotal (23 per cent),mostof whichare located in the Neogene footslopesbelow the edge of the plateau facingmodernSparta. Sixteenof thesebelongto the categoryof smallfarmsteads, of Sparta will have had a markedeffecton the the otherfourbeingvillas.The proximity to find charactersand sizes of the sitesin muchof thisarea. It would have been surprising in ancient the main centre of scale so close to a hamlet or sites on population village large Laconia.25The easy availabilityof waterfromthe perennialriversEurotasand Kelephina factorinfluencing means thataccess to watersuppliesis unlikelyto have been a significant sitelocationin thisarea. 25Butnotethelater,Hl-R hamletat Myloi(M321,0.41 ha) above modernAphysou.

Early Iron Age to Classical Period 167

The stringof sitesin the low hills and spursalong the edge of the valleybetweenthe Menelaionand the confluenceof the Eurotasand the Kelephinamay be consideredas one cluster.There are sixteensitesin thisgroup,arrangedalmostin a line fromnorthto south. Neogeneclaysare the dominantsoil type,changingat the northernend to schistwherethe Kelephinaentersthe Eurotasvalley.Three sites(J213,0.16 ha; M328,0.28 ha; M347,0.25 ha) are rankedas villas,therestas smallfarmsteads J223-4,J230,J316,J369,K235,M171, (J219-21, M194,M322,M325);six oftheseare in theuppersize rangeof0.07 to 0.13 ha, theotherseven sites(J219between0.01 and 0.05 ha. The threemostnortherly 20, K235)are locatedon schist at thefootoftheslopesto thenorthand southoftheKelephina,closeto thealluvialdepositsin the valleyfloor.Close to one of these (J219)is an olive crusherwhich,if not medieval,is productionon theseslopes. probablyancientand perhapshintsat the natureof agricultural The otherthirteen occupythelowerslopesoftheNeogene,thoughin manyplacesit has been erodedto revealtheschistbasement.Thereis a tightgroupofsixsmallsites(J221, J223-4,J230, closeto themodernroad to Chrysapha,whichmay J316, J369)aroundthehillofPalaiópyrgos, This has probablyalwaysbeen a routebetween havelain close to a muchearlierpredecessor. theEurotasvalleyand theuplandplateau,and beyondto thesouthernextensionofthePárnon range, though in antiquityfollowinga ratherless direct course than at present. The in thefoothills ofsettlement and theapparentlack ofit on thelevelvalleyfloor concentration in two Sites in thisarea may lie deeplyburiedbeneath accounted for one of be ways. may alluvialand colluvialdeposits,butequallylikelythevalleyfloorwas avoidedbecauseoftherisk of the rivers,especiallyaroundthe of floodingfromthe Eurotasand Kelephina.The fringes ofthetwo,are in anycase likelyto havebeen marshyand unsuitableforhabitation. confluence The modernlandscapein thisarea is dominatedbyolivecultivation, thoughin therecentpast weremuchmorewidespread.In antiquity thisstretch ofland so closeto cerealsand vineyards and ofhighvalue,perhapsmainlydevotedto theancientcitymusthavebeen heavilycultivated oflabour-intensive suchas vegetablesand fruittrees. theproduction cropsrequiring irrigation, in mostpartsof the area is and continuous scatter The relatively observed high background a reflection of this intensive land whatever the mechanics ofitsdispersal.26 use, presumably The otherfoursitesin the westernsectoroccur in twopairs,the first(H29,H40) close to Geladári, the second (D96, D301) above the Eurotas gorge on the slopes of Vigies at the northern boundaryofthesurveyarea. Boththefirsttwolie above thevalleyfloorat thebase oftheschistslopesand spursthatrisein a massifto theeastand north-east. H40belongsto the of villas is a small farmstead Not farwestofthese (minimum 0.25 ha), H29 (0.08 ha). category twosites,in low groundin a bend oftheEurotas,is Geladári(H45).Thoughcertainly a large sitein latertimes,itsimportancein thisperiodis hard to estimate,as neitheritssize nor its function is apparentfromtheevidenceavailable.27 The twositeson thesouthand westslopes of Vigiesare both smallfarmsteads of moderatesize (0.06-0.08 ha) on schistsoils.D301 is close to the valleyfloor,withaccess to the alluvialsoils in the bend of the Eurotas.D96 is situatedon the steepermidslopesoverhanging the river.In both cases the proximity of the a as source of water and as the course of several main routes must have river, leadingnorth, been thecriticalfactorforlocatingthesesitesin an otherwise environment. unpromising 26See the discussionof off-site, scatters(pp. low-density 200-4 below). 27It was initiallyconjecturedthattherewas a perioikic settlement here,but thismustbe discountedon the basis of the survey.More likelyit was the locationof a large Hl-R

estatewitha smallerAr-Cl predecessor.Its locationin lowlyingground close to the riverwould anywayhave been foran Ar-Cl villageor smalltown.In LS ii. 357 it surprising is suggestedas thesiteofthesanctuaryofApolloPythaëusat Thornax,butthisis uncertain(p. 220 below).

i68 Chapter5 THE NORTHERN SECTOR IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

This sectortakesin theentirenorthern the partof the surveyarea betweenthehillsfringing Eurotasvalleyand theKelephina(zonesAC, E-G, mostofK; 27 sq km).It consistslargelyof steep,dissected,schisthillslopesdominatedto the northby the limestonemassifof Agios In spiteofbeingthelargestofthethreesectors,it containsonlytensites(11per Konstantinos. all but threeof which are located in the northernmost cent), part. At presentthe schist hillsidesare almostuniformly coveredby terracedolive groves,withdense maquis overthe uncultivatedareas and remnantsof oak forestat higheraltitudes;the limestonewithits is fitonlyforgrazing. maquisand gariguevegetation Betweenthe south-eastern and westernsectorsand the area aroundAgios Konstantinos and Sellasia in the north,thereis a large void of £.18sq km in which only threesmall farmstead sites(G157,K200,K203;0.01-0.04ha) withlate archaicto earlyclassicaloccupation wereidentified. One ofthese(K203)lies on thelowerslopesabove theflooroftheKelephina in and some valley respectshas morein commonwiththesitesalongtheedge oftheEurotas described above valley (e.g.K235,J219-20).K200 is situatedmuchhigheron the same south side of thisschistmassif.Its locationmay be explainedby the existenceof a nearbyspring, close to a laterRoman and Byzantinehamlet(K244-5).Gl57nes on me east-facing midslopes ofthismassif,witha springnearby.The existenceofa watersupplyseemsin boththesecases to havebeen a significant factorin thechoiceofsitelocation. The northernpart contains the two importantsites of Palaiogoulás (Ai18) and Agios Konstantinos(Bin). As alreadynoted,the firstof theseis mostplausiblyidentified withthe townofSellasia,knownfromancientliterary sourcesbutmostfamousforthebattlein perioikic in 222BC.28It occupiesthetopand all butthenorthslopesofa prominent itsvicinity schisthill, abovethefloorofa smallvalleyfringing theKelephinawithratherlimitedscopeforagriculture. A cemetery was perhapslocatedon the lowereast slopes(A120),as well as a smallsanctuary further down(A119), thoughneitherhas yieldedevidenceearlierthanthelateclassicalperiod.Its area is estimated at 3.0 ha, thelargesthabitation siteofthisperiodin thesurveyarea and more thandoublethesizeofthelargestoftheso-calledhamletsites,29 withthe thoughbycomparison in GreeceSellasiais extremely sizeofsmallcitysiteselsewhere small(seebelow). At Sellasia,potterythatcan be assignedto the late archaicand earlyclassicalperiodswas foundin fourofthefiveareas (Α-D butnot E) withthelargestquantityoccurringin areas Β but does notprove,thatthe sitereachedsomething (sixtypes)and C (fourtypes).It suggests, It mayalso be an indicationthatthere closeto itsmaximumsize at an earlydate in itshistory. was a deliberateact of settlementwhich broughtabout the occupation of a previously uninhabitedhillby a smallnucleatedpopulationof at mosta fewhundredpeople. There is certainly nothingto indicatea slowprocessof growthand expansionfromhamletto village, thoughexcavationwould produce a much more refinedimage than surveycan provide.30 Besidesaccessto waterin theKelephina,thesitealso has a perennialspringon theuppermost 28The sourcesare collectedin LS ii. 322. See conveniently also RE s.v. 'Sellasia'; Shipley,'"Other Lakedaimonians'", as Sellasiawas firstmade by 239-40 no. 28. Its identification W. K. Pritchett, 'The battleof Sellasia', in SAGT i (1965), 59-70,at 63-4. 29Itssizeseemsto havebeengreatly overestimated byW. K. 'The polis of Sellasia',in Studies Presented toSterling Pritchett, Dow on his 80thBirthday (Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs,10;Durham,NC, 1984),251-4,at 253.

30 The only excavations to have been conducted at Palaiogoulas/Sellasia are those of Sotiriadis in 1910: G. Sotiriadis, "Ανασκαφαί εν xfj Λακωνική', PAE 1910, 277-8; id., 'Anti-Sellasia', BCH 35 (1911), 87-107, with Addendum,241-2. The resultshave neverbeen described in any detail,thoughhe claimed to have foundpotteryof date. 5th-2nd-cent.

Early Iron Age to classical period i6g

terraceofthehill.Fewtracesofancientstructures surviveapartfromprobableterracewallson theslopes.The remainsof a rubblewall aroundtheperimeter of the summit,and a dividing wall of similarconstructionacross the hilltop,may be ancient.31Unless it had a military functionconnectedto Spartan controlof one of the pointsof entryacross the northern it could have offered no morethanrefugeforthe inhabitants of the villageagainst border,32 it would not have afforded an as raiders; protection against invadingarmy, eventswereto show. Bui is the fortress some ha 6.0 on the top of Agios Konstantinos, the limestone covering massifdominatingthe horizonas one looks northfromSparta. (For a descriptionof the fortifications and theothervisibleancientremains,reference shouldbe made to thecatalogue ofsites.)33 Itsancientnameis unknown.34 On thereasonableassumption thatit servedSpartan ratherthanperioikicneeds,an a priorihypothesis mightbe thatsuch a fort,of an ostensibly defensivenature,would only have become necessaryat a time when Sparta's military supremacyand gripon the Péloponnèsewas lost.The obviousoccasionwould have been in the second quarterof the fourthcentury,followingthe defeatat Leuktrain 371 BC and to land attackfromthe Epameinondas'sinvasionsof Laconia, when Sparta's vulnerability northwas firstclearlydemonstrated. This appears to be contradicted by the archaeological evidence.Althoughimpossibleto date on architecturalgrounds,theremustbe a strong thatthe fortress and morelikelyin thelate presumption originatesat latestin the earlyfifth sixthcentury.35 in datingthe pottery, thereis Makingall due allowanceforthe difficulties for enoughto suggesta late archaicpresencein all sevenareas of thefortress, except area G whereonlytwelvesherdswerecollected.Whileclassicalwares,especiallyofthelaterfifth and fourth acrossthesite,theearliermaterialseemsto be concentrated on centuries, predominate thesummit(areaA, twelvetypes)and in areas C (fivetypes),D (fourtypes),and F (sixtypes)of the lowerenclosure.This impressionwas subsequentlyconfirmedwhen good qualitylate archaic-earlyclassicaltablewareswereobservedwheretreepitshad been dug alongtheinner faceofthenorthand north-west circuit,as wellas at otherpointsin theuppercitadel.Since it is unlikelythattherehad originallybeen a village or townsite thatby forceof changing circumstances was convertedintoa fortress, the inevitableconclusionmustbe thatit always had a military, defensivefunction.This does not necessarilyentail that the fortifications themselves originatein thisperiod,thoughtherewereperhapsoccasionsin thefirsthalfofthe fifth centuryforSparta to have occupieditselfwithfixedpointsof defenceagainsta threat fromthenorth.36 The prominent positionofAgiosKonstantinos mayalso havemade ita vital 31In LS ii. 321thecircuitwall is thoughtprobablyto be of recentdate. My own opinionis thatit is more likelyto be ancient,as remnantsof towersor bastionsare clearlyvisible in places,and so in agreementwithLoring,'Routes',59; G. Sotiriadis,'To πεδίοντης έν Σελλασία μάχης', BCH 34 (igio), 5 57^at 10; id., 'Anti-Sellasia' (n. 30), at 89-90, 93-5, 241-2;Pritchett (n. 28),64. 32In thiscontextit is noteworthy thaton twooccasionsin 405 BCAthenianembassiesweremetat Sellasia beforebeing turnedback or allowedto proceedto Sparta(Xen. Hell.ii. 2. 13, 19). It was also singledout forhard treatmentby the invadingarmyin 370/69(vi.5. 27) and, perhapsin 389, was raidedbytheAtheniangeneralChabrias(Polyaen.iii. 11.6). " LS ii. 325-8; see also Loring, 'Routes', 71-4. Commentatorsidentifiedit with Sellasia until Pritchett Pritchett recognizeditas a fortress: (n. 28), 63.

34Might it be identifiablewith the otherwiseobscure

Barnosthenes or Barbosthenes monsreferredto by Livy (xxxv. 27.

13; 30. 9)? Its distanceof 10 Roman milesΝ of Spartais not withsuchan identification. incompatible :*>5th-cent. potteryhad alreadybeen notedbyPritchett (n. 29)>251. 3()Gartledge,SL 199-222.Ioannis Pikoulasconsidersthat the northern border fortifications,of which Agios Konstantinos is one, shouldbe assignedto the 3rd cent,and more specificallythe reign of Kleomenes III (Pikoulas, 'Skiritis',145-6; Pikoulas,NMX 183-7;G· A· Pikoulas,'The desXIII Spartandefensenetworkof hellenistictimes',Akten Internationalen Kongresses für KlassischeArchäologie,Berlin ig88

(Mainz, 1990), 478). He proposes (pers. comm.) that the evidenceforearlieroccupationcould belongto a villagethat thatcarriesitsowndifficulties. precededthefort,a suggestion

170 Chapter5

As the northernborderof Spartiateterritory part of a systemof militarycommunications. assumesadded significance. its location musthavebeen in thisapproximate area, Two are The remainingfivesites(B103,B107,B121,C114,C169) are all smallfarmsteads. between the other three size aboveaverage (C114,0.09 ha; B103,0.07 ha), 0.03 and 0.05 ranging the close to foot of around the All are located ha. but one spring-line Agios Konstantinos, schistbasement.The two(B103,B121)on thenorth overliestheimpervious wherethelimestone recentand moderncultivation. basin(Vourliótikoi sideoccupya fertile Kámboi)withextensive are also in areas of lower and south-east slopesrespectively, B107and G114,on thesouth-west in on the remote G169is an outlier thisnorthern moderncultivation. area, midslopesabovethe an impassable,steep-sided gorge. Kelephinaat a pointwheretheriverpassesthrough whosesize (0.18ha) placesit Justto thenorthofthesurveyarea thereis a singlesite(A3014), fertile above the comparatively in the categoryofvillas.Its locationon the lowerfootslopes, valleyfloorof the Kelephina and also close to one of the main routesleadingnorth,may accountforitsexistence. PREFERRED SITE LOCATIONS

IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

thatanyone can be The factorswhichgovernedthechoiceofsiteare varied,and itis unlikely are likelyto have been influential: Some or all ofthefollowing seen as a singledeterminant. and accessto ofcultivableland and grazing,watersupply,aspect,shelter, security, availability lines of communications. Potentiallyof greatersignificancethan all thesevariablesin the are thosesocial and economicfactorsconnectedwithland ownership naturalenvironment and land use of the specificperiod whichrestrictedthe freechoice and behaviourof the all thingsbeing equal, it remainsa worthwhileexerciseto establish settlers.Nevertheless, seemto havebeen uppermostin oftheenvironment offeatures or combination whichfeatures site location. deciding ifnot all, of the sitesunderreviewwere On the reasonableassumptionthatthe majority, for with concerned preferences particularsoil typesmay be apparent. agriculture, primarily fromeach the of for the presentanalysis,itis assumedthattheland cultivated purposes Purely sitelay in the immediateenvironsof the place of habitation,thoughin realitylandholdings Withinthe surveyarea threebasic soil typespredominate.In may have been fragmented.37 sectorwithsomein thesouth-east), theseare schist(mostlyin thenorthern orderoffrequency in the red or beds of (entirely yellowclaysand conglomerate alternating Neogene,comprising in the derived soils are rossa the terra which from and south-east, (mainly limestone, south), 37It is generallyassumedthatthe standardGreeksystem of partitive inheritance (see R. Lane Fox, Aspects of inheritancein the Greekworld',in P. Cartledgeand F. D. to G. E. M. Harvey (eds), Crux:Essays in GreekHistoryPresented de Sie Croix on his yjth Birthday(Exeter and London, 1985),

208-232), fromwhich Sparta differedonly in allowing womenrightsof inheritance(Hodkinson,'Land tenure';id. 'Inheritance,marriageand demography:perspectivesupon thesuccessand declineofclassicalSparta',in A. Powell(ed.), Classical Sparta: Techniquesbehindher Success (London, 1989),

79-121), would have produced a pattern of fragmented landholdings.Such a patternis recognizedto have certain advantagesforthe survivalof subsistencefarmers:R. G. Osborne, ClassicalLandscapewithFigures:The AncientGreekCity

anditsCountryside (London,1987),37-40. This viewhas been

largelyon the basis of challengedby severalarchaeologists, survey evidence, who have found evidence that farms controlledconsolidatedblocksof land (Keller and Wallace (n. 22); Lohmann,Atene,224-9). Others have argued that in dispersedfarmsteads settlement onlymakessenseiftheir inhabitants had control of more or less consolidated landholdings(P. L. J. Halstead, 'Traditional and ancient ruraleconomyin MediterraneanEurope: plus ça change?', and JHS 107(1987),77-87,at 83-4; S. E. Alcock,J. F. Cherry, practice,and the agricultural J. L. Davis, 'Intensivesurvey, classical landscape of Greece', in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece:AncientHistoriesand ModernArchaeologies (Cambridge,

1994), 137-70, at 147-8; Whitelaw,'Colonisation' (n. 22), 232-3). It has also been arguedthatpropertywas probably beforetheCl period:Osborne(n. 17),61. moreconcentrated

Early Iron Age to classical period 171

withtwomajoroutcropsin thenorth).In additionthereare smallalluvialdepositsalong the coursesof the Eurotasand Kelephina.The poorlyformedschistsoilsin areas of highrelief soilsofthe fertile ofthenorthern sector)contrastwiththecomparatively (thelargeproportion Eurotas and lower found the fringing glacis and the associatedcolluvialdeposits,mostly Their water-retentive and Kelephinavalleysas wellas theenvironsof ancientSellasia (A118). givethema markedadvantageoverthe arid and ratherheavy easilyworkablecharacteristics limestonesoils,and theysupporta vigorousnaturalvegetationof maquis and oak at higher altitudes.In recentand moderntimestheyhave mainlybeen cultivatedwitholives.The Neogenedepositsare onlycultivablewherethe claysare accessible.No cultivablesoilsoccur theclays whosenaturalvegetationcomprisesonlygarigue.By contrast, on theconglomerate, soilssuitableforall crops.The limestoneis theleastattractive for water-retentive formfertile, an arid and barrenappearancewithmuchbare rockand vegetation cultivation, presenting rossaand confinedto smallpocketsofsoil. Onlytheweatheredproductsofthelimestone{terra breccia)offerscope forcultivation;thesepredominatein the Chrysaphabasin,wherethey of cultivatedwithcerealsand vines.The disadvantages have in recenttimesbeen extensively to work(stickywhen wet,friableand terrarossaare thatit tendsto be stonyand difficult crackedwhendry). Whenthesurveyarea was colonizedin thelate archaicperiodtherewas a generalbutnot sitesout absolutepreference foroccupyingsiteswithaccess to the Neogene clays.Forty-nine of eighty-seven (56 per cent)wereestablishedin suchlocations.In termsof siteclassification out of sixty-four smallfarmsteads thisfigurecomprisesthirty-seven (58 per cent),nineout of seventeenvillas (53 per cent),and threeout of the fourhamlets.This preferenceby itself in the south-eastern accountsforthe concentration of settlement sectorand the southern A in thenorth sites the Eurotas observed. number of of sites, along already particularly string cornerof the south-eastern locatedalong thejunction sector,seem to have been deliberately theirlocationmightbe seen as an oftheNeogeneand limestone.As thisis not a spring-line, maximize the for arable culture on the to scope attempt Neogene soilsin combinationwith on the limestone mountainside. The concentration ofsitesat thenorthern end ofthis grazing stretch ofterraincan be accountedforbytheproximity oftheSophrónigorgewithitscopious perennialstream,whereanimalscan be watered.Modern shepherdswithmandrasin much the same locationsas the ancientsitesconducttheirflocksdown a verysteep path to the bottomofthegorgeon a dailybasisin summer. Nineteensitesoccur on the schist,withanotherfouron the interfaceof the schistand limestone(26 per cent).Onlyfiveofthese(all smallfarmsteads) werelocatedon theschistsoils in theextensive areasofhighreliefin thenorthern sector(C114,G169,D96, G157,K200),and in mostcases the existenceof a convenient watersupplymayhave been the decisivefactor.Of the remainder, elevenoccupythe colluvialsoilsand the glacisderivedfromthe schistalong the Eurotas and lower Kelephina and around Sellasia. Consideringthe relativelylimited extentof these deposits,such soils mustbe consideredto have been equally if not more attractive thantheNeogeneclays.Moreover,theyare hometo theonlysiteoftownsize (A118), besidestwovillas(H40,J213)and eightsmallfarmsteads (B103,D301,H29,J219-20,J316,K203, K235).Two moresmallfarmsteads (T484,U3003)are locatedon the northand westedgesof the Chrysaphabasin,wherethe schistand limestoneare in closejuxtaposition.In the same area fourmoresitesoccupytheexactjunctureofthetworocks,notablyincludingone ofthe fourhamlets(U494),twovillas(T471,U499),and one smallfarmstead(R294).In all six cases, these locations may have been chosen not only to take advantage of the potential for withgrazingbut also foraccess to water.Wherespringsdo not occur, combiningcultivation

172 Chapter5

of wellsoverthe schistin can easilybe tapped by wells;the proliferation the ground-water recenttimesis clearproofofthispotential. themajorityin theChrysaphabasin. Fifteensites(17per cent)are foundon thelimestone, theprevailingschistsare replaced where of the Fouroccurat thenorthern surveyarea, edge not a of Agios Konstantinos, is the fortress of these One a of limestone. hard (Bin) cap by not it was a have hosted it settlement permanentgarrison.However, properthough may either for its immediate its survival,probablybeing supplied surroundings dependentupon fromSparta or fromnearbySellasia. The otherthreesites occur at the marginsof the limestoneterrain.Two small farmsteads(B107,B121) on the lower west side of Agios rossasoilsat thefootof on thebetterdevelopedterra liejust abovethespring-line, Konstantinos the area A the the hill. villa site outside footslopejust above the (A3014)occupies surveyed and the colluvial soils both alluvial deposits derived fromthe Kelephina valley,where a sector three In south-eastern limestoneare available. the sites, villa (S433)and two small of farmsteads (S434,T443),occupythe lowerslopes Phournara,not farabove the Neogene. Althoughtheirimmediatesurroundshave a degraded appearance, the colluvial deposits collected at the footslopehave attractedcereal cultivationin recenttimes(now entirely abandoned).The othereight,includingthreeoutsidethe surveyarea, lie in the Chrysapha basin,an area dominatedby cerealsin recenttimes.Two (U471,U490) are villa sites,therest smallfarmsteads (T512,U493,U531,U3001,U3022,U3024).Most are in the lowerpartof the basin where the colluvial deposits from the surroundinghills have formed a deep accumulationofsoil.The one smallsite(U493)on theupperedge ofthebasinis situatedclose to thejunctionwiththe schistand mightbetterbe classifiedwiththe othersitesfoundin a similarsituation. In conclusion,it can be statedthat therewere threepreferredsoils of cultivation,the colluvialdepositsofschistand limestonesoils.The formeris Neogeneclaysand therespective in the most abundant far the area, thetwolatterbeingoflimitedextent.Locations survey by of the limestoneand schist,were also favoured. at the junction normally along spring-lines, the areas of upland schist,whosedense natural to marked aversion a there was Conversely, obstacleto agricultural oak and deciduous of mayhave been a formidable vegetation maquis mountainsides limestone the bare Likewise Agios (Koutsoviti-Phournara, expansion. of for extensive unless had no and attraction, grazing Ilías, Konstantinos, Skoura) Prophítis if that few first at this terrain sites on of total absence The and any sight suggests goats. sheep but withmodernparallelsin mind farmerswere exclusively engagedin animal husbandry, as evidenceof such activities, to survive be can traces no expected virtually archaeological if not all, seem to have been flocks. their from if resided the herders Most, away especially involvementin animal with small-scale arable with farming,perhaps primarilyoccupied found the sites be this to The alongthejunction may generalization husbandry. onlyexception sector. ofthelimestoneand theNeogenein thesouth-eastern it goeswithoutsaying,is essentialforthesurvivalofanyhuman Provisionofa watersupply, and the cultivationof certaintypesof crops.38However, animals as for as well community, meansforsecuringstoresofwaterin locationswhere are various there rainfall, givenadequate naturalsources(rivers,streams,and springs)are lacking.In antiquitythiswas mostoften achievedby the collectionof rainwaterin cisternsor pithoi,or in the case oflargetownsby the piping of water for storage in urban reservoirs.Where other considerationswere 38See Island Polity,98-103.

Early Iron Age to classical period 173

or conditionsofland tenure),watermighthaveto be acquiredon paramount(suchas security a regulardailybasisfroma distantsource.Laconia's comparatively highannualrainfallis not with more on the west side than the east.39The surveyarea is evenlydistributed, precipitation therefore drierthan the lush west side of the Eurotas valley,whichlies in the shadow of accentuatedby the abundanceof perennialstreamsalong Taygetos.This contrastis further the westernedge of the plain, fedwithlarge volumesof waterfromTaygetos,and by the ofsuchstreamsin thesurveyarea and theirmuchlowervolumes. relativescarcity Exceptforthoseareas closeto theriversEurotasand Kelephina,whichprovidea perennial supplyof water,the distributionof naturalwater sources is likelyto have had a strong influenceon the distribution of ancientsites.In the precedingaccount of the settlement pattern,thejuxtapositionof sitesto watersourceshas oftenbeen observed.Apartfromthe tworivers, theonlyotherperennialstreamrunsthroughtheSophrónigorge.Its inaccessibility made it oflimitedvalue to the settlements on the Neogeneplateau,and itsimportancemay have been more forwateringflocksgrazed on the surrounding mountainsides.The other naturalsuppliesconsistof springswhosewatersnormallyforma streamfora shortdistance beforedryingup. These are foundquitewidelyin the schistareas and along the spring-line betweentheimpervious schistand the overlying limestone.Althoughthe schistuplandswere generallynot exploitedin this period, the few sites existingin this terrainwere almost invariablylocated close to perennial springs(G157,K200). Spring-linesites are more numerous.As alreadyobserved,theyoccur around the base of Agios Konstantinos(B103, B107,B121,C114)and on the peripheryof the Chrysaphabasin (U493-4). Springsin the Neogene zone occur at pointsofjunctionwiththe basementschist,but are comparatively scarce. Combinedwiththe evidentpreferenceforthe Neogene claysforcultivation,their locationsmay have had a markedimpacton the distribution of ancientsites.Competing in cultivableland and watersupplyseem to have favouredthelatter,withthelikely interests consequence that some or all of these siteswere involvedin cultivationof land at some distancefromtheresidential base. The springat AgiosGeorgiosin theLoutsoremaseemsto havebeen at thecentreof a largeclusterof siteson eitherside ofthevalley(R275-7,S431-2, S437-40,S458-9, S508-9, S523, S527),and musthave been of criticalimportanceto their survival.Likewisetheextraordinary clusterofsevensites(N183-5,N187-8,N193,N314)on the dissectedplateaualongthe southedge ofthe surveyarea shouldprobablybe associatedwith thespringin theKastororema.It is one ofa numberthatoccurin thesedeeplyincisedvalleys intothe Eurotasvalley;twomoreare foundin thevalleysbehindAphysou,which emptying sites(M322,M354).The same mightaccountforthelocationof perhapssuppliedtwooutlying anotheroutlierin an inhospitablelandscape (M503),close to the springsaround Agioi Saranda. Sitesin theChrysaphabasinmusthavereliedon wellssuchas thosewhichcurrently exist,unless therewere streamsin the watercoursesfed by the springsaround modern Chrysapha;at presentthe bulk of thiswateris piped to the villageor storedforwatering animals.The villagesiteof Sellasia (A118),as wellas beingclose to theKelephina,also had a springwithinthesite.That itwas inadequatefortheneedsofa villagepopulationis indicated by theexistenceofat leastone cisternon the south-eastside ofthehill.For theoccupantsof thefortress on AgiosKonstantinos (Bin) provisionofwaterpresentedmuchgreaterproblems, the limestone of the site.Althoughthereare springsaroundthebase ofthehill given geology whichcouldbe used in ordinarycircumstances, itwas essentialto have a securesupplywithin 39See Chapter1,p. 11.

174 Chapter5

This was providedby at leastone wellin theupperenclosure thecircuitofthefortifications. and one cisternin thelower,thoughmoredoubtlessexisted. OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT

IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

When viewedin the contextof developmentsin otherpartsof Greece, the growthin site numbers,especiallyamongthe smallercategories,thathas been documentedforthe survey area in thisperiodcan be seen as partofa widerphenomenonofsettlement expansionin the in was now that In manyintensively areas it the sixthcentury. surveyed dispersalofsettlement if the hamlets even the of and and farmsteads small majority populationin (both began, large) nucleated sites. This was the to inhabit the area continued to prelude theclimaxof large any that is so and settlement widelyattestedforthe fifth perhapspopulationgrowth, expansion, in and west(such as Achaia, the of the north and fourthcenturies,though upland regions Aitolia,Epeiros,and Macedonia) thisdid not occuruntilratherlaterin thefourthand third centuries.40 Includedin thisphenomenonare someofthoseregions(suchas south-east Attica) in thesecond where,likeour surveyarea, therehad been littleor no expansionofsettlement The evidenceseems to indicatethat,as in halfof the eighthcenturyor in the seventh.41 in thesecondhalfof thesixth numberswas concentrated Laconia, theincreasein settlement if not at its veryend. Thus in Boiotia, wheretherehad been no increasein site century, The same patternis smallsitesbeginto proliferate.42 numberssincethe late eighthcentury, Keos and perhapsin the Nemea valley,and is also attestedin colonial foundin north-west all thoseregionsthat Significantly, regionssuchas Metapontionand Krotonin SouthItaly.43 dominancein theclassicalperiod(Laconia,Attica,and Boiotia)seemto roseto supra-regional settlement haveexperiencedsignificant pattern growthat thisdate.That itwas nota uniform in areas such as the is shownby the ratherlater,fifth-century expansionof ruralsettlement of Karystosin southernEuboia.44In the southern Methana peninsula and the territory a have been more there seems to steadyincreasein the quantityof smallruralsites Argolid witha markedriseoccurringin thefifth.45 and sixth the seventh centuries, (< 0.4 ha) through from a there had been in where those areas precociousgrowthofruralsettlement Conversely, the eighthto earlysixthcenturies(theBerbativalley,Melos, and Thera) thereis a marked in thenumberofsmallsitesat thistime.46 contraction However,whiletheexpansionofrural themall in itsscale and in oursurveyarea has parallelsin otherregions,itoutstrips settlement more settlement was of rural the Elsewhere gradual,buildingto a climaxin growth intensity. in a Laconia it reached whereas and fourth thefifth centuries, peak at theverybeginningand, fromas earlyas the secondhalfofthefifth as willbe seen,was radicallydiminished century. The exceptionalnatureof the late archaicto earlyclassicalphase in our surveyarea, and perhaps in otherparts of Laconia, stronglyimpliesthatlocal pressureswere behind the explosionofruralsettlement.

40See Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey',12-14. 41Lohmann,Atene, 121-3. 42Bintliff and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139. 43 LandscapeArchaeology, 247-54, 328-37; Wrightet αι., 'Nemea', 610. In the latterthe broad term'archaic'is used, leavingit uncertainhow sitesshouldbe datedwithina period morethan200 yearslong.S. Italy:Carter(n. 22),106-16. 44Roughand RockyPlace,57-9; D. R. Keller and M. B. Wallace, 'The Canadian Karystia Project', Classical

Viewsl'Échos du mondeclassique,30 (1986), 155-9; nd. (η. 22);

Cherryand Davis (n. 10),21Q-20. 45Greek 548-9 withtableΒ.2. Six sitesin the7th Countryside, cent,increaseto 9 in the6th,beforenearlydoublingto 17in the5th. 46Berbati:Ekroth(n. 9), 213, 225. Melos: Wagstaffand in 1980. Cherry(n. 9), 143-4.Thera: author'sfieldwork

Early Iron Age to classical period 175

The Classical

Period

(cA50-c.300 bc) theclassicalera is definedas theperiodbetweenthe end ofthe Persianwar Conventionally in 479 and thedeathofAlexanderthe Greatin 323. While it is not our concernto question thevalidityofthischronologicaldivisionin the contextofLaconia, wherethe dates 370/69 in observingits and 338 had a much greaterimpact,thereare considerabledifficulties boundaries.At theupperend,untilmuchmoreis knownofthe sequence ofLaconian plain black-glazed wares at the end of the archaic (£.525-480 BC) and the beginningof the in distinguishing classical periods (c.480- 450 BC) therewill be considerable difficulties It is forthisreasonthata largenumberofsiteshave been betweensitesofthetwoperiods.47 dated as late archaicto earlyclassical.Thereforein the presentcontext,wherea classical phase of use is indicatedit is generallybased on culturalmaterialthoughtto be laterthan the mid-fifth century.At the lower end there are similar difficultiesin distinguishing betweenthe latestclassical and the earliesthellenisticceramics,especiallyamong survey material,and it is likelythatat least some of the latterhas been treatedas late classical. When combinedwiththe widerproblemssurroundingthe chronologyof late classical to wheretherehas been a generaldowndatingof late classicaltypes earlyhellenisticpottery, into the early third century,allowance should be made for a significantdegree of imprecisionin the datingof sites.48In thisrespectthe divisionbetweenthe two periodsis likelyto fallcloserto 300 thanto 325. In spiteofthesedifficulties it is clear thatmajor changesoccurredin the classicalperiod. These may be summarizedas being a sharp reductionin the total numberof habitation sites (ILL. 5.3, TABLE5.2) and a tendencyto increased site size, perhaps reflectingthe nucleation of the rural population, and a decisive shiftin the preferredlocations for settlement, perhapsmarkinga concomitantchange in agriculturalpracticesand priorities. habitationsitesof the late archaic period (includingthe earlyclassical), The eighty-seven almostexactlyby a half,in the 150years coveringabout 100years,are reducedto forty-six, of the classical period. The sharpestdecline is in the numberof small farmsteadsites, reducedfromsixty-four to twenty-seven; of the total havingformednearlythree-quarters Within this (74 per cent) theynow constituteless than two-thirds (57 per cent). category therealso seemsto have been an increasein site size, perhapscorresponding to a general enlargementof the survivingfarmsteadsand the evolutionof a standard architectural design forfarmhouses.Whereas in the late archaic period more than two-thirdsof the farmsteadsites(forty-four, 69 per cent)fellin the lowerhalfof the size range,< 0.07 ha, with nearlya quarter (fourteen,22 per cent) having an area of 0.01 ha or less, in the classicalperiod thisproportionhas been reduced to less than a half(eleven,44 per cent) withonly two sites (8 per cent) as small as 0.01 ha. This increase mightreflectnothing more than developmentsin the architectureof Laconian farmhouses,but could also be equated withthe demiseof the poorerfarminghouseholds.The numberof villa sitesalso sees a markedreduction,fromseventeento ten,but as a proportionof the totalnumberof sitesit remainsalmostconstantat 23 per cent(itwas 20 per centin thelate archaicperiod). Concurrentwiththe demiseof the farmsteadsis a risein the numberof hamletsfromfour to seven (16 per cent, compared with5 per cent previously).They may be individually 47These problemshavebeen discussedat LS ii. 34-5.

48 See S. I. Rotroff,HellenisticPottery: Athenianand Imported WheelmadeTable Ware and Related Material (The Athenian

Agora,29; Princeton,NJ,1997),18-36,fordiscussionof the fixedpointsin HI ceramicchronology.

176 Chapter5 LS no:

zone

size (ha)

Bi Ai

3-0

Large Sites(2)

Bin A118

villas(7) Hamlets/large

U511 U516 R281

U519 U494 H31 U491

6.0

U2 Ui

1.81

R3 U4 Ui H2 Ui

0-75 0.60

1.08

0.50 0.44 0.40

Villas/clustersof farmsteads(10) D85/95 M328 U499 H40 H34 P271 S437/440 U490 P261/264 R421

D3 M4 U2 H2 H3 P2

0.31 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.20

S4 U3 P2

0.20

R3

0.15

Single farmsteads (27) U3 U3022 U4 U520

0.20

o.i5(c.)

O.II O.II

J369

J6

0.10

M2

0.10

J2I2

J2

0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08

BIO3 h6o

B2 Hi

J3i6

J5 K3 S4 G2

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06

M172

J231 R526 U506

J5 R4 U4

K235 S523 G159 C169

C4

K141 S431/432 U500 J22I Π47 R282

K3 S2 U4 J5 F2

R3 U2

U496 T465 U3024 J220

T3 U3 Ji M4 Ni

M325 N409

0.05 0.05

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 O.OI 0.01 O.OI

date

slope(degrees)

LAr-EHl LAr-EHl

L S

Gl-Hl Cl-R LAr-Hl Cl-Hl LAr-Hl Cl LAr-Hl

L/S L Ν L L/S S L

Cl-Hl LAr/ClByz LAr-Hl LAr-ClByz Cl Byz LAr-Cl LAr-LCl EH LH LAr-R Cl Cl

S Ν L/S S S Ν Ν L Ν N/S

22

LAr/Cl EH Cl-hl LAr/ClByz Cl-Hl Cl-HlByz Cl LAr-LCl Cl LAr-LCl Cl-Hl LAr/Cl LAr-Cl LAr/Cl Cl-Hl LAr-LCl LC1-H1LR LAr-Cl EH Cl Byz LAr-LCl Cl-Hl Cl Cl LCl-hl LAr/Cl LAr/ClhlR LAr-LCl EC1

L L Ν Ν S Ν Ν L S L N/S S

9 7

Keytosoil types

L Ν S

soiltype

limestone Neogene schist

Table 5.2. Siteswithclassicaloccupation,orderedin descendingsize.

■

Ν

S S S Ν L Ν S Ν L S L S Ν Ν

6 10

6 6

9

11

3 5 ι

3 1

6 1

5

11

5 4

II

2 1

5

10 2

7 3 J3 8 7 11

J5 l9 8 20

8 l5

25

9 8 l3 2

9 3

22

Early Iron Age to classical period Α11ίΓ)ϋtA'119

/"h60

;

V/k

^L, aH4° ^

X' X)

/$ M

y^

if

J

ξ' ^*'(

J '

I

/'· <^U//ÍX s/V V H31

_y

J<

^7/f/s!L, .-"; f^

^

Í vu? ^^

J220^·^

Ç H34./^ Cn

'

'^y ^^"^^

(1

{

AM328

•

:V^C$

W ■ ·■

DFarmstcad

* Large sanctuary 0 Shrine/small sanctuary

x Spring

C^^*^s' °

N430^^^) j/N*P264(

C {Ç^/J/f

V

f M325

# Hamlet,clusteroffarms a *vula%largefarm

/i Π

<>J215 ••••..•-^••N41^3^N409 J231 0 Q ά«*316f C?*5*

'

■ Largesite(village, fort)

(

/Κ

^- v^^^

r7^^^

[ ff

{

'

^vO^

f

U

'

«

' Vi '

8523π''

^L )R42HD I AS437


/

I

^)

·■'/--*

U499

' '

^'

· 4ΛΙ491 W· 1U500 D U496V^^ - Ο ' ' D

/ ^J '*S 0

i

'_

- -I

t

-1 ',.:,,,

I

5000

U519 r^ USOóXà^ U520
Z3 Metres

III. 5.3. Classicalsites(D. Taylor).

^'^/

177

178 Chapter3 listed:U491 (0.40 ha), H31 (0.44 ha), U494 (0.50 ha), U519 (0.60 ha), R281 (0.75 ha), U516 (1.06 ha), U511(1.81ha). withinthe survey As in the late archaicperiod,the classicalsitesare unevenlydistributed sectorremainsthe mostdenselyoccupied (twentyarea. In raw numbersthe south-eastern three sites,52 per cent) but with a pronounced shiftfromthe Neogene plateau to the Chrysaphabasinand to sitesofa largersize.All butone ofthesevenhamlets,and fiveofthe eightvilla sites,are situatedin thissector.At the same timethe westernsectorseems to withonlya slightdeclinein theoverallnumberofsites(fifteen, increasein importance, 34 per and a cent) higherproportionof farmsteadsitesthan elsewhere(ten).The northernsector but is otherwise retainsthetwolargestsitesof Sellasia and AgiosKonstantinos verysparsely inhabited(fourfarmsteads). THE SOUTH-EASTERN

SECTOR

IN THE CLASSICAL

PERIOD

sectorcontinuesto be thearea withthelargestnumber As alreadyobserved,thesouth-eastern notablechangesfromthesituationin thelatearchaicperiod. ofsites.Therewere,however, The Neogene plateau, where there had been several distinctclustersof sites in the precedingperiod, was now largelydeserted,especiallyin its northand west parts. The group of eleven sitesat the head of the Loutsoremaalmostcompletelydisappearsand is neverreoccupiedwiththe same intensity. Only two possible sitesremain. Of these,one (P261/264)was shownby bulldozingfollowingsamplingto fallwithinthe villa size range and may representthe growthof an earliersite in the same location (P262). The second (P271)has a definitelate archaic componentwithonly slightevidenceforcontinuityinto theclassicalperiod.An even moredrasticpictureofsitedesertionoccursamongthegroup offarmsteadsiteson the dissectedplateau (N183-5,N187-8,N193,N314,N354).None ofthe eightshowsany sign of survivalinto the classical period,thougha new farmstead(N186) may have been establishedin the same area at the end of the fourthcentury.Not until Byzantinetimesis a similarlevel of occupationreestablished,and then foronly a short period.There is a similarbut less dramaticreductionin the numberof sitesborderingthe centredon the springat Agios Georgios. southernend of the Loutsorema,hypothetically All the siteson the lower slopes of Phournara are deserted,leaving only the threesites closestto the springas survivorson the east side of the valleyand no new sitesto replace those abandoned. One of these is a villa (S437/440),anothera farmstead(S431-2),while the date of the third(S523)is doubtful.On the westside, everyone of the groupof seven sites noted fortheirsize and materialprosperitywas deserted.Only at the hamlet and farmsites on the ridge tops to the south (R281 and R526 respectively)does habitation continue.Two new sites appear close to R281: a farmsteadon the ridge top (R282 with R283)and a villa at thefootofthe ridge(R421)at thejunctionoftheNeogene depositsand the schist,wherewatercould easilybe extracted.Otherwisethe pictureis one of further desertion:the threesiteson the ridgesouthof R281cease occupation,as well as twoin the low-lyinggroundto theireast,withoutany new sitereplacingthem.Witha fewexceptions the majority of sites on the Neogene plateau are continuations of settlementsfirst establishedin the late archaic period (seven out of nine). The distinctclusteringof sites thatmarkedthelate archaicsettlement patternis muchdiluted,but at the same timethere is no expansion of settlementinto areas previouslyunoccupied. As such, the classical settlement patternmaybe characterizedas a muchcontractedremnantof itspredecessor. With the withdrawalof settlementfromthe Neogene plateau, the settledregionsof the

Early Iron Age to classical period 179

Eurotas valley and the Chrysapha basin became clearlydemarcatedby an intervening uninhabitedlandscape. In thezone ofschistthatoccursbetweentheNeogeneplateauand theChrysaphabasinno sitesoflate archaicdate had existed.This statecontinuedlargelyunchangedin the classical However, period,at facevalue indicatinga deliberateavoidanceofthesesoilsforagriculture. date makesan the presenceof one farmstead(T465)of late classicaland perhapshellenistic offarmsteadsitesontothe schistsoils the encroachment interesting exceptionin anticipating in thehellenistic and Romanperiods. fromthaton theplateau.Here the The situationin theChrysaphabasinwas verydifferent but is markedby the appearanceof a numberof numberof sitesremainsconstant(thirteen) implyinga substantialgrowthin the populationof thisarea. Out of the largersettlements werepermanently latearchaicsites,sixfarmsteads thirteen deserted,whileone villasite(T471) abandonedin the classicalperiod of the area seemsto have been temporarily on thefringes or evengrowthis foundat all theotherlarger and reoccupiedin thethirdcentury. Continuity thehamletU494,thevillasU490,U491,and U499(thesecond sitesand someofthefarmsteads: oftheseapparently U3022and U3024where growingfromvillato hamlet),and thefarmsteads new sitesappear:four occupationintotheclassicalperiodseemslikely.Besidesthiscontinuity, threenew hamlets(U511;U516, farmsteads (U496,U500,U506, U520) but more importantly U519).At or near threeof the fivehamletsites(U491,U511,U516)thereis mainlyhellenistic; also evidence for cult activity(see below), suggestinga small measure of communal organizationand cohesion,whilethereare veryslightindicationsof cultat two of the villa sites(U490, U499). The probable existenceof two largercult sitesat Phagia (U3002) and adds further (U3001),locatedoutsidethe area intensively surveyed, Pikromygdalia weightto with some thenotionthatin thelate archaicand classicalperiodsa relatively largepopulation ofcommunallifedevelopedin the Chrysaphabasin,thoughnot so far ofthebasic attributes ofthe as to lead to theemergenceofa centralplace. It is morethanlikelythattheinhabitants desertedsettlementson the plateau were absorbed into the new and largersites of the Chrysaphabasin and that,althoughthe patternof settlementwas greatlychanged, the sectormayhavebeen fairly stable. populationofthesouth-eastern withthisshiftofsettlement intotheChrysaphabasintheremusthavebeen a Concomitant changein theagricultural landscape.WhiletheNeogeneclaysoftheplateauwerenotentirely and abandoned, allowingforthe likelihoodthattheycontinuedto be exploitedfrommore distantresidential centres,it is clearthattheycannothave been as intensively exploitedas in thelate archaicto earlyclassicalperiods.However,all thesitesin whatmaybe consideredas moremarginallocationsat thejunctionof the limestoneand Neogene were deserted.The soilsin theChrysaphabasin,whosedryand stonycharacteristics limestone-derived havebeen noted in the previoussection,are much bettersuitedto the cultivationof cereals (mainly barley)and vinesthanto treesor vegetables,and it is reasonableto presumethatthesecrops werethemainconcernofthearea'sinhabitants. Withthe shiftin settlementtheremustalso have been a change fromdependencyon springsforthesupplyofwaterto wellsand cisterns.Whilethe springsat thenorth-east edge of the basin may have satisfiedthe waterrequirements of some sites(e.g. U494),theywere probablynotadequatefortheenlargedpopulationofthearea. Those situatedon thejunction ofthelimestoneand schist(U496,U499,U511)could havetappedthegroundwaterwithwells, and thesame methodwas perhapsemployedin thelowerpartsof thebasinwherethe schist basementunderliesthevariousweatheredproductsofthelimestone(brecciasand terra It rossd). is possibleto speculatethatcompetition forthelimitednaturalwaterresourcesoftheNeogene

i8o Chapter5 factorin its desertionand the plateau by an increasingruralpopulationwas a contributory relocationofthepopulationin theChrysaphabasin. THE WESTERN SECTOR IN THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

theeast side oftheEurotasvalleysees a lesspronounceddeclinein site As alreadyremarked, in sitesproduceevidencefordefinite or probable numbersthan thetwootherregions;fifteen in occupationin theclassicalperiod,comparedwithtwenty thelate archaicto earlyclassical. in particular, is less extreme(fromsixteento ten), The declinein the numberof farmsteads, in ofsettlement whilethenumberofvillasremainsmoreor lessconstant.The greaterstability theland is notonlyofhighqualitybutlies withintheimmediate thissectoris notsurprising; thatthe one siteclassifiedby size as a catchmentof Sparta.There are groundsforthinking smallhamlet(H31;0.44 ha) mayhavebeen a villasiteofexceptionalsize and materialwealth. SouthoftheconfluenceoftheEurotasand Kelephina(includingone sitejust to thenorth) thereare six certainsitesof thisperiod (J212,J221,J231,K235,M172,M325)and fourmore whereclassicaloccupationis suspected(J220,J316,J369,M328).Exceptforone villa(M328),all As in thepreviousperiod,theyforma moreor lesscontinuousstringalongthe are farmsteads. betweentheKelephinaand theMenelaion.A similarbutless low schistand Neogenefoothills markedclusterof foursites lies along what was probablythe line of one of the routes road) connectingSpartaand theEurotasvalley (equivalentto themodernSparta-Chrysapha oflate archaicdate, withtheNeogeneplateauand itshinterland. Amongthesmallfarmsteads were deserted. The three seven others six at mostshowevidenceforcontinuing occupation; size are all of than farmsteads established (0.08-0.10 average (J212,J231,M172) larger newly ha). At the same time,it is perhapsno coincidencethatthe two smallestsitesof thisperiod to Spartaundoubtedly (J220;M325,0.01 ha) shouldbe locatedin thisarea, whoseproximity influenced thecharacterofitssettlement. In the area to the northof the confluenceof the two riversthereare fivesites,one more fromthepreviousperiod;the thanin theprecedingperiod.Only one (H40)showscontinuity restare new.They all lie close to the riverand are forthe mostpartspaced at moreor less ofone to one and a halfkilometres. Only one oftheseis classifiedas a small regularintervals main of habitation whose farmstead period.The rest mayfallin thehellenistic (h6o), period are probablyall villas:H34(0.21ha), H40 (0.25ha), D85/95(0.31ha), and H31(0.44ha). One of sitein the same locality. of a preexisting an enlargedcontinuation theseperhapsrepresents The inhabitants of D96 (0.06 ha) on the southside of Mt Skoura,desertedin the previous period,mayhavemovedsome200 m to thelargersiteD85/95,whoseoccupationbeganin the classicalperiodand continuedperhapsuntilthesecondcenturyThese sitesoccuron or close to the schistsoils.Three of thevillasare situatedon the terracesjust above thevalleyfloor, alluvialand colluvialsoils,whilethe farmsteadstandson the withaccess to well-developed limestonecloseto thejunctionwiththeschist.This zone seemsto havebeen one ofincreasing soilsin levelgroundfor are theexistenceoffertile affluence at thistime.Amongitsattractions the of water an inexhaustible cultivation, supply, availability perennialgrazingin theriver-bed of ofSpartaas thecentralplace,and theeasyaccessibility forcattleand horses,theproximity withintheEurotasvalleyand withmoredistantplaces theprincipallinesofcommunications in and outsideLaconia. THE NORTHERN SECTOR IN THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

and relatively This partofthesurveyarea,withitsprevailingschistformations highaltitudes, dominatedin itsnorthernmost had in theprecedingperiodbeen an area ofsparsesettlement,

Early Iron Age to classical period 181

partby the two large sitesof Sellasia (A118)and Agios Konstantinos(Bin). In the classical period the numberof siteswas reduced fromten to six. The two large sitescontinuein existenceand perhapsreachtheirgreatestextentduringthelaterfifth and fourth centuries. The southernhalfof the sectorcontinuedto be largelydevoid of settlement. The three farmsteads whichhad existedin thelate archaicperiodwereall deserted.Theywerereplaced by threenew sites(F147,G159,K141),all on a smallscale (0.03-0.06 ha). G159was situated about 400 m fromone of the desertedlate archaicfarmsteads theremay (G157),suggesting have been a relocationof the residentialcentre;both siteswere occupied in the hellenistic firstoccupiedin thelate classicalperiodand period.K141had a longhistorybeingapparently survivingthroughthe hellenisticuntil late Roman times. Like one of its abandoned predecessors(K203),it is situatedat the southerntip of the schistmassif,not farfromthe settledfootslope theSpartaplain,and anticipates theincreasing of thickly fringing importance thearea in thehellenistic period.F147is situatedin theLangáda valley,in a ratherinaccessible and remotepositionwhereno settlement had existedin the previousperiod. It is an area devotedto oliveculturein recentand moderntimes. The northpartofthesectorsees a markeddropin thenumberofsites,withall but one of the small farmsteadslocated around the base of Agios Konstantinosdeserted.No new farmsteads are established.The survivor(B103)ls m tnefertile basin ofVourliotikoi Kamboi. in thearea and, likeΒ103,originatesin thelate archaic Site C169is theonlyotherfarmstead a later period.Its remotelocationhas alreadybeen noted.TogetherwithF147it prefigures in places distantfromthemainlinesofcommunications, trendforthelocationoffarmsteads sites,theymay especiallyin theschistuplands.Assumingthattheyare permanentresidential reflect an increasedpreoccupation withself-sufficiency on thepartofsomeofthepopulation. The declinein the numberof sitesin thisarea need not be translatedintoa declinein the local populationor a large-scaleabandonmentofcultivation. Increasinginsecurity throughout the fourthcenturyin the districtson the northernbordersof Laconia is likelyto have discouraged settlementaway fromthe town sites, where protectionwas affordedby fortifications and/orgarrisons.The townof Sellasia (A118)could easilyhave absorbedthe inhabitantsof these earlier sites. Nor should it be ruled out that the fortressof Agios Konstantinos(Bin) acted eitheras a place of residenceforsome farmersor as a place of in timesofdanger. forpeopleand property, refuge, As faras can be determined fromtheevidencecollectedby thesurvey, thetownof Sellasia seemsnot to have experiencedany majorgrowthin the classicalperiod.Potteryof thisdate coversmuchthesame area as thatofthelate archaicperiod,withthemajorityfoundin areas Β (eleventypes)and C (six types).If not fortuitous, the absence of any diagnosticclassical in D area is pottery noteworthy49 perhapsindicatingsome contractionof occupationat the south-west of the site. This edge may have been compensatedforby slightexpansionat its in north-east the late classicaland hellenistic edge (area E) periods,an area wherethereis no of earlier Overall the of classical sign occupation. quantity potteryis ratherlarger,but thisis as a much reflection of the duration of the perhaps longer period as any increasein the or extent of habitation. the flat hill of the would certainlyhave been density Although top suitableand largeenoughto accommodatesome sortof civiccentre,perhapsa smallagora and temple,thereare no materialsignsforthe developmentof any communalor adminin theformof a towncultor publicbuildings.However,theirabsencecan istrative functions 49Area D has evidenceforLAr-EC1 and HI occupation.

i82 Chapterj

only remainhypotheticaluntiltestedby excavation.The earliestevidenceforuse of the occursin the fourthor third cemeteryon the north-east slope (A120),the steleof Hybrion,50 the is to have existed from the site's earliestphaseofoccupation. centurythough cemetery likely It has been arguedabove thatthefortress ofAgiosKonstantinos was establishedin thelate archaicperiod,perhapsat theend ofthesixthor,lesslikely, thebeginningofthefifth century. The surfaceremainsindicatethatitsmostintensive periodofuse was in theclassicalperiod, and fourth centuries. ofthisperiodoccursin everyarea ofthe probablyin thelatefifth Pottery siteexceptforG. The majoritycomesfromareas A (seventypes),D (ninetypes),and F (five in areas Β (threetypes),C (threetypes), types),whiletheperiodis moremodestlyrepresented Ε in and (one type).Two coins one of Sikyon,found area A beforethe survey, and one of in This evidenceforincreasing Elis,foundin area G- are bothofthefourth century51 activity the classicalperiodmakesexcellentsensein termsof Sparta'schangedcircumstances in the whenitsdecliningmilitary fourthcentury, and the emergenceofrivalpowersin the strength In a muchgreatereffort on providing forthedefenceofitsterritory. Péloponnèsenecessitated thiscontextthe stringof northernborder-forts, whichbesidesAgios Konstantinosincludes thoseat Athenaionon Mt Chelmós,Leuktron(modernLeondári),and a site near modern Kollines in the Skiritis,52 musthave assumed an increasinglyimportantrole in Spartan defensive strategy, especiallyas thecityof Spartaremainedunwalleduntilthethirdcentury.53 in It remainsunclearwhetherand in whatway thefortress was developedand strengthened thisperiod.As previously remarked,thereare late archaicto earlyclassicaltracesin all but one area ofthesite,butitcannotbe shownthattheupperand lowercitadelswerebothwalled to explainthe existenceofthetwocomponents, it could be so early.As a workinghypothesis that the was a later addition to an fort around lower citadel 500 and argued original dating thatthe mostlikelyoccasion forsuch an extensionwas the timeof Sparta's deteriorating ifnotlikelihood, The possibility, situationin thesecondquarterofthefourthcentury. military in thethirdcentury, in thatthereweresubstantial modifications particularly thelocationand formof the towers,mustalso be remembered.Whateverthe case, fromthe earlyfourth century,if not before,there was probably a permanent garrison stationed at Agios whichcould communicatewiththe otherfortsin northernLaconia as well as Konstantinos in timesofheightened and could be reinforced insecurity. Sparta PREFERRED SITE LOCATIONS

IN THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

In theprecedingperiodthesoilsfavouredforcultivation wereforemost theNeogeneclaysand to a lesserextentthe colluvialsoilsderivedfromthe schistand limestone.Accessto natural and rivers)also seemsto havebeen a significant factorin site sourcesofwater(springs, streams, In theclassicalperiodthereis clearevidencefora changein preferences locationand clustering. as a in thenumberofsites.It maybe summarized whichaccompaniedthegeneralcontraction in themarkeddecreasein theabsolute oftheNeogenesoils,reflected declinein theimportance numberand proportionof siteslocated on or close to them.At the same time,the greater 50LSii. 214no. 2. 51LSii. iq6, sf 115. 52Athenaion: Loring, 'Routes', 71-4; Pikoulas, NMX 115-17,183.Leuktron:ibid. 131-5, 183-4. Kollines:Pikoulas, 'Skiritis',140-1. 5SOn the historyof Sparta'sdefences,see A. J. B. Wace, 'The citywall', BSA 12 (1905-6),284-8; id., 'Excavationsat

Sparta,1907:thecitywalls',BSA 13(1906-7),5-16),as wellas F. Bölte in RE s.v. 'Sparta', cols 1355-60; Cartledge and Spawforth,26-7, 71, 78, 94, and mostrecentlyKourinou,

Σπάρτη,57-62.

Early Iron Age to classical period 183

for thattheirattractions soilssuggests in thenumberofsiteson theschistand limestone stability enhanced. have been and not diminished were significantly may agriculture sites,roughlyone-third (32 per cent),occuron Neogene soils,to whichtwo Only fourteen theNeogeneand schistmaybe added. The declinein thenumberofsiteson morestraddling sites deserted.Thirty-six or virtually withsomeareas entirely theNeogeneplateauis dramatic, the two in archaic and of the late six have their of which to are reduced eight, period, origins of a late archaic the continuation well one new settlements may represent (P261/264,R282) (P262).A thirdnewsite(R421),on thejunctionoftheNeogeneand schist,seemsto predecessor schistsoils.Amongtheeightare a hamlet, havebeen situatedto takeadvantageofthelow-lying theEurotas of theplateaufringing On theNeogenefootslopes twovillas,and fivefarmsteads. from thirteen to six, less extreme, valley,the reductionin the numberof sites is much on the junctionof the harmonizingmore withthe overalllevel of decline.One site (J316) bothtypesofsoil.Two ofthesites(J231, M172)are new, Neogeneand schistcouldhavecultivated fromthepreviousperiod.All butone (M328)are farmsteads, theremainder beingcontinuations and mostoftheseare ofsmallsize (0.01-0.04ha). In thisarea, so closeto Sparta,it is unlikely withthedeclinein site in thearea undercultivation thattherewas anyreduction corresponding workedfromSpartaas fromsmallsitessituatedin it. It couldbe almostas effectively numbers. There is muchgreaterstability amongthe siteslocatedon the schistsoils.Here thereis a modestdeclinefromeighteento thirteensites(30 per cent,a relativeincreasefrom relatively to above (J316, R421)on thejunctionwiththeNeogene,and two 25 per cent).If thosereferred are takenintoconsideration, more(U499,U511)occurringon thejunctionwiththelimestone, in thedistribution ofthesesites Nevertheless is further reinforced. thisimpression slightshifts in theseareas as well.The schistmassifin thenorthern sector are signsofchangedpreferences sees a declinein thelow levelof occupationthathad existedin thelate archaicperiod,from tento fivesites.The desertionofall butone ofthesitesaroundthefootofAgiosKonstantinos does not necessarilyreflectthe abandonmentof cultivationin the surroundingarea. As in thelesssecureconditionsofthefourthcenturythepopulationmayhave alreadysuggested, relocated itselfat Sellasia, fromwhere this territorywas easily accessible. A growing forthe colluvialsoils at the marginsof the schistmassifis seen in the increased preference numberand size of the sitesalong the Eurotasvalleyand at the mouthof the Kelephina,a in the hellenisticperiod. Besides these,one site (h6o) on the trendwhichdevelopsfurther limestonelowerslopesof ProphitisIlias was well situatedto exploitthe colluvialschistsoils below.Finally,a singlesite(T465)appearson theschistridgeseparatingtheNeogeneplateau fromthe Chrysaphabasin, where none had previouslyexistedbut where in subsequent smallsitesbecamemorecommon. centuries in thelate Thirteensites(30 per cent)occuron the limestonesoils,comparedwithfifteen an insignificant reductionin absolutenumbersand a marked archaicperiod,representing increasein relativeterms.Of these,one is the fortofAgios Konstantinos(Bin) and another havebeen locatedto exploitthecolluvialschistsoilsalongthe (h6o) may,as alreadysuggested, Eurotas.The remainingelevenoccur on the limestonesoils in and aroundthe Chrysapha basin,and withthemshouldprobablybe includedtwosites(U499,U511)on thejunctionofthe limestoneand schist.While the rocky,limestonemountainsidesremain uninhabited,a considerablenumberof sitesare situatedwithimmediateaccess to the soils on the lower proportionofthelargersites slopesand thefloorofthebasin.Amongtheseare a significant classifiedas hamlets(U491,U494, U511,U516,U519).The increasedpopulationimpliedby thesefigureswas mostlikelyengagedin the cultivationof cerealsand vines,forwhichthe limestonesoilsare mostsuited.

184 Chapter5 In the classicalperiod the importanceof a naturalwatersupplywould appear to have become a much less significant factorin the choice of site location. The clustersof sites aroundsprings,especiallyon the Neogene plateau,disappear.Simultaneously the available naturalsourceswouldhavebeen unableto satisfy theneedsoftheincreasednumberoflarger sitesin some of themorearid areas,thoughformanysitestheriversEurotasand Kelephina musthave remainedthe primesourceof waterforhuman and agricultural purposes.This must have been the of artificial means forstoring change development accompanied by rainwater or tappingtheground-water. OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT

IN THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

As a phenomenonof the classicalperiod,probablyno laterthanthe secondhalfof thefifth the decline in the numberof ruralsettlements, especiallyamong the categoryof century, is something farmsteads, peculiarto our surveyarea and demandsan explanationwithina increasein thenumberofmediumand large local context.Combinedwiththeproportionate fromintensivesurveyis sites,it sets it apart frommost otherregionswhere information the fifth and fourthcenturieswitnessa widespreadincreasein available.Almosteverywhere In someofthemoremarginal in theformofisolatedfarmsteads. ruralsettlement, particularly theonlyone,whenthereis areas,thisappearsto havebeen one ofthefewperiods,sometimes For southernand centralGreece in general,the climaxof evidenceforancientsettlement.54 ruralsettlement is reachedat thistime,oftencontinuingin the earlyhellenistic periodand followedby a long period of decline in the later hellenisticand earlyRoman periods.55 For example,in the Argolidthe thereis stillconsiderableregionalvariability. Nevertheless, dramaticgrowthin sitenumbersdoes not occuruntilthefourthand thirdcenturies, though In as such from the fifth some substantial increases thisis prefigured areas, century.56 by ofrural betweentheefflorescence southernArkadiaand Messenia,thereis a clearcorrelation Likewise the sharp settlementand radical alterationsin local political circumstances.57 on Melos,one ofthefewplacesto experiencedeclineratherthan reductionin ruralsettlement growth,is best understood in the context of the eliminationof its population and its replacement by an Atheniancleruchyin 415 BC,itselfexpelledtenyearslaterin 405.58In the absenceof intensivesurveydata fromotherpartsof the region,it cannotyetbe determined whetheror not the collapse in rural settlementattestedin our area occurredthroughout Laconia. At the margins,preliminaryindications fromKythera seem to suggest that coursefrominlandLaconia, withrural on the islandfolloweda ratherdifferent settlement sitesnot occurringin numbersbeforethe classicalperiod and no indicationsof any major Likewisein theThyreatisand in thepatternofsettlement century.59 duringthefifth disruption :>4Notablyin S. Euboia, in marginalland in the territory of Karystos:Keller and Wallace (n. 44); iid. (n. 22); Cherry and Davis (n. 10), 219-20. Other examples are S. Attica (Lohmann,Atene,126-248) and upland Chios (SimandoniBournia(n. 22); Lambrinoudakis (n. 22), thoughat thelatter occupationcontinuedintoHI. 55Bintliffand Snodgrass, 'Boeotian Expedition', 139; LandscapeArchaeology, 32Q-33.

5<)Roughand RockyPlace, 62-73; A. Penttinen, 'The Berbati Limnes archaeological survey:the classical and hellenisticperiods', in Wells withRunnels,BerbatiLimnes, 229 83, at 229,271;Greek 381-94,544-5 tableB.2. Countryside,

57S. Arkadia:Pikoulas,NMX 231. Messenia:Davis etai, 'Pylos Γ, 456-7; S. E. Alcock, A. Berlin, S. Gerstel, Α. Harrison,S. Heath, N. Spencer,and D. Stone, 'The Pylos RegionalArchaeologicalProject,partIV: historicMessenia, forHesp. to lateRoman',in preparation geometric s8 Wagstaffand Cherry(n. 9), 143-4; Bintliff, 'Regional survey',10. 59C. Broodbank,'KytheraSurvey:preliminary reporton the 1998 season', BSA 94 (1999), 191-214, at 213 14; C. Broodbankand A. W. Johnston, pers.comm.

Early Iron Age to classical period 185

seemsto is fromextensivesurveyruralsettlement wherethe onlyinformation itsperiphery, in classical haveincreased the period.60 Evidence

for Site Continuity

and Discontinuity

of is markedbyextremediscontinuity in thesixthcentury established The patternofsettlement mid-sixth from the in numbers siteoccupation.Manyofthesiteswhichappeared such century lessthan100years,perhapstwoto shortduration,lastingin all probability wereofextremely at thislevel, Whilethepotterydoes not allowmuchrefinement of a family. threegenerations can be there betweenlate archaicand earlyclassicalis oftenhardto make, and thedistinction littledoubt thatthe majorityof sitesdid not survivelong afterthe mid-fifth century.This patternof abandonmentis mostextremeamong the bottomcategoryof ruralsites.Of the late archaic-earlyclassicalsitesnotedabove, nine (M194,M322,N312,P268,P278, sixty-four century, T512,U531,U3003,U3006)did notsurvivebeyondtheend ofthesixthor theearlyfifth whileanotherthirty-nine centurybeforebeing may have continuedas long as the mid-fifth out ofsixty-four, ofthetotal(forty-eight deserted.Three-quarters 75 per cent)weredesertedby out of ofcases (forty-one ifnotearlier.In thevastmajority thesecondhalfofthefifth century, there these Besides record of or had no sites these occupation. subsequent previous forty-eight) is in classical the date whose terminal sites are a further uncertain, period (13 per cent) eight someor all ofwhichmaynot have outlivedthefifth centuryOnly fivesitescan be shownto intothe continueintothefourth J221, M325,R526),noneofthemsurviving (B103,C169, century occurs for hellenistic evidence sites At three hellenistic occupation (C114,G157,J219) period. thatall but one of these afteran apparentbreakin thelaterclassicalperiod.It is noteworthy long-livedfarmsteadsare located eitherin the northpart of the surveyarea or in the low sector the east side of the Eurotasvalleyclose to Sparta.The south-eastern groundfringing most areas the and the basin, denselyoccupiedin the Chrysapha comprising Neogeneplateau totalbreak in the an almost have to seems late archaic settlement experienced explosion, sites farmstead small of (theexceptionbeingR526). occupation is less extremebut stillsevere.Of the seventeenvilla Amongthe largersitesdiscontinuity of the sixth the end is deserted one sites, centuryand six more(44 per centin total)share by withfourothersdesertedat some uncertain the same fatebeforeor soon afterthe mid-fifth, six sites thatmakeup theremainder(U490,U491, of the On three in classical the period. point of an unbroken is there sequence occupationinto the hellenisticperiod,one (U490) U499) into late antiquityand another (U491) showing signs of significant apparentlylasting is foundafteran At two (J213,T471),hellenisticresettlement in this phase. enlargement was deserted The sixth in later classical the bytheend ofthe (S437/440) period. apparentgap the two ranked as four sites the Even fourth hamlets, (P272, largest;S524)were among century desertedbythesecondhalfofthefifth However,theothertwo(R281,U494)continue century. two largesites(A118,Bin) continueintothe The to be inhabitedintothe hellenistic period. in immuneto the factorswhichcaused so muchinstability thirdcenturyand wereevidently of Geladari is true the same its Whatever otherpartsofthesettlement nature, (H45) hierarchy. ofone sortor anotherlastingintolateantiquity. withactivities Discontinuitycontinuesto be a featureof the later fifthand fourthcenturiesand the transitionto the hellenisticperiod,if not quite as dramaticas before.Among the greatly 60Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2110-29,s^tesat Marmarálona,Tarmíri,Lépida, Koutrí,and Lákkes.

i86 Chapter5 are continuations oflatearchaic-early fewerthanhalf(thirteen) reducednumberoffarmsteads, Of intothehellenistic none ofwhichsurvives classicalpredecessors, period. theotherfourteen and five more newsites,one (N409)is desertedduringthefifth Q231,R282,U496,U500, century sector.Six oftheeight all butone ofthemin thesouth-eastern U506)by theend ofthefourth, in sectors.A the west or northern are located siteswhichcontinueintothe hellenistic period a number of whichlast the noted has been of among largersites, greaterdegree longevity already the ten classical of fromthe late archaicintothe hellenistic villas,mostare period.However, the preceding from four that continued desertedby the end of the fourthcentury, including It is a had the new classical villas of one new and three sites;only longerhistory. (D85/95) period of the one with of is a hamlets that in of only greaterdegree stability found, only thecategory the hellenistic to last into a seven(H31,itself period. probably largevilla)failing is to be expected among small sites,where the establishmentand While discontinuity is likelyto havebeen governedin partby individualfamily ofruralinstallations abandonment in ourpartofLaconiawhen extreme itsoperationseemsto havebeenunusually circumstances,61 In surveyedregions. Boiotiathereseemsto have been comparedwithmostotherintensively of Likewisein northern in theoccupationofsmallsites.62 muchgreaterstability Keos, continuity The sameapplies occupationfromthelatearchaicto theend oftheclassicalperiodis normal.63 to the farmsestablishedin southernAtticafromthe late sixthcenturyuntiltheiruniversal was in Even on Melos,whereruralsettlement abandonmentearlyin the hellenistic period.64 theclassicalperiod,continuing occupation through gradualdeclinefromthelatersixthcentury was verylargelyconfinedto siteswheretherehad been an earlierGeometricand/orarchaic is foundon the Methana peninsula,especially A greaterdegreeof discontinuity presence.65 is stillgreaterthanin Laconia.66 sitelongevity amongsitesin themarginaluplands,butgenerally itsseverity In thesouthern Argoliditis foundin a moreacuteform,morecloselyapproximating therathergradualincreasein of occupationhad characterized in Laconia. Whereascontinuity morethanhalfof sitenumbers century duringthearchaicand classicalperiods,inthelaterfourth a numberofvillagesites,weresuddenlyabandonedand replacedby a massof these,including More mostofwhichdo notlastbeyondthemid-third smallto mediumfarmsteads, century.67 of in marginalland in the territory burstof ruralsettlement dramaticstillis the short-lived in fifth the later no more than century.68 years twenty-five Karystos, perhapslasting one findswhatappearsto be a general In attempting to accountforthesevaryingpatterns, and stability correlation and, on the other,the steady between,on the one hand,continuity thereis an apparentcorrelation increasein sitenumbers(as in Boiotiaand Keos). Conversely, between discontinuityand instabilityand the sudden burstsof settlementgrowththat characterizeour part of Laconia in the late archaic-earlyclassical period, the southern is The degreeof instability and Karystosin the late fifth. Argolidin thelate fourthcentury, increasedwhenmuchoftheland beingsettledis ofmarginalquality,as in thecase of further our area, partsof Methana, and Karystos.The prospectsof long-termsurvivalforlarge enhancedin regionssuchas Boiotiaand Melos,where weregreatly numbersofsmallfarmsteads was of farbetterquality.Also the economicor demographic theland availableto the settlers 61T. M. Whitelaw,'The of recentrural ethnoarchaeology settlementand land use in northwestKeos', in Landscape 403^54. Archaeology,

62BintlifFand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139. 63Whitelaw.'Colonisation'(n. 22),22Q-30. 64Lohmann,Atene, 136-84.

65Wagstaffand Cherry(n. 9), 143-4. 66Roughand RockyPlace, 66-q, 74. 67 ClrppkCmmtrvKinp. q8t-q

QO/i

68Kellerand Wallace (n. 22; n. 44); Cherryand Davis (n. 10),219-20.

Early Iron Age to classical period 187

pressuresthatgave rise to theseburstsof site expansionare likelyto have been specificto shortduration.In thespecificcase of Laconia,wherethereis a particular periodsofrelatively betweensmallsitesizeand increasedlevelsofdiscontinuity, it roughly proportionate relationship is tempting to adduce the exceptionally smallsize of manyof the farmstead sitesas a further factor. Evenwhenallowanceis madefortheeffects oferosionon theappearanceof contributory sitesin some of the moreunstableNeogenelandscapes,comparedwithothersurveyedareas ourscan be seento containan abnormally largenumberofsmallsites(< 0.1ha). Site Classification

and Function

In theprecedingsectionstherehas been a fundamental assumptionthatthe siteswithinthe area wereplacesofpermanent settlement concernedwith survey bya ruralpopulationprimarily Whiletherecan be no doubtthatthelargestsiteshouldbe classified as a village,and agriculture. whilethoserankedas hamletsprobablyconformed to thisassumption, itcannotbe automatically assumedthatthesamewas trueofthesmallersites.As partofthedebateoverthenatureofsuch sitesin otherpartsofGreece,ithas beenarguedthatin someregionstheyfunctioned as basesfor seasonalagricultural or as storehouses forproduceand equipment, but thatthevast activities, whethercities majorityof thepopulationlivedformostof theyearin nucleatedsettlements, in distinguishing The difficulties betweensitesofthiskind (πόλεις)or villages(δήμοι,κώμαι).69 and placesofpermanent residenceon thebasisofarchaeological evidenceare considerable, and itis possiblethatnotevenexcavation couldsatisfactorily settlethematter.70 The onlyavenueopen to us forassessing thebasiccharacter ofthesesitesand someoftherangeofactivities performed at themis to analysetheevidenceofthematerialassemblages. The categoriesof materialused forthisanalysisare the following. Tile, usuallythe most abundantartefact on sitesofthisperiod,is takento indicatetheexistenceofroofedstructures, froma shedto an extensivevilla.The potterydivides thoughthesemighthavebeen anything into three basic functionalcategories: table wares associated with the serving and consumptionof food and drink,wares connected with food preparation(cookingpots, 69Osborne has been the principal and most eloquent advocateofthisview:R. G. Osborne,Demos:TheDiscovery of ClassicalAttika(Cambridge,1985),15-36; id., 'Buildingand residenceon theland in classicaland hellenistic Greece: the contribution ofepigraphy', BSA 80 (1985),119 28; id. (n. 37), 22-5, 53-74, 113-30;id., Is it a iarmr lhe definitionof agriculturalsites and settlementsin ancient Greece', in Wells, Agriculture, 21-5. The notion has attracted wide criticism:e.g. J. Roy, 'Demosthenes 55 as evidence for isolated farmsteadsin classical Attica', Liverpool Classical in classical Monthly, 13 (1988),57-60; id., 'The countryside Greekdrama,and isolatedfarmsin dramaticlandscapes',in Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes, 98-118; M. Brunei, 'Contributionà l'histoire rurale de Délos aux époques classique et hellénistique',BCH 114 (1990), 669-82; id., 'Campagnes de la Grèce antique: les dangers du prisme athénien',Topoi,2 (1992),33-51; H. Lohmann,Agriculture and countrylife in classical Attica', in Wells,Agriculture, 29-57; Lohmann,Atene,136; R. Charre,M.-T le Dinahet, and V. Yannouli, 'Vestiges antiques de Rhénée', in R. dans les Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches Cyclades:résultatsdes travauxde la RCP 583 (Collection de la

Maison de l'OrientMéditerranéen, 23, sériearchéologique, 13;Lyonand Paris,1993),123-42,at 131-2; Penttinen (n. 56), 278-9; J. Forsénand B. Forsén,'The polis of Asea: a casestudyof how archaeologycan expand our knowledgeof the historyof a polis', in CPC Papers4, 163-76,at 172-4.For a generalsurveyof agricultural buildings,see S. Isager and J. E. Skydsgaard, AncientGreekAgriculture: An Introduction (London

and New York,1992),67 82. 7(1Most cogently argued by Whitelaw ('Ethnoarchaeological study'(n. 22), 168-9; 'Colonisation'(n. 22), 230), for whom the distinctionbetween residential,whether seasonalor permanent,and non-residential sites(e.g. stores, animal pens, processing facilities) is of much greater in our understanding of the mechanicsof land significance use. However, see J. F. Cherry,'Regional surveyin the Aegean:the"newwave" (and after)',in P. N. Kardulias(ed.), BeyondtheSite:RegionalStudiesin theAegeanArea (Lanham, Md.,

New York, and London, 1994), 91-112, at 96-7, on the potential contributionof archaeological science to this debate. On the basis of soil chemistry, Bintliff (n. 8), 21-2, argues thatmost small ruralsiteswere probablyplaces of permanentratherthanseasonaloccupation.

i88 Chapter^ mortars, strainers, basins),and storagevessels(primarily pithoiand transport amphoras).Among the otherartefacts,loom-weightsdeservespecial attentionas primafacieevidenceforthe manufacture ofclothand also forthepresenceofwomen.Grinding-stones, stonemortars, and otherstonetoolsare also instructive as evidenceforactivities connectedwiththeprocessing of food.The widerthe rangeof categoriesat each site,the morelikelyit is thattheyrepresent residential wheretheyare considered In tobe ofshortduration. locations, permanent particularly thecase of thepottery, thenumberof typeswithineach categoryand the absolutenumberof sherdsmayalso serveas measuresoftheintensity of activity, thoughit is recognizedthatthese ofsurfaceconditions and sitepreservation. Atthesametime, figures maybe as mucha reflection an analysisofthiskindmayrevealspecial-function sites(suchas graves,stores,and workshops) of certaincategories of artefact. A basicworking is through atypicalconcentrations assumption thatthewidestrangeofcategories and thelargestnumberofexampleswouldoccuron thelargest and longest-lived sites,whilethe reversewouldbe expectedforthe smallestand shortest-lived sites.The detailsaresetoutinTABLE as follows. 5.3,buttheresults maybe summarized Boththelargesiteshavethefullrangeoffunctional witha notablevariety oftypes categories, and absolutenumbersof storagevessels.Weavingequipmentis foundat both,somewhat in thecase ofthefortofAgiosKonstantinos. Atall butone oftheninehamletsites,a surprisingly similardiversity occurs.Combinedwiththeirsize,it leaveslittledoubtthatthesewereplacesof a permanentresidence.The exception(U516)maybe explainedby itshavingbeen primarily hellenistic site,withonlylimitedoccupationin thelateclassicalperiod.Of theothereight,four LSNo.

Size (ha)

Date

Tableware

Foodprep.

Loom-

Storage

Stonetools

Tile

weights

no. of type types sherds Villages/forts(2) Bin 6.0 Ai 18 3.0

LAr-EHl LAr EH1

Hamlets/large villas (9)

U511 P272 U516 R281 S524 U519 U494 H31 U491

1.81 1.37 1.08 0.75 0.63 0.60 0.50 0.44 0.40

Cl-Hl LAr-ecl Cl-R LAr-Hl Lar-ECl Cl-Hl LAr-Hl Cl LAr-Hl

P271

0.31 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20

Cl-Hl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr/Cl LAr LAr-Hl LAr-Cl Lar-ECl Cl LAr-Hl LAr-cl LAr-Cl

no. of type type sherds types sherds 8

48 25

126 33

13 9

16 18

4 7

12

30 13 6 31 36 8 5

69 28 6 62 81 9 9

13

21

4 2

7 3

9

I0

4

5

4 3 5 2

5 6

5 8

5 " 6 4

2

2

7

9

4

6

17 19

21

34

Villas/clusters of farmsteads(20)

D85/95 S458 S527 M328 R275-7 U499 H40 M347 H34 T471 P285

no. of types

l7

31

19

42

2

2

35

77

25 8

40 11

5

6

4 !3

6 l7

2

2

6 7

2

2

3

7 12 2

2

4

10 10

10

15

1

1

2

1

I

2

2 2 I

2 2 I

1

2

1

no. of types

total (près./ types abs.)

2 2

1

1

3

2

3

2 1 1 2

2

2

I

I

3

3

1

I

I I

I

2

1

1

I

3 9

5 "

I

I

I

I I

2 I

2

I

2

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Early Iron Age to classical period 18 LSNo.

Size (ha)

Date

Tableware

Foodprep.

Loom-

Storage

Stonetools

Tile

weights no. of

type sherds

no. of

type sherds

no. of

types

36 173 6

9

11

3

4 3

6

3

9 6

3

3

14 8

26 11

4 6

1

1

8

12

4

5 7 4

3

3

3 9 4 4 3 6

3 I0

1

1

4

5

3 1

3 1

2

I

I

1

I

2 I

2 I

I

I

1 2

types S437/40 U490 A3014 5433 J213 P261/4 R420 R421

0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15

LAr-LCl LAr-R LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-Hl Cl LAr-ECl Cl

Single farmsteads(78) lar N312 0.14 LAr-ECl J224 0.13 LAr-ECl 0.12 N314 0.1 1 LAr/Cl U3022 Cl-hl 0.1 1 U520 0.10 LAr/Cl J369 Μ172 0.10 Cl-Hl LAr-ECl 0.10 N354 LAr-Hl C114 0.09 Cl-Hl J212 0.09 LAr-ECl M171 0.09 LAr-ECl N185 0.09 0.08 LAr-ECl D301 0.08 LAr-ECl H29 0.08 Cl J231 0.08 LAr-ECl J230 0.08 LAr-LCl R526 Cl 0.08 U506 Lar-LCl B103 0.07 h6o Cl-Hl 0.07 LAr/Cl J316 0.07 LAr-Cl K235 0.07 LAr-ECl P274 0.07 LAr EC1 R294 0.07 LAr/Cl 0.07 S523 0.06 LAr-ECl D96 0.06 Cl-Hl G159 N188 0.06 LAr-ECl 0.06 LAr EC1 5434 LAr-LCl C169 0.05 LAr M322 0.05 LAr-ECl N503 0.05 LAr EC1 N184 0.05 LAr-ECl N187 0.05 P262 LAr-ECl 0.05 LAr-ECl R473 0.05 LAr-ECl R518 0.05 LAr-Cl S431/2 0.05 LAr-ECl S459/60 0.05 LAr-ECl 5508 0.05 lar EC1 U517 0.05 Cl U500 0.05 Β107 LAr EC1 0.04 G157 LAr-EHl 0.04 LAr-LCl J221 0.04 LAr-ECl 0.04 K203 Lar-ECl 5509 0.04

23 36 4 6 4

5 6

5 6 3 7 5 6 "

2

2

2

2

1

I

2 1

2 I

2

2

8

9 4

15

45 24 37

7 4

7 4

4

12 2 11

18

9 5 3 6 5 5 3 2

22 16 2

1

5 3 8 6 5 3 2

4

types

type sherds 3

1

I

I

I

2

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

2

1

2 1

4

2

I

2 1

I

2 I

I

1

I

3

2

2 2

2

5 17

17 4 14 8

3

24

2

2

2 1

2 I

17

25

40

5 8

7 8

7 13 9 5 4

7 33 15 9 5

2

2

3

5

1

1

2

2

9 5

1

1

1

3 3 3

11

1

4

2

2

2

1

3 2

10 11

types

2

4

5 4 11

total

types

2

19 2

2

no. of

2

II

I

I

17 7

16

21

8 20

13 38

I

I

3

5

I

I

4

4

5

8

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

ο

2

20

(près./ abs.)

2 I

I

1

6 I

I

3 I

I

I

X X X X X X X X X X X

igo Chapter5 LSMo.

Size (ha)

Date

Tableware

Foodprep.

Loom-

Storage

Stonetools

Tile

weights no. of types U493 B121

F147 P279 R282 T512 U496 U531 U3006 N183 P268 T443 T465 U3001 U3024 J219 J22O K2OO M194 M325 N409 N193 P273 P286 P278 R427 S442 T484 U3OO3 J223 R461

0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI

LAr-ECl LAr-EGl Cl-Hl LAr-ECl Cl LAr Cl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr Lar-ECl LCl-hl LAr-ECl LAr-Cl lar-ehl LAr/Cl LAr-ECl ear-LAr LAr-LCl EC1 LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl Lar-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl

10 7 3

8 8 15 3 6

*3 8 10 2 3 7 13 3 3 7 13 12

3

type sherds

14

16

no. of type type sherds types sherds 1 10 2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

3

3

I

I

I

I

3

3

5 4

6 4

I

I

I

I

2 2 1

2 2 I

2

2

2

2

no. of

total

types

types

3

5

11 10 24 3 7 25 18

13 3 3 9 28 3 5 8 27 15

6

7

12

6

8

3 12

4 15

4

no. of types 6

4

2

1

5 2

2

1

1

1

1

2

I

I

1

I

2

2

I

I

7

2

1 I

2 I

3

3

I 2 3 3 8 4 19 4 6
(près./ abs.)

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

in theclassicalperiod,haveall thefunctional sites(H31,S524,11511, U519),threeofwhichoriginate stone tools. occursat twooftheremainder (R281,U494) Weavingequipment categories, including whichmight and a thirdhas stonetools(U491).The lastsite(P272)lacksboththesecategories, function belowforitand itscloseneighbour accordwellwiththespecializedpastoralist suggested (P285).In mostcases thereis a diverserangeof tablewares,cookingwares,and othertypes different as well as storagevessels.On average,twenty-nine associatedwithfoodpreparation, of this to ceramictypesoccuron sites sherdsattributable ceramictypesand fifty-three class, between variationfromsiteto site.Thereis no obviouscorrelation thoughthereis considerable thesequantities and thedurationoftheiroccupation,as is shownby thecase ofS524.This site inhabited forlessthanone hundredyears,yetitproducedthegreatest was short-lived, apparently reflects ofpottery and quantity varying types.It is perhapsmorelikelythatsuchdiversity diversity levelsofprosperity amongsitesofthisclass,thoughdue allowancemustalso be madeforvarying fromsiteto site. surfaceconditions on thetwenty villasites.Theyare at Rathergreatervariationis foundamongtheassemblages is fromthevillageand hamletsitesbythefactthatthefullrangeofcategories once differentiated sites(65 per cent). neverfoundto occur.The threemainceramicgroupsare foundon thirteen two stonetools,suggesting thata Four of theseproducedweavingequipmentand a further was carriedout at thesesitesto thatperformed at themajority of comparablerangeofactivities

Early IronAge to classicalperiod 191 thehamlets.Fiveofthesesites(D85/95,R275-7,S437/440,S458,U499)also yieldedan impressive ofceramictypes,comparableto whatoccurson therichesthamletsites.A rangeand quantity be assumedto rankwiththisgroup;itsrichassemblageis in sixth(U490)cannotautomatically of the more intensive a reflection strategy adoptedforsamplingthesite.This finding largepart of at least some of thisclassofsiteas theresidences ofwealthy tendsto supporttheinterpretation estates.R275-7is a prominent whenitsshort families locatedon theircountry example,especially tableamphoras,and The numberofcraters, durationis takenintoconsideration. cups,hydrias, morethan leaveno doubtthatthiswas something othershapesassociatedwithdiningceremony to Sparta,producedonlytable Two sites(H40,J213),bothin closeproximity a simplefarmstead. waresand threemoresites(R420,S433,T471)failedto produceanyevidenceforstorage,though The case forregarding these weavingequipmentand stonetoolswerefoundat twoofthelatter. as placesofpermanentresidenceis weaker,especiallywhen sites,thetwoformerin particular, combinedwiththe relativepovertyof the ceramictypesand theirquantities.On average sherdsattributed to types U490),seventeendifferent potterytypesand twenty-seven (excluding fromtheaverageisverywide. occuron sitesin thisclass,thoughvariation There is a clear differencebetweenthe threeprecedingclasses of settlementand the sites.On all but one (R473)thepresenceof tileindicatesthe existenceof a roofed farmstead fewhave all threeceramicgroups,let alone the full structure or structures. Comparatively occur on twenty-one out of seventy-eight sites(27 per of functional They categories. range smaller than the villas. These sitesare not a twenty-one cent), significantly proportion among between the three main sectors. the northern sector is the most distributed Although evenly in five of its eleven farmsteads this The mostlikely settled, (45 per cent)belong group. sparsely in lies their remote where for were fewerand locations, opportunities exchange explanation Elevensites access to local marketswas limited,placinggreateremphasison self-sufficiency. (43 per cent)by tablewaresand (14 per cent)are represented onlyby tablewares,thirty-two and eleven used for food (14 per cent)by tablewaresand storagevessels. preparation, types betweentheseoccurrencesand sitesize.Ten ofthesiteswithall three There is no correlation ceramicgroupsare 0.04 ha or less (threebeingamongthe smallest,0.01 ha). Some of these also havea largevarietyand numberofpotterytypes,equal to or greaterthantheaveragefor thevillas(notablyN503,P262,R526,S431-2,S509,T512,U493,U506),suggesting thataffluence and prosperity werenotconfinedto thelargersites.The concentration ofsitesofthistypein thesouth-eastern sectoris also noteworthy. On farmstead sitestheaveragenumberofceramic is the total of sherds attributed to average types 9.6, types14.On fiveofthesiteswithall three ceramicgroups,eitherweavingequipment(D96, U493) or stonetools(P279,R526,U506) are also present;bothare foundtogether on twomoresites(S509,U520)whereone oftheceramic is Their occurrence lends furtherweightto the belief that these were groups missing. residential sites.Overall,weavingequipmentis foundon eightsites(10 per cent),stonetools on nine(10 per cent).Loom-weights are notfoundon any sitesmallerthan0.04 ha, and are associated with at least two of the functionalceramicgroups:two (D96, U493), as always have all and three each have tablewaresand storagevessels(J230,M171, three, alreadynoted, or table wares and used for food preparation(K235,N188,S509). Stone tools U520) types ha occur on sites of or with a fewon sitesas smallas 0.02 ha (P279,S509, more, 0.07 mostly in With one occur association with at least two of the ceramic U3024). exception,they three as have all three,four(P274,S509,U3022, (P279,R526,U506), alreadynoted, categories; have table wares and used for food and one (U520)has tablewares U3024) types preparation, and storagevessels.The one exceptionis theunusualsiteB103,whichhas an impressive array offinewaresbutno cookingwaresor pithoi.In total,thereare thirty sites(39 per cent)where

192 Chapter5

eitherthe fullrange of ceramic categoriesor two ceramic categoriesand eitherweaving equipmentor stone tools are found.These are likelyto have been residentialsites.The elementof chancein surfaceretrieval, and the likelihoodthatcertaincategoriesof relatively value as and stonemortars)were removedin antiquity, high (such pithoi,grinding-stones, that this should be taken as a minimum suggest figureand thatsome, if not most,of the sites were of the same status. The same typeof siteassemblageshave remainingforty-seven been observedin otherintensive and haveled to a similarconclusionthatmostsitesof surveys thiskindare likelyto havehad a residential whetherpermanentor seasonal.71 function, The argumentforbelievingthatin the majorityof cases thesesitesshouldbe regardedas theirinhabitants' primeplace of residenceis strengthened by our knowledgeof thepolitical and socio-economic conditionsthatexistedin archaicand classicalLaconia. Althoughurban residencemay have been obligatoryforthe Spartanélite,who may also have been barred fromagricultural work,forthe restof the populationthe politicaland social advantagesof For the Spartanélitetherewere livingin the citywereweakerthanin manyotherregions.72 both economicand securitybenefitsin havingthe helotswho workedtheirland settledin notonlydid itallowan intensive but dispersedfarmsteads; agricultural regimeto be practised, it also reducedtheriskofrevolt.Fromthehelotpointofview,residenceon theland mayhave been compulsoryand would have affordedtheirbest chance of materialimprovement. The rest of the free,landowningpopulation, both perioikoi and inferiorSpartans,who were excludedfromtheranksofthepoliticalélite,mayhavebeen similarly motivatedto pursuethe economicadvantagesofresidenceon theland. The small numberof siteswhich apparentlyserveda different functiondeservesome attention.Only one (R456) has an assemblagewhich differsradicallyfromthe standard It consistsentirely of tile,forming a verydensescatter(up to no fragments per composition. a over ha. It is to have been servedas a 0.02 sq m) unlikely place ofresidence,and presumably storeor animalenclosure.A similardensityoftile(up to 80 per sq m) occursat P274,whereit is combinedwithscarcetablewares.However,the occurrenceof a fineset of stonegrinders seemsto be indicativeofa morecomplexfunction.73 B103,a comparativelylong-livedsite,has alreadybeen noted forits large varietyand numberof table wares and its correspondinglack of typesused forfood preparationor ofSellasiasuggests partsofthecatchment storage.Whileitslocationin one ofthemostfertile it may have been an agriculturalinstallation,used by people whose place of permanent ancientroutes residencewas in thevillage,itsproximity to theline ofone ofthehypothetical betweenSpartaand Sellasia suggestsitspurposemayhave been morespecialized.The most is thatit was a small sanctuary, obviouspossibility perhapslocated at the borderbetween minor rituals were perhaps routinelypractised.A and where Spartiateterritory Sellasia, a vase adds to this of miniature weight suggestion. fragment Sites on the east side of the Eurotas, immediatelyadjacent to ancient Sparta, might The threemostobvious(M171,M172,M194) be expectednotto havebeen residential. naturally in M notable a mixed otherwise havingsome earlyarchaicsherds,is very present picture. 194, small (0.01 ha) but has a large numberand varietyof finewares, as well as some types 71 e.g. Landscape Archaeology,337; Lohmann, Atene,45-6;

GreekCountryside, 383-5; Penttinen(n. 56), 279; D. Gill, L. Methana', Foxhall,and H. Bowden,'Classicaland hellenistic in RoughandRocky Place,62-76, at 67; Forsénand Forsén(n. 'Colonisation'(n. 22),231-2. 6g), 172;Whitelaw,

72See Osborne(n. 37),113-36,on thecontrasting of effects patterns. differing politicalconditionson residential π LS'ii. 178,no. 6 c.

Early Iron Age to classical period 193

connectedwithfoodpreparation.Here, too,theremayhave been a smallsanctuary, perhaps sitedon or close to one oftheancientroadson theeastbankoftheriver,thoughnone ofthe finewareshas obviouscultassociations.The othertwoare larger(0.09 and 0.10 ha). M171has a smallquantityand rangeoftablewaresand some storagevessels,as wellas a loom-weight, function. a residential M172has onlya smallnumberoftablewares,though perhapsindicating the hellenistic material.A similarpictureis presentedby cookingapparatusis presentamong further north(J223, threesitesslightly J230,J369).J223is tiny(< 0.01 ha) but has a moderate withitsoriginal conflicting rangeof tablewaresand typesconnectedwithfoodpreparation, Its smallsize and thevarietyofmaterialsuggestit was as a destroyed identification tile-grave. installation or rubbishpit.J230(0.08 ha), like M171,has an morelikelya smallagricultural rangeand quantityof tablewaresand storagevesselsbut also a loom-weight. impoverished is further indicatedby the ancientwall whosetop is The existenceof a builtstonestructure thatthiswas somethingmore visiblein the trackcrossingthe centreof the site,suggesting witha modestrangeand store.J369(0.10ha) is rathersimilar, thanan agricultural substantial two backfromtheriver, varietyoftablewaresand storagevessels.To thesouthand setfurther villa sites(M328,M347),one ofwhichhas the fullrangeof ceramictypesand a loom-weight, within establishments provideevenmorecompellingevidenceforthe existenceof residential fromtheriver. ofSparta,lessthanone kilometre theimmediateenvirons Evidence

for Differential

Prosperity

The two middlegroupsin the settlement patternhave, forthe sake of convenience,been labelledas 'hamlets'and 'villas'.Althoughtheseare termsderivedfromnon-Greekcultures, theyare used to describesimilaror parallelphenomena.The term'hamlet'has been adopted of householdswhose inhabitants were engagedin farming to referto smallagglomerations in little or no internal social which there was probably and hierarchyor communal Dependingon the numberof householdsincluded,theymightbe expectedto organization. rangein sizefromabout0.4 to 1.5ha; thisassumesan area of0.1 ha per household(wellabove and a populationof betweenthreeand tenhouseholds theaveragesize of smallfarmsteads), individuals).'Villa' is used to describea singlelarge farmhouseor (perhapstwelveto fifty clusterofruralinstallations, concernedwiththeagricultural ofan estate primarily exploitation but possiblyalso theplace of residenceof itswealthyowner.Their size cannotbe estimated withgreat confidence,but is suggestedto have been distinctlylargerthan the ordinary farmsteads, perhapscoveringtwoto threetimestheirarea (roughly0.15-0.30ha). It cannot, be assumedthattheselabelstrulyreflect thefunction ofall thesitesincludedin these however, factor.Although categories,especiallywheresize has been used as the only discriminant sitesize cannotbe used to distinguish betweenthetwoby itself.The largestvillas important, maywellhave been of equal or greaterextentthanthe hamlets(as alreadysuggestedin the case ofH31),whilethesmallestagglomerations ofhouseholdscouldwellbe classedamongthe villas.Withthe data availableto us, the onlyothermeans of distinguishing betweenthe two in the materialassemblageor groupsis by lookingforsignsof abnormallevelsofprosperity forlargenumbersof storagevessels,eitheror bothofwhichmight,a priori, be consideredto indicate the presence of wealthylandownersconcerned, among other things,with the accumulationof substantialagricultural surpluses.Hamlet sites,as definedabove,mightbe expectedto replicatein largerquantitiesthetypesof assemblagesfoundon smallfarmsteads. Ceramic formsassociated with symposiasticceremony,especially craters,dinoi, table as well as more elaborateshapes such as stamnoi, amphoras,and stemmedcups (kylikes),

194 Chapter5

flasks,and certainvarietiesof hydria,may plausiblybe correlatedwitha certaindegreeof To thesecategoriesmaybe added decoratedpottery, whoseraritywithintherural prosperity. elsewhere.74 Nor should it be assumed that affluencewas assemblages has been noted restricted to theselargersites.As alreadyobserved,someofthesitesclassified amongthesmall farmsteadsshow everysignof prosperity by the measureadopted above. However,forthe the mostaffluent of the suggestedindicatorsare sites,concentrations purposeof identifying ofsites. requiredratherthanthesingleexampleswhichcould,and do, occuron themajority Among the sites classifiedby size as hamlets,S524 stands out forthe quantityof its as wellas forthenumberofstoragevessels.Less conspicuous,butstill indicatorsofprosperity, are H31,R281and U491,thoughonlyon R281are storagevesselsat all numerous. impressive, All fourcould be proposedas large'villas'controlling extensiveestates.Amongtheotherfive numerous.One ofthese thereare fewsignsof affluence, thoughstoragevesselsare relatively in date,withonlya small (U516)has alreadybeen suggestedto have been mainlyhellenistic have a late classicalcomponent.Two more (U494,U519),besideslackingsignsof prosperity, categories. relatively impoverished rangeof ceramictypescoveringall threemain functional U511mayalso be classedwiththesesites,as themajorityofitsceramictypescome fromareas as shrines(A iv and D). P272also lacksclearevidenceforprosperity identified and, tentatively a ceramic it should be has modest of its size, range types; probably grouped considering large be identified as hamletsin the sensedefined withthe otherfour.These sitesmay tentatively above,occupiedbyhouseholdsofmodestwealth. One site,R275-7,standsout among those classifiedby size as villas. It has numerous indicatorsof wealth,as well as an impressivearrayof ceramic typesand more than the in the sampling reinforced averagenumberof storagevessels.This impressionwas further carriedoutbytheLaconia RuralSitesProjectin 1994,whichproduceda late seventh-century bronzedress-pin(ofa typefamiliaramongthe pins dedicatedto ArtemisOrthia)as well as cratersand tableamphoras.As none ofthepotterycan be moreexamplesofstirrup-handled thepin mustbe assumedto have been an antiqueat the datedbeforetheearlysixthcentury, all theevidencepointsto its timeofitsdeposition.Unlessthissitehad some specialfunction, a been the residence of wealthyfamily. having Sevenmoresites(D85/95,P261/264,S437/440,S458,T471,U490,U499)havea minimumof all exceptone (T471)havinga wide rangeof ceramic threeor moreindicatorsof prosperity, numbersof storage Three of them (D85/95, S437/440,U499) also have significant types. vessels.To thisnumbershouldprobablybe added P271and S527.75 They maybe classedwith villas. as R275-7 likely but have a fairrangeof types.Two of these Four siteslack clear evidenceforprosperity and mightbetterbe of the size fall at the bottom rangeof the Villa' category, (R420,R421) The fourth(P285)is A is third the farmsteads. (S433) only slightlylarger. groupedamong situatedlessthan100m NWofthehamletP272,fromwhichit is separatedby a shallowgully. Similaritiesin the characterand date of the ceramic assemblagesat P272 and P285 may oflarge as partsofone settlement indicatethatthetwoshouldperhapsbe consideredtogether hamlettype.Their locationat the footof Koutsovitiand close to the Sophronigorgemight 74LS ii. 86. 75P271was largelydestroyed in theconstruction ofthenew Sparta -Chrysapha road before the survey began. Its existencehad been noted earlier,when a rim of a stirruphandled craterwas noted among an extensivescatterof

The sherdscollectedfromS527 were unfortunately pottery. mislaidbeforetheycouldbe studiedin detail.Sitenotesrefer ofother craterand fragments to therimofa stirrup-handled largeblack-glazedvessels.

Early Iron Age to classical period 195

concernedwiththe managementof indicatethattheywere large installations alternatively flocksofsheepor goats. The othersix sitesin thisclass (A3014,H34,H40,J213,M328,M347)are moreimpoverished in theirceramicassemblages,lackingevidenceforaffluenceand havinga limitedrangeof eitherto Sparta (sitesin zones H, J, types.A commonfactoramongthemis theirproximity installations suchas thesewere thatlargeagricultural and M) or Sellasia (zone A), suggesting inhabitants are likelyto or not. The of their nottheplace of residence owners,wealthy only or absence of that worked the land. The have been the labourforce storagevessels scarcity in rather thanon the was stored or Sellasia produce Sparta mayalso indicatethatagricultural estates. is notconfinedto thelargersitesbutis foundon a As alreadystated,evidenceforaffluence sitesofall sizes.Nine,rangingin size from0.08 to 0.01 ha, havethreeor numberoffarmstead and sevenmorewithinthesame size rangehave two,as wellas moreindicatorsofprosperity, an extensiverange of types.Two (P262, R526) stand out fromthe rest. P262, with nine indicators, may be the late archaic-earlyclassicalpredecessorof the classicalvilla P261/264 site whose relativelongevitymay be a situatedonly50 m distant.R526, a well-preserved has eightindicators.On none of themdoes storageappear to further signof itsprosperity, havebeen a majorconcern.There is a similarpatternto thelargersites,wherethosecloseto be Sparta (J221,M322,M325) show no evidenceforstorage.These sitesmighttentatively as theresidencesor smallestatesoffamiliesofmiddlingor above averagewealth. identified sector. The distribution of theseaffluentsitesshowsa distinctbias to the south-eastern in the west None of the elevensitesin the northernsectorand onlysix (out of twenty-six) for These low figurescomparewithtwenty-five exhibitmarksofprosperity. (out of sixty-five) the south-east,with affluentsites occurringin everyone of its sub-zones. The greatest sitesin theentiresurveyarea, occursin concentration (tensites),includingthetwowealthiest the adjacentzones R and S, among the clusterof sitescentredaroundthe springof Agios ofthetotalnumberofsites Georgios.This is evenmoreapparentwhenexpressedas a fraction in thesezones(tenout oftwenty-one). Zones Ρ and U also have significant numbers(fourand Not surprisingly, thedissectedpartoftheNeogeneplateau(zone N) appears six,respectively). sector. to havebeen theleastprosperous partofthesouth-eastern Evidence

for Storage

As alreadynoted,thelargestquantitiesof storagevesselsoccuron the twolargestsites,A118 and Bui. Whilea correlation betweensitesize and storageappearsto be generally valid,other in determining factorsmayhavebeen significant theimportanceofthisfunction. to Proximity themaincentres,Spartaand Sellasia,has alreadybeen proposedas one suchfactor, wherethe was locatedin the centralplaces. storageof produce,perhapsforconvenienceand security, Variationsin agricultural thatsome sitesspecializedin practice,in particularthe possibility A briefsurveyof thedistribution animalhusbandry, mightalso be expectedto be influential. and frequency ofstoragevesselsmayserveto illuminate thediversity ofstoragepractices. In thenorthern locatedat Sellasia.None ofthe sector,it appearsthatstoragewas centrally sitesin its immediatecatchmentarea producedany evidenceforthisfunction.Their only occurrenceis at themoreremote,isolatedsiteson theschistmassif(C169,G159,K200,K203), noneofwhichwas necessarily dependenton Sellasia. In the westernsector,a similarbut slightlyless extremepatternoccurs. All threesites occupiedin thelate archaicand classicalperiodsin zone D (D85/95,D96, D301),northofthe

196 Chapter5 Eurotasgorgeand less easilyaccessiblefromSparta,producedevidenceforstorage.In zones H, J, and M, and in partsof K, theyoccursparselyor not at all, withoutany differentiation betweenthelargerand smallersites.Theyare presentat onlytenoutoftwenty-three sitesand in The one clear is a which rarely quantity. exception J224, largefarmstead, producedfive vessel a modest of other ceramic Two othersites storage fragments alongside array types. situated near the foot of the also have an above had (J316,M322),76 Neogene plateau,may averagestoragecapacity In the south-eastern sectorthereis a distinctconcentration of storageat the largersites, in substantial sometimes numbers.Amongthenineteenlargersites(U516beingexcluded)it is attestedon all but three,with a total of seventy-two sherdsof storagevessels.A heavy occursin zones R (thirteen), S (nineteen)and U (thirtypreponderanceof these(sixty-five) three),consideredto be theprincipalareas ofarableland. Amongthethreewithoutevidence forstorage,R420maybe notedas one ofthesmallestofthelargersites,whilethelocationof T471 at the edge of the schistridge may have a bearing on its agriculturalactivities.By thesmallfarmsteads contrast, presenta muchless consistent picture.Storagevesselsoccurat sitesofthiscategory, witha totalofonlythirty-two sherds. onlynineteenout oftheforty-five Withone exception(S459-60), morethantwo sherdsare neverfoundat any site.There is a less markedpreponderancein zones R (five),S (seven)and U (eight);zone Ρ (two)has the feweststoragesherdsin relationto the numberof sites.This imbalancein the evidencefor storageon thelargersitesand smallfarmsteads requiresan explanation.As it has previously been argued,partlyon the basis of the materialassemblages,thatthe majorityof small farmsteads wereplacesofpermanentresidence,thepresenceofstoragevesselsshouldperhaps be regardedas a furtherindicatorof affluenceand the potentialforthe productionof attachedto thesesites.Althoughstoragecapacityis agricultural surpluseson thelandholdings a vitalelementin survivalat subsistencelevel,it is likelyto have been comparatively smallscale and mayhave been accommodatedby othermeansthantherelatively expensivepithoi whichare ourprincipaltypeofevidencein thisrespect. The Rural

Economy

There can be no doubtthatthe inhabitants of the threegroupsof sitesat the bottomof the were The populationof the perioikic settlement engagedin agriculture. hierarchy primarily butthe was to the of Sellasia (A118) perhapslargeenough support existenceofspecialists, village in was acted as a of more likelyacquired Sparta.Spartaprobably supply non-agricultural goods marketforall the siteslocatedin the surveyarea, none beingmuchmorethanthreehours and othermanufactured distant.It wouldhave been therethatmetaltools,pottery, roof-tiles, occurred. itemswereobtainedand mostexchangesin agricultural ApartfromSellasia, surpluses whilenone haveservedthisfunction, thereis no sitein thesurveyarea whichcouldpotentially is close enoughto be a candidate.In this of thosebeyonditslimits(forexampleGeronthrai) area laywithinthecatchment ofSparta. senseat least,probablytheentiresurvey A distinctionshould probablybe made betweenthe economic objectivesof the small farmsteads and of the villa and hamletsites,ifit can assumedthatthereis an approximate 76DuringthesurveyM322was represented onlybyerosion materialsat the base of a steep scarp. When subsequently been revealed themainpartofthesitehad recently revisited,

on the edge of the spur-top.AmongotherLAr-ECl glazed werenoted. and domesticwares,severalpithosfragments

Early Iron Age to classical period 197

equation betweena site's size and the size of the propertyit controlled.For the former, subsistencemusthave been the primaryaim and the quantitiesof produce available for as villasand hamletsare exchangeare likelyto havebeen limited.If someofthesitesclassified centresof largerestates,ratherthanas agglomerations of small equatedwiththe residential it shouldbe expectedthattheywereconcerned, householdsengagedin subsistence farming, at leastin part,withtheaccumulationofagricultural surplusesforuse in exchange,patronage, and display.The scope forproductionforexchangewithina widereconomicsystemthan and restricted centralLaconia was naturally by thedistancefromthesea and bythedifficulty The almosttotallack ofimportsnotedin ofbulkcommodities. expenseofoverlandtransport is a clearindicatoroftheisolationofthesurvey thediscussionofthearchaic-classicalpottery77 area fromthe circulationof tradedgoods in coastal districtsof the Aegean and the wider centraland easternMediterranean. If subsistencewas the objective,cereal productionmustbe assumed to have been the principalconcernof thefarmsteadsites,withothercropsrelegatedto a minorrole in terms site of land in cultivation.This is likelyto have been an importantfactorin determining location.Unless the laborious task of terracingis undertaken,cereal culturetendsto be restricted to areas ofmoderateslope; a 10 degreeangleofslopeis regardedas theextremeat For the new settlersof the mid-sixth the steepwhicha ploughcan be operated.78 century, sided schistand limestonemassifin the northernsector can have had littleattraction. other Likewise,thedissectedNeogeneplateaumusthavebeen impracticalforarablefarming than in small,isolatedpockets.When combinedwiththe generalpovertyof the soils, it comesas no surprisethattheseareas receivedlittleattentionin thisperiod.It was onlywhen arboriculture assumedgreaterimportancewiththe developmentof a market-oriented rural in dominated that the zones of schist a assumed the by large estates, economy, place in The colonization of these zones the late fourth and third centuries agricultural landscape. indicatesthat this was primarilya hellenisticand later phenomenon.The slope angles and in TABLES recordedin thesitecatalogue79 relateonlyto thesituation 5.1-2 unfortunately ofthesitesthemselves and in somecases can be quitemisleadingabout thecharacteristics of in the immediateenvirons.Nevertheless, a to the conditions theyprovide roughguide slope the vicinityof most sites.Withinthe surveyarea, land suitableforarable cultivation(as calculatedby the quantityofland withslope anglesno greaterthan 10 degrees)is restricted in quantityand unevenlydistributed. Roughlya quarter(19 sq km out of 70 sq km,27 per in be classified this can of which more than half(10 sq km) occursin the southcent) way, easternsectorand mostoftheremainderin thewest(8 sq km);thenorthern sectorhas onlya amount small Within this framework there was (1 sq km). very clearly scope for other on activities the non-arable land.80 main Its as agricultural potentialis forarboriculture, in recent centuries on the and for the extensive of and schists, widelypractised grazing sheep goats, currentlya featureof the Neogene plateau and the limestone mountainsides. itis clearthatthemainclustersofsitescoincideto a largedegreewiththeareas Nevertheless, π LSn. 88. 78See M. Wagstaff and C. Gamble,'Island resourcesand in IslandPolity, theirlimitations', 95 105,at 101.Slope angle is also regarded as a critical factor by Whitelaw, 'Colonisation'(n. 22), 234-5. ExtensiveCl terracingin S. Atticais associatedwitholive cultivation(Lohmann,Atene, 196-219).

79LSii. 315-438. 80 See L. Foxhall, 'Feeling the earth move: cultivation techniqueson steepslopes in classicalantiquity',in Shipley and Salmon,HumanLandscapes, 44 67. On the resourcesof thenon-agricultural land, see H. A. Forbes,'The uses ofthe uncultivated landscape in modernGreece: a pointerto the value ofthewilderness in antiquity?', ibid.68 97.

198 Chapter5 of arable land, and it is naturalto assume thattheywere primarilyconcernedwithcereal and withotherarablecropssuchas pulses. cultivation sector The large numberof small farmsteadsin areas of low reliefin the south-eastern if in the was attractive to arable even that this district farmers, long term initially suggests the majorityof thesesitesfailed.While the dissectedwesternpart of the Neogene plateau was ignored,itslevel easternspine and the shallowfootslopesof Koutsoviti,incorporating some 7 sq km of arable land, were denselyoccupied,thoughthe clusteringof sitesmay,as alreadysuggested,have been dictatedby the availabilityof waterratherthan land itself. the whole of the south-eastern sectorapart from However,in spiteof its initialpopularity, utilization be as the extensive theChrysaphabasin shouldprobably regarded marginalland, brief of settlement been limitedto of whichhas historically expansionand periods rapid duration of sites located in the apparentlyequallyrapid contraction.The generallylonger in extensivearable land (£.4.5 sq km, some 3 sq km included the surveyarea) of the Chrysapha basin and its periphery,as well as its long-termhistoryof settlementand advantagesin spiteof the relativepovertyof the implythatit had significant exploitation, soils.A numberof sitesoccupyrathermore marginallocations,in particularthe clusterof late archaic-earlyclassicalfarmsteadson the ridgetops close to the Kastororemaspring, where the arable land is severelylimited in extent. Likewise, N503 (an outlier in the locationat theedge ofa conglomerate northerncluster)occupiesan unpromising landscape withverysteepslopesaround.The widespreaddesertionof sitesthatoccurredprobablyin the firsthalfof the fifth centurymay in parthave resultedfromthe hardshipsencountered in maintaininganythingmore than a precarioussubsistenceexistence,even on the eastern were perhaps ridge tops of the plateau where good soils are available. These difficulties exacerbatedbythelikelihoodthatindividuallandholdingsweresmall,as therelativedensity towardthe Chrysapha seemsto indicate.The subsequentshiftin settlement of settlement basin has already been observed in a process involvinga concentrationof agricultural fromperipheralzones to thecore. activity of some ofthelargersitesin the It maybe possibleto detectthewidereconomicinterests Threeof sectorbytheirlocations,wherecerealculturewas nottheonlypriority. south-eastern the fourlate archaic-earlyclassicalhamlets(P272,S524,U494),as well as threevillas(P285, the Neogene S433, U491),are situatedat the footof the limestonemountainsidesfringing land below the access to arable allowed basin. These the and positions Chrysapha plateau sitesand grazingforsheep and goatson the mountainslopesabove. Severalothersitesmay in a less dramaticfashion,beinglocatedon thefringesof the showa similarset ofpriorities arable and the uncultivatedland.81Three villa sites (S437/440,T471, U499) occupy the junctionbetweenthe arable and the uninhabitedridgesof schistthatseparatethe Neogene mayhavebeen a practical plateaufromtheChrysaphabasin.In thesecases,olivecultivation to animalgrazing.Two morevilla sites(P271,R420)may also be notedfortheir alternative locationson the boundarybetweenthe cultivatedlevel area and the uninhabiteddissected tractsoftheNeogeneplateau,suitableonlyas poor grazing.Althoughthesame opportunities and treecropswereavailableto a numberof formixingarableculturewithanimalhusbandry be could thesmallfarmsteads, they probably exploitedonlyon a smallscale. 81H. A. Forbes,'Pastoralismand settlement in structures ancientGreece', in Doukellisand Mendoni (n. 22), 187-96, siteswithinthe 01pastorahst at 194-b;id., lhe identification

context of estate-based agriculturein ancient Greece: versusagro-pastoralism" debate', beyondthe"transhumance BSA 90 (1995),325-38.at 336~8·

Early Iron Age to classical period 199

The widespreaddesertionof small farmsteads, and the consolidationof settlement in a reducednumberoflargersitesin the classicalperiod,presumably had a markedeffect on the sectorwas utilized.Two likelyconsequencesmaybe wayin whichtheland in thesouth-eastern noted.A numberof individualpropertieswere probablyenlargedat the expense of their in consolidatedholdings;whilethe concentration not necessarily of some of the predecessors, ruralpopulationin theincreasednumberofhamletsmusthaveresultedin theirresidenceat a greaterdistance fromthe land theyworked than in the previous period. Two further in the agricultural consequencesare likelyto have ensued.Greaterdiversification regimeis theremay probableon theenlargedestates.Withthedisappearanceofso manysmallholdings, have been greaterscope forthe managementof herdedanimalson the arable land,perhaps cattleifadequatesourcesofwaterwereavailable.Simultaneously, a lessintensive form including ofagriculture musthavebeenpractisedbythesmallholders whosesurvival livingin thehamlets, on a subsistencebasis musthave become even more riskyunlesstheirpropertieswere also forthemwas to becomedependentlabourerson thelargeestates. enlarged.The alternative A ratherdifferent agricultural regimeprobablyoperatedin the westernsector,wherethe main influencewas the proximityof the city of Sparta. This sector affordedthe best foragriculturein the surveyarea and, unlikethe south-eastern sector,had a opportunities of where site abandonment was matched use, history uninterrupted generally by new establishments. It has approximately 8 sq km of arable land, mostlylocated south of the confluenceof the Kelephinawiththe Eurotas.There are a numberof factorsin its favour water-retentive of soils,the availability apartfromthe low angle of slope,itswell-developed, Much ofit lieswithinthe water,and theease ofaccessto themainroutesofcommunication. immediatecatchmentof Sparta,fromwhereit could be directlyexploited.The low-lying areas close to the riverand the ancientcitywere probablydominatedby labour-intensive crops such as vegetablesand fruittrees,perhaps requiringirrigation.There was also the cattleand horseson thepermanentpasturesfringing the courseof potentialformaintaining the river,a featurelikelyto attractwealthylandowners.The majorityof siteslocatedby the surveyare set furtherback fromthe river,where theywere secure fromflooding.While subsistence was doubtlesstheobjectiveofthesmallfarmsteads, therewas theopportunity for themto producesurpluseswhichcould be easilyand cheaplydisposedof in the marketof Sparta,wherethe existenceof non-agricultural specialistsmusthave provideda demandfor theirgoods.Theremayalso havebeen greaterpossibilities forcombiningarablefarming with arboriculture on the lowerslopesof the schisthillsides,as well as animal husbandryon the Neogeneplateauand upperpartsoftheschistmassif.The fourvillasitesoflate archaic-early classicaldate (H40,J213,M328,M347)werewellplaced to exploitsuch opportunities. During theclassicalperiodthereare clearindicationsthatthissectorwas dominatedbylargeestates, especiallythe area northof the confluencewiththe Kelephina,wherefourout of fivesites (D85/95,H31,H40, H34) are classifiedas villasor hamlets.The 3 sq km of good arable land withinthecatchment ofthethreesitesin zone H givessomeidea oftheextensiveagricultural resourcesavailableto such estates.These werepresumably theproperty ofwealthySpartans whosemainplacesofresidencewerein thecity. As alreadynoted,thepredominantly steeplandscapesofthe northernsectorwereavoided untilthe late fourthcentury.The few exceptionsmay be accounted forby agricultural whichgave greaterprominenceto animalhusbandryand arboriculture thanarable strategies cultivation. The majority ofsitesare foundat thenorthern of the extremity surveyarea,in the smallbutfertile basinofVourliotikoi Kamboi and on some ofthebroaderterracesand spurs at thebase ofAgiosKonstantinos, as well as in the vicinityof Sellasia wherethe Kelephina

200 Chapter5

valleyopensout.These areas amountto littlemorethan1 sq kmofarableland,thoughmore lies outsidethesurveyarea to thenorthand on theotherside oftheriver,amountingin total of Sellasia. If arable to some 2.5 sq km.This was presumablythe core agricultural territory cultivationwas its primarymeans of existence,the small extentof suitableland can have signthatSellasiawas nota typical supportedonlya smallpopulation.It is perhapsa further with a role connected served but Spartandefenceofitsnorthern special perioikiccommunity land suitableforgrazingon the more extensive to much had access the site borders.However, on the schistto the south and for arboriculture and west north to the limestoneformations in to some extentbe overcome cereals could deficit that the and east,allowingthepossibility as wellas and variousfruits, pastoralproducts(wool,skins,cheese),olives,oil, by exchanging for arable and timber), productsin the goods (such as firewood,charcoal, non-agricultural if east its marketofSparta.Its arableland wouldhavebeen substantially territory augmented That this km to itseast. of theKelephinaextendedas faras theVasarásbasin,4 productive area, morethan3 sq kmin extent,was controlled by Sellasia seemspossiblein theabsenceof in future thoughthisremainsto be confirmed anyknownancientcentralplace in thevicinity, of Sellasia to itsnorthand westofferedmuchless work.Certainlythe hypothetical territory and being dominatedas it is by limestoneformations favourableconditionsforagriculture, suitableonlyforlow-gradepasture.The existenceofa single,rathersmall,late archaic-early classicalvilla (A3014)at the edge of the Kelephinavalley,only0.75 km fromthe acropolisof but thatit was could supporta certaindegreeofprosperity Sellasia,showsthatthisterritory families.Its or two than one no more small a to restricted perhaps group, very probably locationat themarginofthearableand themountaingrazingmayindicatea similardiversity as is suggestedforsiteson the Neogene plateau,thoughthe premiumon arable of interests land mayalso haveactedas a constraint againstlocatingbuildingsupon it.82 Distribution

and Interpretation

of Low-Density

Scatters

in the constituent and tileare an important ofarchaic-classical scatters The low-density pottery oftherurallandscape.Atpresentthereis no consensusin the overallpictureoftheexploitation or 'background'material.Two alternativeexplanationshave of such 'off-site' interpretation been offered:eithertheyreflectthe dispersalof potterythroughancientmanuringand the or theycorrespondto locationswhereseasonal rubbish,83 disposalofhouseholdand farmyard or to the small,non-residential, were activities agricultural performed repeatedly agricultural installations(such as pens and stores)located on the land.84However,the unsystematic does not allow us to givea of thesescattersduringthe main seasonsof fieldwork treatment the within or date accountoftheirdistribution, definitive surveyarea. The onlyreliable density, 82 The scatter of late 6th~5th cent, sherds which so associated (n. 29), 253, was erroneously impressedPritchett butis morelikelyto havebeen the byhimwithSellasiaitself, remainsofanothervillasite. "3 A. M. Snodgrass, An Archaeology oj Greece:Lhe rresentState and FutureScope of a Discipline (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and

A. M. Snodgrass,'OffLondon, 1987),113;J. L. Bintliffand site potterydistributions:a regional and interregional 29 (1988), 506-13; A. M. Anthropology, perspective',Current Snodgrass,'Surveyarchaeologyand the rurallandscape of the Greekcity',in O. Murrayand S. Price (eds), The Greek toAlexander (Oxford,1990),113-36,at 121-5; City:FromHomer

id., 'Response:the archaeologicalaspect',in Morris(n. 37), 197-200.The largequantitiesofpotteryand tilefoundin the townhousesat Halieis show associatedwith4th-cent. koprones how material of this kind could have reached the surroundingcountryside:B. A. Ault, 'Koprones and oil of townand countryand the pressesat Halieis: interaction integrationof domesticand regionaleconomies',Hesp.68 (!999)> 549"73> at 55°"9· 84 Landscape Archaeology, 46-52; Alcock et αι. (η. 37). lhe

potentialrole of non-culturalfactorsin producingthese patternsis notedin Wrightetai, 'Nemea', 607-8.

Early Iron Age to classical period 201

data comefromthelimitedworkcarriedoutin 1988,designedamongotherthingsto quantify materialin different thedensity ofbackground partsofthesurveyarea (seepp. 45-50). whichcan be relatedto theinvestigation The evidencerecordedduringthemainfieldwork, derives from of two kinds.The firstis wheresmallarchaic of low-density scatters, fmdspots and/or classical components,usuallypoorlydated, are foundto occur on sites of other is ambiguous.They may be evidenceeitherforthe periods.In thiscase, theirsignificance earliest stages of a site whose main phase of occupation occurred later, or for the of a seasonal site or agriculturalinstallationinto a permanentplace of transformation thewiderbackgroundscatter.In some cases they residence;alternatively, theymayrepresent in question. oftheartefacts and misdating mayarisefromthemisidentification The second typeconsistsof sporadic finds,sometimessingle artefactsbut more often whichitwas notthoughtappropriateto designateas sites(TABLE 5.4). slightly largerquantities, was muchless consistent, Their treatment varyingto some degreefromteam to team and, LS no.

zone

P284

P2 J5 K5 Ki R2 H2 N5 R2 M4 Mi S4 R2 M6 T4 T4 P2 E2 H3 J3 Ui J3 M5 H2 K3 U3 J5 H2 H3 K4 Ci K3 H2 H3 J2 M4 M6 N3 E3 F4 K3 R5

K204 K244/5 R422 H51 N195 R428 M326/7 M321 S475 R429 M344 T467 T470 P267 E75 H25 J43 U486/8 J44 M334 H30 K258 U497 J222 H18 K419 CIO8 K153 H26 H33 J2I4 M329 M352 N313 EOS Π43 K257 R425

size (ha) 2.00

0.89 0-79 0.69 0.61 0-59 0.47 0.45 0.42 0-33 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 O.II O.II 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08

0.07 0.07 0.07

/sherds types

6/7 3/4 2/2 i/l

2/3

3/3 2/2

3/4 3/3 7/8 i/l

2/2 i/l

3/3 4/4 i/l

i/l 0/0 i/l 2/2 2/2 i/l 0/0 i/l i/l i/l 0/0 0/0 i/l

3/5 2/2 2/2 i/l i/l

2/2 2/2 0/0 2/2 i/l i/l 2/2

tile(present/ absent)

soiltype

X X X X X X

Ν Ν S S Ν S Ν Ν Ν S Ν Ν Ν S/L S Ν S S S L S Ν S S S/L S/N S S S S S S

ο

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ?

X

ο ο ο

χ

s s

Ν Ν Ν S S S Ν

202 Chapter5 LS no.

zone

J216 J225 K141 N190

J2 J5 K3 N5 F2 Gi R3 S3 U4 Bi F3 H2 J2 K4 Mi M6 M7 Ui Ui E2 E4 R2 R4 R6 T2 T3 U3 P3 R6 U3 H2 H2 H2 J3 Ji Hi Hii A2 Ci Fi Gi G2 J5 J5 J5 J5

FI33

G163 R283 S450/1 U505 B115 F137 H38 J217 K250

M357 M351 M174 U489

U3000 E76 E3O5 R528 R454 R456 T479 T468 U514 P270

R457 U3023 I110036 h10046 hioo48 J10071 J10072 hioo82 hioo83 aioii2

C10136 fioi44 gioi72 gioi79 J10229 J10234 J10236 J10241 1110299 (Í10359 (Í10367

ei037i 610382 J!O395 J10399 P10410 P10431 Π0473 S10534

Π0571 "0575 Π0590

N2

D3 D2 E2 Ei J6 J5 P2 Pi Ri S2 Ri Ri R6

size(ha) 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

/sherds types 2/2 2/2

5/7 2/3

3/3 3/3 0/0 i/l 2/6

3/3

i/l 0/0

3/3 3/4

2/2 0/0 2/2 i/l

tile(present/ absent) X X X X X X X X

ο

X X X X X

ο

χ χ

ο

4/4

χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

3/3

χ χ χ

2/7 2/2 0/0 2/2

4/4 0/0 i/l

2/2 0/0 2/2 i/l 2/2

3/3 9^3 1/1

4/5 i/l

1/2 i/l i/l i/l i/l i/l

4/4 3/4 i/l

1/2 i/l i/l i/l i/l i/l i/l

9/14 i/l i/l i/l i/l i/l 2/2

ο

soiltype S S/N S Ν S S Ν Ν L L S S S

s

Ν Ν Ν L L S L Ν Ν S/N S S/L L Ν S/N L S S S

s s s s s s s s s

Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν S S

s s

Ν N/S Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν

Early Iron Age to classical period 203 /sherds types

LS no.

zone

1-10594 Π0595 mio6i6 mio6i8 1Ή10627 m10646 11110649 1110664

R2 R2 M3 M5 M5 M3 M5 N3

2/2 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1

1110719 Π0809 ποδίΐ U0818 Π0822 10835 110843 Π0884 U10903 10908

N4 R2 R6 T4 R2 U2 T2 R3

i/l

10674

ruin

riin8

rung ΠΙ149 ""59 11163

Ui

p R2 R2 R2 R4 R2 U3

size (ha)

2/4 2/2 l/l l/l 1/2

3/3 l/l l/l l/l l/l l/l l/l l/l l/l

5/5 2/2

l/l 2/2

/z7
soiltype N/S N/S Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ρ Ν N/S Ν S/L Ν ρ S Ν S ρ Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν ρ

Keytosoil types

L Ν S

limestone Neogene schist

Table 54· Findspotsof archaic-classicalsherdand tile not classifiedas sites,orderedin descendingsize. (No size/tiledata in the10000+ series.) availableforfindspots

perhaps,fromseason to season. This was especiallytrueof the areas witha constant,highland along encountered levelbackgroundscatter, mainlyin zonesH, J,and M in thelow-lying the east side of the EurotasfromGeladarito the Menelaion.Whateverthe mechanicsof its to itsintensive corresponds dispersal,thedensityofmaterialin thisparticulararea presumably ofSparta,notto mentionthevillages use fromantiquity to thepresentday bytheinhabitants ofmorerecentorigin.The situationhas been further years complicatedin thepasttwenty-five or so by the dumpingalong roads and tracksof soil containingancientpottery,tile,and architecturalelementsfrombuilding sites in Sparta. However, in all the other zones, backgroundmaterial of our period was very sparse and it was normallyrecorded and to be formed.The contrasting levelsof collected,allowinga roughidea of its distribution in of the area were material different demonstrated survey by the parts amply background in tests carried out 1988. quantitative Far from ofmaterialfromthesetwotypesoffindspot is ofinterest. The spatialdistribution therebeingan evenor randomscatteracrossthesurveyarea, theytendto clusterin thesame in the same areas as them.Beforeconsidering way as the habitationsitesand, furthermore, thesein greaterdetail,some of the possibleexplanationsmaybrieflybe presented.In some scattersresultfrompost-depositional cases,it is likelythatlow-density processesand can be relatedto nearbysites.Othersmay representthe spread of culturalmaterialsthroughthe A thirdpossibility, of settlements. manuringoffieldsor thedisposalofrubbishin thevicinity in the ofparticular relevancein thedebateconcerningresidenceoutsidenucleatedsettlements

204 Chapter5

archaic,classical,and hellenistic periods,is thatthesescattersare all thatremainofthemore - sheds,small stores,animal enclosures,and so oninstallations ephemeralagricultural or froma moredistantvillageor city.Nor locatedon land cultivated fromthesmallfarmsteads can itbe excluded,in an area wheretherehas been suchintenseerosion,thatsomeare thelast a proportionof whichmusthave been vestigesof sitescomparableto the smallfarmsteads, eithertotallydestroyed or buriedundercolluvialdeposits,leavinglittleor no surfacetrace. The correspondenceof these scatterswithclustersof habitationsiteshas alreadybeen The north-eastern remarkedupon but may be exploredfurther. part of the south-eastern sector(zone P) had a relativelylarge number(eleven)of late archaic-earlyclassical sites, scattersat fivefurther locations(P267,P270,P284, whichare complementedby low-density siteson the Neogene plateau (zone Ν LS 10299,LS l0^?>1)·The group of eightshort-lived iv-v) is also matched by fivesmall scatters(N190,N195,LS 10473,LS 10664, LS 10719). Likewise,the prominentgroupof sixteenrichsitesaroundAgios Georgiosis accompanied by nine small scatters(R283,R425, S450 withS451,S475,LS 10534,LS 10571,LS 10575,LS 11149, LS 10884), with an even largernumber(nineteen)in the area to its south (R422, R428-9,R454,R456-7,T467,T470,R528,LS IO59O,LS IO594-5,LS 10809,LS IO811,LS 10822, LS 11hi, LS 11118-19,LS 11159).By comparison,the Chrysaphabasin has manyfewerlowdensityscatters,all confinedto its margins(T468, T479, U486/U488,U489, U497, U505, U514,U3023,LS 10818,LS 10843,LS IO9°3)· lowscattersis foundin thewesternsector,in thefertile The largestnumberoflow-density lyingland alongthecourseoftheEurotasbetweenGeladariand theMenelaion.Northofthe ofthe gorgeonlytwoscattersoccuron theslopesofVigies(LS 10359,LS 10367),in thevicinity habitationsitesD85 and D96. AroundGeladariand to itssouth,in zone H i-iii,thereare at mostjust southofH31(H18,H25-6,H30,H33,H35,H38,H51,LS 10036, leastthirteen scatters, of twelveoccurin zoneJ v-vi (J214, LS 10046,LS 10048,LS 10082-3).Similarconcentrations LS LS LS 10395,LS IO399)and often LS LS J222, 10241, !O236, J216-17, J225,J317, 10229, IO234? in zone M v-vii(M176,M326/M327, M344, M329,M334, M351-2,LS 10618,LS 10627,LS 10649) withthreemore(M357,LS 10616,LS 10646)in closeproximity. scattersis smallerand more diffuse, In the northernsector,the numberof low-density in to habitation sites are close several (C108,LS 10136withG114;LS 10172 juxtaposition though withG163;LS 10179withG159)or can be relatedto nearbysites(K244/k245to K200; B115to Bin). A group of sites (E55, E75-6, E305) with clear evidence forhellenisticoccupation (perhapsin proximityto a hypotheticalroad leading fromthe Eurotas to Sellasia) were perhapsfirstoccupiedin thelate fourthcentury;twosmallscatters(LS 10144,LS 10371)can be connectedeitherwiththesesitesor theexistenceoftheroad. The onlyothergroupof note are fouralong the Kelephina in its lowerstretches(K204, therouteson eitherside oftheriver.Apartfromthesethere K250,K257-8),perhapsfollowing are onlya fewisolatedscatterson theNeogeneplateau (N313,M321),the schistspurswestof Agioi Saranda (K419),and the southernpartof the schistmassif(F137,K141,K153),the three sites. latterperhapslateclassicalelementson mainlyhellenistic scattersindicatesa connectionofsome The conjunctionofhabitationsitesand low-density kindbetweenthetwo,thoughitsnaturemayhave been diverse.The generalabsenceofsuch scattersin those areas wherearchaic-classical occupationis not found(mostof the schist massifand much of the Neogene plateau) may be an indicatorthatthese areas were left in the sixthto fourthcenturies.Whethersuch scatterscan be used to largelyuncultivated delimitthe extentof ancientcultivationis much less clear and would requiremuch more detailedevidencethanwas recordedduringthesurvey.

Early Iron Age to classical period 205

Population

Estimates

Calculationsofthepopulationofthe surveyarea in the archaicand classicalperiods(TABLE Not onlyare therefundamental uncertainties as to whether 5.5) are besetwithdifficulties.85 siteswereplaces of permanentresidenceand what numbersof people may have occupied or them,but it is unlikelythatall the sitesof any one periodwere occupied simultaneously thatwe have a completerecordofall thehabitationsitesthatonce existed.Allowancemust be made for sites that have been buried, completelydestroyedby erosion or modern or missedduringthe survey;in some areas the naturalvegetationis so dense development, as to makethisa stronglikelihood.Multi-periodsites,whereit is usuallyhard to determine site size in specificphases of theirhistory, createyetfurtherdifficulties. In spite of these the exercise if remains to an worthwhile, only give problems, approximateidea of the ancientpopulation. The following calculationsare based on estimates ofsitepopulationsand takeno accountof notional of the any carryingcapacity surveyarea. They reston certainassumptions: (i) that habitationsiteswere places of permanentresidence,(ii) thattheywere all simultaneously

Sector

Farmsteads no.

pop.

Villas no.

pop.

Later Archaic-Early Classical (^550-450 BC) SE 12 180 (34%) 39 195 (37%)

Hamlets site no.

P272 R281 S524 U494

pop.

Villages site no.

Totalpop.

pop.

65 35 30 25

530 (52%)

subtotal 155 (29%) w Ν

16 8

totals

63

80 (57%) 4o(ii%) 315(31%)

Classical (c.450-300 BC) SE 12 60 (15%)

4 1 17

6

60 (43%) 15(4%) 255(25%)

90 (23%)

4

U511 U516 R281 U519 U494 U491

155 (15%)

Bin

300(85%)

140 (14%) 355 (34%)

1

300 (29%)

1,025 (100%)

90 50 35 30 25 20

400 (47%)

subtotal 250 (62%) w Ν

11

55(4i%) 20 (6%)

4

4

totals

27

135 (16%)

10

60(44%)

150 (17%)

H31

7

20 (15%)

270 (32%)

Bill

3OO (94%)

135 (16%) 320 (37%)

1

300 (35%)

855 (100%)

Table 5.5. Population estimates.

85 See e.g. Bintliffand Snodgrass, 'Boeotian Expedition', 140-5; J. L. Bintliff, 'Further considerations on the

population of ancient Boeotia', in Bintliff,RecentDevelopments, 231-52.

2o6 Chapter5

occupied by familyunits,(iii) thatthe archaeologicalrecordis more or less complete,and (iv) thatthe size rangesadopted above forthe fourcategoriesof sitesare valid. Regardless in size, the farmsteadsare treatedas the residencesof singlefamilies(five of differences people per site), the villas as the residence of wealthyfamilieswith their dependent workforceor small clustersof familyfarmsteads(fifteenpeople per site). A separate calculationis made of the populationof each of the hamlets,in whichit is assumedthat sitesof thistypewere not denselypacked; 0.1 ha is allowed foreveryresidentfamilyof five.86In estimatingthe population of Sellasia, the only village site where settlement densitiescan be reasonablyexpected to have been greater,0.05 ha is allowed foreach notionalfamilyof five(i.e. 100 people per ha). This figureis reached on the assumption thatpopulationdensityis likelyto have been lowerin a villagethana city,wherefiguresof 150-300people per ha have been proposedforthe classicalperiod. Even so, thismaywell itspopulation.Dependingon thelayoutofthesettlement and resultin our underestimating residentialunits,a muchhigherdensityof occupationis possible the size of itsconstituent in a nucleatedvillage.87 By applying these methods, the followingsestimates are produced. For the later archaic-earlyclassicalperiod,the totalpopulationis estimatedat 1,025,yieldingan average populationdensityof 14.6per sq km.This averageconcealsa wide levelofvariationbetween thethreemainsectors.As mightbe predicted,themajority(530,or 52 per cent;23 per sq km) withsmallernumbersin thewestern(140,or 14per cent;7 per sq km) occursin thesouth-east, in the and northern sectors(355,or 34 per cent; 13 per sq km).Populationwas concentrated the number of farmsteads lowerlevelsof the settlement hierarchy, largest people occupying smallernumbersin thevillas(255,or 25 per cent)and (315,or 31 per cent),withprogressively the importanceof the one village(300, or 29 per hamlets(155,or 15 per cent).Nevertheless, that is the belief the smallfarmsteads whichloom so large in most clear, cent) confirming in intensivesurveysin Greece are comparatively insignificant termsof the populationthey the and that the bulk of accommodated, population of most regionslived in nucleated The whether cities or settlements, villages.88 significanceof Sellasia would be further enhanced were a greaterdensityof population allowed (halvingthe area occupied by a notionalfamilyoffivefrom500 to 250 sq m wouldproducea populationof600). All thesame, it is not entirely misleadingto characterizethelate archaic-earlyclassicalperiodas havinga distribution ofpopulation. 'bottom-heavy5 of There is a significant shiftin the classical period towardsa ctop-heavy'distribution in the an increase abandonment of farmsteads and the population,reflecting widespread thereseems to have been an overall decline in the numberof hamlets.Simultaneously, reduced from1,025to an estimateof855 (12.2per sq km).The of the surveyarea, population is slightly reduced(400, or 47 per cent;17.6per sq of the south-eastern sector preponderance or 16 of the western while the (135, km), per cent;6.75 per sq km)and northern population 86 forthe S. Argolidwerebased on a Populationestimates different premise,whichalloweda populationof 125person Greek Countryside, 545notea. perha outsidewalledsettlements: 87See Whitelawand Davis (n. 19),279-80, fordiscussion of urban populationdensities;150 per ha is suggestedfor Koressos. In the S. Argolid, a figureof 250 per ha is calculated on the basis of excavations at Halieis {Greek Countryside, 549-51). Lower densitiesare suggestedforthe

largerArkadiancitiesinJ. Forsén,'Populationand political Arkadianpoleis',in CPC Papers ofsomesoutheastern strength 5, 35-55,at 39-41. 88The same conclusionhas emergedfrommost survey studies: e.g. LandscapeArchaeology, 553; 337-8; GreekCountryside,

Bintliff (n. 85), 237. Whitelaw,'Colonisation'(n. 22), 232-3, has recently revised upwards the proportion of the populationofKoressosresidentin thecountryside.

Early Iron Age to classical period 207

sectors(320, or 37 per cent; 11.8per sq km)remainscomparatively stable.By thistimethe in in lived hamlets or and the one of (270, 32 per cent) village(300,or 35 per majority people in with much smaller numbers farmsteads or 16 and villas(150,or 17per (135, cent), per cent) in be the of Sellasia also this grew cent).If,as might conjectured, population period(perhaps throughincreaseddensityof occupationratherthan expansionof the inhabitedarea), the wouldappearyetmoreexaggerated. trendtowardsnucleatedsettlement These figurescorrelatequite closelyin absolutenumbersand geographicaldistribution withthose derivedfromthe Venetiancensus of AD 1700.89The ten villages and hamlets identifiedin the surveyarea have a total populationof 779, divided among 217 families. More than two-thirds(523 in 134 families) were located at Chrysapha, roughly to our south-eastern sector.Slightlyless thana quarterof the total(164 in 51 corresponding families)resided in the northernsector,divided among fourvillages,while the smallest fraction(92 in 32 families)was foundin fivesmallvillagesand hamletsin thewesternsector. The populationfiguresrecordedby the ExpéditionScientifiquede Morée around 183ο,90 yielda totalofthesame order,705 amongfive thoughlessreliableand probablyincomplete, this date there was a noticeable shiftofpopulationto thenorthernsector though by villages, in a decline the south-east and cent) (40 per cent).Bothfigurescome (49 per corresponding fromperiods when populationsare thoughtto have been depressedby long periods of warfareand economic difficulties. By the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury,when and economic conditions were censuses(conducted greatlyimproved,government political in 1879,1889,and 1896)91recordedbetween2,369 and 2,673people in the area, morethan twice the estimatedancientpopulation at its peak. This was accompanied by a further declinein therelativeimportanceof the south-eastern sector(from33 to 27 per cent)and a risein thatofthewesternsector(from27 to 28 per cent). The use of the figuresobtained above forgeneratingoverallpopulation estimatesfor ancientLaconia is encumberedbyan evenwiderrangeofdifficulties, makinganycalculations based on themmoreor less redundant.Not leastare thewide diversity oflandscape,bothin termsofreliefand geology,and theexistenceofat leastone largeurbancentre(Spartaitself) whosepopulationmayhave rangedbetween40,000 and 50,000 in thelate archaicand early as wellas a numberofotherswhosepopulationmightbe expectedto have classicalperiods,92 between 500 and 1,000ifnotmore(suchas Gytheion,Geronthrai, ranged EpidaurosLimera, 89Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός, 282 nos 7-13, 22; below, Chapter8, p. 405. 90J. B. G. M. Boryde Saint-Vincent,Expédition scientifique

de Morée: sectiondes sciencesphysiques (Paris, 1832-6), ii. 1:

Géographie (1834),80-2, concerningthevillagesofTheologos, Voutiani,KalyviaServianika, Aphisou,and Chrysapha. 91Publishedby the NationalStatisticalServiceof Greece and collectedin M. Chouliarakis,Γεωγραφική,διοικητική και πληθυσματική έ^ελιξις-της 'Ελλάδος 1821-igyi (Athens,1973)?9°~2 table13,ΐ37~8table14,205 table15. 92 lhe space withinthe walls 01 ISpartain the 2nd cent, perhapsincorporatedas much as 276 ha, a figurederived fromthe surveyof ancientSparta publishedas pl. 1 in BSA 13 (1906-7).The populationof LAr-Cl Sparta would easily havebeen accommodatedin sucha largearea, as seen in the followingcalculations.Assumingthatno more than 75-85 per cent of this area was available for habitation, and workingon the range of populationdensitiesproposedfor

urbansitesin Cl Greece of 150-300people per ha, produces populationestimatesof 31,000-70,500.At theirpeak in the early 5th cent, the Spartiates, including women and children,may have numberedbetween30,000 and 35,000, ofwhomroughlya fifth (6,000-7,000)are presumedto have lived at Amyklai.To the remaining24,000-28,000resident at Sparta should be added the unquantifiablenumbersof helotsand othersof non-Spartiatestatus,who are likelyto have broughtthe total population up to 40,000-50,000, yieldingdensitiesof 170-240people per ha. The factthat Sparta, notoriously among Greek cities, preserved its ancient, non-urbanized appearance into the Cl period makes it likelythat population was unevenlydistributed to the throughthe area of thecity.The partscorresponding fourvillagesofMesoa, Pitana,Kynosoura,and Limnaiwere probablyrelativelydenselyinhabited,while the remainder was dividedbetweenpublicand open spaces.See Kourinou, Σπάρτη, 89-95, 215-19,243-9.

2θ8 Chapterj

the70 sq kmcoveredby the surveyrepresents Furthermore, Akriai,Asopos,and Tainaron).93 nomós ofLakonia (3,596sq km),and lessthan land area of the modern cent of the only1.9per if and are included cent (5,074 sq km); this is probably an 1.4 per Kythera Kynouria It need be for statistical only recordedthatifthe estimatesfor purposes. inadequatesample thesurveyarea wereused as thebasisforcalculatingthepopulationoftherurallandscapeof Laconia, excludingthe largeurban units,theywould yieldfiguresof around52,500forthe sixthto earlyfifth centuries,and about 44,000 in the laterfifthand fourthcenturies.With Kynouria(1,184sclkm)and Kythera(294 sq km)included,the figureswould riseto around Inclusion of the urban unitswould involvea significant 74,000 and 62,000 respectively. between50,000 and Sparta Amyklaialone are likelyto have contributed upwardadjustment; the remaining be added for of and 60,000,to whicha notionalfigure 10,000-20,000might of Laconia (includingKynouria and large nucleated settlements.The total population Kythera)mighthave been in the region of 135,000-155,000(26-31 people per sq km), significantly largerthanthefigureof49,000recordedbytheAD 1700censusand the74,000of ofthemanpoweravailableto c. AD 1830(bothexcludingKythera).Fora completeassessment the Spartanstateup until370 BC,the populationof Messenia,not all ofwhichwas of helot status,would need to be added. Estimatesof its population are hinderedby the lack of in the absence of largeurbansites distribution.94 Nevertheless, publisheddata forsettlement lowerthanthat comparableto Spartaor Amyklaiitspopulationmusthave been significantly of Laconia. Applyingthe figuresforpopulationdensityestimatedforthe surveyarea to the ofMessinia(2,928sq km)yieldsbetween35,700and 42,750 land coveredbythemodernnomos it maybe notedthatthistalliesreasonablywellwiththe 32,600people foundin inhabitants; theAD 1700censusin moreor less the same area.95This wouldproducea veryapproximate figureofbetween175,000and 200,000forthecombinedmanpowerofLaconia and Messenia in thelatersixthand fifth centuries. The figuresrecordedby Herodotos in the contextof the Persian invasionof 480-479 providethe onlytextualbasis forarrivingat an estimateof the totalpopulationof Laconia and Messenia.There are said to have been as manyas 8,000 Spartiatesavailableformilitary service(aged 20-60),with5,000(perhapsa two-thirds levy)presentat Plataia(Hdt.vii. 234,ix. were same battle At the they accompaniedby 5,000 picked perioikichoplites(ix. 11; 10). each Spartan hoplite had seven helots in a also two-thirds Furthermore, levy). perhaps attendanceequippedwithlightarms,35,000in all (ix. 10).The perioikichopliteseach had a statusequippedwithlightarms;thesemighthavebeenperioikoi ofunspecified singleattendant of lesser rank or perhaps slaves (ix. 28). On the assumptionthatthe 8,000 Spartiatesof militaryage comprisedabout 50 per cent of the male population(about 40 per cent aged undertwenty and 10 per centoversixty),thetotalSpartiatepopulation,includingfemales,is in thecase ofthe to have been between30,000and 35,000.There is ratherlesscertainty likely matched and were about also numbered If of those 8,000 bya similar hoplitestanding perioikoi.

93In fact,as theirsmall size suggests,the populationof most perioikic towns,especially those in central and S. Laconia, may not have been large and probably rarely exceeded1,000.The smalldimensionsof thesesitescontrast withthelargersizesofsitesin N. Laconia (see below). 94 Too little is yet known from the Pylos Regional ArchaeologicalProject. The most significantresultis the absence of evidenceforwidespreadsmallruralsitesbefore

the liberationof Messenia in the 4th cent. Evidence for Ar-ECl occupation is largelyconfinedto large nucleated sites:Davis et al, 'Pylos Γ, 454-7; A. B. Harrison and N. Spencer,Afterthe palace: the early"history"of Messenia', in SandyPylos,147-62,at 160. 95Panagiotopoulos,Πληθυσμός, 249; the territories ol Garitenaand Fanariare excludedfromthiscalculation.

Early Iron Age to classical period 209

wouldhave been about 15,000.Usingthe numberoflesserrank,theirtotalmilitary strength thiswouldproducea totalperioikicpopulation samebasisofcalculationas fortheSpartiates, theproportion ofadultmalesthatwas ofabout60,000.Thereis equal uncertainty concerning representedby the 35,000 helotsat Plataia. Depending on whethertheyrepresentedthe one ofable-bodiedhelots,and assumingthatfewhelotslivedbeyondtheage ofsixty, majority mightexpectthereto have been about 60,000-80,000males,givingan approximatetotalof helots.Whencombined,thesefigures 120,000-160,000 suggestthetotalpopulationofLaconia and Messeniamighthavebeen between210,000and 255,000. The veryroughcalculationsbased on Herodotos'snumbersclearlyproduceratherhigher estimatesofthetotalpopulationthanthosebased on the estimatedpopulationdensityofthe If anyofthevariablesused surveyarea,butnotso greatas to suggestthatbothare worthless. in eitherset of calculationsis wrong,thenthereis clearlyscope forupwardor downward revisionof theseestimates.For example,as our figureforruralpopulationdensityis derived froman area largelydominatedbymarginalland,thereis clearlyscope forhigherdensitiesin areas of prime agriculturalland, especiallyin Messenia. Likewise,the populationof the perioikictownsmayhave been ratherlargerthanallowedforin our calculation.Equally,our of the perioikicand/or helot use of Herodotos'sfiguresmay have led to an overestimate in theearlyfifth of Laconia and Messenia is On this the basis, century population populations. less than and well have been somewhat have been much to 200,000 may larger. unlikely The significanceof the populationdensitiescalculatedforthe surveyarea in the later archaic-earlyclassical(14.6 per sq km) and laterclassical(12.2per sq km)periodsdepends made about thecarrying capacityoftheland and theaverage verymuchon theassumptions in context size oftheplotsofland attachedto each farm.Firstofall, it helpsto setour figures areas. with estimates made for other them intensively surveyed bycomparing A usefulbaseline is perhapsprovidedby the non-nucleatedclassical deme of Atene in south-east Attica,whosepopulationhas been estimatedat about 450, yieldinga densityof 18 In thiscase, unlikeany of the othersconsideredhere,the rural inhabitants km.96 per sq the entirepopulationof the area. Elsewherethe majorityof inhabitantsin the constituted nucleatedcentreshad to be supportedfromthe same land as was occupied by the rural Forexample,overan area ofabout 225 sq kmin thesouthernArgolid,populationis minority. estimatedto have risenfromabout 5,880 in the archaic period to 6,880 in the classical, reachinga peak of 10,855m tnesecondhalfofthefourthcentury(26-48 people per sq km).97 Throughoutthistimethe bulk of the populationlived in the two citiesof Hermione and Halieis,as well as in severallargevillageswithpopulationsthoughtto exceed 500. Leaving of theselargesettlements, the ruralpopulationdensityprobablynever aside the inhabitants exceeded10 per sq km (archaic5.2, classical6.3, late classical-earlyhellenistic 9.9). Likewise in classicalBoiotia,theruralpopulationhas been calculatedby a different routeas 33,515out ofa totalpopulationof 165,500in an area of2,580sq km,givinga densityof 13per sq km(64 per sq km includingthe urban populations).98However,considerablygreaterdensities apparentlyoccurredwithinthe area of 40 sq km coveredby the Boiotia Survey,perhapsas muchas 31.5 per sq km.99A highruralpopulationdensity(22.8 per sq km) has also been 96Lohmann, Atene,280. 97GreekCountryside, ^63 table B.7.

98Bintliff (n. 85), 236. 99This figureis reachedby assuminga populationof 560 on 112smallfarmsteadsites,and c.66o on 11largerhamlet

sitesrangingbetween1 and 3 ha. The latteris likelyto be a ratherconservative estimate:Bintliff (n. 85), 236.

210 Chapterj

calculatedin north-west Keos, wherethe smallpolisof Koressos(or Koressia)is estimatedto have had a populationof 900-1,200at itspeak in the classicalperiod(50-66 people per sq residentoutsidethecity.100 Even on km),ofwhichas manyas 410 mayhavebeen permanently thislimitedbasis,therangeofruralpopulationdensitiesin a singleperiodcan be seento have been wide,from6.3 to 22.8 in the classicalperiod;in particularly favourableniches,such as thatcoveredby theBoiotiaSurvey, wherea veryhighproportionofthetotalis cultivable, or of the of where the of rural is estimated at parts territory Metapontion, density population km km out of densities have been much The 22-44 Per scl (34.75sq 40 sq km),101 may higher. ratherlow estimates forour own area closelycorrelatewiththoseproposedforBoiotia,while the estimatedoverallpopulationdensityof 26-31 per sq km is closestto thatof the southern Argolidand low relativeto most otherregions.At the same time thereis an interesting betweenthehighdensityofthesouth-eastern sectorin thelate archaic-early correspondence classicalperiod (23 per sq km) withthe figurefornorth-west Keos, and betweenthe low forthesouthern densityofthewesternsectorin thesameperiod(7 per sq km)and thefigures Argolidin thearchaicand classicalperiods.This latterparallel,witha regionwheremostof theland appearsto havebeen cultivated bydwellersin citiesor largevillages,tendsto confirm the suspicion,and stronga priori thatthewesternsectorwas largelycultivatedby probability, peoplelivingin Sparta. The low density of population in Laconia is throwninto even sharper relief by consideration of thepopulationestimatesforAthensand Atticain the classicalperiod.102 In 432 BC, population densitymay have been as high as 125-150 per sq km, based on a of about 2,400 sq km. Even the muchreduced populationof 300,000-360,000in a territory populationof the thirdquarterof the fourthcentury,estimatedat 200,000-250,000,still levels(83-104per sq km)considerably producesdensity higherthanBoiotiaat itspeak.Athens was clearlyexceptionaland represents one extremein the parametersof populationdensity, Laconia apparently beingbelowaveragein thisrespect. on the Working assumption that 4-5 ha of land was necessary for the subsistence a of requirements familyof fivein classicalGreece,the ruralpopulationof the surveyarea clearlywould have fallenwell withinthe notional carryingcapacity of the 19 sq km of availablearableland (see above,p. 197).However,while4-5 ha ofprimearablemightsuffice fortheneedsofa family, thefigureis likelyto havebeen considerably higherin marginalareas such as ours,perhaps in the regionof 7-9 ha.103Furthermore, the evidenceadduced for affluenceat a considerablenumberof small sites is a clear indicatorthat many of the inhabitants of our area aspiredto something morethanthe bare needs of subsistence. Such farmsteadsand villasmay have controlledmore extensiveestates,perhapsin the range of 10-20 ha, analogous to the sizes estimatedfora group of prosperouslate classical-early 100The calculationsare thoseof Whitelaw,'Colonisation' (n. 22), 232 with n. 35, which give substantiallyhigher numbersfor the rural population than suggestedin the , 337-8 table17.3). originalsurveyreport{Landscape Archaeology 101 C. Carter, J. 'Metapontum: land, wealth, and Colonists andNative population',inJ.-P.Descoeudres(ed.),Greek

Populations:Proceedings of theist AustralianCongressof Classical Archaeologyheld in Honour of EmeritusProfessorA. D. Trendall

(Sydney, g-14July, ig8j) (Oxford,iQQo),405-41,at 410. 102por faç currentorthodoxview, see M. H. Hansen,

and Democracy:The NumberofAthenianCitizensin the Demography

FourthCenturyBC (Herning, 1986), 65-9; id., ThreeStudiesin

Athenian meddelelser,56; Demography (Historisk-filosofiske Copenhagen,1988),12,2^. 103Whitelaw,'Colonisation' (n. 22), 235, reportson an averageof7.4 ha forrecentfamilyfarmsin NW Keos (see his n. 55 forreferences to literature on ancientfarmplot sizes). An excavated farmhousein the marginal landscape of Karystosappears to have controlledno less than 9 ha of land: Kellerand Wallace(n. 22).

Early Iron Age to classical period 211

in the southernArgolid,and further afieldto typicalfarmsizes of the farmhouses hellenistic in the Crimea.104 in Chersonesos These fourthcenturyat Metapontion southernItalyand at on therelationship between forfarmsizesproducea verydifferent perspective higherfigures thatin ofthepopulationand thecarrying ourestimates capacityofthesurveyarea, suggesting centuriesthepopulationwas close to itsmaximumpotential.If, thelatersixthand earlyfifth forthesakeofargument, 9 ha was theaveragesize ofa familyfarm,themaximumpopulation densityforthecultivableland wouldhavebeen about55 per sq km.In thisclimaxperiod,the estimated populationof 1,025wouldcorrespondto a densityofalmost54 per squarekilometre of cultivableland. This may have been a significantfactorin the subsequentdecline of especiallyif,as willbe suggestedbelow,it was combinedwith populationlaterin thecentury, and degradationthrougherosion. in of the land the fertility depletion landin the kind leave us in no doubtthatthesmallarea ofcultivable of this calculations Finally, 1 of Sellasia more than to the which be area km)can (slightly sq territory may assigned survey to maintainitspopulation, neverhavebeen sufficient probablyno fewerthan325-350ifvillage farmsare combined.A populationofthisorderwouldhaverequiredbetween3.25 and outlying usedfortheaverage landforitsbasicneeds,dependingon thefigure and 6.5 sq kmofcultivable sizeofa farm.UnlessSellasiahad a specialstatusconnectedwithitsstrategic location,itis hard extendedwell to the east of the made above (p. 200) thatitsterritory to resistthe suggestion a further 4.5 sq kmofarablelandmainlyin theVasarasbasin. Kelephinatoincorporate Communications in the survey on the locationof ancientsettlement The influenceof linesof communication area deservesattention,especiallybecause a well-developedsystemof roads forwheeled Forthe (άμαξήλατοιοδοί) appearsto haveexistedin Laconia froman earlydate.105 transport mostpart,thesurveyarea lieswellto theeastofthemainnorth-southrouteslinkingSpartato the outsideworld (ILL. 5.4). Sparta's linkwiththe sea was most likelya continuationto whilethe routeleadingto the Megalopolis Gytheionof the road fromSparta to Amyklai,106 104Greek Countryside, 386-8 withtable 6.7. These seventeen farmsare estimatedto havebeen between5.5 and 22.5 ha in clusterof fivebetween12 and 13.5 size,withan interesting ha. At Metapontion, plots of 13 and 26 ha are in the majority, thoughnearerthe cityaverageplot sizes (4.84 ha) weremuchsmaller:see Carter(n. 101),427; id., TheChoraof (Austin, Tex., 1998), 54. At Metaponto:The Necropoleis Chersonesos, plotsof 17-26ha are thenorm,thoughthereis as to whetherthesewerefarmedby single someuncertainty families:see Saprykin(n. 22),83-4. 105Pikoulas,in a forthcoming book,will presentthe case alreadyadvocatedon severaloccasions.See G. A. Pikoulas, 'Ή Tabula Peutingeriana και ή χερσόνησος τοϋ Μαλέα', Hows,2 (1984)5175- 88; Pikoulas,'Skiritis',146-7; Pikoulas, NMX 198-227; id., 'Ή ανατολική ακτή του Μαλέα: κόλπος Μονεμβασίας',Λακ. σπουδ. g (1988),277-85; id., 'Κυθηραϊκά',Hows,13 (ΐ999)>7*~8ο. See also J. Christien, 'Les liaisons entre Sparte et son territoire malgré l'encadrement montagneux',inJ.-F.Bergier(ed.),Montagnes,

barrières ou lignesde convergence? /Berge, fleuves, forêtsdans l'histoire: HindernisseoderBegegnungsräume? Flüsse, Wälderin derGeschichte: (Travaux présentésau XVIe CongrèsInternationaldes Sciences

août 1985) (St Katharinen, 1989), 18-44; Historiques,Stuttgart,

ofArkadia',in CPC Acts6, Y. A. Pikoulas,'The road-network 248-319. Io()There were probably several means of reaching Gytheion.One routemay have followedthe Eurotasvalley to theHelos plain,fromwhereitbranchedSW.Anothermay have traversedthe plain of Sparta and reachedthe coast at Trinasosby crossingthe hillsvia modernDaphní, Krokées, and Stephaniá.See PL i. 85 n. 73; W. K. Pritchett, 'Ancient Greek roads', in SAGT in: Roads(1980), 143-96, at 178-80; id., 'Greeksectionof the Peutingertable',ibid. 197-289,at

άπότή Λακωνία', 'Τρίαμιλιάρια 252-8;G. Steinhauer,

Hows,10-12(1992-8),277-965at 295-6. Theremayalso have been a route,similarto the modernSparta-Gytheionroad, thatcrossedthe Vardouniahillsand passed close to Aigiai beforereachingGytheion:see G. D. R. Sanders and I. K. Whitbread, 'Central places and major roads in the Péloponnèse', BSA 85 (1990), 333-61, at 340. It has been withtheoutsideworld arguedthatSparta'scommunications were conductedsomewhereotherthanGytheionbeforethe in late5thcent.:C. Falkner,Ά noteon Spartaand Gytheium thefifth Historia, century', 43 (1994),495-501.

212 Chapter5

Ill 5.4. Routesin thesurveyarea (D. Taylor).

Early Iron Age to classical period 213

basin (used among other thingsfor access to northernMessenia and the north-west Péloponnèse)followeda course along the west side of the upper Eurotas and Alpheios A thirdroute,leadingto Tegea and thenorth-east valleys.107 Péloponnèse,is generally thought to havetakenthecourseoftheroad knownto nineteenth-century travellers. This followedthe mainnorthroad along thewestbank of the Eurotasto thepointwheretheriverissuesfrom thehillsnorthofSparta,just above Geladari(H45).Fromtheretheroad crossedtheriverand ascended to Sellasia (12.5 km) along one of the long spurs projectingSW fromAgios beforecontinuing northvia Karyai to the Tegean plain along the line of the Konstantinos, Part of this road musthave runwithinthenorth-west Sarandapótamos.108 edge of thesurvey no traces were recorded.109 Between the area, though unambiguous valleybottomand the base of Agios Konstantinos,thereare no sitesof archaic or classical date to suggestthat settlement was influencedby the existenceof thisroute,thoughthereare some indications thatthiswas reversedin the hellenisticand Roman periods.However,thereis evidenceto route, suggestthatthe sectionof thisroad betweenSparta and Sellasia followeda different crossingtheEurotasat thenorthern edge ofSpartaand tracinga coursesimilarto thatofthe modernSparta-Tripolis road as faras Voutiánoi,fromwhereSellasia (13km)was reachedby A route such as this musthave been skirtingthe westernside of Agios Konstantinos.110 followedby Epameinondas'sinvadingarmyin 370/69.Againthereis nothingto indicatethat it was an incentiveforsitelocation,thoughmanyof the siteson the edge of the rivervalley mighthave had easy access to it. Betweenthe base of the schistmassifand the westfootof thereare no sitesofarchaic-classicaldate along anyhypothetical course AgiosKonstantinos, thisroutemayhave taken,thougha stringofhellenistic and Roman sitesmayagain indicate thatit came laterto assumesome importance.Major routessuch as thesewere capable of carryingwheeledvehicles(wagons,carts,and so on), used by the Lakedaimonianarmyfor itsbaggage,as well as forthe movementof commercialgoods and the tithesof transporting producefromSpartanestatesin Messeniaand Laconia.111 Whilethesearterialroutesconnecting Spartawiththeoutsideworldseemnotto havebeen influential beforethehellenistic the and other period, routeslinkingthe cityto itshinterland of are to Laconia have had in for site location the likely parts greatersignificance survey area.112 They maybe examinedaccordingto the sectorsof the surveyarea theyserved.The main valleysystemsarticulatethe axes of communications, and frequently routestake their coursealong the valleybottoms.However,as a generalprinciple,routesoverareas of high relieftendto followspurand ridgecrests,avoidingtheimpenetrable in thevalleyand thickets as well as the incised side on bottoms, gully deeply gullies midslopes. 107Loring,'Routes', 36-47; W. K. Pritchett,'Pausanias' road fromSparta to the Arkadianborder',SAGT iv: Passes (1982),1-28; id., 'Pausanias' road fromMegalopolisto the Lakonian frontier',SAGT ν (1985) 69-76; Pikoulas,NMX 203-16. 108 Loring,'Routes', 52-60; W. K. Pritchett,'The road along the upper Alpheios river',SAGT ν (1985), 77-91;J. Christien,'L'invasion de la Laconie (370/69 a.C.) et les routes du nord de l'état Spartiate', in 3rd Peloponnesian ii. 325-36;Pikoulas,NMX 201-3;LS*ii. 339,352. Congress, 109The onlypossibletraceis at H47(LS ii. 357),closeto the river,wherethereis a shortstretchof limestonecobbling. is consideredto be ofOtt date in LS ii and by This,however, I. Pikoulas(pers.comm.).

110This seems to be impliedby the existenceof a road leadingΝ fromthe bridgeoverthe Eurotas,of whichtraces werenotedby the ExpéditionScientifique de Morée,as well as the existenceof the bridgeitselfat the Ν edge of the city etαι.,'Crossingthe river',296 (see n. 118). See Armstrong (route2a), 308; Steinhauer(η. ΐο6),291-2η. 40. 111 Forcefully argued by Christien(n. 105),as well as by Pikoulas,NMX 198-201. 112 The evidencefora network ofroadscapable ofcarrying wheeledvehicles,linkingSpartato theothertownsand cities ofLaconia as wellas withMessenia,is collectedin Christien (n. 105).

214

Chapter 5

COMMUNICATIONS

IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN

SECTOR

The Chrysaphabasin and Neogeneplateau,whichhave been seen as thefocusofsettlement in thisperiod,do notlie on any important linesofcommunication withmoredistantregions of Laconia, unlesstheywereused as an alternative means of reachingGeronthraiand from Laconia (see below). There is no easy way across therethe Helos plain and south-eastern Parnonat thispoint,and mostroutesare likelyto havebeen oflocal significance.113 Accessto the area is determinedby the dissectedcharacterof the plateau fringing the Eurotasvalley and bytheorientation ofthevalleysand ridges.As manyas sixroutesmayhavebeen in use in our period.Three of theseconnectthe Eurotasvalleywiththe northernend of theplateau, at moreor lessthesamepointin thevicinity ofP284.The mostimportant ofthese(7 emerging a to that the as faras followed route close of modern road km)probably Sparta-Chrysapha thefootoftheNeogenecliffs whichformthebackdropto thevalley.At thispointit probably made a steepascentto thetop oftheTsakonaspur,whichcould be followedto thetop ofthe clusterof late archaic-early ridge,emergingin subzoneΡ (i), wheretherewas an important classicalsites.This routepassed througha dense area of habitationin its lowerstretch(in subzonesJ iv-vi), and even thoughthe Tsakona spuris sparselyoccupiedcertainsitesmust have been in close proximity (N312,N409).It would also have passed close to the important of Zeus sanctuary Messapeus(N415)and anotherminorshrine(N430).114 An alternative, more northerly route(8.5 km) mighthave followedthe southside of the as far as its Kelephina valley junctionwiththe Sophronistream."5Fromhere a long and ascent is made gradual along the northside of Chatzarorachito the area of Agioi Saranda from where it (L534), perhapscontinuedalong the edge ofthe Sophronigorgeto thehead of theLoutsorema(subzonesP i-ii),givingaccessto thesitesalongthelowernorthslopesofthe Koutsovitiridge.Its hypothetical coursewould have passed close to otherwiseisolatedsites as (K250,N503),as wellas a smallshrine(K414).This routemusthavebecomemoreimportant in thearea expandedin thehellenistic settlement and Romanperiods. The secondmajorrouteis shorterand moredirect(6.5 km)fortraffic fromSparta,though barelyused at present.It crossesthe edge of theplain throughmodernAphysouand follows thevalleybehindthevillageto reachthetop oftheplateauclose to P271.116 Its coursepassed the hellenistic and Roman hamlet(M321)at the footof the Neogene scarp,wherethereare tracesoflatearchaicand classicaloccupation,and at itsupperend P268. The clustering of sitesat the northernend of theplateauand Loutsoremamaybe in part due to theexistenceoftheserouteswhosenodalpointwas thearea ofP284.Assumingthatthe routecontinued,it musthave followedthe line of the modernroad along the top of the plateau,close to R420,as faras the importantclusterof siteson the westside of the lower Loutsorema.At thispoint(2 km),in the vicinityof R275,the routemay have divided.The mostimportant leg leadingto the Chrysaphabasin probablybranchedfromthe line of the 113The route across Parnon from Prasiai to Sparta, followedby allies fromPhleious and otherPeloponnesian cities in 370/69 (Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 2), presumablypassed throughthe area. See Christien(n. 105), 26-7; ead., 'De Sparte à la côte orientaledu Péloponnèse',in M. Piérart à la (ed.), PolydipsionArgos:Argosde la fin des palais mycéniens constitution de l'état classique (Fribourg(Suisse) y-g mai ig8y)

(BCH suppl.22; Paris,1992),157-72,at 161-2. 114Armstronget ai, 'Crossingthe river',296 (route4a), 308-9.

115 This seemsto havebeen theroutefollowedbytheroad to Argos marked on the Atlas (pl. 3) of the Expédition Scientifiquede Morée, and the one taken by Leake in reaching Sparta across the S end of Mt Parnon: Leake, Travels,ii. 511-22. See J. M. Wagstaff,'Colonel Leake in Laconia', in Φιλολάκων,277-83,at 282 fig.77. 116Markedon the etal., map S of route4a in Armstrong 'Crossingtheriver',296.

Early Iron Age to classical period 215

modernroad. Instead of descendingto the valleybottomand climbingnorth-eastto gain access fromthe northernend of the basin,it is morelikelyto have continuedalong one or otherofthespursrunningSSEfromR275,descendingto theconfluenceoftheremasthatfeed into the Chavos gorge,beforeskirtingthe south side of the Aï-Lias hill and enteringthe Chrysaphabasin close to its centre(4 km).Apartfrombeing more directand avoidingan descentand reascent(5 km),sucha routewouldhavepassedcloseto a numberof unnecessary latearchaicand classicalsites(e.g.R508-9,R526,U506,U519-20). A route of lesser importanceperhaps descended fromthe plateau to the Loutsorema with (perhapscloseto thespringofAgiosGeorgios)and theredivided,one branchconnecting theother theclusterofsiteson thehillofAgioiTheódoroiand thelowerslope ofKoutsoviti, withsitesto thenorth(S431-2,S524). theEurotasvalleywiththeChrysaphabasinlie wellto thesouth The otherroutesconnecting of thoseso fardescribed.One of theserunsalong the southernboundaryof the surveyarea, followingthe crestof a long north-southspur immediatelysouthof the Menelaion ridge, perhapsall the way to the top of the plateau (11 km),close to two smalllate archaic-early and This routepassescloseto theimportant classicalsites(P278-9).117 springin theKastororema in Ν of this late archaicclassical sites subzone Close to the north a cluster of (ν). early through theroutemayhave branchedeast tojoin another wheretheremabecomesshallower, cluster, The area ofRoubaiikais thepointon a ridgeat anothernodalpointin local communications. of the main head also closeto P278-9)whereit dividesinto north-south spur plateau(its long in at thesitesofthreemodern the Eurotas threefurther valleyapproximately spurs,terminating at Platána at the area outside 12 km, 14 km,Skoúraat 16.5km). survey (Zagáno villageslying Each one ofthesespursis a viablemeansoftravelbetweentheNeogeneplateauand theEurotas havebeen longerthanthosedescribedabove.Theymight,however, thoughconsiderably valley, to the south of Sparta, especially more convenientforcommunicationswithsettlements Amyklai,than any of the more northerlyroutes.The same area also gave access to the Chrysaphabasin(3 km)via a routedescendingto thehead oftheChavosgorgefromthewest, thereafter joining the main routearound the southside of Aï-Lias. In thisconnectionthe ofsitesaroundRoubaiikamaybe significant concentration (e.g.R281-3,R427,R518). sitesin the Chrysaphabasinwerealso in a positionto communicate As alreadysuggested, withareasto thesouth.The mainrouteleavesthebasinat itssouthern end,crossesthesaddleof km and to the modern of from descends U490).A muchmore village Kephalás(5 Asphakórachi, extension ofthebasinand descendsa valleyto themodern routefollowsthesouth-east difficult routeleavesthebasinat itsnorth-east villageofGoritsá(7 km).A third,longerbutlessdifficult and later sitesare situated, and passesto the where several late archaic-classical corner, (U493-4) south-eastoverthe narrowsaddle betweenRáchi Skala to the northand Koukouriato the south.It thendescendsfrommodernKalloni (formerly Pérpeni)intothewide and productive of the either at Goritsa(10.5km)or further eastin the Charakórema, valley eventually emerging it east-westvalleyleadingto modernAgioiAnárgyroi would have (10.5km).Hereabouts, joined themainroutefromtheEurotasvalleyto Geronthrai and theHelos plain,whichis assumedto This hypothetical haverunbetweenSkouraand AgioiAnargyroi. routemighthavepassedclose Alsoworthy ofnoteare to U3006,a smalllatearchaic-earlyclassicalsitein theCharakókambos. a thetracesofan old road ofindeterminate visible for short distance on the lower north date, sideofthevalleythatleadsnorth-east fromGoritsa(U4006). 117 Ibid. 296,309; LS'û. 389, 395.

2i6

Chapter j

COMMUNICATIONS

IN THE WESTERN

SECTOR

and in an ofthisarea presentedfewobstaclesto communication, The physicalcharacteristics oftracks area so closeto themainurbancentrethereis likelyto havebeen a complexnetwork and pathsgivingaccess to fieldsand buildingson the east side of the river.Most likelythey radiatedfromSparta,or fromthe pointsat whichthe rivercould be crossedby bridgeor forded.There is now conclusive evidence that the bridge over the Eurotas, to which Xenophonrefersin his accountoftheinvasionof370/69(Hell.vi. 5. 27),shouldbe identified witha classicalpredecessorof the bridgeof Nikodemosat the northof the city(close to the oftheroad thiswas probablythestarting-point As alreadysuggested, modernroad bridge).118 similarto have been Its course thatled northto Sellasia,Karyai,and eventually may Tegea. thatof the modernSparta-Tripolisroad, passingclose to the sanctuaryof Apollo Pythaëus (Πυθαεύς) at Thornax before crossing the Kelephina between modern Kladás and Kokkinórachi. BeyondtheKelephinaitbegan itsascentoftheschistmassifin thedirectionof Sellasia. The road to the Menelaion,describedby Pausanias(iii. 19. 7), musthave branched land fringing thelow-lying southfromthemain road leadingnorthto Sellasia and traversed made itsascentto thesanctuaryby a pathsimilar theEurotas(ourzone M), and presumably to thatwhichnow leads fromthe churchof Zoodóchos Pigí. Severalothersanctuarieswere locatedalongthisroad (see below).Its continuation southwards, pastthenarrowsbetweenthe land Menelaionand thebed of the Eurotas,wouldhave givenaccess to thefineagricultural betweenthemodernvillagesofZagano and Skoura,fromwheretheremayhavebeen a route east to Geronthraiand thence to southernKynouriaand south-easternLaconia.119The forthe a convenient meansof communication existenceof theserouteswould have afforded numeroussitesstrungoutbetweentheMenelaionridgeand theKelephinavalley,thougheven travelbetweenthe and the easy terrainwould have facilitated withoutthemtheirproximity linear of thesesitesmay the almost Nevertheless, arrangement cityand thisinnerterritory. of two main roads,both suggestthattheywere situatedto take advantageof the existence wheeledvehicles. capableofcarrying The onlypartof thewesternsectornot servedby a major routewas the productivestrip oftheEurotasand Kelephinaand thecrossingoftheEurotasnorthof betweentheconfluence otherthanthe Geladari(H45).Here again thereare fewnaturalobstaclesto communication wouldhavebeen bya route riversthemselves. The mosteconomicalmeansofcommunication branchingfromthe main Sellasia roadjust described.This would have avoidedthe marshy land whichprobablyexistedin the low-lyinggroundclose to the confluenceof the rivers. Abovethispointitwouldhavefollowedthecourseoftheriveras faras thegorgenorthofthe Kopána bridge (H46). Such a routewould have servedall the sites occupyingthe lower which,thoughfewin number,are again arrangedin a moreor lesslinearpattern. footslopes, The possibility thatit,too,was a routeofprimaryimportanceshouldnotbe discounted.The 118E. Kourinou-Pikoula, 'Μνάμα γεροντείας', Hows, 10-12 (1992-8), 259-76, at 266-76; Kourinou, Σπάρτη, 78-84; Steinhauer(η. ΐο6),290-4. Steinhauerlocatesthe Cl bridgeto theS ofNikodemos'sbridge,butseemsto place too muchweighton the religiouspurposeof thisroad (linking Sparta to the Menelaion) and to underestimateeconomic The newevidencevindicatesthe and military considerations. argumentsof G. Dickins, 'Excavations at Sparta, 1906: BSA 12(1905-6),431-9,at 437-9; conclusions', topographical C. M. Stibbe,'Beobachtungenzur Topographiedes antiken

Sparta', BA Besch.64 (1989), 61-99, at 97-8; id., 'Between Babykaand Knakion: threeaddenda', ΒΑ Besch.69 (1994), 63-102, at 66-7. Wace's theory('Excavations'(n. 53), 6-9), followed by Bölte (RE s.v. 'Sparta', col. 1370) and by etai, 'Crossingthe river',298-300, 304-5, that Armstrong thisbridgeshouldbe locatedat the Ε or SE of the citymust nowbe rejected. 119 This was presumably the route followed by Epameinondas'sarmyin 370/69(Xen. Hell.vi. 5. 30).

Early Iron Age to classical period 217

fewsitesnorthofthenarrowsat theKopana bridgemusthavebeen relatively isolated,though outlinedabove would have been affordedby a track access to the lines of communications running alongtheeastsideoftheriver. COMMUNICATIONS

IN THE NORTHERN

SECTOR

As alreadyindicated,a majorarterialrouteleadingfromtheEurotasvalleyto Sellasiapassed edge of the surveyarea or followinga line throughthissector,eitheralong the north-west as a means of similarto thatof the modernSparta-Tripolisroad. Apartfromfunctioning withmoredistantplaces in north-eastern Laconia (suchas Karyai and Oios, communication or Oion), southernArkadia,and the Thyreatis,this routewas also locally importantin as well ofAgiosKonstantinos, allowingrapidreinforcement connecting Spartato thefortress as itsprovisioning, and to the villageof Sellasia. Whicheverthe courseof the road, neither in thelongsectionsbetweentheEurotasvalleyand Agios settlement appearsto haveattracted all the sites located at the base of the latter(B103,B107,B121,C114) Konstantinos. However, withSparta and werewellpositionedto takeadvantageof its existenceforcommunications extensionbeyondSellasia,thisroutewouldalso havepassedcloseto Sellasia.In itsnorthward A3014,liketheothersa sitedependenton Sellasia. in thewestern WhereasSpartais assumedto havebeen thefocalpointforcommunications as well as the of Sellasia must havehad and south-eastern southern the sectors, north, portion a similarif less emphaticrole in the northernpart of the surveyregion.Unfortunately, its ofthesurveyarea prevents locationat thenorthextremity us frominvestigating thenetwork of local communications withsitesin thewest,north,and east partsofitsterritory. Sufficeit to east of the say thattheremusthave been a routeconnectingthe villagewithits territory far as as theVasarasbasinfourkilometres to itseast. Kelephina,perhapsextending An alternativecourse forthe more easterlyof the two suggestedroutesfromSparta to Sellasiamighthavebeen to ascendtheTheológosridgeand followitsuppercontoursas faras thesaddleconnecting it to thehillofAgiosKonstantinos, thereafter itseasternfootto skirting reach Sellasia (13 km). Such a routewould have followeda similarcourse to thatof the modernroad passingfromKladas to Ágios Ioánnis Theológos and Kalyvia Theológou, A smalllate archaic-early reachingthemainhighwayat thenorthfootofAgiosKonstantinos. classicalsite(K200)lies closeto thishypothetical routein itssouthernsection,as do a number oflaterhellenistic, Roman,and medievalsites.Whetheror not it servedas themain road to routethattraversed thislargearea. Sellasia,theremaystillhavebeen a subsidiary In the southernpart of the northernsector,communicationsmusthave been directed towardsSparta.The main naturalroutefollowsthe Kelephinavalley,whichin the east-west stretchbelow itsjunctionwiththe Sophronistreamcan be followedon eitherbank with moderateease. The fewtracesof settlement and otherhumanactivitiesin thissectorin our periodare situatedclose to thisroute.BetweenSellasia and the Sophronijunction,thevalley narrowsand communications are renderedmuchmore difficult, the sectionbetweenAgios Nikólaos(G182)and the southernend of the Sellasia valley(a stretchof some 3-4 km)being forthemostpartimpassable. The majorityof sitesin the northernsectorwere accessibleby one or otherof the routes describedso far,but a smallnumberare foundin remotelocations,at a distancefromthe naturallinesof communication. Two (G157,G159),situatedon the middleslopesof the steep schistmassifabove the Kelephina,had the optionof usingthe Kelephinavalleyor a route along the Theologosridge.A third(C169),on a remotespurof the same massif,could have had accessto thesameroutealongtheTheologosridgebya branchtrack.

2i8 Chapter5 The preceding surveytends to suggest that communicationswere in many cases an factorin site location,especiallyat nodes in the networkof routesconnecting influential the various parts of the survey area. However, their importance may easily be especiallyas thereare numeroussites,includingsome rankedas hamlets overemphasized, remotelocationswithoutimmediateaccess to any ofthemain routes. or villas,in relatively Three such sitesin the northernsectorhave been noted above, but in the south-eastern sectorthe clustersof sitesalong the footof the Koutsovitiridge and those on the hill of Agioi Theodoroi were also well offthe beaten track.Nevertheless,the communications networkmay help to account forsome of the clustersof sites,as well as some of the less notableon theNeogene plateau,whereaccess easilyexplainedgaps. These are particularly to watersupplieshas also been suggestedas a criticalfactor.The gaps of more than 1 km betweenP279and R420 and ofnearly2 kmbetweenP278and R281,bothin areas otherwise eminentlysuitableforagriculture,demand some explanation.The fact that these gaps withotherroutesare not easilymade is surely coincidewithareas whereinterconnections not accidental. When this is combined with the clusteringof sites at nodal points (for examplearoundP284,Ágios Nektários,and Roubaiika),a strongcase can be made forthe relative importance of connectibilityin site location. Such a preference is easily comprehensibleif the inhabitantsof these sites were engaged in workingfragmented landholdings,where the accessibilityof a farmwithinthe agriculturallandscape might have been a significantfactor.The same conditionsmightalso account forthe general preferenceforridge-toplocationsover midslopeor valleybottomsthroughoutthe area of theNeogeneplateau. The Religious

Landscape:

Sanctuaries

withinthesurveyarea in thisperiodcomesfromtwo The earliestevidenceforhumanactivity excavatedcult sites,namelythe Menelaion (Q360), concernedwiththe cult of Helen and Menelaos, and the sanctuaryof Zeus Messapeus at Tsakona (N415).At both the earliest evidenceforcultdatesto thelate eighthcenturyBC,perhapsno earlierthan£.700.(Fordetails ofcultsites,see TABLE 5.6.) a small the earliesttemplewas probablyerected£.600BC,comprising At theMenelaion120 withdiskakroteria. roofedwithLaconian tilesand embellished cella ofporosashlarmasonry, Priorto thisthereis no evidencefora permanentstructure, thoughthereare richdepositsof The originaltempleprobablycontinuedto standafter votivesspanningthe seventhcentury. ofthevictoryoverthePersiansin 479,ofa surrounding theaddition,perhapsin theaftermath and in some facedwithblue limestone, ofmassiveblocksofconglomerate, terraceconstructed tiled to the from frieze.121 fashiondecoratedwitha marbletriglyph roof,there Apart repairs

120For the earlierexcavations,see A. B. Wace, M. S. J. Thompson, and J. P. Droop, 'The Menelaion', BSA 15 (1908-9),108-57.For summariesofmorerecentworkat the see (H. W.) Catling,'Menelaion',35-42; R. W. V sanctuary, Catling,'Excavationsat theMenelaion: 1985',Λακ. σπονδ. 9 (1986),205-16. 121The of Simonides'elegy recentlypublishedfragments on the Persian wars suggestthat the Spartans may have role to Menelaos,togetherwiththe an important attributed

Dioskouroi, in the victoryat Plataia. See P. J. Parsons, 'Simonides:elegies',in E. W. Handley,H. G. Ioannidou,P.J. Parsons, and J. E. G. Whitehorne(eds), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,lix (Graeco-Roman Memoirs, 79; London, 1992), on p. 35. It 4-50, no. 3965,fr.2, lines8-10,withcommentary of Menelaos accompaniedthe is evenpossiblethatan effigy Spartanarmy,in thesame way as theDioskouroiare known Stateat War,iii: TheGreek to have done: see W. K. Pritchett, Los Angeles,and London,1979),14-17· Religion (Berkeley,

Early Iron Age to classical period 219 siteno.

zone

size

LargeSpartansanctuaries Q360 N415

Qi Ni

0.40 0.12

Smallruralshrines(Spartiateterritory) 0.22 J6 J367 J215 M194

J2 M2

0.02 0.01

Smallruralshrines(non-Spartiate territory?) U4 Ui Αι

0.20 0.16 0.11

N430 K414

N2

0.07

K4

A3018 P260

A3 Pi Ri

0.03 0.01

U3002 U492 A119

R296 U3001

U3

Siteswithvotiveobjects U511 U516 S524 P261/264 S437/440 U490 J224 R427 J230 B103 K235 M325

o.oi
U2 Ui

1.81 1.08

Si P2

0.67 0.20

S4

0.20

U3

0.20

J5 R2

0.13 0.10

J6 B2

0.08

K3 M4

0.07 0.07 0.01

cult

votives

date

LG-H1 LG-H1, LR

all types all types

Helen,Menelaos Zeus Messapeus

LAr-cl ar Cl hl R ear-LAr

P/Mv P/I Ρ

ρ ρ

LAr-Cl LAr-ECl lcl-Hl Cl-hl lar LAr-Cl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-EGl

I Tc Tc Tc Mv/Tc Mv Mv P/Mv P/Mv/S/I

ρ ρ

lar-Gl-Hl Cl-Hl-R LAr-ECl EC1-LC1 LAr-LCl LAr-R LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EGl LAr-LCl LAr-Cl LAr-LCl

Ρ Tc Tc Mv Mv Tc/L Mv/Lw Mv Tc P/Mv Tc Tc

ρ ρ ρ ρ

? ? ? ?

? ?

Zeus/Hermes?

?

? ? ?

ρ ρ p ρ

ofvotive Keytotypes I inscription L lamp Lw lead wreath /figurine vase Mv miniature Ρ (e.g.aryballoi,stemmedcups,lakainas) pottery S stonesculpture terracotta Tc /plaque figurine Table 5.6. Cult sites,orderedin descendingsize.

Waterforuse in untilitsdestruction £.200BC.122 seemto havebeen no subsequentalterations the ritualof the sanctuarywas providedby a cistern.Based on the quantityand qualityof votives,thecultreacheditspeak in thefirsthalfofthesixthcentury, thoughthereis plentiful and hellenistic the classical evidenceforcontinuousactivity early periodsuntilits throughout abandonment.There was no later revival.Apart frommasses of cheap votives(pottery, therewerealso morevaluablededications lead wreaths,and figurines), numerousminiatures, ofbronzevessels(mostlyphialai)and dressornaments, weaponsin bronzeand iron,armour, 122The sanctuarymay have sustainedseriousdamage in thefighting aroundtheMenelaionduringPhilipV's invasion

ofLaconia in 218 (Cartledgeand Spawforth, 63).

220 Chapter5

and theirrelativerarity, and some smallsculpturein local marbleand bronze.Nevertheless theabsenceofthemuchricherarrayofvotivesfoundin theurbansanctuariesof Spartaand mayindicatethattheMenelaionrankedbelowtheseleadingcults. Amyklai, the historyof the sanctuaryof Zeus As a consequenceof its poor stateof preservation, in certainrespects it is in traced such cannot be detail,though clearthatitdiffers Messapeus123 fromtheMenelaion.The templecompriseda longnarrowbuildingwithinternalcolonnade, roofed in rubblemasonryand havingin all likelihooda mudbricksuperstructure, constructed in the normalLaconian fashion.The remainsof antefixesand disc akroteriasuggestit was In spiteof the modified,in the firsthalfof the sixthcentury. built,or at least substantially and varied votive a rich for there is evidence intenseerosion assemblage.Apart surprisingly of the late sixthand fifthcenturies,the most frompotteryand miniatures, predominantly Of thesethemajority notablefeatureis thevastquantityofhandmadeterracotta figurines.124 some there are also but are grotesqueithyphallic females, evidently pregnant,as well figures, was the and animal as quadrupeds.Theystrongly fertility principalconcern implythathuman indicates thatsome and athletic ofthecult.However,theoccurrenceofweaponry equipment for. The cult were also catered of the more conventionalSpartaninterests appears to have suffereda much earlierdecline than the Menelaion, withonlyverylimitedevidencefor survivalafterthe mid-fourth century.It, too, seems to have been abandoned duringthe AD. centuries hellenistic period,onlyto experiencea laterevivalin thethirdand fourth and maintainedbytheSpartanstateand so In all likelihoodboththesecultswereinstituted ofthevillagesof Spartaand Amyklai.This is theconcernoftheinhabitants wereprincipally made all themorelikelyby thefactthatbothweresituatedin areas where,as has been seen, beforethe sixthcenturyBC. Both occupysimilar thereis no evidenceforhumansettlement viewsand themselves extensive sites with on widelyvisible.They hilltop conspicuous positions, are also in areas whereeven at a laterdate thereare fewothertracesof humanoccupation, suggestingthattheywere deliberatelyplaced at the marginsof the settledand cultivated landscape.Althoughthe explanationmustlie partlyin the natureof theparticularcults(the MenelaionbeingassociatedwiththeallegedtombofMenelaos and Helen, and no doubtthe it conformsto a widerphenomenonof extratracesof the extensiveMycenaeansettlement), in other urbansanctuaries regionsofGreece.125 recognized many A thirdmajor statesanctuary,thatof Apollo Pythaëusat Thornax, should be situated Its early withinthe surveyarea to the northof Sparta at the edge of the Eurotasvalley.126 was obtained in cult statue the colossal used the that the tradition are gold origins impliedby have been made regardingits fromKroisos,before546 BG(Hdt. i. 69). Varioussuggestions a low hillat Pavléïka(north on with some remains it connected writers location. Early precise river to the and close of modernKokkinorachi, Tsouni, Kelephina),whileothers formerly it has been Most of north-east have placed it in thelow-lying recently, Sparta.127 groundjust at Geladari site with the Laconia of the members identified large Survey by tentatively to mention not must be of cult indicative of evidence the lack acknowledged, though (H45),128 earlierthanthehellenistic thescantyevidenceforactivity period. I23(H. W.) Catling,'MessapianZeus'. ^4 bee (Jhapter19;groupedundernos 59-09. ^5 de rohgnac,JSaissance (n. 11),23-92; id., Médiation,

the evolutionof rural and sovereignty: competition, in geometric sanctuaries Greece',in S. E. Alcockand R. G. Osborne (eds), PlacingtheGods: Sanctuariesand SacredSpace

in AncientGreece(Oxford, 1994), 3-18; id., Cults(n. 11),

21-88.

126See Bölte'sfulldiscussionin RE s.v.'Thornax'. I27Pavleïka: Boblaye, Recherches, 74-5; Boite, RE s.v. 'Thornax'.NEofSparta:PL i. 82. 128 etal, 'Crossingtheriver',310;LS'û. 357. Armstrong

Early Iron Age to classical period 221

withtheirevidentstateinvolvement, musthave lain These threeextra-urban sanctuaries, its outer what at withinSpartiateterritory forming maybe termeda thoughperhaps fringes, formed the area have Othersanctuaries outside survey sacredcordon.129 may partofthesame between cordon (see below). As such, theymay help to definethe boundaries territory belongingto Spartaand thatbelongingto perioikiccommunities. whilebeingthe mostconspicuousand long-livedcultsites,are not The largesanctuaries, the onlyevidenceforreligiousactivityin the surveyarea. The villagesof Sparta and their immediateenvironsare well known,fromexcavationand the ancientsources,to have been of small cults,the majorityhavingtheirfloruitin the archaicand home to a proliferation beforethe antiquarianrevivalof the Roman classicalperiodsand decliningin thehellenistic of AD.I3°Pausanias(iii.19.7-8, 20. 1)refersto sanctuaries period,especiallythesecondcentury Asklepios,Ares,and Polydeukeson or close to the road to Therapne and the Menelaion,131 identified locatedin zone M butnoneofthemcertainly bytheSurvey.M194,close presumably to the river,has alreadybeen notedforits small size and unusualquantityof earlyto late The presenceof miniaturevotivesand archaicfinewares,perhapsindicativeof cultactivity. at it should be as one oftheanonymous, lesser-order sherds identified J367 suggests aryballos of Sparta.The associatedassemblageoflate archaicdate cultsitesin theimmediatevicinity to the showsthatit was short-lived, perhapsin use forless thanfifty years.SiteJ215,slightly north,mayalso have been ofthesame type,thoughof classicalratherthanarchaicdate and or earlythirdcentury. probablyas lateas thefourth Cult sitesalso figurein areas outsidewhatcan certainlybe definedas Spartiateterritory, thoughthe statusof theirinhabitantsforthe mostpart remainsambiguous.On the lower north-eastslopes of Sellasia (A118),the one certainperioikicvillage or town site, some terracottafigurines suggestedthe existenceofa sanctuary(A119),thoughit cannotbe ruled out thatthisis an extensionof the cemeteryslightlyuphill(A120);in any case no material earlierthan the thirdcenturywas found.Nothingwas foundto suggestthe existenceof a sanctuarywithinthe main area of the site. This uncertaintyleaves open the important question concerningthe extentto which a small perioikictown such as Sellasia, in the immediateambit of Sparta, maintaineda civic existenceof its own. If it lacked its own communalcults,the naturalassumptionwould be thatitsinhabitantsparticipatedin some In thisrespect,and perhapsotherstoo, way in the cultssituatedin and around Sparta.132 Sellasia should not be regarded as typical of perioikic towns and villages throughout Laconia. Its proximity, small size, and strategiclocation may have enforcedupon it a ratherdifferent relationshipwithSparta than was enjoyedby the largerand more distant townsofLaconia.

129P. A. Gartledge,'City and chora in Sparta: archaicto in Cavanaghand Walker,39-47,at 43-4. hellenistic', 130See S. E. Alcock,'Mindingthe gap in hellenisticand Roman Greece',in Alcockand Osborne(n. 125),247-61,on thewidervalidityofthispatternin thecontextofruralcults. 131See LS ii. 382. The Phoibaion, which contained a templeof the Dioskouroi,and the sanctuaryof Poseidon Gaiaochos are said by Paus. iii. 20. 2 to have been not far fromTherapnai,but it is clear fromXen. Hell. vi. 5. 30-1 thatthesewereW of the riverbetweenSparta and Amyklai. See Bolte in RE s.v. 'Phoibaion', and most recently Kourinou,Σπάρτη, 199-210.

132There is no compellingreasonforthe cult of Artemis Selasia referred to by Hesychios(s.v.Σελασία)to have been located at Sellasia. The Ar relief with a dedicatory inscriptionto the Dioskouroi listed by Kolbe among the inscriptionsof Sellasia (IG ν. ι. 919) was foundat Vourliá from (modern Sellasia) and is most likelya pierreerrante Sparta or its immediate neighbourhood. See R. Parker, 'Spartanreligion',in Powell(n. 37), 142-72,at 145-6,on the evidenceforperioikicinvolvement in Spartancults.

222 Chapter5

On theperiphery oftheChrysaphabasintherewas at leastone and probablytwocultsites thatcan be classed above the level of small ruralsanctuaries.Unfortunately, one fallsjust in outsidethearea ofintensive and could be a more survey only investigated cursoryfashion, whilethe locationof the second is not securelyfixed.The firstoccupiesthe top of Phagia viewsin every (U3002),one ofthemostconspicuoushilltopsin centralLaconia,withextensive as a sanctuaryis based partlyon itscommanding direction. Itsidentification location,butalso of a fragment of a largearchaicinscribedstele.133 thisthereare on the discovery from Apart of late of tile and some archaicclassical There is nothing pottery early type. quantities glazed to indicatethatitsurvivedafterthisperiod. in the nineteenth of a second sanctuaryis based on the discovery, The identification and in of four of the so-called Laconian the area of hero-reliefs early twentiethcenturies, (U3001).With Chrysapha,whichmayoriginatefromone and the same siteat Pikromygdalia one of these were found an archaic inscriptionreferringto Hermes, a plaque with a dedicationto Zeus, a miniaturepot, and numeroussherdsof black-glazedand large coarse but its Stibbe in a recentstudyclaimsto have relocatedthe site of theirdiscovery, pots.134 precise positionis not given and it mustlie outside the area coveredby intensivefieldThere mustalso be seriousdoubtsconcerningtheantiquityofthecairnsofstones walking.135 in one ofwhichthemostfamoushero-relief was found;massivestone-piles derivedfromfield on clearanceare a commonfeaturein thelandscapeoftheChrysaphabasin.136 Nevertheless, the assumptionthattheyhad a commonoriginalfindplace,the occurrenceof fourof these reliefsmustimplythata sanctuaryof some importanceexistedsomewherein thearea. Some whichspan thethird idea oftheminimumperiodofitsuse is givenby thereliefsthemselves, century.137 quarterofthesixthto thesecondhalfofthefifth In thecase ofthelargesanctuaries, thesurfaceremainsin theformofvotivesand tracesof The identification leave no doubtabouttheirreligiousfunction. monumental usually buildings can be more cult sites,whichperhapsoftenlacked any builtstructures, of the lesser-order where difficult.138 Not onlydoes thenatureofthecultalwaysremainobscurebut sometimes, as a cultplace is open to question.Usuallyit thequantityofmaterialis small,itsidentification votivepots,terracotta is based on thepresenceofdiagnosticartefact types,ofwhichminiature fine wares have the strongestcult and abnormal clusters of small and plaques, figurines thatsome or all of thesehad otherthanpurelyreligious associations,thoughthe possibility There is no uniformpatternin the surfaceremainsor uses is freelyadmitted(see below).139 and locationof thesesmallcultsites.There is considerablevariationin the quantity, density, to thedurationoftheiruse. They withoutanyclearcorrelation extentofthematerialscatters, are also found in a varietyof locations, some in close juxtaposition to contemporary habitationsitesor at a shortdistanceaway,othersoccupyingmarginallocationsat thefringes w LSn. 214no. 1. 134 H. Dressel and A. Milchhoefer, 'Die antiken Kunstwerkeaus Sparta und Umgebung', AM 2 (1877), 293-474,at 303-7. 135 ötibbe,Dionysos (n. 12),5-9. 136It is possible that these stone-heaps originate in antiquityand are a relicof the workrequiredto make the land cultivable.A similarphenomenonhas been notedin a (n. 22),295. marginaluplandarea in Chios: Lambrinoudakis 137 David Hibler(pers.comm.)considersAthensNM 1417, datedlate 5th-cent. byStibbe,to be no earlierthan4th-cent. and quitepossiblystilllater.

138Sanctuariesof thistypehave receivedlittleattention: see Alcock(n. 130)fora usefuldiscussion,whichfocuseson smallsanctuariesofa laterdate. 139Elsewherediscretescattersof finewares have been as evidenceforruralburials:A. M. Snodgrass, interpreted M.-Th. 'Ruralburialin theworldofcities',in S. Marchegay,

etpouvoir:idéologies, le Dinahet, and J.-F. Salles (eds), Nécropoles Actesdu colloque'Théoriesde la nécropole pratiqueset interprétations. antique' (Lyon 21-25 janvier iggj) (Travaux de la Maison de

l'OrientMéditerranéen, 27; Paris,1998),37-42.

Early Iron Age to classical period 223

of or welloutsidethe settledand cultivatedlandscape.Some are foundon prominent hilltop sites,othersin muchlessconspicuousplaces.Theirperiodofuse can be shownin manycases coterminouswiththe siteswhose inhabitantswere mostlikely to have been approximately theirdevotees.Probablyforthis reason most are short-lived,like so many of the rural habitationsites. It U492 seemsto be an exampleof a smallcult siteconnectedto one nearbysettlement. ofclassicaltype.140 It is closeto U491,a figurines producedpartofa plaque and twoterracotta siteon theedge ofthe Chrysaphabasinwhichgrewfromvilla size in thelate archaicperiod into a small hamletin the classical and early hellenisticperiods. R296 is perhaps to be associatedwiththe clusterof late archaic-earlyclassicalsiteson the Neogene plateau at the southernedge of the surveyarea, close to a route linkingthe Eurotas valley and the in Chrysaphabasinand thecopiousKastororemaspringin thevalleybelow.It was apparently use fora shorttimein thelatearchaicperiodand consistedofa verysmallbutdensescatterof finepotteryand a fewminiaturepots coveringan area ofless than 10 sq m. Small drinkingof varioustypes,were the mostcommonceramic vessels,especiallystemmedcups (kylikes) form.Wherecultsitesas smallas thisare concerneditis morethanlikelythatsome,ifnotthe of thoseof similarsize thatonce existedhave been destroyedor buried,or have majority, byfield-walking. simplypassedundetected A numberofsmallcultsitesoccupymarginallocations.Three suchsites(K414,N430,P260) occurin a stripof desolateland along the southernside of the Sophronigorge.P260,oflate archaic-earlyclassicaldate,was markedby thepresenceof miniaturepots,and the absence oftilesuggestedthattherewas no cultbuilding.It is close to a clusterof contemporary sites at thehead oftheLoutsorema(P262,P272-4,P285-6).At N430thereare terracottafigurines Its locationon a seriesofnarrowconglomerate ofclassicaltype.141 ledgeson thesteepedge of a spur,in one of the areas least fitfor cultivation,also draws attention.The closest contemporarysites are N409 and P264. K414, probablyof late archaic date, has only a miniatureand a terracottafigurine.It is in a area of schist,otherwisedevoid of sitesof archaicor classicaldate,highabove thejunctionof the Sophronigorgewiththe Kelephina. Althoughall threeare in marginallocations,it is possiblethat,like R296, theylay close to ancientrouteswhichclimbedfromtheEurotasand Kelephinavalleysto thenorthern end of theplateau,one probablyrunningclose to thesanctuaryofZeus Messapeus(N415),theother perhaps ascendingthe northernflankof Chatzarorachi(zones Κ iv and L) and passing betweenN430 and N503.Apartfromthesethreesmall sanctuaries,anotherin a marginal location(A3018)is indicatedby thepresenceof a miniaturearyballos.It occupiedone ofthe two prominentpeaks (the Tourles)above the Kelephina valley,north-west of Sellasia, and in somewayassociatedwiththatvillageor thesmallruralsettlements was presumably which existedin itsperiphery. The occasional discoveryof miniaturesand terracottason sites consideredto have a habitationfunction primarily maysuggestone oftwothings:eitherthattheseobjectshad nonor that cults could be locatedwithinsmallhabitationsites.The mostplausible religioususes, alternative to a religiouspurposeis thattheywere used in mortuaryritual,whetherburied withthedead or placed as offerings at thegrave.However,untilmoreis knownofarchaicand in classicalmortuary Laconia thereis no basis fordecidingwhetheror not thisis a practice In case the numbers are low,implyingthat,if cultactivityis to be likelyexplanation. every 140 LS'n. 192-4nos 80, 86, 98.

141 LS'n. 192nos 75, 79.

224 Chapter5

understood,it was on a small scale. Singleminiaturepots occur at fivesites(B103,142 J224, P261/264,R427,S437/440),singleterracottaanimal figurinesat two (M325,U524), single femalefigurines at one (U516).The terracotta plaques at two(J230,K235),and twoterracotta in thesurvey of a classical the one found of intensive lamp, only sampling U490producedpart of with As be the area, and a figurine. might expected, possible cult majority objects six the eleven sitesare than size. of associationsare foundon sitesoflarger average Although the smallest fiveare in theuppersize range(0.07-0.13ha), onlyone beingamong farmsteads, (0.01 ha). Three are classifiedamongthe villa sites,the othertwo as hamlets.There is also sites.Althoughfourare short-lived, someweighting towardslonger-lived occupiedonlyin the late archaic to earlyclassical period, the remainderseem to have been occupied fortwo the hundredyearsor more;foursurvivedfromlate archaicto late classical,one throughout classical period, and anotherfromclassical into hellenisticand Roman, while U490 was apparentlyoccupied fromthe late archaicperiod to medievaltimeswithouta break.The same phenomenonof cult activitylocated withina habitationsite also occursat the large hamletsite U511,occupied formuch of the classical and hellenisticperiods.Althoughno ofsmallfinewares(in werefound,twodenseconcentrations miniatures or terracotta figurines areasA ii and D) are bestexplainedas votivedeposits. The characteristicsof the religiouslandscape may be brieflysummarized.The most conspicuouscultplaces,in termsof size,monumentalbuildings,the volumeof votives,and thatSpartancultsdominatedthelandscape all occurin Spartiateterritory, suggesting longevity, There is no in muchthe same way as Sparta dominatedLaconia politicallyand militarily. evidenceto suggestthatSellasiahad a majorcultplace ofitsown as a focusforcivicidentity. are generallysmall-scaleand all shortSanctuariesoutsidewhatmustbe Spartiateterritory of theseareas neverdeveloped,or werepreventedfrom thatthe inhabitants lived,suggesting whichis sucha markedfeatureof The discontinuity a senseofcommunalidentity. developing, the habitationsitesis equallynotableamong the cult sites.The two largercult sitesin the poorly Chrysapha basin, Phagia (U3002) and Pikromygdalia(U3001),are unfortunately understood.Both could have servedas a focusforthe scatteredpopulationof the area, but neitherseemsto havelastedmuchlaterthanthemid-fifth Instead,thereligiouslifeof century. theruralpopulationmayhavebeen conductedlocallybyindividualfamiliesor smallgroupsof families,eitherwithinthe boundariesof the siteor at places close by.For thesefragmented communities, Spartanfestivalsand sanctuariesmay have providedthe main occasionsand and theirreligiousconcernswerelargely in communalcultactivity, locationsforparticipation oftheSpartaplain. withthoseoftheinhabitants identified Summary and Discussion Beforegoing on to discussthe data recoveredby the surveyforthe archaic and classical of historicaleventsand the social and economicconditions periodswithinthe framework in the analysismaybe summarized. principalresultsoftheforegoing existing Laconia, can be detectedin thesurvey Aftertheend oftheLate BronzeAge,no traceof settlement area beforethe sixthcenturyBC, thoughcult activitybegan at the Menelaion and the Althoughsomesites sanctuaryofZeus Messapeusno laterthantheend oftheeighthcentury. themiddleof around occur the half of the sixth in first the century, majority perhapsoriginate 142 The possibility thatthiswas a cultsitehas been suggestedabove on thebasisofitsabnormalassemblageoffinewares.

Early Iron Age to classical period 225

the centuryor later, in what appears to have been a relativelyrapid phase of rural colonization.Four basic categorieshave been identifiedamong the sites of thisperiod, ofsitesweresmall,lessthan dominatednumerically byitssmallestelements.The vastmajority farmsteads. is 0.15 ha, and have been characterizedas single-household Althoughcertainty in manyifnotmostcases thesurfaceassemblagesharmonizewithwhatmightbe impossible, predictedat sitesof permanentresidence.A smallernumberof largersitesoccur,variously identified as Villas', small clustersof farmsteads, 'hamlets',and one village.Differentiation betweenthemis principallyby size, thoughindicationsof wealth may be importantfor betweenvillasand otherlargesites.The one villagesiteis identified as ancient distinguishing Sellasia,whoseoriginsseemno moreancientthanthemassofsmallersettlements. Apartfrom thesehabitationsites,the importantfortress of Agios Konstantinosnear Sellasia also came intouse,at theend ofthesixthor earlyin thefifth century. The distribution ofthesesiteswithinthesurveyarea is uneven,withmarkedconcentrations in thesouth-eastern sector(theNeogeneplateauand Chrysaphabasin)and thewesternsector (themarginsoftheEurotasvalley);thenorthernsectorwas muchless denselysettled,except forthe areas around Sellasia and Agios Konstantinos.Several factorsseem to have been influentialin governingsite location. Fundamentalwas the availabilityof good soils for withclear preferences forthe Neogene clays of the plateau and the southern cultivation, of the Eurotas the valley, developedschistsoilsalong itsnorthernmargins,and the margins terrarossaof the Chrysaphabasin. The limestoneand schisthillsand mountainsideswere almostcompletelydevoid of settlement, and theymay have largelypreservedtheirnatural cover mixture of forest and oak at higherelevations)throughout this (a vegetation maquis The notable a is small number of sites located on the of only period. exception junction the and of the for limestone,perhaps takingadvantage Neogene potential combiningarable cultivation withmountaingrazing.Sourcesof waterseem to have been influential in areas withouta perennialriveror streamin close proximity. in of sites the Clustering vicinityof in is notable several areas of the and the perennialsprings Neogene plateau fringesof the basin. access to local lines of whether the main river communication, Easy Chrysapha along in or on the areas of a was further consideration. Nodal valleys ridgetops highrelief, pointsin the communications networkseem to have been especiallyfavouredand, on the Neogene reinforced thepatternofclustering aroundwatersources.There can be plateauin particular, no doubtthattheinhabitants ofthesesitesweremainlyengagedin agriculture, witha strong likelihoodthatcerealcultivation was theirprimeconcern.Thereis no evidenceforoil or wine in theformofcrushingand pressinggear,whereasequipmentforgrinding cereals production is sometimesfound.A roughestimateof 1,025people is calculatedforthe populationof the withthe spreadof settlement is the appearanceof a numberof surveyarea. Contemporary small ruralshrines,frequently on what may be assumedto have been the marginsof the cultivated landscape. Aroundthemiddleofthefifth a radical century, perhapsin thesecondhalfofthecentury, occurred. This involved the desertion of in sites the three bottom change permanent many the and a in increase the number of farmsteads, categories,especiallyamong corresponding 'villas'and 'hamlets'.Althoughthetimescaleis ratheruncertain, theindicationsare thatthese occurredwithina shortperiod. Certainpartsof the surveyarea were worse developments affected thanothers,notablytheNeogeneplateauwheresome areas wereonlyreoccupied,if otherareas seemto havegainedin thenumberand size ever,at a muchlaterdate.Conversely, of sites,in particularthe Chrysaphabasin and the marginsof the Eurotasvalley.Late in the the firstsignsof any seriousinterestin the period,in the secondhalfof the fourthcentury,

226 Chapter5

schistuplandsofthenorthern sectoroccur,an interest thatwas to growin thehellenistic and laterperiodsand stillprevailstoday.There are slightindicationsthatthe villageof Sellasia in thisrespect.There also grewin thisperiod,thoughthesurveydata are notveryinformative is also an impression ofgreateractivity at thefortress ofAgiosKonstantinos, especiallyin the in the occupationof sites; fourthcentury. Overallthereis a markeddegreeof discontinuity whenit occurs,is morefrequent on thelargersites.In a fewcases,we maysuspect continuity, thata newsitecloseto thelocationofa desertedearlierone reflects theshiftin residenceofa thereseems to have been a changed household.Accompanyingthese shiftsin settlement, forthecolluvialsoilsalong the Eurotas valleyand the terra rossaofthe Chrysapha preference Water to at the of the seem have exercisedless basin, expense Neogene clays. supplies influenceon site locationthan in the precedingperiod,as does access to naturallines of communication.In spiteof the increasein largersites,the populationof the surveyarea to the probablydeclined;our calculationsproducea roughestimateof 855. Corresponding in in thereis a reduction thenumberofruralshrinesand a similarpattern decline settlement of discontinuity. By the end of the fourthcenturytherealso seemsto have been a declineat the major statesanctuaries, as measuredby evidenceforbuildingactivityand the quantities and qualityofthevotivesrecoveredin excavation. THE RURAL ECONOMY

and thesanctuaries, thereis nothingto suggestthat WiththeexceptionofAgiosKonstantinos any of the sitesof thesetwo periodswere involvedin any otherformof productionthan Unlessthequarriesin theEurotasgorge(E49)wereopened thisearly,thereis no agriculture. or manufacturing evidenceforspecialistsitesinvolvedwithextractive processes.The scope of exchangealso seemsto havebeen confinedwithina narrowgeographicalcontext.Small-scale in anysectorofthesurvey exchangesno doubtoccurredbetweenneighboursand inhabitants area, but Sparta musthave been the focusof commercialactivity, beingboth the centreof in centreforthe the wider and the and life social, region presumed religious political, of manufactured and large population, includingnot goods.143 Sparta's production exchange and a number of the affluent class but substantial (craftsmen non-agriculturalists ruling only artisansamongothers),musthave createda demandforstapleproductsand luxuries.These needs seem to have been largelysatisfiedlocallythroughsimpletransactionsbetweenthe peripheryand the central place, and did not provide the stimulusfor any substantial in externalexchangenetworks. There is nothingto indicatea flowofgoods into involvement thisalmostclosed economic systemfromregionsbeyondLaconia and Messenia, though Sparta probablyservedmuch of inland Laconia as the marketforthe limitedquantityof and itemsthatcould notbe foundlocally.Even in Spartaitselfimports importedcommodities in peripheralareas suchas thatcovered non-existent are notablyscarce,and theyare virtually in reflect isolation must the This economic Sparta'sinlandlocation,remote part survey. by fromthe main lines of maritimetrade,but it also resultsfromLaconia's capacityforselfin mostessentialsand raw materials:agricultural produce,metalores (iron,silver sufficiency and lead, perhapscopper),buildingstone,timber,and pottingclay,as well as subservient labour.It suggeststhatsurplusproductionby the wealthywas deployedlargelyin a local ofservicesand foruse in competitive context,perhapsfortheprocurement display.However, in the Mediterranean of Laconian pottery, the widespreaddistribution exportedthroughout 143 In thisrespectI disagreewiththosewholocatethebulkofartisanalproductionin partsofLaconia otherthanSparta.

Early Iron Age to classical period 227

the sixthcentury, includingwhatmay be Laconian transport amphoras,showsthat,even if therewas littledemandforimportsin inlandLaconia, the opportunities forenrichment by in elaborate more networks were not exchange participating completely ignored.144 Spartawas not isolatedin otherrespects,havingclose relationswithplaces such as Samos and certainly Kyrene,strongconnectionswith the two main panhellenic sanctuariesat Olympia and Delphi,and personalrelationsin mostregionsofthePéloponnèseand centralGreeceas well as moredistantplaces.145 was the main preoccupationof the rural If,as has been arguedabove, arable cultivation sites,greatand small,thepotentialscope foranimalhusbandryshouldnotbe neglected.The scale and formsof stockmanagementpractisedin Greece,bothin historicaland prehistoric The generaltendencyhas periods,have been the subjectof considerablerecentattention.146 been to play down the scale of animal herdingand to reduce the scope for extensive of the classicalpolis. The restraints on large-scalestock pastoralismwithinthe framework smallterritories, managementapplywithparticularforceto statescontrolling comparatively whereanimal husbandrywas probablylargelyconfinedwithina mixedfarmingregimein was alwayson arable crops.At the same timethepotentialimportanceof whichthepriority animalhusbandryhas been recognized,bothfortheanimalproductsthatcould be deployed in marketexchange,especiallyby thewealthy, and in providinga formof 'storedcapital'.In as themain constraints on stockmanagement Laconia, twofactorsthathave been identified - thedominantinterests elsewhere ofarablefarmersoverherders,and a shortageoflabourrestrictions, applyin a muchless acute form.Territorial occasioningconflictbetweenarable and a shortageofadequate grazingthroughout farmers and herdsmen, theyearare relatively Vast tracts of land with little other than as extensive insignificant. agriculturalpotential exist outside the main zones of arable cultivation. The areas occur in the pasture largest Parnonand Taygetosmountainranges,stretching fromthe northernbordersof Laconia to the Maléa and Máni peninsulas.Both summerand wintergrazingare availablewithinthe range of altitudes,allowingseasonal movementsof flockswithminimalencroachmenton 144On thedistribution ofLaconianpotterysee M. Nafissi, 'Distributionand trade', in Stibbe, MixingBowls (n. 12), studisullastoriae la societàdi 68-88; id., La nascitadelkosmos: Sparta(Naples, 1991),236-53. On widerissuesof Laconian artisticproduction,see S. Hodkinson, 'Lakonian artistic productionand the problem of Spartan austerity',in N. Fisherand H. van Wees (eds),Archaic Greece: NewApproaches and New Evidence(London, 1998), 93-117; for a rather different approach,see R. Förtsch,'Spartan art: its many different deaths',in Cavanaghand Walker,48-54. 143òamos: r. A. L-artledge,öparta and bamos: a special relationship',CQ n.s. 32 (1982),243-59; Nafissi,Nascita(n. 144),255-76; C. M. Stibbe,'LakonischeKeramikaus dem Heraion von Samos', AM 112 (1997), 25-142, at 31-47. in the Spartan Cyrene: I. Malkin, Myth and Territory Mediterranean (Cambridge, 1994), 143-91. Olympia: C. andOracles:The Transformation and Morgan,Athletes ofOlympia BC (Cambridge, 1990), 99 103. Delphiin theEighthCentury Delphi: ibid. 168-71.Personalconnections:P. A. Cartledge, andtheCrisisofSparta(Londonand Baltimore,1987), Agesilaos and theGreekCity 243-5; G. Herman, RitualisedFriendship (Cambridge,1987),167-75,appendixA; S. Hodkinson,'The developmentof Spartan society and institutionsin the

archaicperiod',in L. G. Mitchelland P.J. Rhodes (eds),The Greece Development ofthePolisinArchaic (Londonand New York, 1997),83-102,at 93; L. G. Mitchell,Greeks Bearing Gifts:The PublicUseofPrivate in theGreekWorld, Relationships 435-323BC (Cambridge,1QQ7), ^1-6^. '4<)Amongthe mostimportant contributions are Halstead (n. 37); id., 'Pastoralismor householdherding?Problemsof scale and specializationin earlyGreek animal husbandry', World 28.1 (1996),20-42;J. Ε Cherry,'Pastoralism Archaeology, and the role of animals in the pre- and proto-historic economiesof the Aegean', in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in ClassicalAntiquity (PC PS supp. 14; Cambridge, 1988),6 34; S. Hodkinson,Animalhusbandryin the Greek polis', ibid. 35 74; id., 'Politics as a determinant of thecase ofsouthernGreece,ca. 800-300 BC',in pastoralism: R. Maggi, R. Nisbet,and G. Barker(eds), Archeologia della. 2 vols ( =· Rivistadi studiliguri, méridionale, pastorizia neWEuropa 56 7; Bordighera,1990 1), 139-63; Forbes,'Pastoralism'(n. 81); id., 'Identification'(n. 81); see also Osborne (n. 37), 47-52. The more conventionalview is expressedin J. E. Skydsgaard, 'Transhumance in ancient Greece', in Whittaker (above),75-86.

228 Chapter5

oflargeflockscouldpresumably arableland. Second,thelabourrequiredforthemanagement the havebeen suppliedbythehelots,without adversely affecting labouravailableforthefarming roleforthe as havingan important to advocate This is not and tree ofarable pastoralism crops. arable Most of form of transhumance. existence let alone the any majorityof landowners, of farm-based than small numbers more to farmerswereprobablyunable manage animals, goodsforexchange.Rather,itis to draw meetingmainlyhouseholdneedsratherthanproviding labourat theirdisposal,to withthenecessary to thescopethatexistedforthewealthy, attention of fortheidentification criteria exploitlargeareasofmarginalgrazingland.Untilarchaeological associated pastoralsites(forexample,diagnostictypesin the ceramicassemblagespecifically it willbe hardto are established, suchas milkingand cheesemaking) withpastoralproduction in theruraleconomy.147 ofanimalhusbandry makean accurateassessment However,somesites to havehad, at leastin part,a pastoralrole (P272,P273,P274,P285)havealreadybeen suggested at theedges on thebasisoftheirlocationand byanalogywithcontemporary practice.Positioned ofthearableterrainand mountainpasture,theymayhaveserved,at leastforpartoftheyear,as basesforlargeflocksrangedon theopen mountainsides. Todaythesame area supportsseveral largeflocksof morethana hundredgoats,foldedin mandrasin preciselythe same physical situationas theirancientpredecessors. Althoughcurrentpracticemaynotbe a good guideto in instance. this hard to resist it is behaviour, particular past OF THE SURVEYAREA THE INHABITANTS ofthe surveyarea are and changein the settlement Whilethebasic patternsofdevelopment is besetwithdifficulties. ofLaconianhistory clearenough,relatingthemto our understanding Foremostamong these are the uncertaintiessurroundingsome of the most fundamental and thesequenceofeventsin mostof especiallyin thechronology aspectsofLaconianhistory, ofthesurveydata mustalso theperiodbeforethePersianwars.The chronological imprecision be acknowledged,makingit difficult,if not impossible,to relate changingpatternsof attestedeventsor episodes,suchas thegreatearthquakeof behaviourto historically settlement helot rebellion. BG and the subsequent 465 us withtheextentofourignoranceabout Broachingthemostbasic questionofall confronts ofarchaicand classicalLaconia. Who were mattersin thefunctioning someoftheelementary the people thatoccupiedtheseruralsitesin the sixthto fourthcenturies?The answermust involvea degree of diversity,correspondingto the fact that the surveycovers an area of a known extendingfromthe immediateperipheryof ancientSparta into the territory are likely inhabitants who the certain be we can At its two extremes town. reasonably perioikic to have been. A Spartiatepresenceof some sort,whetherin personor in the formof helotworkedfarmsand estates,seemsinevitablein mostof thewesternsector,especiallythatpart of the small southof the confluenceof the Eurotasand Kelephina.Likewise,the inhabitants to be ofSellasiaare reasonablytakento be itsdependantsand therefore sitesin theperiphery a area and of the total a small involve two zones these survey However, part only perioikoi. in the the of The character of sites. number small remainder, particular large comparatively numberof sitesin the south-eastern sector,is muchless clear.For theseonlytwo plausible of smallfarmsteads exist.EithertheywereunderSpartiatecontrol,consisting interpretations 147Cherry(n. 70), 100-1; Forbes,'Identification'(n. 81), 333-4. A 4th-cent. pastoral site has tentativelybeen identifiedin an upland part of Chios on the basis of the

structural remains,and thesame area has producedevidence forthe existenceof farmsengaged in arable and pastoral Lambrinoudakis activities: (n. 22),296-9.

Early Iron Age to classical period 229

or one and largerestatesworkedbyhelotlabour,or,at leastin part,theybelongedtoperioikoi in known to have existed at for whom residence the of the inferior Sparta, citywas groups If not the conventional view is we can exclude these sites followed, presumably necessary. to from the those closest the homes of Sparta itself) among Spartanélite, (exceptperhaps whosepoliticaland social dutiesrequiredthem,whetherby law or practice,to livein one of the fourvillagescomprisingancientSparta or at Amyklai.The possibilitythatthesesites accommodatedrefugeesfromoutsideLaconia can also be discarded.AlthoughSparta is it controlled, all werewithin knownto have resettled refugeepopulationswithintheterritory in none was settlements and let alone so close to itself.148 It seems nucleated Laconia, Sparta an in In inconceivablethatsuch eventwouldhave leftno echo the historicalrecord. viewof theseuncertainties, our approachwillbe to presentthearguments foreach alternative and to thequestionon thebasisofpreconceivedideas. resist,as faras possible,prejudging THE EXTENT OF SPARTAN TERRITORY

Anyattemptto answerthe questionposed above requiressome knowledgeof the extentof as distinct fromthatoftheperioikoi, as wellas conditionsofland tenureand Spartanterritory, restraints on land ownershipthatmighthavepreventedone or othergroupfrominvolvement in thesettlement ofthisarea. For some or mostSpartiates,at least a portionof theirlivelihoodmusthave been derived fromestatesin Laconia, presumablyin Spartan territory, as well as fromtheirextensive How extensivewas thisterritory? Its boundaries,if such existed, possessionsin Messenia.149 are mosteasilydelimitedbyreference to theneighbouring To thenorth,its perioikictowns.150 limitsmusthavebeen definedby theterritories belongingto thetownsofPellanaon thewest sideoftheEurotasand Sellasiaon theeast.Pellanahas evidenceforEarlyIronAge and later bordersfroman early date. occupation,and musthave definedSparta's north-western Sellasia,on theotherhand,appearsto have been occupiedno earlierthanthewave ofrural colonizationin thesixthcentury, and cannothaveconstituted a limitation to Spartanterritory untilthistime.The clearestindicationthatit servedas sucha boundaryin theclassicalperiod comesfromthe end of the fifth when embassiesfromAthensare not permittedto century, Sellasia without the proceedbeyond ephors'approval(Xen. Hell.ii. 2. 13, 19). The northern borderperhapsran roughlyeast-westbetweenthehillofAgiosKonstantinos and themodern of on the of at a the head of ravine Vordonia, village footslope Taygetos deep (EllinitsaRéma) whichfeedsinto the Eurotas.North-eastand east of Sparta,thereare no knownperioikic townsor villageson the westside of the Parnonwatershed.Geronthraiis the best-attested a perioikictownin thisdirection,situatedwell to the south-eastof Sparta and controlling that cannot have conflicted much with in interests. the It, too, originates territory Spartiate in the and prosperouscommunity EarlyIron Age and appears to have been a flourishing In the same generalarea was the small village (κώμη) of archaic and classicalperiods.151 withremainsfoundat AgiosAthanásios,Nerotrívi.152 The area Selinous,perhapsidentifiable 148Earlyresettlement of refugeesfromArgiveAsine and of Nauplia in Messenia:Cartledge,SL 126,140.Resettlement in theThyreatisin 431:ibid.245. Aiginetanrefugees 149It is not clear whetherSpartansotherthan the kings ownedpropertyin perioikicterritories or iftheseterritories were rigidlydefined: see Shipley,'Perioikos', 217, 222; Shipley,'"OtherLakedaimonians'",204-5.

150See the discussionby Bölte in RE s.v. 'Sparta', cols 1321-40;also Shipley,'Perioikos',217. 151 'Geraki1' to 'Geraki6'. 152 A.J. B. Wace and F. W. Hasluck,'East-central Laconia', BSA 15(1908-9),158-76,at 164-5;LSÜ--286, FF98.

230 Chapter5

west of Sparta is dominatedby the Taygetosmassif,an area devoid of knownperioikic in the plain of withcertainty To the south,no perioikictowncan be identified settlements. Pharis and settlements at were nucleated that there It is doubtful Bryseaiin the Sparta. historicalera,whatevertheirstatushad been in theLate BronzeAge. Their reputeseemsto be based more on theirmentionin the Homeric poems than on any historicalreality. Between Sparta and Gytheion,Krokeai and Aigiai are the only potentialcandidatesas perioikicvillages.Krokeai was located close to the modernvillage of Krokées (formerly The same applies to Aigiai, Levétsova),but littleis knownof its originsor earlyhistory.153 to indicate in its but thereis enoughevidencefroma ruralsanctuary presumedterritory indicates evidence far as it the So goes, occupationin the archaic and classicalperiods.154 was probablyrestrictedto the northbut could potentiallyhave that Spartiateterritory extendedunhinderedovera largearea to theeast and south.On thisbasis,thearea covered belongingto Sellasia in the north,all by the surveymight,withthe exceptionof territory have been underitscontrol. within An approximate calculationofthearea ofland availableforagricultural exploitation theselimits(excludingforthemomentthesurvey'ssouth-eastern sector)can be made,which terrainand areas ofhighrelief.The plainofSpartaitself, excludesmountainous includingthe excellent Itslow reliefaffords smallarea on theeastsideoftheriver,coversabout 120sq km.155 foot of the the of water with abundant for arable cultivation, along supplies opportunities it from into the streams in and the Eurotas as well as draining perennial range Taygetos far as the as west side of the on the north of The area Eurotas, hypothetical Sparta Taygetos. rising boundarywithPellana,comprisesabout 40 sq kmofbroken,heavilydissectedfoothills and Such land is best suitedto treecropsand viticulture, to the base of the mountainsides. on the east km land occurs of similar A further cultivation. for arable 50 sq requiresterracing sideoftheEurotasbetweenthemodernvillageofSkouraand theapproximate boundarywith east of Poros incised the Geronthrai Rema, thoughnot Anargyroi), Agioi just (perhaps deeply South of the plain,the Vardouniahillscomprise all thisneed have been Spartiateterritory. verymixed terrain,containingpocketsof open arable land (such as around the modern villagesofPotamiáand Daphni) but dominatedby heavilydissectedareas ofmoderaterelief. 80 sq km. These This area, lyingto the northand westof modernKrokees,adds a further half consistsoffirstless than which of of total a notional estimates km, slightly 270 sq produce ofthesurvey sector km if the south-eastern to increase This would land. arable 305 sq grade area also belongedto Sparta. of Sparta,because of its The Sparta plain may reasonablybe takenas the core territory and itsagriculturalqualities.The plain was sharedwithAmyklai,itselfa relativeproximity situatedin it. The constituent partofthepolisof Sparta and the onlyotherlargesettlement rest of the territorydescribed above must,for the most part, have been of marginal to cultivate,and less productive.The value,beingless accessible,moredifficult agricultural underlined to be seems of this core by the location of a numberof territory significance This categoryof sanctuary,brieflydiscussed extra-urbansanctuariesaround its edges.156 ™ LS''. 295,JJ120. 154LS ii. 296,JJ124. whichlastedfrom For the sanctuary, cent,to theLR period,see Bonias,Αιγιές. themid-7th 155This figureis based on the 1 : 50,000 map series produced by the Hellenic Army Geographical Service Gytheionsheets). (Spárti,Goritsá,Xerokámbion,

156The same phenomenonhas separatelybeen notedby Cartledge(n. 129),43-4.

Early Iron Age to classical period 231

above,whoseoriginsin the earlystagesofstateformationare well established,has in other in thedemarcationofthe cultivatedland, ifnot the Greekstatesbeen seen to be significant territorialboundaries, of a polis.151Typically they are located at the margins of the cultivatedland and the mountainousterrain,close to the borderswith a neighbouring state.The evidenceforthe Spartansanctuariesis ofveryunevenqualitybut suggestiveall thesame. Somewhereat thenorthedge oftheplain,on the east side ofthe river,was the sanctuary ofApollo Pythaèusat Thornax.158 As alreadyseen,it existedat leastfromthemiddleofthe its and sixthcenturybut origins the detailsof its historyare unknown.That sanctuariesof Apollo Pythaëusperhaps had particularlystrongassociationswithborder zones lends it In the same area, but set further added significance.159 back on the north-west edge of the Neogene plateau,is the sanctuaryof Zeus Messapeus,whose originscan be tracedto the second halfof the eighthcentury.Here, too, the cult titlemay correspondto its marginal betweenone territory and another.100 The peculiarcharacterof the position,intermediate votive assemblage may also suggestan initiatoryfunction,typicalof such extra-urban sanctuaries.161 Continuingsouthon the east side of the plain, on an isolatedridgeof the Neogeneplateauis theMenelaion,the sanctuaryof Helen and Menelaos,wherecultis also firstattestedin thelate eighthcentury. The same area, ancientTherapne,is also associated withthe Dioskouroi,thoughit is unclear if therewas a specificsanctuarydedicated to them.162On the west side of the plain, the Eleusinion at Kalyvia Sochás is situated below the footof Taygetos.Here, too, cult is firstattestedin the latereighth immediately Not farnorth,perhapsat Agios Ioánnis Ríganas and knownonlyfromliterary century.163 sources,therewas a sanctuaryof Dionysos at Bryseai.104 Nothingis knownof its early Isolated finds of votives of archaic and classical date at Anógeia, 3 km south of history. are indicative of in another cult the area.165 It is less clearwhetherthe Sochas, Kalyvia place architectural remainsat Arkasádes,in the plain 1.5 km north-eastof Xirokámbi,are in situ or representspolia broughtfromone ofthe othersanctuariesin the area.166At Anthochóri, in the south-west cornerof the plain, thereseemsto have been anothersanctuaryof Zeus 157de Polignac,Naissance (η. 11),23-92; Cults(η. 11),21-88. Whilecommanding generalacceptance,thepitfallsin a rigid applicationof de Polignac'stheoryare clear: see e.g. C. M. Antonaccio,'Placingthe past: the BronzeAge in the cultic ofearlyGreece',in Alcockand Osborne(n. 125), topography 79-104;C. Morgan,'The evolutionof a sacral "landscape": Isthmia,Perachora and the early Corinthianstate', ibid. 105-42; I. Malkin, 'Territorialdominationand the Greek and sanctuary',in P. Hellströmand B. Alroth(eds),Religion Power in the Ancient Greek World: Proceedingsof the Uppsala

Symposium iggj (Boreas,24; Uppsala, 1996),75-81. 150See above,nn. 27, 127,and p. 220. 159de rohgnac,Cults(n. 11),54-5. bee also r. rrontera,II tronodi Apollo in Amicle: appuntiper la topografiae la storiareligiosadi Spartaarcaica',AnnalideliaFacoltàdi Lßttere e FilosofiadelVUniversità di Perugia,18 (1980-1), 217-30, at 220-6, who suggeststhatthe statuesof Apollo Pythaëusat Thornaxand ofApolloat AmyklaimarkedtheΝ and S limits ofSparta'soriginalterritory. 160The originalsuggestion(R. W. V Catlingand D. G. J. inscribed Shipley,'Messapian Zeus: an earlysixth-century cup fromLakonia', BSA 84 (1989), 187-200,at 196-7) that

thetitleMessapeuswas somehowderivedfromtheregionof Messapia in SE Italy has been criticized by L. Dubois, Bulletin épigraphique, 1991,no. 297; he drawsattentionto the oftoponyms withtherootΜεσ(σ)απ-/Μεταπ-in frequency thePéloponnèseand in Laconia in particular. 161 de Polignac,Cults(n. 11),41-5,60-81. 102This associationis most clearlyarticulatedby Pindar (Pyth.xi. 61-4; Nem.χ. 55-7; Isthm.i. 30-1) but may already be currentin Alkman(fr.19 Calame, commentary fr.c). The assertionin Steph. Byz. (s.v. Θεράπναι) that therewas a sanctuaryoftheDioskouroiat Therapnaimaybe based on a carelessreadingofPaus. iii. 20. 2. 103C. M. Stibbe, Das Lleusmionam Fussedes Taygetosin Lakonien',BA Besch.68 (1993),71-105,at 88. On thenature of this cult see R. Parker,'Demeter, Dionysus and the Spartan pantheon',in R. Hägg, Ν. Marinatos,and G. C. Nordquist (eds), Early GreekCult Practice:Proceedings of the^th International at theSwedishInstituteat Athens(26- 2g Symposium

June, 1086)Stockholm,1988),00-103. 164Stibbe(n. 163),83-4; LS ii. 290,GG339. l6$LSii. 291,00118. 166LS ii. 293,GG104.

232 Chapter3

Messapeus.167 Early Iron Age activityat the site is alleged, but it is unclearwhetherthis shouldbe associatedwiththe cult,forwhichthereis certainevidenceonlyfromthe sixth closeto theancientroadbetweenSpartaand the It is lessclearwhetherthesanctuary century. as the identifiable Achilleion,shouldbe classifiedin the same Megalopolisbasin,perhaps m 600 north of the north-east it is situated gate of the hellenistic only category.168 Although west bank of the Eurotas.It, too,has hills the it is to the foot of the close fringing steep city, I do notincludethegreatsanctuary fromthelate eighthcentury.109 evidenceforcultactivity ofApollo and Hyakinthos at Agia Kyriakínear Amyklaiin thislist,thoughit is regardedby it must If it had any territorial some as Sparta'sgreatterritorial significance, sanctuary.170 and the social associated festival the and its be that political represented surely sanctuary betweenthevillagesofSparta unionforged, at an unknowndatebeforethemid-sixth century, a criticalstagein theevolutionoftheSpartanstate.171 and Amyklai, Whiletheextra-urban sanctuariesshouldprobablynotbe takento marktheboundariesof cultivatedlandscape, theymaywelldemarcatethe extentof theintensively Spartanterritory, Their tendsto corroborate established. distribution were first at leastas itwas at thetimethey in the later the that thenegativeevidencedrawnfrom survey eighth,seventh,and earlysixth theplain. The areas lying activities within theiragricultural centuriesthe Spartansrestricted beyondtheselimitswere perhaps regardedas wilderness,the preserveof pastoralistsand acute along thewesternedge of the plain,wherethe is particularly hunters.The distinction is immediate. mountainsides betweencultivated transition landscapeand precipitous DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION

In the absence of surveydata, thereis verylittleevidenceto indicatehow the population on the ground.In practical was distributed of thiscore territory involvedin the cultivation terms,much of the northernpart of the plain could have been workedfromSparta itself, withoutthe need forrural settlement.Likewise,the southernpart lay well withinthe ofAmyklai.However,it seemsmuchmorelikelythatthehelots,who are presumed catchment to havefarmedtheplain,residedon theland ratherthanin Spartaand Amyklai, perhapsin a This seemsto be impliedby thearchaeological and hamlets.172 mixtureofisolatedfarmsteads evidence,suchas itis,as wellas bya fewpassagesin Xenophon.Severalsiteswhichappearto ratherthan sanctuarieshave been identifiedat Tserámio,perhapsat Agios be settlements the at Unfortunately, Georgios, Agios Vasileiosand nearby,and probablyat Anthochori.173 the even of for the is evidence establishing purposes generallyinadequate published 167LS ii. 293, GG108;Bölte in RE s.v. 'Messapeai'. See Catlingand Shipley(n. 160), 195-6, fora discussionof the problems in correlatingthe archaeological and literary thattherewere two sanctuariesof evidence.The possibility Zeus Messapeus in the plain of Sparta, one at Anthochori and one much closer to Sparta (correspondingto that to byPaus. iii. 20. 3), cannotbe discarded. referred 168G. Dickins,'Excavationsat Sparta, 1907: a sanctuary on theMegalopolisroad',BSA 13(1906-7),169-73. 169P. Pelagatti and C. M. Stibbe, 'Una forma poco conosciutadi vaso lacónico:il cratèrea campana', Bollettino wi(iq88), 13-2^,at 1^-16,figs3-4. d'arte, 170 de Polignac,Cuits(n. 11),44-5, 64-8; Cartledge(n. 129), 44. There seem to me to be severalobjectionsto thisview. Cult activityat the Amyklaion,if not continuousfromthe LBA as increasingly believed,is probablyno laterthan the

of Spartaitselfin the 10thcent.,so thatit cannot settlement be treatedin the same termsas thosesanctuarieswherecult is firstattestedin the later 8th cent. Morgan (n. 157)has showna similarsequence at the sanctuaryof Poseidon at Isthmiain relationto theemergenceoftheCorinthianstate. It is also misleading to suggestthat the Amyklaionwas situated at the margins of the agriculturalland. If not absolutelycentral,it is neverthelessfirmlylocated in the midstofthecultivated landscape. 171This dimensionis acknowledgedby de Polignac,Cults (n. 11),67; Cartledere (n. 12a),46. 172See J. Ducat, Les Hilotes(BCH suppl. 20; Paris,1990), 62-4. 173LS 11.289-93; respectively, nos GG85,GG337,GG101, GG266,GG108.

Early Iron Age to classical period 233

ofthesesites,let alone theirsize. Only at Anthochori are thereclear approximate chronology indications ofoccupationbeforethesixthcentury, and it is possiblethata villageexistedhere, in the furthest cornerof the Sparta plain. Otherwisenone of thesesitesseemsto be larger than a hamlet or cluster of farmsteads,and some single-farmsteadsites may also be represented.There is no unambiguousreferencein the literarysources to any named settlementin the Sparta plain occupied in the historicalperiod, apart fromSparta and Amyklai.As alreadysuggested,Pharisand Bryseaiseem to have been no more thanplacenamesin thisera,whiletheothertoponyms (suchas Alesiai)can all be understoodas referring to districts ratherthansettlements.174 This pictureis reinforced byXenophon'saccountofthe invasionofLaconia in thewinterof370/69,in whichhe refersto theplundering ofhousesfull ofgoodsalongtheeastbankoftheEurotasand to similardepredations againsthousesin the area ofAmyklai(Xen. Hell.vi. 5. 27,30). Whilethereis somedegreeofcertainty in the aboutthegeneralcharacteristics ofsettlement in orderto have Spartaplain,evidencefordatingthespreadofruralsitesis lacking.Naturally, a well-founded ofeventsin thesurveyarea we need to knowmuchmoreabout understanding in theplainmoreor thesituationin Sparta'scoreterritory. Was thespreadofruralsettlement withthe emergenceof the extra-urbancults at the end of the eighth less contemporary as in otherpartsof Greece,or was it partof the same processthatled to the rapid century, colonizationof theNeogeneplateauand Chrysaphabasin,or perhapsunrelatedto eitherof thesedevelopments? The smallfragment of the plain investigated by the surveyon the east side of the Eurotasmay providea clue to the answer.There is nothingto indicatethatthe appearanceof ruralsitesin the stripof land betweenthe Menelaionand Geladarioccurred thathas been anyearlieror laterthanin otherpartsofthe surveyarea. The onlydistinction observedbetweensitesin thisarea and elsewhereis qualitative, in the comparativeevidence forthestorageofproduce,itselflikelyto have a directcorrelation withdistancefrom,or ease ofaccessto,Sparta.The apparentcontemporaneity in bothareas, ofthespreadofsettlement one ofwhich(thewesternsectorborderingtheEurotas)musthavebeen underdirectSpartan to supporttheconclusionthatthesurvey's southcontrol,couldbe used as a further argument easternsectorshouldalso be assignedto Spartiateterritory. If thisis right,the regionto its south and east, approximatelyas far as Agioi Anargyroi,should also be incorporated. about 35 sq kmofland withsomepotentialforcultivation, Togetherthetwoareas contribute mostofitdissectedand withmoderaterelief, butincludingsome9 sq kmofflatter land in the and basin the Charakokambos between Kalloni Chrysapha valley (formerly Perpeni)and Goritsa. THE MID-SIXTH-CENTURY

EXPANSION

of Sellasia, all the land in the Proceedingon the assumptionthat,apart fromthe territory area was under several further survey Spartancontrol, questionshave to be addressed.How do we accountforthisrelatively suddenspreadofsettlement in themid-sixth and by century, whatmeanswas it accomplished? The answermaybe ofa specificor a moregeneralnature, relatingeitherto theparticularhistoryof Sparta and Laconia or to widerdemographicand socio-economicdevelopments. In spiteof itslandlockedposition,Spartawas activefroman in date the establishment of colonies and aggressivein the pursuitof territorial early 174The same is trueof named areas borderingthe plain, such as Therapnai.The place referred to by thisname did

notcorrespondto a settlement or evena settledlandscape,as haveclearlyproved. yearsofarchaeologicalinvestigation

234 Chapter5

expansionwhenoccasion demanded.The conquestof Messenia in the latereighthcentury was the mostsignificant act of territorial but was probablyaccompaniedby enlargement, in in settlements and Messenia itself There are also indications Spartan Triphylia (Thouria).175 that Sparta asserted control over some southern parts of Arkadia, especially in the Megalopolisbasin,perhapsjoiningtheseto itsMessenianpossessions.The conqueredland in Messeniawas exploitedthroughcoercionof the nativepopulationas an agricultural labour force,obligedto giveup a largeportionoftheirproduceto theirSpartanmasters.176 Although some of its coloniesmay have servedto bolsterSpartan interests, otherswere apparently conceivedas a means of resolvinginternaltensions.If the traditionshave any historical thiswas certainly thecase withTaras and earlierwiththesettlement ofThera,as well validity, as laterwithDorieus'scolonizingactivities. It is also clear thatthe conquestofMesseniadid not satisfySparta'sappetiteforterritorial The long-drawn-out and ultimately enlargement. unsuccessful warwithTegea in thefirsthalfofthesixthcenturyclearlyaimedto repeatin the Tegean plain what had earlierbeen done in Messenia: to apportionthe land among the The Spartansand to exploitthe conqueredlocal populationas an agrarianlabour force.177 an territorial with prizeofsuccesswouldhavebeen substantial, enlargingSpartan possessions area ofarableplainsomewhatlargerthantheirown Spartanplain.In theevent,failurein this led the Spartansto developa new strategy based on cooperativealliancesrather enterprise thanconquest,fromwhichtheso-calledPeloponnesianleaguedeveloped.Althoughthedetails ofthiswar withTegea escape us, in particulartheidentity ofthosewho wereto benefitfrom the divisionof the newlyconqueredterritory, it is tempting to associatethisfailurewiththe in of settlement Laconia so attested itself, expansion eloquently bythesurvey. If we assumethatthe appetiteforexpansionwas fedby need ratherthangreed,thisneed would have remainedafterSparta had settledits differences withTegea. How such a need have arisen can be the division of land in Messeniahad not might only conjectured.Maybe been of equal benefitto all. Perhaps populationgrowth,combinedwiththe progressive diminutionof landholdingsthroughpartitiveinheritance,contributedto the gradual of a substantialnumberof Spartiates.More important thaneitherof these, impoverishment in Laconia in be the of and economic however, may signs increasingprosperity development thefirsthalfofthesixthcentury. The clearestindicationsare foundin thesanctuaries, where, besidesthe evidenceforstateactivityin the formof new templebuildings,thereis evidence forincreasingcompetitive displayin thevotiveassemblages.It is also theperiodin whichthe of Laconian thatthe wealthierLaconians, export potteryabroad reachesa peak, suggesting whetherSpartansorperioikoi^ weretakingtheopportunity ofengagingin commercialactivities fortheirown enrichment. Productionforsubsistence purposesmay no longerhave sufficed, to on the increase the outputfromtheirfarmsiftheywereto placingpressure poorerSpartans in once this environment. Whateverthe circumstances, competitive participate increasingly a land to the north had solution to this theoptionofterritorial failed, hypothetical expansion intoareaswhichhad previously been regardedas of crisismayhavebeen to extendcultivation to intensify productionbylocating marginalvalue,or,ifthesewerealreadyundercultivation, itfroma distantbase. farmson theland ratherthanexploiting

■75 Malkin(n. 145),86-9. 176Ducat (n. 172),56-64; S. Hodkinson,'Sharecropping and Sparta's economic exploitation of the helots', in Φιλολήκων,123-34.

■77 Gartledge,SL 136-9.

Early Iron Age to classical period 235 A SPARTAN ENTERPRISE?

or If thiswas a Spartanenterprise, it is hardto envisageit occurringwithouttheinvolvement sanctionof the state.It may even be temptingto associateit withthe numinousfigureof Chilon,activein thefirsthalfofthesixthcenturyand laternumberedamongtheSevenWise in thehistory ofSpartaninstitutions and societyis farfrom Men. The basisforhisimportance in thelatter,midcontroversial the classical and was Nevertheless, clear, period.178 apparently in a the of his career to critical belongs phase developmentof those sixth-century part were seen to differentiate and practicesthat,in thefifth institutions Spartafrommost century, recentstudiesthathave tendedto producean image of otherGreekstates,notwithstanding The principalrole of classicalSpartanot so abnormalin a numberof important respects.179 the land amongthebeneficiaries, the statewouldhave been in apportioning especiallyif,as in resolvinga land was an important constituent one mightexpect,itsequitabledistribution crisis.If thismarginalland had previouslybeen in use, perhaps forextensivegrazingby on behalfofthe wealthierSpartans,it mayalso havebeen necessaryforthestateto intervene newsettlers. Colonizationofthisland cannothave been a simpleor straightforward matter, especiallyif sincetheend oftheLate BronzeAge. In thefirst ithad remainedlargelyuncultivated place it and the deployment of considerablemanpower,in the wouldhave requireda massiveeffort, not to clearanceof the naturalvegetationand the preparationof the land forcultivation, of the farmbuildings.These are not likelyto have been tasksthat mentionthe construction helotsmustbe assumedto have bornethebrunt themselves; Spartanswouldhaveperformed of the work.They mustalso be presumed(on this hypotheticalscenario) to have had a theland once cultivation was established, and to have formedthe rolein farming continuing inhabitants of the and hamlets encountered As farmsteads, villas, by the survey. majorityof about archaicand classicalSparta has alreadybeen stated,therevisionofpreviousorthodoxy has notgone so faras to suggestthatSpartiatesresidedanywhere butin thevillagesofSparta and thetownofAmyklai, drawingtheirsustenancefromthefarmsworkedforthembyhelots. Even so, thepossibility remainsthattheirwivesand daughters, as wellas men overtheage of sixtywho were no longer required for militaryservice,were not subject to the same constraints on theirplace ofresidence.But,returning to theassumption thatforthemostpart helotswereinvolvedon thesesites,one mustaskfromwheresucha bodyofhelotswas drawn, when therewas no preexisting residentpopulationto coerce.Was therea surplusof helot labour thatcould be redeployedfromfarmsin the plain of Sparta,or even fromdomestic rolesin Spartanhouseholdsin the city?The numbersmusthave been considerable, running into manyhundredsif not thousands,assuming,as seems reasonable,thatthisprocessof colonizationwas notconfinedto thesouth-eastern sectorofthesurveyarea butwas repeated 178See Naflssi,Nascita (n. 144), 124-38. 179Even L. Thommen, Lakedaimonion Politeia:die Entstehung

derspartanischen (Historia Einzelschriften,103; Verfassung Stuttgart, 1996),forwhomthegreathelotrevoltof465 is the criticalwatershedin Sparta's constitutionaldevelopment, sees this as an importantphase. Conventional views of alteredby contributions Spartahave been mostsignificantly on Spartan systems of land tenure and inheritance (Hodkinson,'Land tenure';id. (n. 37)) and on the education and upbringing ofitsyouth(N. M. Kennell,TheGymnasium of Virtue:Educationand Culturein AncientSparta;Chapel Hill, NC,

and London, 1995). They have been changed to a lesser

degreeby severalrecentreappraisalsof the conditionof the helots(R. J. A. Talbert,'The role of the helotsin the class 38 (1989),22-40; Ducat (n. 172); struggleat Sparta',Historia, M. Whitby,'Two shadows:imagesof Spartansand Helots', in A. Powell and S. Hodkinson(eds), The ShadowofSparta (London and New York,1994),87-126),thoughthisremains controversial:see e.g. P. A. Cartledge,'Richard Talbert's revisionof the Spartan-helotstruggle:a reply',Historia, 40 (1991),379 81. Note also the new view of the Great Rhetra in H. van Wees,'Tyrtaeus'Eunomia:nothingto do withthe Great Rhetra',in S. Hodkinsonand A. Powell(eds),Sparta: NewPerspectives (London,1999),1-41.

236 Chapter5

themarginalland borderingtheplain ofSpartato itsnorth,east,and south.The throughout no readyanswer,but it would surelyhave been a further has area in whichstate problem intervention was necessary. There are otherdifficulties withthisreconstruction. In thefirstplace,a muchmoreregular of site in and less variation site size than is foundin the south-eastern distribution, pattern be as the correlates to an episodeof land distribution sector,might predicted archaeological new settlers under the of the state.The clustering and variablesize ofthesites among auspices of correspondmuchbetterwitha processof colonizationinvolvingthe gradualinfiltration settlerswithoutthe participation of any centralizedorganization.While Spartanscannotbe excluded frominvolvementin such an apparentlyuncontrolledprocess,it is unlikelyto thestate'sresponsein theresolution ofa specificland crisis. represent Second,althoughthe conclusionreachedabove,thatmostsiteswereplaces ofpermanent residence,accordswell withtheirhavingbeen farmsteadsinhabitedby helots,how other featuresofthesitescan be accommodatedwiththisinterpretation dependson theviewtaken ofwhatmaybe termedthehelotcondition.180 If Spartanoppressionofthehelotsis thoughtto have extendedto theireconomiccircumstances, theprima and an facieevidenceforprosperity affluent foundon manysitesbecomeshardto equatewitha helotpresence.Assuming lifestyle thatthisevidencehas been correctly thenaturalconclusionmustbe thattheseare interpreted, nothelot,or solelyhelot,farms.Alternatively, thesurveyevidencemaybe used to substantiate theidea thatsomehelotswereable to aspireto,and achieve,a considerabledegreeofmaterial of theirSpartanmastersor the wealthier prosperity, allowingthemto emulatethe lifestyle and in the processmakingthemarchaeologically fromtheseother perioikoi indistinguishable social groups.Such an idea may be renderedmoreplausibleby assumingthatthe helotsof Laconia enjoyedratherless harsh conditionsthan those in Messenia, a distinctionwhose has recently been emphasized.181 importance A thirdpotentialproblemconcernsthe threatto internalsecuritythatmighthave been posed by havinghelotssettledin hamlets(estimatedto have had populationsof between and sixty-five and villas.Its seriousness twenty-five people)as wellas in farmsteads dependson in thesecondhalfofthesixthcenturywas already whetherit isjudged thatSpartanthinking governedby a perceivedhelotthreat,and on whatactionthe Spartansmighthave takento counterthe danger.Had theyfeltsuch a threat,it is fairto assume thattheywould have intervened to ensurethatthe distribution of the helotpopulationin the countryside did not itselfcontribute to theirinsecurity. Withthisin mind,it mighthave been predictedthatthe ofnucleatedhelotsettlements, evenas Spartanswouldhave activelypreventedtheformation smallas these,bytheimposition ofa dispersedsettlement Were this their concerns so, regime. thehelotrevoltof465,when,in theopinion couldonlyhaveincreasedin theperiodfollowing ofmanyscholars,Spartanparanoia about thehelotswas at itsheightand is thekeyfactorin theirbehaviourand decision-making. However,it was preciselyin thisperiod, understanding in hamlet-sized soon after465, thattheruralpopulationincreasingly came to be concentrated 180This is the subject of fundamentaldisagreement between two basic positions. Gartledge (SL 160-77; id., the common Agesilaos (n. 145),170-7;id. (n. 179))represents view that Spartan institutionsand actions were largely geared to managing the helot threat. A much less antagonisticrelationship,at least between the Laconian helots and the Spartan élite, has been propounded by Talbert(n. 179),Ducat (n. 172),155-73,and Whitby(n. 179).

S. Hodkinson,'Servileand freedependantsof the classical Spartan "Oikos"', in M. Moggi and G. Cordiano (eds),

Schiavie dipendenti neWambito deW'oikos'e delia 'família':atti del XII Colloquio GIREA, Pontignano(Siena) ig-20 novembre 1995

(Studie testidi storiaantica,8; Pisa, 1997),45-71,at 46-53, also argues for the existence of close personal ties with certaingroupsofhelots. 101 Ducat (n. 172),13-18.

Early Iron Age to classical period 237

Such a predictionalso runscounterto the archaeologicalevidence,suchas it is, settlements. fromMessenia,whereSparta had well-founded fearsof helotunrestand a greaterneed to assertcontrol.In theperiodof Spartandomination,tracesofsettlement are generallysparse to a fewlarge nucleatedsites,much largerthan our hamlets;the spread of and restricted small farmsteads was a phenomenon associated with the recovery of Messenian independenceafter370. Assumingthese sites to have been the homes of the Messenian helots,the conclusionmustbe that,if the Spartansreallydid seek to assertcontrolin this respect,it was imposedthrougha systemof nucleatedsettlement, perhapsbacked up by a military presenceat keypoints,one ofwhosepurposeswouldhave been to discouragehelot desertion.Returningto our surveyarea, the Messenianmodel could be used to arguethat the settlement patternof the later sixthto earlyfifthcenturiesreflectslittleconcernfor controlover the distributionof the helot population. But, equally, the trend towards nucleationobservedin the classicalperiod could be correlatedwitha heightenedsense of insecurityin relations between the Spartans and Laconian helots. Alternatively,the of the Laconian helotpopulationwas of littleconcernto the Spartans,either distribution because it was not regardedas a significant factorin the overallsystemof controlor,more because it to interestingly, corresponds generallymorerelaxedrelationsand a 'laissez-faire5 settlement Taken withtheindicationsofmaterialwell-beingoutlinedabove,it could regime. be arguedthatthe data fromthe surveyprovidestrongsupportforthe idea that,in normal relationsbetweenSpartans and helotswere based on cooperationto the circumstances, mutualbenefitof both sides,withoutdenyingthe socio-politicalgulfdividingthem.In this view,the regimeof systematic oppressionacceptedby manymodernscholarsmay be seen moreas a figment of the ignoranceand hostility of the non-Spartansourcesfromwhomso much of the conventionalpictureof Sparta is derived.In practicalterms,such a regime wouldin nearlyall respectshavebeen counter-productive. The sanctuariesin the south-eastern sector,forwhichthereis no compellingevidencefor stateinvolvement, of a less present problem.The smallruralsanctuariescould have been the concernofanysocialgroup,includingthehelots,who,in spiteoftheirotherdisabilities, were not barredfromreligiousactivities.However,theyare unlikelyto have been responsiblefor the more costlydedicationsof sculptureand stoneinscriptions at the largersanctuariesof and These could have been the work of Phagia Pikromygdalia. Spartan landowners,who be to have local not least because theireconomicinterests cults, might expected patronized wereso closelytiedto theproductivity ofthearea. A PERIOIKIC

ENTERPRISE?

If the Spartans were not the main participantsin this act of internal colonization or theperioikoi mustbe consideredas theprincipalalternative. Several intensification, agricultural factorsat firstsightseemto rulethemout of consideration. as no First, alreadyseen, named is known to have existed to the east of perioikiccommunity Sparta. Indeed, none seemsto have been located closer than Pellana and Sellasia in the north,Geronthraiand perhaps Selinousto thesouth-east, and possiblyKrokeaiand Aigiaito thesouth.None oftheseis likely to haveassertedcontrolovertheNeogeneplateauand Chrysaphabasin.Nor are theylikelyto have been the sourceofthe surpluspopulation.Anylocal populationgrowthcould probably havebeen absorbedby expansionintomarginalland in theirown territories. That beingthe where would settlers have come from? in the absence of a case, Furthermore, any perioikic town would have in been the anomalous situation of neighbouring they apparently lackingany affiliation to a politicalor religiouscommunity.

238 Chapter3

On the otherhand, thereare a numberof waysin whichtheperioikoi would make better sense of the archaeologicaldata. First,theythemselveswould have providedthe labour withouthavingrecourseto helots.Second,the necessaryfortakingthisland intocultivation, of affluence is evidencefordiffering of exactlywhatmightbe expectedamongsettlers degrees thiskind.Nor would the existenceof hamletscontainingsmallnucleatedpopulationshave constituted themselves mayto a largedegreehaveidentified anythreatto Sparta.The perioikoi withSpartanvalues,and wereprobablyregardedas a sourceofsupportin themaintenanceof Spartan preeminenceand power, providingfromthe fifthcenturyan ever-increasing in The apparentlack of centralauthority proportionof Lakedaimonianmilitarystrength.102 the organizationof the colonizingprocessmay also makebettersenseifperioikoi ratherthan Spartans were the principal participants.The cult sites accord perfectlywell with this There are no groundsforthinking thatcostlyvotiveswerebeyondthe means of hypothesis. thewealthier Cultsassociatedwithknownperioikictowns(suchas Akriai,Aigiai,Las, perioikoi. and Tyros),103 both in the developmentof sanctuarybuildingsand in theirdedicatory assemblages, reveal the same competitivepressuresthat have been noted in Spartan sanctuaries. SELLASIA

In addressingtheproblemoftheoriginofthesehypothetical thesituationof Sellasia perioikoi, ifwe assumethatit is correctly identified as is relevantand deservesfurther consideration, in a case that served interests. and that it was not some way special specific Spartan perioikic thatwerelaterclassedas perioikictownswereprobablyformedat an Manyofthesettlements later thanthe EarlyIron Age settlement of Sparta itselfin the tenth no date, early perhaps in the mid-sixthcentury, at Sellasia the earliest occurs However, occupation century. Until evidence forearlier with the of rural settlement. contemporary large-scalespread it natural to associatethefoundation of is revealed future work at the seems site, by occupation to Spartais also noteworthy, thistownwiththewaveofruralcolonization.Sellasia'sproximity theclosestperioikictownto Sparta, thedistancebetweenbeingonly12km.Pellana,otherwise ofthemid-sixth is 17kmdistantin a directline.It showsthatin theparticularcircumstances a the establishment of new the were to perioikiccommunity prepared accept century Spartans of closeat hand,and suggeststhattheymightalso havebeen willingto toleratethesettlement km not Distance was basin even the probably a beingonly9 away. perioikoi closer, Chrysapha not live. in where could and could factor perioikoi determining verysignificant it is fairto speculateabout the originsof the new Takingthisargumenta step further, in thesouth-eastern settlers at Sellasia,as theywereperhapsthesame as thoseofthesettlers is thatSellasia was formedin an act of synoecismfromthe scattered sector.One possibility on eitherside of theupper populationwhichmayalreadyhave inhabitedthe ruggeddistrict have left few Their archaeological traces if theywere presence may Kelephina valley. in activities hunters,wood(forexampleas pastoralists, engaged non-agricultural primarily froma surplus a settlement formed this was new and cutters, charcoal-burners). Alternatively, 182On the see Cartledge, SL 178-93; Shipley, perioikoi 'Perioikos' and "'Other Lakedaimonians'"; J. M. Hall, 'Sparta, Lakedaimon and the nature of perioikic 5, 73-89. dependency',in CPC Papers 183 Aigiai:Bonias,Αιγιές.Akriai:interimreportsbyJ. de la Genière, 'Κοκκινιά', Α. Deli. 43 (1988), Chr. 113-15; 44

(1989), Chr. 99-100; 45 (ΐ99°)> Chr. 107. Las: P. E.

καιιστορική Tò Γνθεών:αρχαιολογική Giannakopoulos, απότιςπροϊστορικές εποχέςμέχριτου Μεγάλου αποψις Κωνσταντίνου (Athens,2ig87),52~4· Tyros:Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2ΐ73~~8.

Early Iron Age to classical period 239

population elsewhere,conceivablyanotherperioikictown but more likelySparta itself. Whateverthe case, it is impossibleto believethatthisoccurredwithoutthe sanctionof the and even morelikelythatit was the resultof deliberatepolicy.It may Spartangovernment, to createa smallnew settlement on its northernboundaryto have suitedSpartaninterests withtheregionsto thenorth.AmongtheseweretheSkiritis and the buffer serveas a defensive a term referred to as the this is not around area Karyatis,though Karyai (conveniently in with and over which the attested ancientsources),areas contested Tegea Spartansmayhave The inhabitants ofthesesparselysettledregions,whomayat exercisedratherloosercontrol.184 morecloselywithArkadiathanwithLaconia, wereperhaps themselves timeshave identified some regardedas less reliablethanSparta'sotherperioikicpartners.Perhapsunsurprisingly, but ofthemwerequickto defectunderthepressureofinvadingarmiesin thefourthcentury, Sellasia also commanded theremay have been an earlierhistoryof separatisttendencies.105 Arkadiaand theThyreatis. This frontier theprincipalrouteconnecting Spartawithsouth-east afterthefoundationof Sellasia,by theconstruction ofthe was further reinforced, apparently on AgiosKonstantinos, fortress leavingno doubtthatthisarea was consideredvitalto Spartan forthesestrategicconcernswas shownall too clearlyin the defensiveinterests. Justification early fourthcentury,revealing that the mountainous northernregions were not an insurmountable obstacleto an invadingforce.The firstknownincidentoccurredprobablyin ofSellasia,thoughthis 389,whentheAtheniangeneralChabriasallegedlyraidedtheterritory episode is in manyrespectshard to credit(Polyainos,iii. 11. 6).l8GWiththe firstfull-scale invasionof 370/69,Sellasia was quicklytakenand plunderedonce the enemyarmieshad crossedthe Skiritisand Karyatis,and was onlyrecovered£.365withSyracusanhelp (Xen. Hell. vi. 5. 27, vii. 4. 12).187 This route became the main avenue of attackin subsequent invasionsofLaconia. As to thecompositionofthe settlers, twopossibilities maybe suggested.Spartanfailureto annex the Tegean plain fordistribution themselves has alreadybeen suggestedas a among in the vicinityof criticaleventlikelyto have a bearingon the expansionof ruralsettlement if the aim had been to land for Some ofthesemay Sparta,especially provide needySpartans. in newsettlements havebeen inducedto participate closerto home.If suchpeople came from the élitegroupof homoioi, theirloss ofprivilegedstatuswould have been partlycompensated forby the allocation of land. The foundationof Sellasia would have had the combined to the solutionof a land crisisand providingforthe securityof purpose of contributing north-east frontier. Colonizationof the south-eastern sectorcould have occurred Sparta's withinthesame context,providingeconomicsecurity to impoverished Spartans.If theywere not Spartanspreparedto exchangeeconomicsurvivalfora reductionin theirpoliticaland social status,thentheywereperhapscomposedofperioikoi residentin Sparta or membersof 184The Skiritaienjoyedtheprivilegeofforming a separate unitwithintheSpartanarmy. 5 Note theArgiveproxenydecreeforGnosstasofOinous dated c.470(SEG xiii. 239). If Oinous is correctly locatedin N. Laconia, it demonstratesclose relationswith Argos, Sparta'sgreatenemyin thePéloponnèse.The 460s werealso a period of tension between Sparta and Tegea, which probablyharbouredan ambitionto recovertheseregions: see Cartledge,SL 205,214-16. lKbI he date is that suggested by Kirchner,RE s.v. 'Chabrias',col. 2018. The mostobviousdiscrepancyin the account is the 200 stades (c.32 km) given as the distance

betweenSparta and Sellasia. It is hard to comprehendhow such a raid could have occurredat a timewhen Sparta's thatsuch militarysupremacywas stillintact,and surprising an eventotherwise passedunrecordedin thesources. 187In the intervalit mustbe assumedthatSellasia was in enemyhands,thoughit is odd thatSpartawas able to attack and captureKaryai,well to the Ν of Sellasia, severalyears beforeitwas in a positionto recoverSellasiaitself(Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 28). It is also curiousthatallies fromSyracusewere involved in both events, suggestingthe possibilitythat Xenophonhas separatedincidentsfroma singlecampaign.

240 Chapter5

Fromthebeginningof one or moreoftheinferior groupssomehowexcludedfromtheélite.188 in thereis likelyto havebeen a growingbodyofnon-agricultural thesixthcentury, specialists needs that of material the for made a who increasingrange livingby providing Sparta Spartans could not supplyfromtheirown estates.Their main role would have been as and artisans(potters,metalworkers, craftsmen armourers,masons,and builders)as well as either have acted as tradersand entrepreneurs, Others the like. and musicians,doctors, may in theirownrightor on behalfofwealthySpartiates.A mixtureofpeopleprobablycarriedout residentforeigners, thesefunctions: slaves,and skilledhelots,potentially anyonewho perioikoi, was not a fullSpartiate.They would have been dependenton beingable to exchangegoods and servicesforthe necessitiesof lifeor to purchasethemin the marketof Sparta,in the a certaindegreeofsurplusproductionamonglandowners.Assumingthat processstimulating successivegenerations resident and notmigrantcraftsmen, thesewere mayhaveproducedan was not a practicable and skills crafts of the for whom practice family increasingnumber became attractive. with of combined rights landownership optionand forwhomresettlement their numbers. from in have been Sellasiamay,at least part, among populated THE NORTHERN BORDERLANDS

thesurveyarea can be more ofSellasiaand thespreadofruralsitesthroughout The settlement in fullyunderstoodin the widercontextof developments Kynouriaand northernLaconia, and Aigytis. Belbinatis(orBelminatis), theancientregionsofSkiritis, Althoughparts specifically been theobjectofintensive ofArkadianAsea have oftheMegalopolisbasin and theterritory theresultshaveyetto be published.189 However,studiesofKynouriaand thesouthern survey, ofextensive ofMegalopolishavebeen published,based on a combination partoftheterritory While thereare methodologicalproblemsin casual finds,and excavationreports.190 survey, theirresultsare nevertheless and extensivesurvey, illuminating comparingdata fromintensive in thevalidity ofourowndata. and do muchto increaseconfidence of in theareas whichin thefourthcenturycame to formthesouthernterritory Settlement Megalopolis followsmuch the same course as in our own surveyarea. Incontrovertible indicationsof settlementbeforethe sixthcenturyare lacking;the only likelyGeometric materialoccursat Asea, whichwas neverunderSpartancontrol,and at Oresthasion,which The mainfeatureis theexpansion perhapsonlycame intoSpartanhandsin thesixthcentury. in smalltownsor villagesas well as at hamletand fromthe mid-sixth of settlement century, thediffering villa-sizedsites.The absenceofsmallfarmsteads surveymethodology, mayreflect in theupperlevels sites means of efficient a is extensive that locating relatively survey showing of the settlementhierarchybut generally fails to detect sites smaller than 0.25 ha. to a patternofgreaternucleationin a borderarea. The majority it corresponds Alternatively, 188It to posittheexistencein the6th maybe anachronistic cent,of statusgroupsforwhichthereis no evidencebefore the5thcent.One mayalso wonderaboutthecompositionof the Lakedaimoniansenvisagedas settlersof the Thracian Chersonesein 398 (Xen. Hell.iii. 2. 8). The factthatthiswas conceivableat a timewhenSpartiatenumberswerein steep declinesupposesthatat mosttimestherewere men whose were so reducedforthisto be an attractive circumstances (n. 145), 211,356 withXen. prospect.Cartledge (Agesilaos Hell. iv. 8. 5) believes that a Lakedaimonian colony was indeedestablished.I am gratefulto StephenHodkinsonfor to thispassageofXen. drawingmyattention

189Megalopolisbasin:J. Roy,J. A. Lloyd,and E. J. Owens, 'Megalopolisunderthe Roman empire',in S. E. C. Walker in theRoman and A. Cameron (eds), The GreekRenaissance Empire(BICS suppl. 55; London, 1989), 146-50; iid., 'Two sites in the Megalopolis basin: suggested locations for Haemoniae and Cromnus',in Φίλολάκων,185-94, with Asea: Forsénand Forsén(n. 69). further bibliography. 190Kynouria: Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2. S. Megalopolis: Pikoulas,NMX.

Early Iron Age to classical period 241

of sitesin thisarea are plausiblyidentified as thoseof northernLaconianperioikoi, who were igi in mostlydetachedfromSpartancontrolafterthe invasionof Laconia 370/69. These sites in controlling werestrategically one of the main linesof communication between important the Eurotasvalleyas faras Mt Chelmoswhereit branched Spartaand the north,following intonorthernMessenia,the Megalopolisbasin,and the Asea valley.This strategicaspectis to south-east, reinforced bytheappearanceofa seriesoffortsalignedroughlyfromnorth-west uncertainties leaveitfarfromclearwhethertheyare to be interpreted as thoughchronological part of a unifieddefensivestrategyinstigatedat a particulartime,or were createdin an evolvingnetworkof borderdefences.These fortsare alwaysassociatedwitha neighbouring townor village,and are locatedto controlthemainarterialroutes.Some ofthesmalltownsor villageswhichemergedin the sixthcenturymaybe noted:Leuktron,close to the important fortwherethereare slightindicationsforuse in thelate archaic-earlyclassical homonymous phase,withanothersmallvillageand severallargefarmsofthe same periodin itsvicinity;192 thetownof Haimoniai,probablyabsorbedin nearbyMegalopolisin the mid-fourth century, witha hamletand largefarmof the same periodnearby;193 Malea, desertedfromthe midfourth withfoursitesofmuchthesame Kromnos,desertedafterthefourthcentury, century;194 in a its small and a hamlet.195 The recordedsizesofthelarger vicinity, including period village sites,fromc.io ha forKromnosto £.25-30ha forHaimoniai,are compatiblewithsmallcities and notableforbeingso muchlargerthana sitesuchas Palaiogoulas-Sellasia (3 ha). In other of the nucleation does not occur before the hellenistic for parts region period, examplein the In and Belbinatis. the it is in that the classical latter, Aigytis suggested periodperioikicBelbina a a number of small sites.196 It is not clear ifthe comprised dispersedcommunity occupying associatedfortofAthenaion,on thetop ofMt Chelmos,had a defensive rolein thisperiod.197 its existenceas a fort Archaeologicalevidenceis lacking,and thereare no sourcesattesting beforethethirdcentury. the effort made to retrieve the Belbinatis after370 suggests However, thatitsstrategic value was wellrecognizedand thatit mayalreadyhave been partofa wider defensive network.198 The situationin the Skiritisis muchless certainbut seemsnot to contradictthe picture constructed forthe areas to itswest.A fortified siteat Chartzenikos seemsto have been first establishedin the late archaicperiod,but is principallyassociatedwithSpartan defensive strategyof the thirdcentury.1"It, too, is associatedwitha nearbyvillage and sanctuary, notoccupiedbeforethefourthcentury, as wellas tracesof a main route,perhaps apparently with Oios is known oftheoriginsofthistown,locatedclose linkingSparta (or Oion). Nothing to Sparta'sborderwithTegea and apparentlythe onlynucleatedsettlement in the Skiritis.200 Furthereast in the Karyatis,at Análipsi,almostcertainlyto be identified withKaryai, the ofsettlement remainsfarfromclear,in spiteofitsbeingone ofthefewperioikicsites history 191Pikoulas, NMX 229-36; Shipley,'Territory'. 192Pikoulas, NMX 131-5 no. 92 (Leondári-Leuktron), 135-6 no. 93 (Agios Taxiárchis, 1.5 ha), 159-60 no. 117 (Mestiánika, 0.25 ha), 160 no. 118 (Katavóthra, 0.35 ha). 193Pikoulas, NMX 90-3 no. 45 (Perivólia-Haimoniai, 1.75 ha), 89 no. 42 (Kokkaliára, 0.7 ha), 96 no. 50 (Raches, 0.25 ha). Roy et ai, 'Two sites' (n. 189), 185-90, refer to a much more extensive site at Haimoniai of predominantly LAr-Cl date; according to Forsén and Forsén (n. 69), 167 n. 11, it is between 25 and 30 ha. 194Pikoulas, NMX 129-31 no. 91 (Voutsarás-Malea, c.15 ha).

195Pikoulas, NMX 161-6 (Paradeisia-Kromnos, c.io ha), 156 no. in (Tsoukalá Gortsiá, 1.5 ha), 167 no. 123 (Etiá, 0.06 ha), 167-8 no. 124 (Ágios Geórgios, 0.5 ha), 172-3 no. 131 (Ghirádes-Gatheai). On Kromnos see also Roy et al, 'Two sites' in. 180").iQO-3. 196Pikoulas, NMX 117-18 no. 71, 121-2 no. 78, 122-3. 197Loring, 'Routes', 71-4: Pikoulas, NMX 11^-17 no. 70. 198Cartledffeand Spawforth,86-8. 199Pikoulas, 'Skiritis', 139-42. 200Ibid. 135-7.

242 Chapter5

Geometricoccupation is alleged, but its to be thoroughlyinvestigatedby excavation.201 whenthere culturalaffinities are notclear.Fromthenuntilthesecondhalfofthefifth century, townsite,thereis no recordedevidenceforoccupation. is abundantevidencefora flourishing A slightlydifferentpicture emerges fromthe similar extensivesurveyconducted in its settlement historyshowsa greaterdegreeof Kynouria.As it is a largelycoastal district, in from an date the as well as occupation early Early Iron Age. Rather than continuity, it is moreimportant hereto detectthe concentrate on the earliestindicationsof settlement, a processthatwas notfinalizeduntil intoSpartanterritory, earliestsignsofitsincorporation the Battle of the Champions in £.545. The general impression from the available archaeologicalmaterialis thattheSpartanshad assertedcontroloverKynouria,includingthe Priorto thisdate,evidenceforLaconian aroundthebeginningofthesixthcentury. Thyreatis, associatedwiththe connectionsis veryscarce,all the indicationsbeingthatit was culturally The mostimportant sitein Kynouriawas north-east Péloponnèse,in particulartheArgolid.202 Prasiai, whose membershipof the Kalaurian amphictyonyindicates that it was an old settlement. The firstsignsofLaconian influenceoccurin thefirsthalfofthe sixthcentury203 Althoughthe site of Tyros has so far not produced evidence foroccupation beforethe no laterthanthemidhellenistic period,theassociatedsanctuaryofApollo Tyritasoriginates occur£.600,whenthefirst seventhcentury; theearliestsignsofLaconianinfluence templewas The findsfromthe Sintza cave,presumablyassociated are abundant.204 built,and thereafter with withcult,are moreambiguous,especiallyas theyare allegedto showculturalaffinities Laconia fromas early as the tenthor ninthcentury.205 Apart froma single Laconian sherd,thereare groundsfordoubtingthisassertionand forredatingthe Protogeometric One of the most importantsitesin the earliestLaconian materialto the sixthcentury.206 wherethere as Thyreaitself), not this is to be identified at Ellinikó or was (whether Thyreatis are veryslightindicationsof a Laconian presenceno later than the mid-sixthcentury.207 Furtherinland, in the upland plain of Xerokámbi,thereis evidence of a similarkind, combinedwiththe emergenceof numeroussmallsitesin the late archaicand especiallythe classicalperiods.208 consolidationof the evidencefromtheseregionspointsto a progressive Placed together, most sixth in areas from the control its border notablymarkedby the early century, Spartan A numberof nucleated settlements. in devoid of areas of previously expansion occupation this at did this these are raised particular Why happen developments. by questionsinevitably In bothcases,it is time,and whatwas theoriginofthepopulationthatsettledthesedistricts? 201Ibid. to theexcavations 137-9withn. 40, forreferences by K. A. Romaios;see LS ii. 284, DD45,and G. A. Pikoulas, 'Λακωνικά',Hows,10-12 (1992-8),559-65, at 561-3. This identification nowseemsto be generally agreed;Christien(n. expressedin ead. and 105),at 37,rejectstheviewspreviously Th. Spyropoulos,'Eua et la Thyréatide: topographie et histoire',BCH 109 (1985),455-66, at 463 η. 62; Christien(η. io8); ead., 'Promenades en Laconie', Dialoguesd'histoire ancienne, 15(1989),79-105,at 81-6. The area withinthewalls mayhave been as muchas 6 ha: see K. Kalogeropoulos,Die

kenischenGrabfundevonAnalipsis (südöstlichesArkadien) frühmy

Gesellschaft zu Athen,175; (Bibliothekder Archäologischen Athens,1998),1 and pis 2-3. 202The same generalconclusionsare reachedbyChristien (n. 113),166-7.

2O3 Phaklaris,Κυνουρία2134nos 2-3. 204Ibid. 173-8,esp. 176-7 on the pottery. Winter(n. 12), in her earlygroup, terracottas 138,places the architectural c.620-580. 205Phaklaris.Κυνουρία2i^q-6q. 206Christien (n. 113),166,arrivesat thesameconclusion. 207Phaklaris,Κυνουρία2 78-90, esp. 83 nos 3-4. The walledarea is small,c.3.5ha: see Y. C. Goester,'The plainof 1 (1993),39-112,at 55-7. There is as Astros:a survey',Pharos, yetno traceofpre-Cloccupationat Nisi AgiouAndréa,the otherlargesitein theThyreatis(c.4.9ha): ibid.84-6. 208Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2 no 20; of particularnote is a Laconian reliefpithos(p. 116). ofa 6th-cent. fragment

Early Iron Age to classical period 243

controlofterritory whichwas disputedwithothercities.In likelythatSpartawas establishing was Argosand thearea had probablybeen settledsinceat thecase ofKynouria,itsadversary In thenorthern borderdistricts, theconsolidationof settlement leasttheeighthcentury. may mostplausiblybe explainedas a deliberateSpartanpolicyconceivedto assertfullauthority fromTegea, whichitselfmay have been overthe region,perhapsin the face of competition in the sixthcentury. the confines of its to originalterritory Although seeking expandbeyond this area both beforeand afterthe conquest nominal control over doubtless exercised Sparta of Messenia,thiswas not reinforced by anypermanentpresencein the formofvillagesand was towns.Whatpopulationthere mayhave been widelydispersed,perhapslivingin sucha way as to leave littlepermanenttrace.Sparta'sclashwithTegea in the firsthalfof the sixth expansionon thepartofSparta. century mayhavebeen morethana simplewar ofaggressive notonlyin theSkiritis overdisputedborderterritory It mayequallyhavearisenfromconflicts ofMegalopolisin and Karyatisbutalso in theMegalopolisbasinwhere,beforethefoundation to 368, therewas nothingto checktheexpansionofeitherstate.This in turndirectsattention relateto the Tegean war?Was it the the chainof events.How does thisphase of settlement cause of the war,so antecedingSpartan attemptsto annex the Tegeatis,or was itjust an Or, as has alreadybeen suggested,was it the adjunctto a generalexpansionnorthwards? means of resolvingthe problemof land hungerwhich the polisfaced afterthe policy of annexationhad failed?As faras it goes,thearchaeologicalevidence,ifcorrectly dated,points ofthewar. to theexpansionofsettlement beinga phenomenonthatoccurredin theaftermath The originof the settlersin the northernborderlandscan onlybe conjectured.Existing inhabitants, livingin a highlydispersedform,wereperhapscompelledto settlein villagesand smalltownsand to adopt arable cultivationas theirprimemeans of subsistence.However, thatemerged,and it shouldperhaps theymayhave been too fewto populatethe settlements be assumedthattherewere othersourcesof populationthatcould be deployedin thisway. and itsinhabitants werelaterincorporatedintothepolisof The factthatthe entireterritory a with a deliberate Arkadian wouldseemto precludethepossibility identity, Megalopolis, city that Laconian or even Spartan settlerswere involved.Whatevertheirorigin,a further of the perioikic consequence,ifnot one of the objectives,may have been the augmentation of class. The establishment these settlements was presumably accompaniedby an hoplite of conventional arable farming, the numbers of households intensification therebyincreasing of moderatewealthwhichcould affordhopliteequipmentand spare the timeformilitary Whileit is uncertainhow important a roletheperioikoi tookin the trainingand campaigning. in in the sixth were an vital constituent the century, they Spartanarmy increasingly military manpoweravailableto Spartain theclassicalperiod.209 SPARTA AND PERIOIKIC

LACONIA

On a much broader level, this investigationdemonstratesthat the historyof perioikic in different communities partsof Laconia and Messenia may have been farfromuniform. Whilemanyofthosein southernand centralLaconia wereperhapsearlysettlements (tenthto like the of the northern towns and eighthcenturies), Spartaitself, majority perioikic villages ofterritorial controlas to theneed belongto a muchlaterstage,due as muchto consolidation to expandintomarginalterrainin orderto resolveproblemsof land hunger.They mayalso in experiencing a morepermanentSpartanpresencethanin southernLaconia, havediffered 209Cartledge, Agesilaos(n. 145), 177-8.

244 Chapter5

in the formof garrisonsas well as the militarytraffic and consignments of producefrom theregion. Messeniausingtheroadsthattraverse While the identityof the settlersin these various regionscannot be determinedwith the causes forrural expansion are much clearer.Growingpopulationand the certainty, in increasingpressuresof competitive display,combinedwithfailureto annex new territory theplain of Tegea, createdan urgentneed forthe intensification of land use in theplain of the marginalland previouslynot consideredworth Sparta itselfand, more importantly, be added the extrademandsforfoodstuffs To these and other cultivating. may by craftsmen in in resident Whoever the settlers were the non-agriculturalists Sparta. origin, archaeological evidenceseemsto favourtheidea thatin theirnewsetting theytookon thestatusofperioikoi. One potentially seriousdifficulty, sectorof alreadynoted,in theidea thatthesouth-eastern the surveyarea was perioikicdeservesfurther examination.The settlement of Sellasia tooka conventionalform,with a nucleated site controllinga territorycontaininga scatterof In the south-eastern farmsteads. sector,by contrast,therewas no centralplace to whichthe smaller sites were subordinate,and this remained the case throughoutantiquity.The in scale to supporta weretoo restricted explanationcannotbe thatthebasinand itsperiphery village-sizedcentralplace. Not onlyare therevillages,like Sellasia itself,controllingeven but in earlierand laterperiodscentralplaces smallerareas of land suitableforagriculture, haveexistedin theChrysaphabasin:thebasinwas dominatedin theEarlyBronzeAge bytwo large sites (U500 and U3001, both 0.70 ha) and in more recent times by the village of Chrysapha(population523 in AD 1700,839 in AD 1879)and itsByzantinepredecessorin the valleybottom(U490). In thiscontextit is worthnotingthe close correlationbetweenthe distribution of areas of primearable land, oftenquite small,and the locationof manysmall perioikicvillagesin Laconia (suchas Pellana,Krokeai,and Aigiai;see ILL.5.5). IftheNeogene thisanomalywould be plateau and Chrysaphabasin were in factpart of Spartanterritory, easilyexplicable.In spiteof the modestdistance,Spartawouldhave servedall the necessary and exchangefunctions), ofa centralplace forthisregion(administrative, functions religious, whose helot inhabitantsmightanywayhave had restrictedneeds and occasions forsuch in theabsenceofa centralplace theywouldapparently contact.Wereitsinhabitants perioikoi, havelackedanyaffiliation witha civiccommunity. and thatis to regardthisan exampleof a community There is, however,one alternative, a nucleated centre, composed of a looselyconnectedseriesof hamlets,villas,and lacking it is in as has been suggestedin thecase ofperioikicBelbina.Rathersurprisingly, farmsteads, Atticathat the existenceof such dispersedcommunitieshas been shownto be a reality. in smallto Intensivesurveyof the smalldeme ofAtenehas revealeda patternof settlement In a to third centuries.210 such from the late sixth farmsteads, community, early large occupied the firstpriorityof its memberswould presumablyhave been agriculturalproduction, was not of townlife.Wheresecurity the social,cultural,and otherattractions subordinating an issue and all decisionsof importancewere reservedfora politicalélitelivingin Sparta, local officialactivitywas probablyconfinedto the resolutionof disputesover land use, mayhave grazing,and accessto water.Local cults,suchas thoseat Phagiaand Pikromygdalia, Whatever could not be ties its a focus the loose communal for binding population. provided obtainedin local exchangeswas easilyaccessiblein themarketin Sparta,whichbyvirtueofits ofa centralplace. Bearingin couldhaveperformed manyofthestandardfunctions proximity 210 Lohmann, Atene,esp. 126-36.

Early Iron Age to classical period 245

L. Farr). arableland,and pasturein centralLaconia (D. Miles-Williams, III. 5.5.Areasofprimearableland,secondary(marginal)

246 Chapter5

mindthe Spartans'own undevelopedurban organization,in whichthe constituent villages stillformedrecognizableunits in the fifthcentury,and theirpreferencefordispersing settlementas a means of political subordinationand control(seen most vividlyin the of Mantineia£.385),the existenceof non-nucleatedcommunities treatment shouldoccasion lesssurprisein Laconia thananywhere else. Even iftheexistenceofsucha non-nucleated is notaccepted,it is attractive to community see in theclustersofsitesin thesouth-eastern sectorsomesortofdispersedvillagesor hamlets, notunlikesomeofthesmallermodernvillagesin Laconia. These mayhave compriseda mix ofvillasand farmsteads, each surroundedby largevegetablegardensand orchardsrequiring intensivecultivation, and separatedfromeach otherby up to 100 m. The reasonsforsuch agglomerationmay have been confinedto practicalmatters,such as access to waterand but it cannotbe ruledout thattheyhad some further communalidentity, communications, and eventhattheywereidentified byplace-names. A further about Sellasiais itssmallsize,estimatedbythesurveyat no more pointofinterest than 3 ha. Justhow small thisis becomes clear when it is comparedwiththe size of sites classifiedas smallcitieselsewherein Greece. For thesea figureof between10 and 20 ha is Sellasiaseemsbyno meansto be atypicalwithinthe fairly typical.Butevenmoreinterestingly, narrowerLaconiancontext.Althoughreliabledata forestimating sitesizesare largelylacking, so wherespecificperiodsare concerned,thereis enoughto suggestthatSellasiawas entirely not abnormallysmall.The mostaccurateinformation available is forGeronthrai(modern to have been one of the more Geraki),generallythought important perioikictowns.Here the walled area enclosedonly£.3.84ha, and testexcavationhas so farfailedto demonstrate the existence of extramuralhabitation.211 for the site have may Allowing public spaces, Akriai(modernKokkiniá)appearsto have accommodatedno morethan400-600 inhabitants. been somewhatlarger(£.7-8ha), thoughthe basis forthisestimateis less satisfactory.212 The walled areas of Epidauros Limera and nearbyZarax, both £.3.6ha, are likewiseof small dimensions.213 The headlandon whichstoodancientTeuthroneis no largerthan4.5 ha, and the townitselfmayhave been smaller.214 Smallerstillis the littlefortified with siteidentified Marios (c.0.66 ha), no biggerthan a rathersmallhamletin our own classification.215 While thereis littleevidenceforitssize,theimportanceofGytheionbeforethelatefifth centuryhas also been questioned.216 Some ofthesitesin theKaryatisand Thyreatisdiscussedabove seem to be on a similarscale (Analipsi,probablyancientKaryai,is no morethanc.6 ha; Elliniko, possiblyThyrea,£.3.5ha; Nisi Agiou Andréa £.4.9ha). The onlyarea in whichnucleated to have been largerwas in the territory laterabsorbed perioikicsettlements appear regularly the sites identified with as three Haimoniai,Malea, and byMegalopolis,where, alreadynoted, Kromnosrangebetween10and 25 ha. These figures, assumingtheyare roughlyaccurate,promptsome discussion.The degreeof by comparingits estimatedwalled Sparta'sphysicaldominationof Laconia is demonstrated area in thehellenistic ha with thetinysizesofmostperioikic period,£.275 excludingAmyklai, how difficult it was forindividualtownsto resist other towns,among thingsrevealingjust At first this raw that mostperioikictownswere control. comparisonsuggests Spartan sight 211 'Gerakiq'; 'Geraki4'. 212de la Genière(η. ΐ8^), 114. 213EpidaurosLimera: A. J. B. Wace and F. W. Hasluck, 'South-easternLaconia', BSA 14 (1907-8), 161-82, at 180. Zarax: iid. (n. 152),169.

2I4PLii. no. ^PLn. 136.

216Falkner (η. ΐο6).

Early Iron Age to classical period 247

and, perhaps, that theirimportancein the Lakedaimonian state has been insignificant overstatedin recent studies. Certainly,if a large majorityof the population of these is thoughtto have inhabitedthenucleatedcentralplace, as seemsto have been communities the case in mostGreekstates,it is hard not to concludethatindividually theywere of little a about thesefiguresmay be used to support different hypothesis Alternatively, importance. theway in whichthe perioikiclandscapewas settled.It is possibleto imaginea scenarioin local affairs, whichthenucleatedcentrewas theplace ofresidenceoftheélitewho controlled as wellas thelocationofthemaincommunalcultsand a marketforlocal exchange,butthata large proportion,if not the majority,of the populationlived in dispersedfarmsteadsand It has alreadybeen suggestedthattheremighthave hamletsclose to theland theycultivated. öf urbanlifein archaicand classicalLaconia thanin been feweradvantagesand attractions trueofinlandareas where,untilthehellenistic mostotherGreekstates.This was particularly forexternalexchangewere was not a major concernand the opportunities period,security severelylimited,not to mentionthe political dimensionin which all decisions affecting externalrelationsand war weremade in Sparta. This would onlyhave been exacerbatedif favouredby the formof government local affairswere in the hands of a narrowoligarchy, If towns was no more than of its allies. the 400-600, many perioikic population Spartaamong restricted musthavebeen severely lifeofthesecommunities theinstitutional bythesmallpool at ofadultmaleseligibleforoffice, perhapsno morethan100-150beingovertheage ofthirty should cause us size and small their small one time. Indeed, possible populations physical any as cities(πόλεις)rather to questionwhetherit is appropriateto classifythesecommunities smallcitieselsewherein Greece,includingparts thanvillages(κώμαι).As alreadyremarked, Nucleatedsitessmaller of the Péloponnèse,typically rangein size from8 to 25 ha in size.217 than8 ha are generallyclassifiedas villages,thoughamongthemare a fewknownto have In Boiotia, 10 ha has been suggestedas a at certainperiods.218 maintainedcityinstitutions nominalthresholdforviable citystatus,much the same as has been suggestedin other areas.219 Thus, in termsof size the perioikicsitesare bettercomparedwithvillagessuch as Mases (5 ha) and Eileoi (2-3 ha) in the southernArgolid,the smaller of the two large In this nucleatedsites(6.15ha) on Methana,and the smallerdependenttownsof Boiotia.220 dedicationat Delphi made contextitis worthnotingthatin threetexts,one oftheman official are referred to as villages(κώμαι),a termwhichmay in 275,different perioikiccommunities The significantly have been directlyrelatedto theirsize ratherthan theirpoliticalstatus.221 in to be connected withtheir sites northern Laconia is size of the likely perioikic larger from wherethe presenceof fortresses locationon the bordersof Lakedaimonianterritory, that was a factor. The as the sixth as centurysuggests security always significant perhaps early 217A fewexamples of carefullystudiedsmall citieswill suffice.Koressos (N. Keos), max. c.18 ha: Whitelaw and Davis (n. 19), 278. Kythnos,max. 28.5 ha: A. I. Mazarakis Ainian,'The KythnosSurveyProject:a preliminary report', in Mendoni and MazarakisAinian (n. 10), 363-78, at 367, Meios,C.15ha:J. F. Cherryand B. A. Sparkes,A noteon the topographyof the ancient settlementof Melos', in Island andRocky Place,65. Polity, 53-7,at 56. Methana,c.8 ha: Rough Asea, max. c.13ha: Forsénand Forsén(n. 6g), 166-7.Halieis, 18 ha, and Hermione, £.22.5ha: GreekCountryside, 550-2. 85), 245 fig.3. In Boiotia,several Hyettos,c.22ha: Bintliff(n. of the small townsdependent on Thespiai (Eutresisand Askra)lie withinthisrange(ibid.244-5 ^§s 2~3)·

218Each of the two smallest'cities'in Boiotia, Siphai and Chorsiai,coveredno morethan2-4 ha, thoughformuchof theirhistorytheywere politicallydependenton Thespiai. Bintliffin. 85), 231. 219Ibid. 233-5. See also Forsénand Forsén(n. 69), 167. 22OQreefc Countryside, 554-5 table Β.2; Roughand RockyPlace,

59 table5.2, 63 table6.1,siteMS 67; BintlifT(n. 85), 234-5. 221M. H. Hansen, 'Korne: a studyin how the Greeks thatwerenotpoleis',in designatedand classifiedsettlements CPC Papers '"OtherLakedaimonians'", 2, 45-81,at 74; Shipley, !95-6.

248 Chapter5

in thesedistricts has been remarked, apparentscarcityof isolatedsmallfarmsteads thoughit reflect more than the extensive in used their may nothing surveymethodology study.But ifit is real, it providesan interesting contrastto the patternof widelydispersedsettlement that seemsto haveprevailedat leastin centralLaconia.222 The expansionof ruralsettlement was probablynot entirelysuccessfulin resolvingthe economicdifficulties some late in facing Spartans.This is perhapsindicatedby the attempts, the sixthcentury, to establisha colonyunderthe leadershipof Dorieus, firstat Kinypsin at Eryxin westernSicily(Hdt. v. 42-8).223Both metwithfailure.It Libya and subsequently indicatesthattherewere substantialnumbers,includingSpartiates,readyto riskall in the fainthope ofachievinggreaterprosperity overseas.Whiletherewas probablya readypool of suchmen at mosttimes,whetherthroughdesperationor appetiteforglory,thewillingness of Spartiatesto giveup theirprivilegedexistenceat home makesbettersense if it was in fact undersomesortofthreat. THE CHANGES OF THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

As has been seen, the originalpatternof settlementdid not last forlong, thoughonce colonizedthe south-eastern and northernsectorshave apparentlyneversincebeen deserted. Providingan explanationforthe changesthatoccurredduringthe classicalperiodis beset withthesame kindofdifficulties thathave alreadybeen encountered in thisdiscussion, being and secondon knowingwho the inhabitants were.Before dependentfirston the chronology consideringexplanationsspecificto the mid- and later fifthcentury,some more general suggestions maybe made. The main shiftin the settlementpatternhas been seen to have affectedthe Neogene plateau,thesettingforlarge-scaledesertionand apparentrelocationto theChrysaphabasin. In theothersectors,thechangeis notso dramaticand it is possiblethatthedesertionofsites and theappearanceofnew ones can be explainedbyindividualfamilycircumstances relating to normallife-cycles, the availabilityof labour,and the transfer and divisionof properties throughthe systemof inheritance. First we need to ask if there are any particular characteristics oftheNeogeneplateauwhichmightaccountforitsdesertion.Land failuremay have been the mostseriouscontributory factorin the reshapingof the settlement pattern. the it thattheplateauhas neverbeforeor sincebeen as is Taking longperspective, noteworthy shortperiod £.550-450BC, raisingthe possibility thatits denselysettledas in the relatively It is also an of was overestimated at that time. area supportive capacity seriously highrelief, subjectto severeerosionif the naturalvegetationis removedand the soilsare inadequately conservedbyterracing.224 One effect ofagricultural expansionwouldhavebeen to exposethe soils to erosion.Over much of the plateau,thereis onlya comparatively thinlayerof soil in the sterile banks of and it is these areas that erosion covering mayhavebeen conglomerate, mostdestructive. Even iferosionwas notserious,thefertility ofsuchmarginalsoilsmaysoon havebeen depleted.The areas mostvulnerableto soildepletionand erosionare thedissected westernpartoftheplateau,thenorth-western part(nowdominatedbylow-gradegrazingover These coincidecloselywiththeareaswhere and the lower of Koutsoviti. conglomerate), slopes desertionwas mostsevere.The fewremnantsof settlement occurwherereliefis low and the 222It is to be hoped that much more detail about the settlement patternin N. Laconia willemergeonce theresults oftheMegalopolisSurveyare published.

223Malkin(n. 14*),1Q2-218. 224See Foxhall(n. 80).

Early Iron Age to classical period 249

soilsare deep. It is probablyno coincidencethatthesewerealso areas wherelatersettlement was concentrated. The principalweaknessin thishypothesis is thatsome ofthebestevidence forprosperityis foundon sites on the plateau, suggestingthat the land was capable of Moreover,these same siteswere desertedalmostwithout supportingan affluentlifestyle. massofothers. exception,alongwiththeundifferentiated Amongthe historicaleventsand longertermsocio-economicprocesseswhichmighthave to thisredistribution in the fifth contributed of settlement century, changingpatternsofland The tendencytowardsthe concentration of ownershipmay have been the mostsignificant. wealth,primarilyin the formof land, in the hands of an ever-smaller minorityhas been convincingly presentedas one ofthemainreasonsforthedeclinein Spartiatenumbersin the fifth and fourthcenturies.225 The effects thismighthave had on patternsof settlement may have depended to a large degree on how the land owned by individual Spartiateswas distributed across the landscape,but, unless the trendwas followedin perioikicareas, its effects shouldhavebeen restricted to Sparta'sown territory. Wherelargeestateswerecreated fromthe consolidationof adjacent landholdings,the expectedresultmighthave been the This mayalso have emergenceofa villaor enlargedfarmat theexpenseofsmallfarmsteads. been accompanied by less intensiveformsof cultivation,with arable crops perhaps concentratedin areas of low relief,and marginalland exploited for extensivepasture, and treecrops.If,on the otherhand,the land belongingto theserichSpartiates viticulture, consistedofwidelyscattered, smallto mediumlandholdings, thesettlement patternmayhave beenlargelyunaffected. As arguedabove,the onlypartofthe surveyarea whichhas to be Spartiateis thewestern sector.Can any trace of such a processbe detectedthere?The area immediatelyeast of withtheKelephina,continuesto be dominatedby smallsites, Sparta,southoftheconfluence some perhapsinstallations on propertyfarmedfromSparta. Northof the confluence,the one site picturechanges.Here villaspredominatealmostto thetotalexclusionoffarmsteads; have been rich. this was at not the of (H31)may exceptionally However, clearly expense a mass ofpre-classical between the and the Eurotas the farmsteads; Kelephina gorge numberofsites increasedfromtwo(a villaand a farmstead) in late archaic-early classicaltimesto fourin the classicalperiod(threevillas,one farmstead). In thisarea, at least,theappearanceofvillasmay have markedan intensification of land use ratherthan the opposite. In theirpursuitof landownersin thisarea mayhave establishedlargeresidenceson land alreadyin enrichment, theirpossession, withtheaim ofincreasing workforce productionbyhousingtheiragricultural as closeto theirestatesas possible.If thesouth-eastern sectoris includedin Spartiateterritory, the formationof large estatestheremighthelp to account forthe fundamentalshiftin settlement fromthe plateau to the Chrysaphabasin. The emergenceof largersites,of villa and hamlet size, in the Chrysapha basin seems to have gone hand in hand with the and villason theplateau.If some or all of these disappearanceofthemajorityoffarmsteads are identifiedas large or very large farms controllingestates, rather than as small agglomerationsof farmsteads,the realignmentof settlementmay be seen to reflectthe 225Hodkinson,'Land tenure';id. (n. 37);id. 'Modellingthe Spartan crisis: computer simulation of the impact of inheritance systems upon the distributionof landed property',BulletinoftheJohnRylandsLibrary,74.3 (1992), 25-38; id., 'Warfare,wealth, and the crisis of Spartiate in the society',inJ. Rich and G. Shipley(eds), WarandSociety

GreekWorld(Leicester-NottinghamStudies in Ancient Society, 4; London and New York, 1993), 146-76; id., 'Spartansocietyin thefourthcentury:crisisand continuity', in P. Carlier (ed.), Le IVe siècle av. J.-C: approches historiographiques (Nancyand Paris,1996),85-101.

250 Chapter3

prioritiesof wealthylandowners.Withtheirlikelypreferenceforless intensiveagricultural regimes,it is possiblethatcultivationof the marginallands of the plateau was no longer justifiableby the low yieldsthatcould be expected,and thatthe plateauwas largelyturned overto pastoraluse and perhaps,in the morefavourableareas, to vinesand olives.Arable on the deepersoilsin the basin and itsperiphery, cropswouldthenhave been concentrated where returns,though unlikelyto have been large, were probably more predictable. eventhebasinmayhavebeen seen as ofmarginalvalue to thewealthyminority, Nevertheless, whoseinterests wouldsurelyhavefocusedon theprimeagricultural land in theplainofSparta and perhapsMessenia. Insteadof tryingto forcethe surveyresultsto fithypotheses based on textualevidence,it may be more productiveto apply the archaeologicalevidencedirectlyto the problemof Whilethepolarizationbetweenrichand poor maypartlybe explained Spartanoliganthrôpia. by the Spartan systemof inheritance,is it not possible that the catastrophicdecline in Spartiatenumbersin the fifthcenturyshouldsomehowbe seen as the consequenceof the failureof so manysiteswhichhad been firstestablishedin the sixthcentury?It is certainly thatthe period of maximumruralexpansionshouldbe more or less coterminous striking withSparta'semergenceas the dominantpowerin the Péloponnèse,whichmay in turnbe linkedto the growthof Spartancitizennumbers.However,if thishypothetical increasein numbers was based on the of it have been doomed to failif land, Spartiate provision may mostor all ofitwas in marginalareas,whiletheprimearableland in theplainsremainedin the hands of a wealthyélite.In thiscase the reductionin Spartannumberswhichunderlay the crisisof the fourthcenturymay be directlycorrelatedwiththe progressive desertionof sites fromthe mid-fifth The of that class which had century. impoverishment perhaps underpinnedthepreeminenceof Sparta sincethe secondhalfofthe sixthcenturywas itself, in theabsenceofattempts at socio-political thecause ofSparta'srapiddeclinein the reform, laterclassicalperiod. As previously the chronological of the archaeologicaldata makesit remarked, imprecision difficult to correlatechangesin the settlement with pattern specificeventssuch as the great All of that can be said is that such a correlation cannot be excluded on earthquake 465. alone. there are reasons for thinkingthat the However, chronological grounds good had little on the overall of settlement earthquake impact development patterns,however destructiveit may have been.226Unless it was responsibleforthe annihilationof entire households,thenaturalresponseto sucha disasterwouldhave been to repairthedamage or rebuildnearbyand, all thingsbeing equal, continueas before.In some cases it mighthave providedtheoccasionfortherelocationof a sitewithinitscatchmentarea, suchas has been suggestedin severalinstances(e.g.D96 to D85/95,P262to P261/264).But itcannotadequately explaina situationwheresitesof all typeson the Neogene plateau were desertedin great whileat themajorityofsitesin theneighbouring seems numbers, Chrysaphabasincontinuity to havebeen therule. A further eventthatmightbe predictedto have had a radicaleffect on settlement and land use in Laconia was thelossin 370/69ofmuchofMessenia,and withit theestatesfromwhich theSpartansare thoughtto havedrawnso muchoftheirwealth,as wellas thehelotswho had workedthe land on theirbehalf.The naturalexpectationmightbe thatthe Spartanswould havebeen forcedto compensateforthislossbymorefullyexploiting theresourcesavailableto 226See Hodkinson effects oftheearthquake. (n. 37),103-5,on tnepossibledemographicand socio-economic

Early Iron Age to classical period 251

themin Laconia. The mainobstacleto doingthiswas no doubttheshortageoflabour.In this landownersmayinsteadhavebeen compelled situation wealthySpartan,and maybeperioikic, the to adapt theirfarmingregimesfor productionof cropsand othergoods witha reduced in inputof labour that could be used externaltrade,forexample oil, wine, and animal of thisloss are hard to detectamong the surveyevidence.The produce.In fact,the effects seemsto have occurredwellbeforethisdate and in response mainchangein ruralsettlement whichmaywellbe relatedis the evidencefor to different factors.However,one development encroachment of settlement onto the schistmassifin the northernsector. thefirstsubstantial On thebasis of thesurveyevidence,thishas been dated to the end of thefourthand/orthe Beforethisdate onlya fewsitesoccurin thisvast area. Unliketherapid earlythirdcentury. colonizationof the south-easternsectorin the sixthcentury,thisprocessmay have been to and Roman periods.It is tempting gradualand mayhavecontinuedthroughthehellenistic soon after370/69,beginningwiththelowerslopesofthemassif suggestthatit was instigated thatwere accessiblefromvillas and farmsin the Eurotas and lower Kelephina valleys.If modernand recentagricultural usage is any guide,it is likelythattheirprimeconcernwas and theproductionofoil. witholivecultivation The same yearalso usheredin an era of insecurity. FollowingSparta'sdefeatat Leuktrain in the winter of was invaded Laconia 370/69 by the Boiotiansand theirallies under 371, event is known from This latter Xenophon to have adverselyaffectedthe Epameinondas. northernand westernsectorsof the surveyarea. Sellasia was burntand plundered,as were houseson the east bank of the EurotasbetweenThornax and Sparta (Xen. Hell. vi. 5. 27). Some ofthesitesin thewesternsectoron whichthereis no evidenceforhellenistic occupation Three ofthevillasbetweentheKopana bridgeand mayhavebeen victimsofthisdevastation. the confluencewiththe Kelephina (H31,H34, H40) are possiblecandidates;it is especially temptingto equate the large,rich site H31 withone of those houses fullof goods whose destruction is mentionedbyXenophon.More remotesites,suchas D85/95on thelowerslopes in ofMt Skoura,mayhave escapedthisfate.Amongthe sitesto the southof the confluence, at the hands of the invading the low groundfacingSparta,manyare likelyto have suffered armyas it marchedto the southof Sparta along the east bank of the Eurotas.It mightbe betweentheclassicaland thatthefewsitesin thewesternsectorwherecontinuity conjectured should be attributed to theperiodafter370/69. is attested hellenistic (h6o,J212,M172) periods in thisway,the longif sites can be accounted for the desertion of individual even However, and it is unlikelyto have been a termeffectsof the invasionshouldnot be overestimated effects ofinsecurity werepresumably in thehistory ofruralsettlement. watershed Anylingering remainedin enemyhandsuntil£.365, mostdeeplyfeltin thearea ofSellasia,whichapparently Untilthelaterthirdand earlysecond whenit was recoveredby SpartawithSyracusanaid.227 a to deterruralsettlement, otherthan invasions were not of recurrent threat centuries, enough in the mostvulnerableareas. Most parts of the surveyarea were remoteenough to have factor. ofinvaders,so thatsecurity escapedtheattentions probablyneverbecame a significant are theonlylikelyexception, wherein theaftermath ofplundering and Sellasiaand itsterritory was it a sense of have continued to be felt. Not insecurity may only occupation heightened theloss oftheSkiritis situatedon one ofthetwoinvasionroutesfromthenorth,butfollowing 227There mustbe a strongcase forthinking thatit was in factrecoveredin the same campaign,also carriedout with ofKaryaiand Syracusanassistance,thatsaw thedestruction

the exemplary punishmentof its inhabitants who had defectedto theenemyin 370/69:Xen. Hell.vii. 1. 28 (see n. 187above).

252 Chapter5

in 338 Sellasia became an outposton the northernborderof Spartan-controlled territory. factorin the desertionof ruralsitesin the These conditionswere perhaps a contributory vicinityof Sellasia in the classical period. Their inhabitantscould probably be easily couldperhapsbe provided accommodatedin thevillageofSellasia,whereadequateprotection whichhad existedin some of The fortress all but an AgiosKonstantinos, invadingarmy. against fromthenorth,now a threat to counter formsincethelatesixthor earlyfifth century perceived that a littlesurprising musthavebeen a vitalelementin thedefenceofLaconia. It is therefore thisfortneverreceivesa mentionin the sources,unlikeseveralotherfortsalongthenorthern The lackofunambiguous borders,and so itsancientnameremainsunknown.228 archaeological in fourth is probablyno morethana the or evidenceforitsenlargement strengthening century natureofthesurveyevidence.Fixeddefences,suchas Agios oftheratherunrefined reflection in defending Laconia frominvading effective seemnotto havebeen particularly Konstantinos, armies.If thiswas theirpurpose,ratherthanto provideprotection againstsmall-scaleraiding, in origin,especiallyiftheir was misconceived we maysuspectthatSpartandefensive strategy oftheirnorthern frontier. was inadequatefortheeffective garrisoning military strength THE SURVEY AREA IN CONTEXT

Until comparablesets of publisheddata fromotherintensivesurveysin Laconia become thathave been of the patternsof settlement to assessthe significance available,it is difficult in our own surveyarea in theperiod1050-300BC in thewidercontextofLaconia established underSpartancontrol.The fundamental and the territories questionis whetherthe results fromthe studyarea are to be regardedas typicalof the restof Laconia, or are in some way the Whatevertheanswer,itwillhelpto clarify peculiarto it and to areas ofsimilarcharacter. in the surveyarea was governedby developments extentto whichtheevolutionofsettlement of Resultsfromcoastaldistricts specificto Spartaor byfactorsofwiderregionalsignificance. Laconia shouldalso revealhow strongan influencetheratherisolated,inlandlocationofthe history. surveyarea exercisedon itssettlement As has been seen above,evidencefromextensivesurvey(forexample,in southernArkadia and Kynouria)can be usefullydeployed,and some preliminaryresultsare available for intensivesurveysin southernArkadia, westernMessenia, and Kythera. The principal drawbackis that,in relationto Laconia, all theseare peripheralareas,mostofwhichdid not so thatprocessesoperatingin Laconia might fallunderSpartancontroluntilthesixthcentury, be expectedto have had a weakerimpact.In spiteoftheseproblems,an attemptat assessing to of our resultsremainsa worthwhile thewiderapplicability exercise,as long it is restricted evolutioncomprising(i) a highlynucleatedphase the broad tripartite schemeof settlement oftheSpartaplainwellintothesixthcentury, resettlement (ii)a lastingfromthetenth-century a and one in few numerous of sudden settlement hamlets, farmsteads, village, dispersion phase and (iii) an equally century, lastinga rathershorttimefromthe mid-sixthto the mid-fifth concentrated dispersal,withtheruralpopulationincreasingly abruptreductionin settlement the to the end of in hamletsand one village,fromthelaterfifth period. century For the firstphase, the theorythat a nucleatedpatternof settlementwas widespread Laconia, includingcoastal areas,findssome supportin the negativeevidence.229 throughout 228 Thoughsee n. 34 above. 229Forexample,in thearea studiedextensively byPikoulas in S. Arkadia,excludingthe townof Asea, thereis only a

singlepithosburial of probable Geometricdate: Pikoulas, ΑΓΜΧ119no. 74 I, 229.

Early Iron Age to classical period 253

in a few,widelyspaced sites,oftenverysmall,with Populationwas apparentlyconcentrated towns and someoftheperioikic villages,likeSellasia,showingno signsof occupationuntila size and numbersin laterdate.Whilethereis likelyto have been some growthin settlement the courseof thisphase,findsof Protogeometric, Geometric,and Subgeometric potteryare notablyscarceoutsidethesanctuarysites,whosegrowthfromtheend oftheeighthcenturyis In Messenia,thereseemsto have been a widespreadbreak features. one ofitsfewsignificant in siteoccupationin the latereighthcentury, perhapsassociatedwiththe Spartanconquest, is notyetclear.230 was subsequently buthowtheterritory reorganizedin theseventhcentury thatcharacterizes the It has alreadybeen arguedthatthe suddenburstof ruralsettlement in thosepartsof southernArkadiaunderLaconian secondphase was of equal significance seemsto havetakena ratherdifferent theexpansionofsettlement control.Nevertheless, form, of with the establishment of its frontier on account location, large comparatively perhaps The of a few hamlets and farmsteads. small of scale, centres, impact city dominating primary thisphase is less clear in the Thyreatis,whereit may anywaybe confusedwiththe final of Spartancontrol,but it is perhapsto be equated withthe foundationof the establishment townat Elliniko(Thyrea?)and the initialappearanceof smallsitesin its hinterlandon the On Kythera,whichprobablypassed intoLaconian controlduringthe Xerokambiplateau.231 seemsto havebegunon a smallscale in thelate thedispersalofruralsettlement sixthcentury, An even strongercontrastis archaicperiod,beforea major phase of classicalexpansion.232 foundin westernMessenia,wherethe fewsignsof occupationin thisperiodoccur onlyon large,nucleatedsites,a patternthatapparentlycontinuedunchangeduntilthe mid-fourth On the assumptionsthat the Messenian helots were the inhabitantsof these century.233 and thatsome,if not many,of the farmsin our studyarea were the nucleatedsettlements residencesofLaconian helots,a cleardistinction beginsto emergein thewaysin whichthese in the landscape,and presumablythe ways in whichthe two two groupswere distributed regionswerefarmed.In Laconia proper,it mayonlyhavebeen at thisstagethat,likeSellasia and thetownsin southernArkadia,some of the smallperioikictownsand villagescame into being.Once again,theevidenceis largelynegativeand to be treatedwiththesamemeasureof ofearlieroccupationare revealeditshouldnotbe lightly caution,butuntilpositiveindications and hamletsitesare forthesimultaneous dismissed.The onlyindications spreadoffarmstead of date.234 casual discoveries this afforded by If evidenceforthe firstand secondphases outsidethe studyarea is inadequate,it is even arisesverylargelyfromthefailurein a numberof moreuncertainforthethird.This difficulty let alone betweenclassical between and late classicalpottery, to early publications distinguish thatoccurred thatthecontraction ofsettlement and hellenistic. Yetthereare someindications in was and to a lesser the northern in the south-eastern sector, experiencedin sector, degree muchthesame wayin at leastone oftheperipheralareas. In southernArkadia,a numberof sites,mainlyamong the small to mediumcategories,are characterizedby the same late classicalassemblagestypicalof so manysmallsitesin our surveyarea, without archaic-early 230Davis etal, 'Pylos Γ, 452; Alcock etal (η. 57)·

231rhaklans,Κυνουρία2iio-2O. 232Broodbank(n. 59)52Ι3~Ι4> an LAr componenthas been identified on severalofthedozen ruralCl siteswhosepottery has so farreceiveddetailedstudy(C. Broodbankand A. W. Johnston, pers.comm.). 233Davis etal, 'PylosΓ, 454-7;Alcocketal. (n. 57)·

234I have notedthe existenceof smallLAr-ECl sitesnear Daphni Ν of Krokeesand close to modernVrondamás,and ratherlargersitesnearAgioiAnargyroi and on thehillabove Skala. The ceramicassemblageson thesesitesare strikingly similarto thosefoundin theSurvey.

254 Chapter5

No breakoccursat the large sitesbeforethe any indicationof laterclassicaloccupation.235 in with thefewnew classicalsettlements mid-fourth which, conjunction century, beingin the in concentrated strongly suggeststhathere,too,populationwas increasingly largercategories, in In the upper components the settlementhierarchy.236 the mid-fourth centurythisarea witnesseda furthermajor dislocation in the patternof settlement,in response to the foundation ofMegalopolisthroughthe synoecismofmanyof thepreexisting smallcitiesand seemsto have been morestablein theThyreatis As faras can be told,settlement villages.237 and Kynouria,as well as in Messeniaup untilitsliberationin 370. On Kythera,expansion is encountered in theclassicalperiod,in a mixture ratherthancontraction ofruralsettlement offarmsteads (< 0.1-0.2ha), largerruralestablishments (< 0.5 ha), hamlets,and smallvillages The same (kilnsand metalworking).238 (1-5 ha), some withassociatedindustrialinstallations mayhaveoccurredin southernLaconia,wherethereappearto be numeroussmallto medium classicalsiteswithoutany clear indicationsof a late archaic component,thoughthereare doubtsabouttheirdate.239 legitimate Fromthisbriefsurvey, evidence,it appearsthatthe admittedly usingratherunsatisfactory in of rural settlement found the area can be closelymatchedin some changingpatterns study vital aspectselsewhere.On thisbasis, it seems safe to concludethatour surveyresultsare typicalof a muchwiderarea, especiallyin northernLaconia and the areas on its northern borders.On the otherhand, significant differences are foundin Messenia and perhapson the course of settlement in southernLaconia followed Whether or not Kythera. development the northernmodel cannot yet be determined. It will be interestingin any future in coastaldistricts to discoverhow,ifat all, settlement variedfrominlandareas investigations suchas ours. Looked at in thewidercontextof settlement trendsin otherpartsof southernand central Greece and the Aegean islands,it is clear that specificregional factors(socio-political, wereoffundamental and economic,environmental) importancein theevolutionofsettlement in the landscape.At the same time,it is also truethatbeneaththe localized its distribution variationsthereare certainmuchbroadertrendsthatare commonto nearlyall the regions underreview.One basic distinctionalreadymentionedseveraltimes,betweeninland and coastalregions,deservesbriefconsideration. remoteness fromaccess to the sea mayhave been on thetimingofthe Justhow influential in of settlement the expansion surveyarea is hardto assess.At a verygenerallevel,it appears thatabnormallyearlyexpansionof ruralsettlement(in the eighthand seventhcenturies) occursonlyin islandsand coastalor near-coastalareas.In someareas (suchas Melos and, at a later date, Halieis) an explicitconnectionhas been made between the spread of rural settlement and demandsforsurplusagricultural productionthatcould be used in maritime in inland trade.This can hardlyhavebeen a factorin theeventualgrowthofruralsettlement Laconia. There is virtually no evidenceforexchangesin materialgoods of anykindwiththe

235Pikoulas,NMX nos 42 (?), 50 (?), 88, 93, 94, 117,118, 123,124,131. 236Ibid,nos 45, 75 (?),77 (?),82, 91,92, in, 121. 237Ibid. 230-1.

230Broodbank (n. 59), 213-14; C. Broodbank and A. Tohnston, pers.comm. 239e.g. PL i. 83-5 Vrondamas(GG109,5th~4thcent.;1 ha), 87 n. 101Vónda (MM214,Cl-Hl), 87 Ágios Ioánnis (κκ.140,

Cl-Hl; 2 ha), 87-9 'Agios Strategos' (i.e. KK146 Ágios Efstrátios; LCI?), 89 sto Manoláki (KK144,Cl), 92 Karaoúsi (KK142,5th~4thcent.),92 Vlachióti (KKi35a, Cl; KKi35b, Cl-Hl), 92 Kokkináda(KK133,Cl), 92-4 Tsási (κκ.132,Cl), 94 Romaíika(KK270,Cl-Hl), 95 ÁgiosIoánnis(Cl), 95-7 Lékas (KK136, Cl), 100 near Ágios Stephanos (KK273, Cl), 105 Paizoúlia (JJ125, Cl-Hl); PL ii. 118 Mavrovoúni (JJ130, Ilías (LL281,Cl). LC1-H1),119-21Prophítis

Early Iron Age to classical period 255

outsideworld,so it is mostunlikely thatgoodsproducedin thesurveyarea werebeingused in externaltrade at this time. That this was not inconceivable in other circumstancesis commercein oil and silk,exportedthroughtheportof Skala, in by the thriving exemplified theeleventhto thirteenth centuriesAD and later.At thesame time,inlandLaconia has much in commonwithotherinlandregionssuch as Arkadiaand Boiotia,wherethe onsetof rural settlement expansionseemsto have been similarlyretarded,even thoughin the lattercase distancesfromthesea are notso extreme. Two otherfactorshelp to balance thispicture.The firstis the marginalcharacterof the ofmarginality surveyarea, something repeatedly emphasizedin thischapter.The effects may be as strongly feltin coastalas in inlandareas,as is amplydemonstrated late by therelatively and short-lived in southernAtticaand theterritory ofKarystos, expansionofruralsettlement and the equallylate but moredurablesettlement of the territories of Ioulis and Koressoson Keos and on the Methanapeninsula.The secondpointis thata maritimelocationby itself was not the onlyconditionforinvolvement in seabornetrade.The orientation of the main maritime tradenetworks leftmanycoastaldistricts isolatedfromthem.Althoughin inevitably local exchanges,forthemostparttheyare likelyto have everyarea thesea willhavefacilitated been irregular and on a smallscale.Of muchgreaterimportance weretherouteslinkingmore distantparts,some of themconnectingwithmajor routestraversing the Mediterranean.In our period, Laconia was clearlyratherisolated fromthese exchangenetworks,the most ofwhich,on thewesternside oftheAegean,radiatedfromthestatesborderingthe important Saronicgulfand theIsthmus:one throughtheCycladesto Creteand theDodecanese,giving access to more distantpartsof the easternMediterranean(Cyprus,the Levant,Egypt,and theAegeanto theHellespontand fromthereto Cyrenaica);one to thenorth-east, connecting theThraciancoast,thePropontis, and theBlack Sea; and one leadingwest,throughthegulf of Corinthto North-West Greece and thenceto southernItalyand theWest.This maritime isolation was perhaps exacerbated by the inhospitablenature of the east coast of the difficult PéloponnèsebetweenAstrosand EpidaurosLimera,and by the notoriously passage aroundCape Malea. Even so, in a morerestricted contextoflocal exchangetheremusthave been significant advantagesin a maritimelocation, as indeed is stronglyimpliedby the coastal distribution of Laconian perioikictownsand citieson the Malea and predominantly Mani peninsulasand at thefringes oftheHelos plain. Epilogue Several fundamentaluncertaintiesundermineour abilityto presenta clear and logical of the surveyresults,foremostof whichis the difficulty in determining from interpretation of certainpartsof the surveyarea. How can archaeologicaldata thestatusoftheinhabitants futurearchaeological researchcontributeto the resolutionof these problems?A major in interpreting the surveyresultsis the lack of comparable data fromsurveys difficulty elsewherein Laconia. We cannotknowifour resultsare in somewaytypicalofall Laconia, or are peculiarto thearea selectedbecause ofitsproximity to Sparta.Much moreinformation is oftheplain of Spartaas a correlateof itsagricultural use, and requiredabout thesettlement about how its evolutionrelatesto historically attesteddevelopments. What criteriacould be establishedfordistinguishing sitesoccupiedby Spartiatesor perioikoi fromhelotfarmsteads? Does sucha distinction existat all? We wouldalso benefitfromknowingmoreabout Sparta's perioikicneighbours(such as Pellana and Geronthrai),whichwould enable an informed withthatof comparisonto be made betweentheevolutionofthesetownsand theirterritories

256 Chapter5

Sellasia and of Spartaitself.Sooneror later,excavationwillbe requiredin orderto testsome of the basic assumptions to whichour surveydata have givenrise.For example,is therean earlierhistoryconcealedat Sellasia ofwhichsurfacefindsgiveno hint?Do the assemblages thattypify thelaterarchaic-early classicalsitesofferadequate evidenceforanything buttheir finalphasesofoccupation? These questions,and the doubtsoverbasic aspectsof historicalinterpretation, in no way detractfromtheimportance ofthesurvey's contribution to thestudyofLaconian archaeology and history.At its mostbasic, it has providedan entirelynew set of data relatingto the developmentand evolutionof rural settlementin one small part of Laconia. The area's particularinterestfor this period is that it incorporatesportionsof territorythat are incontrovertibly Spartan and perioikic,allowingus to decide whetherchanges occur in thisis primaryevidencenot parallelor in divergent ways.In spiteofitsvariousuncertainties, distortedby the Spartanmirage,unlessin the way we choose to interpret it. Historiansof archaicand classicalSpartacannotaffordto ignoresuchmaterial,and, likethediscoveries at thesanctuary ofArtemisOrthianearlya centuryago, itsassimilation willbecomean essential elementin anyresearchon earlySparta.

THE SURVEY AREA IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS Graham Shipley1 Methodology Fromthelatefourth BC,mainlandGreecewas dominatedbythekingsofMacedonia, century thoughmuch of the Péloponnèse remained free.From the second century,Greece was controlled by theRomans.Finally,in thelate firstcenturytheemperorAugustus increasingly created the provinceof Achaia. The historyof Sparta is henceforththat of a culturally notable,but politicallyweakened,second-orderurban centrewhichhad lost much of its distinctivesocial character.From the fourthcenturyBC, by stages,it had lost controlof in and around the to a core territory (chord) perioikicLaconia; eventuallyit was restricted intoa league Eurotasplain.FromthesecondcenturyBC theperioikicpoleisweretransformed stilleconomically ofsmallcity-states, dependenton Spartato a considerableextent. - thelastthree and Romanperiodsas definedon thebasisofthepottery Forthehellenistic centuriesBGand thefirstsix centuriesAD,respectivelythe evidenceof the Laconia Survey in one partof Sparta'schoraand a smallpartof perioikicterritory. illuminates developments The wide extentofthe surveyarea (ρ.ηοsq km),and thefactthatit was surveyedintensively, mean thatvariationsbetweendifferent partsof the surveyarea will stand out clearly.To one mustalso considerthewiderLaconian context itsdevelopment understand however, fully, as wellas surveydata fromotherpartsofGreece. REGIONS AND LAND USE

and in orderto clarify Giventhesmallquantitiesofdatablesherdsfoundin anygivenlocality, trends across the surveyarea, the data are grouped into more significantunits by the nineteenzones of the Site Catalogueintothreelarger'sectors'of roughly amalgamating 1I am Bill to colleagueson theSurvey(particularly grateful Cavanagh and Joost Crouwel, also Pamela Armstrong, Richard Catling,Ron Leenheer,and Heleen Visscher)for generous assistance and advice at various stages of the research.Invaluablecommentson successiveversionsof the text were made by Colin Adams, Graeme Barker,Neil Lin Foxhall,MarkHumphries, Anne Sackett,Sarah Christie, Scott,and above all mylate father,Donald Shipley.Susan SebastiaanBommeljé,Paul Cartledge, Alcock,JohnBintliff, Jack Davis, PeterFunke,Eleni Kourinou,Robin Osborne, Yanis Pikoulas, AnthonySnodgrass, Nigel Spencer, and JoanitaVroomgenerously suppliedcopiesoftheirownworks. Thanksare also due to thelibrarystaffs oftheBritishSchool at Athens,the Instituteof Classical Studiesin London, and

the Universityof Leicester.For financialassistance I am indebtedto the CravenCommittee, of Oxford(T. University W. Greene Fund and others);Balliol College, Oxford; St Catharine's College, Cambridge; the Facultyof Classics, of Cambridge;the Facultyof Arts,University of University Leicester; the BritishAcademy; and, for assistance with to thePublications FundoftheBSA. illustrations, Site numbers prefixed with an asterisk (*) indicate probable sites,those with question markspossible (?) or doubtful(??) sites.Exceptin maps and tables,zone lettersof findspotsthat do not qualify as sites (whetherdefinite, probable, possible, or doubtful) in the period under discussion,but do qualifyin anotherperiod,are in lowercase italics(e.g.A18as opposedto Hi8).

258 Chapter 6

equal area (as in Chapter5), each witha distinctgeologyand landscape.2The landscapesof are describedin the Site Catalogue(Chapter24) and individualzones and theirsubdivisions indicatedabovein ILL.1.13.The regionsare therefore here.(Waterresources onlysummarized withthedescriptions ofthesites.)3 are summarized The south-eastern sector(c.23 sq km) comprisespart of a dissectedupland plateau with and adjacentareas, partofan inlandbasin,(a) The 'Neogeneplateau'(zonesL, N, and P; £.13 is sq km) mostly300-400 m above sea leveland is situatedbetweenthevillageofSkourasouth of the surveyarea, thevillagesofAphysouand Chrysapha,and the limestoneoutliersof Mt Koutsovitifurther east (partof the Parnon range).It is so called because of itslate Tertiary beds ofconglomerate rockalternating withbeds ofreddishor (Mioceneand Pliocene)geology, yellowishmarl (clay). Where the conglomeratecrops out, no usable soils are generally produced;wherethemarlis at thesurfacethereis potentialforarable,butit is oftenunstable and easilyeroded. Surfacevisibility is oftenhigh,but because of the geologicalconditions thereare manysteepslopesand narrow,steep-sided valleyscoveredin virtually impenetrable maquis, some of whichwere not surveyed.It is reasonableto suppose thatsome ancient surfaceshave been eroded away,particularly at the westernmarginsof the plateau where cliffs overlooktheSpartaplain(ILLS24.40-1);butthereis a significant marl-and-conglomerate numberofprehistoric and archaic-classicalsites,perhapsremnantsofmuchlargerones.The area is generallyused forgrazing,withsmallpocketsof (oftenabandoned)cerealcultivation in the southof zone Ν and and olives,and smallareas of moreintensivemoderncultivation in zone P.4(b) In the areas to the south-east(zonesR-U; c.io sq km) aroundProvatómandra the surveyextendsto the outskirts of Chrysaphavillage.In thenorthand west(thenorthern R of zone and much of zone S) the soilsare primarily part Neogene (derivedfromthe marl and conglomerate oftheplateau).In thesouthand east (thesouthernpartsofzones R and Τ and muchof zone U, the westernChrysaphabasin) the soilsare the weatheredproductsof limestonein theformofgenerally rossa.(Neithertheband oflimestoneat theupper poor terra of zones S and the T, margins representing lowerslopes of Koutsoviti,nor a smallarea of schistin thecentreofthedistrict or Romanfinds.)Zones R, S, and Τ producedanyhellenistic have for olive and cereal cultivation (thelatteroftennow abandoned).The generally terracing basin (ILL.24.56) has severalshortwatercourses runningintoit, some disappearingintothe in in some run ravines. There is oftena combinationof olive steep-sided plain; places they in zones S at theupperedgesofthedistrict terraceswithgrazing,whilegrazingpredominates and T, towardsthe limestoneslopes.5Zone U representspart of the fertilecolluvialbasin below the modernvillageof Chrysapha,wheresoilsderivefromeitherlimestoneor schists; and activecerealcultivation combinedwitholivecultivation thereis still(orwas untilrecently) without movement of the sector has a dissected Much character, being periodicgrazing. was generally hindered.Surfacevisibility good. particularly The westernsector(zonesD, H, J,M, Q, and partofK; £.20sq km)consistsofthenarrow easternside of the Evrótasplain and the hillsabove it, togetherwiththe lowerKelephina valleyas it opens out towardstheplain. Most of thisarea lies between175and 400 m above sea level.In medievaltimesat least,thelowestpartsweresubjectto floodingby theEvrotas, thoughthisproducedrichalluvium(p. 345). The hillsofzonesJ,M, and Qare easilyeroded 2 No HI sherds,and onlyone R (at Q3007),werefoundon 'out-of-area' sites. 3 Ιόγ further detailsoi the landscapesof each region,see Chapter24.

4 LS ii. 304,308. s ΖΛii. 415.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 259

but adjoin the gentlyslopingcolluvialglacis,givingeasy access to theplain and river.These The are,perhaps,theareasdescribedbyPolybiosas havinggood soiland beingwellwatered.6 and hillsof zone D, in thefarwestof the surveyarea, are steeper,partlymade oflimestone, moresuitedto grazing.Much ofthisarea (zone H and partsofM) is made up of open,lowland,includinggrazingand neglectedcerealfields;in thelast,thevisibility lyingagricultural therewere extensivepatchesof inter-ploughing but was oftenpoor among the olive-trees. in the sector is withthedifferent unified, parts topographically Thoughheavilydissected places, have able to communicate easilywithone another.The villagesof Kladás and Kokkinórachi itrepresents speaking, onlyone facet grownup alongthemainroutenorthfromSparta.Strictly on the leftbank of the Evrotas,whichrarely of a geographicalunit:our surveywas entirely evenin thenorthwhereitis deeperand faster-flowing. a seriousbarrierto movement, offers sector(zonesΑ-C, E-G, and mostofK; £.27sq km)comprisesthelimestone The northern hillsand slopes,togetherwith mountainofÁgiosKonstantinos (818 m) withits surrounding theEvrotasvalley,downto an altitudeof£.250m. schistspursoverlooking themoresoutherly The limestoneand schistcrop out often.While in manyplaces the landscapeis coveredin c.i.ysq km,6 per centofthearea),thereare also bare,grazedslopes (totalling pineplantations and areas ofterracedcultivation (terracesoftencreatedin the 1980s).The greatschistslopes, terracedand plantedwitholivesand cereals(the thoughverysteepin places,are extensively are sparse,chiefamong thembeing the latternow oftenabandoned).Modern settlements Ioánnis and Kalyvia Theológou. Surface of Voutiánoi, Theológos, Agios villages upland nil to varied from the very high. survey during visibility Much ofthesurveyarea is dominatedbyscrubcomprising maquisand garigue(Chapters3 and 8; ILL.8.5), the maquisgenerallykeptlow by grazing;the northernhalfis moreheavily Olive cultivation is prevalentin manyareas, woodedin places,owingto higherprecipitation. in thevicinityofvillages,combined withpatchesof scrubor,particularly eitherinterspersed Near thelowercourseoftheEvrotasthroughthe ofearlieroat cultivation. withwildremnants combined with citrus.Perennialwatercourses,notablythe are often olives area, survey and its ancient Oinous) tributarythe Sophróni,give rise to denser tree Kelephina (the and Evrotas where it as does the colonies, emergesfroma limestonegorge.In thewest-central and more is less dissected of the area the south-eastern open. survey landscape generally parts SITE NUMBERS

Afterthe amalgamationof severalpairs of sitesin the database, a total of 172 findspots or probablyhellenistic, potteryor othermaterial(TABLE produced1,719pieces of hellenistic, In of hellenistic tile were keptas representative samples 6.1). addition,363 pieces probable fromfindspots.For the Roman period, the numberof findspotsis almost the same (168 site)but themateriallessplentiful: 817 Roman includinga moderndumpand an out-of-area oftile. or probablyRomansherdsand 255keptfragments or even as 'sites'(table 6.2). The generalrule in Not all findspots qualifyas settlements, the data from the Laconia Surveyhas been to regarda findspotas a siteof a interpreting if five or more studied'type sherds'of thatperiod. The actual it produced givenperiod 6 Withreference to PhilipV's invasion,Polyb.(v. 24. 3-4) says thatthe hillsflankingthe startof the routefromthe Sparta plain to Tegea, cz stades(400 m) fromthe townof Spartaand closeto theriver,are steep,butthatthelevelarea abovehas good soil,is wellwatered,and is easyto (έπιπεδον)

movetroopsthrough.This can hardlyreferto the Neogene plateau,not onlybecause it is todayan arid landscapebut also because Polyb.goes on to mentiona hilltop(λόφος) thisarea. It describes,rather,the slopingglacis overlooking aroundAphysou.

2βο Chapter 6 'type'sherds sherdsdatedbyfabric non-type discards

Hellenistic

Roman

751 940 28

560 254 3

817 tile

255

363

Table 6.1. Definiteand probablehellenistic and Romansherds.

SE

Hellenistic w Ν

Roman total

Settlements

definite probable

possible doubtful

18

7

9

"

48 27

25

24

26

75

1

6

6

1

2

13

1

1 25

32

5 17

SE

8 4 12

3

4

W

Ν

total

9

20

37

4

6

13

26

51

2

9

4

1

14

1

Other

non-settlement sites non-sitefindspots

6 74

28

3 40

2 32

5

100

Table 6.2. Overviewofhellenistic and Romanfindspots.

threshold betweenfourand fivehas no real significance butis a usefuldeviceto allowresults fromdifferent to be on an basis. For the hellenisticand Roman periods compared equal a there is reason to move this threshold.In contrastto the periods, however, good archaic-classicaland the Byzantine-Ottoman for which periods, nearlyeveryprovisionally datednon-tilesherdwas assignedto a identifiable potterytype,7 only44 per cent(751)ofthe sherdscan be so classed,whichpresumablyreflectsscholars5incomplete possiblehellenistic oflocal waresat thepresenttime.There is a similarproblemwiththeRoman understanding lessserious,sinceonly69 per cent(560)wereassignedto Romanpottery data,thoughslightly scholars'understanding oflocal formsmaybe betterforthisperiod. types;8 The remaining, 'non-type'sherdsneed notbe dismissedas datingevidence,sincemostcan be datedwitha fairdegreeofreliability by theirceramicfabric.A fabricis not as reliablein - itsuse may,forexample,persistfromone period termsofdatingas vase formor decoration the next to but these fabricsoftenoccur in associationwithpotteryattributableto the relevantperiod,sometimesin single-period assemblages.Of the hellenisticnon-typesherds, almostall (940 out of 968, 55 per cent of all hellenisticpotterysherds)were recognizedas fabrictypes,28 sherdsbeingtakenout ofconsideration as a belongingto one ofthehellenistic result.Thus 98 per cent of all provisionally dated hellenisticsherds(1,691out of 1,719)are 7 Of 3,362 Ar-Cl non-tile sherds (discountingsherds notedas tilebutlatergivenpotterytypenumbers), originally 3,260 (97 per cent)are typesherds.The Byz-Ottfiguresare

comparable:3,165out of 3,781non-tilesherdswereassigned to types(84 per cent). 8 Not and 69 (tile). includingtypes66-8 (miscellaneous)

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 261 or probablyto be datedto theperiod.FortheRomanmaterial,too,almostall eithercertainly have Roman fabrics(254 out of 257),makinga totalofalmost100 (99.6) sherds9 thenon-type per centof the possibleRoman potterysherds(814 out of 817)whichare eithercertainlyor probablyRoman. and Roman sherdsas supporting It is therefore justifiableto include'non-type'hellenistic evidenceof sitestatus,sincealmostall belongto dated fabrictypesthoughnot all belongto definedceramicforms.Therefore,a findspotis here regardedas a 'probable'sitein either period if,whilehavingfewerthan fivetypesherdsof the period,it has at least fivedated sherdsofthatperiodincludingat leastone typesherd(i.e. betweenone and fourtypesherds withothersdated onlyby fabric).A findspotis classedas a 'possible'siteifit has a together at leastone typesherd(i.e.betweenone and four totalofexactlyfourdatedsherds,comprising typesherds)and up to threeothers(i.e.betweenzeroand three)datedbyfabric.In addition,a are treatedas 'doubtful'sites,havingno typesherdsbutfiveor more fewhellenistic findspots others(in one case as manyas nine).No Roman fmdspotsqualifyas doubtfulsiteson this sitefora specialreason. basis,butone findspot, ??R423,is treatedas a doubtful The serialnumbersof probable sitesare prefixedwithan asterisk(e.g. *P284),those of possiblesiteswitha questionmark(e.g. ?R42i),and those of doubtfulsiteswitha double eventhecriteriafor failingto satisfy questionmark(e.g.??Fi43).In serialnumbersoffmdspots notconsidered a doubtful site,thezone letteris givenin lower-casetype:romanfora findspot a sitein anyperiodofthesurvey(e.g.fj.),italicforone thatqualifiesas a sitein a periodother thanthatunderdiscussion(e.g.A34).10 sitesare to be regardedas certainand a hellenisticsettlement On thisbasis,forty-eight are Thirteenfurther a total of as further fmdspots seventy-five. twenty-sevenprobable,making classifiedas possiblesites,fouras doubtfulsites,and six (Ai19-20,F135,N415,N430,Q360) as sites(e.g.cultor burialsites:TABLE6.3) on thebasisofceramicassemblagesor non-settlement certainand fourteenprobable otherevidence.For the Roman period,thereare thirty-seven In there are ten a of total settlements, possiblesitesand fivenon-settlement fifty-one. addition, sites(H46,F135,J215,M334,N415;TABLE6.4). Some or all ofthefivequarrysites(D83-4,D50, (e.g.H47 and possibly E49, E90),likethe variousremainsof roadwaysand relatedstructures in in or have been use one both are to periods. H27), likely is made to hellenistic or Roman sites,it is to definiteand In whatfollows, whenreference thatsignificant It should be noted,however, unless otherwise sites specified. together probable will be made to thesein the fail to as sites. Reference numbersofRomanfindspots qualify just indicatehow thepicturepresented ofeach sector,as theysometimes courseofthedescription ofchangesin sitenumbers by 'sites'(in thenarrowsense)maybe modified.The implications willbe consideredlater. SITE

FUNCTION

of sites,it wouldbe desirableto have a fullrangeof In attempting to describethe functions thisis rarelythecase.The averagenumberof artefacts at ourdisposal.As oftenin surfacesurvey, settlement sitesis only19.4(withthemedian13.o11 sherdsrecovered fromthehellenistic hellenistic 9 Including and 69 (tile). material) types66-8 (miscellaneous 10 wherethe lattergrouphave the Exceptin the TABLES, usualupper-casezone letter. 11The medianis themiddletermin a series,withhalfthe valuesgreaterthanit and halfsmaller(or,wherethereis an

even numberof termsin the series,the midpointbetween the middletwo values).It is an alternativeto the mean (or average)as a measureof 'typical'value; it is not subjectto as themean is,byunrepresentative, extremedata. distortion,

262 Chapter 6 sector siteno.

subzone

Hl 'type' sherds

Ν

Αι

Α119

!5

totalHl sherds

Hl tile

area

soil

(ha)

26

O.II

S2C

other sherddates(BC) slope (degrees)components

9

Ici?

C4-C3, C3-C2 (1-2)

Ν

Α120

Ai

9

16

Ν

FI35

Fi

ο

6

Ν

Ν415

Ni

ο

ο

Ν

Ν430

N2

3

8

ι

W

Q360

Ο?

ο

ο

1

2

O.OI

S2C

14

Ici?

0.06

S2a

4

r

O.I2

Nib

0.07

Nia

12

Cl

Nib

4

C4-C3C, C4-C3L/C2 E, C3-C2f

notes

cultsitenearA118; 1 LC1-EH1,2 E-MH1; HI figurines 2 cemetery; LC1-EH1,ι Ε-ΜΗ1

poss.cultsite(1 Hl-R (?) figurine) also C5/C3 poss.cultsite;LH1 (1:ACL type9 c) (?) stampedtile cultsite;Cl-Hl (?) c3? figurine excavatedfindsto C2L

dates Keytocentury

C4, C3, etc. E, M, L f,s a, b, c, d

etc. 4thcentury, 3rdcentury, 3rdcentury early,middlelate;e.g.C3E/M/L = early/middle/late halfof4thcentury firstand secondhalf,e.g.C4f/s= first/second = quarter-centuries, e.g.C2b 175-150

Table 6.3. Hellenisticnon-settlement sites.

sector siteno

subzone

Ν

FI35

Fi

W

H46 J215

Hi

w w

M334

w

N415

R totalR Hype' sherds sherds 1

1

6

12

R tile

area

soil

(ha)

other slope (degrees) components

sherddates

0.01

L2a

32

0.06 0.02

S2a S4C

4 4

hi Cl

M5

0.20

N4b

3

Ni

0.12

Nib

cl MByz C3 AD lamps (15)

2

3

Hl-MR; C6

notes

poss.cultsite(1 Hl-R 1 R figurine) figurine, R (?) bridge cultsitesculptures Hl-R; fiat tile cultsite;R lamps (G3 AD)

Table 6.4. Romannon-settlement sites.

theaveragenumberofRomansherdsis 11.9(median8.0, and theinterquartile range7.0-24.5);12 interquartile range6.0-15.0).Such quantitiesare clearlyan inadequatebasis forjudgements ofindividualsites. aboutthedetailedcharacters and histories Absolutesherdnumbersare nota reliableindicationoftherelativeimportanceofa site,or betweensites.On a basic level,forexample,potteryof one periodmay be of relationships more fragilethan thatfromanotherand produce fewer,smallersherds.More generally, betweennumbersoffinds,theirquality,and theextentof althoughthereis a broadcorrelation 12 Quartilesare thepointsdividinga seriesintofourequal parts (the second quartilebeing the same as the median). The interquartile range is the range betweenthe firstand third quartiles, i.e. the middle 50 per cent of values,

thehighestand lowest25 per cent.As a measure discounting of typical values it is, like the median, not subject to distortionby extremevalues. (Interquartilescited in this Excel.) chapterwerecalculatedusingMicrosoft

Hellenistic and Roman periods 263

a site,visibility playsa majorpartin theproductionofthe data. A sitethat duringsurveying ifrecentlyploughedmay be evanescentwhenviewedthrougha wouldbe highlyimpressive coverofgrasses,and thenumbersoffindsmaybear littlerelationto therichdata lurkingout ofsight. a prima The varietyofceramictypesfoundon a siterepresents facieindexoftheprosperity, sitesyielded10 or more out of hellenistic of a site. Eleven or seventy-five complexity, longevity number and the median4.0. Only the of the 37 hellenistic being5.3 potterytypes, average the the had 10 or more of Roman fourout of fifty-one sites,however, 65 potterytypes,13 seem to have a more Roman sites therefore the median again 4.0. averagebeing 4.9 and in relationto thenumberoftypesavailable,thoughthiscouldreflect limitedrangeofartefacts a culturalchangeratherthanfallingprosperity. A different represented amongthe insightis givenby the numberof broad use-categories sherdson thesite.Dividingpotteryintothreebroad groups tablewares,kitchenor cooking it intoa ancientusage morecloselythanclassifying wares,and storagewares- mayrepresent large number of types,and is likelyto give a betterindication of whetherthere was Acrossthe habitationat a siteas wellas ofeconomicfunction. or at leastregular, permanent, out ofseventy-five) sites(twenty-four surveyarea, 32 per centofcertainor probablehellenistic have all threeuse-categories and 31 per centof Roman sites(sixteenout of fifty-one) among theirfinds,whilea further sites), sites)and 53 per cent(twenty-seven 52 per cent(thirty-nine have twoout ofthethree.On thismeasure,thereis no discerniblechangein the respectively, ofsiteswithdifferent profiles. proportions The presence or absence of a class of material may also be indicative of economic or change.Whereastableware is presenton 95 per centof definiteand probable difference sitesand 94 per centofRoman sites,kitchenor cookingware is muchless equally hellenistic sitesbutonly41 per centofRoman.Storage on 77per centofhellenistic distributed, occurring cent of hellenisticsitesbut 84 per cent of is found on other on the hand, 43 per pottery, Romansites.These data mayimplya changein economicrole. SITE

SIZE

A siteon roughlylevel Siteextentcan be moreor lessreliablyassessed,whateverthevisibility. will its surface finds on the but surface, normallybe spread groundmay appear onlyfaintly thesame area as ifit was wellexposed(thoughtheedgesofa thinscatter overapproximately As to site'smear'or maybe harderto define,causingthe site'sarea to be under-measured). ofsurfacefindson slopes,bothlargeand smallsitesin a drift causedbythedownhillmovement be subjectto similarchanges(ifany)relativeto theirsize will,in principle, givenenvironment wouldthusappear,otherthingsbeing belowground.Site area, whilenotwhollytrustworthy, of a site's a more reliable measure to be population- or at least of the scale of equal, thatexisted thanforexample,absolutesherdnumbers,and broadly permanentstructures trueof single-period and relatively and status.This is particularly indicativeof itscomplexity TABLE of Chapter5 is therefore short-lived sites.The typology 6.5): siteswithan adopted(see - -provisionally and forthe purposeof analysis-'single area of 0.14 ha or less are designated farms',thesubsetofthoseat 0.07 ha or lessbeingdesignated'smallfarms'.Those withan area in therange0.15-0.29ha are,forthepurposesof classification, designated'multiplefarms',14 13Excludingtypes66-8 and 69. 14Ratherthan'villas',used in Chapter5, whichmightbe

a prejudicialtermgivenits specifichistoricalconnotations fortheLH1 and R periods.

264 Chapter 6 min.size (ha)

village hamlet multiplefarm singlefarm smallfarm

3.00 0.30 0.15 0.08 0.00

SE

Hellenistic W Ν

ο

ι

ΙΟ

5 4

5 6 4

3

11

2 1 1

5

17

total 3 16

10 14 32 75

Roman

SE

W

Ν

ο

ο

ο

5

4

3

3

3

7

2 2

2

4

I

15

total ο

12 5 *3 21 51

Table 6.5. Hellenisticand Romansettlements bysize.(Definiteand probablesitescountedtogether.)

ofsitesin thosein therange0.30-2.99ha 'hamlets5,15 and largersitesVillages'.The proportions in ILL. 6.1. For convenience, theselabels each classforbothperiodsare indicatedgraphically willoftenbe used withoutquotationmarks.They are notintendedas definitive attributions of in a there is a that reasonable indication most function, though presumption theymay give cases.(Fortheprobableagricultural roleofmostsites,see 'Site Chronology', below.) thata multi-period sitehad One difficulty whichoftencannotbe overcomeis thepossibility a different The data from extentin different collected such sites,however,do not periods. in allow us to calculate their extent each Since sherds could not be dated normally period. in to be a for it would have been on this the field this was bound closely difficulty, impractical of to collect all sherds or to record the each taken. Indeed, giventhe findspot piece project at such data not have been smallnumbersofdatablesherds manysites, adequateto the might taskofcalculatinga meaningful sitearea fora givenperiod.Re-sampling at a laterdatewould notnecessarily havebeen reliable,sincethecharacterofthesurfacedepositwouldhavebeen alteredby our previoussampling.For smallsitesthisis less of a problem,since thereis no ofmajordisplacement withinthe narrowconfinesobserved.For middle-sizedand possibility largersites,buildingsmaybeen enlargedor replacedovertime,butthedata do notallowus to see thisaccurately. In manycases, however,a site was divided into units('areas') and the data give some indicationofchangingextent.At *P284,forexample,whosecomputedextentwas 2.00 ha, the offindsfromthe hellenistic sherds,whichare faroutnumbered bytheByzantinein thetotality all come froma site,are confinedto one out oftheeightareas; theRoman sherds,moreover, area. We are probablydealingwitha smallsitewhoselocationchanged.In single,different othercases, fiveor more hellenisticsherdsoccur in more than one area. In all such cases, wherethe extentof each area is known,a maximumfigureforthe site'sextentin a given theextentsoftherelevantareas;wheretheextent periodcan be calculatedbyaddingtogether of each area was not calculated,the site'sextentcan be scaled down in proportionto the numberofareasin whichfiveor moresherdsoftherelevantperiodoccur. At two 'Large Sites', intensivesamplingby area was carried out and it is possible to and Romanperiods. calculatemoreaccurately theextentofeach siteduringthehellenistic walkedin (U490)was intensively (1) The mainlyByzantinesiteof Panagía Chrysaphítissa areas each measuring60 X 30 m (0.18 ha) (see TABLE1.3).None of theseareas rectangular hellenistic sherds,and fivesherdsoccurredin onlyone area; producedmorethanfivedefinite the would clearlybe to under-represent to takethatas the sole area of occupation,however, 15For a discussionof middle-sizedsites,see J. Bintliff, 'Further considerations on the population of ancient

Recent ch. 17 (pp. 231-52), Boiotia', in Bintliff, Developments, esp. 238-9.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 265

smallat back. III. 6.1. Numbersofsitesbysize and sector:(a) hellenistic, (b) Roman.Largesitesat front,

266 Chapter 6

extentof the site.Definiteor probablehellenisticsherdsoccurredin no fewerthan fifteen areas, all adjacent, mainly in the centre and north-eastof the later Byzantine site. occurredin elevenofthesame areas and in a tilefabricsidentified as hellenistic Additionally, both sherdsand tile,eightareas yieldedfiveor all twelve twelfth, beingcontiguous.Counting a reasonable estimate of 1.44ha forthesize ofthesitein the morehellenistic artefacts, giving all in the northhellenisticperiod.16Three areas producedfiveor more Roman artefacts, an estimated size of ha for the Roman east-central of the site.17 site,giving 0.54 part an in was at of the blocksof Geladári (2) (H45) earlystage sampled survey non-rectangular ci ha ILL. These were later into fifteen (see 24.23). varyingsize, typically amalgamated with an area of ha. 'bundles'18 £.0.8 The was average visibility generallylow,often sampling is over four each bundle times as verylow; so, although largeas a singlearea at U490,itseems to the threshold at five sherds. reasonable keep (Althoughthereare laterstandingremains, of the dated sherdson the siteare eitherhellenistic or Roman.) On thisbasis three-quarters thesitehad evidenceofhellenistic occupationin eightbundles(totalextent£.6.4ha), spanning thewholesitefromnorth-west to south-east and suggesting a settlement complexofgenuinely albeitprobablynot spatiallycontinuous.19 (This contrastswithonly proportions, village-like fiveor morearchaicor classicalsherds,and anotherwithfour.)Forthe one bundlecontaining ofthe Romanperiod,onlythreebundles(c.1.8ha) containedfivesherds,one in thenorth-west a markedcontraction ofthesettlement. siteand twoin thecentre,20 suggesting In thecases ofbothU490 and H45,it mustbe emphasized,thecalculationsare notdirectly comparablewiththoseelsewhere.In each case,thecomputedextentmaybe an over-estimate, and (particularly at Geladari)cultivation sincelateroccupation,disturbance, mayhavecaused findsto spreadmorewidely. in the surveyarea in each period (see below) has been The totalsize of settledterritory but may representan overcalculated on the basis of certainand probable settlements, estimate(at least in relationto the sitesactuallydiscovered)since it takes no account of sites,or of sitesthatmayhave occupiedforonlypartof changesin the area of multi-period sub-areasofsiteshavebeen consideredseparately theperiod.Wherethedata permit,different The rangeofsitesizesfoundin each sectorduring and thesizesofsitescomputedaccordingly. thehellenistic and Romanperiodsis indicatedin ILL.6.2. hellenistic On the basis of the sitesizes as assessedabove,we findthatof the seventy-five sitesthree(4 per cent)are villages,sixteen(21 per cent)'hamlets',ten (13 per cent)'multiple farms',fourteen (43 per cent)'smallfarms'.Among (19per cent)'singlefarms',and thirty-two thefifty-one Roman sitesthereare no 'villages',buttwelve(24 per cent)are 'hamlets',five(10 (41 per cent) per cent)'multiplefarms',thirteen(25 per cent)'singlefarms',and twenty-one of 'smallfarms'.At thisgenerallevel,exceptin theuppersize range,therelativeproportions kindsofsitesare moreor lessthesamein bothperiods. different 16FromS to N: areasX sherds,2 (2 typesherds,2 non-type tile),AB (ο, ι, 5), AC (2, 1,4), AG (1, 2, 2), AM (1, 3, 6), AR (1, 2, 3), AX (3, 1, 4), and BC (2, 3, o). Smaller numbers 7, 5, 7) occurin areas R, AA, AF,AH, AI, AL, AS, (totalling and AV. (Figureshave been recalculatedto include those fromthosein LS ii. 430-1, dated by fabricalone, and differ ILL.24.58.) •7AreasAI (1,4, o), AM (6, o, 2), and AQ,(6, 1,o). Smaller numbers(totalling10,3, o) in areas Y, AA, AB, AD, AF,AN, AP,AX, and BH. The remainingartefacts (4, 11,3) are not locatedbyunit.

ΐ8^ϋ·355· χ9FromNWto SE: 'bundles'xv (28 sherds),iii (8), ν (5), vi (7), vii (12),xi (14),xii (20), and xiii (6). Of these,vi, xi, xii, and xv are unfortunately not markedon LS ii. 354, ill. 24.23;xv shouldbe markedNWofiii,acrossthetrackand NE ofxiv;vi is in thecentreofthesite,wsw ofviii;xi liesto itsS, near theΕ-Wtrack,withxii to itsΕ betweenix and xiii.The maximumseparationis betweenxv and xiii,some450 m. 20Bundlesxv (9),vi (5),and vii(8).

Hellenistic and Roman periods 267 0.50j 0.40 --

0.38

0.30 - ■

0.20--

°·21

°·21

0.10--

°·η

o.io 0.05

009 1 0.05 I 0.03

0.00-I-

Ν

W

SE (a) 0.50

j

0.40-

°·41

0.32

0.30 - 0.25 0.20--

0.10 --

0.10

0.10

I011

0.05

1 0.05 ■ 0.03

0.00 SE

W

N

(*) III. 6.2. Median and quartilemeasuresofsitesize (in hectares)bysector:(a) hellenistic, (b)Roman.

The totalarea occupiedby settlement sitesin the hellenistic periodis 26.48 ha, compared with19.07ha in thelate archaic-earlyclassicalperiodand 18.23na m *ne^e classical(ILL. totalrepresents fourlargesiteswhoseareasmaybe over6.3). More thanhalfofthehellenistic estimated (A118,Bin, H45,and 11490,totalling13.97na)j butthatis also trueofboththeearlier Occupationof periods(inwhichA118and Bin are reckonedat 3.00 and 6.00 ha respectively). Even iftheexceptionalsitesare Bin, in particular, maynothavebeen permanentor intensive. thereremainsevidenceof a significant scaled down,therefore, rise,whose implicationsare consideredlaterin thischapter.The Roman figureis 9.63 ha (withonlyone largesitewhose area may be an over-estimate: and H45, 1.80 ha); thatsuggestsa contractionof settlement possiblyofpopulation.

268 Chapter 6

III. 6.3. Totalsettledarea (in hectares)bysector:(a) hellenistic, (b)Roman.

SITE

CHRONOLOGY

and 'Roman' willbe used hereas labelsforthebroad ceramiccultures The terms'hellenistic' on of changesin the potteryforms(Chapters15-16); the different the basis distinguished shouldnot be takento indicatea hard and fastchronologicalseparationor a nomenclature beliefin sudden and sweepingsocial or culturalchanges.Whetheror not the mid-fourth centurywas a timeof rapid change in Sparta and Laconia followingthe loss of much of Messeniain 369 BC,thepottery evidencesuggestsa culturalchangein or aroundthelateyears of the century. It was observedearlier(p. 175)that,in so faras a firmdividingline can be placed betweentheclassicaland hellenistic phaseson thebasisofthepotteryit is likelyto be

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 269 and the late classicalperiod was definedas ^.450-^.300BC. closerto 300 than to 325 BC?21 will be employedratherthan, for example, 'late the term 'hellenistic' Here, therefore, thethird,second, The hellenistic classical-hellenistic'. periodis takento denoteapproximately while the Roman is treated as centuries and first BC, period approximatelythe firstsix AD. centuries lack of the decoratedor In both periods,as observedin Volume II,22thereis a striking There are almostno demonstrable and imports, glazedsherdsfoundon otherGreeksurveys. formsmakesit it is clearthatpotteryproductionis mainlylocal.23The lack of 'international' Neverthelesson the basis of the potteryit is to refinethe chronology. even more difficult - referred to here as 'phases'- withinbothperiods, internalsubdivisions possibleto identify that and 'middleRoman'. Some phasesnaturallyoverlap,signifying suchas 'earlyhellenistic' different potterystylesmay have coexisted;indeed,thereis no phase aroundwhichwe can thatcutsacross drawfirmboundaries.Many potterytypeshave a long termof manufacture late hellenistic-early divisionsbetweenphases(e.g.late classical-middle hellenistic, Roman).24 and earlyRoman typesare particularly hard to separate,and some 'Roman' Late hellenistic BC.25 ceramicformsprobablyemergein thefirst century Given thatthe quantitiesof sherdson sitesare generallysmall,it is especiallyhard to to a betweenoccupationin particularphases of each period.Materialattributed distinguish as sherds and the studied exists 15-16), only type (Chapters among pieces particularphase Of the hellenistic sherds a of hellenistic and Roman 655 pottery. type only minority represents For foundon settlement sites,only196(30 per cent)are datedmorepreciselythan'hellenistic'. is almost the out of 128 the Roman periodthe corresponding same, 407 (31 per proportion cent). Among sherdson sites,those dated to a particularhellenisticphase are rare (the maximumpossible figures,on a strictdefinitionof phases, are EH1 28, MH1 7, LH1 4), Those datedto a particular comparingpoorlywiththe 168 typesherdsdated 'late classical'.26 in few Roman are also the or the (for firstsevencenturiesAD the period very century phase and for the are o; early,middle,and late phases 37, 31, and 16). A figures 13,5, 23, 6, 2, 6, dates such as LC1-EH1, EH1-MH1, or somewhatlargernumberof sherdshave transitional ER-MR. Only fourhellenistic sites(H45,E76,A118,S436) and threeRoman (H45,Aioo,J222) or 'Roman' respectively.27 haveas manyas 10sherdswitha datemoreprecisethan'hellenistic' fromthe data, nearlyall a limited amount of detail can be extracted Althoughonly very out of seventy-five out of sites(fifty-five hellenistic, Roman) have at least forty-three fifty-one one closelydatable sherd.While it is not oftenpossibleto come to firmconclusionsabout 21Cf. D. W.J. Gill, CR 102 [n.s. 48] (1998), 131-2, LS ii. He pointsout thatseveralAr-Cl types reviewing by R. Catlingin mayalso extendintoHI, as remarked Chapter14.The relevant typesare 9 c (5thor 3rdcent.; only at N415), 20 a- b (C.400-C.250 and c.400-^.200 respectively;found at Bin, D85, Π1326,U499, U511), 21 (C.350-C.250;U499), and 29 d (^.425-^.200; Bin, N415,LS IO359)· There are no implications for the site data presentedhere,however.Of these sites,fouralreadyhave as part of M327,Bin, D85), definiteHI sherds(U511,111326 one already has possible HI pottery(PPciôg), and three have no HI findsand mustbe discounted(cult site N415, U499,LS 10359). 22 H. Visscher at LS ii. no: very little imported HI material;Megarianbowlspossiblymade at Sparta.J. Lawson

at LS ii. in, 123: verylittleimportedR pottery, exceptin dumpedmaterialbroughtfromthemoderntown. 23LS ii. no (HI), 123 (R). Visscher,however,notes the thatsomeplainwaresare imports(ibid.). possibility 24 See S. E. Alcock, Graeciacapta (Cambridge, 1993), ofdividingEH1 fromLH1. 217-18,on thedifficulty 25Cf. Lawson at LS 11.123,withparticularreferenceto coarse wares; ibid., with referenceto LH1-MR pitchers, LHl-ist-cent.ADamphoras. 26There is also a ist-cent.BC 'Roman' sherdfrom K242. 27Une maycomparethedata to thosefromotherareas of Greece where thereis a lack of closely datable LH1-ER pottery.In Laconia, however,the dearthextendsinto LR, while ER and MR are betterrepresented.Contrast e.g. Keos: LandscapeArchaeology, 331 fig.17.2.

270 Chapter 6

suchas individualsites,suggestive by treatingthe data collectively, patternscan be identified in or sector. The data a decline settlement sites suggest activity, by grouping by geographical at leastin therateat whichsherdswerebeingdepositedin thelandscape,betweentheearly declinebetweenearlyand late Roman.Pottery dated and late hellenistic phase,and a further before200 BC (includingboth 'late classical-hellenistic'and 'early hellenistic'material) 7 per centofall hellenistic typesherdson sites(46 sherdsout of407),butpost-200 represents BC pottery(middleand later hellenistic)makes up only 3 per cent (17 sherds).Similarly, whereasearlyRoman (includingall Roman materialearlierthanAD 200) represents13 per centofall Romantypesherdson sites(54 out of407),thefiguredropsto 8 per centformiddle Roman(31sherds)and 4 per centforlateRoman(16 sherds). Sometimesit is possible to assess what the dated sherdson each site implyabout its minimumand maximumpossiblelengthofoccupation.Forexample,in thecase ofa sitewith one sherdof c.300-^.150 BC and anotherof £.2oo-c.iooBC, one could say withreasonable thatthesitewas occupiedat somedate betweenc.200and c.150,thoughoccupation certainty sherddatesare onlyapproximate, mayhaveextendedfromc.300to £.100.Unfortunately, they say nothingabout thedate ofuse or depositionat thesite,and thereare fewsiteswithmore thantwo or threecloselydatable sherds.A detailedanalysisof the data would therefore be deceptive.When aggregated,however,the figuresare not withoutusefulness. Leavingaside hellenistic siteswithno closelydatedsherds,theysuggestthatat leasttwenty-three twenty-one were of the fifty-four otherswere occupied at some date before£.200BC; that fifty-one occupiedat somedatebefore£.100BC;thatonlyelevenneed havebeen occupiedat somedate after£.225BC (thoughmany more may have been); and that only two need have been two occupiedafterc.ioo BC (again,thisis a minimum).For the Roman period,wherethirtysiteshave closelydatedsherds,thechronology is lesssusceptibleto analysisbecause thereare feweroverlapping sherddateson particularsites.It appears,nonetheless, thatabout twentyone of thesesiteswere occupied (at least) at some date beforeAD 200, about twenty-nine beforeAD300, and aboutthirty beforeAD400; conversely, need havebeen onlyaboutthirteen AD AD in at or after and ten at or later each case 200 400 only manymore occupied (though have been). may It seemspossible,however,thatthe studyof the Laconia Surveymaterialhas understated the amountof late Roman pottery, owingto the lack of the red-glazedwaresoftenseen in of datingunpaintedwareswithoutpublishedcomparanda. otherregionsand the difficulty There are largegroupsof unpaintedsherdsfromseveralsites,and fromnon-sitefindspots, whichin thelightofmorerecentstudyofRomanwaresmightwellbe assignedto thisphase.28 Some ofthesesitesand findspots (??R423,?T47o,U511)have otherRoman finds,whileothers If do not.29 even a minority ofthesesherdsare in factlateRoman,as seems (K255,S466,T464) the late Roman collapseof settlement,30 these data thoughnot likely, maymitigate suspected in all partsofthesurveyarea.

28I am gratefulto Richard Catlingforthisinformation based on his study,subsequent to the Laconia Survey's studyseasons, of materialfromsurveysin Melos and the Strymondelta. 29Numbersofundatedsherds+ tilefragments (bothplain unlessspecified),excludingBG and presumedByz material (combed, green-glazed, etc.): ??R423, 48 (1 'glazed', 5

grooved, 1 incised, 1 mortarium,1 RG, 8 rilled) + 4 (1 grooved);?T47o,20 (1 grooved)+ 3 (1 grooved);U511,157(23 grooved,1 ridged,1 rilled)+ 27 (7 grooved,2 RG); K255,12+ 10; S466, in (46 grooved,1 ridged)+ 13 (4 grooved);T464,7 (1 grooved)+ 4 (1 grooved). 30Lawson,LS ii. 123:manysitesabandonedas earlyas 4th cent.AD.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 271

Althoughmost of the hellenisticsherdscannot be dated to a particularcentury,some assemblagespoint to a more precise date. The group of ten dated sherdsfromE76, for late classical-early hellenistic appearance.*K2gghas onlytwodated example,has a strongly at both late hellenistic. sherds, S436 appearslong-lived, leastfromthelate thirdcenturyto the secondhalfofthesecondand probablya good deal longer.The hellenistic occupationofU490 as much as fourthto could also be long-lasting, perhaps first-century, thoughitssherddates do notabsolutelycompelus to posita longeroccupationthanfromthe earlysecondcentury 6.6-11. While to sometimeafter150BC.The datesofothersitesmaybe judged fromTABLES severalsiteshavea numberofdatedsherds,thecommonestnumberofcloselydatedsherdson cannot a siteis onlytwoand the interquartile range2.0-4.0, so thatmostsites'chronologies established. be firmly In theirtotality, the datablehellenistic sherdssuggesta reductionin activityfromearlyto Another indicator is the quantityof black-glazed(strictly late hellenistictimes. general in pottery each assemblage.On late classicalsites,almosthalf(£.48 speaking,black-slipped) per cent)of the typeand non-typesherdsdated to the archaicor classicalperiodare blacksherdsare blacksites,only14 per cent(202 out of 1,456)ofhellenistic glazed. On hellenistic glazed,whileon Roman sitesthefigureis barely0.3 per cent(2 out of608). Thus farwe have a broadindicationofthedeclinein theuse ofblack-glazedpottery. The hellenisticphase boundarymost easily tested is that between early and middle the at about 200 BC.Fifteensites(29 per cent)have sherdsdatablebefore200 BC;31 hellenistic, amountof black-glazedpotteryon theseis 24.3 per cent,nearlytwicethe overallaverage. (Bin), bothwithat least50 Amongthesesitesare Palaiogoulás(ai 18) and AgiosKonstantinos sherdsand bothlikely, fromwrittensourcesand per centblack-glazeamongtheirhellenistic archaeologicalevidence,to havebeen abandonedbytheearlysecondcenturyor earlier.Only also have middleor late hellenistic fourof the fifteen pottery(Bin, Q181,N186,U490). The (H32,E76, earlyhellenistic remainingeleven,whichcan be regardedas chieflyor exclusively ofblackC114,A118,K141,M172,M327,L406,R469,*T47O,U491),also have a highproportion In cent out of 188 on the fourteen sites 20.2 contrast, sherds). (27 per (38 glazed pottery, per BC after the amount of is with sherds dated £.200 only 13.7 cent) any black-glazedpottery per cent(59 out of431),eventhoughearlierfindsoccuron all but two.Of these,thetwelvewith earlierfinds(H45,Aioo,Bin, B123,N186,J229,R281,*P284,M321,*Q359,S436,U490)probably also had a middle-late hellenisticexistence.The closelydated findson the remainingtwo be called late hellenistic, BC, and thesesitesmay tentatively (K233,K299) are first-century are the data and two sherds few; (one respectively) exceedingly norare theresufficient though data elsewhereto permita reliableassessmentof a changein theuse ofblack-glazebetween times.32 It appearsclear,however, thata higherproportion ofblackmiddleand latehellenistic with of on a site is correlated the hellenistic late classical(or strongly presence early glaze material. earlyhellenistic) The use ofblack-glazedpottery also varieswithgeographicallocationand sitesize.On sites in thenorthern sector,black-glazedpotterymakesup 20 per cent(84 out of419) ofhellenistic sherds;in thewest,14 per cent(78 out of 566); in the south-east, only9 per cent(42 out of

31Includingsherdsdated400-233/167BC,400-22^ BC,etc. 32The seven siteswithpost-100BC sherds(B123,N186, K233,S436 (?), K299,U490 (?), and K242withits ist-cent.BC Romansherd)actuallyhavea highproportion ofBG (26 per

cent,39 out of 150); but thisis probablybecause fivehave significant quantitiesof EH1-MH1 as well.The twowithout pre-100BCsherds(K233,K299)haveonly14per centBG, but thedata are too fewto be reliable(2 sherdsoutof 14).

272 Chapter 6

also varies:85 per centofsites(twenty-two 471).The numberofsiteswithblack-glazedpottery in thenorth,71per cent(seventeenout oftwenty-four) out oftwenty-six) in thewest,butonly in cent out of the more oflaterdate south-east, 48 per (twelve twenty-five) suggesting activity and perhapsmoresitesfoundedlater.The occurrenceofblack-glazedpotteryalso varieswith sitesize: on sitesover0.30 ha it represents sherds(61 out of678), only9 per centofhellenistic whereason smallersitesit represents18 per cent (143 out of 778). The variationsappear, to be unrelatedto thepercentageoftypesherdsamongsherdson sites,whichvaries however, littlewithsectoror sitesize (between43 and 46 per centin all threesectors;46 per centon largersites,44 percenton smaller). The smallerhellenistic sitesin thenorthare morelikelyto includeearlyhellenistic phases thanthelargeronesin thesouth-east, moreofwhichmaybe mainlymiddleor latehellenistic. This tendsto be confirmed bytheamountsofsherdsofdifferent phasesin each sector,though thequantitiesare small.Earlyhellenistic makesup 9 per centoftypesherdson sitesin pottery thenorth(17sherdsout of 191),in thewestonly5 per cent(14 out of260),in thesouth-east 7 middleor late hellenisticsherdsare commonerin the per cent (15 out of 204). Conversely, south-east(3.4 per cent,7 sherds)thanin the north(2.6 per cent,5 sherds)or west(1.9 per cent,5 sherds).It should be noted,however,thatthe eleven sitesclaimed above as early hellenistic are distributed roughlyequallyamongthethreesectors. in thenorth, therefore seemsto havestartedmoststrongly Third-century colonizingactivity thenfocusedon thewestand south-east. Northernsitesmayhave seenlessactivity afterc.200 BC,or mayhavebeen abandonedin greaternumbersthanthoseelsewhere. Roman siteswhoseassemblagessuggesta particularchronology includeH45 and Aioo,which can firmlybe describedas long-lived.U490 probablyfalls into the same category,with and sixthcenturiesAD.We mayalso add R426 occupationlikelyin at leastthesecond,fourth, withLS 11122,probablyrepresenting washfromthemainsiteand suggesting occupationfrom thefirstto sixthcenturies.Some smallfarms,such as C168,G252,J228,and K141,appear to have been occupied,intermittently or continuously, overa periodof severalcenturies, as do largersitessuch as J222,*K239,K515,and M321.EarlyRoman sitesprobablyincludeF140, K233,and M176.SitesK244,M348,and Q180 are earlyand/ormiddleRoman; K242 is both earlyand middleRoman.The onlymiddleRoman sitewithmorethantwodatablesherdsis F136.No sitewiththreeor more datable sherdsis exclusivelylate Roman, thoughseveral candidates were suggestedabove. When most sites have only one dated sherd (and the interquartile rangeis 1.0-3.0),we can achievelittleprecision. The distributionof closer-datedRoman sherds between sectors tends to suggesta or repetition, of the south-eastward driftof activitypositedforthe hellenistic continuation, period.EarlyRoman sherdsrepresent23 per cent of all Roman typesherdson sitesin the west(26 sherdsout of 114),whereasthe amountsare 10 per cent(19 out of 187)in the north and 8 per cent (9 out of 106) in the south-east.The westalso has nearlytwiceas greata ofmiddleRomansherds(11per cent,13sherds)as thenorth(6 per cent,12sherds) proportion and south-east(6 per cent,6 sherds).By the late Roman phase,the westhas laggedbehind and has thesmallestproportion oflate Roman sherdsofanysector:only3 per cent(3 sherds), comparedwith4 per cent(8 sherds)in the northand 5 per cent(5 sherds)in the south-east. With the correctionsto the late Roman materialsuggestedabove, the frequencyof late Romansitesin thesouth-east mightbecomemuchgreater. Althoughthevariationsare small- the quantitiesare so modestthatthe additionofa bag - whatemerges or two of middleor late Roman sherdswould changethe picturemarkedly

Hellenistic and Roman periods 273

as thedata stand,is thatthewesthas thegreatestproportionof earlyRoman pottery clearly, and sees the steepestdeclinein sherdnumbers.It is also possiblethatthe south-eastsaw a revivalin lateRomantimes. GENERALCHARACTEROF SITES As has been observedof the archaic and classical pottery,33 so too forthe hellenisticand ofceramicassemblagesis striking. Romanperiodsthehomogeneity Onlyin a fewcases do we sitessuch as cultplaces, quarries,or burialplaces. seem to be dealingwithnon-habitation Furthermore, among all the potterythereis only a tinyhandfulof identifiableimported sherds.34 Given the verysmallextentof manysites,it is reasonableto assumethatmostof humbleplaces ofhabitationand agricultural This tendsto themwererelatively exploitation. 6.6-11). be borneoutbythelimitednumberofartefacts found,otherthanpottery(see TABLES all the hellenistic-Roman As forinscriptions, stampedtile and brickfragments (inscriptions 17-21) may be recycledpieces or straysfromSparta, while all the catalogued stone have uncertainfunction or date (e.g.inscription 14 fromM348,a good hellenistic inscriptions and Roman site)or havebeen displacedfromSparta(theyare foundmainlyaroundAphysou willhave and at AgioiSaránda).The locationsofmanysitesalso suggestthattheirinhabitants benefitedfromaccess to the many non-agriculturalresources of the 'wild' hills and mountains.35 no standing In contrastto somesurveys carriedout in Greece,theprojectrevealedvirtually of theseperiods.Exceptionsare the excavatedRoman remainsor tracesof builtstructures mausoleumat Ktirákia(M334),whichmay have been builton a richprivateestate,the late Romanor earlyChristianbathcomplexat Kokkinorachi (J4008),and thewalledsiteofsimilar All threeare within£.3kmofSparta date excavatedbyChristouat ÁmboulanearAphysou.36 at theedgeoftheriverplain,in environments untypicalofthesurveyarea as a whole. Structuresroofedwithtile,however,existedat some date on most sites.Almostall the out of seventy-five, definiteand probablehellenisticsettlements 87 per cent)have (sixty-five settlements have tile while three-fifths of the Roman hellenistic fragments, only probable hellenistic some and Roman tile (thirtyout of fifty-one, While, however, 59 per cent). it is Roman tile can be identifiedwithreasonable (thoughusuallynot perfect)certainty, remains concealed undated tile. Since of the sites that more among many quite possible withoutdatable tile have undated tile (fourout of ten hellenisticsites;37sixteenout of Roman, includingeightwhereall the dated sherdsare Roman), theymay well twenty-one have had built structuresin the relevantperiod. Only five hellenisticsites38and five Roman39have no tile of any period; only one nearlypure hellenisticsite (M353)and one nearlypure Roman site (*F72)have none. In some cases this may simplybe because it existedbutwas not sampled.Roofs,however,can be made ofperishablematerials,and tiles so the absence of tile in a particularperiod does not can be reusedformanygenerations, there was no roofed structure. Whetheror not any sites lacked roofs,the great prove 33LS ii. 86. 34HI: Megarianbowl(fromS436)and possiblecoarse-ware amphora,LS ii. no. R: fragmentof Arretinebowl (from U490) and globularjar (from*Fi4o),LS ii. in, 114type28, 115type39; cf.LS ii. 123. 35H. A. Forbes,'The usesoftheuncultivated landscapein modernGreece: a pointerto the value of the wildernessin

in Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes, 68-97. antiquity?', 36ForAmboula,notlocatedduringthesurvey, see n. 201. 37Not counting *P284, where the undated tile is in a different area fromtheHI sherds. 38Including *P284· The othersare *J2I3,*K4i9, C114, Aioo,and M353. 39M352, *F72, K242, AIOO,J22O.

274 Chapter 6

nearlyall the siteswithoutdated tile,40 majoritycertainlyhad them.Perhapssignificantly, and all butone ofthosewithno tileat all,41are in thenorthand west. The generalobservationmade above mayjustifiably characterizethe surveyarea in the hellenistic and Roman periods:it was a landscapeof predominantly small-scaleagricultural settlements. The combinationoftiledroofsand a wide rangeofceramics,includingdomestic wares,suggeststhatmostifnot all of our sitesweremorethansimplyseasonalsheltersand storehouses. The Hellenistic

Data

hellenisticsettlements Includingthe twenty-seven probable sites,the seventy-five (ILL. 6.4) a 70 percentincreaseon thelateclassicalperiod.Thereare threeVillages'(Bin Agios represent Konstantinosand A118Palaiogoulasin the north;H45 Geladarijust outsideSparta),sixteen 'smallfarms'.Thirteen 'hamlets',ten 'multiplefarms',fourteen'singlefarms',and thirty-two non-site were sites,sixnon-settlement sites,and seventy-four possibleand fourdoubtful findspots identified. The sitesare dividedalmostequallybetweenthe threesectors(twenty-five in the in thewest,and twenty-six in thenorth),buttheproportion ofmultiple south-east, twenty-four farmsincreasesfromnorthto south-east, whilethatofsmallfarmsfalls(seeILL.6.1). The totalsettledarea is 26.48ha and theaveragesitesize0.35 ha (thecommonest, or modal, sizebeing0.03 ha, ofwhichthereare nineexamples).Largesites(suchas H45,A118,Bin, U490), whosesizesmaywellbe exaggerated, theaverage,and withoutthemthetotal heavilyinfluence area is 12.51ha and theaverage0.18 ha. This is an under-representation, sincethose however, forexample,17percentofall thehellenistic sherds largesiteswereclearlyimportant (producing, on hellenistic in between.Betterguidesto thegeneral sites).The truefigurewilllie somewhere pictureare themediansizeofonly0.10ha and theinterquartile rangeof0.04-0.28ha. The followingsectionsshould be read in conjunctionwith Chapter 5; descriptionsof landformsand modernland use are not repeatedhere in detail. Followingthe sequence adoptedthere,we berinin thesouth-east. THE

siteno

SOUTH-EAST

subzone

IN THE

type total HI tile sherds HI sherds

HELLENISTIC

area

soil

(ha)

U490

U3

l9

39

33

1.44

I4a5

U511

U2

20

42

7

1.36

L2C

U488

Ui

9

25

2

0.89

L2a4

20

7

0.60

L2bii[

U519

U4

5

PERIOD

slope (degrees)

(TABLE

other

6.6)

sherddates(BC)

notes

components

EH LH Ar EG1 C4-C2E, C3-C2f, Cl-R lwt;LC1-R LClRMByz-Oti t C3-C2 (3),C2S-C1 millstone 6 lar EC1 LCI r lbyz C3, C3-C2 (3) mainlyarea C (48% HI); Cl-Hl lwts; LC1-H1hopperrubber [i.8iha] (area D = 11498,no R) Ici R Byz includesU486;slope3, C3-C2 (3) 5 (HI in bothhalvesof each site) Cl Cl-R lwt; LC1-H1 C3-C2 hopper rubber,LC1-R millstone

4°Exceptions:R423,R469(bothHl); N315,*Ni9i (bothR).

41Exception:*P284(HI).

Hellenistic and Roman periods 275 siteno

subzone type sherds

total HI sherds

HI tile area

soil

(ha)

slope (degrees)

other

sherddates(bc)

S466 R422

S2 R2

33 50

2

14

7

0.59 Ο·52

N2b L2b

11 II

r?MByz lar r byz

C3(2) C3, C3-C2 (6)

R281

R3

II

24

4

0-38

Nia

9

LAr Cl Ici r

C3, C3d-Ci

*U5i6

Ui

3

22

5

0.36

14a

6

Cl R MByz

EH1-ER (1)

*τ47ο T467 *P284

T4 T4

3 6

7 16

2

4

6

0.34 Ο·34 0.25

L2b L2b Nia

5 6

P2

5 O

ar cl r arclR EH LAr EC1 F MByz-EOtt

C4-C3f,C3-C2 C3-C2 (2) C3-C2, C3d-Ci, C2-C1

R2

7 8

3

0-24

0.21 0.20

N2d L2C Nia

7 ο 4

R LAr ecl byz r

C3 (2),C3-C2 (2)

11

3

R472 *T47i R423

T4 R4

5 3 5

11

3 Ο

U491

Ui

6

II

6

0.20

14a

ο

LAr EC1 Ici by: z

C4-C3

S436

Si

21

34

5

0.14

N2a

7

r

1406 *R293 *S475

Li R2 S4

6

10

2

2

6

°·π

ο. ΐΐ

Nia L4C Nia

r

5 8

0.13

12

1

C3, C3-C2 (5),C2 ? (3),C2S-C1 C3, C3-C2 (2)

*u494 Ui

4

8

6

ο. ίο

L.2a

3

lh LAr Cl r by;ζ Ott

N192 S474 N186

N5 S4 N4

7 6 22

12

2

Ο. ΙΟ

13

6

°·°3

R ehr

46

Nia Nia N2b

7 8

3

ο.οβ

R454

R4

6

9

2

0.02

N2d

7

ar cl

R469

R7

5

5

Ο

0.02

L2d

9

r

204

471

121

8.74

3

5 ο

notes

components

Cl-R, Cl-Hl lwts all in area F (13% HI) [2 ha] spreadbyerosion soilL/S; Cl-Hl lwt all in area A (30% HI) in A [0.46 ha]; transects 38 X 52 m HI concentrated in centre;LC1-R millstones (2) [0.40 ha]

all in areasA (50% HI), C (43%) [0.33ha] (area D = S442,0.09 ha, not HI) all in area A (58% HI); [0.50 ha]

lar ecl R MBys EOtt

5

mainlyarea Β (93% Hl) mainlyarea D (97% HI), also A (58%), Β (9i%);Cl-Rlwt; LC1-R millstone[0.69 ha] mainlyarea A (65% HI), wornsherdsin Β (59%); Cl-Hl lwt[0.75 ha] lesswornon topterrace ofthree;Cl-Rlwt [1.08 ha]

C4-C2E (3), C4-C3C, C3, C3-C2 (3),C2? C4-C3 (2)

Cl-R lwt sherdsin Ε partworn butdenser samplingSP469 inconclusive

Table 6.6. Hellenisticsettlement data: south-eastern sector.(Arrangedin decreasingorderofsitearea.) Forcenturydates,see key to TABLE 6.3.

hellenistic sites:eighteendefiniteand sevenprobable(as The south-east containstwenty-five a 14per otherfindspots). This represents wellas a possiblesite,a doubtful site,and twenty-five cent rise in numbersfromthe late classicalperiod,when therewere twenty-two sites;but whereasthesectorpreviously containedhalfthesitesin thesurveyarea, it now containsonly one-third. The totalsettledarea is 8.74 ha, a 29 per centincreaseon thelateclassicalfigureof

276 Chapter6

III. 6.4. Hellenisticsites(D. Taylor).

Hellenistic and Roman periods 277

smallerproportionof thefigureforthewholesurveyarea (33 per cent 6.84 ha but a slightly with 38 percent). compared Thereare four'smallfarms',six'singlefarms',five'multiplefarms',and ten'hamlets';as in the late classicalperiod,thereare no 'villages'.The largestfoursitesare in zone U. Nearly of all the hamletsitesin the surveyarea occur here,but onlyone-eighthof the two-thirds farms. small Thus, despitethe absence of major centres,site size is relatively high(average rangeis relatively highand wide,0.11-0.38 ha). In 0.35 ha, median0.21 ha; theinterquartile the late classicalperiod the medianwas 0.15 ha and the interquartile range 0.06-0.37 ha; thereappearsto havebeen a slightrisein both. As observedearlier,thesectorfallsclearlyintotwodistinct partsin termsofgeology,relief, and settlement pattern. district The Chrysapha

The low-lyingsouth-easterly part (zones R-U) is denselyoccupied,containingtwenty-one withitsheadwatersin zone Ρ (see above).There is Loutsórema,42 sites.The majorwatercourse are springsalongthelimestone-schist junctionat theupperpartofthesector,and wellswere ofT467and U490.An earlymodernspring-house notedin subzoneR (iii)43and in thevicinity the moderateslopes at the head of still stands village.Furthersouth-east, Chrysapha (U513) as in the archaic eitherside of theupper-middlecourseof Loutsoremaremainuninhabited, and classicalperiods.In itslower-middle course,wheretherehad been a fallin sitenumbers revivalis now seen.Abovethevalleyto theeastthereare in thelateclassicalperiod,a distinct fournew sites(fromNWto SE: S466, the probablylong-livedS436, S474,*S475;also ??T446) wheretherehad been eightlate archaic-earlyclassicaland threelate classicalsites.They a hamletand a singlefarm(S466 and *S475,ci km apart) rangewidelyin size, comprising limestonearea, whichhad a rowofthreefarms The uppermost, withsmallnear-neighbours. in the archaicperiod,remainsemptyexceptfora singlenon-sitefindspot(£481).As in the earlyclassicalperiod,sitesfavourthemorefertileNeogenesoils(p. 171),thoughthe doubtful rossa. site??T446in theeast,closerto theChrysaphabasin,is on terra In thevalleyswestofthemiddleand lowercourseofLoutsorema,too,on thesouth-eastern of the Neogene plateau and on the ridgesrunningdown to Chávos, thereis a extremity late archaicbutonlyfiveclassicalsites,thereare now revival.Wheretherehad been fourteen six definitesitesand a probable site,withone possible site. Those in the south-westare distributed fairlyevenlyacrosszone R. The sitesvarywidelyin size: thereare threehamlets R281,R422,and theearlyhellenistic *T47o),a multiplefarm(R423,plus (thepossiblylong-lived a singlefarm(*R293),and threesmallfarms anotherpossibleone,?R42i,nearthespring-line), R469).Boththelargestand thesmallestare moreor less (R454,R472,and theearlyhellenistic regularlyspaced (the larger 500-700 m apart, the smaller 500-900 m), suggestinga Some ofthe and possiblesatellites. withlocal dominantfarmsteads sitehierarchy rudimentary sitesmayalso havelain on one or moreancientbranchroutes(pp. 214-15)runningsouthand fromthearea oftheclassicalsiteofR275alongtheridgesand shallowvalleys south-south-east Tsiliotou Réma (one somewhatirregularline of sitesbeing formedby R423, to descending and ?R42i,R472,R422, *R293,the otherby R454,R469, *T47O,and T467). Only R281 and which is small,have classicaloccupation;none had been occupiedin late neither of ?R42i, archaictimes;theothersevenare new. 42LS ii. 397.

«LSii. 411.

278 Chapter 6

almostemptyzone ofschistsoilsbetween intothepreviously The clusterextendssouth-east acrossLoutsorema the Neogeneplateau and the Chrysaphabasin (Chapter5). Immediately size: *T47i (0.21 ha) and T467 (0.34 ha), some 600 m to the southare two sitesof different west.The formerhas archaicoccupation(and is situatedat the schist-limestone boundary, perhapsforaccessto a spring;see Chapter5); thelatteris new. In the northern partof the Chrysaphabasin proper,and the hillsadjoiningit,the eleven classicalsitesare succeededbysevenhellenistic U491,*U5i6, (*U494,U488,theearlyhellenistic Six are in thelong-lived and thesamepositionsas before;onlyU488is new. U490,U519, U511). (A numberofnon-sitefindspots partiallyfillthegap betweenthesiteseastofLoutsoremaand withÍ479and £485.)As notedin Chapter5, thosearoundChrysapha:Í481,alreadymentioned, soils here are generallyterrarossa,reasonablydeep but arid. Five of themare hamlets,the othertwo multiplefarms.At threesites(U491,U511,*U5i6),classicalcultactivity(cf.p. 179) identified. werepositively mayhave continued.No cultor burialsites,however, Althoughthe hilltopsanctuarysiteof U3002 Phagiá dominatesthe cout-of-area' landscapeto the south,it finds. producedno hellenistic This is theonlyarea to see an increasein sitenumbersin theclassicalperiod,particularly aroundAï-Lias (U500),but in the hellenistic periodas manysitesare abandonedas survive, and one newcomer(U488)is notenoughto makegood theloss.Rather,thereis a relativeshift to thesouth-eastern partoftheNeogene,especiallyzone R. In the Chrysaphabasin thereis one Large Site witha substantialhellenisticphase, the large Byzantinesiteof Panagia Chrysaphitissa (U490)below Chrysaphavillage.There was probablyno single,centralsettlementin the Chrysaphabasin in the hellenisticperiod, and no ancientplace-namecan be attachedto thisregion(theunlocatedOinous of however, Androtion,FG//324,fr.49, does not seem plausibleso farsouthof the riverofthatname). Sparta appears to be the nearestancient centreof population,so possiblythiswas not perioikicbut Spartanterritory (cf.p. 229). The hellenisticpotteryat U490 includesstorage ware, one typeof kitchenware, and a wide range of table ware. In thisperiod, the site shouldperhapsbe regardedas on a par withothersignificant sitesin zones R-U, as a large hamletratherthana centralplace. All thesitesin theChrysaphabasinarea havehellenistic tileapartfromR423and R469. The Neogeneplateau

As in mostperiods,thecore oftheNeogeneplateau(mainlyin zone N) appearsto havebeen at the heartof the surveyarea. Althoughits uninhabited, creatinga gulfwithoutsettlement are tend to be flattish. The chieffactormilitating the cut, against valleys deeply ridge-tops watercourses or springs, be the lack of exceptin thefar permanentoccupationmay perennial of classicaloccupation)in thevicinity southwherethereare twofarmsitesin an area (without is the sole the Kástora springin subzoneΝ (ν). The smallerN186(early-middle hellenistic) sitesin thisarea,44whileitsnear-neighbour successorto thelineofearlier(LAr-ECl) ridge-top N192is larger(thoughitssherdscatteris muchlessdense).As in otherperiods,thetwositeslie clustermainlyoutside theedge ofa settlement on a possibleroute(p. 215)and mayrepresent in the Evrotas the thesurvey's southernboundary, towards plain generalarea ofthe extending modernvillagesof Zagáno and Platána. It was impliedearlier(p. 218) thatthe lack of easy communicationbetweencertainparts of the Neogene plateau may have been a further 44LSÜ. 394-5.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 279

factorin thedevelopment ofhabitation;thesoutherncluster, favouredby a natural inhibiting this would route, support hypothesis. is similarto that The landscapeofzone L, at thenorthern marginoftheNeogenedistrict, has have been noted(1476, zone but the area had more habitations and of N, generally springs a A Chatzarórachi is substantial earlyhellenistic L477). cornerofthe ridge occupiedby L406, in farm whereone late archaic-early classical had been situated,butno singlefarm, a district classicalfarms.It probablyrelatesto two sitesbelow the westernend of the ridge(*K4ic), K407),whichare assignedto the northernsector;all threeare close to the line of new sites alongthelowerKelephinavalley(see below). The north-eastern part of the plateau (zone P) risesup towardsthe limestonepeaks of at the northernedge of the Parnon.On the Neogene soils of the ridgeof Provatomandra, surveyarea, standsa multiplefarm,*P284(withfindspossiblyspanningthewholehellenistic period).It seemsto replacetwoclassicalsites,betweenwhoselocationsit is situated(P264to - last remnantof a relativelydense cluster of late the north,P271 to the south-west) archaic-earlyclassical sites.(There are also two non-sitefindspotsof hellenisticmaterial withpossiblehellenistic nearby, ^262 to thenorthwithone sherd,and ^405 to the south-east tileonly.) One cult sitewas identified, N430,whichalso has a late classical sherd.Another,P260, seemsto havegoneoutofuse,perhapsas earlyas thelateclassicalperiod. tileexcept*P284· All thesitesin theNeogeneplateauhavehellenistic In thehellenistic periodthe south-easthas the lowestproportionof kitchenor cookingware on sites(40 out of 204, 20 per cent)and the highestproportionof table sherds amongtype ware (143sherds,70 per cent).Storageware makesup only10 per centof typesherdsin this sector(21 sherds),barelymore than in the west (below) and much less than in the north. siteshave tableware,seventeenhave kitchenor cookingware, ofthetwenty-five Twenty-four and onlyelevenhave storageware (S436 produced5 pieces, U5114, othersites2 or less). Mortariumfragmentswere foundat L406, S436 (1 each), U488 (1 or 2), with a possible at T467. A late classicalor earlyhellenisticmortariumsherd(c.400-250BC) was fragment from*T47O. recovered THE

WEST

IN THE

HELLENISTIC

PERIOD

(TABLE

6.7)

hellenisticsites:sixteendefiniteand eightprobable(withsix The westcontainstwenty-four doubtful and thirty-two otherfindspots).The numberof sites is one site, possible sites, but the in than the late classical period(whentherewere onlyfifteen), substantially greater sector'srelativeimportancein termsofsitenumbersis roughlythe same as before.The total a morethanfourfold increaseon the2.13ha ofthe settledarea of9.78 ha, however, represents ofthetotalforthesurveyarea (37 per cent late classicalperiodand a muchlargerproportion ofthefigureis accountedforby H45,whichmaynot comparedwith12per cent).Two-thirds have existedin thelate classicalperiod.Its computedsize (6.40 ha) maybe an over-estimate, butevenifitwereto be discountedthetotalwouldstillbe 3.38 ha, an riseof59 per cent. The sitescompriseeleven 'small farms',three'singlefarms',four'multiplefarms',five 'hamlets',and one 'village'.There is a smallerproportionof hamletsthanin the south-east, the sectorhas a higherproportionof small thoughnot so small as in the north;similarly, not as as the north. farms,though IncludingH45,theaveragesize is 0.41 ha, butitwould high be truerto saythatthesitesare smallerthanin thesouth-east (averageexcludingH450.15ha; medianof all sites0.10 ha, interquartile range0.05-0.21ha). In the late classicalperiodthe

28o Chapter 6 siteno

subzone

typetotal #/tile area sherds HI (ha) sherds

soil

other

slope. , (degrees)

Hi

71

122

10

6.40

S4b

5

M327

M4

l7

32

13

0.45

N3c

1

*Hi7 M321

H3

3 27

7 57

1

Mi

4

0.44 0.42

S4b S3a

8 9

J229

J4

l3

17

ο

0.34

S3a

8

r byz

D85

D3

II

29

9

0.31

S2W Sib

20

larCl

H32 *J2I3 M348 J222

H3 J2 M6

8 3 25 8

9 5 48

ι ο 4 3

0.18 0.16 0.16

3 7 6

0.15

S3b S4C N3b S4b

M175

M7

8

55

O.II

N3c

2

M172 *J2I2

M2

6 3 4 8

12

0.10

N3C S3b L2a N3c N3b

*h6o M177 *M349

Hi M7 M6

*Hig M353 M174 *M357 *M362 Q;8i

H3 M6 M7

J2I0 *Q359

12

3

6 5 24 6

2

7

8 7

20

M6 Q?

2

6

4 8

32

Ji Q?

7 4

l3 l3

Mi

260

10

566

3 2 I 2

0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07

2

0.06

ο

0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

S4b N4c N3c N4C N4 N2b

2

0.02 0.01

N4b

79

9·78

4

2 I

4 6 4

S2C

9

ar cl R MByz

LAr EC1 byz R arclR

13 II

MH LH MByz

3 4

r

3

2

7 6

ar cl EHclr

l3 14 3

C3, C3-2 (2), C3d-Ci C3-C2 (3),C2? C2-C1? C4-C3, C3-C2Ç C3-C2 (5) C4-C2E, C3 (2) C3 C3, C3-C2 (2) C3, C3-C2

C3-C2 (3) LH Cl LC1 Cl r MByz Cl

1

5

notes

EH LH LAr-LCl C3 (1-2),C3-C2 includesh6i (4, 3, 1); Rott Hl-R sculpture (12),C2? cl Ici b C4-C2E, C3-C2 (2) includesΠ1326;slope 2, ο

H45

J5

sherddates(BC)

components

Ici r

C4-C2E, C3 C3-C2 (3)

Hl-R figurine

Cl-Rlwt; 0.17ha; includesdg5,0.14ha; slope22, 18 Cl-R lwt LH1/ER stampedtile; builtstructures [samplingSP222: buildings] in sub-concentration ENEpart(0.02 ha); EH1 (?) marblevessel

samplingSP349:no results HI lwt

C3-C2 (2) C3-C2 (2) C3, C3-C2 C3-C2 (2) C3 C3, C3-C2f, C3-C2 (2) C3? C3-C2Ç C3-C2 C3-2, C2-1? (2) possibleolive-crusher

Table 6.7. Hellenisticsettlement data: westernsector.Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3.

medianwas 0.09 ha and the interquartile range0.07-0.23 ha; thereis a slightfallin both. Communications withinthe sectorare relatively easy; the main routesweredescribedearlier location. (p. 216), and localtrackswillnothavebeena majorfactorin thechoiceofsettlement Two tightconcentrations ofsitesin zonesM andj (withtwooutliersin Q) meanthatsouthof the Kelephinaand in thevalleybottomof itslowercoursethereare eighteensitescompared withtheclassicalmaximumoften.It is tempting to supposethatthisexpansionofsettlements was partlythe resultof the increasingurbanizationof the cityof Sparta.Sitesare also more irregularly groupedthanbefore.NorthoftheKelephina,thereis a third,moredispersedscatter in zone H (fivesites)plusD85.Waterwaspresumably suppliedbytheriverand springs. Beginningfromthe south,aftera small outlier(Q181,probablylong-lasting)we have anothersix sites:a smallfarm(*Q359)and a verytightclusteroffivesiteseast oftheriver,on

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 281 the Neogene-derived soils of the glacis slope (M175,M177,M353,M348,*M349,plus ?M352). withinan area of £.0.3sq km. The lastfiveare all within£.300m oftheirnearestneighbour, a 0.16 as the northernmost (M348, ha) qualifies Only multiplefarm,theothersoccupying0.07 ha or less.The totalsettledarea ofthefivesitesis 0.46 ha. On theW-facing slope one ofthe are one or two smallfarmsvery erosibleNeogene ridges,some 70 m above the river-plain, close together, ??M36iand *M3Ö2.All ofthesesitesare new in thisperiod.Pausanias'sspring of Messeis(iii. 20. 1) shouldhave lain in thisarea; todaya springfeedsthevillagecisternof Aphysou,and otherswerenotedin thearea. Two non-sitefindspots (^346, #2344) bridgethegap betweenthetightclusteralreadynoted ofAphysou,spaced at £.500-900m (M174,M172, and anothergroupoffivesitesin thevicinity fromtheplain) M327,*M357,M321,plus?M335).Two ofthem(M327and M321,thesitefurthest M321 qualifyas hamlets,therestas singleor smallfarms.M327and M172are earlyhellenistic; theperiodand has a long Roman occupation.*M357and M321may maypersistthroughout haveadjoineda routefromSpartavia modernAphysouand thevalleybehindit up to zone Ρ (p. 214).ApartfromM172thesesites,too,are newlysettled,in an area whichhad six archaic and threeclassicalsites. to the divisionbetween There followsa puzzlinggap northof Aphysou,corresponding N. comesa relatively schist-derived to the Next soils to the south and tight Neogene-derived clusterof fivesitesjust southof the Kelephina,on schistsoils.Apartfromthe possiblesite ?Ji70on thelowerglacisslope,all thesitesare containedwithinan area ofless than 1 sq km and are somewhatelevatedabove theplain (J222,*J2I2,*J2I3, J210,andj22g, plus ?J232and three in the and size, (J222,J229,*J2I3)beingless than £.500m largest ?J2i6) rangewidely itis also one ofthosesitesforwhich at the and the elevation; greatest largest(J229)being apart a long occupationcan be posited (at least earlyand middle hellenistic).(Several non-site sitesof The moresoutherly are also situatedamongthesesites:7227,7224,7226,7217.) findspots theclusterare close to a possibleancientroute(p. 214).There had been ninearchaicand six classicalsitesin thisarea, of whichonlyone of the archaic(*J2I3)and one of the classical werereoccupiedin thisperiod.The fivesitestotal0.76 ha in (*J2I2), verycloseto one another, area. Althoughthereis an apparentgap betweenthe sitesin zone J and thosein zone Κ it is partlyfilledby a numberof non-sitefindspots (7*209, (describedin the nextsubsection), fan, £246,7219,7218). In the angle betweenthe Evrotasand the Kelephina,westof Kladas, the gentlysloping glaciscontinuesto the pointwherethe hillsclose roundthe Evrotasas it flowsout froma soilsin thisarea of £.2.5sq km.A sitesoccupyschist-derived limestonegorge.Five hellenistic m are at three of sizes,the (*Hi7,H32,*Hig) spaced 300-500 and have verydifferent group all are new to three site lies closer furthest from the river H32); (thepossible ?H3g largestbeing in thisperiod,in an area wheretherehad been one archaicand threeclassicalsites;H32 is Furtherupstreamis theLarge Site (speciallysampled)ofGeladari(H45),with earlyhellenistic. thesmallfarm*h6ojust upslope(on limestone-derived deposits);bothhad been occupiedin classicaltimes.The sitescatterin zone H is somewhatsparse,but thisis partlycounteredby and A21,and €58near non-sitefindspots: Λ18,A24,A35,1137, Ã34in thesouth,plusÃ33,1110030, *h6o. Iftheseare notremnants ofsites,theymaybe signsofotherkindsofactivity. fromlate Geladari(see ILL. 24.23)was firstoccupiedin theBronzeAge,thencontinuously It an Ottoman afterlife. also a Roman and archaicto early-middle hellenistic, having expands in thisperiod.Hellenisticpotteryis foundin manypartsofthe greatlyin size and importance in thewestand south(areas v, xv,and xi-xiiiaccountforalmosthalfof all site,particularly sherds:44 typesherds,15others)and to a lesserextentthenorth-west (areasii-iii,xiv have 13

282 Chapter 6

finds,partly typesherdsand 5 others).The centreand east of the siteare thinin hellenistic because of poor visibility but evenwherethe generalsherdbackgroundwas dense.The site has yielded a fewlate archaic and classical sherdsand was probablysettledby 500 BC, settlement and/orfourthcenturiesand throughout thehellenistic continuing throughthefifth The of cut blocks and two Doric column drums period. presence (ILL. 24.26) suggests architecture of some pretension;theycannot be closelydated, but should fall somewhere betweenlate classical and middle Roman. Given that some hellenisticfindspotswithin Geladariare 400-500 m apart,it maybe safestto supposethatit was a ratheropen-textured If it settlement, perhapseven a collectionof separatehouseholdsor clustersof households.45 a acted as centralplace forothersites,it mayhave servedonlyitsimmediatearea, forwhile Sparta is not faraway the Evrotasseparatesthe two sitesand the presenceof two ancient bridgesmay implythatthe riverwas not fordablein antiquityas it is today;in the second centuryBC, Polybios(v. 22. 3) assertsthatat most timesthe rivercannot be crossednear thatGeladariis ancientThornax47remainsunproven;the evidence Sparta.46The suggestion thatthe archaeologicalsite containeda cultplace is slight(p. 220), thoughthe presenceof columndrumsis at leastsuggestive. Geladarimayhave gainedimportancefromthepresenceof a routeleadingup to Sellasia fromthe place where the Eurotas leaves its limestonegorge. They may have been a predecessoroftheRoman bridgehere(H46),and a silvercoin ofAlexandertheGreat,found in a valleynotfarfromthelaterbridge(at e8i), mayindicatethata road began in thisvalley beforeclimbingontotheridgefurther north.A stretchofcobbledroadwayofuncertaindate (H47),behindGeladari,mayalso be partofthis. Upstreamfromthe gorge,on schistsoils below the limestonehill of Skoúra, is a lone hellenistichamlet (D85), also occupied in classical times; an archaic site (D96) had lain downhillfromit,withanother(D301)closerto the river.Sites in thisarea, as in the earlier periods(pp. 216-17),maynot have been locatednear any majorroute,and in thatcase they willhavebeen relatively isolatedthoughcloseto a supplyofwaterin theEvrotas. Cult and burialsiteswerenot identified, thoughGeladarimay containsome cultremains and the archaic-classical cult site J221yieldedan E-MH1 sherd.The Menelaion (see above) one hellenistic tile fragment;althoughthe period is ridge (Q360) yielded only possible from the excavations with finds down to the latesecondcentury itseemsthat BC,48 represented the sanctuaryfell into decline, in contrastto old polis cults elsewherein Greece. The Amyklaionsouth of Sparta (GG88),however,continuesin use, as does the Eleusinionat KalyviaSochás (GG95). All but threesites(*J2I3,J229,M353)have hellenistictile fragments. Table ware formsa smallerproportionof typesherdsthan in the south-east(161 out of 260, 62 per cent),but kitchenor cookingware is more frequent(77 sherds,30 per cent).The amountof storage is thelowestin thesurveyarea, 8 per cent(22 sherds),a situationthatwillbe reversed pottery in the Roman period.Twenty-one of the twenty-four siteshave tableware,twenty-one have 45 On the problems of assessing function and size diachronicallyforlargersites,see J. Moody,L. Nixon, S. Price,and O. Rackham,'Surveying poleisand largersitesin Sphakia',in W. G. Cavanaghand M. Curtis(eds),withJ. N. Coldstreamand A. W.Johnston(co-eds),Post-Minoan Crete:

Proceedings of theist Colloquiumon Post-MinoanCreteheld by the Bntish Schoolat Athensand theInstituteofArchaeology, University

College London (10-11 Nov. 1995) (BSA Studies, 2; London,

1998),87-95. 46On theexistenceof a bridgeS or SE of Sparta,see now etal., Kourinou,Σπάρτη, 83 n. 223 (correcting Armstrong 'Crossingtheriver',306). 47SeeZ.9ii.357. 40Catling,Menelaion, 37-8.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 283 kitchenor cookingware,and onlyelevenhave storageware (H45produced8 pieces,M3213, well offin cookingware and storagesherds(whileit othersites2 or 1). Geladariis relatively has less thana quarterof all hellenistic sherdsin the sector,bothitscookingand itsstorage sherdsamountto nearlyhalfofthosein thesector),butshortin tableand kitchen-ware sherds in in M a of those the off sites zones and are well for table sector).Conversely, J (about quarter and kitchenware(particularly dishesand lekanai,thelattermoreoftenoffineor medium-fine each fabricthanelsewhere)and shortofcookingand storageware.Two mortarium fragments and one each at and the non-site werefoundat *Hig M177, H45,D85,M327, J224(nearJ222). THE NORTH IN THE HELLENISTIC

PERIOD (TABLE 6.8)

six definiteand elevenprobablehellenisticsites(witha further The northcontainsfifteen a morethan This represents possiblesites,twodoubtfulsites,and seventeenotherfindspots). threefold increaseoverthe classicalperiod(whenthereweresevensites),and a majorrisein forthesector(from16 to 35 per centofall sites).The totalinhabitedarea relativeimportance ofthe downon thelate classicalfigureof9.26 ha and a smallerproportion is 7.96 ha, slightly totalforthe surveyarea (30 per centas against51 per cent);but in bothperiodsmostof the from totalis accountedforby twosites,A118and Bui, withoutwhichthetotalrisessevenfold 0.26 to 1.83ha. Bothdisappearduringmiddlehellenistic times,so thereis thusa real loss of in thissectorby the end of the secondcentury, totalsettlement despitethe sharpincreasein thetotalarea ofdispersedsettlements. There are no fewerthanseventeen'smallfarms',as wellas five'singlefarms',one 'multiple ofthe farm',one 'hamlet',and two'villages'.Over halfofthesmallfarmsand overone-third Site size hamlet out of sixteen. in area occur but one farms the whole here, only survey single Bin true inhabited areas are A118 and but the ha, (whose averages0.31 ignoring exceptional of all in median far smallest the area 0.08 the sites are the ha; survey (average uncertain) by In median was late classical the the sites0.05 ha, interquartile period range0.03-0.09 ha). 0.06 ha and the interquartile range0.05-1.54,the latterskewedby twoverylargesitesin a change. populationof onlysix; by thesemeasures,thereappearsto have been no significant Withfourexceptions(see below),all the sitesexploitschist-derived soils,oftenon relatively steepslopes.Variousspringswerenotedin zones A, C, G, and K, otherswereseen near the limestone-schist junctionat severalplaces aroundand below Agios Konstantinosin zone B, and anotherwas reportedat thewesternmarginofzone D (nearD368). The distribution of siteswithinthissectoris moreeven,thoughit thinstowardsthenorth. In thesouth,thereis a new,almostregularly spacedlineoffivesitesand threepossiblesiteson the slopes northand southof the Kelephina,wheretherewas year-roundaccess to water: fromwestto east,K204,?K234,?K2Oi,*K2gg,K233,K242,*K25O,and ?K24i.(K233and *K2gg, fillout the line (from late hellenistic.) Severalnon-sitefindspots at least,maybe principally westto east,£246,fen, £240,&205,£243,and A247).The sitesexploitschistsoilsderivedfrom hillsto northand southof the river,and lie along thewesternsectionof a probableancient route along the south side of the Kelephina, upstreamas far as its confluencewiththe Sophroni(p. 217).Fourofthemlie on each side oftheriver;none is closerto itsneighbouron thesame bankthan£.400m. Two possiblesites,?K2Oiand ?K234,face each otheracrossthe siteis thehamletK204 at thewesternend oftheline (witha nonriver.The mostsubstantial the sitescatter, on £205, oppositebank).At theotherend,above theriverto thesouth,are two siteson Neogenesoilsbelow thewesternend of Chatzarorachi,a multiplefarmand a single farm(K407and *K4ig,probablyconnectedto L406 on Chatzarorachiitself,describedabove All theremainingsitesin withthesouth-eastern sector;thereis also a non-sitefindspot, A;2g8).

284 Chapter 6 siteno .subzone type totalHI HI tile1 area sherds sherds (ha)

soil

other

slope (degrees)

LN1EH LAr-ECl

Bin

Bi

16

35

4

3-!3

Lia

6

A118

Ai

26

48

3

3.00

Sib

10

LAr-ECl

K204

K5

6

9

4

0.45

S4b

14

R MByz-Ott

K407

K4

21

45

10

0.24

Nia

28

cl

*K4ig *ki53 C114 K242 AIOO

2 2

5 6 16

ο

0.12 O.II

N2b

!5 7 22

4 ο

S2d S2d S4b S2d

15 ο 14 i4 14

22

arclR arcl LArEC1Ici R R

G164 B123

K4 K3 Ci K2 A2 Gi B3

S2C

25

MHlr

GI59 B104 K14I K233 *Fi33 *Fi48 GI57 *fi37 *FI42 *FI45 *K25O E76 *FI52 *FI4O *K299

G2 B2 K3 K3 F2 F2 G2 F3 F3 F2 K4 E2 F4 F3 K4

0.06

S2C S4C S2C

l5 5 8

1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

65

7·96

8

10

7 5 5 6

24 !7

4

10

9

1 2

4 2

24 3 4 4 191

6 7

28 5

7 5 31

5

11

8

419

0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07

17

7 5 6 2

3 ο

3 ο 6 2

4 ι 3 ι 3 2

ι 3 1

4

S2C

S4d

S2b S2C S2C S2C S2C S2C

S3a Sib S2d S2C S2C

sherddatesBC

notes

components

areasA (33%HI), C4-C2E (3), mainly C3-C2 (4),C3d-Ci D (20%); Cl-Hl, Cl-R lwts;C4L coin;C1-EH1 marblevessel[6 ha] areasΒ (48% HI), C4-G3f,C4-C3C, mainly C3-C2f,C3-C2 (12) A (60%); 2 Cl-R lwts; HI figurine; LCL-H1 LC1-H1 strainer; hopperrubber Cl-R, Hl-R lwts C3-C2 [0.89 ha] 0.22 ha; includeslq.08, C3-C2 (4) 0.02 ha

Cl

C3-C2 C4-C3C, C3, C3-C2 (2) C3-C2 C3-C2, C2 C3-C2 C3-C2 (2),Ci? mainlyarea A (79% HI) [0.13ha] C3

ar-lclR R Ici

C4-C2E Ci? C3

l3

LArEC1r arclR

C3-C2 (4)

20 20

larr lclr

14 22

9 28 14 29 13

22 11

R r

HI (?) figurine

C3-C2 C4-C3 (9), C3 Ci? (2)

Table 6.8. Hellenisticsettlement data: northern sector.Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3.

the valley are single or small farms.Remarkably,no farmsof the classical period were identified ofthevalley,and onlyone archaic(K203);thearea appearsto have alongthisstretch been freshly colonizedin thehellenistic period. FurthernorthfromK233,on theschistspurssouthand south-west oftheuplandvillageof Agios Ioannis Theologos and betweenit and the long Langáda valley,is a fairlyevenly 400-500 m fromitsnearestneighbour(*Ki53,K141, spaced clusterofsix sites,each typically *Fi4o, *Fi42, *Fi52, *Fi37),witha close-setpair of a possible and a doubtfulsite (?Fi44, northnear the top of the réma.Like manyof the sitesin zone K, theseare ??Fi43)further northin zone F verysmall,withthe exceptionof *Ki53 (a singlefarm).Like thosefurther (see below),theymostlyhave fewtypesherdsbut reasonablenumbersof non-typesherds.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 285 (K141)theyare all new; the area had not been denselysettled Apartfromthe southernmost farm(K200),thoughtwo of the sites(*Fi33,*Fi37)and one archaic for one before,except doubtfulsite(??Fi43)producedsmallnumbersof earliersherds(TABLE5.4) and the last two have Roman material.K141is earlyhellenistic, thoughit mayhave lastedlongeras it has a also sites Two of the Roman afterlife. ?Fi47)are on theirregularslopeseast of (*Fi4O,*Fi42, an ancient route. the Langada, perhapsservedby (The absence of siteson the westside of theLangada is notable,but thereare severalnon-sitescatters:fi4,fi3,and f4evenlyspaced on the ridgealongsidethe lowerLangada, and/72 closerto Voutianoi.)Other sites(K141, *Ki53,*Fi52,togetherwith?Fi44, ??Fi43 and the findspotK151)lie close to the line of the modernroad fromKladas to Agios Ioannis Theologos,whichprobablycorrespondsto an ancientroute(p. 217). On the complexof schistspursat the head of the Langada, below the modernvillageof Voutianoi,is a further irregular groupofthreesmallfarms(*Fi45,*Fi33,*Fi48,also ?Fi47);all threeare new,though?Fi47also producedclassicalmaterial.Theymayhavebeen servedbya an isolatedsmallfarm(E76), road alongone sideor otheroftheLangada. Furthersouth-west, and earlyhellenistic the late classical and settled phases, only during occupied possibly newly is perchedon a ridgewitha moderntrackwhichmaybe the successorto the ancientroute leadingnorthfromthesiteoftheRomanbridgeovertheEvrotas(see previoussubsection). BelowTheologosand to the east,on thegreatschistslope above the Kelephina,are three small farms.The southernpair (G157,G159)are c.500 m apart (and two nearbynon-site £155and, at the footof the slope,gi6o, maintainthe regularspacing).The third, findspots, site (G164)has a possibleneighbour,a doubtfulsite ci km to its north-east northernmost thesites(G159)had classicaloccupation,one (G157)archaic;thedoubtfulsite One of (??Ci6g). a sitein bothperiods.They are likelyto have had access to springs(thereis had been ??Ci6g in antiquity. one near G157),thoughthe preciselocationsof thesemay have been different None ofthesitesproperlies nearan obviousancientroute,in contrastto thoseoftheRoman along thewest(right)bank of the river(gi6o, period,but thereis a line of non-sitefindspots further with ano n68, north). gi62,#182, Above thisschistlandscape risesthe limestonemountainof Agios Konstantinoswithits fortification (Bin), thelargestofanyperiodin thesurveyarea, whichwas designateda Large Site for sampling purposes.49It may possibly be the Barbosthenes (or Barnosthenes) and again fromthelate mentioned byLivy(xxxv.27. 13,30. 9).50It was occupiedin prehistory untila laterdate.The lowerenclosuremaybe fortified archaicperiod,thoughnotnecessarily in could findno distinction an additionof the fourthor thirdcentury, thoughthe surveyors and much The and tile unpainted black-glazed (including pottery buildingtechniques.51 material)indicate that the site was in use until the early or middle hellenisticand not later.A late classicalcoin of Elis (362-312BC; SF 115) givesone fixeddate,while necessarily morethana simplefort. laterthanclassical)suggestsomething (nonenecessarily loom-weights Remainsofbuildingsand findsofkitchenor cookingwareand storageware,as wellas a wide oftime. varietyoftableware,suggestthata garrisonlivedhereforconsiderablestretches theearlyand late to thesouthare twosettlements: On thespursbelowAgiosKonstantinos near a spring(and an archaicpredecessor, smallfarmB123to thesouth-west, hellenistic B107), farm and thearchaicand earlyhellenistic C114.(Notealso thepossiblesite?Bi32.)In the single «LSii. 325-8. 50The suggestion is thatofR. Catling,p. 169n. 34 above.

51LS ii. 327.

286 Chapter 6

is anothernewsmallfarm(B104).Furthernorthlies lowerground1-2 kmnorthofthefortress thehilltopsiteof Palaiogoulas(A118),witha springand an attendantsinglefarm(Aioo),also new and occupied in the earlyand middle hellenisticphase. Palaiogoulas, probablythe than ancientperioikicpolisof Sellasia,has moreof thecharacterof a smallurbansettlement are a a does Agios Konstantinos. and cult Nearby probablecemetery(A120) place (A119;so All on the basis of three sites have numbers of earlyto categorized figurines). significant middlehellenistic and itself has late classical material. sherds, Palaiogoulas Palaiogoulasalso a a hellenistic female late classical or hellenistic strainer,and two loomyielded figurine, of classical Roman to of domestic activities and date,suggestive weights possiblycultpractice. The sole epigraphicfind,a gravestone fromin or nearA120(inscription 2), is probablyfourthThe main site has a fromlate archaic century. (A118) longerlife,beingoccupiedcontinuously on. Potteryfindsdemonstrate itsoccupationuntilat leastthe late thirdcenturyand suggest thatitwas stillsettledin thesecond.AlthoughtheSpartanslostit afterthebattleof222 BC (it was 'enslaved';Pausanias,iii. 10. 7), it probablystillexistedin 200, when it is notedas the furthest invasionroute(Polybios, xvi.37. 2). Withoutdetailedsurveyto pointon Philopoimen's thenorthit is hardto assesstheroleofPalaiogoulasin thesettlement butit is likely hierarchy, to have been a centreforthe ruralpopulationof the upperKelephinaand the hillsaround (see further p. 302 below). BesidesA119,theonlyothercultsiteidentified bythefindsis F135in thelowerLangada. By theend ofthehellenistic cultmayhavebeen revivedat thesanctuary ofZeus period,however, dated by the excavatorno laterthan the first Messapeus (N415),wherestampedroof-tiles BC(and certainly notto be datedmuchearlier,ifat all) wereexcavated.52 century Thereare no knownburialsitesapartfromA120. All but foursites(Aioo,B104,C114,*K4ig)have hellenistic tile.The sectorhas the lowest oftableware amongtypesherdson sites(99 out of 191,52 per cent);by a narrow proportion margin,kitchenor cookingware formsthe highestproportionin any sector,thoughonlya littlehigherthanin thewest(61 sherds,32 per cent);storagepottery, too,is commonerthan All else 16 sites table have havekitchen sherds, ware, anywhere (31 per cent). twenty-six twenty or cookingware,and onlyten have storageware (A118produced12 pieces,K233,K242,and *K299 each produced 3). Almosthalf the cookingware in the surveyarea (cooking-jars, sitesare relatively casseroles)is foundin thissector(29 out of60 sherds);conversely, stewpots, shortofkitchenutensilssuchas jugs andjars (only32 sherdsout ofthe126in thesurveyarea). (The twolargesitesthatdisappearduringthisperiod,A118and Bin, are notuntypicalin their of different waresand do not skewthefigures.) proportions Despitethehigherpercentageof the of sites that have it is storage wares, very close to that elsewhere,and proportion A118 its distribution is is discounting typical.Storage apparentlyno longercentralizedat Sellasia, unlessits widerdistribution postdatesthe disappearanceof thatsite.Mortarium in at the farsouthofthesector(3 pieces). were found fragments only K407

52Catling,'MessapianZeus', 32-3, 34: 'not laterthanthe firstcenturyBC'. This conformsto the typologyof A. J. B. Wace, 'Laconia, I: excavations at Sparta, 1907. §3: the stamped tiles', BSA 13 (1906-7), 17-43, esP· !75 c^· id., 'Laconia, II: excavationsat Sparta, 1906. §8: the stamped tiles',BSA 12 (1905-6),344-50, esp. 345. Wace suggeststhis date for his types 20 (imperial, from lettering and and contexts;p. 39), 23 (imperial,fromlettering stratigraphie

ibid.), and 43-5 (ist cent. AD ratherthan ist orthography; cent. BC on the basis of lettering; p. 37, cf.43). The tile in Catling (above), pl. 5 A,generallyrecalls Wace's type43 also resembletypes36 (soon thoughsome of itsletter-forms not type61 (3rd after184 BC)and 40 (ist cent.BC);certainly cent. BC).A reasonabledate forthe Tsakona tilesmightbe LH1-ER.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 287

area(ha)ineachtypeofgeological totalsettled areafallsintheRomanperiod, III. 6.5.Totalsettled zone,byperiod.Although ofschists theincreased andthedeclineofthelimestone areascanbe observed. importance PREFERRED SITE LOCATIONS

IN THE HELLENISTIC

PERIOD

to factorsgoverning sitelocation,and to theinteraction The previouschapterdrewattention betweennaturalconditionsand social practicessuch as land ownership.In the preceding subsections,a numberof cases were noted in which hellenisticsites seem to have been or distancefromothersitesseems towardsancientroutes,or in whichtheproximity attracted of The mostobviouschangefromthe classicalperiod is in the distribution non-accidental. sitesbetweenareas withdifferent geologicalcharactersand withsoilsderivedfromthe older or thestillyoungerNeogenerocks.53 theoverlying limestone, schists, (See ILL.6.5.) forsiteson schist-derived There is an increasedpreference soils,all in the northand west, fromlimestone-derived and Neogene soils. to the relativeloss of settlement corresponding Siteson schist,havingincreasedin thetwoprecedingperiods,now almostdoublein numbers to formthelargestshare(thirty-four sites,45 per cent,comparedwithsixteenand a halfsites, 38 per cent,in the classicalperiod).Their totalarea is morethantwicethatin the classical nearlythehalfthe total(13.04ha, 49 per cent,as comparedwith6.06 periodand represents ha, 33 per cent,previously). (Anothersite,*T47i,has accessto bothschistand limestonesoils.) Two are Villages',five'hamlets',three'multiplefarms',five'singlefarms',and no fewerthan nineteen'smallfarms'.The averagesize is 0.38 ha, but the figuresare inflatedby H45 and A118,withoutwhichthe totalis 3.63 ha and the average0.11 ha. The medianincludingthe thatsiteson schistare generallythe smallestin the survey twolargesites,0.06 ha, confirms area; theinterquartile rangeis also thelowest,0.03-0.16ha. soils,mainlyin thesouthExcludingpossibleand doubtfulsites,thoseon limestone-derived east, are also more numerousthan in the classical period but now representa lower ofthetotal(fourteen out of seventy-five sites,19 per cent,as againstelevenout of proportion forty-four, 25 per cent).Their totalarea is similarto thatin the classicalperiod,but again «See Chapteri.

288 Chapter 6

representsa smallerproportionof real habitation(9.69 ha, 37 per cent of the total, as comparedwith9.66 ha, 53 per cent).(*T47i,as notedabove,is situatedso as to exploitboth limestoneand schistsoils.)Sitesare mostlylargerthanelsewhere,comprising a village,eight two two and two small farms. Their hamlets, multiplefarms, singlefarms, averagesize is 0.56 a inflated whose inhabited area is uncertain and which ha, figure byBin, mayhavesupported - yettheremainingsites, a garrisonratherthana civicpopulation totalling6.56 ha, stillhave a highaveragesize,0.47 ha. The mediansize of all siteson limestone-derived soilsis 0.34 ha and theinterquartile that these sites are than others. range0.16-0.75ha, confirming larger Siteson Neogenesoilsare mainlyfoundin thewestand south-east. are more numerous They thanthoseoftheclassicalperiodbutagainrepresent a smallerproportion ofthetotal(twenty-six sites,35 per cent,as againstsixteenand a halfsites,38 per cent).Theirtotalarea also increases, butrepresents thesameproportion ofthetotalas before(3.75ha as against2.51ha, both14per Sites are generally smallerthanin theclassicalperiod,fornoneis a villageand thereare cent). fourhamlets, fivemultiple sevensinglefarms, and elevensmallfarms.The averagesizeis farms, 0.14ha, themedian0.11ha, and theinterquartile range0.04-0.19ha. The chartofsettlement by geologicalzone (ILL.6.5) showsclearlytherelativeshifttowards the schists.The Neogene deposits,partlyabandoned in the late classicalperiod,are thinly resettled, soils,sitestendto be more mainlyat theedgesoftheplateau.On limestone-derived substantial morepopulous.Boththelimestoneand theNeogenehave more and, presumably, sitesthanbeforebut a smaller,or unchanged,proportionof the totalsettledarea. The schist has manymoresitesand muchmoresettledarea, and has overtaken theNeogene;butsiteson theschistare generallysmallerand thebulkofthepermanentpopulationpresumably resided in two largevillages,Palaiogoulas(earlierin the period)and Geladari (probablylater).The shiftofthebalancetowardsthenorthis,moreover, an observation aboutthehellenistic period as a whole: it ignorespossiblechangesbetweenearly,middle,and late hellenisticphases. Whenpottery is takenintoaccount,as notedearlier,thereis evidenceofa driftin chronology theoppositedirection duringthecourseoftheperiod. The Roman Data Afterthehellenistic numbersfallsharplyin theRoman (or earlyhellenistic) peak, settlement Of definite and thirteen period(ILL.6.6). thirty-eight probablehabitationsites,none fallsinto the largestsize category,here called 'villages'. There are twelve'hamlets',five'multiple 'small farms'.Nine possible sitesand one farms',thirteen'singlefarms',and twenty-one doubtfulsite,fivenon-settlement 100 non-sitefindspots wereidentified.54 sites,and a further There is no significant in the in of sites each size butsitesare no change proportion category, divided almost between the three half in the north since over are sectors, longer equally out of As the of sites sites, before, (twenty-six fifty-one 51 per cent). proportion larger (hamlets and multiplefarms)increasesfromnorthto south-east, whilethatof singleand smallfarms decreases(chart,ILL.6.1). The totalsettledarea fortheperiodis 9.63 ha and the averagesitesize 0.19 ha, including two largesiteswhose sizes may be overstated(H45 Geladari,U490 Panagia Chrysaphitissa); withoutthemthetotalis 5.30 ha and theaverage0.11ha. As in theprecedingperiod,thetrue figuremay lie betweenthese alternatives.On any measure,however,the total amountof 54A moderndumpand an out-of-area siteare omitted.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 289

III. 6.6. Romansites(D. Taylor).

290 Chapter 6

and hence perhapspopulation,in the surveyarea is likelyto have fallensteeply. settlement, The fallmay be greaterthan the figuressuggest,since the Roman period is longer(c.6oo The years)and presumablynot all siteswithsimilarpotterywere occupied simultaneously. of some of the a is due to the abandonment change largely largestsites,compoundedby loss ofsitenumbersin all classes.Withina smallersitepopulation,however, themediansize is still o.io ha and theinterquartile almost at ha. range unchanged 0.05-0.25 THE

IN THE

SOUTH-EAST

ROMAN

PERIOD

(TABLE

6.9)

The south-east containseightdefinite and fourprobableRoman sites(withthreepossible,one and other The hellenistic doubtful, twenty-eight findspots). figurehas been halved,though(as notedabove) fivefurther scatterstentatively identified as late Roman sitesare also foundin thissector.The totalsettledarea is 3.37 ha, a 61 per centdropcomparedwiththehellenistic period. As a proportionof the totalforthe surveyarea, however,it is comparableto the hellenistic figure(35percentcomparedwith33 per cent). The sitescomprisetwo 'small farms',three'singlefarms',two 'multiplefarms',and five 'hamlets'(thoughone has a computedarea of only 0.30 ha, the smallestpossibleforthis category),but no 'villages';the fourlargestsitesare all in zone U. The sectorhas its fair share of hamlets and multiple farms,but large and small sites are seriously underThe averagesitesize is 0.28 ha, the mediansimilarlyhighat 0.25 ha, and the represented. siteno subzone

typetotalR R tile sherds sherds

U488

Ui

15

*U52I

U4

U490

U3

U516

Ui

T482

T2

*P284

area

soil

(ha)

slope (degrees)

other

Ici HI Byz

20

5

0.67

L,2a

4

4

10

3

0-55

L2b

8

23

46

5

0.54

Ld,a

5

16

5

0.36

L4a

6

EH LH Ar EC1 LCI HI M/Byz-EOtt Gl HI MByz

15

44

12

0.30

L2C

7

MByz-EOtt

P2

4

7

2

0.25

Nia

3

R472 S475

R2

5 7

5 7

2 10

0.24 0.13

N2d Nia

7 ο

EH lar eel HI MByz-EOtt HI lar eel Hl M Byz-EOtt

N192 R426

N5 R2

8

l5

7

II

4

0.10 0.10

Nia Nia

7 5

*Ni9i *T5io

N5 T3

2

23 5

ο 2

0.07 0.06

Nia L2C

8 14

209

5i

3-37

s4

106

sherddates(ad)

notes

components

HI eh hi MByz

includes11486;slope3, 5; R-Byz glass[R in 11486#866S ofroad, not#867to Ν HI-C2? G1-C2? possiblepost-BA lithics(ΖΛii. 158) HI-C4, C1-C2? C2, lamp (350-400);Cl-R lwt;LC1-R millstone C4?(2),C5-C7, C6(2) lesswornon top terraceof3; Cl-R lwt [1.08ha] all in area A (97% R) C3, C3-C7 [0.42ha] all in area Η (26% R) C3, C4? HI-C2, C5-C7

C2 C3-C7 Ci?G3 Hl-C4;(ni22) Ci, C3, C4, C6

EH-LH hi MB)ÎZ Cl-C2?C2 hi C6-C7

Table 6.9. Roman settlementdata: south-eastern sector. For centurydates, see key to table 6.3.

spreadbyerosion mainlyarea Β (65% R) [0.33ha] (area D = S442,0.09 ha, notR) mainlyarea C i (100% R); plusR material fromΠΙ122 (wash):10, 2, o [0.70ha]

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 291 rangehighand wide at 0.10-0.41ha (all thesefiguresare close to thoseforthe interquartile hellenisticperiod). Once again, however,the sectorconsistsof two parts withmarkedly characters. different The Chrysaphadistrict

As in thehellenistic period,the slopeseitherside of theupper-middlecourseof Loutsorema remainuninhabited, includingthe limestonespursof Koutsovitiat the uppermarginof the extensionof the Neogene plateau,in the valleyswestof surveyarea. On the south-eastern revivalis reversed:the eightsitesof the precedingperiodfallto Loutsorema,the hellenistic two (R426,R472),the firstprobablylong-livedand the second a survivorfromthe previous period.Both are some way fromthe main Loutsoremavalleybut lie close to its confluence withTsiliotouRema. They and thepossiblesites?R425and ?T47O(withpossiblelate Roman sherds),are all spaced c.400-800m apart.(The doubtfulsite??R423,whichhas a hellenistic and possible was identified by largenumbersof possibleRoman tilefragments predecessor, late Roman sherds;it conformsto the observedspacing pattern.?T47O,however,has a possiblelate Roman siteveryclose by,at ??Τ4β4·)The two definitesitesare larger.In the valleyseast of the middleand lowerLoutsorema,too,wheretherehad been fourhellenistic north,may be a sites,onlyone survives,the singlefarmS475. (The scatter??S466,further with obvious There is no Roman late correspondence naturalroutesin longerany site.) large thisarea. In the rollinghillseast of the lowestcourseof the Loutsoremathe two hellenistic siteshavedisappeared. soilsoftheChrysaphabasinproper,sitenumbersfalllesssteeply. On thelimestone-derived sector.Three ofthem(U488, Zone U containsall fourhamletsbelongingto thesouth-eastern in the sector.New sites sites seven hellenistic the survivors are the among only U516,U490) includea smallfarm(*T5io,witha possiblelargelate Roman sitenearbyat U511)and two hamlets(*U52iin thesouth,perhapsreplacingthehamletU519;a smallhamlet(T482)in the smallfarmsome 600 m awayat whatis now a north,perhapspartlyreplacingthehellenistic non-site other non-sitefindspot /481and £445,are also situatedhere.)In findspots, (Two (2/494). the basin itself,as in the precedingperiod, U490 is a significant site,probablyoccupied AD.As shownabove,itis in a similarlocationto its untilat leastthesixthcentury continuously in the north-east-central hellenisticpredecessor, part of the Byzantinecomplex,but it has shrunkin size. As before,it does not qualifyas a centralplace and does not seem to have a characterfromnearbyhamletsites. different As in thehellenistic period,no cultor burialsiteswereidentified. The Neogeneplateau

remains On themainpartofthepoorlywateredNeogeneplateauthenumberof settlements moreor less stableat four.The formersinglefarmhouseon Chatzarorachiis now a non-site the long-lived*P284 findspot,/406.The cult site N430 is now in disuse.In the north-east, continuesin existence,thoughit has shiftedits location slightlyand only middle Roman featureis thepresenceofrelatively occupationis securelyattested.Once again,a remarkable in of the southern sites at the vicinity the Kastora spring.Besides the margin, prosperous farmarises close by (*Nigi; note also the a small existed which farm earlier, N192, single fromthe Evrotasplain ancient route The site runningnorth-east ?N3i4). probable possible in use. have remained area this (p. 215)may through The plateau remainsat a low ebb but large new farmsarise in the south, probably outsidethesurveyarea. as before,theedgeofa denselyinhabitedenvironment representing,

292 Chapter 6

All the sitesin the south-eastern sectorhave Roman tile except*Ni()i. As in the hellenistic the sector has the lowest period, proportionof kitchenor cookingwares among the type sherdson sites(6 out of 106 sherds,6 per cent).Storagepottery, alreadyscarcebefore,is also rarerthan in any othersector(15 sherds,14 per cent).Conversely, the proportionof table in as it was is the sector 80 ware, before, (85 sherds, per cent).All twelvesiteshave highest any tableware,onlyfivekitchenor cookingware.Most sites(nine)producedstorageware,though werefoundonlyat the onlyone (R426)producedas manyas 3 sherds.Mortariumfragments formersiteof/406(withno otherRomansherds)and at R472(1 each). THE WEST IN THE ROMAN

PERIOD

(TABLE

6.10)

The west containsonly nine definiteand fourprobable Roman sites(plus a furtherfour The totalis about halfthatin the hellenistic possiblesitesand fortyotherfindspots). period, and reflectsa shiftof settlement numbersaway fromthissector.The totalarea of sitesis 3.59 ha, a 63 per cent drop comparedwiththe hellenisticperiod (discounting H45 in both ofthetotalsettledarea in thesurveyarea, periods,thefallis still47 per cent).As a proportion itis thesameas in thehellenistic however, period(37per cent). There are four'smallfarms',three'singlefarms',two 'multiplefarms',four'hamlets',and no 'villages';in contrastto thesouth-east, thesettlement patternis fairly evenlygradedbysize. Averagesize is 0.28 ha, but sitesize is betterrepresented by the averageexcludingH45,0.15 ha, bythemedianofall thesites,0.10 ha, and bytheinterquartile rangeof0.05-0.32ha (these are eitherthesame as, or similarto,thoseforthehellenistic figures period).Communications, as before,willnothaveplayeda majorrolein theselectionofsitelocations.Waterwas readily available,ifnowhereelse,in theperennialrivers. siteno. subzone type totalR R tile area r sherds sherdi (ha)

soil

slope (degrees)

H45

Hi

26

39

5

1.80

S4t>

5

M321

Mi

11

12

14

0.42

S3aL

9

*M344 *K239

M6 K3 M6

3 4 16 14

5 6

3 ο

ο·34

17 14

9

Ν3<: S2C I Nslb S4t>

4 18 6

5 7 7

13

H2

5 7 4

M176 J228

M7 J5

8 9

*M35O J22O

M6 Ji

M348

J222

M352 Q180 *H29

J5

M6 Q?

?

?

0.32 0.16 0.15

9

4

O.IO Ο. ΙΟ

ο.ο8

N4<ζ N3<= S4b>

9

3 ο

0.05 0.03

N3<: S4c:

6

2

8

7

5

5

0.03

N41= S2C

l5 9

114 149

46

ο. οι

3 9 2

other

sherddates(AD)

notes

components

eh LH Ci (2-3),C1-C2, LAr-Hl ott C2-C3 (2),C3 (2), C3-C4, C4? C6-C7

includesh6i; C1-C2E H1-R figurine; sculpture

ar cl Hl MByz

fiattile;R-Byz kiln supports;lamps (C3-C6)

HI-C2? Ci? C3, C6-C7

ar cl hl mbyz Hlbyz HI-C4, Ci, C3-C7 Hl C1-C2? C2, C3 (2) ar cl Hl HI-C2 (5),Ci? (2), C3 (3),C3-C4 ar cl Hl C2, C3 MByz Ci?Ci-C2?C3 LAr EC1 Ici? MByz hl H1-G2 (2),Gl-C2? HI-C2, H1-C4, Gi? C1-C2, C3-C7 (2) H1-C4 LAr Cl hl Ci, C6?

3*59

Table 6.10.Romansettlement data: westernsector.Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3.

flattile;Cl-R lwt stampedtile (LH1/ER?);sampling SP222:buildings? flattile R spindlewhorl flatbrick Cl-R lwt Cl-R lwt

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 293 The There are now twoclustersofsitesratherthanthree,and theyare less concentrated. colluvial remains hellenistic sites on the of Neogene-derived glacis roughly tightgrouping constantin numericalterms,but gainsin totalsettledarea and probableterritory. Only one oftheclusterin zone M survives,an early-middleRoman multiplefarm(M348).It isjoined by fivenew sites:the outlying,earlyand middleRoman singlefarmQ180 (with?Q359, a probable hellenisticsite,nearby),one hamlet(*M344,witha possible singlefarmnearby, ?M335),anothersinglefarm(M352,whichwas a possible hellenisticsite),and two small farms(theprobablyearlyRoman M176,and *M35o).The fivein zone M are more widely spaced than theirpredecessors,controllingan area of £.0.6sq km, and theirtotal settled area is half as large again as thatof theirpredecessors(0.68 ha). This may point to the creationof a morenucleatedpopulation,witheach farmcontrolling roughlytwiceas much land as itspredecessor. The clusterof fivesiteson Neogene soilsjust southof Aphysouhas vanished,leavinga hamletin the upperfoothills M321),whichmaybe near an (thelong-lasting singlesurviving ancientrouteclimbingto the northernpart of the Neogene plateau. There is, however,a in thesefields:^336, #2339, clusterofnon-sitefindspots m357?m324>m?ßb>^328, 7/2341, 111355, and and the towards and river, 11110646, πιφι at the footof the ^343, mio6i4 πι^φ 111356; of The north bluffs. however, persists. Aphysou, gap Neogene siteson schistsoilsjust southof As in otherpartsofthesurveyarea,theclusterofhellenistic the Kelephinais reducedfromfiveto three:a southernpair (J222,a fairlysubstantialearly and middleRoman survivor; J228,a long-lived pair:thevery verysmallfarm)and a northern smallJ220,withearlyand late Roman occupation,and the smallishhamlet*K239, also thewesternend of occupiedin earlyand lateRomantimesand now (with?K24o)representing In thisinstancethetotalsettledarea is a lineofsitesalongtheKelephina(see nextsubsection). also reduced(from0.76 to 0.51ha). five oftheEvrotasand Kelephina,on schist-derived Northoftheconfluence soils,theformer sitesare reducedtojusttwo:*H2g,a newsinglefarm,and thelong-lived H45(seebelow).Again, thereis a looseclusterofnon-site however, (Ã33,An,A19,A39,Ã36,Ã24,A28,Ã22). findspots the hellenisticsiteD85 has disappeared;a successor of the district, In the farnorth-west 1 kmcloserto theriveris perhapsimpliedbythefindsofpossibleRoman stonevasesat ÚÍ306, foundwithat leastone Romansherd.55 muchsmallerin thisperiod.Datable Geladariitself(H45),likePanagia (U490),is seemingly in theverycentreofthesite(areasvi-viii),wherethereare occursparticularly Romanpottery and in thesouth-east(xii).Othersherdsofindeterminate possibletracesofancientbuildings, Roman date are foundin thewest,withRoman tile(iii,xv); thereare scatteredfindsin the south(ix,xi, xiii).The north-western part(h6i) seemsno longerto be in use, and thecore of a contractionof the seems to have shiftedeastwards,possiblyrepresenting the settlement settledarea; the computedarea of habitationin thisperiod is only 0.54 ha. The site was occupied at least in the second to fourthand the sixthor seventhcenturies,but was then abandoned,supporting sporadicoccupationlater.56 apparently

55The findsat i/306comprise2 Byz sherds,1 R, and 14 undatedfragments: 4 UP sherds,1 BG sherd,2 sherdswithslip, 1unspecified sherd,2 BG tile,and 4 probabletilefragments. 56Two possiblyinsignificant non-sitescatterswere found

close to H45: A47not farN, and 053 on the hill of Skoura (where,despitetheirhilltoplocation,theone or twoR sherds may be straysconnected with the building of the Byz chapel).

294 Chapter6

from The Menelaionridge(9360)producedonlyone sherd,perhapsa stray(a lid fragment area AJ,belowAetóshilland to itsNW).There is no archaeologicalevidenceof cultactivity or beingrevived.The main cultsiteis J215.Mentionshouldalso be made of the continuing mausoleumnearAphysou(M334),whichprobablybelongedto an aristocratic Spartanfamily. Besidesthequarriesand roadwaysmentionedat thestartofthischapter,remainsofa Roman bridge were found near Geladari (H46), and another is attestedepigraphically(J5008; 15 q). inscription In contrastto the south-east,a fairproportionof sites (fiveout of thirteen)lack firm evidenceofroofedstructures.57 As before,thesectorhas thesecondhighestproportion oftable ware on sites(76 typesherdsout of 114,67 per cent);the proportionof kitchenor cooking ware has fallensteeply,thoughit is not the lowestin any sector(10 sherds,9 per cent). Whereasin thehellenistic periodtheproportionofstoragewarewas thelowestin thesurvey area, now it is thehighest(28 sherds,25 per cent).All sitesexcept*M35Ohavetableware,and overhalf(seven)have kitchenor cookingware.Ten sitesproducedstorageware:M348had 9 pieces,H45 had 4, M321and Qj8o had 3 each, the restfewer.Two mortariumsherdswere foundat *M344,1 at M176,and 1 at ?K24O. THE NORTH

IN THE ROMAN

PERIOD

(TABLE

6.11)

The northcontainstwentydefiniteand six probableRoman sites,overhalf(51 per cent)of all thosein the surveyarea (withtwopossiblesitesand thirtytwootherfindspots). There is no change in settlementnumbers,and consequentlythe area's relativeimportanceis greater.The totalsettledarea is 2.68 ha, a 66 per cent fall comparedwiththe hellenistic period- or, discountingthe two large hellenisticsiteswhichwere abandoned well before the Roman period,a rise of 46 per cent. As a proportionof the settledarea in the whole surveyarea, the total settledarea is close to the hellenisticfigure(28 per cent compared with30 per cent). Of the Roman sites,fifteen are 'smallfarms',seven'singlefarms',one a 'multiplefarm', and three'hamlets';thereare no 'villages'.The fourlargestsitesare in thesouthofthesector, in zonesΝ and K. Over two-thirds ofthesmalland singlefarmsin thesurveyarea occurhere, butless thanone in fourof thelargersites.Averagesize is consequently low,thoughslightly than at 0.10 the median at the before, ha; ha; higher unchanged 0.05 interquartile range widerand higherthanbefore.Springswerenotedat variousplaces in 0.03-0.11 ha, slightly zonesA, C, G, and K. As in the hellenisticperiod,the distribution of siteswithinthissectorthinstowardsthe north.There is again a lineofsitessome 3 kmin lengthalongthelowerKelephina,probably along an importantroute,thoughthe spacingis now less regular.The westernend of the chainis formedby*K239and ?K24O(describedaboveunderthewesternsector),thougha new the hamlet,N315,also arisesat thenorth-western marginoftheNeogeneplateau,overlooking and be related to this line of settlement the south bank of the plain, may along Kelephina. fromwestto east,are Includingpossiblesites,theothersin thechainon bothsidesoftheriver, fillgaps in K204,K515,K233(earlyRoman),K242,?K24i,K403,and ?K4O4·(Non-sitefindspots theline:£246,ki0247,£237,&207,k25i,£201,Á297,£299,£243,£250.)Three ofthesitesproper wereoccupiedin hellenistic times(K204,K233,K242);one ofthese(K242)has first-century BC 57J222 has no R plain tile, but has an LH1 or ER stamped tile, possibly a stray from Sparta. Tile, later

discarded,was foundat J220(11) and M352 (12);J228 and *K239have no R tile.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 295 siteno. subzone type totalR R tile sherds sherds

area

soil

(ha)

slope ('degrees)

K204

K5

8

10

1

0.45

S4b

N315

Ni

9

10

ο

0.40

S2C

7

K244

Ki

5

6

ο

0.40

S2C

17

K5

20

23

ο

0.21

N2b

6

3 6

7 8

5 5

5 18

5 5 7 5

S4b N2b S2a Sia S2a S2d S4b

8

7 ο ο ο ο ο

0.13 0.12

K242 AIOO

A2 K4 Ci E2 Fi K2 A2

*K2g8 *Fi44 GI55 K141 K233

K4 F4 G2 K3 K3

5 8

4

3 5 5 23

11

2

26

4

F136 *Gi63 C168

6

6 8

Ο

G165

F3 Gi C4 F3 G2 Gi

9

9

K403 C167 F140 G252

K4 C4 F3 G3

6

6

5

5

*AIOI

K419 CIO8 E56 *Fy2

*Fi37 G161

2

2

3 7 3 6

18

8

16 5 6

2

Ο. ΙΟ

ο.og 0.09 ο.ο8

0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

S2C S2C S2C

HI MByz-Ott

6 ο

14 14 30 7 22

S2C

8

S4d

14

ο ο

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02

S4C S2a S2d S2C S2C

9 14 13 J3 !5

0.02 0.01 Ο.ΟΙ 0.00

S3a S4d

Ι

Ι

3

7

l9 8

ο ο ο ο

187

250

27

11

Ο.ΙΙ

S2d

S2C

S2C

other

C1-C2, C3 H1-C2

ar cl M-LByz

Hl-C4(3)

MHLH

Ci? C2-C3 (2), C3-C7 C1-C2? C3

ar cl HI lar-ecl hi HI HI hi hi hi ar-lclHI HI

cl hi ar cl HI

II

12 22 22 22

sherddates(AD)

notes

components

R glass

G6

HI-C2 HI-C2, Ci BC,C3 C2-C3 (2),C3, C3-C4, C4? C5-C7 (1-2),C6 (2),C6-C7 flattile Cl-C2? Cl-C2? C3, C5 Gl-C2 (4) HI-C4 (2),C3 G3(2) HI-C2 (2),C3, C5 H1-C4 (2)

MByz hi? HI

Cl-R, Hl-R lwts [0.89 ha] flattile;R-Byz kiln supports all in K244;site includesk245(a^ Byz);originalsize (0.79ha) is thatof k245

CI-C2 H1-C4 CI-C2 (2) HI-C4, G1-C2? C3-C4

22 pitchersherds(of which17trefoilmouthed) R lamp(350-400)

samplingSP165: unclear

R lamp(C3-C4)

2.68

data: northern sector.Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3. Table 6.1i. Romansettlement

material.K515 Romanpotteryas wellas otherpossibleearlyRoman sherdsand third-century late Roman into former has a are and the and K403 new, long existence,perhapsextending banks. Once sites are both The sites and times. more,there again distributed along possible in new locations sites the western end of are twofurther below Chatzarorachi, (*K298, though K419; thereis also a possible successorto a hellenisticsingle farm,at /406).The seven easternmost sitesand possiblesitesalong thisstretchof the Kelephinaare spaced at roughly As before, each beingbetweenc.160and £.280m fromitsnearestneighbour. equal intervals, it in end of the site the sector is near the western most substantial the valley; is also the K204,

296 Chapter 6

upstream,is a multiplefarmon largestRoman sitein the northernsector.Site K515,further a is below Chatzarorachi, singlefarm;the others,all on schist soil; K419, Neogene-derived ha or less. are soils, small,0.09 (K242) The spursbelowand to thewestofAgiosIoannisTheologoshave fewersitesthanbefore, of spacing(K141,F140,F136,*Fi37,and thoughthosethatstillexistretainsome regularity was one of a with further the last sites,??Fi43and off; K244, *Fi44 pair ofpossiblehellenistic a Roman to scatter late conforms this site, ??K255,possibly ?Fi44).(The pattern.)WhileK244, in the north-eastof thisgroup,is a substantialearlyand/or middle Roman hamlet,the fromtheprecedingperiod(thelongremainderare verysmall,includingthe threesurvivors While livedK141,withthe earlyRoman F140and *Fi37).F136is possiblyonlythird-century. in line above threesites(F140,F136,*Fi37),liketheirthreehellenistic are predecessors, roughly theeastside oftheLangada, thereis no longera clearlineofsitesalongtheprobableancient routeup to AgiosIoannisTheologos. At the head of the Langada, below Voutianoi,the earliergroup of threesiteshas been (E76)has replacedby one site,a singlefarm(*F72).The isolatedsmallfarmto the south-west been replacedby a singlefarmfurther alongthesame ridge(E56),witha nearbyspring.Both Roman sitesmaymarkthecourseofa routefromthebridgeat Geladari(H46)to Sellasiaand northfz near *F72,may be relicsof /io, fj, e% and further beyond.The non-sitefindspots othersitesalongthesame route.Non-sitefindspots further westhintat theexploitation ofthe remoter partofzone Ε (0304,094,eiO37g,£310). The greatschistslope below Theologos has sevensitesinsteadof three,thoughfourare groupedin close pairs and the gaps betweenthe settledareas are as large as before.The are to thesouth(G252,G155,G161),thefirstpair (*Gi63,G165)near theformersite singletons G164,thesecondpair (C168,C167)neartheformerdoubtfulsite??Ci6g;thereis thusa certain in the areas chosenforsettlement. All sevensitesare firstsettledin the Roman continuity has both and middle Roman material;C168has a longperiodofuse,from period;G252 early Roman to at least. There is now a lineoffoursitesjust abovethefootofthe early fifth-century the albeit with wide slopeadjoining Kelephina, gaps (fromS to N: G252,G161,C168,C167),to whichcouldbe added twonearSellasia(aioo, *Aioi)as wellas severalnon-sitefindspots (gi6o and gi66 at thefootoftheslope,with#157, g15&>and gioig2 somewhathigherup). This may be a sign thatthe Kelephina valleyhad grownin importanceas a communications route in the of certain (despite difficultypassage places,p. 217). AgiosKonstantinos (Bin) does not surviveintothe Roman period.On the spursbelow it thereis now onlyone site,the singlefarmC108 (thoughthreenon-sitefindspots, twoon the same spotas earlierfarms,may indicatesome continuedland use: #132,#123,bi2i). Finally, the lowergroundbetweenAgios Konstantinosand Palaiogoulashas also been abandoned, fromat leastthethirdto the thoughthesinglefarmAioo survives(itsperiodofuse extending sixthcentury) and has a newneighbour, thesinglefarm*Aioi. A possiblecultsiteis F135.At the sanctuaryof Zeus Messapeusat Tsákona (N415),cultis revivedin theearlyor middleRomanphase. to An even largerproportionof sitesthanin the west(15 out of 26) lack tileattributable the Roman period,thoughtwo have flattile thatshouldbe Roman (aioo, N315).As in the hellenisticperiod,the sectorhas the lowestproportionof table ware (114 out of 187 type sherds,61 per cent). It also has the highestproportionof kitchenor cookingware (36 sherds,19 per cent),but this includes one exceptionalsite (K233) withno fewerthan 17 sherdsof trefoil-mouthed pitchers,withoutwhichthe figurewould fallto 11 per cent (still the highest)and thatof table ware would rise to 67 per cent (stillthe lowest).The sector's

Hellenistic and Roman periods 297

proportionofstorageware,previouslythehighest,is stillquite high(37 sherds,20 per cent) but has been overtakenby that in the west.As elsewhere,nearlyall the siteshave table out of twenty-six); ware (twenty-four only nine have kitchenor cookingware. Most sites have storage ware, of which K515 produced the most (8 pieces), (eighteen),however, followedby C168 (3), the resthavingfewer.Mortariumsherdswere foundat F135,a cult site,and C167(1 each). ofassemblagesmayindicatea changein the as a proportion The increasein storagepottery natureof agriculturalexploitation.Some Roman sitesmay have been abandoned by the centuries thethirdand fourth middleRomanphase (roughly AD);onlyAioo has clearevidence ofmiddleand lateRomanoccupation. PREFERRED

SITE

LOCATIONS

IN THE ROMAN

PERIOD

betweensites have been notedabove,as well as relationships in sitedistribution Regularities soils. and routes.Once again,thereis a changein therelativenumbersofsiteson different soilscontinues, evenas absolutesitenumbersand settledarea The drift towardsschist-derived now (thirtyfall(ILL.6.5). In numericalterms,siteson schistsoilsdominateevenmorestrongly buta greater one sites,61percent).Theirtotalarea is 5.15ha, lessthanhalfthehellenistic figure The percentageofthetotal(54 per cent,as comparedwith13.04ha, 49 per cent,previously). in three increased has now soils schist-derived the area of settled by represented proportion in the morethanhalfof the settlement consecutive periods,and forthe firsttimerepresents The the is total ha the size is site area. ha, 0.11). average 3.35 H45 0.17 (without Average survey ha medianofall sitesizesis 0.05 ha and theinterquartile down). (both slightly 0.03-0.12 range are smallfarms,the rest Of thesesites,as in thepreviousperiod,morethanhalf(seventeen) and seven one six various sizes: of farm', 'hamlets', 'singlefarms'. 'multiple being of siteson limestonesoilscontinuesto fall,reachinga mere12 per centof The proportion all in zones Τ and U. In termsof theirsizes,however,thesesites sites(six out of fifty-one), of the totalinhabitedsurveyarea, addingup to 2.48 ha- barelya fraction a represent large 37 per figure(9.69 ha) but still26 per centof the total(previously quarterof the hellenistic cent). They average 0.41 ha.58The median size is 0.45 ha and the interquartilerange largerthanbeforebutbased on a verysmallnumberofsites. 0.32-0.55ha, bothsubstantially Fiveofthesitesare hamlets,one a smallfarm. Sites on Neogene-derivedsoils are also fewer,and the proportionof total site numbers continuesto fall(fourteen whichtheyrepresent sites,27 per cent).Theirtotalarea, 2.00 ha, is a largershareof the total in the hellenistic half that than more period,but represents barely acrossthesurveyarea. falls more area settled because with 14per cent) (21percent,compared Theiraveragesize is 0.14 ha. The medianis 0.11ha and theinterquartile range0.10-0.20ha, in the hellenistic to that is similar of sizes The bothslightly period:one hamlet,four range up. farms. small and three six farms, singlefarms, multiple intothe schistsof the therehas been a relativeshiftof settlement Once again, therefore, - relativeindeed,in so faras settledarea declinessharplyin all geologicalzonesbutless north so on schists.The profileof sitesizes withinNeogene and schistareas remainsmoreor less unchanged,evenas thepopulationmigratesbetweenlocationswithina givengeologicalzone; siteson limestoneare largerthanbefore. 58I includeU490. Althoughitscomputedarea of 0.54 ha in thisperiod is not whollyto be reliedupon, it does not

to thetotals. difference makea substantial

298 Chapter 6

Further

Interpretation

of Site Data

site continuity and discontinuity Onlyfoursites(K141,U490,U516,and H45)have occupationin all threeperiods:lateclassical, and Roman. Even here,occupationmayhave suffered thatthedata hellenistic, interruptions do notallowus to detect.The vastmajority ofsites,tojudge fromsurfacefinds,wereoccupied times onlyin one or twoofthesethreeperiods,or werediscontinuously occupiedat different in the almost one thousand treated this during years chapter. At theclassical-hellenistic sitesjust mentioned, transition, includingthefourlong-lived only under one-third of in use in the hellenistic out of classical sites remain just (fifteen forty-six) period (sevenin the south-east,foureach in the west and north).As a proportionof late classicalsites,survivalis highestin thenorththoughfroma low base (fouroutofsevensites,57 two,32 per cent),and lowestin thewest (sevenout oftwentyper cent),lowerin thesouth-east out of in fifteen the south-east and west,however,some sitesmaybe sites,27 per cent); (four middleor late hellenistic The most (re)foundations. importantchangeis thatsixtynew sites comeintobeing,sharedroughlyequallybetweenall sectors(eighteenin thesouth-east, twenty in thewest,twentytwoin thenorth).Continuity is noticeablyhighestamonglargersites(both of thevillages;eightout of ninehamlets,89 per cent),loweramongsinglefarms(twoout of 18per cent),and lowestamongthe seven,28 percent)and smallfarms(threeoutofseventeen, nine middle-ranking multiplefarms,none of whichsurvives.In some cases, as notedabove, sitesappearto migrateto newlocations,oftenbecominglargerin theprocess.59 The lasttrend seemsto be a particular featureofthesouth-east. betweenthehellenistic and Romanperiods,includingthefourlong-lived sites,is Continuity less:nineteenout ofseventy-five hellenistic sites(25 per numerically greaterbutproportionally cent)remainin use (thoughsomeothershavesmallquantitiesofRomanmaterial).Continuity is again highestin thenorth(eightout of twenty-six sites,31 per cent);in all threeareas it is lowerthanat theclassical-hellenistic transition sevenoutoftwenty-five sites, (inthesouth-east 28 per cent;in thewestfourout oftwenty-four, 17per cent).The lostnumbersare notmade new sites,more than halfof themin the north(eighteen,as up; thereare onlythirty-two againstnine in the westand fivein the south-east).The threelargestsitesdisappear,and almostno smallfarmssurvive(fourout of thirtytwo,13 per cent).Survivalratesare much higheramongotherclassesofsite:one outofthethreevillages(33 per cent),fiveoutofsixteen hamlets(31 per cent),fourout of elevenmultiplefarms(36 per cent),and fiveout ofthirteen singlefarms(38 per cent).Apparentmigrantsitesare morenumerousin both absoluteand relativeterms.60 At the late Roman-early Byzantine transition,the question of continuityis both superficially simplerand potentiallymore problematic.There are simplyno identifiable sitesoftheseventhand eighthcenturiesAD,yettoponymieand otherevidencesuggeststhat 59The LCI siteΒ103maybe replacedby the HI siteΒ104, J22Obyj2io, N409by thelargerL406,the hamletM328and thesmallM325by thehamletM327,P264and P271by*P284, S431/432by the largerS436,S526 by the nearbyR423,S523 byS474,and S437bythesmallerS475. w sized Cioö, lYCibgby C114is replacedby the similarly C167and/orC168 (all smallfarms),G164by *Gi63 and G165 (bothsmallfarms),E76 by theslightly largerE56,??Fi43and

?Fi44 by the smallfarm*Fi44,*Fi42 possiblyby F136(both smallfarms),?j2i6 and/orthehamletJ229bythesmallfarm J228,*M349 by *M35O(both small farms),the small farm M177 and/orthe singlefarmM175by the smallfarmM176, the hamlet R281 perhaps by the multiplefarmR426, the hamlet R422 possibly by ?R425, the large hamlet U511 possiblyby the smallfarm*T5io (ifU511does not surviveas an LR site),and thehamletU519bythehamlet*U52i.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 299 somesettlements existedat thattime.The natureofthis'seconddarkage' is discussedin the nextchapter. SITE

CLASSIFICATION

AND FUNCTION

was setout sitetypeswitha fairdegreeofprobability A methodology foridentifying different and other finds recovered. in Chapter5. Crucial to the classification is the rangeof pottery of different Referencehas been made in the presentchapterto the distribution typesof potterywithinsectorsand betweensites.Whiletableware makesup the largestpartof type and Romanin each sector,and whileitsquantitiesare broadlyconsistent sherdson hellenistic betweensectorsand periods(in each case, between52 and 80 per cent of all typesherds withinsectors),it increasesin the Roman periodin all sectors,and in bothperiodsit is least in theproportion ofkitchenor in thenorth(ILL.6.7).Thereis a markedfall,however, plentiful cookingware,from27 per centto 13per cent(from178out of655,to 52 out of407 sherds);in and commonestin thenorth.Takingall threesectors bothperiodsit is rarestin thesouth-east wares withinassemblagesdoubles from11 per cent (74 of the storage percentage together, the increase is mostmarkedin thewest,wheresiteshavethe to cent 20 sherds); (80 sherds) per ofRoman. ofhellenistic smallestproportion storagewaresbutthelargestproportion and maypainta ofsitesthathas each typecan also be revealing, The proportion however, in all sectorsin both sites on or Table ware occurs different all, all, nearly picture(ILL.6.8). a of ware as or in kitchen while both but proportion assemblagesis cooking periods periods; ofsitesin thenorththathaveit in thenorth,in theRomanperiodtheproportion commonest

Roman.Dark = kitchen ofuse-types III. 6.7. Proportions hellenistic, (lower) /cookingware,light= storageware, bysector:(upper) = tableware. mid-grey

300 Chapter 6

III. 6.8. Siteswitheach use-typeofpottery, ware, (b)Roman.Τ = tableware,C/K = cooking/kitchen bysector:(a) hellenistic, S = storageware.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 301 fallssteeply(from77per centofsitesto 35 per cent).The proportion ofsiteswithstorageware and low,in thehellenistic cent of sitesin each sector, is broadlyconsistent, period(38-46 per in everysectorin the variations not be It almost doubles cent overall; 43 per may significant). the Roman (69-77 per cent, 73 per cent overall),pointingstronglyto a change in the betweensitesize and thepresenceor absenceof There seemsto be no correlation economy.61 storageware. It is also possibleto comparesitesaccordingto how manyofthethreebroaduse-categories are found:tableware,kitchenor cookingware,and storageware.In thehellenistic ofpottery of sitesin each sectorhas examplesof all threeclassesof period,a roughlyequal proportion butthe (27percentin thenorth,38 per centin thewest,32 per centin thesouth-east), pottery ofsiteswithtwooutofthree(62 per cent,as against46 northhas byfarthehighestproportion in the othersectors).In the Roman period,however,the north and 44 per cent,respectively, has thefewestsiteswithall threekinds(23 per cent,comparedwith31 and 42 per cent),while to one-halfofthesitesin each sectorhave two(50,54, and 33 per centrespectively). one-third smalland it is unwiseto place muchweighton The numberofsitesin each sectoris relatively but two trendsstandout. In bothperiods,the westhas few'poor' sites theprecisefigures,62 sites, 17per centof itshellenistic represented; (thosewithjust one ofthethreeuse-categories The as and be characterized its cent of north, by relatively prosperous. Roman) may 15 per in the hellenistic sites of the lowest from moves contrast, having proportion poorer,one-type period(12 per cent)to havingthehighestproportionin theRoman period(27 per cent),and a fallin prosperity. mayhavesuffered In contrastto the archaicand classicalperiods,thereseemsto be onlya weak correlation ceramictypes, or how manyidentifiable between(a) how manyof thethreebroad use-types, or Roman siteand (b) the size ofthe siteor eventhenumberofsherds occuron a hellenistic recovered.Five hellenisticsmall farms,forexample,have all threeuse-types,while some hellenistic findsbut fewuse-typesor pottery hamlets(suchas S466 and T467) have plentiful farmsdominatethelandscape,is where small in Roman in north the the period, types.Only as notedabove. therea largerthanexpectednumberofsiteswithonlyone use-type, a occur on of as evidence taken minorityof sites: fifteen weaving, Loom-weights, hellenisticsites (nine in the south-east,three in the west, three in the north;also one possiblesite)and six Roman (twoin the south-east,threein thewest,one in the north;see datable (*Hig, TABLES 6.6-11). They are especiallyrarein the north.Few are independently the multi-period a mainlyhellenisticsite,has a hellenisticloom-weight; U490 has a middle Roman example).Some may be dated by associationsince theyoccur on sitesof a single sitesU519,R422,T467, of one period(hellenistic or predominantly period(N186,hellenistic) all on occur sites Roman largersites (in both M176,*M35o). Nearly *T47i, M348, *Hig; than 0.16 two sites smaller ha). periods,only includecultsites,discussedunder'The religious as settlements Hellenisticsitesnotclassified near the and A120 Palaiogoulas. cemetery landscape'below,

61It is theoretically possiblethatthedearthofstorage potteryon HI sites is somehowlinkedto the large HI sherds thatcouldnotbe assigned ofprobable proportion to types,and thatHI storagesherdslurkunsuspected sherds.Inspectionof thedatabase, amongthenon-type however, producesno obviouspatternin thefinds;the

for proportionof coarse and mediumcoarse pottery, is notsignificantly different. example, b2A (χ2)testsuggeststhatno statistically chi-squared ofHI and correlation existsbetween thenumber significant wherethey werefound. R sherds ineachclassandthesector

302 Chapter 6 THE RURAL ECONOMY

As withclassicalsites,no hellenistic or Roman siteappearslikelyto havehad thefullrangeof economic activitiescharacteristicof a small town, and Sparta probably remained the economichubforall ofthesurveyarea exceptthesatellites ofSellasia,mostofwhichwillhave lain outsideour northernsector.Even Geronthrai(modernGeráki)is too distantto have fulfilledthat role- an observationthat will gain in significancewhen we attemptto reconstruct the historyof the surveyarea. As before,sitescan be dividedinto thosewhich a largelysubsistence-based followed probably strategy, involvingthe productionof minimal for localized and the hard-won or surpluses exchange upkeep of an arable,arboricultural, and those where there are of the of for pastoralbase, signs production greatersurpluses accumulation,exchange,and display.This distinctionmay correspondbroadlyto that betweensmallerand largersites,butmayalso relateto distancefromSparta. As pointedout in Chapter5, nearlyall theland witha slope ofless than10 degreesoccurs in thesouth-eastern and westernsectors.The expansionofsettlement intothesteeper,schist in of the north the hellenistic slopes (probablyearlyhellenistic) periodmay reflecta risein the importanceof arboriculture.63 That trendmayhave sloweddown if,as suggestedabove creation(as opposed to sitenumbers),whiledecliningall acrossthe (pp. 269-73),settlement did so more surveyarea, slowlyin the south-east.Arable (cereal) cultivationmay have remainedthe predominantformof production.Site continuitybetween periods is slightly in the but within be in north, stronger continuity periods may stronger the south-east, sites on arable soils such as those in the Chrysaphabasin. particularly among larger good sites were also well to both arable and (Some placed exploit pastoral resources:in the hellenistic in the Roman in both periodU494, T482, periodsS475.)The phenomenonofsites to nearbylocationsseemsto be mainlya featureof the south-east,at least at the migrating classical-hellenistic transition. The absence of a significant change in site size in any area, even the south-east,during the Roman period suggeststhattherewas no generalincreasein householdsize, thoughit maybe thateach householdcontrolledmoreland- possibleevidenceof the amalgamation ofproperties.In thewest,givenvariedresources,a readysupplyofwater,and access to the urbanmarket,manysitesprobablycontinuedto combinearable farmingwitharboriculture and grazing.Zones M andj seemto remainlandscapesofsmallestates,thoughtheterritory exploitedby each may have increased(unlessthe non-sitefindspots representsmallfarms). In zones D and H thereare fewersites,each possiblycontrollinglargerestates(though ofnon-sitefindspots whosesignificance is debatable).In thenorth, again withconstellations on thesteeperslopes,some ofthesmallersitesin alongsidea presumedrisein arboriculture thearable territory ofSellasia (onlypartiallysurveyed)surviveddespitetheabandonmentof the town (A118)and of the nearbySpartan fortress(Bin; ancientBarnosthenes?).In the sectoras a whole,althoughthereis a degree of recessionin the Roman period,the large numberof non-sitefindspots(see next subsection)suggeststhat exploitation,thoughnot necessarily settlement,continued, perhaps at a less prosperous level without the amalgamationofproperties.

63Fora peak in olivecultivation in W. Messeniafrom£.500 BC, with a correspondingdecline afterí.ioo BC, see E.. Zangger,M. E. Timpson,S. B. Yazvenko,F. Kuhnke,andj. Knauss,'The PylosRegionalArchaeologicalProject,partII:

landscape evolutionand sitepreservation', Hesp.66 (1997), 549-641,at 594; E. Zangger,'The environmental setting',in SandyPylos,1-9, at 7.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 303 NON-SITE ASSEMBLAGES

The importanceand possible implicationsof low-densityor non-sitescattershave been exploredand emphasizedin Chapter5. In thepresentchapter,somementionhas been made materialon Romansitesand viceversa. ofpossibleand doubtful sites,or ofhellenistic in thesouthnon-sitefindspots: there are In thehellenistic twenty-five seventy-four period, TABLE in the north in and seventeen the east,thirty-two west, (see 6.12).Theyproduced28, 45, and 100 and 27 non-tilesherdsrespectively 79 keptpieces oftile.In theRoman sherds) (total and the site the out-of-area Q3007 dump ηβίδ), such findspotsare period (not counting in thewest,and in the 100: more common,numbering twenty-eight south-east, forty decidedly number of non-tilesherds the same in the north average 6.13).Theyyielded (TABLE thirty-two in the three sectors those in hellenistic as the producing30, 61, and 47 sherds period, (1.4) had large In Roman findspots several and tile 95 fragments. addition, (total138) respectively numbersofunpainted,undatedsherdsthatmaypossiblybe lateRoman (p. 270 above). sector

η η Ν W

w w w w w w η η

w η Ν Ν η Ν Ν W Ν SE Ν SE W W

siteno.

*4 fi3 fi4 H18 H2I H24

H33 H34 H35 h37 e58 f72 e8i ano K151 GI55 gi6o G162 C168 M176 G182 N191 K205 N209 K2II

Ν W Ν SE

J2I7 J218 J2I9 J22O J224 J225 J226 J227 K236 K239 K24O K243 K246 K247 P262

se

Γ295

W W W W W W

w Ν W

w

subzone

fi fi Fi H3 H2 H3 H3 H3 H2 h2 e2 fi e6 ai Ki G2 g2 Gi C4 M7 Gi N5 K3 Ni

K5 J2 Ji Ji Ji J5 J5 J5 J5 Ki K3 M3 K2 K5 K2 P2 ri

Hl Hype sherds' ι ι ι

totalHI sherds

Hl tile

2 1

2

3 ο

ι

3

3 ο

1

2

2

I

2 2 Ι

I I I

soil

sherd dates

Sib S4b S4C S2a S3b S3b S3b

C3? C4-C2E

S2a

coin of336-323BC

ο 2 2

3

2

Sia S2C

Ο

2

S2d S2d N3c S2d Nia S>3a S4C S2C S4C S2C S3a S2C S4b S4b S3a S4b S4d S2d S2b S4d S2C S2b Nia

2 2 2

3 Ο

ο 3

3 3 ο

2 1

2 2

I

2 Ι Ι

2 I

3 3 ι 2 2

3 2

3 3 ο ο

2

Ι

2

3

4 Ι

notes

C3-C2

C4-C2E, C3-C5

C3? C3-C2

Cl-R lwt

1 poss.non-type sherd

C3 sculptedrelief HI lwt

304 Chapter 6 sector Ν W

w

w w w w w SE SE SE

se

SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE se SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE

w w w

siteno. K298 M332 111338 M340 M344 M346 M351

J369 P405 N417 R426 I438 S439 S441 R453 R455 R457 T465 T479 T481 T485 U495 U496 U497 U500 S508 T510 U517 U520

U3010 hlOO2O j 10072 11110614

subzone

Hl Hype sherds'

1 1 I

K4 Mi Π13

M3 M6 M6 M6

J6 P2 Ni R2 h S3 S4 R4 R4 R6 T3 T2 T2

T3

u3 u4

u4 h3

J3

m6

2 Ο I

3

3

Ο I 2

I 2 I

ι

3 Ι Ι

2

2 2

2

Ι

2

Ι

Ο

Ι

Ο

3

2 Ο

7

3

4

ι

2

Ι

ο Ο I ι

2 Ι

3 I

2

Hltile

ι ι 3 4 ι

2 Ο

U3 U2

U3 U4 S3 T3

totalHI sherds

soil

sherddates

notes

C3-C2 C3-C2

HI (?) lwt

S2C

S3a N4c N3c N3c N3c N4b Nia N2b Nia N2a L4d Nia L2C L2d L2b L2C L2C L2C

Cl-R lwt

L2b L4C L2b L2b N2b L2C

L4a L2b

Ο 2 Ι

C3?

Cl-Hl stonemortars; Cl-R millstone MH1 figurine (stray) 06801625 07451605 08621310

Table 6.12.Hellenisticnon-sitefindspots. Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3.

Non-sitefindspotsoftenoccupy apparentgaps in the site distribution, sometimeseven of spacingobservedin thesitesproper.Some maybe vestigesof sites maintaining regularities (or of predecessorsand successorsof knownsites)thatwere too poor to leave an adequate materialrecord.This maybe thecase particularly in theRomanperiod,suggesting (as do other data)lowerlevelsofprosperity amongthesmallfarmsofthattime.Some findspots mayreflect increasedagricultural activityin the Roman periodthatresultedin the dispersalof recently In bothperiods,thenon-sitefindspots discardedpottery. and findsare mostnumerousin the west.In thehellenistic in theRomanperiodthe periodthenorthhas fewerthanthesouth-east; reverseis true,perhapsreflecting theobservednorthward driftin settlement numbers.In some cases,thenon-sites maysimplyindicateotherkindsoflanduse thansettledfarming. As in earlierperiods,findspotsclusterin the same areas as actual sites.In both periods zones H, J, K, and M are particularlywell represented,withzones F, G, U, and (in the hellenistic In thehellenistic period)R featuring strongly. period,theagreementin mostzones betweenthenumberofsites(whether or notpossibleand doubtfulsitesare included)and that ofminorscattersis remarkably close.In theRomanperiod,however, scattersoutnumber sites (and possiblesites)in mostzones. This, like otherdata, suggeststhatsome of the Roman scatters(suchas the elevenwiththreetypesherdsand no othersherds:/149,£150,^158, A19,

Hellenistic and Roman periods 305 sector

site no.

subzone

R'type sherds'

totalR sherds

Ν

B121

B2

1

1

Ν Ν

B123 B132 D306 eiO379 E310 E76 E94 E3 E304 E53 Fio

B3 B4 D2 ei Ei E2 E2

1

1

I

3

Ν

η Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν η Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν η Ν Ν Ν η

w w W

w w w w w

w w w w w w w

w w

w w w Ν Ν Ν Ν W

W W Ν Ν Ν W W Ν

se

F138 «4 F149 F2 F146 FI43 F15O gioig2 G166 GI57 G158 gi6o H47 h 10069 H22 H28 H36

*39

Fi Fi fi F2 F2

F3 F4 F4 g1 Gi G2 G2 g2 Hi h2 H2 H2 H2 H2

hi6 H19 H24 H33 J218 J2I2 J216 J68 J3!7

J5 J5

J229 JIO229

Ji7° J369

K151 K236 K255 K243 IC10247 K237 k25i K250 K299 K2OI K207 K246 K297 110499

2

E3 E4 E5

H3 h3 H3 H3 H3 Ji J2 J2 J3

HII

I

J6 J6 Ki Ki Ki K2 k3 K3 k3 K4 K4 K5 K5 K5 K5 h

R tile

I

1 2

1 3 2

3 2

3 3

2

2

3

3

2

2

I

I

2

I 3

3 3

2

1 2

3

3

I

1

2

1 2

3

3

I

2 I

I

I I

2 I

3

3

I

1 1

I

1 1

I

1

2

2 I

1

3

3 3

I

I 2

S2C Sib S2C S2C S2C

c4?

G3-C7?

notes

flattile R (?) stonevases 06582026

flattile 1 otherposs.R sherd

C1-C2 Cl BC

C3? HI-C2? C3

S2d

10312119

S2C S2C

06551705

S2b S3a S3b S3b S4b

R-Byz glass flattile C5-C7?

HI-C2

N3b N3c N4b Sia S4d S2C S4d

G6?

S2b 1 5 2

2

C3-C7

S3a

I I

C6 C6 C5-C7

Sia Sib S2C Sib L2a Lib S2a S2d

S4b S2a S3b S2C S3b S4C

2 2

sherd dates(ad)

L,2a

2 1 I

I

L2b S2C S2d

S3b

2

2

soil (whereknown)

3 2 5 2

S3a S2c A2b S2C S2C S2c

C6-C7

08051455 flattile;Hl-Byz lwt; R-Byz plaque

12poss.LR sherds 0775^45 flattile;coin (CiL AD?)

C3? Ci? 11101705

3o6 Chapter 6 sector

SE

w w w w w w w w w w w w w w η

SE SE SE SE SE W W

site no.

subzone

L406 m355 M357 m10646 M341 M343 M328 ™356 M365 M324 M336 M339 M346 M361

Li mi Mi m3 M3 M3 M4

n3i8

ni

Π110614

N190 N195 P262

Π14

M4 M5 M5 M5 M6 M6 m7

RHype sherds'

totalR sherds

1

1

3

9

2

2 1

1

1

I

2 I

2 I

2 I

I

2 I

2

2

5

N5 N5 P2 P2 P2 Q) Q?

I

R tile

2

Nia

ι 3 4 4

N4c

2 9 4 4 3

2 I

se se se

P264 P405 Q360 Q3007 Γ295 Π1121 ΠΙ122

SE

R422

R2

2

3

SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE

R428

R2 R7 Si S2 S3 S3 S4

I

I

R469 S436 S466 S449 S452 S478 T445 T481 T465 T485 T464 T467 U494

Ti Ti

U511

Ui U2

se

"495

U3

I I

soil

sherddates(ad)

1

I

N3c N2b N3c N3c N4b N3b N4C N3C N4 Nia N2b Nia Nia Nia Nib

nota site C3-C7 HI-C2 C4? C5-C7?

C1-C2? C6?

09721367 R-Byz stonevessel flattile flattile flattile 08621310

dump Ci?

I

ri

Γ2

partofR426? see siteR426;10type ο sherds,2 non-type, tile Cl-R lwt;LC1-R millstone R (?) spindlewhorl

I

Γ2

T3 T3 T4 T4

notes

(whereknown)

3 1

I

I

I

5 2

3

3

I

2

2 1

2

I

5 3

3

2

2

3 3 1 I

L2b Nia L2d N2a N2b N2b N2b Nia L.2C L2C L2C

111 poss.LR sherds

C1-C2, C3-C7

Lab

L2b L2b L.2a L2C

plaque Cl-R lwt 7 poss.LR sherds Cl-R lwt

C1-C2? C6?

157poss.LR sherds and 27 poss.LR tilein all areas

1

Table 6.13.Romannon-sitefindspots. Forcenturydates,see keyto TABLE6.3.

ofpoorersettlements or otherkindsof A22, 7229,k25i?111355, ^23, £445,£467)maybe remnants If sub-settlement and doubtful sites were combinedwith definite, activity. probable,possible, someor all oftheseotherfindspots, thedisparity betweenhellenistic and Roman sitenumbers wouldbe reduced.Hellenisticwouldstilloutnumber and west,while Roman in thesouth-east in thenorth,wheredefinite and probablesitenumbersare thesame in bothperiods,Roman ofall kindsare indeedmorenumerousthanbefore. findspots

Hellenistic and Roman periods 307

The non-sitefindspotsmay also modifythe pictureof hellenistic-Romancontinuity. Whereasonlynineteenhellenisticsites(25 per cent) also qualifyas Roman sites,a further nineteenare possibleRoman sitesor findspotswhile a furtherthirteenRoman siteshave of all findspots predecessorson the same basis. No fewerthaneighty-two possiblehellenistic in with no variation their of kinds,includingsites,have material both periods, significant in in the the numbersbetweensectors(twenty-nine north, west,twenty-seven findspots in thesouth-east). twenty-six in general,have fewer It is clear,however,thatRoman sitesand otherRoman findspots, signsofprosperity. POPULATION ESTIMATES

setout in Chapter5, it is possibleto arriveat estimatesforpopulation Usingtheassumptions levels(ILL. 6.9). (No attemptis made to allow fordiffering life-spansof sitesand fornonsimultaneousoccupation.The estimatesshouldnot be treatedas accuratemeasuresbut as devicesforfacilitating comparisonbetweensectorsand periods.)As before,singleand small farmsare calculatedat 5 personseach, multiplefarmsat 15,hamletsat 50 per hectare,and whosecomputedsize wouldmakeit a villagesnormallyat 100per hectare.ForH45,however, in allowancemustbe made forits a hamlet the but in hellenistic the Roman, period village hectare is assumed.(Bin is assumedto of lower the texture; density 50 per open apparently have been the residencyof a garrisonand is discounted,as in Chapter5.) Sellasia (A118)is allowed100per hectare.Comparedwith1,025m trielate archaic-classicalperiodand 855 in thelate classical,thenotionalpopulationof the surveyarea in thehellenistic periodrecovers to 1,464,butin theRomanperioditfallssharplyto 574.

and Roman. III. 6.9. Notionalpopulationbysector:hellenistic

3θ8 Chapter6

The notionalhellenisticpopulationof the south-eastis increasedslightlyfromits late classicallevel,from400 to 467. The westsees a sharprise,from135to 549,mainlybecauseof H45 Geladari.In thenorththereis a slightincrease,from320 to 448. In theRoman period, the populationfallssharplyin each sector(south-east177,west 209, north188). In both periodsthewesthas thehighestpopulation, just as it has thelargestsettledarea, thoughonly a small amount with the classicalperiod,populationis moreevenly by (ILL.6.9). Compared in thehellenistic distributed at a lower and, level,theRomanperiod. in the main the hellenistic factors Undoubtedly figuresare the riseof Geladari(thethree sites and Geladari, Palaiogoulas, largest Agios Konstantinos- account for half the In and the of smaller sites. theRoman period,themaincomponentsof population) explosion loss are the population the disappearance of Sellasia and Agios Konstantinosand the contraction ofGeladariand to a lesserextentofPanagia Chrysaphitissa. The Romanfigureis likelyto be an under-estimate, giventhenumberofnon-sitescattersthatmaybe vestigialfarm sites.On the otherhand, the figuresforboth periodsmay be inflatedsince theytake no accountofwhethersiteswereoccupiedat different timesratherthancontemporaneously. Extrapolatedon thelinesindicatedin Chapter5 to thewholeofLaconia (without Kynouria and Kythera,and withoutSpartaand otherurbancentres),thedata implya populationpeak of c.75,000in thehellenistic period.(No attemptis made hereto estimatethepopulationsof Sparta and the largertowns,whichare highlyuncertain.)This is nearlytwicethe notional figureof 44,000 forthe fourthcentury(p. 208). Such a steep rise in population is not impossible,thoughthe hellenisticfiguremay be inflatedforreasonsnoted above. For the Romanperiod,theequivalentfigureforLaconia is only£.29,000.This mayalso be an underestimate,sinceit takesno accountof the numberof Laconia Surveyfindspots just belowthe threshold ofsitestatus. Unless the surveydata are whollyunrepresentative of Laconia, theysuggestthatin the hellenistic nor thepopulationloss allegedby Polybiosfor periodneitherSpartanoliganthropia, otherregionsof Greece (xxxvi.17. 5-10, cf.xx. 6. 1-6)64and attestedin othersurveys, was in overallpopulationlevelsin Sparta'sterritory. reflected For the Roman period,the survey data pointto a substantial fallin thepopulationofruralLaconia. COMMUNICATIONS

The linesof probableroutesare indicatedin Chapter5 and willnot be restatedhere,since mostor all seemlikelyto haveremainedin use. In thehellenistic period,thereare patternsof site locationthatmay be relatedto routesin the vicinityof TsiliotouRema and along an enduringroutethroughthe Neogene plateau to the Kastora spring,anotherrouterunning eastfromSpartavia Aphysou,a possibleparallelroutein zoneJ,theKelephinaand Langada valleys,a branchroutefromKladas to Theologos,a possibleroutefromthe Evrotasgorge throughzone Ε to Sellasia,and the main highwaythroughSellasia. In the Roman period, thereappearsto be less correlation betweenroutesand sitelocationin zones R- S, whilethe in F Κ is no longerso clearlymarkedbysites.On theother branch road zones and Theologos the have hand, Kelephina valleymay grownin importance,while the Roman bridgeat Geladarisuggeststhattheroutethroughzone Ε towardsSellasia(perhapsmarkedbysitesE56 and *F72)had also gainedin significance. 64Translationsin M. M. Austin,TheHellenistic World from

Alexanderto theRoman Conquest:A SelectionofAncientSourcesin

Translation (Cambridge,1980),nos 81,84.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 309 THE RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE

Far fewercult places can be identifiedin the hellenisticand Roman periods than in the of archaic-classicalsanctuaries. classical.Siteslack theminiaturevotivevesselscharacteristic in TABLES are indicated 6.6-11,butare not are sometimes and Terracottafigurines suggestive, also exists. heretakenas evidenceforcultsitestatuswhereclearevidenceofsettlement In theclassicalperiod,theprincipalcultplaces withinthesurveyarea weretheMenelaion and the sanctuaryof Zeus Messapeus at Tsakona. The surveyfoundno surfacedata for on theMenelaionridge(Q360),thoughitis attestedbyexcavatedfinds.The hellenistic activity and Helen mayhave undergonelimitedrenovationin late classicalor of Menelaos sanctuary times hellenistic damageduringPhilipV's invasionof (pp. 218-19),and perhapssuffered early Its continueduse untilat leastthelate secondcenturyBC is 218 BC,recountedby Polybios.65 and mouldmade attestedby excavatedfindsincludingstatuettes, possiblyofthethirdcentury, For the Roman period,thereare no bowlsdated to the second centuryby the excavator.66 surfacefindsand no archaeologicalevidenceof cultrevival,thoughPausanias(iii. significant thetemple(ναός)ofMenelaosat Therapneand reportsthelegendaccording mentions 19. 9) to whichTherapnewas theburial-placeofMenelaos and Helen. As remarkedin Chapter5, ofZeus Messapeus(N415)mayhavebegunto be abandonedafterthemid-fourth thesanctuary whosedate findsare stampedtilesfromtheexcavations, The onlypossiblehellenistic century. in the third or earlyRoman.67Definitefindsresume AD,in the century maybe late hellenistic AD. The site thus formof lamp fragments (SF 12-26), and persistinto the fourthcentury enjoyeda revivalin earlyor middleRomantimes. conforms to theobservedpatternofsomeruralcult The fateoftheseand othersanctuaries periodand revivedin theRoman.68Hellenisticcult placesbeingabandonedin thehellenistic as a sanctuaryin sitesabandonedduringtheperiodincludeA119nearPalaiogoulas(identified it maybe assumedto have been abandoned figurines; Chapter5), whichproducedterracotta probablyas a resultof the demiseof itsparentsettlement. by the end of the thirdcentury, Some cultsiteswereprobablyabandonedstillearlier:theprominent hilltopofPhagiawithits archaiccultsite(U3002)producedno hellenistic finds,and siteP260mayhavebecomedisused as earlyas thelateclassicalperiod. weredesertedin thehellenistic Not all classicalcultsites,however, period.Classicalactivity in the south-east sites at three continued have *U5i6). Geladari (H45), (U491, U511, may whetheror not it is the successorto ancient Thornax with its cult of Apollo Pythaëus (Πυθαεύς, Paus. iii. 10. 8), containsnon-ceramicmaterialsuggestiveof one or more cult or Roman date (p. 282 above);thesiteas a wholehas classicalmaterial buildingsofhellenistic in hellenistic times.The archaicand classicalcultsiteJ221yieldedan butpeaksas a settlement sherd. The smallcultsiteN430continuedin use in the hellenistic hellenistic or middle early its end. was abandoned but by period In the Roman period,even fewersanctuariescan be identifiedwithinthe surveyarea, afteritsearlyor middleRoman revival.Site F135in the Tsakonaalone remaining prominent 65Polyb.v. 18. 10: Philiparrivesvia hillsnear Menelaion; from 19. 1,encampsat Amyklai;19. 3-8, ravagessouthwards there; 21. 1, king Lykourgos occupies area around Menelaion; 22. 8-23. 5, Philip defeatshim there;24. 1-7, Philipoccupiesa similarspot. 66Catling,'Menelaion',37-8. 67See n. 52 above.

68 S. E. Alcock, 'Minding the gap in hellenisticand Roman Greece', in S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds),

Placing the Gods: Sanctuariesand Sacred Space in AncientGreece

(Oxford,1994),ch. 11(pp. 247-61),esp. 253-6; Alcock(n. 24), ch. 5 (pp. 172-214).

310 Chapter6

Langada valley,on a probable route fromSparta to Sellasia, has no type sherdsbut a or Roman figurine, and is tentatively numberofnon-typesherdsand a hellenistic significant classifiedas anothersanctuary;it mayhave remainedin use in Roman times.SiteJ215 near finds,maybe anotherRoman Sparta,whichhas a classicalcultassemblagebutno hellenistic but there is no clear evidence of cult at that time. revival, The surveywas unableto locatetheminorcultplacesexplicitly mentionedbyPausanias(iii. in in the second 20. those the oftheMenelaion:the 19. 7, 1) centuryAD,particularly vicinity of the 'most ancient' shrineof Ares sanctuary AsklepiosKotyleus(foundedby Herakles), and that of all some or of these should have existedlong Theritas, Polydeukes.69 Although beforePausanias'stime,no archaeologicalevidencewas discovered. The decline in ruralcult in the hellenisticperiod may reflecta change not onlyin the exploitationof the countrysidebut in its ideological and economic importanceto the Spartans. There are signs of revivalin Roman times,chieflyin the neighbourhoodof Sparta. This partial upturnconformsto developmentsin otherparts of Roman Greece, whererenewedinterestin the classicalpast led to the resumptionof cultat old shrines.In the surveyarea, however,it seemsto be a peri-urbanphenomenon,not sharedby remoter parts. Summary, Comparative

Data,

and Conclusions:

Hellenistic

the late classical-hellenistic transition Definiteand probable sitesincreasein numberby 63 per cent betweenthe late classical and the hellenisticperiod,risingfromforty-six to seventy-five are (of whichtwenty-seven probablesiteson the definitionset out above). They increasein everysector;the steepest rise is in the north,but sites thereare small. The Neogene plateau, abandoned in late classicaltimes,is onlyresettledthinlyand mostlyat the margins.In termsofproportionof the total settledarea, the south-eastsuffersa slightreductionwhile the other sectors become muchmore important;the expansionof H45 Geladari, in particular,accountsfor thehighernotionalpopulationin thewest.The survivalrateamonglate classicalsitesis 34 per cent,but higherin the north(froma low base) and amonglargersites.The loss of the late classical sitesthat are abandoned and not reoccupiedat any timeduring thirty-nine thehellenisticperiodis morethanmade good, forabout twentynew sitesappear in each of thethreesectors. The increasein sitenumbersdoes notnecessarily of implya similarincreasein theintensity since the hellenistic was about twice as as the late and not all classical settlement, period long siteswere necessarilyoccupiedat the same time.Since we knowalmostnothingabout the consistent witha reduction lengthof occupationofindividualsites,thedata are theoretically in the numberof settlements at On time. the other hand, theyare also occupied any given consistent withlong-livedsiteshavingexistedin greaternumbersthanbefore.For the same reason,althoughthe total settledarea increasedbetweenthe classical and the hellenistic land use. No precisejudgement period,the wholeperioddid not necessarilysee intensified can be made aboutthenumberofsitesor likelyarea in occupationat anygivenmoment,but 69AsklepiosKotyleusis speculatively located at Ktirakia by Ch. Christou,"Ανασκαφή Άφησσϋ', ΡΑΕ 1963, 130-6

and pis 106-12.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 311 thereis, as we saw earlier,evidencethatthe creationof new settlements was concentrated in and then shifted elsewhere. The rise of Geladari was thenorthin theearlyhellenistic period, fromthecity. perhapsfuelledbyoverspill hellenistic Identifiable potteryis less commonthanarchaicand classical.An averageof 8.5 sherdsweredepositedeach yearduringthesixthto fourthcenturiesBC,with archaic-classical For thehellenistic periodthefigureis higherratesprobablein the sixthand fourthcenturies. 5.6 duringthe thirdto firstcenturiesBC,perhapswitha higherrate in the thirdand first of Asidefromthelackofchronological centuries. dates,giventhedifficulty precisionin pottery how manysiteswerein use at any givenmomentit would be a mistaketo take establishing these figuresas evidenceforshort-term demographicchanges.Various explanationsare less possible:some materialmay not have been recognized(suchas the black-glazedpottery, distinctivethan its archaic and classical equivalents),potterymay have been less freely or theuse and depositionofpottery available,70 mayhavebecomelessintensive. The numbersof sherdsdatableto a particularphase are a.prima facieindicationthatthere was greateractivity(or wideravailabilityof pottery)in earlyhellenistictimesthan in the middle and late hellenisticphases. The numbers may partly reflectour imperfect of the laterceramictypes;but the use of black-glazedpotteryseemsto have understanding theperiod,so itspresenceis a signofan earlydate. declinedthrough fromthe Siteswithearlyhellenistic potteryare no morelikelythanothersto be survivors late classical period. Similarly,sites that can be regardedas chieflyor exclusivelyearly hellenisticoccur in all threesectorsmore or less equally,and thereare at least two late sitesin thenorth(in zone K). It appearsthatnew settlements hellenistic emergedin all parts at a rate. not but ofthesurveyarea at different times, probably steady Black-glazedpotteryis commonestin the northand on smallersites;takenwiththe otherevidence,thispointsto a onto the schistsoils of the norththan elsewhere.The greaterincursionof new settlement hereis notby itselfevidenceofdeclinein thenorth, sherds of greaterfrequency black-glazed witha slightdeclinein butotherevidence(theoccurrenceofphase-datedsherds)is consistent times.Possiblymoresiteabandonmentoccurredhere thenorthin middleand late hellenistic the period than elsewhereduringthosephases. Since the sum totalof activitythroughout in of the three each is settled or sectors,it maybe area) roughlyequal (measuredby pottery after occurred 200 or settlement mostactivity thatin thesouth-east BC,thoughthe expansion in of the north Decline have been differences is, course, clearlyseen in the slight. may and of Sellasia second the abandonment (A118).Overall, (Bin) AgiosKonstantinos century by it is likelythatthe surveyarea supportedslightlyfewersitesin middleand late hellenistic times,the greatestdeclineoccurringin the north.The expansionof Geladari,too, may be phenomenon. largelya middleor latehellenistic of sitesamongsize categoriesis almostunchangedfromthe late classical The distribution period,when therewas a pronouncedincreasein size as comparedwiththe late archaic period(pp. 175,184).Acrossthewholesurveyarea, theaverageand mediansitesizesand the a smallrisein sitesize In the south-east, rangeof sizes are all but unchanged.71 interquartile in the at the late classical-hellenistic has been identified transition; west,a slightfall;in the 70Cf. M. Millett,'Pottery:populationor supplypatterns? The Ager Tarraconensisapproach', in G. Barker and J. Lloyd (eds), Roman Landscapes: ArchaeologicalSurvey in the

Mediterranean Region(Archaeological Monographs of the BritishSchoolat Rome,2; London,1991),18-26.

71Average size: LCI 0.41 ha, HI 0.35 ha; discounting Median: 0.10 exceptionalsites,0.22 and 0.18 ha respectively. ha in bothperiods.Interquartile range:LCI 0.05-0.27ha, HI 0.04-0.28 ha.

312 Chapter6

measuredbytheaverage north,no significant change.Sitesare smallestin thenorth(whether withor withoutlargesites,bythemedian,or bytheinterquartile range);thisis thesectorthat in of number of new the had the sites earlypart theperiod.Sitesare largest largest probably in the south-east.The same patternholds true forthe late classical period and remains unchanged in the Roman. The 'typical' hellenisticsite in the south-east(based on the interquartile ranges)is a singleor multiplefarmor a smallhamlet;in thewestand thenorth, itis a smallor singlefarm. The spacingof smallfarmsin the northis similarto thatof largersitesin the south-east. so thata givenarea could onlysupporta Possiblytheland in the northwas less productive, smallerhousehold;or perhapsthe steepslopesmade it harderto clear naturalvegetation, so thateach sitedid notoccupythewholearea as faras theboundaryofitsneighbour's land. Scattersthatdo not qualifyas sitesfillsome gaps in thelandscapesof all sectors,perhaps smalleraverageterritories aroundfarmsthanan examinationof sitesalone might suggesting indicate.In a numberoflocalities,cleargroupingsofbothsitesand non-sitefindspots exhibit more or less regularspacing,suggestinga degree of organizationof the landscape, and thepossibility thatin thoseareas thesurveyhas detectednearlyall the perhapsstrengthening sitesand thatthosesiteswereinhabitedsimultaneously. This evidencemayalso pointtowards unifiedlandholdings ratherthanthefragmented estatesoftenpositedforGreecebyhistorians and archaeologists.In some areas this could be explained by the recent date of first colonization of a given area, assuming that unifiedholdings had not yet begun to be as a resultofdeathand partitive inheritance. fragmented In the earlyhellenisticperiod,thereis a shiftof both settlement numbersand estimated the schist in towards soils of the the form of verysmallsites.The north, population mainly estimatedtotalpopulationofthesurveyarea increasesby72 per cent,thoughitincreasesonly in the south-east, risesby 40 per centin the north(becauseof the plethoraof small slightly newsites),and quadruplesin thewest(mainlybecauseofH45).Siteson limestone-derived soils in the south-eastare largerand presumablymorepopulouson an individuallevel;thereis somesignofmigration withintheterra rossaenvironment, however. to table ware is in commonest the south-east and rarestin thenorth, Turning assemblages, whilekitchenor cookingware has the oppositedistribution; the two kindsof potteryoccur, on roughlythesameproportion ofsitesin each sector.Storagewaresare commonest however, in thenorth,rareelsewhere;northern sitesalso lack mortaria(thoughthedata are few);both findings mightsuggestlessprosperousand/or seasonaloccupationin thenorth.Loom-weights are foundalmostexclusively on multiplefarmsor largersites,and thusmainlyin the southwhere some sites were east, perhaps largerhouseholdswitha wider range of productive activities thanelsewhere. COMPARATIVE SURVEY DATA FOR THE HELLENISTIC

PERIOD

The data fromthe surveypointto widespreadsitefoundationacrossthe surveyarea in the hellenisticperiod,particularly the earlyhellenisticperiod.It may have focusedfirston the but it was notlimitedto thatsector. north,whereoverallsitenumbersincreasemoststeeply, The 'suburb'of Geladariand smallersitesin thewestand south-eastof thesurveyarea may have arisenmostlyin thesecondand firstcenturies.There maybe a second-or first-century downturn,again perhapscentredon the north.These patternscan now be set againstthe widerbackgroundofGreeksurveydata. It maybe notedinitially thattheevidencegatheredforthe catalogueof sitesin therestof Laconia (Chapter 23) suggeststhat the region experienceda slightdecline betweenthe

Hellenistic and Roman periods 313

classicaland the hellenisticperiod (see also ILLS 23.5-6). We must,however,bear in mind and the of the hellenisticperiod used by different the varietyof definitions investigators, in 'classical' to be subsumed within hellenistic material for reportsof nontendency systematic explorations. oftheSurveyare paralleled,to a greateror lesserextent,byboth The moreprecisefindings intensive and non-intensive (or 'extensive')surveysin otherregionsof Greece.These tendto in the fourthor thirdcenturywitha recessionnotlong showan increasein ruralsettlement are offered.72 after, thoughdiverseexplanations In some areas of the Péloponnèse,recessioncomes early,as it appears to do in Laconia. fieldwork ofKleonai,wherenon-intensive This maybe thecase in Korinthiaand theterritory In southernArkadia, maximumduringthearchaicand classicalperiods.73 impliesa settlement non-intensive surveysuggestsa peak in the fourthcentury,when the Arkadiansbecome and a slowdeclinesoon after300.74In thesouthernArgolid,some in Greekaffairs, prominent are replacedby smallruralsitesduringc.350-^250; thenew sitesuse settlements village-type not seen in our data untilRoman times.The surveyors a development morestoragepottery, aimed at maximizingthe exportationof olive attribute the changesto a rise in investment such as the increasingintegrationof local factors in to external products,partly response economieswitha widerworld.75 Many of the new sites,however,are abandonedby the late thirdcentury(the startof 'late hellenistic',definedas c.250-^.146) along withthe cityof sitesshrinkin size;76thesedevelopments, too, Halieis,whilethe slightly largersecond-order are presumably due to changes in the relationship with outside economies. At A fifth-century different. near theArgiveplain,the pictureis again slightly Berbati-Limnes, to £.10 klêroi of farms intensification ha) is followed up controlling spaced (producingregularly around 300 BC by a wave of new settlementat the edges of the inhabitedarea, perhaps however, nearlyall sites promptedbytherevivalofMycenae.By theend ofthethirdcentury, in the surveyarea have disappeared(possiblybecause of Argive-Achaeanborderconflicts), whichprobablycontrolleda slave-basedestateworkforce. Perhaps leavinga singlesettlement betweentwopoleis(Argosand Corinth),thereis because ofthearea's locationon thefrontier On the littleimportedpottery.Classical-hellenisticsites are oftennear ancientroutes.77 Methana peninsula,the classicalperiod (480-323 BC) sees site numbersmore than double, perhapswitha slightcontractionin the fourthcentury.An increaseof 27 per cent in the hellenistic period(definedas 323-100BC)maybe connectedwiththeexistenceofa Ptolemaic navalbase on thepeninsula,butaftertheearlyhellenistic periodthereis a declinein pottery, in inland and intensification with totaloccupiedarea,and sitenumbers, discontinuity together and upland parts of the peninsula.78In western Arkadia, similarly,the surveyorsof timesand a falla peak of sitenumbersin classicaland earlyhellenistic Megalopolisidentify offfromthe thirdcentury;during the fourthand thirdcenturiestwo small poleisare sitesin the abandoned,and fromsomedate in thehellenistic perioda numberofmiddle-sized than sites are fewer Hellenistic the site distribution. ha dominate classical,and range0.25-1.00 72Twenty-fivesurveysof both types are reviewed in See Bintliff, 'Regional survey',withextensivebibliography. Alexander: also G. Shipley,The GreekWorldafter 323-30 BC (Londonand New York,2000),28-31. 73 Bintliff,'Regional survey', 4, no. 14, citing M. and Cleonaea(Athens, Sakellariouand N. Faraklas,Connthia 1971); etc. See also D. Engels,RomanCorinth (London and New York,1990),esp. 82, 157-8.

74Pikoulas.NMX 2*1-2. 75Greek Countryside, 383-4, 391,393-4,etc. 76Ibid. ^04-^; cf.Beyond 100-10. theAcropolis, 77A. Penttinen,'The Berbati-Limnes archaeological survey:the classical and hellenisticperiods',in Wells with Runnels,Berbati-Limnes, 229-83,at 229,271-2,279-81. 78D. Gill, L. Foxhall, and H. Bowden, 'Classical and andRocky hellenistic Place,62-76. Methana',in Rough

314 Chapter6

sourcesand archaeologicalevidenceconfirmthepresenceof largeélitefarmsteads.79 literary hellenistic In theNemea valleyin thenorth-eastern Péloponnèse,likewise,theclassical-early Of these and off-site a of both settlement numbers regions, activity.80 periodrepresents peak threeappearto matchtheLaconia Surveydata mostclosely. thefirst decline. OutsidethePéloponnèse,too,thereis generalevidenceofmiddleor late hellenistic In Attica,the peak of settlement numbersmay be late classical,whilethe ruraldemesmay On Melos, the classical-hellenistic startto declinein importancefromthe thirdcentury.81 witha further of at some sites combined transition is characterized development bycontinuity the nucleatingtrendseen in the classical period; these changes are attributedto rural Euboia, too, sees a depopulationand the continueddevelopmentof the townas a centre.82 an with urban into classicalpeak ofsettlement numbers, highpointextending earlyhellenistic data to times.83 EasternPhokisand OpountianLokris,similarly, appear fromnon-intensive In Boiotia,wherethefourth times.84 enjoya settlement peak in classicaland earlyhellenistic an approximatemaximum,mosthellenistic sherdsbelongto thefirsthalf centuryrepresents ofthehellenistic period,and therewas widespreadabandonmentofsites,includingtwopoleis, in thethirdor secondcentury. In thenorthern The recessionlastsintoearlyRoman times.85 partof the islandof Keos, wherethe classicalperiodis dominantin termsof siteand sherd numbers,60 per cent of sitesin the northof the islandare abandonedby 200 BC, and the thesedevelopments seem to be borne out by surveyors posita changein land ownership;86 non-intensive surveyelsewhereon Keos.87During the second centurythe Keian polisof Koressoslosesitsautonomyand is reducedin status.88 79J. Lloyd,'Farmingthehighlands:Samniumand Arcadia in the hellenisticand earlyRoman periods',in Barkerand Lloyd(n. 70), 180-93,at !89-90;J. Roy,J. A. Lloyd,and E. J. Owens, 'Megalopolis under the Roman empire', in S. Walkerand A. Cameron (eds), The Greek Renaissance in the RomanEmpire (BICS suppl.55; London, 1989), 146-50,esp. 149;J. Roy,pers. comm.(2001);id., Ε. J. Owens, andj. A. Lloyd,'Tribeand polisin thechoraat Megalopolis:changes in settlementpattern in relation to synoecism', in 12th Classical Archaeology Congress,iv (Athens, 1988), 179-82; J. A.

Lloyd,E. J. Owens,andJ. Roy,'The MegalopolisSurveyin Arcadia:problemsof strategy and tactics',in Macreadyand Thompson,FieldSurvey, 217-24,at 217. 80Alcock (n. 24), 35, 43-4; Wrightetai, 'Nemea', 616-17. See also 'The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project archaeological survey: internet edition' (1996/2000), http://classics.lsa.umich.edu/nvap.html. 81Demes: R. Parker,Athenian A History (Oxford, Religion: 1996), 115,264-5. Survey:H. Lohmann, 'Agricultureand 29-57; countrylifein classicalAttica',in Wells,Agriculture, withD. H. Conwell,CR 109 [n.s.45] (1995), Lohmann,Atene, data assembledby Lohmannare 319-20. The chronological mainlyfew in number and gathered by apparentlysolo See also L. Foxhall,'Feelingthe (albeitintensive) exploration. earthmove:cultivation techniqueson steepslopesin classical in Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes, 44-67, antiquity', esp. 60-4. 82Island by R. W. V Polity, 252-3, thoughnote criticisms Catling, CR 98 [n.s. 34] (1984), 98-103. See also A. M. Snodgrass, 'The rural landscape and its political Journalfor the Social and Economic significance', International 6-8 (1987-9), 53-70. HistoryofAntiquity,

83L. H. Sacke«, V Hankey,R. J. Howell,T. W.Jacobsen, and M. R. Popham, 'PrehistoricEuboea: contributions towardsa survey',BSA 61 (1966),33-112,esp. tableat 111-12 fallin HI sitenumbers); Bintliff, (slight 3, no. 'Regionalsurvey', 10; D. R. Kellerand M. B. Wallace,'The Canadian Karystos

project', Échos du mondeclassique/Classical Views,n.s. 5 (1986),

155-9;6 (1987),225-7;7 (1988),151-17,and otherworks.See also reports and bibliographyof the Southern Euboea Exploration Projectat http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~seep-p/.

84J. M. Fossey, The Ancient Topographyof Eastern Phokis (Amsterdam, 1986); id., The AncientTopography of Opountian

Z^tó (Amsterdam, 1990),withG. Shipley,CR 107 [n.s. 43] (1993), 134-6. In OpountianLokristhereis paritybetween Cl and HI sitenumbers(Fossey, L·kήs,112),buttheextensive surveydealtonlywithnucleatedsettlements. 85Bintliff and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139,145, Munn,quotedinAR 36 147;M. Munnand M. L. Zimmerman thetrend.See (1989-90),35-6,on Skourtaplainas confirming also S. E. Alcock,'Changeson the groundin earlyimperial Boeotia',in Bintliff (n. 15),ch. 21(pp.287-303),at 290-1. 86 Landscape 331, 334, 343-4 (withfigs17.6-7), Archaeology, 346; J. F. Cherryand J. L. Davis, 'The Ptolemaicbase at Koressoson Keos', BSA 86 (1991),9-28. 87L. G. Mendoni,'The organisation in of thecountryside Kea', in P. N. Doukellisand L. G. Mendoni (eds),Structures ruraleset sociétésantiques:actes du colloquede Corfou(14-16 mai

igg2) (Centrede Recherchesd'HistoireAncienne,126;Paris, !994)>147-61· 88 240, 341, cf. 345. LandscapeArchaeology,

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 315 thelate classicalor hellenistic In somepartsofthePéloponnèse,however, upturnmaylast in thefourth the Asea from settlement In eastern Arkadia, valleypeaks approximately longer. considered that the data In earlier western the to the secondcentury.89 Messenia, surveyors to be did not permit the classical and hellenisticperiods distinguished,though the numbersas increasein settlement combinationof both periodssaw a more than threefold Recent survey comparedwiththe archaic,and a generalshifttowardscoastal districts.90 so strikingly revealsa risein thedispersedsmallfarmsteads aroundPylos,however, lackingin numbersfromthe earlyfourthto the first a sharp increasein settlement earlierperiods,91 century,and the emergenceof a prosperousélite.92The changes can be linked to the ofthepolisofMessene. liberationofMesseniafromSpartanruleafter371and thefoundation in the thirdand earliersecond of city-states In Achaea, centreof a powerfulleague (koinon) fielddata suggestthatat thistime centuries,a combinationof intensiveand non-intensive ofthelandscapesincethelate BronzeAge, recolonization theretookplace thefirstsignificant numbersmorethantreblingin the (sc. earlyor middle)hellenistic withruraland settlement as large farmsteadsor villas,the numberof high-quality are identified several sites period; A dropin ruralsites,however, has no parallelon our survey.93 builtstructures accompaniedby theRomantakeover timesfollowing thedeclineofthepolisofDymê,is datedto latehellenistic of 146. Here a specialfactor,thatof Roman civilwar veteransettlers, applies;but whilethe in thelate Republic,thearea to itseast declines,thequalityofsitesis Patrasregionflourishes mediocre,and urbandeclineis accompaniedbya dearthofvillas.94 untilthelate hellenistic a downturn period OutlyingpartsofGreecemaynothave suffered non-intensive a as or evenlater.In Aitolia,whichenjoyeda third-century koinon, ascendancy surveyimpliesa threefoldincreasein sitesbetweenthe 'classical-hellenistic'transitional proper,the falloccurringin the Roman period.95In neighbouring periodand the hellenistic and non-intensive ofintensive a from combination data,it appearsthatsettlement Akarnania, took offin late classical and hellenistictimes; in the Stratos survey,at least, there are indicationsof a steep fall in site numbersin the Roman period.96In Crete, a numberof into a longerpeak of occupationlastingfromhellenistic identify (somenon-intensive) surveys 89Forsénetal., 'Aseavalley',73-97,at 91. van Wijngaarden, Aetolia and the Aetolians: Towards the 90W. A. McDonald and R. Hope Simpson, ArchaeoStudyof a GreekRegion(Utrecht, 1987), 30, and Interdisciplinary listof sitesat 68-72; and fromBommeljéand Doom (eds), logicalexploration',in MME 117-47,at *45 (thoughthe Cl and HI data are,in fact,separatedin map 8-17). Strouza Region Project: An Historical-topographicalFieldwork 91A. B. Harrisonand N. Spencer,'Afterthe palace: the (ig8i-ig84). 1984: ThirdInterimReport(Utrecht, 1985), table 1 ofMessenia',in SandyPylos,147-62,at 160. (opp. p. 40). See also P. Funke,'Zur Datierungbefestigter early"history" 92Davis etαϊ,Tylos 1 , 455-7; 0. Alcock and Ò. hleath, Stadtanlagen in Aitolien: historisch-philologische 'HellenisticMessenia',at http://classics.lsa.umich.edu/prap/ Anmerkungen zu einem Wechselverhältnis zwischen und politischerOrganisation',Boreas,10 also 'The PylosRegionalArchaeological html/messenia.html; Siedlungsstruktur (1987),87-96. Project: internetedition', http://classics.lsa.umich.edu/96Bintliff, prap.html. 'Regional survey',3, no. 6, citingE. Kirsten, 93A. D. Rizakis,R. Dalongeville,and M. Lakakis,Paysages 'Aitolien und Akarnanien in der älteren griechischen d'Achaïe, i: Le Bassin du Peiros et la plaine occidentale

(Μελετήματα,15; 1992),68-g; M. Petropoulosand A. D. Rizakis,'Settlementpatternsand landscape in the coastal area of Patras:preliminary report',JRA 7 (1994), 183-207, esp. 190-2 (tables 1-2), 198; M. Petropoulos,"Αγροικίες Πατραϊκής',in Doukellisand Mendoni(n. 87),405-24. 94Rizakisetal. (n. 93), 70-1; Petropoulosand Rizakis (n. 93). 198. 95Data frompreliminary reportsin L. b. hommelje,r. K. Doom, M. Deylius,J.Vroom,Y. Bommeljé,R. Fagel,and H.

Geschichte', Mue Jahrbücher für Antikeund deutscheBildung,3 (1940), 278-319 (non vidi), and id., Die griechischePolis als Problemdes Mittelmeerraumes (Colloquium histonsch-geographische

Geographicum, 5; Bonn, 1956; nonvidi).For the Stratos survey,see Bintliffloc. cit. and data at http://www.univolumeby P. The otherwiseimportant muenster.de/Hellas/. eine Berktold,J. Schmid, and C. Wacker (eds), Akarnanien: (Würzburg, 1996), gives no Landschaftim antikenGriechenland

overviewofCl-Hl settlements.

3i6 Chapter6 fromclassical earlyRomantimes(exceptfortheLasithiplain,whichremainsunder-populated in Samos and Chios evensuggestsa broad Non-intensive fieldwork to MiddleRomantimes).97 increasein settlements fromarchaicto Roman.98In Thessaly,Leukas,and Kephallenianonintensivedata point to a late classical-earlyhellenisticclimax followedby middleor late hellenisticdecline,whilein northernGreeklands (Dalmatia,Albania, Epeiros,Macedonia) intensive and non-intensive at a later surveyresultssuggesta firstmajorphase ofurbanization in datethanelsewhere, late or Roman times.99 classical,hellenistic, typically Thereis notonlyan overalltrendtowardsincreasing settlement numbersin lateclassicalor also a in in hellenistic but decline site numbers most times, early regionsat somedate in the threeor fourcenturiesafter300 BC. The significance of thisdeclineis open to discussion. Fewer sites do not necessarilymean fewerpeople, though they may indicate a more of land ownership.A fallin ruralsitesmay go hand in hand with inequitabledistribution in towns.Equally clearly,the phenomenavarywith increasingpopulationand prosperity locality; it may be that a global process was manifesteddifferently according to local circumstances. It wouldbe unwise,therefore, to seekto explaintheearlyhellenistic upturnin theLaconia Surveydata purelyin termsoflocal factors, althoughtheprecedinglate classical is a unique featureand onlypartly decline,beginningin the secondhalfof thefifth century, paralleledin Methana. The Laconia Surveyarea, then,has a laterand perhapsshorterupturnwhichfollowsan unusualcollapse of site numbersin the late classicalperiod.Areas of Greece remotefrom Sparta (suchas the farnorthand the easternAegean) tend to be thosethatdevelopdense ruralsettlement laterin thehellenistic periodor evenin theRomanperiod.Regionscloserto Spartatendto havea lateclassicalpeak ofnumbersand a fallin settlement activity duringthe hellenistic. It is clear thatpartof the explanationof the Laconia Surveymustbe soughtat a thewidertrend 'global' level,whilelocal factorsalso playtheirpart.PossiblyLaconia reflects lessstrongly becauseoflocal peculiarities. HELLENISTIC

SPARTA AND LACONIA1«0

Mostinhabitants oftheclassicalSpartanstatebelongedto one ofthreemaingroups.First,the Spartiates(Spartans),citizensof the city-state (polis)of Sparta,also called Lakedaimon.With theirtwo kings,council of elders,and fiveephorstheygovernedthe whole of the region, 'dwellersroundabout' takingall decisionsaboutpeace and war.Second,thepenoikoi (literally or 'circumhabitants'), freecitizensofthedependent,mostlysmallcity-states in therest ipoleis) of Laconia and, until338/7,in Messenia.Both Spartansand penoikoi wereLakedaimonians; thepenoikoi bothin theirownpolisand in thepolisofthe enjoyeda kindofdoublecitizenship, in but not the of the Lakedaimonians, Third,the helots,unfreeMessenians polis Spartans.101 97 Bintliff,'Regional survey', 8, no. 24, with many references. 98G. Shipley, A History ofSamos800-188BC(Oxford,1987), ch. 14 (pp. 231-47)and catalogue(pp. 249-68); E. Yalouris, 'The archaeology and early historyof Chios: fromthe Neolithic period to the end of the sixth century BC' D.Phil,thesis:Oxford,1076),esp. gazetteer(ch. (unpublished 4, pp. 162-304). 99Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey',3, nos 1-5, 8; 8, no. 25, with manyreferences. 100On HI Sparta, see e.g. P. Oliva, Spartaand herSocial Problems (Amsterdamand Prague, 1971);E. David, Sparta

betweenEmpire and Revolution(404-243 BC): InternalProblems and theirImpacton Contemporary GreekConsciousness (New York,

1981); not whollysupersededby Cartledgeand Spawforth. Also usefulon somepoints:L. J. Piper,SpartanTwilight (New Rochelle, NY, 1986). On the archaeology, see now Kourinou,Σπάρτη. 101 Shipley,'Perioikos';id., 'Territory';N. Mertens,'Die PeriökenSpartas' (unpublishedMA diss.; Berlin,1999); N. Kennell,'Fromperioikoito poleis:theLaconian citiesin the late hellenistic period',in S. Hodkinsonand A. Powell(eds), NewPerspectives Sparta: (London,1999),189-210.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 317

land for and inhabitants ofLaconia, subjectto the Spartansand obligedto workagricultural them.They also performedmany othertasks,servingforexample as mothônes, plausibly All threegroupscontributed to thearmy. to youngcitizens.102 as personalattendants identified A numberof interstitialgroups also existed,includingformercitizens (perhaps called demotedfromSpartiatestatuson groundssuch as inabilityto pay the 'inferiors') hypomeiones, messduesrequiredofcitizensoldiers,and mothakes, probablysonsofpoor Spartiateswhowere In being helped to completethe Spartan militarytraining{agôgê)by wealthiercitizens.103 to explainthe social contextof changesin the archaeologicalrecord,we need to attempting considerall thesegroupsofmenas wellas theirfamilies. dominatedby Sparta, embracedthe whole of the Until 369 BC Lakonike,the territory of Lakonia and thosepartsof southernPéloponnèse.It comprised,first,the modernnomós modernArkadiawhichmakeup ancientLakedaimon(whenused as a regionalname),an area knownin Englishscholarshipas Laconia or Lakonia (not,in fact,an ancient conventionally Greekname);104 second,the whole of ancientMessenia, the land westof Mt Taygetos.In Lakonikeincludedbothoftheseareas and comprisedthe termsofancientpoliticalgeography, of the dependentperioikicpoleisin Laconia and choraof Sparta properand the territories Messenia.105 The historyof Sparta and Laconia fromthe mid-fourth centuryto the earlysecond is withheavycasualties,at their contraction.106 a of territorial tale defeat, Following largely BoiotianLeuktrain 371and thesubsequentTheban invasionsofLaconia in 370/69and 369, ofthenew theSpartanslostcontrolofcentraland northern Messenia,whichbecamethechora Arkadian new taken into the Lakonike were Parts of north-western of Messene. capitalof polis in Mantineia at a second time the Thebans for After defeated 362, the by being Megalopolis. success. After with little Messenia and resist to recover PhilipII Megalopolis, Spartanssought of Macedonia defeatedthe southernGreeksat Chaironeiain 338, southernMessenia was and the remainingnorthern detachedfromLakonikealong withThyreatisin the north-east far north of not included the last Sellasia,107 Skiritis, borderlands; thoughSellasia and its remainedin existenceforanothercenturyand more.The bulk of theperioikoi, fortification togetherwiththosehelotsbased in Laconia, were stillunderSpartancontrol,but the twoand of thehelotfarmsthathad stageloss ofMesseniadeprivedSpartaof itswesternperioikoi been themainstayofitseconomy. ofAgisIII (r.338-331)to restoreSpartaninfluencein thePéloponnèsecame to The efforts was defeatedand killed by the Macedonians near Megalopolis in 331. This he naught; when therewere5,300casualtiesamongthe alliesand (perhapsmainly)perioikoi, catastrophe, to say nothingof Spartans,revealedparticularlyclearlythe implicationsof a shortageof Spartanmanpower.As afterLeuktra,the Spartanscould not affordto enforcethe normal of demotionfromcitizenshipupon thosecitizenswho had foughtin battleand punishment survived(DiodorosSiculus,xix.70. 4-5). Spartawas enrolledin Alexander'sleagueofCorinth 102Hodkinson, 336. Property, 103 ibid. 198,355-6. ibid.436. Mothakes: Inferiors: 104See Chapter 1, n. 1. For Lakedaimon, Homers hollow Lakedaimon'(//.ii. 581),seeJ. M. Hall, 'Sparta,Lakedaimon and the natureof perioikicdependency',in CPC Papers5, 73-89; cf. G. Shipley,'Laconia', forthcomingin M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds),An Inventory ofPoleisin the

Archaicand ClassicalPeriods(Oxford).

'05For theperioikoi, see Chapter5, esp. pp. 243-7; Shipley, 'Perioikos'and '"Other Lakedaimonians'"; forMessenian in Hansen and see also id., 'Messenia',forthcoming perioikoi, Nielsen(n. 104). Iob . Shipley,'Territory 107 Ibid. 369-71,376,385; summary, 386-7.

3i8 Chapter6 and shunned external commitmentsfor half a century,standingaside fromthe antiMacedonianwar of322-321.Militaryweaknessis further in at leastfiveinvasionsof reflected Lakonikeduringthethirdcentury:in 272by PyrrhosofEpeiros,in supportoftheregentand would-bekingKleonymos;in the late 240s by the Aitolians,in the wake of unsuccessful attemptsat social reformby Agis IV (r. £.244-241); in 222/1 by the Achaeans and was defeatedwithheavylosses;108 in 219 by Macedonians,whenKleomenesIII (r.£.235-221) who the Menelaion109 and the in 200 and Helos and PhilipV, captured ravaged Sparta plains; the Achaean who invaded Laconia as far as Sellasia. The Spartans by generalPhilopoimen, also incurredlosses of manpowerin the 260s when,duringthe Chremonideanwar of the southernGreeksagainstMacedonia,theysuffered casualtiesnearCorinthand at Megalopolis. Afterthe battleof Sellasia the easternseaboard and severalnearbyinland townswere detachedfromSparta.110 In 219 kingLykourgosrecapturedsome perioikictownsin eastern mostimportantly Nabis (r.c.207-192), Laconia; theymayhavebeen retainedbyhissuccessors, but theyand mostof Sparta'sremaining perioikoi (mainlyin the south)weredetachedby the Roman commanderFlamininusfollowing his invasionin 195. It was probablynow thatthe koinon of theLakedaimonians('Lakedaimonianleague') was founded,embracingmanyofthe former In 192 Nabis was perioikoi.111 (Perioikicstatusis not reliablyattestedafterthistime.)112 defeatedbytheAchaeangeneralPhilopoimen, who had earlierravagedSpartanterritory. The enrolledin theAchaeanleague,and in 188itsconstitution citywas capturedand compulsorily was abolished (Livy,xxxviii.34). Followingclashes withthe Achaeans, includingDiaios's Laconia in 148/7,and following the defeatof theAchaeansby Rome campaignsin northern in 146,Spartaremainedfree;butin 146a Roman commission confirmed earlierconfiscations and awardedDentheliatis(a borderarea astridethe Langada pass throughTaygetos)to the a disputethatpersisteduntilat leastthesecondcentury AD."3 Messenians,sparking had Forced,perhaps,bytheloss ofitsinternalempire,thecitysincethelate fourthcentury been increasinglyin touch with and influencedby the outside world. King Areus I (r. ofhellenistic and mintedthecity'sfirst 309-C.262)adoptedsomeofthetrappings coins, royalty whichbear his name."4Rightlyor wrongly, Areus and his son and successor,Akrotatos(r. historianPhylarchos forthe introduction of 265-C.262),are blamedby the late third-century luxuriouscustomsthataccompanied,or followed,thedemiseoftheagôgê.115 As an exampleof 'modernization' we mayperhapscitetheparticipation ofa Spartancomicactorin thegames at Delphi around 270.Il6It seems likelythatinvolvement withthe outsideworldwas not limitedto culturalformsbut extendedto economicaspects.Anothersignthatthe Spartans werebeingforcedto compromisetheirideals was the construction, in 317,of theirfirstcity 108piut Kleom.28 (49). 8, says all but 200 out of 6,000 Lakedaimonians died. This is surely an exaggeration (Cartledgeand Spawforth57), but it may indicategrievous losses. 109The site is named in ancient literatureonly in this connection:Polyb.v. 18.4, 18. 10,21. 1,22. 3, 22. 9. 110 Forthefirsttime:Shipley,'Territory', 379,383. 111 Kennell(n. 101). 112 Shipley,'Territory', 300 and n. 187. 113Changes in the ownershipof Dentheliatisare brought togetherby Shipley,'Territory', 386. On Dentheliatissee G. A. Pikoulas, "Η Δενθελιάτιςκαι το οδικό της δίκτυο: σχόλια στην IG Vj5 Ι431'?3rdMessenianCongress, 279-88 286). (Englishsummary,

114On Areus's self-presentation,see Cartledge and Spawforth, 35. 115 tun 81, in 44 = Athenaeus,ιν.141i-142 c. rhylarchos, On the date at whichthe Spartiatetrainingceased to be enforced,see Ν. Μ. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue:

Educationand Culturein AncientSparta (Chapel Hill, NC, and

London, 1995),12-13 (c.255BC at the verylatest,probably earlier). 116SGDI 2565; A. S. Bradford, A Prosopography of

Lacedaemonians fromtheDeath ofAlexandertheGreat,323 BC, to the

SackofSpartabyAlane,ADjg6 (Vestigia,27; Munich, 1977), 312,s.v.Nikon(1)son ofEumathidas.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 319 in the face of a threatenedinvasionby Cassander,regentof Macedonia (Justin, fortification xiv.5. 6-7). No archaeologicaltraceshave been found,so it was probablya ofTrogus, Epitome affair."7 By 294, when DemetriosI invaded Laconia, the citywas still palisade-and-ditch and ditches defendedby palisades (Paus. i. 13. 6). An emergencyditchwas built against Pyrrhos(Plutarch,Pyrrh.27. 5).118Finally,during the thirdcenturythe length of the was increasedto 48 stades(Polyb.ix. 26a. 2), enclosingan area of c.209 ha."9 fortifications Recent analysispoints to Kleomenes III (ratherthan Nabis) as the author of the first permanentwalls. They were breachedor demolishedon the ordersof the Achaeans after 12° Philopoimencapturedthecityforthesecondtimein 188. and a cause ofchange.To some These signsofmodernization mayhavebeen bothan effect we see in and aroundthecityofSpartaare simplywhatwe see in other degreetheinnovations patternsand urbanlayoutsmay have takena poleisat thistime.Global trendsin settlement no longerable to shielditselffromchange,but in which particularlocal formin a city-state The growth to preservetheirpositionat theexpenseoftheirfellow-citizens. theélitestruggled wall enclosingfourof the five of the city'spopulation,and the buildingof a fortification constituent villagesofthepolis,resultedin thegradualfillingin ofthevacantspacesbetween These developments thevillages.121 surelyhad an impacton our surveyarea. The dual kingshiphad been abolishedafterSellasia,thoughfromtimeto timeindividual membersof the élitestillbecame kingor sole ruler.Under the flamboyant Nabis, who,like Areus I, modelled himselfon otherhellenistickings,the Spartans recognizedstillmore stronglythe need to involvethemselvesin a wider world,and we see signsof economic modernizationand directengagementin east Mediterraneantrade. In the earlysecond theSpartansclaimedthattheyneededaccessto thesea fordiplomacyand trade(Livy, century xxxviii. 30. 7, referringto 189 BC). From this time on, urban building and overseas commitments productionin Laconia: the archaeologicalrecordtestifies mayhave stimulated and potteryincludingmouldmadebowls. of tiles,water-pipes, to the increasedmanufacture An attemptat land divisionin 181or 180,underthepoliticalleadershipofone Chairon,may reflectprosperityratherthan economic crisis.Althoughthe reformwas cut short,the of the Achaeansprovokedsolidarity intervention among the politicalclass of Sparta,and a The followed. internal conflict free from Spartansrenovatedtheirwalls,perhapsin or period and mayhaveenjoyedpeace and economicgrowthfora generation. soonafter179,122 tied intowiderRoman patronagenetworksand the After146,the élitewas increasingly A new of urbanization cemeterywas broughtintooperationin the second pickedup. pace in in the last centuriesBC included the firststone the town and century,123 projects This processwas and probablya stoacomplex.124 a bathstructure, at thetheatre, construction external events which impingedupon the cityand its periodicallyby probablyinterrupted ofPontos in of the first is full of The lacunae,butMithradates century territory. history Sparta 125 and its in From time to time the Lakonike 88. invaded have city formerly perioikic may 117 Kourinou,Σπάρτη,59. "8 Latercalled PyrrhouCharax,Polyb.v. 19.4. Iiy(Jartledere and òpawtorth, 133. 120Ibid. 71,78. Fora completereappraisalofthewalls,see Kourinou,Σπάρτη,^-66. 121 Kourinou,Σπάρτη,243-6,285-6. 122On these pointssee Cartledgeand Spawforth,70-2, 83-4.

123S. Raftopoulou,'New findsfromSparta',in Cavanagh and Walker, 125-40, at 134, 136. For HI tombs, see D.

Leekley and R. Noyes, ArchaeologicalExcavationsin Southern

Greece (ParkRidge,NJ,1976),114;AR 24 (1977-8),30; AR 35 (1988-9),36. 124 134. Cartledgeand Spawforth, ^ Ibid. 94-5.

320 Chapter6

wereexpectedto helpmeetthecostsofRomanwarsin Greece,includingepisodes neighbours and manpowerlevieswhichmayhave reversedsome of of civilwar,withcash contributions In BC thesecond-century the 40s the SpartanssupportedPompey;afterCaesar's death gains. backed and Octavian AntonyagainstBrutus,losingtwothousandhoplitesat Philippibut they a Dentheliatis as reward;finallytheysided withOctavian againstAntony.From receiving some or all of theseeventstheremayhave been knock-oneffects forbothpoorerand richer landowners.In Laconia, the Lakedaimonianleague provideda focusforformerperioikoi to buildethnicsolidarity whilemaintaining relations with generally good Sparta.126 Whateverthe precise organization of landholding in Messenia before its two-stage as opposed to privatelandholdings liberation,and whateverthe truthabout state-controlled it seemscertainthatone consequenceof Sparta'sterritorial losseswas that amongSpartiates, a fallin theirstandardof living.Withoutremedialactionthis manycitizenfamiliessuffered would have entailedthe demotionof large numbersof Spartiatesto inferiorstatus.Such a in the processcan onlyhaveexacerbatedtheoliganthrôpia, 'shortageofpeople',whichAristotle latefourth identifies as a featureofSpartansociety(Politics, 1270a 29-34).The lackof century citizenswas stillmore acute in the earlyhellenisticperiod. In his biographyof Agis IV, Plutarchstatesthatby the timeof the king'saccession'thereremainedno morethanseven hundredSpartiatai,and of thesethe ones possessingland (gê)and plot (klêros) wereperhaps one hundred'(καιτούτωνϊσωςεκατόνήσαν οι γήνκεκτημένοικαικλήρον,Agis,5· 6). Recentscholarship, made byAristotle buildingupon otherobservations (Pol.1270a 23-9, cf. of 1269b 23-6),has explainedthedeclinein Spartiatenumbersas theresultofa combination are the distinctiveSpartan rulespermitting female factors,of whichthe most interesting inheritance.These opened the way forthe unificationand enlargementof landholdings Land and wealth were increasinglyamassed by a limited throughmarriagealliances.127 numberoffamilies(Pol.1270a 18),at theverytimewhentheremovalfromSpartancontrolof and helotsthroughterritorial large numbersofperioikoi changesmeanta reductionin the income of manySpartiatefamiliesand in Sparta's militarystrength. The heavycasualties caused by military defeatsin thefourthand thirdcenturiesmayhave acceleratedchangesin bothin the Spartanchoraand Lakonikegenerally, and hastened societyand land ownership, the impoverishment of citizensmallholders. While the land of a man killedin battlewould be takenback intohis family's theloss of twoor moremembersofthe presumably property, make it to continue to family might impracticable managetheland. The progressive loss ofperioikicdependantswithinLaconia itselfmayalso have caused the city'seconomic needs and prioritiesto be adjusted,witha resultingimpact on Sparta's relationswithitshinterland. We do not knowwhetherSpartiates(as distinctfromthe kings: Lakedaimonion so it is Xenophon, politeia, 15. 3) normallyownedland in perioikicterritory,128 uncertainwhetherthe disappearanceof the remainingLaconian perioikoi in 222/1and 195 theireconomicposition.We can standon firmergroundifwe considerthe directlyaffected 126Kennell (n. 101). 127See esp. Hodkinson, Property, bringingtogetherhis earliertreatments. 128Hodkinson, Property, 139,believesSpartanand perioikic territoriesmay have intermingledin areas such as the Eurotasand Helos plains,citingShipley,'Perioikos',223but see also 217, 218, and 219 for speculation that both farmedland around Spartans(throughhelots?)and penoikoi

some perioikicpoleis.There is no directevidenceeitherway. (On kings' land in perioikicpoleis,see also Hodkinson, Property, 78-9.) Shipley,'Territory', prefersto suppose that each polishad a more or less distinctchora,but the picture A consideration. maybe morecomplexand requiresfurther patchworkof ownershipin Cl-Hl timesmighthelp explain theexistenceoféliteSpartans'estatesin theterritories ofthe nowindependent poleisduringtheR period.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 321 on betweenthe Spartanson the one hand, and perioikictradersand craftsmen relationship forthe supply of military the other.Presumablythe polis depended heavilyon perioikoi tooktheformofexpectedcontributions, equipmentand otheritems.Whethertherelationship after195the after222/1and certainly it that or formalrequisition, simpletrade, appearslikely in or at least restatement have will economicrelationship required changed character, To the helot labour. to state no there was once by ready-madesurplusprovided particularly thisdegree,too,theloss ofdependentperioikicpoleismayhave had an adverseimpacton the of Spartanfamilies.Did the combinationof éliteland Spartaneconomyand on thefortunes loss of both helotlabour and perioikicsupportproducea accumulationand the progressive ofSpartanshad to workharderforlessreturn? in whichthemajority situation Aristotlegivesan indirecthintthatSpartanpracticewas changingin his day,when he commentson Plato's rule thatthe guardiansof his ideal polisshouldnot be involvedin the to do' (όπερ καινυν 'whichevennowtheLakedaimoniansare attempting labouroffarming, That thepoliswas attempting Pol ii. 5. 1264a 10-11).129 ποιείνέπιχειροΰσιν, Λακεδαιμόνιοι to enforcesuch a prohibitionimplieseitherthatsome Spartiateswere engaged in actual manuallabour,or at leastthatsomeweremoredirectly occupiedin themanagementoftheir farmsthan before(perhapsin the mannerof the aristocraticAthenianlandownerwhom in his Oikonomikos), or both;and thatit provokeda portrays Xenophon,in thefourthcentury, as recent reactionamongtraditionalists. scholarshiphas emphasized, Upper-classSpartiates, Aristotle'sstatement,however,suggeststhatthe had alwaysgatheredwealthfromland.130 or that in amassingwealthfromagriculture, werenowevenmorekeenlyinterested aristocracy to becomemoreclosely familiesfroma widersocial spreadwerecompelledby circumstances or both.This changein culture,whichcannotbe linkedto anyspecific engagedwithfarming, eventor reform maywellbe connectedwithwidersocialchangesin Sparta(and programme, now turn. we to which may elsewhere), beforethe midThe sourcesrecordno attemptto deal withthe problemof oliganthropy is notknownto havetakenstepsto reversethe AreusI, thougha modernizer,131 thirdcentury. motivatedby a was finally effects ofsocialexclusion.Whenreform put in hand,itwas chiefly there is no direct desireto recreateSparta'smilitary evidence,the eventsof power.Although the 240s suggestthatthe privilegedSpartanélitehad not ceased wideningthe gap between about thesevenhundredSpartans(above) itselfand ordinarySpartiates.Plutarch'sstatement six hundred about there were that manymoreinferiors, poor citizens,and presumably implies On one plausible or regainingcitizenstatuswas a major concern.132 forwhommaintaining to therich.133 viewthesesixhundredweremortgaged AgisIV triedto reversethetrend.By cancellingdebtshe was probablytryingto solvethe He definedan area ofcivicland thatwas takenouton poormen'sklêroi. problemofmortgages to be pooled,dividedinto4,500plots,and givenout to Spartans,whosenumberswereto be and xenoi('foreigners', fromable-bodiedperioikoi reinforced probablymeaningmercenaries; 129 Arist.is sayingtheLakedaimonians It is unclearwhether it. or (re)introduce to upholdan existing are trying prohibition ofSinclair('whichis exactlythe translations Cf.thealternative to introduce') rulewhichtheLacedaemoniansare now trying and Barker('and even thatis a rulewhichthe Spartansare The to follow').T. A. Sinclair(trans.),Aristotle: alreadytrying Politics (rev.T. J. Saunders;PenguinClassics;London, 1981), ThePolitics (rev.R. F. Stalley; 117;E. Barker(trans.),Aristotle: World's Classics; Oxford and New York, 1995), 49. The

15. passageis barelytouchedon byCartledgeand Spawforth, éliteinvolvement cf.SEG xl. 348 (inscription 15 r) for3rd-cent. in irrigation, possiblynearAphysou. 130See generallyHodkinson,Property. 131 Shipley(n. 72),142,266. l^ 1 leave aside questions 01 tne reiationsnipoetween privateand (supposed)stateplots of land. See Hodkinson, 'Land tenure',esp. 394. 133So Cartledgeand Spawforth, 42.

322 Chapter 6

was quicklynullified Plut.Agis,8. 1-3).The reformprogramme, however, byprivateinterests, and he was putto death. civicland into4,000 lots:2,500forcitizens, A fewyearslater,KleomenesIII redistributed and xenoi.Under the exigenciesof his largely 80 forexiles,the restfordeservingperioikoi successfulmilitarycampaigns,he liberateda numberof helotsin returnfora paymentsof stillexistedin 500 drachmas(Plut.Kleom.23 (44). 1),whichincidentally provesthatheilôteia Lakonikeeast of Taygetos.His programmewas cut shortby the defeatat Sellasia, but his decade in powermay have allowed settlersto put down some roots,and it is possiblethat the victorsof Sellasia allowed the statusquo to continueratherthan cause furtherstrife withinthepolity. Laterstill,Nabisfreedthousandsof'slaves'- notan abolitionofthehelotsystem,134 buta bid to makecitizensoldiersoutofthosehelotsworking theestatesofrecently exiledaristocrats. He also gave some of thisland to poor Spartans.Whetherin the shorteror the longerterm, however,it is likelythat redistributionsof Spartan territorywere either abolished or in theEurotasvalley. and beforelongtheéliteagaindominatedruralproduction neutralized, viii.4. 11.363) Strabo,in thelatefirst BG,saysLakonikeis shortofmen(λιπανδρεΓ, century to the area outsidethe comparedwitholden days.He seems,however,seemsto be referring He where,he says,thereare now onlythirty Spartancore territory townships(πολίχναι).135 timeswhenthereweresupposedlyone mayalso be comparingthepresentstatewithmythical hundredpoleisin Laconia. His statement, cannotbe takenas preciseevidencefor therefore, had been abolished,he presumably is populationdecline.Since the old Spartanconstitution notreferring to demotionto inferior status.Givendevelopments elsewherein Greece,and in view of the ruinedtownswhich Pausanias, two centurieslater,claims to have seen, it is possiblethatthe abandonmentof some second-orderand smallersettlements began well beforeStrabo'stime.The probableslowdownin new settlement in the surveyarea afterthe thirdcentury, and thepossiblefallin sitenumbersin thecourseofhellenistic period,maybe connectedwithsuch a process.There may have been a movementof populationinto the growingcityof Sparta and its suburbssuch as Geladari; and we should not forgetthe consequencesofRoman rulehighlighted by Alcockand others,suchas the riseoflargeélite devoted to market landholdings productionand large-scalepastoralism.136 ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

IN THE SURVEY AREA IN THE HELLENISTIC

PERIOD

in ofthehellenistic data includetheearlyemergenceofsmallfarms,particularly Key features the north;the driftof settlement and activitytowardsthe south-east;the possibledeclinein in the size and characterof sitesin different overallactivity; the differences sectors;and the riseofGeladari. It wouldbe tempting to linktheemergenceofnewsitesin all partsofthesurveyarea to the reformsof KleomenesIII, but the changein settlement patternattestedby the surveydata in as the third or even the late fourthcentury, have as early particularly may happened early or on thebasisofthird-century thenorth.Mostsitesdated'earlyhellenistic' pottery frequency but thebalance of ofblack-glazedsherdscould,in strictlogic,postdateKleomenes'reforms, is it. Nor should we written evidence for privilege particulareventsover probability against 134Ibid. 69-70. Strabo(viii.5. 4. 365) makesthesystemof heilôteiaendure until the Roman domination, but it is uncertainwhetherhe meansthedefeatofNabis in 192,that oftheAchaeansin 146,or somelaterevent.

'35Cartledgeand Spawforth, 141-2;Cartledge,SL 322. J3b Alcock(n. 24),58-63, 87-8.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 323 archaeologicaldata thatmayilluminatea periodwithoutdetailedsources.The wave of new social processes,includingthe interplayof status settlement probablyreflectedlonger-term which was so common a feature of classical poleisin general and Sparta in and wealth of sitesbetweensize categories particular.Anotherstudyhas shownthatthe distribution suggeststhatin the archaic to Roman periods,as distinctfromthe medieval,some nonthe settlement sitesbeing economicfactoror factorswere influencing pattern,lower-order The authorsofthatstudyinvokethecentralauthority ofthepolisand smallerthanexpected.137 ofeconomiccompetition betweensettlements thedistortion landedoligarchy. bya self-serving - particularly One couldadd theroleοιpolisideology strongin Sparta- and thewayin which ofstatus. economicprocessesweremodifiedbyconsiderations involvement ofSpartansin farming The increasing was noted duringthelatefourth century above. The progressiveloss of agriculturalsurplusesfromMessenia, and of any director indirect economicbenefits fromlinkswiththenorthern the flowing perioikoi, mayhaveaffected choraof Sparta indirectly. The long-termprogressof oliganthropia, the damage inflictedby and theeffects ofcasualtiesin battlemayall havecreatedopportunities for periodicinvasions, - theloss ofpenoikoi, somecitizensto takecontrolofpoorermen'sland. Some ofthechanges - continuedin thethirdand earlysecondcenturies. setbacks military Spartawas notimmunefrombroaderchangesin theGreekworld.In manypartsofGreece therewillhavebeen periodicmanpowershortagesas a resultof,forexample,earlyhellenistic and thewarsoftheSuccessors,theconflicts betweenthesouthernGreeksand the emigration the wars of Rome againstthe hellenistic Macedonians,and eventually kingdoms.Inter-state was conducted at élite level. for often cultivated aristocrats to politics Kings, example, friendly their interests inside cities. The and to the promote military political pressureapplied independent Peloponnesiancity-states by Macedoniankingsfromtheirbase at Corinthmay have been one factorthatstimulatedpoliticalélitesto push forwardwiththe creationor ofcity-states, suchas thosementionedabove.League structures, as expansionofleagues(koina) wellas defending thememberstates,enabledélitesin different citiesto helpeach otherstayin power.One componentof the fierceoppositionto Sparta displayedby the Achaean league in theleague'smemberstateswerefearful was thataristocrats oflosingtheirsocialposition.138 The hellenistic a was time when members of period cityélites,whileoftenworkingwithin democratic constitutions,tightenedtheir grip on political power and accumulated considerablewealth.Local Greekeconomieswere increasingly withone another integrated and withthoseof the easternMediterraneanand beyond,139 new for providing opportunities thosewho had meansand status.The Spartanelite'sinterestin estatefarmingand pastoral productionmay have been linkedto Sparta's integrationinto wider economies,and may thereforehave been slowerto develop than elsewhere,thoughit had probablybegun to appearevenbefore371(Chapter5). Since settlement patternsacrossmuchof Greece developedin similarways,it is naturalto in explainchanges one regionat least partlyin the lightof widertrends.The generallate 137R. R. Laxton and W. G. Cavanagh, 'The rank-size dimensionand thehistory ofsitestructure fromsurveydata', Journalof Quantitative Anthropology, 5 (1995), 327-58, esp. 341-^2.

138On the demographyof Greece, see Shipley (n. 72), 28-31, 54-7; on HI élites, ibid. 131-3, 191, etc.; on the Achaeanleagueand Sparta,ibid. 136-8,145.

139 J. K. Davies, 'Cultural,social and economicfeaturesof thehellenistic world',CAH2vii. 1,ch. 8 (pp. 257-320);papers by various hands in Z. H. Archibald, J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen, and G. J. Oliver (eds), HellenisticEconomies (Londonand New York,2001).

324 Chapter6

numbersin southernGreecemeansthatmoremarginalland was classicalpeak ofsettlement reflectthesupremacyoffreesmallholders. settledthaneverbefore,butit maynotnecessarily The élitemayhave been accumulatingbiggerestateson betterland, leavingthe secondary Yet theLaconia Surveydata land to be settledmoredenselythanbeforeby thelesswell-off. which is to fallingcitizennumbers a attributed late fifthand show downturn, fourth-century of the and the impoverishment populace (see Chapter5). Perhaps,then,the processof élite in Spartahad notyetgonefarenoughto impacton marginalland likemuch estateformation when Laconia sharedin the earlyhellenisticupturnin site of the surveyarea. Conversely, numbersseen acrossmuchof Greece,it may have been because the new economicgoals of Under AreusI, forexample,Sparta and Laconia may the élitehad takenrootmorefirmly. have become more stronglyconnectedwithMediterraneaneconomic networks,though judgingfromPlutarch'sreport, perhapsnotto thesame degreeas otherregions.Furthermore, position. privileged third-century Spartawas a citywheretheélitehad a peculiarly The firstis of the new settlers. Two further considerations may help establishthe identity thatat theoutsetofthehellenistic periodall ofour surveyarea, apartfromthenorthernmost cornernear the presumablyperioikicpolisof Sellasia (A118),will have belongedto the core to is probablytoo farawayforitschora ofSparta.The nextnearestpolis,Geronthrai, territory have extendedhere (see the map of centralLaconia, ILL. 5.1). Until Kleomenes' reforms, citizensof Sellasia and Geronthraican hardlyhave settledin the Spartanchoraand retained werenotpenoikoi. oftheirpolis.The new settlers, Second,it is unlikely therefore, membership thatanyone,evena Spartan,wouldbe allowedto farmland so closeto Sparta- land thathad been farmedby citizensor would-becitizensonlya fewgenerationsearlier(Chapter5)unlessthepolisgave permission.Spontaneous,unregulated pioneeringis hardlyin question. the loss of citizen initiativearound300 BC to rectify On the otherhand, a state-sponsored and demotionsseemsimprobable, numberscausedbyimpoverishment giventhatthesituation was allowed to reach crisispoint by the later thirdcentury.Finally,it is hard to imagine or south-eastern membersoftheurbanélitechoosingto livein thenorthern sectors,at some distance fromSparta. The ceramic assemblages in the north,in particular,indicate smallamountsoftablewareand largeamountsofstoragepottery. householdswithrelatively In thenorthand elsewhere, thepeoplewho setup newfarmsmayhavebeen descendantsof ofmarginalland,or had transferred thosewho had earlierbeen forcedto abandoncultivation theirinterest to themoreproductivelowlands,and now wishedto reopentheirfamilyfarms. or in addition,theymayhave been menwho weredemotedafterthefailureor Alternatively, loss of theirfarmsin the core territory. Wealthypatronsmayhave helpedthem perhapsin in areas wherecash crops themselves returnforrentsor a shareoftheprofits to reestablish could be produced. Eitherthese men qualifiedas citizensbut belonged to Plutarch'ssix hundredpoorerlandowners,or theyremainedin a conditionof dependency.The relative povertyof the northernsitessuggeststhattheyare not large 'estatecentres',but may be consistent withdependencyrelations.140 140ElsewhereI have attemptedto explore the possible of dependencyrelationsin Laconia against intensification thebackgroundof unfreeand semi-free labouringgroupsin Greecegenerally. See G. Shipley,'Rurallandscapechangein in V Gabrielsen and K. hellenisticGreece', forthcoming Kvist (eds), AncientHistoryMatters: Festschrift for Jens Erik

στή αλλαγή 2002);id.,'Κοινωνική Skydsgaard (Copenhagen,

κατάτήνελληνιστική περίοδο: ΣπάρτηκαιστήΛακωνία ερευνάς', ή συνεισφοράδεδομένωναρχαιολογικής forthcoming in 6th Peloponnesian Congress; id., 'Hidden

landscapes:Greekfieldsurveydata and hellenistichistory', in D. Ogden and A. Powell (eds), Hellenistic forthcoming (London and Swansea). History:New Perspectives

Hellenistic and Roman periods 325

In the south-east, sitesare generallylargerand moreprosperousthanthosein the north. cultivation was Arable probablythemain featureof thissector,thoughsome siteshad access to grazingon theupperslopesofKoutsovitiand Parnon.They are generallyno morewidely spaced than small sitesin the north;the land may have been more easilycleared or more here,allowingthesameparcelto supporta largerhouseholdthanin thenorth.As productive in thenorth,thesitesare relatively poor in kitchenutensilsand evenmoreso in cooking-ware. Instead,theyare well providedwithtable ware. Notionalpopulationin the sectordoes not betweenthe classical and hellenisticperiods. Site survivalfromlate change significantly classicaltimesis relatively low,and thelimitedquantitiesofblack-glazedpotterysuggestthat in thelandscapetookplace mostlylaterthanin othersectors.There may thebulkofactivity havebeen a partialbreakin occupation,withresettlement as suggestedabove for stimulated, thenorth,byélitepatronage.In a moreproductive did betterthantheir landscape,thesettlers northern counterparts. The westernsectorin the last two centuriesBC appears to see an inflowof population frominsideor outsidethesurveyarea),bothat thevillageofGeladariand in scatters (whether of relatively closelyspaced householdsacrossthe EurotasfromSparta.The city prosperous, was growingintoa centreofamenitiesand servicesforthesurrounding It began to region.141 in the thirdand especiallysecond centuries,thoughthey receivemonumentalbenefactions werespasmodicand not on the scale of later,especiallyRoman,constructions.142 The survey seemto have adoptedlittleofitssophisticated culture.143 At Geladari,whichis sites,however, welloffforcookingand storageware but shortoftableand kitchenware,thesmall relatively percentageof hellenisticblack-glazesuggeststhatthe site'sexpansionmostlypostdatesthe thirdcentury.It may have grownup as a suburbof Sparta, while not being particularly prosperous.Some of the smallfarmsin the west,like Geladari,may be laterthan mostof thosein thenorth.Each mayhavecontrolleda smallerarea ofland thansitesin thenorthor south-east,perhaps because of estate fragmentation throughinheritanceor because of for resources. The here have been primarilyarable or mixed. competition economy may These sites,likethosein thesouth-east, are relatively wellprovidedwithtableand finekitchen ware but shortof cookingand storageware.Althoughtheyappear to have been farmsand may have been producingcash crops,theyseem more prosperousthan Geladari and may havebeen ownedby residents ofthecity.As in othersectors,it is hardto see how knowledge oftitleto land wouldhavebeen entirely lost;thosewho setup newfarmsin thisarea maywell havebeen descendants or relatives ofthosewho had livedhereearlier. Afterthe late thirdor early second century,at the time of Flamininus's territorial confiscations or Sparta'sincorporation intotheAchaean league,therulesabout qualification forcitizenship have been abolished and theperioikic may alongwithotherSpartantraditions Demotion from the and hence in the sense ofa shortage system. Spartiatebody, oliganthropy of qualifiedcitizens,will have ceased to be issues.Dependencyrelationsbetweenrichand poor,however, probablycontinuedto develop,and theremayhave been increasingemphasis uponcash-cropping. 141 Cf.Cartledere and Spawforth, 142. 142Raftopoulou(n. 123), 127,notes quite rich HI layers, thoughdisturbedbyR work;theabsence,at thisperiod,ofa grid-plan(ibid.);extensivecemeteriesand richfamilytombs an LCI tradition(134);and at leastone 3rd-cent. continuing house mosaic reflecting widerGreekfashion(127).Leekley

and Noyes(n. 123),114,collectreportson EH1 and otherHI 216,no. 1,is a 3rd-cent. buildings.Cartledgeand Spawforth, Forthewalls(probablylate aqueduct,attestedepigraphically. 3rdcent,and later),see p. 310above. 143Cf. H. Visscherat LS''. no, on thelack oftransmission ofHI luxurygoodsfromSpartato thesurveyarea.

326 Chapter 6

in the middleand late hellenisticperiodsin manypartsof The downturnin settlement Greece may reflectgrowingurbanizationand the stillincreasingpower of élites,which zones.In theLaconia perhapsnowextendedintomarginallandsas wellas primeagricultural to decline first. The destruction of Sellasia and the the north seems Survey area, fromArkadiaand abandonmentofitsfortress have made the sector vulnerable to attack may unattractiveto settlers.New settlementsprobably continued to arise in other sectors theperiod,butthereare signsofdecliningactivity. throughout The factthatthedownturnin thesurveyarea is less obviousthanin someotherregionsof Greece may reflectSparta's belated development.Grants of land and citizenshipby Kleomenes and Nabis may have been allowed to remainin place by Sparta's successive in Laconia ofRome'swarsin Greecemayhavebeen feltlessseverely conquerors.The effects in a than than otherregions,and thepolismay have managed,to greaterdegree others,to when the economic protectits chorafromthe effectsof politicalchanges. Only,perhaps, disruptionof the landscape by Roman rule startedto bite in the later second and first evenvicariously as patrons,in themarginalland in the centuriesBC did theélitelose interest, north and south-eastof the surveyarea. Poorer membersof societymay have found élite in theincreasingly urbancentralplace ofSparta,or on themoreproductive employment estatesin theEurotasvalley. Summary, Comparative

Data,

and Conclusions:

Roman

the hellenistic-roman transition Severalfeaturesof the hellenisticsettlement patternremainpresentin the Roman period. size classes remainalmost The range of site sizes and the proportionof sitesin different no longerexist. Sites in the west are unchanged,except thatthe two largestsettlements largerthanbefore,thosein the northstillthe smallest,thosein the south-east veryslightly still the largest.Assemblages suggestno change in the distributionof economic roles between sites of differentsizes. Rural cult activityremains at a low ebb, with only occasionalsignsofrevival. and mayhave to fifty-one, and probablesitesfallsfromseventy-five The numberofdefinite of thewestand a feature The fall is been fallingalreadyin thelaterhellenistic entirely period. therebeingno netloss in thenorthand possiblyevena rise.In all sectorsthereis south-east, replacementof sitesabandoned duringor at the end of the hellenisticperiod. Even in the north,thereis a clear reductionin sitenumbersin the northernmost by a slight part,offset rise in the rest of the sector. Site survival in every sector is lower than at the late once again it is highestin the north,wheremostof the new classical-hellenistic transition; and those sitesare situated.Sinceonlytwositescan be calledmainlyor whollylatehellenistic, nor can be Roman no late identified; continuity onlytentatively, specifically hellenistic-early more likelythan othersto have hellenistic are siteswithearlyRoman potterysignificantly is greaterin thesouth-east, withintheRoman period,as in thehellenistic, sherds.Continuity to routesseemsto that is Another there. proximity possiblechange implying greaterstability haveplayeda smallerrolein sitelocationthanin thehellenistic period.144 144 in Cartledge The comment andSpawforth, 170,about was based on a thelocationsof R siteson the survey,

assessmentof the data and is no longer preliminary sustainable.

Hellenistic and Roman periods 327

as we did before,forthelengthoftheperiodas comparedwithitspredecessor, it Allowing, sites had much than be that lifetimes there were fewer (unless may typically longer previously) sitesin existenceat anygivenmomentthanin thehellenistic period,thoughthenumberwill have fluctuatedfromgenerationto generation.The average numberof Roman sherds depositedper yearis also muchlowerthanbefore,fallingfrom5.6 to 1.3.Barringa reduction in thefriability ofceramicfabricsand hencein sherdnumbers, forwhichthereis no evidence, in in a decline depositionratesand hence activity or prosperity seemsfirmly attested.Thereis a possibility thatsomeRoman sherds,particularly late Roman,remainunrecognized, butthis wouldnot affectthe earlyand middleRoman data, norwouldit necessarily alterthe overall totalssignificantly. Whetheror notwe includelargesiteswhoseareas are less exactlyknown,thetotalarea of - a featurethatthelengthofthe settlements fallssteeply periodand thelowerdepositionrate intorelief.Excludingthetwolargesitesabandonedbeforethelate onlythrowmorestrongly hellenistic period,thetotalstillfallsby53 per cent,from20.35to 9.63 ha. Unlessthelongevity of sitesincreasedmarkedly, thissuggestsa contractionof settlementand a fall in overall is strikingly consistent acrossthesurveyarea ifwe includethelarge population.The downturn sites(between61 and 66 per centin all sectors).Ifwe discountthetwolargesitesofthenorth, abandonedbyabouttheearlysecondcenturyBC,we see a 46 per centincreasein settledarea in thatsector;its notionalpopulation,however,is about the same as thoseof othersectors. The data pointto the abandonmentof manysitesin all threesectors,thoughfewerin the sufficient to replacelosses. north;onlyin thatsectorwerenewfoundations As fortrendsbetweenphasesoftheperiod,theceramicdata maygivemorechronological precisionthanforthehellenistic period.The numbersofsherdsdatableto a particularphase of theRoman periodare similarin earlyand middleRoman but reducedin late Roman- a prima facieindicationof decliningactivityunless,as noted earlier,late Roman sherdswere missedin thestudyofthepottery. GiventhepaucityoflateRomanmaterial,moreover, itmay be wise not to neglectaltogetherthe evidence of siteswithextremelysmall numbersof sherds.145 The figures at thestartoftheRoman period, mayalso implyan increasein activity the numbers of Roman as with late hellenistic sherds;all themore judgingby early compared so in viewof theprobabledownturnduringthe hellenistic The period.146 numbersof sherds datableto each centuryhintat greaterruralactivity, or greateravailability offinepottery, in the firstand especiallythirdcenturiesAD. Nearlyall such phase-datablefindsbelongto the first fourcenturies. Againstthebackgroundoflargenumbersofsherdssimplydated'Roman', the however, changesin depositionratesare notpronounced. and secondcenturiesAD)are mostlikely, and late Roman sites(fifth EarlyRomansites(first to seventhcenturies) leastlikely, to be single-phase to have (thatis, closelydatablesherdsfrom one of the three Fifteen such sites can be identified, only phases). mostlyin the north(nine with in one the west in and five the Two-thirds of thesesites,in sites,compared south-east). are Roman in the in one in the three the a turn, early north, west, (six south-east), suggesting of in that in As the hellenistic this highpoint colonizingactivity phase. early period, early Roman colonizationis centredon the north.The westhas the highestproportionof early 145Isolated 5th-cent.AD sherdsare found at K141 and ADsherdsat A100and C108,and twoat C168;single6th-cent. U490; single5th-or 6th-cent.AD sherdsat H45,Aioo, M321, and U490.

146This remainsthecase evenifwe regardLH1 and ER as a singlephase, since the numberof MH1 sherdswas also small.

328 Chapter 6

Roman pottery, a possibledeclineherein middleor late Roman times(albeitthe suggesting absolutefigures are somewhatsmallforstatistical There seemsto have been more reliability). siteabandonmentin thenorth,too,perhapsparticularly at or beforetheend ofearlyRoman, withonlyone sitein thenorth(Aioo)havingdefinite middleand lateRomanoccupation. The Roman periodshowsparallelswiththe hellenistic, witha possibleupturnat the start and probablya relativeshiftof settlement fromnorthto south-eastin the laterpart of the a processthatspansbothperiods. period- perhapsreflecting As in thehellenistic we taketheaveragewith period,sitesare smallestin thenorth(whether and or withoutlargesites,the median,or the interquartile range) largestin the south-east. of remain The mediansize and interquartile almostunchangedin each sectorand range sizes thusacrossthe surveyarea as a whole. Only three-fifths of Roman siteshave Roman tile, (based thoughothershaveundatedtilethatmaybe Roman.The 'typical'sitein thesouth-east on the interquartile ranges)remainsa singleor multiplefarmor a smallhamlet;in thewest soilsin and thenorthitis again a smallor singlefarm.Once more,siteson limestone-derived thesouth-east are largerand presumably morepopulous. Althoughthe site numberspoint to abandonmentin some areas, scattersthat do not to technically qualifyas sitesfillsome ofthegaps in all sectors,servingas a partialcorrective fromboth periods,the level of the slumpin site numbers.If we includenon-sitefindspots even risesto around50 per cent.In the norththismay imply hellenistic-Roman continuity the likethe dispersedpopulation(thoughnot necessarily thatthe numberof loci of activity, numberof establishedsettlements), actuallyincreased.Giventhe greatlengthof the Roman and mayevenhave risenand it is likelythatthenumberofsitesfluctuated period,moreover, fallenfromtimeto time.As forthe hellenisticperiod,no precisetrendscan be described. Regular spacing, where it occurs, suggestsa degree of systematicorganization of the It may,incidentally landscape,thoughnot necessarilyon the part of the centralauthorities. all sites and that thosesiteswere has the that the detected nearly (and helpfully), survey imply inhabitedat thesametimeas one another. of different Althoughtotalsettledarea and presumedpopulationdecline,the proportions kindsofsitesare almostexactlythesame as in thelate classicaland hellenistic periods,except in theuppersize range.Whilesitesare notlargeror smalleroverall,thereducednumberson soilsofthewestand south-east theNeogene-derived and limestone-derived mayindicatenot of landed fall in also the a but amalgamation properties.The non-site only population do not scatters,however,assumingthey normallyrepresentpermanenthabitations,may farms than the 'sites'properwouldindicate.Once again,it territories around smaller suggest seemspossiblethatwe are dealingwithmainlyunifiedlandholdings. Notionalpopulation(measuredbysettledarea) declinesin all sectorsbybetween58 and 62 per cent,mostsharplyin the northwhereA118and Bin are abandoned(withoutthosesites, thenotionalpopulationofthenorthincreasesfrom148to 188,a riseof27 per cent). however, Once again thereis a shiftonto the schistsin the formof smallfarmsteads, thoughit is a relativephenomenon. and rarestin thenorth,whilekitchen As before,tableware is commonestin thesouth-east Bothtableware and or cookingware is commonestin thenorthand rarestin thesouth-east. or cookingware in while kitchen in all wares increase sectors, frequency especiallystorage ofstoragewares:whereas becomesfarlesscommon.There is also a changein thedistribution in thehellenistic periodtheyare commonestin the northand rareelsewhere,in the Roman thewestand north.The proportion become much commonerin all sectors,particularly they doublesin everysector.As in the preceding of siteswithstoragewares also approximately

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 329 (15per cent period,thewesthas thefewestsitesthathave onlyone out ofthreeuse-categories of sites)and may be characterizedas relatively The north,by contrast,moves prosperous. fromhavingthelowestproportion ofpoorersites(on thismeasure)to havingthehighest,and an economicdownturn. mayhavesuffered Relativeto therangeoftypesavailable,Romansiteshavelessvariety. Thereis no significant ofsiteshavingthefullrangeof threeuse-types ofpottery. There is, changein theproportion a steepfallin thepercentageof siteshavingcookingor kitchenware,and an even however, steeperrisein thepercentagewithstorageware. are foundin all threesectors,butin verysmallquantities. Loom-weights They occuralmost on multiple farmsand largersites,butare considerably rarerthanon hellenistic sites. exclusively Giventhelackofloom-weightsand mortariain thenorth,together withthedeclinein table ware and the small size of sites,it appears that northernsitesin the Roman period are less prosperousthanthosein othersectors,and thatthe gap has widenedsince significantly thehellenistic period. COMPARATIVE SURVEY DATA FOR THE ROMAN PERIOD

For Laconia as a whole the detailedpictureof Roman settlement is not yetclear,but the catalogue (Chapter 23) suggeststhatthereare roughlyas manysitesas in the hellenistic period,withregionalups and downs.Thyreatisand partsof southernLaconia seem more whilethePellanaarea and theplainsouthofSpartamayhavesuffered a slight denselysettled, loss in sitenumbers(see also ILLS 23.6-7). It is difficult to detecttrendswithinthe Roman period,sincemanysitesare simplycalled Roman whilethe late Roman phase is sometimes calledearlyChristianor earlyByzantine.Forwhatit is worth,forty-four sites(notall precisely have late or Roman, Christian, dated)reportedly early earlyByzantineoccupation(see also ILL. 23.8).I47

In some partsof southernGreece and the Péloponnèse,as noted earlier,declinebegins duringthe hellenistic period(as it may do in our surveyarea) and the late classicalor early hellenisticperiod representsthe highpoint of ruralhabitation.In Achaea, followinglate Roman site loss in some areas, the earlyRoman picture(based on both hellenistic-early intensive and non-intensive fielddata) is one ofcontinuing ruraland urbandecline,butfrom themid-first and in the second thereis a sharprisein rural centuryAD, particularly century, settlements a substantial number of élite In villas. the late Roman periodthereis including in one of western Achaea thereis also a shiftof againwidespreadabandonment, though part settlement fromplateaulocationsto an alluvialrivervalley.148 At Nemea thereis a fallin site numbersand off-site in thelate hellenistic and earlyRomanperiods,apartfroma few activity sites such as the of Phleious large nearbypolis (whichincreasesin size),butin thelate Roman a marked in sites and In northern period upturn Keos, afterthethirdbackgroundscatters.149 BC is a there further fall in site numbers over the nexttwocenturies; century downturn, steep datable is rare and the rate of falls closely pottery deposition steadily, reachingzero in the secondcentury AD.Afterthesecond-century AD nadir,therateofpotterydepositionpicksup '47Avraméa. Péloóonnèse. i8a-qi.

148Rizakisetal. (η. 93), 71-2; Petropoulosand Rizakis(n. 93), 199-201; K. V. Papagiannopoulosand G. A. Zachos, Εντατική επιφανειακήέρευνα στη δυτική Αχαΐα: μια ii: άλληπροσέγγιση',in A. D. Rizakis(ed.),Paysages d'Achaïe,

(Actesdu colloque international: Dymé et son territoire Dymaia et

Bouprasia(KatôAchata,6-8 octobre 1995) (Μελετήματα,29; Athens,2000),iSQ-^, esp. 146and Englishabstractat 210. 149Wrightetal., 'Nemea', 616-17;Alcock(n. 24),43-4, 57, 84, 98; ead., 'Urban surveyand thepolisof Phlius',Hesp.60 (1991),421-63.

330 Chapter 6

in the thirdcenturyand resettlementof the landscape takes place in the next three In Methana the middleand late hellenisticsiteloss is exacerbatedby a 33 per centuries.150 centfallin sitenumbersin the Roman period(definedas 100 BC-AD700) and the shrinkage is elusive,and thereis a shiftto thewestofthe ofthetownsite.Hellenistic-Roman continuity with attacks connected by pirates.The trendtowardsdispersalcontinues peninsula,possibly estates.The thirdand intomiddleRoman,whenthereare possibleslave-or tenant-farmed but duringAD 300-700 sitenumbers earlierfourthcenturiesbringanotherfallin prosperity, sitesare increaseby70 per centand thereis an eastwardshift.Many classicaland hellenistic a tenant system perhaps through reoccupied and agricultureis increasinglyintensified, In the southernArgolid,the late hellenisticfallin gearedto the exportof oliveproducts.151 and sixthcenturiesthensee sitenumberscontinuesintomiddleRoman (to AD400); thefifth In theAsea valley,thedeclineis partlyoffset a sharpincreasein sitenumbers.152 bytheriseof new sites.The probablesite of thepolisof thatname is ruinedby the firstcenturyBC,but and othernew sites;by the late Roman period,nevertheless, thereare villages,farmsteads, thereare signsof withdrawalfromthe plain to the hillsand thereis no clear evidenceof a In Euboia, thereappears to be a slightrise in site numbersin the late Roman upturn.153 Romanperiodas a whole.154 In otherregions,as impliedbythedata citedearlier,ruraldeclinebeginsonlyin theRoman data suggestthathabitationnumbersfallbythree-quarters.155 period.In Aitolia,non-intensive In Crete,the Sphakia surveyrevealsthe abandonmentof inland sitesin favourof coastal locations,and reducednumbersoflateRomansites,whileothersurveydata havebeen seenas Similardata from evidencefortheimpositionof new patternsofland use by the Romans.156 a revival and no late Roman there is a Lokris fall; largedropin site imply slight Opountian In Akarnaniathereappears to be a 67 per numbersbetweenlate Roman and Byzantine.157 In Arkadiagenerallyand at Megalopolisin particular, centdrop.158 coins, however, epigraphy, and archaeologycombineto moderatethebleakpictureofurbanand rurallifegivenbyearly imperialsources;whileno sitesappear to be foundedin the earlyRoman period,thereis a modestlateRomanrecovery.159 More positively still,some core regionsof Greece witnessno ruraldownturnduringany In Messenia,theoriginalexpeditionfound intensification. Romanphase,butratherincreasing a fallof one-thirdin site numbersbetweenthe classical-hellenistic period and the Roman the area in the in and the north was heaviest site loss BC-AD south-west, lightest 400); (146 but coastwardlocationscontinuedto be mostin touchwiththe restof the Mediterranean, More recentlythe Pylos surveyors,workingwith a fine-tuned more densely settled.160 and land use in the firstsix centuries intensive an patternof settlement identify chronology, withtheoutside interaction and material-cultural élite differentiation AD,alongsideincreasing '5° Landscape Archaeolop,331, 334-5 (figs 17.7-8), 344, ibid.330,331. 34^-6. Rarityofpottery: ■51 and H. Bowdenand D. Gill,'RomanMethana',in Rough Place,77-83;iid.,'Late RomanMethana',ibid.84-91. Rocky 152GreekCountryside, 397, 400; ci. BeyondtheAcropolis,110-17.

153 Forsénetal, 'Aseavalley',92, 94. '54Sackettetal. (η. 83), iii-i2. ιχ> rorsources01data see η. 95 above. •s6L. Nixon,J. Moody,V Niniou-Kindeli, S. Price,and O. Rackham,'Archaeological surveyin Sphakia,Crete',Échosdu mondeclassique/Classical Views,n. s. 9 (1990), 213-20, at 217

G. W. (expandedversionat http://sphakia.classics.ox.ac.uk/); M. Harrison,'Changingpatternsin land tenureand land use in RomanCrete',in Barkerand Lloyd(eds)(n. 70),115-21. 157Fossey,Lohns(η. 84), 114-16;but thiswas an extensive survevwithfewdata. ^ See n. 06. '59Lloyd,'Farmingthehighlands'(n. 79), 190-1;Roy etal, 'Megalopolisunderthe Roman empire'(n. 79), 149-50;Roy numbers etal, 'Tribeand polis' (n. 79),withtableoffindspot at 181showingveryfewR sites. 160 McDonaldand Hope Simpson(n. 90),146withmap 8-18.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 331 At Berbati-Limnes,despite littlehellenistic-Romancontinuity,the probable world.101 oftheruralpopulace intoArgosby earlyRoman times,and thedominationofthe migration landscapeby a singlelargevilla,ruralactivityactuallyincreasesfromearlyto middleand In most of Crete thereis no decline at all, as noted again frommiddleto late Roman.102 of increasein and the same be true Chios and Samos. On Melos, a threefold earlier, may settlement numbersis observedbetween146BC and AD500.l6sIn BoiotiafromaboutAD400, manyformerclassicaland hellenisticsitesare reoccupied,to the extentthatsite numbers almostmatchthoseof the classicalperiod.104 Finally,in some remoterpartsof Greece,the takesplace onlyin the late hellenisticfirstmajorexpansionof townsand ruralsettlements a highearlyRoman period(Albania)or the Roman (Dalmatia),and the Roman represents watermark. Whilea fewoftheseregionswitnessa late Roman ruraldecline(Achaea,Sphakia,possibly Asea,OpountianLokris),themajority experiencean upturnin themiddleand/orlateRoman centuries. periods.The date at whichthisrevivalbeginsvariesbetweenthe secondand fifth Sometimesit is not closelydated (as at Nemea) or thereis continuousincreasethroughthe it is clear thata greateramountof marginalland Generally, period(as at Berbati-Limnes). in the middleand especiallylate Roman periods,105 was takenback intocultivation perhaps underthestimulus oftheimperialtaxationsystem. Althoughit is questionablewhethera revivalof rural settlementnecessarilyindicates it is widelyagreedthattheperiodfromabout thefourthto theearlysixth generalwell-being, and livelyeconomicactivityin the Aegean world,perhaps centurywas a timeof prosperity ofagricultural in partlybased on theexportation products;therewas thena suddendownturn If thereis anyrevivalat all in theLaconia Surveyarea, it is bothruraland urbancontexts.166 in thesouth-eastern sectorin thefourthto sixthcenturies, dependingon thereinterpretation in ofparticular but the data assemblages(p. 270above), generaltelltheoppositestory. Whilethenon-intensive data forLaconia as a wholemayhintat a fairly scenario, optimistic thedata fromour intensivesurveypainta somewhatdarkpictureforLaconia in comparison to certainotherpartsofRomanGreece. ROMAN SPARTA AND LACONIA

of By theearlyimperialperiod,Spartawas no longerinvolvedin local warsand thefrontiers itsterritory weremostlystable.PerioikicLakonikewas longgone.The exactextentofthechora of Sparta itselfis debated,167 but it is clear thatthe cityretainedits core territory in and aroundtheEurotasvalley,extending almostas farsouthas Gytheion.168 IftheHelos plaineast of Gytheionwas not actuallySpartan,it was dominatedfromSparta.The cityremainedthe dominanteconomiccentreforLaconia, and theprosperousélitehad estatesin otherpartsof 161Davis etai, 'PylosΓ, 456-7; S. Ε. Alcock,'Liberation and conquest: hellenisticand Roman Messenia', in Sandy Pylos,179-91,at 191;D. Stoneand A. Kampke,'Dialiskari:a lateRomanvillaon theMesseniancoast',ibid. 192-8. 102R. Forsell,'The Roman period',in WellswithRunnels, Berbati-Limnes, 285-343,at 336. 103islandPolity,' 145 and table 2.1 on p. 13, and period definition at 252;cf.also 146. 164BintlifTand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',148. IÖ5See e.g. M. Whitby,'The Balkans and Greece, 420-602', CAH2xiv,ch. 23 (pp.701-30),esp. 712.

166See e.g. B. Ward-Perkins, 'Specialized productionand exchange', CAH2xiv, ch. 13 (pp. 346-91), at 358-61; on exporttrade,ibid. 373-6, 382. On the evidenceforclimatic change,see ibid. 386-8; on ruraldata forthisperiod,ibid. CAH2xiv,ch. 12 365-9; id., 'Land, labour and settlement', (PP·3!5-45)>at 320-1. 167See Cartledgeand Spawforth, 136-42,fordetails;also Shipley,'Territory'. 168paus üi_21. seems to 7 regard Aigiai, not far Ν of Gytheion,as in Spartanterritory.

332 Chapter 6

The Spartans'concernfor and south-eastern the region,notablythe south-central parts.169 maritimeaccess may explainAugustus'sdecisionto grantthemKardamyle(Paus. iii. 26. 7), thoughGytheionprobablyremainedtheirmain pointof contactwiththe worldoutsidethe and Dentheliatis The citymayhaveregainedsomeofthenorthern borderlands, Péloponnèse.170 in itsterritory; for main roads hands twice.171 had at least changed Spartaprobably responsibility in the PeutingerTable shouldreflectthird-and fourth-century itsrole as the siteof a mansio conditions. The mainroadnorthrannotto easternArkadia,as today,butto Megalopolis.172 Afterthe Roman civil wars, Sparta's engagementwiththe outsideworldcontinuedto who commandeda shipforOctavianat Actium(31 BC),was develop.The SpartanEurykles, rewardedwithpersonalpossessionof Kytheraand semi-formal dictatorshipover his city, for governmentsurvived.He recaptured Sparta some or all of the thoughconstitutional formerperioikictowns,includingGytheion,but Augustusfreedthemand refoundedthe Lakedaimonian league as the Eleutherolaconianleague. The repeated rise and fall of Eurykles'descendantsunder theJulio-Claudianemperorswas accompanied by growing and by formallinksbetweenthe diplomatictiesbetweenSparta and the Eleutherolaconians The suppressionof the rulingfamilyand the major urban centresof Roman Greece.173 Eurycliddynastyunder Nero (r. AD 54-68) gave freerein to wider élite competitionfor ofSparta,whichhad begunto pickup again honoursand acceleratedthemonumentalization underAugustus. The citybegan to receive new festivals;possiblythe ancient educational systemand institutionalizedausteritywere artificiallyrevived,and the political class was further evenacquiringland in otherregionsofGreece culturalnetworks, intoempire-wide integrated membersof élitesfromotherpartsof second links.174 the century, During marriage through the Greek worldeven held ceremonialofficeat Sparta.175 Emperors,notablyHadrian (r. as at other Greek here benefactions centres; Spartanaristocratsin the 117-38),performed towns.176 in in and Eleutherolaconian their home the same did city earlyimperialperiod will also have the élite and visitors, Urbanization, by conspicuousconsumption by expenditure estate-based a boost to and in rural their farming.177 production given part stimulating played and the continued The second centuryalso saw increasedtrade in the Mediterranean,178 the to more or less bronze of earlythirdcentury continuously up coinage minting Spartan In were the health.179 a of economic be requiredto assistthe co163-6 Spartans sign may financial burdens war. The in Parthian his Lucius Verus maylie behindan resulting emperor to deflect the had tried the élite of stasis around weightof increased 170; perhaps episode There are signsthatthe distancebetweenthe Roman tax demandsonto poorercitizens.180 once more.181 éliteand thecommonpeoplewas increasing Over the lifetimeof the Roman empireand generallyacross its territory, agricultural situatedon élite continuedto be themainstayoftheeconomybutwas increasingly production

169Cartledgeand Spawforth, 104,123,170,173-4. •7°Ibid. 140. 171 Ibid. 117,138-9; Shipley,'Territory', 373,386; Pikoulas

(n. 113).

172 108. Cartledgeand Spawforth, 152;Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 173 Cartledgeand Spawforth, 103-4. 174 Ibid, 10^-8, 171,17^. I?5Ibid. 113-14. 176 Ibid. 109-12.

177 Ibid. 172. 178 Ibid. 179Ibid. 169; details of issues in S. Grunauer-von

Hoerschelmann, Die Münzprägungder Lakedaimonier(Antike

Münzenundgeschnittene Steine,7; Berlin,1978),88-93, 107-9. 180 115-16. Cartledgeand Spawforth, 181 Ibid. 120-1.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 333 The middle and late imperialperiod saw the estateswhich became largerwithtime.182 formationof an extensiveclass of dependent labourers, typicallytied to the land.183 Alreadyin the thirdcentury, imperialtax demandsmay have put increasingpressureon and the second quarter of the centurysaw the decline of the Spartan landowners, habit' at Sparta.184 Althoughthe citysufferedfinancialproblemsin the 220s 'epigraphic the so-calledthird-century crisismay have had no impactin the Aegean until and 230s,185 the 250s.186 'free'statusno longerprotectedit againstimperialtaxation, Sparta's officially which may itselfhave required an increase in rural production.187 Roman fundingfor repairsto a bridgeover the Eurotas at Sparta around the middleof the century(IG ν. ι. 538) may be a signthatthe citywas shortof funds,but does not necessarilyimplymajor the centralauthorities'interestin collectingand storing economicproblems;it may signify taxes levied in the formof agriculturalproduce.188The Herulian invasion may have reachedSparta in 268 (Zosimus,v. 6. 4-5; GeorgiusSyncellus,p. 467 (717));firmevidence is lacking,but thereare signsof neglectand disusein the city'smonuments of destruction thatmayhave resultedfroman attack.189 I (r.306-37)coincideswith EconomicupturnunderDiocletian(r.284-305)and Constantine an increasein monumental The cityand the buildingand éliteculturalactivityat Sparta.190 and benefactions in theformofbuildingworkin plainwerenowmoresecureand prosperous, in the early,middle,and late fourthcentury.191 Spartacontinueto be attestedepigraphically The city'smonuments wererestoredafteran earthquakein 375,and itscaptureby theGoths in 396 led to the constructionof new fortifications withimperialhelp in the earlyfifth With the rest of the now century.192 Péloponnèse,Sparta belongedformallyto the eastern Roman empire.193 christianization was ofa bishopin Sparta's recognizedby theappointment or before457, and betweenthe fifthand seventhcenturiesa new cemeteryand several important religiousbuildingswere added, includingup to threebasilicas.194 By the 460s or the Vandal was the and from the late sixth however, 470s, navy troubling Péloponnèse,195 the severe disturbance. Laconia century peninsulaexperienced demographic mayhavefeltthe effects ofthemid-sixth-century outbreakofplague.196 The PéloponnèseenduredSlavicattacks and perhapsSlavic settlement, whilethe Chronicle oftheMoreatalksof emigrationfromthe The construction of the so-called basilica of St Nikon at Sparta in the early peninsula.197 182P. and Trade, industry Garnseyand C. R. Whittaker, theurbaneconomy',in CAH2xiii,ch. 10 (pp. 312-37),at 312. 183On the difficulty of definingcoloni, firstdefinedas tied to the land by a law of ConstantineI in 332, see C. R. Whittakerand P. Garnsey,'Rural lifein the later Roman empire', CAH2 xiii, ch. 9 (pp. 277-311), at 287-94; A. Marcone, 'Late Roman social relations',ibid. ch. 11 (pp. 338-70), at 356-8. Ward-Perkins,'Land' (n. 166), 343-5, emphasizes the danger of generalizingfromthe western empire.A law of ValentinianI fromthe 370s tyingcolonito the land in Illyricum(CJ xi. 53. 1; A. Cameron, TheLater AD284-430(London,1993),πι; Whittaker Roman and Empire: Garnsey(above),289) probablyrefersonlyto W. Illyricum.

Still useful: A. H. M.Jones, The LaterRomanEmpire284-602: A Social, Economicand Administrative Survey(Oxford, 1964), ch.

20 (ii.767-823),esp. 792-803. 184Cartledge and Spawforth,121. On the potential of taxationto stimulateor inhibitproduction,see Whittaker and Garnsey(n. 183),277.

185Cartledeeand Snawforth, 121. 186Ibid. 119.3rd-cent.Gothicraidsin Aegean: Whittaker and Garnsey(n. 183),278. 107 Cartledgeand apawlorth,172. 188Ibid. 121.See now Kourinou,Σπάρτη,78-84, 279. 189Cartledgeand Spawforth,122. Possibledestruction of templeofAsklepiosKotyleus:Christou(n. 69) withAvraméa,

Péloponnèse, ^4, 18^. ■9°Cartledíre and Snawfnrth.toq- a.

191 Ibid. 123-4;Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 122-3. 192Earthquake:Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 45, 114.Goths:ibid. z>8.New walls:Cartledeeand Snawforth. 122.126. 193 Avraméa. Q2-q. ' Péloôonnèse. ' sj 1 kJ 194Cartledgeand Spawforth, 213.Archaeologicalevidence is listedat Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 105,no. 158. I95Whitby(n. 165),712. 196Chapter1,p. 25. •97Whitby(n. 165),727.Slavs:n. 210below.

334 Chapter 6

seventhcenturyshows that the cityremainedan importantcentre,but the extentof its fortified area was reducedwithina generation(p. 340).ig8 We have alreadyquestionedthe validityof the literaryevidence(forexample,Strabo)for earlyRoman depopulationin Laconia. Ratherthan a generalfallin the populationof the and fromoutlyingtownsintoSparta region,it mayindicatemigrationfromthe countryside witha movetowardsless intensiveagriculture and othercentres.1"This wouldbe consistent was stillthe It is likelythatagriculture based aroundéliteestatesdevotedto cash-cropping. marblein basis of the Spartaneconomy,despitethe quarryingof high-gradearchitectural in commerce in have evidence for élite involvement Tainaron thisperiod.We (IG v. epigraphic in the mid-fifth ι. 728, second or thirdcentury)and literaryevidenceforolive oil exports 44).200No élitevillas have been located in Spartan century(SidoniusApollinaris,Carmina, aristocratic tombsincludingKtirakiain our surveyarea territory, thoughthereare substantial to early (M334),whichbecamea mausoleumin theAntonineand Severanperiods(mid-second The ownersoflargeestatesappearto havemaintainedlinkswiththeirland thirdcenturies).201 Plutarch(Moralia,601 b) impliesa risein éliteresidences butto havelivedin or neartowns;202 Some formersmallholders of the city.203 at Pitana,just north-west may now have residedin thoughour surveyarea has no such site because of its secondarynucleatedsettlements,204 to Sparta. proximity ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

IN THE SURVEY AREA IN THE ROMAN PERIOD

The principalfeaturesof the Roman data are the reductionin sitenumbers(exceptin the north)and in settledarea (partlyoffsetby non-sitescattersand an increase in the total in thenorth);changesin thecharacterofsome estimatedpopulationofdispersedsettlements less kitchenand cookingware,poorersitesin the north);possibly sites(morestoragepottery, throughtheperiod (exceptin thenorth);theapparentdeclinein activity largersiteterritories late Roman upturn of and the lack Roman a any significant upturn); (after possibleearly ofsites the character in the overall the however, changes, south-east). Despite (exceptpossibly in each sectoris notmuchaltered. in ruralactivityappears to mirrorthe fortunesof Roman The evidenceforfluctuations to the end of the Roman civil A Roman upturnno doubtcorresponds Sparta. possibleearly of the and the rest between interaction wars,increasing empire,and thepatronageof Sparta thatwe findin Greekcitiesbyemperors;butthereis no signofthesecond-century prosperity as in in the third area the If increased was itself. there century, survey activity slightly Sparta thequantitiesofsherdstendto suggest,it mayreflecttheeconomicpressuresand instabilities in thecity'seconomyin theearlyfourth bearingupon thecityat thattime.The improvement in rural rise with another coincides activity, impliedby sherdnumbers.The probable century to thecaptureofSpartaby firstrealdearthofcloselydatablefindscorresponds approximately 198Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 103,114,185; G. L. Huxley,'The seconddarkage of the Péloponnèse',Λακ. onovò. 3 (1977), 84-110. The so-calledbasilica of St Nikon (early7thcent.) makesit unlikely(thoughnot impossible)thatthe bishopric was relocatedto Monemvasiaby 680/1, as the Chronicle of Monemvasiaimplies: Avraméa, p. 103; A. Cameron, The AD395-600 (London and Worldin Late Antiquity: Mediterranean

New York,1993),159-60. 199Cartledgeand Spawforth, 142. 200Ibid. 169-71,173.

201Ibid. 142,where the authorsrefrainfromendorsing of the site as a hero shrinein its Christou'sinterpretation earlyphase. Note also the early4th-cent.sitewithLR walls at Amboula (LS ii. 364, 391: Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 186, no. 161),notlocatedbythesurvey. 202Cartledgeand Spawforth, 142. 2O3 Ibid. 131-2;Plut,περίφνγης= Mor.599 a-607 f,at 601 b, 'notall Laconiansliveat Pitane'. 204Cartledgeand Spawforth, 141.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 335 the Gothsin 396. By the fifth to a declinein activity, centurythe surveydata pointfirmly in the south-east. exceptperhaps As in the precedingperiod,it is doubtfulthatany site in the surveyarea was a central in termsof craftproductionor marketfunctions.205 settlement Arableand mixedcultivation probablyremainedtheprincipalmodesofland use. At thesame time,theremayhavebeen a further increasein the relativeimportanceof non-arableactivitieson the generallysteep schistsof the north,thoughnot to the exclusionof cereal cultivationor kitchengardening around sites.The totalpopulationseems to fall and the rate of sherddepositionis lower, are thoughtheremaybe peaks of activityin the firstand thirdcenturies.Non-sitefindspots morenumerousthanbefore.In thecourseoftheperiodtheremaybe moreabandonmentof sitesin thenorththanelsewhereand a relativeshiftofactivity towardsthesouth-east. Luxury butfewifanyseemto havefoundtheir goodswereimportedintoSpartain imperialtimes,206 wayintothesurveyarea. The northundergoeschange,but no fundamental There is slightevidence reorganization. of an earlyRoman upturn,perhaps followingthe bad timesduringthe Mithradaticand Romancivilwars.In contrastto othersectors,exceptforthelossofthelargesitesthenotional population,total settledarea, and average and interquartilesite size all increaseslightly, numbersare unchanged.Site territory in thenorth,in thoughmediansitesize and settlement contrastto other sectors,may have remained much the same as before (except in the northernmost betweensitesare filledby non-sitescatterswhichmay part),thoughinterstices households or activities not involving such as seasonal represent poor permanentsettlement, or roofed units. It is even that more of the sector was exploited occupation storage possible thanbefore,as significant with middle and late Roman (some findspots finds)appear in zone E. The increasein storagepotteryon settlement here sites,particularly and in thewest,may in termsof an increasein cash-cropping be interpreted and productionforthe market.The smallamountof kitchenand cookingware (fewerthan two sherdsper site,discounting the to If lower-status families. this remote difficult of exceptionalK233)points relatively landscape, accessin places,formedpartoftheéliteeconomicstrategy thatwas developingalreadyin the hellenistic period,itmayhavebeen exploitedthrougha systemofdependentlabour. Sitesin the south-east, whichare halvedin number,mayhave controlledlargerparcelsof land as a resultof the amalgamationof farms.The reducedrate of sherddeposition,the apparentfall in population,and the apparent rise in the use of storageware would be consistent witha partialrestructuring of the mixedagricultural landscape in favourof less more estates. The of labour-intensive, profit-orientated frequency tableware and the relative of and kitchen or ware betterstandardofliving sparseness storage cooking pointto a slightly than in the north.(The factthatthe typicalsize of a site on limestonesoil, mainlyin the increasesmaysuggesta risein householdsize,but as thereare onlysix suchsites south-east, no firmconclusionscan be drawn.)In thelate Roman phase,ifthetentative reinterpretation of previously undatedsherdsis correct,theremay have been a revivalin thissector,again oftheurbanlandowningélite. perhapsunderthestimulus The remarkable featuresofthewesternsectorare theshrinkage of Geladari(thoughit still existsin late Roman times)and thefallin the numbersof 'suburban'householdson the east bank of the Eurotas.In an age when the citywas generallyprosperous,thesephenomena shouldindicatethe increasingconcentration of populationon the westbank. In thissector, 2°5Ibid. 174.

206Ibid. 172.

336 Chapter6

on amalgamatedestates. too, storagewaresincrease,again possiblyimplyingcash-cropping The limestonequarriesofzone D2°7weremostlikelyexploitedin thisperiod(and perhapsthe late hellenistic), whencitymonuments werebeingbuilt.They mayhave been a focusof élite the marble like investment, principal quarriesof the cityon thewesternside of theplain or the clay-bedsowned by Eurykles.208 Elite benefactionmay explainthe late Roman private ofresources bathcomplexat Kokkinorachi (J4008),an exceptionto thegeneralconcentration westoftheEurotas.209 Unlikesomeotherareas ofGreece,our surveyarea in generalenjoyedno markedrevivalof rural activityin late Roman times. This can perhaps be explained by the increasing concentrationof economic activityin Sparta and the Eurotasplain and by the generally marginalqualityof much of the surveyarea. By the end of the Roman period,almostall settlementnear Sparta was west of the Eurotas. The date at which the Slavs arrivedin but the surveyarea has of theirarrivalare the subjectof debate,210 Laconia and the effects producedfewlate Roman and almostno earlyByzantinefinewares.Tzakonianplace-names in and near the surveyarea (Achragiás,Tsákona,Tsiliotó,Syntziáphi)211 maygo back to the evidenceofrusticfolkbeingmovedintomarginal sixthcenturyor earlier,confirming literary No sites The archaeologicalrecord,however,providesno materialconfirmation. territory.212 can be dated to the seventhand eighthcenturies,whichseem a veritabledarkage forour surveyarea.213When revivalcomes, in the ninthand tenthcenturies,the initiativeto reestablishthecityofSpartaas LakedaimoncomesfromConstantinople (p. 353). Epilogue Comparedto otherregionsof Greece,theLaconia Surveyarea is not a richrurallandscape. Its sitesgenerallyhave a lowerlevel of materialculturethan manyfoundelsewhere,and thereare fewersignsof contactwiththe outsideworld.It is likelythatthe area, particularly itsnorthernsector,was marginalto the economyof the Spartanstatein the hellenisticand Roman periods,and itspopulationis unlikelyto have been muchin excessof one thousand, of itshellenistic at any time.The interpretations or approximately 14 per square kilometre, and Roman developmentadvanced in the precedingpages have centredupon marginal landed withan evolving,but alwayspowerful, groupsin societyand upon theirrelationships élitebased at Sparta. economic niches.The relatively Differentsectorsof the surveyarea occupied different of proximity to the was more related west maybe city,thoughthe effects closely prosperous of sitesratherthan in the presenceof luxuriesand seen in the sizes and small territories 2°7Alludedto,ibid. 171.

208K. M. T. Chrimes, AncientSparta:A Reexamination of the

Evidence (Manchester,1949), esp. 72-4; U. Kahrstedt,Das

in der Kaiserzeit:Kleinstadt, GesichtGriechenlands wirtschaftliche

VillaundDomäne(Bern, 1954), esp. 197-8; R. Baladié, Le deStrabon (Paris,1980),197-210;all withcomments Péloponnèse ofGartlede-e and Snawforth. i6o. I7o-i and nn. (do. 261-2V 2°9Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 185,no. 159. 210 theirarrivalis dated 587/8,butAvraméa Traditionally 77-8, 79) takes early7th-cent.coin hoards as (Péloponnèse, evidencefora laterdate. She findsno Slavic objectsin the Péloponnèsebefore600-50 (ibid. 90), and notesa 7th-cent. mixedculture(ibid.91,97). SlavicfibulafromSparta,implying

211Sites G162 and G182, N415, R4000, and FF365 respectively. 212See Chapter7, p. 352 and n. 47. 2I3The nextcloselydated sherdis fromthe 9th cent.,a singleimportedsherdfromP284:LS'û. 129,Byz type10. For a similargap (7th-iothcent.),see Forsénetai, 'Asea valley', 94. In theLS data,thereare 11sherdsfromthe 10thcent.,all fromfivesites: Byz types11 (importedsinglet,11490),24 (J170(1 sherd),K247 (4 sherds),U490 (2 sherds),and 31 (1 each fromR287,P284,U490).Forthistimeas a 'darkage' in see P. Topping,'The post-classical thePéloponnèsegenerally, documents',in MME 64-80, at 65.

Hellenisticand Romanperiods 337 The Neogeneplateauremainedmostlydeserted,as in late classicaltimes,thoughour imports. edge ofa clusterofrelatively surveymayhavecaughtthenorthern prosperoussitesstretching Eurotas and the modern southtowardsthe was more plain villageof Skoura.The south-east settledand successful The north,the stable,hometo fairly groupsin moresizeablefarmsteads. area least attractiveto arable cultivation,was settledin small dispersedunits,usuallythe poorestin thesurveyarea; theremayhave been influxesofpoor or dependentSpartansinto thisarea, among others,in the early hellenisticand Roman periods. Signs of local site hierarchies are discernable,but afterthe abandonmentof Sellasia in the second centuryBC The principal change in Sparta's Sparta was the economic centre for all our sites.214 withits choraappears to have been the growthof éliteestate-basedagriculture, relationship includingthe patronizationof dependentlabouringgroups,at the expenseof smallholder subsistencefarming.In pursuingtheirinterestsin thisway,the élitewere conforming to a and Roman periods,though patternseen in mostpartsof the Greekworldin the hellenistic the timingof developmentsin Laconia appears to be different because of the internal characterand externalfortunes of Sparta. The waysin whichthe landscapesof the survey area were exploitedduringthe hellenisticand Roman periodswere largelydeterminedby withinSparta. Those developments, social,economic,and politicaldevelopments however, also reflected and ever and more distant military imperialpressures imposedby larger powers.

214Cartledgeand Spawforth, 170.

7

THE SURVEY AREA IN THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN PERIODS PamelaArmstrong1 This CHAPTERis divided into four parts. The firstsets the scene within which the survey resultsare placed: landscape, routes,ports,the administrationof the province,the historyof the cityof Sparta, and the organizationof the countrysidein its territory. The second presents the surveyresults,separated into six historicalperiods, each with a briefintroductionto the wider historicalperspective relevant to the surveywithin the Byzantine and Ottoman eras. The third discusses four topics as they can be detected in the landscape archaeology of Laconia: cultivation,pastoralism, monasteries, and general diachronic settlementpatterns. The final section compares Laconia with other areas of the Byzantine and Ottoman empires forsimilaritiesand differences. Introduction the medieval

and ottoman

administration

of laconia

The basic unit of Byzantine provincial administrationwas the theme (thema).Although civil jurisdictionof each theme was theoreticallyin the hands of a praitor,often it was combined withmilitaryorganizationunder the command of a strategos. Laconia was a districtwithinthe unit of the theme. From the late seventh larger centuryon, the Péloponnèse was part of the theme of Hellas, which included mainland Greece as far as Thessaly. But fromthe early ninth centuryon Peloponnesos became a theme in its own rightwith its capital at Corinth.2In the firsthalf of the eleventh centurythe Péloponnèse was combined with Hellas into the new theme of 'Hellas and Peloponnesos'. The restructuring of the eleventhcentury,unlike that of the ninth,does not reflectan attemptto confrontdifficultiesin the province,but ratherthe inertia of the government in Constantinople on account of the unstable situation there writer (described below). The new administrativecapital was Thebes, and a twelfth-century described the authorityof thepraitoras extending'fromTempe to Sparta'.3 In these centuries Laconia played a minor role in Byzantinepolitics.It was not untilthe arrival of the Crusaders that it emerged as a distinctive element in the political structures of the medieval 1I wouldliketo thankAlan Harveyand Tom Gallantfor theircarefulreadingof and perspicaciouscommentson an earlierdraftofthismanuscript. I wouldalso liketo thankBill Cavanagh,Joost Crouwel,Richard Catling,and Graham Shipleyfortheirconstantadvice,support,and practicalhelp, withoutwhichthischaptercouldnothavebeen completed.

2 N. des IXe et Oikonomides, L·s Listesdepréséancebyzantines Xe siècles:introduction, etcommentaire texte,traduction, (Paris, 1972), 350, 352; W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, 780-842 (Stanford, 1988), 160-1. 3 1. Bekker(ed.), MichaelisAttaliotae hûtoria(Bonn, 1853),i. 177.

340 Chapter7

ofAchaia,but it was looselyassociatedwiththeprincipality Mediterranean world.Ostensibly an assortment under in factformostofthelateByzantineperioditwas relatively autonomous, the fortress at of the construction of The combination and of governors, archontes, Despots. the seat of and the location there of of as the main centre its habitation, Mystrás, development the Despot, who (in theory)governed all the Péloponnèse, made Laconia a focus of thisalso meantthatno attentionuntilthe Ottomantakeover.Unfortunately, international a destructive visitto Laconia. The without into the Péloponnèse invadingarmyforayed Withinthisthere a an administered the theme was of Ottomanequivalent by beylerbeyi. eyalet, In a the each weresmalleradministrative units, sançakbeyi. 1525Mora, the sançakmanagedby in a the is listed as of the Péloponnèse, Ottomandesignation sançak eyaktof Rumeli.4In 1584 which Mora was a sançakwithin the eyaletof Cezayir, corresponded to 'Aegean and in Péloponnèse'.By 1609 Mora had become an eyalet, the wake of a numberof severecrises oftheadministration withintheempire;thesehad compelledAhmetII to enactmajorreforms units.5 createdsmalleradministrative oftheBalkansand Anatolia,whichgenerally in Laconia continuedto be In theearlyand middleByzantineperiodsthemainsettlement of Laconia, were often at the locationof the ancientcityof Sparta. It, and the countryside to by Byzantineauthorsby the archaizingname 'Lakedaimon'.6Althoughreligious referred it couldbe indicativeof nevertheless was quiteseparatefromciviland military, administration secular status, to which it reacted, as when a bishopric was created or raised to a (archbishopric).The firstbishop of the cityis recordedin AD 458.7 The metropolitanate extensivearea ofthelate Roman citycontractedsharplyin themiddleoftheseventhcentury, and it remainedin thisimpoverishedstateforabout two centuries.8Even giventhe city's decline,anotherbishopis attestedin 681.9Archaeologicalevidence,mainlycoins,indicates fromthe late ninthto twelfth centuries,when occupation increasingeconomicprosperity became so extensivethatthe suburbsextendedoutsidethe walls on the southernside.10In 1081 the see was elevatedto metropolitanate status,indicatingthe growthof the cityby that Vitaof SaintNikonis setin a prosperouscitywitha powerful time.The twelfth-century body whosesupporteventhesaintneeded.11 thearchontes, oflandowning families, ofthecastleat Mystrasin AD 1238and thegrowthofthesettlement Withtheestablishment the thirteenth outsideitswalls,the cityin the valleydeclinedgraduallythroughout century and until1278,whenitsbishopmovedto Mystras;and thesiteofSparta,thoughprobablynot wentout of favouras people soughtsecurityduringthatturbulent abandoned completely, Between1264and 1300Mystraswas in locationon themountainside. the new fortified period In 1308theofficeofstrategos withtheunique titleofkephali. residenceof a strategos theofficial 4 M. T. Gökbilgin, 'Kanunî Sultan Süleyman devri ba§lannda Rumeli Eyaleti livelan §ehir ve kasabalan', 20 (1956),247-85(Frenchsummary, Belleten, 287-94).

5 D. L·. Fitcher,An tiistoncatueograpny oj theOttomanumpire fromEarliest Times to theEnd of theSixteenthCentury(Leiden,

1972),125.The crisesincluded,forexample,theCelali revolts and the'LongWar' withAustria,whichendedin 1606. 0 A. Vasilopoulou-loannidou, Λακωνία,Λακωνες εις τους βυζαντινούς.συγγραφείς', Λακ. σπονδ. 4 (ΐ979)> 3-135at 4-6. The authorofthe Vitaofthepatronsaintofthe city,Nikon,a textintendedfora wideaudience,interchanges at random. 'Lakedaimon'and 'Sparta',seemingly 1K.J. H. Jenkinsand (J.Mango, A synodiconot Antioch OaksPapers, and Lacedaemonia',Dumbarton 15(1961),225-42.

8 Ch. Bouras, 'City and village: urban design and architecture',in W. Horandner (ed.), XVI. Internationaler (Wien, 4-9 Oktober1981), Akten,i: Byzantinistenkongress Byzantinistik, (Jahrbuchder österreichischen Hauptreferate <*i.i:Vienna,ιοβΐ1). 622. 9 J. Mansi, Sacrorumconciliorumnova et amplíssimacollectio

(Paris,1901-27),xi. 647 c. 10A. M. Woodward,Excavationsat öparta,1924-25:note on coins foundin 1924-25',BSA 26 (1923-5),157-8,at 157; Bouras (n. 8), 622; R. V. Nicholls,'Sparta', BSA 45 (1950), workshop 282-98,at 284; O. Vassi,'Anunglazedwarepottery in twelfth-century Lakonia',BSA88 (1993),287-93. 11 Κ Armstrong,*lhe date ot the Vita iNicoms, in BSA. forthcoming

periods 341 Byzantineand Ottoman withunlimitedterm.This meant thatthe Byzantine evolvedinto a typeof governorship ofthewholePéloponnèsefocusedon Mystras.Fortwocenturiesthecitywas a administration cultivatedacademic centre,knownas 'the Florence of the East', to which intellectuals travelledfromall over the Mediterranean.12 By the mid-fourteenth centuryMystrashad It was no longergoverned attainedthestatusofdespotate,thecapitalofa Greekprincipality. but by a noblemancloselyrelatedto the imperialfamily, knownas despotes and by a strategos tenure of office. havinglifelong remainedat Mystras,wherethepa§a Initiallyunderthe Ottomans,regionaladministration of the lived until when of thesançak the administration was transferred to Péloponnèse 1540, and the populationis said to have Tripolis.In theseyearsMystrasprosperedcommercially, numbered10,000.In 1687,w^tntnerelatively short-lived VenetianconquestoftheMorea, the administrative provinceof Braccio di Maina, whichincludedLaconia, was createdwithits at Mystras.In theunhappyyearsthatfollowedtheabortiveRussianinvasionof headquarters Laconia in 1770(p. 373 below),thepopulationofMystrasis said to have declinedto 5,000.In 1821 Mystraswas one of the firstGreekcitiesto gain independencefromthe Ottomans.In response,in 1825,IbrahimPa§a led theEgyptianinvasionofthePéloponnèseand Mystraswas sackedand burnedforthelasttime.Withthefoundation ofthemoderncityofSpartain 1834 focusofLaconia returnedto theplain. (p. 404 below),thesettlement ROUTES AND COMMUNICATIONS

The medievalroads of Laconia are takento be thoseshownas the principalrouteson the earlynineteenth-century mapsproducedby theCommissionScientifique.13 They are likelyto correspond,since it was onlyin the twentieth centurythatitineraries changedsubstantially withthe adventof motorizedtransport. The main routethroughLaconia seems alwaysto havebeen on thewestbankoftheEvrótas.Three roadsrunfromSpartaand Mystrasnortheastwardsthroughthe surveyterritory. (1) The firstcrossedthe Kopána bridge(E89) and traversedzones E, B, and A en routeto Tripolis. (2) The second formeda loop offit, At site B300 thisroad was joined by another presumablyto servicefieldsand settlements. whichhas leftthe Evrotasin zone D (close to D83), presumablyat a fordablepoint.(3) The thirdgoingnorthwards leftthe Evrotasin zone H (closeto H34),initially the north following bankof theKelephinariverbeforerisingup to go along the top of the Theológosridgeand throughzones H, F, and C. Two shortroads linkedthisroute and the othermain route northwards. Half a kilometre southof thejunctionof the Kelephinaand Evrotasrivers(close to J170) was a road whichwentnorththroughzoneJ untilit came close to the Kelephina,whereit followedtheriveron itsleftbank(justbeyondtheterritory ofthesurvey), crossingtheriverin zone C to riseup to Kalyvia.14 Whereasthe previously describedroutesconnectedLaconia withtheoutsideworld,thiswas a 'local' routewhoseprimaryfunction seemsto have been to linkplaces thatlay along it withSparta.At thejunctionof the Kelephinaand the Sophróni gorge,the road forkedand one branchwent south-eastthroughzones L, P, S, and Τ to Chrysapha.There weretwoother'local' routeswhichleftthe Evrotasin zone M (nearM172 12C. M. Plethon:The Last of the Woodhouse, GeorgeGemistos

Hellenes (Oxford,1986). 13CommissionScientifique de Morée, Cartedela Morée. . . (Paris,1832).

14The name KalyviaServianikawas hellenizedto Kalyvia Theologouin the 1970s.

342 Chaptery

intothefoothills. One stoppedat N418,whiletheotherroseup on and M194),goingnorth-east to theplateauofzonesΝ and Ρ to P284,whereitjoined theroad betweenChrysaphaand the Kelephina.Fromthe Chrysaphabasin therewere two routessouth:one initiallywentwest whilethe main throughzone Τ beforeturningdue south,presumablyservicingsettlements, Skala. routewentsouththroughzone U to Goritsáand ultimately In additionto the largerroads thereare manysecondarytracksand kalderimia (paved or French some recorded the cobbled tracks,oftenbounded by dry-stone mappers walls), by and othersnotedin the courseof the Laconia Survey,whichwould not have been suitable are on its borders:one The principalones in the surveyterritory forwheeledvehicles.15 in the foothills to skirt the boundariesof zones zone and rises leavesthe Evrotas Q through in and before Ν and R, whilethe otheris zone D, linkingD96 D85 turningeast and out of thesurveyterritory. The Byzantineportof entryintoLaconia was at Skala (see map, ILL. 7.1),havingmoved whichservedas a portin theRomanperiod.In therefromGytheion(ByzantineMarathonisi), the sixthcenturyGytheionwas the departurepoint,accordingto the Chronicle ofMonemvasia, Laconians.16By the reignof Basil I (867-76),Elos, an alternativename for foremigrating Skala in theByzantineand Ottomanperiods,had replacedGytheionas theprincipalportof Laconia.17The coastlineof thismarshydelta changes its position,but the course of the EvrotasbetweenSkala and thesea was channelledand maintainedin á suitableconditionfor of the The portmay have come into being as part of NikephorosFs restructuring ships.18 referto Arab piraticalraids on the Sourcesfrequently of the Péloponnèse.19 administration coast of the Péloponnèse in the ninthand tenthcenturies,which only ceased with the Byzantinereconquestof Cretein 961. This meantthatSkala, in itsinlandposition,was less likelyto fallpreyto surprisepiraticalraids than othermore vulnerablelocationssuch as Gytheion.Skala continuedto functionthroughoutOttoman times,since one traveller therein 1740.20In the post-Byzantine recordeddetailsof his disembarkation period,other Laconian ports functionedin addition to Skala: Oítylos (Vítylo) and Marathonisi are mentionedin tradingdocumentsas thesourcesfora numberofLaconianproducts(silk,olive oil,valoniaoak,and reddye).21 wereconnectedwiththeirportsbyroad.AlthoughtheEvrotasis Sparta,and laterMystras, a largeriver,a sequenceof deep, narrowravinesbetweenthe cityand the coast (via Skala) renderit unnavigable.The routefromSpartaand Mystrasto Skala followedthewestbankof southat Daphni and goingthroughLevétsova(modernKrokées)to theEvrotasbeforeturning linkedto theport Skala.22The Chrysaphabasin,surveyzone U, was probablyindependently via Kephalás.23Fromthereit wouldhave been possibleto crossthe riverat Skouraand join theSparta-Mystras road,or go eastto Gerákiand thensouthto Skala. 15Some are markedon ILLS7.2-3,5-9. 16 P. Lemerle, 'La chronique improprementdite de Monemvasie:le contextehistoriqueet légendaire',Revuedes at 8-11. études 21 (1063),"S-4Q, byzantines, 17A. Bon, L· Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu'en 1204 (Bibliothèque

byzantine,études,1; Paris,1951),108-10.For the varietyof possibilitiesfor the location of Elos, and some definite TheDevelopment associationswithSkala, seeJ. M. Wagstaff, of A Studyof theHelos Plain in SouthernGreece Rural Settlements:

1982), 58-9. (Avebury, 10The presentchannels,primarily fordrainage,were made in 1921afterprolongedneglectbroughtabout

nnnredir.tahle flooding·.

'9 P. E. Niavis, The ReignoftheByzantineEmperor McephorusI,

AD802-811(HistoricalMonographs,γ,Athens,1987),79-83. 20Ph. K. Thalbos, Μάρκου 'ΑντωνίουΚατσαΐτη: &ύο

ταξίδια στηΣμύρνη1740και1742(Athens, 1072), 31,101-2.

21ForMarathonisicf.Leake, Travels, ii. 240-^0. 22All havenotable Byzremains. 23The presentroad betweenChrysaphaand Kephalás medievalcobblingin places. preserves

periods 343 Byzantineand Ottoman

III. 7.1.CentralLaconia in medievaltimes,showingthearea ofthesurvey(D. Taylor).

344 Chapter7 ORGANIZATION

OF THE COUNTRYSIDE

The principalunit of the Byzantinecountryside was the village,designatedeitherby the classicalword komeor the Byzantinechorion. Large villages(such as U490) were knownas A consisted of homesteads or oikostasid), areas undercrop individual komopoleis.village (staseis cultivation and fruit and These (choraphia), vegetablegardens(penvolid). vineyards(ambelones), would have been located at a distancefromthe core {kathedrd) of the village,connectedby maintained.The chonon was distinctfromthe roadsand smallpathswhichwerecommunally and economicruralunit. ton the administrative (koinotes chonou), principal villagecommunity - who may have been villagers[choutai) or a farmers As well as the inhabitants of the chonon whose was tied to military and both soldiers, landholding (georgoi), independentgroups owned who have included of the service, villagecommunity may proprietors privateestates, Treatise on Taxation estates.24 The areas of there were also ecclesiastical land; tenth-century large of the termis derived anothertypeof ruralsite,the agndion.25 Understanding distinguished a distancefromand a was at taken to mean located fromusage: an agndion, hamlet, usually if it involved of on a chorion, occupation virginland. Later these especially dependent A the term into agridia. proasteion, generallyused foran estate,had lost developed independent its classical sense of 'suburb' and could be located at a substantialdistancefromurban centres.26 It consistedofa principaldwellingwhichcould be quitegrand,demesneland,and could also be workedentirelyby slaves.A ninth-century land workedby tenants.Proasteia and 'innumerable'slaves in her will.27Slaves feature citizenof Patraslefteightyproasteia in life. rural Normally acquired as prisonersof war, theywere prominently Byzantine and chattels.Their childrenwere automatically between humans regardedas somewhere A information makesit difficult to place the role of slavesinto slaves. lack of authoritative whatscantevidencethereis Nevertheless, life,and evidenceis alwayscircumstantial. everyday indicatesthatslavesexistedin largenumbersand thattheywerean important partoftherural economy.In the secondhalfof the tenthcenturyone authormentions'fieldsfullof slaves'; An ecclesiastical documentsare less frequent.28 in eleventh-and twelfth-century references estate (metochion) was subject to but physicallyseparate froma parent monastery.It was providedwitha chapel and would have been tended eitherby monksor by dependent ofboth. whohad no land oftheirown,or bya combination peasants(paroikoi) fashionfromthe Byzantine.The The Ottomanlandscape was organizedin a different to the equivalentof Sparta, a polis,is §ehir.There is no correspondingtypeof settlement There were villages(köy)but not hamlets.An individualhouseholdwas a hane. komopolis. The Ottomansystemconsistedof large estatesheld on conditionaltenure,such as timars, and smallholdingsheld as private estatesheld as privateproperty,like the later çiftlik, There were many Ottoman religiousor charitableestates(vakif),but as they property.29 24The georgos of the Farmer's Law was not always as independentas has oftenbeen assumed: see A. Harvey,

27S. Runciman,'The widowDanielis', in K. Varvaressos

d'AndréAndréades (Athens, 1940), (ed.), Étudesdédiéesà la mémoire

Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire goo-1200

425-31·

25 F. Dölger, Beiträge zur Geschichteder byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts (ByzantinischesArchiv,9; Leipzig and Berlin, 1927), 115. 13-20. 26 G. de papyrologie, Husson, Recherches 4 (1967), 192-6; A. P. Kazhdan, Derevnia i gorod ν Vizantii, IX-X uv: ocherkipo istonivizantiiskogo feodalizma(Moscow, i960), 60 n. 13. Estates

fontium historiaeByzantinae, 5; Berlin,1973),250. 56-7. "ydome timars nave Deen îaentiiiea on tne neios piain: Wagstaff(n. 17), 59. There is an intense debate among Ottomanistsover the originsand developmentof the çiftlik and system.See C. Keyderand F. Tabak (eds), Landholding

(Cambridge,1989),15-16.

wordssuchas ktemata. couldalso be designated bylessspecific

28 Thurn (Corpus (ed.), IoannisScylitzaesynopsishistonarum J.

in theMiddle East (New York, 1991), for Commercial Agriculture

extendeddiscussionofthisdebate.

periods 345 Byzantineand Ottoman mannerfromthe Byzantinemetochion. weretechnicallyownerlesstheyoperatedin different the are to because difficult Byzantinedocumentation,quite as detailedas compare They is lost. For our area of Laconia even the abbreviated the Ottoman defters (tahrir defteri), betweenthe two regimesin a icmal)have not survived.The basic difference defters (defteri rural contextwas that the Byzantinestaxed land and trade while the Ottomans taxed focused produceand people. The detailsof the respectivegovernment registerstherefore on different aspects. The main Byzantinetaxeswere thoseon ruralland (demosion) and on citybuildingsand Land taxes were based on detailed land surveys,of which only one trade (kommerkiori). In the late Byzantineperiod,taxationwas less regulatedand thereis evidenceof survives.30 numeroussecondarytaxes.The principleofcorvéehad alwaysexisted,but in thelate period it passed fromstateobligationintoprivatehands,in a feudalmanner.Reassertionof state controlunderthe Ottomansabolishedcorvéescompletely. Ottomantaxationwas based on variouspoll taxes:theispençe theharag paid specifically byChristians, paid byall non-Muslims, and theavariz,an extraordinary taxusuallyleviedat timeofwar. Trade was carriedon regularlyat local markets,where one formof produce could be exchanged for another,and at less frequentintervalsat fairs,where the vendors were who had come fromboth the vicinityand further merchants afield.Both the annual fairat in which Ottoman and the times, U490, certainlyhappened Mystrashorsefair,whichstill in have their roots the functions, may Byzantineperiod.31 LANDSCAPE AND RESOURCES

The territory of the surveyincludesthe wide valleybottomon the east side of the river Evrotas(zonesM, J,H, and partofD), smallpartsofwhichweresubjectto seasonalflooding whichfedmineral-rich alluvialdepositson the low-lying areas. This area is boundedby the in foothills of Párnon zones and and M, J, H, gentle steeperslopesin D. The soilsof M are to constant erosion. But it does mainlymarls,subjected providemore stableconditionsfor habitationin the shorttermthanthevalleybottom,whilebeingclose enoughto exploitthe alluvialsoilsand abundanceofwater.The hillyzonesΑ-C, E, and F have mainlyschistsoils. of cerealsand olives.There is a Today theyare terracedand givenover to inter-cropping similarlandscape in zones Κ and G, but theylie along the course of the Kelephina river, whosewatersprovidea stimulus forintensecultivation thoughitsbankscan be steep.In zone G is the onlycommercially mineral resource withinthe surveyterritory, exploited gypsum in which recent centuries a livelihood for the inhabitantsof nearby quarries provided buttheywereoperatingat thebeginning Theologos.The date oftheirearliestuse is unknown, of the nineteenthcenturyand continued to do so until the second world war.32The contrast:thoughtheirlandscape is ruggednessof zones Ν and L providesan interesting a of Ν is uninhabited. The northernsector of N, close to the similar, large proportion L and the of the Kelephina, part along Sophronigorgedo have a numberof sites.They 30N. Svoronos,'Recherchessurle cadastrebyzantinet la fiscalité aux Xle et Xlle siècles:le cadastrede Thèbes',BCH 83 (1959)»ï-Hô· 31For fairsin the Péloponnèse,see A. I. Lambropoulou, Όι πανηγύρεις στην Πελοπόννησο κατά την μεσαιωνικήεποχή',in C. G. Angelidi(ed.),H καθημερινή

ζωή στο Βυζάντιο: τομές και συνέχειεςστην

καιρωμαϊκήπαράδοση(πρακτικάτου ι. ελληνιστική διεθνούςσυμποσίου,15-17Σεπτ. ig88) (Athens,1989)»

291-310. 32 The quarries were noted by the Commission For theirrecenthistorysee Μεγάληελληνική Scientifique. έγκυκλοπαίδειο2 (Athens),s.v.Θεολόγος.

346 Chaptery

cannot have been easy places to live in, but the arrangementof the sites illustratesthe even ifthewateris difficult of access. There is a cluster importanceofwaterto settlements, around the Kástora spring (N195). The great upland plateau in zone Ρ consists of uncultivablelayersof conglomeratelaid down over marl.The easternedge of the plateau rises up into Parnon proper,withterracedhillsidesin zones R, S, and Τ supplied with abundantwaterfromthe spring-linethat runs throughS and T. The modernvillage of valleyofzone Chrysaphais in thesehills.It standson a ridge,lookingsouthacrossthefertile U (the whole valley is much larger than the surveyednorthernarea) and, in the other above northto thehigherpeaks ofParnon.The valleyfallsaway intothefoothills direction, theEvrotasat Goritsaand Kephalas. is dominatedbymaquis,as in zones L, N, R, The naturallandscapeofthesurveyterritory butmicrosystems, and P. Continuousgrazingmeansthisis generallytreeless, usuallyinvolving waterand difficulty ofaccess (in remata), produceareas wherethescrublandmaturesintotree forms,as in zone S. The hillyareas of zones A-G and Κ are wooded because theylie in a rain-excessbelt. Zone M, whichis relatively flat,is naturallygrassland.Zones Η and J are so thattheyare naturalmeadows. similarbutproneto seasonalflooding, The overwhelmingphysicalcharacteristicof the provinceof Laconia is the contrast betweenvalleyand mountain.The foremost valleyis thatthroughwhichthe Evrotasflows. It is fed by manytributaries flowingdown fromTaygetosand Parnon,and is a perennial the modernKelephina (ancientOinous), rises sourceofwater.One of itsmajor tributaries, in Parnonand flowsthroughthe area ofthe survey, borderingzones C, G, and K. It, too,is the Sophronigorge,whichjoins the that comes as is the water course through perennial, K. are beds in zones Ε and G and There seasonaltorrent at the of zones junction Kelephina thatcutsacrosszone S can be accessedrelatively B. The spring-line easilyat anypoint,and has severaloutlets. THE EVIDENCE

themedievalsettlements. A numberofdifferent kindsofevidencehave been used to identify Of primaryimportancein thiscontextare the ceramics.They indicatethe chronologyand functionof individual sites, while the extentto which they are scatteredcan help to determine the size of the site. Standing monumentsalso mark sites. Some may be monumentaland relatively intact,such as the monasteryof the FortyHoly Martyrs,Agioi TessarákontaMartyres(demoticÁgioi Saránda; L534),or the churchand tower-houseof tissaat U490. Othersmaybe no morethanremnantsoftheoriginal,such Panagia Chrysaphi as thechurchofthe Sotirat P284or thechurchofAgioiTheódoroiat S475.The well-known historicalsourcesforLaconia, fullyreferencedin the worksof Zakythinosand Bon, are referredto below in the historicalbackgroundsectionswhen relevant.Other less wellor foundationcharter,of Agioi Saranda, attestedtextsutilizedin detail are the typikon, and the and seventeenth in the sixteenth list its of centuries, acquisitions property especially census carried out at the instigationof the Venetian governmentin 1700 by Francesco of of 1770,the governments insurrection Russian-fostered Grimani.33 Followingthe ill-fated, 33I am grateful for ofMonemvasia to theMetropolitan FortheVenetian accessto theunpublished typihon* allowing census see S. P. Lambros,"Έκθεσις των Βενετών προνοητώντης Πελοποννήσουέκ των έν Βενετίο:

αρχείων έκδιδόμεναι', Δελτίον Ιστορικής και 'Εθνολογικής'Εταιρείας,5 (1900), 228-51, 425-507» Πληθυσμός,ΐ44~5>data at 605-823;Panagiotopoulos, 231-89(Laconiaat281-9).

Byzantine and Ottomanperiods 34.J

Britain and France competed in gatheringaccurate topographical informationabout Laconia. To thisend Captain Leake travelledthroughthe surveyarea in the springof 1805, placed in a classicallandscape,was notpublisheduntil thoughhis summaryof observations, an<^ the French J^32 armygeographicalservicesurveyedLaconia and 1830.34Between1829 a drew up detailed maps. They were used fewyears later by Blouet and Boblaye in the whichpublishedsmaller-scaleversionsof the originalsto famousExpéditionScientifique, accompanytheirtexts.35 THE SURVEY DATA

The followingaccountis subdividedintochronologicalperiodsnot corresponding to those in generalhistoricaluse. They have been so arrangedin orderto presentthe accumulated data in a comprehensible fashion,indicatingchangesdetectedby the archaeologicalrecord whichmaybe lost in more conventionalchronologies.The late Roman to earlyByzantine period is taken as the sixthto eighthcenturies,and encompasses the so-called Slavic invasionsand theiraftermath.The middle Byzantineperiod is divided into three: the ninthand tenthcenturies,thatis, the restoration of the Péloponnèseto Constantinopolitan administrationand its response to the resultingstability;the pre-Komnenianeleventh when a change is detectedarchaeologicallyin the rural settlementpattern;and century, whichcorrespondsto a flourishing the twelfth of the agriculturaleconomy.The century, late Byzantineor Palaiologan period, fromthe beginningof the thirteenthto the midfifteenthcentury,saw the surprisingrise of Laconia fromfar-flungprovince to royal county,withMystrasas an operationalcentreof the imperialfamily.The Ottomanstook officialcontrolof Laconia in 1460,and the Ottomanperiod extendsfromthenuntil1826 when the Greek rebellionwas successfully launched on the northernmost bordersof the it is difficult to between the province.Although distinguisharchaeologically earlyand late Ottomanperiods,theyare distincthistorically, a beingseparatedby generationofVenetian from to rule, 1685 1715. Size has been used throughoutas an indicatorof the natureof a site (see TABLE7.1). This may not alwayshold true,as in the cases of T445, a village-sizedsite whichwas in factan estate,and F146,identifiedas an agridion in a monasticchrysobullbut estimated type

size (ha)

Greek

Turkish

function

i

0.01-0.15

στάσις

haue

farm

ii

0.15-0.30

προάστειον

çiftlik

villa/estate

iii

0.30-1.00

άγρίδιον

köy

hamlet

iv

1.00-3.00

χωρίον

karye

village

V

3.00+

κωμόπολις

$ehir

countrytown

mapsymbol

Ο

Table 7.1.Definitions ofsites.

34J. M. Wagstaff,'Colonel Leake in Laconia', in

Φίλολήκων, 277-84.

35CommissionScientifique de Morée, Cartedela Morée. . .

(Paris,1832).Leake used themin his 1844 study,and Finlay commissioned hisownprivatecopydirectly fromParis.

348 Chapter7

duringthe surveyto cover 1.3 ha. The methodby whichfunctionis read fromsize is open to criticism,but some criteriaare necessaryto order the data, and generallythe system works.Five site types are distinguished,(i) Sites of 0.01-0.15 ha are classed as small individualhouseholds,(ii) A site of 0.15-0.30 ha is a large farmor villa or ruralestate.It has a singleidentifiable nucleus,unlikethe nextgroup(iii),whichmay coverbetween0.30 and ι.ο ha and formeda small clusterof houses or a hamlet,(iv) A site of 1.0-3.0 ha is a largerclusterof houses or a village.Finally,(v) a site of 3.0 ha or greateris a largevillage or small countrytown. A number of locations were noted which subsequentlywere sites.The medievaldata forthewhole survey as Komnenianand non-habitation identified are summarizedin TABLE7.2. territory

LSno.

type

B106

i/inn i

B300 D87 D92 D97 D98 D302 D306 D368

bridge i i i tower

E55 E75 E77 E89 €10336

i ii calderimi bridge *

FI39 F146 F149 ft0332

i i iii

G156 G162 G182

ii i iii/monastery

G254 G522 HII H2O H2 H29 H33 H34 H40 H42 H45 H46 H47 H51 hioo66 I110326 I110328

i

*/mill ii/*

ii/* *

i ii iv i inn bridge calderimi iii ♦

i

MBi

MB2

Kom

Pal

Ott

periods 349 Byzantineand Ottoman LSno.

type

J44 J170 J2I2 J229 J232

J3r7 J367 J369 J5OO9

ii ii i iii iii/* iv ii iii bridge

K204 K237 K244 K245 K247 K250 K253 K257 K258 K403

iii/mill ii iii iii iv i i/* i/* ii i

L259 1402

i ♦/store

1438 1476 L477 L534

i store monastery

M321 M322 M328 M332 M334 M341 M344 M346 M349 M356 mio623 Π110627

iii i ii ii ii i iii ii i i * i

N189 Νigoi N191Í NI95 N312 N418

* iii/inn ii ii

P284

iv

Qi79 Q.i8o Q358

ii/*

R290 R422 R426

iii iii

S441 S450

i

MBi

MB2

Kom

Pal

Ott

350 Chaptery LSno.

type

S45I S466 S475

i iii iii

T443 T445 T482 T484 T485 110849

i ii iii i iii i

U483 U487 U488 U490

ii mill ii

U500 U501 U502 U505 U506 U507 U511 U513 U516 U517 U532 U533 U10871 U10878 u 10905 UIO925 UIO927 u 10950 UIO95I u 10979 UIO987 UIO99I UIO992 u 10995 UIII63 UIII66

MBi

MB2

Kom

Pal

Ott

V

iii i * i i/* i iv springhouse iv * i tower i i i/* i/* i * * * * *

* Komneniannon-habitation site. Table 7.2.All medievallocations(total129),exceptchurches, showingtypeand duration.

Late Roman to Early

Byzantine

(Sixth

to Eighth

Centuries

ad)

historical background Historicalsources forlife in Laconia in the early Byzantineperiod are concernedwith devastations by invasionand disease.In thelast decades of thesixthcenturyand throughout the seventh,the Péloponnèseexperiencedlarge-scalepopulationupheavalsassociatedwith southwardSlav migrations, consequentemigrationof the indigenouspeoples,earthquakes,

periods 351 Byzantineand Ottoman Slavic culturewas tribaland nomadic,and territorial and epidemics.36 'conquest'was not of any kind of administrative followedby the establishment infrastructure. The resultant while focused on more creepingdestabilization,takingplace Constantinople perceptible, ceased to pressingproblemsin the east, meant that the centralgovernmenteffectively Balkan in administer of the a of the theme largeparts peninsula,culminating reorganization of Hellas to incorporatePeloponnesos. It is clear that areas of the Péloponnèse which remainedGreekretainedlinkswiththe capital.37 The Greekinhabitants of the Péloponnèse sitesand on the Aegean islands;thosewho could fleeingthe Slavs took refugein fortified affordto go furtherafieldsettledin Calabria and Sicily.38 In thiscontext,the Chronicle of Monemvasia The section which deals with the Laconian gives importantinformation.39 responseto theSlavicinvasionsrecords:'Asfortheherdsmenand rusticfolk,theywereplaced in occupationof the roughterritories nearby,whichlatelyhave been named tzakoniafA0 Towardsthe end of the sixthcentury, then,indigenousGreekswentup intoParnon,where The cityof examplesof theirdialect- Tzakonian,a formof ancientDoric- survivetoday.41 Lakedaimonitself(accordingto the Chronicle) becamedeserted,itscitizenshavingemigratedto The 'desertion'of the cityof Sparta shouldnot be takenliterally, since excavations Sicily.42 revealsome occupationthen,and the churchcontinuedto function.43 Rather,therewas not Anotherpopulation'blip' is enoughpopulationto supporta basic level of civic structures. notedin themiddleoftheeighthcentury, whenbubonicplaguestruck.44 It is difficult to assess to what extentthis affectedthe agriculturalcommunitiesof the Péloponnèse.Although undoubtedlyit did 'travellike spreadingfire',as Theophanes recorded,because of the it cannothave been as devastating as whenit reached dispersednatureofruralcommunities which the sources much there werestillsufficient (to Constantinople calamity pay attention); in left the to be to the people Péloponnèse transplanted depopulatedcapital.45Evidentlythe stateconsidereda lackofcitizensin Constantinople a moreseriousproblemthanremovalofa sizeableportionoftheruralpopulationfromtheprovinces. Fromthe sparse extantreferencesto Laconia in the seventhand eighthcenturies,the and theabsenceofany picturepaintedis one ofinstability, populationdeclineand movement, real formof government, all succeedingthe prosperity of the sixthcentury.The Spartans, when forcedto leave,.'emigrated'to Sicilyand did not 'take refuge',as citizensof other 36The principalsourceforthe invasionsis the so-called

Chronicleof Monemvasia. See I. Dujcev (ed.), Cronaca di Monemvasia:introduzione, testocritico,traduzionee note(Istituto

Sicilianodi StudiBizantinie Neoellenici,12;Palermo,1976). All the evidencehas been collectedby Bon (n. 17),31-64. The effectof naturaldisasterson the Péloponnèsein this "'. . . και τα periodis discussedin Ph. Evangelatou-Notara, πολλά της Πελοποννήσου . . . σεισμού γεγόνασιν ii. 427-48, at παρανάλωμα'", 3rd Peloponnesian Congress, 432-41.

37P. L. Vokotopoulos, Ή εκκλησιαστική αρχιτεκτονική ειςτηνδντικήν Στερεαν'ΕλλάδακαιτηνΉπειρονάπο τοντέλουςτοϋηου μέχριτου τέλουςτου 10ου αιώνος

'The fortified (Thessaloniki, 1975)5ι9ι~2>201-4; Τ Gregory, ** (1082),u-2i, at 21. citiesofByzantineGreece',Archaeology, 38 See M. S. F. Hood, 'Isles of refuge in the early Byzantineperiod',BSA 65 (1970),37-44; G. L. Huxley,'The seconddarkage of the Péloponnèse',λακ. σπουδ. 3 (1977), 84-110.

39 Τ.em prie (r' if'' c-^n

40Lines 48-50 in Lemerle'sedition(n. 16); translation by of Tzakonia see D. A. Huxley(n. 38), 90. For identification L· Despotat Zakythinos, grecduMorée,ii: Vieetinstitutions (Paris, !953)>14-19· 41For the languagesee G. C. Horrocks,Greek: A History of theLanguage anditsSpeakers (London, 1997),41. Some of the older inhabitantsof Aphysouwhose familyoriginsare in mountainvillagesofParnonstillspeakthisdialect. 42Forthedeclineofthecitysee Bouras(n. 8), 622. 43Oikonomides(n. 2) listsbishops. 44 Specific mention is made of Monemvasia as being affected.It is unlikely, thatLaconia escaped. See therefore, Theophanes Confessor,Χρονογραφία, chs 422-3, in C. Mango and R. ScottwithG. Greatrex(eds and trans.),The Chronicleof Theophanes Confessor:Byzantine and Near Eastern AD 284-813 (Oxford, 1997). History,

45By the emperorConstantineV (r. 741-75) in 754/5. Theophanes(n. 44), ch. 429.

352 Chaptery

sitescloserto home. Peloponnesiancitieswerecompelledto do, in someoftheuncomfortable moved theshepherdsand farmers, sectionsofLaconian society, At thesametime,lessaffluent Parnon. into Mount up SITES AND SETTLEMENTS OF THE SIXTH TO EIGHTH CENTURIES AD

to the withinthesurveyarea whichcan be datedwithcertainty No siteshavebeen identified overall but the To someextentthisreflects seventhand eighthcenturies. story politicalhistory, is nowwellenoughunderstoodto mustbe moresubtle.The materialcultureofthesecenturies thatthelacuna couldbe based on a failureto recognizetheceramics.In dispelanyarguments in conjunction beams,roof-tiles Laconia,wherethereis an abundanceofwood forsupporting withstoragevessels(i.e. forwinterresidence)clearlymarkpermanentdwellings.46 Possibly, however,the hiatus in settlementwas more apparent than real and the landscape was The principalusesto whichthe to detectarchaeologically. occupiedin a waywhichis difficult in varyingproportions. and animalhusbandry, Farming landscapewas put were cultivation farmhouses willhave had domesticand are relatively activities easy to read archaeologically; theirpermanentoccupation.In a pastoral contextthe extentof storagewares reflecting human activitywill be small; settlementmay not have been permanent,and associated ceramics,if theyexisted,will probablyhave been of such a 'local' natureas to be almost impossible to place confidentlyinto a chronological framework.Could the lack of thatthereare It is significant archaeologicalevidencebe a clue to mainlypastoralactivities? Tzakonian place-names withinthe surveystudyterritory:Achragiás (G162/182)from αχλαδιά,pear-tree;Tzákona (or Tsákona, N415) is self-evident;Tsiliotó (R4000) from σπηλαιωτός,cave-place;and, just beyondthe survey'sboundaryof zone S, Agios Ioánnis an elisionmeaningTig field'(fromσυντζά,Tig').47Assumingthat Pródromosat Syntziáphi, leastto thesixthcentury, back at thesetoponyms theyare evidencethattheregionwas not go theseare some of theplaces to which in dark this second deserted Perhaps age.48 completely centuriesin a and whichtheyoccupiedin thefollowing theshepherdsand farmerswithdrew mannernot detectableby surveymethods.No Slavic ceramicswere foundin the territory, whichaccordswithtextualevidencethattheSlavswerein Taygetosand on theHelos plain.49 If the lowlandsof the Evrotasvalleyand Helos plain were out of boundsto the indigenous population, and if state administrationhad broken down in interiorregions of the Péloponnèseas the textsimply,thenzone U, the Chrysaphabasin,could have been on the There are no tracesof occupationin zone U in this peripheriesof 'Byzantineterritory'. and the intense widespreadlateroccupation,especiallyaround U490, may period,though that there have obliterated mayhave been, especiallyifit had been sparseto beginwith. any The Tzakoniannamesin zonesG and N,just beyondtheorbitofthevalleyoftheEvrotas,are rusticscringingin the mountains.They may have at odds withthe conceptof frightened 46In regionswherewood was scarce,ceramic roof-tiles are and interpretation were not used and siteidentification moredifficult. 47I am grateful to GeorgeHuxleyforhis guidanceon the of thesenames.Th. P. Kostakis,Λεξικόντης identification τσακωνικήςδιαλέκτου(Athens,1986-7),is the basic work forTzakonian. ofreference 40For the 6th-cent.originsof the toponyms,see b. C. Caratzas, Les Tzakones(Berlin, 1976); the Chronicleof Monemvasia says'lately'.

49Slavic ceramicsare distinctive and easilyrecognisable: BCH 84 (i960), 720; K. Kilian, 'Zu einigen früh-und Funden aus der Burg von Tiryns', hochmittelalterlichen

10 (1980), 281-90; M. Vasmer, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt,

Die Slavenin Griechenland (Abhandlungender Preussischen AkademiederWissenschaften, Klasse, philologisch-historische De administrando 12;Berlin,1941);Constantine Porphyrogenitus, trans.R. J. H. Jenkins; Washington, (ed. G. Moravcsik, império DC, 1967),50,p. 232,lines20-1;Wagstaff (n. 17),57.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 353 Pastoralists neededto engagein somecommodity belongedto seasonalsettlements. exchange: the location of these Tzakonian sites,out of sightbut withinreach of Sparta, may have forthatpurpose. functioned to proposethatlifedid go on in thesecenturiesbut thatexistencewas on a It is tempting level. The evidenceforthisis moretopographical and textualthanarchaeological. low fairly Middle HISTORICAL

Byzantine

I (Ninth to Early

Eleventh

Centuries

ad)

BACKGROUND

in Laconia by the government in Constantinople Radical changeswereimplemented at the oftheemperorNikephorosI (802-13).He 're-established' thepolisofLakedaimon instigation withplantationsofThrakesioi,Armenians,and Kapheroi,all Greek-speaking and Orthodox peoples fromAsia Minor.Much has been made of the proactivepolicies implementedby as deliberateacts aimed at drawinglostterritories underthe Nikephoros, interpreted firmly once more.That thiswas theresultofhis actionsthereis no imperialaegisofConstantinople doubt,but whetherit was the primaryaim is not so clear.The sourcesconcentrateon the of estatesin Asia Minor.Three generationsof named familieswere emperor'sconfiscation 'Slav lands'; in turn,theirformerestateswere to be takenover by to move to compelled merchants and traders.The primaryaim of thislegislationmusthave been to constrainthe powerof theselandowners;an added advantagewas thattheywere obliged to take their wildernessof the Péloponnèse,particularly Laconia, agronomicexpertiseto the agricultural and encouraged to develop new estates there.The whole infrastructure of societywas in theseplantations, forpeasantsas wellas landedfamilies weretransplanted.50 represented The Vitaof Nikon,Sparta'spatronsaint,who livedthereat the end of the tenthcentury and died in aboutAD 1000,is traditionally takento recordlifein Spartain thesecondhalfof thetenthcentury.51 But muchofitsdetailportrays thecityin themid-twelfth and its century, later relates to the time. Little factual evidence can be from that source for setting extrapolated the tenth-century the fact that Nikon was there and founded a An city,beyond monastery. incidentrelatedin the Vitaconcerninga nobleman(archon), arrestedand takenfortrialin formisappropriation ofland, is normallyassociatedwiththeimplementation Constantinople ofa law of996, in thereignofBasilII (976-1025),who is namedin thestory. It is interesting in the presentcontextbecause of the implicationthat klasmaticland was exploited (land cultivatedwhichhad gone out of use), the failureor absence of peasantfarmersto formerly cultivateit,theresourcesavailableto thelandowningclasswithwhichto cultivateit,and the determination ofcentralgovernment to constraintheiractivities. Otherwiselittleis knownof thepoliticalhistory ofSpartaand Laconia in theninthand tenthcenturies. SETTLEMENTS

OF THE NINTH

TO EARLY

ELEVENTH

CENTURIES

(ILL.

7.2)

The numberof sherdsthatcan withcertainty be dated to the ninthand tenthcenturiesis and no statistical can be based small, arguments upon them.Also the densityof sherdsof thesedates is low. Each of the foursites(J170,K247,P284, and U490) thatwere definitely occupiedin theninthand tenthcenturiescontinuedto functionuntilwell intothe Ottoman 50Chronicle ed. Dujcev (n. 36), 22. 196-9; P. ofMonemvasia, Charanis,'NicephorusI, thesaviorofGreecefromtheSlavs 1 (1946), 75-92. (810 ad)', Byzantina-Metabyzantina,

51D. Ε Sullivan(ed.), TheLifeofSaintNikon(Archbishop Iakovos Libraryof Ecclesiasticaland HistoricalSources,4; Brookline, Mass., 1987).

354 Chaptery

settlements III. 7.2. MiddleByzantineI (ninth-to earlyeleventh-century) (D. Taylor).

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 355 of theirearlierexistence.The period,and laterusage has obscuredany fullunderstanding of and are to be associated withlater occupation, U490 likely large extents K247, P284, in anysensiblediscussionoftheirsize at earlierphases theirexistence.However,it precluding thatthreeof the foursitesestablishedso earlyin the medievalperiod mustbe significant in the area, shouldhave developedinto some of the mostimportantmedievalsettlements indicatingsome constantfavourableelementsin the factorsthatinfluencedtheirchoice as locations.Once established, K247,p284?and U490flourished. thisperiod withcertainty:types10-11, glazed table wares Four potteryformsidentify and 31, a smallamphora.52 24, a typeofglazed chafing-dish; importedfromConstantinople; derivedfromceramics(sitedate and function), Apartfromtheusual basic information types 10 and 11 have an intrinsicinterest.It cannot have been easy to bring potteryfrom Constantinopleto Sparta, let alone take it into Parnon. These glazed wares are purely whichseemsto pointto theiruse throughpersonalpreference.53 functional, Perhapstheywere broughtto Laconia by the colonistswho arrivedat the beginningof the ninthcenturyand wishedto maintainsome semblanceof theirformerlivesin the 'wilderness'to whichthey weresent. in the surveyterritory, Whilethreeof the sitesbecame the principalmedievalsettlements theother(J170) is theonlyone to lie closeto thecityofLakedaimon,whichmaybe thereason fromitscontemporaries. Its size is on theupperlimitfora history whyit followeda different to interpret how it mighthave functioned: smallfarmstead.It is difficult it may have been slaves of an in on behalf owner who dwelt the or it operatedby city, may have been the Located on well-irrigated summerretreatof a city-dweller. and flatgroundwithrichsoils,it wouldhavebeen suitableformarketgardening, whichwouldhavecontributed to provisioning thenewlyre-endowed city. lie withina radiusfromthecitythatis lessthanhalfa day'sjourneyon SitesK247and 1*284 foot.It wouldbe possibleto travelto Spartaregularly formarkets, buttheirlandscouldnotbe workedon a dailybasisfromthecity.WhileK247,whoseearlyoccupationisjust as obscureas thatofJ170,would have been independentof Sparta on a day-to-daybasis, it would have relied on the marketsthereto consume its excess produce. The abundant water of the locationon gentleslopesare factors Kelephina,availableall yearround,and thesouth-facing thatmusthaveinfluenced thechoiceofsite.The schistsoilsare amenableto variedcultivation withcereals,olives,and fruittrees.The lightsoils are also easilyterraced.There is later evidenceforexploitation of both the Kermococcus vermilio (p. 105),an insectwhichinfeststhe southernEuropeanKermèsoak and yieldsa brightred dyewhencrushed,and oftheValonia oak, whose acorns providedboth pig fodderand were used to produce tanninfordyeing leather.54 Such practicesmay have had Byzantineantecedents.Mulberrytrees,too, are still dottedaroundthe site,and silkmay have been producedhere.There may be a clue to its originalfunctionin its name, properlyΚτητόρισσα, renderedin demotic as Χτόριζα 52Types10- 11: LSii. 129,fig.17.5.Type 24: LSii. 132,fig. 17.5.Type31: LSii. 133. 53 This is discussed in detail in P. Armstrong,'From to Lakedaimon:impressed whitewares',inJ. Constantinople Herrin,M. Mullett,and C. Otten-Froux (eds),Mosaic:Festschrift forA. H. S. Megaw(BSA Studies,8) (London,2002),57-68. 54 K. G. Ponting, A Dictionaryof Dyes and Dyeing(London,

1980).

55 Grimani's rendering,Chisorissa (Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός, 282) comesclose to the original.The name of siteis recordedin monasticdocumentsof the Ottomanera as Κτητόρισα (ι6 14)or Χητόρισα (ΐ68ο).A villagename in Taygetoshas thesamederivation: Ντόριζα.

356 Chapter7

It is likelythatthename originates withthefounding ofthesite,sincethereis no (Chtóriza).55 breakin occupationfromthe tenthto eighteenth and centuries, pointsto it havingbeen a estate. The is location because,thoughnot farfromSparta (about three interesting private hoursbyfoot),itis hiddenin thevalleyoftheKelephinaon theroutebetweenthecityand the northernmost peaks of Parnon. The slope on which it is located would have requireda carriedoutbyslaves.56 significant inputoflabourto createcultivableareas,presumably in P284is closeto no naturalsourceofwater. Uniquelyamongthemedievalsites thesurvey, Hence the large cisternunder the churchhere was maintainedthroughoutthe centuries. whichbreaksall therulesforsitelocation.Set on an Indeed,P284standsout as thesettlement upland plateau where uncultivable thin pockets of marl lie on inhospitable beds of at 510 m itis one ofthehighestmedievalsitesin thesurveyarea. The situation conglomerate, of P284 was not chosenforits agricultural potential.It may have been connectedwiththe ofAgioi Saranda (14001). On the cliffoppositethe ('old monastery') nearbyPalaiomonástiro main cave-chamber of the Palaiomonástiro is a path descendingintothe Sophronigorge,at an easydistancefromP284.It is used todaybyherdsmenfromChrysapha,muchfurther away thanP284,who traverse theplateauwithgrazingflocksto waterthemtheredailyin summer.57 The gorge,whichhas a perennialflow,could easilyhave servedtheneedsoflivestock at P284. Should a connectionbetweenthissettlement and the old monastery have existed,thenP284 or it may have been a may have been a village which servicedthe religiouscommunity, metochion. The lackofcultivableland and thepresenceofhigh-quality ceramicsmakethelatter Elsewherean argument has been putforward lesslikelyto be truethantheformer. suggestion in a link between the cult of the Saranda Greece and itshomelandin Asia suggesting Agioi Site P284has a moretangiblelinkwiththeoutside Minor,via St Nikonin thetenthcentury.58 in theformofimportedceramicsmanufactured at Constantinople. worldin thetenthcentury, the terrain was not for arable there were other resourceswhich cultivation, good Although The landscapeis one of arborescent shrubsand garigue. could have supporteda community. Such a It has alreadybeen notedthatthemaquisin zone Ρ was,and is,suitableforbrowsing. in a of different the wood would have could have been number ways: exploited landscape and would raw materials for artefact manufacture. pollarding specialist Coppicing provided have providedand sustainedsuppliesof firewoodand charcoal,alwaysin demandby urban populations.There was a directroute(downhill)fromP284 to the Evrotas,just oppositethe thechoiceoflocation.The unendingsupply mainpartofthecity,whichmayhaveinfluenced of fueldemandedby citiesplaced a burdenon theircatchments; P284 combinedreasonable withfoodcultivators.59 access to a marketwithenoughdistancefortherenot to be a conflict so that The altitudeof the villageis such thatmountainherbsfavouredby bees proliferate, a not for the inhabitants.60 Bees were source was another just of possiblepractice apiculture as it the more of the two commodities but also of wax for candles,possibly important honey was also in heavy demand in urban centres.All these thingscould perhaps have been 56We knowfromTheophanes thatthe plantersbrought slaves with them (ch. 486). Terrace walls, in particular, requiredtheinputofheavylabour. 57They pay a per caput pasturagetax to the koinótis of Chrysapha. 58P. Armstrong, 'The cultoftheFortyMartyrsin Greece', in M. E. Mullett(ed.), TL· Forty Martyrs (forthcoming). 59The Byzantinestatefirmlycontrolledexploitationof woodlandand fuelsuppliesthrougha specialtypeofpolice,

οί περί φυτών ορών φύλακες, protectingthem from individuals whowouldotherwise devastatean area and move on. See A. Dunn, The exploitation and controlofwoodland and scrublandin the Byzantineworld', BMGS 16 (1992), 235-98· 60H. Forbes,The uses of the uncultivated landscape in modernGreece: a pointerto the value of the wildernessin in Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes, 68-93. antiquity?',

Byzantine and Ottomanperiods 357

undertaken at P284.It is an interesting settlement because it does not automatically fallinto thecategoryofvillage,so oftendescribedas typical;itcannothavebeen self-sufficient in food, and musthaveproduced'cash crops'instead.The lackofothersimilarsites,eitherin thearea of theLaconia Surveyor further likethis afield,indicatesthata specialisttypeof settlement was not common,and the absence of othersitesin zone Ρ would suggestthatnot manyof them could be supported.The quality of the fine,glazed table wares found there are indicativeof a reasonable standardof living.The churchof the Sotir was an imposing whichmarkedthesitelongafterthedemiseofthesettlement. construction The Chrysaphabasinis an obviousplace forsettlement, a fairly capable ofsustaining large numberof people since the terrarossasoils of the limestonebasin are suited to cereal as wellas providing It is therefore curiousthatthere cultivation, pastureand accessto water.61 was no settlementthere in the Byzantineperiod beforethe ninthcentury.Tzakonian wereactivein the 'darkages', and toponyms suggestthatthisarea was one wherepastoralists that it is likelytheyhad winterquartersin the valley where U490 lies. This may have influenced theninth-century colonists'choiceoflocation.Its agricultural potentialwouldnot havebeen loston thesettlers, whopresumably arrivedwithfewor no livestock. Togetherwith the indigenous pastoralists they would have formed a self-supportingcommunity. ceramicsoftheninthto tenthcenturies werealso foundat U490. Constantinopolitan Beforethe recentlyconstructedmodern road created a directand accessible route to Sparta,Chrysaphatendedto look southto the portat Skala, or to Monemvasia,in whose dioceseit lay,ratherthanto the city.It is linkedby a kalderimi to Kephalas,fromwhereit is possibleto traveleitheralong the riverbank to Sparta or to Skala via Geraki.62There is anotherroutefromChrysaphato Sparta,whichpassed throughthelargeKomneniansiteat N190and came downto theEvrotasat 0,179.It was fitonlyforanimalsand people,whereas on therouteto Kephalas. wagonscouldhavetravelled The threeprincipalsitesofthisperiodhavebeen understoodhereas directly relatedto the of the first decade of the ninth At each of utilitarian ratherthan them, plantations century. ornamentalConstantinopolitan ceramicswerefound,indicatingactivelinkswiththecapital. It is not knownwhetherthe potterycame to rural Laconia once only,withthe original planters,or ifit continuedto be imported.Certainlyit continuedto be importedintoSparta forat leasttwocenturies.63 It is impossibleto itself,togetherwithitsfine-ware counterparts, establishhow large the threesiteswere originally.The natureof the settlements, too, is but one is to have been a estate and was as well. unclear, likely private (K247), perhapsU490 SiteP284seemsto havebeen a servicevillage,perhapsconnectedwitha monastery. Fromthe archaeology,no evidence can be seen forthe sort of klasmaticland understoodto have existedfromthe VitaNiconis.^On the contrary, thereis a surfeitof availableland thathad not been exploitedforcenturies.The only small site of thisperiod lay close to Sparta. Evidencefromthecityofitsnewbeginningin theearlyninthcenturyis therebuilding ofthe cathedralon the acropolis.65Positiveaction,then,on the public front;but whetherthere in the cityis unclear.There were probablymore siteslikeJ170in the were manyarchontes immediateperipheriesof the citybut outsidethe surveyarea. The evidencecollectedhere 61It is onlysince the 1940sthatmodernChrysaphahas becomea seasonalvillage. 62Tracesofthecobbledfoundations survive. b3It is the subjectof an on-goingstudyof findsfromold in thecity. excavations

64An interpretation oftheeventsofch. 43 (ed. Sullivan). 05Vokotopoulos (n. 37).

358 Chapter7

in the countryside beyondthe immediateradiusof the citywas suggeststhatrevitalization measuredbutultimately successful. Middle HISTORICAL

Byzantine

II (Eleventh

Century

ad)

BACKGROUND

The eleventhcenturysaw profoundchangesin theByzantineempire.Followingthedeathof Basil II in 1025 aftera reignof forty-nine years,therewas a prolongedperiod of political instabilityat court and in the administrationat Constantinople.By 1081 he had been succeededby fourteenemperorsand empresses,in an atmosphereof intenseintrigue.The whichaccompaniedtheprotracted crisisin thecapital,led ofcentralauthority, disintegration bothin Constantinople and in the to a consolidation ofthepower-baseofindividualfamilies, provinces.At the same time,the arrivalof the Seljuksfromthe east and the Crusadersfrom The essentialstructure ofboth thewestintroduced alienpoliticalideas at everylevelofsociety. thesesocietieswas based upon familyunitsand clans. In the second halfof the eleventh Arabs,and anywho chose to dwell centurytheAegean,so long the preserveof Byzantines, undertheiraegis,was dividedintoa numberof smallunits,fiefdoms of conqueredterritory. withintheByzantineworld,withtheriseofparticular This newpoliticalorderwas mirrored levelsof powerand wealth.In Laconia the Chamateros familiesto hithertounprecedented came to theforeforthefirst whowereto dominatetheprovincein thetwelfth century, family, of littleis recordedofthepoliticalhistory time.As is thecase fortheprecedingtwocenturies, in 1027°f a stonebridge hereis theconstruction Laconia in theeleventh.One itemofinterest An unusual monastic to the city.66 across the Evrotas,directlylinkingthe surveyterritory that there was sufficient was inscribed on the toll-paying newly-built bridge,showing typikon themonastery had made, as wellas ensurean incomeforthe traffic to repaytheinvestment future.It is possiblethatcrossingthe riverin thisarea beforeit was builtmay have been to thesummer, whenthewaterswerelow enoughto ford. restricted SITES

AND SETTLEMENTS

OF THE ELEVENTH

CENTURY

AD (ILL.

7.3)

ofglazedtableceramics The surveyevidenceneedsto be treatedwithcaution.The chronology refined. wares oftheeleventh is to be century Manyglazed assignedto theeleventh century yet and later. are in fact'Komnenian'and belongto thereignofAlexiosI Komnenos(1081-1118) eleventhceramicsbeforeAlexiosare notwellknown.Our pre-Komnenian Eleventh-century was a it has been on a of relies suggested, productof century chronology type amphorawhich, evidence of later ninthand sites have While all four of the tenthcentury Constantinople.67 identifiable medievaloccupationand use,J170providedno positively material, eleventh-century of the evidence.Twelvenew sitescame to chancepreservation thoughthismaybe attributed a greatervariationin site types:in into existenceduringthe eleventhcentury, introducing farmsand hamletsappearedon thelandscape. additionto estatesand villages, The six individual farmhousesare notable for theirlocations, which are dispersed thesurveyarea. They are not,however, isolated,formostlie on routes(whichstill throughout from theirsituations. Site B300,on theroad discernible a seems and function) generalpattern 66 etai, 'Crossingtheriver'. Armstrong 67Type 36: LS ii. 134-5, fig· Ι7·7· I* *s a small table amphora.

68LS ii. 329, B300 withB124.For a Byz churchsee N. V. Drandakis,Arch. Eph.1969,Chr.1-2.

periods 359 Byzantineand Ottoman

III. 7.3. MiddleByzantineII (eleventh-century) settlements (D. Taylor).

360 Chaptery

northout ofLaconia,seemsto be themostremote,thoughitmaybe relatedto someundated remainson thehillopposite;68 F146is on a secondarybranchofthesame road; H33is situated fromthe cityof Sparta;Q179is locatedat thejunctionof the on a routerunningnorth-west roadsfromChrysaphato Spartaand fromSpartato thecoast,on thewestsideoftheEvrotas; route K245isJustbelowtheroad thatrunsalongtheTheologosridge;G254is on theriverside thatfollowsthe Kelephina,close to thejunctionthatleads to Chtoriza(K247);likewise,LS at 10951 is on theroad fromU490 to theEvrotas.Possibleevidenceofpre-Komnenian activity Botaniates a coin of (1078-81). U490is offered by Nikephoros There were threenew estatesin the eleventhcentury.Site T445,Metóchi,was probably in theclassicalsense.On gently monastic(treatedbelow).SitesM334and M346wereproasteia witholivesand marketgardeningcarried fields,cerealscouldbe inter-cultivated slopingfertile settlements on witha guaranteedand accessiblemarketin thecity.Of thethreehamlet-sized ofthisperiod,K245seemsto havebeen an outlierofthevillageat K247an<^U500ofU490.Site J369is probablyto be associatedwiththe village of Magoúla, whichhas a churchof this was at H40. date.69The onlynewlargesettlement at M334and M346is withina coupleofhoursofSparta.The villagesat Each oftheproasteia H40,K247,and P284,as pointsat the end of separatelinesradiatingfromSparta,lie along a circle.The firsttwo (P284being exceptional)have haloes withinwhichare sitedfarmsteads and/orhamlets.Site U490 lies at the centreof a secondcircle,assumingSpartato be at the a middlecentreof the principalone, withsmallersitesin itshalo. Fromtheseobservations the limited can be settlements of 7.4), though (ILL. proposed eleventh-century rangetheory nature of the evidence should be acknowledged.70Given that 70 sq km is a reasonable theevidenceis nonetheless area to testsucha theory, catchment thoughallowancemust patchy, be made forthe generallymarginalcharacterof muchof the surveylandscape.Incomplete ceramicsalso helpsto obscuretheinterpretation. ofeleventh-century understanding The questionsarisewhynot onlynew sites,but new typesof sitescame intobeingat this time,and whyin the situationschosen. The new typesof smallersites,(i) arid (ii), may representthe takingup of 'klasmatic'land by independentpeasant farmers.This might distancefromthe explainwhymostof the new smallersitesare just beyonda 'comfortable' but are on establishedroutes.There were clearlylarge sums of nearestlargersettlement, Monasticresourcesfundedconstruction disposablewealthavailableto investin infrastructure. ofthenew bridgeand establishedtheestateat T445: and, whileprivateinvestment mayhave in 1204to been behindthefoundingofestateson themarginsofthecity,thereis a reference in theregion.71 The self-conscious patternsoflocationof groupsofimperialestates(episkepseis) the state. stimulated othernewsitesmayrepresent by expansion

69Magoula is on theotherside oftheEvrotas,outsidethe surveyarea. 70e.g.it is assumedthatthehalo ofH40 wouldcontinueto theotherside of the Evrotas,and thatB300wouldhave lain to theW,bothbeyond withinthehalo of a largersettlement ofthesurvey. theterritory

71See the Partitio in G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Graeci, regni

Thomas (eds), Urkunden zur älterenHandeU- und Staatsgeschichte derRepublikVenedig:mitbesonderer Beziehungauf Byzanz und die

Uvante,i: 814-1205(Vienna,1856),452-501,at 468. See also new edition by A. Carile, 'Partitio terrarum imperil Romani',Studiveneziani, 7 (1965),125-305.

periods 361 Byzantineand Ottoman Middle HISTORICAL

Byzantine

III (ad 1081-1204): the Komnenoi

and Angeloi

BACKGROUND

an alliancebetweentheDoukas and KomnenosfamiliesbroughtAlexiosI At Constantinople Komnenosto the thronein 1081,fora reignof thirty-seven years.His descendantswere in in From untilthe sack ofthe cityin Andronikos Komnenos then the fall of until 1185. power ofhis time Alexios's held the throne. the 1204, Angelosdynasty gripon the realpolitik imperial all the he forces on and him destructive at to hold fronts, stability bequeathedto bay helped the twelfthcenturyled to an era of greatprosperityin the Byzantineworld. One of his was whichhad considerableeffect reforms, rightdownto themostbasic levelofruralsociety, to grant tradingconcessions to the Italian maritimerepublics when operating out of theeconomyand tradehad been highlyregulatedand efficiently Byzantineports.Previously in closed to foreigners. Some oftheimpacton a provincelikeLaconia and was, effect, policed, of a medievalversionof freetradecan be gaugedfromthefewcontractnoteswhichsurvive betweenItalian agentslivingin the cityof Sparta and Venetianmerchants.72 They concern

(HAMLET)

CjARM^)

(ÍÍÃMLET)

^FARm"^)

(village)

(village)

^V

/

(^STATE^)

( CITY

(ι™)

/

^ESTATE^)

1

(^ESTATE^

'^

(village)

CjarjvT^

(village) (hamlet)

(jarm^

(hamlet)

III. 7.4. The eleventh-century sitehierarchy (D. Miles-Williams). 72 R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo (eds),

Documentidel commercio venezianonei secoli xi-xiii, i (Regesta

chartarum Italiae;Rome,1940),nos 28-9.

362 Chapter7

periods 363 Byzantineand Ottoman

ofsurveyarea (D. Taylor). III. 7.5. (a) MiddleByzantineIII (Komnenian)sites(D. Taylor),(b)Detail ofsouth-east

to Alexandriabutalso to Constantinople. The agentsseemto theexportofoliveoil,primarily haveagreedin advancewithindividualfarmersthepurchaseand priceofa harvest,ofwhich theythentookpossessionwhena contractcame throughfromVenice.WhenthefamousArab geographerMohammed al Idrisi visitedLaconia, some time between 1139 and 1154,he The Frenchversionof the describedSparta as a cityof considerablesize and flourishing.73 Chronicle The main oftheMoreadescribesthe city'sgreatcircuitwalls and numeroustowers.74 Vita the It is clear of the and Niconis actually twelfth-century city part portrays countryside. fromthe textthatthe westside of the Evrotaswas significantly more importantto the city than the east side (wherethe surveyterritory that lies). This suggeststhatany settlements existedon the east side did not have such easy access to the cityas those on the west.A numberof monasteries and metochia are referred to, also all on the (dependentmonasteries) westside,showingthattherewere monasticestatesflourishing thenin Laconia. One story 73His studybecametheauthoritative geographicalworkof themedievalworld.P. A. Jaubert(trans,and ed.), Géographie

d'Ednsi(Paris,1836). 74Lemerle(n. 16).

364 Chapter7

to the city;detailsare givenof a silkfactory revealsthe importanceof silkmanufacturing The same episode revealsthattherewas a owned privatelyby a local nobleman(archon). in craftsmen the of skilled bodyof Jewish city.Othersectionsdisclosea substantial population the Italian and in There are references to traders their residences within archontes living Sparta. in the at this time is of Islamic The of unusual, city pottery quantities city. presence significant there.The Middle East was the sourceof ifonlybecause it musthave difficult to transport manydyesfortheLaconiansilktrade,whichmaybe theeasternconnection;at thesametime, Alexandriawas a main destinationforLaconian olive oil. Eithermay explainthe tradein Islamicceramics,thoughat the same timetheywerehighlydesireditemsin theirown right. multi-cultural All in all,itis apparentthatKomnenianSpartawas a wealthy, city. SITES

AND SETTLEMENTS

OF THE KOMNENIAN

ERA (ILL.

7.5 a-b)

sites,thelargestnumberforanypartofthemedievalperiod,can be datedto the Sixty-seven Komnenianera. This is properlypart of the middleByzantineperiod,but the settlement betweenthebeginningand end ofthemiddle patternsrevealedbythesurveyare so different Byzantinecenturiesthat it is importantto distinguishthem in order to investigatethe changes.The ceramicevidenceforthisperiod is good: it is well known,well dated, and A no fewerthan twenty-six potterytypesin the surveytypology.75 plentifuland constitutes locationswereidentified further by thepresenceof amphorasalone; thatis, there forty-nine foodpreparation).This typeof was nothingto indicateresidence(domesticpotteryinvolving site, confined to the Komnenian period, is understood to indicate areas of intense as butfunctioned The amphoraswerenotinvolvedin tradeor transport, activity. agricultural and carried to the fieldsby stamnoi; theywould have been filledwith drinking-water agriculturalworkers,as theyare today.They providea usefulindicationof wherepeople wereworkingin thecountryside. werelocatedalongroutes(ILL.7.5);themedievalroad systemin thesurveyarea Settlements fromchartedKomneniansites.The apparentlydeliberatepatternof could be reconstructed settlements theeleventh-century disappeared,and thelandscapetookon a busyaspect,even withinthe or village-sized in someareas.Therewas evena village(J317), cluttered settlement, a for new was the The halo of 'style3 twelfth-century countryside conspicuous city. agricultural While the neatlydefined,nucleatedsitesof the eleventhcenturycontinuedto of settlement. forgroupingtogether settlements exist,a seriesof 'non-nucleated5 developed.Justification clustersof small sites,consideredas individualduringfieldwalking,as 'non-nucleated' the resultsof is based on the phosphateanalysisexercisecarriedout on N189,76 settlements whichsuggestedthatit was in the halo of N195.A similarconclusionis supportedby the whilenot Ν189 has a largenumberofamphorasonlyand no evidenceofhabitation, pottery: The evidence of settlement. all in same the and but also vicinity provide N190 N191 just N195 with individual and is that households, N189indicating N195represent N190,N191, hypothesis The abundantwatersupplyat thehead ofa by theirinhabitants.77 partoftheland cultivated valley,thegentlecontours,and a positionon theroutebetweenChrysaphaand Spartameant thatthelocationwas ripeforexploitation. 75Domesticwares: types1 a, 5, 6 a-c, 14-15, 17-18, 20-3 (glazed table wares); 25-6, 30 (food preparation). Amphoras:types32-4, 37~43· More than 90 per cent of themedievalamphorascollectedin the courseof the survey wereKomnenianin date.76LS ii. 245-7.

77This site may extend outside the boundaries of the surveyarea. Note the ruin,said to have been a tavernafor ii. 395. 2 kmΕ ofN195:Z-S" travellers,

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 365 settlements Othernon-nucleated appear to includeD92, D97, and D98, possiblyextending the to include03026, a ruinedchurchwestofD97.78The nearbyspringmayhave influenced thatwent choiceoflocation.SitesG182and G162maybe partsofanotherdispersedsettlement Site U505 and siteU506,laterthe villageof Kalorókoni, onto the otherbank of the river.79 non-nucleated withmorepossibleelementsoutsidethesurvey seemto be another settlement, area. SitesS475and S441seem to have been partsof a scatteredsettlement, positionedon a gentlyslopingfertileNeogene hill. Wateris abundantin thisarea, withnumeroussprings interface. alongtheschist-limestone There is no obviousreasonforthe demiseof H40. Evidenceof considerableactivitywas at 1142whichbetweenthemscarcely notedin thearea, witha hamletat H51and a farmstead focusfortheobviousagricultural catchment. The picture seemto provideenoughsettlement is also uncleararound the nearbyvillage-likesettlement at E77. Since thesesiteswere not identifiedin other ways (by standing remains, or measured by sherd scatter),their archaeologicalrecordmay have become obscuredby erosionof the unstableNeogene on whichtheylay.The area is dissectedby a numberoftracksofsomeage, indicatingsubstantial traffic to and fromfieldsin the area. The situationis ideal to exploitboththevalleyand the to itsnorthand east. hill-slopes The halo of eleventh-century estatesaround Sparta expanded its radius in the twelfth to ofJ317 century encompassK237,K258,N418,and M332.At thesame timethedevelopment out fromthecity,villageswereedgingnearer. illustrates that,as estateswerefoundedfurther The newvillagesseemto be partofthestrengthening oftheruralinfrastructure, positionedto feedtheirproduceintolargercentres,and possiblyfromthereto further afield.The activities in zone L- storerooms, floors,old olive trees- were associatedwiththe nearby threshing metochion ofAgioiSaranda (L532),whichlaterbecametheprincipalpartofthemonastery.80 It is unusualthatimportedIslamicsherdsshouldhavebeen foundat K247,f°relsewherein GreeceIslamicfinewaresofthemiddleByzantineperiodare notfoundeitherso farfromthe As withalmostall sitesin thesurvey, sea or on a ruralsite.81 Chtorizasaw a greatincreasein in the Komnenian Site P284, though previouslydesignated a service activity period. shows the same as community, expansion agriculturally dependentsites(see TABLE7.3). An the for case is that,althoughit was twoP284 being non-agricultural argumentsupporting thirdsthe size of K247,^e quantitiesof Byzantinesherdsare comparablein each period, thatthesettlement was moredense.This suggeststhatP284was nota typicalvillage implying withgardensamongthehouses.The explanationforitsKomneniandevelopment maybe that itwas simplyreflecting thegeneralrisein levelofprosperity. MBi K247 P284

5 2

1MB2

Kom

3

10

Pal

Ott

126

21

iiQ

20

84 8

Table 7.3. Comparisonofsherdcountson K247and P284.

In thisperiod,occupationof the Chrysaphabasin changedquite dramaticallywiththe emergenceof U490 as a small town.Fromthe quantitativeexercisecarriedout on U490, 78Z^ii. 332. 79Visibility at G182was poor,so sherdcollectionwas not LS ii. 348. Threshing-floor and mandra fullyrepresentative: visibleon otherbankoppositeG162:ibid.

80The is unknown. age ofthemetochion 81 Byztype12: LS ii. 130.

366 Chaptery

numbersof Komneniansherds,separatedintodomesticwaresand amphoras,are plottedin thattheinhabitedarea was each individualsector(ILL.24.58).Fromthisit mightbe inferred The settlement of which covers modern Chrysapha, roughlythesame area as large(£.6.5ha). inAD1700and 678inAD1928.Assuming thathouseswere had 523inhabitants Komnenian11490, in its was of the order of500-600. the similarly arranged Byzantinetown, population probably whichwouldhave held £.145houses(allowingfor This agreeswiththe area of the settlement, withan averageoffourpersonsperhousehold.82 streets, openspaces,and churches), at was intense,if measuredby the numbersof Komnenian Agriculturalactivity U490 trees in the Chrysaphavalleyolivesare notplanted,thougha fewsurviving amphoras.Today ofextremeage suggestthattheyweregrowntherein thewarmerclimesoftheMiddleAges. The soilsand therelativeflatnessof thevalleymakeit a suitableplace to cultivatecerealsin an intensiveway,withoutexcessivelabour demands to create terraces.Vines were also slopesaroundtheedge ofthevalley.The density probablygrownon someofthesouth-facing area ofthevalleyand maybe associatedwithlabourofamphorasis greaterin thenorthern intensivecultivation,while the relativepaucityof amphoras in the southernsectormay indicate a greaterconcentrationof cereals there; though,as material Offsite' was not collectedin a systematic manner,we wouldnotpresstheseconclusions. ofU490 as a centrein itsownright,and notsimplyas a satelliteofSparta, The significance Untilthistime, is emphasizedby theappearanceoftwoestateswithinitssphereofinfluence. in this ofSparta.83The generalrisein levelofactivity estateshad been confinedto thevicinity withinthegreaterprovincialsystembased on Spartacan also be seen in the new sub-system surprising appearance of two new villagesat U511and U516. It is not possibleto say from archaeologicalevidencewhethereach ofthesenewvillages,and theone atJ317,was a chonon an expanded in thelegal sense,thatis,a taxableunitin itsown right,or whetherit represents stilldependenton some largercentre.In addition,thereweretwo smallertypeof settlement in zone U. Referencein a laterdocumentto the settlements and fourfarmsteads hamlet-sized that it was thelocus ofan annualfair,whichmay at indicates to hold the U490 panigyri rights of This underlines the role this date.84 back to U490as a tradingcentre. go non-settlement Of the forty-nine sites,a large numberwere in zone U (TABLE7.2). From thema pictureemergesof the intensityof agriculturalactivitiesin the Chrysaphabasin. of thistypeof sitewas in zone H, on the edge of the Evrotas Anothermajor concentration a smallerarea thanin the Chrysaphabasin.There are other, it extended over valley,though in zonesJ, M, and L. Giventhe rangeof locations,it is unlikelythat smallerconcentrations or crop. theoccurrenceofstamnoiin thefieldswas associatedwithanyone particularactivity in thecountryside. Even themostbasic ofKomnenianSpartawas reflected The prosperity and rustichomesteadwas usingglazed table wares,whileruralcommunities, poolingeffort but These were not architectural churches(TABLE funds,wereconstructing simple jewels 7.4). edificesreflectinghumble piety,communal pride, and disposable surplus wealth. The A similar of thesechurchesis based on ceramicsfoundat associatedsettlements. chronology in central noted has been marked of Komnenian settlements by rudimentary chapels pattern Greece.85Remnantsonlyof some survive,thoughthe dedicationis oftenpreserved.While 82 in FiguresfromA. E. Laiou-Thomadakis,PeasantSociety

the Late Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study

(Princeton,NJ,1977),226, forhouseholdsin a Macedonian villagein AD 1300/1. 83Excludingmonasticestates.

8* M. Sakellaropoulos, Ή Ιερά μονή των 'Αγίων Τεσσαράκοντα(Athens,1929)571· 05r. Armstrong, in borneByzantineand latersettlements easternPhokis',BSA 84 (1989),1-42.

periods 367 Byzantineand Ottoman dedication

LSno.

condition

location

associations

Ag.Panteleimon Panagia Ilias Prophitis

B124 D3026 E53 H2I

ruined ruined ruined ruined ruined ruined ruined in use ruined in use in use in use ruined

Ν ofVoutianoi Skoura Ilias Prophitis Lithrypha Chtoriza Kastora Soteira Loutsorema Ag.Theodoros routeto Perpeni Soteira? ZoodochosPigi Polyzefka

?B3OO D92, D97, dg8, D368 isolated

?

Ag.Nikolaos ?

Sotir Ag.Georgios Ag.Theodoros PanagiaPhaneromeni Sotir ZoodochosPigi Ilias Prophitis

K247 NI95 P284 S451 S475 U488 U491 U499 U500

H51, H29 N189, Ni905Nigi S450 S475, S441, S442 U486 LS IO878, U516 isolated LS 11166, LS 10927, U504

Table 7.4. Probableor possibleMiddleByzantinechurches.

villagechurcheswouldhavebeen communalplaces ofworship,and theattachedpriesta local who had undergonea rudimentary theologicaleducation,chapelsin isolatedrurallocations would have been privatededicationswhose originslay in some individual'spatronage,and saintor saints. serviceswouldhavebeen heldthereonlyon thefestival dayofthededicatory Chtoriza and the at were settlements before the Komnenianera, Since village P284 significant werealso fromtheearlierpartofthemiddleByzantine itis likelythatthechurches period. ÁgiosPanteleimonat Β124is locatedclose to a spring,and ruinedhouseswerereportedin It maybe connectedwiththe nearbysiteat B300,and evidencemayhave been thevicinity. obliteratedby the modernroad thatpasses directlybetweenthem.The chronologyof the remnants ofthesmallchapelofProphitisIlias at E53 is uncertain.It lies notfarfroman area of intenseagricultural activity(I110328,hioo66, H40, H29, H21,H20) and the settlement H51. locatedon hill-and mountain-tops; Churchesdedicatedto ProphitisIlias are frequently this to providea suitablelocation.The dedication particularsummitis theonlyone in thevicinity at H21 is unknown.So is thatof the ruinedchurchat N195, of the churchin the settlement whichpresumablyservedthe settlements nearby.The small functioningchapel of Agios Geórgiosat S451 is close to a spring,thoughthe nearestfarmsteadswere at S466, halfa kilometre away.AgiosTheodorosat S475was centrally positionedin thesmallhamlet. FourpossiblemiddleByzantinechurches,threestillin use, are foundin the Chrysapha basin.The locationofPanagia Phaneromeniat U488,on theboundaryofthesurveyterritory, meansthatit is unclearwhetherit was isolatedor part of a settlement, thoughthe latteris morelikelyon accountofthesmallsiteat U486. Two kilometres to thesouthis thechurchof the Sotirat U491,on the edge of thevillageat U516.Site U499,dedicatedto the Zoodochos to U511.SiteU500was a hamlet-sized siteon thesouthand east Pigi,has a similarrelationship crownedbythelittlechapelofProphitis Ilias. slopesofthehillofPolyzefka, times, Though mostof thesechurcheswill have been repairedand modifiedat different giventheirlocationsand the associatedarchaeologicalevidenceall exceptthe churchesat Those at K247and P284may K247and P284probablyhad theiroriginsin thetwelfth century. be ofthesamedate,or maybe up to twocenturiesolderagain. The significanceof olive productionin Laconia in the twelfthcenturyis indicatedby writtenevidence:recordsof activitiesof Italian merchants, and a contemporaneous English historianwhose knowledgewas based on hearsay.The surveyhas revealed a significant ofthelandscapein theKomnenianperiod,and a generalincrease changein theexploitation

368 Chapter7

But evenin thisperiodmarginalland was not in thestandardoflivingin ruralcommunities. focused on favourablelocationswhichhad notbeen into use. Settlements were beingbrought of the new of the the evidence surveyshowshow the effects Ultimately exploitedpreviously. a at basic rural Able to lowest levels of to the markets level,bothan chart, society. permeated - bothindicativeofpopulationrise- the in thefieldsand new settlements increasein activity newdata also showthatthepoorerpeoplehad surpluswealthto spend. Late Byzantine

or Palaiologan

(ad 1204-1460)

historical background The fall and devastatingsack of Constantinoplein 1204 were just as traumaticto the oflifeenteredan unsettledphase. While inhabitants of Laconia, and the everydaystructures the Byzantine court set up rival establishmentsat Trebizond and Nikaia, the Franks oftheMorea. Accordingto a Latinsource, withtheFrenchprincipality concernedthemselves de Villehardouincontrolledthe cityof Lakedaimon,whilethe Greeks after1205 Geoffroy for1206 and 1209/10, Two separatereferences, werein possessionof 'Tzakonia' (Parnon).86 referto the valleyof Lakedaimon (ή κοίλη Λακεδαίμων)being under the controlof the Anothertext,dated to 1222,featuresin a secondary ByzantinenoblemanLeo Chamateros.87 contextpro-and anti-Latinfactionsin Laconia, theirenmityto each other,and theneed for ofMystrasalso had itsoriginsin thisunsettledtime.Its initial The fortress houses.88 fortified Frankishdominationwas short-lived,foreventsin other areas of the Byzantineworld developedin a way whichhad repercussionsin Laconia forthe next two hundredyears. Michael VIII Palaiologos became joint emperorof the kingdomof Nikaia, and in 1259 defeatedin battlethe combinedforcesof the FranksunderWilliamII Villehardouinand the Despot of Epeiros. In 1262 Michael accepted as ransomforWilliamthe threeLaconian The years1262to 1264were and possiblyGeraki.89 ofMonemvasia,Maina, Mystras, fortresses The freedWilliam Laconia. in of the the most troubled history Byzantine possiblyamong Villehardouinappeared in the valleyof Laconia at the head of an extensivearmy.A large and forthosetwoyearstheyskirmished. in opposition, Then,in Byzantineforcewas mustered the Messenian and the between in at the Byzantine plain, Megalopolis 1264, pass Makryplagi armywas annihilatedby the Franks.Betweenthenand 1300manycitizensgraduallyquitted theancientsiteofLakedaimon(Sparta)and movedto theslopesbelowthecastleofMystras, forall ofthePéloponnèse.Initiallythe and made theseatofadministration bynowrecaptured there were fromthe Kantakouzenos and resided the who Péloponnèse governed Despots to the title,and fromthen succeeded I in Theodore but Palaiologos(1383-1407) 1383 family, untiltheOttomanconquesta Palaiologanwas in office. Politicaleventsof the second halfof the fourteenth centuryhad a sociologicalimpacton In theseyearsthe Péloponnèsewas in Laconia. rural life affected that Peloponnesiansociety 86 S. Baluze III Romani Innocentii (Baluzius) (ed.), Epistolarum pontifiaslibri undecim:acceduntgesta ejusdemInnocentii,et puma collectio decretaliumcomposita a Rainerio diácono et monacho

(Paris,1682),Β χν,epistle77 (vol.ii. 628). Pomposiano 07JNicetasChômâtes, Grandezzae catastroje di tsisanzio: narrazione (Scrittori grecie latini),ii: LibnIX-XIV, cronológica ed. A. PontaniandJ.-L.van Dieten(Milan,1994),611,638. 88 One of the judgements of Demetnos Chomatianos

concerningthe divorcepetitionof Ioannes Chamateros,of the same Laconian family mentioned above. See P. Magdalino, Ά neglected authorityforthe historyof the Péloponnèse in the early thirteenthcentury:Demetrios Zeitschrift, Chomatianos,archbishopofBulgaria',Byzantinische 7° (W7)» 3l6~23. 09Pachymeres, 1,p. 188;discussionin Zakythinos (n. 40), 1. 1-20;Bon (n. 17),120-5.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 369 subjectedto prolongedand intenseraidsbyTurkishpirates.Theypenetratedfarinland,using an accuratetopographical in thearmyofthe knowledgeacquiredduringspellsas mercenaries of the Morea. The harm from their raids differed from that suffered at the Despots previously handsofopposingarmies,in thatthepiratescame froma nomadicwarriorculture;theydid notjust damagethatyear'scrops,but deliberately olive-trees and tookwomenand destroyed childrenaway to sell as slaves. Long-termwar damage was a novel situation,which undermined muchoftheinfrastructure ofruralsociety.Consequently, in the 1390sTheodore ten thousand Albaniansas colonistsintoLaconia.90 Palaiologosaccepted The finalfifty years of the Palaiologan era in the Péloponnèsewere disruptedby the Ottomans.Because the GreekDespot's seat was at Mystras,Laconia in particularsuffered a In 1395BayezidI (1389-1402)sackedthePéloponnèse.In 1423 numberofpunitiveincursions. Despot Theodore II Palaiologos (1407-43) rebuiltthe Hexamilionwall on the isthmusof Corinth,and in responseMurad II (1421-51) attackedand capturedMystras,Gardiki,and Leondari.In 1446Ghazi TurhanBeypursuedTheodore'sbrothersConstantineand Thomas to Laconia whileSultanMurad stormedthe Isthmus.91 On the death of Theodore in 1443, Constantinetook over Mystraswhile Thomas became lord of Elis and Messenia. When ConstantineXI Palaiologos became emperorin 1449 and leftLaconia, the despotatewas entrusted to thejoint controlofThomas and a thirdbrother, Demetrios.But by 1451Greece was firmly underTurkish withtributary in Athensand theMorea. jurisdiction, principalities The brothersretainedsome authority when Constantinople passed into Ottomanhands in 1453on conditionthattheypaid tributeto the sultan.By 1458 large numbersof Turkish soldierswerestationedin Laconia whileMystraswas leftnominallyin thechargeofThomas and Demetrios. When strifearose between the pro-westernThomas and pro-Turkish Demetrios,MehmetII (1451-81)intervened,and from31 May 1460 Mystrascame under directOttomancontrol.92 SITES

AND SETTLEMENTS

OF THE LATE BYZANTINE

OR PALAIOLOGAN

PERIOD

(ILL.

7.6)

There is a shiftin emphasisin the archaeologicalevidenceforthe Palaiologanperiod.First, thereare manyfewerceramics.There are no amphoras,whichat once dramatically altersthe statistics for identified sites. But the ceramics of this are well known and density glazed period so the lack of of ceramics does not affect the of closelydatable, largequantities quality the evidence.Althoughit is generallyaccepted thatamphorasgo out of use in the thirteenth to be replacedbybarrels,thisoughtto have a bearingonlyon amphorasas evidence century, oftransport and trade.Since amphorasfoundin the contextof the surveywerenot used for and the absence of amphorasand activities, export importbut connectedwithagricultural non-settlement sitesindicatesa decline in cultivation.93 Some of the Palaiologan sitesare ascribedto thisphase by one glazed sherdalone (J170,G254,L402, K403). Even giventhe in estimatingthe size at any particularperiod of longer-lived medievalsites,the difficulty evidencepointsto a decline in generalsite size fromthe Komnenian to the Palaiologan 90 Zakythinos (n. 40), 32. 'Ten thousand' may be understoodas 'a verylarge number'ratherthan an exact figure.Elsewherethis has been taken to mean that these people wentinto the whole Péloponnèse(GreekCountryside, of the e.g. 114, 123-4), but the textrefersto the territory as Laconia. Despot,whichothersourcesclearlyunderstand 91In retaliationforTheodore II occupyingThebes and fromAthensin 1443. takingtribute

92 Navarino, Korone, Methone, and Argos remained Venetian.Demetrioswas given some of the islands in the Aegeanas a rewardforhisloyalty. 93Even today in Laconia, agriculturallabourerscarry ceramicstamnoi ofdrinking-water to thefields.The properties oftheclaybodyhavea coolingeffect on theliquid.

370 Chapter7

III. 7.6. Late Byzantine(Palaiologan)settlements (D. Taylor).

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 371 period.All thelargeKomneniansitescontinue(J3i7,K247,p284,T445,U490)exceptforU516. settlements eitherdisappearcompletely(097, N189,and S475withtheir The non-nucleated respectiveneighbours)or appear to operate on a smaller scale (G162 and K245 shrink of the considerably).The greatestchange in settlementpatternoccurs in the north-west in zones D and E, and in thevalleyin zone H. A line can be drawnrunningnorth territory, fromSparta,to thewestofwhichis B300,theonlyPalaiologansitein thisarea. Site D302 is a withthetower sceneofa siegein 1389ifitis to be identified possiblePalaiologantower-house, The absenceof occupationof thisarea, the event.94 notedin an inscription commemorating of withthefoundation in thefertile Evrotasvalley,shouldbe viewedin conjunction surprising visitations to whichit westthanthesameline,and thesubsequentbelligerent further Mystras, was subjected.The archaeologicalevidenceindicatesthatlifein the Evrotasvalleynorthof to theextentthatin thesurveyarea it seemsto havebecome affected, Spartawas profoundly almostuninhabited. of the The modern village of Agios Ioánnis Theológos may have been a metochion have of a church The remains at of Vrontochion Byzantine Mystras.95 Palaiologanmonastery been foundthere.96 at Kokkinórachi The modernsettlement thoughit appearsto havePalaiologanantecedents, was not possibleto surveythem.Kokkinórachiis clusteredaround a Palaiologan church (J4007),the onlywitnessto its Byzantinepast. The late Roman bath-house(J4008)suggests thatthislocationmay have been favouredfora considerabletime;at an easy distancefrom land. it had an abundantwatersupplyamid primeagricultural Sparta,lyingon low foothills, of the fields at the and water-meadows the In the vicinity, Kelephina and junction among Evrotasrivers,were two estates,two hamlets,and a village(J44,J232,J317,J369,J170).So, of thereis evidenceforutilization whileit is unclearwhatliesbeneathmodernKokkinórachi, theabundantresourcesofthearea. Its parent It maybe at thistimethatKalyviaServéika(or Serviánika)came intobeing.97 are historical Its of on the due lies west, origins unknown,butby its slopes Taygetos. village name it may be associated with the large numbers of Albanian colonists broughtto Laconia in the 1390s.That it was a seasonal settlementis in accord withthe Albanians' transhumantlifestyle.The location may have been chosen for a combination of easy access,both into the mountainsand to Mystras,as well as being out of the directpath of armiesmarchingon Mystras. The south-east-facing slopes above the Kelephina were host to a group of sitesin this period (G162,G156,K245,K247>K253?G254>K257)·Chtorizacontinuedto functionas the of the area, withK245 as a hamletin its orbit.The remainderwere principalsettlement individualfarmsteads. at The villageat P284also continuedto operateduringthePalaiologanera. The monastery of the benefaction was under have had which it with links, flourishing may Agioi Saranda, So too did themonasticestateat T445. wealthy patrons.98 94A toweron theVasilopotamosin thegeneralarea where Monumenta Peloponnesiaca: D302 is located:J. Ghrysostomides,

Documents for theHistoryof thePéloponnèsein the14th and 15th

Centuries (Camberley, 1995),116no. 54. 95Two metochia withthisname in the environsof Sparta are recordedin 1314/15. One is mod. Agios Ioannis; the other may be mod. Theologos. G. Millet, 'Inscriptions

de Mistra',BCH 23 (1800),103-17. byzantines 96N. V. Drandakis,"Από τα χριστιανικάμνημείατης Λακωνίας',Arch. Eph.133(!994)>Ι9~4Ι> at 39· 97Now KalyviaTheologou;see n. 14. 98Discussedbelowin thesectionon monasteries.

372 Chapter7

in the Chrysaphabasin at thisperiodis striking. The markeddeclinein settlements All the farmsteads individual havegone,leavingtheprincipalsettlement at U490,a hamletat 11500, and an estateat U483. At the same time,two privatechurcheswere foundedin the basin. The was dedicatedin 1289/90by a husbandand wifegrateful forbeing Panagia Chrysaphitissa from the The form of the name shows that the settlement took spared plague." Chrysaphitissa itsnamefromthechurch,and therefore thevillagenamepostdates1290.10°The goldeniconwas a presentoftheemperor II in about1300,an indication Andronikos ofthestatusofthefounders. was a tower-house ofthe Appendedto thePanagiaChrysaphitissa typicalofthedwelling-places was a majorconsideration. Another upperclassesin thelate Byzantineperiod,whensecurity churchwas builtnearbyin 1367/8,dedicatedto Agios Ioánnis Pródromos,decoratedwith notablefrescoes.101 The prosperousstatusof U490 in the Palaiologanperiod,indicatedby its in itsceramics.A smallquantityof glazedceramicswas is notmirrored standingmonuments, whilethewealthier inhabitants perhapsusedbyvillagers, mayhaveusedmetaltablewares. Of similardate, and barelythreekilometreswest of the Chrysaphitissa,are two cave churches,Agios Dimitrios and Agios Ioánnis Tsiliotós (R4000), also embellishedwith In the Chrysaphabasin southofthesurveyarea, prosperity Palaiologanfrescoesofquality.102 can be seen manifestedin churchbuilding.The churchat Kalloni (formerly Pérpeni)has frescoesdatedto thistime;similarly thecave monastery ofAgioiSaranda Palaiomonastiro was painted. While the archaeological evidence points to a fall in agriculturalactivities, abounded.If,as is likely,onlya fewexamplesof thesemunificent conspicuousconsumption have the new-found statusof Laconia, the royal survived, gifts theyrepresentand reinforce with as the second of the Bureaucratic infrastructure and its province, Mystras city empire. created a new level of Laconian the river Evrotas took its later Indeed, royalpatronage society. nameofVasilopótamos fromthistime.103 There are distinctivesettlementpatternsforthe Palaiologan period: almost complete desertionof thenorth-west farmsdottedalong thecourseofthe Kelephinaand on territory; the north-southridgeabove its westbank; a group of largersitesof varioustypesat the junctionoftheKelephinaand Evrotasrivers;a regularnumberofestatesalongtheEvrotasin the vicinityof Sparta; and the continuationof largersitesonly in the Chrysaphabasin, thathad accompaniedthereby completedisappearanceof the small,individualfarmsteads been so numerousin theKomnenianperiod. From the Ottoman

Conquest

to the Nineteenth

Century

historical background The TurkishconquesteliminatedByzantinepoliticalinstitutions in Laconia, but instability continuedas theVenetiansfoughtforcontroloftheMorea. In 1464Mystraswas besiegedby 99Accordingto a paintedinscription in the church.N. V. Drandakis,'Παναγίαή Χρυσαφίτισσα (1290)',ist Laconian Treatises Congress, 337-403,pis 73-98, 108 (Frenchsummary, 'Inventairesen 401-3); D. Feisseland A. Philippidis-Braat, vue d'un recueildes inscriptions historiquesde Byzance,III: Centre de inscriptionsdu Péloponnèse', Travauxet mémoires: Recherched'Histoire et de Civilisation Byzantines, 9 (1985),

at319-20. 267-395, 100 Ifthechurch hadtakenitsnamefrom thesettlement, it

wouldhavebeencalledChrvsaphiotissa. 101N. V. Drandakis,"Ο σταυροειδήςναός τού Λακ. Προδρόμου στα Χρύσαφα της Λακεδαίμονος', σπονδ.9 (1988),301-33· 102 N. V. Drandakis, "O AgiosIoannisis a cavechurch. ναόςτου ΠροδρόμουκοντάσταΧρύσαφα σπηλαιώδης της Λακεδαίμονος',Αελτίον της Χριστιανικής ι*(1989-90), Αρχαιολογικής 'Εταιρείας, ΐ79~95· 103 Todaythenamesurvives onlyin itslowerreaches.

periods 373 Byzantineand Ottoman SigismundMalatesta,who capturedthetownbutnotthecastle.BenedettoColleonecaptured Afterthepeace treatyof1479,theOttomanssettleddownto thecityofLakedaimonin 1473.104 consolidatetheirrule in the Péloponnèse,and forthe firsttimein two and a halfcenturies froma distantcapital.In Laconia experienced peace based on firmcentralizedadministration bothcityand and the Venetian capturedMystras, general,besieged 1687FrancescoMorosini, in returned. and the Italians never the Turks The castlewas retakenby fortress. 1715, The natureof Ottomanrule in the Péloponnèseafterthe restorationof 1718 was quite fromwhat it had been beforethe disastrouswar againstthe Holy League in the different late seventeenth century.The persistentinternalcriseswithinthe empireduringthe Tulip of the provinces.As the grip period (1703-30)led to radical changesin the administration of the centralgovernmentin Istanbulloosened, ambitiousmen were able to wield more powerin theprovinces.In the Péloponnèsethispoliticalvacuumled to the emergenceof a class of powerfulMuslim landholders, or ayans,and to the formationof a Christian Many of the most importantfamiliesin Greek history105 landholdingélite,the kokabasis. this to period. The rural economy of the region flourished during prominence grew between 1718 and 1770,but the benefitsof this developmentwere maldistributed.The Christianpeasantrysufferedunder the agrarian regimecontrolledby the ayamand the kokabasis. Moreover,the oftenviolentpower strugglesbetweenthe ayamand the kokabasis, and among the competingGreek familiesand theirarmed gangs, created conditionsof fortheruralpopulation. greatuncertainty war culminatedin thedisastrousRusso-Ottoman oflifein thecountryside This disruption of 1768-74(cf.p. 403 below).The internaltensionsin the regionexplodedin February1770, of whenthe Russiansendeavouredto createa southernfrontby landinga smallcontingent families seized the Christian A number of fleet. from their prominent Aegean troops Fearfulthattheforcesat his disposalwereinadequateto and joined thefighting. opportunity the task,MehmetMuhsinzade,formerGrand Vezir and muhafizi (governor)of the Mora, in Balkans. Reinforcedwith the further north from assistance prominentayam requested and thenat at Leontari first Greeks were defeated the Albanian mercenaries, 10,000-15,000 and they the unable to control was Kalamata. of north Albanians, Mehmet,however, Nesi, in contented themselves embarkedon a reignof terror:At firstthey[theAlbanian mercenaries] much of the which caused and towns the and waste countryside, practices looting laying terrified populationto flee to the mountainsor to seek asylumoutsidethe Morea'.106An led to thedefeatof alliancebetweentheChristianéliteand a newOttomanmuhafizi eventually and uncertainup until wouldremaindifficult theAlbanians,butconditionsin thecountryside theoutbreakofGreekwarofindependencein 1821. SITES AND SETTLEMENTS CENTURY (ILLS 7.7-8)

FROM THE OTTOMAN PERIOD TO THE EARLY NINETEENTH

abouttheLaconianlandscapein theOttomanera. A varietyofevidenceprovidesinformation The ceramicsare fewand regionalin character.The glazed tablewaresare poor in quality, acclaimed fineceramicsfoundelsewherein the Ottoman and none of the internationally 104P. M. Coronelli, An Histoncal and Geographical Accountof and theMantimePlaces asfar as Thessalonica, theMorea,Negropont,

trans.R. W. Gent(London,1687),100. 105The Zaimes,theDelligiannes,theMavromichales, and to namebuta few. theKolokotrones,

106 C. Alexander, Bngandageand Public Orderin theMorea, J.

1685-1806 (Athens,1985),52.

374 Chaptery

empirereached the surveyarea. The impressionfromthe potteryis of a low standardof existenceamongtheruralpopulationin theOttomanperiod.Because oftheprovincialnature oftheceramicsand thelackofexcavated,chronologically securecomparanda,ithas notbeen in to the data between survey possible distinguish earlyand late Ottoman.A numberof in various states of standingmonuments, preservation,have been recorded.Some were in the known others have been notedforthe firsttime.The typikon ofAgioi record, already informative about toponyms,also has usefullistsof crops and treesat named Saranda, locations.The Grimanicensushelps to place some of the settlements foundby the survey, The CommissionScientifique aboutvillagesthat listingassociatedstatistics. givesinformation had ceased to existor comeintobeingin theprevious150years. There was a notabledeclinein thenumberofsitesfromthePalaiologanto earlyOttoman periods.No new sitesseemto have been foundedin theearlyOttomanperiod.A numberof smalland mediumsitesthathad come intoexistencein the Komnenianperioddisappeared aroundAD 1400(B300,F139,F146,M346).Theirverysize,whethersinglehousesor individual seasonalkalyvia, to theirdemiseduringunstabletimes. mayhavecontributed Ifwe lookat twosmallersettlements, one at Achragias(G162/182), theotherat Morou(J170), a SiteG162was difficult to patternemergeswhichis likelyto havebeen trueovera widerarea.107 sample because of dense vegetation,yetdocumentationexistswherebywe knowthatthis whichincludedthechurchofAgiosNikólaos(G182),was functioning in theOttoman settlement, era.108 The surveydid not findpotteryof thisdate.AlthoughMorou (J170)had a numberof housesinAD1700,no sherdscollectedfromthesitewerethought to be Ottoman.Thisis relevant to foursites,G156,J44,K253and P284,whichfunctioned in thePalaiologanperiodbutseemingly wentoutofuseto emergeagainin thelaterOttomanperiod.A similarsituation is reflected in the of monuments: a number of these can be to preservation standing significant assigned the and to the later Ottoman but none to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. era, Palaiologan early SitesK247(Chtoriza)and P284,twoofthemainmedievalvillagesofthesurvey, declinedin the Ottomanperiod.The typikon ofAgioi Saranda recordsmanydonationsofland and trees fromprivateindividualsat Chtoriza to the monasteryin the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries,yet in AD 1700 it had only fifteenfamiliesand forty-four people.109Leake commented thattheabandonedruinsofChtorizahe lookedon in 1805had been pillagedand burnedin the 1770s.110 However,it had recoveredsufficiently by 1828-30 forthe Frenchto recordit as a functioning The decline of was not reversed.It is unclear P284 villageagain. whenor whyit wentout of use. If the interpretation of itsoriginalfunctionis correctand it existedas a servicevillageforthe cityof Sparta,then,withthefoundation ofMystras,more serviced from than from it have lost its raisond'être and Parnon, may simply easily Taygetos faded away. Its decline may have been exacerbatedby the transferin 1620 of the main ofAgioiSarandafromtheSophronigorgeto itspresentlocationat themouthofthe monastery If in its original,inaccessiblelocation,thenanother gorge. P284 had servicedthe monastery reasonforthecontinuedfunctioning ofthesettlement was lost,sincetherefounded monastery couldcommunicate with the vale of Laconia. The sitehas notbeen identified withany directly named settlement. Leake saw and named the churchof the Sotir,but did not mentionany associatedhouses,implying thatthesecularruinshad disappearedbythetimeofhisvisit. 107 Achragias:Sakellaropoulos(n. 84), 72-3; and thetypikon (n· 33)· 108In 1769therewereat leasttwohousesand a barnhere: (n. 84),72. Sakellaropoulos

109Grimanicensus:Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός. 282. 110 dissatisfied Albanianmercenaries. By

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 375

settlements III. 7.7.Earlyeighteenth-century (D. Taylor).Names are spelledas in theVenetiancensus.

376 Chapter7

III. 7.8. Earlynineteenth-century settlements (D. Taylor).Names are spelledas in earlymaps.

periods 377 Byzantineand Ottoman It is difficult ruinsofU490.111 as did Boblaye,on theextensive Leake commented, By contrast, with the not its condition Leake did associate was abandoned. to saywhenU490 problemsofthe to some than attributable rather have been 1770s.Itsdeclinemay event,and may specific gradual in second the modern of havebeenassociatedwiththeinitialcolonization quarterof Chrysapha ofAgioi The were built whenitstwomainchurches theseventeenth typikon (see below). century, and a at U490had become monastery, Sarandashowsthatby 1633thePanagiaChrysaphitissa The extensive ofAgioiSaranda. recordsitschangeofstatusto thatofa dependency(metochion) storehouses standingaroundthechurchtodaywereprobablybuiltthen.Theremaybe a direct connectionbetweenthe foundingof modern Chrysaphaand the new statusof Panagia whohad livedat U490wereforsomereason as a monasticestate,ifagriculturalists Chrysaphitissa deniedaccessto land and had to leave.On theotherhand,theconnection maybe thatpeople fromelsewhere movedto Chrysapha weresimply afield)toprovide (thevalleyofSpartaor further ofmarginalareas(discussed labouras partoftheprocessofcultivation below).The newstatusof ci kmfromthenew ofSyntziaphi, ofthemonastery and thefoundation PanagiaChrysaphitissa, this. into also fitted Chrysapha, werenotedin the courseof the survey(U533,U3011).Also in Two Ottomantower-houses whichdisappearedin stoodanothertower-house the regionofJ220,knownas Palaiópyrgos, thenineteenth century. ofmechanical The remainsofthreemillswererecorded(G522,K204,U487).The similarity not enoughof K204 is preservedforcomparison) betweenG522(unfortunately construction and thePeloponnesianmillsillustrated bytheantiquarianCastellanin 1808suggeststhatthey least to the at century, possiblyearliersincethebasic operationaldesigndid eighteenth belong as δυόφθαλμοι listsofimmovableproperty are recordedin official Water-mills notchange.112 were owned All mills in three was built at windmill The byAgioiSaranda; 1896. U487 μύλοι. or bygroupsof individuals either elsewhereitwas commonformillsto be privately owned, by are foundin the Kelephina valley and the individuals."3Like the mills,threshing-floors largenumberofthem, preservedan extremely Chrysaphabasin.The latterarea,in particular, of a threshing-floor creation The there. were which cereals extent to the grown indicating it is likelyto have a is such that nature and its and of labour a skill, input requires significant ratherthandecades.114 measuredin centuries lifetime Of the fivepost-Byzantinechurchesin the surveyterritory (TABLE7.5), the threewith all locatedin settlements, were dateswerefoundedin the seventeenth definite They century. date ofAgiosNikolaos(1620)mayindicatewhen threeofthemin Chrysapha.The foundation at U490movedto itspresentlocation. thesettlement recordedby the Grimanicensus in 1700 (cf.p. 405 below) can be Fourteensettlements in identified the surveyarea, ofwhichsevenhave not survived:Chisorissa(Chtoriza,K247), Mur (Morou,J170),Potamia (G156),Calanno Cocogni (Kalorokoni,U505/506),S. Zorzi (Ágios Geórgios, N417/418),Schura (Skoúra, D97),115and Mitatova (F149). Skoura and and theirfullextentwas not examined Kalorokonilie on thebordersofthesurveyterritory, 111Leake viewedthemfrom presentChrysapha;Boblaye lookeddownfromthesummitofPhagia. 112A. L. Castellan,Uttressurla Moréeetdesîlesde Cerigo, HvdraetZante(Paris.1808),04.-102,esn.o^ pl. ^. 113 in OttomanMaçuka H. Lowry,'Privilegeand property in 1461-1553% duringtheopeningdecades of the Tourkokratia and Changein Late A. Bryerand H. Lowry(eds), Continuity

andEarlyOttoman Society: PapersGivenat a Symposium Byzantine atDumbarton OaksinMayig82 (Birmingham, 1986),97-128,at 116-18.

114Some have 2Oth-cent. datesinscribedon them,but this possiblyrefersto repairssince thereis oftenmorethanone dateper floor. 115 RatherthanthevillageS ofthesurveyarea.

378 Chaptery dedication

LSno.

date

location

condition

Ag. Georgios Ag. Georgios Ag.Nikolaos Ag.Dimitrios KoimisiTheotokou

45 inscription N417

1697 post-Byz 1620 Chrysapha post-Byz

nr.Theologos nr.N418 Ghrysapha restored Chrysapha

in use ruined in use

1641

in use

TABLE7.5. Post-Byzantine churches.

name

LSno.

mod.Greek

families

In theterritory ofGhrysapha 6. Staffa 7. Crisaffa 8. Chisorissa K247 9. Zolina e Mur Ji7o>J369 10.Affissù e Zerdari 11.Zugni 12.S. Zuanne 13.Potamia G156 14.Calanno Cocogni U505,U506 15.S. Zorzi N418 22. Vutiani 38. Vurlia

Συντζιάφι? Χρύσαφα Χτόριζα Μόρου Αφυσού Κοκκινόραχη Αγ.ΙωάννηςΘεολόγος Ποταμιά Καλορόκωνι Αγ.Γεώργιος Βουτιάνοι Σελλασία

In theterritory ofMystras D97 3. Schura 66. Mitatova F146

Σκούρα Αγραπιδούλα

7 134 ι5 8 14

people 21

28

523 44 23 39 30 34 23 17 no

ι7 25

63 77

14 2

43 8

ΙΟ ΙΟ

9 5

TABLE7.6. Settlements in thesurveyarea recordedbyFrancescoGrimani(1700).

in the course of fieldwork.The firstwrittenreferenceto Chrysaphais its recordin the Grimanicensus,whereit is the largestby farof all the settlements in the surveyarea, with families 134 (TABLE 7.6). The CommissionScientifique of 1829-30(TABLE 7.7)recordeda stringof almostequidistant the eastern of the Evrotas villagesalong edge valley:Aphisou,Morou,Tsouni,Pavleika,and Khlada (following the Frenchrenderingof the names).Morou and Pavleikano longerexist de SaintGeorgein 1676, today.Ancientremainsat Pavleikahad been describedby Guilletière closeto a locationknownlocallyas 'Vouni';itmaybe connectedwithTsoúni,theformer name of modernKokkinorachi."6 Kladás is named afteran Epeirotenoble familywho movedto Laconia in thefourteenth KokkinoMali, whichno longerexists,was on theroad to century."7 as it rises from the river Theologosjust valley"8Duringthenineteenth century KalyviaServeika 116 et ancienne Georges,sieur de la Guilletière,Lacédémone nouvelle . . . (Paris,1676).AlthoughGuilletièredid not visit Laconia, but garneredhis informationfroma monk in a at Patras,hisinformation is consideredreliable. monastery 117The heroicexploitsof KorkodeilosKladas in the late 15thcent,ensuredthe preservationof the familyname in historical records: P. Ch. Doukas, Ή Σπάρτη δια των αιώνων(New York,1922;repr.,Sparta,n.d. [c.1984]),621-7.

See also K. N. Stappas,"Επανάστασιςτου Κροκοντύλου Κλαδά εις Μάνην', in Ή Λακωνία κατά την Τουρκοκρατίαν και Ένετοκρατίαν: 1460-1821(Athens, 1993)5 Σ7~23· There is a long footnoteabout the name, whetheritshouldbe Krokontylos or Krokodeilos. 118 Name from map, given in site catalogue as Kokkinomalli.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 379 Grimani(1700)

Commission (182g)

modem(1928)

Vurlia Vutiani

Vrylias

Σελλασία Βουτιάνοι Καλύβια Θεολόγου Αγ.Ιωάννης Θεολόγος Αγ.Γεώργιος Κλάδας Κοκκινόραχη

S. Zuanne S. Zorzi Zugni

Mur Affissù Chisorissa Potamia Crisaffa Staffa Calanno Cocogni

KalyviaServeika Khlada Tsouni TsouniPyrgos Pavleika KokkinoMali Morou Aphisou Chtoriza Khrysapha

Αφυσού Χτόριζα Χρύσαφα (Συντζιάφι) (Καλορόκωνι)

Table η.η.Settlements inthesurvey areanotedbytheCommission Scientifique.

lostitssuffix: on modernmaps it is writtenas Kalyvia Theológou,eventhoughit is too close ofthat settlement."9 to Theologos to be a kalyvi Sellasia, underits formername of Vrylias in the area. Situatedas they (Vrouliás),and Khrysaphawere the two principalsettlements were beyonda comfortablehalf-day'sjourney fromSparta, theysupportedsignificantly and musthave been self-sufficient to a large largernumbersofpeople thanothersettlements degree.Twentyyearsafteritsdemise,Leake lookedon theruinsofChtoriza,and themanner of his observationsleads to the conclusionthattherewere no inhabitants;yetthe French recordsseem to implythattherewerepeople livingtheretwenty-five yearslater.Indeed,no ruinsare attestedby theFrenchat Chtorizain 1830,as theyare,forinstance,at Chrysapha. Two inns The churchofAgiosGeorgios(N417)is indicatedwithoutan associatedsettlement. on routesto thenorthwerenoted,one on theEvrotasat theKopana bridgeand theotherin ofVourlia. thedistrict forthemostpart The road network recordedby theFrenchis likelyto have corresponded because it is roadsfromtracks.Interesting, to themedievalroad network. They distinguished nota commonlyused routetoday,is thedirectroad fromtheEvrotasvalley(and fromSparta or Mystras)throughAphysoúup to theplateau,joiningthe Chrysapha-Chtoriza road at the churchoftheSotir. In the yearsjust afterthe war of independencethe area aroundthejunctionof the two rivers,wherethe road came fromMystrasand partedto go to Tegea and Argos,was dotted withsmallsettlements: and Pavleika(map,ILL. 7.8).I2° Tsouni,Tsouni Pyrgos,Kokkinomalli, The existing settlement ofKladas came intobeingat a laterpointin thenineteenth century.121 Tsouni is the formername of Kokkinorachi,accordingto local tradition.Tsouni,but not can be foundin Grimani'scensus,where'Zugni' has ten familiesand thirty Kokkinorachi, inhabitants. Kokkinorachi was clearlyimportant in earliertimes:some earlyByzantinebaths in have been excavated(J4008),whileitsfinePalaiologanchurch(J4007)pointsto prosperity 119 Bon (n. 17)commentson thisfact. 120Recorded theFrench by ArmyGeographicalService.

121For Kladas as an established familyname in Laconia, see n. 117.

380 Chaptery

in construction The closecorrespondence and architecture ofthe thelateByzantineperiod.122 withÁgiosNikólaos, Kokkinorachi churchwiththoseat Mystrasmaysupportitsidentification in Mystrasin AD 1314/15,locatedat the otherwise a metochion of theVrontochion monastery Molochos.123 unrecognized Kokkinomalli was locatedat K237.NeitheritnorPavléikawas notedunderitsownnameby was a Grimani,thoughit is knowntheywerein existencebeforeand after1700.Kokkinomalli middleByzantinefoundationwhichfadesfromarchaeologicaland writtenrecordsin the secondhalfofthenineteenth century, thoughthename is retainedin thelocal oral tradition. in thesixteenth Pavleikawas visitedby a numberoftravellers and seventeenth centuries. The name Pavleikadoes not seem to be knowntoday;it may have been subsumedby modern sinceno appropriatesitewas identified withwhichit could Kokkinorachi, duringfieldwalking be equated. Affissù withZolina,a namelinkedto site (Aphysou)appearsin theGrimanicensustogether of a shepherdessinterviewed in 1985.Zolina, whichwas J317by the unprompted testimony clearlyverysmall,appearsto have been subsumedlaterby Morou,whichtodaydenotesan area extendingeitherside oftheroad to Geraki.Aphysouitselflies on tworidges,eitherside ofa shallowgullywhichrundownto thevalleyoftheEurotas.Althoughthewholevillageis knownas Aphysou,the northernmost to locallyas Kolonáki,'hillock5(the ridgeis referred otherbeing Pêra, 'opposite').There are no obviouslymedievalmonumentsin the village, thatit is a relatively modernfoundation.It has a nineteenth-century olivepress, suggesting whichhas been restored, and theruinsofan olderolivepressnearby. MODERN

SETTLEMENTS

AND THEIR

ANTECEDENTS

There are eightmodernsettlements in or on the boundariesof the surveyterritory (map, ILL. 7.9). Three are hill villages in relativelyclose proximity:Voutiánoi, Kalyvia, and The Theologos. Modern Voutianoihas no buildingsearlierthan the nineteenthcentury.124 oldersettlement is locatednearby,and thoughlocal traditiongivesthe name of Soúli it was recordedas Vutianiby Grimani.Kalyvia and Theologoshave theiroriginsin theByzantine era.Justbeyondtheboundaryofthe surveyterritory is Sellasia,formerly knownas Vourlia, which name Grimani it families and inhabitants by assigned twenty-five seventy-seven Its a church and a In indicate its medieval tower, (TABLE7.6). standingmonuments, past.125 Sellasia like a dimos in in the of Lakedaimon the nomós of was, 1928 Sparta, eparchia Lakonia. Belongingto the dimosof Sellasia were the koinótites ofVoutianoi,Vroulia(known of Theologou consistedof the locallyas 'Komopolis'),Theologou, and Kladas. The koinotis choriaof Theologou, Kalyvia, and Chtoriza. There are threevillagesin the valleyof the Evrotaswithinthe orbitof Sparta: Kladas, Kokkinorachi,and Aphysou.Kokkinorachiand Chrysapha were choriain the dimosof Sparta. Chrysapha and the monasteryof Agioi Saranda togetherformeda koinotis. Discussion The discussionis dividedintofoursections.The firstdeals withagriculture and cultivation; thatis,evidenceforthesortsofcropsgrownin Laconia and theircorrelation withthesurvey 122Travellersrecordancientremains.For the baths,see BCH 114(1990),734;AR 36 (1989-90),24. I23Millet(n. 95), 103-4.

I2+Cf.Z^ii. 344-5. ^LSn. 285,EE56.

periods 381 Byzantineand Ottoman

ILL. 7.9. Modernsettlements (D. Taylor).

382 Chapter7 Sellasia/Vourlia Voutianoi Theologos Kalyvia Chtoriza Kladas Kokkinorachi/Tsouni Chrysapha Ag. Saranda Aphysou

IQ28

17ΟΟ

2,383 609 370 132 n/a n/a 183 678

77 63 34 n/a 44 n/a 30 523 n/a 39

11

509

Table 7.8. Comparativepopulationstatistics.

results.Silk, an indirectproductof cultivation,is also treatedin thissection.The second in a similarway,withspecialattention to transhumance, whichis considersanimalhusbandry as well accommodatedby the landscapeof Laconia. The thirdsectiondiscussesmonasteries a particularly medievalphenomenonwhich,in additionto beingreasonablywell landholders, had a significant documentedas comparedwithits lay counterparts, impacton the rural theByzantineand Ottomaneras.The finalsectionis timesthroughout landscapeat different tiersofsettlement a chronological thewholeofthemedieval throughout précisofthedifferent and earlymodernperiods. AGRICULTURE AND CULTIVATION

in Laconia There is a variedrangeofdocumentary evidencerelatingto medievalagriculture butonlya smallamountconcernsthesurveyterritory generally, specifically. Ό δέ τόπος, εν ω οικούσιν,έστινάνυδρος και άπρόσοδος, έλαιοφόρος δέ, όθεν και butbears την παραμυθίανεχουσιν('theplace wheretheyliveis waterlessand inaccessible, the olive,whencetheircomfort of thebarrennessof is'). So runsa tenth-century description The one partoftheLaconiancountryside, whosedesolationwas alleviatedonlybytheolive.126 Contract same treewas the basis of the province'seconomicsuccessin the twelfth century. the exportof olive oil to Constantinopleand Alexandriashow thatthe notesdocumenting It is clear fromthe textsthatItalian olive had developedinto a major industry by then.127 dealers took up residencein Sparta,wheretheyacted on behalfof merchantsresidentin Venice,assessingthevalue of the crop in the autumnof each yearand settinga price,then The responseto this callingupon the oil supplieswhen contractsarrivedfromVenice.128 in the demand for oil is demonstrated archaeological record,with a clearly organized the area at this of sites periodand the appearanceforthe mushrooming throughout survey thatis, places wherepeople had firsttimeof largenumbersof 'sitesof agricultural activity', numbersofolivetreesfeature in thefieldsratherthansettlements. beenworking Unquantified at Mystras;usuallythey in the fourteenth-century of the Vrontochion monastery chrysobulls The are associatedwithvineyardsand orchards,indicatingfairlysmall-scaleproduction.129 turbulentperiod thatfollowedthe loss of Constantinopleto the Crusadersseems to have 126Constantine (n. 49), ch. 50, p. 232, Porphyrogenitus lines76-8. 127 della Rocca and Lombardo(n. 72). 128The i2th-cent. textoftheLifeofNikoncitestwoItalian

traderslivingin rentedaccommodationin the city'forthe sakeoftrade'.Sullivan(n. 51),250-1,ch. 74. 129 ad 1315,1319,1320,1322.Millet(n. 95), 103-17.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 383

III. 7.10.Old olive-tree nearVoutianoi.

theintensive cultivation oftheoliveas a cash cropin Laconia, sincethe affected detrimentally abundantKomnenianevidenceforconcentratedactivitiesin the fieldsdrops away in the mean thatthelandscapebecamedeserted,butthat Palaiologanperiod.It does notnecessarily the infrastructure underpinningsurplusproductionwas no longer in existence,and the once again revertedto smallholdingspractisingmixed farming,mainlyfor countryside In the seventeenth centurythe olivewas stillgrownmainlyas partof personalconsumption. as shownbylistsoftheimmovablepossessionsofthe 119Jewishfamilieswho sucha structure, The same documentsitemizeplotsof residedin MystrasunderVenetianrule (1687-1715).130 in to one owner land and fieldsbelonging dispersedlocations,whichare also indicativeof This is further mixed,non-intensive agriculture. supportedby the numerousentriesin the of fieldsand individualtreesfromprivate of Agioi Saranda concerningthe transfer typikon A numberofthesetreesand properties, smallto themonastery.131 clearlyreflecting ownership in the Kelephinavalley.132 All the sectorsof the surveyarea, are concentrated scale farming, Neogeneplateau,wouldhave been suitablefor exceptpartofΝ and all ofP, theuncultivable In 1829 tne CommissionScientifique recordedlargetractsof land the same mixedfarming. devotedto olive(and orange)plantationsin theEvrotasvalley,whichseemsto have been the intensive cultivation sincethetwelfth olive'sfirst century. '3° Preservedin the archivesof the cityof Venice. Some have been translatedinto Greek: C. Mertzios and Th. Papadopoulos,'Ό Μυστρας και ή περιφέρειατου ειςτα άρχειατης Βενετίαςκατά την Ένετοκρατίαν(ι687-1η15)', Λακ. σπουδ. g (1988),227-76.

131Based on samplerecordsfromthe unpublishedtextof thetypikon (n. 33). 132At Chtonza (K247),Achragias(G162/182), and Potamiá (G156).Some textsare reproducedin Sakellaropoulos(n. 84), 66, 68, 70,72.

384 Chapter7

III. 7.1ι. Wine-press at Sto Lino (G. D. R. Sanders).

Some of the oldestolivesin the surveyarea, over200 yearsold, are near Voutianoi(ILL. Souli (see above). The restare eitherin the 7.10)but probablybelongedto its predecessor, in basin or zone both associated withAgioi Saranda. Apartfromthese N, Chrysapha places in the of olive trees the surveyarea are lessthan200 yearsold,with exceptions, greatmajority in theregionis of mostofthemless than100years.133 Since it is knownthatolivecultivation to theeffects oftheminimuchgreaterantiquity, theabsenceofoldertreesmaybe attributed failures colder climate at that time led to successive ice age oftheseventeenth The century.134 as a ofharvestand theabandonmentofmarginalland thathad been broughtintocultivation '33See Chapter3, p. 96. 134 J. M. Grove,TheLittleIceAge(London and New York, in climatebetweenthen 1988).The extentof the difference

and now can be gauged by the famousice fairsheld on the riverThamesin the 17thcent.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 385 The oldestsurviving resultofpopulationincreaseand otherpressuresin thesixteenth century. when climatic which to have been conditions are on monastic trees, planted improved, appear like that had thenecessary is that it was institutions monasteries It onlylarge property. possible theolivecrop.Theymayhavereceivedhelpfromcentralgovernment, resourcesto reestablish or possiblythe replantingwas instigatedby the governmentthroughthe agency of the thattheages oftherestoftheLaconian olivesfallintotwo It maybe significant monasteries. acts (1835and 1935),when groupswhichroughlycorrespondto the two land redistribution were appropriatedby the Greekstate.135 This could suggestthatbefore monasticproperties at which to enterthelevelofcultivation 1835thepeasantfarmerdid nothavethewherewithal he couldproducean oil surplus. Consideringthe importanceof the olive crop in Laconia, it is curiousthatonlytwo oil bothbelongingto thelaterOttomanperiod.136 Theyconsistofbuildings presseshavesurvived, dedicated to oil pressing,and contain all the associated equipment including special chimneyedareas fora finalboilingof the olive residuetogetherwithwaterformaximum A list,dated to 1829,°f immovablemonasticpropertiesrecordsthe existenceof extraction. two olive presses,whichwere probablysimilarto the survivingones since theyare listed It is likelythatsmall-scaleproducershad theirownpressingequipment, withmills.137 together or some degradable material.The olive residue,particularlythe made of wood perhaps unlikeintensive stones,wouldhavebeen used forfuel.Small-scalefarmers, producers,would forthem, in maximumextraction sincetheolivehad a dual function nothavebeen interested as a sourceoffood. as a fuelmayhavebeen almostequal to itssignificance and itsimportance fromthetwoperiodsofmass One wouldtherefore expectto findevidenceforoliveprocessing The Ottoman. relative and later Komnenian age of the Komnenianpresses, production, while a few of thelatterhavesurvived. to their have contributed must demise, however, wine were one ofthemajorcropsofthe for Untilcomparatively production recently, grapes in an indirect reference to viticulture There be ILL. Laconiancountryside 7.11). may (compare Laconia in thetenthcenturyin connectionwiththeempressTheophano:hermother'sfamily businessin ownedestatesin thevale of Laconia, whileher fatherowneda wineimportation the of documents The Venetian concerning Jews Mystrassuggestthat Constantinople.138 was a majoruse to whichland was put in theseventeenth viticulture century. Manyvineyards are listed,some ofwhichcontainedalso smallnumbersof olivetreesor,less often,mulberry trees;thisis in the oppositemannerto modernpractice,whereolive grovesare ofteninteror In additionto theirownproducethetrees,whethermulberries croppedwitha fewvines.139 have been of must the vines. Such shelter for have olives,may largequantities grapes provided intendedforcommercialwineproduction.Dessertgrapestendto be grownon a fewspecially selectedvines,oftenclose to a dwelling.In 1829,a totalof222 stremmata (22.2ha) ofvineyards and 25,668kgofwinewereproduced. in Laconia wereon monasticproperty, featureofthemedievallandscape.Byutilizinga relatively Mixedorchardswerea distinctive small plot of land in thisway,a peasant farmercould produce a wide range of seasonal Typical crops were figs,apples, producewhichcontributedto his family'sself-sufficiency. •35N. P. Eleftheriadis,Μοναστηριακού γαΐαι(Athens, 1939)· 136In thevillageofAphysou. 137 E. D. Belia,'ΜοναστηριακάΛακωνίας',Λακ. σπουδ. ι (1972)5328~68. 130See C. Β. Hase (ed.) Ltfo: Diaconus(Corpus scriptorum

historiaeByzantinae,11;Bonn, 1828),iii. 9, forTheophano's Laconian origins(whichmodem editorsconsidershouldbe understood). 139Mertzios and Papadopoulos (n. 130), 257 no. 46, vineyardwith16 olives;258 no. 52,vineyardwith4 olives.

386 Chaptery

fromtheeastern pears,and varioustypesofnuts.By 1680orangeand lemontrees,introduced in were of of the Ottoman orchards the empire, components private Péloponnèse.140 provinces in Laconia. has thefirstrecordofintensive citruscultivation The CommissionScientifique There are no earlyor middleByzantinereferences to cereal productionin Laconia; the earliestis in the earlyfourteenth-century chrysobullsof the Vrontochionmonasteryat in the where it seems to be of minor relatively Mystras, importance.There are no references In the earlyyearsof the Venetiandocumentsto cerealproductionas partof mixedfarming. seventeenthcentury, Coronellinoted thatthe Turkishfamiliesof the Evrotasvalleywere maintain the Ottomanmilitarystationedat Mystraswithcorn.141 to Cultivationof required tracts of land a general have been controlled. This was not major cereal-producing may in the Ottoman but the in conditions Laconia ofaccessfor practice empire, specific (difficulty combinedwiththeneed to servicethegarrison)mayhave demandedsuchmeasures. imports, Withinthe surveyarea, serious cereal cultivationseems to have carried out only in the and themillthere,probably Chrysaphavalley,as suggestedbythenumberofthreshing-floors organizedby Agioi Saranda and therebywithinthe remitof Ottomanofficials.Different elementsof the 1829 documentsshow intensecereal cultivationby the monasteries:378.5 stremmata (37.85 ha) of land were devotedto it, and eightmillsproduced45,692 kg of flour whichwerekeptin two grainstores.Leake in 1805 had observedwheat,barley,maize,and springwheatbeinggrownin thefields.142 The leavesof the mulberry treecould providefodderforanimals,but theirprincipaluse was to feedthewormsin thecourseofsilkproduction.Silkthreadis traditionally producedby women.The wormswere keptin a controlledatmospherein a buildingor room specially maintainedforthe purpose,close to the familydwelling.Silk manufacture was a means of to themale preoccupations raisinga peasant'sstatus,sinceit was a cash crop supplementary of cultivationand animal husbandry.Silk cloth and garmentswere produced in twelfthIt is not clear how the systemwas operated: centurySparta,as in otherprovincialcities.143 whetherthe factoryownerboughtsilkcocoons froma selectionof small-scaleproducers, whetherhe was involvedat an earlierstageand organizedworm-rearers himselfon a large scale,or whethertherewas a combinationofboth.Commercialactivitiesin the Komnenian era were so extensiveas to implythatsome special arrangements were necessary.Like the olive,themassproductionofsilkdoes notseemto have continuedin thePalaiologanperiod. The courtat Mystraswouldhave requireda supply,but it wouldhave fallenfarshortof the scale of productionof the previousera that catered forthe seeminglyinsatiableItalian market.144 The varyingbut small numbers of mulberrytrees in the Venetian records of Mystrasindicatea kindof cottage Jewishinhabitants concerningthe seventeenth-century the initial of at It seems likelythat individual least. industry, during stages production householdsdid notproducetheirown silkcloth,butsold eitherthreador simplythecocoons to professionalclothmanufacturers. Silk threadwas one of the main productsof the area betweenVityloand Kalamata in Ottomantimes.145 Monasterieswere also involvedin silk in there were trees and 111,240kg 2,133mulberry production: 1829, belongingto monasteries ofsilkthreadwas produced.146 140B. Randolph, The Present StateoftheMorea, CalledAnciently . . . (London, 3i68g; repr.Athens, 1966), 18. Peloponnesus 141Coronelli (n. 104), 96. 142Leake, Travels,i. 128, 131-2, 147-8. '« bullivan (n. 51), 110, ch. 35; see also LJ.Jacoby, bilk in western Byzantium before the fourth crusade', Byzantinische

Zeitschnfi, 84-5 (1990-1), 452-500. «44p Magdalino, The EmpireofManuel I Komnenos 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993), 144-5. 145Leake, Travels,1. 241-2. 146See n. 137.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 387 The large-scaleagricultural productsofLaconia wereoil, silk,and wine.Large-scalecereal cultivationseems to have been confinedto monasticpropertiesor the Turkishpopulace. of individual Mixed agriculturewas practisedin most areas, withperhaps concentrations in basin. the such as cereals the By 1829, date ofthe Chrysapha cropsin particularlocations, French reconnaissances,the landscape had lost the patchworkaspect of its medieval and developeditsmodernlook: thevinewas demotedfromprimeposition,and exploitation to oliveand orangegroves.This mayhave been the largeexpansesweredevotedexclusively or it mayhave resultof some generalagricultural by centralgovernment, policyundertaken been instigatedon the initiativeof privateindividuals.At any rate,it representsa major practicein theprovince. changein theconductofagricultural ANDTRANSHUMANCE ANIMALHUSBANDRY animalsfallintotwocategories:thosethatworked,and thosethatwerekeptfor Agricultural theirproduce. Workinganimals included oxen, mainlyused forploughing;mules and whichcouldploughas wellcarrygoods;and horses,whichwereused fortravel.The donkeys, servicein thewhole military Péloponnèsewas famousforitshorses:in theearlytenthcentury, In 1829, Laconian themewas cancelled in returnforsupplyinghorses to the cavalry.147 ownedforty-four monasteries mules,a donkey,and twelvehorses.Animals oxen,twenty-four keptfortheirproduceweredairycattle,pigs,sheep,and goats.Dairy cattlerequireda rich who could notaffordthequalityofland to diet,and tendednotto be keptbypoorerfarmers the maintainthem.In the earlyfourteenth monasteryat Mystrashad century, Vrontochion as theycould scavenge were on thebanksoftheEvrotas.148 cattleat Brysiotos, common, Pigs and absorbwastethatwould otherwisenot be put to use. The abundantacornsof Laconia would have providedsuitablepig fodder,while a rare referencein the fourteenth century Peasantfarmers on carobs.149 us ofpigson a particularLaconianestatebeingfattened informs wouldhave had at leasta singlepig each year,keptclose to the dwellingand fedduringthe autumnon fallenfruitand nutsin the orchards.It was traditionto carrysaltedporkto the There are no recordsofpigsbeingkeptby fieldsduringtheoliveharvest(December-January). suchas yokesor evenploughs,survive.They are Fewmedievalanimaltrappings, monasteries. and noneis knownfromsurveys.150 rarein excavation, and ways.A fewmightbe kepton a goats could be husbandedin threedifferent Sheep small scale close to the dwellingand led to the fieldsdaily.In thisway the animalswere on cultivation, to, and a minorpart of,a farmingregimethatconcentrated supplementary or be either flocks could to thefarmer'sself-sufficiency. and theycontributed privately Large The a and tended for by professionalshepherds. exampleby village, communallyowned, to some degree.Particularconditions,both formersystemtendedto involvetranshumance to operate.Freedomof movementis physicaland political,are needed fortranshumants a wide area and not deplete any one over herds can so that graze especiallyimportant, in mountainous is often found land zones, whose upper altitudesare section;undisputed There are two typesof migration:one by which mountainunsuitableforcultivation.151 147 ConstantinePorphyrogenitus (n. 49), ch. 52 (AD921). 148Milletin. oO. 103.line32 (ADisiO. 149'Valania'(acorns):Randolph(n. 140),17;see also Chapter 3 above,p. 107.Carobs: Ioannes Evgenikos(ofthe Laconian villageof Petrina),ed. Lambros(n. 33), i. 52, lines6-8; cf.p. 106above. '5° See A. Fol, R. Katincarov,J. Best, N. de Vries, K.

Settlement and Shoju, and H. Suzuki(eds),Djadovo,i: Mediaeval Necropolis(uth-i2th Century)(Tokyo, 1989), 79-86, for

hoes, includingploughshares, implements agricultural andpruning-knives. sickles, 151Especiallytrueof regulartranshumants, whereas 'nomadic' pastoralisminvolvesdepletionfollowedby migration.

388 Chapter7

dwellersgo down to the plain, of whomthe best knownare the Vlachs, and one by which The methodpractised plain-dwellers go up to themountainsin the hot summermonths.152 thosewho operatethe former mustbe largelydeterminedby culturalreasons;nevertheless whilethe latteris preferred by farmerswho also systemtendto be exclusivelypastoralists, have flocks. Both are found operating side by side in Laconia. The appropriate characteristics (availabilityand climate)oflargeareas ofmountain,inclementto habitation in winterbut receptiveto summergrazing,mean that Laconian pastoralistshave to be In Parnon,transhumancetakesplace betweensea level (on the Helos plain) transhumant. and an elevation of 2,000 m; within this range, each herder will have two or three habitations.There seemsto be a distinction of distancecoveredbetweenextendedfamilies as pastoralists,and village communitieswho sent shepherdsoffwith theirflocks.The modernvillagesof Sochás and Serviánika,each originallythe settlementof an extended are withina fewhoursoftheirkalyvia; but theParnonvillageofTzitzinahad a kalyvi family, near Sparta and also overwintered flocksnear Elos, givingsome idea of how complicated theset-upmightbe.153 The sum of the activitiesconcomitant withherdingis morevaluablethanthe herditself. The main productis wool, whichcan be tradedeitherin its raw stateor as blanketsand whilemeatis of carpets.Skins,milk,and milkproductsare also valuabletradingcommodities, lesservalue.Accessiblemarketsforproductsare essentialbecause oftheperishablenatureof someoftheproducts.In Laconia, speciallyfinegoatskins wereused forshoe uppers;we know aboutthisonlybecausetheyweretaxed. Writtenevidencefordifferent periodsin the medievalera does not presenta consistent pictureof pastoral activitiesin Laconia. In the sixthcentury,indigenousshepherdsand farmersfromthe valleyof the Evrotasaround Sparta were forcedto move to the 'rough territories The 'roughterritories', then,were suitablenot onlyforgrazingbut nearby'.154 as well. It is knownthattheywentup intoParnon,and some at forcultivation presumably leastprobablysettledin zone U, the Chrysaphabasin,sinceTzakoniannamessurvivethere. containedin thetextis breakdownofstatecontrolin theregion,sincetheland the Implicitly herdsmenand rusticswentto was notownedby anyone;theycould simplygo and use it.Yet in theearlyand middleByzantineperiodsthestatewas a majorownerofland in itsownright, in respectof whichthe non-seasonalέννόμιον,pasturetax, was charged.155 The areas to whichthe 'indigenous'(Greeks)wentremainedunderByzantinestatecontrolto someextent, failedto operate.It is difficult to gauge the extentto whichthe thoughcivic institutions herdsmenand rusticsfittedinto a regulatedexchangeor marketsystem,or indeed if any existedat all. Fromwhatis knownof the overallpictureof lifein the internalregionsof the Péloponnèseat thisperiod,one has to assume the absence of any sophisticated marketing systemand an existenceat subsistencelevel; possiblynecessitieswere exchangedbetween pastoralistsand cultivatorswithinnarrowlydefinedregions.This is clearlythe patternof existence presented for the thirteenthcentury,with evidence for taxes which Slavic 152The Vlachs,exclusively came down to the pastoralists, of plainsofThessalyto exchangetheirproductsforthefruits cultivation. 153 ii. ^16. Leake, Travek, 154Lemerle(n. 16),at lines48-50. Translationby Huxley (n. 38),90. 155For a discussionof the applicationof the pasturetax, see N. Oikonomides,Fiscalitéet exemption fiscaleà Byzance

(IXe-XIe s.) (Institut de Recherches Byzantines, monographes,2; Athens,1996), 72-6. It was imposed on land notownedbythestate,as wellas on imperialestates.In Laconia today,tractsof land are owned communallyand grazing tax paid annually per head of animal to the commune.In 1986,shepherdspaid 1,500drachmasannually ofChrysaphaforgrazingrights. per animalto thekoinotis

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 389 in Taygetoshad to pay to theFrankishlordsat Mystrasbeforetheycould come transhumants downintoSpartato selltheircheeses.156 One of thejudgementsgivenby a Venetiancourt in the fourteenthcenturyconcerns AlbaniansandGreek transhumant who,havingpassed the summermonthsin Parnon shepherds tax to Greek and paid theirpasture Despot at Mystras,broughttheirflocksdown to winter of VenetianNauplion.157 Shepherdsof the Morea are the subjectof pasturesin the territory one ofthelettersofCastellan.158 to observein the archaeologicalrecord.159 Pastoralismand transhumanceare difficult were Though one would expectthatthe fociat variouspointsin theseseasonal migrations permanent,simplybecause it musthave been easier to operatethus,and because modern recognizableremnantsto indicatetheiruse. practiceindicatesit,theremaybe no surviving, The greaterpart of the yearwas spentat the summerlocation,whereless robusthousing was requiredthanin winter.Many moreactivitieswereprobablycarriedout in thewarmer weather.Springtimewould have been given over to cheesemaking.The timingof its productionperhaps determinedwhen migrationtook place; thatis, beforecheesemaking began. Creatingor findingthe conditionsforcheesemakingcannothave been easy,sinceit thatdid notvarygreatly.Caves are suitable;thereare a number requiredcool temperatures withinthe surveyarea that could have been put to such a use. The Tzakonian name Tsilioto, given to a cave on the edge of the Chrysapha basin in which a church was dedicated in the fourteenthcentury,may perhaps indicate that it was used earlier by was the Tzakonianherdsmen.Anotherimportantsecondaryactivityforfemalepastoralists for use and for were and which of blankets partly exchange. partly personal rugs, weaving Baskets woven fromfine grasses were employed in curd-cheese production. Animal stomachs,withtheirnaturalrennet,were used to set hard cheeses. Animalswould have been shearedin thesummer,and wool spun. Setting-upofloomsand weavingtookplace in thewinter.Taskswouldhavebeen sharedout betweenthesexes,and amongtheold and the ofsummerdwellingsmayhavebeen young,accordingto theircapabilities.The construction with tents to sleep in. Cookingwould have not necessarily) quite ephemeral,perhaps(but been done at an open fire,thoughbuiltovensare likelyto have been constructedif a site was used regularly. Archaeologicaltraces of summersitesmay thereforebe scarce,since wereperishable.All thatone mightexpectto findwould mostof the toolsand implements and perhapssome roughvesselsto drinkfrom.Bowls and be some cooking-potfragments, disheswerepossiblyofwood,whittledintoshape fromtheabundantresourcesoftheregion while watchingthe flocks.The wintersites, on the other hand, must have had more of stoneor wood, theyare likely Whetherthewallswereconstructed permanentstructures. to have had tiledroofs.The area forhuman activitywas probablysurprisingly small,with animals and people livingin close proximity.Somethinglike a large mandra could be in one area. envisaged,withhumanliving-quarters Thereare a numberofsiteswithinthesurveystudyarea whichmaybe consideredas winter coveredis high enough above sea level for but none of the territory sitesforpastoralists, !56G. L. Huxley, 'Transhumance on Taygetos in the 18 (1993),331-4. ChronicleofMorea', IllinoisClassicalStudies,

157F. Thiriet, Régestesdes deliberationsdu sénat de Venise la Romanie,iii: 1431-1463 (École Pratique des Hautes concernant

Études,Vie section,documentset recherches, 4; Paris,1961), no. 2866,para. 3.

■s8 Castellan(η. ΐΐ2),58 fr. 159H. Forbes,'The identification ofpastoralistsiteswithin the contextof estate-basedagriculturein ancient Greece: versusagro-pastoralism" debate', beyondthe"transhumance BSA 90 (1995),325-38·

390 Chaptery

summersites.Chrysaphaseems to be on the lower edge of the summersitesfortoday's butin thepastitmayhavebeen thewinterquartersofshepherdswhopassedtheir shepherds, summersmuchhigherup on Parnon. THE SYMBIOSIS

OF MONASTERIES

AND THE RURAL ECONOMY

For thosefamiliarwiththe rigidstructures of Catholicmonasticism, the lack of centralized in and the absence of orders Orthodox monasticismmay be difficultto authority any understand.160 The closestarrangement to monasticorderswithinthe Orthodoxchurchis found in the relationshipof dependent monasteries(metockia) to a parent institution. followedthe same code ofrules(typikon) as theirfoundinginstitution, Dependentmonasteries but thefounderof each new monastery drewup his own code of rulesforhis establishment, which is the essentialdifferencebetween eastern and westernmonasticism.The typikon concerneditselfnotjust withthe daily lives of the monksbut also withthe monastery's the delicatebalance betweenprovisioning the propertiesand theirmaintenance.Inevitably, of its membersand maintaining theirspiritualwelfarewas not always earthlyrequirements evenlysustained. Privilegesconcerningpropertygranted to monasteriesby the state, to lessentheirneed to be involvedin worldlymatters,meantthattheycould theoretically consolidateanylandstheypossessedintopowerfuleconomicunits,unhinderedby thechecks thatapplied to privatelyowned properties.The growthof monasticestatesgatheredpace in theeleventhcentury, to suchan extentthatwealthyindividualsinvestedsurplus particularly whichthenfunctioned in themannerofa managedfarmor 'monasteries', capitalin founding estate,the only differencebeing that the daily operationswere organized by religious It was permitted forpeasantsto workon monasticestates,again theoretically to personnel.161 freethe monksfromworldlydistractions, and eventually, the twelfth even whole by century, This systemwas regularizedin thelate villageshad become'tied'to particularmonasteries.162 Byzantineperiod,and thoughit continuedunderthe Ottomansit ceased to expand,at least In the seventeenth Orthodoxmonasticismhad a second flowering, and initially.163 century, of the monastic edifices extant in Greece date to this if even their many today period antecedents are ofgreaterantiquity.164 Sometimeschurches, and in particularcountrychapels, could be acquiredby monasteries and therebygain monasticstatus,so thatthe historyof a establishment is not religious alwaysstraightforward. Laconia is particularly wellendowedwithmonasteries. Middle Byzantinefoundations were thePalaiopanagiáat Vrondamás,a cave monastery witha renownedscriptorium; the'bridge' on theoutskirts of Sparta,whosetypikon ofAD 1027was inscribedon a bridgeover monastery the Evrotas;and the famousestablishment of St Nikonwithinthe cityof Sparta.165 Various metochia are referredto in the Vitaof Nikon but are not known.The monasteryof Agioi Saranda may also belongto thisperiod.166 The Palaiologanera saw extensivepatronageof monasteriesin Laconia. Apartfromthe clustersof religioushousesin Mystrasand Geraki, 160It is impossibleto summarizethe historyand structure of Byzantinemonasticismsatisfactorily in a fewsentences. See J. M. Hussey, Churchand L·arningin theByzantineEmpire,

867-1185(London,1937). 161 MichaelPsellos.See E. Renauld e.g. (ed.),MichelPsellos:

où histoired'un sièclede Byzance (gy6-ioyy), 2 vols Chronographie

(CollectionbyzantineGuillaumeBudé; Paris,1926-8). 162Lemerle (n. 16). 163Bryerand Lowry(n. 113);Laiou-Thomadakis(n. 82).

164M. Kiel, 'The rise and decline of TurkishBoeotia, in Bintliff, Recent itith-iqth centuries', Developments, 31^-^8. l65CIG 8704 (LSii. 221,no. 15 x); Vita,**. 166It has datedAD 1305(LS ii. 226-7 signedwall-paintings no. 28), whichmayhavebeen paintedoverearlierfrescoes.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 391 which date to thisperiod and were powerfulestablishmentsin theirfloruit,therewere otherfoundationsat Goránoi (Gola) in Taygetosand at Agios Nikolaos on the northbank of the Kelephina river.In the seventeenthcenturya numberof importantmonasteries came into being: Panagía Kataphiótissaat Anógeia (1639), Zerbítsa,Agioi Anárgyroiat Vérroia (1621),and Syntziaphi(Agios Ioannis Prodromos)at Chrysapha (1625). I*1^32 Gola was 'refounded5.167 is dedicatedto theFortyHoly withinthesurveyterritory The principalmonasticfoundation The original theAgioiTessarakontaMartyres(in demotic,Agioi Saranda; L534).168 Martyrs, the cliffs of was in a seriesofcaveson thesouth-facing foundation Sophronigorge.The date butit certainly is unknown, offoundation goes back at leastto 1305.An argumentthatmight withsiteP284 date lies in the monastery's be adduced foran earlierfoundation relationship is anomalousin thatit (above,p. 356). That village,whichhas itsoriginsin theninthcentury, location:thereis no easilyaccessiblesupply does notconformto otherpatternsofsettlement combinedwiththe These factors, ofwater,and thelandscapeis notconduciveto agriculture. between of the twosites,maymean thattherewas some crucialsymbiosis relativeproximity the settlementand the monastery.There may also be a link with the dedication of the saintNikon. the onlyone in Greece,and the tenth-century to the FortyMartyrs, monastery cultfiguresin the regionof Anatolia,whereNikonwas born.169 are important The martyrs in the late Byzantineperiod,having Whereverthe monastery's originsmay lie, it flourished Littleis knownof it fromthen the embellishment who underwrote expenses. wealthypatrons fromthecavesto a formermetochion until1620,whenitsprincipaloperationsweretransferred locatedon an easilyaccessibleplateau at the mouthof the Sophronigorge.A new katholikon Aroundits of a monastery. was built,togetherwiththe necessaryancillaryconstructions stoodthree storerooms. barrel-vaulted are extensive level at they Originally courtyard ground rowsdeep, but theywere not restoredaftertheirdestructionin the earthquakeof 1886. on nearbyhillsides(1402)are also evidenceof largestorage Remainson monastery property for nearby.170 Aged olivesin presumably graingiventhesequenceofthreshing-floors capacity, been have was not the that thevicinity inter-cropped. onlyproduce:theymay grain suggest in the The buildingsare post-Byzantine, thoughthereis evidenceofmiddleByzantineactivity to whichAgioi Saranda moved.The springarea whichmaybe associatedwiththe metochion infrastructure. houseand cisterncomplex(1477)is partofthesameagricultural In 1600 the Palaiologanchurchof Agios Nikolaos(G182)became a dependencyof Agioi oftheTheotókosPanagía,or Paliopanagiá In thefollowing Saranda.171 yearthelittlemonastery ofAgioi Dimitrios of In me church did likewise.172 (G4004)becamea metochion Agios 1605 (G156), Saranda.173In 1633 the Panagia churchin the Chrysaphabasin also became a metochion, and grazing,as wellas amountofland includingvineyards withit witha substantial bringing are the of monastic donations 'the panigyri'iy* surveyterritory propertiesbeyond Many of The Kosmás.175 Parnon near east of on the furthest the typikonAgioi recorded, slopes being to Sarandaalso has detailedrecordsofdonationsofland and treesmade byprivateindividuals 167The date is preserved in a painted foundation Drandakis(n. 96), 40. inscription. Ibö LSn. 226-32. Inscriptions: l69This is discussedat lengthin Armstrong (n. 58). ''" Lò 11.370-9. 171The church was constructed in the 13th cent.: Drandakis (n. 96), 23-33. For the donation see (n. 84),72. Sakellaropoulos

172For the name, see Sakellaropoulos (n. 84), 66. Its frescoeswere executed(c. AD 1305)by the same artistwho painted Agioi Saranda: Sakellaropoulos(n. 84), 68; LS ii. 226-7,no. 28. 173 Sakellaropoulos(n. 84), 68. 174Ibid. 71. The significance an annualfair, ofthepanigyn, is therevenueitgenerates. 175 Sakellaropoulos(n. 84), 66 if.

392 Chaptery

themonastery.176 Thereis a greatsurgein thetransfer ofproperty to themonastery, ownership in from a the first half of few trees to the seventeenth The same ranging largeestates, century. in is detected earlier which reflect the richer Boiotia, phenomenon may agricultural landscape there.177 and archaeologicalevidencetogether, it is clear thatthere Takingthe documentary was a deliberateintensification in theseventeenth of agricultural cultivation centuryand that monasteries in a role it. The new foundations of and Syntziaphi played major AgioiAnargyroi werelocatedon theupperlimitsforcultivation, and uncultivated land into bringing marginal use. The monasteryat Gola, in a similarlymarginal location on Taygetos, was also In the earlyOttomanperiod,appellantshad to pay largesumsof 'refounded'at thistime.178 for to money permission build, as a way of discouragingindependentrural economic expansion perceived as detrimentalto the state. The mushroomingofjust the kind of expansion the state wished to controlreflectsa change of policy broughtabout by the economicproblemsfacedby the government.179 The degreeoffailureof centralgovernment can be seen in the factthattherewas no gain to them,since Agioi Saranda possessedan ahitname and paid no taxes.180 In addition,therushto hand overmonasteries and privateland to Agioi Saranda may have been designedto protectthe propertiesfromthe ever more punitivetax collector,thoughit is scarcelybelievablethatthe authoritieswould long have toleratedsucha loopholein thesystemunlessitbroughta greateradvantageto them. A significant the managementof large tractsof countryside advantagein concentrating under a singleauthority, or a numberof associated authorities,is that it gives access to resourceswhichsmallerbodiesor individualssimplycouldnotafford. Forinstance,twowatermills(K204and G522)and a windmill(U487)belongedto Agioi Saranda.181 To themonastery also shouldprobablybe attributed the creationand maintenanceof numbersof threshingfloors.Wherethreshing-floors documentedin thecourseofthesurveyoccurredin clusters, as on land once ownedbyAgioiSaranda: on theterraces opposedto singly, theywerefrequently on thenorthbanksoftheKelephina,in thearea aroundL402,and in theChrysaphabasin.It was probablyat the timewhen the Panagia Chrysaphitissa came underthe aegis of Agioi Sarandathatitsextensive of which remnants wereconstructed. survive, storagebuildings, only A pictureemergesforthe laterOttomanperiodof the intensification of cultivation through monasticagencies. It is not surprising,then,that in the land surveywhichfollowedthe establishment of thenewlyindependentGreekstatethreemonasteries wereidentified as the in landowners Laconia.182 What is is that were largest surprising they Agioi Saranda, Agioi and Syntziaphi, to each other(abouttwohourson foot).The Anargyroi, giventheirproximity main buildingsof Agioi Saranda (L534)suffered extensivedamage in the decade of excesses that followed the Orlov rebellion, (1770-9) yettheywere repairedand recoveredspeedily, some indication of the resources the was able to drawupon in emergencies. giving monastery In a secondrevisionofmonasticproperties a hundredyearslater,in 1935,AgioiSaranda lost 176See n. 33. A typicalentryreadsειςτον Κλόσατά του μοναστηρίουρίζας άλονηάπό κ. τ. εύρίσκωντα άπότονΘεόδωρεΤζολήνα έλαιςδώδεκαπροσιλομένας διατηνψυχήν του.εις1607ιουλίου 8. Κτητόρισα. 177See Μ. Kiel, 'Populationgrowthand economic in thevillagesofBoeotiaand itseffects on the expansion spread of monasticismin the early Turkishperiod (1466-1570)accordingto the Ottomanadministrative sources', in FirstInternational Congress ofBoeotianStudies(Thebes, of Agioi Saranda records 10-14 September ig86). The typikon

donationsthroughout the 16thcent.,but theyare smalland

not frequent, in size and whereastheyincreasesignificantly halfofthe 17thcent. frequency duringthefirst 170 In 16*2. 179 Detailsbelowat dd. ±01-2. 180The ahitanme exemptedit fromthe haraçand ispençe taxes,thoughit would stillhave been subjectto the αναήζ (whichby the end of the 16thcent,was so frequentas to be regardedas a regulartax). 181Leake confirmsthat G522 was monastic property: ii. 520-1. Travels, 102See n. 137.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 393 in theChrysaphabasin.At thattime,themonastery's windmillthereceased to itsproperties to the next nearestmill (0522), farmers were to take their and local obliged grain operate WithintenyearsChrysaphahad becomea whichalso happenedto belongto themonastery. seasonal village,occupied in the summermonthsonly; this may be connectedwiththe and ofmonasteries and illustrates thesymbiosis withdrawal ofAgioiSaranda fromthevicinity, therurallandscape. T445 stillbears the toponymMetochi, indicatingits functionand status.It may have in the southernzone of the Chrysapha belongedto Agioi Saranda or to Ágios Efthymios of whichfellunderthejurisdictionof the metropolitan basin,beyondthe surveyterritory, the The surfaceceramicsthereare an interesting Monemvasia.183 assemblageforillustrating characterof a metochion. Althoughthe quantityof Komnenian-datepotteryis muchgreater than thatfromlatercenturies,in factif amphoras(all Komnenian,bar one) are removed fromthe comparisonthe quantitiesof simple table wares, cooking-pots,and pithoi are roughlysimilarfromByzantineto Ottoman times.There are no high-gradeceramicsor expensiveartisanalproducts.There are cookingwares,storagewares,and functionaltable wares.Fromthe Byzantineperiodthereis a largenumberof amphoras(88 per centof the total of the same date); in the Ottoman period thereare no ceramic equivalentsof the amphoras.The area of T445 (1.07 ha), determinedfromthe extentof the sherdscatter,is comparableto thatofa reasonablylargevillage.But thelow densityofdomesticwaresmight indicatelessintensiveoccupationthanwouldbe associatedwitha village.It wouldseemthat thisland could be workedby a small numberof people and thatthe workwas probably seasonal,the labourer'sprincipaldwellingbeing at the parentmonastery;certainlythisis as operating. howtextsdescribemetochia Anothermonasticsitelocatedby the surveywas Mitátova(mod.Agrapidiáor Agrapidoula; In thecourseofthepottery assignedto anyperiod,but studythissitewas notpositively F149).184 a of theVrontochion of it with the associates research agndion Mitatova, property subsequent lack ofanypublished and the fine identifiable absence of The at wares, any monastery Mystras.185 ceramics.The its associated not identified that it was meant ware by comparanda, plain nature.It is of this a rustic site is of and household tile, pithos typical pottery, assemblage plain of cultivable a colonization to and seems locatedin theEvrotasvalley, represent oppositeMystras, land in an area previouslyfarmedbut thenabandoned, presumablybecause of war,with work,is on thelower bysurvey easyaccessto thecity.The sizeofthesite,as identified reasonably be itcan safely sherd Sincesitesizeis determined ofan agndion. limitforourdefinition density, by waslargerthantheareawheresherdsarefound.186 assumedthattheactualarea exploited DIACHRONIC

SETTLEMENT

PATTERNS

havebeen ascribedto thevarioustypes(TABLE Settlements 7.1)on thebasislargelyofsize,that At the same time,the typologyof site is to say,the extentof the main scatterof artefacts. derivedfromhistoricaland archivalrecordsof statusesis based on our priorunderstanding the periods.The equationof archaeologicalremainswitha particular(historical) typeis, of in the will some and there be a arising course, workinghypothesis ascriptions, uncertainty 183 G. A. Pikoulas, 'Τα δρια της μητροπόλεως Μονεμβασίας',Λακ. σπουδ. 13(1996)5393~4Ο4· 184 LS ii. 345JAgrapidiain demotic. 185It is mentionedin twochrysobulls of 1314/15and 1319: of Mitatovawith Millet(n. 95), 103, 109. The identification

Agrapidoula is given in the Μεγάλη ελληνική s.v.Μιτάτοβα. εγκυκλοπαίδεια, 186This may be supportedby other techniquesof site identification, e.g.phosphatesampling.

394 Chaptery

both fromimprecisionin the data and froma naturalvariation.We believe,however,that withintheselimitsofprecisionusefulgeneralinferences can be drawn. No Byzantinesiteshave been identified whichcan be dated earlierthantheninthcentury (see TABLE 7.2).Whileonlyfoursitescan be datedto theninthand/ortenthcenturies, proper of the countryside did not takeplace untilthe eleventhcentury. That seemsto exploitation have been a highlyorganizedcolonization,since a patterncan be discernedbased on the locationofsmallersitesin theorbitoflargerones.DuringtheKomnenianperiodtherewas a of activityin the countryside, and the overallnumberof sitesincreasedmore mushrooming thansixfold.The greatestrate of increasewas in individualfarmsteads and hamlets.At the same timethereappeareda typeof sitenotpreviously thatis, an uninhabitedsite identified, withevidenceof significant activityin the landscape.In the Palaiologanperiodtherewas a noticeabledecreasein settlement In density, thoughnot to thelevelsof the eleventhcentury. the numberof farmhouses decreaseddramatically. The overallnumberof sitesin particular, the Ottomancenturieswas similarto the Palaiologan era, witha slightchange in balance betweennumbersof farmhouses,of whichtherewere more,and numbersof estatesand hamlets,whichdecreasednumerically. The largestnumberofsitesare type(i),individualfarmsteads (TABLE 7.9). Theiraveragesize measuredby archaeologicalcriteriawas 0.45 ha, thoughclearlythisreflects onlythe area of intenseactivity at thecore (aroundthedwelling);associatedproperty wouldhave been much largerand possiblyat disparatelocations.The generallyacceptedfiguresforthe minimum amountofland neededforsubsistence, 3.0-3.5 ha, are supportedbyevidencefromByzantine tax documents.187 Othertextualevidencesuggests8-10 ha as a normal-sized The property.188 variationtakes into account the proportionof cultivatedland (whichincludedfallow)to The averagesize could also varywithpopulationgrowth.In pasturein individualproperties. the Chalkidiki,landholdings became mostfragmented in the earlyfourteenth centurywhen there.189 populationpeaked Farmsare foundin everyzone ofthesurveyexceptC and P. Theywerenoticeablydensein theChrysaphavalleyand adjacentareas (zonesΤ and U), wherethereweretwenty-four; there was also a significant in the Evrotas D and Otherwise number,thirteen, valley(zones H). they appear to havebeen evenlyspread,withtwoor threein each zone. Sevencame intobeingin theeleventhcentury, each in a different zone. Two of these(H33,0,179)wererelatively shorttwo about both the Evrotas. Of the total of lived,lasting generations; lay along seventy-one were Komnenianfoundationsand twentyof thosewere in zone U. In all, farms,sixty-one ofthese sixty-five type(i) sitesexistedin theKomnenianperiod(TABLE 7.2),butonlytwo-thirds weredwellings. There is a similarnumberof type(ii) sites,villasor estates,to thoseof type(iii),hamlets (TABLE7.10). In the earlycenturiesof the middle Byzantineperiod the statewas a major landowner in its own right,and private estates did not play a significantrole in the untilthe tenthcentury.190 countryside By the twelfth centurytheycame to dominaterural 187Figuresare givenforproperties in Macedonia (£.3.0ha) and Boiotia (c.3.7ha): Harvey(n. 24), 63-4. The Byzantine a modios, unitof surfacemeasurement, was eitherone-tenth ofa hectare. or one-twelfth 100 Harvey(n. 24), 54. Others,withless exact data, have thoughtthe averagesize of a peasant holdingto be larger, C.15ha; e.g. N. Svoronos, 'Remarques sur les structures etmémoires, 6 (1976),49-67, at 52 n. 6. économiques',Travaux

189 J. Lefort,'Rural economyand social relationsin the Dumbarton OaL·Papers, countryside', 47 (1993),101-13. 190Dunn (n. 59), 273. 1he rise01 theestatesand thesmall farmer'sstruggleagainstthemare reflected in thenumerous Law, a handbookforjudges presiding copies of the Farmer's overdisputesofa ruralnaturein theprovinces. Copies began to be made fromthe end of the 10thcent.,presumably as a resultofincreasing in responseto encroachments. litigation

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 395 site

zone (ha)

size (%)

soil (m)

B106

B3 B3 d3

0.04 0.06

S S

6 II

520

Di di D2 Di E3

0.02

S

0.01 O.OI

F3 F2

B300 d92

D97 dg8

D306 D368 E55 ^10336 FI39 F146 f10332 G162 G254 G522 HII H2I H29 h42 hioo66

hiO326 1110328 J212 K250 K-253 K257 K403 L259 L402

1438 1476

M322 M341 M349 M356 Π110623 mio627 ni8g N190 N191 QJ79 Q.180 R290 S441 S450 S451 T443 T484 110849 U501 U502 U505 U506 U507 U517 U532 U10871 U10878

altitude

name

614

Chani Sellasias

5

375

Skoura

S S S

22

AvlakitouTourkou

*3

236 298 420

0.09

S S

6 l5

332 340

Gi O3 G3 H3 H2 H2 H3 h3

0.02 O.OI

S S S S S

20 22

367

J2 K4 K2 K3 K4 Li Li h Li Mi M3 M6 M4

0.09 0.03 0.04 0.07

n5 N5 N5 Q? Q? R5

0.08 O.IO

0.07

0.08 0.08 O.OI

0.02

s s

s s s s s

slope

28 5 4 9 3

5

20

16 9 12

292 276 220 241 224 216

311 448 446

0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07

Ν Ν Ν Ν

0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 O.IO

15 8 8

0.04 0.03 0.04

Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν

4 7

455 467 430

0.02 O.OI

L L

9 9

492 496

U3

O.O5 O.OI

L L L L L L L

6

U2

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.02

438 448 399 397 473 438 454

s4 s3

S3 Ti T3

u4 u4 u4 u4 u3

8

4 3 ο

7 3 7 !3 22

16

mill Lithrypha

225 298 324 251

Ν Ν

22 18 11

[07312005]

[063171] [05951785] [06261722]

0.03 0.04

l5 6

[07081897]

Ag. Georgios

437 234 224 230

435 428 424 197 180

[08951367] [08651345] [08791353] Kastora

Agia Paraskevi [i563I47I]

[16581405] [16471378]

396 Chapter7 site

zone (ha)

soil

size (%)

slope

altitude

name

(m)

u 10905 UIO925 UIO927 u 10950 UI095I u 10979 UIO987 UIO99I UIO992 UIO995 UIII63 UIII66

[15201274] [15211320] [15351280] [15871245] [15781242] [16301335] [16111333] [16191319] [15571316] [15251280]

Table 7.9. Type (i) sites (total 71).

society.Estateswere complexesthat could include,in addition to the usual agricultural the runningof water-mills, enterprises, salt-pans,and even potteryworkshopsas well as the maintenanceof roads and bridgeson theirproperty, forwhicha chargewas made to public users. Their efficientmanagementand subsequentprofitability meant that fundswere availableto createand maintainan infrastructure thatcontributed to theirownwell-being as wellas thatoftheagricultural economy.Estateswereeitherownedbyprivateindividualsand workedbyslavesand peasantlabourers,or belongedto monasteries. - G182(monastic), Of thefourtype(ii)sitesthatwerefoundedin theeleventhcentury K237, Thirteen M334,and M346 threeare close enoughto Spartato be associatedwiththe city.191 came intobeingin theKomnenianperiod,in morediverselocationsthanpreviously (zonesE, site

E75 G156 G182 H2O

H34 J44 JI70 J367

K237 K258 M328 M332 M334 M346 N3I2 N4I8 T445 Q358 U483

zone

E2 G2 Gi H2 H3

J3 J6 J6

K3 K3 M4 Mi M5 M6 N2 Ni Ti

0?

U2

size (ha)

soil

0.28

S S S S S S Ν Ν S S Ν S Ν Ν Ν S L Ν L

0.27 0-35 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.14 0.16 1.07 0.21 0.15

slope (%)

16

8

11

5 ι 3 5 2

!3 l3 3 7 3 5 14 13 3 3 1

altitude

name

(m) 333 350 394 231 212 202 192 201 248 273 207 268 209 191

488 348 483 198 453

Ag. IoannisProdromos Ag.Nikolaos

Morou Kokkinomalli

Ktirakia Ag. Georgios Metochi

Table 7.10.Type(ii)sites(total19). 191 The monasticcharacterofG182putsitin a separatecategory.

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 397 froma H, J-K, M-N, Q, T-U). The onlyKomnenianestatein the Chrysaphavalley(11483), and was timewhenthatarea was beingdividedbetweenmanyothertypesof new settlement suchas E75 and N312, withsome ofthemoreisolatedfoundations together clearlyflourishing, At the same land at this for time,some estateswere period. mightsuggestsome competition of the on the favourablelocations foundedat extremely city,such as M328,M332, peripheries do not continue into the thirteenth J44,and J367.Of the Komnenianfoundations,seven Onlyone seemsto havebeen foundedin thePalaiologanperiod(G156).Therewereno century. butsevenseemto havecontinuedin existencefromearliertimes. newOttomanfoundations, Type (iii) sites,hamlets(TABLE7.11),did not have an independentexistencebut usually or weredependenton a monastery formedpartofa villagecommunity (as F149).This typeof site is an indicatorof agriculturalexpansion:theyfollowedin the wake of the successful of type(iv) sites,such as when land was needed beyondthe and functioning establishment cultivablehalo of the parentvillage.Given the averagesize of an individualfarmstead,a households. fromsixto fourteen hamletwouldbe anything Nine ofthetype(iii)sitesare withinthesphereofthecity,in zonesH, J,K, and M. Another oftheotherprincipalsettlement, U490.Two eightare withina broadzone on theperipheries whichdo not conformto such a patternare unique in otherqualities:F149(monastic)and as an inn). Ν195 (on theroadto Sparta,possiblyfunctioning sitescame intobeingin theeleventh Two hamlet-sized J369and K244-5.Theylasted century, forabout 400 years,whentheyappear to have been subsumedintolargersitesnearby.The of type(iii) siteswerefoundedin the Komnenianera. Of these,ten had a majority(fifteen) in thelate Byzantine and did not continueto function maximumlifespanof threegenerations a and in the Two founded K204(with mill),had specialfunctions Palaiologanperiod,F149 period. and do notfitintotheregularpatternofruralexpansion.Onlythreesitesofthistype(H51,N195, to existin theOttomanperiod.As no newhamletswerefoundedin theOttoman S466)continued role in the rural era is the last importantphase of theirdistinctive the Komnenian period, landscape. site

F149 J229 J232 J369 K204 K244 M321 M344 N195 R422 R426 S466 S475 T482 T485 U488 U500

zone

Fi H2 J4 J5 J6 K5 Ki Mi M6 N5 R2 R2 S2 S4 T2

T3 Ui

U4

size (ha)

soil

0.03 0.61 0.34 0.32 0.44 0.89 0-79 0.42 0.34 0-59 0.69 0.70 0-59 0-33 0.42

S S S S Ν S S S Ν Ν L Ν Ν Ν L L L L

0-33 0.24 0.70

Table 7.1i. Type(iii)sites(total18).

slope (%) 5 20 8 5 2

17 9 4 13 11

5

II

ο 7 7 3 8

altitude

name

(m) 422 250 254 206 200 245 384 288 193

434 394 477 454 469 553 476 579 466

Agrapidia incl.h42

incl.k245 Myloi Kastora Ag.Andreas Ag.Theodoros Agia Paraskevi incl.11486 Panagia Phaneromeni, Aï-Lias,Polyzefka

398 Chapter7 site

H40

J3!7

K247 P284 U511 U516

zone (ha)

size (%)

soil

H2

1.41 1.31 3.0 2.0 1.81 1.08

S Ν S Ν L L

J5 K2 P2 U2 Ui

slope

altitude

name

(m) 6 7 3 6 6

234 226

354

Zolina Chtoriza Soteira

466 487

Makaria

510

Table 7.12.Type(iv)sites(total6).

constant settlements The numberoftype(iv),village-sized (TABLE 7.12)remainedremarkably centuries. fromtheninthtotheeighteenth Two (K247,P284)werepossiblyfoundedas earlyas the ninthcenturyand certainly by the is unknown. untilthetwentieth the date of the demise of tenth.WhileK247survived P284 century, to havesurvived intothesecondhalf It certainly existedin theOttomanera,thoughitis unlikely SiteH40was apparently a short-lived oftheeighteenth century. century. villageoftheeleventh Sites U511and U516 were relativelyshort-lived villageswhich existedforthreeor four the Komnenianperiod.The two siteswereonlya smallpartof the generations throughout of the Chrysaphabasin at thattime,whichincludedan estate,twenty-one overallsettlement and twohamletsas well as thetownat U490. These twositesseem to have been farmsteads, almostspontaneousproductsof the Komnenianboom. The reasonsfortheirlocationsare apparentlyno more complicatedthan access to water and good agriculturalland. The Chrysaphavalleyis unlikelyto have been subjectto the same destabilizingconditionsthat to fifteenth centuries; prevailedin theEvrotasplain,focusedon Mystrasin thethirteenth yetit a similar of settlement attributable to the effects of the Black Death. decline, displays pattern whichbyAD1700had shrunk to lessthaneightfamilies.192 It J317was a Komnenianfoundation in a in also appeared theKomnenianperiod,thoughithad longerlifespan thanthevillages zone U. Locatedin therichNeogenesoilson theedge oftheEvrotasvalley,itlayon a routecloseto in itsenvirons thecity, withevidenceofmuchagricultural (atJ229, activity J232, J223,andJ367). There is onlyone type(v) site,κωμόπολις,in thesurveyarea, and thatis U490.It seemsto have reachedits maximumsize in the Komnenianera, but it is unclearwhetherthatwas maintaineduntilthesettlement focusin the area changedto modernChrysaphain theearly The declinein sherddensityin the Palaiologanand Ottomancenturies seventeenth century. The settledarea of U490 also declinedafterthe twelfth century. suggeststhatthe intensively The natureofthe earliestByzantineoccupationofthesitecan be datedto theninthcentury. is uncertain:it may have been a village,or it may have been a private originalsettlement estategivenoveras partoftheplantationofLaconia in theearlyninthcentury. Conclusions The fieldwork of theLaconia Surveyhas collecteda new set of data chartingmedievalrural lifein an area of the Byzantineand Ottomanworldswhosesocial historyis otherwiselittle not onlyhas an intrinsicvalue, increasingour knowledgeof the studied.The information as partofa largerpicture.It also helpsus determine butmayalso be significant provinceitself, 192 Πληθυσμός,282). Accordingto Grimani,Zolina and Mur had 8 familiesbetweenthem(Panagiotopoulos,

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 399 to whatextentthe socio-economicand agrarianhistoryof Laconia is unique,by identifying to itsindividualcharacter. As we investigate whetherexploitation ofthe factorsthatcontribute in we can a area is of the find material typical Byzantineworld, comparative given landscape as in the resultsof otherarchaeologicalsurveys.Intensive as muchin theworksof historians to date havenotproducedsynthetic reportsforthemedievalperiodon thesame level surveys in Greek and withthenotableexceptionoftheBoiotia as forearlierperiods history prehistory, in The ascendancyof the historian thisfieldhas resultedfromuse of extensive Survey.193 archives,monasticdocuments,and detailedcensusrecords,whichprovidewrittentestament to supplyforperiodswhereit is the surveyarchaeologist to thekindofinformation attempts the crops, not available;thelocationsofvillages,theirsizes,the numberof theirinhabitants, and theextentofanimalhusbandry. true,suchdocumentation However,whilethisis generally does not exist forLaconia, most of it having been destroyedduringthe Greek war of independence.194Consequently,an understandingof the medieval countrysideis less developedthanforotherareas. Historiansinvestigating patternsin regionsof Greecein thelate populationand settlement Roman and earlyByzantineperiodshave detectedtwo distinctphases.Malamut'ssurveyof to Aegeanislandsand Tsougarakis'sexaminationoftheevidenceforCreteshow,forthefifth served and urban centres and seventh centuries, by, functioning fully expanding early There is a gap in the evidence,whetherliteraryor servicing,theiragrarian territories. whichbothauthorsascribeto mid-seventh to from the earlyninthcenturies, archaeological, evidence in the is further While this decline.195 by archaeological supported population southernArgolid,more oftensystematicsurveyshave not detectedthese two phases and The seventhto ninthcenturiesin Laconia have describethewholeperiodin bleak terms.196 void as the the same islands, accordingto Malamut'sliterarysurvey,and Crete, produced It is essentialto note, whereTsougarakishas takenall kindsof evidenceintoconsideration. in of these were at work each forces different that areas,so thatthe however, quite political not hold. A more events does contraction to the ascribe to political population tendency Slav invasions and Arab raids, as such disease, aggravatedby general,underlyingcause, and with this shouldbe soughtas theprimaryfactor.Not all historians model, Kaplan agree has laid out in detail the peculiar agronomicconditionsthatprevailedin Byzantiumas compared with westernEurope; he concludes that these conditionskept agricultural production,and therebyits dependentpopulation,staticbetweenthe sixthand eleventh of Froma combination This has been answeredin detailand refuted centuries.197 byHarvey.198 in sourcesand lack of archaeologicalevidence)it seemsthatactivity all theevidence(written ofLaconia at thistimewas primarily thecountryside pastoral.At thesame time,thekindsof

'93 Final reports: Island Polity(Melos); Roughand RockyPlace (S. Argolid); LandscapeArchaeology (Methana); GreekCountryside

'95 E. Malamut, L·s îles de l'empirebyzantin(VHe-XIIe siècles

(Byzantina Sorbonensia, 8; Paris, 1988); D. Tsougarakis,

and Snodgrass,'Boeotian (N. Keos). Preliminary:Bintliff Expedition'(verydetailedformedievalperiods);Wrightet S. Price, al, 'Nemea'; L. Nixon,J. Moody,V Niniou-Kindeli, and O. Rackham,'Archaeological surveyin Sphakia,Crete',

Byzantine Cretefrom the$th Centuryto the VenetianConquest

(expandedversionat httpV/sphakia.classics.ox.ac.uk/). •94Monasteries were obliged to keep records of this to land ownershipand tax to showentitlement information, exemptions.

Paris,1992). 190A. Harvey, I he middlebyzantineeconomy:growthor BMGS 19 (1995),243-61. stagnation?',

Echos du mondeclassique/Classical Views,n.s. 9 (1990), 213-20

(Ιστορικέςμονογραφίες,4; Athens,1988).

196BeyondtheAcropolis,113-17. 197M . Kaplan, L·s Hommeset la terreà Byzancedu Vie au Xle du sol (Byzantina Sorbonensia, 10; siècle:propnétéet exploitation

400 Chaptery

large pastoral sites seen in Boiotia and Thessaly are not present,so that what we are is pastoralismon a smallscale. The wholesystemrepresented witnessing by thoselargesites, an equivalentin termsof animalhusbandryto managedestateselsewhere,seem not to have in the seventh existedin Laconia. As part of a generalexaminationof Byzantineterritories Haldon concluded from written sources a that there was century, steeppopulationdecline betweenAD 600 and 700.199The situationattestedby the Laconia Survey,whilemirroring of theperiodacrossterrainsofvastlydifferent thatthe generalconditions geography, suggests effects oftheplagueof541-4,estimated to havebroughtabouta 50-60 per centdecreasein the tookholdearlierin Laconiathanelsewhere butnevertheless contributed to declinein population, theseventhcentury.200 The samepictureis supported bytheabsencefromLaconia ofmerchants fromwestern partsoftheempirein thelateseventh century201 Therewas a slowrevivalthroughout theeighthcenturyin otherpartsoftheempire,which has not been detectedin the Laconia Surveyarea.202Recoveryseemsto have come to this part of Laconia in the ninth centuryas a result of colonization. At this point the are supportedbyhistorical archaeologicaldata indicatinga smallnumberofnew settlements evidence.It shouldbe recognizedthatat thisstagethe regiondoes not seem to have been able to help itself, and conditionschangedonlyas a resultofexteriorimpetusin theformof initiativesfromConstantinople.The settlementpatterndetectedarchaeologicallyforthe ninthto earlyeleventhcenturies, withthe developmentof estatesand outliersettlements to servicethenewlyrevivedurbancentreat Sparta,showsthatcentralLaconia participatedin the trendsdetectedelsewherein the Byzantineworld.The underlying reasonshave been explainedin different ways. Kaplan proposesthatland was acquired by magnatesat the whileMorrisinterprets it as a conflictbetweenthe aristocracy of expenseof the peasantry, thecourtand provinciallandowners, whereimperialauthority in theformoflegislationwas The evidencefrom broughtto bear on the landownersin orderto restraintheirpowers.203 Laconia supportsthe latterview,as the case of Malakenos illustrates.204 At the same time, mercantileactivitiesbased on inter-regional trade networkswere increasingacross a wide area and movingintodistricts wherepreviously theyhad notplayeda part.205 centurieshas been Documentaryevidenceforruralexpansionin the eleventhand twelfth summarized There is abundant evidence for the same expansion by Harvey.206 archaeological in Methana,Nemea, Boiotia,Keos (Kea), and Phokis.207 The resultsof the Laconia Survey the conclusionswithmore detail. For some regions,the augmentthis,while reinforcing in lies the new markets and tradeopened up by a relaxationof restrictions on explanation 199J. F. Haldon, Byzantium in theSeventhCentury:The Transformation ofa Culture (Cambridge,iqqo). esn. id.Q-6. 200P. Allen,'The "Justinianic" 49 (1979), plague',Byzantion, 5-20;J. G. Russell,Medieval Demography: Essays(AMS Studies in theMiddleAges,12;New York,1087),180. 201E. Patlagean, 'Byzance et les marchés du grand commerce,vers830-vers1030:entrePirenneet Polanyi',in

Mercati e mercantineWaltomedioevo:Varea euroasiaticae Varea mediterrânea(2j-2g aprile igg2) (Settimane di studio del

CentroItalianodi Studisull'AltoMedioevo,40; Spoleto, i993)>587-632. 202 E.

Patlagean, Pauvretééconomiqueet pauvretésociale à

et sociétés:École des Hautes Étudesen (Civilisations Byzance Sciences Sociales, Centre de RecherchesHistoriques,48; Paris,1977),73-112.

203BasilIPs edictof996: Kaplan (η. 197),531-40;R. Morris, 'The powerful and thepoor in tenth-century law Byzantium: and reality', PastandPresent 73 (1076),3-27,at 27. 204Kedrenos:J.-P.Migne (ed.), Georgii Cedreni compendium historiarum . . . (PatrologiaGraeca, 122; Paris,1889),ii. 451. 19-22;Jenkinsand Mango (n. 7), 239. 205N. Oikonomides,'Le marchandbyzantindes provinces e mercanti (IXe-XIe s.)', in Mercati (n. 201),633-60. 2obA. Harvey,Economicexpansionin centralGreece in theeleventhcentury', BMGS8 (1983),21-8. 207Roughand RockyPlace, 98; Wright et al., 'Nemea', 617;

Bintliffand Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition',149; (n.85). Armstrong

Byzantineand Ottoman periods 401 of In Laconia, expansionwas based on oliveoil production.A similarproliferation trade.208 and to that recorded the Laconia in and thirteenth centuries twelfth the Survey, by amphoras was notedin the north-western associatedwithoil production, regionof the islandof Keos, sitesoccurs.209 The amphorasthereshouldbe wherethesamephenomenonof'amphora-only' fora varietyofproducts a increased demand and associatedwithviticulture, suggest generally that Italian merchantsacted as a been It has already fromdifferent suggested regions.210 thismusthave been stimulusby findinga demandthatwas able to be met.211 Theoretically, possibleat any period,but it is onlywhen all the conditionscame togetherthatit actually of The unequivocalconclusionfromthe surveyresultsis thatthe intervention happened.212 alteredruraland urbanlife,and thateverylevelofsocietybenefited. Italiansin Laconia greatly Althoughthe FourthCrusade had an enormousimpacton the Byzantineworld,it does not seem to have seriouslyharmed central Laconia; rural life here in the thirteenth Likewisethereis littleevidenceof centurycontinuedin theprosperousstyleofthe twelfth. decline in Boiotia and Macedonia, where (especiallyin the latterbecause of its location between Constantinopleand the West) some disruptionmighthave been expected.213 Desertion of the countrysidein the late Byzantineperiod is associated with the Black Death, whichvirtuallybroughttheprovinceback to itsimpoverishedstateof six centuries The samepopulationdeclinein theFrankish periodoccurredin Atticaand Boiotia.214 previously. whichseems The BlackDeath appearsto marktheend ofthehamlet-sized typeofsettlement, ofthissize(0.3-1.0ha) appearto coincidewiththeexistence Settlements neverto haverecovered. of magnatelandlords,as thoughthe siteswere somehowbroughtintobeingby them.This ratherthanthestate, to theclaimthatprivatelandowners, contributes observation significantly The hamlets were primemoversin extendingand intensifying agriculturalproduction.215 to be stifled seems whose existence of cultivated a land, equallyby representgradualenlargement ofcentralcontrol. orbythefirmimposition ofcentralgovernment thecompletefailure and peace of the earlyOttomanperiodprovideda respitefromturmoiland The stability the soofthe countryside, fromplague,whichin turnled to a 'restoration' fostered recovery ofthesmalllandholdersofLaconia is clearfrom called 'silverage'.216The relativeprosperity of or donationsof privatepropertyto the monasteryrecordedin the typikon the transfers Saranda. Agioi of a declinebroughtaboutbytheinteraction thelate Ottomanperiodwitnessed By contrast, the and far in sixteenth the had their which each of beyond century origins complexfactors, 208In theformof fromsalestaxor customsdues: exemption

Reichund R.-J.Lilie, Handel undPolitikzwischendembyzantinischen Pisa undGenuain derEpocheder Kommunen denitalienischen Venedig, Komnenen undderAneeloi(1081-1204) (Amsterdam,1084). 209LandscapeArchaeology. 354-7.

210On account of theirinterior coating of gypsum,or thewine. resin,to clarify 211Forthe viewthatall tradeexistedto supply contrasting Constantinople,see M. F. Hendy, Studiesin theByzantine (Cambridge,1985),561-602. C.300-14J0 Monetary Economy, 212 Magdahno(n. 144),143-4. 213Laiou-Thomadakis (n. 82); J. Lefort,'Population et peuplementen Macédoine orientale:IXe-XVe siècle',in V. etnchesses Kravari,J. Lefort,and C. Morrisson(eds),Hommes siècle(Réalitésbyzantines, ii: VIIIe-XVe dansl'empire 3; byzantin, Paris, 1991), 63-82; J. L. Bintliff,'The two transitions:

currentresearchon the originsof the traditionalvillagein and H. Hamerow(eds),Europe centralGreece', inJ. Bintliff and and theMiddleAges:RecentArchaeological between Late Antiquity and SouthernEurope(BAR int. ser. HistoricalResearchin Western

617;Oxford,1995),in-30, at 114. 214 ofdeserted 'The archaeological investigation J. L. Bintliff, medievaland post-medieval villagesin Greece',in G. de Boe inMedievalEurope:Papers and F. Verhaeghe (eds), RuralSettlements (Instituutvoor het of theMedievalEuropeBruggeiggy Conference

Patrimonium, 6; Zellik,1997),21-34, rapporten, Archeologisch in centralGreece:the at 28-9; id., 'The Frankish countryside in P.Lockand G. D. fieldsurvey', evidencefromarchaeological R. Sanders (eds), TheArchaeology (Oxbow ofMedievalGreece 59; Oxford,1996),1-18. Monographs, "ι:> Harvey(n. 24),en. 4. 216Kiel (n. 164).

402 Chaptery

boundariesof Laconia.217Althoughwars againstthe Habsburgsand in Persiawere waged forthefirst timein theOttomanhistory ofexpansionnewlyacquiredterritories were successfully, In the coffers rather than to them. a of draining imperial contributing period eightyyearsthe had increased fourfold. This was due to the standingarmy mainly developmentof modern made their encounters with the necessaryby fighting techniques, professionalarmyof the In this led to the failure of the could timar-sipahi Habsburgs. turn, system, simplybecausea timar notproduceenoughto providethemodernequipmentnow required.There was a verylarge increaseinthenumberofpalace servants thecentury, someof which,whileabsorbing throughout the redundantsipahis, stillmeantthatincreasingly vastsumsof moneywerespenton palace Between1595and 1623thereweresixaccessionsto thethrone, so thatthedonative bureaucracy. whicheach newsultanawardedthearmyhad to be paid sixtimesover.A factororiginating far beyondthe Ottomanempirehad a drasticeffecton its economy.Ottomanmerchantswere seducedbythegreaterrewardsfortheirwaresin markets outsidetheempire,markets buoyedup suchtrade.The increase byrichesfromtheNew World,althoughtherewas legislation forbidding in thistradeled to shortages followed bypriceincreaseson thehomemarkets. By theend ofthe sixteenth thecentralgovernment's needforrevenues becameacute.The responsein the century, was via facilitators: in thecase ofLaconia,monasteries, whichfounda newrolewithin provinces theagricultural Monasticlandscontrolled economy. by AgioiSaranda in theByzantineperiod extendedto thenorthern end oftheChrysaphabasin.In theperiodofitsterritorial expansionin theseventeenth intoParnon,and thenewmonastic century, AgioiSarandaacquiredlandsfurther foundations of AgioiAnargyroi and Syntziaphialso expandedintothesemarginalterritories. Therewas no roleforthesmallfarmerin thisset-up,and theimpoverishment oflate Ottoman in Laconia can be seenin themeagrearchaeological farmers artefacts associatedwiththeirdaily life.It is apt thatthisstudyof a region(thesurveyterritory) withina region(Laconia)should concludeby demonstrating an axiomvalidthroughout themedievalperiod(and intotheearly modernera): thatlifetherewas shaped fromfurtherafield,fromConstantinople, Venice, or even,bytheseventeenth theNewWorld. Istanbul, century,

217H. Inalçik,The Ottomandeclineand its effectupon thereaya',in H. Birnbaumand S. Vryonis(eds),Aspects ofthe

Balkans: Continuity and Change(The Hague, 1972), 338-54.

THE FORMATION OF THE MODERN LANDSCAPE OF THE SURVEY AREA Malcolm Wagstqff1 Historical

Introduction

Aftersomethinglike a generationas an Ottoman tributarystate, most of the Morea (Péloponnèse) passedunderdirectTurkishrulewiththefallofMystrásin 1460.The remaining such as Monemvasia,were acquiredfromVenice by 1540.Mystras(Μυστράς; strongholds, centreforone ofthetwosançahintowhich Mezistreto theTurks)became theadministrative Mora was divided.Despitea seriesofuprisings(actualand planned),oftenbased in Laconia and usuallyassociatedwithwars betweenVenice and the Ottomanempire,the peninsula in theSultan'shandsuntiltowardstheend oftheseventeenth remainedfirmly century. The outbreakof war (1684-99)betweenthe Ottomanempireand the Holy League gave of conqueringthe Morea and broughtthe Republic's forcesinto Venice the opportunity in the Laconia. Their arrivalwas accompaniedby a revoltin the Máni whichresulted,first, in a Maniat the of fortresses and the Maniât of then, siege of during spring 1687, capture swollen and had doubtless been of the town was The Muslim, by largely Mystras. population AfterMystrassurrendered, Muslimrefugeesfromtheneighbouring manyofthe countryside. camp on an islandin the gulfofArgos, people weretakenfromthetownto a concentration and perishedthere,were put to the galleys,or subsequentlydied fromthe plague on the shoresofAttica.2The TurksreconqueredtheMorea againstrelatively slightresistancein the Monemvasiaten summerof 1715.Mystraswas restoredto theSultanon 30 August(old style?), until remained later.3 Laconia 1770. quiet days In March 1770thereluctantManiatswerepersuadedto rebelagain,thistimeas partof a seriesofminoroperationsin theeasternMediterraneanengineeredby Russiain itswar with the Ottomanempire(1768-74;cf.p. 373 above). One Maniat force,withinadequateRussian oftheTaygetosrangeto lay siegeto Mystras, support,advancedthroughthewesternfoothills and the Muslim populationbeforeit. The town the Vardounochória driving plundering afterninedays.Many Muslimsweremurderedand partof the townlaid waste, surrendered DefeatedbeforeTripolitsa(nowTripoli)bya combinedforceoflocal cavalry neverto recover.4 1The author for wouldliketothanktheBritish Academy out whichallowedfleldwork tobe carried thegenerous grant in 1986,and is gratefulto thosewho helpedwithit: Elizabeth Braithwaite, Douglas,RuthMcCarthy, Rosemary to Fahri SimonCapper,andSimonLee. He is alsograteful Unan for his considerableassistancein producing namesintheOttoman ofthesettlement survey transciptions was writtenbeforethe of 1715-16.This contribution publicationof K. N. Stappas,Η Λακωνίακατά την

ΤουρκοκρατίανκαιΕνετοκρατίαν1460-1821 (Athens,

into dímoihas 1993)·The recentreorganizationof koinótites notbeen takenintoaccount. 2 K. Andrews, Castles of the Morea (Gennadeion Monographs,4; Princeton, NT,iq<^), 1^0-60.

3 B. Brue, Journalde la campagneque le grandvesirAH Pacha a de la Morée(Paris, 1870), 51-2, 57. faiteen 1715pourla conquête 4 Leake, Travels,i. 130.

404 Chapter8

and Albaniansbroughtin fromthe north,the rebelsfellback throughLaconia, evacuated Mystras,and were pursued into the fastnessesof the Mani.5 The consequences of the Ottoman successeswere devastationand loss of population,thoughspecificdetail about centralLaconia is generallylacking(see below).Instability and insecurity continuedfornine as of themselves Albanians established the communities years, companies upon throughout Morea and made extortionate demandsof thelocal people. In 1779themainAlbanianforce was in turndestroyed nearTripolitsa. Peace and stability lastedforalmosttwogenerations. It was shatteredin March and April 1821 by a seriesofviolentincidentsin different of the Morea, whichcoalescedintothe parts war of Greekindependence.The Muslimsof the Vardounochorialeftat an earlystageto maketheirwayto theTurkishprovincialcapitalofTripolitsa,and werejoined on theroad by theirco-religionists fromMystras.GeorgeFinlaythoughtthatperhapstwo-thirds ofthe15,000 Muslimsin Laconia were murderedin thisretreat.6The arrivalin 1825 °f a substantial EgyptianarmyunderIbrahimPa$a, drilledin the European fashionand accompaniedby In Augustand September1825the armyravagedthe French'advisers',broughtretribution. thevillages,[and] burnedMistra'7before valleyoftheEvrótas,'reapedtheharvest,destroyed advancingthroughTzakonia to Monemvasia. The Laconia Surveyarea can hardlyhave escaped.Ibrahim'scolumnsreturnedin thefollowing year.Mystraswas again seton fire,and so werethevillageson thewayto theElos plain.8The inhabitants wereeitherkilledor soldas slaves.9Ibrahim'sarmymade raids into Laconia fromTripolitsain September1827.10The resultsof what Finlaycalled a war of extermination11 were thatMystraswas leftwithout whilethe surviving rural permanentinhabitants, thoughits marketcontinuedto function,12 tookrefugein thecavesofTaygetos,14 or crowded populationsquattedin theruinedvillages,13 intotheMani,whichmanagedto fendoffIbrahim'sattacks. Aftersix difficult yearsthePéloponnèsewas finallyliberatedfromOttomanrule,largelyas a resultofthe'untowardevent'in thebay ofNavarino(20 October1827).Ibrahimwas cutoff, and a French army came to the region to supervisethe withdrawalof his forces.15 As reconstruction in Mani the revolted in this time Laconia, began yetagain (1830-1), supportof local autonomyin the face of the centralizingactions of the new governmentofJohn whowas assassinatedbytwoManiats.The royalgovernment thatfollowedwent Capodistrias, in itsattempts further to integrate thecountry, and at thesame timeorderedthedismantling ofthedefensive towerswhichwerefairly widespreadin thePéloponnèse,thoughconcentrated in theMani. Maniât revoltsfollowedin 1834and 1839,but werenegotiatedto a satisfactory conclusionafterBavariantroopshad failedto suppressthem.16 in 1834,thistimeon fairly levelgroundto thesouthofthe Sparta(Spárti)was re-established siteof the Roman town.It became the new administrative centreforLaconia, replacingthe shatteredtownof Mystras,mostof whichremaineduninhabitedthroughout the nineteenth 5 T. A. Gritsopoulos, Τα Όρλωφικά(Athens,1967),

118-20.

6 G.

Finlay, The Historyof GreeceunderOthomanand Venetian

Domination and London,1856),261. (Edinburgh

7 T. Gordon, Historyof theGreekRevolution(Edinburgh and

London,1832),222. 0 Gordon (n. 7), 318; C. Swan, Journalofa Voyage up the Mediterranean . . . (London,1826),231-2. 9 G. Finlay, The Historyof the GreekRevolution(Edinburgh

and London,1861),ii. 113.

10Gordon(n. 7),4.18. 11Finlav(η. q). ii. 81. 12Gordon(n. 7),4.18.

'3 J. R Miller, The Conditionof Greecein 1827 and 1828 (New

York,1828),220-3. 14Swan (n. 8), 11.252.

15J. A. Petropulos, Politics and Statecraftin theKingdomof

Greece, 1833-1843(Princeton, NJ,1968),47. ID retropulos(n. 15),209-10.

Formationof the modernlandscape 405

The newtownwas givena gridiron plan,and neo-classicalbuildingsbegan to riseon century. its principalstreetsand squares. The new nomós(province)administeredfromSparti was and subdividedintotwenty-eight intofoureparchiai dividedby the royalauthorities (districts) in is now the nomos of dimoi(threeof them what Messenia).This arrangement providedan the lowest tierin thatsurvivedintothelate twentieth administrative structure century, though and 164koinotites The eparchia of the1980sconsistedofthreedimoi (communes). (urbandistricts) formuchof the Lakedaimoniaand a subsetof itskoinotites (ILL.8.1) providesthe framework discussionofsettlements, population,and land use in therestofthechapter. Settlements of recent willeventually extendthehistory AlthoughthestudyoftheOttomanfiscalsurveys thesources or eventhelatefifteenth in thestudyarea backto thesixteenth settlement century, and post-independence availablemean thatfortheTurko-Venetian periodsitbegins currently in 1700.That was theyearin whicha detailedcensusofthekingdomoftheMorea (Regnodi Morea)was carriedouton theordersofFrancescoGrimani,ProweditorGeneraldelPArmiin but before1700,18 had organizedcensusesor enumerations Morea.17The Venetianauthorities or are onlyimplied,by officialreferences theresultssurviveeitherin veryincompleteform19 and populationnumbers to populationfiguresand by the survivalof a table of settlement as late as to be more to but dated 1711.20 £.1704 recently thought originally In orderto use the Grimanicensus and subsequenthistoricalmaterial,the area of the in whichfieldLaconia Surveyhas been redefinedas thatcoveredby the modernkoinotites into localities subdivided in Koinotites are often ILL. took (oikismoi). 8.1). walking place (shown All but one of the names of the thirteensecularlocalitiesrecognizedby the 1981censusas lyingin the studyarea werealso foundin the Grimanicensus(TABLE8.1). The exceptionis in a sourceearlierthanthebeginningofthenineteenth Kladás,whichhas notbeen identified in the Grimanicensusbut as yetunlocatedmightbe named While other places century.21 Thus the basic patternof modernsettlements foundin the surveyarea, thisseemsunlikely. was largelyin place before1700 (cf. pp. 377-8 above). Nonetheless,it was slightlymore witha place called Zerdari elaboratethanat present,forthe GrimanicensusgroupsAffissù' whichdoes notappearin mostofthelatersources. namesrecognizedin theGrimanicensusform4.5 per centofthoseappearing The thirteen in theprovinceofLaconia (288) as it was recognizedby theVenetiansin 1700,and constitute or tentatively) 6.1 per centof thoseidentified againstmodernlocalitynames (192 (positively are a further 21 They part of a sparse patternof names tentatively). positivelyidentified, lowerslopesof Mt locatedon the easternside of the Evrotasand along the rain-shadowed of name indicates of that If make the we Párnon. continuity continuity large assumption the about to draw conclusions it is then location, generaltopographicalsettingof possible 17Venice:Archivio Grimani dai Servi, di Stato,Archivio

in cadaun déliefamigliee animieffettive Β. 54, Ν. 158: Libronstretti terntorii deiRemo fdiMoreal .

18Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός, 135-44· ■9S. Lampros,"Απογραφήτου νομούΜεθώνηςυπό Βενετών,1689',ΑελτίονΙστορικής και'Εθνολογικής 2 (1885), 'Εταιρείας, 686-710. 20P. Topping,'The post-classical MME documents', "Η Βενετικήαπογραφήτης 64-80;V. Panagiotopoulos,

iii. Congress, Πελοποννήσουτου 1700',ist Peloponnesian Πληθυσμός,147-51. Opinionhas 203-16;Panagiotopoulos, swungback in favourof 1704.See K. Dokos (Ντόκος), 'Brevedescrittione del Regnodi Morea: 'αφηγηματική ιστορικήπηγήή επίσημοβενετικόέγγραφοτης Β' στην Πελοπόννησο;',in Η. Α. Kalligas Βενετοκρατίας (ed.), Travellersand Officialsin thePéloponnèse(Monemvasia,

1994),99-!17·

21 Leake, Travels,111.12.

406 Chapter8

III. 8.1. The administrative structure ofthestudyarea, showingkoinoticboundariesas theyexistedin the 1980s(D. Taylor).

Formationof the modernlandscape 407

locatedin the study in thepast. On thisbasis themean heightof the settlements settlements below the mean forall identified calculated at somewhat has been area at thisdate 396.1 m, in the area Laconia The namesin the provinceof (elevenout of survey (409.0 m). majority thirteen, 84.6 per cent)laybetween200 and 600 m,whichcompareswith53.5 per centforall identified placesin Laconia. Onlyfourofthelocalitynamesknownin 1981appear in thedetailedOttomanfiscalsurvey ofHicri 1128 (AD1715-i6),22wheretheyformless than2 per centof the totallisted(231)and just over 2 per cent of all thoseidentifiedagainstmodernlocalitynames (164). While the abandonmentoverthe namesmightindicatesettlement decreasein thenumberof identified it is muchmore and the Ottoman Grimani census the between of fifteen survey, years period of the likelyto reflectinadequacies in the historicalsources,as well as the imperfections difficult exercise.The latterwas made particularly identification by theuse in some instances of the Greeknames,probablygiven of nameswhichare not simplyTurkishtransliterations derbent'.= Vrouliáor Vourliá, for Ottoman officials to the 'Vorliye example, (including, orally modern Sellasia), but almost certainlygenuine Turkishnames (forexample,Kucak and to the whilein othercases theTurkishalternative mayhavebeen used in preference Yarsinik), Greeknameoftenused in theVenetianand subsequentnon-Ottomansources.Sometimesthe existenceof two names forthe same place is indicatedin the surveyof 1715-16,as, for example,in Kaza Mezistre,wherewe findApo dima otherwiseEsterAgalino', Tolyane otherwiseMose', and 'Duzize otherwiseKaganya'. It is also difficultto reconcile the continuity impliedbytheoccurrenceofnamesin boththeGrimanicensusand Frenchsources of £.1830withthe desertionof thosethatdo not also appear in the surveyof 1715-16,other thanby assumingthattheywere simplyomittedforsome reasonby the Ottomanofficials. eventhoughit mayhavebeen carriedout usingprevious oftheOttomansurvey, The rapidity of the be explanation. might part registers, carried All thirteensecularlocalitynamesfrom1981are foundeitherin the enumeration out by the Frenchc.183023or on the map of the Morea whichtheyproduced,oftenwith in the in Laconia.24Zerdari,whichhad appearedlinkedwithAffissù considerabledifficulty of the Grimanicensusand as 'Sardari' in the second edition(1704)of Pacifico'sdescription On the other uninhabited. have been and named no was hand, may longer Péloponnèse,25 the places named in the surveyarea Kladas had appeared forthe firsttime.Altogether, formed3.5 per cent of the 371 places named by the Frenchin the 'eparchies' of Mistra, Monembasie,SparteOccidentale,and SparteOrientale,and 4.1 per centofthe317identified in the studyarea constituted names.The settlements 9.3 per cent againstmodernsettlement of the totalnamed forthe Éparchiede Mistra,but 10.0 per cent of all thoseequated with modernnames. As the resultof the disappearanceof Zerdari and the incorporationof Kladas into the in thesurveyarea comesdownto 373.1m. This is themean heightofsettlements calculations, in Laconia at thetime(343.9m) and belowthatfor settlements above themean foridentified the identifiedsettlementsin the Mystraséparchie (494.6 m). It mightthus be possible to settlement numberswhich,on the basis of of in of the that conclude expansion respect 22Ankara: Tapu Ar§iv Dairesi Basbakanlik, Tapu ve no. 20: MezistreLiva. KadastroGenelMurdurlugu, 23CommissionScientifique duvoyage de de Morée,Relations de Morée,ii. 1 (Paris and Strasbourg, la Commission Scientifique

1834)·

24CommissionScientifique de Morée, Cartedela Morée. . . (Paris,1832).

25 A. racihco, Breve descnzzionecorograjicadel reloponeso0 Morea2(Venice, 1704).

4θ8 Chapter8 ci 830

Modernnames(1981) administrative

local alternatives

Scientifique

Aphision

Aphysou

Aphisou

VOUTIANOI GORITSA

GORTZA

Voutiani (Goritsa) Theologos

Aghios Ioannis Theologos

Theologos

KalyviaTheologou Kephalas Kladas Platana Zagano

Kalyvia

Sellasia Skoura Ghrysapha Moni Agion Tessarakonta Martyron Kokkinorachi*

Vroulia

Zagána

Commission

ci 700

1715-16 L·ake

StJohn Theologos

(a church) (Kephala) (Khlada) Platana (Zagano)

Kladá

Vourlia (Skoura) Khrysapha Tessarakonta

Skura Khrysafa

(Tourni?)

Gnmaniiyoo

AyaYani Selonmor

Pacifico1704

Affissù e Zerdari Affisu e Certali/ Sardari Vuciani Vutiani Cotizza Cotizza S. Zuanne San Giovanni con li suoi Teólogo segiolatti Chefala

Plátanos? sego.Platana çiftlik-i sego.Sagano Zagano/Eskora VorlíyeDerbent Vurlia Schura CrisaiTa Monastir-i AyaHrandon? Zugni?

Platana Zagano Vurlia Scura Crisafa

Cugni?

* dimos ofSparti Key Aphision Kalyvia

commune(koinotis) locality

Aphisou (Goritsa)

nameii1 theFrenchenumLeration nameonly on Cartede la Adorée

Table 8.1. Identification ofmodernsettlement names(1981)againstnamesin historicalsources.

recordedplace-names,appearsto havetakenplace in Laconia between1700and £.1830(83,or 22.4 per cent,more names at the latterdate), the surveyarea was atypical.Not onlydid overallnumbersremainconstant,but the 'new' settlements were at a lowerelevationthan mostoftheothersin theprovince. in thestudyarea, as identified The patternofsettlement throughnamesused in subsequent enumerations and censuses,remainedstabledownto thetimeofthefieldwork associatedwith thisstudy. found So far,care has been takento avoidtermsthatmightprejudgetheformofsettlement in the in the studyarea duringthe periodunderdiscussion.The formof secularsettlement each theonlyone in itslocality(οικισμός)and 1980swas thatofdiscretenucleations (villages), in sixcases also theonlyone in itseponymouscommune(κοινότης).The moderncommunes ofTheológosand Platana,however, containtwolocalities(see TABLE8.1),whilethelocalityof ofSparti(fromwhichitis Kokkinorachi was Tsoúni) administratively partofthedimos (formerly twolocalities,Goritsa Goritsa commune contained the Evrotas river). physically separatedby in a detached and Polydroso the latter lies portionof the Tzitzina),though locality (formerly communewhichliesoutsidethestudyarea and has notbeen consideredhere. of in thestudyarea in the 1980swerebroadlycharacteristic The actualformsofsettlement muchof Laconia. Of the twelvesettlements studied(Goritsawas not investigated), Skoúra, weremore consistedof a tightclusterofhouses.Six settlements Kephalás,and Kokkinorachi looselyclustered(Aphysoú,Voutiánoi,KalyviaTheologou,Kladas, Zagáno, and Chysapha).

Formationof the modernlandscape 409

Anothertwo(Platanaand Sellasia)appearedto have developedfromthemergingoftwostill morphologicallyrecognisable clusters,while Agios Ioánnis Theológos could fairlybe All the settlements describedas a linearsettlement. possessedat least one churchwithinthe least one recognizableplateia(central them had two or more. At built-uparea, and eightof thoughtwooccurredat Platanaand Sellasia,where open space)was foundin each settlement, to the bifocalformof the villages,as well as at Chrysapha,thoughin the theycontributed located on the south-western new introduction, lattercase one of the squaresis a relatively edgeofthebuilt-uparea wherethemotorroad touchesthesettlement. indicatesnot onlysuccessive settlements Examinationof the buildingsin the present-day phasesof rebuildingbut also phases of gradualexpansion.The dating,however,is farfrom certain.Substantialstone-built, houses,withlivingaccommodationon the first two-storey floorabove store-rooms, cottages.Some of the latter replaced two-roomed,single-storey seemsto have eitherin ruinsor in use as stores.Zagano, however, survivein mostsettlements, houses. rebuiltin one singlephase as a clusterofsubstantial been completely two-storey in the earlynineteenth Settlements centuryappear to have been smallerthan duringthe families recordedin the Frenchenumerationof c.1830 the number of that 1980s.Assuming and that each household occupied a single number of with the households, corresponds weregivenwouldbe 46.5 forwhichfigures settlements of the six mean size then the dwelling, householdsand the rangewould be from17 (Aphysou)to 114(Vourlia,now Sellasia) (TABLE to haveescapedtheravages in thestudyarea are unlikely 8.2); themedianwas 31. Settlements ofIbrahimPasa's troops,but,unlikeothereparchiesin theMorea at thetime,noneofthosein Laconia were recorded as destroyedÍM830.26Chrysapha, however,had been burntby the Orlov rebellionof 1770,and Leake, who passed throughit in 1806, Albaniansfollowing to containthe presentinhabitants'.27 Ά few huts among the ruinsare sufficient reported: in the same have suffered Othersettlements way. may in the Italian textof the Grimanicensusequateswith'household', Assumingthatfamiglia in thestudyarea and thateach householdlivedin a separatedwelling,thesize ofsettlements can again be calculated(TABLE8.3). The range is from5 at Zagano to 134 at 'Crisaffa'.A in thestudyarea were meanof28.1and a medianof19 suggestthat,on thewhole,settlements in Laconia at thattime(mean^.^famiglie),and eventhan muchsmallerthanruralsettlements ofCrisaffawheremostofthestudyarea was actuallysituatedin ,1700 theywerein theterritório settlement

no. offamilies

Aphysou Voutianoi Theologos Platana Vourlia Chrysapha

32 28 30 114 58

Total

279

l7

Table 8.2. Numberoffamiliesreportedfromsettlements deMorée(1834). in thestudyarea, c.1830.Source: Commission Scientifique 26 M. 'War and settlementdesertionin the J. Wagstaff, Morea, 1685-1830', Transactions of theInstitute of British

n.s. 3 (1978), 295-308. Geographers, 27Leake, Travels,ii. 519.

410 Chapter8 no.qffamiles

settlement

Affissù e Zerdari Vutiani Cotizza S. Zuanne + Segiolatti Chefala Platana Zagano Vurlia Schura Crisaffa Zugni

14 17 69 52 6 l9 5 25 14 134 10

Total

365

Table 8.3. Numberoffamiliesifamiglie) reportedfrom in thestudyarea, 1700.Source:Venice:Archiviodi Stato. settlements

(34.4famiglie). They also appear to have been smallerthan in the earlynineteenthcentury, in the studyarea and French enumeration did not covereverysinglesettlement thoughthe a of the into the six villagesnoted would fighting, any groupingof populations,as result averagesize. obviouslyhaveinflated A further formin 1700maybe theapplicationoftheprefixzevgolati indicatorofsettlement in the Grimanicensus. These are Platana, 'Sagano', and the to threeof the settlements of S. Zuanne'. Segiolatti derivesfromthe Byzantinetermζευγηλατειον,which ''segiolatti but itsuse by estate,oftenbelongingto the crownor the church;28 designatedan important formis beingindicated.He uses theneuterform Leake suggeststhata distinctive settlement of Kladas and Skoura,the masculinezevgalates forthe settlements (as equivalentto zevgalati fora 'peasant'(chôriatês) as whenhe mentions, zevgalatia, metayer) payingrent,and thefeminine in Laconia, ca pyrgoand zeugalatia,or tjiftlik called Babas' in thevicinityof Skoura.29The fromthat of the 'normal' need fora separate termsuggeststhat the formwas different ofS. Zuanne withmodernKalyviaTheologouindicates village.The equationofthesegiolatti consistedof huts(καλύβια).(At first that,at least at some timein the past, thissettlement sightit would also appear to have been a dependency of the village of Agios Ioannis to have Theologos,butat 2.6 kmdistantTheologosis surelytoo close forsucha relationship in two-roomed elsewhere Greece have consisted of oneor low, existed.)Such kalyvia villages oftenwiththatchedroofs.30 structures, They weregenerallyoccupiedonlyseasonally,either in theagricultural at a periodofpeak activity yearwhendistantfieldswerebeingworkedor to a.pyrgo forgrazing.Leake's reference whenherdsand flockswerebroughtto a vicinity (i.e. hintsthatthe ownermayhave had a fortified πύργος,tower)in associationwitha zeugalatia dwellingon thispartofhisestate. Anotherformof settlementnow common in the surveyarea, especially on the high limestoneterrace lyingsouth-eastof Aphysou,is the mandra(ILL. 8.2). It consistsof a enclosuredefinedby a low dry-stone wall,usuallytoppedwithbranches.A low rectangular 28 surle régime des J. Longnon and P. Topping,Documents deMoréeau XlVesiècle(Paris,1969),189 terres dansla principauté n. 96. 29Kladas: Leake, Travels, iii. 12; Skoura,iii. 13; peasant,i.

147;pyrgo,i. 191. a 'The studyof Greekruralsettlement: 3°J.M. Wagstaft, reviewoftheliterature', Erdkunde, 23 (1969),306-17.

Formationof the modernlandscape 411

III. 8.2. House and mándra at Morou (G. D. R. Sanders).

fromone ofthewallsprovidesshelterforanimals.There is oftena simpleoneroofprojecting thathas clearlybeen used as a dwelling(probablyseasonally)in the storeyhutin thevicinity recentpast. Such dispersedsettlements may have been commonrightthroughthe period under review,but no documentaryor cartographicevidencehas yetbeen discoveredfor Laconia. and nineteenth-century eighteenthThe onlyone ofthe 1981censuslocalitiesstillto be mentionedis theMonasteryoftheHoly or,in demotic,AgioiSaranda(siteL534).Itsoriginsare detailed FortyMoní AgíonTessarákonta in Chapter7, butit is not clearwhetherit was inhabitedin theTurko-Venetian periodbefore with'Monastir-i 1715-16.It can perhapsbe identified Aya Hrandon'in theOttomansurveyof thatyear,whichcontained The Grimanicensusmakesno specificreference justthreetaxpayers. to monastery forthemale and femalemonasticpopulations names,and givesonlytotalfigures

412 Chapter8

foreach território. No totalwas givenforthe Crisafifa território to whichmostof the secular in the studyarea belonged,thougha figureof twentywas notedforthe Mistra settlements whichmightincludethe monasteryof the Holy Forty.One of the reportson the território, OttomanreconquestoftheMorea appearsto notethepresenceat the'smallpretty monastery' oftwenty monksin 1715.31 The 'Tessarakonta' was notedbytheFrench£.1830but,as monastery withall theotherelevenmonasteries in theÉparchiede Mistra,no inhabitants wererecorded. In fact,ofcourse,thepopulationofthemonastery is likelyto havebeen subjectto muchmore extremefluctuations thanthoseexperienced and phasesofcomplete bythesecularsettlements, even without the of are at leastplausible. abandonment, exigencies warfare, Population Populationdata forthestudyarea are availablefromtheGrimanicensusof 1700,theFrench enumerationof c.1830,and the enumerationsand censusescarriedout at intervalsforthe Greekgovernment since1848.Relatedinformation (thenumberof taxpayers)appearsin the Ottomanregister of1715-16. and 883 peoplelivedin thestudyarea. Accordingto theGrimanicensus,at least365 families The people represented only1.9 per centof thetotalpopulationrecordedin Laconia as then in the Ottomanregisterthathave defined,and 3.1 per centof the families.The settlements beenlocatedin thestudyarea contained94 nefer, Iftheseare assumedto equate 'adultmales'.32 withmales aged sixteenand over,and if the proportionof totaladult males in the secular populationof 1700(32 per cent)is assumedto have remainedconstantoverthe nextfifteen can be converted intotheactualpopulationusinga multiplier of years,thenthenumberofnefer 3.18.A secularpopulationforthestudyarea ofabout300 people results.If thisis moreor less correct,a declineof66 per centseemsto havetakenplace whencomparisonis made withthe Venetiandata of 1700,but it is likelyto be more of an artefactof the settlement data than in settlements the area either were not included the Ottoman else; anything study by surveyors or havenotbeen successfully identified withmorerecentplace-names.Safergroundis reached withtheFrenchdata. The populationofthesettlements identified as lyingin thestudyarea in was this an increase of cent on thefigurefor1700,it £.1830 1,183.Although represents 34 per an annual rate of increase of which 0.26 seems not unreasonable.The total gives per cent, of the area was cent of the total for Laconia at thetime. population 1.7per study Until 1879 the data available fromthe Greek censusesare incapable of being used to producea totalforthestudyarea. However,thedata fortheeparchyto whichthestudyarea belongs(Lakedaimon)suggestthatthe numberofpeople musthave grown(ILL.8.3), though the eparchy also contained the dimos(δήμος) of Sparti, which accounted for a rising ofthepopulationoftheeparchy(19.4per centin 1848;20.4 per centin 1855;23.0 proportion in cent 1870).By 1879tnepopulationofthe studyarea amountedto 6,446,equivalentto per cent oftheeparchypopulationor 6.1 per centofthatofthewholeofLaconia. 12.3per Populationin the studyarea remainedfairlystaticat about 6,000 untilthe 1920 census, whenitreached7,474(ILL.8.4). Such apparentstagnation overmorethanforty yearsis in line withthe low ratesof growthapparentat the nomos and eparchylevelsand withthe actual 31N. Iorga, Chroniquede l'expédition des Turcsen Morêe 1715, attribuée à Constantine Dioiketes(Bucharest, 1913), 203, despite

whattheVenetiansurveyors mayhaverecorded.

32 M. A. Cook,

Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia,

1450-1600(LondonOrientalStudies,27; Oxford,1972),66.

Formationof the modernlandscape 413

80000-

70000-

>^S.

60000-

'

^^/

50000-

Y^ _

/

40000-

/

30000> 1860

1880

1920

1900

1940

1980

1960

III. 8.3. Populationchangein theeparchia ofLakedaimon,1848-1981.

8000-

7000-

/

'

'/

6000-

'

5000-

'

4000'

1

I 1860

I

I 1880

ι

ι 1900

ι

I 1920

I

I 1940

ι

III. 8.4. Populationchangein thestudyarea, 1879-1981.

ι 1960

ι

ι 1980

ι

414 Chapter8

totalbetween1889 and 1896. Laconia was experiencing declineof 0.7 per centin the nomos to Athens and Piraeus but,towardstheend ofthecentury, emigration, partly partlyalso to the UnitedStates.The studyarea is likelyto have sharedin thisgeneralmovement, whichwas in generatedessentially bydepression agriculture.33 The populationofthe studyarea in 1920formed12.7per centofthe totalfortheeparchy and 5.5 per centofthatofLaconia as a whole.Populationfellto 7,113in 1928(11.2 per centof theeparchy'spopulation,4.9 per centofthatofLaconia) and mayhaveexperienceda further declinedownto 1940.34 The maximumpopulationin thestudyarea (7,784)was attainedin 1951whenitrepresented 10.9 per cent of thatof the eparchy'spopulationand 5.4 per cent of thatof Laconia. This is at variancewiththeexperienceoftheeparchyas a whole,ofLaconia in increase,however, general,and oftheentirePéloponnèse:35 populationfellin theseunitsby 6.9 per cent,9.3 per The explanationforthedifferent cent,and 17.4per centrespectively. experienceofthestudy area is not clear. Part of it may lie in the re-inclusionof Kokkinorachi(Tsouni) into the statistics (whichperhapsaccountsfor38.4 per centoftheincreasein population).However,six settlements experiencedgrowth(TABLE8.4). Aphysouand Kladas, whichexperiencedthe greatestincreasesin population,are within4 km of Spartiby road, and thissuggeststhe testablehypothesis thatproximity to the townwas at least a factorin growth,withpeople leavingthe townand settlingin the neighbouring villages.Spartiitselfexperienceda loss of increasein populationof 9.4 per cent in the period 1940-51.This, and the corresponding to a declinein the urbaneconomyand to populationin the studyarea, maybe attributable problemsof food supply,both of whichare possibleconsequencesof the Axis occupation (1941-4)and thecivilwar (1944-9). After1950,populationtrendsin thestudyarea conformed to thegeneralpatternshownby the eparchy,the nomos, and the administrative region.Populationfell,reaching4,864 at the census of 1981.This is a decline of 37.5 per cent in thirtyyears.The fallwas a resultof emigration,renewedon a scale largerthan before.At 9.5 migrantsper 100 populationin thiswas a modestratecomparedwiththe Péloponnèseas a whole.It was occasioned 1961,36 the work by opportunities openingup in GreaterAthensin the 1950sand 1960s,and by the increasedscope foremigrationabroad: chieflyto Australiaand Canada at the beginningof settlement

increaseinpopulation

Aphysou Kladas Skoura Theologos Chrysapha Kephalas

229 121 121 42 49 4

% change 44.0

38.9 12.1

7.6 6.2 O.I

Table 8.4. Settlements showingpopulationgrowth,1940-51. Source:GreekNationalStatistical Service,censuses.

33 H. P. Fairchild, GreekImmigration to theUnitedStates(New

Haven, NJ, 1911); A. F. Freris, The GreekEconomyin the Twentieth Century (London, 1986), 11-35; T· Saloutas, They Remember America (Berkeley, 1956). ™ ihere is some doubt about the trend, because the population of Kokkinorachi(Tsoúni) was not separately

identifiedin the 1940 census and may have been included withthatoftheSpartidimos. 35J. J. Baxevanis, Economyand PopulationMovementsin the

of Greece(Athens: National Centre of Social Peloponnesos Research,1972). 36Baxevanis(n. 35),table5, 33.

Formationof the modernlandscape 415

countriesoftheEuropean'CommonMarket'and theperiod,and thento thelabour-hungry as well as the organizationof provincialbus Scandinavia.Road-buildingand improvement, factors.The 1981populationof the studyarea represented werefacilitating 9.9 cooperatives, per cent of thatof the Lakedaimon eparchyand 5.2 per cent of that of Lakonia. It was equivalentto a littleover halfof the populationin the peak year of 1951.The data, then, of the studyarea withinthe eparchy,perhaps suggesta declinein the relativesignificance relatedto the dynamicagro-industrial activitytakingplace close to Sparti,but on the other sideoftheriverand associatedwiththemainroad south. Agricultural

Land Use

is ofLaconia mostfavouredforagriculture. The studyarea lieswithinthedistrict Precipitation of and the available for is Ground-water for eparchy irrigation, dry farming. adequate Lakedaimon,withinwhichthestudyarea lies,containsalmost60 per centofthelandholdings in Laconia thatwere classifiedin 1971as 'plain'. Local differences, however,in terrain,soil in conjunction withthe in use variations water access to and which, potential produce quality, effectsof distancefromsettlementsites,are likelyto have affectedpatternsof land use overtime.Anotherimportantinfluenceupon land use in the studyarea is the differentially of a sizable urban populationin the vicinity, initiallyat Mystrasand from1833 presence and bulking a centre forthemarketing The town was town of the new at Sparti. increasingly and raw materials.Its of agriculturalproduce,as well as a directconsumerof foodstuffs demands are likelyto have led to an intensificationof land use around those villages reasonablyaccessibleto it (likethosein thestudyarea),and to haveencouragedvariousforms ofspecialized,commercial production. THE TRAVELLERS' VIEW

Althoughthe detailed informationin the Ottoman tax registerswill eventuallyallow a centuryand possibly analysisofland use in thestudyarea fortheearlyeighteenth quantitative here for the all that is view is an earlier,37 impressionistic periodbeforethetwentieth possible leftby westernEuropean brief for this are the often sources The basic descriptions century. who visitedLaconia eitherin searchof the ancientsites,notablySparta,or hoping travellers descendantsof the 'Free Laconians' knownas theManiats. to encounterthosemythologized who even crossedthe area was, untilthe nineteenth In any case, the numberof travellers small. relatively century, describeis the broad use of land in the whole of the Lakedaimonian What the travellers plain. Their impressionwas that the plain was well cultivated.It was fullof olives and withfieldsof cereals(includingmaize) and smilinggardens,glowingwithfruit.38 mulberries, Leake noticedin 1805how thefieldsof springwheatwereoftenirrigatedby canals fromthe 37W.-D.Hutteroth Historical and K. Abdulfattah, Geography

and Southern Syriain theLate 16thCentury ofPalestine,Transjordan

Arbeiten, 5; Erlangen,1977). (Erlangergeographische 38Β. Randolph, The Present StateoftheMoreaP(London, enGrèce Voyage 1689;repr.Athens,1966),8; J. L. S. Bartholdy, fait dansles années1803 et 1804 (Paris, 1807), 193; W. Gell, in theMorea(London, 1823), 32^; J· Narrative ofa Journey theMorea,Greece, inEgypt, Bramsen,Travels Italy, Syria,Cyprus,

etc. (London, 1820) ii. 41; E. Dodwell, Classical and Tourthrough GreeceduringtheTears1801, 1805, and Topographical

1806 (London, 1819),399, 409; J. A. C. Buchon, La Grèce

continentale et la Morée: voyage,séjouret étudeshistonquesen 1840 et

militaire 1841(Paris,1843),425; L. A. Félixde Beaujour,Voyage

dans l'empireothoman,ou descriptionde ses frontièreset de ses . . . (Paris, 1829), i. 425. principalesdéfenses

4i6 Chapter8 Evrotasor fromotherstreams,and wroteof extensivemulberryplantations39 as well as of mulberries the fields.40 of excellent to was the Silk, growing amongst qualityaccording Dodwell,41 in of the area the was much reduced the nineteenth principalproduct though quantity early the Orlov rebellion(1770-4),the travellers centuryfollowing say,and the devastationof the plantations bytheAlbanianintruders. Fallingdemandin theage ofGrecianfashions mayhave a silk in beenanotherfactor. existed at the Nonetheless, (i.e.silk-reeling?) 1840sand factory Sparti and a for its seems to have destination been as was the case withsilk 1850s,42 major product Lyon, fromotherproducing areasin theeasternMediterranean at thetime.43 some Although mulberry in thestudyarea as singlespecimens treesstillsurvive and smallclumps,commercial production ofsilkseemstohavecometo an endin eitherthelatenineteenth or earlytwentieth century. mentionedby thetravellers, butmayhavebeen a speciality around Orangesare sometimes Sklavochóri southofSparti.44 (nowAmykles) Large quantitieswerereportedly exportedat the of the Frenchand beginningof the nineteenthcentury, allegedlybecause of the proximity Russianarmies.45 Numbersof olive- and fig-trees were reportedto existaround the monasteryof Agioi Saranda in 1715.46Leake mentionsthe cultivationof corn and olives near the monastery nearlya hundredyearslater,as wellas 'old olivetrees'near Chrysaphaand theterracewalls 'thevestigesofformercultivation'.47 Leake's accountmayalso suggest apparentin thevicinity, thattranshumance was practisedin the area, sincehe refersto the ownershipof land and a ofTzitzina, kalyvia (secondaryvillage)near Spartibythepeople fromthemountainsettlement whichliesjust outsidethestudyarea to thenorth-east.48 THE TWENTIETH

CENTURY

The history ofland use in thestudyarea duringthetwentieth fromthe centurycan be written national statisticskindlymade available by the Greek National StatisticalService, but variationin the amountof detailavailableovertimemeansthatthe eparchyof Lakedaimon mustbe the unit most commonlyemployedfor discussion,ratherthan the communes thatcoverthestudyarea. The basic data at keydatesare setoutin TABLE (koinotites) 8.5. In 1911 the area underannual cropsin Lakedaimonwas 49.8 per cent of the totalarea undersuch cropsin thewhole of Laconia, a clear indicationof the environmental potential oftheeparchycomparedwiththerestoftheprovince.Nonetheless,theamountofannually croppedland in the eparchydeclinedby 32.9 per cent between1911 and 1929,while the amountof fallowincreasedto 53.8 per cent of the totalcultivatedarea. In 1950,however, the amountofland croppedannuallyhad risenby 178,231stremmata (17,823ha), an increase of 77.2 per cent, perhaps a reflectionof economic recoveryfollowingthe difficultwar The expansionwas not to last. In 1961,the area annuallycroppedin Lakedaimon years.49 was 61.1 per cent lowerthan in 1950,and 40.0 per cent below what it had been in 1911. Decline continuedup to 1971,thoughthe amount of fallowalso fell by 28.9 per cent.

39Leake, Travels,i. 148, cf. i. 280, iii. io. 40Ibid. i. 154, cf. io^, 24^, 280. 41Dodwell in. q8V ^qq. 42 Buchon (n. 38), 425; W. G. Clark, Peloponnesus: Notes of Studyand Travel(London, 18^8), 1^8. 43R. Owen, The Middle East in theWorldEconomy, 1800- igij.

(Londonand New York,1081),1^4-60,240.-^. 44Gell (n. 38),338.

45 F. H. L. Pouqueville, Travelsin theMorea,trans. A.

Pliimnetrp(London tHtqVooc? 46Iorga (n. 31), 203. 47Leake, Travels,ii. ^20. 4» Ibid. ii. 516. 49Freris (n. 33), 140-1; W. H. McNeill, The Metamorphosis of GreecesinceWorldWarII (Oxford, 1978), 82.

Formationof the modernlandscape 417 spatialunits

annual

wheat subset

olives

olives

citrus

(area)

(trees)

(area)

(2)

total area (r) + (2)

I58?949

106,456

265,405

106,266

49,807

n/a

n/a

22,630

n/a

21,480

22,575

44,055

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

/a

106,673

124,130

230,803

38,927

22,773

1,628,790

1,388

!7,343

25,344

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

409,034

86,402

97,852

13,244

12,624

48,230

crops (i)(area) 1911 Lakedaimon communes in studyarea 1929 Lakedaimon communes in studyarea 1950 Lakedaimon communes in studyarea 196 1 Lakedaimon communes in studyarea 197 1 Lakedaimon communes in studyarea

n/a

fallow area

n/a

not se]parated

of'

1,521,100

vineyards area (area) irrigated

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

93>6l7

65,627

!59>244

74,124

475,700

2,382,000

1,223,800

12,549

76,645

9,302

10,387

19,689

n/a

n/a

381,700

111,600

1,327

5,348

88,237

46,681

I34,9i8

30,046

240,082

2,767,924

!,437,903

6,i97

77,277

8,960

4,648

13,608

3^64

40,067

456,347

143,030

534

5,709

TABLE 8.5. Basic data on agricultural land use at selected dates foreparchiaof Lakedaimon and communes in studyarea. Areas in - 1,000 sq m = 0.1 ha). stremmata (1 stremma

Provisionalresultsforthe 1981agriculturalcensussuggesta further fallof 44.5 per cent,to about48,930stremmata (4,893ha). These changesin the arable area reflectchangesin the crop mix and, to some extent,a moreintensiveuse of land. For example,the irrigatedarea in Lakedaimonincreasedfrom about 25,844stremmata (2,584ha) in 1929(3.2 per centoftheannuallycroppedland) to 77,277 stremmata (7,728ha) in 1971(87.6 per cent),an increaseofnearly200 per centoverthesefortytwoyears.The studyarea was lessaffected thanthelower-lying partsofLakedaimonsince,in land in theeparchy. 1971,itpossessedonly7.4 percentoftheirrigated Wheatoccupied66.9 per centof the annual croppedarea of Lakedaimonin 1911,but fell steadilyafterthatuntilin 1971it occupied34.0 per cent,an overalldeclineof 49.2 per cent. Over thesame period,thearea underolivesapparently fellby nearlyhalf,but thenroseto a in of stremmata before (47,570ha) 1961, peak 475,700 fallingby nearlyhalfagain before1971. The numberoftrees,however, seemsto havealmostquadrupledbetween1929and 1971. Data for1961-71showa largerproportionate increasein thenumberoftreesin thestudyarea (19.5 in than the cent) (16.2 eparchy per per cent).The area undervinesin theeparchyfellby 72.6 1cent over the 191 71. per period Again,though,figuresforthe studyarea suggesta larger decreasethere(59.8 per cent)thanin the eparchy(50.6 per cent)duringtheperiod 1961-71. bothin area (18,232per cent)and number By contrast, citrus-growing expandedenormously, oftrees(1,773.8per cent),overtheyears1911-71. Figuresfor1961-71 further indicatethatthe in in was the in area than Lakedaimonas expansion citrus-growing larger study (28.1per cent) a whole(17.5per cent).Despitethehistorical evidenceforcitrusproductionin thevalley,these data perhapsindicatea relatively in muchofthestudyarea. late adoptionoforange-growing

4i8 Chapter8 The communesof Platana and Kladas possessed29.5 and 22.6 per cent,respectively, of the in area's citrus trees 1971. study Land use in the studyarea was mapped in July1986 (ILL. 8.5). The spatial patternis complicated,and seems to be relatedas much to ownershipconditionsand the cropping ofindividualfarmers as to theavailability ofdifferent strategies qualitiesofsoil. The amountofuncultivated land is striking, the though presenceofterracewallsin someof theunusedareaspointsto formeractivityThe land use categories'scruband trees'(maquisof the oak-lentiskand pure-oakseriesin Rackham's terminology, p. 78) and 'wild oats' are widespread,particularlyon slopes in the heavilydissectedterrainformedfromNeogene but also along some of the narrowvalleysof the depositsand on the limestoneformations, area. This coincidenceindicatesthatthe retreatof cultivation indicatedby the government in termsof cultivability statistics has affected themoremarginalland principally and access. These areas, however,are grazed by herds of sheep and goats fromthe local villages. in thearea today. Transhumance seemsto be oflimitedsignificance Olive grovesare extensivein the Neogene subarea,withthe oldertreesnoticeableon the deepersoilsofsomeoftheshallowvalleys.Rackham(p. 96) believesthattheseare probablyno morethan200 yearsold, a date whichwould matchthe destruction attributed to the Orlov rebellionand itsaftermath, or possiblythatresulting fromthevisitations ofIbrahimPapa'sarmy oftheolive-trees was unusualin thestudy duringthewarofGreekindependence. Undercropping area in the 1980s.New oliveplantations werebeingintroduced in 1986on freshly clearedland easilyaccessiblefromtheChrysapharoad.This was a responseto thehighdemandforoliveoil, subsidiesfromtheEuropeanCommunity, and probablya shortageofagricultural labour.Citrus are more as noted above. in are to an alluvialcone localized, confined, fact, plantations They besidetheEvrotassouthofAphysou, in the commune of and to the lowervalley Platana, mostly oftheKelephinariver, thetributary oftheEvrotasthatliesbetweenthevillagesofKladas and Kokkinorachi. the analysisof the Greekgovernment's in this statistics Mappingthusconfirms Access to as well as the and more fertile soils of these water, locations, respect. irrigation deeper thatlocalfarmers havecarefully toresourceavailability. suggests adaptedtheirlanduse strategies Highly diversifiedforms of land use (vegetables, maize, and other cereals) were in 1986ofareas close to thevillages,wheretheyare supportedin partbylongcharacteristic establishedsystems ofchannelirrigation probablysimilarto thosereportedby Leake earlyin thenineteenth is particularly labour-intensive.50 century. Vegetable-growing of and aerial indicates thattheimmediatevicinities Analysis topographic maps photographs of thevillagesalso containthe greatestdensitiesof terracewalls,includingthe cross-channel and thelateralor contourterracesofDonkin'stypology.51 are Althoughdiscreteterracesystems in thestudyarea,theassociationwiththepresent-day foundelsewhere that villagessuggests the of their construction and use be similar to those of the chronologies may occupationsites. Conclusion The patternsof land use observedin the studyarea duringthe 1980s obviouslycontain remnantsofearliercroppingsystems, trees,some oftheolder notablythescatteredmulberry 50A. A. Pepelasis and P. A. Yotopoulos,SurplusLaborin Greek Agriculture, igjj-ig6o (Athens,Center forEconomic Research:ResearchMonographSeries,2; 1962),tableA 1.

51 R. A. Donkin, AgriculturalTerracingin theAboriginalNew

World(Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology,56; Tucson,Ariz.,1979),32-3.

Formationof the modernlandscape 419

land use in thesurveyarea, 1986. ILL. 8.5. Agricultural

420 Chapter8

betweenthe There was also at leasta generalsimilarity olivegroves,and theterracesystems. dominance of olives duringthe 1980s and the overall patternin the Evrotasvalley two hundredyearsearlier,thoughin the 1980s citruswas more extensiveand mulberriesless forlong-term shouldbe temperedbythe numerousthanthen.However,arguments continuity These demonstrate statistics. of evidence clearly that considerable twentieth-century shortspan of eighty in land have taken over the the use of fluctuations comparatively place The has fallen and risen also again. figures showclearlythat years,and thatevenoleoculture conditions but are shapedby thepatternsof land use are not determinedsolelyby physical economicand socialpressures, includingpopulationchange. coveringthestudyarea in 1951,whentheamountofland Populationpeakedin thekoinotites croppedannuallyin the eparchywas also at itsmaximum.As populationnumbersdeclined, but the area thatremainedundercropswas used land did not simplygo out of cultivation, On theone hand,irrigation moreintensively. expandedon suitableland to whichwatercould wereplantedand at greaterdensities. be brought, while,on the otherhand,moreolive-trees In termsof labour,however,olive and citrusplantationsrequirefewerman-wagedays per stremma over the year than wheat, vegetables,and vines,52thoughlabour demands are extremely highat thetimeofthewinterharvest. Elsewherein Laconia,as in otherpartsofGreece,lossofpopulationafterthesecondworld In the studyarea, however,thisdid not happen. war led to the abandonmentof villages.53 ofa phase Rather,theperiodafter1951,and especiallythe 1970sand 1980s,saw theinitiation and extended,whilenew ones werebuilton ofvillagerenewal.Old houseswererefurbished formeragricultural land, usuallyalong the roads leadingto the villages.The explanationis a combination of easy access to Sparti forwork,so thatthe villagesnow have probably and increasedspendingpowerresulting fromnon-agricultural functions, dormitory significant work,whetherlocally,in Athensand Piraeus,or abroad. New wealthand new tasteshave in wayssimilarto thosedetectedin the foundphysicalexpressionin the builtenvironment, historical recordofthestudyarea.

">2 Pepelasisand Yotopoulos(n. 50), table4, p. no; tableA

10, p. 180.

53J. M. Wagstaff, 'Rural migrationin Greece', Geography,

53 (1968),175-9;id., 'The geographicalsetting',in R. Clogg intheig8os(London,1983),9-29. (ed.),Greece

9 THE LACONIA SURVEY: AN OVERVIEW WilliamCavanagh The CHAPTERS thefindings oftheLaconia Survey precedingthishaveattemptedto interpret and place themin theirhistoricalcontext.While the surveyhas added considerablyto the ancient,and medievalsites,we mustreiteratethe pointthatonlya gazetteerof prehistoric, small proportionof the territory has been examined.The 70 sq km intensively surveyed makesup just 1.9 per centofthemodernnomós ofLakonía,and, forexample,0.8 per centof the c.8,500sq km occupiedby the Lakedaimoniansin the classicalperiod.1We verymuch hope thatotherareas of the land mass will be surveyedin the future,and our conclusions, like all scientificeffort, will undoubtedlyneed revisionin the lightof new evidence.The coastalarea in generaland (ifnot ruledout by alluviation)the Helos plain in particularcall out foranalysis,and the territory of one of the perioikicpoleiswould also undoubtedly a useful foil to our Neverthelessthe geographicalcharacteristics of the findings. provide which extends from the on the of well into the area, centre, hinterland, survey edge Sparta, oftheterrain.We are encouragedbythefactthatformanyperiods givea good cross-section are comparablewiththoseofintensivesurveysin otherareas of (thoughnotall) our findings the Péloponnèse. In methodological terms the surveywas a product of its time and it adds nothingto the debate on the interpretation of 'off-site' consciously'site'-oriented; scatters.Nor can we plot our findsagainstthe developmentof the classicaltownof Sparta, because thatlies underthe moderntownand because, even whereemergencyexcavations have been carriedout, Roman findssuch as mosaicsfrequently preventdeeper soundings. continuesto be one of the more intractabletheoretical Moreover,the problemof visibility difficulties ofall surveymethodologies, and it is morethanlikelythatsiteshave been missed. We haveno reasonto suppose,however, thatthereare serioussystematic biasescaused bythe of area. the geomorphological history survey In a recentreviewof variousinterpretative in the ancient models applied to settlement Bintliff found reason to stress the of In this the Aegean, importance 'regionalist' perspective.2 overviewof our results,therefore, it is timelyto explorethe uniquenessof the settlement ofthispartofLaconia. How different was ancientSparta?Did itspeculiarinstitutions history have an effect on whereand howpeople lived?Forthetensionbetween'economiclogic' and culturalideal is a partof the Spartanmirage.More widely,and at different periods,can we tracea connectionbetweenideas of(forwantofa betterterm)'thegood life'and howpeople in factlived?Whatlightdo thefindings ofthe surveythrowon suchquestions?It was partly withthisperspectivein mindthatdifferent perceptionsof the geographyof Laconia were reviewedin Chapter1,fromHomer'spictureofthelushkingdomofMenelaos to theoutline 1Thuc. i. 10. 2 of the Péloponnèse,whichmust (two-fifths includeMessenia);Cartledge,SL 7.

2 BintlifT, 'Regionalsurvey'.

422 Chapterg

maps of the Alexandrian scholarlytradition,the religious and mythicalconstructsof Pausanias, the fictionsof Fourmont,and the picturesqueand the scientificviews of the both by centuries.These set a backgroundto our investigations, and nineteenth eighteenth view which has the the tradition of twentieth-century helpedshape scholarship outlining long and by pointingup the relationshipbetweenwhat earlierwritersobservedand what they wished to observe.The next chapters,dealing withhistoricalecology,modernland use, to change- think,for of the environment climate,and soils,broughtout both the sensitivity example,of the denseblackpine woodlandsof Taygetosand how thesehave expandedover - and theelements thelastcenturyor twofroma moreopen landscapeofa fewpioneertrees of resilienceand permanence,most remarkablywitnessedthroughthe ancient wood of stillto be seentwothousandyearsafterPausaniasdescribedit. Skotitas, Given this background,perhaps the most strikingresultof the reconstructions given patterns.No one periodby periodin the nextfourchaptersis thevarietyof the settlement sitesare not especiallycommon period seemsto followanother.Indeed, even multi-period in the surveyarea, indicatingthat in terms of the sitingof rural settlementsno one site.It is as though particularlocationseemsto have been favouredagainsta neighbouring the surveyarea was, in a non-obviousway,unconstrained by itsgeographyand each of the major epochs could leave a different stamp.This sheervarietyof settlement patternfrom one periodto the nextencouragesus in the beliefthathumanshave made and remadethe inhabitedlandscape; the choice of whereto settleand how to live is, here,emphaticallya cultural choice. Of course, it would be naive in the extremeto tryand pass over the economic argumentand rationalizingprinciples such as 'land rent',3site-catchment All the same,the relativestabilityof thelandforms, analysis,or theprincipleofleast effort. at least in historictimes,givesa certainunifiedbackground;the basics of soils,drainage, and lines of communication have not radicallychanged,so thatthe significant parameters the economic and thecultural. are,precisely, Parallel

Communities

and Parallel

Economies

The Late-Final Neolithicexpansionof settlement can be paralleledelsewhere(thoughnot in the and indeed more everywhere) Péloponnèse, generallyin southernGreece. To this the area a reflects extent, survey generaldevelopment recognizableelsewherein the country. It has been suggestedthatthecoresettlement forcentralLaconia layat Kouphóvouno,on the in the otherside of the Eurotas.This siteprovidesevidenceforearlierNeolithicsettlement a the Late and Final Neolithic. We had reason to central area, and, indeed, place during in those and Final Neolithic sites the the locations of Late identified emphasize 'illogical' situationsdo not matchthoseoccupiedby sitesduringany later surveyarea: theirpreferred One is thatparallelbut distinctwaysof life for phase. explanation so markeda difference in in the long-livedsettlementat time: one central Laconia at the embodied operated on arable the with the focus cultivation, other,witha greateremphasison Kouphovouno, animal husbandry, witnessedthroughthe Laconia Survey'sNeolithicsites.Whateverthe meritsof thishypothesis forthe fourthmillenniumBC, and it has been arguedmore fully 3 The theoryof land rent was firstdeveloped by the classical economistsof the 19thcent., Ricardo and von Thünen. For the nuanced approach taken by modern

see M. Chisholm,RuralSettlement andLand Use geographers, (London,1979).

Overview 423

elsewhere,4such divisionsin economyand way of life have been both emphasized and in the historyof Laconia at variousdifferent times:Achaians and Dorians; mythologized and helots;Tzakonians,Melingoi,and Ezerites;Greeksand gypsies.The perioikoi, Spartiates, was of the communities listcould be extended.In suchlatercases,the territorial segregation marked.In the Neolithicperiod we may ambiguousand theireconomicinterdependence and the factthatthey doubtthatsuchgroupingswereunitedwithina singlepoliticalentity, interacted need notimplythattheywerehierarchically organized.All thesame,evenviewing themas paralleleconomieswe can, in theNeolithic,see thestartofa repeatingpattern(there are exceptions, notablyin theLate BronzeAge)wherebythearea westoftheEurotassupports witha longand continuousoccupation,which a larger,denserpopulationlivingin settlements sucheconomicand socialdivisions dominant a more established Commonly position. thereby It has to be came to be perceivedin termsof,and reinforced through,ethnicstereotypes. as the careful to recognizethrougharchaeology, are difficult concededthatthesedifferences thereis littledoubt discussionof the classicalevidence(Chapter5) makesclear.Nevertheless oftheregion. feltin thesettlement divisionsmade themselves thatthesesocio-economic Settlement

Hierarchy

ofcentralLaconia (and ofsouthernGreeceas a whole),and The geographicalfragmentation the factthatwithina day it is possibleto walk fromthe fertilevalleybottomto the high mountainpastures,mean thatthislandscapelendsitselfto exploitation throughsuchparallel economies.Moreover,it givesa contextto the colonizationof the 'secondary'landscape,the agriculturallyless fertileareas of southernGreece. Neverthelessthe true agricultural colonizationofthesurveyarea is recognizablethrougharchaeologyonlyin theEH II period, perhaps some three thousand years afterthe firstfarmingcommunityat the site of Kouphovouno.CertainlyduringtheEarlyBronzeAge thesurveyarea was occupiedbylarger and smallersites,perhapsup to thesize ofa smallhamlet(1 ha), buttherewas no signofthe largevillagesor smalltownswhichwe knowto have been a featureelsewherein southern ofthesurveyarea butoutsideit Greece.Once again,thatstatusofsiteis foundin thevicinity to thewest:at Kouphovounoin the core centralarea and probablyto the southat Skoura.5 recovered ofpotterytypes,thechippedstonetools,and theotherartefacts The richrepertory demonstratethatthe surveyarea was in contactwith,and conversantwith,the advances recognizedin centralGreece. Indeed, the discoveryof impressedsealingsfromGerakinow thatLaconia in no waylaggedbehindtheeconomicprogressoftherestofGreece.6 confirms nucleationand dispersionbut This raisesthequestionnotonlyofthedegreeofsettlement have been recognizedin the of settlement Different also ofitsdistribution. hierarchy patterns in make cross-cultural to different comparisonshere. periods.There are real difficulties trying an a be to of of levels hierarchy The distinction can, arbitrary process.We are on degree, like then terms but even in historic firmer town,village,hamlet,villa,and periods, ground the one between the farmare problematic. Moreover, partitions categoryand anotherare fuzzy, case with as must be the even moreso when, surveyevidence,the surfacearea coveredby 4 W. G. Cavanagh, 'Revenons à nos moutons: surface surveyand thePéloponnèsein theLate and Final Neolithic', ethistoire(actesde la inJ. Renard (ed.), L· Péloponnèse: archéologie internationalede Louent, 12-15 mai igg8) (Rennes, rencontre

1999).1-35·

5 E. Banou, 'New evidenceon Early Helladic Laconia', BSA 94 (1999),63-79,at 65· 6 J. Weingarten,J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent, and G. 'EarlyHelladic sealingsfromGerakiin Vogelsang-Eastwood, Lakonia,Greece',OJA18 (1999),357-76.

424 Chapterg

findsacts as proxyforhumanpopulation.It is a commonplacethatpopulationdensityper square metrenot onlyvariesfromperiodto period,but can also fluctuatefromone typeof settlement to another.Even in recenthistorictimesthe plans of Greekvillageshave slowly use ofwheeledvehicles oftechnology evolvedundertheinfluence (forexample,theincreasing fashion(suchas increasingsize of gardens),and economicchange has led to widerstreets), leadingto largerhouses).Indeed,it is even possibletodayto recognizea (greaterprosperity sortof inner-village decay wherebysmall old houses at the centreof villagesare neglected in recentyearsarchaeologists or Albanians),as or rented out to migrantworkers, (abandoned largevillasare builton theoutskirts. broad comparisonscan be made. In TABLE9.1, settlement Such problemsnotwithstanding, hierarchiesare characterizedaccordingto fivepossiblelevelswiththe largestsettlements ('towns')ranked1 and thesmallest(smallfarm)ranked5. Categories4 and 5 mergeintoeach so thatforpresentpurposestheyare other,and theirdistinctionis veryculture-specific, and Roman betweentheprehistoric treatedas one. At firstsightthedata suggesta difference periods, on the one hand, and the archaic-classical and post-Roman on the other.In in thesurveyarea prehistoric sitesofthe Village'category(say3-7 ha in area) are particular, missing(thoughsitesofthisextentare foundelsewherein Laconia and Greecein each ofthe Neolithic,EarlyBronzeAge,Middle BronzeAge, and Mycenaeanperiods).The existenceof suchsitesin thelaterperiodssuggeststhattheland is perfectly villagecapable ofsupporting mustbe a substantive one and notjust a consequenceof sized communities; the difference or thecarrying different Ratherthana constraint due to theland-forms capacity technologies. or discouraged oftheland,we wouldarguethatpoliticalconsiderations favoured, controlled, in thefoundation nucleatedsettlement. Indeed,the decisiveimportanceof thesocio-political of Agios of Sellasia (the main village-sizedsettlementof the classical period; the fortress Konstantinos is obviouslya specialcase) is borneout by itssitingand itssize. It is situatedin no earlier an area whereaccess to primeagricultural land is notparticularly good; certainly, or latervillage-sizedsettlementhas flourishedin its vicinity.Its location was of strategic was constrained.When the and itssize,like thatof otherperioikicsettlements, importance, in of the hellenistic the situation the course political period, 'polis'witheredaway. changed In the lightof this,the more radical change in the Laconia Surveyarea comes not in ofthevillageas the butwithitsmedievalrecolonization. By thistimetheimportance antiquity humansettlement. made itselffeltin configuring basic unitofstateadministration Chapter7 forthe Byzantineand Ottomanfisc,and forthe makesclear the centralrole of the chorion bodyofthechurch(eachvillagehad itspriestand itschurch). and itsdevelopment Anotherway of approachingthe regionalorganizationof settlement, the of a with is at sites as continuum, regionalcapitalranked throughtime, by looking part firstand each settlement below the capitalrankedin descendingorderof size below it. This FM

1 (town) 2 (village) 3 (hamlet) 4 ('villa') 5 (farm)

< 0.41

EH

MH/LH

Ar-Cl

Hl-R

1-0.5

0-55

6.0-3.0 1.8-0.4

2.90-0.30

<0.32

< 0.25

0.30-0.15 0.14- o. 01

0.29-0.15 0.14-0. 01

Byz

Mod

7.0-3.0 3.0-1.0 1.0-0. 31 0.30-0.15 0.14-0. 01

14.0-5.0 3-0 *

Table 9.1. Size ranges (in hectares) oflevels of settlementhierarchy.Size ranges taken fromthe period chapters above; sizes of modern settlementsbased on theirextent in the 1960s.

Overview 425

geographyhas been linkedwithZipf's 'law'.7 It shouldbe stressed approachto settlement fromthe beginningthatthisis not a law in the strictmathematicalsense,but is based on tojustifyZipf'sprinciplehaverangedfromthe The modelsattempting empiricalobservation. to the rather sophisticated.Among the formeris Zipf's own appeal to quite simple and dispersiveforcesactingbetweenthe settlements (and his principleof least centralizing and the approachof Beckmann.8Amongthe latterare the stochasticapproachesof effort), Yule and Simon,9while othersare based on the classic occupancyproblemwherebythe Some authorshave deriveda numberof settlementshave a certainprior distribution.10 fromZipf's.11The lattershowsthat relationshipbetweensize and rankwhichis different Curry'sand Zipf'sare in factcloselyrelated. Zipf'slaw statesthat />,=

-

r

r=i,2...

(1)

or,moregenerally, Pr

= -, r=i,2... rk

(2)

in thesystemand kis a constantwhich settlement wherePris thepopulationoftherth-ranked as is oftheorderofmagnitudeof 1. Forourpurposeswe haveto takethesize ofthesettlement this and of both of If the we take the for rank, populations logarithm population. proxy becomes log Pr= log Ρτ- Hog r

(3)

to Zipf's law and to fractalsin withreference Mandelbrotexpoundedthe notionof scaling is a reducedscaled if taken to a tree each can be branch, by itself, Scaling applied general.12 a scaling as thewhole.In theory, versionofthewholetree;thepartshave thesame structure withoutbound,but in practicein any applicationit willbe large treebranchesout endlessly, in the but bounded.This notionbuildson the principlethatthereis a certainself-similarity 7 A fulldiscussionof thisapproachwithearlierreferences can be foundin R. R. Laxton and W. G. Cavanagh, 'The rank-sizedimensionand the historyof site structurefrom 5 (1995), Anthropology, surveydata', Journalof (Quantitative 327-58· 8 G. K. andthePrinciple ofL·astEffort: Zipf,HumanBehavior An Introduction to HumanEcology(Reading, 1949); M. J. ofcitysize', and thedistribution Beckmann,'Cityhierarchies and CulturalChange,6 (1957), 243-8. EconomicDevelopment

9 C. V. Yule,Ά mathematical based on theoryofevolution, the conclusions of Dr J. C. Willis, FRS', Philosophical Transactions oftheRoyalSocietyofL·ndon,Β 213 (1924), 21-87; H.

A. Simon, 'On a class of skew distributionfunctions', Biometrica, 42 (1957),425-40.

10Β. Μ. Hill, forthe 'Zipf's law and priordistributions Statistical oftheAmerican compositionof a population',Journal form Association, 63 (1970),1220-32;id., 'The rank-frequency of Zipf's law', ibid. 69 (1974), 1017-26; id. and M. Woodroofe,'Strongerformsof Zipf's law', ibid. 70 (1975), 212-1Q.

" L. Curry,'The randomspatialeconomy:an exploration in settlementtheory',AnnalsoftheAssociation ofAmerican 54 (1964), 138-46; S. M. Gusein-Zade,Ά ZipfGeographers, urbanplaces', Vestnik likeformulafora setofnon-interacting 6 (1975),99-101. oftheMoscowUniversity, 12Β. Β. Mandelbrot, The Fractal ofNature(San Geometry Francisco, 1982), chs 38-9; H. Takayasu, Fractalsin the Sciences (Manchester, 1990),chs 1-2,5. Physical

426 Chapterg

whichcan in turnbe used to justifythe assumptionthatthe structureof the settlements, drawnfromthedata takenfromthesurveyarea are true,or approximately inferences true,for in for this is the earlier and this whole full the reasoning approach given region(the paper),13 of the or dimension. this in turn leads to the importance fractal scaling Using approach Mandelbrotderivedthelaw whichgeneralizesZipf's: C Pr=

(r + a)*

(4)

when translatedinto the presentcontextof populations. Here Cand α are constants. D = k

(5)

is the similarity orfractaldimension.14^ This expression,therefore, introducesscalinginto the rank-sizerelationshipand the parameterZ), the fractaldimension,is independentof the scaling. This is a verybriefsummaryof the mathematicalbackground,and the readerrequiring further detailis directedto the originalarticleand the further references cited there.Two flow from this in data from the structure observed important consequences approach.First, of a can reflect the structure of the whole this a is part region region; consequenceof Zipf's law being a fractal.The second is thatthe fractaldimension,Z), being independentof the ofsettlement fromone period scaling,can also be used as a meansofcomparingthestructure to another. In thefollowing, thelogarithms ofthesizesofsettlements fromeach ofsevenmajorperiods and are plottedagainstthe Roman, (EH, MH-LH, archaic,classical,hellenistic, medieval)15 of rank ILLS their see These (recall (3) above; logarithms 9.1-7). plots are relatedto the in theslopeofthelinepassing statistical distributions ofthesettlement sizes.We are interested Z), throughthepointson theplot,whichis in each case theexponentk;thefractaldimension, is the reciprocalof this.In the earliesttwo periods(theEarlyand the Middle-Late Bronze Ages; ILLS 9.1-2) both plots, althoughsimilar,fail to satisfyZipf's law with any fractal - or at theveryleastit is too riskyto attemptto calculatea dimensionfromthem. dimension to knowwhyZipf's law does notapplyto thesedata. It is difficult the Whenwe cometo thefourstagesin theintermediate period,roughlyclassicalantiquity, law in Not is 's satisfied the four with the usual cases, picturechangesdramatically. only Zipf 'tail' in some cases,but the fractaldimensionsare almostidentical(k « 1.4,D « 0.7) forthe middle-sized sitesin each set.The commonslopeforthefourperiodswas obtainediteratively, by scalingto a commonsize and then averagingthe foursets of data, and a line to the resulting pointswas thenestimatedin theusual way.As can be seen on ILLS9.3-6, lineswith thisslope fitverycloselythe foursets of data. This is all the more remarkablegiventhe variationin site sizes and numbersbetween the fourperiods. The essentialcontinuity 13Laxtonand Cavanagh(n. 7). 14Mandelbrot(n. 12),ch. 38. 15The figures are almost,butnotquite,thesame as in the

originalanalysisby Laxton and Cavanagh (n. 7). Further workhas refinedthedata.

Overview 427

ο -Π~

1

3 -

*

2 -

-1 -

1~ Έ °~ I* TO -1

to

-

? -2

g>"3-

-3 -

-4 -

-4 -

-5-L,

,

,

12

0

,

"5 ~*- ι 0

3

1 12

ofsitearea (artefact III. g.i. ERA sites:logarithm ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

III. 9.2. MBA LBA sites:logarithm ofsitearea (artefact ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

3.5 -

Log area

1" ° ~

2.5 -

.'^

^'

>'

(ha) -1-

'

r^ 3

Log Rank

Log Rank

2 -

1

| .

15 ~ Log - '^^^ °5 area

V

(ha)

^'.

.0.5 -

'^^^

-1.5 ^

-4 -

^^^L ^^

-3.5 -

>-

-4.5 -

-5 -| 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Log Rank

III. 9.3. Late archaic-early classicalsites:logarithm ofsite ofsite area (artefact distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

· Ι 0

Ι 12

Ι

Ι 3

Γ 4

Log Rank

ofsitearea (artefact III. 9.4. Classicalsites:logarithm ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

overthethousandyearsfromthearchaicto late Romanperiods classicalantiquity throughout is unexpected;certainly we knowthatthe Spartanstateunderwentgreatstructural changes overthatspan oftime.The lastphase considered,theByzantineperiod(we use thedata ofthe a climaxphase in theperiod)also satisfies Komnenianperiod,as representing Zipf's law for a themiddle-sized but now with different and fractal dimension sites, (ILL.9.7). In quite slope D it is close to the 'classic' dimension. fact, 1, in thefractaldimensionto be understood? In and differences How,then,are thesimilarities themostconcretesenseit can be statedthatthesmallerthefractaldimension,thegreaterthe in the relative to the next.Thus settlements jump in populationfromone rankedsettlement in thewiderregion) Laconia Surveyarea (and by extensionthroughthe fractalrelationship, showa steeperinclineduringthe classicalto Roman periodsthanthosein the same area in

428 Chapterg

2.5 -

3 2 -

1.5 -

Log ~ area ° (ha)

05 Log '^^^ area -05 -

.^'^

>^

-1 -

^>v^

·

*^'_

#^^.. -25 -

-3 -

^V^

-4 -

-5 - I , 0

,

,

12

,

.

3

4

^"^*.

-3.5 -

·*"

-4.5 ~ | 0

Log Rank

] 12

[

| 3

'

'

~p 4

Log Rank

III. 9.5. Hellenisticsites:logarithm ofsitearea (artefact ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

III. 9.6. Romansites:logarithm ofsitearea (artefact ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

the medievalperiod.The medievalpattern,whereD « 1, is commonlyencounteredand is considered'standard',at leastin recenthistorictimes.To concludethattheimpliedsettlement structure reflects a 'modern'economywouldbe naive,indeedplain wrong.Nevertheless this standardstructure seemsto implya distribution of populationwherebysettlements compete foreconomicresourcesand ultimately, as a consequenceof thatcompetition, stabilizeintoa whichfinely matchespopulationsto resources.By implication, a patternwhichvaries partition fromthe standardD - 1 distribution willdiffer fromthe competition model.In particular, a distribution whereD < 1,withsteeperstepsfromone settlement to thenext,wouldimplyan additionalinfluence(or a politico-economicestablishment) whichmatchedpopulationto A possibleinterpretation resourceslessfinely. is thatthelandownersduringclassicalantiquity (in itsbroadestsense)held and exploitedtheirland accordingto a regimewhichdid not aim to optimizeresources, theland weregovernedby perhapsbecause theirmethodsofexploiting othersocialimperatives. Central

Places

The Middle BronzeAge sees anotherrewriting of the inhabitedlandscape.It owes littleor of siteswithinthe surveyarea is verymuch nothingto the EH II pattern,and thehierarchy in the Middle Bronze Age and is more marked.The Menelaion site is alreadysignificant destinedto dominatethe area in the Late BronzeAge. In a verybroad sensethispatternof occupation can be paralleled elsewhere in central and southernGreece, thoughwith different histories,fromone region to another.Some regionsshow a relativelygradual progresstowardsa Late BronzeAge peak of occupation,otherssuddenleaps froma thinly populatedlandscapeto a populationclose to the BronzeAge climax.In the surveyarea the and the predominanceof the Menelaion seem to be establishedat an patternof hierarchy earlydate, even thoughthe natureof its governanceand almostcertainlythe extentof its musthave changedover time.These phenomena,the earlydominanceof a new territory politicalcentreand its 'reach', are repeatedat othertimesin the historyof the region.In particular,the relocation of the centre of power fromone site to another recurs: the

Overview 429

2 -Γ~·

*«-

V

-4 -

-5 -4__, 0 yj

I

. |

12

. |

. |

3

, 4 |

Log Rank

ofsitearea (artefact III. 9.7· Byzantine(Komnenian)sites:logarithm ofsiterank. distribution) plottedagainstlogarithm

establishmentof Sparta in the Early Iron Age, the move to Mystrásat the time of the Frankishinvasion, and the shiftfromMystrasto Sparta in the 1830s afterthe Greek of the 'conqueststate',16 revolution. These laterexamplesseem to be characteristic whereby outsidersor a new regimecame intocentralLaconia, establisheda new centre,and imposed Should this be seen as a conscious choice servingto its controlover a wide territory. dominance and control? We need to knowmoreabout the developmentof other emphasize Middle BronzeAge sitesacrossthe Eurotas,such as PalaiókastroVapheió,beforesuch an can be to the Menelaion. extrapolated interpretation can be described,like the At the veryleast,the foundationof the Menelaion settlement If we see IronAge Spartaannouncedas an occupationof otherexamples,as programmatic. ofthename is probablebutnotcertain),certainly theensuing the'sownland' (thisetymology terrainof richagricultural centuriessaw conquestof an ever-wider land. The historyof the earlyarchaicSpartanstatewas dominatedby thisprogrammeofaggressively takingover'the sown land' in Laconia and beyond. Likewise,the establishmentof a castle at Mystras, ofByzantinefortresses was longestablishedat althoughfarfroma newconcept(fora network townsthroughoutthe Péloponnèse like Corinth,Argos,Nafplio, Nikli, and Arachova), nonetheless consecratesthatfusionofwesternfeudalismand easterngovernancewhichwas to in thelate ByzantinePéloponnèsethereafter. flourish The feudalstructure ofprince,barons, and vassals,or despotand archontes, was mappedbya hierarchy ofcastlesand fortified houses. a in the establishment of new the an was statement that the Likewise, Sparta 1830s explicit new Greecewas heirto the gloriesof itsclassicalpast. On theseanalogiesthe choice of the Menelaionridgecertainly recallsthe akropolis locationofmanyclassicMiddle and prominent Late BronzeAge sites;and it is echoed at certain,thoughnot all, of thelower-order Middle l(iP.A. Cartledge,'EarlyLakedaimon:themakingofa conqueststate',in Φιλολάκων,49-56.

430 Chapterg

and Late BronzeAge sitessuchas N413and R291.These occupyheadlandsoverlooking cliffs, and are likeakropoleis, thoughsmallin extent.They form,we suggest,a patternofsettlement whichcorresponds to a culturalideal. Site Abandonment

and Site Duration

The patternsof siteabandonmentfollow,in a broad sense,trendsthatare foundthroughout southernGreece: at the end of EH II, at the end of the BronzeAge, probablyin the later hellenisticperiod,and in the 6th-7thcenturiesAD. These resultfrommajor socio-political Laconia was crises,perhapscompoundedby epidemicsand warfare,and plainlyeast-central not shieldedfromtheirimpact.In the firsttwo and the last dark ages, settlements in the Laconia Surveyarea weretotallyabandonedand theland probablyreverted to oak woodland. In a generalsensethishintsat themarginality ofthesurveyarea, partlyas a consequencenot so muchof therelativefertility of itssoilsas of itsrelativearidity, thoughalso a factoris the tendencyof residual populations to cling to the old centresof power and to leave the periphery. The durationof siteoccupationis problematic, partlybecause theevidenceis notrich;we are generally Whathas been calledPetrie's arguingfromverysmallsamplesofdatablepottery. can be cited to justifymakingthe assumptionthat small Principle of Concentration17 habitationsiteswillhavebeen occupiedfora restricted span oftimeunlessthereis evidenceto the contrary. On the otherhand, siteswhichappear to have been long-livedmay also be it is possiblethattheywere in factabandonedand thenreoccupiedaftera misrepresented: hiatus,which was, however,too shortto be recognized fromthe surfacepottery.The adducedhereare contingent. arguments In the EarlyBronzeAge six of the thirty-three more certainsites(TABLE4.3; P269,P284, and have evidence to suggestthattheywereoccupied R428,U3001,U3005, R3012)18 produced overtwosubphasesof the EH II period.They tendto includethe largersites,but some are status.Currentestimatesplace the overalldurationof EH II at evidentlyof 'single-farm' and so the sitesmayhavelastedforsometwocenturiesor more.On present 400-500 years,19 evidence the remainderof the EH sites were shorter-lived.The longer-livedsites are in thearea ofNeogenesoils(zonesΡ and R), thoughthe'out-of-area' concentrated siteU3001 is in theChrysaphabasinand wouldhave exploitedterra rossa.Once more,in theMiddleand Late BronzeAges a numberof settlements werefairlylong-lived, perhapsoftheorderof500 and main the concentration is on theNeogene years(M322(?),M348,Q360,R291 S478).Again this now includes the area close to the M Eurotas and soils,though (zones Q), whichappears not to have been so favouredbefore.The Chrysaphabasin seems not to have supported or indeedlarge,settlements in theMiddleor Late BronzeAge. enduring, There is a change in the archaic-classicalperiod. While the Neogene was particularly denselyoccupied to begin with (in the sixth-earlyfifthcenturiesBC), the longer-lived settlements or later,say 300-400 yearsor more)are foundpartlyon (archaic-earlyhellenistic theschist(A118,C114,G157(?),J213)and partlyon thelimestone-derived soilsoftheChrysapha 17D. G. Kendall,A statistical approachto FlindersPetrie's

StatisticalInstitute, sequence dating', Bulletinof theInternational

34thSession (Ottawa,1963),657-80. 18 S459 is omittedhere, as its ascriptionto the 'multi-

period'croupis weak.

19S. W. Manning, The AbsoluteChronology oftheAegeanEarly BronzeAge(Sheffield,1995), 170-2.

Overview 431

sector(h6o, T471,U490,U491,11494,U499).There are fewsuch basinor in thenorth-western siteselsewhere(R281).Making everyallowance forland in the stripclose to the Eurotas, farmeddirectlyfromSparta,the contrastwiththe prehistoric patternis marked,almostits late sites for the hellenistic throughRoman periods are negativeimage. Longer-lived to and this of itself be The bettercandidates difficult may significant. diagnose, particularly includeAioo, H45,J222,K204, K239, K242,M348,M352,N192,U490, and U516; the schist, In theByzantineperiodthe seemequallywellrepresented. Neogeneand limestoneformations sites(in our terms,Middle-Late Byzantine;perhaps300-400 years)revealyet longer-lived is perhapsless the typesof soil preferred, morea anotherpattern.The main characteristic and tendencyto preferthe slopes close to the Eurotasand Kelephina rivers.Water-power as soilfertility and regularrainfallin guaranteeing the mayhavebeen as important irrigation soilspredominate(B300, successof a site.Nonethelessthe siteson schist-derived longer-term F139, F146, Gl62, Gl82 (?), G254, HII (?), H2O (?), H2I (?), J44, J170, K204, K237, K244, K245,

K247, K253>K257>K4°3> L534, M334>M336>N418) over Neogene (P284, Q358, S466) and limestone(T445,U483,U490,U500). One possiblefactoraffecting the Whatconclusionscan be drawnfromthesecomparisons? to workin theArgolid,Methana, viabilityofsitesis erosion.Thanks,in particular, long-term in theGreeklandscapehas led to ithas becomeclearthathumaninterference and Messenia20 were not able to core sedimentsor locate we severe erosion. of Unfortunately, episodes sufficientexposures to be able to reconstructthe erosional historyof the surveyarea. thereis evidenceto suggesta widespreadepisode,perhapstowardstheend ofthe Nevertheless thatsome EH sites(R3012,N333)are situatedwithinthe Bronze Age. It is noteworthy Early and sitesoflater there are badlands. Today onlyverythin,stonysoilsin thevicinity, Aphysou In seems to have been one of their cases note that are not found (and R3012 nearby. periods EH sites,and is henceperhapsless likelyto have been a pastoral our largerand longer-lived have led to an episodeof erosion site),the clearanceof the wildvegetationcould ultimately whichremovedthe soils and made intensivefarmingimpossibleforlatergenerations.It is seriousconsequencesafterthe firstexpansionof farming possiblethatzone Ρ also suffered in thisarea suggestthatarablefarming was in EH II, thoughthelatersettlements settlement in the MiddleLate it is The lack of settlements as here afterwards, today. certainly practised Bronze Age, of any successorsto C126, C128, C131,and G158,has more to do with the thanwithsoilerosion.Indeed, avoidanceofthisarea in generalduringthesecondmillennium to recognizeareas elsewherein the surveyarea zone Ρ and thebadlandsaside,it is difficult withsoil loss so seriousas to make previouslyarable land uncultivable.Viable, long-lived settlements ofone dateor anotheroccupythesame nichesas theirpredecessors. oflandholdings and The 'failure'ofsmallersitesmightresultfromvariousfactors:partition failure or other farms due to because of foreclosure on small inheritance, crop bankruptcy of land. The second- and third-order and sale or forfeiture sites,whether contingencies, a because 'estates'or 'hamlets',seem to be thelonger-lived, greaterpopulationbase perhaps makesa failureoflineagelesslikely.More prosperousfarmswillhave a morereliablecushion to improveproduction.The againsthard times,and thereis the possibilityof investment 20 T. van Andel, C. Runnels, and Κ. Ο. Pope, 'Five thousand years of land use and abuse in the southern Argolid',Hesp.55 (1986),103-28;T. van Andel,E. Zangger, and A. Demitrack,'Land use and soil erosionin prehistoric and historicalGreece',JFA 17 (1990), 379-96; E. Zangger,

The Geoarchaeology oftheArgolid(Argolis, 2; Berlin, 1993); P. A.

James,C. B. Mee, and G. J. Taylor,'Soil erosionand the archaeologicallandscapeofMethana,Greece',JFA21 (1994), 395-416·

432 Chapterg

economicstability ofthelargerunitsno doubtled to a positivefeedbackloop wherebylarger estateswouldengrosssmallerholdings.Puttingaside themajor'darkage' episodes,thereseem wereparticularly liable to failure.We mightnotein to have been phaseswhensmallholdings in took the middle of the fifth that one centuryBC,one in thelater perhaps place particular hellenisticperiod, and one in the fourteenthcenturyAD. The main correctivesto this tendencyfor small farms to fail- expansion throughwarfare,and in particular the triedmoreoftenthanthelatter. redistribution ofland- wereradicalpolicies,theformer Technology Evidencefortechnologicalchangemustnormallycome fromsourcesotherthan the survey data themselves, and it goes withoutsayingthatthe existence,at a particulartimein the ancientworld,of a giventechnology does not implythatthe technology was appliedin the Laconia Surveyarea. Neverthelessthe introduction of the animal-drawnard to Greece is 22 to linkthe therefore, thoughtto predate£.2500BC21and to postdate£.3500. It is tempting, EarlyBronzeAge climaxofpopulationwiththesuccessofploughing;indeed,oxen mayalso havebeen harnessedto helpclearland duringthatperiodofexpansion.There is a bias during the BronzeAge towardsthe exploitationof Neogene soils (thoughnot to the exclusionof schist-and limestone-derived suitableforworking sediments); perhapsthesewereparticularly withtheplough.23 It is also possible,however,thatsteepgradientsratherthansoil typewere themainconstraint on working thesoilwithanimals. solutionto problemsbothofsoilconservation and Terracinghas been seen as an important ofusingploughteamson steepslopes.The technology ofbuildingterracesis notcomplicated, and thereis growingdirectand indirectevidencethatagriculturalterraceswere builtin Greecein theBronzeAge.24In thesurveyarea no terracescould be dated,so our evidenceis indirect;forthat reason, any inferencesare particularlyfragile.Our schistarea, in the northern terraced half,wouldmostbenefitfromterracing and, indeed,is themostextensively sectortoday:the schistsedimentsare slipperyand less likelyto cohere than the smallerrossaand Neogene soils,and the contoursin thisarea are steep.In the lightof grainedterra these observations,the rarityof Middle-Late Bronze Age findsin the schistarea would suggestthatfieldterracingwas not extensively employedat thattimein the surveyarea, there is of evidence that the skill Mycenaeanshad the necessaryengineering though plenty It seemsthatin central and could mobilizethe requisitelabour foreven largerenterprises. Laconia theychose not to employsuch resourcesin thisway.The Iron Age sees a gradual Bin is expansioninto the northernzones; the archaic sites(A118,C114,B103;the fortress in a this area are set on the three classical sites only anyway specialcase) gentleslopes; early to occasional have needed cultivate the land; (G157,K2OO,K203)may terracing surrounding findsof fragments of classical potterysuggestsome of the steeperland was broughtinto All thesame,onlythehellenistic cultivation. and Romanperiodswitnesssystematic expansion ai D. Pullen, 'Ox and J. plow in the Early Bronze Age Aegean',AJA96 (1992),45-54. 22A. Sherratt,'The transformationof early agrarian Europe: the later Neolithicand Copper Ages, 4500-2500 Illustrated BC', in B. Cunliffe(ed.), The Oxford of Prehistory (Oxford,1994),167-201. Europe 2:5BintlifT, Natural Environment, 87-107.

24P. P. Betancourtand C. Davaras,'Excavationsat Pseira', Cretan 1 (1988),35-7; O. Rackhamandj. Moody,The Studies, MakingoftheCretan Landscape (Manchester,1996),148; C. A. L. French and T. Whitelaw, 'Soil erosion, agricultural terracing and site formation processes at Markiani, Amorgos,Greece: the micromorphologicalperspective', 14(1999),151-89. Geoarchaeology,

Overview 433

into thesezones; perhapsthe investment of labour requiredto clear thistypeof land and constructterraceswas deployedonlyby large estatesworkingthroughchattelslaves.Once thatinvestment had been made, the restorationof terracesystems,even aftercenturiesof have been an easier matter.Certainlyin the Byzantineperiod and in the neglect,may and nineteenth centuries, 25 per centor moreofthepopulationofthesurveyarea eighteenth in musthavebeen common. was to be found thenorthern area,and terrace-based agriculture likewiseseem to have waitedon a propitiousmomentbeforethey Advancesin transport in the surveyarea. Ox-drawnwagonswithheavy,solid,wooden wheels affectedsettlement are knownin theBalkansaroundor beforec.3000BG,buttheyweremoresuitedto theopen plains of centralEurope, and it is assumed that in the brokenterrainof Greece packanimalswere the main means of movingproduce fromthe fieldsto the home and from the evidence forpack-animalsin EH is very slight(two home to market.Surprisingly, of horse or mule fromTirynsare dated onlyas late as vertebraeand one pelvisfragment no equid bones are reportedfromthe EH II levels).25Only in the EH III; significantly, Middle Bronze Age do horse, mule, or donkey bones begin to appear widely in the ofroadsare knownin theArgolid,26 though Péloponnèse.By theLate BronzeAge,networks used heavier chariots and made for almost were coincidentally by only certainly they wheeledvehicles.Indeed, forwheeled transportto have a major impactin Greece some of road terraces,bridges,and authoritymustconstructand maintainthe infrastructure culverts.Certainlyby theclassicalperiod,and probablyalreadyin the archaic,therewas at leastone bridgeacrosstheEurotas,nowprovento have stoodclose to thesiteofthemodern If the traditionthatlightwheeledvehicles(κάνναθρα) servedthe processionto bridge.27 Helen's sanctuaryat Therapnai is reliable,then a road would have run south,and the (probablyRoman) road recordedby the ExpéditionScientifiquealmost certainlyhad a classicalpredecessor. ofroadscomesfromtheparallelgroovescutfor The evidencefora veryextensivenetwork Whateverthe reasonsfortheir vehiclesand foundin manypartsof Laconia and Arkadia.28 of agricultural made the movement as a have construction, produce theymust, consequence, of the ancientbridgeby Nikodemosin the intoSpartaverymucheasier.The reconstruction eleventhcenturyAD also helped open up the surveyarea to agriculturalexploitation.But in Byzantinetimes;the significance of the wheeledvehiclesmaynot have been so important The and flocks. rather to serve have been eighteenth-century pack-animals bridgemay -'"'A. von den Driesch and J. Boessneck,'Die Tierreste bei von der Tiryns mykenischen Burg xi in Tiryns: undBerichte, Forschungen Nauplion/Peloponnes', (Mainz am Rhein, 1990),esp. 102-3 and tables 16 17 (pp. 123-4).See also N.-J.Gejvall,Lerna,i: TheFauna(Princeton, NJ>^69), 35 ff,54 withtable 19. 2() See recentlyΑ. Jansen, 'Bronze Age highwaysat /Echosdu mondeclassique,n.s. 16 Mycenae', Classical Views 1997), 1-16;J. Lavery,'Some "new" Mycenaean roads at Mycenae:euruaguiaMykene',BICS 40 (1995),264-5; A.-L. Schallin,'The Late Helladic period',in WellswithRunnels, Berbati-Limnes, 123-75,at l3l 3· See J. H. Crouwel,Chariots and OtherMeans of Land Transportin BronzeAge Greece(Allard

and Other Piersonseries,3; Amsterdam,1981);id., Chariots Vehicles in IronAgeGreece Wheeled (Allard Pierson Series, 9; Amsterdam, 1992).

27E. Kourinou-Pikoula, 'Μναμα γεροντείας', Horos, our earlierargument 10-12 (1992-8), 259-76, overturning etal., 'Crossingthe river').See now Kourinou, (Armstrong Σπάρτη,77-88,278-9. M Y. A. Pikoulas,'The road-network of Arkadia',in CPC Acts6, 248-319; id., 'To οδικό δίκτυο της Λακωνίας: χρονολόγηση,απαρχέςκαι εξέλιξη',in V. MitsopoulosinderPeloponnes Leon (ed.) Forschungen (Athens,2001),325-30. BeforePikoulas'swork,the nearestroads to the surveyarea were those noted by G. Sotiriadis, 'To πέδιον της έν Σελλασίαμάχης(222 προ Χριστού)', BCH 34 {ι9ιο)>5~57> 'The battleof Sellasia at 10,ρΐ. ι. ι, and by W. Κ. Pritchett, in 222 bc:',SAGT'i (1965),ch. 4 (pp. 59-70); notethegrooves of to theΝ of Palaigoulasand theroad terracein thevicinity thesite.

434 Chapterg

Kopána bridge(E89) is plainlytoo steepand narrowforcartsand wagons,and earlymodern on therarityofwheeledvehiclesin Greece. travellers commented Surveyon theMethanapeninsulahas producedevidenceto showthatheavyolive-pressing withlate Roman farms.29 It is thoughtthatthecapital equipmentwas associatedparticularly investment requiredwas made by wealthylandlordswho suppliedthe equipmentto client farmers.Evidencefromboth surveyand excavationin the southernArgolidhas identified a particularassociationwiththelaterclassicalperiod,whenas manyas one in sixhousesin the cityofHalieisand in thecountryside mayhavehad olive-presses.30 The water-mills and windmillsfoundin the surveyarea seem to be of eighteenthand date. The technologyof water-mills nineteenth-century goes back to hellenistictimes,but theirmore commonuse dates to the Roman imperialperiod.31The mostfamousancient in Greeceis thelate Roman examplediscoveredin theAthenianAgora.32Rather water-mill thanarguefromsilence,it may be safestto suggestthatthe recentmillsseem to have been medium-scale associatedeitherwithmonasteries or withindividualswho had the enterprises In the use of the investment. capitalto investand the quantitiesof grainto make efficient Roman period a donkey-mill was potentiallyan importantsource of income,but was not considered,forprobate,an essentialpartof the livestockand equipmentof a farm.33 By the in water-mills are mentioned documents such as the (δυόφθαλμοι μύλοι) Byzantineperiod for the Vrontochion at which that chrysobulls monastery Mystras,34 may imply theywere transferred fromestatesintothecontrolofmonasteries. Marginality The surveyarea, and centralLaconia in general,are some distancefromthe sea. This flat observation is made in thelightoftheperceptionthatthehistory oftheMediterranean basin has been dominatedbycommunication sea. Some further is added the by point by (accidental) emphasisthatrecentlypublishedarchaeologicalsurveysin Greece have looked to islands (Keos, Melos) or coastalregions(southernArgolid,Methana,Pylos).Did the region'sinland orientation lead to isolationand marginalization? There is an obviousand historicalsensein whichtheansweris plainlyno. There are timesin thepastwhenSpartaor Mystraswas a very significant politicalpower,farmoreso thanmostofitsrivalsin Greece.But thisis to put the the question wrongway.Rather,we mightask, did the ruralhinterland(whichthe Laconia as a consequenceofitsrelativeremoteness? Surveyarea undoubtedly was) suffer As archaeologists and historianswithalmostentirelynon-textual evidenceto turnto, we can broachthisquestiononlythroughwhatwe have found.But we cannotemphasizetoo need not be a veryreliableindexof contactwithor thatour finds,notablypottery, strongly 29L. Foxhall,'Ancientfarmsteads, otheragricultural sites andRocky and equipment',in Rough Place,257-68. 30Greek Countryside, esp. 384-5; B. A. Ault,'Kopronesand oil pressesat Halieis: interactions of townand countryand the integration of domesticand regionaleconomies',Hesp. 68 (1999),549-73·Forolive-presses in Laconia, see LS'û. 277, AA310(AlonakitisGrias,nearAstros);363^219 (siteofAr-Cl datenearKokkinorachi). 31O. Wikander,'Water-powerand technicalprogressin classical antiquity',in Ancient FinnishInstitute at Technology: held30.3-4.4.^87 (Helsinki,1990),68-84; Athens, Symposium

Water id. (ed.),Handbook ofAncient Technology (Technologyand 2; Leiden,2000). Changein History, 32A. W. Parsons,A Roman water-millin the Athenian Agora',Hesp.5 (1936),70-90. 33D. P. Kehoe, Approachesto profitand managementin Roman agriculture',in J. Carlsen, P. 0rsted, and J. E. Skydsgaard(eds),Landusein theRomanEmpire(Rome, 1994), 45"58>at 52. 34G. Millet,'Inscriptionsbyzantinesde Mistra',BCH 23 (1899),103-17.

Overview 435

in the outsideworld.Moreover,the samplesof potteryfromour sitesare very participation Once more, small,thoughthetotalsumofpotteryfromthesurveyarea is notinconsiderable. In is offered. the Neolithic and a verybriefperiod-by-period comparison period EarlyBronze is abundant and one mechanism or Melian obsidian must,by another,have been Age, obtained by exchange.35Likewise, especially in the Early Bronze Age, the formsand elsewherein Greece.Unfortunately, scientific decorationofthepotteryparalleldevelopments if for us to what recognize proportion, analysisof the potteryhas not advanced sufficiently the general any,was imported.During the Middle and earlierLate Bronze Ages, while repertoryof vases, and in particular the absence of wheel-made types,suggestlocal production,occasional importsand imitationsshow links,especiallywith the southern A similarimpression is gainedfromtheLate BronzeAge pottery.37 Péloponnèseand Crete.36 as Amongthearchaicand classicalpottery'onlyone piece . . . can plausiblybe identified and in thehellenistic an import',38 sample'Verylittleofthematerialseemsto be imported. . . apart fromthe coarse ware amphorae'.39This contrastsdramaticallywithwhat has been observedofthesurveyfindsfromotherpartsof Greece.In theEarlyIronAge, 'potteryfrom the Methanapeninsulais dominatedby productsmade in the Argolid,althoughtherewere occasional importsfromAttica',40and in the classical and hellenisticperiods 'a high In thiscontext,however, appearsto be Attic,althoughthereis someCorinthian'.41 proportion the scale of potteryproductionin Laconia itself42 to bear in mind,first, it is important and, second,the 'socio-economicconditionspeculiarto Laconia thatdiscouragedtradewiththe outsideworld'.43If the archaic to hellenisticpotteryof the Laconia Surveyis an index of - thisis as mucha consequenceoflocal - even,to an extent,of marginality relativeisolation politicaland social forcesas of distancefromthe sea-lanesthatwere the major arteriesfor tradein the ancientworld.In the medievalperiodthe patternis muchas in the prehistoric was oflocal manufacture,44 far-ranging importshave been periods:whilemuchofthepottery found.45 It would indeed be a mistake,simplybecause it is our most abundant evidence, to exaggeratetheimportanceofpotteryas an indexofrelativeisolation.The clearestconclusion is theratherobviousone thattheclosestlinksbetweenthesurveyarea and theoutsideworld weremediatedthroughthemaintown,theMenelaion,Sparta,or Mystras.At thesame time, distancefromthesea was neithera barrierto tradenora severefilterofoutsidecontacts. Just werethesocialand politicalfilters. as important Concluding

Remarks

of the resultsof the Laconia Survey, It wouldbe wrongnot to stressthatour interpretations Those offeredhere are alwaysin the lightof our current like all research,are contingent. If views about the datingor durationof Early Bronze Age 'sauceboats', understanding. KomnenianLaconian amphoras,or any otherof our potterytypeschangeas a consequence of new information, inevitablythe dates ascribedto siteswill also change. Moreover,the 35See Chapter18. 3bLSii. 26. ν LS ii. 31-2. 3»Lòii. 88. ™LS ii. no.

40Roughand RockyPlace, 57.

41Ibid. 62. 42See e.sr.LS ii. ^^-4. « LS ii. 88. 44See Chapter17. 45e.g.LS ii. 129-30.

436 Chapterg

methodologyof intensivesurveyhas advanced since the early 1980s,and newermethods wouldundoubtedly be appliedtoday. those themes whicharchovertheverylongspansoftimeconsideredin thisfinal Certainly are of further linesofenquiry.Questionsof'minorities', theiroccupationof chapter suggestive thelandscape,and theireconomicand socialintegration intotheagricultural economypose a severechallengeto the archaeologist and historian.The themewould seembestapproached and history, throughethnography thoughboth approachesseem too poorlydocumentedin cross-cultural Laconia, and indeed in Greece, to be able to supplyus witha satisfactory a muchlargersampleofmaterialcultureis comparison.On themostoptimistic assumptions, on the basis of fieldsurvey.Total requiredifclasseswithina societyare to be distinguished surfacecollectionratherthansampling, and perhapstheretrieval ofartefacts fromtheploughzone on a carefullychosen set of sites,mighthold the promiseof more refinedresults. the analysisof siteswithinthe catchmentof one of the secondarycentresof Furthermore, Laconia wouldprovidea usefulcomparison,whichwouldreflecton theproblemof defining statusand identity surfaceremains. througharchaeologicaland,morespecifically, For settlement the assumptionthatthe area of artefactdispersioncan act as a hierarchy, or ratherthe proxymeasureforpopulationis crude.Againtheapplicationofnewtechniques, coherentapplicationof old techniquessuchas geophysicaland geochemicalprospection, the collectionof artefacts overa grid,and systematic and comparisonbetweensurfaceartefacts excavatedremainswill offera firmerbase forcomparison.Alreadyprojectspursuingthese aimsare beingundertaken in Greeceand elsewherein theMediterranean. In a generalsense, theevermoreintensive of sites at the cost ofmoretimeand recording yieldsgreaterprecision resources(and notjust in therecoveryand studyoffinds:thestorageofartefacts is becoming an increasingburden).The excavationof a sample of,especially,the small ruralsitesalso holdsoutthepromiseofmakingourinferences moresecure. Most discussionof sitehierarchy has been framedin termsof tiersof settlement (towns, villages,hamlets,isolatedfarms. . .). This approach has greatlyadvanced the analysisof settlement patternsin thepast,and has theadvantagethatthetermsare easilyunderstoodby thereader.Forperiods,however, in whichwe haveno evidenceforthecontemporary referents of these terms(and these are notjust the prehistoricperiods),it is difficult to avoid the criticism thatourcategoriesare arbitrary. Nor are thetheoretical difficulties overcome entirely evenwhenwe do have contemporary written evidence.To quotejust twoexamples:theterm difficult to pin down,and thereis a currentdebateaboutwhatis polishas provednotoriously or is nota Mycenaeanpalace. As scholarshipadvances,so thedefinition oftheseproblemsof becomes clearer and more While we have categories usage precise. proposed here a to the of site the use of the fractal hierarchies,namely complementary approach analysis dimensionas a measure of site organization,we are the firstto acknowledgethat the theoretical forthisapproachis notclearlyestablishedand moreworkis required. justification The fractalapproachat theveryleastputsforwarda claimwhichis open to disproof, namely thatthepatternobservedin a partofa provincewillbe thesame forthewholeprovinceand forotherpartsoftheprovince.Otherscan takeup thischallenge. We have consideredthe technologies of communication and agricultural production.Here studies must combine with the of again, interdisciplinary findings survey.Transport,roads, wheeledvehiclesand pack-animals, have been bridges,and thewholelogisticalinfrastructure thesubjectofvariousprojectsof research.A synthesis, in these results the contextof placing each oftheperiodsoutlinedin theprecedingchapters,wouldbe timely. the Likewise, studyof thestorageofagricultural the of scientific methods ofresidueanalysis, produce, development

Overview 437

commodities and distribution ofpotteryand agricultural ofthemanufacture and investigation focusesof theprogrammeof futureresearch.The scientific mustformimportant techniques exist;in some cases theycan be applied to surfacematerial,thoughforothersonlyfreshly excavatedsamplesare suitable. The final theme touched on in this chapter was that of isolation and the degree of integrationinto markets.A leitmotifof the preceding period chapters has been the dependenceofthispartofcentralLaconia, thesurveyarea, on theprimatecentres.Although the relationshipbetweentown and countryhas been a key issue forthe archaeologyof Our aims tend intractable. it remains,in the author'sview,archaeologically intensivesurvey, to be framedby what the writtenrecordstell us. What was the relationshipbetweenthe betweenthe What of the relationship of classicalSparta and the surveyhinterland? homoioi Laconia? ofByzantineLakedaimonand thefarms,estates,and villagesofeast-central archontes How farwas theircontrolofland, of tractionanimalssuch as oxen,of themillsand presses, How fardid their and oftheslavesofone sortor anotherwho workedtheland a constraint? far did theirmarket How commandoflabouropen up land thatwas previously unexploited? of the forproduce,and theiraccess to channelsof trade,impacton the local communities How fardid theirpoliticalwill exertan influenceeven overwherepeople ruralhinterland? lived, and how theylived? Some attempthas been made in this book to address these questionsperiodbyperiod,usingour newarchaeologicalevidence.Our hope and expectation notan end. is a beginning, is thatwhatwe havewritten

INDEXES compiledbyGrahamShipley are not normallyindexed.Wherea full-pagetable or illustration a discussion, Tables and illustrations interrupts thepage-extent thelengthofthepassage.Subheadingsare oftendividedintotwosets:one arranged mayoverstate by date, one alphabetically.Sectorsof the surveyarea are sometimescited simplyas 'n', 'se', and 'w' Date are used as in thevolume,withthe additionsbelow.AncientLaconian and Messenianplace-names abbreviations are italicized.Stressaccentson modernplace-namesare indicatedonlywhentheyforma headword,exceptfor Sellasia (the modern village), which is always accented. Accents are not usually marked on Greek nouns (exceptions:chorió;nomós).Passimindicatesdiscontinuousdiscussion;bis, ter,and quatertwo, threeand four on a page. discussions (respectively) (additionaltothoseonpp. xviii-xxiii) Specialabbreviations anc.

DA EBA EIA EMod IA L. LBA

MBA Med mod. Pel. pop. sett. tab.

ancient darkage (post-BA) EarlyBronzeAge earlyIronAge earlymodern IronAge Laconia(n) Late BronzeAge

MiddleBronzeAge medieval modern Péloponnèse population settlement table

Centuriesare indicatedby C4, C19, etc. The suffixes e, m, and 1 indicateearly,middle,and late; e.g. 'C4e' means Ό17Γ meanslateseventeenth century earlyfourth century,

(1)GENERAL INDEX seesiteabandonment abandonment, Achaea (N. Pel.):HI sett.,315;LH1-R, 329 Achaeanleague,318,325

Achilleion, 232

Achragiás,352,374 acorns:intanning, 82, 107,355;fodder, 100,107,355,387; inanc.Arkadia,100;traded,103,107 Actium,battleof,332 actors,Spartan,318 Aegeanislands,EByz,399 Aétós(Menelaionridge):MBA, 139bis,141-2;LBA, 148,149 Affissù, 103,380,407 407 Agalino,Ester(place-name), 232 Agia Kyriakí(Amyklai), Agia Paraskeví(T482),291,302 (monastery), 391,392,402 ÁgioiAnárgyroi ÁgioiAnárgyroi (village),215

ÁgioiPántes(L400),156 ÁgioiSaránda (L534):and PanagiaChrysaphitissa, 391; 391;censusdata,411,412;damaged buildings, withChrysapha,380; (G18I),392; koinotis 402; metochia, landholdings, 365,377,391;mills,377, 392; originalsite(Paliomonastiro, L4001),26, 356, 372,391;Ott donationsto,374;relocated,374,391; 346, 383,391,392 nn. typikon, seeAgioiSaranda ÁgioiTessarákontaMartyres, ÁgioiTheódoroi(churchat S475),346 ÁgioiTheódoroi(hill),215,218 ÁgiosAthanásios(Nerotrivi), 229 6 ÁgiosCharálambos(κ.235),seeindex ros,oakwood,88, 108-9 AgiosChristophe) AgiosDimitrios(at Tsiliotós),372 AgiosDimitrios(G4004),391 6 ÁgiosDimitrios(P278),seeindex (in S. L.), EH I, 1301 ÁgiosEfstrátios

440 Indexes ÁgiosEfstrátios (U3011),377 seeindex 6 ÁgiosGeórgios(J369), 6 AgiosGeórgios(1402),seeindex AgiosGeórgios(N417;church),379; in Grimani census,377 ÁgiosGeórgios(S450-1),367; spring,165,173,178 AgiosGeórgios(Spartaplain),232 ÁgiosIoánnis (nearMystras):metochi? 371n.; vegetation,80 AgiosIoánnisPródromos(nearU490),372 ÁgiosIoánnisPródromos(Syntziaphi), 352,391 ÁgiosIoánnisRíganas,231 ÁgiosIoánnisTheológos(seealsounder Kalyvia 380; Theologou):area,(Hl) 284-5,(R) 296; chorió, koinotis, 380; metochi? 371;Byzorigin,380; mod. sett. form,408, 409; route,217 ÁgiosIoánnisTsiliotós(R4000;seealsoTsiliotos),372 ÁgiosKonstantinos (Bin; seealsoindex 6): LAr-ECl, 163, 168,169-70,171;LAr-EHl, 185;Cl, 182;after338 BC,252; HI, 285; EH1,271;exploration, 35; road to, 217;sampling, 51; storage,195;water-supply, 173-4 6 ÁgiosNektários(R275),seeindex 377 ÁgiosNikólaos(Chrysapha), ÁgiosNikólaos(G182),391;and Ag. Saranda,391 379-80 ÁgiosNikólaos(Kokkinorachi), 6 AgiosNikólaos(U3001),seeindex 6 ÁgiosNikon(U493),seeindex (B124),367 ÁgiosPanteleímon ÁgiosPétros,EMod, 103 ÁgiosStephanos:EH I, 130;MH, 137,140,142;LH, - !43' I45 seeAgiosEfstratios 'ÁgiosStratigós', ÁgiosTheódoros(hill):LAr-ECl sites,165 ÁgiosTheódoros(S475;seealsoindex 6), 367 ÁgiosVasíleios(Spartaplain):EH, 129,232; MH, 140; LH, 145,146,150 AgisIII, 317 AgisIV,318,320,321-2 abandoned,318 agoge, Agrapidiá(Mitátova),393 Agrapidoúla(Mitátova),393 near,82, no Agriánoi,vegetation sites:possible,193;MByz III, 364, 365 agricultural sites;dependentlabour; (seealsoagricultural agriculture land use):Nl, 127;LAr-Cl, 196-7,226; C4 BC changes,251,321;R, 332-3,334,335; Byz-Ott, 382-7; C17, 103;Cige, 103-4;C20, 416-18;mod.,8, 415;erosion,66; capacityofLS area, 66-7; impact on soils,64-5; limitedimpacton vegetation, 116; ofLS area, 66-9 slopes,197,302; suitability

agridia,344, 393 Agriliá (Q3007), 258, 303 Agriokerasiá (Mt), 76 Aigiai(Aigiés), 230 Aigytis,19, 241 Aï-Lias (hill), 165, 166; (site U500), seeindex6

Aipeia,16

Aitolia:HI, 315;R-LR, 330 Aitolians,in L., 318 Akarnania:HI, 315;R, 330 Akriai, size,246 Akrotatos, 318 al Idrisi,Mohammad,363 Albania:HI, 316; LH1-R, 331 Albanians:in L., 369, 371,373,389; in Pel.,404 alders,93, 99 Alepochóri,122 121 Alepótrypa, Alesiai,233

Alexandria,MByz III exportsto,364 AlexiosI Komnenos,358,361 Alkman,18 alluviallayers,58 alluvialsoils,171 in Argolid,64 alluviations, almond:in hedges,96; wild,80 20 (R.), as frontier, Alpheios altitude:and temperature, 65; and vegetation, 65, 77;of EMod villages,407 bis,408 Ámboula,273 amphoras:MByz III, 364 bis,366; LByz agricultural use,369; at metochia, 393; on Keos, 44, 401; preKomnenian,358; replacedbybarrels,369 16,18;LH, 143,145,149-50;MH, 140;post-BA Amyklai, sett.,153;cults,232 232; EH I, 130;HI, 282 Amyklaion, Amykles,in 1805,104 Análipsi(site),241-2;size,246 conifers, 92, no; oaks near,82 bis Anavryti: 18 Anaximander, andrachne,92, 94, 95; in Bory,106;in maquis,79 Andronikos II, 372 Andronikos Komnenos,361 Androtion, 19 361 Angelosdynasty, animalhusbandry (seealsopack-animals; pastoralism; and byspecies;seealso undermonasteries): Nl, 127; in

LAr-Cl L., 227-8; LAr-ECl, 172;Byz-Ott,387-90 animalshelters, possible,192 Anógeia,231,391

Antheia,16, 17

Anthochóri: cultsite,231-2;sett.,232,233 anticorosso,Myc, 147

antiquarianresearch,in L., 27-9 Aphisiou,seeAphysou date,380; in Frenchsurvey, Aphysoú(M357):foundation 378; in Grimanicensus,103,405,407; irrigation, 104;layout,103,380,408; mod.pop.,414; oil presses,LOtt,380; route,214;spellingofname,1 n.; near,78 vegetation 356 apiculture, Apidiá,121

Indexes 441 407 Apo dima(place-name), 232 Apollo(Amyklai), ApolloPythaeus,216,220,231,309 242 bis ApolloTyritas, apples,385 88 apple-trees, in C20 L., 416-17 arablecultivation, arableland: Hl-R, 302; and perioikic poleis,244; and siteclusters, 197-8;in LS area,69 Arabs,342 Aráchova,and Skotitas,85-7, 102 arboriculture: LAr-Cl, 197;Hl-R, 302; water 68 tab. requirements, arbutus,95; in maquis,78 Arcadia(seealsoArkadia),as ideal,85, 101 424; ofL., 31-4 impecunious, archaeologists: archaicperiod(seealsoearlyarchaic;latearchaic): and soils,64; in LS area, 155-60;site agriculture distribution, 71 archontes (Byzélite),26, 340 bis,364 area (extentofsite),calculating, 43, 264 ofsites),43, 264 areas(subdivisions AresTheritas,221,310 AreusI, 318,321,324 Argolid(seealsoSouthernArgolidSurvey),erosion,64 243 Argos,and Spartanterritory, Aridization (period),114 Arkadia (seealso Arcadia, and byplace-name):Cl, 184,

253-4; HI, 313; R, 330; anc. sources,100-1; cannabis,104;chestnuts, 96; conifers,109; desertlikearea in, 77; fire,88; grazing,81; hedges,96; oaks,83, 85, 100; and L. perioikoi, 19; precipitation, 76; southern,240-1, 253-4, ß^ western,road to, 241;wildpear,79 Arkasádes,231 ArtemisLimnatis,20 Asea: notSpartan,240; road to,241 ArtemisSelasia,221n. Asea ValleySurvey:Nl-EBA, 127,128;G, 240; Ar-Cl, 240; LC1-H1,315;LH1-R, 330; LR, 331 ash-trees, 98 Asia Minor,immigration from,MByz I, 353 221,310 AsklepiosKotyleus,sanctuary, seesiteassemblages assemblages,

Astros,255

Atene(Atticdeme),244; pop.,209

Athenaion, 182, 241

Attica:EAr,157;Ar-Hl continuity, 186;Ar-EHl sett., HI Cl data, Frankish, 401 244; pop.,209; 314;

Augeiai,16

Augustus(Octavian),320,332 bis Avavryti, pinesnear,90 AvlákitouToúrkou(D368),283 Axisoccupation,414 AyaHrandon,411 qyans,373

AyiosStephanos,seeAgiosStephanos seeAgiosEfstratios AyiosStrategos', scatters;non-site backgroundscatter(seealsolow-density causes,44, 49-50; sampling, 45-7,50, 55 findspots): 'Barbarian'ware,150 Barbosthenes 169n., 285 (Ag.Konstantinos?), 66 barley,soilrequirements, see Barbosthenes Barnosthenes,

barrels,replaceamphoras,369 Basil I, 342 Basil II, 353 battleofChampions,242 BayezidI, 369 beech,absentin Pel.,89 bees,356 Belbina,241, 244 Belbinatis,19, 241

benefactors: LByz,371,372;Ott,374 Berbati-Limnes Survey:Nl-EBA, 127;LBA, 150;EIA, 154;Ar,174;HI, 313;R, 331 bishops,at Sparta,25,333,340 BlackDeath, 372,398, 401 106 blackpine,plantations, HI, 271-2 black-glazedpottery, Boblaye,E. le Puillonde, on Skotitas,108 Boiotia:Cl pop.,209; vegetation comparedwithL., 84, 89, 91-3passim, 96-9 passim,105, 77-82passim, 112-1%passim

BoiotiaSurvey:EAr,157;Ar,174;Ar-Cl continuity, 186; Cl, 209, 210;HI, 314;LR, 331;Med, 399; MByz, 401; LByz,401 400; Frankish, borderlands, 240-3; Spartan(seealsofrontiers), 243 regained,332; settlers, Boryde St-Vincent,seeSaint-Vincent boundaries,geological,and sitelocation,171,183 bracken,83, 85, 87 bis,88 ter,90, 106 brambles,83, 85, 93, 95 breccia,soilsderivedfrom,171 briars,96 bricks,stamped,Hl-R, 273 bridges,216;R, 294; repairedbyRome,333; MByz II, 358; Kopana, 379 BritishSchoolat Athens,earlierworkin L., 31-3,34 BronzeAge,seeEarlyBA; MiddleBA; Late BA 80 broom:Spanish,80, 87; spiny, brownearths,in L., 76 seegrazing browsing, brushwood,traded,105 16,233; Dionysoscult,231;notperioikic,230 Bryseai, BSA, earlierworkin L., 31-3,34 and erosion,65 bulldozers, bulrushes, 93 'bundles',withinsites,266 burial,ofsites,42-3, 70, 161,167 burialrites,223

442 Indexes burials,ΜΗ: Aëtos,i4I-2; Geraki,142 seefire burning, Bursian,C, on Skotitas,108 Byzantineperiod(seealsoByzantine-Ott; earlyByz; middleByz;lateByz),defined,347 Byzantine-Ottoman periods,chronology, 394 seeConstantinople Byzantium,

C18I,409; churches, 377;founded,372,377;in Grimanicensus,377,378; layout,408, 409; location, 346; mod.village,244,380, 393; pastoralism, 390; routes,342,357,379;vegetation near,no Chrysaphabasin(seealsosouth-eastern sector),67, 69; LAr-ECl sites,165-6;Cl, 179,248,249; R, 291;Med road links,342; Byz-Ottfarms,394; MByz I, 357; MByz III, 365-6, 398; LByz,372;agricultural Calanno Cocogni,377 potential,366; centralplaces,244; cultsites,222; calcite,in soils,58 described,258; routes,214,215bis,357;soils,166; cannabis,in Arkadia,104 threshing-floors, 377 Chtóriza(K247),355-6; MByz III, 365; LByz,371;Ott, 404 Gapodistrias, carobs,106;fodder, 387 374; C19, 379; mod. chorio, 380; and Paliomonastiro, Cartali(Aphysou),103 356; in Grimanicensus,377 churches:Byz,371,372,379-80; MByz,365,366-7; cash-cropping, 325,334,335,336; Byz-Ott,357 Cassander,319 MByz II, 360; Ott-Ven,377;in mod.villages,409; cattle(dairy),387 privatefoundations, 372 censuses:Ott,407; Ven,377-8,405; mod.,412-14 cisterns:at Menelaion,219;Byz-Ott,356 centralplaces(seealsounder Geladari;Sellasia;Sparta): (seealsooranges):fromC17,386; in C20 citrus-growing Nl, 415,422; MBA, 142,428, 429 bis;LBA, 144,145, L., 417;notlabour-intensive, 420 civilwars:R, 332; Greek(C20), 414 148-50;HI, 278,282,286; R, 335; Byz,340 bis,341, classicalperiod(seealsolate archaic-Cl;late Cl), 178-84, 360,429 bis(w,365); and controloflandscape,429; influence land use,415;lackingin SE,244,278; and soils,64; defined,175;sett. 185-6;agriculture periodscompared,428-30 changes,248-52;sitedistribution, 71 cereals:LAr-Cl, 197;Hl-R, 302; limitedin Byz-Ott, clay-beds, 336 used in sampling, 387; Ci4e, 386; Ci7e, 386; Ag. Saranda, 416; clickers, 54 cliffs: anc. vegetation, Chrysaphabasin,386; LS area, 67, 68, 69; 114;lime-trees, 98; mod.vegetation, 66; Spartaplain,415 requirements, 93-4 climate(seealsoIce Age,Little):impacton vegetation, Ghabrias,raidsSellasia,239 Chairon,319 115;ofL., 9-11,65,75; and olives,66; prehistoric, 114 Chamateros,Leo, 368 clovers,81 likeL., 104 seesiteclusters;seealsounder clusters, Chambéry, spacing coccusinsect,105,355 Champions,battleof,242 in landscapes, coins:Spartan,332; Cl, 182;HI, 282,285; MByz II, 360 change(seealsocontinuity; discontinuity): in cultivation, colluviallayers,58 422; short-term, 420 Charakókambos 6 colluvialsoils,171,172,183 (U3006),seeindex Charités(cultsite),18 colluvium,in LS area,62-3, 68 Chartzenikos, coloni,333 n. 241 on L., 104,105 Chateaubriand, colonies,Spartan,234,248 Chatzarórachi:LAr-ECl sites,164;HI, 279,283; R, ofLS area: LAr,160,233-4,235-7,23^j colonization, EH1,324; fromMystras, 291,295 393 Chávos,LAr-ECl sites,165 coltsfoot, 91 cheeseproduction, CommissionScientifique, seeExpédition 104,200,228,389 Chelmós(Mt),182,241;vegetation, commonland, 107 89 106 seeroutes communications, cherry-trees, LCI farmsizes,211 ofplants,78 Chersonesos, communities, and sett,hierarchy, chestnuts, 87; cultivated, 96; in N. Parnon,87, 88; in competition, 428 concentration, Taygetos,89; in travellers' reports,108 principleof,430 soilsderivedfrom,171 Chilon,235 conglomerate, Chios: HI, 316;R, 331 conifers, 89-93; anc^^reJ89, 92>and oaks,93; in travellers' Chisorissa,377 reports,109-11;moreextensivetoday,no, chona(administrative 111-12;on Taygetosc.1908,112 units):Byz,25,344; mod.,380 Chremonideanwar,318 ConstantineI, 333 Constantine XI Palaiologos,369 Christianity, early,26, 333 Chronicle and L., 25-7,341,351;fall(1204),368, oftheMorea,333, 334 n., 363 Constantinople: Chrysapha(U513):area, 258; HI, 277-8;R, 291;burntin 400; importsfrom,356,357bis

Indexes 443 contacts,seeexternalcontacts site {seealsochange;discontinuity; continuity sitecreation): siteduration; EH-MH, abandonment; 135-6;EH-LH, 136-7;MH-LH, 136,143;inAr-Cl Greece,186-7;LAr-Hl,185-6;EC1-LC1,185;Cl-Hl, 298,302,310;LC1-H1,185-6;Hl-R, 298,302,307 326;R, 326,327,328 bis;LR-Byz, (non-site findspots), 298,336;Byz-Ott,394,397,398; MByzI-Ott,353-5; LByz-Ott,374;Ci8e-Ci9, 407;general,430; in cultivation, 422 418-20;in landscapes, control,oflandscape,429 cookingware:LAr-Cl, 187-8,190;Hl-R, 299 bis,301 coppicing,85, 86; and hedges,96; in GreatLangada, 95 Corinth,seeKorinthia 'cork-oak',anc, 100 Coronelli,on cerealproduction, 386 cotton,in EMod L., 104 and surveydata,437 relations, country-town in L., 226,240 craftproduction, creation,ofsites,seesitecreation Crete:MBA contact,141;LBA contact,146-7,148;HI, 315-16;R sett.,331;EByz,399 bis;SphakiaSurvey, comparedwithL., 75,79-83passim, 330; vegetation, &5)89, 90, 93-9 passim,106,112-17passim 105 crimson-grain, Crisaffa, 411 65-6 crops,and wateravailability, Crusaders,seeFranks Crusades,26, 358,382-3,401 cultsites:EBA, 133;LBA, 148-9;LAr-Cl, 218-24; Hl-R, 309-10;R revival,309, 310;and cultivated area,232,233; and routes,223; and Sparta,224; clustered, Sparta,221,230-1; 223; encircling identified, 192-3;in SE,237;marginallocations,220, 222,223,231;perioikic,238 culture:and sett,pattern,428; and sitelocation,429-30 Cyclades,EBA, 128 96 cypresses, CyriacofAncona,27-8 Dalmatia:HI, 316;R, 331 Daphni,230,342 'darkages': pre-G,144,150,153;post-LR,350-2, 399-400 HandmadeBurnishedware,150 Dark-surfaced Dawkins'sHouse,32, 149 deforestation, 115,118-19 DemetriosI Poliorketes, 319 DemetriosPalaiologos,369 demographicchange(seealsopopulation),in HI Greece,323 demotion,seeInferiors 36 n., 60 dendrochronology, density(sherd):howmeasured,43; in area rewalking exercises, 47-9; on sites,42, 43-4 18,20; changeshands,318,320,332 Dentheliatis,

helots;farmers; dependentlabour(see also coloni; Inferiors; patronage;peasants;slaves):HI, 324, 325; R, 335; M-LR, 333 316,317 poleis), dependentpoleis(seealsoperioikic Despots,ofMorea, 340,368, 369 Diaios, 318 dima,Apo (place-name),407 dimoi,405

Diocletian,333 Dionysos,at Bryseai,231 Dioskouroi,at Therapne,221& n., 231 Nl-EH, (seealsochange;continuity): discontinuity m Ar-Cl Greece, 129-30;post-LBA,143-4,l5°> J535 186-7;Cl-Hl, 298, 302; EC1-LC1,185,187;LC1-H1, 185-6,187;Hl-R, 298, 302,326; LR-Byz, 298; 420 general,422; in EMod-Mod cultivation, LAr,236; LAr-Cl, in SE,244-6; dispersedsettlement: 364-5 MByz III clusters, nearvillages,418; of ofagriculture, diversification: in LCI SE, 199 economy, divisions:social,422-3; topographic, 423 documents:and Byz history, 399; Byz-Ott,scant,399 Byz-Ott,387 donkeys, Dorians,22, 150 Dorieus,234,248 doubtfulsites(Hl-R), defined,261 duration,ofsites,seesiteduration Dutchelmdisease,99 Duzize (place-name),407 dyes,104-5;exported,342 Dyme,LH1,315 earlyarchaicperiod,155-7 and soils,64; general, EarlyBronzeAge: agriculture 125,127,128-9;m L., 130,136;LS area,70-1,129, to MBA, 135 423; siteduration,430; transition earlyByzantine(seealsolate Roman-EByz):'darkage', 329,347 399-400; defining, 329 earlyChristianperiod,defining, earlyclassical,seelatearchaic-ECl EarlyHelladic,seeEarlyBronzeAge sites,270,271,322 earlyhellenistic earlyIronAge, 153-4 to transition earlymodernperiod(seealsotravellers): C19, 407; land use, 102-11;pop. ofLS area, 207 EarlyNeolithic,121 earlyOttomanperiod,374; 'silverage', 401 earlyRoman:overlapwithLH1,269; sites,270 earthquakes:465 BC,250; AD375,333 (seealsoland use; vegetation), ecology,historical surveyed, 35 economies,parallel,423 exchange;landholding; economy(seealsoagriculture; trade):Nl, 125-6,127;EBA, 133-4;MBA, 140-1;LBA, 146-7;LAr-Cl,196-200,226-7,240;Cl, 249,250-1; C4-C3 BC,320;HI, 326; Hl-R, 302;M-LH1,321;

444 Indexes R, 301,335; EByz,388; E-MByz, 399-400; Byz-Ott, 428 382-7; LOtt,402; C17, 103;and sett,hierarchy, Elaphonisi:EBA, 133;EH I? 130 Eleusinion (KalyviaSochas),231;HI, 282 Eleutherolaconian league,20, 25,332 Elis,Cl coin of,182 élitelandholding;Spartans; élite(see also archontes; Spartiates):and townsin R L., 332; differentiation fromotherclasses,332; externalcontacts,332; HI dominance,319,321;in HI Greece,323,324; MR 247;residences, 249,251; 332;perioikoi, protests, Spartiate,250 élitelandholding(seealsoestates):Cl, 249 (w, 199);HI, 322,324,326; Hl-R, 337;R, 335; in R L., 331-2;and marginalland,HI, 324,326; and residence,334 Ellinikó(Thyreatis), 242; foundation, 253; size,246 EllinitsaRéma, 229 elms,85, 93, 95, 99 Elos plain(seealsoHelos plain),404 Elos (seealsoHelos),342,388 LR-EByz, 333,351;mod.,414 bis,415 emigration: oflandholdings, in LCI SE, 199 enlargement,

latername,372;lowercourse,channelled, 342; naturalterraces, 62; uppercourse,notnavigable, of 93; watering 342; routeto N,241;vegetation, animals,141 Evrótasvalley,seeSpartaplain;westernsectorexchange (seealsomarketeconomy;trade):in Nl Greece, 127-8;in LAr-Cl L., 197;in LAr-ECl N,200 de Morée,29, 347,378-9,407 ExpéditionScientifique from L.: LAr, Med, 342 234; exports, extendedarea sampling, 45-7 externalcontacts(seealsoisolation):ofL., 255,423,435, 437; ofSparta,153,226,247,318-19;ofélite,332 eyalet,340

fabrics(ceramic),Hl-R, as datingevidence,260-1 fairs,Byz-Ott,345 in C20 L., 416-17 fallow, famiglia, meaningof,409 numberof,in mod.villages,409-10 families, fans,alluvial,62, 64; agricultural capacity,68 farmers (seealsodependentlabour):Byzterminology, 360 344; independent, seefarms farmhouses, Enope,16 seeagriculture; farms farmers; farming, Epameinondas,251 farms:EBA, 132,135;MBA, small,140;LBA, 144; 405 eparchiai, LAr-Cl,in LS area, 196-7;LAr-Cl assemblages, Epeiros,HI, 316 31 194,195;Cl-Hl Greek;size,162-3& n· 22j Hl-R ephorsofantiquities, Limera, 255;LBA, 143;Cl-Hl size,246 rangeoffinds,301;LAr-Cl rangeoffinds,191-2; Epidauros Byz-Ott,individual,394; Byz-Ott,large,348; MByz epigraphichabit,declines,333 ofL., 28 I, 355-6; MByz II, 358-60; MByz III, 364-5; LByz epigraphy, £WiYZ-arbutus (lackingin Chrysaphabasin),372;defined,162; maquis,79,97 and erosion:pre-Nl,62; EBA, 133,431;accelerated, fortified, 352; 59; 75 (Mani),404 (Mani),410; identifying, of 66; and bulldozers, 263; predictedsize,69, 394; single,263; 65; and formation multiple, agriculture, 60; and human sizes,in Greekworld,211;small,162,263 Spartaplain,61;and glacisformation, seefarms farmsteads, 62,63 bis,64 bis,71;and limestone, 67; and activity, seewoodcutting 67; and sitedetection, felling, Neogene,67-8,71;and schist, fieldsurvey(seealsobyproject): and town-country 41-2,69-70,431;and sitesize,161;in S. Argolid,63, inSE,258;minorfactorin L. vegetation, to Byz history, 116; relations, 437; contribution 398-9; 64 quater, ofNeogene,70,248,431;processes, 421, design,12;earlierin L., 33; future prospects, 58-9 landownership; estates(seeahoélitelandholding; metochia): 436; interdisciplinary, 436; newapproaches,436-7; otherprojects,mainlycoastal,434; problemsof inCl w, 199;LC1-H1,324;HI, 324,326;Hl-R, 322;R, data, 161 302,332,335bis;Byz,344;Byz,private, 355,357,360, 40, 45-7,50; progress, 35,38 field-walking: procedures, 396,398; Byz-Ott,348,394-6; LByz,inW,371,372; 8; at Ag. Saranda,416 344,360; fig-trees, MByzII, 360; Ott,344-5;and monasteries, in SE,249; consolidation, figs,385 249;élite,249;formation, on cultsites,220, 222,223; on habitation figurines: 377,390 360; monastic, imperial, EsterAgalino(place-name), sites,224 407 FinalNeolithic,125,126,127;in L., 122;LS area, 123; ethnicgroups,423; Byz-Med,26-7 and EBA, 128 Euboia: HI, 314;R, 330 Eumathidas,fatherofNikon,318 sites),Hl-R (seealsonon-sitefindspots; findspots subsidiesfrom,418 numbers,259 EuropeanCommunity, fire:Arkadia,88; conifers, see Evrotas Eurotas, 89, 92; deciduousoakwoods, C. Iulius,332,336; dynasty, 88; firs, 92; mod.landscape,9; pines,92; vegetation 332 Eurykles, 81,116 history, 65, 76 evaporation, Evrótas(seealsoEvrotasvalley):and LS area,5; as firewood, traded,105 andfire, 92; andpines,91-2;favour 415-16; firs(seeahofir-woods): dividingline,423; described,346; irrigation,

Indexes 445 limestone, 109-10; 89,91,93; inL., 89; inmountains, white,no fir-woods (seealsofirs),91 Flamininus, 318,325 ofrivers,167,345,346 flooding, in Arkadia,77 flysch, schisty, foddercrops,seeacorns;carobs;stubble in C3 BCland reforms, 321,322 foreigners, in mod.L., 75 forestry, in Frankish Morea, 107 forests, HI Sparta,318-19;LR Sparta,333,340; fortifications: rural,182,241,252 346, 391 FortyMartyrs, Abbé M., 28 Fourmont, FourthCrusade,effects, 26, 382-3,401 87 foxgloves, fractals, 436; and sitesizes,425-6 170,218 landholdings, fragmented France,silkexportedto,416 Franks:in L., 26, 27; in Morea,368; lawcode,107; cheesetax,388-9 FrenchExpedition,seeExpédition ofL., 19-20;Spartan, frontiers [seealsoborderlands): 229,230,239 frost: at Sparta,10;in L., 75 in G17 fruit-trees [seealsoarboriculture; citrus-growing), Pel, 103 ofpottery, seepottery, use functional categories, categories ofsites,seesitefunction functions, fungi,87 gardens,in Spartaplain,415 garigue,77,78; in L., 80-1; in Leake,105;Philippson on, 106 Geladári(H45):LH, 144;LAr-ECl,167,185;HI, 281-2, 281,311bis,312,322,325;Hl-R, 283;HI expansion, 266; R contraction, 293,335;centralplace,282;cult site?309; exploration, 35; Thornax?220;routes,216; 51,266 sampling, Gell,SirW, 29 anc, 19,21-2 geographers, geology:and sitelocation,170-2,182-3;LS area,60; sectors,258,259 absentin LS, 144,150,154 Geometric, 36 survey, geophysical GeorgákiRáchi (N333),130,431 GephyritouKopána (E89),341,434 Geráki(see also Geronthrai): FN1,122;EBA sealings,133, 423; EBA, 129;MH, 140;notLH? 145;givento MichaelVIII? 368; routefromChrysapha,357 Gerenia,16

Geronthrai (see also Geraki):C7 BC,156;perioikic polis, withSparta,230; Hl-R, and LS area, 13;frontier 302,324; routeto,215,216;size,246; territory, 229 68; in suitability, glacis(geological),42, 60; agricultural

LS area, 60, 62 globaltrends,and regional,LOtt,402 goats,Byz-Ott,387 bis Gola, 391 bis,392 gold,pre-Myc,142 Goránoi,391 gorges(seealsoSophroni):75,93; travellers' reports,in; 94-5 vegetation, Goritsá(U4006),122;EBA sitenear,129;mod. sett., 408; routesto,215bis Goths,333 Graces,cultsite,18 likeL., 105 GrandeChartreuse, grasses,81 HI, 286 gravestones, grazing:at P284,356; in LS area, 69; limitedimpacton vegetation, 95, 115;marginalland,418; Neogene plateau,164;rightsto,388 GreatLangáda,93, 94-5; Philippsonon, in; Pritzel's photograph,in; Wyseon, in Grimanicensus,405; mentioned, 346, 379,380 quater; settlements, 377-8 Guilletière de SaintGeorge,378 gypsum,quarried,345 oak near,84 Gytheio(seealsoGytheion), also as 246; (see Gytheio): port,332,342; history, Gytheion road to,6 habitationsites:LAr-Cl, 191-2;Hl-R, 273,274; 161-2, 187-8 identifying, Habsburgs,Ottomanwarsof,402 80 hackberry, Hadrian,332 Haimoniai, 241;size,246 Halieis:Ar-Hl pop.,209; HI, 313 hamlets,163,193;MBA, 139-40;LAr-Cl, assemblages, 188-90,194;Hl-R rangeoffinds,301;Byz 344; Byz-Ott,348, 397; MByz II, 360; terminology, MByz III dispersed,364-5; defined,263-4; in SE, 246 hawthorn, 79, 96 hazel,88 hedges,95-6 Helen,cultof,218-20 Hellas and Peloponnesos(thema), 351 hellenistic period(seealsoearlyHI; middleHI; lateHI; seealsounder and soils,64; continuity): agriculture and R, in LS area, 299-310;changes,322-6; fromCl, 185-6, defined,175,268-9; discontinuity 187;explanationofchange,310-12;gradualdecline? 270,271,288, 302; L., 312-13,316; LS area,274-88; otherregions,313-16;phases,269, 311;sherdsby 269; site phase,269, 272;sitedates,refining, distribution, 71;sitesbyphase,270,271,272;Spartan to R, 326,327 316-20;transition history, Helos(seealsoElos; Helos plain),16;routeto,215,216

446 Indexes Helos plain(seealsoElos plain):and R Sparta,331; transhumance, 388 helots,12,13,316-17;C5 BCnumbers, 209; C3-C2 BC inlandscape,236-7;in liberations, 322;distribution LS area,228,229,235,236;relations withSparta,237; Spartaplain,232 herbs,wild,81 seepastoralism herding, Hermai,20, 102

Hermas,on Arcadia,101 Hermes,inscription to,222 Hermione,Ar-Hl pop.,209 fromPikromygdalia, 222 hero-reliefs, Heruli,333 ofsettlement, seesettlement hierarchy, hierarchy Hire,16,17 historical ecology(seealsoland use; vegetation), surveyed, 35 106 holm-oak,94; in L., 97; misreported? Holoceneperiod,vegetation, 112-14 Homer,on L. and Messenia,16-17 honey,104,356 horizons(insoilprofiles), 58 horses,Byz-Ott,387 households(seealsofarms;houses),Byz-Ott,348 houses(seealsofarms;households):EBA sizes,130;in mod.villages,409 Hyakinthos (Amyklai), 232

(seealso Inferiors),317 hypomeiones

IbrahimPaca, raidsL., 404; economiceffects, 418 Ice Age,Little(C17ad), 384 and archaeologicaldata,436 identity, Idrisi,Mohammadal, 363 ilex, seeholm-oak; Quercuscoccifera (index2)

ofpottery imitation, styles,141,435 Ar-Cl, 229; MByz I, 353 immigration: imperialperiod,seeRomanperiod imports:different periods,435; rarein Ar-Hl,435; rare in LAr-Cl, 197;rarein Hl-R, 269; rarein R, 335; MByzI, 355,356,357(Chrysaphabasin);MByzIII, Islamic,364,365 Greekwarof,404 independence, farmers, 360 independent Inferiors (seealsodependent labour),317,321;and EH1 sites,324 inhabitants: LAr-Cl,ofLS area,228-9; per site,206 inns,C19, 379 Hl-R, 273;in standingstructures, inscriptions: 36; on 377n.; to Hermes,222 threshing-floors, intensification, LAr,234;C17,392; agricultural: borderlands, 243;Spartanchora, 244,249;villas,249; withpop.decline,420 ofolives,385 inter-cropping, interquartile range,262 n. ofcultsites,220 inter-visibility,

invasions:Boiotian,251,317;in C3 BC,318;Herulian, 333 IronAge,seeearlyIronAge Nl, 123;C20 AD,417,420; and choiceof irrigation: studyarea, 15;Aphysou,75, 104;fromEvrotas, 415-16;fromKastororema?164;impacton landscape,65; nearEvrotas,68, 355;nearvillages, 418; Spartaplain,104;vegetables, 418 islands,Aegean:EByz,399; MByz,401 isolation(seealsoexternalcontacts):LAr-Cl LS area, 197;LAr-Cl Sparta,226; and routes,255; geographicalor cultural?434-5 Italians,and C12 Sparta,361-3,382 ivy,83 Jerusalemsage,80 bis Jews:in C12 Sparta,364; in VenMystras,383,385,386 Α., 29-31;on Skotitas,108 Jochmus, Judas-tree, 79, 80, 82 (index2) juniper, see Juniperus

Kaganya(place-name),407 kalderimia, 342; Chrysapha-Kephalas, 357 Kallithéa(f.Zaraphóna),pinewoodsnear,82 Kalloní,372;routeto,215 Kalorókoni(U505-6; seealsoindex 6),365;in Grimani census,377 Kaltézes,oaksnear,82, 88 KalyviaServéika(seealsonextentry), 371,378-9 KalyviaServiánika(seealsoprevious 341n., 371,388 entry), KalyviaSochás,231,282 KalyviaTheológou,379; Byz origin,380; holm-oaks, status,380; 97; layout,408; mod. administrative oaks near,82; parentvillagenotTheologos,371, 410; route,341 104,374,378-9,388, 416; defined,410 kalyvia, Kantakouzenosfamily, 368 Karavás,vegetation near,93 16, 332 Kardamyle,

102,241;destroyed, Karyai, 251n. 'Karyatis',239,241;notanc. name,20, 239 Karyés(Aráchova),and Skotitas,85-7, 102 186 KarystosSurvey:Ar,174;Ar-Cl discontinuity, Kástoraspring,278; Byz-Ottsitesnear,346 Kastororema: route,215spring, 164-5,ll% LAr-EClsites, 164-5 Kaza Mezistre(seealsoMezistre),407 Kelephina(seealsonextentry): 5, 346; watersource, 355 Kelephinavalley:LAr-ECl, 168;HI, 283; R, 294,295, 296 bis308; LByz,371;oranges,418; routes,214,216, 217,296, 308, 341-2;threshing-floors, 377 Keos, seeKoressos;NorthernKeos Survey Kephalás,342; layout,408; routefromChrysapha, 2i5>357 Kephallenia,HI, 316

Indexes 447 Kermococcus vermilio, 105, 355

Khlada, 378 Khrysapha,seeChrysapha kitchenware,seecookingware Kladas (family name),378,379 n. in Frenchsurvey, Kladás (village): 378;C19 origin,379, 405,407;layout,408; mod.koinotis, 380; mod.pop., 414;oranges, 418 klasmatic land,353,360 KleomenesIII: defeat,318;impacton sett.?322; rebuildsSparta'swalls,319;reforms, 322,326 Kleonai,HI, 313 Kleonymos, 318 koinotes (Byzterm),344 koinotites: C20, 380; defined,405; ofLS area,7 kokabasis, 373

Kokkiniá,246 KokkinoMali (Kokkinomallí, K237;seealsoindex 6),378, 379.38° Kokkinórachi (J4007-8), 273;LR baths,336; LByz,371, ofSparta,380; 379-80; Ott-Ven,379; mod. chorió mod.sett,form,408; mod.pop.,414 Kollines,182;oakwoodnear,88 Kolonáki(inAphysou),380 komai (anc), 154,247 kome (Byzterm),344 Komnenianperiod(C12AD;seeabomiddleByzIII), defined, 347 Komnenosdynasty (seealsoAlexiosI), 361 (seealso nextentry), komopoleis 344, 398

Komópolis(Vroulia),380 Kopá (Mt),pinesand firs,92 Kopána bridge(E89),216;mentioned, 379,434;route,341 Kopanáki(Messenia),Cl farmhouse, 163 Koressos(Keos): Cl pop.,209-10;HI, 314 Korinthia,HI, 313 KorkodeilosKladas, 378 n. Kosmás,391 Kotsiliés,vegetation, 98 Kouphóvouno:NI, 121;EH, 129,130;LH, 145;central 121 place,422; earlierwork,32; significance, Koutsoviti (Mt):LAr-ECl sites,164;R sites,291; geology,258; soils,248

Krokeai,230

Krokées,230,342 Krokodeilos(Krokontylos) Kladas, 378 n. Kromnos, 241;size,246 Ktirákia(M334;seealsoindex 6), 273,334 Kyllini(Mt),vegetation, 89 Kynowria, 19;routeto,216;sett,changes, 254;Spartan 242 territory, Ar-Cl sett.,253,254; Cl sett.,184;Spartan Kythera: possessionin R period,332 Laas (see also Las), 16 Laconia (seealsoLaconia Survey;Lakonia;perioikoi;

Sparta,territory of): DA-C1,and adjacentregions, 252-4;anc. sett.,19-20; Ar-Hl,18-20;C6 BCupturn, 234;and LC1-H1 Sparta,316-17;HI sett.,312-13,316;and Hl-R Sparta,257;R period,20-5; R sett.,329,331;and R Sparta,331-2,334; Med writers, 27-8; Byz administration, 339-41,344; in Byz-Medperiods, 25-7; underCrusaders,339-40; LByz prosperity, 371,372;Ott administration, 340,341,344-5; Ven, 341 anc. sources,16-18,19,21-5; and Constantinople, 25-7,341,351;and Greekworld,255;borderlands, 19-20;earlierarchaeology, 31-4; generaldescription, 12;name,1 n.; previous 73; long-term developments, work,31-3; travellers, 28-31,415-16;vegetation history, (pre-Nl)112-14,(anc.) 99-102,116,(EMod) 102-11,(mod.)117-18 Laconia RuralSitesProject,36 n. Laconia Survey(seealsosurveyarea; SurveyofL. (1900s)):aims,1, 12,34; area, 1-9; choiceofstudy area, 11-12,13-15;history, 34-8, 57,73; nature,1; methodology, 38-54; multi-disciplinary non-coastal, 434; projectdesign,55 Laganoú (Mt),pines,90 Lakedaimon(seealsonexttwoentries): anc. name,13;Med name,340; in Byz empire,27; MByz,353; Frankish, 368; LByz,368-9; capturedbyVenetians,372-3; mod. eparchia, 380; nameofEvrotasvalley,368; mod. 412,415,416 eparchy, Lakedaimonianleague,20, 21,318,320 Lakedaimonians, 13;defined,316 Lakonia(seealsoLaconia),mod. nomo's, 208 405 1 n., 13 Lakonike, lamps:Cl, 224; R; 309 land management, Spartan,C4 BC,321 land ownership(seealsoélitelandholding;estates):in anc. Sparta,18-19;m Cl Sparta,249; in C1-EH1 Sparta,320,321;in Byz L., 25-6; MByz,400 land redistributions: C3 BC,321-2,326; C19-20, 385; C20, 392-3 land use (seealsoagriculture; arboriculture; pastoralism; in Med-EMod L., 102-11;in mod. transhumance): LS area, 8-9, 418; in mod. L., 75; in N,259; in SE, 258; in W,259; anc. sources,100-2;and central places,415;and visibility, 41 landholding(seealsoestates):LAr-ECl, 170;LAr-Cl, 218;Cl size,210-11;HI, unified?312;R, fragmented, larger?302; R, unified,328; Byz organization, 344; in Byz-OttL., 383; Ott organization, 344; dispersed, 383; fragmented, 170,394; predictedsize,394; Spartan,234,249 landscape: and centralplaces,429; humanimpacton, 63-5, 71; in archaeology,11-12;in Hl-R religion, 310 Langáda, Great,seeGreatLangáda Langáda valley(LS area): HI, 284; R, 296

448 Indexes Myc, 147 lapisLacedaemonius,

LargeSites,50-1; rangeoffinds,(LAr-Cl) 188,(Hl-R) 301;sampling, 50-4, 264-6 Las (see also Laas),24 latearchaicperiod:LAr-ECl, 157-60;LAr-Cl, 187-207,218-26,248-52,255,(sett,changes)233-48 Late BronzeAge (seealsounder MiddleBA): general,142; in L., 143,145-6;LS area,70-1,142-4,428; site to DA-G, 143-4,150,153 duration,430; transition lateByzantineperiod(C13-C15):defined,347;general, 368, 369; LS area,369-72 lateclassical-Hltransition, 310-12 Late Helladic,seeLate BronzeAge late hellenisticperiod:pottery, and ER, 269; sites, 270, 271 Late Neolithicperiod:general,122-3,I25>I26> I275LS area, 122;LS data reviewed, 422 lateOttomanperiod,401-2 lateRomanperiod(C5-C6; seealsonextentry): definition 329; in Greece,330-1;possiblerevival, problematic, under-counted? 335; sett,changes,331;pottery, 270; to Byz,336 sites,270;transition lateRoman-EByzperiod(C6-C8; seealsoprevious entry): defined,347;general,399-400; in L., 350-1;LS area,352-3 laurel,95, 97 Le Roy,J. D, 28 Leake,W. M.: on Ag. Saranda,29, 416; on cereals,386; on Chrysapha,409; on Chtoriza,374,379; on conifers, 109;on economyofL., 103-4,105,107, 108,109;on Sotirchurch,374;on Spartaplain, 415-16;on U490,377;on villages,410; travels, 29, 347 Lear,E., sketchofMystras,in in C17,386 lemons,introduced lentisk, 93; in maquis,78 Leontari,battleof,373 Leukas,HI, 316 Leuktra(Boiotia),battleof,317 Uuktron (NW L.), 182,241 Levétsova,230,342 lianes,in oakwoods,83 lichens,87 lime-trees, 97-8; in GreatLangada, in soilsderivedfrom:60, 67, 170-1;LAr-ECl limestone, sites,172;HI sites,287-8; Cl sites,183;R sites,297; favouredbyfirs,89, 91,93 Límnes(C126),41,42, 130,431 linearvillages,408 localities(oikismoi), 405 location,ofsites,seepreferred locations;sitelocation Lokris,Opountian:HI, 314;R-Byz,330 seesiteduration longevity, HI, at Ag.Konstantinos, loom-weights: 285; on Hl-R 188 sites,301;interpretation, loss,ofsites,seesiteabandonment

Loutsórema:LAr-ECl, 164,165;Cl, 178;HI, 277;R, 291;route,214-15 scatters(seealsobackgroundscatter;non-site low-density 200-5 findspots), Lykourgos (C3 BCking),318 Macedonia: HI, 316;LByz,401 Magoula,360 Maina (castle),27; givento MichaelVIII, 368 Maina (Mani),26 in C19, 104;in Spartaplain,415 maize:introduced Makariá(U516),seeindex 6 battleof,368 Makryplagi, Malea,Maleai(cape),22, 255;nameforParnon?18 n. Malea(NW L.), 18,241;size,246 Maleatis, 19

Malevos(Mt),firson, no Mandelbrot,on Zipf,425-6 mandras(mándres), 35, 164,171,389; described,410-11 Máni (seealsoMaina, 2ndentry): fortified farms,75,404; Cio independence, 26; infertility, 227;oaks,84-5; revolts, 403,404; tower-houses, 404 at Sparta,332 mansio, maples,in L., 79-80passim, 83, 85, 92, 93, 94, 95 maquis,77,78-9; and cultivation, 418; in L., 79-80; in Neogeneplateau,258; travellers' reports,105-6 Marathonisi, 342 marble,quarried,334,336 marginalland: and HI estates,324,326; R sett.,335; M-LR resettlement, 331;notused,MByz III, 368; abandonedsoonest,418; and discontinuous occupation,186;and grazing,418; in LS area in general,156,209,336,360; in N. L., 243,244; in perioikic poleis,237;in SE, 179,198,248; in Spartan territory, 230; exploited,234,235,249,250,418 marginallocations,ofcultsites,220,222,223,231 and L., 434; and LS area,255 marginality: Marios:sacredwood, 100;size ofsett.,246 in LAr-ECl L., 240; marketeconomy(seealsomarkets): in LAr-ECl w, 199;Byz-Ott,388; MByz III, 368 marketgardening, 355 markets, Byz-Ott,345 materialculture,seesiteassemblages seeKtirakia mausoleums, meatproducts, ofherding, 388 median,defined,261n. medievalperiods,seelateRoman;lateR-EByz; early Byz;middleByz;lateByz Megáli Límna(U3000),132 19, Megalopolis:and Sparta,317;and Spartanterritory, 240,243; road to,241,332; synoecized,254 MegalopolisSurvey:HI, 313-14;R, 330 MehmetII, 369 MehmetMuhsinzade,373 Melathriá(Q3009;seealsoindex 6), LH, 144,147 Melissa(Vardounia),holm-oaks, 97

Indexes 449 Meios Survey, 40; EBA, 134;EIA, 154;G-Cl continuity, 186;EAr,157;Ar,174;Cl, 184;Hl, 314;LH1-R, 331 Menelaion{seealsoDawkins'sHouse; Menelaionridge): MH, 137,142;MH-LH centralplace,428,429 bis; LBA, 143,145,146,148,149;post-LHIII ai, 149, 150;C5 BCterrace,218;HI, 219,282,309; no R, 309; 218-20;Spartancultsite,231;temple,218, history, 220;votives,219-20 Menelaionridge(Q360;seealsoMenelaionandindex 6): EH-MH, 139,140-1;MH, 139;LH, 143,145;G, 153; EAr,156;no R, 294; exploration, 38; sampling, 51 Menelaos,cultof,218-20 Mesórrachi,oakwoodnear,87 Messapeus,seeZeus Messapeus

Mitátova(Agrapidiá/Agrapidoúla), 377,393 Mithradates VI, 319 mixedeconomy:in LAr-ECl, (se) 198,(w) 199;in HI, (W)325; R, 335,(w) 302 mixedfarming, Byz-Ott,383 mixedorchards,Byz-Ott,385-6 modernperiod{seealsoearlymod.;seealsounder and soils,65; continuity; discontinuity): agriculture pop. ofLS area,412-15;villages,380, 408, 420 Molochos,380 andbyname):in monasteries(see also metochia; typika; LOtt economy,402; and C17 intensification, 392 bis;C19 landholdings,392; and ruraleconomy, 390-3; animals,387; cereal cultivation,386; estates,344, 360; in L.; listed,390-1; land Messe,16 redistributed, Messeis,281 385; mills,392, 393, 434; olive Messenia{seealsoMessenians;Messinia;PylosRegional cultivation,382, 383, 384, 385; organization,390; C81 BC to, 391, 392 bis;silk propertytransferred Archaeological Projectandbyplace-name): break,253;Ar-Cl, 237,253,254; Cl, 184;HI, 315;R, 392; production,386; siting,26; threshing-floors, viticulture, 17; 385 330-1;Med economy,103,107;anc. writers, 407 234; impactofconqueston L., 155bis, Monembasie(eparchy), exploitation, Monemvasia:acquiredbyTurks,403 bis;givento 156;roadto,241;Sparta'slossof,250,317 MichaelVIII, 368; routefromChrysapha,357 Messenians{seealsohelots),316-17 seestandingremains seealsoMessenia),extent,208 Messinia(mod.nomós; monuments, Mora, 340,373,403 210;LCI farmsizes,211 Metapontion:Cl pop. density, Morea {seealsoMora; seealsounder Methana,woodcutting, Péloponnèse): 115 Chronicle MethanaSurvey:Nl, 127;Ar,174;Ar-Cl discontinuity, of,333,334n.,363;Despots,340,368,369; forests, 186;HI, 313;MH1-LR, 330; LR olive-presses, 107;Frankish, 107,368; in Ottempire,369,403 434; bis;Ven,341,403 435; mentioned,13 MByz,400; importedpottery, Metóchi(T445;seealsoindex Morosini,takesMystras,373 6), 360, 393 seealsoindex Morou (J170; metochia: 6), 374,380; in Frenchsurvey, MByz III, 363; Ag.IoannisTheologos?371; defined,344,390; in VitaNiconis, 378; in Grimanicensus,377 390; nearSparta, mortaria:HI, 279,283,286; R, 292,294,297 371n.; ofAg. Saranda,365,377,391bis;of rites,Ar-Cl, 223 Vrontochion, mortuary 371,380; operation,393; P284?356; Mose (place-name),407 377 PanagiaChrysaphitissa, Mezistre{seealsoKaza Mezistre),403 mosses,87 MichaelVIII Palaiologos,368 mothones, 317 MiddleBronzeAge {seealsounder trees,104,355; in C17,386; Spartaplain,415, mulberry EarlyBA): 135-6;in L., 140,141;LS area,70-1,137-40,428; site 416 to LH, 143 mules,in Byz-OttL., 387 duration,430; transition sites{seealsositeduration):rarity, middleByzantineperiod:MByz I (Cg-Ciie), 353-8; 422; multi-period sizes,264 MByzII (C11),358; MByz III (C12),361-8; causesof farms {seeahovillas),Hl-R: 263;rangeoffinds, 301 353 multiple change,400-1; defined,347;sherdnumbers, MiddleHelladic,seeMiddleBronzeAge Mur,377 Murad II, 369 middlehellenistic sites,270,271 MiddleNeolithic:absentin LS, 122;in L., 121 Muslims,in L., 403 bis,404 middleRomansites,270 Mycenaeanperiod,seeLate BronzeAge 6 ofMByz II sites,360 Myloi(M321),seeindex middle-range theory, also see site Mistra; {see Vrontochion), 27: Palaiologan, Mystras migration, immigration; migration milkproducts, 368, 369; Ott,341,369; C17, 103;Ven,341;C19 388 mills:Ott-Ven,377;capitalinvestment, 434; ofAg. pictures,in; centralplace,340 bis,341,429 bis; colonizationfrom,393; depopulations, Saranda,392,393 403 bis,404; miniature firs,109;garrisoned, vessels,192;fromcultsites,220,222,223, 386; givento MichaelVIII, 224;fromhabitationsites,223 368; rise,368; sackedbyIbrahim,404 bis;takenby Maniats,403 bis;takenbyTurks,403,404; mistletoe, oak,87 Mistra{seealsoMystras), near,80 407 eparchy, vegetation

450 Indexes Nabis,318,319,322,326 Nemea ValleySurvey:NI, 121,122n., 125,127;LBA, 150;Ar-Cl, 174;C1-EH1,314;LH1-ER, 329; LR, 331;Byz,4oo;MByz, 400 61,67, Neogene,soilsderivedfrom(seealsonextentry), 164,165,170,171,248,258; LAr-ECl sites,171;Cl sites,183;HI sites,288; R sites,297; agricultural in LAr-ECl, 171 capacity,67-8, 69; preferred Neogeneplateau(seealsoNeogene;south-eastern sector):LAr-ECl sites,164bis,165;Cl, 180-1,248, 250; HI, 278-9; Hl-R, 337;R, 291-2;Byz-Ott, 345-6; MByz III, 364; described,258; no central 384,418; routes,214; place,244; olivecultivation, 278 water-supply, Neolithicperiod:co-existing 422-3; in L., lifestyles, 121-2;in LS area, 122-8;sitedistribution, 70 Neraïdalona(P260),223,279,309 Neraídóvrachos, pinesand firs,92 Nero,332 Nerotrivi, 229 Nesi,battleof,373 Neumann,C, on whitefirs,no Nikaia,kingdomof,368 of,342,353 NikephorosI, reforms NikephorosIII, coin of,360 Nikon,son ofEumathidas,318 Nikon,Saint,seeSaintNikon NisiAgiouAndréa,246 nodalpoints,in routes,214,217,218 non-habitation sites(seealsonextentry): LAr-Cl, 192, 194-5;Hl-R, 273,274;MByz III, 364, 365 non-sitefindspots (seealsobackgroundscatter;lowHI, 312;Hl-R, 303-7 (serial densityscatters): numberformat, sites?304-6) 261);R, 328 (vestigial sherds,Hl- R, and sitestatus,260-1 non-type NorthGreece:HI, 316;R, 331;LByz,401 NorthernKeos Survey:Nl-EBA, 125,128;EAr,157;Ar, 186; 174;Ar-Cl, 174,186bis;LAr-LCl continuity, HI, 314;Hl-R, 329-30; MByz,400, 401; amphoras, 210 44; mentioned, '^';poleis, 255;pop. estimates, northern sector:Nl sites,123-5;EH sites,132;MH sites absent,137;LH sitesabsent,144;LAr-ECl, 168-70; Cl, 180-2;Cl-Hl continuity, 298; after338 BC,252; EH1 (C41ÏI?)resettlement, 251;HI, 283-6, 326 (BG 272);Hl-R, 298,337;R, 294-7,327?3355 pottery, EByz sitesabsent,352;MByz I, 353; MByz II, 358, 360; MByz III, 365; LByz,371bis,372;described, LAr-ECl, 199-200;low-density 259,346; economy, scatters, LAr-Cl, 204; routes,217 nucleatedsettlement: pre-C6BCL., 252-3; Cl, 236-7 sites, finds,35; findspots, 35; 'out-of-area' numbering: 38; sites,35; subzones,38; zembils,35; zones,36 nuts,386 oak mistletoe, 87 oaks(seealsoadjacent entries; acorns;holm-oak;prickly-

oak; Quercus (index 2); valonia;Valoniaoak): anc. Arkadia,100;anc. names,100;and conifers, 93; favourschist,88, 93; in maquis,78-9; mentioned, 82 bis,84-5; Messenia,107;travellers' reports,107,108 oakwoods(seealsooaks;Skotitas): and fire,88; deciduous, 82-8 oats:requirements, 66; wild,418 obsidian:Nl, 128;EBA, 133,134;as import,435 occupation,byAxispowers,414 Octavian(Augustus), 320,332 bis off-site seebackgroundscatter;low-density artefacts, scatters;non-sitefindspots oikismoi, 405

oil presses,seeolivepresses Oinous seeKelephina (river), Oinous (sett.),18;unlocated,278 Oios (or Oion),20, 241 Oitylos,16

Oitylos(EMod sett.),342 Older Fill,in LS area, 62 oleanders,93 249,250,320,322; and sett,changes,250; oliganthropy, impacton landscape,323 olivecrushers, seeolivepresses olivecultivation: in Byz-OttL., 382-3; in C 12ADL., 367; in C19 L., 383-5; LS area, 67; monasteries, 382, 383,384, 385; notlabour-intensive, 420 oliveoil: R export,334; C12 ADexport,364,382; postByz export,342; in EMod economy,103,104 olivepresses:anc? 167;LCI and LR, 434; LOtt,385; C19 and earlier,in Aphysou,380; capital investment, 434 oliveprocessing, Byz-Ott,385 in Med-Cig L., 382-3,385; in C19 L., 415; olive-trees: in mod.L., 8, 96, 417,418;at Ag.Saranda,416; climaticconstraints, 66; old,in LS area,96, 366, 384-5,418;wild,96 OpountianLokris:HI, 314;R-Byz, 330 ofresources, and sett,hierarchy, 428 optimization fromC17,386; in C19, 383; exported orange-growing: in Cige, 416; C20 expansion,417;nowmainlyin two villages,418; speciality crop?416 orchards:mixed,Byz-Ott,385-6; reportedas woods? 109 Oresthasion,240 Orlovrebellion,27,392; economiceffects, 409, 416,418 Ottomanempire:Habsburgwars,402; in L., 27,369; in Morea,369, 403 bis;Persianwars,402 Ottomanperiod(seealsoearlyOtt; lateOtt; Turko-Ven): defined,347,374;in L., 372-3 Ottomanstate,inhibitsgrowth, 392 Ottoman-Venetianperiod,373-9,380,403-4; expansionofsett,in LS area,407-8 'out-of-area' 38 exploration, oxen,in Byz-OttL., 387 87 oxlips(flowers),

Indexes 451 fromMBA, 433 pack-animals, Myc,in L.? 146 palace economy, palaces,Myc,142 59-60; in LS area,67 palaeosols,58; formation, 6): Palaiogoulás(ai 18;see also Sellasiaand index LAr-ECl, 168-9;HI, 286; cultsite,309; exploration, 51 35; sampling, Palaiologanperiod,seelateByz 368 bis,369 Palaiologosfamily, Palaiókastro 38 6), exploration, (U3001;seealsoindex 390, 391 Palaiopanagiámonastery, (Spartaplain):EH, 129;MH, 140;LH, 145, Palaiopyrgi 146,148 LAr-ECl sites,167;Ott,377 Palaiópyrgos: Paliomonástiro (L4001),seeunder AgioiSaranda Paliomonástiro gorge,93-4, 95 near,93, 99 Páliouras,vegetation Panagía(D3026),365 Panagia(nearElaphonisi),EBA, 133 tissa(U490;seealsoindex 6): LH, 144; PanagíaChrysaphí LAr-Cl, 191,244; HI, 278; Hl-R, 264-6; R, 291; Byz-Ott,353-5,357,365-6; MByz III, 365-6; LByz, 372,398; Ott-Ven,377;and Ag. Saranda,391; centralplace,360, 366; date ofbuildings, 392; 38; fairs,345; founded,372;komopolis, exploration, 377;privateestate? 346; monastery, 398; mentioned, 51-4,264-6 398; sampling, 391 PanagíaKataphiótissa, 6), 367 (U488;seealsoindex PanagíaPhaneroméni at PanagiaChrysaphitissa, 366, 391 panigyria, paralleleconomies,Nl, 422-3 Párnon:anc. nameonlyin Paus.,22; chestnuts, 96; conifers, 73,75; firs,89; 109-10;description, 388; in LS area,5, 6; largelyuncultivable, herding, 76 227;oakwoods,87; pines,89; rain-excess, Parórigorge,93, 94, 95 on whitefirs,no Partsch,J., Passava:elms,93; oaks,84, 85, 108 352;possibleLAr-Cl, pastoralsites:identification, 194-5 grazing; (seealsoanimalhusbandry; pastoralism NI, 127;LAr-Cl, 194-5,197-8, transhumance): 227-8;in C6 ADL., 388; EByz,388; E-MByz, smallscale,399-400;Ven,389; mod.;in LS area,8-9; 194-5,2285352,389 bis; archaeologicalcorrelates, Sophronigorge,356 paths(seealsotracks):Ar-Cl, 216 bis;Med, 356 Patras,LH1,315 patronage(seealsodependentlabour):Cl, 317;HI, 324, 325; LByz,371,372 100 Pausanias:on L., 24-5; on vegetation, Pavléïka,220,378,379; subsumedbyKokkinorachi? 380 EBA, 129,133 Pavlopétri, domesticated, 386; in hedges,95; wild,79,99 pear-trees: 360 peasants(seealsodependentlabour),independent,

Pedasos,16, 17

Pellana:LBA, 143,146,148,150;R, 329; in Spartan 20 229;ravinenear,18; tripolis, territory, Péloponnèse(seealsoMora; Morea): Nl, 121;E-MN1, 126;L-FN1,127;LN1-EBA,128,129;EByz economy, 388; C17 economy,103;liberatedfromOttomans, 404; Turkscapture,403 bis Pêra (inAphysou),380 poleis(see also Sellasia),13,19,20, 243; and perioikic arable,244; as dependentpoleis,316,317;chronology, 253;locations,229-30,237;no EAr evidence,156; sizes,241,246, 247;territories, 229,237

13, 19, 20; C5 BC numbers, (seealsoprevious entry), perioikoi

321,322; C2e BC 208-9; in C3 BCland reforms, liberation, 318,320; and Arkadia,19;and Sparta, 243,321;casualties,317;cultsites,238; defined,316; éliteamong,247;in LS area, 228,229,237-8,241, 243; in Sellasia,239-40; local 244; in Ν borderlands, in Spartan administration, 244; notsettling 324; sett,forms,247;Straboon, 22 territory? Pérpeni,372;routeto,215 Persianwars,ofOttomans,402 Petrie'sprincipleofconcentration, 430 petrocalciclayers,59; in LS area, 62 Table,21,332 Peutinger Phagiá (U3002),38, 166,179,222,224; no Hl-R evidence,278,309 Phaneroménimonastery, near,95 vegetation Pharis,16,233; notperioikic,230 phases,ofHI and R periods,269 Pherai,16, 17

PhilipII, and Sparta,19,317 PhilipV,in L., 309, 318 Philippi,battleof,320 Α.: on L., 104,106bis,108bis;on conifers, Philippson, no; on GreatLangada, in in maquis,78 Phillyrea, in L., 318,319 Philopoimen, Phleious,LH1-R, 329 Phoibaion,221 n.

Phokis:HI, 314;MByz,400 102 Phoneménoi,vegetation, 35,43; MByz III sites,364 phosphatesampling, old,and ecology,111-12 photographs, Phournára:LAr-ECl sites,165;Cl, 178 old, and ecology,111-12 pictures, pigs:in Byz-OttL., 387;wild,in Parnon,109 oakwoodnear,83 Pikouliánika, (U3001),166,179,222 Pikromygdaliá Píndos,oakwoodsin,85 pines(seealsopinewoods):and fir,91-2; black,106; dependon fire,92; favourschist,89, 91; in L., 89; in mountains,109-10;veryold,90 pinewoods(seealsopines):82, 89-91, in; lowland, absentin L., 82 pits,forrubbish,193

452 Indexes Pitana,334

plague:C6 AD,25,333,400; C8m, 351;C13 AD,see BlackDeath Plakiá(£48(80)),42, 123-5,I27 plane-trees, 93 bis,102,106 plaques:at cultsites,222 bis,223; at habitationsites,224 Platána:mod.sett,form,408, 409; oranges,418; route to,215 in mod.villages,409 plateias, PlinytheElder,on L., 22 and BA sitelocation,432 ploughing,

292,(w) 294 pottery types,36; and sitestatus(seealsonon-type sherds,Hl-R), 44, 364 Prasiai,242

in L., 76; in LS (seealsorain-shadows): precipitation area, 11,65, 66; variations, 76 locations(seealsositelocation):Nl, 125;EBA, preferred 133;MBA, 137,138,140;LBA, 144;LAr-ECl, 170-4; LAr-Cl, 218;Cl, 182-3;H1>287-8; R, 297;MByz I, 355-6; MByz II, 358-60; MByz III 364,365,366, 368; LByz,372;EMod-Mod, 405-7,408 in index2): and Poieëssa,16 n. (see also Quercus prickly-oak coccifera in Hl-R L., 322; Sparta, coccusinsect,105;in coniferwoods,89, 92; in Great poleis{seealsoperioikic/w/m): sitesizes?323 12-13;Spartadistorts Langada, 94, 95; Leake on, 105 82, 89, 93, 96; and hedges,96; in Great pollarding, primroses, 87, 91 Pritzel,E., on GreatLangada, in Langada,95; mulberries, 104 teia(Byzterm),344,360 pollenanalysis,nonein L., 112 proas Polyane(place-name), 407 probablesites,Hl-R, defined,261 221,310 Ilias,churchesof,367 Polydeukes, sanctuary, Prophitis Ilías (E53),293,367 Polydroso[seealsoTzitzina),408 Prophítis Ilias (Menelaionridge),139 Polyzéfka {seealsoAï-Lias),367 Prophitis Ilias (Taygetos), poplars,93 Prophitis 5 Ilías (U500),367 population{seealsodemographicchange;immigration; Prophitis seefield-walking inhabitants; oliganthropy): prospection, general:Nl, 126;EBA, 134-5;helots,C5 BC,209; LAr-Cl, 193-4;HI, 312;R, 329; rural,MByz prosperity: LAr-Cl Messenia,207-8,209; Cl, 209-10;HI, 323; III, 366, 367-8 absentin LS, 144,150 perioikic, 208-9, 247;Spartan,C5 BC,208 Protogeometric, ofL.: Hl-R, 308; LAr-Cl, 207-8,209; R, 334; EMod, Provatómandra, HI, 279 103 pseudomaquis,79 ofLS area: Nl, 126;EBA, 135;MBA, 141;LBA, 147-8; Pseudo-Skylax, on L., 19 21 LAr-ECl, 206; LAr-Cl,209, 211;LCI, 206-7; HI, Ptolemy(geographer), 312;Hl-R, 307-8; R, 328; LR, 400, 420; E-MByz, pureoak maquis,78 399,400; EMod, 207;C18-20, 412-15 Pylos,16 PorosRema, Spartanfrontier? 230 PylosRegionalArchaeologicalProject:LBA, 150;HI, PortoKágio, firewood importedto,105 3!5; R> 330-1;mentioned, 434 ports,332,342 pyrgo,410 ofEpeiros,318 Poseidon,at Tainaron,20 Pyrrhos possiblesites,Hl-R, defined,261 Potamiá(G156;seealsoindex 6), 230,377 quails,salted,forexport,104 vessels;pottery {seealsominiature pottery types;site quarries:in Myc L., 147;Hl-R, 261;R, 334; in survey area,336,345; in Taygetos,22,336 assemblages): Nl, 123;EH, 133;MH, 136-7,140,141;Myc, byperiod. quartiles,defined,262 n. 143;LH III B-c, 150;LAr-ECl, 157;LAr-Cl,187-90; quartzite,soils,67 HI BG, 271-2;Hl-R painted,269,273;LH1-ER, 269; R, 335;LR, under-counted? 270;MByzI, 353;MByz rain-excesses, 76 II, 358; Komnenian(MByzIII), 358,364; LByz,369; rain-shadows, 6, 11,66, 76 Ott-Ven,373-4 108;on conifers, Randolph,B.: on chestnuts, 109;on rate,(Ar-Cl)311, Pel., 103,104,107 bytopic, 271-2;deposition black-glazed, (HI) 311,(R) 327;exported, 234;imitation, 141,435; rangeoffinds,seesiteassemblages ofsitesizes,424-5 imported, (LAr-Cl,rare)197,(Hl-R, almostabsent) ranking, ravines,75 269,273,(R, rare)335,(MByzI) 355,356,(MByzII) ofsurveydata,35 357,(MByzIII, Islamic)364,365,(atMethana)435, recording, in Ar-Cl L., 229 435;indexofisolation? (frequency) 434-5;local,149, refugees, seeregionalism 260,319,435;Slavic,notfound,352;types,36 regionalfactors, usecategories: 263; LAr-Cl, 187-8,190;HI, (n) 286, (se) regionalism, 254;MM, 122;MBA, 135;in EIA L., 153, 279,('v) 282-3; Hl-R, 299-301;R, (n) 296-7,(se) 154;in EAr L., 155;LOtt,and globaltrends,402;

Indexes 453 and surveydata,421 religioussites,seecultsites defined,75 réma, in L., 76 formation rendzinas, ofsites,44-5 representativeness, élite;élite residences, Spartan(seealsounder 235 landholding), 36 resistivity survey, to woodlandand steppe,81 reversion, defined,75 révma, offield-walked areas,45-7 (results, 47-9) rewalking, riverine woods,93 roads(seealsotracks):builtin Pel. fromLBA, 433; in on sitelocation,213, anc. L., 211;LAr-Cl,influence 218(se, 214;'v, 216;N,217);HI, in w, 282; R, in 332; Med, 379; OU-C19, 379; and Spartanterritory, centralauthority, 433-4; 433; and economicactivity, old,nearGoritsa,215 seetile roof-tiles, Romanempire,and L., 21 Romanperiod(seealsoearlyR; middleR; lateR; seealso and soils,64; and HI, in under hellenistic): agriculture LS area, 299-310;changes,327-8; defined,269; gradualdecline?270; in L., 329,331;LS area, 288-97; otherregions,329-31;phases,269, 327-8; sett,history explained,334-6; sett,history summarized, 326-9; sherdsbyphase,269, 272;site dates,Hl-R, refining, 71;sites 269; sitedistribution, perphase,270,272;Spartain,331-4 Rome,and Sparta,320 Ross,Ludwig:on Skotitas,108;on chestnuts, 109 Rothmaler, W, on oaks,108 routes(seealsopaths;roads;tracks):and HI sites,(n) 283, 285 ter, 308,(SE)277,278-9,308,(w) 281bis,282 bis, (n) 296,308, (SE) 308; Hl-R, 308; R sitesunrelated, 291,308; and MByzII sitelocation,358-60; and cult sites,223;and isolation,255;and siteclusters, 214-15, 218;in L.; Med, 341;in surveyarea,Med, 341;LS area and beyond,6-7, 211-18,308; nodalpoints,214, in centralL., 341;primary, 217,218;northbound, in LS area, 213-18;sitesdistant 211-13;secondary, from,181 Russians,takeMystras, 403 Russo-Ottoman war,373 S. Zorzi,377 S. Zuanne,379 tab.,410 80 bis sage,Jerusalem, SaintGeorge,Guilletière de, 378 SaintNikon,353; cult,391;monastery 390; so-called basilica,333-4 Saint-Vincent, 109;on L., 106, J.B. G. M.: on conifers, 107-8 Samos: HI, 316;R, 331 45-7,50, 55; Large sampling(seealsosites):background, Sites,50-4, 266; phosphates, 35,43, 364

San Zorzi,377 San Zuanne,379 tab.,410 sançak, 340,403 seecultsites sanctuaries, Sardari(seealsoZerdari),103,407 schist,soilsderivedfrom:67, 68, 77,170,171;Cl sites, 183;favouredin HI, 287; favouredin R, 297;in LS area, 60; LAr-ECl sites,171-2;and oaks,88, 93; and pines,89, 91 Schura,377 scrub,seemaquis local,at Menelaion,220 sculptures, seasonalsettlements, 410 secondworldwar,414 south-eastern; sectors,ofLS area (seealsonorthern; western):38, 163,258-9; HI sites,274;R sites,288 410 segiolatti,

self-heal(plant),91 and sitehierarchy, 425-6 self-similarity, Selinous,229

Sellasia(anc. sett.;seealsoPalaiogoulás):LAr-ECl, 163, 168-9; LAr-EHl, 185;Cl, 181-2;C4 influxofpop.? 183;EH1,271;HI, 286; and routes,213,216,217;and Sparta,239; attacked,239,251;battle,318;central place, 196,286; changingrole,251-2;chronology, station,229; 238; cults,221;'enslaved',286; frontier ofLAr settlers, 238,239 bis,240; in Plut.,18; identity lostand regained,239;misplacedbyLeake,29 n.; 251;sizeofterritory, polis,229; recovered, perioikic 173;worth 199-200,211;storage,195;water-supply, 256 excavating, Sellasia (mod.village;seealsoVourlia;Vroulia),379; in 380; layout,409 bis;prickly1805,104;C20 dimos, oaksnear,81 Serapna,18

seenumbering serialnumbers, Servéika,seeKalyviaServeika Serviánika,seeKalyviaServianika servicevillages,MByz I, 357 settledarea,total:Hl-R, 267; HI, 274,(n) 283,(se) 275-7,(w) 279; R, 288-90, (n) 294,(se) 290, (w) 292 settlement (seealsosettlement hierarchy pattern):EBA, 130-3,426; MBA, 139-40,141-2;M-LBA, 426; LBA, 144-5,l$~b°' m EIA Greece,154;in EIA L., 154;LAr-ECl, 161-3,185;LAr-ECl, 426-7; Cl, 175-8,185-6;LCI, 426-7; HI, 274,312,426-7,(n) 283,(se) 277,(w) 279; Hl-R, 263-4, 266; R, 288, 328,426-7,(n) 294,(se) 290, (vv)292; Byz-Ott, 347-8,393-8; MByz II, 360; MByz III, 364-5,427; diachroniccomparisons, 423-4; in adjacentregions, of definition, 436; in S. L., 253-4; 253-4; question Zipf's law,426-7 settlement layouts:EBA, 130,134;MBA, 139;LBA, 144; DA-C1, 252-4; LAr-Cl, 244,246-7; Hl-R, 273; Byz-Ott,344,346, 348; MByz III, 364-5,365-6; Ott-Yen, 374,377,380; mod.,408-9, 410-11,418,

454 Indexes 247 420,424; perioikic, settlement locations; pattern[seealsopreferred sitelocation;sitemigration): settlement hierarchy; Nl, 123-5,I27j EBA, 130-2,133bis;MBA, 136, 137-40;LBA, 144-6;DA-C1, 224-6, 252,252-4; LAr-ECl, 174;Cl, 184-5;H1>272,273-88,322-6; R, 272-35334-6; LR-EByz, 352-3;MByz I, 353,358; MByz II, 358-60; MByz III, 364-8; LByz,369-72; Ott-Ven,374-9; and oliganthropy, 250 sheep,in Byz-OttL., 387 bis ofHermas,101 Shepherd transhumance): EByz, shepherds[seealsopastoralism; 388; Ven,389 seealso sherds[seealsonon-type sherds,Hl-R; pottery; middleByz;Roman):how under density;hellenistic; recorded,35; numberson Hl- R sites,261-2 shoes,taxedin Byz-OttL., 388 (oftrees),82, 86, 87 shredding seecultsites shrines, in, sibljak:at Mystras,in; defined,80; in L., 80; Ostrya 106 98; under-reported, Sikyon,Cl coin of,182 silk:C12, 364,386; C19, 104,416; at K247,355; exports, 342,386; monasteries, 386; Mystras,103 'silverage', EOtt,401 singlefarms,Hl-R, defined,263 Sintzacave,242 EH III, 130;MH-LH, 143,145-6;LH siteabandonment: III, 149-50;Ar-Hl,185-6,187;HI, 310,311;Hl-R, 298-9; LH1-R,322;R, 326,327,328;EByz,352; LByz,372;EOtt,374;Ott-Ven,374-7;explanations, 430;majorphases,430,431,432 siteassemblages:Nl, 123;EH, 133;MH, 140;LH, 144; LAr-Cl, 188-92;HI, 312;Hl-R, 263,299-301;R, 328-9; MByz I, 355;MByz II, 358; MByz III, 364 bis,366; LByz,369, 372;Ott-Ven,373-4;at agridia, 393; at metochia, 393 siteclusters:Nl, 123;EH, 132,133,137;MH, 141;LH, 145;LAr-ECl, 164-6,167,175,198;Cl, 180;HI, (n) R, (n) 296, (w) 284,(SE)277-8,(W)280, 281quater; 293 quater; MByz III, 364-5,366; C19, 103;along routes,214-15,218;aroundarable,197-8;at springs, 184,195;cultsites,223; interpretation, 236,246; nearcultsites,223 bis;non-sitefindspots, 203-4 (LAr-Cl),304 (Hl-R) sitecreation[seealsosettlement pattern):HI, 310,311; declinesin Hl-R? 302,326; R, 326,327;MByz I, 357-8;MByz II, 358,360; MByz III, 364, 366; absentin EOtt,374 siteduration[seealsocontinuity; BA, 430; discontinuity): LH, 145;Ar-Cl Methana,186;LAr-Cl, 186,430-1; Hl-R, 270,271,272;LH1-R, reduced,431;Byz, 431;cultic,in Spartanterritory, greaternearrivers, 224; identifying, 430; varieswithsector,430-1 sitefunction: LAr-Cl, 187-93;Hl-R, 261-3,299-301; special,188

sitelocation[seeahopreferred locations;seeahounder LAr-ECl,and springs, roads;spring-lines; springs): 308,(SE)277, 173;HI, and routes,(n) 283,285 ter, 278-9,308,(W)281bis,282 bis,308; MByzII, and routes,358-60;Ott-Ci9,and roads,379;and geology, 172-4 170-2,182-3;and water-supply, siteabandonment siteloss,seediscontinuity; sitemigration: Cl-Hl, 298, 302; HI, 279;R, 291bis,296 sitenumbers(serial),35 seeprosperity siteprosperity, sitesize: LAr variation,236; HI, 274,311-12,(n) 283, (se) 277,(w) 279-80; Hl-R totals,267; R, 288-90, 328,(n) 294,(SE)290-1,(w) 292; LByz,369-71;and area offinds,263; and visibility, 266; howcalculated, 161 43; on slopes,263; problematic, sitestatus,and finds,263 sitesurvival, seecontinuity siteterritories: HI, 312;R, 328 sites[seealsopreceding entries; area; habitationsites;nonsitefindspots; settlement area; pattern;seealsounder Nl, 123-5;EH, burial;erosion;spacing;visibility): 130-2;MH, 137-40;LH, 142-3;LAr-ECl, 160-1; Cl, 175-6;Hl-R, 259-60,261;R, 288-97; Byz-Ott numbers,394-8; EByz,notdetected,352; MByz I, 353-5;MByz II, 358; MByz III, 364; LByz,369-71; Ott-Ven,374-9,380, 393-8; definedbysherd 40-1,43-4; detecting, 41-3; density, 43; defining, and soils,70,71 bis;identification, distribution, 436; size,264; special-function, estimating multi-period, 188 size,ofsites,seesitesize Skala,342; route,342,357 skinproduction, 103,104,200, 388 Skiritis, 241-2;lostin 19,20, 239; as Spartanterritory, C4 BC,317;pop., 243 Skiros,20

in 1805,104 Sklavochóri, Skotitas (oakwood),85-7; anc. sources,102;C19 sources, 108;extent,87, 102 Skoúra(Mt; D97; seealsoindex 6), Cl sites,180 Skoura(village),342; in Grimanicensus,377;layout, 408; routeto,215,216 Skylax,seePseudo-Skylax slaves:Cl, 208, 240; HI, 322; Hl-R, 433; Byz,344,355, 356,369, 396; C19, 404 Slavs,27,333,336; in Taygetos,388-9; invasions, 350-1; no pottery found,352 197,302 slope,angleof,and cultivation, smallfarms,Hl-R, defined,263 snow[seealsoprecipitation), 11,75 Sochás [seealsoKalyviaSochas),388 socialdivisions, and surveydata,436 socialfactors, and sett,hierarchy, 428 soilprofiles, 58, 60 soils[seealsolimestone;Neogene;phosphatesampling; 66; and sitelocation, schist):agricultural suitability,

Indexes 455 territory: 13,18-20,229-32; Cl, 317;R, 331;and LS area, 324 (w,233);and Megalopolis,19,240,243, 317;andperioikoi, 324; borderlands, 240-3; core,324; cultsites,224,231-2;marginalland,230; reduced, 257;roads,332 Spartaplain:EH sites,129;MH sites,140;LH sites, 145;anc. sett.,230,232-3; LAr-ECl sites,166-7;Cl sites,180;R, 329; coreofMByz III sett.,363; cult sites,231-2;fertility, 230; in Homer,17;ravagedby Ibrahim,404; travellers' views,415-16 321;at Spartans(seealsoSpartiates):andperioikoi, Sellasia,239 407 SparteOccidentale(eparchy), 407 SparteOrientale(eparchy), Spartiates(seealsoSpartans):as colonizers,248; decline, 249,250; impoverishment, 234; in LS area,228,229; numbers,208; placesofresidence,235 R-LR data,330 SphakiaSurvey, nearAg.Saranda,391;Chrysapha,166 spring-houses: and sitelocation,127,170,172bis,173,277, spring-lines, 346 bis Ag. springs(seealsospring-houses; spring-lines): Georgios,165;anc, 281,(n) 285; and siteclusters, 184,195;Chrysaphabasin,166;Chrysapha,277;in N,168 ter,296; in w, 281;Kastora,278; ^S area, 6 Kastororema,164-5,ιΊ3·> Staffa,379 tab. stamnoi:MByz III, 364, 366; mod.,369 n. stampedbricks,Hl-R, 273 stampedtiles:HI, 286; Hl-R, 273 291 towerstandingremains(seealsochurches;monasteries; Sparta(seealsoLaconia; Lakedaimon;oliganthropy; houses):Byz-Ott,346, 374; C19, 374,377;Geladari, Spartaplain;Spartiates): LH, 145;first 51,266; general,29, 35, 36, 273,374;in French post-ΒΑsett.,153;Ar colonies,234; and LAr LS area,235; LAr-Cl, 226-7,240; C5 BCpop., survey, 29; Sellasia,380; U490,372,377;withearlier 208; Cl, 249,250-1;C4, 320; HI, 316-20,322,324; 36 inscriptions, ofplantcommunities, stature, M-LH1, 321,325; R, 20-1,331-5;MR, 333; LR, 25; 78 status,social,and surveydata,436 351;E-MByz, 340; MByz I, LR-EByz 'desertion', StephanosofByzantion,19 353;MByz II, 360; MByz III (Komnenian),363-4; steppe,77,78; in L., 80-1 LByz,340; C19, 27,404-5; mod.pop.,412,414 and Augustus, 332,342; and L., stonetools:EBA, 133;LAr-Cl, 188 332 bis;and Gytheion, storage,LAr-Cl evidence,195-6 (LCl-Hl) 316-17,(Hl-R) 257,(R) 331-2,334; and LS cultsites,224; andperioikoi, 243; and PhilipII, 19, storageware:LAr-Cl, 188,190;Hl-R, 299, 301;R, and and and Sellasia, Venice, Rome, 239; 299, 30i>335,33^ 320; 317; in C12, 361-3,382; and Wsector,210;archaeological stores,rural,possible,192 Strabo:on Arkadia,100;on L., 19,21-2 record,151 as centralplace,(anc.)428-9, (EIA) 154,(LAr-ECl) strawberries, wild,87 bis,91, 109 in LS area, 173 streams, 196,244,(HI) 325,(Hl-R) 278,302,(R) 331-2,337, streamsides, 93 (LR) 336,(E-MByz) 340,(MByzII) 360, (MByzIII) offinds,36, 38 study, post-survey: 365,(mod.)414,415,429 bridges,216,294,333; cathedral,rebuilt,357;climate, studyseasons,36, 38 36 332; cultsites studytypes(pottery), 9-11,65, 75; cosmopolitanization, ofname,429; exploits suburbs,ofSparta,312,322,325,335,340 around,221;etymology subzones,38 Messenia,234; frontiers, 229; in Homer,16,17;land attacked,251;proximity sundials,18 ownership, 18-19;outskirts area (seealsosectors;subzones;zones):agricultural to w sector,199;sitesin chora, 232-3; size,246; state, survey 66-9, 71;and adjacentregions, 252-3;as 12-13,18-19 capacity,

64-5, 170-2,182-3;Chrysaphabasin,166; on, 63-5; local formation, 76-7; humaninfluence variation, 415;quartzite,67; surveyed, 35,57-8 sett.,171;herding, 356; water Sophrónigorge:attracts source,173 Sotir,churchof(seealsoP284inindex 6), 346, 367,377 Souli,380; olivecultivation, 384 south-eastern sector(seealsoChrysaphabasin;Neogene plateau):Nl, 123-5;EBA, 130-2;MH, 137-40;LH, 144,145;LAr-ECl, 164-6;Cl, 178-80;Cl-Hl continuity, 298; HI, 274-9,325; HI BG, 272;Hl-R, 298,337;R, 290-2, 335; Byz-Ott,397; EByz absent, 352;MByz I, 353-5;MByz II, 360; MByz III, 364, 365-6, 365-6; LByz,371-2;cults,244; described, LAr-Cl, 204; no scatters, 258,345-6; low-density centralplace,244; perioikic?244; routes,214-15 SouthernArgolidSurvey:Nl-EBA, 127;EH I, 128;EAr, 157;Ar,174;Ar-Cl pop., 209; Ar-Hl discontinuity, 186;Cl, 184;LCI olive-presses, 434; HI, 313;HI farm sizes,210-11;LH1-LR, 330; EByz,399 spacing: betweenfield-walkers, 40, 50 gaps betweensites:LBA, 145;LAr-Cl, 165,168;HI (n) 285,(w) 281bis;R (w) 293 ofnon-sitefindspots: HI, 312,(n) 285; Hl-R, regular, 304; R (se) 291 ofsites:MBA, 140;HI, 312,(n) 283,284,(se) regular, 277,(W)281ter;R, 328,(se) 291,(n) 295,296 ofsites:HI, (n) 285,(w) 280; R, (n) 294,(SE) irregular,

456 Indexes ofL., 421;defined, hinterland, 1-5, 434;as proportion 7-8; described, 5-7,8-9, 345-6;mainlySpartan,324; mediatesexternal contacts, 435;minorroleinMByz III, 363;selection, 11-12,13-15;typicalofL.? 255,421 SurveyofLaconia (igoos),32 (seealsofieldsurvey;surveyarea; andbyregion); surveys fiscal,Ott,345,407,415;problemsofdata, 161 seesitesurvival survival, 104 meaning, sycomore, 391,392; founded,377; Syntziáphi(monastery), name,352 tableware:LAr-Cl, 187,190,Hl-R, 299 bis Tainaron,20

82, 355 tanning, Taras,234 taxregisters, Ott,345,407,415 taxation:R, 21,333; Byz,26, 345; Byz-Ott,388, 389; Ott>345. 392,407. 4J5 102;and LS area,5, 6; Taygetos:anc.woodssmaller, chestnuts, 96; conifers, 109-10;firs, 89; general 73,75;largelyuncultivable, 227;lower description, 80; pines,89 bis,90; quarries,22; slopes,vegetation, rain-excess, 76;vegetation c.1908,112 teams,in field-walking, 35 and sett,change,432 technology, with,241,243; road to,216,239; Tegea: frontier Spartanwarwith,234 and cereals,66; at Sparta,10,75; in LS temperatures: area, 65 242 bis;at Menelaion,218, temples:ApolloTyritas, 220; at Therapne,18;seenbyFrenchexpedition, 29; Zeus Messapeus,220 terebinth, 94, 95, 106;in L., 79, 80, 83 terra rossa:formation, 76, 170-1; in Chrysaphabasin, 166,277,278,357;usability, 171 terracewalls:dates,418; densestaroundvillages,418 terraces, IA, 432-3,Byz,433,mod.,418; agricultural: and slopes,197;at Menelaion,218;old,in Chrysapha basin,64-5 terraces, alluvial,62, 68 seefigurines terracottas, 11-12;of (seealsounder territory Sparta):in archaeology, perioikic poleis,229,237;ofSellasia,199-200,211;of sites,(HI) 312,(R) 328 size of,246 Teuthrone, textileproduction, 388, 389 bis themes(themata), Byz,339 TheodoreI Palaiologos,368, 369 TheodoreII Palaiologos,369 Theológos,seeAgiosIoannisTheologos Theophano(empress), 385 Theophrastos:on Arkadia,100;on trees,99-100 Theopompos,19 TheotokosPanagia,391 Thera,surveydata: El A, 154;EAr,157;Ar,174

see Therapne Therapnai, 18,221& n.; Dioskouroi,231;Menelaion, Therapne, 309; whatkindofplace,233 n. Thessaly,HI, 316 81 thistles, Thomas Palaiologos,369 Thornax: area attacked,251;mentioned, 216,309; possiblesite,167n., 220,282 Thouria,234

and Ag. Saranda,392; in Chrysapha threshing-floors: basin,166,386; Ott-Ven,377 80 thyme, 242; foundation, 253; size,246 Thyrea, 19;Cl sett.,184-5;l°stbySpartain C4 BC, Thyreatis, 317;R, 329; as Spartanterritory, 242; road to,217, 239; sett,changes,253,254 Tiasa (river),18 tile-grave, 193 reinterpreted, tile(seealsostampedtiles;tile-grave): Hl-R, 273-4; LAr-Cl, 187,192 timber(seealsowoodcutting), in S. L., 107 research,in L., 31-4 topographical torrent beds,40, 105,107,346 Toúrles(A3018-19), 38, 132,133,223 in Mani, 75,404; LByz,371,372; tower-houses: Ott-Ven,377 and surveydata,437 relations, town-country towns:LAr-ECl, in LS area, 163;and R élite,332; Byz-Ott,348; in Homer,16-17;in L., 322; in Table,21; in Pliny,22; in Ps.-Skyl.,19;in Peutinger 21; in Strabo,22 Ptolemy, tracks(seealsopaths;roads):Ar-Cl, 216,217bis;C19, 379; Med, 342 trade(seealsoexchange;imports;marketeconomy): EBA, 134;MBA, 141;LBA, 147;LAr-Cl, 226-7, 234,240,254-5;MR, 332; LR, 334; EByz,400; MByz,400-1; Ott,402 transects (withinsites),43 in C14 Pel.,389; in transhumance (seealsopastoralism): L., 387-8; limitedtoday,418; nearAg. Saranda,416 ofpopulations:MByz I, 353,in C17, transplantation, 377 diachronicdevelopment, 433 transport, travellers (EMod), 28-31,415-16 seewoodcutting tree-felling, battlesof,403-4 Tripolitsa, Zeus Messapeus):name, Tsákona(N415;seealsounder 352; route,214 Tsakonians,seeTzakonians Tserámio,232 Tsiliotós(seealsoAgiosIoannisTsiliotos),name,352, 389 TsiliotouRéma, 291 Tsoúni:in Frenchsurvey, 378; mod. sett,form,408 Turko-Venetian period,seeOttoman-Ven Turks,seeOttomanempire

Indexes 457 villas(seealsomultiplefarms):LAr-Cl assemblages, 190-1,194;R, 334; Byz-Ott,394-6, 348; and intensification, 249; sitesize category, 163,193 Villehardouin, de, 368 Geoffroy WilliamII, 368 Villehardouin, vines,seeviticulture and land use,41; and (seealsointervisibility): visibility [seealso underAgioi Saranda): defined,390; on typika 47; and sites,41,45, 161,263,266 rewalking, bridge,358,390 viticulture: Byz-Ott,385; MByz (Keos),401; in C17, Tyros,242 bis 385; in C19, 385; C20 extent,417;Chrysaphabasin, Tyrtaios,17 Tzákona,seeTsakona 385 366; LS area, 69; monasteries, Tzakoniandialect,351 Vitylo,342 Tzakonianplace-names,336,352; in Chrysaphabasin, Vlachokerasiá,vegetation near,106 Vlachs,388 357 seasonal?351-2 Tzakoniansettlements, Vordónia,229 votives:at Menelaion,219-20;at Zeus Messapeus,220 Tzakonians,27; in LS area,388, 389 Vourliá(seealsoSellasia;Vroulia),407; in Grimani Tzítzina:C19 economy,104;conifers, of, 109;kalyvia near,93 census,380; in C19, 379;vegetation 388,416; partofGoritsa,408 Vourliótikoi Kámboi,LAr-ECl sites,170 218 unifiedlandholdings Vourvoura,oakwoodnear,87 [seealsofragmented), Voutiánoi:layout,408; mod.,380; olivecultivation, units,withinsites,264 seeunder use categories, near,78, 81,83, 93 384; vegetation pottery Vrondamás:monastery at, 390; vegetation, 105 seeVrondamás Vrontamás, valonia,traded,107bis,108,342 Valoniaoak (see also Quercus animals,387; documents, 386; 2); valonia), Vrontóchion monastery: macrolepis [index metochia, 382; water-mills, 82, 84-5, 107-8,355 371,380, 393; olive-trees, no Vamvakou,conifers, 434 Vrouliá(seealsoSellasia;Vourliá),mod.koinotis, 380 Vandals,333 Vrouliás,379 Vapheió,LH, 146,148 Vardoúnia,230; oaks,84 Vrylias,379 Vurlia,379 tab. Vardounochória, 403,404 Vutiani,380 Varvítsa,oakwoodsnear,87 bis Vasarás:vegetation near,78, 97 walls(seealsoterracewalls):anc, 193;ofSparta,319bis vessels;pottery vases,seeminiature war ofindependence, Greek,404; economiceffects, 418 name,372 Vasilopótamos, watersupply(seealsoprecipitation; and irrigation, springs; spring-lines; 418 vegetable-growing, streams;wateravailability; water-mills): Agios vegetation(seealsofire):pre-Nl,112-14;EIA, 154;and Konstantinos, 141; altitude,77; and grazing,95; factorsaffecting, 173-4;and animalhusbandry, and crops,65-6; and geology,67; and sitelocation, 115-19;humanimpactin prehistory, 81, 114;anc. sources,99-102; ofL.; general,73 172-4;and trees,68 tab.;Chrysaphabasin,Cl, Venetianperiod(seealsoOttoman-Ven),347;in L., 373 219;lesserfactorin Cl sitelocation, 179-80;cisterns, Venetians:at Monemvasia,26; and Sparta,361-3,382; 415;Neogeneplateau,278; 184;local variation, rivers,141,173,355; Sellasia,173 372,373;censuses,405; in Morea, besiegeMystras, water-mills (seealsomills):usedfromHI or R, 434; 34^403 Ott-Ven,377 Vérroia,82, 253 ofsoils,65-6, 77 water-retention, Verus,Lucius,332 wax,356 Vérvena,vegetation near,78 on LAr-Clsites,188,190,191,193bis weavingequipment, Vigies(D302),167,371 in in absent LS basin,173 EBA, wells, data, 424; 132, Chrysapha villages:prehistoric, westGreekkoine (EIA), 153 135;LBA, 144;LAr-ECl, 163,193;LAr-Cl finds, westernsector:Nl, 123-5;EH, 130;MH, 137-40;LH, 188;Hl-R finds,301;Byzadministration, 344; 144,145;LAr-ECl, 166-7;C1>l8°; Cl-Hl, 298; HI Byz-Ott,defined,348; MByz I, 356-7; MByz III, BG, EMod, mod., Ott, 408, 420; 272;HI, 279-83,325; Hl-R, 298,336-7;R, 102-3; 380, 344; 364-5; anc. sizes,247;clustered, 292-4,335-6; EByz sitesabsent,352;LByz neglectof 408-9; defined,264; Ν part,371;MByz I, 353;MByz II, 358-60; MByz diversified near,418; in L., 75; LS area, agriculture III, 365,366; Byz-Ottestates,396-7; attacked,251; 35-6 7-8, (SE)246; linear,409; surveyed, type(i) sites,Byz-Ott,394 type(ii)sites,Byz-Ott,394-7 type(iii)sites,Byz-Ott,397 type(iv)sites,Byz-Ott,398 typesherds,Hl-R: 260; and sitestatus,259-60,261 types types,ceramic,seepottery

458 Indexes cultivated fromSparta?210;described,258-9,345, to scatters, LAr-Cl,204; proximity 346; low-density 233 Sparta,199;routes,216-17;Spartanterritory, wheat:C20 extent,417;irrigated, 415;predictedyields, 66 69; requirements, wheeledvehicles:used LBA-R, 433; Byz,lesscommon, 433-4 whitefir,no wildalmond,80 'wild'landscape,uses,9 wildoats,418 wildolives,96 wildpear,79 wildpigs,109 definedbycultsites,233 wilderness, winds:and evaporation, 6, 11 65; prevailing, windmills: EMod, 434; C19, 377,393 wine,seeviticulture wolves,in Parnon,109 81, [seeabocoppicing;pollarding; woodcutting timber), 86; at P284,356; in L., 115-16;limitedimpacton 115-16 vegetation, woodland[seealsooakwoods;pinewoods):fir-woods, 91; increasing today,117;riverine, 93; Taygetos,ana, 102 woolproduction, 388 Wyse,Sir T., on GreatLangada, in Xerokámbi(NE L.), 242,253

Xerovoúni,significant name,no-η yew,rarein centralPel., 102 YoungerFill,in LS area,62 bis Zagáno: houses,409; layout,408; routeto,215,216 Zaraphóna,pinewoodsnear,82 £arax,size of,246 zembils,35 Zerbitsa,391 Zerdari(seealsoSardari),405,407

zeugêlateion (see also zevgalatia),26

Zeus,dedicationto,222 Zeus Messapeus(Anthochori), 231-2 Zeus Messapeus(nearAphysou;seealsoTsakona),220, 220; Hl-R, 231;G, 153;EAr,156;HI abandonment, 309; LH1 revival,286; ER/MR revival,220,296

410 zevgalátes, zevgalatía(see also zeugêlateion), 410 410 zevgolati,

Zipf's law,425-7 Zolína (J317), 380 zones(ofLS area),36 ZoodóchosPigí,367 Zorzi,San, 377 Zuanne,San, 379 tab.,410 Zugni,379

(2) SELECT BOTANICAL INDEX Englishnames,whereused,are listedin index1. Abies,82; A. cephalonica, 86, 89; anc. name, 100 Acersempervirens, 79 Agrimonia 87 eupatoria, Andrachne (seealso andrachne in index1), 94 hermanniae, 80, 92 Anthyllis Arbutus andrachne, 79; A. unedo,78, 79 Asplenium adiantum-nigrum, 83 Avenasterilis, 81

Ceterach officinarum, 83 Chamaespartium 87 sagittale, Cistusincanus,87; C. salvifolius, 80, 87 bis,88 Clematiscirrhosa, 87; C.flammula,80 87, 88 Clinopodium vulgäre, Colutea,95; C. arborescens, 94 Cotinus,92; C. coggygria, 79, 106; as dye, 105 heldreichii, Crataegus 79

Boletuscf luteus,87 retusum, 80, 83; B. sylvaticum, 83, 87 Brachypodium Bupleurum fruticosum, 94

Dactylisglomerata ssp hispânica,81 Digitalisferruginea, 83, 87

Calicotome villosa,80 87; C. versicolor, Campanulaglomerata, 94 Cannabis,104 Carexpêndula,91 80 Ceitis,111; C. orientalis, ulmi,99 Ceratocystis Cercis,95 bis

Erica arbórea,79 bis,83, 87, 88, 106 Ficussycomorus, 104 Filaginellauliginosa, 87 Fragariavesca,87 Fraxinusornus,80, 94, 95 quater,98 Galactites hispida,88

Indexes 459 Galiumrotundifolium, 90 Genistaacanthoclada, 87, 88 80; H. perforatum, 87; H. Hypericum empetrifolium, tetrapterum, 91 Isothecium 98 myurum, Juncusejfusus,9 1 absent in L., 80, 87, 89; J. phoenicea, Juniperus oxycedrus, 79 Lactariuspallidus,87 Laurusnobilis,95, 97 Lobariapulmonaria, 98 Loniceraimplexa,95 Loranthus 87 europaeus, Luzulaforsten, 87, 88

82; inlowlands, Quercus brachyphylla, 82-3,87,88; anc. name,100;under-reported, 109 Quercus'calliprinos',100

Quercus coccifera 78 foi,79 £w;anc. (prickly-oak), names,100fo'j;in Leake, 105 82; in L., 85-7, 88; anc. name,100 Quercus frainetto, Quercus ilex,94, 95 foj,in Greece,97; anc. names,100 106 bis',misreported? macro Quercus lepis(Valoniaoak),82, 107-8;anc. name,100; in L., 84-5, 107 82, 86 Quercus pubescens,

Rosaspp,96

Ruscusaculeatus,94 Russulacf atropurpurea, 87

Melica uniflora, 87 Onosmasp, 94 80 Ostrya,94, 95 quater,98, ni; 0. carpinifolia,

in hedges,95-6; /?spinaPaliurus: Christi, 80, 98-9 in gorges,95 ter;in maquis,78; i? Phillyrea: latifolia, 78; /?mÄ, 78 Phlomis fruticosa, 92

Pmz/j 86, 88; 82, 89; anc. name,100;i? mgra, halepensis, anc. name,100;P.nigra 89 ssppallasiana, Pistacialentiscus, 78 Primulaelatior,87; i? vulgaris, 87 Prunellavulgaris, 91 Ptilostemnon 94 chamaepeuce, Pyn/iamygdaliformis, 79; Ρ pyraster,95, 99

81 Scolymus hispanicus, Silènecucubalus,94 Smilax,83, 93; S. áspera,80 80, 82, 90, 95; S.junceum,80 Spartium, 94 Stachyschrysantha, 88 bromoides, S/zjfrß Thymuscapitatus,80 77/z'fl rubrifolia 95, 97-8 ssp pseudorubra, Trifolium 87 pratense, 87 Tussilagofarfara, Typha,93 Ulmusminor, 93, 99 Fü'o/ö riviniana, 87; V reichenbachiana, 87 Viscumalbumssp abietis,100

Fto, 93

(3) ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL SOURCES

Alcm.testim.9, frs14,26, 62, 89, 92 Page/Campbell, 18 n.; fr.19Calame, 231 fr.49, 19η., 278 Androtion, Ar./totf, 245,ι η. Arist.Po/,ii. 1264a 10-11,321; 1269b 23-6, 1270a 18, 23"9>29-34,320 AssizesofMorea, 107 Ath.iv.141f-142c, 318 n. Cedrenus,ii. 451,400 n. 11.48-50, 351; 22. 196-9,353 n. Chronicle ofMonemvasia, Chronicle oftheMorea,3339 334 η., 363

Ç7xi-53-!>333η·

De administrando ConstantinePorphyrogenitus, império, 50 (p. 232)11.20-1,352 n.; 11.76-8, 382 n. Diod. Sic. xix.70. 4-5, 317 n. GeorgiusSyncellus, p. 467 (717),333 Hdt. i. 69, 220; 69. 4, 1 n.; v.42-8, 248; vii. 234,ix. 10,n, 28, 208 Hermas,Shepherd, 78. 4-10 (parable9. ι), ιοί Horn.//.ii. 581, 17 η., 3f7 η·5 b^l~b^ τ^' w-51"2?*7 η.; ix. 150-2,292-4, 16; Od. iv. ι, $ι-2, 17 η·5 6θ2~4> *7 Hsch. s.v.Σελασία,22 1 η. xiv.5. 6-7, 3 '9 Justin, ofTrogus, Epitome

460 Indexes Leo Diaconus,iii.9, 385 η. 319 n.; 21. 1, 309 n., 318 n.; 22. 3, 282, 318 n.; 22. 8-23. 5, 309 n.; 22. 9, 318 n.; 24. 1-7, 309 n.; Livy,xxxv.27. 13,30. 9, 169 η., 285; xxxviii.30. J, 3!9; 34,3l8; 34 8> 19 n· 24· 3-4» 259; vi·45· 3>/3 η·5 ix· ι· 4, «4 η·; 2. i-2, Luke 2: 1,21 η. 24 n.; 26a. 2, 319; xvi.37. 2, 286; xx. 6. 1-6,xxxvi. MichaelAttaliotes, i. 177,339 η. Historia, l7-5~I0> 3°8 2. ι, ι η. Nep. Timoleon, PomponiusMela, ii. 3. 4, 1 n. i, p. 188,368 n. Pachymeres, 46, 19 Ps.-Skylax, Paus.: Ptol.Geog.iii. 14.31-2,43, 21 i. 13.6,319 ix. ι, ιοί ShepherdofHermas,Parable, ii. 38. 7, 20 n., 102 Sid. Apoll. Carm.44, 334 iii. 1. 1,1 n., 102; 10.6, 102; 10.7, 286; 14.8-10, 24 Steph.Byz.575,7-8, 20 n.; s.v.Θεράπναι,231 n. n.; 16. 2, 24 n.; 18.6, 18 n.; 19.7, 216, 310; 19. Strabo,ν. ι. ι. 363,ι η.; viii.4. Π· 3^2, Ι9? 22; 4· 11. 7-8, 221, 281; 19.9,309; 20. 1,221, 281, 310; 20. 362-6. ι. 368,2ΐ; 4· n. 363>322; 5· ι. 363>2ΐ η.; 5. 2, 221 n.; 21.7, 331 n.; 22. 8, 100; 23. 2, 21 n.; 24. 3· 364,2ΐ; 5· 4· 364~5·5· 366>22; 5· 4· 365>322 η.; 5. 6-8, 22; 8. ι. 388, ΐοο 6-25. 10,24 n.; 26. 7, 332; 26. 8, 16 iv.4, 20 n. Tac. Ann.iv.43*20 nn. bis vii.23. 7-8, 24 n. TheophanesConfessor, Chronographia, 422-3,429,351 viii.9. 1,100; 12. 1,99; 27. 4, 19; 54. 1,20; 54. 5, & nn.; 486, 356 n. 100; 54. 7, 24 Theophr.Hist,pi iii. 9. 4, 5, 100; 10.3, 100; 16. 2-3, Philostr.VA8. 7, 101 99, 100; 17.1,100; v. 2. 1,100 fr.44, 318 n. Thuc. i. 10.2, 421 n; i. 128,20 n.; ii. 27.2, 19 n.; iv.53. Phylarchos, Pind.Pyth. xi. 61-4,Nem.χ. 55-7,Isthm. i. 30-1,231 n. 2, 1 n.; v. 14.4, 19 n.; 33. 1,19 n.; 67,20 n.; 68, 20 Plin.//jViv. n.; 71,20 n. 5. 16-17,22; vi. 34. 39. 214,1 n.; xvi.20, frs3-4, 7, 9, 17 100; xvii.18.30. 133,1 n.; xxv.8. 53. 94, 1 n. Tyrtaios, Plut.Agis,5. 6, 320, cf.321, 324; 8. 1,18; 8. 1-3,322; VitaNiconis, 353, 357, 363; 35,390 n.; 74,382 n. 13,18; Kleom. 23 (44). 1,322; 28 (49). 8, 318 n.; Lyc. Xen. Hell.ii. 2. 13,19,169 n., 229 n.; iii. 2. 8, iv.8. 5, 8. 5, 13 n.; Mor.(π. φνγης)6oi b, 334; Pyrrh. 27. 5, 240 n.; v. 2. 24, 20 n.; vi. 5. 24, 19 nn. bis)5. 27, 319 169 n., 216, 233, 239, 251; 5. 30, 233; 5. 30-1,

Polyaen. iii. n. 6, 169 n., 239 Polyb. ii. 54. 3, 19 nn. bis; iv. 81, 20 n.; v. 18. 4, 318 n.; 18. 10, 309 n., 318 n.; 19. 3-8, 309 n.; 19. 4,

221 n.; vii. 1. 28, 239 n., 251 n.; 4. 12, 239; Lak. pol. 15. 3, 320

Zos.v.6. 4-5,333

(4) SELECT EPIGRAPHIC REFERENCES Bull.ép.1991,no. 297,231 η. CIG 8704,390 η. IG ν. ι. 538,333; 728,334; 919,221 η.; 1227-34,2O η. LS'û. 214no. ι, 38 η., 222 η; 214 no. 2, 182 η., 286;

2ΐ8 no. 11, 21; 219-20 no. 14, 222-4 nos 17-21, 273; 226-7 no. 28, 390 nn. SEG xiii.239,239 n.; xl. 348,321 η. SGD/2565,31811.

(5) SELECT INDEX OF GREEK WORDS αχλαδιά,352 άρια,ΐοο δρυς, ΐοο δρυτόμοι,ιοί εκατόμπολις,19 ελάτη,ΐοο, 109

Κτητόρισσα,355 κώμαι,154?247 Λακωνική,ι η. Λακεδαίμων,17 λεβάδεια,78 λιπανδρεΐ, 322

λόγγος,78 μίλος,ΐοο πεύκη,ΐοο πίτυς,ΐοο πλατύφυλλος,ΐοο πολίχναι, 19,22, 322

Indexes φ' ΐοο πρίνος, ρέμα,75 ρεύμα,75

σμΐλαξ,ΐοο σπηλαιωτός,352

συντζά,352 την άπό, 18 ύφέαρ, ΐοο φαράγγι,75 φελλόδρυς,ΐοο

φηγός,ΐοο φρύγανα,78 Χτόριζα,355

(6) SITES AND FINDSPOTS in thetextand footnotes; This coversall sitesand findspots citedbynumber footnotes are notdistinguished. Tables on and maps are not indexed.A page-numbermayindicatemorethanone citationin the textand/orfootnotes locator.Discussionmayalso thesame page; multiplecitationson a page are thuscombinedintoa singlereference discussionsis in bold type.Place-names,where extendontoa following page. A selectionof the moreimportant indicated,shouldalso be soughtin index1,whereadditionalinformation maybe given.Furtherplace-namesare in thesitecatalogueat LS ii. 321-438,and a listofall siteand findspot numbersis givenat LS ii. 456-9.

Aioo: 269, 271, 272, 273, 286, 296, 297. 327. 431 Aioi: 296 ano: 285 A118(Palaiogoulás, Sellasia;see also index/): 35, 43, 51, 153,156, 163, 168, 171,173,181,185, 195, 196, 221, 267, 269, 271,274, 283, 286, 287, 302, 307, 311,324, 328, 431, 432 A119: 168, 221, 261, 286, 309 A120: 168, 182, 221, 261, 286, 301 A3014: 170, 172, 195, 200, 217 A3018 (Tourles): 38, 132, 133, 223 A3019 (Toúrles): 38, 132 B103: 170, 171,173, 181, 185, 191, 192, 217, 224, 298, 432 B104: 286, 298 bi05: 132 B107: 170, 172, 173,217, 285 Bin (Ágios Konstantinos;seeindex1 formainentry): 29, 42, 51, 123, 125, 127,130, 163, 168, 169, 172,173, 181,183, 185, 195,204, 267, 269, 271,274, 283, 285, 286, 288, 296, 302, 307, 311,328, 432 B115:204 B116:42, 123, 125 B121: 161, 170, 172, 173,217, 296 B123: 137,271, 285, 296 B124 (Ágios Panteléimon): 358, 367 B132: 285, 296 B300: 341, 358, 360, 367, 371,374, 431 C108: 204, 296, 298, 327 C114: 170,171,173,185,204, 217,271,

273, 285, 286, 298, 431, 432 C126 (Límnes): 41, 42, 130, 431 C128: 431 Ci3i:43i C167: 296, 297, 298 C168: 272, 285, 296, 297, 298, 327 C169: 170, 171,181, 185, 195, 217, 269, 285, 296, 298

e8i: 123, 282 E89 (Gephyritou Kopána): 341,434 E90: 261 E94: 296 E304: 296 E305: 204 E308: 41 E310: 296

D50: 261 D83: 261, 341 D84: 261 D85: 180, 186, 191, 194, 195, 199, 204, 250, 251, 269, 280, 282, 283, 293> 342 CI92:365 D96: 167, 171,180, 191, 195, 204, 250, 282, 342 D97 (Skoura): 365, 371, 377 d98: 365

F2: 296 f4: 261, 285, 296 Fio: 296 fi3: 285 F14: 285 F72: 273, 285, 296, 308 F133: 285 F135: 261, 286, 296, 297, 309-10 F136: 272, 296, 298 F137: 204, 284, 285, 296 FI39· 374, 431 F140: 272, 273, 284, 285, 296 F142: 47, 284, 285, 298 F143: 261, 284, 285, 296, 298 F144: 284, 285, 296, 298 F145: 285 F146: 347, 360, 374, 431 F147: 181, 285 F148: 285 F149: 304, 377, 393 (now dated Byz-Ott), 397 F152: 284, 285

D301:167,171,195,282 D302 (Vigies):167,371 D306: 293 D368 (AvlákitouToúrkou):283 D3026 (Panagia):365

E3: 296 E48(8o) (Plakiá): 42, 123-5, I27 E49: 226, 261 E53 (ProphítisIlías): 293, 367 E55: 204 E56: 296, 298, 308 e58: 281 E75: 204, 397 E76: 204, 269, 271, 285, 296, 298 E77: !23> 365 e78: 123, 130

G154: 41, 132 G155: 285, 296 G156(Potamiá): 371,374, 377,383,

39^397

G157: 168, 171,173, 181, 185, 217,

462

Indexes

285, 296, 431, 432 G158: 296, 304, 431 G159: 181, 195, 204, 217, 285 gi6o: 41, 285, 296 G161: 296 G162: 285, 336, 352, 365, 371, 374,

383,431

G163:204,296, 298 G164:285,296, 298 G165:296, 298 G166:296 G182(AgiosNikólaos):217,285,336, 365,383,3745391,396,431 G252:161,272,296 G254:360, 369, 371,431 G522:37,7,392 G4004(AgiosDimítrios, Mavríla): 391 Hu: 293,431 H17:281 H18:204,257,281 H19:281,283,293,301,304 H20:367,431 H21:281,367,431 H22:293,306 H24:281,293 H25:204 H26:204 H27:261 H28:293 H29: 167,171,293,367 H30:204 H31:178,180, 186,190,193,194, 199,204,249, 251 H32:271,281 H33:204,281,293,360, 394 H34: 180,195,199,251,261,281,341 H35:204,281 H36: 293 h37:281 H38:204 H39:281,293 H40:167,171,i8o, 191,195,199,251, 360,365,367,398 I142:365 (?); see H45 (Geladári, Thornax indexi formainentry): 5, 35, 47, 51, 132,142, 143, 144, 145,146, 148, 163, 167,185,213,216, 220, 266, 267, 269, 271,272, 274, 279, 281, 283, 287, 288, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312,327, 431 H46: 216,261,282,294,296 H47:213,261,282,293 H5i:2O4,365,367,397

h6o: 180,183,251,281,431 h6i: 293 J44:37^374, 397,43! J170(Morou): 281, 336, 341, 353, 355j 357, 358, 369, 374> 377,

431 J210:161,281,298 J212:180,251,281 J213:167,171,185,191,195,199,273, 281,282,431 J214:204 J215: 221, 261, 294, 310 J216: 204, 281, 298 J217: 204, 281 J218: 281 J219: 167, 168, 171, 185, 281, 434 J220: 167, 168, 171, 180, 273, 293, 294, 298, 377 J221: 167, 180, 185, 195, 282, 309 J222: 204, 269, 272, 281, 283, 293, 294, 431 J223: 167, 193, 398 J224: 167, 196, 224, 281, 283 J225: 204 J226: 281 J227: 281 J228: 272, 293, 294, 298 J229: 271, 281, 282, 298, 306, 398 J230: 47, 167, 191, 193, 224 J231: 180, 183, 186 J232: 281, 371, 398 J316: 167, 171, 180, 183, 196

J317 (Zolina):204,365,366,371, 38°,398

J367:47, 221,397,398 J369(ÁgiosGeórgios):47, 167,180, !93, 36o, 371,397 J4007(Kokkinórachi): 371,379 J4008(Kokkinórachi): 273,336, 371, 379 J5008:294 K141:181,204,271,272,284,285, 296, 298, 327 K151:285 K153:204,284, 285 K2oo: ΐ68, 171,ΐ73,J95,204,217, 285,432 Κ201:283,294 Κ203:168,171,181,195,284,432 Κ204:204,283,294,295,377,392, 397,431 Κ205:283 Κ207:294 Κ211:281,283

Κ233·271,272,283,284,286, 294, 296, 335 Κ234:283 Κ235(ÁgiosCharálambos):167, 168,171,180,191,224 294,365,380, Κ237(Kokkinomallí): 396,431 K239: 272, 293, 294, 431 K240: 283, 293, 294 K241: 283, 294 K242: 269, 271, 272, 273, 283, 286, 294, 296, 431 K243: 283, 294

K244:168,204,272,296, 397,431 k245:168,204,360, 371,397,431 K246:281,283,294 K247(Chtóriza):283,336,353, 355 ^, 356, 357,360, 365> 367,371, 374,377,383,398, 431 K250:204,214,283,294 k25i:294,306 K253:371,374,431 K255:270, 296 K257:204,371,431 K258:204,365 K297:294 K298: 283,295 K299:271,283,286, 294 K403:294,295,369,431 K404,294 K407:279,283,286 K414:143,214,223 K419:204,273,279,283,286, 295, 296 K515:143,272,294,295,296, 297 L400 (ÁgioiPántes):156 L401:123 L402(ÁgiosGeórgios):369, 391,392 L406: 271,279,283,291,292,295, 298 1476:279 L477:279,391 L534(ÁgioiSaránda):214,346, 391, 392,411,431 26, 356 L4001(Paliomonástiro): M171:167,191,192,193 M172:143,180,183,192,193,251, 271,281,341 M174:281 M175:281,298 M176:204,272,293,294,298, 301 M177:281,283, 298 M194:42, 167,185,192,221,342 M321(Myloi):166,204,214,271,

Indexes 463 272, 281, 283, 293, 294, 327 M322: 41, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 149, 167, 173, 185, 195, 196, 431 M324: 293 M325: 43, 167, 180, 185, 195, 224, 298 Π1326: 47, 204, 269 M327: 47, 204, 269, 271, 281, 283, 298 M328: 47, 167, 180, 183, 193, 195, 199. 293> 298, 397 M329: 204 M332: 365> 397 M334 (Ktirákia): 204, 261, 273, 294, 334j 36°, 396> 431 M335: 281, 293 M336: 293, 431 M339: 293 M341: 293 M343: 293 M344: 204, 281, 293, 294 M346: 281, 293, 360, 374, 396 M347: 167, 193, 195, 199 M348: 272, 273, 281, 293, 294, 301, 431 M349: 41, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 281, 298 M350: 293, 294, 298, 301 M351: 204 M352: 204, 273, 281, 293, 294, 431 M353: 273, 281, 282 m355: 293, 3°6 m356: 44. 47, 293 M357 (Aphysoú): 130, 132, 204, 281, 293

M361: 281, 293 M362: 281 M365: 47» 293

N183: 164, 173, 178 N184: 48, 164, 173, 178 N185: 164, 173, 178 N186: 48, 178, 271, 278, 301 N187: 164, 173, 178 N188: 48, 164, 173, 178, 191 N189: 364, 371 N190: 204, 357, 364 N191: 136, 137, 140, 274, 291, 292, 364 N192: 278, 291, 431 N193: 164, 173, 178 N195: 204, 346, 364, 367, 397 N209: 281 N312: 132, 185, 214, 397 N313: 204 N314: 164, 173, 178, 291 N315: 274, 294, 296

11318:303 N333 (Georgáki Ráchi): 130, 431 N354: 164, 173, 178 N363: 123 11366:132 N409: 186, 214, 223, 298 11410:43? i395 i43

n4Ii:435 139.!43

11412:43, 139 N413: 43, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 430 N415 (Tsákona, £eusMessapeus;see also index/): 29, 153, 156, 214, 218, 223, 261, 269, 286, 296, 309, 336; 352 N417 (Agios Geórgios): 377, 379 N418 (Agios Geórgios): 143, 342,

365,377,431

N430: 214, 223, 261, 279, 291, 309 N503: 164, 173, 191, 198, 214, 223 P260 (Neraïdalona): 223, 279, 309 P261: 178, 183, 194, 195, 224, 250 P262: 164, 178, 183, 191,195,223, 250, 279 P263: 42 P264: 223, 279, 298 P265: 42, 132 P267: 130, 133, 204 P268: 164, 185, 214 P269: 134, 430 P270: 204 P271: 164, 178, 194, 198, 214, 279, 298 P272: 163, 164, 185, 190, 194, 198, 223, 228 P273: 164, 223, 228 P274: 164, 191, 192, 223, 228 P278 (Ágios Dimítrios): 164, 165, 185, 215, 218 P279: 164, 191, 215, 218 P284 (seeabo Sotír in index/): 130, 132, 133, 134,204, 214, 261, 264, 271, 273, 274, 279, 291, 298, 336, 342,

346,353,355,356,357,360,3^5, 367>371,374,391,398,43°, 431; EH, 130-2; Hl, 279; R, 264, 291; Byz-Ott,353-5, 356~7> 365, 391; LByz,371; Ott,374, 398; nodeofroutes,214; route to,379

P285: 130, 133, 164, 190, 194, 198, 223, 228 P286: 164, 223 P288: 130 P364: 132 P405: 132, 279

QI79· 357, 360, 394 Q180: 272, 293, 294 Q181: 271, 280 Q358: 431 Q359: 271, 280, 293 Q360 (Menelaion; seeindexifor main entry)'. 38, 41, 43, 51, 123, 130, 136, !37, !39, Η0, !42, 143, H5, !48, 153, 156, 161, 218, 261, 282, 294,

3°9, 43!

Q3007 (Agriliá): 258, 303 Q3009 (Melathriá): 143, 144, 145,

!47, H9

R275(AgiosNektários):165,173,

191, 194, 214, 215, 277 r276: 165, 173, 191, 194 Γ277: 165, 173, 191 R280: 42 R281: 163, 165, 178, 185, 190, 194, 215, 218, 271, 277, 298,431 R282: 178, 183, 186, 215 R283: 178, 204, 215 R287: 130, 133, 336 R289: 42, 130 R290: 48 R291: 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 144,

!45, !49, 43°, 431

R292: 136, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145 R293: 277 R294: 48, 166, 171 R296: 223 R420: 165, 191,194, 196, 198, 214, 218 R421: 178, 183, 194, 261, 277 R422: 204, 277, 298, 301 R423: 261, 270, 274, 277, 278, 291, 298, 306 R424: 42, 136, 142, 143, 144, 145 R425: 143, 204, 291, 298 R426: 272, 291, 292, 298 R427: 166, 215, 224 R428: 130, 133, 134, 204, 430 R429: 123, 125, 204 R454: 204, 277 R456: 192, 204 R457: 42, 137, 140, 143, 204 R461: 166 R469: 271, 274, 277, 278 R472: 277, 291, 292 R473: 166, 191 R518: 166, 215 r525: 42, 137 R526: 165, 178, 185, 191, 195, 215 R528: 204 R3012: 123, 130, 133, 134, 430, 431

464 Indexes R3025:143 R4000(AgiosIoánnisTsiliotós):336, 352,372 S431:130,165,173,178,191,215,298 S432:165,173,178,191,215,298 S433:48, 165,172,191,194,198 S434·'!36> !4°, 142,144,l65, !72 S436:269, 271,273,277,279,298 S437·l65, !73?178»l85, 191»Σ94, 198,224,298 5439,173 5440,173 S441:365 S448:42 S450: 165,204 S451(AgiosGeórgios):165,204, 367 S458: 165,173,191,194 H59: 165.173,196,430 S460:165,196 S466: 270, 277,291,301,367,397, 431 S474:132,277,298 S475(AgiosTheódoros):204,277, 291,298, 302,346,365,367,371 S478:136,137,140,143,144,145,431 S508: 165,173,215 S509: 165,173,191,215 S523:165,173,178,298 S524:163,165,185,190, 194,198, 215 S527:165,173,194 T443:48, 165,172 H44: 48 T445(Metóchi):291,306, 347,360, 37I,393>431 T446: 277 T464: 270, 291 T465: 179,183 T467:204,277,278,279,301,306 T468: 204 T470:204,270,271,277,279,291 T471:166,171,179,185,191,194, 196,198,278,287,288, 301,431 T479:204,278 T480: 123 T481:123,277,278,291 T482 (AgiaParaskeví):291,302 T484: 166,171 T485:278 T510:291,298 T512:166,172,185,191 U483:372,397,431

U486:204,367 U487:123,130,377,392 U488 (PanagíaPhaneroméni): 204, 278,279,291,367 U489: 130,204 see U490(PanagíaChrysaphítissa; indexi formainentry): 38, 45, 51,

54, 123,133»!43, H4, H5, H6» 161,166,172,179,185,191,194, 215,224,244,264,266, 267,271, 272,273,274,277,278,288, 291, 293,297,298, 301,327,336, 344, 345,346, 352,353,355,357,36°, 365,366, 371,372,377,397,398, 43! U491:166,178,179,183,185,190, 194,198,223,271,278,309, 367, 431 U492:223 U493(AgiosNikon):166,172,173,

U3002(Phagiá):38, 166,179,222, 224,278,309 U3003:165,171,185 U3005:38, 134,430 U3006(Charakókambos): 38, 130, 143,144,146,149,185,215 U3011(ÁgiosEfstrátios): 377 U3022:165,172,179,191 U3023:204 U3024:165,166,172,179,191 U4006(Goritsá):215

LS 10030: 281 LS 10036: 204 LS 10046: 204 LS IOO48: 204 LS IOO66: 367 LS IOO82: 204 LS IOO83: 143 LS IOO83: 204 LS IOII2: 143 191,215 LS IOI36: 204 U494: 163,166,171,173,178,179, LS IOI44: 204 183,185,190,194,198,215,278, LS 10170: 41 291,302,431 LS IO172: 204 U496: 179,186 LS IO179: 143, 204 U497:204 LS IOI92: 296 U499: 166,171,179,183,185,191, LS IO229: 204 194,198,269, 367,431 LS IO234: 204 U500(Αϊ-Láas, Polyzéfka): 43, 130, LS IO236: 204 !32,133,!79, l86, 244j 278,360, LS IO241: 204 367, 372, 431 LS IO241: 294 U501: 132 LS IO328: 367 U502: 132 LS IO359: 204, 269 U505(Kalorókoni):204,365,377 LS IO367: 204 U506(Kalorókoni):179,186,191, LS IO371: 204 215,365,377 LS IO379: 296 U511:178,179,183,190,194,224, LS IO395: 204 269, 270, 278,279,291,298, LS IO399: 204 309, 366, 367,398 LS IO431: 204 U513(Chrysapha):166,277 LS 10473: 204 U514:136,137,H3, H4, !45, 146, LS IO493: 143 204 LS IO496: 42, 123 U516(Makariá):178,179,183,188, 194,196,224,278,291,298, 309, LS IO534: 204 LS IO571: 204 366, 367,371,398, 431 LS IO575: 204 U519:178,179,183,190,194,215, LS 10590: 204 278,291,298, 301 LS IO594: 204 U520:143,179,191,215 LS IO595: 204 U521:291,298 LS 10614: 293 U531:166,172,185 LS 10616: 204 U532:123,130,132 LS 10618: 204 U533:377 LS 10627: 204 U3000(MegáliLímna):132 U3001(ÁgiosNikólaos,Palaiókastro): LS 10646: 204, 293 LS 10649: 204 38, 130,133,134,165,166,172, LS 10664: 204 179,222,224,244, 430

Indexes 465 LS 10824: 143 LS 10843: 204 LS 10884: 204 LS 10903: 204 LS IO951: 360 LS II 107: 143 LS inn: 204

LS 10708: 143 LS 10719: 204 LS 10809: 204 LS 10811: 204 LS 10815: 143 LS 10818: 204 LS 10822: 204

LS III 18: 204 LS III 19: 204 LS II 122: 272 LS II 149: 204 LS II 159: 204 LS 12503: 143

(7)ADDENDA TO INDEX IN VOLUME II ii. 332 basket-bridges, ii. 277,ii. 363 olive-presses, nameofG156), Potamiá(alternative ii·35! presses,ii. 363,ii. 277 Síntza,ii. 282

Sitziáphi,ii. 285 ii. 348, 377,378,424 spring-houses, bis ii. 324,328,411 spring-lines, (zoneA) ii. 321,ii. 322,ii. springs, 324,(B) ii. 329 bis,(C) ii. 330,(D)

ü· 332>(E) ü· 338>(G) ü· 347>35!> (K) ii. 369, (L) ü. 378,(M) ii. 382 bis,(N) ii. 391,ii. 395,(S) ii.417 Syntza,ii. 282 ii. 285 Syntziáphi, Tsiliotó,ii. 415