Lakonia and Samos During the Early Iron Age. a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates-libre

o

This volume is dedicated toProfessor Vassos Karageorghis, Nestor of Cypriot Archaeology

ISBN 978-960-7143-40-2

Copyright 2012

. . ,

UNIVERSITY OF CRETEDepartment of History & Archaeology

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

Archaeological Institute of Aegean StudiesArchaeological Institute of Cretological Studies

MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

- C O N T R I B U T O R S

.It is noted that each writer was responsible for the corrections of his/her paper.

Nicoletta Antognelli Michel Doctoral candidate (PhD) at the University of Freiburg i. Bernau-Menzen-schwanderstr. 16. D - 79837 St. Blasien. [email protected]. Andrea Babbi Alexander von Humboldt Post-Doc. Ruprecht-Karls-Universitt Heidelberg Zentrum fr Altertumswissenschaften Institut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte und Vorderasiatische Archologie Marstallhof 4. D-69117 Heidelberg Deutschland [email protected] . . [email protected] BeckmannUniversity of Crete. Vigla Panagia Lakonia. 72100 Agios Nikolaos. [email protected]. Giorgos Bourogiannis Postdoctoral Research Fellow. Medel-havsmuseet, Fredsgatan 2. Box 16008, 103 21 Stockholm. [email protected]. . [email protected]. . . K A. 71202, . [email protected] . . 23, . , 32007 [email protected]. Florentia Fragkopoulou 28100. [email protected]. Kostas Georgakopoulos Archaeologist. 23d Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. Xanthoudidou and Chatzidaki 71202, Heraklion. [email protected]

Professor Antoine HermaryUniversit dAix-Marseille I. Centre Camille Jullian. [email protected]. Reinhard JungFachbereich Altertumswissenschaften. Universitt Salzburg. Residenzplatz 1 / II. A-5010 Salzburg [email protected]. Athanasia KantaDirector of the 23d Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. Xanthoudidou and Chatzidaki 71202, Heraklion. [email protected] Professor Vassos [email protected] Litsa Kontorli-Papadopoulou Associate professor of Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Ioannina Themistokleous 69, .Psychiko, 154 51 Athens [email protected]. Konstantinos Kopanias Lecturer in Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Athens. Department of History and Archaeology - University Campus. GR 157 84 Athens - Greece [email protected]. Antonios KotsonasAmsterdam Archaeological Centre University of Amsterdam. Turfdraag-sterpad 9, 1012 XT. Amsterdam. The Netherlands [email protected] Panagiotis Kousoulis Ass. Professor of Egyptology. Depart-ment of Mediterranean Studies. Univer-sity of the Aegean. Rhodes, Greece. [email protected]. () 33, 11257 . [email protected] . lebentakis_nikos@yahooProfessor J. Alexander MacGillivray Palaikastro Excavations. British School at Athens. [email protected]

Dr. idem ManerKoc University. Department of Archae-ology and History of Art. Rumeli Feneri 34450 Sariyer. Istanbul Turkey [email protected]. Isabelle MartelliPhD. University IULM Milan-Paris IV SorbonneItalia [email protected]. Mathias Mehofer Archaeometallurgy. VIAS - Vienna Insti-tute for Archaeological Science. Franz Klein-Gasse 1. A-1190 Wien [email protected]. . 10, 71305, [email protected] . . [email protected] Thanassis Papadopoulos Emeritus professor of Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Ioannina Themistokleous 69, .Psychiko, 154 51 Athens [email protected]. Laura-Concetta RizzottoAntikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Bodestr. 1-3 D- 10178 [email protected]/[email protected] . . . .. - 85 100 . [email protected] T . 4 GR - 302 00. . . . . . [email protected]

- C O N T E N T S. . 8N. Chr. Stampolidis Introductory note 9 . 10Angeliki Giannikouri Greetings and Compliments 11 - Abbreviations 12

- The Earthly World Vassos Karageorghis Notes on Music and Dance in Cyprus: The Archaeological Record, from the Late Bronze Age to the Cypro-Archaic Period. 15Sabine Beckmann Resin nd Ritual Purification: Terebinth n Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age Cult 27Nicoletta Antognelli Michel Palms And Papyruses in the Late Minoan/Helladic III: The Exotic World, the Fantastic World and the Afterworld 41idem Maner A Comparative Study of Hittite and Mycenaean Fortification Architecture 53Giorgos Bourogiannis Rhodes, Cos and the White Painted Ware of Cyprus: Introduction to Contacts in the Early Iron Age 65 83 . : ; 93Florentia Fragkopoulou Lakonia and Samos during the Early Iron Age: a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates 101

- The Celestial WorldKostas Georgakopoulos A Note on a Hittite Bull-Leaping Scene and its Minoan Perspectives 111J. Alexander MacGillivray The Minoan Double Axe Goddess and Her Astral Realm 115Panagiotis Kousoulis Egyptian vs. Otherness and the Issue of Acculturation in the Egyptian Demonic Discourse of the Late Bronze Age 127Efthymios Lazongas Gates and Pillars of Heaven. The Architectural Structure of Cosmos in Greek, Egyptian and Near Eastern Tradition and Art 139 . , , 153 . M A: K 161Antonios Kotsonas Three Early, Limestone Sculptures from Gortyn and their Mediterranean Profile 177

8 ATHANASIA

- The UnderworldKonstantinos Kopanias Paradise Lost. The Image of the Netherworld in the Near East 191 203Athanasia Kanta A Minoan Version of the Djed Pillar and Other Borrowed Ideas About the Afterlife in the Cretan Late Bronze Age 229Thanasis Papadopoulos - Litsa Kontorli-Papadopoulou Power, Troubles nd Death in Late Bronze Age Aegean nd Cyprus: the Evidence of Warrior-Graves and Painting 237 - Reinhard Jung - Mathias Mehofer . 247Laura-Concetta Rizzotto Sptbronzezeitliche und Frheisenzeitliche Steinerne Sarkophage auf Kreta und auf Zypern 265 . . 275Andrea Babbi , , ...Clay Human Figurines from Early Iron Age Italian Childrens Tombs and the Aegean Evidence 285 305Isabelle Martelli Women Go Further: Understanding the Handmade Globular Pyxis from Protogeometric Greece to Southern Italy 321 - . . ; 335Antoine Hermary The Cypriot Kourotrophoi : Remarks on the Mother with Child Theme 341

9ATHANASIA

I N T R O D U C T O R Y N O T E

An arduous effort which we made in 1997 had two aspects: first a series of international conferences and

symposia and second extensive archaeological exhibitions, both focusing on the relations developed between the peoples of the Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. The present International Archaeological Conference entitled Immortality; The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age is included among them.The Athanasia conference was preceded by: 1. The International Conference Eastern Mediterranean; Cyprus Dodecanese Crete, 16th-6th c. BC, 1997 Proceedings of which were published in English in 1998. 2. The International Conference PLOES - Sea Routes; Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th - 6th c. BC in 2002, whose Proceedings were published in English in 2003.In the interval from 1997 to 2003 the following great archaeological exhibitions with the same name as the above

conferences took place. The first exhibition was in Heraklion, Crete in 1998. This exhibition was taken to Italy, to the Musei Capitolini of Rome in 2001, with the title Sulle Rotte di Omero. The second exhibition, Ploes, took place at the Museum of Cycladic Art in Athens in 2003. At the same time as the exhibitions detailed catalogues pertaining to them in Greek and English (1998), Italian (2001) and in Greek and English (2003) respectively, were published.Parallel to this overall investigation, a series of symposia on more specific topics began. Their aim was to cover gaps in various sectors of our knowledge. Thus, the International Symposium Cremation in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age was held in 1999 and its proceedings were published 2001; also, The Aegean in the Early Iron Age took place in 2002 and its proceedings were released in 2004.In conclusion, the continuous effort to understand the relations of peoples, groups or individuals in the Ancient Mediterranean in an ideological frame, is focusing now on issues related to the Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld aspects of culture. This focus, through discussion and papers hopefully will produce new knowledge and conclusions which will help move research one step further.Unfortunately, various problems concerning the collection of the papers, their corrections and other external causes, delayed the printing of the proceedings of this conference, three years after its realization. This is an unusual occurance for us in all our previous editions. We apologize for this and we hope that it will not be repeated in our future efforts.Warmest thanks are once again due to the Ministries of Culture and of Merchant Marine, Aegean and Island Policy, not only for their financial but also their moral support. The University of Crete is always willing to support similar initiatives and for this we offer our thanks. We are also grateful to the Institute of Aegean Archaeological Studies and its Director Angeliki Giannikouri and to the Institute of Cretological Studies and its former director

Dr. Athanasia Kanta (former Head of the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion and now Director of the 23rd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities) and to the staff of both Institutes. Special thanks are due to archaeologists Alexia Speliotopoulou and Danai Kontopodi for their efforts towards the organization of the Conference. The difficult task of producing this volume of the Proceedings was taken over by Athanasia Kanta and by Danai Kontopodi who was responsible for the layout, organization and graphics design. Finally, sincere thanks are offered to the Mediterranean Archaeological Society, which through the selfless work of its members has become a major sponsor of this volume.

Nicholas Chr. Stampolidis

11ATHANASIA

G R E E T I N G S A N D C O M P L I M E N T S

It was a great pleasure and honour for me to welcome the delegates to the International Archaeological Conference Immortality: The Earthly, the Celestial and the Underworld in the Mediterranean from the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age.The Institute of Aegean Studies has always worked constructively with the Ephorates of the Dodecanese and with universities, research centres and other organizations. Among them were the Technical University of Bari, the Universities of Molise and Palermo, the University of Crete, the National Technical University of Athens, the Institute of Historical Research: Department of Greek and Roman Antiquity, the Democritus Institute and others. The present conference, organized with the productive cooperation between the Archaeological Institute of Aegean Studies, the University of Crete and the Archaeological Institute of Cretological Studies, falls in this context.Our cooperation with the University of Crete is an old, successful recipe, which dates from 2001. With my dear friend Nicolas Chr. Stampolidis we have organized four conferences, the Proceedings of which have been published.However, I am delighted, for the launch of collaboration with the Institute of Cretological Studies, which hopefully will not be limited only in terms of conferences and research activities. Let this be the beginning of activation and cooperation among the institutes of the Ministry of Culture on common goals, in order to develop into an active research area of the Ministry.The conference was organized with the financial support of the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Island Policy and the University of Crete. Our gratitude is expressed to the Ministries and rector authorities. It would be remiss not to mention the important facilitation of our efforts by the officers of the Department of Culture - Ministry of Mercantile Marine, Aegean and Island Policy. I refer in particular to Mrs Magda Alvanou, who always finds a way to support our efforts.My heartfelt thanks are due to the Mayor of Rhodes Mr. Hatzis Hatziefthimiou who demonstrated once again his sensitivity and interest for the cultural matters of our region, which for him are a top priority.Thanks are also due to the KAIR company and Mr Pontikakis, owner of Pane Di Capo for their support.I would like to express my thanks to Nicholas Stampolidis and Athanasia Kanta, as well as to the people who helped and contributed to the success of this conference. These include the staff of the Archaeological Institute of Aegean Studies and especially Anna Karavokyrou and Fani Seroglou. Also, many thanks are due to Danae Kontopodi and Alexia Spiliotopoulou, archaeologists of the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion.Finally, we owe many thanks to the Ephors Mrs. Melina Philemonos and Eleni Papavasiliou, as well as to the colleagues of the 22nd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and of the 4rth Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, who guided us to museums, archaeological sites and monuments of the city of Rhodes.

Angeliki Giannikouri

13ATHANASIA

Florentia Fragkopoulou

Lakonia and Samos during the Early Iron Age: a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates

ABSTRACTDiscussion of the influences between Lakonia and Samos have for many decades dominated scholarly appreciation of Lakonian art, especially with regard to ivory objects. Nevertheless, this debate has rarely touched upon the reasons for such a close artistic relationship between the two states during the late Archaic period. The focus of this paper is on interpretation of late 7th century artistic influences between Lakonia and Samos as the result of a series of long economic and political processes (and deliberate choices respectively) generated before late Archaic times within a framework of Lakonian activity that involves also a revised look at the Messenian War dates.

. , . 7 - ( ) - .

103ATHANASIA

Discussion of the influences between Lakonia and Samos have for many decades dominated scholarly appreciation of Lakonian art, especially with regard to ivory objects. The main aspect traditionally emphasized (initially by the primary authors of excavation reports1 and later, in the case of ivory, in Lila Marangous major study)2 concerns the influence on Lakonian production of contemporaneous Near Eastern trends filtered through Samos.3 Yet such discussion of bidirectional influences between Samos and Lakonia rarely touches upon the reasons for such a close artistic relationship between the two states during the late Archaic period.4 Important recent exceptions are found in the work of M. Pipili and C. Stibbe, who have approached Lakonian pottery at the Samian Heraion from the perspective of how cult practice (and consequently consumption needs) at a non-Lakonian sanctuary might have affected Lakonian vase-painting.5 I will not reiterate their conclusions, since the focus of this paper is different - on interpretation of late 7th century artistic influences between Lakonia and Samos as the result of a series of long economic and political processes (and deliberate choices respectively) generated before late Archaic times within a framework of Lakonian activity that involves also a revised look at the Messenian War dates. Historians are used to refer to the special relationship between Sparta and Samos, which is seen as supported mainly by the arrival of Lakonian pottery in quantity from the last two decades of the 7th century onwards by a supposedly (vague but) close connection between an Ionian and a Dorian state,6 the beginning of which cannot be safely dated, and by an economic connection which is interpreted as becoming important only in the 7th century (when archaeological evidence begins). 7 Thus no satisfactory explanation is provided as to the reason/s that led to the appearance of Lakonian objects en masse on Samos during the particular period. This means that the beginning of this special relationship is still not deined.8 Within this already problematic framework, Samos is further connected with Sparta by virtue of having supported her during

1Dawkins1905-1906,318-330;1906-1907,44-108;1907-1908,4-29;1929,203-248.2Marangou1969. Inbothcases, theexcavatorsandMarangouswork,discussion is restricted to stylisticdescriptionandsomepreliminary remarksconcerningapparentartisticinfluences,orconnectionsoftheobjectswithdatesestablishedinbibliographyascrucialforthedevelopmentofthesanctuaryofArtemisOrthia,i.e.thedateofthesandlayerwhichmarksthepre-6thcenturyandlateArchaiconwardsphasesofthesanctuary.Inanycasesuchremarksarebasedonthearbitraryassumption(presentedasafact)thattheparticularsanctuarywasthemostimportantSpartansanctuarydiachronicallybecauseofthequantityofvotivesrecoveredfromit.Althoughthelatterwereretrievedbecausetheyweresealedbeneaththeaforementionedsandlayer,scholarshiphaspaidlittleattentiontotheroleplayedbythiscircumstanceinboostingtheimportanceoftheOrthiasanctuaryfromaveryearlystage.HadtherebeensuchasandlayerinotherSpartansanctuaries,asimilarorevenlargernumberofvotivescouldhavebeenretrievedtoday(consider,forexample,thelateArchaicmirrorfromtheAkropolisasanexampleofbronzevotivesdatedroughlytotheendoftheperiodinquestioninSparta,Th.Karagiorga,AD20,1965,96-109,aswellastheseriesofbronzefigurinesexhibitedintheNationalMuseumofAthens,A15891-92(twofemaleprotomes),A15893(nakedmalefigurine),A15895(lionfigurine),A15896(Athenafigurine),A15897(nakedfemalefigurine/dancer?),A15898(frogfigurine),A15899(protomebearinghelmet),A15901(sirenfigurine),A15903(mirror),A15904(lionhead),A15905(pomegranate),A15906(bracelet),A15907(fibula),A15912(inscribedplaque),A15913(strigil),A15915(partofinscribedknife),A15916(inscribedplaquedepictingchariotrace),A15917(gorgoneio);seealsoWoodward1923-1925,266-276;analogousvotivesofthisscaledoseemtohavesurvivedfromeitherattheOrthiasanctuaryortheAmyklaion).ThisemphasizesthebiasedpicturecreatedbymodernjudgementofwhatconstitutedanimportantsanctuaryinSparta.Suchanapproachisstaticandseekstodefinealineardevelopmentofthesanctuary,andthusfailstofollowthedevelopmentofthelatterinrelationtotheothersanctuarieswhicharesituatedinthecoreoforaroundSparta,andultimatelytoofferanyinsightonthecomplementaryroleofSpartansanctuariesintheSpartanstateformation.Foracriticismofart-historicalapproachesthatdonotofferanyconceptualizationofthepast,andthusfailtoproceedbeyondart-history,seeSiapkas2003,5ff.Theparticularmatterisofimportanceinthepresentdiscussionbecausetherigidartisticapproachhasproducedaseriesofone-sidedinterpretationsconcerningbothSpartanstateformationandinterstaterelationshipswhichbecomesobviousinthecasesofSamosandtheMessenianWars.3Cf.alsoCarter1985,7273,78157.4Apartfrompotteryandivories,duringthe7thcenturyaseriesofmarbleperirrhanteriaisfoundonSamos,indicatingfurtherartisticrelationshipswithSparta,Carter1985,93,112n.84.5Pipili1987;1998,82-96;foralistofallrelevantbibliography,seeStibbe2000;1997,25-166.6Alinkhighlyvaluedbybothcommunities,accordingtoGrahamShipley,1987,55andn.33whereallrelevantbibliographyisgathered.CartledgeattributesthisspecialrelationshiptoaformofinterstaterelationshipwhichwasbasedonlinkshonoriscausatothesentimentallinkbetweenametropolisanditscolonyusingasparallelsthosebetweenMiletusandSibaris,KnidosandTaras,TheraandSamos,andKyreneandSamos,1982,244,249.Bothapproachesareputforwardinanaxiomaticwayfailingneverthelesstoclarifyhowthiscloselinkwasformed,seealson.8.7Allmaterialevidencecannotbedatedbeforethe7thcentury:theearliestpieces(whichconsistoffragmentsofalargeLateGeometricamphora,afragmentofLakonianI,andoneortwomorefragmentsbelongingpossiblytothe7thcentury)aredatedtotheendofthe8thcentury,Diehl1964,543ff;Lane1933-1934,178ff.WithreferencetotheproportionofallexportedLakoniandecoratedvasesbetween580and525foundonSamosLanewasthefirsttoobservethattheproportionofLakonianvasesfromSamosoutnumberbyfarthemoreeasilyobtainableKorinthian,thusconcludingthattherelationshipbetweentheSpartaandSamoscannotbeexplainedintermsofpurelycommercialgrounds,1933-1934,178ff;Cartledgehascommentedthatacommercialexplanationforatleastthegreatmajorityofthemmustbesought,1982,253,butheisnotrightinsuggestingthattheearliestexamplesdatedtothesecondhalfofthe7thorthefirsthalfofthe6thcenturiesbecomemoresignificantinthatLakonianpottersandpainterswerenotworkingforexportyetatthatpoint,ibid.252;cf.nn.28-31belowwhereLakonianactivitywithinandoutsideLakonianbordersbeforethemiddleofthe7thcenturyisexamined;Shipleydisagreeswiththetermcommercialimplyingthatthereismorethanmerecommercialrelationshipsbetweenthetworegions,1987,86.8Cartledgesuggeststhatthespecialrelationshipalreadyestablishedinthemid7thcenturywasgeneratedbythearistocratictiesofnoblefamiliesofthetwostates,1982,251-256.Althoughsuchanexplanationdoesnotprovideasatisfactoryreasonastohowthesearistocratictiesweredeveloped,politicaltiesbetweentheSamianandSpartanaristocracieshavebeenexaminedonlyinthelightofthisspecialrelationshipsofar,Carter1985,93,112n.83,seen.6.

FLORENTIA FRAGKOPOULOU

104 ATHANASIA

the mid-7th century against the Messenians (Hdt. 3.47)9 which has been identiied as the expedition known as the Second Messenian War or Messenian Revolt.10 However, the connection is further complicated in this case by the fact that the dates of the Messenian Wars remain a puzzle to scholars, and cannot be used as a chronological reference point. Traditionally, the First Messenian War is dated in the 8th century, and the Second in the 7th. The extant literary evidence has been discussed in detail by Robert Parker, and so I merely emphasize that in all cases the evidence is too slight to offer any hope of progress.11 What matters in the present discussion is that the dates applied to the Messenian Wars remain guesswork, and the relevant arguments are circular. But it is worth considering whether and how - the Samian case might shed light upon the date of the second Messenian War at least. Let us begin by considering how the relationship between Lakonia and Samos gradually developed.The main source of evidence for this relationship is pottery. M. Pipili has convincingly demonstrated that Lakonian pottery imports at the Samian Heraion were the result of special commissions which seem to have been a lourishing industry for Lakonian vase-painters.12 Therefore, this paper rests upon the observation that the large number of Lakonian-made objects (mainly pottery, and to a lesser extent, small inds)13 deposited at the Heraion may demonstrate close commercial ties between Lakonia and Samos, even if they were deposited by Samian dedicators.14 There is no reason automatically to assume that Lakonians were active participants in worship at the sanctuary, although one cannot exclude the idea altogether. But one can say that the necessary Lakonian role on Samos stops at the point when Lakonia provides the Samians with material for dedication (according to the Samians needs). This has two main implications: irst, the role played by Lakonians on Samos had a clearly commercial character which cannot be stretched back before the late Archaic

9 , , , , , , , . ...,TheLakedaimoniansthenequippedandsentanarmytoSamos;theSamianssaythatthiswastherequitalofservicesdone,theyhavingfirstsentafleettohelptheLakedaimoniansagainstMessenia;buttheLakedaimonianssaythattheysentthisarmylesstoaidtheSamiansintheirneedthantoavengetherobberyofthebowlwhichtheyhadbeencarryingtoKroisosandthebreastplatewhichAmasisKingofEgypthadsentthemasagift.ThisbreastplatehadbeenstolenawaybytheSamiansintheyearbeforetheytookthebowl,Loeb,trans.Godley.10TheaidthattheSamianssenttoSpartahasbeeninthe7thcentury,Cartledge1982,256-259,whichisfurthersupportedbythearchaeologicalevidenceasisshowninthecourseofthepresentdiscussion.ThereisnoothereventmentionedinthesourceswhichcangetconnectedwiththeSpartan-Messenianconflictduringthisperiod.ThismeansthattheSpartan-Messenianconflictcanonlygetidentifiedwiththeso-calledSecondMessenianWar,alsoknownasMessenianRevolt;allsourcesandbibliographyrelevanttotheSecondMessenianWararegatheredinLuraghi2008,79,286-287;theimplicationsoftheabovewithreferencetotheFirstMessenianWarareoutlinedinwhatfollows.TheincidentsoftheftonthepartofSamiansarenotofinteresthereastheybelongtoalaterperiodandrelatetothePersianWarscircumstances,formoredetails,seeCartledge1982,256ff.WithreferencetoHerodotuscredibilityasasourceforSamianhistory,ithasbeenarguedthattheSamianaristocraticfamilieswhoservedtheinterestsofAthenswiththeiranti-Persiantraditions,onwhoseinformationHerodotusworkdepended,hadinfluencedtoagreatextentHerodotustreatmentofseveralimportantepisodesofSamianhistoryindicatingpartialityfortheSamiangoodname,foradetailedanalysisonthematter,seeMitchell1975,75-91.SeealsoCartledge1982,245-248;R.Tlle-Kastenbein,HerodotundSamos,Bochum1976.11ThekeypointsherearetheresolutionofLakonianroyalgenealogy,theSpartannamesincludedintheOlympicvictorslist,thefoundingofTarasasaSpartancolony,thesevencitiespassageoftheIliad(Il.9,150-153.292-295),andtheGreatRhetra(orLykourganconstitution);eachoneinvolvesanumberofproblemswhichcomplicatesfurtherthematteroftheMessenianWardates;aboutthesunchronizationbetweenthePisatanseizureofOlympiaandtheoutbreakoftheSecondMessenianWar,aswellasthesuspiciousfactthattheOlympicvictorslistbetween736and716beginswithaMessenianvictorandendswithaSpartan,asimportantreasonstodoubttheaccuracyofthispartoftheOlympicvictorlistasmeansofdatingtheMessenianWars,seeChristesen2007,117-121;thefoundationofTarasisconnectedtothematterofthePartheniaiwhichisahighlycontroversialmatteritself(thenatureoftheparticulargroupisambiguousandmarginalwhichrelatestothefactthatfromtheirmaternalsidetheycouldhaveclaimedfullmembershipofthecommunity,buttheirpaternitymadetheminadmissible),seeParker1991,28-31;Kiv2003Ch.3nn.129,231;thesevencitiespassagehasbeenprovedtobeevidenceofconquestsagenerationorsobeforetheFirstMessenianWar,Parker1991,25-34;theRhetrareputedlyaDelphicpronouncementtoLykourgos,hasbeengenerallyagreedthatisatextwhichoriginatedduringtheArchaicperiod,andissupposedtodatefrombeforetheFirstMessenianWarandDelphisprominencetothesecondhalfofthe8thcentury,moreeasilyreconcilablewithalowchronology,Parker1991,41-42,beinginturnconnectedwiththecontroversialmatteroflandtenure(foradetailedanalysisonthematterseeHodkinson1986,378-406;1992,123-134;2000passim,andespecially65-112),andthedatesofKingsPolydorosandTheopomposwhoaddedanadditionalclausetheridertotheRhetra,Plut.Lyk.6.4;theriderdoesnotdatefromthesametimeasthemainpartoftheRhetra,butwasacorrectionofthepreviouslyestablishedsettlement,forfurtheranalysisseeKiv2003,197andn.215.Inbrief,whatbecomesclearisthatpoliticalhistory(basedonthesourcesunquestionablecredibility)hastriedunsuccessfullytocombineheterogeneousdetailsfromavarietyofnon-Lakoniansources(allmuchlaterthantheperiodtheydescribe)inordertoproduceacoherentnarrativeconcerningthedefinitionoftheMessenianWardateswhichdoesnotseemtobecorrespondingtotheactualeventsasisemphasizedinthepresentdiscussion,seealson.37below.121998,96.13Seen.4.14See forexample the ivory reliefplaqueswhichwere imported intoSamosfromSparta,Carter1985,93,112n.85.Although theseplaquesareestablished inbibliographyasimportedfromSparta,itisnotclearwhetherthededicatorswereSamiansorSpartans.

LAKONIA AND SAMOS DURING THE EARLY IRON AGE: A REVISED LOOK AT THE MESSENIAN WAR DATES

105ATHANASIA

period, and is thus unconnected with the supposed Dorian past of Lakonia15 which has been employed as an implicit explanation for the attraction between Samos and Lakonia, notably by P. Cartledge and G. Shipley.16 Secondly, it relates to Samian participation in the Second Messenian War, and consequently to the reappraisal of its problematic date.17 The fact that Lakonian pottery is found on Samos only for a relatively short period of time - between the late 7th century and ca. 52518, implying a commercial opening which did not last long, along with the fact that the Samians clearly sought to imitate Lakonian pottery production and decoration,19 emphasize that Lakonian vessels emerge as a prestigious category of votives (unless there was some other ritual reason why Lakonian pottery was preferred as a votive category, although the two explanations are not mutually exclusive).20 In any case, what is of importance is that Lakonian production was highly esteemed by the Samians during a speciic period of time. Lakonian vessels of the same period have, of course, been found elsewhere too (Boeotia, Rhodes, and Athens for example)21 but generally in extremely limited quantities, which means that its consumption by locals was occasional, or at least not as regular as in the case of Samos during this speciic period.22 So there was both a particular preference for Lakonian pottery on the part of the Samians and particular care taken by Lakonians to address Samian needs and preserve the market interest during a speciic period of time. Despite some similarities between the iconographical motifs used to decorate votives at Lakonian sanctuaries and those on Lakonian pottery deposited at the Heraion, there is a distinct difference in the scenes chosen to decorate vessels destined for consumption within Lakonian borders and on those for markets abroad. 23 This means that there was a conscious choice of particular elements to cover the needs of the Samian consumers. This involves a prioritization of iconographic topics, and clearly emphasizes that Lakonians consciously produced speciic categories of objects which would be dedicated within Lakonia, and variants of these categories as products for promotion elsewhere.24 From ca. 540 the tyranny of Polykrates marked a shift of Samian interest from Sparta to Athens, and Lakonian pottery from that time becomes gradually less common until it stops in 525 (when commercial relationships between the two states stop).25 So there are no simple, distinct dedication periods, but rather a dedicatory continuum with a peak and a low point. This means that we are not dealing with a long-term artifact connection between Lakonia and Samos, and we cannot thus explain this connection in terms of a special relationship

15TheobscurecloudoftheDorianpastcoversmanyexplanationsfortheformoftheearlySpartanstate,aswellastheoriginsofitsClassicalandpost-Classicalinstitutions.Thisisduetothewaysinwhichmodernscholarshavetakenearlyrhetoricalpointsanddevelopedthemasaframeworkofexplanation.AlthoughwecannottalkaboutanarchaeologyofDoriannessinanyrealsense,scholarlyworkhastendedtorefertotheSpartans,theirsystemandtheircharacteristics,asDorian.Onthearchaeologiesofidentityandmemory,seeAlcockandVanDyke2003passim.Onrestrictionsondiscriminatingbetweenidentitiesusingmaterialculture,seeStark1998,1-11.ThusthematerialevidencehasbeenseeninthelightofDoriannessandnon-DoriannesswithoutanyactualattempttotesttheexistenceofsuchDorianness.InallcasesthedebateovertheDoriannatureofSpartaandLakoniarestsontheunresolvedproblemoftheformationoftheLakonianeconomy,andtheequallyunresolveddebateaboutmasshelotage(fromwhichperioikizationstemsasaneconomicby-product).TheformationofLakonianeconomyandhelotagearelongprocessesthatbeganduringtheearlyperiodofSpartanstateformation,emergingfromthesocio-economicconditionssurroundingtheincorporationofnewpopulations.Thoroughexaminationoftherelevantsourcesshowsthatmythologyandhistoricalfactshavemergedinsuchacomplicatedwaythatanyattempttodeducedatescorrespondingtotheseeconomicprocessesisapointlessexercise.Foradetailedanalysis,seeFragkopoulou2010Ch.2.16Seenn.6and8.17Seenn.10and34.18Pipili1998,85;seealson.25.19ConsidertheIonianLittle-MasterCups,whichclayanalysisindicatesweremanufacturedonSamos,andtheimitationofthestyleoftheNaukratisPainterbyhisSamiancollegues,Pipili1998,85;cf.n.14.20Seen.19andthecaseofthecalyx-kratershapeencounteredattheSamianArtemisionandtheSamiannecropolis(thelatterdatedto550)whichdoesnotindicatewhethertheSamianshadimitatedtheLakonianshapeorvice-versa,Pipili1998,95.21Likethecup10711fromRhodes,whichshowsamanholdingalionontheleash,Pipili1987:24-25fig.35(no.77)1998:82;Stibbe1972:no.190;cup15373fromRhodes(Pipili1987,118no.209c);thecupfromAthensNM13910depictingamaninashortchitongraspinganelderlyfigureinalongdressbytheneck,Pipili1987,31-33fig.46(no.88);1998,82;Stibbe1972,no.103;no.113;seealsovase30inHeidelberg(Pipili1987,113no.58)fromBoeotia.22ThecataloguesincludedinbothPipilisandStibbesworkdemonstratehowbigthenumberofvasesrecoveredfromSamosisincomparisontootherregionswithinGreece,see,Pipili1987,111-119,andStibbe1972,269-290.23ThisissupportedbythethemeschosentodepictLakonianvesselsfoundelsewhereintheMediterraneansuchastheTyrhennianamphoradepictingHerakleschasingtwoterrifiedcreatures,Pipili1998,82.ThesamemoreorlesshappensinthecaseofLakonianactivityatOlympiawithreferencetothenumberofLakonianbronzeanimaldedicationsatOlympiaandSpartaincomparisontothenumberofLakonianhand-madeclayfigurinesfoundonlywithinLakonia,whichindicatesadifferenceinLakonianproductiondestinedforconsumptionwithinandoutsideLakoniaasisdiscussedfurtherbelow.24Cf.theconsciouschoiceofthestandardKorinthianorAtticschemes,suchasHeraklesandtheAmazonsusedbytheArkesilasPainter,onLakonianspartfoundoutsideofLakonia,Pipili1987,5-7fig.9(no.14);1998,82;Stibbe1972,no.193.ThisremindsusofthetwoprothesisivoryplaquesNM15518andNM16432depositedatthesanctuaryofArtemisOrthiaatSparta,Dawkins1929,210,Pls.102,2-3;1906/7,100,Pl.31g;Boardman1963,4ff;Marangou1969,50-52,Pls.38-39,whichisdecoratedwithatypicallyAtticsubjectnotfoundelsewherewithintheLakonianborders,thematterhasbeendiscussedbytheauthorinthepaperSanctuarydedicationsandthetreatmentofthedeadinLaconia(800-600BC):ThecaseofArtemisOrthiadeliveredattheCSPSInternationalConferenceHonouringtheDeadinthePeloponnese,Sparti23-25April2009on25.4.2009http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csps/news-events/peloponnese-2008.aspx,lastaccessedon29.11.2009).Alsocf.PipilisdiscussionaboutthemeaningofunexplainedscenessuchasthosepaintedbytheRiderPainter,1998,82-83,andn.23above.25Whichcoincideswiththefactthatin524theSpartansattemptedtooverthrowPolykratesandrestoresomearistocraticSamianexilestopower;Pipili1998,85;Cartledge1982,257ffhasdiscussedindetailtheSpartanexpeditionagainstPolykrates.


106 ATHANASIA

attributed to exceptional phyletic afiliations between a Dorian and an Ionian region.26This brings into play the question of how Lakonian activity moves from sanctuary to sanctuary (or out of sanctuaries) within and outside Lakonian borders. At the panhellenic sanctuary at Olympia, for example, Lakonians appear to have been involved in some way right from the beginning of its expansion towards a panhellenic role, that is from the 8th century.27 But there is a hiatus in material and epigraphical evidence for Lakonian presence between the very end of the 8th and the middle of the 6th centuries28 while during the same period dedicatory activity seems continues normally within Lakonian borders.29 Part of this hiatus coincides with the Lakonian opening towards Samos.30 So did Lakonians manifest their presence (physically or economically) at Olympia and Samos, respectively with the aim of expanding their inluence geographically?31 Given that neither at Samos nor at Olympia have we direct evidence for the participation of Lakonians in worship, one might argue that Lakonians were not attracted by the religious practice of these particular sanctuaries. Nor are there any securely identiied physical traces of Lakonian workshops at these sites, which makes it possible that all material attributed stylistically to Lakonia was imported.32 It thus becomes obvious that in both cases we have a form of Lakonian investment with potential connotations in terms of trade and consequently expansion of political inluence. So, by way of a summary, the interstate ties in which Lakonia chose to invest over time were directed by commercial and likely also political interests, and the case of Samos does not seem to be an exception to this. If we want to go a step further, given Herodotus report that the Samians actually helped the Spartans during the so-called Messenian Revolt, and given that this Revolt is equated with the Second Messenian War,33 then this Samian aid (and consequently the Second Messenian War) logically dates between the late 7th and mid 6th centuries, when the relationship between Lakonia and Samos reached its peak. Since the relationship between the two states was clearly commercial in character, there would have been no reason for Samians to have assisted Lakonia during a later period when Lakonian

26Seenn.6and8.27Fromthe8thcenturyonwardsbronzesandpotteryareidentifiedasLakonianbytheirstyle,Heilmeyer1979,134-136.28Bythemiddleofthe8thcentury,withreferencetofigurineproduction,Argive,KorinthianandLakonianinfluencesmix.TheresultisanOlympianenheimischstyle,influencedmorebyLakoniaandArgos.Bythelastquarterofthe8thcenturyArgivefigurinesdominate.TheintroductionofLakonianbronzehorsesatOlympiawasconnectedbytheexcavatorwiththeinstitutionalizationoftheGamesin776.AccordingtoHeilmeyerssuggestion,by750thesevotivesincreaseinsize,resemblingthehorsesatArtemisOrthia.Theirnumberincreases,andtheformshowsthattheyareproducedenmass.However,thelaterLakonianbronzes,whichappeartobeverythinandwithoutclearform,disappearbythethirdquarterofthe8thcentury(ca.743/2BC).TheinterestingpointisthatwhileLakonianbronzesdisappear,plentyofbronzesofotherregionalstylesarefoundduringthisperiod.Afterthishiatus,thenextknownexamplesofLakoniandedicationsatOlympiaarerestrictedtopieceslikethetwobronzemalestatuettesfromavessel,orthelionslegwhichwasmostpossiblyavesselsupport,bothdatedtothemiddleofthe6thcentury,Heilmeyer1979,136-138,192-198;Vikatou2006,59.29ThisistheconclusionwhichwereachbasedontheclayfigurineandpotterydepositionattheSpartansanctuaries,namelyAthenaChalkioikos,ArtemisOrthia,theAmyklaionandtheMenelaionsanctuaries,whichalllayaroundthecoreofwhatcametobeClassicalLakonia,seeFragkopoulou2010Chs.3-4.WithregardtobronzededicationswithinLakoniaduringthisperioditishardtoestablishapatternofproductionanddepositionbecauseoftheirsmallnumber.TheirdevelopmentcanbestudiedwithgreateraccuracyatOlympiaastheyformaclosedgroupofhomogeneousdedicationsatOlympiaincontrasttoSpartanpatchybronzeexampleswhichdonotdemonstratethesameuniformityinstylisticsequence.Thiscouldberegardedasamatteroflessemphasisonbronzeathome,andmoreatOlympiaasSpartansenteredintoanestablishedtraditionofdedicationatthisparticularsanctuary.Nevertheless,thebronzefigurinesfromtheAkropolisexhibitedintheNationalMuseum(A15891-92,A15893,A15895,A15896,A15897,A15898,A15899,A15901,A15903,A15904,A15905,A15906,A15907,A15912,A15913,A15915,A15916,A15917,seen.2)seemtoindicatethatleadvotivesfromSpartamusthavebeenrecast(andsopresumablyothermetalscouldalsohavebeenrecycled);butthelackofadequateleadevidencedoesnotpermitustodefinetheprecisestylistictrendswithinSpartaincomparisontoSpartandedicatoryactivityatOlympia,Heilmeyer2006,126-128.ThisraisesthequestionofwhetherSpartanelitesweresimplybehavinglikeotherwesternelites,ratherthaninthewaytheydidathome,orwhethertheywerebehavingastheydidasonepartoftheworshippinggroupwithinLakonia,butinlavishstyle.ThisbringsustothematterofhowLakoniandedicatoryactivitydevelopedinrelationtoLakonianpoliticalinfluenceexpansionaddressedfurtherbelow,seealson.26.30Cf.n.7.31ExplanationsforthegapinLakoniandedicationsatOlympiahavetendedtofocusonthepolitical.AccordingtoHeilmeyer,thefactthatbythetimethefirstSpartanOlympicvictorsappear(724/3)notracesofLakonianbronzeworkshopsarefoundatOlympia,showsthatthecloseofLakonianbronzevotivescoincideswiththebeginningoftheFirstMessenianWar,which,inturn,indicatesthattheproductionofthesebronzesisrelatedtotheperioikoi,Heilmeyer1979,192-198.HeilmeyersdatefortheMessenianWarreliesuponalate8thcenturydateforEumelos,whoissupposedtohavewrittenaprosodionfortheMessenians.However,Eumeloshasrecentlybeenmoresecurelyplacedinthe7thcentury,West,M.2002,Eumelos:aCorinthianepiccycle?,JHS122:109-154.ThematteroftheidentificationofLakonianworkshopsisratherpuzzlingbecausealthougharangeofmaterialmaybeattributedtoworkshopbystyle,therearenotracesofphysicalworkshops.ThisleavesunansweredthequestionconcerningtheextenttowhichthebronzeanimaldedicationswereactuallydepositedbyLakonianworshippersornot,aquestionwhich relates to thematter of howmuchofLakonian pottery found at Samoswas deposited bySamians and/orLakonianworshippers. Interest in expansion ofpoliticalinfluencemaybefoundalsointhetestimonyofAristotle(fr.533Rose=Plut.Lyk.1.1),accordingtowhomLykourgoscollaboratedwiththeEleianIphitosinestablishingtheOlympicekecheiria,thetrucewhichpreventeddisruptiontothegamesandprotectedvisitorstothembasedonasupposedlyancientdiscfromOlympiawithaninscribedtextandthenamesofIphitosandLykourgos;thediscisalsomentionedalsobyPausanias5.20.1,seeChristesen2007,18-19,57-73,147-160,67-73.Forthetruce,seeLmmer1982-1983,47-83;itisdatedtothelate6th-late5thcentury,Kiv2003,163-68andHornblowerandMorgan,2007,30-35.ThepoliticalimplicationsthatunderliemythologicalassociationssuchasthatbetweenLykourgosandtheOlympicekechereiacannotbeneglected.32Seen.31;alsocf.nn.14,19,andthesuggestionthatpotterspreferredtoworkwithclaythattheywouldcarrywiththemwhenevertheywouldworkbecausetheywerefamiliarwithitscharacteristics,pers.comm.withM.Pipili.33Seen.10.


107ATHANASIA

material at Samos was becoming less common, signifying a change in this commercial relationship. Now, if we accept that the Second Messenian War dates between the late 7th and the mid 6th centuries, then the First Messenian War (which our sources place two generations before the Second)34 must have been fought at the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 7th century. But this does not it the archaeological evidence so far used to date the First Messenian War, in particular the decline in the archaeological record from Nichoria in Messenia, which has traditionally been connected with Spartan expansion in Messenia.35 This material (i.e. pottery) is dated to the beginning of the West Greek Geometric period.36 So there is a major chronological gap between the evidence from Samos and Nichoria, which results on one hand from our continuous efforts to reconcile all potential evidence (textual and archaeological), and on the other from our struggle to conirm the result of this reconciliation through material evidence.37 Some form of Lakonian inluence over the future territory of Messenia certainly goes back before the period of the Messenian Wars.38 This is suggested not least by pottery,39 and means that we are dealing with some form of Lakonian intrusion into Messenia well before the suggested dates of the Wars, that is from the 9th century onwards. Since material evidence demonstrates strong Lakonian inluence from such an early stage, we cannot seek a turning point in Messenian craft production (as has happened in the case of Nichoria) which shows a clear break

34PausaniashastraditionallybeenregardedasourmainsurvivingsourceofevidencefortheFirstMessenianWar,andespeciallyforitsdateinthesecondhalfoftheeighthcentury.AlthoughPausaniasbasedhisaccountonaproblematicchronology(PausaniasclaimsthathissourcefortheFirstWarisMyronofPriene,andfortheSecond,RhianusofCrete,4.6.1-5,bothofwhomremainelusivefigures,datedroughlytothe3rdcenturyBC),ithasbeengenerallyacceptedthatthefirstwarwasfoughtintheageoftheSpartankingTheopompos,lastedfortwentyyears,andendedintheSpartanconquestoftheregion.OnthisbasisasecondwarisplacedintheageofTyrtaeus,twogenerationslater,foradetailedanalysisandafulllistofsourcesandbibliography,seeParker1991,25-47,andLuraghi2008,79,whoalsoemphasizestheadditionalproblemswhichstemfromdatingbyreignsandonthebasisofRhianus;onPausaniascredibilityconcerningtheMessenianWarsdates,seeSiapkas2003,78andn.268.35DarkAgeMesseniabelongedtoalargelyhomogeneousculturalareawhichincludedmuchofthewesternPeloponnese,Lakonia,Ithaka,AetoliaandAkarnania.Nevertheless,inthelateGeometricperiodMesseniadoesnotseemtoproducepotteryofadistinctregionalstyle,andartifactdeclinehasbeenobservedintheregion,characterizedasparticularlyobviousinthecaseofNichoria.TheimportanceofthesiteofNichorialiesintwofactors,a.itisthebestknownDarkAgesiteinMessenia,andb.itwasdestroyedbyfireinthemiddleofthe8thcenturyandnotreoccupied.TheartifactdeclinealongwiththefiredestructionofNichoriahasledscholarstoconnectMessenianartifactproductionwithSpartanexpansion,andhasconsequentlyledtoan8thcenturydatefortheFirstMessenianWar.Thereisnoneedtorepeatallworkdoneonthematterhere;foracollectionofallrelevantbibliography,seeLuraghi2002a,48-49.36Coldstream1968,220-32;Coulson1986,36-7,55-6,68-9.37InthecaseoftheMessenianWarsdatesemphasisisplacedonthesourcesandthecoherentpicturewhichcanbededucedfromthem,nomatterhowtheyarereconciled andwhether the combined elements contradict eachother (cf. n. 11 above), andon the placingof archaeological findswithin this coherent historicalframework,Siapkas2003,85.ItisalsoimportantthattheartifactdeclineofNichoriahasbeentakenasaformofbreakinthearchaeologicalrecord;anyformofbreakinthearchaeologicalrecordisusuallyevaluatedasimportantbeingtraditionallyconnectedwithdifferenceinethnicidentitydemonstration,ibid.75whereitisarguedthatThebreaksareimportantinordertodelimitthemosaicsofculturefromeachother.However,theyareonlyimportantbecauseethnicboundariesareregardedasthemostdeterminingfactorforthedevelopmentofhistory.ThisbringsustotherecentdiscussionofMessenianidentitydefinition,whichdoesnotliewithinthescopeofthispaper,neverthelessitrelatescloselytothematteroftheMessenianWardates,seen.38below.38Concerningbothpotteryandbronzefigurines,Coulson1986,36-7,69;Luraghi2002a,48-9.TheparticularmatterrelatestotherecentdebateovertheexistenceofadistinctMessenianidentityonlyfromthe5thcenturyonwards,seeLuraghi2008passim.TheoppositeisarguedbyThemelis2000,1whosuggeststhattheshapingofMessenianidentitybeganbeforetheSpartanconquest,butwasinterruptedbyit.AccordingtohissuggestionMessenianidentitywasdemonstratedthroughthememoryofachievementsoflegendarypersonssuchasAristomenes,thedesireofexiledMessenianstoreturntoanindependenthomeland,thecollectivememoryoftheepicsongsofAristomenesadventuressungbyMessenianwomenduringtheSpartanoccupation(Paus.4.16.6-7),andthelocalworshipofheroes(whichisbasedontheassumptionthatallreligiousactivitieswereconductedonacity-statelevel,andtherefore,theabundantevidenceforhero-cultindicatesakindofcity-stateorganization,Siapkas2003,68),seealsoThemelis2003,25ff.HeroculthasbeenaddressedinMesseniamostlyinrelationtothemanyBronzeAgetombswhichhaverevealedmaterialdatedfromtheLateGeometricperiodtothe6thcenturyinthatfindsareinterpretedasassociatedwithMesseniancultpractice,andanypossibilityofabreakincultisseenastheresultofSpartanconquestfromthe7thtothe4thcenturies.Nevertheless,suchanapproachtakesforgrantedthatanauthenticmemorywaskeptaliveduringthesupposedlongculturalbreakbetweenthe7thand4thcenturies,Siapkas2003,68.AdditionallyasevidencefortheexistenceofadistinctMessenianidentityfromtheBronzeAgetotheperiodoftheSpartanoccupation(withimplicationsinlaterperiodssocio-politicaldivisions)hasbeentakentheidentificationofMesseniainLinearBtablets,Zunino,M.L.1997.HieraMesseniaka:LastoriareligiosadellaMesseniadalletmiceneaalletellenistica.Udine:Forum:19-23,whichisbasedontheassumptionthatethnicidentitiesdonotchangeovertime,seei.e.Chrimes1949,275ff.Continuityisfundamentalinaregionshistoricaldevelopment,yetcontinuitycannotbeidentifiedwithestablisheddiscerniblecomponentsfromsuchanearlyperiod(i.e.thecity-statelevelonwhichheroesworshipisbased),andweshouldexpectcomplextransformationsovertime.ThisiswhytheidentificationofMesseniaasadistinctstateduringsuchanearlyperiodseemsproblematic.Moreover,theperiodizationofthepre-MessenianWars,theFirstandSecondMessenianWars,andthepost-MessenianWars,maybeuseful,stemmingfromourpreferenceforconceptualizingthepastintermsofclear-cutpoliticalentities,buttheseperiodshaveacquiredalifeoftheirown,andthishasnotaidedourunderstandingofthekindsofdetailthatactuallyexplainotherwiseobscureprocesses,suchassharedaspectsofcultorlanguageinMessenianandLakonianterritorypriortothelateArchaicperiod,Siapkas2003,61.TheargumentsusedinsupportofanearlydistinctMessenianidentity(thatislocalworship,memoryoflegendarypeople,theexiledMesseniansdesireforafreeMessenia)donotseemtobeclarifyingtheactualpictureofwhatMesseniaactuallywas600-700yearsearlierbecausetheyareretrojectedasready-madepackagesintoearlierperiods;onthematterofretrojectionemployedbypoliticalhistory,seeSiapkas2003,99;Fragkopoulou2010,especiallyCh.2.TheproblemovertheexistenceofMesseniaasadistinctstatefromanearlypointrelatesinturntotheMessenianWardatescontroversy,inthatnofirstwarisneededfortheculturalassimilationoftheneighbouringregionsofLakoniaandMesseniaasisarguedinthispaper,seenn.35-37.Forthedebateoversharedworshipdetailsbetweenthetworegions,andtheadoptionoftheworshipofMessenianmythologicalpersonae,suchasAphareos(Tyndareosbrother),hissonsIdaandLygkea,theircousinsDioskouroi,andLeukippusdaughters,Phoeve,IlaeiraandArsinoe(Asklepiosmother)inlaterperiods,seeThemelis2000,27ff.39Seenn.35-36above.


108 ATHANASIA

provoked by Lakonian intervention.40 This means that no war was needed for Lakonians to impose themselves in Messenia. Indeed, the whole tradition of two distinct Messenian Wars seems problematic. All sources are much later than the period they describe. The only pre-Hellenistic source for the wars is Kallisthenes fragment, and in general sources start to appear during the period of Messenian self-deinition. Although they present more or less the same information, there is variation in the details emphasized by each source according to the socio-political circumstances which generated each description. In Diodorus there is a sort of distinction between the period during which the Spartans were in control () of Messenia (15.66.2), and the actual enslavement ( ) of the Messenians after the First Messenian War (15.66.3). This stands in contrast with the other sources that refer to the Lakonian conquest of Messenia as achieved through two different wars.41 Fifth century authors like Herodotus (3.47.1) and Antiochus of Syracuse (FGrH 555 F13=Strabo 6.3.2), and then Aristotle (Pol. 1306b 37-38), speak of the Messenian War, which means that they knew of only one war. It is also suspicious that the distribution of the allies on both sides in the Second Messenian War resembles the alliances in the Peloponnese immediately after Leuktra (Argives, Arkadians, Sikyonians, and Pisatans on the side of the Messenians, and Korinth on the side of Sparta).42 This emphasizes the fact that the sources at our disposal are products of a mixture of different and obscure elements preserved in communal memory through oral tradition. A logical explanation would be that there was such confusion about what had actually happened in the distant past in the area of Messenia that no one was certain how many wars had taken place and what form these took. Distortion of the events described is thus inevitable, yet echoes of actual events were manipulated in later sources according to their contemporary socio-political circumstances and needs.43 This means that we should give priority to the material evidence itself and not to the sources. Messenian pottery and small inds demonstrate strong Lakonian inluences from an early point, as has been already emphasized. This would mean that we have a form of cultural assimilation, the products of which demonstrate a mixture of Messenian and Lakonian elements that does not show any radical change over time. What changes are the socio-political conditions described by sources the problems of which have been already highlighted.44 This means that political history has sought to ind a connection between the material evidence and the Lakonian conquest of Messenia in order to explain the socio-political changes recorded by the sources. In this way the First Messenian War emerged as a necessary cause of this connection. This means that according to the above, even if the Messenian Revolt to which Herodotus refers is dated at some point between the late 7th and mid 6th centuries, there is no actual reason (archaeologically at least) why we should seek a First War at all, especially since sources do not agree whether there were one or two Messenian Wars. Of course the matter needs further examination, especially in the light of future excavation results from the area of Messenia and Lakonia, nevertheless, the thrust of this paper has been to challenge assumptions and to identify what remains as robust with the aim to establish a new framework within which future discoveries can more proitably be placed.

40Craftproductionisnotnecessarilyinfluencedbyawarofcourse.Inthiscase,however,thereistheadditionalfactthatallaccountsconcerningthetwoMessenianWarsinvolveconflictinginformation,whichmeansthattheLakonianconquestofMesseniawasnotalinearprocesswithclearstages,i.e.thetestimoniesaccordingtowhichMesseniawasstillfreeaftertheFirstMessenianWar,andconquestwascompletedaftertheSecondMessenianWarwhichisanalysedinwhatfollows.ThisrelatestoLuraghispracticalremark(2002b,240-41)thatThehypothesisofawholepopulationbeingsubduedintoslaveryenmasseandinsituisinconceivable,andadditionally,withouthistoricalparallel.TheimportanceofNichorialiesinthefactthatitisthebestknownDarkAgesiteinMessenia,andthusisrelativeinthatgeneralizationsaboutawholeregioncannotbebasedonlyononesite,seen.35.41i.e.Pausanias,seen.33and40above.42AccordingtoPausanias(4.3.8),ArkadiansandArgivescontributedtothere-foundationoftheHerakleidkingdomofMessenia,withtheArkadiansreceivingtheexiledMesseniansandgivingthemcitizenshiprightsduringtheSecondWar,Luraghi,2008,79,102-3,whoalsorejectspre-4thcenturyliteraryevidenceaboutoneMessenianWarastheproductofSpartanpropaganda.43Thismeansthatwearedealingwithprojectionoflaternotionsbackwardsasaphenomenonofinterpretationinpolitical-history.InthecaseofancientLakonia,projectionofcontemporarynotionsfunctionsontwolevels:theprojectionfoundinancientauthors,andtheprojectioninvolvedintheworkofmodernresearchers.Projectionstemsfromthetendencyamonghistorianstohesitateaboutgoingbeyondwhatissupposedtobeknown;thisrelatesdirectlytotheissueofoursubjectiveintervention,Alcock2002:32n.57;Fragkopoulou2010Ch.1.44Whichbringsusbacktotheissueofdoubleprojection(seen.43)andhowmodernscholarshavefollowedsourcestotheletternomatterwhatdiscrepanciesthelatterinvolve,producingaframeworkofexplanationthatgeneratesmorequestionsthanitanswers,cf.n.37.


109ATHANASIA

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Alcock,S.E.andVanDyke,R.(eds.)2003,Archaeologies of Memory.Malden:Blackwell.Alcock, S. E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: landscapes, monuments and memories.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Boardman,J.1963.ArtemisOrthiaandchronology.BSA58:1-7.Cartledge,P.A.1982.SpartaandSamosintheArchaicPeriod:aSpecialRelationsip?.CQ32:243-265.Carter,J.B.1985.Greek Ivory Carving in the Orientalising and Archaic Periods.NewYork:Garland.Cavanagh, W. G. &Walker, S. E. C. 1998. Sparta in Lakonia: the Archaeology of a City and its Countryside.Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium.London:BritishSchoolatAthens.Christesen, P. 2007.Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History,Cambridge.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Coldstream,J.N.1968.Greek Geometric Pottery.London:Methuen.Coulson,W.D.E.1985.The Dark Age Pottery of Messenia.Gteborg:PaulstrmsFrlag.Dawkins,R.M.1905-1906.ArchaicFindsfromtheArtemisium.BSA12:318-330.Dawkins,R.M.1906-1907.TheSanctuaryofArtemisOrthia.BSA13:44-108.Dawkins,R.M.1907-1908.TheSanctuaryofArtemisOrthia.BSA14:4-29.Diehl,E.1964.FragmenteausSamos.AA:493-612.Fragkopoulou,F.Spartan Sanctuaries and Lakonian Identity Between 1200 and 600 B.C.Ph.D.Dissertation,KingsCollegeLondon.Heilmayer,W.D.1979.Frhe Olympische Bronzefiguren: die Tiervotive.Berlin:W.deGruyter.Hodkinson,S.1986.LandtenureandinheritanceinclassicalSparta.CQ36:378-406.Hodkinson,S.1992.SharecroppingandSpartaseconomicexploitationofthehelots,inJ.M.Sanders(ed.),.Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling.London:BritishSchoolatAthens:123-134.Hodkinson,S.2000.Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta.London:DuckworthandClassicalPressofWales.Hornblower,S. andMorgan,C. (eds.)2007.Pindars Poetry, Patrons and Festivals. From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Kiv,M.2003.Ancient Tradition and Early Greek History: The Origins

of States in Early-Archaic Sparta, Argos and Corinth.Tallinn:Avita.Lmmer, M. 1982-1983. Die sogenannte Olympische Friede in dergriechischenAntike.Stadion8-9:47-83.Lane,E.A.1933-1934.LakonianVase-Painting.BSA34:99-189.Luraghi,N.2002a.BecomingaMessenian.JHS122:45-69.Luraghi,N.2002b.Heloticslaveryreconsidered.InC.A.PowellandS.Hodkinson(eds.),Sparta. Beyond the Mirage.Swansea:ClassicalPressofWales:227-248.Luraghi,N.2008.The Ancient Messenians. Constructions of ethnicity and memory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Marangou, E. L. 1969. Lakonische Elfenbein- und Beinschnitzerein.Tbingen:Wasmuth.Mitchell,B.M.1975.HerodotusandSamos.JHS95:75-91.Parker,V.1991.ThedatesoftheMessenianWars.Chiron 21:25-47.Pipili,M.1987.Lakonian Iconography of the Sixth Century BC.Oxford:OxfordUniversityCommitteeforArchaeology.Pipili,M. 1998. ArchaicLakonianvase-painting; some iconographicconsiderationsinCavanaghandWalker1998:82-96.Shipley,G.1987.A History of Samos, 800-188 BC.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Siapkas,J.2003.Heterological Ethnicity: conceptualizing identities in Ancient Greece.Uppsala:Universitet.Stark, M. T. (ed.) 1998. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries.Washington,London:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Stibbe,C.M.1972.Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.Amsterdam:NorthHollandPub.Co.Stibbe,C.M.1997.LakonischeKeramikausdemHeraionvonSamos.AM112:25-166.Stibbe,C.M.2000.Lakonische Keramik aus dem Heraion von Samos. Ein Nachtrag zu AM 112, 1997, 25-142. Mainz: Verlag Philipp vonZabern.Themelis,P.2000. .Athens:HenAthinaisArchailogikEtaireia.Themelis,P.2003. .Athens:HenAthinaisArchailogikEtaireia.Vikatou, O. 2006. . .:.Woodward,A.M.1923-1925.TheAcropolis.TheFinds.BSA26:253-276.


110 ATHANASIA

Lakonia and Samos During the Early Iron Age. a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates-libre

Documents

Transcript of Lakonia and Samos During the Early Iron Age. a Revised Look at the Messenian War Dates-libre