Arts, Faculty of
Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Gardner, Chelsea A.M.
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This dissertation investigates the social, political, cultural, and religious history of the Mani peninsula in classical antiquity from ~500 BCE to 500 CE and focuses especially on the questions of local and regional identities within this remote and harsh landscape. In order to answer these questions, I incorporated a vast number of resources into this research, including Greek and Latin primary historical sources, epigraphic remains and prosopographic data, theoretical paradigms, and a study of archaeological remains, including petrographic and chemical ceramic analysis. In this work, I developed a theoretical model that can be applied globally to marginal societies about which little is known from the historical record. By integrating these varied theoretical methods and primary source datasets, I provide a unique approach to understand settlement patterns and identity on a hyper-local level in the ancient Mediterranean. Throughout my dissertation, I address specific questions about the identity and interactions of the ancient inhabitants of the Mani peninsula, particularly in light of their perioikic status under the powerful Spartan hegemony, and the way in which this relationship changed from the Archaic through Roman periods. The results of my investigations reveal a closer link to overseas locales rather than to the native inland Lakonia, in contrast to the majority of scholarship which assumes Sparta's overarching influence. By incorporating all of the evidence available to scholars of the ancient world, I draw new conclusions about the ancient inhabitants of the peninsula, specifically that much of the region displays relative autonomony and local identities, and that the settlements throughout the peninsula are largely coastal and maritime-based rather than inward-looking. Finally, my research offers a substantial contribution to our understanding of the function of sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, the most famous and important site on the peninsula: namely, that the sanctuary retained its significance throughout classical antiquity largely due to its lack of political affiliation and was not controlled by any one superpower, thus contributing further to a unique, local identity present throughout Mani. Overall, this doctoral research bolsters our understanding of the history and archaeology of the Mani peninsula in classical antiquity.
THE MANI PENINSULA IN ANTIQUITY: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND EPIGRAPHIC INVESTIGATION INTO REGIONAL IDENTITY by Chelsea A.M. Gardner B.A., McMaster University, 2008 M.A., University of British Columbia, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Classics) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2018 © Chelsea A.M. Gardner, 2018 ii Abstract This dissertation investigates the social, political, cultural, and religious history of the Mani peninsula in classical antiquity from ~500 BCE to 500 CE and focuses especially on the questions of local and regional identities within this remote and harsh landscape. In order to answer these questions, I incorporated a vast number of resources into this research, including Greek and Latin primary historical sources, epigraphic remains and prosopographic data, theoretical paradigms, and a study of archaeological remains, including petrographic and chemical ceramic analysis. In this work, I developed a theoretical model that can be applied globally to marginal societies about which little is known from the historical record. By integrating these varied theoretical methods and primary source datasets, I provide a unique approach to understand settlement patterns and identity on a hyper-local level in the ancient Mediterranean. Throughout my dissertation, I address specific questions about the identity and interactions of the ancient inhabitants of the Mani peninsula, particularly in light of their perioikic status under the powerful Spartan hegemony, and the way in which this relationship changed from the Archaic through Roman periods. The results of my investigations reveal a closer link to overseas locales rather than to the native inland Lakonia, in contrast to the majority of scholarship which assumes Sparta's overarching influence. By incorporating all of the evidence available to scholars of the ancient world, I draw new conclusions about the ancient inhabitants of the peninsula, specifically that much of the region displays relative autonomony and local identities, and that the settlements throughout the peninsula are largely coastal and maritime-based rather than inward-looking. Finally, my research offers a substantial contribution iii to our understanding of the function of sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, the most famous and important site on the peninsula: namely, that the sanctuary retained its significance throughout classical antiquity largely due to its lack of political affiliation and was not controlled by any one superpower, thus contributing further to a unique, local identity present throughout Mani. Overall, this doctoral research bolsters our understanding of the history and archaeology of the Mani peninsula in classical antiquity. iv Lay Summary This doctoral dissertation illuminates a little-known region of the ancient Greek world: the Mani peninsula. Through an examination of all the available evidence, including historical sources and literature, epigraphy, archaeological remains, and the geography and topography of the landscape, I answer questions about the ancient inhabitants of the Mani peninsula, including ‘Where did they live?’, ‘How did they relate to the superpowers of the Mediterranean in different time periods, especially the Spartans and Romans?’ and, most fundamentally ‘Who were the ancient inhabitants of the Mani peninsula?’ This dissertation is the first major comprehensive work on the Mani peninsula in antiquity and is innovative in its combination of the fields of History and Classics with Archaeology and Geography. In this research, I integrate several datasets and employ multiple theoretical approaches in order to better understand the people living in this remote geographic region of the ancient Greek world. v Preface This research design, output, and content of this dissertation is original, independent work by the author, Chelsea A.M. Gardner. None of the text of the dissertation is taken directly from previously published articles, and although preliminary findings have been presented at international academic conferences, any related publications are forthcoming. The conference presentations are as follows: 1. Go to…Hades? A Re-examination of the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. Classical Association of Canada Annual Meeting, St. John’s, NL. May 2017. 2. Money, Marbles, and Chalk: The Ancient Quarries of the Mani Peninsula. Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Toronto, ON. January 2017. 3. Mercenaries, Marble, Herkales, and Hades: What do we really know about ancient Tainaron? Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Classical Association. Sackville, NB. October 2016. 4. Local Identity in the Mani Peninsula in Classical Antiquity. Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. March 2016. 5. 'Who Goes There?': Discerning Local Identity in the Diros Region of the Mani Peninsula in Classical Antiquity. Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, San Francisco, CA. January 2016. 6. Maintaining Distinction: Local Identity in the Remote Mani Peninsula, Greece, in the Classical, Byzantine, and Ottoman Periods (with R.M. Seifried). Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, LA. January 2015. The archaeological data published in Chapter 9 is the result of archaeological investigations of The Diros Project, under the auspices of the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, through a permit from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I studied and analyzed all ceramic material firsthand, and the results (including drawings and photographs) are published here for the first time. The collection and acquisition of the ceramics was collaborative team effort, and laboratory conclusions were drawn in collaboration with Dr. Daniel Pullen. The ceramic thin sections were created by the British School at Athens. The vi chemical (pXRF) analysis of the ceramic sherds in Chapter 9 was performed by Dr. Danielle Riebe. The maps presented in Chapter 9 were created for this dissertation by Dr. Rebecca Seifried. The geophysical tests were conducted by the team led by Dr. Apostolos Sarris at IMS-FORTH. All photographs are property of Chelsea A.M. Gardner, except where explicitly noted -in these latter cases, all permissions were granted by the owners: Dr. Rebecca Seifried, Mr. Michael Heslop, Dr. William Parkinson, and the British Museum. All permissions for photographs and squeezes of museum collections were obtained through permits granted by the Ministry of Culture. vii Table of Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xxi List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xxii List of Charts/Graphs ........................................................................................................... xxx List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xxxii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ xxxiii Dedication............................................................................................................................ xxxv Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview of the Mani .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Overview of Sources and Methodologies ..................................................................... 5 1.2.1 Written Sources: History and Literature ............................................................... 5 1.2.2 Epigraphic Sources .............................................................................................. 7 1.2.3 Archaeological Evidence ................................................................................... 10 1.3 Chapter Overviews .................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: A Theoretical Framework for Ancient Identity in the Mani Peninsula ............. 17 2.1 Introduction to the Chapter ........................................................................................ 17 2.2 Ancient Sources of Evidence for Maniate Identity and Potential Interpretations ......... 18 2.3 Approaches to Ancient Greek Identity: History vs. Prehistory ................................... 21 viii 2.4 History of Scholarship on Ancient Greek Ethnic Identity ........................................... 24 2.5 Ancient Greek Ethnicity vs. Other Identities .............................................................. 27 2.6 The Archaeology of Identity ...................................................................................... 30 2.7 Archaeologies of Island and Coastal Societies – Theories of Isolation from 1950s-Present... ............................................................................................................................... 35 2.8 Landscapes, Seascapes, and Cultural Identity............................................................. 39 2.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 44 Chapter 3: Geography and Geology of the Mani Peninsula .................................................. 46 3.1 Introduction to the Chapter ........................................................................................ 46 3.2 Part I – Geological and Geographical Considerations of the Inner Mani Peninsula ..... 47 3.2.1 Topography ....................................................................................................... 47 3.2.2 Geological Composition..................................................................................... 51 3.2.3 Soil and Ground Coverage ................................................................................. 53 3.2.4 Water Sources .................................................................................................... 55 3.2.5 Climate .............................................................................................................. 56 3.3 Regional Divisions .................................................................................................... 59 3.3.1 The North-East .................................................................................................. 59 3.3.2 The East Coast ................................................................................................... 62 3.3.3 The South .......................................................................................................... 63 3.3.4 The South-West ................................................................................................. 65 3.3.5 The West Coast .................................................................................................. 66 3.3.6 Central ............................................................................................................... 68 3.3.7 The North-West ................................................................................................. 69 ix 3.4 Part II - Summary of Routes Taken by Early Modern Travellers to the Inner Mani .... 70 3.4.1 Cyriac of Ancona ............................................................................................... 72 3.4.2 J.B.S. Morritt of Rokeby .................................................................................... 74 3.4.3 Colonel Leake .................................................................................................... 75 3.4.4 Henry A.V. Post ................................................................................................. 77 3.4.5 Expédition Scientifique de Morée ...................................................................... 79 3.4.6 The Earl of Carnarvon........................................................................................ 80 3.5 Part III. Natural Resource Exploitation in Antiquity – Marble Quarries (Table 3-2) ... 82 3.5.1 Marble as a Natural Resource............................................................................. 82 3.5.2 Drawbacks to the Study of Marble ..................................................................... 84 3.6 Rosso Antico Quarries................................................................................................ 89 3.6.1 Pagania (/Paganea/Skoutari-Paganea) - Q001 ..................................................... 91 3.6.2 Kastri – 7 quarries? (Q00a-g) ............................................................................. 92 3.6.3 Prophitis Ilias – Q004 ........................................................................................ 93 3.6.4 Lagia/Laghia - Q003 ........................................................................................ 100 3.6.5 Kisternes/Kokkinogheia – Q006 ...................................................................... 101 3.7 Black Stone Quarries ............................................................................................... 102 3.7.1 Tainaron - West Slope of Cape – Q007 ............................................................ 104 3.7.2 Mianes-Agrokampi 1/Mianes - Q008 ............................................................... 105 3.7.3 Marmari – 3 Quarries - Q013 ........................................................................... 106 3.7.4 Kyparissos/Alika – Q015 ................................................................................. 106 3.8 Cippollino Verde Tenario and Red Fior di Pesco Quarries ....................................... 110 3.8.1 Paliros-Koureloi – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q005 ......................................... 110 x 3.8.2 Mianes - Agrokampi 2/Mianes – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q009.................... 111 3.8.3 Marmari-Kharakes – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q014...................................... 113 3.8.4 Mianes-Agrokampi 3/Mianes – Fior di Pesco Tenario – Q010......................... 114 3.9 White and Gray Stone Quarries ............................................................................... 115 3.9.1 Kionia/Kournos/Kourno - Q002 ....................................................................... 116 3.9.2 Mianes – Hillside ............................................................................................. 116 3.9.3 Marmari – Q012 .............................................................................................. 117 3.9.4 Kyparissos/Alika – Latomas - Q016 ................................................................. 121 3.9.5 Mezapos Vicinity (4 quarries) – Q017 .............................................................. 122 3.9.6 Mezapos (2 quarries) – Q018 ........................................................................... 124 3.9.7 Charouda (Aspri Plaka) – Q019 ....................................................................... 129 3.9.8 Diros Bay – Q020 ............................................................................................ 131 3.9.9 Oitylos– Modern Village - Q021 ...................................................................... 133 3.9.10 Oitylos – Chamoleos-Xeropolyana - Q022 ....................................................... 134 3.10 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 134 Chapter 4: The Mani Peninsula in the Archaic Period (prior to the 5th c. BCE) ............... 141 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 141 4.2 Literary Sources ...................................................................................................... 141 4.3 Archaeological & Epigraphic Evidence ................................................................... 143 4.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron ................................................................... 151 4.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 153 Chapter 5: The Mani Peninsula in the Classical Period (c.480 BCE to 323 BCE) ............. 159 5.1 The North-East ........................................................................................................ 159 xi 5.1.1 Passavas Hill .................................................................................................... 159 5.1.2 Written Evidence for Ancient Las .................................................................... 161 5.1.3 Written Evidence for Ancient Asine ................................................................. 164 5.2 Archaeological Evidence ......................................................................................... 170 5.3 The South (Tainaron) ............................................................................................... 175 5.3.1 Porto Kagio...................................................................................................... 175 5.3.2 Tainaron .......................................................................................................... 176 5.3.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron ........................................................ 177 5.3.2.2 Manumission Inscriptions from Tainaron ..................................................... 191 5.4 The West Coast ....................................................................................................... 206 5.5 The North-West ....................................................................................................... 207 5.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos .............................................................. 207 5.5.2 Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Oitylos ......................................................... 209 5.5.3 Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Oitylos ................................................... 209 5.6 Miscellaneous .......................................................................................................... 211 5.7 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 214 Chapter 6: The Mani Peninsula in the Hellenistic & Roman Republican Periods (323 BCE to 31 BCE) ............................................................................................................................. 224 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 224 6.2 The North-East ........................................................................................................ 225 6.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Las .................................................................... 225 6.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence from the Region .............................................................. 228 6.2.2.1 Hieroi & Hierai in Lakonia........................................................................... 230 xii 6.2.2.2 Artemis Worship in the North-East Mani Peninsula ..................................... 234 6.2.2.3 Epigraphic Evidence from Skopas Peninsula & Kotronas ............................. 238 6.2.3 Archaeological Evidence in the Region of Kotronas ......................................... 242 6.2.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Asine ................................................................. 244 6.3 The East Coast ......................................................................................................... 248 6.3.1 The History of Investigations at the Site of Kionia ........................................... 248 6.3.1.1 The Idenfication of Kionia ........................................................................... 253 6.3.1.2 The Archaeological Site of Kionia ............................................................... 256 6.4 Prophitis Ilias Quarries ............................................................................................ 261 6.5 The South ................................................................................................................ 262 6.5.1 The Archaeological Evidence at Porto Kagio ................................................... 262 6.5.2 Tainaron .......................................................................................................... 263 6.5.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron ........................................................ 263 6.5.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Tainaron ................................................... 274 6.5.2.3 Archaeological Evidence for the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron ............ 278 6.5.2.3.1 The Temple to Poseidon/Chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi ............................. 282 6.5.2.3.2 The Cave and Rectangular Building ....................................................... 290 6.5.2.3.3 Auxiliary Buildings ................................................................................ 299 6.6 The West Coast ....................................................................................................... 307 6.6.1 Cavo Grosso & Vicinity ................................................................................... 309 6.6.1.1 Keria ............................................................................................................ 309 6.6.1.2 Cavo Grosso Plateau .................................................................................... 315 6.6.1.3 Cavo Grosso Plain........................................................................................ 320 xiii 6.6.2 Evidence for Ancient Hippola .......................................................................... 322 6.6.3 Coastal Mani between Mezapos & Pyrgos Dirou ............................................. 328 6.7 The North-West ....................................................................................................... 334 6.8 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 338 Chapter 7: The Mani Peninsula in the Roman Imperial Period (Early to Middle Empire: 27 BCE through 2nd century CE) .............................................................................................. 348 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 348 7.2 The North-East ........................................................................................................ 348 7.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Las .................................................................... 349 7.2.2 Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Las ................................ 352 7.2.3 Coastal Vathy and Kamares ............................................................................. 353 7.2.4 Skoutari ........................................................................................................... 361 7.2.5 Kotronas & Ancient Teuthrone ........................................................................ 364 7.2.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Teuthrone ...................................................... 364 7.2.5.2 Archaeological Evidence around Kotronas ................................................... 365 7.2.5.3 Epigraphic evidence around Kotronas .......................................................... 369 7.2.6 Summary ......................................................................................................... 378 7.3 The East Coast ......................................................................................................... 379 7.3.1 Kionia .............................................................................................................. 379 7.3.2 Prophitis Ilias Region ....................................................................................... 380 7.4 The South ................................................................................................................ 382 7.4.1 Porto Kagio...................................................................................................... 382 7.4.2 Tainaron .......................................................................................................... 384 xiv 7.4.2.1 Ovid ............................................................................................................. 385 7.4.2.2 Strabo .......................................................................................................... 387 7.4.2.3 Pomponius Mela .......................................................................................... 387 7.4.2.4 Seneca the Younger ..................................................................................... 388 7.4.2.5 Lucan ........................................................................................................... 389 7.4.2.6 Pliny the Elder ............................................................................................. 390 7.4.2.7 Statius .......................................................................................................... 391 7.4.2.8 Apollodorus ................................................................................................. 393 7.4.2.9 Plutarch - Parallel Lives ............................................................................... 394 7.4.2.10 Plutarch - Moralia .................................................................................... 398 7.4.2.11 Appian ..................................................................................................... 404 7.4.2.12 Apuleius ................................................................................................... 405 7.4.2.13 Ptolemy .................................................................................................... 406 7.4.2.14 Pausanias ................................................................................................. 406 7.4.2.15 Tainaron in Roman-Period Literary Sources ............................................. 408 7.5 The South-West ....................................................................................................... 411 7.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Kainepolis ......................................................... 411 7.5.2 Epigraphic Evidence from around Kyparissos .................................................. 413 7.5.2.1 Honorific Inscriptions .................................................................................. 413 7.5.2.2 Imperial Honorific Inscriptions .................................................................... 418 7.5.2.3 Funerary Inscriptons .................................................................................... 420 7.5.2.4 Latin Inscriptions ......................................................................................... 421 7.5.2.5 Summary of Epigraphic Evidence ................................................................ 423 xv 7.5.3 Archaeological Evidence around Kyparissos .................................................... 423 7.5.3.1 Area B ......................................................................................................... 425 7.5.3.2 Area C ......................................................................................................... 425 7.5.3.3 Area D ......................................................................................................... 430 7.5.3.4 Area E .......................................................................................................... 431 7.5.3.5 Area F .......................................................................................................... 432 7.5.3.6 Alika ............................................................................................................ 434 7.5.3.7 Summary ..................................................................................................... 434 7.6 The West Coast ....................................................................................................... 435 7.6.1 Written Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso ..................... 435 7.6.2 Archaeological Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso ......... 439 7.6.3 Epigraphic Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso ............... 442 7.6.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Messe ................................................................ 445 7.6.5 Archaeological Evidence around Mezapos ....................................................... 447 7.7 Central ..................................................................................................................... 449 7.7.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Pyrrichos ........................................................... 449 7.7.2 Epigraphic Evidence around Pyrrichos ............................................................. 451 7.7.3 Summary ......................................................................................................... 463 7.8 The North-West ....................................................................................................... 464 7.8.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos .............................................................. 464 7.8.2 Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Oitylos .......................... 466 7.8.2.1 Coastal Oitylos............................................................................................. 466 7.8.2.2 Modern Oitylos ............................................................................................ 467 xvi 7.8.2.3 Kelepha........................................................................................................ 470 7.8.2.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 471 7.9 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 471 Chapter 8: The Mani Peninsula in the Late Roman Imperial and Early Byzantine Period (3rd – 6th century CE) ............................................................................................................ 485 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 485 8.2 The North-East ........................................................................................................ 486 8.2.1 Written Evidence ............................................................................................. 486 8.2.1.1 Las ............................................................................................................... 486 8.2.1.2 Asine ........................................................................................................... 487 8.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence ........................................................................................ 488 8.3 The East Coast ......................................................................................................... 492 8.4 The South ................................................................................................................ 493 8.4.1 Written Evidence for Psamathous .................................................................... 493 8.4.2 Written and Epigraphic Evidence for Tainaron ................................................. 494 8.4.2.1 Aelian .......................................................................................................... 494 8.4.2.2 3rd century CE Epigraphic Evidence ............................................................. 495 8.4.2.3 Prudentius .................................................................................................... 497 8.4.2.4 Sidonius ....................................................................................................... 497 8.4.2.5 Boethius ....................................................................................................... 497 8.4.2.6 Stephanus of Byzantium............................................................................... 498 8.4.2.7 Summary ..................................................................................................... 500 8.5 The South-West ....................................................................................................... 501 xvii 8.5.1 Epigraphic Evidence from Kyparissos .............................................................. 501 8.5.1.1 Dedicatory Inscriptions ................................................................................ 501 8.5.1.2 Imperial Honorific Inscriptions .................................................................... 507 8.5.2 Funerary Inscriptions ....................................................................................... 516 8.5.3 Inscriptions for the Etearchidae family ............................................................. 518 8.5.4 Inscriptions from Panormo ............................................................................... 522 8.5.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 523 8.5.6 The Relationship between Kainepolis & Tainaron ............................................ 525 8.6 The West Coast ....................................................................................................... 527 8.6.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Hippola and Messe ............................................ 527 8.6.2 Epigraphic Evidence around Cavo Grosso........................................................ 528 8.6.3 Archaeological Evidence around Mezapos Bay ................................................ 533 8.6.4 Epigraphic Evidence from Vamvaka ................................................................ 534 8.7 Central ..................................................................................................................... 535 8.8 The North-East ........................................................................................................ 536 8.8.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos .............................................................. 536 8.8.2 Archaeological Evidence around Karavostasi ................................................... 537 8.8.3 Epigraphic Evidence around Oitylos ................................................................ 538 8.9 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 541 Chapter 9: Case Study – A Classical-Roman Site at Diros Bay .......................................... 551 9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 551 9.2 Pyrgos Dirou and Surrounding Area ........................................................................ 551 9.3 Collection Methodology and Site Descriptions ........................................................ 554 xviii 9.3.1 Site 005 (Toponym - Mastakaria; Area - 3,890 sq. m) ...................................... 557 9.3.2 Site 004 (Toponym: Kampinaria; Area: 17,110 sq. m) ..................................... 558 9.3.3 Site 006 (Toponym: Palia Aghia Paraskevi; Area: 3,270 sq. m)........................ 560 9.4 Ceramic Processing ................................................................................................. 561 9.5 Macroscopic Analysis of Diagnostic Pottery ............................................................ 570 9.5.1 Site 005............................................................................................................ 570 9.5.2 Site 004 & Site 006 .......................................................................................... 571 9.5.3 Macroscopic Analysis of Diagnostic Sherds - Results ...................................... 574 9.5.3.1 Classical-Hellenistic Sherds ......................................................................... 575 9.5.3.2 Hellenistic-Early Roman Sherds ................................................................... 577 9.5.3.3 Roman Sherds .............................................................................................. 578 9.5.3.4 ‘Ancient Historic’ Sherds ............................................................................. 580 9.5.3.5 ‘Other’ sherds .............................................................................................. 582 9.5.4 Commentary - Fabrics ...................................................................................... 582 9.5.5 Commentary - Interpretation ............................................................................ 584 9.6 Microscopic and Chemical Analysis ........................................................................ 586 9.6.1 Discussion of Petrographic Results .................................................................. 587 9.6.2 Chemical Analysis – Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) ............................. 590 9.7 Geophysical Prospection at Site 004 ........................................................................ 594 9.8 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 601 Chapter 10: Conclusion: Towards a comprehensive picture of the Mani peninsula in antiquity ................................................................................................................................ 618 10.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 618 xix 10.2 The Archaic Period (prior to ~500 BCE) .................................................................. 620 10.3 The Classical Period (~480-323 BCE) ..................................................................... 621 10.4 The Hellenistic Period (~323-30 BCE) .................................................................... 625 10.5 The Roman Period and Late Antiquity (after ~30BCE) ............................................ 629 10.6 Final Observations ................................................................................................... 633 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 637 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 689 Appendix A Supplementary Distribution Maps and Charts for Literary and Epigraphic Evidence ............................................................................................................................. 689 A.1 Master Chart for all Epigraphic Evidence derived from and concerning Inner Mani 689 A.2 Master Chart for all Literary Sources about Ancient Settlements within Inner Mani 704 A.3 Distribution Maps for Epigraphic Evidence concerning Settlements and People from Mani in Antiquity ............................................................................................................ 716 A.4 Charts indicating the Frequency of Inner Mani Settlement Mentions from Ancient Literary Sources .............................................................................................................. 725 Appendix B Metonymic use of Tainaron as Hades and as the Entrance to the Underworld in Roman Imperial Sources ..................................................................................................... 727 Appendix C Occurrences of the Story of Arion of Methymna.............................................. 731 Appendix D Re-examination of IG V1 1286 ........................................................................ 736 D.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 736 D.2 Description and Analysis ..................................................................................... 736 xx D.3 Squeeze Documentation and Methodology .......................................................... 739 D.4 Appendix D Figures ............................................................................................. 742 Appendix E Alphabetical List of Personal Names in Inscriptions and Prosopographic Data. 748 Appendix F Analysis of the Petrographic Thin Sections (Samples 1-35) from the Diros Bay Ceramic Assemblage and Accompanying Photos (Petrographic and Microscopic). ............. 765 Appendix G Rosso Antico and Other Marble Objects from the Sparta Archaeological Museum with Probable Mani Provenance .......................................................................................... 788 Appendix H Materials Related to the British School at Athens Study Collection. ................ 795 xxi List of Tables Table 3-1: Climatological data for Kythera and Kalamata………………………………………57 Table 3-2: Detailed breakdown of all quarries in the Inner Mani presented counterclockwise from the NE of the peninsula………………………………………………………………137-140 Table 3-3: Results of white marble artifact testing, based on Bruno et al. 2002……………….128 Table 9-1. Number of subunits and artifacts for sites…………………………………………..562 Table 9-2. Diagnostic counts from each Site…………………………………………………...567 Table 9-3: ChronoType breakdown for drawn sherds, Sites 004/006………………………….573 xxii List of Figures Figure 1-1: Map of Greece showing study area outlined in red......................................................2 Figure 1-2: Terrain map of Mani showing the Taygetus mountain range along the middle of the peninsula..........................................................................................................................................2 Figure 3-1: Map of modern settlements in the central section of Inner Mani...............................48 Figure 3-2: Map of modern east-west roads..................................................................................49 Figure 3-3: Map showing the remains of a now-submerged Roman harbour or quay..................54 Figure 3-4: Map showing the study area and the locations of Kalamata and Kythera..................56 Figure 3-5: Map showing the important locations in the north-east Mani....................................62 Figure 3-6: Map showing the important locations along the east coast of Mani...........................63 Figure 3-7: Map showing the important locations in the south of Mani.......................................65 Figure 3-8: Map showing the important locations in the south-west Mani...................................66 Figure 3-9: Map showing the important locations along the west coast of Mani..........................68 Figure 3-10: Map showing the important locations in north-west Mani.......................................70 Figure 3-11: Approximate route of Cyriac of Ancona into Inner Mani........................................73 Figure 3-12: Approximate route of J.B.S Morritt into Inner Mani................................................75 Figure 3-13: Approximate route of W.M. Leake into Inner Mani.................................................77 Figure 3-14: Approximate route of Henry A.V. Post into Inner Mani..........................................78 Figure 3-15: Potential route of the Expédition Scientifique de Morée into Inner Mani................79 Figure 3-16: Potential route of the Earl of Carnarvon into Inner Mani.........................................80 Figure 3-17: Locations of ancient quarry sites in the Inner Mani peninsula.................................88 Figure 3-18: View to Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004a..................................................98 Figure 3-19: Detailed view of Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004a....................................99 xxiii Figure 3-20: View to Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004b..................................................99 Figure 3-21: Detail of Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004b...............................................100 Figure 3-22: Rosso antico outcrop near Kokkinogheia...............................................................102 Figure 3-23: View to the black marble quarries (Q007) on the west coast of Cape Tainaron....105 Figure 3-24: Black marble boar from the Sparta Museum (#5195).............................................108 Figure 3-25: Mosaic pavement from Cape Tainaron with tesserae of black stone.....................108 Figure 3-26: Black marble sculpture of Pan & Dionysus from the Sparta Museum (#6175).....109 Figure 3-27: View of possible quarry Q015 in Almiros Bay near Kyparrisos............................110 Figure 3-28: View of a cistern and the surrounding outcrops of fior di pesco (or rosso antico) in the village of Agriokambi............................................................................................................115 Figure 3-29: View of Marmari and the Bay of Marinari.............................................................121 Figure 3-30: View of Aghios Prokopios quarry (Q017) in Mezapos vicinity.............................124 Figure 3-31: View of Mezapos Bay.............................................................................................125 Figure 3-32: View across Lagadaki Bay to modern quarry near Charouda................................131 Figure 3-33: View of stepped horizontal quarrying activity in Diros Bay, possibly Q020.........132 Figure 4-1: Rams-head marble herm in Gytheio storeroom........................................................146 Figure 4-2: Sparta Museum #10567: relief sculpture of a hoplite soldier, from Charouda.........151 Figure 4-3: Distribution maps for Archaic evidence...................................................................158 Figure 5-1: Megalithic masonry atop Passava. Photo credit Rebecca Seifried...........................161 Figure 5-2: Aerial view of fortification wall on Kastro...............................................................173 Figure 5-3: Aerial view of fortification wall on Kastro, indicated in red....................................173 Figure 5-4: Viewshed from highest point within the fortified section of Kastro.........................174 Figure 5-5: Ashlar blocks in the courtyard of Aghia Triada, Porto Kagio..................................176 xxiv Figure 5-6: Ashlar blocks in the courtyard of Aghia Triada, Porto Kagio..................................176 Figure 5-7: BM 1880,0917.1 (IG V,1 1228) ..............................................................................195 Figure 5-8: EM 11528 (IG V,1 1231) .........................................................................................198 Figure 5-9: EM 11527 (IG V,1 1232) .........................................................................................202 Figure 5-10: Ancient city walls, Oitylos......................................................................................210 Figure 5-11: Distribution maps for Classical evidence................................................................223 Figure 6-1: IG V,1 1219 showing all four sides of altar with relief decoration and inscription..235 Figure 6-2: Hellenistic relief of Artemis with dog. Sparta Museum #15561..............................237 Figure 6-3: EM 8926 (IG V,1 1218) showing relief of a pig and inscription to Poseidon..........239 Figure 6-4: View of the smaller temple from east.......................................................................251 Figure 6-5: Socketed base in small temple..................................................................................251 Figure 6-6: View of large temple (peripteros) from east.............................................................252 Figure 6-7: View of columns in courtyard of Aghios Demetrios, Nyfi.......................................253 Figure 6-8: View of dry-stone wall construction, south of Kionia..............................................257 Figure 6-9: Moschou’s site plan of Kionia atop satellite imagery...............................................260 Figure 6-10: Moschou’s site plan of Tainaron atop satellite imagery.........................................278 Figure 6-11: Moschou’s site plan of the cave and rectangular structure at Tainaron atop satellite imagery........................................................................................................................................281 Figure 6-12: Cummer’s site plan of the cave and rectangular structure at Tainaron atop satellite imagery........................................................................................................................................281 Figure 6-13: The north wall of the church of Aghioi Asomatoi..................................................283 Figure 6-14: Trapezoforos rebuilt in the arch of Aghioi Asomatoi.............................................285 Figure 6-15: Columns and capitals in the apse of Aghioi Asomatoi...........................................285 xxv Figure 6-16: Close up of Ionic capital in north side of apse of Aghioi Asomatoi.......................286 Figure 6-17: SEG 59 400; 53 381 in apse of Aghioi Asomatoi...................................................286 Figure 6-18: View of ashlar blocks to the south-west of Aghioi Asomatoi................................287 Figure 6-19: Éxpédition Scientifique de Morée 1836, Plate 14...................................................288 Figure 6-20: Rock-cut bedding and ledge in front of the cave at Tainaron.................................291 Figure 6-21: Reused ashlar blocks inside the cave at Tainaron...................................................292 Figure 6-22: Cut in bedrock at south-eastern limit of rectangular building at Tainaron.............293 Figure 6-23: View of the north-eastern corner of rectangular building at Tainaron...................294 Figure 6-24: View of the rectangular building at Tainaron from north.......................................295 Figure 6-25: View of the cuttings on the west side of rectangular building at Tainaron............296 Figure 6-26: View of the cuttings on the east side of the bay of Sternes....................................299 Figure 6-27: Steps leading from coast to the rock-cut channel on the northeast side of the bay of Sternes..........................................................................................................................................301 Figure 6-28: Rock-cut channel leading north from the bay of Sternes........................................302 Figure 6-29: View of domestic building with mosaic floor on westernmost bay, Tainaron.......305 Figure 6-30: Aghios Ioannes, Keria.............................................................................................310 Figure 6-31: IG V,1 1334a...........................................................................................................311 Figure 6-32: SEG 42 304 & detail...............................................................................................313 Figure 6-33: Cavo Grosso and plain............................................................................................316 Figure 6-34: Aghios Petros, Cavo Grosso...................................................................................317 Figure 6-35: Finds from Aghios Philippos, Cavo Grosso...........................................................318 Figure 6-36: Architectural members on the exterior of Aghioi Theodoroi, Cavo Grosso...........319 Figure 6-37: Episkopi church.......................................................................................................320 xxvi Figure 6-38: Ionic capital and column base inside Episkopi church..........................................321 Figure 6-39: Columns and Ionic capitals inside Episkopi church..............................................321 Figure 6-40: Column and Ionic capital inside Aghia Triada, Mbriki..........................................329 Figure 6-41: Ceramics from Kouloumi........................................................................................330 Figure 6-42: Iconostasis of Aghios Petros, Paleochora...............................................................331 Figure 6-43: Relief sculpture of a woman, Paleochora................................................................332 Figure 6-44: IG V,1 1296.............................................................................................................336 Figure 6-45: Distribution maps for Hellenistic/Republican evidence.........................................347 Figure 7-1: Remains of submerged Roman structure in Epano Vathy Bay.................................354 Figure 7-2: View of Roman building remains from north...........................................................357 Figure 7-3: Aerial view of Roman building remains showing dimensions of apse.....................358 Figure 7-4: View of apse and windows of Roman building........................................................358 Figure 7-5: Fragments of columns near the coast at modern Kamares........................................360 Figure 7-6: Remains of ancient Roman cistern outside Aghia Barbara, Skoutari.......................362 Figure 7-7: Fragments of column (rosso antico?) near the coast at modern Skoutari.................363 Figure 7-8: Map showing the location of object findspots in Moschou 2001-2004 [2012] and objects/places observed by author...............................................................................................365 Figure 7-9: Rock-cut basin on southern Skopas..........................................................................367 Figure 7-10: Marble threshold block on exterior bench of Aghios Nikolaos..............................367 Figure 7-11: Marble threshold block beneath retaining wall.......................................................368 Figure 7-12: IG V,1 1280, Fragment 1........................................................................................374 Figure 7-13: IG V,1 1280, Fragment 2........................................................................................374 Figure 7-14: Pottery around Aghios Nikolaos, Porto Kagio........................................................383 xxvii Figure 7-15: IG V,1 1243.............................................................................................................414 Figure 7-16: IG V,1 1248.............................................................................................................417 Figure 7-17: CIL 492...................................................................................................................422 Figure 7-18: Areas of interest around Kyparissos and Alika.......................................................424 Figure 7-19: Fragment of incised marble and eastern sigillata sherd in vicinity of Aghios Petros............................................................................................................................................425 Figure 7-20: The interior of Aghia Paraskevi, Kyparissos..........................................................426 Figure 7-21: Columns lining the courtyard of Aghias Panaghias, Kyparissos............................427 Figure 7-22: Column of Aswan granite in courtyard of Aghias Panaghias, Kyparissos.............428 Figure 7-23: Column of Aswan granite in central plateia, Alika.................................................428 Figure 7-24: Carved marble basins atop ruined structure, Kyparissos........................................429 Figure 7-25: Reused marble architectural members in Aghia Paraskevi, Kyparissos.................430 Figure 7-26: Aghios Charalambos, Kyparissos...........................................................................431 Figure 7-27: Reused marble architectural members in Aghias Andreas, Alika..........................433 Figure 7-28: Architectural members on the interior of Aghioi Theodoroi, Cavo Grosso......439-40 Figure 7-29: Roman grave relief, Aghios Ioannes, Keria............................................................441 Figure 7-30: Roman grave stele built into Aghios Demetrios, Kipoula......................................442 Figure 7-31: Points of interest, Pyrrichos archaeological site.....................................................456 Figure 7-32: Aghios Nikon, Pyrrichos and architectural members, Aghios Nikon.....................458 Figure 7-33: Construction inside well, below Kastraki...............................................................459 Figure 7-34: Kastraki, from west. Ancient (?) well indicated by arrow......................................460 Figure 7-35: Ceramic fragments from cave, Kastraki.................................................................461 Figure 7-36: Ancient columns erected in central square, Oitylos................................................468 xxviii Figure 7-37: Large fragment of worked marble (press?), Oitylos...............................................469 Figure 7-38: Fluted columns inside Aghios Sotiros, Oitylos.......................................................470 Figure 7-39: Distribution maps for Roman Imperial evidence....................................................484 Figure 8-1: Rectangular Roman structure on the coast of Kotronas............................................490 Figure 8-2: BM 1843,0531.8 (IG V,1 1235) ...............................................................................496 Figure 8-3: IG V,1 1244...............................................................................................................503 Figure 8-4: The remains of Aghios Petros, Kyparissos...............................................................504 Figure 8-5: IG V,1 1247...............................................................................................................506 Figure 8-6: SEG 23 199, both halves of inscription....................................................................509 Figure 8-7: IG V,1 1241...............................................................................................................514 Figure 8-8: SEG 21 456; 31 335..................................................................................................529 Figure 8-9: Close-up of additional (earlier) inscription adjacent to SEG 21 456; 31 335...........532 Figure 8-10: IG V,1 1287.............................................................................................................535 Figure 8-11: IG V, 1 1302; IG V, 1 1303; IG V, 1 1307..............................................................540 Figure 8-12: Distribution maps for Late Roman evidence..........................................................550 Figure 9-1: Aghia Nikita, Velousi...............................................................................................553 Figure 9-2: The Diros Project Survey boundary and Sites..........................................................554 Figure 9-3: Total ‘ancient Historic’ sherds collected during tract survey...................................556 Figure 9-4: Site 005 collection units............................................................................................558 Figure 9-5: Site 004 collection squares........................................................................................559 Figure 9-6: Site 006 collection squares........................................................................................561 Figure 9-7: Site 004/006 Total ceramic density...........................................................................563 Figure 9-8: Site 004/006 Classical-Hellenistic ceramic density..................................................564 xxix Figure 9-9: Site 004/006 Roman ceramic density........................................................................564 Figure 9-10: Site 005 Total ceramic density................................................................................565 Figure 9-11: Site 005 Classical-Hellenistic ceramic density.......................................................565 Figure 9-12: Site 005 Roman ceramic density.............................................................................566 Figure 9-13: Site 004/006 Total drawn ceramic distribution.......................................................568 Figure 9-14: Site 004/006 Classical-Hellenistic drawn ceramic distribution..............................568 Figure 9-15: Site 004/006 Roman drawn ceramic distribution....................................................569 Figure 9-16: Site 005 Total drawn ceramic distribution..............................................................569 Figure 9-17: Site 005 late Roman domestic structure..................................................................571 Figure 9-18: S006SQ0040003. Terracotta mould-made fragment..............................................574 Figure 9-19: Results of hierarchical analysis and a bivariate plot with zirconium (Zr) and manganese (Mn) ............................................................................,.............................................591 Figure 9-20: Principal component analysis of the 35 ceramic samples from Diros Bay.............591 Figure 9-21: Discriminant analysis of the 35 ceramic samples from Diros Bay.........................593 Figure 9-22: Digital elevation model (DEM) of Site 004...........................................................595 Figure 9-23: Site 004 & 006 visibility, as reported by field walkers...........................................595 Figure 9-24: Results of magnetic gradiometry at Site 004.........................................................597 Figure 9-25: Results of electric resistance survey at Site 004...................................................597 Figure 9-26: Results of all geophysical survey techniques at Site 004........................................598 Figure 9-27: Magnetometric features superimposed upon ceramic density scatter map of Site 004................................................................................................................................................599 Figure 9-28: Reused architectural members in the church of Aghia Paraskevi, Diros Bay........600 xxx List of Charts/Graphs Chart 4-1: Frequency of sites named in Archaic sources............................................................157 Chart 5-1: Frequency of sites named in Classical sources – bar graph.......................................220 Chart 5-2: Frequency of sites named in Classical sources – pie graph........................................220 Chart 5-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Classical period – bar graph..........................221 Chart 5-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Classical period – pie graph..........................221 Chart 6-1: Frequency of sites named in Hellenistic & Republican sources – bar graph.............344 Chart 6-2: Frequency of sites named in Hellenistic & Republican sources – pie graph.............344 Chart 6-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Hellenistic & Republican period – bar graph... ......................................................................................................................................................345 Chart 6-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Hellenistic & Republican period – pie graph............................................................................................................................................345 Chart 7-1: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources – bar graph............................480 Chart 7-2: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources – pie graph............................480 Chart 7-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Roman Imperial period - bar graph...............481 Chart 7-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Roman Imperial period - pie graph...............481 Chart 7-5: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial Sources including Pausanias – pie graph............................................................................................................................................482 Chart 7-6: Frequency of Sites Named in Roman Imperial Sources including Pausanias – bar graph............................................................................................................................................482 Chart 8-1: Frequency of sites named in Late Antique sources – bar graph.................................548 Chart 8-2: Frequency of sites named in Late Antique sources – pie graph.................................548 xxxi Chart 8-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Late Antique period – bar graph...................549 Chart 8-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Late Antique period – pie graph...................549 xxxii List of Abbreviations All abbreviations used in this dissertation are in the format listed by the American Journal of Archaeology. xxxiii Acknowledgements I thank, first and foremost, my doctoral committee: to Lisa Cooper and Kevin Fisher, I am forever grateful for the crucial part you played in getting me to the finish line – this would not have happened without your substantial efforts. To my doctoral advisor, Hector Williams, I extend my boundless gratitude for your unending and enduring support over the years in all my endeavours. Without your wholehearted belief and encouragement in my abilities as a scholar, I would not be where I am today. Thank you for believing in me. I am indebted to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Society of Women Geographers, the Killam Foundation, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the University of British Columbia, Mount Allison University, and the Crake Foundation for the generous financial support that enabled me to conduct this research at home and abroad. Thank you to the staff at the Greek Ministry of Culture, the Athens Epigraphical Museum, the ASCSA, the BSA, and the Sparta Museum, for help in obtaining permits and accessing objects. I would like to offer gratitude to those outside my doctoral committee who provided mentorship and training: at UBC, I’d like to thank the faculty and staff for their expertise over the years, and a particular thank you to Nigel Kennell for offering expert feedback on the epigraphic data. I especially owe a huge debt of gratitude to Daniel Pullen, for providing me with the expertise necessary to analyze the Diros Project material (and for putting up with lab dancing), and to Bill Parkinson, for providing mentorship, much-needed guidance, and many a snarky comment on early drafts of this dissertation. To both of you, and to the other leaders of the Diros Project, especially Anastasia Papathanasiou, Wayne Lee, and Mike Galaty, thank you all for bringing me to Mani and letting me fall in love with this beautiful and mysterious part of the world. xxxiv There are so many people who I need to thank for their practical contributions to this dissertation, especially those who spent countless hours with me in the fields (and macquis) of Mani and in the laboratory analyzing data: to Dani Riebe, Billy Ridge, Erica Pitcairn, Jack Young, and Katie Gumdrop Fine, thank you for the data collection and the adventures. Thank you to Hilary Bouxsein for translating inscriptions, to Kaoru Yui for digitizing pottery, and to Janet Ste. Marie for the bibliographic help. Above all, thank you to my favourite and most frequent collaborator, Becky Seifried, who was by my side more often than anyone else while exploring Mani, and who provided years of expertise, references, advice, maps, and friendship. To every single member of the Diros Project, to the Koilakos family (Kyria Maria, Kyriakos, Matoula, Maria, Panagiota, Giorgos), and the people of Mani: thank you for the experience, the training, the laughs, the bonfires, the koukla, the songs, and the memories. Thank you for the happiest summers of my life. And to Liam: thank you for soccer-volleyball. Finally, I’d like to say thank you to my friends and family. To the friends I have made over the years in graduate school and at the ASCSA, thank you for your ideas, inspiration (and frequent commiseration), and a special thank you to BOB, the ultimate support system. Thank you to all of my (non-academic) friends and family who knew better than to ask how my dissertation was coming along, but who were always there for me and kept me grounded in the reality of our ever-changing lives and expanding families. Thank you to my mom and dad, for the moral (and financial!) support, and for believing in me – you knew I would finish this even when I didn’t! Finally, I need to thank Mark for so many things: thank you for following my dreams from one coast of Canada to the other, thank you for feeding me, thank you for letting me work weekends, thank you for listening, thank you for making me laugh, thank you for Markaeology, and thank you, most of all, for Avalon, who puts this all into perspective. We made it! xxxv Dedication To Rex, Mark, Rocky, and Avalon 1 Chapter 1: Introduction "Maina is a part of the ancient Lacedemonian territory, and it still merits the name. The inhabitants were never, actually, subdued, not even by the Romans. It is said, indeed, that Augustus had delivered the maritime towns of the Peloponnesus from the dominion of Sparta; but the inhabitants of this district were always known by the honourable title of the free Laconians. In the time of the imperial geographer, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, they had acquired the name of Mainots, which they still retain. Safe in the vastness of their mountains, they have maintained their independence; but with a various and troubled fortune." -William Gell, 1810 “We had been so interested with our glimpse of the free Greeks – the Greeks who had always been free from the days of Sparta, who had maintained their independence against Rome, Byzantium, the Franks, Venetians, and Turks – that we longed to see more of them.” -Charles Robert Cockerell, 1813 1.1 Overview of the Mani The Mani peninsula is the central of three peninsular projections off the southern Peloponnesos, Greece, and is situated within both the modern and ancient political territory of Lakonia.1 Specifically, the geographic region of interest comprises the portion of the peninsula which extends from Oitylos province in the northwest, to Cape Tainaron in the south, and east to the ancient Lakonian port of Gytheio – this region includes all of what is colloquially referred to as ‘Mesa Mani’ (Inner Mani), and the southern half of ‘Kato Mani’ (Lower Mani); for convenience, I refer to the study area simply as ‘Inner Mani’ throughout this work (Figure 1-1).2 1 The conventions (and problems) associated with the names Lakonia vs. Lakedaimon will be further explained in Chapter 3. For now, the preferred term in modern scholarship, 'Lakonia' (rather than 'Lakedaimon'), is retained for consistency. 2 The boundary of Inner Mani corresponds somewhat to the modern road system, principally the highway extending from modern Gytheio to modern Areopoli, but this is not a precise boundary. Modern Oitylo, for example, is situated north of this modern highway and is included in this study, while modern Gytheio is located directly on this boundary and is not included in the present work. The reasons for this is discussed in detail in Chapter 3, and the specific geographic characteristics which lead to the distinction 'Inner' Mani are described in Chapter 2. 2 Figure 1-1: Map of Greece showing study area outlined in red. © GoogleEarth Figure 1-2: Terrain map of Mani showing the Taygetus mountain range along the middle of the peninsula © Google Maps 3 The Mani peninsula is surrounded on three sides by the Mediterranean Sea, and is both bisected and detached from the rest of Lakonian territory and the entire Peloponnesos by the imposing Taygetus mountain range (Figure 1-2). The landscape of Mani is mountainous, arid, rocky, largely inhospitable, and notoriously difficult territory on which to subsist, as well as to access by land or to invade by sea.3 The name Mani was not used in antiquity, but is an early modern geographic distinction that is attested as early as the medieval period, in the 9th century CE – it is employed throughout this work for convenience and objectivity.4 It is also important to note that the signifier 'Maniate' refers exclusively to the geographic location and the inhabitants thereof; it is a modern designation and is not an identification marker that was used in antiquity. The settlements in Mani are situated within ancient Spartan territory and in the Classical period many of the city-states in this region were classified as perioikic poleis.5 Geographically, the settlements of this peninsula throughout antiquity are indisputably part of Lakonia, the known territory of Sparta, as evidenced by our primary sources and reinforced by the anti-Spartan formation of the “League of the Free Lakonians” (Eleutherolakonian League) in the Roman period.6 However, little attention has been paid to these marginal and geographically peripheral communities (and the inhabitants thereof), particularly with regard to identity – as evinced through contemporary historical sources, epigraphic information including prosopographic data, and material cultural influence. The central focus of this research addresses the question of Maniate identity in terms of three distinct yet fluid possibilities: 1) whether Mani 3 Allen 1997, 260; Rogan 1973, 34. 4 The term 'Mani' is potentially attested as early as the 9th century CE, according to Kassis 1979, 19. The term is certainly used by the 10th century CE (Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio, section 50; Jenkins 1985, 232). 5 Shipley 2006; 1997. The poleis in this region are (clockwise, from NE to NW): Las, Teuthrone, Psamathous, Tainaron, Kainepolis, Pyrrichos, Oitylos. 6 Cartledge 2002, 275; Richer 2008, 245. 4 and its inhabitants were truly 'Lakonian', as modern scholarship suggests;7 2) whether the Maniate material cultural imprint and epigraphic record indicates Lakonian influence and relationships, or if they indicate stronger ties to locations more easily accessible (by sea, rather than by land) such as Messenia, Kythera, or even Crete; or 3) whether Maniate identity – as elucidated through material culture, primary sources, and epigraphy – comprises either a combination of the two previous options or, alternatively, whether this study reveals a distinct regional identity or identities, unique to Mani. These possibilities are left intentionally all-encompassing yet somewhat vague for the express purpose of avoiding binary oppositions, which often tend to be heated comparisons of one social, political, or ethnic group versus another.8 The question that I seek to answer in this work is not as strict and defined as 'Are they or aren't they Lakonian?', but, rather, questions such as: 'How similar are their political institutions, their social structures, their religious affiliations and their material culture to the neighbouring regions, especially Lakonia and Sparta?', 'How has the surviving literary record recorded their existence?', and simply 'Who were the ancient inhabitants of this peninsula?'. These questions relate to broader concepts in archaeology, anthropology, and history, particularly the way in which scholarship tends to privilege the validity of the historical record and the written word over the archaeological/material evidence. By answering these questions through an investigation of epigraphy, literature, and the material cultural record, I am able to push the limits of all the available evidence, allow for the possibility of interaction and influence 7 For example, Shipley, 2004. 8 Demetriou 2012, 11 & n34, which includes the following examples of studies which emphasize binary oppositions in cultural construction: Van Dommelen 1997, Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, Antonaccio 2001 & 2003, and Malkin 2004. The tendency for binary oppositions is explained by Demetriou as a result of the focus on the formation of Greek ethnic identity, which is largely believed to form as a direct consequence – or, in opposition to – some 'Other'. See also Barth 1969, and the section on ethnic identity, below. 5 among many groups, and recognize the potential for a much more fluid and dynamic construction of ancient Maniate identity. This present work compensates for the current lack of discussion regarding the archaeological and historical significance of the ancient Mani by compiling not only all the available evidence for this region, but also by contextualizing this evidence within a broader framework of cultural identity in the ancient Mediterranean, using relevant historical sources, material culture, interaction and trade patterns, geographic circumstances, and theoretical paradigms.9 The distinct categories of evidence are presented together in each chapter to form a complete work about the Mani peninsula; throughout this dissertation I compile and analyze all the evidence to summarize what we know about the Mani peninsula as a whole from each historical period (Archaic-Roman) to draw conclusions with regard to the cultural, political, social, and religious identities of the inhabitants of the ancient Mani peninsula throughout classical antiquity. Through these avenues of research, this dissertation considers, for the first time, ancient Mani as a complete entity, and places Mani culturally, economically, politically, and ideologically into not only its Lakonian context, but also the broader ancient Greek world. 1.2 Overview of Sources and Methodologies 1.2.1 Written Sources: History and Literature The period of focus for this study covers the Archaic-Roman periods, all of which are decidedly historical periods in ancient Greece, characterized as such simply by the presence of literacy and written records. However, we have no extant works by any Maniate author from 9 For recent studies on cultural identity in the ancient Mediterranean see, for example: Cifani, Stoddart, & Neil 2012; Demetriou 2012; van Dommelen & Knapp 2010; Hall 1997, 2002; Malkin 2001; Yoffee 2007; and Horden & Purcell 2000. 6 antiquity, and only very few primary sources concerning the ancient poleis situated in Mani. I therefore propose a new descriptive classification within which to categorize the circumstances of this region, one which is inhabited within the historical period but which does not itself produce written evidence – the 'ahistorical historical'.10 Despite this classification, there are a substantial number of written sources which mention settlements in Mani with varying degrees of comprehensiveness. All of the primary written sources supplied in this text are accompanied by a translation and analysis of the primary sources, and all translations are my own, unless otherwise noted. Each chapter is followed by accompanying relevant charts that display the frequency of references to the ancient sites, and a master chart provides references to all primary sources cited within this work (Appendix A-2). The primary motivation to examine the historical and literary evidence throughout Classical antiquity is to elucidate the way in which ancient Maniate settlements and inhabitants were discussed and described by ancient Greek and Roman authors – we have no extant works by any Maniate author, and although all of the primary written evidence presented in this dissertation arguably imparts a purely 'etic' perspective, these sources also provide our sole written insight into the settlements and inhabitants of this region in antiquity. I examine whether the primary sources situate Mani and its settlements within their Lakonian context, and link this region to the superpower of Sparta, or whether they present an entirely disparate picture. With 10 Hall 2002 (24) describes the distinct challenge presented to historians when studying an area which has little to no historical records, or whose literary evidence is separated in time from the events being described by decades or centuries (Pausanias being the most obvious example of this chronological separation). The ‘ahistorical historical’ terminology is fluid and can be applied to many different places, regardless of circumstance – Messenia, for example, has famously been called a "people without history" (Alcock et al. 2005; Wolf 1982), but they had quite a different historical trajectory, I argue, than the Maniates, due to their subjugation by Sparta. 7 regard to Maniate identity as evidenced through the written record, a key question that I address is how ancient sources reveal whether the perioikic settlements of Mani conformed to a Spartan or Lakonian identity, or a more regionally unique pattern of identity formation. There is a predisposition in modern scholarship to focus on sites that are featured prominently in the primary sources, and since the time of exploration undertaken by early travellers, there has been a desire to pair sites mentioned in the literary record – Pausanias’ accounts especially – with modern geographic locales.11 The result of this inclination to attach ancient toponyms to physical locations is that many sites and settlements mentioned in the ancient sources have been 'identified' based on probability rather than secure epigraphic or archaeological evidence.12 While I do not aim to re-situate ancient settlements at this time, I include a necessary critical examination of the nature of the evidence for settlement identification. 1.2.2 Epigraphic Sources The volume Inscriptiones Graecae V,1 was published in 1913 and is in considerable need of revision, yet it remains the largest single corpus of inscriptions from the region of southern Lakonia. The IG entries are arranged by ancient site name, despite the fact that: a) only a few of these ancient settlements have been identified and b) there is no way to know which site many of these inscriptions are associated with. According to the IG sub-categorizations, there are epigraphic finds from the following Maniate sites (in geographic order from northeast to northwest with IG spelling retained): Las; Teuthrone; Psamathusa; Fanum Neptuni Taenarii; 11 Forster 1903 a-b; Forster & Woodward 1906; Puillon Boblaye 1836; Rogan 1973, 84. 12 Shipley 2004, 572-574. 8 Taenarum Oppidum/Caenepolis; Hippola vel Messa; Pyrrhichus; Oetylus. Throughout the chapters, I argue that it is misleading to associate epigraphic finds (and any archaeological finds, for that matter) with an ancient settlement without either a definitive understanding of the territory of said settlement or archaeological context/original provenance for the epigraphic object in question. For this reason, detailed maps of each region are included with the findspots of each inscription, when possible, to illustrate the actual distribution of epigraphic evidence. Since the publication of IG V,1, the most comprehensive resource for the publication and identification of ancient inscriptional evidence are the volumes of the SEG (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum). I rely on the earlier publications of the stones for both transcriptions and translations, and provide my own translations when necessary. When possible, I have recorded the current state of the ancient inscriptions and provided a photo; this has only been the case if the stones survive as spolia in extant churches and other structures, or if they remain in situ. Only in rare instances have I been allowed to examine the stones that are currently housed in museum collections. There are two significant hurdles when studying the epigraphic record from the Mani peninsula: first, few of the inscriptions can be dated with any degree of certainty beyond a general historic period (i.e. ‘Classical’, ‘Roman’, etc.); and second, the vast majority of inscriptions known to scholarship exist in the secondary form of spolia – that is, when the inscribed stones were reused in later buildings, most frequently churches. Therefore, we do not have the original context for most of our surviving ancient inscriptions, and we are only able to date their respective incorporation into later monuments with varying degrees of certainty (this contributes to the difficulty in dating the epigraphic evidence as a whole). When presenting the 9 inscriptions geographically, it should be noted that they are always discussed (and mapped) based on their secondary context. In addition, most of the surviving epigraphic evidence from ancient Mani can only be tentatively associated with an ancient site or settlement. Even in the few cases where an ancient place-name is given within the inscription itself, we do not have the original archaeological context for any of these inscribed stones; none of the inscriptions discussed below have been excavated from modern, systematic, archaeological investigations. I provide detailed information regarding the distribution of the find spots of ancient inscriptions, and cautiously associate them with nearby sites, settlements, or similar inscriptions (in terms of material and content). The value in studying epigraphic stones that rarely have provenance – and that have, in most cases, been removed from their original location and reused in later buildings – lies in the content of the inscriptions themselves. The surviving epigraphic evidence from Mani provides a combination of both emic and etic perspectives for the ancient inhabitants, in contrast to the complete dearth of literary sources derived from Mani and the necessary restriction of our understanding of the written sources to a purely external perspective. The types of data contained within ancient inscriptions that are the most relevant for this current study on ancient Maniate identity include: names of persons, names of places, dates, and the material of the stone itself. This information is included on a master chart for all the epigraphic evidence from Mani, even when the stones are not discussed below (if only an inscribed name survives, for example, and does not merit a lengthy discussion). When personal names are included in an inscription, information regarding the popularity and distribution of that name is provided when relevant; these data are extracted directly from the online databases of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (henceforth LGPN; Oxford University, 10 http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/), which has the following place-names associated with the Mani peninsula: Asine (5 records), Hippola (31 records), Las (6 records), Messa (20 records), Oitylos (64 records), Psamathous (1 record), Pyrrichos (17 records), Tainaron (1 record), Tainaron-Kainepolis (67 records), Teuthrone (27 records). To reiterate, because the association of unprovenanced inscriptions with an often-unidentified ancient settlement is misleading, I have included maps of the actual findspots of the epigraphic evidence in Appendix A-3. There is a total of 138 inscriptions from Mani, or that explicitly mention settlements and/or individuals from Mani, that date from the Archaic through the late Roman period. The inscriptions presented in detail within the chapters are those that contribute information to the discussion of Maniate identity; in order to retain comprehensiveness, Appendix A-1 contains entries for every inscription, regardless of condition, information, or current location (including lost inscriptions). Inscriptions that solely comprise names (but no further prosopographic information) are also listed in this Appendix (A-1). In some cases, the distribution maps (Appendix A-3) include findspots/current locations of inscriptions that are not discussed in depth, and the reason for this is because my intention with these maps is to be as thorough as possible when presenting the physical distribution of the epigraphic record throughout the peninsula. 1.2.3 Archaeological Evidence Throughout this dissertation, I provide regional – and site-based, when possible – descriptions of physical remains recorded on the ground, coupled with a detailed account of the archaeological work that has been undertaken to-date. This presentation of archaeological research includes all categories of evidence, from references to physical remains by travellers 11 and scholars in the early years of Mani exploration, to mapping and survey projects undertaken in recent years, to my own data collection of ancient spolia. The results of my field research conducted on the western coast of Mani at the site of Diros Bay is presented as a case study in the final chapter of this work. The goal of compiling the available archaeological evidence is to shed light on regional occupation and potential cross-cultural interactions that are absent from the literary sources. Another motivation for providing such a comprehensive overview is to emphasize the amount of work still left to be done in the region. Although I hope to show that the Mani peninsula needs more scholarly attention, there is not a complete dearth of literature regarding the archaeological evidence for the settlements within the study region. Generally, with regard to classical antiquity, sources for the study of archaeological evidence in Mani fall into three distinct categories: 1) traveller's accounts, including both the personal records of early geographers, historians, and antiquarians, as well as more recent guidebooks that contain fundamental topographical and historical information intended for a wider audience; 2) archaeological reports, largely restricted to the Greek journal Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον (Archaiologikon Deltion); and 3) studies on Sparta and Spartan territory that include references to sites within the territory of Mani. The first category, traveller’s accounts, begin with the visit of Cyriac of Ancona in 1447, and continue to this day with the local guidebooks ‘Inside the Mani’. The value of these accounts for research into the archaeological remains of Mani lies in the fact that these travellers and writers often had an interest in antiquarianism, and sometimes even training in the study of Classics; while the primary goal of their visits was not always to record archaeological remains, oftentimes their accounts included mention of visible ruins, architecture, or anecdotal evidence from their interactions with the local population. Throughout this present work, I compare these 12 accounts to each other, to recent (and extremely comprehensive) guide books, to archaeological reports, and to my own research in the field to determine how drastically the record of visible antiquity has changed over the centuries. The second category consists almost entirely of archaeological reports in Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον (Archaiologikon Deltion: AD/ArchDelt), published between the years 1961-2004. The Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον is the primary archaeological publication of the Greek Ministry of Culture and includes reports on all the activity undertaken by the various Ephorates throughout Greece. Until 2013, the Mani peninsula fell under the jurisdiction of three Ephorates: the 5th (E') Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the 5th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, and the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece. Following a restructuring of the Ministry of Culture in 2013, the study region now falls under the more generalized Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia. Traditionally, these organizations have published all of their archaeological activity in the Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, including excavations, restorations, maintenance, infrastructure, and educational programs. This journal contains the best maps of both archaeological remains as well as surveyed area within Mani. Due to limited availability (the journal is not online, and has not been published in over ten years) and a lack of a standardized citation method for both the journal and the entries therein, however, accessing the relevant information was often difficult and time-consuming; nevertheless it remains the most comprehensive publication on modern archaeological work in Greece. In addition, ArchDelt also outlines work carried out by various foreign schools within Greece, although some of this latter information can be accessed more easily in publications by those respective schools – for example, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the École Française 13 d'Athènes) and the Annual of the British School at Athens are two which have featured work on various Maniate sites. The third and final category of sources for archaeological evidence primarily comprises the work of scholars of Lakonian history and topography, especially (but not exclusively) E.S. Forster, A.M. Woodward, H. Waterhouse, R. Hope Simpson, C. Le Roy, H.W. Catling, G. Shipley, W. G. Cavanaugh, P. Cartledge, L. Moschou, and Y.A. Pikoulas. With regard to archaeological information – as opposed to specifically historical and/or epigraphic – the most recent comprehensive summary of archaeological findings from Mani can be found in Shipley’s chapter (23) entitled “Archaeological Sites in Laconia and the Thyreatis”, within the larger publication for The Laconia Survey.13 The Laconia Survey was carried out between 1983 and 1989 in a 70km2 area to the east of Sparta; it therefore did not cover the Mani at all, but provided some of the best comparanda for the material culture of Lakonia. Shipley compiled the site catalogue simply to “provide a list of comparative evidence from other areas of mainland Laconia (including the Thyreatis and other ‘fringe’ areas which at times were part of the Lakedaimonian state) which may assist in the Laconia Survey settlement pattern.”14 There are some problems with this catalogue, most notably the fact that the coordinates provided for each entry correspond to a system put into place specifically for the Laconia Survey and not to real-world coordinates for latitude and longitude. Furthermore, they are only accurate to a distance of ~100m and, in certain cases, the Laconia Survey coordinates and the real-world location can be as much as 700m apart. I would be remiss, however, if I did not acknowledge the inherent value 13 Shipley 1996, 299-306. 14 Shipley 1996, 263. 14 in Shipley’s catalogue as the only one of its kind that exists. For this reason, I include the Laconia Survey reference numbers as well, which are identified by the prefix ‘LL’. To provide context to the archaeological evidence listed, I discuss the reliability of the modern historical sources that documented the evidence of archaeological remains, and supplement the entries with my own observations and photos when possible, in order to gain a more complete picture of the evidence of antiquity throughout Mani; I also include additional data collected and published since the Laconia survey catalogue publication in 1996. 1.3 Chapter Overviews In Chapter 2, I present a theoretical framework for the study of identity in the ancient Mani peninsula. This framework considers the historical and geographical circumstances of the peninsula, and incorporates theoretical applications of island identities, cultural maritime landscapes, anthropological and prehistoric models, archaeologies of identity, and models of ethnic and cultural identity in the Graeco-Roman world; all are equally relevant to the situation of Mani, and all models must be considered in order to establish an appropriate framework with which to study the peninsula as a whole. In Chapter 3, I present several topics related to the geography and geology of the Mani peninsula. This chapter is divided into three distinct parts: in Part 1, I present the geological, topographical, and climate data for Mani, and provide an overview of the different geographical separations used in this dissertation (North-East; East Coast; South; South-West; West Coast; Central; and North-West); in Part 2, I briefly analyze the routes taken by early travelers and geographers to the Mani peninsula, and discuss how the natural landscape and extreme topography affected land-route choices and settlement locations in antiquity, and how the 15 geographic restrictions affect exploration even today; in Part 3, I present a comprehensive overview of natural resource exploitation in antiquity which, in Mani, is largely limited to marble and limestone quarrying and export. The topics covered in these three parts are presented together in Chapter 3 because all are related to identity formation in harsh landscapes: the way in natural world affected those inhabiting the peninsula in antiquity and contributed to unique identity formations. In Chapters 4-8, I present the main historical, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence for the Mani peninsula in antiquity. Each of these chapters focuses on a different historical period: Archaic (prior to 480 BCE), Classical (480-323 BCE), Hellenistic & Roman Republican (323-31 BCE), Imperial Roman (31 BCE through the 2nd century CE), and Late Roman/Late Antique (3rd-6th centuries CE), respectively. The separation of the evidence into these periods is based on traditional chronological divisions within classical scholarship, and this subgrouping also provides a convenient means of presenting the large number of primary sources and material cultural evidence into more practical and manageable chapters. Additionally, by employing this chronological separation, I can more easily analyze individual sites and settlements within contemporary circumstances, rather than combining evidence from disparate historic periods and presenting a conflated or specious interpretation of the nature of ancient Maniate settlements, which has often been the case in the past. In Chapter 9, I present the site of Diros Bay as a case study for studying ancient occupation history and identity in a region without primary written sources. Diros Bay is located on the western coast of Mani, and the archaeological results presented here are the results of multidisciplinary research in the region, under the auspices of the Diros Project. I briefly present the results of the archaeological investigation at Diros Bay as a case study for localism and 16 regional identity in ancient Mani and underscoring the fact that even small projects are able to contribute to our understanding of ‘ahistorical’ places in antiquity. Finally, in Chapter 10 I provide an overview of my interpretations of the identities within the ancient Mani peninsula through temporal divisions of regional patterns, from the Archaic through Roman periods, and I discuss my conclusions regarding the identity of the inhabitants of the Mani peninsula throughout antiquity. The results of my investigation reveal a closer link between Mani and overseas locales than to the native inland Lakonia, in contrast to the majority of scholarship which assumes Sparta's overarching influence. This has important implications especially for the role of the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, which I argue was not controlled by Sparta, but instead functioned as a neutral, unaffiliated space for a variety of activities including religious worship, refuge for suppliants (especially helots), and the gathering of troops and ships for military campaigns. 17 Chapter 2: A Theoretical Framework for Ancient Identity in the Mani Peninsula “It is an anthropological truism to state that cultural difference is intimately bound up with space, time, identity and politics.”15 2.1 Introduction to the Chapter The goal of this chapter is to outline the proposed theoretical framework with which to evaluate ancient identity in the Mani peninsula, based on the region's distinct combination of geographic and historical circumstances. In order to establish an appropriate framework for assessing ancient Maniate identity, it is necessary to discuss the existing scholarship that addresses approaches to identity in the Mediterranean region and elsewhere, from historical, archaeological, and environmental/geographical perspectives. In this chapter, several approaches to understanding ancient cultural identity are examined and evaluated for their respective applicability to the study region of the Mani peninsula. These approaches include the assessment of ancient ethnic identity derived primarily from historical and literary sources, the incorporation of landscape theory and cultural identity in coastal and island environments, and a discussion of fragmentary, entangled, and hybrid identity formation theory in politically complex and/or geographically remote locations. Following this comprehensive overview of the relevant scholarship, I present the amalgamated framework that emerges from these varied studies that can best evaluate ancient Maniate cultural, social, and political identity throughout the remaining chapters. 15 Robb 2001, 190. 18 2.2 Ancient Sources of Evidence for Maniate Identity and Potential Interpretations The evidence I use to examine Maniate identity will draw on three sources of information: historical, epigraphic, and archaeological material. For this region, none of these lines of evidence is strong enough on its own to provide sufficient, reliable insights into ancient identity, and therefore these three categories must be used in conjunction with one another; in this study, no single source of evidence holds a privileged position over the other two. A brief summary of the nature of each of these corpora (historical works, epigraphic evidence, and archaeological remains) follows. As mentioned in the introduction, there are few primary sources concerning the poleis situated in Mani and none which were composed by an ancient author residing in or hailing from Mani – therefore, we lack a truly emic point of view for ancient Mani in the sense that we are bereft of an internally perceived view of the region.16 That being said, there is still value in an ancient etic (externally perceived) perspective of the peninsula and its inhabitants, and how their contemporaries identified them: a) in general as 'Peloponnesians' or 'outsiders'; b) regionally as Lakedaimonians, Lakonians, or even Spartans; or c) by their respective poleis, the latter of which may be interpreted as an emphasis on civic identity. For this portion of the examination, I rely heavily on historical investigations into identity, and the construction thereof based on both internally- and externally-perceived distinctions and identifiers.17 The term emic is used 16 For the origin of the terms etic and etic in anthropological thought, see Pike 1954. In terms of emic and etic constructions of ancient identity, see Malkin 2001, Hall 1997 & 2003, Ruby 2006, and Demetriou 2012. 17 Studies like those undertaken by Hall (2002, 2012) and McInerney (1999) provide the basis for historical investigations into ancient identity. 19 exclusively to refer to the internal, insider point of view derived directly from Maniate sources, and the term etic refers to the descriptive categories and distinctions perceived externally both in antiquity by Mediterranean contemporaries, as well as those formed and observed in modern scholarship – clarification as to which group's etic perspective is being described is included when necessary. Epigraphic sources reveal a combination of both internally and externally selected perspectives, depending naturally on the geographic source of the inscription itself. However, the majority of inscriptions included in this analysis are those found within the peninsula, and provide evidence such as names of individuals, names of poleis, and names of religious cults and accompanying deities. The factor in common with all of these lines of evidence is, plainly, a name, which provides an unparalleled piece of information regarding identity: According to the American educator and pragmatist John Dewey (1859-1952), 'naming is...itself directly a form of knowing. Naming does things. It states. To state, it must both conjoin and disjoin, identify as distinct and identify as connected...Naming selects, discriminates, identifies, locates, orders, arranges, systematizes.' Likewise, the Oxford philosopher Edwin Ardener (1989:68) argued that 'onomastic propensities' establish a taxonomic space within which self-identification and external classification serve to define the group, and Thomas Hylland Eriksen notes that '[t]he establishment of clear labels for large categories of people may thus have a conceptually, but also socially reifying effect on groups' (1993: 90).18 The value of the explicitly and intentionally included name cannot be understated in this study, as the body of evidence is so limited and sparse, wherein the inclusion of a name provides an avenue to study aspects of prosopography, settlement distribution, and even religious worship.19 18 Hall 2002, 24 & 125; Dewey and Bentley, 1949; Eriksen 1993, 2nd edition 2002 (this quote is actually on p 89 in the 2002 version); Ardener 1989. See also Ruby 2006 37-46. 19 See the papers in Depauw and Coussement 2014, which rely heavily on the relationship between naming and identity. 20 Finally, archaeological evidence from both Mani and the surrounding areas of Lakonia, Messenia and neighbouring islands proves helpful for shedding light on potential cross-cultural interactions that are absent from the literary sources. Macroscopic and microscopic analysis of archaeological material (ceramic fragments) collected from a pedestrian survey in Diros Bay on the western coast of Mani provides the basis of the case study included in the current research (Chapter 9). This form of inquiry provides information regarding material cultural exchange and potential contacts, relationships and mobility patterns, all of which are becoming increasingly highlighted as markers in the shaping of identity.20 Tilley describes the potential relationship between artifacts and identity as such: “Material forms may act as key metaphors of embodied identities, tools with which to think through and create connections around which people actively create identities. Artefacts permit people to know who they are by virtue of the fact that they assume specific forms or images in the minds of the viewer in a manner not possible to convey in words.”21 I address each of these lines of evidence (historical, epigraphic, and archaeological) in depth in subsequent chapters, as each informs discrete manifestations of ancient Maniate identity. Since identity as a concept is not a tangible nor wholly externally perceptible trait, the interpretations and ascriptions of identities can be as varied as the sources of evidence used to determine them. Identity is fluid and potentially boundless: “...[I]ndividuals possess a broad repertoire of social identities and roles that they adopt in varying circumstances and for specific goals and purposes...”.22 Demetriou reminds us of the importance of studying ancient Greek 20 Knapp and Van Dommelen 2010; Phillips 2003; Sellet et al. 2006; Tilley 2006; Van Dommelen and Knapp 2010; Harrison-Buck, 2012; see also the recent papers in Fenn and Römer-Strehl 2013. 21 Tilley 1999, 268; see also Tilley 2006, 23. 22 Hall 2002, 10; For early scholarship on status and role, see Linton 1936; and Lang 1956. For the concept of fluidity in identity, see Tilley (2006) 8: “The advent of a post-structuralist approach (for want of a better term) in 21 identity, in spite of arguments that identity is a modern analytical construct and boasts myriad manifestations: “...[I]dentity was part of social reality in the ancient Mediterranean: individuals and groups experienced different kinds of identities, subjectively, whether these were self-representations or imposed by outsiders, and these identities conditioned some of their choices and decisions.”23 For this reason, rather than focus solely on any one category of identity, my research considers the construction and expression of numerous Maniate identities – including cultural, political, civic, social, and religious identities – and the way in which they converge and are represented in the above-mentioned sources of evidence, namely material culture, literature, and epigraphy. 2.3 Approaches to Ancient Greek Identity: History vs. Prehistory The majority of inquiries into the nature of identity fall into specific chronological and geographic categories. That is to say, many examinations of ancient Greek identity tend to feature case studies focusing on a specific place within a specific period of time in ancient history – a small region during the Archaic or the Roman period, for example.24 Moreover, most of this scholarship highlights ancient cities or regions that fall into the historical period and which feature an abundance of historical evidence in the form of written records and/or literature. Alternatively, those studies which concentrate on elucidating the nature of identity from archaeological remains or geographic circumstances tend to focus on civilizations and social theory has manifested itself in a non-essentialist approach to questions of identity. The aim has been to reveal the mutability and fluidity of any notion of the concept. Identity becomes something spoken about in the plural, not one but many, something always changing in space–time. Identities are always responding to change, mobile rather than fixed and static, constantly open to formulation and reformulation.” 23 Demetriou 2012, 9. 24 McInerney 1999; Larson 2007; Faragune 2014; Kristensen 2014; Maffi 2014; see also the papers in Gruen 2011 and the papers in Cifani, Stoddart, and Neil 2012. 22 regions that fall largely within the realm of prehistory. These tendencies have produced a preponderance of investigations of ancient ethnic and cultural identity that centre on regions with either a) an abundance or b) a complete absence of written history. This dichotomy, in turn, has resulted in a dearth of information on cultural and political identity for regions like the geographically peripheral Mani peninsula in southern Lakonia – regions which have archaeological and even epigraphic evidence of human activity during the 'ancient historic' period (Classical-Roman) but which lack a proportionate number of written sources in the form of historical documents and literature. Traditionally, studies of regions that fall into the first category and which have an abundance of historical sources rely less frequently on rigorous theoretical applications than studies of regions that fall into the second category and whose period of activity is firmly rooted within the prehistoric period. Landscape theory, including theories of geographic peripheries and archaeologies of island, maritime, and coastal identities, is often only applied to prehistoric societies, as if these theoretical applications do not have a legitimate role in the presence of historical sources. The result, therefore, has been an overwhelming academic divide between the investigation of: a) prehistoric ethnic identity through examinations of geography and archaeology, versus b) historic cultural identity through examinations of written evidence.25 The central focus of this chapter addresses the question: 'How does one approach a region such as Mani with the current lack of precedent for elucidating cultural identity in the 'ahistorical 25 This is of course a vestige of the “Great Divide”, as Renfrew (1980) referred to it. See also Snodgrass, 1985. Hassan 1979, 267 even notes: “Archaeology, especially prehistoric archaeology, has always had strong ties with geology.” For an assessment of the state of Classical Archaeology within the larger field of archaeological theory, and a reliance on historical sources see Dyson 1993, 201-205. For a more recent presentation of this problem, see Demetriou 2012, 15. For studies falling into the 'historical' category, see: Hall 1997, 2002; Malkin 2001; McInerney 1997; Larson 2007; Said 2001; Faragune 2014; Kristensen 2014; Maffi 2014. For studies falling into the 'archaeological' category see: Jones 1997; Morgan 2001 75-112; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002; Morris 2005, 46; Ruby 2006 54-9; Antonaccio 2001, 2009. 23 historical' period?' Although research focusing on historically marginal regions has traditionally been sparse, such studies are becoming increasingly popular particularly as archaeological and historical investigations move away from large urban centres and pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, in spite of the accompanying lack of literary and historical sources as one moves temporally away from the Classical period and geographically away from Attica.26 We are beginning to see an interest in the periphery, the hinterland, and locales that have been lost to history. Classical archaeology no longer exists primarily as a “hand-maiden to event-oriented history”, nor do Classical archaeologists ascribe solely to a “Socrates sat here and Alexander fought here” mentality, although this approach is admittedly still very much in existence.27 The goal of this present study is to apply methodologies used in both historical and prehistoric approaches to identity in order to elucidate the nature of cultural, political, civic, and religious identity in this region of southern Greece. The Mani peninsula is in no way unique in that it defies and straddles both historic and pre- (or a-) historic classification, but the impetus for launching such a comprehensive study of this particular region lies in the hopes that the methodologies employed throughout this work are able to be replicated for the myriad regions which elude strict historical categorizations, both within Greece and elsewhere in the Mediterranean, the European continent, and globally. 26 Alcock et al. 2005; Alcock, 2003; Cherry 2003; Cavanaugh and Armstrong 1996. 27 Dyson, 1993, 202. 24 2.4 History of Scholarship on Ancient Greek Ethnic Identity The study of identity in the eastern Mediterranean saw its beginnings in the 1980s and has since become a popular field of inquiry.28 The trajectory of this scholarship has been such that the vast majority of literature today focuses on cultural identity and, specifically, ethnicity or ethnic identity, which can be understood in its most basic form as a collective identity typically derived from shared ancestry that is formed or reinforced in the presence of an external group.29 One of the reasons for the inclination of scholarship toward ancient ethnicity over other collective identities is that two of the most influential scholars in the field of ancient Greek identity, namely Jonathan Hall and Irad Malkin, have themselves focused on the ethno-cultural aspects of identity. Hall's approach to ancient ethnic identity is historical, relying on evidence and conclusions drawn from foundation myths and primary historical accounts, and he suggests that Greek identity initially formed based on collective group descent and, in the Classical period, was transformed and reinforced in the face of a common 'other' (the Persians).30 Much of his early scholarship focused on Greek identity both in terms of 'nested identities' and “the plurality of 'intrahellenic' identities”31 while his later work offered an interpretation of what it means to be 28 For the evolution of the field since the 1980's compare, for example, Osborne 1987 vs Osborne 2004; van Andel & Runnels 1987 vs McInerney 1999. 29 Demetriou 2012 addresses this issue. Examples of the examination of ancient Greek ethnicity include: Antonnacio 2009; Cifani, Stoddart, and Neil 2012; Hall 1997, 2002; Gardner, Herring, & Lomas 2013; Jones 2007; Malkin 2001; McInerney 1999, 2014; Morgan 2001; Tilley 2006. 30 Hall 1997, 111-42; 2002 (19-24) includes Hall's thesis regarding strengthened collective ethnic identity in times of military action: “...[M]embership in an ethnic group will not always be the most salient dimension of identification, though it tends to assume greater importance at times when the integrity of the ethnic group is threatened”. 31 Hall 1997 xii; Hall 2002 (226) addressed the issue of ethnic identity at a more local/regional level as well, noting: “At the sub-Hellenic level, ethnicity appears to have exercised an enduring, if fluctuating, potency within group identification ... In the sixth century, these sub-Hellenic units became the building blocks from which Hellenic ethnicity was constructed, and in the fifth century ascribed membership of the Ionian and Dorian groups in particular served as rallying cries in the polarized political climate of the Peloponnesian War.” 25 'Greek' in terms of a collective unit, largely in times of peril or conflict.32 To Hall, ethnic identity was “the operation of socially dynamic relationships which are constructed on the basis of a putative shared ancestral heritage”, which could be applied at the level of the poleis, region, or (when faced with collective danger) to all of the 'Greeks'.33 This latter notion of aggregative identity, or identities that can become agglutinative as necessary based on social, cultural and political situations, can perhaps be adapted and applied to the situation in Mani, even without focusing solely on 'ethnic' identity (or at least not limiting identity solely to ethnicity). For example, Hall's aggregative theory of identity allows for multiple levels of identification, namely sub-Hellenic as well as Hellenic ethnic identity. This possibility is retained when considering Maniate poleis, since there is no reason to assume that residents of any given location would not identify with both their city (Tainaron, for example), their region (Lakonia), and as 'Greeks' in the face of the 'Other'.34 Malkin, on the other hand, while agreeing with Hall's notions of aggregative and oppositional identities, suggested that ancient Greek identity was formed through overseas colonization and the accompanying shared, similar experiences with the foreign 'Other'. This Greekness was then reinforced through large, Panhellenic sanctuaries such as Delphi, which effectively controlled and monitored early colonization.35 According to Malkin, identity is forged when similarities (and, thereby, differences) are perceived and experienced; the more physical 32 Hall 1997, 31: “an external threat to the identity of an ethnic group will tend to engender a more uniform and normative behaviour among its members, which will seek to subsume the internal differences that result from personal identity under a more unified social identity.” 33 Hall 1997, 15. 34 Hall 1997; Malkin 2001; Demetriou 2012, 13. 35 Malkin 2003; 2005, esp. 59ff. 26 and temporal distance that exists between individuals who perceive themselves as similar, the stronger their sense of shared identity will become.36 While the frameworks that Hall and Malkin expertly established are invaluable for a discussion of 'Greekness' and early, emerging Greek identity as a whole, my own research comprises an inquiry into a smaller-scale regional and polis-based identity rather than broad-ranging ethnic or 'panhellenic' identity. Moreover, the lack of primary sources for Mani (particularly those written by the actual former inhabitants of the peninsula) makes it impossible to rely solely on a mytho-historic approach to ethnic and cultural identity like those put forth in Hall and Malkin. For this reason, and due to the fact that the nature of identity is a complex and multi-faceted concept, I turn to the work of scholars such as Demetriou, whose focus expands beyond the constraints of cultural identity and ethnicity to incorporate other facets of identity, namely civic, religious, social, and political.37 In describing the thesis of her work, she states that “an individual's and a group's identity was a conscious statement of self-perception, contingent upon the circumstances: in antiquity, identity was defined at times in terms of common descent, sometimes along linguistic lines, other times according to religious traditions, and often in political terms.”38 Likewise, Osborne questions the value of studying ancient Greek ethnicity, particularly in the view that ethnicity could be exploited as necessary as a means to achieve political or social ends, and is not an objective reality.39 Therefore, the way in which an individual or a community selected and fashioned their social, civic, political, and religious identities is a much more expedient avenue for studying ancient cultural identity. However, 36 Malkin 2005, 59-60; Harrison 1999; see also Malkin 2001. 37 Demetriou 2012, 1, 9; Ruby 2006, 48-54. 38 Demetriou 2012, 14. 39 Osborne 2012, 35. 27 Demetriou's 2012 book deals with the complex nature of forged or reinforced identities at emporia in the ancient Greek world. The setting, therefore, is very different from the present work, but I emulate her goals in breaking from a study focused solely on ethnicity, as well as her open-mindedness to a large range of possibilities for the manifestation of local identities. 2.5 Ancient Greek Ethnicity vs. Other Identities To reiterate, the issue with conflating the study of Greek identity with the study of Greek ethnicity is that the latter is largely reliant on historical sources, particularly emic written sources that the historian must analyze methodically in order to extract authentic sentiment regarding personal, regional, or Hellenic identity – as Hall notes, the “discursive construction of ethnic identity”.40 Conclusions about group identity and ethnicity are drawn through expressed (consciously or otherwise) ethnic markers – and in literature, these markers are often (but not always) explicitly expounded.41 Thus, discerning Greek historical ethnic identity – which relies necessarily on a comparative study of previous scholarship, which in turn relies heavily on emic voices constructing and reinforcing ethnicity through voiced, intentional constructions – is all but impossible in the present case study. 40 Hall 1997 p 3; For a reliance on literary sources, Hall 1997 (2) says: “While all of these attributes may act as important symbols of ethnic identity, they really only serve to bolster an identity that is ultimately constructed through written and spoken discourse.”; and further, 1997 (24): “Any quest, then, for an objective definition of an ethnic group is doomed to failure simply because the defining criteria of group membership are socially constructed and renegotiated, primarily through written and spoken discourse.” See also Tilley 2006 (12) on the interpretation of ethnic identity with written history: “In oral cultures the ‘real’ past is effectively unknown. In literate cultures the past that is documented in some way inevitably becomes the subject of interpretative debate in which it becomes connected to the concerns of the present in new ways. There is no such thing as a traditional identity, only forms of constructing identities that might be labelled traditional by some according to particular, and ultimately, arbitrary criteria. However, the significance of tradition manifested through material forms and the social practices linked to them is difficult to overemphasize.” 41 Hall 2002 19; Hall 1997 182: “Ethnic identity is not a 'natural' fact of life; it is something that needs to be actively proclaimed, reclaimed and disclaimed through discursive channels. For this reason, it is the literary evidence which must constitute the first and final frame of analysis in the study of ancient ethnicity.” 28 For example, if we were to apply Anthony Smith's six characteristics of ethnic groups to the Mani (1 - a collective name; 2 - a common myth of descent; 3 - a shared history; 4 - a distinctive shared culture; 5 - an association with a specific territory; and 6 - a sense of communal solidarity), two problems arise: the first is that many of these are difficult (1, 2, 3) or impossible (6) to discern without literary sources, and the second is that if one were to interpret these distinctions broadly, the Mani would not seem distinct from Lakonia in terms of name, territory and 'shared' descent (Dorian ancestry).42 In fact, based on M.H. Hansen's work on the poleis of the ancient Greek world, the differentiation between neighbouring poleis and settlements is often founded largely on civic identification alone, since there is typically little ethnic differentiation anyway in such small geographic areas.43 Essentially, based on the situation in other regions in Greece during these periods – wherein individual poleis often ascribe to the same or similar regional identities – , there is the likelihood that all the poleis within the Mani peninsula ascribed to or were affiliated with similar ethnic identities with the larger region of Lakonia.44 However, as we know, discerning ethnicity is difficult even with abundant literary and archaeological sources, rendering its investigation all but futile in the present situation. Hall's standpoint on this issue illustrates this difficulty and serves as a reminder of the amplification of 42 Smith's (1986) characteristics are employed in his original work to distinguish social groups from one another when there is a lack of biological unity; his framework is applied to the formation of nations, but serves here to demonstrate the necessary reliance on written sources and 'insiders' for understanding and demarcating group ethnic identity. Also, since Hall 1997 (25) notes that: “it must be the myth of shared descent which ranks paramount among the features that distinguish ethnic from other social groups, and, more often than not, it is proof of descent that will act as a defining criterion of ethnicity.” Therefore, we simply cannot expect to extract any sort of Maniate 'ethnicity' beyond generalizing Dorian ancestry and perhaps reading too much into purported cult centres in the region. 43 Hansen 2000; Demetriou 2012, 6. 44 McInerney 1999; Larson 2007; Demetriou 2012 (5) even describes the superficial similarities present in the entire Mediterranean at this time: “More specifically, recent comparative works on the history of Mediterranean populations have identified similarities in their political, religious, and material culture, in addition to their common maritime outlook... the groups of this region had similar political structures based around small city-states, similar polytheistic religious systems that were easily translatable among different groups, and artifacts or artistic and architectural styles that comprised a common material culture.” 29 the problem if one were to attempt to extract ethnic affiliation in the Mani peninsula without written records: “It is precisely the emphasis on a shared myth of descent and the attempt to endow category membership and political claims with an historical legitimation that renders it difficult to trace the genesis of various ethnic groups.”45 Another potentially promising yet equally elusive set of characteristics to study in order to discern civic and political identity are ta nomima (τά νόµιµα), or the customs and identifying features of a given polis: “...among them cults, the hierarchies of a local pantheon, the sacred calendar, the names of magistracies and institutions, and the terminology of the division and subdivision of a city's tribes.”46 Malkin observes that: “In the classical period nomima became something worth commenting on, reflecting or even defining the collective identity of a political community.”47 Of course, like Smith's list above, the vast majority of nomima of Maniate poleis are impossible to determine without written evidence, but these characteristics provide crucial signifiers for interpreting civic identity, and at least one category – the articulation of identity through cult affiliation – can be somewhat discerned in Mani through the archaeological and epigraphic record.48 Ultimately, however, based on its necessary reliance on abundant literary sources, discerning Maniate ethnic identity at the expense of other social and cultural identities at either the polis or regional level is neither the intention nor the goal of this current research. Moreover, the common practice in antiquity of referring to oneself based on geographic location (typically the polis or region of origin) suggests that political and civic ascription play a significant role in 45 Hall 1997, 26; Malkin 2005, 64; Ruby 2006, 37-46; Tilley 2006, 23. 46 Malkin 2005 67 47 Malkin 2005, 67. 48 Malkin 2005 71; Ruby 2006 37-46; Tilley 2006, 23. 30 expressed identity; here again I reiterate Demetriou's assertion that “ethnic identity was neither the sole nor always the most important mode of self-representation,”49 in spite of our recent fixation with ethnicity over other forms of personal and collective identity in the ancient world. For this reason, and due to our lack of potential resources for extracting ethnic identifiers mentioned above, I incorporate not only multiple sources of evidence for ancient identity (geography, history literature, epigraphy, and archaeological remains), but also the possibility and probability of multiple identities manifest within the various settlements in ancient Mani. Essentially, when ethnicity is impossible to ascertain through historical analysis, which is the case of the present study region, investigation into other cultural and socio-political identities through other avenues of research (namely, geographical, archaeological and epigraphic inquiry) must take precedence. 2.6 The Archaeology of Identity In comparison to the reliance on historical sources discussed above, archaeological inquiry can also reveal many aspects of identity, and this too has been a popular avenue of research in recent decades.50 Like Hall and Malkin's historical approaches to identity, much archaeological inquiry into identity has focused on ethnicity and cultural identity, linking socio-cultural markers such as artifacts, funerary and dietary customs, domestic dwellings, and personal adornment to ethnic identity. Necessarily, such inquiries tend to rely on a large body of archaeological material, often derived from systematic excavations over a long period of time, or the recording and interpretation of the surviving architecture and material culture visible on the 49 Demetriou 2012, 12-14. 50 See, for example, Shennan 1989; Jones 1997; Diaz-Andreu 2005; Antonaccio 2009; Bombardieri et al. 2013; Clark 2005; van Dommelen & Knapp 2010; Orser 2001; St. P. Walsh 2014; Yoffee 2007. 31 surface, through both pedestrian and aerial surveys. Moreover, as mentioned already, the archaeology of identity is often assumed to be an alternative, rather than a complement, to understanding identities through the historical record: “Naturally, there are innumerable aspects of the ancient Mediterranean world about which our literary sources are silent and for which archaeology provides our only information” [my italics].51 The dichotomy between deriving information either from archaeology or from history rarely occurs in current inquiries into other aspects of antiquity, and ought not persist as the norm in the field of ancient identity. As already mentioned, the study of the archaeology of ethnicity has become wildly popular in recent years, but has received its share of criticisms, particularly with regard to excessively ascribing ethnic significance to material cultures.52 Material culture can be selected consciously to express any given number of 'identities', both ethnic and cultural (and otherwise), but the degree to which it does so varies widely from one situation to the next. In fact, material choices need not correspond to boundaries of cultural identity or ethnicity whatsoever. Therefore, Catherine Morgan's caution for wariness of ethnicity in the archaeological record should be heeded and ethnicity as expressed through material remains should only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.53 Choices in style and material expression that are thought to reflect ethnic or social boundaries have, in some cases, been limited to certain artifacts that are “selected to carry social or political meaning under particular circumstances, rather than the totality of a society's material 51 Hall 2012, 366-367. 52 The historical ascription of Aegean/Greek ethnic identity to the Philistine cultures based on material culture assemblages serves as an instructive example of this problem in past scholarship. 53 Morgan 2001, 91; Hall 2002 (106) notes that there is “seldom a simple or direct relationship between observable material cultural patterns and ethnic identity”. 32 culture”.54 If one ascribes to this belief, this can be fortunate in the case of large, stratified, properly excavated sites with an excessive amount of material culture, because the restriction to a certain category of objects often lightens the proverbial – and literal – load of items that is to be examined for ethnic markers. On the other hand, if one eliminates the restriction of 'ethnic' identity and instead employs the material cultural record to seek out a plurality of identities, a wider range of artifacts can potentially be examined. In the same way that scholars of statistics stress that correlation does not equal causation, so too is it an unassailable truth that the archaeological record does not correspond unequivocally to ethnicity, or historical, political, or religious identity. This cultural-historical approach, first disseminated by the renowned V. Gordon Childe, wherein the material culture is equivalent to and straightforwardly reveals ethnicity and other identities, is now understood to be a fallacy.55 Just as there is no one group of artifacts or material culture that unequivocally indicates ethnicity or other identities, so too is it true that various aspects of equally varying identities can be garnered from multiple classes of archaeological remains, and cannot – and should not – be restricted. For example, social identity very often encompasses and manifests itself in multiple categories of material culture: Social identities are expressed through a variety of material media, and no single medium holds a special key to social identities. Meanings such as group identity may be created and expressed through a wide range of products, styles, techniques, attitudes, symbols and dispositions... The implication is that understanding how ancient people created social identities requires not crosscultural generalizations so much as careful contextual study of how symbols were constituted and used in a specific situation.56 54 Morgan 1991, 134. 55 Childe 1929. For an excellent discussion of the relationship between material culture and ethnicity, see Hall 1997 111-142. 56 Robb 2001, 177; Dietler and Herbich 1988; Hegmon 1998. 33 Alternatively, Demetriou puts it simply and broadly: “...specific objects acquired particular importance for some people in certain places at given times and could become indicators of identities.”57 In the case of Mani, the lack of archaeological material from secure contexts, like the corresponding lack of written records, prevents us from investigating ethnicity; without a substantial amount of material culture, we have no 'norm' from which to evaluate deviations and identify Hall's notion of 'active praxis', or conscious decision-making reflected in material culture for the express purpose of indicating ethnicity.58 However, our small sample size does not preclude an investigation into other identities, it only requires a more comprehensive, nondiscriminatory approach to do so: In the first place, although it is difficult to discern expressions of identity in the material record when no textual evidence is available, the examination of archaeological evidence nonetheless provides important insights into cross-cultural interactions in the Mediterranean. For instance, it is possible to show the distribution and adoption of certain artifacts across the Mediterranean, indicate how material culture changed when groups came into contact, and discuss what aspects of it were used to express certain identities at specific moments in time when these identities acquired particular salience.59 In attempting to coax markers of cultural, social, or political identity from small sample sizes, one must look at all the material culture available and at specific aspects of material culture that are likely to contain archaeological signatures of identity in order to draw tentative 57 Demetriou 2012, 8. 58 Hall 1997, 136: “Thus, to identify instances of active praxis, it is necessary to examine the context of an archaeological phenomenon, since it is only by forming a picture of how a particular community typically uses various elements of material culture that one can discern apparent deviations from the norm.” The lack of an established typology of material culture from Mani also prevents a more in-depth examination of either Sackett or Wiessner's view of style: Sackett's 1985 framework features the notion of isochrestic style as an underlying, passive, inherent factor in the production of the material culture of given groups, which can result in a (sometimes unintentionally) identifiable material culture (157-9), whereas Wiessner (1983) defined emblematic style as a marker of ethnic identity, which undergoes strong selection for uniformity and clarity because it carries a distinct message and marks and maintains boundaries. Following Sackett's response, in 1989 she re-defined style as “one of several means of communication through which people negotiate their personal style and social identity vis-à-vis others.” 59 Demetriou 2012, 15. 34 conclusions that can be corroborated with future fieldwork. This approach is especially relevant for Mani, since this study is not purporting to elucidate ethnic identity, and as the archaeological record is correspondingly sparse and comprises mostly spolia, membra disiecta, and only a handful of pedestrian surveys and rescue excavations, rather than a large corpus of material from stratified, excavated contexts. The implications for determining identity from such a small sample size are threefold: first, to reiterate from above, all conclusions must be somewhat tentative, and rely somewhat on potential future fieldwork to confirm or deny any proposed hypotheses regarding identity markers in material culture; second, the categories from which to draw any conclusions about choices in material culture are decidedly minuscule – in the present study we are restricted to ceramic fabrics (not decoration) and the material selected for architectural and relief sculpture; and third, we must rely on comparative archaeological 'cultures' to provide an “indispensable context or repertoire of normative behaviours against which one is more likely to recognize the mobilization by individuals or groups of certain symbols, objects, and practices within active strategies of self-proclamation”.60 To put it plainly, since scholars have identified traditionally 'Spartan' or 'Lakonian' cultural signatures over the past century, we at least have something to measure the Maniate material against, even if there isn't much material to begin with. It follows, then, that – like the discussion regarding the historical record above – little may be concluded from the archaeological record alone, and the evidence for ancient Maniate identity must be taken in conjunction with other forms of evidence, namely historical, epigraphic, and geographic. 60 Hall 2012, 351; 1997, 136. 35 2.7 Archaeologies of Island and Coastal Societies – Theories of Isolation from 1950s-Present I now turn to a discussion of archaeological theories of identity in various landscapes and locations which are directly relevant to the geographic situation in Mani. The peninsula’s geographic circumstances, particularly its seeming isolation and topographical separation from the rest of mainland Greece by the Taygetus mountain range, led to my initial consideration that this peninsula should be treated as more of an 'island' in terms of metaphorical insularity. I believed that the circumstances of isolation on Mani merited its conscription into the category of 'habitat island': “isolated patches of terrestrial habitat surrounded by completely different habitats other than water” – or, in Mani’s case, only partially by water; ‘habitat islands’ can then be studied using similar theoretical frameworks applied to island societies even if they are not technically themselves islands.61 Theoretical considerations for island societies first appeared in the middle of the 20th century with the work of Rouse, who put forth the notions that islands should be considered as separate cultural units, and that societies orient themselves either toward the land or toward the sea – the key difference between the two being that either land or water provides the primary avenue of communication, while the other forms the barrier. So, for example, a maritime-oriented society would easily diffuse their culture through “water passages”, whereas land masses would prove to be barriers of cultural contact.62 Where Rouse was truly progressive, however, was his caution for scholars to maintain awareness of the current situation of their study regions, and not to extrapolate the modern cultural patterns of individual island societies to 61 Boomert & Bright 2007, 4; Whittaker 1998, 7. 62 Rouse 1951, 260. 36 their forebears.63 A further recommendation was made for future research to consider the possibility of varying degrees of influence and connection to the associated 'mainland', rather than a severe disconnect between island and mainland cultures. This aspect of Rouse's work is particularly ahead of its time, since as the field of island archaeology has progressed through the 20th and 21st centuries, it has become increasingly clear that cultural identities of island societies are just as fluid and complex as those found elsewhere. The geographical fact of 'islandness' does not imply a straightforward or solitary identity. In 1977, Evans introduced the notion of 'delimited habitats', which are characterized by “providing a range of special opportunities for, but at the same time imposing special constraints on, any human groups which chose to inhabit them”.64 For Evans, however, the Mediterranean islands represented the opposite situation of delimited habitats exemplified by island societies in the Pacific Ocean, because of the former's close proximity to one another and to the Greek mainland, encouraging communication and trade. The Mediterranean situation, in contrast to the Pacific, promotes connectivity not only between islands but between coastal mainland societies, forming an integrated maritime society with shared cultural developments extending as far back as the Neolithic. The distribution of Mani's ancient settlements along the coast – in contrast to its mountainous interior – becomes particularly relevant in light of Evans' work, as he emphasizes island and maritime contact in opposition to terrestrial communication, in a passage that can be applied to the topography of many of the Mediterranean islands and coastal mainland, including the Mani peninsula: “The rugged nature of much of the hinterland, extending as it does right down to the coast itself in many places, and the generally narrow coastal plains, sections of 63 Rouse 1951, 261. 64 Evans 1977, 12. 37 which are frequently separated from each other by difficult mountainous country, served to discourage overland movement in favour of the easier, though often treacherous, communications by sea.”65 This is, of course, in keeping with Braudel's earlier work which defined Greek seafaring and navigation as characterized by island- and coast-hopping.66 This notion that “water tends to unite; mountains tend to divide” was further emphasized by Ericksen, who also challenged the predominant theory of island isolation and insisted that while island metaphors were useful as examples of social and cultural identity processes, they were no longer to be regarded as models of isolated societies.67 That the term 'insular' does not equal 'isolated' became increasingly apparent as more and more investigations into island societies consistently revealed that the notion of insular isolation was an incorrect assumption, and therefore defining any self-sustaining or isolated society as an 'island' “should be abandoned since it was wrong from the beginning.”68 Literal insularity, rather, implies a geographic truism, and is not synonymous with isolation, and can only refer to aspects of cultural island phenomena when agents create or emphasize aspects of metaphorical insularity. Ultimately, there is nothing uniform about all island societies everywhere, and geographic insularity is relative and does not necessitate metaphorical insularity, which is itself often a social and conscious choice rather than a product of geographic circumstance.69 To borrow again from the field of statistics, physical 65 Evans 1977, 13. 66 Braudel 1972, 103-4. 67 Ericksen 1993, 134-5. 68 Ericksen 1993, 135; Finney 1976; Irwin 1992; Lape 2004; Moss 2004. For a more recent discussion of the scholarship, see Erlandson & Fitzpatrick 2006; for connections and interactions in borderlands in general, see: Galaty et. al 2013; Turchin and Hall 2003; Hall and Turchin 2006; Kuecker and Hall 2011; Gardner 2007; Parker 2006; Fitzpatrick and Anderson 2008; Biersack 1995; Stark 1998; Fox 1997; Hirsch and O’Hanlon 1995; Ingold 2000; Myers 1986. 69 Ericksen 1993, 144; Terrell 1986; Gosden and Pavlides 1994, 162; Broodbank 2008; Anderson 2004; Calvo et al. 2011; Rainbird 1999; Knapp 2007 (these latter 2 found in Calvo); Erlandson (2008, 83): “...isolation and interaction are relative states that form a continuum ranging from complete isolation at one end of the spectrum to constant and uninhibited interaction on the other.” 38 separation – whether by land or by sea – may be correlated with but does not cause cultural disconnect. Erlandson and Fitzpatrick's work outlines this truism: Coastal and island societies are inherently circumscribed: their members lived on the edge of a continent or large island, or on a small island completely surrounded by water. How have humans responded to such circumscription and to barriers that may be physical, social, or mental? The isolation of many island societies has, at times, been exaggerated and the permeability of such physical or cultural barriers varied tremendously through space and time. Just as clearly, cultural responses to insularity, isolation, or circumscription are not limited to island or coastal peoples—human societies can be isolated by mountain chains, deserts, cultural frontiers, and other features of natural and social landscapes. People can also choose, at times, to isolate themselves from their neighbors by strictly cultural means—resisting contact with outside groups and developing “island fortress” mentalities.70 In sum, patterns and diffusion of material culture, language, and kinship may be facilitated by topographical features, be they maritime routes, or inland valleys, but the degree to which any given community enables geography and topography to affect contact can be said to be consciously selected: “the only people who say mountains separate don’t live in the mountains”.71 Gosden and Pavlides stress that the connections enabled by both landscapes and seascapes (“land of which the use is partially determined by the sea, allowing for the view that landscape and humans impact each other in equal measure”) should be considered over the long-term, and are constantly changing as a result of the demands of the inhabitants at various periods in history.72 To reiterate, isolation is relative, often a choice, and not a direct result of geographic insularity. Island scholarship over the past 25 years, therefore, has turned to an examination of 70 Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006, 14. 71 Michael Galaty, personal communication; Gosden and Pavlides 1994, 163. 72 Gosden and Pavlides 1994, 160; Boomert & Bright 2007, 10. 39 what 'islandness' actually is in terms of the social landscape, and how the characteristics of an island are made manifest and applied to other settlements.73 The refutation of the idea that islands are isolated led me to the question of whether it was at all useful to describe peninsular regions like Mani as 'habitat' or 'cultural islands'; I decided, rather, that the more appropriate description of the nature of the ancient settlements of Mani was Westerdahl’s 'maritime cultural landscape' – facing outward to the sea, towards other coastal settlements on nearby peninsulas and to the islands off the coast rather than directing their attention internally, through the mountain ranges and valleys.74 Social landscapes and seascapes redirect the agency away from geographical determinism and back to human action. 2.8 Landscapes, Seascapes, and Cultural Identity Horden and Purcell's major 2000 work, The Corrupting Sea, showcased the maritime connectivity provided by the Mediterranean waters, and the degree to which this connectivity was capitalized upon in antiquity. Since the publication of their tome, other works have further developed these ideas, and emphasized other mutual characteristics of Mediterranean peoples, most notable of which, for the purposes of this study, is the notion of a 'common maritime outlook' shared by the communities, cities, and countries around the Mediterranean basin.75 The majority of known settlements on the Mani peninsula – either identified through primary sources or through large concentrations of archaeological remains – are located on the coast. There are, however, a select few sites of interest which are decisively located inland, 73 Gosden and Head 1994; Boomert & Bright 2007. 74 The term 'maritime cultural landscape' was coined by Westerdahl 1992; see also Parker 1999; Arnaud 2008; Boomert & Bright 2007, 16-17. 75 Demetriou 2009, 5; Broodbank 2013. 40 mostly on natural thoroughfares between the aforementioned coastal settlements. The fact that these settlements are situated within the same physical geographic location (the Mani peninsula), and seem to be at least somewhat interconnected leads to the question of whether settlements located within the peninsula shared the same cultural landscape with one another. Landscape approaches in archaeology help us to understand the relationship between single sites within a given region, and are therefore useful in this study76; specifically, incorporating concepts such as environmental cause and human agency into the present theoretical framework combines functionalist and social constructivist views of cultural identity. Due to the minimal archaeological evidence available for Mani, however, landscape-based approach to questions including settlement boundaries and land-use patterns will be limited, and the present work will only begin to scratch the surface of how the inhabitants of the peninsula may have socially constructed their landscape. Human-environmental relationships shed a particular light on cultural diversity, and I believe, therefore, that it is also important to incorporate landscape theory to better understand this particular region. Natural resources and the physical environment, while in no way cultural determinants, have an impact on the humans inhabiting said environment; the 'natural' landscape directly impacts the 'cultural' landscape.77 The definition of landscape itself is not in question here, nor am I making any attempt to present an entirely new way to categorize precisely and control the various manifestations and ways in which humans interact with place, space, and 76 Richards 2006, 314; Aston and Rowley 1974; Bowen and Fowler 1978. 77 The first geographer to come up with the notion of the relationship between natural and cultural landscapes was Sauer 1925. For more recent scholarship on this topic, see: Strang 2005; Descola and Palsson 1996; and Ingold 2000. For discussions of archaeological landscapes, see Knapp & Ashmore 1999. Other scholarship on the importance of space and place, including the influence of the 'spatial turn', includes: Gidden 1984; Osborne 1987; Lefebvre 1991; Horden and Purcell 2000; Blake 2003; Van Dyck and Alcock 2003; Cole 2004; Robinson 2011; and Gilhuly and Worman 2014. 41 landscape.78 The concept of landscape as both “objective physical place and a subjective cognized image of that place”79 is notoriously difficult to pin down, regardless of whether it is categorized as a useful or subversive analytical framework. I accept the idea of landscape as a useful method for evaluating human activity, interaction, religious patterning and social identity; ultimately I use landscape in the same manner as Bender (summarized by Tilley), as a “medium for the analysis of social identities, and as wide as the social and political perspectives of those who use and embrace it.”80 The myriad possibilities with which to evaluate human impact on landscape and vice versa have produced a copious bibliography on the subject and value of landscape theory and which, while valuable, is not the goal of the present work.81 Rather, the already established frameworks of the role of landscape in the formation of social identity are employed and repeated here: Social identity is always experienced and enacted in specific contexts. Having a processual character it always requires specific concrete material points of reference in the form of landscapes, places, artefacts and other persons. It is therefore constituted through various forms of subject to subject and subject to object relations giving it a transactional character. The contexts in which identities are experienced, reproduced or transformed may be conventional and familiar in which persons know how to act and carry on, habitual and routinized, or less familiar requiring a much greater degree of discursive reflection with regard to what having a particular identity might entail. James Leach emphasizes the manner in which identity is always platial in character. Places are generative of social relations. Power and a sense of community regeneration arise from the place. The particular characteristics of social relations can only be understood in relation to place.82 78 Gilhuly and Worman 2014 (4-9) offer an excellent summary of the theoretical constructs of 'place', 'space', and 'landscape'. 79 Tilley 2006, 20. 80 Tilley 2006, 8. Bender, 1993, 1999, 2002, 2006; Bender and Winer, 2001; Bender et al., 2006. 81 Knapp & Ashmore 1999; Gilhuly and Worman 2014; Tilley 2006; Bender, 1993, 1999, 2002, 2006; Bender and Winer, 2001; Bender et al., 2006; Merrifield 1993; Tuan 1977; Escobar 2001; Malpas 1999; Harvey 1996. 82 Tilley 2006, 21; For more on the definition of 'place', see Gilhuly and Worman 2014, 4-6. 42 Increasingly, in the field of Graeco-Roman antiquity, there is a trend to investigate landscapes, space, and place in terms of literature, myth, epigraphy and written histories – largely as a direct response to the vast scholarship of the archaeology of space and place.83 In Chapter 3, early modern traveller's narratives are presented to show the way in which people moved around the peninsula and which sites and settlements were (and remained in various periods) parts of the visible cultural landscape.84 Throughout the chapters, I discuss landscape as a quasi-artifact, as place, as spatial physical reality that was inhabited, navigated, potentially entangled, and one within which social identities formed, and mytho-religious activity occurred. Of course, the landscape of Mani cannot be truly understood without proper consideration of its seascape. Examinations of cultural identity as shaped by maritime cultural landscapes and seascapes have been undertaken elsewhere in the world, and address issues that are relevant for the present study. The notion of seascapes arose in Gosden and Pavlides (1994), but received much more attention in the early 2000s.85 The relationship between coastal communities and the sea is complex and the perception of human-maritime interaction is continuously evolving: specifically, “the concept of the sea as a significant element capable of influencing the life of island communities to a large degree, not merely as a medium through which goods and/or persons travel”.86 Cooney, writing about coastal communities in British Columbia, describes maritime inhabitants and their seascapes very eloquently: “people who inhabit the dry edges of a sea actually live across its fluid surface. Seeing and thinking of the sea 83 Especially the papers in the recent volumes: Gilhuly and Worman 2014; and Skempis and Ziogas 2014. For the archaeological aspects: Horden and Purcell 2000; Van Dyck and Alcock 2003; Robinson 2011; Osborne 987; Cole 2004. 84 Geus and Thiering 2014; Dueck 2012. 85 Gosden and Pavlides, 1994; Horden and Purcell 2000; Broodbank 2002. 86 Calvo et al. 2011, 345-6; Sauvage 2012. 43 as seascape – contoured, alive, rich in ecological diversity and in cosmological and religious significance and ambiguity – provides a new perspective on how people in coastal areas actively create their identities, sense of place and histories.”87 It is clear through Cooney's quote that a consideration of nearby communities is crucial to understanding the complexities of coastal societies, most of which are anything but isolated. For example, in studying the New Guinean Sepik coast, Terrell describes the research goals as follows: “It is the social, economic, and political interactions among people on the coast that interest us and the role that the production, use, and exchange of "material things" play in the formation of social and economic networks along the coast, including offshore islands and communities in the adjacent hinterland.”88 In this study the importance of integrating multiple communities into the study of maritime cultural identity, coastal communities, and seascapes is emphasized. Although thousands of kilometres apart, these three geographically distant regions, coastal British Columbia, Mani, and the Sepik coast of New Guinea, can be described using Darwin's metaphor (reappropriated by Terrell) of an “entangled bank”.89 That is, these coastal areas belong to a larger network of interdependent, interlocking communities and societies and even the use of terms such as 'region' become limiting in describing the patterns of trade and communication.90 A closer examination of the material culture can perhaps elucidate trade patterns, but a lack of written sources renders full comprehension of the coastal, maritime, and terrestrial interactions and relationships impossible. Using studies such as Terrell's Sepik coast 'entangled bank' as a model, the examination in Chapter 9 of material culture from Diros Bay, a small, previously 87 Cooney 2003, 323; for an opposing view, see Van de Noort 2003. 88 Terrell 1997, 420. 89 Terrell, 1988; Terrell and Welsch 1990; Terrell 1997. 90 Terrell 1997, 427; Terrell 1993. 44 unknown site in western Mani, sheds light on cultural diffusion between various communities, and employing an 'archaeology of seascape' approach allows us to apply a comparative methodology toward the Mani in order to understand which features it shares with similar coastal regions elsewhere globally and throughout history. Ultimately, Mani is a terrestrially isolated (but not necessarily insular) geographic region to which I am applying theoretical models of maritime cultural landscapes and entangled banks, using landscape theory and cultural geography to understand the way in which people inhabited this rugged peninsular region throughout antiquity. 2.9 Conclusion In the historical period of classical antiquity, the settlements of Mani lack descriptive, comprehensive, primary sources; the etic sources that do exist inform us as to the existence of select settlements and their inhabitants, but ultimately fail to provide a complete picture of Mani in antiquity. Because of these circumstances, I designated the settlements throughout the peninsula as existing within an 'ahistorical historical' period. Mani’s past is further obscured due to a lack of systematic archaeological investigation within the region. Although Mani is not unique or exceptional in these respects – many areas exist in Greece that can be similarly classified – scholarship on regions like Mani is often lacking due to the admittedly difficult task of studying settlements that are short of an abundance of both archaeological and historical evidence. In the face of this challenge, it is necessary (when applicable) to incorporate and adapt existing theoretical frameworks to supplement the historical evidence. As I argued in this chapter, no one theoretical application can be applied exclusively in this situation, but an appropriate framework for studying the Mani peninsula must rely on theoretical frameworks 45 established within the fields of landscape studies, cultural geography, island and coastal environmental studies, anthropology, and Aegean prehistory. No theoretical application exists which is perfectly suited to this region, and therefore theoretical eclecticism (drawing an amalgamation of existing frameworks) is necessary to best understand the nature of the settlements within the Mani peninsula. To summarize, although the situation in the Mani peninsula seems, at first, to be fraught with logistical difficulties for discerning identity (namely, small corpora of primary source material), this present study employs existing theoretical models and approaches to the interpretation of the surviving written and material culture sources to elucidate multiple identities of the ancient inhabitants of Mani. This study aims for an exhaustive and thorough presentation of the evidence, since no study exists, to-date, that examines the ancient Mani peninsula in its entirety; I argue that myriad identities of Mani, including civic, political, social, cultural, and religious identities, are not only discernible, but that they are influenced by Mani’s isolation, landscape, and seascape. Ultimately, this study presents the various distinct forms of Maniate identity that are manifest throughout classical antiquity, from the Archaic through the late Roman periods. 46 Chapter 3: Geography and Geology of the Mani Peninsula [Mani’s] geographical seclusion, locked away beyond the mountains on the confines of Sparta, and the steepness and aridity of its mountains are the key to the whole thing.91 3.1 Introduction to the Chapter In the previous chapter, I discussed the history of theoretical applications for island and coastal societies, which led to the introduction of concepts such as habitat island, maritime cultural landscape, and seascape – all of which, I argue, apply to the geographic situation of the Mani peninsula. This chapter contains several topics related to the geography, geology, and topography of the Mani peninsula. First, in Part 1, I examine the geography and geology of the region in depth, with an emphasis on the topography, geological features, soil conditions, and climate in the study region. I examine the specific geographic circumstances of Mani which led to these categorizations, and the characteristics of the natural landscape that played a role on natural resource selection and settlement location. At the end of this section, I provide a brief introduction to the geographic divisions I use to discuss the evidence for ancient occupation of the Mani peninsula in the following five chapters (North-East, East, South, South-West, West Coast, Central, and North-West). The spelling of all modern names of settlements, bays, and natural features (mountains, rivers, etc.) are derived from the 2009 Anavasi Hiking Map. In Part 2, I provide a brief overview of early exploration in the peninsula, with an emphasis on the routes taken by early travelers which, I believe, were largely a result of the limited options available due to the restrictive topography. This discussion appears in this chapter on geography because the natural features of the landscape in Mani influence the 91 Fermor 1958, 45. 47 location of settlements, as well as the ease of connectivity between settlements throughout Mani. The few natural land-routes across the peninsula had a direct bearing on the routes chosen by early travelers which, in turn affected the history of exploration of the peninsula and the history of exploitation of the peninsula’s marble. In Part 3, I present an extensive discussion of the main natural resource of the Mani peninsula: stone; namely, the abundance of marble and limestone outcrops and quarries. Mani’s natural stone sources were exploited throughout antiquity and the known quarry sites are presented here for the first time in their entirety. The majority of this chapter is devoted to the location of marble resources, the evidence for the exploitation of the stones in antiquity, the general time frame for ancient exploitation, and the geographic extent of the distribution of this natural resource (i.e., scientifically tested artifacts). In terms of Maniate identity, this chapter outlines the way in which the geography and geology of Mani produced a unique landscape that inevitably affected its inhabitants and their way of life in antiquity, in terms of agricultural exploitation, difficulty of overland communication, and natural resource trade and exportation. 3.2 Part I – Geological and Geographical Considerations of the Inner Mani Peninsula 3.2.1 Topography The most prominent topographical characteristic of the Mani peninsula is the Taygetos mountain range which bisects the peninsula with its formidable peaks (Figure 1-1; 1-2). The southern portion of this range, extending all the way to Cape Matapan (Tainaron), is known as Mount Sagias and reaches a maximum height of 1218 m at Prophitis Ilias above the town of Pyrgos Dirou. The range is angled at approximately N15ºW, dividing the eastern and western halves of the peninsula, known colloquially as sunny (προς ηλιακή) and shadowy (από σκιερή) 48 Figure 3-1: Map of modern settlements in the central section of Inner Mani, showing the more arable land and higher density of settlements along the western coast. © GoogleEarth Mani, respectively. The eastern gradient (sloping towards the Lakonian gulf) is higher than the western (sloping toward the Messenian gulf). The morphology of the peninsula is rugged, with “steep slopes, deep ravines, and some quite extensive erosional landforms.”92 Tectonically, the Mani peninsula is a horst (a raised elongated block of the earth's crust lying between two faults) between two grabens (elongated blocks of the earth's crust lying between two faults and displaced downward relative to the blocks on either side); on the east it comprises the Spartan valley and continues southward beneath the seabed, and on the west the graben begins in the Messenian plains and also terminates beneath the seabed.93 There are active faults parallel to the main graben, and fault lines are visible throughout the peninsula. The most arable land in Inner Mani is the valley located along the western coast, on either side of the main N-S road leading from Areopolis and was created by a pause in the tectonic uplift – the highest density of modern settlements is located in this region (Figure 3-1).94 92 Migiros et al. 2008, 318. 93 Higgins & Higgins 1996, 51-2. 94 Higgins & Higgins 1996, 56. 49 Figure 3-2: Map of modern east-west roads which traverse over the Taygetos Mountain range and traditional placement of ancient sites (inset). © GoogleEarth This high density of human activity along the coast was also the case in antiquity, as demonstrated by the known locations of ancient activity. The only ancient site located inland – Pyrrichos – was located on one of the few natural thoroughfares between the coastal settlements (Figure 3-2).95 There are three main routes through which one is able to traverse the peninsula: the first and northernmost is the location of the modern Gytheio – Areopolis road, which traverses a total distance of approximately 22.5 km (if travelling from coastal Gytheio to the coast of Neo Oitylos at Limeni Bay); the second, central on the map, comprises a mountain pass which connects Diros 95 For a discussion of ancient pathways throughout Mani, see especially Pikoulas 2012; Seifried 2016; and Seifried & Gardner 2018. 50 Bay on the west to Kolokithia Bay on the east, a total walking distance of approximately 16 km; and the third is both the most circuitous, and located furthest south between the villages of Alika (on the west) and through the mountain town of Laghia to the east coast harbour town of Aghios Kyprianos. Approximately 6.68 km as the crow flies, the modern road system covers 15.6 km due to the mountainous terrain. Finally, it is also possible to traverse the peninsula at its narrowest point of the peninsula, from Marinari Bay to Porto Kaghio Bay (indicated by the shortest blue line on Figure 3-2), a direct distance of merely 1.1 km, yet approximately 2.4 km by car. The uncompromising topography of Mani and the situation of the majority of its settlements on the coast evokes the situation described in this passage : “The rugged nature of much of the hinterland, extending as it does right down to the coast itself in many places, and the generally narrow coastal plains, sections of which are frequently separated from each other by difficult mountainous country, served to discourage overland movement in favour of the easier, though often treacherous, communications by sea.”96 I reserve the historical and archaeological evidence for these settlements for the following five chapters, but the physical situation of the vast majority of these sites produces a common maritime outlook for the inhabitants of ancient settlements on the Mani peninsula. There is restricted interconnectivity between inland sites, and between sites on opposite coasts; more specifically, there are only a limited number of ways to access each site due to the finite number of safe pathways between different locales. The limited options for traversing the landscape results in a significant overlap of the routes made by modern travellers to the region; when there is only one route to follow between 96 Evans 1977, 13. 51 settlements, our comprehension of ancient navigation throughout the landscape becomes much clearer. 3.2.2 Geological Composition The following description is derived largely from the 1980 Geological Map of Greece, specifically the Mavrovounion-Areopolis-Yerolimen sheet, produced by the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME).97 A brief discussion of the geological composition of the Mani peninsula is valuable here, since the geology directly affects the topography and features of landscape in which the ancient inhabitants existed; moreover, these data will become directly relevant in a discussion of the results of the ceramic petrology from Diros Bay (case study, Chapter 9). The information is presented here based on composition percentage rather than chronologically, namely the larger geological components are presented first, and the smaller pockets are presented last. The Inner Mani peninsula is primarily composed of limestones and limestones transitioning to marbles in upper portions of the rock, formed during the Upper Senonian (late Cretaceous) - Upper Eocene (middle Paleogene). This component of the peninsula is around 300 m in thickness, and comprises limestones that are grey, grey-white, crystalline, platy and 97 Latsoudas 1984. However, see Chiotis 2001 for a more detailed explanation of the distribution and dating of the various layers of limestone found throughout the peninsula. The purpose of this chapter is not to challenge pre-existing descriptions of geological components but to use them as background information, for which the IGME map suffices. Lazzarini 2007 80 rightly points out that the map is not sufficiently detailed, and he includes the following amendments: The 250 sq. km mapped as crystalline limestone of the Upper Miocene-Senonian top with a thickness estimated 300 m, are in fact a simplification, since it is also limestone sedimentary blacks in the south west of Mani. Following Bizon et al., the southern region of the Taygetos is formed (from the base to the top of the stratigraphic column) by: granoblastic dolomite-layered structures (Triassic); a thick series of multicoloured marbles, initially identified as belonging to the Plattenkalk by Epting et al., characterized by alternating beds of gray-blacks (with intervening layers of impure marbles with silicates and quartzites which mark the transition from the Jurassic to Cretaceous) and layers of white and red marbles; and finally schists and slates (green schistose marl, in the case of the Skoutari region) with transitions to flysch, which are often concordant with Plattenkalk. See also Alexopoulos and Lekkas 1999, Fig. 1 & 2. 52 medium-bedded and marbles that are famous for their colours including reds, yellows and greens – all of the marbles discussed below belong to this formation layer.98 Interspersed throughout the limestone/marble formations are pockets of slightly metamorphic flysch, including schists, shales, and phyllites that transition into the limestone layer underneath. These pockets formed in the Upper Eocene – Oligocene (late Paleogene), can measure up to 250 metres thick and are found throughout the peninsula, particularly along the central Taygetos ridge in the southern portion of the peninsula, and around the bays of (clockwise from northeast) Skoutari, Kolokithia, Porto Kagio, Marmari, Kapi, Sarolimenas, and Almiros. Extending northwest to southeast along the south-western edge of Skoutari Bay, in the Stomio and Epano Vathi Bays, and then again along the eastern coast from Soloteri Bay to Androghiali Bay are patterns of Middle Triassic – Middle Lias (Upper Triassic) limestones and marbles, up to 500 m in thickness and are characterized as transitioning rapidly to dolomites with chert nodules, and where they meet the schists below, the contact is tectonic. Flanking these formations in the north and north east of the peninsula is a Permian – Lower Triassic component consisting of schists and phyllites, measuring approximately 500 m in thickness. In the northeast section of Inner Mani, from Skoutari up to Mavrovouni, there are several pockets of geological formations to note: Pliocene formations including marls, conglomerates and clays up to 100 m thick; Permian – Lower Triassic mica schists, phyllites and quartzites 250-300 m thick (there is also a small pocket of this feature in the southern portion of the peninsula, just north of the Marmari and Porto Kagio bays); lower Cretaceous limestones of an unknown thickness containing abundant fossils; thin schist layers (0-50 m) dating to the Lower-Upper Jurassic; and Pleistocene deposits comprising breccias and clays. Finally, Holocene alluvial deposits including cobbles, pebbles, and sandy 98 Latsoudas 1984; Lazzarini 1990, 241. 53 clays are found throughout the northeast coast and around Limeni Bay; the presence of Holocene cones are detectable slightly inland from the bays of Diros, Koukouri, Lagadhaki, and Spathari, on the western coast. Ultimately, the vast majority of this peninsula is composed of hard, metamorphic rock, primarily limestones and marbles. The current landscape can be described as karstic, as the underlying limestone has been eroded by dissolution, thereby producing ridges, towers, fissures, sinkholes, and other characteristic landforms throughout the peninsula. Notable examples of geomorphological formations as a result of these characteristics include the Diros Bay cave networks and the massive crater-like basins located along the western coast of the peninsula (see Chapter 9).99 Morris refers to these cave systems and the formidable landscape of the Tainaron peninsula as emblematic of Homer's description of κοίλην Λακεδαίµονα κητώεσσαν100, a deep gulf full of monsters or “a hollow (bay of) Lakedaimon, full of sea creations...a sailor's nightmare.”101 3.2.3 Soil and Ground Coverage The soils covering the entirety of the Mani peninsula can be classified as lithosols and red-brown Mediterranean soils.102 Lithosols are defined as thin soils consisting mainly of partially weathered rock fragments and are not ideal for agricultural exploitation. This thin and rocky soil composition led Allen to describe Mani as “one of the bleakest parts of Greece” and the agricultural and pastoral outputs of its residents as meagre: “... the soil is thin and rocky and 99 Oblik et al. 2004, 221; Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, 5. 100 Homer Il. 2.581; Od. 4 101 Morris 1984, 6-7. 102 Kayser & Thompson 1964, Map 1 05. 54 Figure 3-3: Map showing the remains of a now-submerged Roman harbour or quay in Epano Vathi Bay, outside of Vathi village. © GoogleEarth the landscape marked by steep hill and low mountains, the southern extension of the Tayegetos range. Travellers to the region in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries characterized Mani as the most wild, dangerous, and densely populated part of Greece (especially in contrast to the extremely sparse population of Mani today). Generations of Maniates have eked out a living here by tilling the poor soil or raising sheep and goats, often supplementing their meager agricultural and pastoral outputs with fishing and plunder from passing ships.”103 Morritt, travelling to the region in 1795 described the soil simply as “barren rock”.104 The bays and beaches of the northeast of the peninsula, on the Lakonian gulf, indicate sea-level rise of approximately one to two metres since the Roman period (~ the last 1500 years), as evidenced by submerged ports and quays of that date, such as the harbour structure seen underwater in Epano Vathi Bay (Figure 3-3).105 103 Allen 1997, 260. 104 Morritt 1817, 198. 105 Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. 2007, 43; Tsartsidou et al. 2002, 382, 385; For a more comprehensive treatment of sea-level rise, see Lambeck 1995. 55 Lazzarini pointed out that a similar rise occurred on the eastern portion of the peninsula, specifically in the region of Cape Matapan (Tainaron), where ancient quarries lie partially submerged.106 The coastal infrastructure of antiquity may also have been affected by earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis, the most recent of which occurred somewhere between 900-1100 BP, just north of modern Areopolis.107 3.2.4 Water Sources The tip of Cape Matapan (aka Tainaron) is the southernmost point of the Mani peninsula as well as mainland Greece; it also marks the convergence of the Ionian Sea to the west, and the Aegean Sea (or, more specifically, the Sea of Crete) to the east. There are no lakes or major rivers located within the study region. There are several intermittent streams flowing down from the mountains to the coast, but the vast majority of fresh water is obtained from groundwater discharge and from underground, man-made cisterns. The largest sources of freshwater discharge from the peninsula are derived from the peaks of Taygetos and flow seaward in a north-northwest – south-southeast trending path.108 Post, writing in 1827 noted that: “The water, not only here [Vamvaka], but throughout the [Maniate] country, was such as nothing but necessity or long habit could induce a person to drink; it was turbid, of a reddish brown colour, and a strong earthy taste; for the Kakabouniotes [Inner Maniates] have scarcely any fountains or streams of water, and are almost entirely dependent upon the clouds and their cisterns, for a supply of the first necessary, or as we then considered it, the highest luxury of life.”109 106 Lazzarini 2007, 102. See discussion under: II. Black Stone Quarries, i) Tainaron - west slope of cape, below. 107 Scheffers et al. 2009, 277-8; Fig. 1. 108 Migiros et. al 2008, 324-6; Fig. 5 & 6. 109 Post 1830, 103. 56 Figure 3-4: Map showing the study area and the locations of Kalamata and Kythera. ©GoogleEarth 3.2.5 Climate The Hellenic National Meteorological Service currently has no weather stations in Mani. The closest are located in Kalamata and Kythera, and the rainfall and temperature patterns of these two locations can be observed in Table 2-1.110 The shortest distance between the southernmost point of Cape Matapan (Tainaron) and the island of Kythera is approximately 20.14 nautical miles, or 37.31 km. In contrast, the distance between the centres of Kalamata and Areopolis is approximately 48.08 km as the crow flies, and the distance between Oitylos and the coast of Kalamata is approximately 43.88 km (Figure 3-4). These measurements are given purely as an example of geographic proximity in relation to climatic matters and are not meant to imply any sort of travel time in antiquity or in modern times. The two locations are therefore relatively close in proximity to different locations within the Mani peninsula – one on the western coast, one on the southern tip. 110 This table is derived from information found at the Hellenic National Meteorological Service website: http://www.hnms.gr/hnms/english/index_html. 57 Table 3-1: Climatological data for Kythera and Kalamata The temperature and humidity from both locations are very similar to one another and to Mani and can be extrapolated and applied to the Mani peninsula in general. It is interesting to note, however, the discrepancy between the average rain fall and wind speed – Kythera consistently shows lower numbers for the former and higher numbers for the latter, resulting in a drier, windier climate that has negative implications for certain types of farming and subsistence. Unfortunately, there are no national historical datasets available for Mani and it is dangerous to draw definite conclusions, but there is likely a positive correlation to Kythera's wind and rainfall due to the exposed nature of the peninsula, in contrast with the sheltered bay of Kalamata. Kalamata (Data 1956-1997) Kythera (Data 1955-1997) Monthly Average Temperature (Jan.) 10.2 ºC 10.9 ºC Monthly Average Temperature (April) 15.2 ºC 14.7 ºC Monthly Average Temperature (July) 26.4 ºC 25.8 ºC Monthly Average Temperature (Oct.) 18.9 ºC 17.1 ºC Monthly Average Humidity % (Jan) 72.6 72.6 Monthly Average Humidity % (April) 70.4 69.2 Monthly Average Humidity % (July) 58 54.7 Monthly Average Humidity % (Oct.) 69.3 68.8 Monthly Rainfall Average in mm (Jan.) 111.7 (9.3 days) 97 (13.6 days) Monthly Rainfall Average in mm (April) 48.5 (6.1 days) 28 (6.5 days) Monthly Rainfall Average in mm (July) 4.2 (1.3 days) 1.5 (0.3 days) Monthly Rainfall Average in mm (Oct.) 85.3 (6.9 days) 54.2 (6.6 days) Monthly Average Wind Speed in kt (Jan) 5.6 13.2 Monthly Average Wind Speed in kt (April) 4.9 10.8 Monthly Average Wind Speed in kt (July) 5.7 8.3 Monthly Average Wind Speed in kt (Oct.) 4.8 11.8 58 Leake provided some firsthand insight into the windiness of Mani: The wind is their plague, the [Maniates] say: it often destroys their crops of grain, and has done much damage this year [1839]. On this side of the peninsula it is the Gréco and Levante rushing through the ravines of the mountain, on the shore of the Laconic gulf it is the Garbino that does the mischief. Another curse is the want of rain in the month of April, which dries up the ear[s of corn] before there is any substance in it.111 Further support for this closer association to Kythera lies in some climatological maps found in Kayser and Thompson's 1964 volume, which includes a map of average rainfall that displays the coastal regions of Mani as having 600-800 mm of rainfall – the same range as Kythera. The central spine of the Taygetos and the Kalamata region share a slightly higher range of 800-1000 mm per annum.112 According to the maps for days of annual rainfall, Mani falls somewhere between the 50-60 range, Kythera firmly within the range of 60 days, and Kalamata within the 80-day range.113 This amount of precipitation in and of itself is not particularly limiting, and it certainly provided a livable quantity of potable water, based on the number of cisterns throughout the region. Combined with the difficult soil and lack of arable land, however, the lower-than-average rainfall and annual variability contributes to the overall difficult geography and climate of Mani. Ultimately, the Mani peninsula is hot, dry, rocky, windy, and mountainous. There are few water sources and difficult soil conditions, rendering successful agricultural exploitation an impressive feat. With few exceptions, the imposing Taygetos mountain chain prevents easy overland access between the eastern and western coasts, as well as the rest of Lakonia to the north. The topography, soil conditions, climate, geology and aridity dictated settlement patterns 111 Leake 1830, 283. 112 Kayser & Thompson 1964, Map 1 03 (data derived from 1901-1940). 113 Kayser & Thomson 1964, Map 1 04 (data derived from 1901-1930). 59 along the more fertile coastal regions and away from the mountainous interior, shaping the existence and distribution of the inhabitants, thereby influencing communication, interrelationships, and potential for shared cultural identity.114 3.3 Regional Divisions The five chapters that discuss the evidence for the Mani in classical antiquity are divided by traditional chronological historic periods – Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic & Republican, Imperial Roman, and Late Roman. Within each of these chapters, evidence is examined regionally, beginning in the north-eastern area of the peninsula, proceeding roughly clockwise, and ending in the north-western limit of the Inner Mani. I have presented all categories of evidence in this manner so as to better organize the vast quantity of information; the regional divisions I have selected are based on natural geographic divisions, as well as observable groupings of ancient evidence. It is important to note that my regional divisions do not fully reflect actual or perceived divisions in antiquity. 3.3.1 The North-East This region covers the north-eastern limit of the study area (Gytheio), down to (and including) the territory of modern Kotronas. The swath of coastal land south of Gytheio stretching down to the modern site of Skoutari is some of the most verdant terrain in the Inner Mani; although perhaps a bit generous, Woodward described this micro-region as such: “North 114 Tilley 1997. Regarding the natural features of the landscape, Strang 2005 (115) says: “This suggests that anthropological understandings of human–environmental relationships should incorporate a greater appreciation of sensory experience and of the part played by ‘natural’ resources and their characteristics in the generation of meanings. It seems that meaning is the product not just of human individuals and groups, but also of the common – and diverse – material characteristics of their environments.” 60 of Cape Paganiai (Pagania) the character of the east coast changes; the spurs of the main chain of hills do not come down so close to the sea, and one finds fertile plains thick with oaks, olives, and fruit-trees reaching to the water's edge, well-watered by the rivers Dhikova, Turkovrysi, and Passava, and separated from each other by rocky promontories.”115 These rivers exist today, but they are seasonal and temperamental – on more than one occasion I have observed their riverbeds dry. Nevertheless, such a relatively fertile region unsurprisingly preserves copious visible evidence of antiquity along the coasts, within the inland valleys, and atop the hills. The archaeological remains within this north-east region have been observed throughout the centuries. In terms of distribution, the main places of interest along the coast are modern Vathy, Ageranos, Kamares, Skoutari (ancient Asine?), and Kotronas (probably ancient Teuthrone) with its small peninsula, Skopas; inland the places of interest include the modern sites of Dichova, Chosiari (ancient Las?), Phlomochori, the fortifications atop Kastro, Loukadika, and within the ruined Frankish castle of Passava. The identification of modern sites with ancient settlements is far from certain in most cases, but the desire to identify ancient sites is pervasive within scholarship. For this reason, I refer to potential ancient place-names when discussing the history of scholarship in the region, especially the ancient sites of Las, Asine, and Teuthrone, since their identifications are particularly sought-after and modern scholars often refer to archaeological remains on the ground as belonging to a certain ancient territory. The north-eastern region has been the subject of only a few systematic investigations, mostly concentrated in the region surrounded modern Kotronas and its adjacent peninsula Skopas, together long thought to comprise the site of ancient Teuthrone. Skopas, which sits in the Kolokythia gulf, is attached to mainland Kotronas by only a thin, sandy strip of land; scholars 115 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 239-240. 61 are divided as to whether this spit has degraded considerably or appeared completely since antiquity.116 Geographically, the larger territory around Kotronas is a coastal alluvial plain surrounded by mountain chains on the north, east, and west, and the Kolokythia gulf to the south.117 This region has had successive inhabitation since antiquity, and the municipality of Kotronas is still relatively well-populated in comparison to other villages in Mani. This area around Kotronas received a brief investigation by Delivorrias published in 1968, a report on the fortifications on the hill to the east of the settlement in 1981 by Moschou and Moschos, and a more lengthy general mapping survey carried out in the region and published by Moschou in 2012.118 In this most recent study, Moschou noted the presence of much evidence for ancient activity, including the epigraphic finds and architectural remains throughout the area. She plotted the general findspots on a topographical map of the region but provided no photographs and only general descriptions of the location of the finds; moreover, her map lacked a scale and a comprehensive legend for the reference points.119 Despite these limitations, I have created a simple map based on Moschou’s that includes all of her references to the findspots discussed in the following five chapters (Figure 7-8).120 Prior to Delivorrias’ 1968 publication, other notable scholars studied the region, including Le Roy, whose 1961 article examined many of the inscriptions from Kotronas. 116 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson (1961, 119) for the former opinion; Moschou (2001-2004 [2012], 305) for the latter. LL203 covers both Skopas and Kotronas. 117 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 300-301 claimed Kotronas is 41 km from Gytheio, but this is incorrect: even by modern roads it is only 30km, and as the crow flies the distance is approximately 17km. 118 Delivorrias 1968a; Moschou & Moschos 1981; Moschou 2001-2004 [2012]. Delivorrias’ 1968 survey was supposed to be followed by a more comprehensive investigation the following year which – as far as I am aware – never took place. 119 Moschou often referred to photographs in Le Roy 1961. 120 The points on this map were plotted as precisely as possible based on the map found in Moschou 2001-2004 (2012), 302-303 (maps 58-59). Unfortunately, because no scale and no coordinates were given on Moschou’s map, the locations are plotted to the best of my ability. Some points, such as 2g (2γ - Ypapanti church), correct Moschou’s plotting to reflect the more accurate situation of these locations. 62 Figure 3-5: Map showing the important locations in the north-east Mani. ©GoogleEarth Waterhouse and Hope Simpson also visited the area, as did earlier explorers including Forster and Woodward, and Puillon Boblaye as a part of the French Expédition de Morée, discussed below.121 3.3.2 The East Coast This region encompasses the eastern half of the Mani peninsula between the site of modern Kotronas and the Tainaron promontory. The eastern coast of Mani is topographically challenging and it is the least-explored region within the peninsula. Prior to the construction of modern roads, few travelers ventured to explore the peaks and cliffs in this area; Pausanias himself seems to have taken a boat from Teuthrone to the southern tip of the peninsula, and early 121 Although Leake mentioned Teuthrone three separate times in his 1870 text (272, 277, 312), he did not actually visit Kotronas. 63 Figure 3-6: Map showing the important locations along the east coast of Mani. ©GoogleEarth explorers all avoided this side of the peninsula. Exploring this region today is still difficult due to the terrain and lack of roads, and only a few sites are known: the temples called ‘Kionia’ near the Kournos monastery, and the sites around the Prophitis Ilias quarries including Spira and Aghios Kyprianos. There are no named ancient settlements from this region. 3.3.3 The South This region comprises the promontory of Tainaron, also known as Cape Matapan. This geological formation makes up the southernmost part of the Mani peninsula and protrudes in such a way that it is more like a peninsula itself, connected to the rest of Mani by an isthmus that is 650m wide at its narrowest point. The isthmus separates two natural bays: Porto Kagio on the east and Marinari on the west. Porto Kagio has generally been accepted as the location for 64 ancient Psamathous, while Marinari as ancient Achilleus, although both of these identifications have been solely based on various interpretations of the literary sources, not on archaeological or epigraphic evidence.122 Marinari Bay, while sandy and a popular spot for tourists today, is much less sheltered and more susceptible to the elements than its eastern counterpart. Porto Kagio received its name from the Italian Porto delle Quaglio, on account of the large number of quails that used to migrate to the area in autumn. The bay is sandy and deep, allowing access for larger ships, and the entrance itself is narrow, providing a natural shelter from the notorious winds. The site of Tainaron itself, nestled among three small bays on the barren southernmost promontory of the Greek mainland, was the most well-known and important site on the Mani peninsula in antiquity. It far surpasses any other site in terms of frequency and depth of treatment in the written sources, both for the historical events and activities which took place in and around the sanctuary of Poseidon, as well as the poetic use of Tainaron as a liminal space, and the frontier between the world of the living and the world of the dead. Tainaron has been the subject of at least two architectural surveys – by Moschou in 1975 and Cummer in 1978 – and preliminary rescue excavations took place at the site in 2007, although the results have not been fully published. 122 For a history of the different identifications of Achilleus and Psamathous, see Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 247-248. See Chapters 3-7 for further discussion on the literary evidence. Marmari LL208; Porto Kagio LL209. 65 Figure 3-7: Map showing the important locations in the south of Mani. ©GoogleEarth 3.3.4 The South-West This region only consists of the modern villages of Kyparissos and Alika, which together have been identified as ancient Kainepolis, and confirmed through epigraphic evidence. Archaeological remains are scattered around the modern settlements, as well as the bays of Almyros and Sarolimenas. This region is distinguished from both Tainaron (‘The South’) and the rest of the western coast because of the large body of surviving evidence concerning ancient Kainepolis, and the security with which it has been identified. 66 Figure 3-8: Map showing the important locations in the south-west Mani. ©GoogleEarth 3.3.5 The West Coast This region includes all evidence of ancient activity north of Alika, extending all the way to the north-westernmost region of interest, Oitylos. There is a substantial archaeological and epigraphic record within this area, but no ancient sites have been securely identified. The location of ancient Hippola is believed to be somewhere in the vicinity of the looming massif on the western coast of Mani, which was known as Thyrides in antiquity and bears the modern title of Cavo Grosso. The plateau and plain of Cavo Grosso are both replete with archaeological remains, and attempts have been made to associate ancient Hippola with modern Kipoula, on the plain, or in the spot known by the toponym Ano Poula, on the plateau. The settlement of ancient Messa is perhaps even more obscure than Hippola. Geographically, the site of Messe is often 67 associated with the area around Mezapos and the Tigani peninsula. The lack of systematic investigation into this region means that we cannot associate any inscriptions, artifacts, or architectural members along the western coast of Mani with any one ancient settlement, despite the tendency in scholarship to ascribe assumed ‘provenance’ of ancient spolia. For example, in the IG V,1 volume, five inscriptions are listed under the category of “Hippola vel Messa” (Hippola or Messe) but the findspots were the villages of Nomia and Charouda, which are c. 13 km apart; Charouda is, in fact, situated closer to modern Oitylos (ancient Oitylos) and modern Pyrrichos (ancient Pyrrichos) than to the plateau of Cavo Grosso and its plain below. Another problem with this seemingly confident association is that there are other ancient inscriptions found throughout this region that are, in both the IG and SEG volumes, attributed to the ancient settlement known as ‘Pyrrichos’ (see below), with no apparent geographic distinction or differentiation between attributions. Due to lack of provenance and archaeological investigation into the area it is impossible to determine whether these stones originated solely from one of these three settlements (Hippola, Messe, or Pyrrichos), from a combination of these three settlements, or from an entirely different settlement altogether (perhaps Oitylos). I have created maps for this region that helpfully illustrate this problem of distribution (Maps 4, 11, & 12). The plain beneath Cavo Grosso, and the coastal plain between Mezapos and Pyrgos Dirou is some of the flattest land in Mani; as discussed below, this is the preferred route for early travellers who explored Mani on foot or by mule, and the modern highway follows this same path. The navigability of this half of the peninsula, coupled with the large quantity of visible antiquity from the region, is at odds with the lack of named ancient settlements in this area. I argue that there is at least one additional coastal settlement north of Hippola/Messe, in the region 68 Figure 3-9: Map showing the important locations along the west coast of Mani. ©GoogleEarth of modern Pyrgos Dirou, and research focused on this locality forms the case study in Chapter 9. In terms of sites of interest for the west coast, the following modern settlements are discussed (from south-north): Cavo Grosso, Dri, Keria, Kounos, Kipoula, Ano Poula, Pagkia, Nomia, Mezapos, Tigani, Mbriki, Vamvaka, Kouloumi, Paleochora, Charouda, Glezou, Pyrgos Dirou, Velousi, and Diros Bay. 3.3.6 Central This region encompasses the site of modern Pyrrichos, the only ancient site situated within an inland valley in the whole of the Mani peninsula. The modern settlement of Pyrrichos was named as such following the Second World War, in an effort to further link the location with its so-called ‘ancient past’. Modern Pyrrichos had been associated with the ancient settlement of 69 the same name since the Éxpédition Scientifique de Morée in 1829, due to the amount of visible antiquity in the area and the toponym for the eastern portion of the modern settlement, ‘Pourkos/Pyrkos/Pourchos’ and the surrounding valley. The site itself is situated along the northernmost natural pass between the two coasts of Mani, directly on one of the few roads that traverse the peninsula, and across from the settlement of modern Pyrrichos, which has long-held the interest of scholars of antiquity. The town is nestled in a valley in the middle of the peninsula, between Diros Bay (on the west coast) and Skoutari Bay (on the east coast); in terms of measurable distance it is not only closer to Diros Bay but the topographic access between Pyrrichos and the west coast is much less mountainous than the east coast. Despite this, however, Pyrrichos is often presented alongside Kotronas by those who discuss the settlements of Mani, and my only guess for this association – besides the overarching influence of Pausanias, who listed Pyrrichos after ‘Teuthrone’ (Kotronas) – is perhaps due to the fact that the occupied hill above Pyrrichos, Kastraki, is visible from certain locations around Kotronas, and thus it may feel more visually connected to the east coast, although it is more physically accessible via the west coast. Nevertheless, today Pyrrichos falls under the jurisdiction of Gytheio (east coast) rather than Oitylos (west coast). 3.3.7 The North-West This region includes the area north of Pyrgos Dirou to the north-western limit of the present study area, the modern village of Oitylos. The site of ancient Oitylos is situated upon a promontory on the edge of the large Mylolangkado ravine, and lies beneath the modern settlement. Across the ravine is the ruined Venetian fortress of Kelepha and a small modern village of the same name, both of which yield archaeological evidence of antiquity. The territory 70 Figure 3-10: Map showing the important locations in north-west Mani. ©GoogleEarth of ancient Oitylos likely extended down the mountains and stretched to the coastal bay of Limeni, the largest and most accessible natural harbour on the western coast of Inner Mani. The coastal region is home to modern Karovostasi, the site of some of the only systematic excavations to have taken place within the study region. Beyond Oitylos, the topography becomes increasingly mountainous and foreboding; there are no natural land routes to the north, resulting in Oitylos’ defensive position as the frontier of Inner Mani. 3.4 Part II - Summary of Routes Taken by Early Modern Travellers to the Inner Mani The foreboding topography of Mani and the effect that its landscape had on human movement and settlement throughout the region can best be illustrated by the accounts of early modern travellers, and the routes that they took when visiting the peninsula. The routes taken by 71 these early explorers reveal the distribution patterns of settlements and, in some cases, intentionally mimic the route taken by the most famous ancient traveler, Pausanias. This information is presented in this chapter because it is of direct relevance to the topography and geography of the peninsula, but also because the observations, recordings, and interpretations of these early travelers often made an indelible mark on modern interpretations of the ancient Mani, and thus these accounts will be incorporated into the discussion in many of the subsequent chapters. The attempts of these individuals to penetrate the Inner Mani peninsula – and the difficulties they faced – remind us of the spatial physical reality of Mani as a landscape that was inhabited, navigated, potentially entangled, and one within which social identities formed, and mytho-religious activity occurred. Due to lack of roads and water, extreme temperatures, impassable mountains, and the notorious threats of the inhabitants of peninsula, the majority of early travellers to the region were themselves unable to actually set foot in the inner Mani. Many, such as Sieur de la Guillettiere (1669); Marie-Gabriel Florent Auguste, Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier (1782) and John Galt (1810) were only able to see the peninsula from the sea, drawing into harbour only very rarely if at all; John B.S. Morritt of Rokeby (1795), Sir William Gell (1805), and Charles Robert Cockerell (1813) were more ambitious, attempting to journey south from the western coast of Outer Mani on foot, but were dissuaded or prohibited altogether by their accompanying guides, who could neither guarantee passable roads, nor their personal safety. The accounts presented here are the most complete and reliable narrative of travellers who successfully 72 journeyed into the Inner Mani peninsula, and whose routes can be accurately reconstructed based on their accounts.123 3.4.1 Cyriac of Ancona Our first surviving reliable account of an early modern traveller who successfully penetrated the interior of Inner Mani is that of Cyriac of Ancona (Ciriaco Anconitano), who visited the region in October of 1447 (Figure 3-11). On October 15th, he sailed from the Messenian port of Corone to the harbour Oitylos (which was then called Vitylo, but which Cyriac believed was a corruption of Pylos!).124 Following a description of the ancient ruins of Oitylo, Cyriac embarked on his vessel once again and sailed from Oitylos to Dri (presumably pulling into the harbour at modern-day Gerolimenas). He then travelled on foot from Dri to Keria, visiting the spolia-rich church of Aghios Ioannis, an iteration of which still stands today. Following this portion of his journey, he visited Kainepolis, and then proceeded on to the tip of the Tainarian promontory, mentioning Porto Quaglio, the temple of Neptune, and the cave of Hades specifically.125 It is unclear whether Cyriac sailed from Dri to Kainepolis, and then from Kainepolis to the tip of the promontory, but this seems plausible due to the fact that once he returned to Dri, he stated outright that he then proceeded on foot all the way up the western coast 123 Conspicuously missing from this present text are the following accounts: Fabiano Barbo (1571), whose account is mentioned in the catalogue of the exhibit “Mani: A Cultural Itinerary. Travellers to the Mani 15th -19th Century. An exhibition of Historical Material, Historical Ethnological Museum of the Mani. Kranae Tower – Gytheio – July 1993-December 1994.” Unfortunately, neither the Gennadius Library in Athens nor the National Archives at Venice were able to locate any material or information related to this individual. Two other accounts, those of Ferdinand Aldenhoven (1841) and Ernst Curtius (1852), are both extremely detailed, but it is unclear whether either of these two actually journeyed into the Inner Mani themselves, or whether their narratives are based largely on previous accounts or indirect testimonia. 124 Bodnar 2003, 311. 125 The descriptions of the appearance and location that Cyriac gives for both the Temple of Neptune and the Cave of Hades make it clear that these are not the monuments situated at Porto Sternes which bear those names today. 73 Figure 3-11: Approximate route of Cyriac of Ancona into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth and crossed over the Taygetus to unknown Amathea “by way of a valley that creates a pass between the heights of the Taygetus range of the Tainarian peninsula (which itself separates the Laconian from the Messenian Gulf)”.126 From there he stopped at 'Colochitea', which he called the acropolis of Amathea; this must be modern Loukadakia, which is the highest point in the region and overlooks modern Kolokithia Bay. He then proceeded to old Karopolis, just west of modern Drosopigi, then descended to ancient Asine on the Lakonian gulf – this site is not conclusively identified, but Cyriac's description of “huge brick remains of the baths and the place the populace calls, the “vaults” because of some surviving arches” is in accordance with remains that I myself have seen in the immediate vicinity of modern Kamares.127 From here, Cyriac proceeded to Gytheio, although whether on foot or by boat is unclear. 126 Bodnar 2003, 320. 127 Kamares itself means ‘vaults’ or ‘arches’. Bodnar 2003, 326-7. 74 Of note in Cyriac's account is the sole reference I have found to the verdancy of Mani; this testimony is in discordance with the meteorological data, as well as similar accounts from other early modern travellers. For example, his observation that: “...on my journey I had viewed with pleasure a lovely valley green in every direction with close-packed vineyards and trees and pleasant meadows, and utterly tranquil...”128 is surprising, but perhaps 1447 was a particularly well-watered year. 3.4.2 J.B.S. Morritt of Rokeby Chronologically, the next surviving accounts of travellers journeying into the Inner Mani do not occur until the 19th century – over 300 years from the time Cyriac of Ancona visited this region. Shortly before this, in 1795, J.B.S. Morritt of Rokeby was only able to journey through the northernmost part of Inner Mani, from Oitylos to Gytheio (Figure 3-12), and described the barren landscape thereof that exacerbated his frustrations in not being the 'first foreigner' to journey by foot to the tip of the Matapan peninsula: The whole of this tract is as barren as possible. The mountain of Taygetus is a continuance of naked crags; the cultivation disappeared as we proceeded, and the coast which lay before us towards Cape Grosse, seemed more bare and savage than any we had passed...Not a tree or bug is seen...We had been very desirous of pursuing our survey of the Maina to Cape Matapan, and visiting the situation of the ancient Taenarus. We found that from Vitulo the road by land was impassable even for mules, and the country round Taenarus in so disturbed a state that none of the chiefs could undertake to conduct us thither in safety. There are, as we were told, considerable remains of an ancient city on Cape Grosso, agreeing, as far as we could ascertain the distances, with Pausanias' description of Caenepolis. Cape Matapan, the Taenarian promontory, is south of Cape Grosso. Of the ancient cave and temples there we could get no consistent accounts. We abandoned with great reluctance our farther researches, and resolved to proceed from hence to Marathonisi [Gytheio], the modern capital of the Maina.129 128 Bodnar 2003, 323. I am not aware of any productive vineyards within Mani today, but the Kotronas region is relatively fertile because of groundwater and has a substantial olive industry which was tragically decimated in the 2017 wildfires. 129 Morritt 1817, 54-55. 75 Figure 3-12: Approximate route of J.B.S Morritt into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth 3.4.3 Colonel Leake The most famous visitor to the Mani, and the person who provided the most comprehensive account of his travels was Colonel W. L. Leake, who visited the region in 1805. Leake's travels were on orders from the British Government, and the primary goal of his extensive journeys was largely the geographical mapping of the entire Peloponnese (then called the Morea). Leake's fascination with antiquity – and Pausanias in particular – resulted, however, in a narrative which highlighted visible remains of antiquity, and his accounts are invaluable to modern scholars who study the topography and monuments of the ancient Greek world. Unlike Cyriac and Morritt, Leake began his trek in the north-east of the peninsula: after spending several days exploring the environs of Gytheio, he set out on foot from that same city on April 10th, 1805, traversing the plain of Passava, over the hills of Petalea, then to the coastal 76 village of Ageranos (Figure 3-13). He noted the villages of modern Karyopoli130, Kafki, Neokhori and Panitza, then traversed through Dhikova on his way to Skoutari, where he spent his first night. The following day Leake was persuaded to continue by mule, which was his mode of transportation for the remainder of his time in Mani. From Skoutari he passed back through Dhikova, and met up with what is now the main Gytheio-Areopolis road, which he described as “so rugged as to be impassable even to a mule” and observed wheel tracks of ancient vehicles in the stone.131 After passing Vachios, he arrived in Areopolis, where he spent the night. The next morning he began the long trek south, passing through Omales and Laghokili, Charia and Glezou, Akia, Erimos, Mina, he followed the road between Nomia and Kitta to modern Gerolimenas, Alika, and finally arrived at Kyparissos, where he spent the night in a flea-ridden tower. This is an impressive amount of ground to cover in one day, and Leake and his companions must have been travelling at an expeditious pace. On their third day, Leake's company travelled from Kyparissos to Vathia, then following the westernmost path along the coast, they reached the tip of the Tainaron peninsula at Porto Sternes by midday. They then trekked back north via the easternmost path, passing Vathi Bay, Porto Quagio, and managed to journey all the way back to Alika by nightfall. The fourth and final day saw Leake travelling back to Areopolis, where he rested for only one night before sailing from Limeni on the morning of April 15th, 1805.132 130 Note that the location of Karyopoli in Cyriac of Ancona's account was just west of modern Drosopigi. By the time Leake visited the region, the location of the town had moved further east to its current location. 131 Leake 1830, 282. 132 See Leake 1830, 234-340 for the entirety of his journey in Mani. 77 Figure 3-13: Approximate route of W.M. Leake into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth 3.4.4 Henry A.V. Post Twenty-two years later, on December 27th, 1827, Henry A.V. Post sailed from Kardamyli to Limeni harbour (Figure 3-14). From there he began his journey on foot, and walked from Limeni through Areopolis, Pyrgos Dirou, Vamvaka, and travelled as far south as Mina/Kotsipha. From here he turned around and retraced his footsteps back through Pyrgos Dirou and through the mountain pass, stopping to appreciate the view of Kolokitha Bay and all the way to the island of Kythera. From there he continued past Parasero, Skoutari, Mavrovouni, and onward to Gytheio. Of Post's journey we hear no difficulties in acquiring permission to proceed as he 78 Figure 3-14: Approximate route of Henry A.V. Post into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth wished through the landscape, but he did comment extensively on the difficulty of the paths and the barrenness of the land: In advancing southward from Limena, the country becomes more stony and barren at every step, till [sic] on passing Tzimoba [Areopolis], and looking along the slope of the mountain towards the huge bleak promontory of Capo Grosso, the eye wanders over a dull and dreary scene of utter nakedness and barrenness, varied only by here and there a stunted tree, and a few scattered spots of sickly verdure. A remark once made by old Petro Bey, in describing the sterility of his native province, expresses in a very forcible, though rather irreverent manner, the desolate appearance of the country. “All the stones,” said he, “which God made, he strewed in Maina.”. The road which the traveller has to pass is literally a bed of stones, as sharp and galling to the feet of the pedestrian, as if he were walking, like Peter Pindar's pilgrim, with dried peas in his shoes.133 133 Post 1830, 98. 79 3.4.5 Expédition Scientifique de Morée Post's trip was followed shortly by the Expédition Scientifique de Morée, a French expedition which served to document the geographic features, archaeological remains, and botanic and faunal specimens of the Peloponnese. The director of this project was one Bory de St. Vincent, but the section of relevance for the Mani appeared in the Séction Géographique, which was published by M.E. Puillon Boblaye. The members of the expedition who were responsible for documenting the architecture and archaeology of the region were led by Albert Blouet, however, so the publication is often based on second-hand accounts, and the exact route taken by the team is unclear, particularly with regard to whether the journey was primarily on foot or by boat (Figure 3-15). Figure 3-15: Potential route of the Expédition Scientifique de Morée into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth 80 Figure 3-16: Potential route of the Earl of Carnarvon into Inner Mani. © GoogleEarth Nevertheless, the Expédition travelled to and recorded several sites through Mani, including the castle of Passava, Ageranos, Pyrrichos, Kotronas, Kionia, Cape Tainaron, Kainepolis, Mezapos, Nomia, Mina, and Oitylo.134 Most notably, in terms of progressing further into the hinterland of the Maniate landscape, this publication is the first known instance where foreigners travelled to the extremely remote site of Kionia on the eastern side of the peninsula; this feat speaks to their expertise, and drive to record the visible remains of antiquity throughout the peninsula. 3.4.6 The Earl of Carnarvon 134 Puillon Boblaye 1836, 87-92. 81 Shortly after the Expédition, Henry John George Herbert, the third Earl of Carnarvon, journeyed to Mani in 1839 and travelled a similar route to both Leake and Post from Gytheio to Areopolis, and then south to Kitta and Porto Quagio, and back again to Areopolis, sailing out of Limeni (Figure 3-16). Herbert's account is significantly shorter and less detailed than Leake's, but we do know that his team also relied on mules for the difficult journey.135 Herbert blamed the poor quality of the soil on the infamous ruthless and hostile reputation of the Inner Maniates, and summarizes his experience as such: “The population was poor, the soil was sterile, the plains were few, the mountains were many and difficult.”136 These accounts provide insight into the difficulties present in journeying into the Inner Mani by foot and even on mule; when examining the routes taken, it is clear that only a limited number of options are present, and the routes along the western coast especially are replicated by many of the travelers: Cyriac, Leake, Post, and the Earl of Carnarvon all journeyed this same route, and the main Areopolis-Gerolimenas highway was built along this corridor. Further, in all of these examples, when one traverses from one side of the peninsula to the other, the only options are the Areopolis-Gytheio road (Figure 3-2, northern route), or the route between Areopolis and Kotronas (Figure 3-2, southern route), passing through the ancient site of Pyrrichos. While these accounts in no way supply a comprehensive understanding of the road-systems used in antiquity, they offer a glimpse into the harshness of the landscape of the Inner Mani, and the limited options for travelling on land between sites.137 135 Herbert 1869, 181. 136 Herbert 1869, 134. 137 For more on travellers to the Mani and their respective routes, see Seifried and Gardner 2018. 82 3.5 Part III. Natural Resource Exploitation in Antiquity – Marble Quarries (Table 3-2) The single most copious natural resource located within the Mani peninsula is stone – as mentioned above, the majority of the peninsula is composed of limestone and marble, and these local materials were potentially exploited as early as the Neolithic period.138 Much work has been done on natural stone resources throughout the peninsula, particularly in recent years with the increasing sophistication of isotopic, petrographic, and chemical testing options. Modern interest in Maniate marble and limestone, however, initially stemmed largely from the extensive exploitation and widespread dissemination of one specific marble known as rosso antico, a 'true' marble with a red to violet hue, which was popular from the Bronze Age to the Byzantine period and received renewed popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries in England.139 The unique and striking appearance of rosso antico marble allows scholars to more readily identify the marble (and ancient objects made thereof) macroscopically, a feat which is often difficult-to-impossible with white and grey-white marbles due to their more common geological occurrence throughout the Aegean and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. 3.5.1 Marble as a Natural Resource The first identification of rosso antico sources in the Mani peninsula was made by J.G.B.M. Bory de Saint-Vincent in 1829, during the French Expédition Scientifique de Morée, when he identified outcrops of the stone on the Paganea-Skoutari peninsula.140 The goal of this expedition was the recording of all forms of antiquity, in addition to natural and geological features, and the identification of the marble sources was one of many such discoveries and was 138 Cooper 1988, 67. Papathanasopoulos 1971, Figs. 18 & 19. 139 Warren 2012. 140 Bory de Saint-Vincent 1836, 444; Warren 2012, 353. 83 in no way the central focus of either the initial expedition or the subsequent publications. The systematic and intentional search for rosso antico sources specifically began in 1850, with Christian Siegel's voyage to the Mani, sponsored by King Otto. Although his journey was never published, Siegel gave his notes to three scholars who followed his footsteps with further exploration in the same area, and who published their results promptly: K. Bursian in 1855, G. Henzen in 1857, and H. Grimm in 1861.141 In the 150 years since these initial missions, many more marble and limestone outcrops, sources, and ancient quarries have been recorded throughout the peninsula, for rosso antico as well as other limestones and marbles exploited in antiquity. The importance of investigating the exploitation of natural marble and limestone resources for this present research is that the stone resources of Mani comprise the best surviving evidence for natural resource exploitation in this region in antiquity. Marble and limestone extraction took place throughout the period of focus for this study, as well as in several locations around the peninsula; for this reason it must have been a significant economic venture which involved a number of the peninsula’s inhabitants, even if it was mostly traded locally. Moreover, information regarding trade and settlement patterns can be teased out of both a) the local and overseas locations of artifacts made from Maniate marble and b) the locations of ancient Maniate quarries, respectively. In terms of identity, it is important to consider the abundant stone resources of the peninsula because of their perceived value to the ‘superpowers’ of the Mediterranean, namely Sparta (in the Classical period especially) and Rome (in the Republican and Imperial periods). Studying the patterns of distribution of the artifacts made of Maniate 141 Bursian 1853-5; Henzen 1857; Grimm 1861; See Warren 2012 (345-354) for a full account of the rediscovery of rosso antico. 84 marble has often led to the interpretation that these resources were controlled by various superpowers throughout antiquity, thereby implying that the political, civic, and social identities of the residents were affected by this control. This section reveals that this does not, in fact, seem to be the case, and that the Mani marble trade was largely localized.. 3.5.2 Drawbacks to the Study of Marble Unfortunately, this task is much easier said than done, due to several hindering factors: First, it is impossible to decisively date a marble artifact based on anything other than stratigraphic context and/or stylistic indicators. The vast majority of the marble artifacts that derive from Mani itself are reused as spolia in churches and houses, or have no concrete provenance, thereby eliminating stratigraphy as a reliable dating method. Similarly, many of the exported objects, those made of rosso antico in particular, are located in Italy and rarely derive from secured archaeological contexts. Second, establishing the dates of ancient quarries faces the same difficulties as dating marble objects. Ancient quarries themselves can be dated by tool marks, extraction methods, unfinished architectural members which remain attached to the parent marble in situ, and associated artifacts (pottery, etc.) in the surrounding area. The desire for marble, particularly from Greece, however, was not restricted to antiquity; too often, modern quarrying relies on the location of ancient extraction sites to indicate reliable sources for modern consumption, and modern extraction frequently obliterates all evidence of ancient activity.142 142 Evidence for ancient quarrying includes in situ blocks and architectural members in various stages of completion, as well as tool and pick-marks, and scatters of ancient ceramics. See Fant 2008 for more information. 85 Third, although establishing provenance of marble artifacts and architectural members has become increasingly reliable, this feat is also fraught with complications. Since the 1970s and 1980s, the desire to pair sources of marble to ancient artifacts propelled investigations into determining petrographic composition, chemical makeup, and/or isotopic signatures of samples from quarries and outcroppings and then occasionally (but all too infrequently) comparing the results to samples from ancient artifacts themselves.143 The results from any of these three methods of testing are made stronger when combined and compared to the results of the other two – unsurprisingly, it is ideal to have strength in numbers, and the more tests conducted, the stronger the conclusions. Unfortunately, two of these three methods are destructive: stable isotope and XRD (x-ray defraction) analysis require only a few milligrams of marble powder, at least 2mm away from the surface to avoid atmospheric contamination, while samples for petrographic thin sections require a slightly larger piece of marble, but still within the range of a few centimetres.144 Chemical testing using XRF (x-ray fluorescence) is non-destructive, but requires close-range access to the artifact in question. For this reason, more testing has been conducted on quarry sites themselves (through permits obtained through the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration of Greece) than on cultural objects (through permits obtained through the Ministry of Culture). Therefore, without the analogous testing of both object and source, the desire to pair ancient artifacts with marble outcrops and (potentially) ancient quarry locations can be somewhat circular in that the evidence for the relationship between quarry and artifact is, 143 Higgins et al. 1968; Cooper 1986; Cooper 1988; Herz 1987; Lazzarini 1990; Cooper 1996; Gorgoni et al. 1992; Gorgoni, Lazzarini, and Pallante 2002; Bruno et al. 2002; Palagia 2002; Bruno and Pallante 2002; Attanasio et al. 2006; Lazzarini 2007; Palagia and Pike 2009. 144 Tykot et al. 1999. 86 simply and exclusively, the parallel existence of quarry and artifact and their macroscopic similarities. The difficulty with provenance does not end there. The provenance of marble artifacts or architectural members, even in the case of macroscopically distinct variations such as rosso antico, and even with the above-mentioned scientific testing, is difficult to pinpoint precisely; petrographic, chemical, and isotopic analyses often reveal similar compositions and results for multiple locations within a larger region. Ultimately, however, the results of these tests can at least often indicate whether the source is Maniate in origin, and with only a select few quarries confirmed to have been exploited in antiquity, the field is narrowed considerably. In spite of the problems listed above, ancient quarries and the objects deriving thereof remain important sources of evidence of human activity. The scholarship on Maniate quarries to-date, as discussed extensively in the entries below, lacks an all-encompassing, comprehensive breakdown of all the quarries within the peninsula, as well as complete references to previous scholarship. Too often, published works on Maniate quarries focus narrowly on a case study or samples for scientific testing, with the result that the current scholarship is divided based on type of marble or date of exploitation, and the result of these focused agendas produces isolated accounts which are oblivious to other relevant scholarship concerning Maniate quarries and artifacts. I have created a table (Table 3-2, located at the end of this chapter) and accompanying map (Figure 3-17) outlining all of the known quarries exploited within the inner Mani in antiquity which is, to my knowledge, the first instance where all the confirmed ancient quarries of Mani have been laid out in detail and plotted; this is the first time that all the available evidence for ancient Maniate quarries is compiled in one place. It is meant to be used as a 87 resource and is not perfect in its organization, due to the difficulties inherent in categorizing locations of quarrying. Several caveats must be mentioned with regard to this compilation: 1. There are 23 entries in the table, but this number is not a 1:1 correlation with the number of quarry-extraction sites. For example, there are somewhere between 4-7 ancient rosso antico quarry sites in and around Prophitis Ilias, all collated into one entry in the table, but only two are plotted on the map due to their close proximity. In contrast, there are four separate entries for quarries in the vicinity of Mianes, due to four distinct types of stones quarried in this region, but only three plotted on the map. 2. Of the extensive bibliographic references and scholarly investigations into locations and geological features of ancient quarries in Mani, none provide any geographic reference points. Some provide photos, others rough descriptions (distances from landmarks, cardinal directions, etc.), but the lack of precise maps in the publication record is, frankly, surprising. Thus, locations of the quarries are pinpointed based on this information in conjunction with aerial photo software and, more rarely, my own firsthand visits to the sites. For this reason, a rating system of 'certainty' was employed, whereas 1 is the lowest certainty in terms of precise identification and/or location of the quarry, while 3 is the highest certainty and the location has been indisputably confirmed. Entries with certainty levels of 2 and 3 should be regarded unequivocally as sites of ancient quarrying, while entries with level 1 are dubious and require much more investigation. These latter entries, explained in the following points, were retained in the table for purposes of full disclosure of available information. 3. Four entries in the table (Lagia; Mianes – hillside; Marmari (3 quarries); and Oitylo-modern village) were not plotted due to lack of bibliographic references mentioning these quarries and, therefore a corresponding lack of certainty regarding ancient exploitation. Further, Lagia is omitted because of my suspicion that they are simply conflated with the Prophitis Ilias quarries and should be grouped with the latter quarries. 4. Three additional entries in the table (Kyparissos/Alika; Mezapos Vicinity; and Diros Bay) suffer equally from a lack of detail in bibliographic references, and the exact locations to which modern authors refer is unclear. They are plotted on the map 88 Figure 3-17: Locations of ancient quarry sites in the Inner Mani peninsula (above) and detail of Cape Tainaron (left). © GoogleEarth nonetheless, in positions where I have personally observed the presence of quarrying activity. Despite these caveats, there is still an impressive corpus of information on ancient quarry sites, quarrying activity, and marble sculptures from throughout the Mani peninsula. 89 3.6 Rosso Antico Quarries The terms rosso antico, and rosso antico tenario are modern designations, meaning simply 'Ancient Red' and 'Tainarian Ancient Red', respectively.145 The ancient name of this marble, if there was one, is unknown, since there exists no surviving source from antiquity that explicitly mentions this marble and its rich red-violet colour. This omission has plagued scholars, and much ink has been spilled over the reason for this lack of description – some even attributing the exclusion to errors made by the ancient writers, some of whom do mention black stone, or very costly marble, or old quarries on Tainaron, but do not comment on any red-coloured stones:146 Strabo 8.5.[7]: εἰσὶ δὲ λατοµίαι λίθου πολυτελοῦς τοῦ µὲν Ταιναρίου ἐν Ταινάρῳ παλαιαί, νεωστὶ δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ Ταϋγέτῳ µέταλλον ἀνέῳξάν τινες εὐµέγεθες, χορηγὸν ἔχοντες τὴν τῶν Ῥωµαίων πολυτέλειαν. And there are ancient quarries of this very expensive Tainarian stone from Tainaron; and recently some [men] opened a very large mine in Mount Taygetos, having as benefactor the extravagance of the Romans.147 Lazzarini calls the importance of the stone and the corresponding lack of written sources an “incomprehensible discrepancy” and, like Gnoli, believes that passages from Tibellus and Propertius must refer to rosso antico because of the fame of the marble described in the passages – an argument based purely on circumstantial evidence148: 145 The precise origin of this name is unknown. Warren (2012) 342 noted that modern stonemasons assigned the stone this title. Likewise, Lazzarini (1990) 71 added: “This marble is better known by the Italian name of marmo rosso antico, probably given to it in the last century by the Roman stonecutters responsible for most of the names of ancient marbles that are still used today”. Lazzarini continued on with the confusing addition that Agostino del Riccio called the marble 'marmo rosso orientale' as early as 1597, which does not fall into “the last century”. 146 Lepsius (1890) 36 accused the ancient authors of misrepresenting the colour of the famed stones; Cooper (1988) 73 noted that this confusion in modern scholarship was likely due to the fact that the white and black marble quarries of Mani were unknown until the second half of the 20th century. Christien and Della Santa 2001-02 (205) are alone in the belief that this passage refers to not only grey marble, but the source of which is just south of Sparta, near Platovouni (possibly the site of ancient Harpeia). 147 All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 148 Lazzarini 2007, 71; Gnoli 1988, 189. 90 Propertius Eleg 3.2.9-10: quod non Taenariis domus est mihi fulta columnis\ Nec camera auratas inter eburna trabes... As my house is not supported by Tainarian columns, nor an arched roof of ivory among golden rafters Tibullus 3.3.13-16: quidve domus prodest Phrygiis innixa columnis\ Taenare sive tuis, sive Caryste tuis...? What use is a house [that is] supported by Phrygian columns, or yours, Tainarian, or yours Karystian... Some scholars refer to the red marble as marmor Taenarium, which is problematic given the other types and colours of marble that derive from this region, let alone the fact that there are no ancient sources referring to any such stone; the more common term in Greek, rather, was λίθοι Ταινάριοι (Strabo 8.5.7; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr.130).149 The designation of the Latin marmor presents further problems, as the closest Latin reference to a red stone from this region (and therefore what we now call rosso antico) is Pliny the Elder, who calls this stone lapis, not marmor [italics for emphasis]: 36.49 (=29.135): Taenarium lapidem et Phoeniceum et haematiten iis medicamentis prodesse tradunt, quae ex croco componantur; ex alio Taenario, qui niger est, et ex Pario lapide non aeque medicis utilem, potioremque ex alabastrite Aegyptio vel ex ophite albo. 36.49 (=29.135): They say that Taenarian stone, and Phoenician, and hematite are useful in medicines which are mixed together from saffron. [Those] from the other Taenarian [stone], which is black, and from Parian stone [are] not equally useful in medicine... The appearance of the first stone, which Pliny calls taenarium lapidem, alongside Phoenician stone and hematite in this list (and in contrast to the 'other, black stone from 149 Lazzarini (1990) 237 says: “All red crystalline marbles used in antiquity have traditionally been identified by archaeologists as marmor Taenarium...”. This is no longer true as several other sources for red marbles have been identified, particularly in modern-day Turkey at Iasos and Aphrodisias, and are likewise named after their cities of origin. 91 Tainaron') is the only evidence we have for its potential identification as rosso antico, since the latter two stones are also known for their red hues (phoeniceum = φοινίκεος = purple-red, scarlet; while haematiten = haemătītes , ae, m., = αἱµατίτης = blood-stone, a kind of red iron-ore, hematite). The relative fame of rosso antico is, therefore, attested more so by the large number of sculptures thought to be carved from this marble, and the extent of the four locations of ancient quarrying activity rather than through historical testimony or confirmed artifact. The quarry sites are as follows: 3.6.1 Pagania (/Paganea/Skoutari-Paganea) - Q001 The geographic situation of this peninsula and its quarries is ideal for the ancient marble trade; the outcroppings are located directly on the coast, which would facilitate maritime transport, and the city of Gytheio, the port of ancient Sparta, is located only a few kilometres north of this spot. The rosso antico quarries on the peninsula of Skoutari-Paganea have been well exploited in modern times (~1869 - 1940) by British mining companies, thereby obliterating most if not all evidence of ancient extraction noted by earlier explorers. For example, prior to modern quarrying, Bory de Saint-Vincent noted the “formerly exploited quarries of rosso antico” on this spot, and in 1892 Philippson corroborated the presence of ancient quarries alongside the [then] modern quarries in this location.150 The extent of the ancient quarries in this spot is debated in modern scholarship: in 1988, Cooper noted that the extensive modern quarries had not, in fact, destroyed all evidence of ancient quarrying activity, and he included images displaying punch- and/or pick-work and herringbone patterns on the stone.151 In his 2011 150 Warren 2012, 352-3; Bory de Saint-Vincent 1836, 444; Philippson 1892, 223. 151 Cooper 1988, 71. 92 chapter, Warren cited Cooper's work and included his own observation of Roman pottery from the site of Makrya Mounda. In his later 2012 work, however, Warren included a photo (his fig.9) of ancient tool marks, yet then confusingly questioned Cooper's own earlier interpretations of the 'ancient' toolmarks, suggesting that Cooper perhaps observed remnants from the 19th or early 20th century.152 Ultimately, the evidence for ancient quarrying is scant, and the most conclusive evidence is the first-hand observation by Bory de Saint-Vincent, and the positive correlation between the petrographic composition of ancient objects of rosso antico and the samples of stone extracted here. Despite several glossy photographs of ancient artifacts made of rosso antico in Chapter 5 of his great tome on Roman marbles, Lazzarini is only able to connect one artifact isotopically to this location (which unfortunately lies outside the chronological scope of this present work): one of the fragments of current-like spirals from the façade of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae.153 These quarries were therefore likely exploited in the Late Bronze Age, and probably re-opened in the Late Hellenistic/early Roman period, based on the associated pottery. 3.6.2 Kastri – 7 quarries? (Q00a-g) This area of interest for quarrying activity is problematic since it comprises various stones, and the rosso antico extraction sites (L1-L3) are not certain. Only Moschou has published the existence of these quarries, and their exact locations remain unconfirmed.154 They are included here because, as a whole, they resist categorization but they belong to the geological vein of rosso antico on the eastern portion of the peninsula. Moschou listed the remains of seven quarry sites in the region (above modern Kotronas, on the slopes of Kastri), of at least four 152 Warren 2012, 360. 153 Lazzarini 2007, 89: BM inv. A53. 154 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 310-311 & maps 58-59: Λ1-Λ7. 93 different types of stone: a) L1 – probably rosso antico (?), in use until the 19th century; b) L2 – probably rosso antico (?), evidence of worked boulders; c) L3 – probably rosso antico (?), architectural members and processing evidence, date: Roman-late antiquity; d) L4 – dark grey limestone, area 20x15m, seven stone blocks, Hellenistic pottery; e) L5 – dark grey limestone; f) L6 – flysch and slate quarry, processing evidence; g) L7 – small quarry of white fine-grained marble. 3.6.3 Prophitis Ilias – Q004 The small, abandoned village of Prophitis Ilias is dominated by a central square and a church, both of which are visually striking in their brilliant red hues – the entirety of the buildings, the pavement, and the stones that litter the surrounding hillsides are the result of intense modern exploitation of the rich rosso antico sources surrounding this now-abandoned mountain town. As one approaches the village via a winding and often treacherous road that barely hangs onto the sides of the steep mountain ridges, signs become visible which warn against personal collection of the stone, since they are indeed antiquities in their own right. These signs, posted approximately 500 m above sea level, also serve as a reminder of the baffling feat that extraction and transport would be even today, let alone in antiquity, without the presence of modern roads and machinery. Nevertheless, this improbable location is the site of the largest and most extensively exploited ancient rosso antico quarries. Although the precise number of ancient quarries is disputed (Lazzarini, following Moschou et al. puts the largest number at seven distinct quarry-sites, four of which are certainly ancient)155, there are several sites immediately adjacent to the modern road which still bear the 155 Lazzarini 2007, 77; Moschou et al. 2002, 279. 94 marks of ancient quarrying. Siegel (apud Bursian) is credited as the first to re-discover the ancient quarries here, and did so on foot, approaching from the town of Laghia to the south-west, and noting not only the extraction sites, but an unfinished column, a rusted tool, and trackways.156 Interestingly, however, the town of Dimaristika (which Bursian refers to as Damaristika, presumably from νταµάρι = quarry) is only known by this name in the records as early as 1813 – prior to this, it may have been known by the name of 'Sella'; this suggests that sometime around 1813, well before Siegel's trip in 1850, locals had themselves first taken note of the ancient quarries, and the name of the town changed accordingly.157 Following Siegel's expedition, the quarries at Prophitis Ilias became his personal possession, and were eventually purchased by Grecian Marbles (formerly Marmor) Ltd, which traded rosso antico until 1940/1.158 In the 1950s, Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson travelled to the region and mapped the location of three of the largest ancient quarries, as well as the location of prehistoric- and classical-period sites, the latter largely based on the presence of ceramics.159 They also noted the presence of Roman pottery sherds, none of which are included in their 1961 publication nor in the archives at the British School at Athens. A slightly altered and updated plan appeared in Higgins et al., which was the result of a visit to the site in 1966 – this plan includes five demarcated quarry-extraction areas, although two of these (their #1 & #4) may only be 156 Warren 2012, 348-352; Siegel apud Bursian 1853-5, 790. 157 According to Seifried (forthcoming) the name listed in tax registers and Venetian documents appears as Sela/Sella in the years 1583, 1618, 1692, 1695, and 1715, after which time it disappears and the name Dimaristika appears in 1813 and 1829. 158 Warren 2012, 359-361. 159 Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson 1961, 119-121; Forster & Woodward (1906/7) 253 mentioned the existence of the quarries, claimed (incorrectly) that they were discovered by Bursian, and stated that at that time they were “opened again and are being worked, but not regularly, by the 'Marmor' company”. 95 modern.160 Higgins et al. referred to these quarries as the 'Kyprianon' quarries, deriving the name from the closest harbour town rather than the local village, thereby implying a connection to Aghios Kyprianos and imbuing the latter with unconfirmed significance in relation to the quarries. Cooper reinforced this connection to Ag. Kyprianos, and went on to describe the scholarship on these quarries as such: “Ease of accessibility to this site led to its wide publicity and, as a consequence, reconnaissance for ancient quarrying across Cape Tainaron came to a standstill until 1981 with the venture which led to this report.”161 Cooper’s curious description of these remote quarries as easily accessible is surprising given their location at approximately ~500m asl, but his first-hand experience with the landscape is confirmed through his mention of the presence of Lakonian roof tiles, and a base to a black-glazed skyphos.162 Moschou, Raftopoulou, and Hatzitheodorou surveyed the area in multiple visits between 1980 and 1999, and they published their findings and a comprehensive map that appeared in the Archaiologikon Deltion in 2002. To the credit of the authors, theirs is the sole publication to discuss the historical/political aspect of these quarries in antiquity, and they directly tie the opening, exploitation, and export of this rosso antico source to the Roman period formation of the Eleutherolakonian League (the circumstances of which will be discussed further in Chapter 7).163 Their map, although helpful, is a black-and-white line drawing whose features are somewhat difficult to distinguish; the authors themselves stated clearly that they have a colour version of the map that was being retained for future publication(s?), none of which have appeared to-date. The authors also included a comprehensive treatment of the various settlements 160 Higgins et al. 1968, 333 161 Cooper 1988, 70; Lazzarini 2007, 77 also mentioned that Aghios Kyprianos was the port for these quarries. 162 Cooper 1988, 70-71. 163 Moschou et al. 2002, 267-273. 96 in the area, the evidence for ancient remains (mostly spolia and ceramic scatters), and the remnants of all roads and paths leading into and out of the area, including the modern road and medieval pathways. The claim that Aghios Kyprianos is indeed the harbour town of the Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarries was partly substantiated in this article, along with a discussion of ceramic scatters, spolia, and roads leading to this settlement, but a lack of photographic proof precludes further analysis of these artifacts and brings the argument to a standstill. No artifacts of rosso antico were discussed in this work, but the Roman date of exploitation for these quarries was emphasized through the discussion of imperial desire for luxury stones, as well as through a description and photos of the herringbone pattern typical of Roman period extraction methods. Lazzarini (2007) also included a less comprehensive, but clearer map of the locations of the seven quarry sites, plotted after Moschou et al. 2002, and he added observations of evidence for low-waste ancient quarrying activity, including quarry processing chips, squared-off extraction methods, and tool-marks from long chisels and light picks, and three large wedge-holes (“pozzetti”); one particularly astute observation was that of two 1.5 m tall vertical extraction marks, with a distance of 1.7 m between the two, probably indicating the size of the extracted blocks.164 Lazzarini also mentioned the presence of an “ancient house which probably belonged to miners”165, and compared the house's appearance and structure to the so-called ‘Dragon Houses’ on the island of Euboea and Thasos. Unfortunately, the precise date and function of all these structures are unknown, and this suggestion is merely conjecture. Despite the large number of artifacts found in Italy, Greece, North Africa and even the Levant which have been categorized as rosso antico, recent isotopic testing on 12 artifacts 164 Lazzarini 2007, 78. 165 Ibid, and fig. 29. 97 traditionally called rosso antico was revealing: as already mentioned above, one of the fragments of the façade of the Treasury of Atreus is linked to the Paganea quarries. The other fragment tested from this monument (BM inv. A55) was determined isotopically by Lazzarini to be of Taenarian origin, but could not be assigned a specific location, for lack of a precise match to any of the previously sampled quarries. Three objects now located in Italy – a 2nd - 1st century BCE Eleutherolakonian stele now in Altino, a floor pavement from the House of the Faun in Pompeii (1st century CE), and capitals from the Temple of Augustus in Pozzuoli – all display macroscopic features and isotopic signatures in accordance with rosso antico from the Prophitis Ilias quarries, and the latter two have been confirmed petrographically.166 Additionally, a 'Roman' column of unspecified date, now in Altino, was described as 'very likely' rosso antico from Prophitis Ilias, again based on petrographic, macroscopic, and isotopic evaluations.167 Three Roman statues currently housed in Italy – a Drunken Faun from the Capitoline Museum, and two Isaic priests, one in Rome and one in Venice – do not correspond to rosso antico either petrographically or isotopically, despite their macroscopic similarities and their characterization as rosso antico in previous publications.168 In fact, in his 2007 publication, Lazzarini himself actually introduced this statue as a famous example of rosso antico, despite the fact that later in the very same chapter he reveals the Faun to not be linked to rosso antico isotopically!169 166 Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Altino inv. AL 7013 (Fig 7 Lazzarini 2007); Antonetti 1996. 167 Lazzarini 2007, 90. 168 Lazzarini 1990, 239. Isaic priest in Capitoline Museum (inv. 1214); Isaic priest in National Archaeological Museum of Venice (inv. 117). 169 On page 74, Lazzarini (2007) described the Faun and the Isaic priests as manufactured from rosso antico, but this marble has not been confirmed in any of these statues: “Importanti sono poi i tre busti (tutt'uno con la testa) di sacerdote isiaco, di cui uno sicuramente da Villa Adriana, e gli altri due uno nello statuaio pubblico della Serenissima e uno a Parigi, ma ach'essi ricondotti alla stessa Villa: sono stati sinora ritenuti di rosso antico senza una netta conferma da analisi archeometriche.” On page 90 of the same volume, Lazzarini concluded that the Faun was isotopically distinct from the red marble quarries of Mani (as well as of Asia Minor), and he suggested that its marble source has yet to be found. Since the largest red marble quarry in Mani (Prophitis Ilias) has been found and studied extensively, the likelihood that the Faun’s marble originally derived from Mani is ever diminishing. 98 Figure 3-18: View to Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004a, from the ruined village looking due east. Arrows indicate visible vertical quarry faces. (Photo by author, taken from 36°30'18.36"N, 22°27'52.93"E). On the one hand, it is plainly impossible to conduct destructive sampling on every artifact from antiquity whose marble provenance is dubious, and reliance on macroscopic identification cannot be eliminated completely for this distinct marble; on the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that macroscopic categorizations are fallible and subject to error, as seen with the Drunken Faun from the Capitoline Museum. Distribution maps, such as the geographically diverse example found in Lazzarini 2007 (25, fig. 21), are best considered with caution and are subject to change in correlation to the advancement of scientific techniques. Ultimately, while there is no reason to discount the fact that rosso antico was shipped overseas in antiquity, the extent thereof is by no means conclusive and one must remain wary of opinions presented as evidence. As for domestic products, there are several examples of objects of rosso antico reused as spolia throughout the peninsula, and a significant number of objects made of the red marble that are now housed in the Sparta Museum (Appendix G) – the exact provenance in terms of precise quarry is undetermined for these artifacts, but the size, extent, and number of the Prophitis Ilias quarries render this site a likely candidate for the source of these objects. Finally, based on toolmarks, unfinished blocks, extraction methods, and ceramic scatters, the quarries at Prophitis Ilias were, in all likelihood, opened in the Late Bronze Age, re-opened in the Classical/Hellenistic period, and were exploited throughout the Late Roman Period. 99 Figure 3-19: Detailed view of Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004a, showing vertical extraction. Photo by author. Figure 3-20: View to Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004b, from the ruined village looking south-southeast. Arrow indicates visible vertical quarry faces. Photo taken by author from 36°30'18.36"N, 22°27'52.93"E. 100 Figure 3-21: Detail of Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarry Q004b, showing vertical extraction. 3.6.4 Lagia/Laghia - Q003 Woodward and Forster mentioned these quarries in passing, stating only that they were located approximately two hours to the north-west of the village of Lagia, and then referring to Bursian, who “saw undoubted traces of their having been worked in antiquity, in particular a rock-cut road near to them high up on the steep slopes of the hill of the Prophet Elias.”170 In his 2007 publication, Lazzarini noted five extraction sites in total, located to the north-west of the village “after about half an hour of driving”.171 The distance between Lagia and Prophitis Ilias is a mere 5.1 km on the modern road, and if one drives north-west along a parallel road, after 170 Forster & Woodward 1906/7, 253. 171 Lazzarini 2007, 78. 101 approximately 30 minutes one reaches the slopes of Prophitis Ilias; these quarries belong to the same general geographic region as those described above and the association with Lagia as opposed to Prophitis Ilias is somewhat misleading, particularly in light of Lazzarini's description of their location. The only other evidence for their existence is a sketch map in Warren 2011 (fig. 1), where the Lagia quarries were plotted at the modern site of Lagia, but are not mentioned again within the body of his text. Samples tested from outcrops at both 'sites' proved to be extremely similar isotopically.172 3.6.5 Kisternes/Kokkinogheia – Q006 The fourth and final area for the ancient extraction of rosso antico is located on the southernmost tip of the Mani peninsula, near the site of the ruined church of Haghioi Asomatoi. The name Kisternes Bay (modern Porto Sternes) comes from the large number of medieval cisterns in this region, while the name Kokkinogheia refers to the tiny hamlet just north of the bay, the latter of which Lazzarini believes is named for the red stone outcrops.173 Cooper (1988) mentioned extensive quarrying in this area, but he referred only to grey-white limestone, which was also quarried here. The quarries were first published in 1999 by Lazzarini, and the same author's 2007 publication provided the most information regarding this quarry-site: he identified one area of extraction outside of the village, c. 200 m from the tarmac road, but provided no further details regarding the location. I have only seen outcrops, not extraction sites, in the area. In terms of ancient evidence, Lazzarini described several erratic blocks with chisel marks, and one isolated block that is presumably the same block that Warren mentions four years later in his 172 Lazzarini 2007, 85. 173 Lazzarini 2007, 79. 102 Figure 3-22: Rosso antico outcrop near Kokkinogheia. Photo by author. 2011 publication; the block measured 1.25m x 3.06m x 0.89m. To my knowledge, no other artifacts have been scientifically linked to this location. 3.7 Black Stone Quarries The terminology used to refer to the black stones extracted from the Mani peninsula is particularly confusing due to two factors: 1) the terminology employed in the ancient sources; and 2) the correspondence (or lack thereof) between the ancient terminology and two geologically-distinct black stones quarried in Mani (limestone and marble). The simplest way in which to present the nomenclature for each stone is as follows: Black marbles are referred to as Bigio Antico (pl. Bigi Antichi), while black limestones (and recrystallized limestones) are referred to in the literature interchangeably as Bigio Morato (pl. Bigi Morati), Nero Antico (pl. Neri Antichi), Lapis Niger and Lapis Taenarius. The latter two terms are derived from ancient sources, specifically from Pliny the Elder 36.49 (=29.135) (discussed above) and 36.29: 103 Sunt et nigri quorum auctoritas venit in marmora, sicut Taenarius And there are black [stones] which have the same worth as marble, such as the Taenarian [stones]. There is no consensus regarding the precise source of the black stone that Pliny mentions in this passage. In the case of both this passage and the one presented above in the rosso antico section, there is a tendency for modern scholarship to read too heavily into distinctions (or lack thereof) made by ancient authors when describing the stones – specifically, the interchangeability of the terms 'lapis' and 'marmor' seems to be a much larger problem for modern scholars than it ever was for those authors inking the words themselves; since the word 'lapis' was used, there is a tendency to discount the largest source of black stone as the subject of Pliny's passage because it is, in fact, a marble (see entry i – Tainaron – west slope of cape). Lazzarini, incorrectly reading the original Latin, believed that Pliny identified the black stone from Tainaron once as lapis (36.49) and once as marmor (36.29), and conveniently attributed this dual usage to Pliny's prescient knowledge of the fact that there are in fact both limestone and marble black stones in this spot.174 The latter passage (36.29), however, occurs in a section of Pliny's Natural History which concerns 'Stones other than marble'175 and it is clear from the passage, that he is comparing the fame of the black stone from Tainaron (implied lapidem from the preceding lines)176 to the fame of marble elsewhere, especially since Taenarius is masucline; 174 Lazzarini 2007, 97. 175 36.25 (line 126): A marmoribus degredienti ad reliquorum lapidum insignes naturas. 176 36.29 (line 134): idem theophrastus et mucianus esse aliquos lapides, qui pariant, credunt; theophrastus et ebur fossile e candido et nigro inveniri et ossa e terra nasci invenirique lapides osseos. 104 since lapis is masculine and marmor is neuter, Taenarius must be acting as a substantive adjective referring to lapis. Therefore, while black marbles are referred to by the modern term Bigio Antico (pl. Bigi Antici), the terms potentially employed in antiquity could include Lapis Niger and/or Lapis Taenarius if Pliny (or his sources) employed the term 'lapis' incorrectly – either accidentally or intentionally, perhaps, due to a more lapis-like as opposed to marmor-like appearance or polish. Either way, it simply does not matter here whether the extremely scant ancient sources align with a 1:1 correlation to our modern geological comprehension of the quarries; what is more important is identifying which outcrops were exploited in antiquity, and the dates thereof based on extraction methods and securely-paired artifacts. 3.7.1 Tainaron - West Slope of Cape – Q007 First noted by Siegel and described by Henzen in 1857, the black marble (bigio antico) quarries here – although expansive – were considered to be less important than the quarries located further north (i.e. those of rosso antico).177 Rediscovered by Cooper in 1988 (although incorrectly assigned to Cape Lamares), who noted the presence of a single sherd of Roman ridged ware, these quarries lie on the western coast of Cape Tainaron, extending 250 m in length. On site, trace amounts of quarrying debris and unfinished blocks are visible, but due to the coastal location of the quarries, the majority of the remnants of ancient activity have likely eroded away, or lie under the sea, which Lazzarini claimed has risen over 2 m since antiquity.178 Bruno and Pallante noted a large platform which was likely formed as a result of the quarrying 177 Henzen 1857, 157. 178 Lazzarini 2007, 102. 105 Figure 3-23: View to the black marble quarries (Q007) on the west coast of Cape Tainaron. Photo by author. activity and which consequently receded the natural topography; this platform could have been used for loading products onto ships for maritime transport, and its extent was confirmed by an underwater investigation by Le Tallec in 2013.179 3.7.2 Mianes-Agrokampi 1/Mianes - Q008 The extraction site at Mianes is so close to the site on the west slope of Cape Tainaron that they are linked geologically (both are marbles, bigi antichi) and are likely a part of the same quarrying activity in this region. This site is smaller than the former, and located approximately 1.2 km south of the modern village of Mianes. As is the case with every quarry site mentioned in the previous scholarship, no coordinates are provided, and the precise location is uncertain. A small cistern close to the site was built using ancient extraction debris, and Siegel (apud Bursian) 179 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 165; Le Tallec 2014, 157; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 190 (no. 694). Le Tallec also includes a list of artifacts from Olympia (160-161) that he purports are from these quarries. 106 noted broken columns, but no artifacts or blocks were identified during visits to the area by either Lazzarini or Bruno and Pallante.180 One artifact has been linked petrographically, chemically, and isotopically to the black marble quarries here on the Tainaron peninsula, and that is the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic statue of Isis/Fortuna currently housed in the Palestrina museum.181 Due to the size of the statue, the marble likely came from the larger of these two quarries, the one located directly on the west coast, but the distinction cannot be made more precisely. However, due to the small amount of work that has been conducted on black marbles from the ancient Mediterranean world, Bruno and Pallante were hesitant to assign provenance of this statue to Mani with absolute certainty until further analysis is undertaken on other black marble sources.182 3.7.3 Marmari – 3 Quarries - Q013 The sole reference to the quarrying of black limestone in the Marmari area is derived from Le Tallec, who said that these areas were identified during an investigation of the region in 2013.183 There is no mention as to whether the observed quarrying activity is ancient or modern, but the photos included in his paper (his figs. 2-4) seem to show ancient quarries. 3.7.4 Kyparissos/Alika – Q015 In the summer of 1997, Bruno and Pallante conducted a survey to locate and identify sources of black stones in the Mani peninsula. In addition to the two marble sources just 180 Lazzarini 2007, 102; Bruno and Pallante 2002, 165. 181 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 174. 182 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 175. 183 Le Tallec (2014) 158 noted that the location of the quarries was: “to the west of the village in the direction of the cape that forms the entrance to the bay.” 107 mentioned on Cape Tainaron, as well as a few instances of modern quarrying, they identified a few outcrops of black limestone in the Kyparissos/Alika region.184 Although they saw no evidence of ancient toolmarks whatsoever, they believed these outcrops (and presumably some undiscovered quarries) to be the only possibility for the source of ancient black limestone artifacts located both within the peninsula itself, and elsewhere in the Peloponnese. These artifacts include: the black tesserae from Hellenistic mosaic pavements located on the very tip of Cape Tainaron (Figure 3-25); reused blocks within the chapel of Haghioi Asomatoi, the site of the ancient Temple of Poseidon (which showed chemical affinity to the Alika outcrops through XRF testing); an ancient Roman column reused in a 17th century mosque at Acrocorinth which displayed petrographic affinity to the Alika limestone; and two sculptures currently housed in the Sparta Museum: a boar and a trapezophoros relief with Dionysus and Pan (Figure 3-24 & 3-26).185 Select exported artifacts showed petrographic affinity to the Alika limestone, including one of three Augustan canephorae from the Palatine Antiquarium, and two 3rd century CE blocks from the Via Colonnata at Leptis Magna.186 184 Bruno and Pallante 2002; Lazzarini 2007, 103; Le Tallec 2014, 158; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009, 171. 185 Sparta Museum Inventory numbers 5195 and 6175, respectively. 186 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 174. 108 Figure 3-24: Black marble boar from the Sparta Museum (#5195). Photo by author. Figure 3-25: Mosaic pavement from Cape Tainaron with tesserae of black stone. Photo by author. 109 Figure 3-26: Black limestone sculpture of Pan & Dionysus from the Sparta Museum (#6175). Photo by author. Unfortunately, the precise location of any and all of the black limestone outcrops is completely unclear. While I have identified and plotted unusual cut marks near Almiros Bay (Figure 3-27), it is uncertain whether these correspond to any of the quarries noted by other modern scholars, due to lack of precise coordinates or any photographs whatsoever in existing publications. For example, both Bruno and Pallante, and Le Tallec claimed that the Alika/Kyparissos quarries are located precisely 15 km north of the cape, yet 15 km as the crow flies north of Cape Tainaron is much further north than Kyparissos.187 Likewise, 15 km by car also brings one to the hamlet of Ghialia, still north of Kyparissos. 187 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 166; Le Tallec 2014, 158. 110 Figure 3-27: View of possible quarry (Q015) in Almiros Bay near Kyparrisos. Photo by author. Based on the sculptures and tesserae associated with the black limestone outcrops, the activity of these as-yet undiscovered quarries can be placed from the Hellenistic period to the Late Roman/early Christian period. 3.8 Cippollino Verde Tenario and Red Fior di Pesco Quarries 3.8.1 Paliros-Koureloi – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q005 A total of five extraction areas are located in the area just to the north of the modern town of Kourelos. These cipollini verde tenario quarries were discovered by Lazzarini, who published their discovery in 1998 and named the marble after their more famous Euboean counterpart.188 Tsouli helpfully included more precise directions (“east of the modern road leading from Paliros village to Koureloi, 350 m south of Paliro village and 330 to 105 m north of Koureloi, at a height 188 Lazzarini 1998; Lazzarini 2007, 111. 111 of 125 to 85 m above sea level”) and provided a sketch map of the location of all five quarry faces, although the lack of a scale and accurate roads make it difficult to understand.189 The location, above the town of Koureloi, is conveniently located above an accessible bay which could have been used to ship the raw material and artifacts therefrom, and Tsouli indeed noted the presence of column shafts on the sea floor in Vathi Bay.190 The entire area of the quarrying activity is ca. 230 x 90 m, but the largest of these five quarries is a mere maximum length of 20 m, with a height of up to 4-5 m. Evidence for ancient quarrying includes tool marks from light and heavy picks, wedge-holes, extraction channels, and several unfinished blocks (17) and columns (10), some of which are 45-60 cm in diameter (corresponding to 1.5-2 Roman feet). All the columns are small and monolithic, in keeping with the limited ability of the quarry's production and Roman stylistic preferences, respectively. Finally, some ancient material was reused as building material for a low wall that demarcates the path from Paliros to Kourelos; Tsouli believed this path to be an ancient route that once led to the seashore, and suggested that the presence of an inscribed Δ on one stone functioned as a waymarker for ancient quarrymen.191 No exported artifacts are confirmed to be from this quarry, and the only evidence for a Roman date of extraction are the dimensions of some of the in situ columns. 3.8.2 Mianes - Agrokampi 2/Mianes – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q009 One small extraction site of cipollino verde tenario is located near the hamlet of Mianes. Lazzarini noted evidence of ancient quarrying in the form of metal wedge-holes, pick-marks, 189 Tsouli 2009, 399; 402; Fig. 6. 190 Tsouli 2009, 399; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 186-87 (no. 681). 191 Tsouli 2009, 400. 112 five fragments of unfinished columns, and four unfinished architectural blocks.192 Several scholars mention the presence of a road for transport, presumably to the nearby coast193; the proximity to the Bay of Kisternes would allow for the shipment of this material if it was indeed exported, and Lazzarini noted the presence of a column of this material in the nearby church of Haghioi Asomatoi, a photograph of which is supplied in Bruno 2002 (his fig. 11). In terms of products, there has only been one confirmed artifact that corresponds to the Maniate quarries of cipollino verde, and that is the petrographic association with a column at ancient Kainepolis.194 Other objects, including columns at the 1st -2nd century CE Roman theatre at Gytheio, and another outside the church of Haghia Sofia at Monemvasia are likely the Tainarian version of cipollino verde due to much closer proximity between Monemvasia and Mianes than Monemvasia and Euboea. Lazzarini (2007), based on Bruno (2002) mentioned a few potential candidates in Italy, but with the concurrent popularity of Euboean cipollino verde and the absence of archeometric sampling, there is no reason whatsoever to assume overseas export of cipollino verde tenario, in spite of the inclusion of distribution maps and uncorroborated sentences such as “Qui, come detto, era con ogni probablilità un altro punto d'imbarco delle pietre maniote dirette a Creta e verso altre destinazioni del Mediterraneo.”195 Likewise, Tsouli’s 2009 article included the following sentence without any reference to Lazzarini's 2007 work, the motivation for which (both the sentence's conclusion and the omission of Lazzarini's then-recent publication) is unclear: “We should, evidently, support the 192 Lazzarini 2007, 112; see also Bruno 2002, 20; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014 have two separate entries for the green marble quarries here (no. 697 & 698; their Figure 36), the reason for which is unclear. 193 Le Tallec 2014, 160; Warren 2011, 194; Bruno 2002, 20 (Fig. 1), 22; Cooper 1988, 68; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 191 (no. 698). 194 Lazzarini 2007, 115. 195 (“Here, as I mentioned, was a another probable point of shipment of the Maniate stones to Crete and other Mediterranean destinations”) Lazzarini 2007, 113; For a distribution map of 4 objects of cipollino verde tenario, see Bruno 2002, Fig. 14. 113 theory that this specific quality of green cipollino was appreciated and imported not only in Greece but also in Italy, at the center of the Roman Empire itself, thus adding another colored stone to the list of those “luxurious” colored marbles being exported from Laconia, constituting one of the major sources of economic prosperity of Laconians in Roman times.”196 Lazarrini’s statement implies economic prosperity, yet there is no real evidence for this prosperity in ancient Mani, perhaps with the exception of the city of ancient Kainepolis, which thrived in the Roman period (see Chapters 7-8, although without excavation our knowledge is limited). In a manner similar to the situation surrounding rosso antico discussed above, however, modern scholars have an inordinate desire for the coloured marble resources of Mani to be of supreme importance, particularly in ancient Rome, often to a degree that is uncorroborated by any scientific evidence. Plainly, there is a disproportion between the modern estimation of the importance of the export of Maniate coloured marbles over the actual evidence. The actual distribution of confirmed artifacts seems relatively localized to Mani, Sparta, and elsewhere in the Peloponnese – the distribution of ancient artifacts and the implications thereof will be discussed further in the following chapters. There is not sufficient evidence to assign a date to this quarry, but the Roman date of the Gytheio theatre suggests at least Roman-period exploitation.197 3.8.3 Marmari-Kharakes – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q014 Cooper mentioned the existence of these quarries for the first time in his 1988 publication. He noted evidence for ancient quarrying in the form of “extraction trenches, vertical 196 Tsouli 2009, 400. 197 Forster 1903/4, 179. 114 scarps and abandoned architectural members” the latter of which included two large examples of blocks over 2 m wide, as well as a monolithic column 3.5 m long.198 Unfortunately, his description of the location was unclear: “Kittycorner, to the east and across the bay of Marmari...”.199 Warren later clarified that the location of this quarry is at Kharakes, and that another probable quarry area is located “on the west-facing hill slope just south of Kharakes and the Pyrgos Gregorake, above the asphalt road, at 80-100 m asl”.200 The existence of quarries here is mentioned in passing by Bruno and Pallante 2002, yet the absence of any mention whatsoever in Lazzarini's 2007 chapter entitled 'Il Cipollino Tenario' is disconcerting. No artifacts are associated with this quarry-site, and a tentative Roman date is only given due to the monolithic column and preference for coloured marble during this period. 3.8.4 Mianes-Agrokampi 3/Mianes – Fior di Pesco Tenario – Q010 Located in close proximity to the cipollini verde quarries at Mianes, the red and white marble quarried here was discovered and published by Bruno, who named the marble after ancient marmor Chalcidium, or fior di pesco from Euboea.201 No columns were identified, and only one parallelepipedal block still attached to the mother rock was located (Bruno's fig. 10). No artifacts have been identified. It is entirely possible that these quarries and the quarries of rosso antico at Kisternes/Kokkinogheia have been conflated due to lack of precise mapping. 198 Cooper 1988, 68; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 191 (no. 696) mention the presence of a purplish tint to the marble, but the accompanying photograph (Figure 35) is in black-and-white. 199 Cooper 1988, 68. 200 Warren 2011, 193-4. 201 Bruno 2002, 22-3. 115 Figure 3-28: View of a cistern and the surrounding outcrops of fior di pesco (or rosso antico) in the village of Agriokambi. Photo by author. 3.9 White and Gray Stone Quarries The identification and naming of the stone extracted from these quarries is somewhat less problematic, since no white or gray stones from Mani are mentioned by any ancient source, with the sole exception of a short passage by Sextus Empiricus, who describes the colour of the stone as white when fragmentary but yellow when whole: καὶ τῆς Ταιναρείας λίθου τὰ µὲν µέρη λευκὰ ὁρᾶται ὅταν λεανθῇ, σὺν δὲ τῇ ὁλοσχερεῖ ξανθὰ φαίνεται (Pyr. 130; 2nd - 3rd century CE).202 There has been a lack of scholarly interest in investigating white and gray marble quarries in Mani, perhaps due to the corresponding lack of ancient sources that include mention of them. 202 "And chips of the marble of Taenarum seem white when planed, but in combination with the whole block they appear yellow" (trans. R.G. Bury, 1933). 116 3.9.1 Kionia/Kournos/Kourno - Q002 I have been to this site but was unable to locate the quarries that Moschou observed to the south-west of the two temple foundations (see Chapter 6 & 7).203 It makes sense that “[b]oth temples were constructed of the local gray marble readily available on the craggy summit of the ridge”204, since this site is located at the highest altitude (and is arguably the most remote) area of ancient activity within Mani. Note that Winter & Winter describe the stone as marble, which is correct, whereas Moschou categorized it as limestone (ασβεστόλιθος). These quarries were exploited strictly for local use at the sanctuary site, which is late Hellenistic-early Roman in date. 3.9.2 Mianes – Hillside The only source that refers to these quarries provides information that is dubious: Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009 claimed that there are limestone quarries here (whereas the other Mianes region quarries are all marbles), and they cited both Cooper (1988) and Bruno (1998 [sic]) for evidence. Cooper did indeed call the red and green outcrops here marble and limestone. Bruno, however, in his 2002 publication (Kokkorou-Alevras incorrectly cited the date and spelling of his title in their bibliography) stated specifically: “It might be noted that neither site [Kourelos nor Mianes] was mentioned in the research on the Mani peninsula in the 1980s (Cooper, 1988).”205 Therefore, Cooper was probably incorrect in categorizing any stones at Mianes as 'limestones', Bruno was incorrect in saying that the Mianes quarries were 203 Moschou 1999 [2005], 191 and fig. 39. 204 Winter and Winter 1983, 4; Later scholars who repeat this claim based on Winter and Winter alone include: Le Tallec 2014, 165; and Cooper 1988, 71. 205 Bruno 2002, 20. 117 undiscovered during investigations during the 1980s, and Kokkorou-Alevras et al. were not only wrong in continuing to describe this stone as limestone, but they also cited their 'supporting' information – Bruno's 2002 work – incorrectly. Needless to say the existence of such a 'quarry' should be regarded as highly suspect. 3.9.3 Marmari – Q012 In 1980, Frederick Cooper presented a paper at the 82nd meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, in which he described his discovery of white marble quarries located on a small bay 4 km north of Cape Tainaron. Only the abstract was published, and in this Cooper described evidence of ancient quarrying, such as toolmarks, an unfinished ashlar block and 'benching and trenching' techniques.206 The most intriguing aspect of this paper, however, was Cooper's claim that these white marble quarries were the answer to the long-sought question of the source of the marble used in the famed Temple of Apollo (Epikourios) at Bassai. According to Cooper, publications throughout the 1980s seemed to confirm this claim petrographically and isotopically207, and by the time of the appearance of Cooper's 1988 publication, “The Quarries of Mount Taygetos in the Peloponnesos, Greece”, the Taenarian provenance of the Bassai marble was not only accepted by the author, but a suspiciously impressive list of antiquities was added to the quarry's repertoire, including: the statue of Leonidas in the Sparta museum, Kleobis and Biton at Delphi, and the marbles from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.208 Such incredible claims could not be substantiated, and Palagia and Pike noted: “No artefacts made of Marmari marble 206 Cooper 1981, 190-191. 207 Cooper 1986; Herz 1985, 1987; Herz, Cooper and Wenner, 1982; Herz, Mose, Wenner, and Cooper, 1983. The latter two (like Cooper's 1981 publication) are only abstracts and leave much content to be desired. Matthews 1993 conducted further isotopic tests which also pointed to a Maniate origin for the Bassai marbles. 208 Cooper 1988, 74. 118 have been detected independently of Cooper's investigation.”209 Unfortunately, other scholars have also lamented the fact that Cooper and Herz did not publish the scientific datasets which led to the Bassai-Marmari conclusions published by in the 1980s and 1990s: Matthews, for example stated that “[Cooper's] results are depicted as “outlines” drawn around his data point: alas, the actual results were not available for direct comparison”210 and Attanasio, Brilli, and Ogle mentioned twice in their 2006 work that the clear diagonal lines of the isotopic ellipses and the seeming separation between isotopic signatures for ancient quarries versus marble outcrops cannot be substantiated or verified against Herz's earlier data, since the latter provided no detailed provenance information on his samples.211 Further testing of other white marbles from the ancient Greek world, specifically the island of Paros, produced results which were problematic for the security of the Maniate provenance of the Bassai marbles: isotopically, Maniate white marble from Mezapos (discussed below) and select Parian marble (specifically 'Paros 2') could not be distinguished.212 Another series of tests, published by Attanasio, Brilli and Ogle revealed much more overlap between Mani and Proconnesos marbles, in terms of isotopic mean values, standard deviations, low spectroscopic intensities (due to low concentrations of Mn2+ ions), similar odours during grinding, and non-negligible amounts of dolomite – in fact, the only distinction between the two could be made during macroscopic observation, wherein the Mani marbles were found to have a much smaller grain size.213 209 Palagia and Pike 2009, 259. On this same page, however, these two authors falsely stated that “...in the 1980's Fred Cooper located a handful of ancient quarries of white marble in the Mani area, the most notable being Mezapos, the other Marmari on Cape Tainaron.” Cooper makes no mention of Mezapos, and the first publication to describe the Mezapos quarries is Gorgoni et al. 1992. 210 Matthews 1993, 72. 211 Attanasio, Brilli, and Ogle 2006, 112-113. 212 Palagia and Pike 2009, 259; Bruno et al. 2002, Fig 28. 213 Attanasio, Brilli, and Ogle 2006, 114. 119 Despite this, the results of these tests by Attanasio, Brilli and Ogle produced a high affinity between the Mani marbles and the isotopic signature of a Bassai metope currently in the British museum; however, there was a small enough δ13 variance between this one metope from Bassai and the Mani quarry samples to prompt Palagia and Pike to run a least-squares statistical analysis to determine the probability of Maniate provenance for this artifact.214 The probability of a Maniate quarry was 5% higher than that of a Parian quarry. Nevertheless, Palagia and Pike were still not satisfied with the scientific results and turned to a more primitive means to establish provenance: macroscopic examination; in spite of isotopic and statistical correlation with Mani quarries, Palagia and Pike argue that because of its coarse-grain, the marble must be non-Maniate in origin.215 It is clear that in terms of the Bassai marble debate, there are two camps: one, championed by Cooper, which favours a Maniate source and the other, championed by Palagia, which favours a Parian.216 What is unclear is the reason for which the latter faction is so adamantly opposed to a Maniate source for the Bassai temple marbles, in the face of such convincing evidence to the contrary. This opposition becomes especially odd when one considers that Palagia herself used to adhere to a Maniate origin for the Bassai sculptures, stating in 2002 that: “We assume that after exhausting their stockpiles of Parian and Pentelic marble, the temple builders had to seek a source of white marble nearer home and came upon Marmari”.217 While I believe that at least some of the Bassai sculptures came from the white marble source at 214 Statistical testing based on methods developed in Pentia 1995; See Figure 11 in Palagia and Pike 2009 for the distribution of relevant isotopic values. 215 Palagia and Pike 2009, 264. 216 The exclusion of Proconnesian marble, which is much more indistinguishable from Maniate marble, is likely due to historical circumstances – see Matthews 1993, 72. 217 Palagia 2002, 378. 120 Marmari, the history of scholarship on this topic is baffling. Ironically, Palagia and Pike's most compelling argument against the Marmari provenance is the simplest, it could have been achieved without decades of isotopic sampling (which turned out to be otherwise inconsequential to their argument): In addition, art historical and historical reasons compel us to consider Parian marble as more likely to have been used in the architectural sculptures of the temple of Apollo Epikourios than a marble from a hitherto unknown source to which the sculptors were not accustomed and moreover it would not have been easier to reach or indeed to exploit. And if marble from the Mani quarries had been used in Bassai, then why did the quarries remain dormant from the end of the fifth century B.C. to the late Roman period?”218 Ultimately, while Palagia and Pike bring up good points regarding the lack of other artifacts linked to the Marmari quarries and the lack of precedent for the exploitation of the Marmari quarries in comparison to the fame of the Parian quarries, the Marmari quarries are located directly on the coast and are not difficult to reach or exploit via the Messenian gulf (although shipment to Kalamata for overland transport to Arcadia would have been a major undertaking); more importantly, the scientific and statistical evidence continues to point to Marmari and cannot be discounted on account of personal disagreement. In 2014, Christien further pointed out that Palagia was referring to the smaller quarry face as evidence against the large Bassai sculptural elements rather than the more substantial quarry face which today lies partially submerged in the sea.219 No other artifacts have been linked conclusively to the white marble quarry at Marmari (but see the relevant discussion under Mezapos (2 quarries), below). Unfortunately, Le Tallec seems to have completely missed the entirety of this scholarly argument throughout the 1990s 218 Palagia and Pike 2009, 266. 219 Christien 2014, 177. 121 and 2000s, for in his 2014 article he erroneously ascribes the Marmari quarries as the source of not only the Bassai marbles but echoes Cooper's belief that the Spartan Leonidas statue is also derived from here; there is simply no proof to substantiate this claim whatsoever, and Le Tallec's only source of reference for this argument is Cooper’s 1988 article itself.220 The tentative date for the exploitation of these quarries is the Classical period, based on the 5th-century date for the Temple of Apollo at Bassai. 3.9.4 Kyparissos/Alika – Latomas - Q016 Not to be confused with the black limestone outcrops at Alika/Kyparissos discussed above, this quarry produced a grey-white limestone. Located in the central square of the village 220 Le Tallec 2014 159-162; Le Tallec does seem to have visited the quarries at Marmari, however, and his photographs appear to confirm the location pictured in Palagia 2009 – it is for this reason the physical plotting of their location relies on Le Tallec's publication despite the flaws in his conclusions. Figure 3-29: View of Marmari and the Bay of Marinari. Arrow used to indicate area of quarry Q012, as shown in le Tallec 2014, fig. 5. Photo by author. 122 of Alika (called Latomas, or 'quarry-man'), the largest face is approximately 30 m in length and over 10 m in height. The quarry was excavated in 2007 when nearby buildings were undergoing construction; these excavations revealed portions of all four quarry faces, which enabled a more accurate estimate of the extraction area.221 Fortunately, Tsouli's 2015 article outlined the main points regarding the quarry's location and evidence for ancient extraction, which include: vertical, stepped stone extraction features the 'a festoni' extraction method (festoon-shaped curved marks left by quarry picks), isolation trenches, lunate marks and wedge-slots, and unfinished blocks that remain in situ. Due to the fact that both the extraction methods and the foundation of the nearby ancient settlement of Kainepolis date to the Roman period, Tsouli believed that the quarries were opened in the early Roman period and continued through the Late Byzantine/early Christian period.222 3.9.5 Mezapos Vicinity (4 quarries) – Q017 This group of quarries is located in the centre of the Bay of Mezapos, somewhere near the eastern edge of the Tigani peninsula. The location is somewhat unclear, but the following coordinates appear in the catalogue for the Laconia Survey: 10190527; Br. 30672930.223 Unfortunately, these numbers correspond to a coordinate system put into place specifically for the Lakonia Survey: they do not correspond to real world coordinates for latitude and longitude, and they are only accurate to a distance of ~100m. 221 Tsouli 2015, 828. The excavation report (Tsouli 2007) is currently unavailable, as it remains 'in press' in the 2007 edition of the Αρχαιολόγικον Δελτίον at the time of writing. 222 Tsouli 2015, 827-9; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 183 (no. 670). 223 Cavanaugh et al. 1996, 304. 123 Besides the entry in the Laconia survey catalogue, three different publications have discussed this quarry in some capacity. The earliest was Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson, who in their 1961 publication described the location of the quarries as such: “...near the shore of the Bay of Mezzapo, are some small caves. To south of these are extensive quarries of poros limestone, and leading to them from the east are narrow rock-cut water channels.”224 No photos or plans are included in their publication, nor in the archival material at the British School at Athens. The next source to discuss these quarries was Katsaphados' 1994 publication, which provided the most detail regarding the location of the quarry-sites. Katsaphados suggested that the primary use for the coastal area around the hamlet of Fokolato was for ancient quarrying activity due to the soft, easily workable limestone located here, and he noted the existence of sporadic limestone quarrying in the form of vertical scarps throughout this area. He also noted that the largest of these quarrying sites was located in the area around the ruined church of Aghios Prokopios, which is the site where I observed traces of ancient quarrying activity in April 2014, and is the location of the point on the map.225 Finally, in their 2014 publication, Kokkorou-Alevras et al. provided the most information regarding the evidence of ancient quarrying, though left much to be desired in terms of pinpointing a precise location for these traces of ancient activity: “In the same municipality, a little outside the village of Mezapos, there is an ancient limestone quarry. Altogether four quarry sites were discovered, some larger and some smaller. These sites are found in a ravine and rock extraction is stepped, while at some points the quarry faces are over 10 m high. There are clearly discernible tool marks, such as traces of the pointillé and 'a festoni' techniques, deep channels surrounding the blocks, which are left in situ before their final 224 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 123. 225 Katsaphados 1994, 54-5; Christien 2014 included an image of an extraction at Mezapos (Fig. 3), despite only a passing mention of the existence of quarries here, and the image seems to confirm the Aghios Prokopios location. 124 Figure 3-30: View of Aghios Prokopios quarry (Q017) in Mezapos vicinity. Photo by author. detachment from the bedrock. On one side of the quarry the characteristic wheel-grooves of an ancient road are attested and probably belong to the road network which led to the city of Hippola.”226 There is no evidence for a date for these quarries, as ceramics were not visible in the immediate vicinity, no artifacts have been linked to these extraction areas, and Kokkorou-Alevras et al. do not describe or include a picture of the 'in situ blocks'. 3.9.6 Mezapos (2 quarries) – Q018 The reasons for separating this entry from that above are threefold: 1) the stone quarried here is marble (not limestone); 2) these two quarries are located in a separate area from those included in the previous entry (to the north of the modern town on a promontory, rather than 226 Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009, 171; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 185 (no. 677) call the stone 'sandstone' (Ψαµµίτης), the reason for which is unclear. 125 Figure 3-31: View of Mezapos Bay. Area of quarries (Q018a & Q018b) based on Bruno et al. 2002, indicated by arrows.) Photo by author. south and within the bay); and 3) the bibliographic references to these entries are completely different from those above, with the exception of a brief mention by Katsaphados that confirms the accuracy of the location in Bruno et al.227 These quarries were first identified in a 1992 publication by Gorgoni et al., who described the evidence of ancient activity as cut marks, unfinished blocks, and a small column.228 In 1996, a team of researchers obtained 17 white marble samples from these two ancient quarries at Mezapos, two samples from a modern quarry near Areopolis, and five samples from outcroppings on the east coast between Porto Kagio and Mina.229 The goal of this sampling was to evaluate petrographic composition and stable isotope signatures from these sources as well as 227 Katsaphados 1994, 46; Bruno et al. 2002, Figs. 24 &25. 228 Gorgoni et al. 1992, 157 & Figure 5. 229 Bruno et al. 2002. 126 select ancient artifacts (mostly architectural members) to determine provenance. In describing the quarry at Mezapos, the authors of this study, Bruno et al., incorrectly stated: “This site is located on the west coast about 25 km south of Areopolis and is the only white marble quarry certainly of ancient date known so far in Mani (Bursian, 1862; Philippson, 1892; Cooper, 1988; Gorgoni et al. 1992).”230 There are two main issues with this sentence: first, the site of the Mezapos is 18.4 (not 25) kilometres south of Areopolis; second, by the time of this publication in 2002, the ancient white marble quarries at Marmari were well-known to scholarship due largely to the Bassai temple provenance debate discussed above,231 and not only is this bibliography completely omitted from this article, but the authors incorrectly cite Cooper (1988) as a source for the Mezapos quarries when, in fact, Cooper only mentioned the Marmari and Charouda quarries – the Mezapos quarries, as recently mentioned, were not published until 1992 (Gorgoni et al.). There is no obvious reason why the Marmari quarries are not only omitted from isotopic sampling but are seemingly unknown to Bruno et al. at this point, and in fact, Attanasio, Brilli, and Ogle explicitly state that their own tests include samples from the Marmari quarries collected later by Bruno himself!232 Following this publication by Bruno et al. in 2002, the Mezapos quarries received no mention in subsequent works, with the exception of Le Tallec 2014, who clearly uses Bruno et al. as his sole source for the Mezapos quarries, as he echoes the incorrect distance of 25km between Areopolis-Mezapos. 230 Bruno et al. 2002, 41. 231 Cooper 1981, 1987, 1988; Herz 1985, 1987; Herz, Cooper and Wenner, 1982; Herz, Mose, Wenner, and Cooper, 1983; Matthews 1993. 232 The samples from the Marmari quarries must have been collected sometime between the publication of Bruno et al. 2002 and Attanasio et al. 2006. In the same vein, the Bruno et al. 2002 omitted any reference to the ancient quarrying activity at Charouda, discussed in Chiotis 2001. Although the quarries themselves weren't published until several years later, the evidence for ancient activity was discussed as early as Cooper 1988 67-8. 127 Bruno et al. extracted petrographic and stable isotope samples from 19 artifacts and compared them to the geological samples derived from Areopolis (modern quarry), Mezapos (ancient quarry), and Porto Kagio (outcrops). Petrographically, the geological samples were homogenous and could not be distinguished from one another. Isotopically, however, the geological samples produced three distinct fields, although the validity of these results is questionable, since two fields are based on only two and five samples, in the cases of Porto Kagio and Areopolis, respectively. The stable isotopic fields of the Mani samples overlap completely with the famous white marble quarries of Prokonnesos and Paros, and overlap partially with those of Thasos (Phanari, Aliki) and Carrara; thus, white marble remains one of the more difficult categories of marble to differentiate among its subtypes. The results of this scientific testing of the artifacts are found in Table 3-3. With the exception of G1, all the artifacts tested from the church of Haghioi Asomatoi, Porto Sternes (Tainaron) align isotopically with the closest source of white marble, the outcrops near Porto Kagio. I am inclined to suggest that the artifacts actually came from the nearby ancient white marble quarries at Marmari, but further testing is required to confirm this hypothesis – I am surprised that this has yet to be done since, as already mentioned, Bruno himself apparently extracted samples from the Marmari quarries.233 The same conclusion (regarding marble sourcing from Marmari) applies to the samples from the church of Haghia Triada, in Paliros – with the exception of the outlier G6 and G7 (the former lies within the isotopic fields of Aphrodisias and Paros-Chorodaki, while the latter lies outside all known isotopic fields for Greek white marble). Logistically, since it is unlikely that these two quarry 233 Attanasio et al 2006, 109. 128 Table 3-3: Results of white marble artifact testing, based on Bruno et al. 2002. blocks came from such faraway locations, there is a serious need for refinement of the isotopic fields of Mani. 234 234 It is not outside the realm of possibility, however, that these blocks were imported – perhaps for ideological or sociopolitical preference for imported materials, or even as cargo from a ship visiting the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. Many thanks to Kevin Fisher for pointing this out. Sample Present Location Description of Artifact Isotopic Affinity/Source G 1 Haghioi Asomatoi, Porto Sternes Unfinished Type III Ionic Capital (5th c CE?) Areopoli, modern quarry G 2 Haghioi Asomatoi, Porto Sternes Unfinished Type III Ionic Capital (5th c CE?) Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 3 Haghioi Asomatoi, Porto Sternes Trapezoforos Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 4 Haghia Triada, Paliros Parallelepipedal quarry marble block Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 5 Haghia Triada, Paliros frag of Parallelepipedal quarry marble block Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 6 Haghia Triada, Paliros Parallelepipedal quarry marble block outlier G 7 Haghia Triada, Paliros Parallelepipedal quarry marble block outlier G 8 Haghia Triada, Paliros Parallelepipedal quarry marble block Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 9 Haghia Triada, Paliros Parallelepipedal quarry marble block Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 10 Haghia Triada, Paliros Rough cornice Mani, samples from marble outcrops G 11 Corinth Column shaft Mezapos, quarry samples; Bruno et al. Confirm Mani origin b/c fine grain size G 12 Corinth Column shaft Mezapos, quarry samples; Bruno et al. Confirm Mani origin b/c fine grain size G 13 Corinth Column shaft outlier G 14 Haghios Charalampos, Kyparissos Type I Ionic Capital of Attic Type (1st-2nd c. CE) Areopoli samples, modern quarry/outlier G 15 Haghios Charalampos, Kyparissos Unfinished column base outlier G 16 Haghios Charalampos, Kyparissos Ionic Capital Areopoli samples, modern quarry G 17 Haghios Petros, Kyparissos Column shaft outlier G 18 Haghios Petros, Kyparissos Column shaft Areopoli samples, modern quarry/outlier G 19 Unknown chapel in Kastraki/Kyparissos. Fluted pilaster Mezapos, quarry samples 129 The artifacts from Corinth aligned with the isotopic field of Mezapos, but due to the significant overlap with Prokonnesian and Parian marbles, Bruno et al. confirmed the Mezapos provenance through macroscopic evaluation of the grain size – admittedly, an imperfect methodology. The artifacts from Kyparissos corresponded largely to the samples taken from the modern quarry at Areopolis, but future sampling of the ancient quarries at Charouda/Pyrgos Dirou would perhaps provide a more likely source for these artifacts. The outliers from Kyparissos, G15 and G17, corresponded to the isotopic fields of Mount Pentelikon and Aphrodisias/Dokimeion/Paros-Chorodaki, respectively. These artifacts are also unlikely to be imports, however, since G15 is an unfinished column base and G17 is a plain column shaft – to reiterate, there is no need to import such mundane, nondescript items when their material is locally plentiful. Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014 included mention of two semi-worked, monolithic, unfluted columns (1.90 m and 0.95 m in length), unfinished blocks, and noted that the extraction area slopes downward, directly into the sea to facilitate maritime transport. Based on the columns they dated the quarries to the Roman – Early Byzantine periods, but did not exclude the possibility of earlier exploitation.235 3.9.7 Charouda (Aspri Plaka) – Q019 In 1988, Cooper remarked that “Medieval towers, constructed of squared, marble blocks, fill the nearby village of Charouda”236; he believed the source of this marble was Pyrgos Dirou, but in 2001 Chiotis published the first mention of ancient quarries to the SE of the village of 235 Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 185 (no. 678). 236 Cooper 1988, 67. 130 Charouda, near a massive modern quarry site. Chiotis mentioned two ancient unfinished column drums still in situ, which boast a diameter of 1.70 m, but gave no further evidence regarding the location or size of this extraction site.237 Tsouli, in 2009, published an extensive account and map of the quarry, a result of a survey of the area conducted in 2006. The area of ancient exploitation is located between two roads, one modern and one medieval or earlier.238 Two principal extraction areas were identified, and the extensive evidence for ancient quarrying includes outcrops, unfinished rectangular blocks, trenches, lunate marks from wedge-holes, the two column drums previously identified by Chiotis, half-dressed semi-detached blocks, one column shaft, vertical and horizontal extraction traces, and tool-marks from punches and chisels.239 Tsouli remarked that Roman quarrying techniques were not present, and that the wedge traces at Charouda are reminiscent of those on the Third Period retaining wall at Pnyx in Athens, as well as the quarry site in eastern Crete known as the “Rods of Digenis”, both of which date to the 4th century BCE.240 For this reason, Tsouli dated the exploitation of the quarries “from the classical period onward” and urged for isotopic testing on samples from this quarry, particularly to determine whether the isotopic signature from marbles here fall within the same field as those from the modern quarry at Areopolis, sampled by Bruno et al. (and discussed above).241 No artifacts have been linked conclusively to this site, and Tsouli did not reveal whether she believed that the capital from Thalames mentioned by Cooper (1988) and discussed below derives from this location; the column drums in situ, however, are too large to fit with any known structure in Mani and therefore either belong to an as-yet undiscovered building, or were 237 Chiotis 2001, 561 & Fig. 7. 238 Tsouli 2009, 397. 239 Tsouli 2009, 397-8; See also Kokkorou-Alevras 2014, 184 (no. 674). 240 Tsouli 2009, 398. 241 Tsouli 2009, 399; Bruno et al. 2002. 131 Figure 3-32: View across Lagadaki Bay to modern quarry near Charouda. Area of ancient quarry Q019 indicated by arrow. Photo by author. destined for export.242 This quarry is located directly above Langadaki Bay, so while maritime shipment seems possible, the modern quarry site has obliterated any and all traces of ancient roads leading down to the bay. Moreover, the topography is incredibly steep and rocky so it is uncertain whether the quarried blocks were shipped from this bay, transported overland to another (more accessible) bay for shipment, or restricted to local use. 3.9.8 Diros Bay – Q020 The marble outcrops at Pyrgos Dirou are first mentioned by Cooper as the source for an Archaic Doric capital located at nearby Thalames, as well as the marble source for a figurine 242 Tsouli 2009, 399; Christien (2014) 177 mentioned an Archaic relief found near here and now in the (closed) Gytheio museum, but she did not seem to be aware of the actual site of the quarry at Charouda, nor preceding scholarship, as she said only: “Celles de Charouda, près de l'église des Taxiarches sont maintenant transformées en citernes pour l'alimentation en eau; mais il semble qu'il y ait d'autres carrières au nord-ouest.” An image of the relief can be found in Giannakopoulou 1966, Fig. 5, but no other information regarding its specific findspot or date was given. 132 Figure 3-33: View of stepped horizontal quarrying activity in Diros Bay, possibly Q020. Photo by author. found within the Final Neolithic Alepotrypa cave. Neither of these artifacts has been tested and cannot be firmly linked to any quarry. The vague description of the location of the outcrops leads one to believe that Cooper is referring to the extraction site outside of Alepotrypa Cave on Diros Bay, as he referred to the outcrops as 'adjacent' to the cave.243 Nothing more is known of this extraction site, and is only mentioned elsewhere by Christien and Le Tallec: the former said only that quarries exist at Pyrgos Dirou, and the latter mentioned the geological components of the stone, and nothing more.244 There is a small extraction site directly on Diros Bay which is plotted on the map and perhaps corresponds to this quarry. 243 Cooper 1988, 68. 244 Christien 2014, 177; Le Tallec 2014, 159. 133 3.9.9 Oitylos– Modern Village - Q021 The only source to mention quarries at the site of ancient Oitylos somewhat extensively is Kokkorou-Alevras et al.: “The quarries at Oitylos have been known for many years. Within the modern village the most important extraction site is located on the property of N. Alevras. This is a very large quarry face below the modern road. The a festoni technique is clearly evident on the quarry face, thus indicating a date in the Roman-Early Christian period. Characteristic traces of iron wedges can also be seen. Moreover, on a modern threshing floor we discovered the drum of a non-fluted column and a stone basin of uncertain date.”245 Unfortunately, the only references the authors used to substantiate their claim that the quarries have “been known for many years” were 1) Bölte (1929); and 2) the entry under 'Oitylo' in Cavanaugh et al. which too only lists Bölte as a source for quarries.246 Other brief mentions of quarrying activity here include Forster, who saw “rock cuttings which indicate an ancient quarry”247 and Christien, who noted only that these quarries are linked to fortifications.248 Tsouli 2015 mentions these quarries with no additional information, except to add that the property of Laskaris also contains an extraction site, but Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014 add a photograph (their fig. 32) and suggest that the date of exploitation ranged from the Classical to the Byzantine periods – no doubt a correlation with the village of Oitylos itself.249 245 Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009, 171. 246 Bölte 1929, 1343; Cavanagh et al. 1996, 300 (site LL 154). 247 Forster 1903/4, 161. 248 Christien 2014, 174; presumably she means the quarries were the source for the blocks comprising the ancient city-walls of Oitylos (see Chapter 5 & 6). 249 Tsouli 2015, 825; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 185-6 (no. 679). The latter incorrectly cites their own image of this quarry as figure 31, but it is in fact number 32. 134 3.9.10 Oitylos – Chamoleos-Xeropolyana - Q022 This limestone quarry, located 900 m southwest of the modern village of Oitylo, was discovered and published by Tsouli.250 The quarry-site also appeared in Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, and Tsouli discussed the three extraction sites at this location in detail in her 2015 article. All three sites are located at different elevations along the same hill, the largest of which is 12.5 x 12.25 m in area and 6-7 m in height. Evidence of quarrying activity in antiquity includes the a festoni technique on the stone, semi-worked blocks, pick-marks indicative of Roman-early Christian extraction methods, and large amounts of Roman-Late Roman pottery in the vicinity, including fragments of transport amphorae.251 The largest quarrying site was later transformed into a cistern, as evidenced by a layer of hydraulic mortar, and pavement constructed of tile and potsherds. Tsouli included a catalogue of thirteen unfinished architectural blocks, some almost complete, others with lifting bosses or anathyrosis.252 Close to the extraction sites, Tsouli noticed two large retaining or defense walls, potentially built to support a platform to finalize and dress the extracted material. The location of this site is near the sea, but Tsouli maintained nonetheless that this quarry site was the primary supplier to the ancient site of Oitylos in the Roman period, despite the apparent high altitude gain between quarry and village. 3.10 Conclusion In this chapter, I provided an overview of the geology and geography of the Inner Mani peninsula, a review of the routes taken by early modern travellers to the region, and a comprehensive analysis of the main natural resource of Mani – namely, limestone and marble 250 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 561-563. 251 Tsouli 2015, 825-7; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 186. 252 Tsouli 2015, 826; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014, 186 (no. 680) note 22 blocks in situ. 135 resources. This chapter serves to contextualize the physical characteristics of the landscape in order to better understand the geographic circumstances in which the inhabitants of the region survived. It is impossible to attempt to unravel the identity of the ancient inhabitants of Mani from an historical, epigraphic, and archaeological perspective without having an intimate knowledge of the physical world in which they lived and the natural phenomena – topography, soil, climate, water sources, natural resources – that surrounded them and affected their daily existence. Human-environmental relationships shed a particular light on social-cultural practice, and geographic circumstances can play a part in identity formation, particularly in terms of the maritime cultural landscape in this particular region. Ultimately, natural resources and the physical environment, while in no way a cultural determinant, have an impact on the humans inhabiting said environment; the 'natural' landscape directly impacts the 'cultural' landscape.253 The routes of the early travelers showcase the limitations presented by the topography, particularly with regard to ease-of-access throughout the peninsula. In addition, the presentation of the main early explorers to the peninsula sets the stage for the presentation of historical sources in the coming chapters – which the explorers relied on extensively, particularly Pausanias – and the epigraphic and archaeological evidence in the later chapters, since early visitors to the reason recorded, collected, and preserved much of the physical remains of antiquity throughout Mani. 253 The first geographer to come up with the notion of the relationship between natural and cultural landscapes was Sauer 1925. For more recent scholarship on this topic, see: Strang 2005; Descola and Palsson 1996; and Ingold 2000. For discussions of archaeological landscapes, see Knapp & Ashmore 1999. Other scholarship on the importance of space and place, including the influence of the 'spatial turn', includes: Horden and Purcell 2000; Van Dyck and Alcock 2003; Robinson 2011; Osborne 1987; Cole 2004; and Gilhuly and Worman 2014; Blake 2003; Gidden 1984; Lefebvre 1991. 136 The discussion of marble resources included here presents the single largest natural resource within Mani, and its exploitation throughout antiquity. The extent of marble and limestone exploitation throughout the peninsula implies that this was a major economic industry for the ancient inhabitants; exports of coloured and white marbles to places like Sparta, Monemvasia, Corinth, and perhaps even Bassai provide evidence for the extent of the ancient marble trade, but the presence of marble architectural members and spolia found throughout the peninsula reveals that the stone resources were also harnessed primarily for local use. A lack of systematic excavations within Mani, as I emphasize throughout this dissertation, precludes any further discussion regarding local economic activity – while we can guess based on ethnographic research that salt, olives, honey, and maritime resources may have played a role in local industry, we simply do not know to what extent any other products were cultivated, extracted, grown, or obtained.254 What we can and do know, however, is that Mani was rich in stone, and that the inhabitants extensively quarried marble and limestone. While there is some evidence for the export of the stone sculpture to Sparta and elsewhere, there is far more evidence for local use – that is, for the buildings and monuments of the ancient settlements of Mani. I suggest that this reflects that the individual marble quarries were controlled by local communities and provides the first piece of evidence that the inhabitants of Mani were not under the overarching control of Sparta.255 This conclusion is further expounded upon throughout the succeeding chapters. 254 Salt, honey, and olives are the three most renowned products from Mani today, while the Gulf of Lakonia – specifically around Gytheio – was famous for its murex population used for purple-dye production (Paus.3.21.[6] & Pliny NH 9.127; Cartledge 2002, 156), and I myself have seen murex in the bay of Kolokithia bay, near Kotronas. 255 The location of many of the quarry sites in coastal regions suggests that at least some of the extraction and transportation was done by sea; I thank Lisa Cooper for the suggestion that this convenient manner of extraction, paired with the relative autonomy of the region, contributed to popularity of Maniate marble as an exploitable resource. This hypothesis may contribute to the argument for the Bassai marble to be of Maniate provenance, as it may have been cheaper and easier to extract than some of the competing white marble sources, particularly in the Cyclades and Attica. 137 Table 2: Detailed Breakdown of all Quarries in Inner Mani Presented Counterclockwise from NE of the Peninsula ID Number & Points Location Name(s) Location Certainty Name of Stone Description of stone Size of Quarry Geological Composition/ Features Evidence of Ancient Quarrying Exported? (proximity to ancient harbour) Examples of use in antiquity (artifacts1 and written sources) Date of Use Bibliographic Sources2 Q001 N36 39.360 E22 31.985 Pagania (aka Paganea aka Skoutari-Paganea) Site: Makrya Mounda. Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted based on map in Warren 2012 (Fig. 8). Rosso Antico aka Marmo Rosso Antico Marble – red; also red with green, yellow, white, and black veins and stripes. Unknown. Quartz- and chlorite-heavy, with varying degrees of plagioclase and k-mica. Crystalloblastic-homeolastic texture. Wedge holes; Punch- and pick-work; Herringbone patterns; Roman pottery. Yes – coastal location on Skoutari Bay. BM inv, A53 (spiral from the façade of the Treasury of Atreus).The See Warren 2011 & 2012 for list of Bronze Age artifacts potentially derived from this location. Late Bronze Age; Late Hellenstic - Early Roman. Bory de Saint-Vincent 1836; Philipson 1892; Cooper 1988; Lazzarini 1990; Gorgoni et al. 1992; Moschou et al. 1998; Gorgoni et al. 2002; Lazzarini 2007; Warren 2007; Warren 2012; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q00a-g N36 36.364 E22 30.326 Kastri – 7 quarries? Located above Kotronoas. Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author and only referred to by Moschou 2001-2004 [2012]. Rosso Antico aka Marmo Rosso Antico? Marble – red; also white; also apparently limestone and slate. Unknown. Unknown. Various: blocks, architectural members, Hellenistic-Roman surface pottery. Unknown – proximity to Kolokitha Bay, but no evidence for export. None confirmed. Hellenistic – Roman. Moschou 2001-2004 [2012]. Q002 N36 32.442 E22 27.747 Kionia aka Kournos aka Kourno Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted as location of temples. N/A Marble – Grey-white. Unknown Unknown. Unknown at quarry. Temples at Kionia primary use for this marble. No. None confirmed. At least post 146 BCE, based on date of Temples of Kionia. Winter and Winter 1983; Moschou 1999 [2005]; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q003 N/A Laghia/Lagia Certainty Level 1. Unconfirmed by author. Likely conflated with the Prophitis Ilias quarries. Rosso Antico aka Marmo Rosso Antico Marble – tends to be reddish-brown. 10-30 m in length to 5-6 m in height. Unknown. Ancient extraction channels and semi-finished blocks. Unknown. None confirmed. Unknown. Forster and Woodward 1906/7; Lazzarini 2007 78; Warren 2011. Q004 Site A: N36 30.302 E22 27.829 Site B: N36 30.191 E22 27.810 Prophitis Ilias (~7 quarries/ extraction sites) Certainty Level 3. Observed by author and several concordant descriptions in bibliographic references. Rosso Antico aka Marmo Rosso Antico Marble – dark red-violet to deep red, often with white stains, stripes and bands, sometimes dark brown veins; Larger grain size, higher purity. Largest quarry 8-9 metres in height; quarry most sampled that faces the sea is 50-60m long, 7-8 high. Quartz- and chlorite-heavy, with varying degrees of plagioclase and k-mica. Some calcite and haematite (accounting for the red colour); rarely epidote, limonite, and manganese (accounting for the violet colour). Trackway for extraction and removal of stone, unfinished column in stream bed; clear cuttings for pick extraction, square blocks, extraction channels. Yes – exported artifacts confirmed archaeometrically. The harbour at Aghios Kyprianos is closest in proximity, but Abela Bay is also a candidate. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Altino inv. AL 7013 (2nd - 1st c. BCE Eleutherolakonian stele); 1st c CE floor pavement from the House of the Faun in Pompeii; capitals from the Temple of Augustus in Pozzuoli; Roman column in Altino; see Table 3 for a list of artifacts of rosso antico in the Sparta Museum. Possibly Late Bronze Age through Roman-Byzantine period, with periods of inactivity in the Geometric- Archaic. Siegel apud Bursian 1853-5; Henzen 1857; Forster and Woodward 1906/7; Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson 1961; Higgins et al. 1968; Cooper 1988; Lazzarini 1990; Gorgoni et al 1992; Mochou et al. 2002; Lazzarini 2007; Warren 2007; 159; Warren 2012; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q005 N36 25.021 E22 29.303 Paliros-Koureloi aka Kourelos Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted based on map in Tsouli 2009 (Fig. 6). Cipollino Verde; Cipollino Verde Tenario Marble – Green. Often with clear features and emerald hues. Frequent white veins, sometimes gray and/or brown patches. Wavy schistosity, some subtle pink folds. Five extraction sites; area of ancient refuse 230m x 90m. Cristalloblastic-homeoblastic, calcite predominant with varying levels of quartz, chlorite, muscovite/fengite, plagioclase and feldspar. Ancient blocks (17) and column shafts (10, typically Roman), tool marks of point/punch traces and wedge lunate marks. Yes – proximity to Bay of Vathi; Marble shafts at bottom of sea. Potential mason mark (Δ) on stone built into wall east of Koureloi path indicating path to bay. None confirmed. Roman, based on column shaft style and dimensions. Siegel apud Bursian 1853-5; Henzen 1857; Lazzarini 1998; Bruno 2002; Lazzarini 2007; Tsouli 2009; Warren 2011; Warren 2012; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014; Tsouli 2015. 1 Artifacts listed only include those currently outside the Mani peninsula. 2 Bold font indicates that the investigation was first-hand and the author recorded the quarry him/herself. Table 3-2: Detailed breakdown of all quarries in the Inner Mani presented counterclockwise from the NE of the peninsula. 138 ID Number & Points Location Name(s) Location Certainty Name of Stone Description of stone Size of Quarry Geological Composition/ Features Evidence of Ancient Quarrying Exported? (proximity to ancient harbour) Examples of use in antiquity (artifacts and written sources) Date of Use Bibliographic Sources Q006 N36 24.111 E22 29.237 Kisternes/ Kokkinogeia Just North of Bay at Porto Sternes Certainty Level 2. Confirmed and plotted by personal observation, but unsure of number of quarries due to differing accounts. Rosso Antico aka Marmo Rosso Antico Marble – purple-red with white, grey, and greenish white bands. Also noted was a fine-grained, grey limestone. Unknown. Unknown. Detached ancient block east of the road; several erratic blocks with chisel marks. Yes – proximity to Porto Sternes. See potential list of Bronze Age artifacts in Warren 2011. Possibly known since Bronze Age. Roman, based on dimensions of isolated block. Cooper 1988; Lazzarini 2007; Warren 2011; Warren 2012; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q007 N36 23.888 E22 28.741 Tainaron - west slope of cape. Certainty Level 3. Observed by author, and descriptions in bibliographic sources match. Lapis Taenarius or Lapis Niger; Bigio Antico Marble - Grey-black, fine particles, white veins. 250-200 m long, 50-60 deep, 20-30 tall. Quartz, white mica, feldspar, apatite and graphite. Rough rectangular blocks; submerged loading platform. Yes – coastal location on Cape Tainaron and evidence of an underwater 'loading' platform. Pliny the Elder 36.29; 36.43. Isis/Fortuna from Palestrina Museum. Hellenistic-Roman, based on pottery and confirmed artifact (Isis/Fortuna) last 1/4 2nd c BCE. Siegel apud Bursian 1853-5; Cooper 1988; Chiotis 2001; Bruno and Pallante 2002; Lazzarini 2007; Kokkorou-Alevras et. al 2009; Warren 2012 345; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q008 N36 24.397 E22 28.821 Mianes- Agrokampi 1 aka Mianes Certainty Level 2. Problematic pinpointing exact location due to multiple accounts and multiple quarries in region. Lapis Taenarius or Lapis Niger; Bigio Antico Marble - Grey-black, fine particles, white veins. 30 m long, 10 m deep, 4–5 m tall. Quartz, white mica, feldspar, apatite and graphite. Much purer (less graphite) than W coast Tainaron marble, so slightly lighter. Quarrying debris; broken columns; quarried blocks; fragment of a road space 1.40 m wide. Yes – proximity to Porto Sternes and the road fragment potentially led to this bay. Pliny the Elder 36.29; 36.43. Unknown. Siegel apud Bursian 1853-5; Bruno and Pallante 2002; Le Tallec 2014. Q009 N36 24.397 E22 28.821 Mianes- Agrokampi 2 aka Mianes Certainty Level 2. Problematic pinpointing exact location due to multiple accounts and multiple quarries in region. Cipollino Verde; Cipollino verde Tenario Marble – Green, green and white, gray-veined, and more rarely, green-red. 20x40m. Cristalloblastic-homeoblastic, calcite predominant with varying levels of quartz, chlorite, muscovite/fengite, plagioclase and feldspar. Quarry faces; unfinished and variously dressed architectural fragments; broken columns, quarried blocks. Yes – proximity to Porto Sternes and the road fragment potentially led to this bay Only local usage confirmed: columns in Kainepolis and Gytheio theatre. Roman, based on the date of the Gytheio theatre (1st-2nd c. CE) and quarrying methods (2nd-3rd c. CE). Lazzarini 1998; Bruno 2002; Warren 2011; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014; Tsouli 2015. Q010 N36 24.397 E22 28.821 Mianes- Agrokampi 3 aka Mianes Certainty Level 1. Source of red and white marble confirmed by author, but multiple quarries in region suggest conflation with Kisternes/ Kokkinogheia. Fior di pesco/ fleur de pêche; Fior di pesco Tenario Marble – Red with white veins. Unknown. Unknown. Blocks of various degrees of dressing; Broken columns, quarried blocks . Yes – proximity to Porto Sternes and the road fragment potentially led to this bay. None confirmed. Roman, based on quarrying techniques (c. 2nd -3rd c. CE) and popularity of coloured stones. Henzen 1857; Bruno 2002; Warren 2011; Le Tallec 2014. Table 3-2: Detailed breakdown of all quarries in the Inner Mani presented counterclockwise from the NE of the peninsula. 139 ID Number & Points Location Name(s) Location Certainty Name of Stone Description of stone Size of Quarry Geological Composition/ Features Evidence of Ancient Quarrying Exported? (proximity to ancient harbour) Examples of use in antiquity (artifacts and written sources) Date of Use Bibliographic Sources Q011 N/A Mianes – hillside Certainty Level 1. Incorrect classification and existence dubious. N/A Limestone? Unknown Unknown Horizontal extraction; grooves, encircling channels, tool-marks, unfinished architectural members, and cured blocks, wedge-holes. Yes – proximity to Porto Sternes. Unknown. Unknown. Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009. Q012 N36 25.412 E22 28.249 Marmari Cape Lidhori near entrance to bay. Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted on map based on Figure 5 in Le Tallec. N/A. Marble – Opaque white with occasional streaks of brown and patches of gray. Unknown. Heterogeneous, uneven texture; Calcite crystals vary in size; range of fine- to coarse-grain. Some dolomite accounts for the gray. Benching, trenching, scarps, drill-holes, undercutting for wedging, pickwork. Abandoned ashlar block. Yes – proximity to Marinari Bay. Sculptural adornment of the Temple of Apollo at Bassai; local ashlar blocks at Haghia Triada in Paliros confirmed isotopically. Classical period, based on date of Temple of Apollo at Bassai (5th c BCE). Cooper 1981; Herz, Cooper & Wenner, 1982; Herz, Mose, Wenner, & Cooper, 1983; Herz 1985, 1987; Cooper 1987; Cooper 1988; Matthews 1993; Palagia 2006; Attanasio, Brilli, & Ogle 2006; Palagia and Pike 2009; Le Tallec 2014; Christien 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q013 N/A Marmari (3 quarries) Certainty Level 1. Not plotted on map due to lack of information and bibliographic sources. Lapis Taenarius or Lapis Niger Calcaranite (a type of limestone that is composed predominantly, more than 50 percent, of detrital sand-size, carbonate grains). Unknown. Unknown. Limited to the quarries themselves. Yes – proximity to Marinari Bay. Unknown. Unknown. Le Tallec 2014. Q014 N36 25.663 E22 28.635 Marmari-Kharakes Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted on map but unsure of exact location. Cipollino Verde; Cipollino verde Tenario Marble – Green; Gray with green and red streaks. Well-laminated. Unknown. Possibly two separate areas of quarrying activity. Green colour caused by epidote. Extraction trenches, vertical scarps, abandoned architectural members including blocks and columns. Yes – proximity to Marinari Bay. None confirmed. Roman, based on monolithic column shaft and preference for coloured marble. Cooper 1988; Chiotis 2001; Bruno and Pallante 2002; Warren 2011; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q015 N36 27.709 E22 26.071 Kyparissos/ Alika Certainty Level 1. Location unclear based on varying descriptions in bibliographic sources. Plotted near the site of ancient Kainepolis where quarrying was noted by the author. Lapis Taenarius or Lapis Niger; Nero Antico. Calcarenite (a type of limestone that is composed predominantly, more than 50 percent, of detrital sand-size, carbonate grains): Gray, slight recrystallization giving it a more granular appearance and a very deep color. Quarry face over 10m high. Lineated fabric; Opaque-rusty grains of iron oxides-hydroxides; mica; sparitic calcite. Vertical stone extraction, 'a festoni' quarrying technique. Yes – proximity to Almiros Bay. An ancient Roman column reused in a 17th century mosque at Acrocorinth; a boar and a trapezophoros relief with Dionysus and Pan, both currently housed in the Sparta Museum; one of three Augustan canephorae from the Palatine Antiquarium; two 3rd century CE blocks from the Via Colonnata at Leptis Magna. Hellenistic-Early Christian, based on 'a festoni' technique and confirmed artifacts. Bruno and Pallante 2002; Le Tallec 2014. Table 3-2: Detailed breakdown of all quarries in the Inner Mani presented counterclockwise from the NE of the peninsula. 140 ID Number & Points Location Name(s) Location Certainty Name of Stone Description of stone Size of Quarry Geological Composition/ Features Evidence of Ancient Quarrying Exported? (proximity to ancient harbour) Examples of use in antiquity (artifacts and written sources) Date of Use Bibliographic Sources Q016 N36 28.152 E22 25.888 Kyparissos/ Alika - Latomas Certainty Level 2. Location plotted based on description in Tsouli 2015, in the central square of Alika. N/A Limestone – greyish. Quarrying area at least 13m wide, and the largest face over 10m in height and 30 m long. Unknown. Vertical, stepped extraction, 'a festoni' technique, isolation trenches, lunate wedge marks. Yes – proximity to Almiros Bay. None confirmed. Roman-Early Christian based on extraction techniques. Tsouli 2007; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014; Tsouli 2015. Q017 N36 31.700 E22 22.735 Mezapos Vicinity (4 quarries) Certainty Level 2. The only certain location is the Aghios Prokopios quarry, other sites unclear. N/A Limestone (soft). Quarry faces over 10m high. Unknown. Tool marks, pointillé and a festoni (festoon) quarrying techniques, deep channels surrounding the blocks. Yes – proximity to Mezapos Bay. None confirmed. Unknown. Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961; Katsaphados 1994; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2009; Christien 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q018 Site A: N36 32.837 E22 22.993 Site B: N36 32.710 E22 23.216 Mezapos (2 quarries) Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Locations plotted based on photos in Bruno et al. 2002. N/A Marble - White (also associated with a third grey-white quarry); small grain size (max 0.52-4.48mm). 1) 70-80m long, 20-30m high; 2) 20-30m long, 20m high. Heteroblastic fabric, interlocking calcite crystals; graphite common, rarely quartz and opaque minerals. Cut marks, unfinished blocks, a small column, and two monolithic, unfluted columns. Yes – coastal location on Mezapos Bay. Two column shafts from the 2nd c. CE theatre at Corinth. See Table 4 for archaeometric results of white marble samples and artifacts. Terminus ante quem of 2nd c. CE based on the date of the Corinth theatre. Gorgoni et al. 1992; Katsaphados 1994; Bruno et al 2002; Attanasio et al. 2006; Le Tallec 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q019 N36 36.162 E22 22.572 Charouda (Aspri Plaka) Certainty Level 2. Unconfirmed by author. Plotted based on map in Tsouli 2009. N/A Marble – White. 230m x 145m total area of quarrying activity; one outcrop 8.5m long, 3.5 m wide, and 1-1.1 m high. Unknown. Megalithic column drums and blocks in situ; extraction surfaces on 3 outcrops, bases of extracted blocks, lines of lunate marks from wedge-slots. Yes – Lagadaki Bay. However, no visible traces of quarry roads to the bay, which is rocky and difficult to access. None confirmed. Classical period onwards - based on similarities to wedge traces on a wall in Athens and a quarry in Crete. Cooper 1988; Chiotis 2001; Tsouli 2009; Christien 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014. Q020 N36 38.363 E22 22.918 Diros Bay Certainty Level 1. Plotted where a small quarry is located in Diros Bay. N/A Marble – White; Coarse grains. Unknown. Hematite and tremolite needles. Limited to the quarries themselves. Yes – coastal location on Diros Bay. None confirmed. Unknown. Cooper 1988; Christien 2014; Le Tallec 2014. Q021 N/A Oitylo – modern village Certainty Level 1. Not plotted on map because lack of information. N/A. Limestone. Unknown. Unknown. Iron wedge-marks, unfluted column drum, 'a festoni' technique, stepped horizontal mining. Yes – proximity to Limeni Bay. Unknown. Classical – Byzantine. Forster 1903/4; Bölte 1929; Kokkorou-Alevras et. al. 2009; Christien 2014; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014; Tsouli 2015. Q022 N36 41.902 E22 22.975 Oitylo - Chamoleos-Xeropolyana Certainty Level 2. Location 900 m SW of Oitylo village, by the sea. Plotted at location of visible Roman remains. N/A. Limestone. 1) 12.50m2 area, 6-7m high; 2) 4.40m x 2.50m x 2.50 high; 3) unknown. Unknown. Isolation trenches, pick marks, vertical steps, 'a festoni' technique, attached blocks, unfinished worked architectural blocks (13); retaining walls for dressing platform; late Roman-early Christian pottery. Yes – coastal location on Limeni Bay. None confirmed. Late Roman – Early Christian. Tsouli 2008; Kokkorou-Alevras et al. 2014; Tsouli 2015. Table 3-2: Detailed breakdown of all quarries in the Inner Mani presented counterclockwise from the NE of the peninsula. 141 Chapter 4: The Mani Peninsula in the Archaic Period (prior to the 5th c. BCE) 4.1 Introduction In the following five chapters, I explore the surviving written, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence that provides information about the inhabitants of Mani, thereby populating the historical landscape. I discuss the historical evidence of this region in chronological order – from the Archaic through the late Roman periods – in order to further illuminate the activity which took place on this peninsula in antiquity. The previous chapter (on geological and geographic considerations) and the following five are complementary: the historical sources and material cultural evidence together illuminate the way in which the topographical features and geographic circumstances played a role in segregating different regions of the peninsula and how a marked regional identity was maintained throughout the centuries. At the end of each chapter, I include distribution maps of all of the evidence for ancient Mani, and these are superimposed upon terrain maps in order to truly understand the distribution of antiquity through the real, lived landscape. The Archaic period in Mani is poorly represented, and therefore loosely defined as the period prior to the 5th century BCE, since much of the evidence cannot be dated precisely. Due to the paucity of material in all categories of evidence, conclusions drawn from the Archaic material are mostly broad and subject to future investigation. The ancient sites of interest within this chapter are Las, Tainaron, Messe, and Oitylos, while the archaeological and epigraphic material is largely concentrated within the north-east region of the peninsula. 4.2 Literary Sources In the written record, the earliest mention of settlements within the Inner Mani survives from Homer's Iliad, in a passage from the Catalogue of Ships: 142 2.581-7: οἳ δ᾽ εἶχον κοίλην Λακεδαίµονα κητώεσσαν, Φᾶρίν τε Σπάρτην τε πολυτρήρωνά τε Μέσσην, Βρυσειάς τ᾽ ἐνέµοντο καὶ Αὐγειὰς ἐρατεινάς, οἵ τ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἀµύκλας εἶχον Ἕλος τ᾽ ἔφαλον πτολίεθρον, οἵ τε Λάαν εἶχον ἠδ᾽ Οἴτυλον ἀµφενέµοντο, τῶν οἱ ἀδελφεὸς ἦρχε βοὴν ἀγαθὸς Μενέλαος ἑξήκοντα νεῶν: ἀπάτερθε δὲ θωρήσσοντο. 2.581-7: And those who inhabited hollow Lakedaimon full of ravines, Pharis and Sparte and Messe abounding in doves, and inhabited Bryseiai and lovely Augeiai, and those who held Amyklai and Helos a town on the sea, and those who held Laas and also dwelt around Oitylos, For him [Agamemnon], his brother Menelaos of the battle-cry, led sixty ships: and they were armed for battle separately. This passage included the names of three settlements of interest: Messe, Laas [sic], and Oitylos. The first settlement, Messe, has been identified with the geographic region around modern Mezapos on the western coast of the peninsula, but without any epigraphic or literary confirmation.256 There is no attestation of a settlement with this name again throughout antiquity until Strabo, who himself cited this Homeric passage (8.5.[3]). The only material evidence for human activity in this region at this early date is in the Ano Poula region of the plateau of Cavo Grosso, to the immediate south-west of Mezapos. Here, Woodward noted the presence of ceramics and specifically mentioned examples of: “Geometric Laconian sherds of the Orientalising style....”257 Woodward did not include photographs or drawings of these sherds, thus their existence is unconfirmed. The other two named settlements, Laas and Oitylos, are known from several later sources, albeit with a variation on the spelling of both these place-names: the first was spelled ‘Las’ more frequently, and the second was more rarely called ‘Beitylos’ (and explicitly given as 256 Katsaphados 1994. 257 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 244. LL188 “Near Kipoula”. 143 an alternative to Oitylos in some written sources and inscriptions). The city-ethnic ‘Oitylos’ is confirmed epigraphically in later periods of antiquity.258 The ancient place of Oitylos has also been “attached with certainty” to a physical site with archaeological remains, namely the modern town also called Oitylos; the name of this town only became Oitylos following the Greek War of Independence (prior to this, the modern name of the town was Vitylo). However, because the passage from the Iliad gives no further contextual or topographical information, the association of the site of Homeric Oitylos with ancient Oitylos from later sources, and with the location of the present-day town rests on two as-yet unproven hypotheses: first that “the [name] remained unchanged from the time at which they were first incorporated in the [Homeric] 'Catalogue' to the time of their first use by a post-Homeric literary source; and second, that the sites identified on the ground have been correctly identified from the indications of the written sources.”259 There are no recorded Archaic-period finds from the region around Oitylos. 4.3 Archaeological & Epigraphic Evidence The ancient site of Las has not been identified conclusively, but based on later historical sources, it is associated with archaeological remains in the north-eastern region of the Mani peninsula, specifically around the sites of the Frankish fortification of Passavas and the modern settlement of Chosiari. Although it has been “attached with certainty” by Shipley to Passavas, the exact location of ancient Las and the extent of its territory during any period are still very much unknown.260 The north-eastern region of the peninsula – including the presumed site of ancient 258 Shipley 2004, 573. For Beitylos, see, for example: IG V.1 935. 259 Cartledge 2002, 290. 260 Shipley 2004, 573. With regard to Passava, Shipley (2004, 584) commented that: “The acropolis has produced Protogeometric to Roman finds, including a late Archaic or early Classical votive stele (IG V.1 1217)” However, all that is known of the now-lost inscription IG V.1 1217 is that it was on the rim of a certain ancient vase said to be re- 144 Las – has yielded the most archaeological and epigraphic evidence for Archaic-period activity within the Inner Mani. From the town of Chosiari, built into a private home, is a purported Archaic-period inscription. Only Giannakopoulou published this inscription in any capacity, and it does not have an SEG entry. The text is as follows: Ἐρυµνίδας Ἐπίστατος Giannakopoulou reported that the inscription was found during the ‘excavation’ of the house – likely demolition for modern renovations, not a recorded archaeological excavation – and that the stone was associated with a tomb of an individual, along with some bones and several fragments of miniature vases.261 Based on this context, Giannakopoulou concluded that the name of the deceased individual was Erymnidas, while the second word signaled his occupation (presumably Giannakopoulou was referring to ὁ ἐπιστάτης?); in the LGPN, however, Epistatos, is a personal name that has also been recorded at Sparta (SEG 11 158). No further information is provided, unfortunately, including the location of any of these finds. Giannakopoulou did provide a photo of the stone, and dated the inscription to the Archaic period based on letter-forms (specifically the Δ, Μ, & Ν).262 With regard to sculpture, one marble herm with a ram’s-head has been known since at least the beginning of the last century, and although its exact provenance is unclear, it was found in the region of Chosiari.263 Stylistically, this herm has been attributed to the Archaic period, due used as building material below the walls of the ruined Frankish castle of Passava and cannot, therefore, be included as secure evidence. 261 Giannakopoulou 1966, 52. 262 Giannakopoulou 1966, 52-53 & Plate 12. 263 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 233; Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 23; Gytheio museum #130. 145 to its schematic design and largely amorphous features; only a rough outline of a face and a head with flat, lateral horns are discernible. The most common interpretation of the rams-head is that it is a representation of Apollo Karneios, since this corresponds to later literary sources that mention the existence of a cult to Apollo Karneios in Las (Paus 3.24.6-8). The function of this statue is unknown, although Schroder did not believe its purpose was funerary.264 I had the opportunity to observe the statue in the Gytheio museum (#130), but its position within this storage location prevented a close study (Figure 4-1). Two additional Archaic artifacts have surfaced from the region of Chosiari in the early 20th century that have only been published by Giannakopoulou.265 The first is a poros limestone Doric capital (0.40m x 0.40m x 0.07 m) and the second is a broken statue of a seated male. The seated figure is draped from his waist downward and sits on a throne with lions-feet. Both of these items are stored in the Gytheio storeroom, although the acquisition numbers are unknown. 264 Schroder 1904, 21-24; Schroder 1905, 409; Le Roy 1965, 371. 265 Giannakopoulou 1966, 53-57; Figs 13 & 14. A 146 Figure 4-1 a(top) & b(bottom): Rams-head marble herm in Gytheio storeroom. Photo by author. Three kilometers to the south of Chosiari is the village of Dichova, the find spot of a 6th-century BCE inscription to Aphrodite (SEG 32 395) that reads: Fιοστεφάνοι Ἀφροδίται This inscription was first published by Delivorrias in 1968, and he associated it with the nearby ‘monumental marble architecture’ of the Doric order.266 Delivorrias noted that several capitals were stolen by visitors, and that the area needed to be properly excavated to shed further 266 Delivorrias 1968, 153. I have been unable to locate these remains in the region, but this architecture had also been noted by Forster (1906/7, 245), who believed it was the villa of a wealthy Roman. Moschou-Tsiomi (1997, 23) identified a “monumental ensemble” in the valley north of Kamares as a sanctuary of Aphrodite and some Archaic ceramics in the region; this could be the same set of ruins. B 147 light on this unknown corner of Lakonia; I could not agree more. Delivorrias then described the inscription as surviving on a rectangular slab, and noted that the surviving words, which translate to “violet-crowned Aphrodite”, form the final syllables of a verse of dactylic hexameter. For this reason, he argued that this inscription may have formed a portion of an altar on which offerings to the goddess Aphrodite would have been placed.267 The attribute “violet-crowned” is given to Aphrodite in her Homeric Hymn (6.18) as well as in Solon (Fragment 19.4; Plutarch Solon 26.).268 Mastrokostas dated the inscription before 500 BCE because of letter forms, the Homeric epithet for Aphrodite, and the presence of a digamma.269 In terms of the worship of Aphrodite in Mani, Pausanias (3.25.[9]) noted a temple of Aphrodite on the sea at Kainepolis, on the opposite coast of the Mani peninsula, and he also described the worship of Aphrodite Migonitis at Gytheio (3.22.[1]).270 Dichovas is sufficiently far away from both of these locations (Kainepolis and Gytheio) to conclude that this is a separate shrine and/or cult-site to Aphrodite, especially since it was discovered amongst other monumental architectural members, presumably in situ. No indication of the present-day location of this inscription is given in the relevant publications, so I presume (perhaps too optimistically) that its current location is still within the structure noted above. In the modern town of Phlomochori, the dome of the church of Aghia Barbara prominently displayed a pyramidal column capped with the sculpted schematic head of a ram, 267 Delivorrias 1968a, 153. 268 This epithet is also given to the Muses (Theogenes 250; Bacchylides Epinicians Ode 5) and to the Athenians (Aristoph. Ach. 637; Aristoph. Knights 1323). See also Ath. Deip. 9.54. 269 Mastrokostas 1970, 428. 270 “Before Gythium lies the island Cranae, and Homer (3.445) says that when Alexander had carried off Helen he had intercourse with her there for the first time. On the mainland opposite the island is a sanctuary of Aphrodite Migonitis (Union, and the whole place is called Migonium.” (Translation Jones and Ormerod, 1918). In the SEG, the original provenance of this inscription is listed as “Gytheio? Las?”. 148 until it was removed in 1961.271 According to Moschou, the statue is today stored in the church of Aghia Triada (also in Phlomochori), but its current condition is unknown.272 Le Roy dated this rams-head pillar to 650-600 BCE, although he acknowledged that the stylization of the sculpture – like the example from Chosiari discussed above (Figure 4-1) – made certain dating difficult. The sculpted ram has no facial features, just curled horns which lie flat against the sides of its head, and small ears which resemble a pair of closed lips.273 The marble was worked with a small and large pick, with no traces of chiselling, which also supports an earlier date. While Le Roy noted that the Phlomochori example was indeed similar to the rams-head herm found at Chosiari, he believed that this Phlomochori ram was decidedly earlier because of the pyramidal support (whereas the herm on the Chosiari example necessitates a later date), and because of the early date of the Phlomochori pillar, it could not be conclusively determined to be a theriomorphic representation of Apollo Karneios. Rather, he suggested that this may have been a protective symbol in addition to possibly having an affiliation with Apollo: A la fois plus qu'un simple attribut d'Apollon, mais moins qu'une idole anthropomorphe ou même thériomorphe: un instrument prophylactique. Il est possible que ces monuments aient porté le nom de Carnos ou Carneios, qui n'était autre que le nom local du bélier. Au 7ième siècle, quand fut sculpté le cippe de Phlomochori, l'assimilation de Carneios à Apollon n'était sans doute pas complète. C'est pourquoi j'attributerais volontiers à ce monument une plus grande autonomie, et partant une plus grande valeur religieuse qu'à l'hermès de Las. Mais c'est là un terrain mouvant et incertain, où se rencontrent et se mêlent le fétiche et l'idole, la foi et la superstition.274 It is clear from this excerpt that Le Roy did not want to rule out any interpretation for the Phlomochori ram, and his conclusion is likewise vague. It seems to me, however, that there is a 271 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 18 on her map 59; LL202 say Phlomochori was a possible Archaic site, but if this is based on the rams-head pillar, this is incorrect since its original findspot was the area of Kotronas. 272 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 310; Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 24:“Ατυχως, "φυλασσεται" στην εκκλησια Αγια Τριαδα του Φλοµοχωριου...”. 273 See Le Roy 1965, Figures 13 &14. 274 Le Roy 1965, 375-6. 149 striking difference between Le Roy’s conviction of the rams-head herm from Chosiari as Apollo Karneios and his more uncertain analysis of the rams-head pillar from Phlomochori: this difference lies in the fact that the former example was discovered in the ‘region of ancient Las’ – even though, as I have said already, there is no conclusive evidence for the location of this ancient settlement, and there is little contemporary archaeological evidence from the region as a whole. This is significant because Pausanias’ 2nd century CE account states explicitly that the cult of Apollo Karneios existed in the vicinity of Las, and thus upon discovery of the statue at Chosiari, the attribution of the herm as such was unchallenged, even though the Archaic date of the herm and Pausanias’ text are separated chronologically by at least 700 years.275 Le Roy, who spent many paragraphs debating the exact function of the rams-head pillar from Phlomochori, however, only ever mentioned the findspot of the artifact as Kotronas, and never as ‘Teuthrone’ (the ancient site associated with modern Kotronas); contrast that whenever he mentioned the artifact from Chosiari – in the paragraph quoted above, for example – he referred to it as the herm from the ancient place of ‘Las’. I argue that this distinction was possible for Le Roy because, for him, Pausanias provided written proof to support the identification of the Chosiari (‘Las’) statue as Apollo Karneios. Had Pausanias (or any other ancient author, for that matter), also noted the presence of this or a similar cult in Teuthrone, I doubt that Le Roy would have written so extensively on the possible interpretations of this artifact – instead, I believe he would instead have taken its theriomorphic representation of Apollo Karneios as a given fact. I argue that the reliance on Pausanias and desire to prove his words as truth is so ingrained that it often results in less scholarly evaluation in circumstances such as the ‘Apollo Karneios from Las’, when this statue should have received equal scrutiny as its counterpart from Phlomochori. 275 Schroder 1904, 21-24. 150 The final example of Archaic-period sculpture from Mani actually derives from the town of Charouda on the western coast of Mani. In 1915, a white marble funerary plaque was removed from an unknown church in Charouda and transferred to the collections of the Sparta museum, where it is now displayed (#10567; dimensions 0.49m high x 0.44m wide x 0.08m deep; Figure 4-2).276 The relief depicts a nude male warrior facing right; he carries a hoplite shield in his left arm, and a Corinthian-style helmet sits on the ground in front of his left foot, which steps slightly forward. In front of the youth a large snake rears up, ‘standing’ on its tail. This relief is very much in the style of Lakonian funerary reliefs of the Archaic period, as several other examples on display at the Sparta Museum attest. This is the sole surviving evidence from the western coast of Mani that dates to the Archaic period. Because it was reused as spolium within some church, however, its original provenance is unknown – I believe it could very well have originally come from the north-eastern region of the peninsula, where there is the sole concentration of sculptural material from the Archaic period. There are a few further reports of Archaic material from the eastern side of the peninsula; all are reported by Mochou and all are unsubstantiated. These include (from north-south): 1) a so-called ‘Archaic temple’ at the site of the church of Aghios Theodoroi in Piso Chora277; 2) an “extensive cemetery with Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic ceramics” in the area below (east of) Kionia between coastal Saloteri (modern Kokkala) and Karakianika278; and 3) several good-quality Archaic black-glaze sherds on Spira hill.279 276 Giannakopoulou (1966, 46) for the date of removal; Cartledge (2002, 165) for its removal from an unknown church. 277 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 308. 278 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25; Moschou 1999 [2003], 191-192: No photographs, drawings, or any further information is given. 279 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 277-278; no photos or distribution maps were included. 151 Figure 4-2: Sparta Museum #10567: relief sculpture of a hoplite soldier, from Charouda. Photo by author. 4.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron The remaining evidence for Archaic Mani is exclusively literary, and concerns the site of ancient Tainaron, at the southernmost tip of the Mani peninsula. First, the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, contained a brief reference to Tainaron: 409-413: πρῶτον δὲ παρηµείβοντο Μάλειαν, πὰρ δὲ Λακωνίδα γαῖαν ἁλιστέφανον πτολίεθρον ἷξον καὶ χῶρον τερψιµβρότου Ἠελίοιο Ταίναρον, ἔνθά τε µῆλα βαθύτριχα βόσκεται αἰεί Ἠελίοιο ἄνακτος, ἔχει δ᾿ ἐπιτερπέα χῶρον. 409-413: First they passed Malea, and alongside the Lakonian land they came to Tainaron, sea-crowned town and place of Helios who delights mortals, where the thick-wooled flocks of lord Helios ever graze, and inhabit the delightful place. 152 The larger context of this passage is that Apollo had taken the form of a dolphin and launched himself aboard a Cretan sailing vessel; essentially, he hijacked the vessel, and kidnapped the sailors so that they would become priests in the new sanctuary he was founding at Delphi. As the terrified sailors passed Malea and Tainaron, they attempted to steer the boat towards land in order to disembark and examine the dolphin that took up residence in their boat, but Apollo would not allow the boat to veer off-course. Nothing substantial is learned about the settlement of Tainaron from this passage, except that the word chosen to describe the settlement, πτολίεθρον, is related to the term πόλις – but the former often implies a more restricted sense of the term.280 No other written source from antiquity made reference to Helios or his sacred flocks residing in this location. Another Archaic-period reference to Tainaron, made by the 6th-5th century BCE historian Hekataios of Miletos, survives only in the writings of the 2nd century CE periegete, Pausanias. In the latter author’s passage on the description of Cape Tainaron, Pausanias included a reference to Hekataios’ work: 3.25.[5]: ἀλλὰ Ἑκαταῖος µὲν ὁ Μιλήσιος λόγον εὗρεν εἰκότα, ὄφιν φήσας ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ τραφῆναι δεινόν, κληθῆναι δὲ Ἅιδου κύνα, ὅτι ἔδει τὸν δηχθέντα τεθνάναι παραυτίκα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰοῦ, καὶ τοῦτον ἔφη τὸν ὄφιν ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέους ἀχθῆναι παρ᾽ Εὐρυσθέα. 3.25.[5]: But Hekataios of Miletos found a reasonable explanation, saying that a terrible serpent was bred and kept at Tainaron, and it was called the hound of Hades, [and] it is binding that, having been bitten, one would die immediately from the poison, and he (Hekataios) says this snake was carried off by Herakles to Eurystheus. 280 Autenrieth 1891, πτολίεθρον: “town, city, but often in a more restricted sense than πόλις, hence w. gen.” 153 Clearly, this passage provides no information about the site of Tainaron itself, only Hekataios’ interpretation of the ‘hound of Hades’.281 This is our oldest surviving reference that bears association between Tainaron and the underworld. 4.5 Conclusion All of the confirmed material culture that can be dated to the Archaic period derives from the north-eastern region of the Mani peninsula; elsewhere there are reports of ceramic scatters, but all are unsubstantiated. There are only three written sources that date to this period and in these four sites are mentioned (Las, Oitylos, Messe, and Tainaron), but none are described extensively. Beyond the brief mentions of the four sites in these three passages, no other written source survives from the Archaic period that referred to any individual Maniate site or even to the peninsula as a region. What this means, therefore, is that there is no explicit evidence of the character or nature of these settlements or the identity of the inhabitants, particularly in relation to the burgeoning power of Sparta. Throughout the Archaic period, the political and religious systems of Sparta were evolving and becoming increasingly established, but whether any of this influence extended to Mani is impossible to confirm, despite assertions to the contrary: Cartledge, for example, stated that “...the inclusion in the 'Catalogue of Ships' of Oitylos and Messe may indicate at least a Spartan claim to control them during the Dark Age.”282 I disagree with this connection, as well as with Shipley's similar stance. In the Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, within the section on Lakedaimon, Shipley stated: “Since Hom. Il. 2.581 describes Lakedaimon as “hollow” (koile), which certainly does not describe the situations of 281 Pownell, F. 2013, BNJ 1 F 27. The use of the verb δηχθέντα (δάκνω) is often used specifically to refer to a bite by a dog, which ties the serpent-hound connection together nicely in this passage. 282 Cartledge 2002, 85. 154 Messe, Las and Oitylos, the passage may perhaps be evidence of the extent of Spartan power even before the conquest of Messenia in c.735–710.”283 Later in the same text, Shipley claimed that “By C8l [the late 8th century BCE] or earlier Sparta controlled the peninsulas of Tainaron (Mani) and Malea”, despite providing no supporting proof for this claim except the quotation above which refers to the use of the word 'koile'.284 There are several issues with Shipley's evidence for Spartan control of Mani based on the inclusion of this word: first, the use of the word koile (specifically, κοίλην) is in the accusative in this passage, and agrees with Lakedaimon (Λακεδαίµονα). Whether this early use of Lakedaimon referred to the entirety of the Spartan territory, as it certainly did in later centuries, or if it referred to a smaller polis by that name, is a matter of debate in modern scholarship.285 What is clear is that the adjective κοίλην is not assigned to the other settlements mentioned in this passage; Messe itself even has its own epithet, πολυτρήρωνά. Second, even if the adjective κοίλην were to refer to Messe, Oitylos, or Las, the use of this term is not as problematic as Shipley believes – Autenrieth defined this term as 'hollow', but also as 'often of places between mountains'. The location of Messe is uncertain, as is the precise physical situation of Las, but the best candidates for each could certainly be thought of as ‘between mountains’: Messe and Oitylos on the coast near formidable mountain ranges, and Las further inland and firmly within a mountainous topographical region. Finally, why describing a settlement as 'hollow' (which, recall, I do not agree that Homer actually did in the case of the three settlements in question here) implied Sparta's influence over said settlements is unclear. 283 Shipley 2004, 570. 284 Shipley 2004, 571. 285 Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 74. 155 Rather, I think that the point that Shipley and Cartledge (among others)286 are trying to make is that because Lakedaimon is mentioned first and is generally thought of as the wider territory, the nine named settlements mentioned directly afterward belonged to that territory (much like other regions mentioned in the catalogue which follow the convention of first listing a larger area followed by its towns – Boiotia, for example). This conclusion itself is not problematic, as large geographic regions often provide a useful means to categorize and compartmentalize groups of settlements. The problem arises when one conflates geographic association with a larger territory (Lakedaimon in this case), with the necessary subjugation of the towns within that territory. This presumed subjugation is often taken for granted with this passage, especially due to the mention of Menelaus – one of the more powerful and better known rulers named within the catalogue of ships – as the leader of the contingent of 60 ships in this passage. Recently, Heiden pointed out the reality of the situation, which separates geographic association from subjugation: It may come as a surprise to note that neither the Boiotian entry nor any other directly connects the leaders to the towns their troops came from; the leaders are leaders of the convoys, not leaders of the towns. When towns or areas are mentioned, the grammatical subject is always "the common men," and the verb is always" inhabited." Nowhere does the Catalogue ever refer to a leader as ruling a Greek town. Of course the poet knows of rulers; at Iliad 1.252, for example, he refers to Nestor ruling back in Pylos (ἄνασσεν). But although the Catalogue names 152 Greek settlements and forty- five leaders, not one settlement is said to have a ruler, and not one leader is said to be ruler of a town or region.287 Ultimately, during the Archaic period it is impossible to tell through historical sources whether Spartan influence extended along the coast and throughout the Mani peninsula, and 286 Morris 1984, 1: “In the catalogue passage, the word Λακεδαίµονα seems to indicate a territory, enclosed by two epithets relevant to a natural landscape and accompanied by a list of its towns.” 287 Heiden 2008, 141-2. 156 whether the settlements that we know existed during the time (Messe, Las, Oitylos, and Tainaron) were under any sort of subjugation to Sparta. The Archaic evidence as a whole, reveals, at the very least, the existence of a few small, scattered settlements within Mani. The largest and most religiously-focused of these was in the north-east of the peninsula and may well be identified with ancient ‘Las’. The north-east is the region of the peninsula that is most accessible to Gytheio, Sparta and the rest of Lakonia, and if one accepts the interpretations of (one or both of) the rams-head sculptures as depictions of Apollo Karneios, this could reveal a connection to Lakonian religious identity, since Gytheio too had a cult of Apollo Karneios (Paus. 3.21.[8]) and the Spartan calendar included the religious festival the Karneia.288 This suggestion is tentative, since it is based on the still uncertain identification of the two marble sculptures, as well as literary evidence (Pausanias) from several centuries later. However, shared religious identity with elsewhere in Lakonia is certainly plausible and this relationship will be explored further in the following chapters. The isolation of Oitylos on the north-west of the peninsula and Tainaron on the southernmost tip of the peninsula – and the corresponding lack of (known) places of activity elsewhere – provide preliminary evidence for the outward-looking coastal nature of these sites; a martime outlook and reliance on seascape over landscape for these two settlements is probable, given the connectivity afforded by the sea in contrast to the barren interior of the peninsula during this early period of occupation. 288 Baudy 2006. This festival was the same that famously kept the Spartans from the Battle of Marathon. 157 Chart 4-1: Frequency of sites named in Archaic sources 158 Figure 4-3 a-d: Distribution maps for Archaic evidence (clockwise from top left): a) all categories of evidence; b) written evidence; c) epigraphic evidence; d) archaeological evidence. A B C D 1 159 Chapter 5: The Mani Peninsula in the Classical Period (c.480 BCE to 323 BCE) The written evidence from the early 5th to the mid-4th centuries BCE yields information about the ancient sites of Oitylos, Tainaron, Las, Asine, and the two harbours of Achilleios and Psamathous. The material culture that can be dated securely to the Classical period is found only in a few locations within the peninsula, particularly the north-east, Tainaron, and the west coast. 5.1 The North-East 5.1.1 Passavas Hill I begin by presenting evidence that has been traditionally dated to the Classical period but which, I argue, should not play a significant role in reconstructing the human material culture footprint in the region during this period of antiquity. The site of interest is Passavas289, a Frankish citadel built on the apex of a hill which lies immediately to the south and east of the modern Areopolis-Gytheio highway, just northeast of the small modern hamlet of Laghonikianika. The most consistently-observed remnant of ‘antiquity’ atop Passava is a stretch of masonry reused in the fortification wall of the Frankish fortress. This section of construction is still visible today in the east wall (Figure 5-1). Leake described this masonry as a “piece of Hellenic wall, about fifty paces in length, and two-thirds of the height of the modern wall. It is formed of large masses, some of four feet long and three broad, not accurately hewn as in the second order, nor quite rude as in the first, and requiring only here and there a small stone in the interstices.”290 This information, including 289 LL153: “Passava/Chosiari”, despite the fact that the hill of Passava and the modern site of Chosiari are almost 2km apart. 290 Leake 1830, 256. 160 Leake’s measurements of the height and width, was reiterated precisely by Forster and Woodward in their later publication.291 After revisiting this site in the 1930s & 1950s, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson provided a more critical evaluation of the wall: “…the ‘polygonal’ masonry, which was said to rise to a height of two-thirds of the medieval castle walls on the east side, is in fact mostly out of its original position, and the tell-tale mortar is, of course, medieval.”292 Thus, even though the possibility remains that the stones themselves were cut in antiquity, the masonry as it appears today with its current mortar is not ancient. Megalithic architecture is prolific throughout the Mani peninsula, and its presence in no way suggests ancient construction, since many megalithic structures date to the late Byzantine and early Ottoman periods.293 Kourelis noted the tendency to misattribute megalithic structures to periods of antiquity and even prehistory: “Some medieval settlements have been dated to the Bronze Age simply because they look romantically pre-historic.”294 The visible remains of antiquity on the hill of Passava, therefore, are limited to Classical and Hellenistic potsherds, which Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson noted were “abundant”295, although the only sherd they collected during their survey was prehistoric (BSAPAS0001). In spite of the absence of definitive proof of ancient activity on Passava, scholars such as Leda Moschou still describe this hill as the acropolis of ancient Las, identify it as Pausanias’ ‘Mount Asia’, and suggest that this was even the location for the sanctuary of Athena Asia.296 The main problems with these assertions are, of course, the lack of evidence; the more this unsubstantiated 291 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 232. It is clear that the desire of these early scholars was principally to discover and record visible traces of antiquity, and this influenced their descriptions of the material culture. 292 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 118. 293 Seifried 2016, 45. 294 Kourelis 2003, 178. 295 Waterhouse Hope Simpson 1961, 118. 296 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 22. 161 Figure 5-1: Megalithic masonry atop Passava. Photo credit Rebecca Seifried. information is perpetuated, the more it becomes canonical without definitive proof of antiquity.297 5.1.2 Written Evidence for Ancient Las There are a few written sources which provide secure evidence for the ancient settlement of Las and its inhabitants. An unknown play by the 5th century BCE playwright Sophokles, included a reference to the settlement of Las: 297 See the discussion below with regard to Kionia and Aigila for another example. Moschou-Tsiomi (1997, 22) also mentioned ancient buildings atop Passava with no further information. 162 957: νὴ τὼ Λαπέρσα, νὴ τὸν Εὐρώταν τρίτον νὴ τοὺς ἐν Ἄργει καὶ κατὰ Σπάρτην θεούς, 957: By the gods of Argos and of Sparta, by the sackers of Las, and thirdly by the Eurotas!298 The ‘sackers of Las’ are the Dioskouroi, Kastor and Polydeukes, and their role as such was reiterated in Strabo (8.5.[3], see Chapter 7). Their connection to Las was also mentioned in Pausanias (3.24.[6], Chapter 7) and this repeated connection strengthens the argument made by Musti and Torelli that there were strong links to the Homeric epics in this part of Lakonia.299 Thucydides’ last book refers to Las twice, during events which took place in the year 411 BCE: 8.91.[2]: ἅµα γὰρ καὶ ἐκ τῆς Πελοποννήσου ἐτύγχανον Εὐβοέων ἐπικαλουµένων κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον τοῦτον δύο καὶ τεσσαράκοντα νῆες, ὧν ἦσαν καὶ ἐκ Τάραντος καὶ Λοκρῶν Ἰταλιώτιδες καὶ Σικελικαί τινες, ὁρµοῦσαι ἤδη ἐπὶ Λᾷ τῆς Λακωνικῆς καὶ παρασκευαζόµεναι τὸν ἐς τὴν Εὔβοιαν πλοῦν... 8.92.[3] ἅµα γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Λᾶς αἱ νῆες ἤδη περιπεπλευκυῖαι καὶ ὁρµισάµεναι ἐς τὴν Ἐπίδαυρον τὴν Αἴγιναν κατεδεδραµήκεσαν: 8.91.[2]: At this moment all together forty-two ships happened to meet from the Peloponnese, having been summoned by Euboea, and they were Italiotes from Taranto and Lokri and some Sicilians, setting out directly from Las in Lakonike and preparing [for] the voyage to Euboea... 8.92.[3] All together the ships by this time had sailed around from Las and bringing in to anchor at Epidaurus they ravaged Aegina. Las here seems to have functioned solely as a place of departure. The verb ὁρµάω was used, which is not a verb that implies any sort of formal infrastructure necessary for mustering and organizing a fleet; it only suggests that the campaigns set out from these locations. The modern location currently identified with the site of ancient Las (modern Chosiari) sits firmly inland, so the reason for which Las was mentioned specifically as the location from which a fleet set out is unclear – either the modern identification of the ancient settlement is incorrect, or 298 Translation by Lloyd-Jones, 413. 299 Musti and Torelli 1982, 276-7. 163 Thucydides was referring to the harbour of Las, perhaps located a fair distance from the city itself. Note that the ships that were mobilizing from Las were not Lakedaimonians, but Italians and Sicilians – confirmed allies of the Spartans against Athens, but certainly not locals. The historian Ephoros recorded the early history and legendary foundation of Sparta and Lakonia (c. 10th century BCE)300 and included mention of Las in one passage. Ephoros wrote in the first half of the fourth century BCE, but this passage survived only as a fragment in the larger work of Strabo, who wrote sometime between the 1st century BCE – 1st century CE: F 117 (Strabo 8.5.[4]): φησὶ δ᾽ ῎Εφορος τοὺς κατασχόντας τὴν Λακωνικὴν ῾Ηρακλείδας, Εὐρυσθένη τε καὶ Προκλῆ, διελεῖν εἰς ἓξ µέρη καὶ πολίσαι τὴν χώραν…. χρῆσθαι δὲ Λαὶ µὲν ὡς ναυστάθµωι διὰ τὸ εὐλίµενον· F 117 (Strabo 8.5.[4]): And Ephoros says that the Heraklids, Eurysthenes and Prokles, occupying Lakonia, divided it into six parts and they built cities on the land….and they use Las as an anchorage because of [its] good harbour. In this passage Ephoros (via Strabo) claimed that Las was used as a harbour, and its official state function as a naval station – and thus close connection with Sparta – can perhaps be inferred, since the passage continued on to say that Aigys was used as a land-based military station (potentially in contrast to the function of the harbour at Las). However, Las’ identification as a Spartan naval station is not made explicit, and even if Las held this role when Lakonia was founded, later sources inform us that Gytheio was the official Spartan harbour during the Classical period. Regardless of the function of Las, the early date of the events of this passage and the inclusion of Las therein is in keeping with our evidence thus far, since the existence of Las was attested in our earliest source (see Chapter 4, Homer Il. 2.581-7). 300 Parker 2011, F 18b: “Worth noting in this context, however, is that like Corinth (see above) Sparta was a new foundation, surprisingly late: second half of the 10th century.” 164 5.1.3 Written Evidence for Ancient Asine In his Book 4, Thucydides makes his first mention of Asine. This settlement is particularly fraught, since there are multiple settlements in ancient Greece called Asine, including one in Argolis, and one on the eastern coast of Messenia. The Messenian settlement is especially problematic for this study, since there was often no clear distinction made between the two, and in antiquity the Messenian settlement was referred to as being 'in Lakonike' because it was within the territory of ancient Sparta.301 Therefore, the precise identification of which Asine – Lakonian or Messenian – is the subject of any given passage is largely contextual. The vast majority of Thucydides’ references to Asine are to either Argive or Messenian Asine302, but the following passage in Book 4 provides evidence for the Lakonian settlement: 4.54.[4]: µετὰ δὲ τὴν ξύµβασιν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τήν τε Σκάνδειαν τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ λιµένι πόλισµα παραλαβόντες καὶ τῶν Κυθήρων φυλακὴν ποιησάµενοι ἔπλευσαν ἔς τε Ἀσίνην καὶ Ἕλος καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν περὶ θάλασσαν, καὶ ἀποβάσεις ποιούµενοι καὶ ἐναυλιζόµενοι τῶν χωρίων οὗ καιρὸς εἴη ἐδῄουν τὴν γῆν ἡµέρας µάλιστα ἑπτά. 4.54.[4]: After these events, the Athenians, taking possession of Scandeia, a city near the harbour, and having made a garrison of Kythera, sailed to Asine and Helos and most of the places along the sea. And making landings/disembarking and spending the night as it was favourable, they ravaged the ground exceedingly for seven days. These events took place in 424 BCE, as the Athenians were setting out from Kythera; the location of Helos is on the northwestern coast of the Lakonian Gulf, so logically it follows that this Asine referred to the Lakonian Asine, which was also situated on the same gulf. Unfortunately, this passage reveals no more than the fact that Lakonian Asine was a place along the sea, and because of this passage it is often identified with modern Skoutari, even though no contemporary (Classical) archaeological remains have been identified in this area. 301 Hdt. 8.73.[2]; Xen. Hell.7.1.[25]; Shipley 1997, 235. 302 For example, 4.93; 6.13. 165 Xenophon wrote in the 4th century BCE and named the settlement of Asine once (Hellenica 7.1.[25]), but it is utterly unclear in this text whether he was referring to Lakonian or Messenian Asine. In the Anabasis, Xenophon mentioned a military officer named Neon from Asine no less than 15 times – but the question of which Asine Neon hailed from remains unanswered. In the campaigns of 400/399 BCE described in the Anabasis, Neon was under the direct command of a Spartan commander named Chirisophus, whom he replaced as commander after his death (6.4.[11]). Throughout the Anabasis, Neon was depicted as often at odds with Xenophon himself, and the narrative of the latter often curtailed Neon's role and truncated the descriptions of his activities. For example, Flower has pointed out that there are several instances where Neon was in direct opposition to Xenophon's decisions, but Xenophon’s texts do not include any portion of Neon’s speeches or arguments, nor did Xenophon reveal whether Neon's alternative suggestions had support from amongst the troops.303 This marginalization of Neon makes it difficult to truly understand his personality and motivations, but there are some clues within the text that help to uncover his identity. For example, during the winter of 399 BCE, Neon (who was a general at this point) wanted to lead the army to the Chersonese, and enlisted the soldiers as mercenaries under Spartan control, rather than choosing to remain in the service of the Thracian prince Seuthes (as Xenophon desired, and as the army ended up doing: 7.2.[1-2]). Now, it is perhaps not surprising that Neon wanted to enlist the men in Spartan service, since he himself came from a perioikic settlement (both Messenian and Lakonian Asine were perioikic at this time), and he had initially joined the expedition of the Ten Thousand under the command of Chirisophus who was a Spartan general. Whether Neon was originally sent directly by the Spartans, however, is unclear: Roy, in describing Neon's role throughout the Anabasis, claimed 303 Flower 2012, 97-103. 166 that “...one would expect more active cooperation if Neon was sent officially by Sparta to join Cyrus”304 but then later in the very same article contradicts his own statement by declaring that “Chirisophus and Neon were not mercenaries but officers sent by the Spartan state.”305 In his text, Xenophon claimed that Neon's motivation to join Spartan service in the Chersonese was solely to gain control of the entire army (7.2.2: Νέων δὲ εἰς Χερρόνησον, οἰόµενος, εἰ ὑπὸ Λακεδαιµονίοις γένοιντο, παντὸς ἂν προεστάναι τοῦ στρατεύµατος), which would imply a close working relationship with the Spartans, were Neon potentially able to climb to the highest rank. Much of the narrative is suppressed here, however, and as Fowler pointed out, we were clearly not being told the entire story.306 Could Neon's desire to lead the army to the Chersonese have had the ulterior motives (and the implied Spartan ties) that Xenophon suggested, or was it simply based on legitimate mistrust of Seuthes? It is impossible to know. Essentially, Neon's connection to and relationship with Sparta is impossibly vague, and the problem of his Asinean origin – whether Lakonian or Messenian – does not help to elucidate this matter. Of the fifteen times Neon was named in the Anabasis, nine of these described him only by his name (Νέων: 5.7.[1]; 6.2.[13]; 6.4.[23]; 6.5.[4]; 7.2.[2]; 7.2.[11]; 7.2.[17]; 7.3.[2]; 7.3.[7]). However, four instances described him as Neon the Asinean (Νέων ὁ Ἀσιναῖος: 5.3.[4]; 6.4.[11]; 7.1.[40]; 7.2.[1]); in one case he was Neon from Asine (Νέωνος τοῦ Ἀσιναίου: 5.6.[36]), and one passage (the only one which was direct speech) introduced him as Neon from Lakonike (Νέωνος τοῦ Λακωνικοῦ: 7.2.[29]). Unfortunately, there are no further clues as to which Asine Neon originated from, and modern scholarship is divided on this issue. Shipley has had the most to say 304 Roy 1967, 300 n58. 305 Roy 1967, 308; he reiterates this confidence in Roy 2004, 281. 306 Flower 2012, 98. 167 about Asine in his work on the poleis of both Lakonia and Messenia: in his 1997 contribution to Hansen's The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Shipley stated in his entry on Lakonian Asine (italics for emphasis) that “It cannot be certain that Neon in Xen. Anab. do[es] not come from this Asine.”307 However, Shipley also included six references to Neon in the entry on Messenian Asine.308 By the time of his 2002 publication, Shipley listed Neon only under the entry for Messenian Asine.309 As far as I can tell, there is no direct evidence for this connection of Neon to Messenian Asine over Lakonian Asine except for the fact that the Copenhagen Polis Institute (CPI) categorized Messenian Asine under the heading 'Poleis' during this (4th century BCE) period, whereas Lakonian Asine fell into the category of 'Pre-Hellenistic Settlements not Attested as Poleis'. Shipley – the CPI author for both Lakedaimon and Messenia – is unclear as to why he preferred to associate Neon with Messenian over Lakonian Asine. Perhaps the belief reflected here is that it was more likely that a general of this rank would have come from an established polis? If this is the case, and the connection between Neon and Messenian Asine was based on the status of the latter as a ‘polis’, we must consider that one of the main qualifiers for Messenian Asine’s 'polis' status during this time period is the use of a 'polis-ethnic', in this case Ἀσιναῖος, or ‘Asinean’. Xenophon's writings are the earliest source for the polis-ethnic 'Asinean', so this becomes a contentious and somewhat circular argument for the label of Messenian Asine as a polis by the time of Xenophon’s writing; the evidence for the status of Messenian Asine as polis at the time of Xenophon’s writing is this writing itself. Conversely, if Shipley had attributed 307 Shipley 1997, 240 n29; Forster 1909 (221) remained vague on the issue and said that Neon “may quite as probably have belonged to Asine in Messenia as to a Laconian place of that name.” 308 Shipley 1997, 234 n19. 309 Shipley 2004, 559. 168 Neon to the Lakonian settlement of Asine, would the status of Lakonian Asine change from one of the 'Pre-Hellenistic Settlements not Attested as Poleis' to a ‘polis’ due to this exact same evidence (‘the Asinean’) of a polis ethnic being assigned to a different settlement? In sum, Messenian Asine is only called a polis because of the polis-ethnic ‘Asinean’, which accompanied Neon – a man whose actual settlement origin is frustratingly ambiguous and ultimately unknown. Finally, Xenophon's inclusion of the ethnic descriptor ‘from Lakonike’ (Νέωνος τοῦ Λακωνικοῦ: 7.2.[29]) does not contribute much to the debate, since Shipley pointed out that Λακωνική did not correspond to the borders of Lakonia (ancient or modern), but instead referred to the entirety of Spartan territory, including Messenia.310 Elsewhere, Shipley attributed this lone usage (in contrast to the typical adjectival polis-ethnic Νέων ὁ Ἀσιναῖος throughout the rest of the Anabasis) to the fact that this was the only time that Xenophon mentioned Neon in direct speech, and the Thracian to whom he spoke may not have been familiar with city-ethnics within Lakedaimon.311 The polis of Messenian Asine was settled with exiles from the Argolid (probably Argive Asine), and the inhabitants were neither ethnically Messenian nor Lakedaimonian. Based on this, one could easily argue in favour for either poleis as the hometown of Neon: for example, Neon's strong affinity towards the Spartans could have been because he was from Messenian Asine and, therefore, identified neither as a Messenian or a Lakedaimonian (but an Argive), bore none of the collective burden of the typical perioikic communities, and none of the disadvantages of helotage. Alternatively, one could argue that Neon must have hailed from Lakonian Asine, since his obvious connections and loyalty to the Spartans should only have been expected from 310 Shipley 2004, 570. 311 Shipley 1997, 209; 2004, 559. 169 someone in a perioikic situation that stood to benefit from the alliance and close ties between all Lakedaimonians. Ultimately, one can easily argue that Neon the Asinean could have been from the settlement in either Lakonia or Messenia; we simply do not have enough surviving evidence to be sure. The situation is the same for Xenophon's sole reference to the settlement of Asine in the Hellenica, in which he described an attack on Asine by the Arkadians in 369/8 BCE: 7.1.[25]: στρατευσάµενοι δὲ καὶ εἰς Ἀσίνην τῆς Λακαίνης ἐνίκησάν τε τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων φρουρὰν καὶ τὸν Γεράνορα τὸν Σπαρτιάτην πολέµαρχον γεγενηµένον ἀπέκτειναν καὶ τὸ προάστιον τῶν Ἀσιναίων ἐπόρθησαν. 7.1.[25]: And they (the Arkadians) having advanced with an army into Asine in Lakonia, conquered the garrison of the Lakedaimonians and killed the Spartan Geranor who had become polemarch, and destroyed the suburbs of Asine. This passage was listed in the entries for both Lakonian and Messenian Asine in Shipley 1997312, Shipley 2002313, and in Brill's New Pauly314. The most commonly cited argument for association with Messenian Asine was the presence of a φρουρὰ (the Spartan garrison), and this identification only holds true if one reads the unusual use here of 'Lakaina' (τῆς Λακαίνης) as identical to Lakonike, as Shipley does: “Although Xen. Hell. 7.1.25 places it in Λακαίνα, the Messenian town is presumably meant, since Lakaina is probably equivalent to Lakonike, the territory controlled by Sparta.”315 This odd use of a feminine noun which typically means 'a Lakonian woman' (in contrast to Λάκων) was read here as an adjective (=Λακωνική), wherein the noun supplied would be χώρη, γαῖα, or even πόλις. Underhill ascribed this use to the poetic form of Λακωνική, and said only that this passage must have referred to Messenian Asine, 312 240 and 235, respectively. 313 574 and 559, respectively. 314 Lafond 2006, 2 & 3, respectively. 315 Shipley 2004, 559; Forster 1909 (221) assumes it is Messenian Asine. 170 because it would be incredibly difficult for the Arkadians to “penetrate far into the southernmost peninsula of Lakonia.”316 Still, the odd use has yet to be sufficiently explained, and the identification with Asine as either Lakonian or Messenian is still unsolved, and will only be elucidated through further archaeological investigation at both sites. 5.2 Archaeological Evidence There is no securely identified material culture from the Classical period anywhere north of the region of modern Kotronas, which lies on the Kolokithia Bay. Here, on the peninsular projection known as Skopas, Hope-Simpson and Waterhouse recorded the presence of late classical black glazed sherds.317 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson also commented on the abundance of ancient sherds around Kotronas and for at least 200 m inland.318 They collected 30 ceramic sherds which are now in the collections of the British School at Athens (Appendix H). I studied this collection in July 2015 and identified one Classical-Hellenistic medium coarse amphora toe fragment (BSAKOT0005) and one Classical-Hellenistic black-glaze body fragment (BSAKOT0028).319 To the east of Kotronas lies the hill of Kastro (321m), upon which are the remains of another fortified citadel (Figures 5-2 & 5-3). This fortification has been mapped and published by Moschos and Moschou, with detailed plans and section drawings of the surviving portions of the wall. The authors also provided a comprehensive architectural analysis of the dry rubble 316 Underhill 1900, 275. 317 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 119. 318 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 119. 319 Area 2 on Moschou’s map (2001-2004 [2012], 308) boasted a large concentration of Classical-Hellenistic ceramics (local toponymns Katerga and Ai-Babela) 171 construction, but admit that without systematic excavations, they were unable to conclusively date the fortification walls.320 Moschou and Moschos noted that the surface ceramics they found were either too coarse to date, or dated to the Ottoman period, although two black-glazed sherds were reported but not collected.321 This lack of evidence did not, however, prevent the authors from assigning a period of use to the wall; they concluded that the fort was connected with basic defensive works organized by Sparta during the first phase of the Corinthian War, in order to protect her south maritime territory.322 They believed that this fortification was one of several in a network of defensive citadels along the eastern coast of the Mani peninsula, citing fortifications at Kionia, Porto Kagio, and Charakes as supporting evidence, despite the glaring obstacle that none of these sites boast conclusive evidence of ancient building phases. Moreover, the authors proceeded to name other ‘fortifications’ on the western coast of the peninsula (at Vathia and Oitylo, specifically), claiming that although these buildings are not synchronous, they provide evidence of Spartan diligence for guarding their countryside.323 Such a conclusion is, simply, incorrect: for without any evidence of ancient construction whatsoever, it is irresponsible to attempt an interpretation of a network of defensive citadels, let alone one controlled by Sparta in the 320 Moschou and Moschos 1981, 18. 321 Moschou and Moschos 1981, 14-15. 322 Moschou and Moschos 1981, 22. 323 As support for this argument, the authors cited ancient passages which described Kythera’s strategic positions for the Spartans (e.g. Thucydides 4.54-55; Diodorus Siculus 7.65.7; Herodotus 7.235). However, the settlements of Mani cannot be compared to Kythera in terms of relationship to Sparta for several reasons, including the fact that we have many more surviving sources that describe the relationship between Sparta and Kythera, and the strategic geographic position of the island of Kythera is not the same as the coastal settlements of Mani. Furthermore, the authors cite Xenophon’s Hellenica 4.8.7-8 as evidence for the fortification of the coastal settlements at Mani, when in fact the passage clearly states only that Konon landed at Pharai (modern Kalamata) and laid waste wherever he could, but that the land lacked harbours and a source of food: (καταπλεύσας δὲ πρῶτον µὲν εἰς Φαρὰς ἐδῄωσε ταύτην τὴν χώραν, ἔπειτα καὶ ἄλλοσε ἀποβαίνων τῆς παραθαλαττίας ἐκακούργει ὅ τι ἐδύνατο. φοβούµενος δὲ τήν τε ἀλιµενότητα τῆς χώρας καὶ τὰ τῆς βοηθείας καὶ τὴν σπανοσιτίαν, ταχύ τε ἀνέστρεψε καὶ ἀποπλέων ὡρµίσθη τῆς Κυθηρίας εἰς Φοινικοῦντα). 172 Classical period. With respect to the fortification at Kastro, Moschos and Moschou produced a credible report regarding its construction techniques, and I believe that although they provided sufficient evidence to argue for its date of construction as some point in antiquity, the inability to precisely date the phases of the walls (and therefore the period of use) precludes a closer interpretation of the motivation for its construction, especially one which relies so fundamentally on universal Spartan control of the entire peninsula. Furthermore, there is very little archaeological (and no epigraphic) evidence for Classical-period activity within the larger region of Kotronas, further hindering the hypothesis that this fortification was established in the early 4th century BCE by the Spartans. Moschou and Moschos arrived at a secondary conclusion within their study, which is a much stronger interpretation of the fortification: that the citadel was established to protect the inhabitants in the immediate environs in the event of an invasion and, at the same time, ensured the protection of the crops and pastures that belonged to the hinterland.324 A Hellenistic date agrees more readily with the epigraphic and archaeological evidence in the region, coincides with Philip V’s coastal plundering in 218 BCE (Polybius 5.19.5-6), and makes sense given the general political upheaval of the period. Ultimately, while the strategic location of the fortification is undeniable – as the apex of the Kastro affords a viewshed325 that includes the northern and southern maritime routes (Figure 5-4) – the date of construction cannot be determined without excavation and this fortification is not included on any distribution maps. 324 Moschos and Moschou 1981, 21. Guintrand (2016) did not include Teuthrone amongst fortifications of Lakonia and noted (n22) that there was not enough evidence to date the remains. 325 This sample viewshed was calculated at a height of 2.0 m above ground-level (the height of a man standing on a wall, for example) – this viewshed would likely increase based on the height of the walls and/or towers, and from different places within Kastro. 173 Figure 5-2: Aerial view of fortification wall on Kastro. ©GoogleEarth. Figure 5-3: Aerial view of fortification wall on Kastro, indicated in red. ©GoogleEarth. 174 Figure 5-4: Viewshed from highest point within the fortified section of Kastro. ©GoogleEarth. The only other evidence dating to the Classical period is 400 m to the east of the site of Prophitis Ilias, where Waterhouse and Hope Simpson recorded a ceramic scatter which included two fragments of 5th – 4th century BCE black-glazed kylikes.326 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson also noted one fragment of classical black-glazed pottery from the west slope of nearby Spira hill but they did not collect it. The rosso antico quarries near Prophitis Ilias show no indication of Classical-period exploitation, so these ceramics may have been transported to these places during later phases of occupation or are simply misdated and belong to a later period. 326 Waterhouse Hope Simpson 1961, 119: ‘Classical site’ on their Map 5, page 120; unfortunately, there are no photos of these sherds; LL281. 175 5.3 The South (Tainaron) 5.3.1 Porto Kagio Above Porto Kagio there is a church of Aghia Triada, and here Cooper noted several well-hewn ashlar blocks in its courtyard, as well as a wall-crown of grey-white marble with large grains.327 I observed over 20 of these blocks, which are still in the courtyard today, and they must have belonged to a substantial ancient building (Figure 5-5). Pry holes are visible on at least one block, and another bears a clearly incised line along its length. At least one block formed part of a cornice (Figure 5-6), and I would venture to guess that the blocks were originally intended for a shrine, temple, or monumental funerary structure. Tsouli reported that, in total, there are 33 of these blocks (including some within the church), and that they had been exposed during the 1980s construction of the modern road.328 Bruno believed that these were unfinished quarry blocks, but this conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the presence of a cornice block.329 Isotopic testing on these blocks revealed results well within the field of local Mani marble, and the logical assumption would be that the blocks were extracted from the nearby Marmari white marble quarries; based on the tentative dates of use for that quarry, the blocks may date to the Classical period. I did not see any relief sculpture or inscriptions, but much pottery is present in the courtyard and around the church, including at least one black-glaze rim. Along the path from this same church to a modern cemetery, Seifried recorded several pieces of ancient tile.330 327 Cooper 1988, 6. 328 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 546. 329 Bruno et al. 2002, 40. 330 Seifried 2016, 278. 176 Figure 5-5 (left) and 5-6 (right): Ashlar blocks in the courtyard of Aghia Triada, Porto Kagio. Photo by author. 5.3.2 Tainaron The site of Tainaron itself is situated at the southernmost tip of the peninsula. It is the subject of several Classical-period written sources, which are discussed first, before a discussion of the epigraphic material. The archaeological remains at the site of ancient Tainaron are discussed in the following chapter, since they largely date to the Hellenistic period (although this date is only tentative and in much need of refinement). 177 5.3.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron Our earliest written source originally composed in the Classical period is the work of Pherekydes of Athens, a mythographer whose fragments survived only through the works of later scholiasts. Pherekydes composed his Historiai in roughly 470 BCE, although the surviving sources that transmitted Pherekydes’ words are often many centuries later.331 The implication of this chronological discrepancy is that it is often impossible to tell whether the scholiasts themselves emended the text; thus these sources as evidence for reality in the early 5th century BCE must be taken with a grain of salt. One fragment of the Historiai deals with the etymology of Tainaron, and survives from the notes of a scholiast (L+) on Apollonios of Rhodes’ Argonautica 1.101-4b332: F 39: Φερεκύδης ἐν τῆι θ΄ φησὶν ὅτι «῎Ελατος ὁ ᾽Ικαρίου γαµεῖ ᾽Ερυµήδην τὴν Δαµασίκλου· τῶν δὲ γίνεται Ταίναρος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ καλεῖται ἡ πόλις καὶ ἡ ἄκρη καὶ ὁ λιµήν». F 39: In [book] Nine Pherekydes says that «Elatos, son of Ikarios, married Erymede daughter of Damasiklos: from him [Elatos] Tainaros was born, after whom the city and the promontory and the harbor are called». The etymological information of Tainaros as descended from Ikarios is reiterated in a later source (Stephanus of Byzantium), but the reference to Elatos provided here is otherwise unattested.333 If, however, this fragment of writing is interpreted as surviving directly from the 5th century BCE, then it is certainly the earliest and best evidence for the settlement's status as a polis (although it is not characterized by the Copenhagen Polis Institue as such) as well as for 331 Huxley 1973, 140-1; Morison 2011; Jacoby 1947, 47: “The title Historiai and its division into ten books is probably a creation of the Hellenistic period. 332 Morison 2011, BNJ F 7a: this scholiast was likely writing from the 1st century BCE- 2nd century CE. 333 Morison 2011, BNJ 3 F 39; this does not seem to be the same ‘Elatos’ known from other Arcadian and Thessalian myth (Bloch 2006). 178 infrastructure at Tainaron in the form of a harbour (λιµήν) – as opposed to the scanty evidence for the latter eked out of the Herodotian sources, below.334 Our earliest written source that survives in its original composition from the Classical period (rather than through notes on later works by scholiasts) is Pindar's 4th Pythian Ode (c. 462 BCE335), which included two brief mentions of Tainaron: 43-46: εἰ γὰρ οἴκοι νιν βάλε πὰρ χθόνιον Ἄιδα στόµα, Ταίναρον εἰς ἱερὰν Εὔφαµος ἐλθών, υἱὸς ἱππάρχου Ποσειδάωνος ἄναξ, τόν ποτ᾽ Εὐρώπα Τιτυοῦ θυγάτηρ τίκτε Καφισοῦ παρ᾽ ὄχθαις: 43-46: For if only Euphamos – the son of Poseidon ruler of horses, whom Europa, daughter of Tityus, gave birth to by the banks of the Kephisos [sic] – having returned to holy Tainaron had thrown [the earth] into the mouth of chthonian Hades. 174-175: …ἔκ τε Πύλου καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἄκρας Ταινάρου: τῶν µὲν κλέος ἐσλὸν Εὐφάµου τ᾽ ἐκράνθη σόν τε, Περικλύµεν᾽ εὐρυβία. 174-175: ...from Pylos and the headland of Tainaron: from this Euphamos, you accomplished good fame, and you too, broad ruling Periklymenos. This passage is the earliest instance of an association between Poseidon and Tainaron, as well as the earliest link between Tainaron and the entrance to Hades, rather than just a connection between the two. Euphamos (also Euphemos/Euphemus), the son of Poseidon, provides mythic ties to Sparta through the foundation-legends of the settlements of Thera and Cyrene, both colonies of Sparta.336 Written in the mid-5th century BCE, the Histories of Herodotus contained four brief mentions of Tainaron. In reading the first book of the Histories, one encounters the well-known story of Arion of Methymna, who was thrown overboard by a crew of Corinthians sailing from Tarentum to Corinth (see Appendix C). According to the tale, Arion was rescued by a dolphin, 334 Shipley 2004 (576) says it is “uncertain whether polis here stems from Pherekydes or the scholiast.” 335 Race 1997, 264. 336 Dräger 2006. 179 who brought him to Tainaron, from where he proceeded to Corinth. Cartledge interpreted this narrative as evidence for a “harbour of sorts at Tainaron in c. 600, when Arion of Methymna landed there”337, however, I see no reason to believe that this story necessitates a harbour or infrastructure whatsoever. In Herodotus’ narrative, the place-name of Tainaron was included in three separate passages in Book I: 1.23.[1]: τῷ δὴ λέγουσι Κορίνθιοι... ἐν τῷ βίῳ θῶµα µέγιστον παραστῆναι, Ἀρίονα τὸν Μηθυµναῖον ἐπὶ δελφῖνος ἐξενειχθέντα ἐπὶ Ταίναρον 1.23.[1]: The Corinthians say that the most amazing thing that happened to him in his life was that Arion of Methymna, [riding] upon a dolphin, was cast ashore at Tainaron. 1.23.[6]: καὶ τοὺς µὲν ἀποπλέειν ἐς Κόρινθον, τὸν δὲ δελφῖνα λέγουσι ὑπολαβόντα ἐξενεῖκαι ἐπὶ Ταίναρον. 1.24.[6]: And they [the crew] sailed away to Corinth, but they say (i.e. legend has it) that a dolphin carrying338 [Arion] cast [him] ashore at Tainaron. 1.24.[8]: ταῦτα µέν νυν Κορίνθιοί τε καὶ Λέσβιοι λέγουσι, καὶ Ἀρίονος ἐστὶ ἀνάθηµα χάλκεον οὐ µέγα ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ, ἐπὶ δελφῖνος ἐπὲων ἄνθρωπος. 1.24.[8]: Now the Corinthians and Lesbians say these things, and there is small/medium (literally “not large”) bronze votive offering of Arion at Tainaron, [showing] a man upon a dolphin. In the first two passages, a form of the verb ἐκφέρω was used to convey the 'arrival' of Arion at Tainaron – in the first instance it is the aorist passive participle, and in the aorist infinitive – and it has the meaning 'to be carried out of the sea', or 'to be cast ashore'. However, there are no instances wherein this verb implies any sort of docking, anchorage, or drawing into port.339 Instead, I argue that perhaps the story took place at Tainaron because even at this early date it assumed a role as a sanctuary and place for refuge, although the sources do not explicitly mention Tainaron’s role as either until Thucydides’ writings later in the 5th century BCE 337 Cartledge 2002, 123. 338 ὑπολαµβάνω, Liddell and Scott 1940, 844: literally “to take up by getting under…as the dolphin did Arion”. 339 Unlike other verbs used elsewhere in Herodotus such as ὁρµίζω (to anchor, moor), προσµείγνυµι (to put into shore at, to land at) or κατάγω (to bring a ship into port, to bring into land) and ἀνοκωχεύω (to keep ships at anchor), the latter of which is exemplified in the passage from Herodotos presented below (7.168). 180 (1.128.[1], below). It is not unreasonable to extrapolate these protective roles back to this earlier date, thereby providing a legitimate explanation as to why the composer of this legend used Tainaron as a safe place to deposit Arion on the shore – this could even be a metaphorical ‘dropping off’ point, implying safety from the sailors by mere mention of the name. The story itself is already incredible, what with the dolphin rescue and transport, and the mention of Tainaron may simply be, even at this early date, the most logical and obvious safe haven at which to be delivered (actually or metaphorically) to safety. In support of this argument, there is no further mention of Tainaron or any other site in the Mani or the Peloponnese; Arion simply 'proceeds' from here to Corinth without further explanation of his route or transportation. It is not the credibility of the journey that mattered, but the location named (Tainaron) that indicated his safety. In the third passage, Herodotus said that the “not large” bronze votive offering of Arion riding the dolphin actually existed at Tainaron at the time of his writing. This is the first mention of such a statue, but mention of its existence resurfaces in later sources, including Pausanias (3.25.[7]). The final passage in Herodotus is slightly more informative, and occurs in Book 7: 7.168.[2]: …µόγις δὲ ἀναχθέντες προσέµιξαν τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ, καὶ περὶ Πύλον καὶ Ταίναρον γῆς τῆς Λακεδαιµονίων ἀνεκώχευον τὰς νέας… 7.168.[2]:…hardly having set sail they landed in the Peloponnese, and at Pylos and Tainaron in the Lakedaimonian land they held their ships at anchor… This narrative told the story of the Corcyraens, who set sail from the island of Corcyra under the pretense of coming to the aid of the Greeks against the Persians in 481 BCE. However, the passage above informs us that they instead only went so far as the southern coast of the Peloponnese – here they waited to see which way the war would turn, while avoiding direct 181 conflict and attempting to maintain neutrality.340 While we are not concerned presently with Corcyra's alliances in the Persian wars, it is clear from this passage that Herodotus considered Tainaron to be located 'in the Lakedaimonian territory' which, during this period, was an area that was definitively connected to – but not necessarily subjugated by – Sparta.341 This passage provides more convincing evidence for harbour infrastructure at Tainaron at this early date than the passage above, since an entire fleet of sixty ships required substantially more resources than Arion, (a single man without a boat!) would, if the Corcyraeans did indeed land, as the verb προσµείγνυµι implies in this situation. However, there is the likelihood that the warships required no harbour and simply beached themselves in the Bay of Kisternes or one of the two natural bays immediately to the north at modern Marmari (perhaps ancient Achilleios) or modern Porto Kagio (perhaps ancient Psamathous). Finally, the fleet may have simply waited in the bay of Kisternes at Tainaron because it provided a safe place to anchor, while the Corcyraeans purposefully delayed their advance in a location as equally 'neutral' as they themselves seemed to be. Tainaron was certainly a known and established location by the time of Herodotus' writings, and sources continued to mention this location throughout the 5th century BCE. An allusion to a now-lost play by Eupolis, called The Helots (dated by Storey to 429/8 BCE) – and this play’s potential links to the site of Tainaron – was made by a scholiast commenting on 340 How and Wells 1912, vii 168: “Munro (J. H. S. xxii. 323) charitably suggests that the Corcyreans may never have promised to do more than protect the southern Peloponnese from attack, if the Persian admirals detached a squadron for the purpose; then their subsequent neutrality caused their absence from the line of battle to be misinterpreted. But it seems more likely that Corcyra did aim at avoiding compromising alliances, and was loath to send her navy to resist the Persian, when she might so soon need it for her own defence against the Carthaginian.” Macan 1908, vii 168: “they committed themselves, perhaps, even less deeply to the Greeks than the story here seems to suggest; cp. Thuc. 1. 32. 4 ξύµµαχοί τε γὰρ οὐδενός πω ἐν τῷ πρὸ τοῦ χρόνῳ ε<*>κούσιοι γενόµενοι: but the motivation, and especially the address to Xerxes, are open to suspicion, as coloured by the unpopularity which the Korkyreans earned, and deserved, by their ignoble neutrality.” 341 Shipley 2004, 569. 182 Aristophanes' Knights (424 BCE).342 Line 1226 of Knights is “έγώ δέ τυ έστεφάνιξα κάδωρησάµαν” (and I crowned you with presents), and the scholiast commented on this line that “µιµείται δέ τούς Είλωτας ὅταν στεφανώσι τόν Ποσειδώνα” (and he mimics the Helots whenever they crown Poseidon). This, combined with an actual fragment (149) of Eupolis’ The Helots “The precinct of Poseidon, the sea god” (τέµενος Ποτειδᾶ ποντίω),343 might be early evidence of the relationship between the helots and the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, and of a possible festival held in that location that involved the crowning of a statue of Poseidon. The association with these lines and a sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron is strengthened by the fact that a link between the two appeared in Aristophanes' Acharnians just a few short years after the publication of The Helots, in 425 BCE: 509-511: ἐγὼ δὲ µισῶ µὲν Λακεδαιµονίους σφόδρα, καὐτοῖς ὁ Ποσειδῶν οὑπὶ Ταινάρῳ θεὸς σείσας ἅπασιν ἐµβάλοι τὰς οἰκίας: 509-511: But I hate the Lakedaimonians very much, and may Poseidon, god of Tainaron, destroy all [their] houses by an earthquake. This passage is the earliest surviving evidence of the role of Poseidon as the patron deity of Tainaron.344 Dikaiopolis, the protagonist of Acharnians, spoke these lines, and the threat of an earthquake would have been very real, since Sparta suffered a devastating earthquake only 40 years prior, in 464 BCE.345 The now-lost Sophokles play The Satyrs of Tainaron (Ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ Σάτυροι)346, whose composition dated to the second half of the 5th century BCE, was once thought to have presented 342 Storey 2003, 176-8, 283-6; Storey 1991, 5; Sommerstein 1980, 51-3. 343 Translation Storey 2011, 131: Fragment 149, from Herodian On Singular Vocabulary II p. 917.1. 344 Compare the implication of this relationship in Pindar, above. 345 One anonymous translator of the Acharnians (New York. Liveright. 192? [sic, Perseus Online]) says that another earthquake hit Sparta in 425 BCE, but I have yet to find supporting evidence for this. 346 Lloyd-Jones 1996, 98-99. Herakles (Ἡρακλης); Ἡρακλεΐσκος (The Infant Heracles), and Κέρβερος (Cerberus) are alternative titles for what seem to have all been the same play. See especially Pearson 1917 167ff. 183 the chorus of satyrs as helots. This argument of the satyr-helot-chorus was based on a passage in Eustathios (Il. 297,37; ἐν γοῦν τοῖς Ἡρῳδιανοῦ εἲρηται ὅτι Εἵλωτες οἱ ἐπι Ταινάρῳ σάτυροι), but this assertion is no longer the common belief.347 The subject of this play is thought to have been Herakles’ retrieval of Cerberus from the underworld, but nothing more is known about the plot. However, the scant information we have about this play reinforces the relationship between Tainaron and the underworld. The only satyr-play to survive from antiquity, Euripides’ Cyclops, confirms the role of Tainaron as a sanctuary of Poseidon: 290: οἳ τὸν σόν, ὦναξ, πατέρ᾿ ἔχειν ναῶν ἕδρας ἐρρυσάµεσθα γῆς ἐν Ἑλλάδος µυχοῖς· ἱερᾶς τ᾿ ἄθραυστος Ταινάρου µένει λιµὴν Μαλέας τ᾿ ἄκρας κευθµῶνες… 290: We protected your father (Poseidon), master, to keep his sanctuaries (literally: temple-seats) in the innermost places of the Greek land: the harbor of holy Tainaron remained unharmed as did the hollows of the promontory of Malea… This play is undated but some ascribe it to the final years of Euripides’ life (485-406 BCE).348 Another play by Euripides, Herakles, was performed in 416 BCE and it too contained a brief reference to Tainaron: 22-24: καὶ τοὺς µὲν ἄλλους ἐξεµόχθησεν πόνους, τὸ λοίσθιον δὲ Ταινάρου διὰ στόµα βέβηκ᾿ ἐς Ἅιδου τὸν τρισώµατον κύνα 22-24: And he (Herakles) struggled through all the other labours, and [as] the last [labour] he departed through the mouth of Tainaron into Hades to lead up the three-bodied dog… This Euripidean passage is the fourth literary association of Tainaron with the underworld, and the second to reveal that Tainaron was an entrance to Hades (cf. Pindar, above). 347 Lloyd-Jones 1996, 98-99; Pearson 1917, 168. 348 Kovacs 1994, 53. 184 Our final 5th century source is a brief reference to Tainaron from Aristophanes' Frogs (405 BCE): 187: ἢ σ᾽ Κερβερίους, ἢ σ᾽ κόρακας, ἢ 'πὶ Ταίναρον; 187: Who [bound] for the Cerberians, or the crows, or for Tainaron? This line is spoken by Charon and reveals nothing about the physical location of Tainaron or its inhabitants. It is, however, the fifth surviving written association of Tainaron with death and the underworld (cf. Hekataios – Chapter 4; and Pindar, Euripides, and Sophokles, above), through the speaker Charon, the allusion to Cerberus (guardian of the entrance to the underworld), and the crows (scavengers who feast on the dead).349 Chronologically, the next source of relevance is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Perhaps surprisingly – because of the significant involvement of Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars – there are only six instances in all of Thucydides' work where a settlement or individual from the Mani peninsula is named – Las twice, Asine once (both sites discussed above), and Tainaron three times. I present the mentions of Tainaron in the order in which they appear in Thucydides' work, beginning with Book 1350: 349 The separation between the ‘Cerberians’, the crows, and Tainaron here can here be interpreted as three separate experiences related to death, a linguistic device the playwrite employed to rapidly list several names for comedic effect (the full line reads: τίς εἰς ἀναπαύλας ἐκ κακῶν καὶ πραγµάτων; τίς εἰς τὸ Λήθης πεδίον, ἢ ’ς Ὄκνου πλοκάς, ἢ ’ς Κερβερίους, ἢ ’ς κόρακας, ἢ ’πὶ Ταίναρον;”). Regarding the inclusion Tainaron, Dover 1995 (115-116) says: “In our context, a real place is surprising, and it may be the naval raids on that part of Lakonia were regarded (perhaps in the light of a recent and disastrous attempt) as exceptionally dangerous, a ‘suicide mission’; that would suit ’ς κόρακας and give a sour topical twist at the end of the catalogue of destinations.” Dover believes that all of the locations of the experiences (crows, Cerberians, Tainaron, etc.) are different, which is indeed plausible, but I think it is unnecessary to find an excuse such as piracy for the inclusion of Tainaron rather than simply accept that it is associated with the entrance to the underworld. Dover’s issue with Tainaron as a ‘real place’ is resolved simply through the recognition that Tainaron does not have an actual, physical entrance to the underworld and is simply the mythic entrance. The expression “go to the crows” was also an ancient expression loosely meaning “go to hell!”. 350 It merits mention that this particular narrative in Book 1 is likely based on a previous written work, rather than on Thucydides’ typical method of eyewitness accounts. However, this does not affect the importance of these passages as evidence for settlement in Mani. For more on this passage, see Westlake 1977 95ff. 185 1.128.[1]: ἀντεκέλευον δὲ καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοὺς Λακεδαιµονίους τὸ ἀπὸ Ταινάρου ἄγος ἐλαύνειν: οἱ γὰρ Λακεδαιµόνιοι ἀναστήσαντές ποτε ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος [ἀπὸ Ταινάρου] τῶν Εἱλώτων ἱκέτας ἀπαγαγόντες διέφθειραν, δι᾽ ὃ δὴ καὶ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς νοµίζουσι τὸν µέγαν σεισµὸν γενέσθαι ἐν Σπάρτῃ. 1.128.[1]: The Athenians, in turn, commanded the Lakedaimonians to drive out the curse of Tainaron. For at one time, the Lakedaemonians, making some Helot suppliants rise and leave from the temple of Poseidon at Tainaron, carried them off and killed them; and indeed because of this, they themselves believe the great earthquake in Sparta to have happened. This passage is the earliest surviving written evidence for the murder of the helots by the Spartans, and the corresponding belief that it was this act which brought about the earthquake in 464 BCE (see Ael. VH. 6.[7], Chapter 8).351 Nothing is known conclusively about the motive the Spartans had to murder the helots, but both Cartledge and Lazenby believe it must have been related to a helot uprising in the 470s, possibly led by the Spartan regent Pausanias.352 Thucydides’ narrative goes on to tell the story of this Pausanias, who was accused of both medizing and of conspiring with helots. Thucydides described how Pausanias' messenger betrayed his master and informed the Spartan ephors of his plans. The ephors and the unnamed messenger then planned to lure Pausanias to Tainaron to confess: 1.133.[1]:… ἀπὸ παρασκευῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ Ταίναρον ἱκέτου οἰχοµένου καὶ σκηνησαµένου διπλῆν διαφράγµατι καλύβην, ἐς ἣν τῶν [τε] ἐφόρων ἐντός τινας ἔκρυψε, καὶ Παυσανίου ὡς αὐτὸν ἐλθόντος καὶ ἐρωτῶντος τὴν πρόφασιν τῆς ἱκετείας ᾔσθοντο πάντα σαφῶς, αἰτιωµένου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τά τε περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ τἆλλ᾽ ἀποφαίνοντος καθ᾽ ἕκαστον, ὡς οὐδὲν πώποτε αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς βασιλέα διακονίαις παραβάλοιτο, προτιµηθείη δ᾽ ἐν ἴσῳ τοῖς πολλοῖς τῶν διακόνων ἀποθανεῖν, κἀκείνου αὐτά τε ταῦτα ξυνοµολογοῦντος καὶ περὶ τοῦ παρόντος οὐκ ἐῶντος ὀργίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ πίστιν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ διδόντος τῆς ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀξιοῦντος ὡς τάχιστα πορεύεσθαι καὶ µὴ τὰ πρασσόµενα διακωλύειν. 1.133.[1]: ...from [this] set purpose (by this arrangement) the man went to Tainaron as a suppliant and built a double-hut with a partition; in this he (the messenger) hid some of the Ephors inside. And Pausanias came to him and asked [him] the pretext of [his] supplication, and they (the Ephors) heard everything clearly...and that man (Pausanias) himself confessing these things, and not allowing [the messenger] to grow angry about these matters at hand, instead he gave [the messenger] assurance of standing and leaving the temple, and demanded [the messenger] to go as quickly as possible and not to hinder the bringing about [of his plans]. 351 Hornblower 1991, 213; see also Cartledge 2002, 184; for the geological investigation of the date of the earthquake and fault lines surrounding Sparta, see Papanastassiou et al. 2005. 352 Lazenby 1975, 248; Cartledge 2002, 183-4. 186 These two passages are particularly important because together they provide our earliest concrete evidence for the use of Tainaron as a sanctuary with sacred, inviolable, built space in the form of a temple.353 Although the passage presented above from Eupolis’ Helots suggested the presence of sacred space at Tainaron and was written earlier, in 429/8 BCE (assuming a date of c. 397 BCE for the final contribution that Thucydides made to his work), the events described in Thucydides took place earlier, likely in the 470s-460s BCE. Often, when scholars present information on Tainaron (and other sites in Mani, for that matter), their tendency is to compile all available information in order to form a more comprehensive understanding of the site throughout history. By presenting this information chronologically, however, I provide the advantage of an analysis that examines the evolution of these places over time. Prior to Thucydides’ account of events which took place in the 470s BCE, we have no literary indication that Tainaron was the location of a physical sanctuary – the passages presented above by Herodotus and Pherekydes, as well as the Homeric Hymn (Chapter 4), do not include mention of any sort of religious or ritual activity at the site of Tainaron. Pindar described Tainaron as ‘holy’ and mentioned a connection with Hades, as did the fragment of Hekataios’ writing (Chapter 4) but it is only the plays of Aristophanes and the accounts of Thucydides that reveal the existence of a temple to Poseidon at Tainaron and, in two instances at least, of the presence of suppliants. These two Thucydidean passages, moreover, indicate that as suppliants, the helots (in the first case) and the messenger slave (in the second case) were safe within the temple itself; this is, therefore, our first secure evidence that Tainaron was a place of refuge.354 353 It is important to mention that Shipley 2003 (134) believes that these passages refer to an urban sanctuary of Poseidon Tainarios, but this has no corroboration or support elsewhere and is not fitting with what we know from later sources about the sanctuary on Cape Tainaron, nor with typical locations for places of refuge. 354 See Sinn 2003 (71) for the classification of sanctuaries as ‘places of refuge’ rather than ‘asylia’; see also Schumacher 2003, 56. 187 The story of Pausanias and his Argive slave occurs in two Roman Republican-period sources and one Roman Imperial source, which suggests that the narrative retained its moral and historical significance throughout classical antiquity. The first text was the Bibliotheca Historica (the 'Library') of Diodorus Siculus was written sometime between 60-36 BCE and is known to have been composed largely of the works of earlier authors – hence the chosen name – and this passage is no exception: 11.45.[4]: πορευθεὶς οὖν ἐπὶ Ταίναρον καὶ καθεζόµενος ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἱερῷ διπλῆν σκηνὴν περιεβάλετο, καὶ τοὺς µὲν ἐφόρους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Σπαρτιατῶν τινας κατέκρυψε, τοῦ δὲ Παυσανίου παραγενοµένου πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ πυνθανοµένου τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ἱκετείας, ἐµέµψατο αὐτῷ καθ᾽ ὅσον εἰς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐνέγραψε τὸν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ θάνατον. 11.45.[4]: So, having gone to Tainaron and seating himself upon the temple of Poseidon he (the Argive slave) built the double-hut, and he hid the ephors and some of the other Spartans, and when Pausanias was beside him and asked the reason for his supplication, he (the slave) accused him [that] he wrote in the letter that he should be put to death. There is no new information in this version of the passage, but the phrasing here is more specific that the slave was within the temple of Poseidon – but it is unlikely that he built a hut inside the temple.355 The use of the verb καθέζοµαι to refer to suppliants at temples, shrines, and altars is not uncommon.356 The second Republican passage is within Cornelius Nepos’ Excellentium Imperatorum Vitae, written circa 35 BCE: 4.[4]: Fanum Neptuni est Taenari, quod violari nefas putant Graeci. Eo ille [index] confugit in araque consedit. Hanc iuxta locum fecerunt sub terra, ex quo posset audiri, si quis quid loqueretur cum Argilio. Huc ex ephoris quidam descenderunt. [5] Pausanias ut audivit Argilium confugisse in aram, perturbatus venit eo. Quem cum supplicem dei videret in ara sedentem, quaerit, causae quid sit tam repentini consilii. 4.[4]: There is a temple of Poseidon at Tainaron, which the Greeks consider impious to violate. There, in that place, the informer took refuge and sat [at] the altar. Near this they constructed a place underground, from which he was able to be heard, if indeed someone would be speaking with the Argive. Down to this place some of the ephors descended. [5] Pausanias, since he heard that the Argive took refuge at the altar, confused, he came to him. When he saw him sitting at the altar as a suppliant of the god, he asked what was the reason for such an unexpected plan. 355 Thucydides did not explicitly mention Poseidon in his iteration. 356 LSJ entry for καθέζοµαι II, 2: sit as suppliants, “ἱκέται καθεζόµεσθα βώµιοι” E.Heracl.l.c.; “πρὸς τὰ ἱερὰ ἱκετῶν καθεζοµένων” Th.3.70, cf. Ar.Lys.1139, D.18.107. 188 This narrative is slightly different from the other two: Nepos mentioned an altar three separate times, and described the hiding-place of the Ephors as an underground chamber. However, because this story was around 400 years old by the time of Nepos’ writing, these new features cannot contribute to our understanding of the physical layout of the sanctuary in the Classical period. There is no evidence that Nepos himself visited the sanctuary, and the emphasis on the altar was likely more a reflection of a Roman understanding of Greek sacred space and supplication.357 The latest surviving version of this story is found within a fragment from the work of a certain Aristodemos, about whom nothing is known. His text survives only from a 10th-century CE manuscript and was confirmed by the discovery of a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus containing a small portion of the same text.358 This text, the name of which is also unknown, is dated stylistically to the 2nd century CE, and contained this passage: 8.[2-3]…ἦλθεν εἰς Ταίναρον ἔν τε τῶι τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος τεµένει ἱκέτευεν· οἱ δὲ ἔφοροι παραγενόµενοι καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ τέµενος καὶ διπλῆν σκηνὴν κατασκευάσαντες ἐν αὐτῆι ἔκρυψαν ἑαυτούς. [3]οὐκ ἐπιστάµενος δὲ ὁ Παυσανίας ταῦτα, ἀκούσας δὲ τὸν ᾽Αργίλιον ἱκετεύοντα, παρεγένετο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπεµέµφετο ἐπὶ τῶι µὴ κοµίσαι τὰς ἐπιστολὰς πρὸς Ξέρξην, ἄλλα τέ τινα τεκµήρια διεξήιει τῆς προδοσίας. οἱ δὲ ἔφοροι ἀκούσαντες τῶν ῥηθέντων παραχρῆµα µὲν οὐ συνελάβοντο αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἅγιον τὸ τέµενος ἀλλ᾽ εἴασαν ἀπελθεῖν, ὕστερον δὲ αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα εἰς Σπάρτην ἐβούλοντο συλλαµβάνεσθαι· 8.[2-3] …he went to Tainaron as a suppliant at the sanctuary of Poseidon. The ephors themselves accompanied him to the sanctuary and they concealed themselves in a structure which they had divided into two parts. [3] Unaware of this plot, and having heard that the Argilian was present as a suppliant, Pausanias approached him and rebuked him because he had not delivered the letters to Xerxes, and recounted in full some other proofs of his treason. When the ephors had heard what was said, they did not arrest him immediately because of the sacred nature of the sanctuary, but they allowed him to depart, wishing to arrest him later upon his return to Sparta.359 357 Such an understanding was not incorrect, as the altar was certainly the most important feature in ancient Greek sanctuaries; but the inclusion of this emphasis simply does not provide enough evidence for the actual layout of the sanctuary of Poseidon. 358 Codex Parisinus suppl. Graecus 607 fol. 83v–85r; 86v–87v; P.Oxy. 27.2469; Pownall 2009, BNJ 104F1. 359 Translation Pownall 2009. 189 In this passage, the sanctuary was referred to by the word τέµενος and characterized as ἅγιος (sacred, holy); neither term had been used to describe the sanctuary of Poseidon prior to this passage. Returning to Thucydides, in Book 7 he briefly mentioned Tainaron in a passage that did not present the site’s function as a sanctuary, but instead revealed its role as a muster-place (cf. Hdt 7.168.2, above) for the Lakedaimonian ships preparing to set out against the Athenians in 413/412 BCE: 7.19.[4]: οὗτοι µὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς πρῶτοι ὁρµήσαντες ἀπὸ τοῦ Ταινάρου τῆς Λακωνικῆς ἐς τὸ πέλαγος ἀφῆκαν: 7.19.[4]: Thus these men, having setting out from Tainaron in Lakonike, sent forth [the ships] into the open sea. Here we are confronted with the geographic categorization of Tainaron 'τῆς Λακωνικῆς' which was, as Shipley pointed out, the standard terminology to describe the “the wider Lakedaimonian territory formed by the chorai of Sparta and those of the perioikic towns, plus Messenia.”360 Like the mention of Tainaron as ‘in the Lakedaimonian land’ in Herodotus (7.168.[2]), this reveals only that this settlement was within the geographic territory of Lakedaimon, but does not necessitate control or subjugation by Sparta. The 4th century BCE historian Ephoros (mentioned above in the context of Las) also wrote a passage one that concerned with the mythology of Tainaron: F 150 (Strabo 8.6.[14]): ἐνταῦθα ἦν ἄσυλον Ποσειδῶνος ἱερόν, καί φασι τὸν θεὸν τοῦτον ἀλλάξασθαι πρὸς µὲν Λητὼ τὴν Καλαυρίαν ἀντιδόντα Δῆλον, πρὸς Ἀπόλλωνα δὲ Ταίναρον ἀντιδόντα Πυθώ. Ἔφορος δὲ καὶ τὸν χρησµὸν λέγει “ ἶσόν τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαύρειάν τε νέµεσθαι, Πυθώ τ᾽ ἠγαθέην καὶ Ταίναρον ἠνεµόεντα. F 150 (Strabo 8.6.[14]): Here (Kalauria) was an inviolate temple to Poseidon, and they say that this god gave Delos to Leto in exchange for Kalauria, and gave Pytho (Delphi) to Apollo, in return for Tainaron.361 And even Ephoros tells [of] the oracle: “[It is] equal for you to inhabit both Delos and Kalauria, both most holy Pytho and windy Tainaron.” 360 Shipley 2004, 570. 361 On Poseidon’s trade with Apollo for Delphi, see Parker 2011, F150. The first half of this passage is discussed in Chapter 7. 190 This passage only reveals that Tainaron is sacred to Poseidon, and that it is windy – unsurprising, given its geographic situation as the southernmost point in mainland Greece! Finally, we have the possible title of a speech written by the Athenian logographer Hyperides, which dates to the end of the Classical period, likely prior to 323 BCE:362 12. ΥΠΕΡ ΧΑΡΗΤΟΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΕΠΙ ΤΑΙΝΑΡΩΙ ΞΕΝΙΚΟΥ [?] IN DEFENCE OF CHARES ON THE MERCENARY FORCE AT TAENARUM363 The title of this speech is derived from Plutarch’s (or Pseudo-Plutarch’s) Lives of the Ten Orators, most of whom lived in the 4th century BCE. (Pseudo-) Plutarch did not include the title of Hyperides’ speech in his text, he only provided the following information: 848e: συνεβούλευσε δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ ξενικὸν µὴ διαλῦσαι, οὗ Χάρης ἡγεῖτο, εὐνόως πρὸς τὸν στρατηγὸν διακείµενος. 848e: And he even advised not to discharge the mercenaries on Tainaron, who were led by Chares, since he was well-minded towards that leader. Nothing is known about this ‘speech’, including historical context, date, whether it was published, and whether it even existed in the form of a public speech at all. However, this allusion to a speech of Hyperides provides the earliest evidence for Tainaron’s role as a military garrison, as this reference is typically dated to c. 331 BCE. Chares was a well-known Athenian general in the 4th century BCE, but his inclusion in this passage as a leader for mercenaries at Tainaron is problematic for modern scholars: “…the Athenians had no power either to disband or retain a garrison at Taenarum in 331…[i]t is a mistake to imply that the garrison was an Athenian garrison.” 364 Griffith suggested that Hyperides meant Leosthenes rather than Chares 362 Translation Burtt 1954, 570-1. 363 a[Plut.] Lives of the Ten Orators 849e (Burtt 1954, 571). 364 Griffith 2014, 35. 191 (although why and how Griffith believes this might be an error, he does not say), but it seems more of a stretch to believe that the name Leosthenes was replaced by Chares than simply to accept the text as revealing additional evidence about the role of Tainaron in the later 4th century BCE. If one takes the text at face value and the general is in fact Chares, the famous Athenian mercenary commander, this has implications for the commonly-held belief that Athens had no presence at Tainaron whatsoever during this time. The role of Tainaron as a garrison and place for mercenaries became much more prevalent in the Hellenistic period, as I address in the following chapter. 5.3.2.2 Manumission Inscriptions from Tainaron There is a group of inscriptions from Tainaron that date to the Classical period (late 5th – mid 4th century BCE) and that reveal an important function of the sanctuary: manumission. These six inscriptions contain information about manumitted individuals, all of whom should be identified as private slaves (douloi) rather than helots (helotai; see discussion below). Ducat categorized these inscriptions as ‘acts’ rather than as ‘texts’ due to their formulaic nature, and concluded that because of this rigidity they were to be understood as official manumission documents rather than private dedications.365 These inscriptions have typically been dated by the name of the (assumed-to-be) Spartan ephor included within the text. Only one of these inscriptions, however, bears the name of a known Spartan ephor from Xenophon’s list of ephors dating to the years of the Peloponnesian Wars (IG V,1 1231: Hagehistratos, 427/6 BCE), so all of the other named ephors – and, logically, the inscriptions bearing their names – have traditionally 365 Ducat 1990, 177. Ducat also believed that this presentation resulted in their ‘Archaic’ appearance. 192 been dated outside of Xenophon’s list (and therefore either prior to 432/1 or after 404/3).366 As an attempt to ‘free’ the inscriptions from the ‘tyranny of the ephor-list’, Ducat re-dated these inscriptions based on letter forms, largely through a comparison to three extant inscriptions that he believed to be dated more conclusively. Ducat’s decision to re-date the inscriptions based on the letter forms has not been widely accepted – in fact, the excessive length and convoluted presentation of these inscriptions in his 1990 article has received lukewarm reviews, including the commentary in SEG that described it as “a long and largely inconclusive analysis of the questions of the identity of the slaves (Helots or purchased?), the ephors (Spartan or local?), and the procedure (dedication or manumission or both?)”.367 Unfortunately, the burdensome length and presentation of his article masks the true value inherent within: that midway through – hidden among a ‘largely inconclusive analysis’ of the roles of the individuals on the inscriptions – Ducat presented the valid question of whether the identity of the ephors as Spartan should be accepted. In the late 19th century, Foucart first postulated that the ephors mentioned in the inscriptions should be understood as being temple officials368; his argument was unique, but was universally rejected in all subsequent publications. Most scholars agreed that the ephors were Spartan – and what better evidence than the complementary existence of a certain Hagehistratos in both Xenophon’s list of ephors as well as the manumission stelae? The fundamental problem, however, lies in the fact that the other stelae are, stylistically and in terms of content, very similar to the example that names Hagehistratos, but were initially dated over two decades later in certain cases, based solely on the fact that the named ephor in these other inscriptions did not 366 Ducat 1990, 177. 367 SEG 40 356. 368 Foucart 1879, 98; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 133. 193 appear in Xenophon’s list; hence what Ducat called the ‘tyranny of the ephor list’.369 Ducat made the suggestion that the ephors mentioned in these lists were not Spartan magistrates to support his argument (largely based on the letter forms) for the later chronology he imposed on the inscriptions. This suggestion, however, is even more powerful when considered in the social-historical context of Tainaron. I argue for Tainaron’s autonomy from Sparta (as expounded further below), and Ducat’s proposal of non-Spartan magistrates supports this theory – even if that was not Ducat’s original intention. There is evidence in the Roman period that formerly “perioikic” cities had ephors, and I agree with Ducat’s observation that it is possible that these institutions were in existence prior to the establishment of the League of the Free Lakonians in the 1st century BCE: Le problème est donc: ces magistrats s'appelaient-ils des éphores? On voit, à l'époque romaine, des collèges d'éphores fonctionner dans les cités "libérées": Boiai, Epidauros Limera, Gérénia, Géronthrai, Gythéion, Hippola, Kardamylè, Kotyrta, Messène, Thouria, et, le plus important pour nous, Ténare-Kainépolis. Il est très vraisemblable que, quand ces cités ont acquis leur indépendance, elles ont conservé et activé leurs institutions traditionnelles. Tout cela montre qu'il est possible que les éphores de nos inscriptions soient ceux de Ténare même.370 Ducat’s assertion of a later chronology for the inscriptions solves the problem of correspondance to Xenophon’s Spartan ephor-list (“Force est donc que de constater que, chaque fois qu'il y a homonymie avec un éphore Spartiate, la chronologie oblige à refuser l'identification”371); but if the ephors are not Spartans, they need not match Xenophon’s list whatsoever. I agree that these ephors are not Spartan, but because of the fallibility of letter form-based dating, I include both the traditional date as well as Ducat’s alternative dating in the discussion below. 369 Ducat 1990, 177. 370 Ducat 1990, 187. 371 Ducat 1990, 187. 194 The earliest of the six stelae (according to both dating systems) is IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939), a white marble stele dating to 450-430 BCE (Ducat: 420-410 BCE).372 It is restored to read: ἀνέθεκε το͂ι Ποοιδᾶ[νι] Θεάρες Κλεογένε. ἔφορος Δαΐοχος ἐπάκο Ἀρίο<ν>, Λύον. MacDowell translated this inscription as: “Theares dedicated Kleogenes to Poseidon. Ephor: Daiokhos. Witnesses: Arion, Lyon.” MacDowell also argued convincingly that Kleogenes (and the other freed individuals on the inscriptions discussed below) must have been a slave of Theares rather than a helot, since helots were only liberated by the state and not by individuals.373 He believed that Theares, the slave-owner, was most likely a Spartan, but did not rule out the possibility of perioikic citizenship.374 This individual is, in fact, listed as being ‘Spartan’ in the LGPN, even though no one else with this name is associated with Sparta. Only Arion’s name was ‘Spartan’, with 15 people out of 28 associated with Sparta in the LGPN. The association of the ephor and the witnesses with Sparta in the LGPN is a trend that persists for all 372 Darmezin 1999, 23; Jeffrey 1990, 201 (n54); Dareste et al. 1908, 234; Collitz et al. 1905, 4588; Bourguet 1927, 10. 373 MacDowell 1986, 38; there has also been an increasingly vocal trend in scholarship to discount the relationship between the sanctuary of Poseidon and the Lakedaimonian helots, since the only conclusive evidence for the presence of the latter at Tainaron is Thucydides 1.33.1. I have no problem with this, since I do not think the lack of evidence for a ‘special relationship’ between the helots and Tainaron weakens my argument for the role of Tainaron as a place of refuge for all (including, but not limited to, the helots). 374 contra Cartledge (1979, 179; 2002, 154), who believed that the slave must have belonged to a perioikos. 195 Figure 5-7: BM 1880,0917.1 (IG V,1 1228) ©Trustees of the British Museum of the manumission stelae; the douloi are omitted from the LGPN entirely.375 This inscription is currently in the British Museum, in London (1880,0917.1; Figure 5-7).376 375 Although in the LGPN Lyon/Luon is listed under the spelling Λύων and Arion under Ἀρίων. 376 Many thanks to the Greek & Roman Studies department of the British Museum, who were able to provide a catalogue number, which has not been included in any of the previous scholarship. This image is able to be provided under the British Museum Creative Commons agreement. 196 The next inscription, IG V,1 1229 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 940), was discovered by Bursian ‘in front of the grotto’ and published in 1855.377 It is now lost and no squeezes survive. Bursian proposed a date of the 4th century BCE, and Ducat tentatively suggested 365 BCE.378 Perhaps even more depressing than the loss of the stone, however, is Bursian’s observation that this ‘insignificant fragment’ is all that was left after the locals excavated several large tablets and sold them abroad.379 The inscription, based on its early publications, was restored to read380: [ἀνέθεκε] [— — — — —] [το͂ι Ποοιδᾶνι] Θόρ[ακα] καὶ τα[ὐτο͂]. ἐπάκ[ο] Βοινέ[ας], Ἀριστίδα[ς]. ἔφορο[ς] Αὐτοκράτε[ς] vel - τί[δας] In this example, the inscription can be translated as: “[---] dedicated Thorax and his effects to Poseidon. Witnesses: Boineas, Aristidas. Ephor: Autokrates (or Autokratidas). Of note is the fact that there are two individuals with the name Aristidas associated with Gytheio, on the north-east coast of the Outer Mani peninsula. The third example, IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941), is a stone of blue (caerulei) marble. Le Bas-Waddington noted this stone was found at ‘Kisternes, [but] cannot be 377 It was found along with a fragmentary inscription to Agrippa that does not survive (CIL III 491). Bursian 1855, 779. See also Kolbe 1913, 229. For additional bibliography, see: Darmezin 1999, 25; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 255c; Collitz et al. 1905, 4589; Bourguet 1927, 13; Dareste et al. 1904, 234. 378 Ducat 1990, 180. 379 Bursian 1855, 779: “Bei den von Bewohnern der Umgegend angestellten Grabungen im Innern der Ruinen sollen mehrere grosse Tafeln mit Inschriften zum Vorschein gekommen und von den Findern ins Ausland verkauft worden sein.” 380 Bursian 1855, 779. 197 more specific.” 381 It is currently located in the Athens Epigraphical Museum (EM 11526) and reads: ἀνέθεκε Ἐκέφυλος Νεαρέταν το͂ι Ποοιδᾶνι. ἔφορος Ἀριστεύς. ἐπακόω Ἀριστοτέλες, Δαµοφο͂ν. The translation of this inscription is: “Ekephylos dedicated Nearetas to Poseidon. Ephor: Aristeus. Witnesses: Aristoteles, Damophon.” Ducat dated this inscription to 380 BCE. Although the name of one of the witnesses, Aristoteles, is very widespread (263 individuals listed in the LGPN), there are actually three records of people with this name in three separate inscriptions from within the Mani peninsula. One of these inscriptions is also from Tainaron (IG V,1 1236), one from nearby Kainepolis (IG V,1 1240) and one from Hippola (IG V,1 1527). The entry for the inscription IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53-380; 40-356; 11 941), gives the same find spot information and is of the same material as the previous entry.382 It reads: ἀνέθηκε Αἰσχρίον Ἀπειρότας τοῖ Ποοιδᾶ- νι Ἡρακληίδαν αὐτὸν καὶ ταὐτο͂. ἔφορος αγηίστρατος. ἐπάκο Πρυαῖος, Ἐπικύδης. 381 Darmezin 1999, 23; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 255a. See also: Ducat 1990, 174; Collitz et al. 1905, 4590. 382 Darmezin 1999, 24; Ducat 1990, 174 & Fig. 3; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 255b; Collitz et al. 1905, 4592; Bourguet 1927, 11. 198 Figure 5-8: EM 11528 (IG V,1 1231). Photo by Author. The translation of this inscription is: “Aischrion the Epirote dedicated Herakleidas and his effects to Poseidon. Ephor: Hagehistratos. Witnesses: Pruaios, Epikudes.” This inscription is now housed in the Athens Epigraphical Museum (EM 11528). This is the inscription bearing the ephor name of Hagehistratos, and was therefore traditionally dated to 427/6 BCE, but Ducat re-dated this inscription stylistically to 365 BCE.383 383 The spelling in SEG 47 410 (1997) is Ἀγησίστρατος. 199 The owner’s name here has been the subject of much scholarly debate: Aischrion Apeirotas has received attention with regard to his origin, which is generally assumed to be Epirus. The reason this identification is somewhat problematic is because there is little-to-no evidence for a political state known as Epirus (and therefore no ‘Epirotes’) prior to 334-328 BCE; Ducat outlines the extensive arguments both for and against Aischrion’s identity as an Epirote, but eventually aligns himself with the simplest argument, that there is no logical alternative to Aischrion’s identity. He must be an Epirote, and therefore the text provides very early evidence of such an ethnic group, because no other explanation exists.384 It is with Pryaios, however, that things begin to get more interesting: there are only two individuals in the LGPN with this name, the Pryaios from this inscription, and one other who is also listed on an inscription from Tainaron (IG V,1 1236). In fact, in this second inscription (IG V,1 1236), Pryaios is the son of a certain Aristoteles, which means that the names of two witnesses (Pryaios and Aristoteles) from two different manumission stelae (IG V,1 1230 & 1231, respectively) are also included together on a third stele found at Tainaron (IG V,1 1236): Ἀριστοτέλης ἱερεύς· χαῖρε. Πρυαῖος Ἀριστοτέλ<ου>ς ἱερεύς· χαῖρε. Δαµαρµενίδας Ἀριστοτέλους ἱερεύ[ς]· χαῖρε. 384 Ducat 1990, 181-182 for a very extensive presentation of the relevant literature, which is ultimately inconclusive. Cabane (1976, 446-7) doubted the identification of this individual as an ‘Epirote’ largely based on the ‘early’ date of 427/6 BCE, and argued that even if there was a general region that would eventually become Epirus, at this early date the ethnic identifier simply did not exist, nor should anyone assume the same Greek institutions of slavery and manumission existed in an area that was not aligned politically or ethnically with the rest of the Greek world at the time. Even before Ducat’s 1990 publication, Cabane believed a 4th-century date for this inscription (vis Bömer) was much more likely for these reasons; the only other suggestion Cabane considered was that ‘Epirote’ simply meant ‘from away’, and implied that the individual was not from Lakonia or any of the neighbouring islands – he admitted, however, that this solution is one that grasps at straws and cannot be proven. 200 This is a funerary stele for three priests: 1) Aristoteles; 2) Pryaios, the son of Aristoteles; and 3) Damarmenidas, the son of Aristoteles. Presumably, Pryaios and Damarmenidas are siblings. The findspot of this inscription was described by Cyriac of Ancona as “near the ancient ruins of a temple of Neptune.”385 As just mentioned, the names Pryaios and Aristoteles both appear in manumission stelae (IG V,1 1230 & 1231, respectively), and rather than this being purely coincidental, I believe these could potentially even be the same two individuals that served as witnesses for the ‘freeing’ of the two slaves – particularly since in IG V,1 1236 they are named as priests, presumably of the god Poseidon, to whom the slaves were consecrated. Ducat’s new dates for the manumission stelae support the argument that these are the same men on both the manumission stelae and the funerary epitaph: Aristoteles served as a witness on a manumission stele dating to 380 BCE (IG V,1 1230), and Pryaios a witness on a stele dated to 365 BCE (IG V,1 1231) – a suitable number of years for the men to be father-and-son, one generation apart. This inscription would then have a terminus post quem of 365 BCE. This epitaph may have been erected at Tainaron simply because the men dedicated their lives to serving as priests for the cult of Poseidon. The final name in this inscription, Damarmenidas, is also hyper-local to Lakonia: of the three other recorded instances, one is from Epidauros that names Damarmenidas the Lakedaimonian (SEG 11 413: [Δα]µ[αρ]µενίδαν Βρέµωνος Λακεδαιµ[όνιον), and the other two are, notably, from settlements in Mani: Kainepolis (IG V,1 1243; although in the LGPN this entry is listed under ‘Lakonia’, while 1236 is confusingly listed as ‘Tainaron-Kainepolis’) and Pyrrichos (IG V,1 1281/1524)386. 385 Bodnar & Foss 2003, 319; the original Latin was ‘prope antiquas Neptuni temple reliquias’. 386 There is also another instance of the name Damarmenidas, on a privately-owned inscription (SEG 2 161), purportedly from Geronthrai (north of Gytheio). This name is not included in the LGPN, although the other names included on this inscriptions are included in the LGPN database (e.g. Myrtilos); nothing more is known of the inscription, including its present location. 201 These latter two inscriptions are discussed in the following chapters.387 Ultimately, there is no telling whether Aristoteles and Pryaios are the same two individuals in the manumission stelae and the IG V,1 1236 (since this latter inscription is now lost), but all of the names within this inscription appear to be the names of locals.388 This is all to say that, upon closer examination, the argument for associating the named individuals on these stelae with the city of Sparta (as is the case in the LGPN) appears to grow weaker. The next manumission inscription, IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941), is also on a blue marble stele, and was dated by Foucart to the 5th century BCE, although Dareste et al. dated this inscription to the mid-4th century BCE.389 Ducat re-dated it to 375-370 BCE.390 It reads: ἀνέθεκε το͂ι Ποοιδᾶνι Νίκον Νικαφορίδα καὶ Λύιππον καὶ Νικαρχίδαν καὶ ταὐτᾶς πάντα. ἔφορος Εὐδαµίδας. ἐπάκοε Μενεχαρίδας, Ἀνδροµέδης. 387 It is important to note that if the name Damarmenidas is to be interpreted as hyper-local to Lakonia and, even more specifically, to Mani (as the surviving inscriptions from Tainaron, Kainepolis, and Pyrrichos seem to suggest), then the ethnic included in SEG 11 413 (Damarmenidas the Lakedaimonian) may provide evidence for the argument that individuals from Mani themselves identified or were identified as Lakedaimonians rather than with their individual polis-ethnics, but there is simply not enough evidence to confirm this hypothesis, since by virtue of being called ‘Lakedaimonian’, his polis is not mentioned. His father’s name, Βρέµων, does not provide any clues since the other 4 recorded instances of this name are affiliated with Athens (2), Haliai, and Miletos. 388 This latter inscription is dated as ‘imperial’ in the LGPN, but there is absolutely no proof for this. 389 Foucart 1879, 97. See also: Darmezin 1999, 24; Collitz et al. 1905, 4591; Dareste et al. 1904, 235; Bourguet 1927, 12 & Ducat 1990, Fig. 3. 390 Ducat 1990, 174. 202 Figure 5-9: EM 11527 (IG V,1 1232). Photo by Author. The inscription can be translated as “Nikon dedicated Nikaphoris and (her children?) Lyhippos and Nikarchidas and everything [she owns] to Poseidon. Ephor: Eudamidas. Witnesses: Menecharidas, Andromedes.” This stele is unique in that the inscription recorded the 203 manumission of several individuals: Nikaphoris and her sons Lyhippos and Nikarchidas. This stone is also currently housed at the National Archaeological Museum, but no catalogue number is given. The ephor, Eudamidas, bears a strikingly Spartan name – the first example of the name of an ephor in these manumission stelae which can be positively linked to Sparta. Of the 53 individuals named Eudamidas, 27 are Spartan; there is also an individual named Eudamidas in an undated inscription from Las (IG V,1 1214). One of the witnesses, Andromedes, has a name that is also noticeably Spartan, as the only other individual listed with this name is also linked to Sparta. Finally, IG V,1 1233 (SEG 40 356; 53 380), is an inscription on a white marble stele, which Ducat dated to 350-340 BCE.391 It reads: [—]ι[— — — —] καὶ Κλεοµένη̣ καὶ ταὐτῶν πάντα. ἐπάκω Νεολαΐδας, Τέταρτος. [ἔ]φορος Εὐµηλίδα<ς>. The text is fragmentary: the verb and the name of Poseidon are missing. The ephor here is Eumelidas, the witnesses Neolaidas and Tetartos, and the manumitted slave Kleomenes – the presence of the preceding ‘kai’ indicates that there would originally have been more than just Kleomenes manumitted, but this (along with the name of the owner) does not survive. The current location of this inscription is unknown.392 While these six manumission stelae contribute to our understanding of the function of the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron in the mid-to-late Classical period, they leave many questions 391 Darmezin 1999, 25; Ducat 1990, 176. See also Dareste et al., 1904, 235. 392 Darmezin 1999, 25: “Au début du 20e siècle, ce fragment était conserve à Λέσκη Αἴγλη, dans l’île de Symè.” 204 unanswered. There is no universal consensus regarding the date of the inscriptions, nor of the citizenship of the owners, slaves, or witnesses. There is also uncertainty regarding the fate of the emancipated douloi upon receiving their freedom: Foucart initially believed that the slaves in these cases would be transferred from their original owners to the service of the god Poseidon himself, therefore rendering these acts of consecration rather than emancipation, as was the case with manumitted slaves at the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. Mylonopoulos believed that a sufficient argument was made by Ducat to confirm that the slaves in these Tainarian inscriptions were consecrated to Poseidon (or, more accurately, the pre-Doric Pohoidan).393 Unlike at Delphi, however, we possess no further clues as to the nature or cost of manumission, or where the slaves lived following their freedom.394 One aspect of these inscriptions becomes clearer upon closer inspection, however: that the argument for the Spartan citizenship of the owners, ephors and witnesses does not hold up under closer scrutiny. None of the owners (in order presented: Theares, Ekephylos, Aischrion Apeirotas, and Nikon) have names which are particularly Spartan; Aischrion was likely from Epirus, and Ekephylos may have been from Delphi (20/25 individuals, or 80% of named individuals are associated with Delphi). Of all the individual ephors listed in the inscriptions above (in the order presented: Daiochos, Autokrates, Aristeus, Hagehistratos, Eudamidas, and Eumelidas), only Eudamidas has 393 Mylonopoulos 2003, 237-238. 394 Sokolowski (1954) does not even mention the Tainaron inscriptions. Moreover, when similar acts of consecration take place at other sanctuaries, they are always later and include an explicit clause stating the nature of the activity. See also Dareste et al.(1904, 234ff) for more examples of consecrating individuals to a deity. For an extremely extensive yet frustratingly inconclusive presentation of the history of the argument of emancipation vs. consecration, see Ducat 1990, 188-193 (there is also an extensive bibliography therein). This lengthy and complex section is precisely the reason why Ducat’s article has not been positively received, as noted above; he spends several pages presenting the history of the debate, makes no conclusive argument for one side or the other, and then concludes the entire article with a question. 205 a name that is particularly ‘Spartan’, as 51% (27/53) of individuals with that same name have affiliations with Sparta. 18% of individuals named Autokrates (12/66) are associated with the Cyclades and Ionia; Aristeus is the name of six individuals in Sparta, but double that number come from Rhodes; and 57% of individuals named Eumelidas (12/21) are associated with Cyrene. Hagehistratos and Daiochos are names not significantly associated with any one given place. The named pairs of witnesses reveal a similar pattern: in the order presented they are Arion & Lyon, Boineas & Aristidas, Aristoteles & Damophon, Pryaios & Epikudes, and Menecharides & Andromedes. Of these, only the names Arion and Andromedes are positively correlated with Sparta; in the case of Arion, 15/28 (54%) of individuals with this name are associated with Sparta, and in the case of Andromedes, the only other person with this name is also linked to Sparta. Aristidas is a name given to 6 individuals in Sparta, but 34 (out of 134, 25%) are located on Rhodes. 27% of individuals named Damophon (13/48) are associated with the island of Kos. Aristoteles is the name of 15 Spartan individuals (out of a whopping 263) but is also, more intriguingly, a name found on another inscription from Tainaron which itself bears the name of another witness named in the manumission stelae, Pryaios. It is important to note that although every single owner, ephor, and witness is traditionally identified as Spartan, in reality there is very little reason for this association. As Foucart first suggested, and Ducat reaffirmed, the accepted identity of the ephors as Spartan – based on the ‘tyranny’ of Xenophon’s Spartan ephor-list – is unsubstantiated when scrutinized, and there is certainly no reason to assume the witnesses and especially the doulos-owners were Spartan as well. The reality instead seems to be that based on the onomastic statistics outlined above, owners came 206 from several places – including possibly Epiros and Delphi – to dedicate their manumitted slaves to the patron god of Tainaron, an autonomous sanctuary where all were welcome. 5.4 The West Coast Along the western coast of the Mani peninsula, there is an impressive amount of ancient spolia visible in churches (Byzantine through the modern period) and private homes, and membra disiecta strewn throughout the mostly abandoned countryside. Unfortunately, most of these architectural members and sculptures cannot be precisely dated because they lack context. All of these items, the majority of which are included in the next two chapters, are only tentatively assigned a date, and future investigations may well reveal that they, in fact, belong to a different historic period and are thus subject to future refined dating. The same is true for ceramic scatters, many of which have only been dated based on brief, in-field macroscopic evaluations. In terms of the latter category of evidence, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson confirmed the presence of classical pottery and collected at least 22 sherds from the region of Cavo Grosso. These are currently housed in the British School at Athens.395 I studied these in 2014 and determined that while many of these are prehistoric (7) – and others too worn to date more precisely than ‘ancient’ or ‘ancient historic’ (10) – there are at least two Classical-Hellenistic fineware drinking vessel fragments with black-glaze (BSAKIP0020 & BSAKIP0021) In the plain beneath Cavo Grosso is the small hamlet of Phokoloto. In this area, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson noted “rock-cut water channels…traces of an ancient road…and 395 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 123. 207 classical sherds in the fields around.”396 The lack of material evidence presented in this chapter should not be taken as indicative of an absence of Classical-period activity; rather, this void emphasizes the need to refine the dates for the material cultural record in this region. For the most securely-dated material from this region, see Chapter 9. 5.5 The North-West There is evidence for Classical-period occupation at the site of ancient Oitylos within the historical, epigraphic, and archaeological record, each of which is discussed here in turn. 5.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos There is only one written source that mentions Oitylos, and that is a fragment of Pherekydes, the 5th-century historian. The first fragment is of interest because it contains commentary on the passage from Homer’s Iliad presented first in the previous chapter. In this commentary, the Homeric scholiast (scholion A): 1) included the portion of the passage from the Catalogue of Ships; 2) corrected a misreading by Tyrranion (the ancient grammarian); and 3) provided a direct quotation from Pherekydes397: F 168: …εἴ γε οὕτως φησὶ καὶ Φερεκύδης· «τοῦ δὲ γίνεται ᾽Αµφ<ι>άναξ· τοῦ δὲ Οἴτυλος, ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ἡ ἐν Σπάρτηι καλεῖται». F 168: …if indeed Pherekydes also says the following: ‘Amphanax was his (Antimachos’) son (literally 'from him Amphianax was born), and from him Oitylos [was born], after whom the city in Sparta is called’. 396 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 123. Of the ancient road, they said (n63): “Three shallow steps have been cut in the rock at a point where the road turns to ascend a steep gradient. Holes have been cut here in the sides of the steps, presumably to house the ends of stakes which secured the gravel surface of the road.” This is LL280, although the title of ‘Tigani (Cape)’ is misleading. 397 Morison 2011, F 168: Scholiast (A) on Homer, Iliad 2.585 = Erbse 1975, 1.309.13 = Dolcetti 2004, F85. 208 From this passage we learn the etymological root for the polis of Oitylos on the north-western coast of Inner Mani, as well as the fact that the word polis is ascribed to this settlement at this early stage. The mention of the term polis is important because it helps us to understand the nature of this settlement, at least as well as we are able to comprehend and to define the ancient polis at this early period.398 The polis itself was a fundamental political aspect of ancient Greek thought, and while the size, role, and characteristics of each polis in the ancient Greek world varied significantly, the characterization of Oitylos as such allows us to understand and infer certain key facts: the classification of Oitylos as a polis implies that there were citizens of that polis, and that they themselves identified with that polis and shared this identity with their fellow community members. As Hansen and Nielsen note, “[t]he polis provided its citizens with a sense of common identity, based on traditions, culture, ceremonies, symbols and sometimes (presumed) common descent.” 399 Since I am concerned with ancient identity, and the polis was related to the concept of ancient political identity, the use of the word polis to describe ancient Oitylos in this passage is important, even if it is used in a mythological/legendary sense.400 Another interesting aspect of this allusion to Pherekydes’ writings is the description that Oitylos lies 'in Sparta', and not 'in Lakedaimon' or 'in the Spartan territory'. Shipley ascribes this phrasing as similar to 'in Lakedaimon', wherein Sparta denotes the entire territory of the Spartans, rather than an individual settlement.401 Conversely, the most common term used in antiquity to refer to the territory of the Spartans is Lakonike (Λακωνική), and the use of 'in Sparta’ here is, to my knowledge, unique. The etymological information for Oitylos given in this 398 There is an enormous body of work on the subject of the polis, especially Hansen and Nielsen 2004. 399 Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 12. 400 Shipley 2004, 585; Hansen and Nielsen 2000, 148. For the inclusion of the figure of Oitylos (Itylos) in other ancient texts, see Nonnos, Dionysiaca, XLIV 266 and XLVII 26. 401 Shipley 2004, 570. 209 passage is reiterated in Pausanias, a more securely dated source, and as such I shall return to that discussion in Chapter 7. 5.5.2 Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Oitylos Epigraphically, there is only one inscription from Oitylos that may be dated to the Classical period. IG V,1 1293 is a fragmentary white marble stele inscribed in retrograde with the following words402: Καλοκλέ¯νας [Κλ]ε[ο]µάχο[υ] By Forster’s publication in 1903/4, this inscription had already been removed from the ruined church of Aghios Demetrios in Oitylos and was in the possession of the demarche of Areopolis. The letterforms and retrograde style of inscription led to the early date of 6th – early 5th century BCE assigned to this stele. 5.5.3 Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Oitylos The archaeological record from Classical Oitylos includes, most prominently, the ancient city walls. These are preserved to the south of the modern town, below the apex of the promontory but above the Mylolangkado ravine. In the area of the ruined church of Aghios Nikolaos, the limestone walls are preserved up to four courses (each course 0.52-0.63 m high; preserved to a total height of 2.40m in places), in isodomic construction (Figure 5-10). The wall 402 Forster (1903/4, 168) called the marble ‘bluish’. 210 Figure 5-10: Ancient city walls, Oitylos. Photo courtesy of Michael Heslop. is built atop the natural rock, which extends its height to 4.60m, and the maximum preserved section is 3.42m in length.403 Based on the isodomic, mortar-less construction, these walls must be Classical-Hellenistic, although they have not been conclusively dated. It is striking to compare the construction of these walls to those at Kastro and Passavas, discussed above, as this example from Oitylos is the expected construction style for the Classical-Hellenistic period, despite Moschou’s argument that the Kastro fortifications had a similar date.404 403 When Forster (1903/4, 161) saw the ancient city walls, he noted they were 10 courses high. 404 Moschou also believed the fortifications at Loukadidka, Kionia, and Cavo Grosso were all part of the same Classical-Hellenistic fortifications systems put in place by the Spartans. This is discussed further in the following chapters. 211 The church of Koimesis tou Theotokou in the centre of Oitylos bears large limestone blocks in its foundation that are reminiscent of the city walls, and I posit that many of the post-antique buildings – and especially churches – in modern Oitylos were built from the remnants of the ancient city wall. Aghios Taxiarches also incorporates similar limestone blocks, as well as several marble architectural members. Finally, in terms of ceramics, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson noted that the “slopes are covered with classical, Hellenistic, and Roman sherds”, and they collected five fragments which I examined at the British School at Athens in 2014 (Appendix H). These included one Classical-Hellenistic fineware ring-base with black glaze (BSAOET0001) and one Classical-Hellenistic semifine painted rim (BSAOET0002). 5.6 Miscellaneous The Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax is dated to c. 338-335 BCE, and contained a brief section [46] on Lakedaimon. I present it here, separately, because it mentions several different places within Mani and thus defies regional categorization: 46.[1]: {Λακεδαίµων.} ⟨µετὰ δὲ Μεσσήνην⟩ Λακεδαίµων ἔθνος, και πόλεις ἐν αὐτῇ εἰσὶν αἵδε· Ἀσίνη, Μοθώνη, Ἀχίλλειος λιµήν και αντίπυγος τούτου Ψαµαθοῦς λιµήν. Τούτων ἀµφοτέρων ἐν µέσῳ προέχον εἰς θάλασσαν ἱερὸν Ποσειδῶνος, Ταίναρος. και Λᾶς πολις καὶ λιµήν, Γύθειον ἐν ᾧ νεώριον καὶ τεῖχος, καὶ ποταµὸς Εὐρώτας, καὶ Βοία πόλις, καὶ Μαλέα ἄκρα... [2]...εἰσὶ δὲ και ἄλλαι πολλαὶ πόλεις Λακεδαιµονίων. Ἐν µεσογείᾳ δ’ ἐστὶ Σπάρτη καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαί. Παράπλους δὲ τῆς Λακεδαιµονίων χώρας ἡµερῶν τριῶν. 46.[1] {Lakedaimon.} <And after Messene> Lakedaimon, an ethnos, and these are the cities in it: [Messenian] Asine, Mothone, Achilleios harbour and back-to-back from it Psamathous harbour. In between each of these two jutting out into the sea is the temple of Poseidon, Tainaros. And Las, a city and harbour, Gytheio in which [there is] a dockyard and a city wall, and the river Eurotas, and the city Boia, and the Malea promontory...[2]...and there are many other cities of Lakedaimon. And in the interior is Sparta and many other [cities]. The coastal voyage of the land of the Lakedaimonians [is] three days.405 405 The author does not indicate where such a voyage would begin and end. 212 Pseudo-Skylax’s narrative here proceeded from the east coast of Messenia (and the few towns, including Messenian Asine, that were still a part of Lakedaimon at this point)406, and continued across the gulf to the Mani peninsula. This source is our first mention of the harbours of Achilleios and Psamathous – the first of which is typically identified as modern Marmari, largely because this identification fits well with a location that is 'back-to-back' with modern Porto Kagio – often identified as the ancient harbour of Psamathous – and which together flank Tainaron and the sanctuary to Poseidon. The only other Maniate settlement mentioned in this passage is Las, which is called a polis here for the first time. It is notable that no settlements whatsoever were included from along the entire western coast of Mani until the Achilleios harbor near Tainaron, even though we know the existence of some from written sources (i.e. Oitylos) and others from archaeological remains (see especially Chapter 9). There are obvious problems (with no obvious solutions) in this passage and throughout the Periplous, that Shipley pointed out: the order of settlements is often geographically incongruent407; several settlements (both poleis and non-poleis) were omitted, including coastal settlements (Oitylos and Lakonian Asine, for example)408; Lakedaimon itself was referred to as an ethnos, which is both confusing and incorrect (it should be Lakonike)409; and Sparta was curiously relegated to only a brief mention.410 Shipley indicated that “no major coastal town is absent”, but several pre-Hellenistic 406 The territory of Sparta was drastically reduced after their defeat in 369 BCE: Shipley 2008, 286; Shipley 2011, 7. 407 Shipley 2008 (286) suggests that perhaps the place-names were originally presented in a 'list' format; Shipley 2011 (123) discusses the possibility of a 'reverse periplous'. 408 Shipley 2008, 287 fig. 2 – the entry for 'Lakedaimon' includes 11 out of 24 (46%) of the 'poleis' categorized as such through the Copenhagen Polis Institute. Notably, Tainaron is not called a polis here. 409 Shipley 2008, 288: “in other classical sources Lakedaimon is never unambiguously applied to the whole of the Spartan dominated territory in Laconia and Messenia. That area is usually called Lakonike…In fact, Pseudo-Skylax’s designation of Lakedaimon as an ethnos is awkward, not to say perverse. It would have been consistent with his practice to write ‘Lakonike, an ethnos’ or ‘the Lakedaimonians, an ethnos’.” However, as Shipley 2011 (123) points out, the use of 'ethne' is also applied to Elis and Messene, and may perhaps be stylistic variation on the part of the author. 410 Shipley 2011, 124. 213 settlements that lie along the Messenian gulf between Messenian Asine and Tainaron (which Shipley himself included within the CPI Inventory) are omitted in Pseudo-Skylax, including Kalamai, Leuktron, Gerenia, Kardamyle, and Oitylos (the latter two of which are even classified as poleis by Shipley).411 The omission of Oitylos alone (by both Pseudo-Skylax and Shipley) is surprising.412 The Periplous was not a firsthand account of Pseudo-Skylax's 'travels', but rather a sort of compendium, assembled through various sources.413 Shipley has suggested that perhaps the “notorious secrecy” of Sparta required that Pseudo-Skylax find an alternative source for this region, and he offered this as an explanation for the fact that the distance around Lakedaimon was measured in days of sailing rather than stadia, in contrast to other regions.414 Whatever source Pseudo-Skylax consulted, it seems that it provided only a superficial – if any! – knowledge of Spartan 'territory', and instead supplied only an incomplete summary of the settlements along the coast of the peninsulas; there is also a distinct possibility that the (probably written but perhaps oral) source consulted by Pseudo-Skylax was out-of-date, thereby rendering the presentation of the settlements unreliable. To bolster the argument for an alternative and unreliable source, I would add the unusual inclusion of the term 'Lakedaimon' rather than 'Lakonike', and the lack of inland settlements. If the presentation of the sites of Lakedaimon is indeed fallible, this has implications for the date of the composition of the entire Periplous (338-335 BCE), since modern authors often point to the fact that both Messenian Asine and Mothone 411 Shipley 2004, 547ff. 412 Shipley 2011, 123. He does, however, mention the omission of Teuthrone, which is curious since this settlement/harbour has yet to be mentioned in any ancient source by the time of Pseudo-Skylax's writings, so the omission is not as surprising as that of Oitylos. 413 Shipley 2008, 283; Shipley 2011 10-11; also page 19 on the frustrating source of Pseudo-Skylax's knowledge: “He makes implicit rather than explicit claims to authority, as when he says (47) that 'of all Europe' Lakedaimon lies closest to Crete but does not explain how he knows this.” 414 Shipley 2008, 288; see also Shipley 2011, 8-9. 214 were listed within Lakedaimon and therefore Pseudo-Skylax (or his source) had not taken the post-Chaironean (338 BCE) freeing of these Lakedaimonian cities by Philip II into consideration. The inclusion of these cities therefore provides a viable terminus ante quem in the Battle of Chaironeia, but if Pseudo-Skylax relied on an alternative source for the Lakedaimonian material, then the T.A.Q is applicable only to the section on Lakedaimon, and not for the text in its entirety. Ultimately, at the time of the compilation of this text, the settlements in the southern portion of the Mani peninsula were still regarded as associated with Sparta and its territory, through the use of the term 'Lakedaimon'. 5.7 Discussion & Conclusions The ancient literary sources that date to the Classical period provide information about the following settlements of Mani: Oitylos, Tainaron, Las, Asine, and the two harbours of Achilleios and Psamathous. Of the latter two, we only learn their names. Oitylos is only mentioned once, in Pherekydes, and from this source we learn that it was a polis with etymological ties to Spartan myth. The references to Asine are restricted to Xenophon and Thucydides, but only Thucydides’ text can be securely linked to Lakonian Asine. From Thucydides we learn that this settlement was located on the coast and was ravaged by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian War, and while no explicit connections were made to Sparta or otherwise, the Athenians may have consciously chosen to ravage the land around the Lakonian gulf because it was within the Lakonian territory. Las was mentioned by four separate ancient authors: 1) Sophokles tied this settlement to the Dioskouroi, Kastor and Polydeukes; 2) Thucydides revealed that it was located ‘in Lakonike’ and was a muster-place for ships during the Peloponnesian War; 3) Ephoros mentioned its good harbour and connected the settlement to 215 the legendary foundation of Sparta; and 4) Pseudo-Skylax listed Las as a city and a harbour, making this its first description as a polis, and our second Maniate polis after Oitylos (with the possible addition of Tainaron, see below). While the classification of Oitylos, Las, and Tainaron as poleis provides substantial information in terms of the identity of the ancient inhabitants of these settlements (and implies shared identity among community members), most of our sources neglect to provide “a systematic attempt to give historical depth and identity to places.”415 The maritime location of these places and the activities that take place therein (Athenian raids, mustering of ships, harbour features) emphasized in our sources complements the notion that these settlements had a largely coastal outlook and relied on – and were subject to the vulnerabilities of – their seascape for connectivity to the rest of the ancient world. There is scattered archaeological evidence from around the Mani peninsula, with reported concentrations of Classical ceramics in the north-eastern portion of the peninsula around Kotronas, the western side of the peninsula near Cavo Grosso, and in the vicinity of Oitylos. The city walls of Oitylos may also date as early as the Classical period, which indicates the desire to fortify and defend the upper settlement. Such infrastructure also suggests the relative size of Oitylos at the time, since a significant amount of resources and manpower would be required to construct such a wall; this corresponds to Oitylos’ status as a polis during this period. Two white marble quarries show signs of Classical-period exploitation: the Marmari quarries, which may have been the source for the manumission stelae at Tainaron, and the Charouda quarries, on the western coast of the peninsula. The Classical sources contain by far the most information about the site of Tainaron. In these brief but valuable texts, Tainaron’s connection with the underworld is reiterated (Pindar 415 Shipley 2011, 16. 216 4.43-6; Soph. Satyrs in Tainaron; Eur. Herakles 22-4; Arist. Frogs 187) and we further discover that Tainaron was a polis (Pher. 39), a place of refuge (Thuc. 1.128.[1]; 1.133.[1]; and possibly Hdt.1.23.[6]), the location of a sanctuary of Poseidon (Pindar 4.43-6; Eup. Helots 149; Arist. Acharn. 509-11; Eur. Cyclops 290-1 Thuc. 1.128.[1]; Thuc. 1.133.[1]; Ephor. 150; Pseudo-Skylax 46), a muster-place for ships with a harbour (Pher. 39; Hdt. 7.168.[2]; Thuc.7.19.[4]) and that it may have housed mercenaries even prior to the death of Alexander the Great (Hyper. via Plut. Mor. 848e). Tainaron is described as ‘in the Lakedaimonian land’ (Hdt. 7.168.[2]) and ‘in Lakonike’ (Thuc. 7.19.[4]), but no explicit connections are made in terms of Tainaron’s relationship to Sparta specifically. The epigraphic evidence for Classical-period Tainaron comprises six manumission stelae. I argued that the traditional association between Tainaron with Sparta is weakened through a close study of the individuals named within the manumission stelae (owners, ephors, and witness); only a select few individuals could be linked to Sparta, while the vast majority of individuals showed strong onomastic correlation with locations other than Sparta, including Delphi, Kos, Cyrene, Epiros, Hermione, and, most importantly, other settlements within Mani. I have argued that the magistrates within the manumission stelae should not be assumed to be Spartans but, rather that these political offices existed within the settlements of Mani itself. In scholarship, Tainaron’s relationship to – and subjugation by – Sparta is often mentioned offhandedly, as if its status is unquestionable. The control of the sanctuary of Tainaron during the Classical period is simply assumed to have been Spartan, while the location of Tainaron as a muster-place during the Peloponnesian War, as well as a mercenary headquarters, is taken for granted as being the decision of the Spartans.416 While there is no 416 Cartledge and Spawforth 2001, 91; Vian 1944, 100; Falkner 1996, 21. 217 concrete evidence to support these assumptions, there is also no evidence to the contrary, and the assumption of Spartan control is, it seems, based on the fact that Tainaron was situated on the Mani peninsula (Cape Matapan), which was within the Spartan territory of Lakedaimon. There is nothing inherently harmful in these assumptions, but I propose an alternative interpretation of the role of Tainaron based on its geographic isolation, in conjunction with a closer reading of the evidence from the historical and epigraphic sources presented thus far: that Tainaron was a location that functioned as a neutral, unaffiliated space for a variety of activities including religious worship, refuge for suppliants (esp. helots), manumission of slaves, and the gathering of troops and ships for military campaigns.417 Contemporary evidence from the Classical-period historical sources is sparse, and although the writings from later authors contribute to the evidence for this conclusion (as I present in the following chapters), upon close examination of the few sources already discussed there is little reason to deny Tainaron’s neutrality. The most convincing argument is found in the testimonia regarding the sanctuary as a place of refuge, particularly for the helots. All sanctuaries in the Greek world were sacred, and any person taking refuge within a sanctuary incorporated its inviolability – thus the extreme punishment delivered to the Spartans in the form of an earthquake for the murder of the helots within this sanctuary of Poseidon; but there was likely a reason that the helots and slaves of Lakonia were travelling all the way to Tainaron for their supplication. Suppliants had to journey quite a distance to this remote location, which indicates that the benefits afforded to those seeking refuge at Tainaron were worth the perilous trek – or sail – to the bottom of the Mani peninsula. There were several sanctuaries within Sparta itself, 417 That is to say that such gatherings could take place at Tainaron because of its geographic isolation in conjunction with its lack of partisan affiliation with any one superpower. 218 but the decision to travel all the way to Tainaron may in fact have been to literally get away from Sparta and the Spartans themselves, an escape to a sanctuary outside Spartan jurisdiction if still technically within their ‘territory’. In fact, Tainaron was so far away, it not only provided a place of refuge for suppliants, it literally acted as a liminal space between the known Greek world and the world of the dead.418 As Schumacher put it: “A sanctuary, then, at the edge of a polis, at the end of the (Greek) world, on the boundary with the Underworld, functioning as an asylum, used by helots, slaves and mercenaries: how marginal can you get?”419 We do not know when the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron was founded, but the earliest written instance that definitively connected Poseidon to this location is the also our first textual evidence that Tainaron was the entrance to Hades (Pindar Pyth. 4) – the connection between all three was certainly established well before this time.420 Vian believed that the cult of Poseidon was established here by the Euboeans as early as the Mycenaean period and was directly connected to the cult of Poseidon Geraistos. Unfortunately, most sources that connect Tainaron to Geraistos date to late antiquity (see Stephanus of Byzantium, Chapter 8), and if the cult was indeed founded during the Mycenean period, the separation between foundation and literary evidence is over a millennium.421 Ultimately, by the Classical period, Tainaron’s identity was characterized by its lack of affiliation: during this period, Tainaron was an established, built sanctuary that exhibited myriad functions – many of which were directly related to its unique role as a neutral, unaffiliated place for refuge, asylum, worship, gathering, and manumission. In 418 Schumacher 1993, 58. 419 Schumacher 1993, 60. 420 Before this, we only hear of a connection between Tainaron and the underworld through Pausanias’ quotation of Hekataios of Miletus, and the presence of the ‘Hound of Hades’. Vian 1944; 1952. 421 Vian 1944; 1952. Archaeological evidence at sites including Thermon and Kalapodi shed new light on continuity of sacred space from the prehistoric through the historic period, but such evidence simply does not exist at Tainaron. 219 this period of Classical antiquity, there is no explicit evidence affirming the Lakonian or Spartan identity of the inhabitants of Mani; whereas the evidence from ancient Tainaron seems to be starkly ‘non-Spartan’. The majority of the Classical settlements – and the known poleis in particular – most likely ascribed to a polis-based civic identity, and there is simply not enough information to draw conclusions about cultural and religious identity at this time. The coastal location of all of the Classical-period settlements supports the theoretical framework of maritime cultural landscapes discussed in Chapter 2, and would have provided several opportunities for coastal interaction (whether positive or negative) between the inhabitants of Mani and the other seafaring inhabitants of the Mediterranean. 220 Chart 5-1: Frequency of sites named in Classical sources – bar graph Chart 5-2: Frequency of sites named in Classical sources – pie graph 221 Chart 5-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Classical period – bar graph Chart 5-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Classical period – pie graph 222 A B C D 223 Figure 5-11 a-e: Distribution maps for Classical evidence (clockwise from top left): a) all categories of evidence; b) written evidence; c) epigraphic evidence; d) archaeological evidence; e) marble exploitation evidence. E 224 Chapter 6: The Mani Peninsula in the Hellenistic & Roman Republican Periods (323 BCE to 31 BCE) 6.1 Introduction The Hellenistic period in Greece is generally characterized as a time of upheaval and political uncertainty, followed by the gradual expansion of Rome and the eventual incorporation of the province of Achaia into the Roman empire in 146 BCE. The ancient settlements of Mani play a small but important role in the historical narrative of this region, and although they have received only brief mentions and are often relegated to footnotes, the settlements throughout the peninsula seem to thrive throughout the Hellenistic period, particularly in the north-east, along the western coast, and at the site of Tainaron. The evidence for the Hellenistic and Roman Republican periods in Mani presents an interesting incongruity: the literary and material culture records each present entirely different patterns of activity within the Mani peninsula. In terms of written sources, there are very few dating to the Hellenistic period that mention Mani whatsoever. While there are a few historical sources that exist whose compositions date to the later centuries of the Roman Imperial period and that deal with Hellenistic-period events (notably Arrian, writing in the 2nd century CE about 4th century BCE events), there are only seven sources composed in the Hellenistic and/or Republican periods that deal with even roughly contemporary events. Our most comprehensive surviving primary source is the Bibliotheka of Diodorus Siculus: the passages of relevance from which are undeniably anachronistic as they were composed in the 1st century BCE largely about 4th century BCE events, but this text provides us with the most information about the role of Tainaron as the location for the ancient mercenary-market. Aside from Tainaron, only Las and Asine are mentioned – once each – in contemporary written sources. 225 In contrast, the archaeological and epigraphic records are much more informative, and together present a more varied and populated peninsula during this historical period. In the north-east of the peninsula, evidence for civic and religious identity is more plentiful than in any other period, despite the lack of written evidence. The site of Kionia boasts the best-preserved religious architecture in Mani, and dates to this period although it is completely absent from the historical record. The physical remains at Tainaron also largely date to this period, although the chronology for the site is far from certain and only future archaeological investigations can help to refine the physical use of the site through history. The same is true for the western coast of the peninsula, which yields a large amount of archaeological and epigraphic data, but is otherwise invisible to history; I’ve included much of this material in this chapter, but the majority of the archaeological material (spolia and membra disiecta) that has surfaced along the west coast can only be dated tentatively and relies on future work in the region. 6.2 The North-East 6.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Las The earliest primary source that survives, chronologically, and is of relevance to the present study is the obscure poem Alexandra by Lykophron, whose composition dates to the 1st quarter of the 3rd century BCE422: 94-95: ἀλλ᾿ ὀστρίµων µὲν ἀντὶ Γαµφηλὰς ὄνου καὶ Λᾶν περάσεις… 94-95: Instead of the stables, you will cross to the Ass’s jaw and Las.423 422 Mair 1921, 307-314. 423 Translation: Hornblower 2015, 145. 226 This section of the poem referred to Paris’ abduction of Helen – specifically his journey north into the Gulf of Lakonia, past the ‘Ass’ jaw’ (the site of ancient Onougnathos, on modern Elaphonisos island) on the eastern promontory of the Malea peninsula, and the site of Las on the western promontory of the Mani peninsula. Immediately before this, at line 90, Lykophron mentioned the Acheron river (Καὶ δή σε ναύτην Ἁχερουσία τρίβος, καταιβάτις πύγαργον…), which Mair & Mair and Hornblower all agree was in reference to the site of Tainaron through metonymic substitution, since the Acheron was one of the rivers of the Underworld, and Tainaron the entrance therein.424 The inclusion of Acheron preceded the mention of Las and Onougnathos, just as the location of the site of Tainaron does when sailing northward in the Lakonian Gulf, so it makes geographic sense for this substitution to occur. This passage serves as evidence that the site of Las was identified as a recognizeable landmark at this time. The site of Las is not mentioned again in the written record until Livy, who began writing his Ab Urbe Condita around 27 BCE, and likely continued until his death in 17 CE.425 Although writing in the Roman Imperial period, Livy recounted events that took place in the year 189 BCE that involved the Achaeans and the Spartan state: hostilities between the two powers had not been resolved following the murder of Nabis (ruler of Sparta between 207 and 192 BCE). When the Romans took all of the coastal towns from the Spartans and gave control of these towns to the Achaeans, the settlement of Las on the eastern side of Mani was caught in the middle: 38.30.[7]: id aegre patientes Lacedaemonii, ut aliqua liberum ad mare haberent aditum, si quando Romam aliove quo mitterent legatos, simul ut emporium et receptaculum peregrinis mercibus ad necessarios usus esset, nocte adorti vicum maritimum nomine Lan improviso occupaverunt. [8] vicani quique ibi exules habitabant primo inopinata re territi sunt; deinde sub lucem congregati levi certamine expulerunt Lacedaemonios. [9] terror tamen omnem maritimam oram pervasit, legatosque communiter et castella omnia vicique et exules, quibus ibi domicilia erant, ad Achaeos miserunt. 424 Hornblower 2015, 143; Mair & Mair 1921, 327. 425 Foster 1919, xi-xiv. 227 38.30.[7]: The Lakedaimonians, enduring this (punishment) unwillingly, unexpectedly attacked a maritime village by the name Las in the night and occupied it, so that in some way they might have a secure avenue of approach to the sea, if at some time they might send an ambassador to Rome or some other place, and at the same time so that there might be an emporium and a reservoir for foreign revenues for necessary uses. [8] The villagers and all the exiles living there were terrified at first by this unexpected event; then having gathered together in the daylight they drove out the Lakedaimonians with a light struggle. [9] Nevertheless a great fear spread through all the inhabitants of the coast, and all the forts and villages and exiles, whose homes were there, dispatched a shared ambassador to the Achaeans. 38.31.[2]: decretumque referente eo factum est, cum in fidemAchaeorum tutelamque T. Quinctius et Romani Laconicae orae castella et vicos tradidissent et, cum abstinere iis ex foedere [3] Lacedaemonii deberent, Las [4] vicus oppugnatus esset, caedesque ibi facta, qui eius rei auctoresadfinesque essent, nisi dederentur Achaeis, violatum videri foedus. 38.31.[2]: [And the decree was announced]: Since Titus Quinctius and the Romans had entrusted the fortresses and villages of the Lakonian coast to the trustworthiness and the protection of the Achaeans and, although the Lakedaimonians were bound according to the treaty to keep away from this place, the village of Las was attacked and a massacre was committed there; unless those of them who were leaders and abettors to this matter are surrendered to the Achaeans, the treaty is seen to be violated. From these two passages, we learn that Las was a small village (vīcus ī, m) located on the Lakonian coast. Las has been the subject of many earlier passages, including a few that mentioned its good harbour (Ephoros fr. 117; Thucydides 8.91.[2]; and Pseudo-Skylax 46), but Livy’s narrative also provides context regarding Las’ relationship with Sparta during the early 2nd century BCE. In the same text, immediately prior to the passages presented above, Livy wrote that all the “maritime forts on the coast of Lakonia” (in maritimis Laconicae orae castellis) had been taken away from the Lakedaimonians. Presumably, this included Las, as the same language was repeated (above) in passage 38.31.[2], when Livy said that – following those events – the Achaeans held power of protection over the fortresses and villages of the Lakonian coast (Laconicae orae castella et vicos). That is not to suggest that there was once a fortress at Las, but it seems reasonable to infer that prior to 192 BCE, the small village of Las was friendly to – and perhaps even controlled by – the Spartans. The primary argument for this is simply that the coastal Lakonian forts had been taken away from the Lakedaimonians, after which there was a treaty in place forbidding the Lakedaimonians from entering Las (and, presumably, all the coastal places formerly under their control). Why should such a treaty exist if Las had not been 228 one of the villages formerly under Spartan jurisdiction? The only alternative interpretation is that the Lakedaimonians knew that capturing one of the towns formerly under their control (i.e. Gytheio) would have been impossible, as the Achaeans surely expected such an invasion. In this line of reasoning, Las could have, conceivably, been included in the treaty not because of its formal control by Sparta, but due to its proximity to Sparta and its good harbour, which suddenly put the coastal town at risk despite its previous autonomy from the Spartan state. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know which scenario is historically accurate, only that the town was invaded by the Spartans, and that the villagers and exiles – from Sparta? – were unsympathetic to their Lakedaimonian attackers and drove them out promptly after the attack. If they were once under the control of the Spartans, they no longer wanted anything to do with them. 6.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence from the Region The only contemporary material evidence from the presumed region of ancient Las (modern Chosiari) is an inscription built into a modern well. This inscription, IG V,1 1214, comprises two fragments of a Hellenistic funerary inscription joined together by an iron clamp. The inscription reads426: col. 1 Διοκλῆς col. 2 Εὐδαµίδας ἱερὸς χ̣[αῖρ]ε. col. 3 Κλε̣ήρατος [— — — — —]. Κλέαρχος ἐπε̣[σκεύασε?] The translation is “Diokles; Eudamidas farewell; Kleratos. Kleratos [restored this?].” No date is given and the only information of interest is the inclusion of the named individuals – Diokles (Διοκλῆς), Eudamidas (Εὐδαµίδας), Klearkhos (Κλέαρχος), and Klehratos (Κλεῄρατος). 426 Forster 1904 (187) reads κ[αλη]ρατος. 229 Of note is Eudamidas’ role as a hieros – a religious office that also appears on three inscriptions from modern Kotronas (~ 10 km to the south of Chosiari), at least two of which are also Hellenistic in date. The first of these Kotronos inscriptions is a rosso antico marble stele which was located within the wall of the church of Aghios Nikolaos (on the island of Skopas), and is now housed in the Gytheio museum (#127; IG V,1 1223; SEG 22 307; 60 416). Le Roy originally suggested an Imperial date for the inscription, but Moschou recently dated this stele to the first half of the 1st century BCE.427 Le Roy’s restoration is as follows: Κλεαντίδα[ς] hιαρός.428 The second inscription naming a hieros (a female hiera in this case) was discovered on the private property of Ch. Rizeakou, on the southern coast of Kotronas across from the Skopas peninsula. This funerary inscription was recorded on a small marble altar, that Moschou dated from the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE; it is currently housed in the Gytheio museum (#132; SEG 22 306; 60 416). The inscription reads: Πολυκράτια ἱαρὰ χα̣ῖ̣ρ̣ε̣ The final example of a hiera is a now-lost inscription (IG V,1 1221) that Le Bas and Foucart recorded from the wall of a residence at Kotronas.429 They restored the inscription as follows: Ἀριστονίκα ἱερά, χαῖρε. Φιλάρ[ιν - - - -]. 427 Le Roy 1961, 228; Moschou 2001-2004, 304. 428 Le Roy (1961, figure 16) confirms this reading; Le Bas and Waddington 1847-1873, 254. Le Bas & Foucart originally restored this inscription to read: Κλεαντίδα Ἥρ̣[ως χ]α[ῖ]ρε.̣ 429 Le Bas and Waddington (1847-1873, 255) say that the inscription was on a fragment of a cornice, in a wall built of ancient debris. 230 The name Philarin is only recorded 5 times in the LGPN, and at least one more of these occurs within the Mani peninsula, at the site modern Nomia (IG V,1 1277). 6.2.2.1 Hieroi & Hierai in Lakonia At this point, it is worthwhile to examine the role of the hieroi; although the role of the individuals could vary regionally and throughout history, the term itself refers to an initiate or a devotee to a particular divinity. For this reason, it can apply to upper-class citizens as well as slaves freed by the grace of the divine, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn based on the inclusion of this term alone.430 This complexity, however, did not stop Le Roy from drawing several conclusions based on the inclusion of the term in these three inscriptions from Kotronas, as well as one from the (presumed) site of ancient Pyrrichos (Σοφιδοὶ ἱαρὰ χα[ΐρε], IG V,1 1283; SEG 52 351; SEG 52 810).431 Le Roy claimed that several factors linked the hieroi of Kotronas (unequivocally Teuthrone, according to him) to the inland ancient site of Pyrrichos and ultimately to the cult of Artemis at Ephesus, where there is substantial inscriptional evidence for hieroi. Le Roy’s argument was based on the following factors: 1) hieroi are mentioned on inscriptions from both Pyrrichos and Teuthrone, and also at the site of Ephesus; 2) according to one version of its foundation myths (Pausanias 3.25.[1]; see Chapter 7), the ancient settlement of Pyrrichos was associated with the Kouretes, mythical figures who Le Roy (vis Picard432) associated with the 430 Le Roy 1961, 229. 431 The following argument is based predominantly on the information outlined in Le Roy 1961, 228-234. This is Le Bas’ original transcription; Kolbe (1913, 239) restored this inscription as “Σοφιδοῖ ἱαρὰ Σα- - - vel ἱαρασα[µένα] but both Le Roy (1961, 229n1) and Karadima-Matsa & Clinton (2002, 91n21) agree with Le Bas’ original. Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 131 (249). LGPN date: 4th-3rd century BCE. 432 Picard 1922, 433 & n3: The Kouretes and Amazons are associated with one another because both dance an armed dance (περὶ πρύλιν); Callimachus Hymn to Artemis 240-241 (Amazons dancing at Ephesus); Callimachus Hymn to Zeus 52 (the Kouretes dancing at the birth of Zeus on Crete). 231 cult of Artemis at Ephesus based on a passage from Strabo (14.1.[20]); and, finally, 3) Pausanias also noted that there was a cult founded by the Amazons in Pyrrichos (that of Artemis Astrateia) as well as a cult of Apollo Amazonios, and that both cult statues were dedicated by the ‘women from Thermodon’; according to the 2nd century CE periegete, the ‘women from Thermodon’ also played a pivotal role in the early foundation of the cult of Artemis at Ephesus (Pindar fr. 174; Paus 7.2.[7]). Le Roy proceeded with his theoretical connection by pointing out Pausanias’ inclusion of a cult of Artemis Issoria at nearby Teuthrone, and claimed that the purported worship of Artemis at both Pyrrichos and Teuthrone provided further evidence of the connection between the two ancient sites – and ultimately, to Ephesus – even though our only actual explicit evidence for the worship of Artemis at either Pyrrichos or Teuthrone is Pausanias’ 2nd century CE text. Pausanias himself distinguishes between the Artemis cults of Astrateia (Pyrrichos) and Issoria (Teuthrone), neither Pyrrichos nor Teuthrone is mentioned until the 2nd century CE (well after the date of these inscriptions), and Teuthrone has not even been securely identified with modern Kotronas. Moreover, Artemis Issoria is also a well-known Spartan cult, which provides a much simpler – and closer – connection than trying to link the Artemis-worship to Ephesus. 433 Nevertheless, based on this tangential connection of mutual Artemis-worship, Le Roy ultimately concluded that the hieroi at Teuthrone must have come from nearby Pyrrichos, who in turn came directly from Asia Minor and the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus. The argument for a physical connection in the form of individuals serving as hieroi and migrating between all three sites on the basis of a few inscriptions which contain the term hieros or hiera is very weak. 433 Pausanias 3.14.[2] recorded that the cult of Artemis Issoria originally came from Crete, but Le Roy claimed that because there is no evidence of hieroi at Sparta or at Crete, then the presence of hieroi at Teuthrone must have come from Pyrrichos. 232 Aside from the discrepancy of dates between the inscriptions and historical sources already mentioned, there are several additional problems with Le Roy’s conclusion that the two settlements of Teuthrone and Pyrrichos were linked to each other – and, ultimately, to Ephesus – through the shared worship of Artemis and the presence of hieroi. First, there is additional inscriptional evidence of hieroi at nearby Gytheio; Le Roy explained these latter examples of hieroi as followers of the cult of Demeter and Persephone, thereby linking the religious worship at Gytheio to the cult at Andania in Messenia despite the fact Gytheio and Teuthrone are much closer to each other than Gytheio and Andania. The link between Teuthrone and Pyrrichos and the exclusion of Gytheio seems to have been arbitrary, and made on the basis of convenience for a (seemingly) much more impressive theory: namely, the association with the famous cult of Artemis at Ephesus. Second, Le Roy further attempted to bolster his theory of a connection between Gytheio and Andania by listing several other locations in Lakonia which boast epigraphic examples of hieroi, including Gerenia, Geronthrai, and – most significantly – Chosiari, the latter of which is much closer to Teuthrone (and Gytheio) than to Andania. Third, there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of the site of ancient Pyrrichos (written, archaeological, or epigraphic) prior to the Roman period, and the hiera inscription from modern Pyrrichos (IG V,1 1283) may well have originally come from the Kotronas area (or elsewhere), since its findspot is unknown. Finally, it is important to remember that none of the locations – Las, Teuthrone, or Pyrrichos – are confirmed epigraphically by inscriptions from the ancient settlements themselves, and it is unlikely that the individuals serving as hieroi (and hierai) on the inscriptions found only at the supposed ancient sites of Teuthrone and Pyrrichos were men and women who physically migrated from Asia Minor and the sanctuary of Ephesus, based solely on the claim by one literary source that Artemis was worshipped at all three sites. Le Roy’s 233 conclusion not only omitted all evidence for the occupation history of Pyrrichos (and its clearly Roman date), but ignored the worship of Artemis elsewhere in Lakonia (Las and Sparta being the most glaring omissions), and disregarded the epigraphic evidence of hieroi elsewhere in Lakonia, including Gytheio, Chosiari, Gerenia, and Geronthrai. Karadima-Matsa and Clinton nicely summarized Le Roy’s argument and the uncertainty of the role of these hieroi: Le Roy…commented on the difficulty of interpretation wherever this epithet [hieros/a] alone is encountered: one needs to know the local context, but this is precisely what is so often missing. He dismissed the possibility that the examples found in Pyrrichos and Teuthrone, cities that are relatively close to Andania, could refer to Sacred Men and Women in the Andanian Mysteries, on the grounds that the Andanian Sacred Men and Women were chosen annually, while the epithet on the gravestones suggests a permanent status. He proposed that these Sacred Men and Women on gravestones are to be associated with the sanctuaries of Artemis Astrateia in Pyrrichos and Artemis Issoria in Teuthrone. He also noted the evidence for iepoi and iepai at the Eleusinion in Sparta and iepai in imperial cult at Gythion (SEG XI 923, lines 27-28). A Sacred Man in an epitaph at Las he would associate with the local cult of Artemis Dictynna, Sacred Women and a Man in epitaphs at Geronthrae with the sanctuary of Apollo, and Sacred Men in epitaphs at Gerenia with the sanctuary of the hero Machaon. Even though none of these Sacred Men and Women can be proved to be functionaries of a cult like those at Andania (and in fact we are not aware of any person labeled merely "sacred" in an epitaph anywhere who has been proved to be a cult functionary), it seems likely that some of these persons were.434 Notably, the authors also stated that “[Le Roy’s] hypothesis on influence from the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus, however, is not persuasive.”435 So how are we to interpret the appearance of hieroi and hierai on grave stele? Ultimately, the religious positions of hieros and hiera occurred in several different places around Lakonia, including the area around modern Kotronas, and these individuals likely served important roles in cults to various gods and goddesses, including, but not limited to, Artemis. The inclusion of their religious office on their grave stele suggests that this was an integral part of the personal and religious identities of these individuals. That at least three inscriptions from this region – four including the one traditionally 434 Karadima-Matsa and Clinton 2002, 91 (and notes 20-27). 435 Karadima-Matsa and Clinton 2002, 91n22. 234 associated with Pyrrichos – name hieros and hiera indicates the existence of organized cult activity with religious officials sometime within the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE. 6.2.2.2 Artemis Worship in the North-East Mani Peninsula The identification of the religious worship of Artemis in this region deserves further investigation. Although the worship of Artemis is not stated in any inscriptions from the north-east area of Mani, and is not mentioned explicitly until Pausanias lists three separate manifestations of her cult in this region within his 2nd century CE text (Dictynna – Las; Issoria – Teuthrone; Astrateia – Pyrrichos), there is one inscription from the region of Kotronas which provides potential material evidence for a cult of Artemis here in the Hellenistic period.436 A small, portable, marble altar currently housed in the Athens Epigraphical Museum (EM 6109) bears the following inscription: [Β]λάστος καὶ Ἀγαθάριν ἀνέθηκαν This altar was published in IG V,1 1219, but was lost in 1906 and only rediscovered in the holdings of the Epigraphical Museum and published in 1973 by Peppa-Delmousou; its exact find spot is described as ‘in the region called Skopas’.437 After re-examining the altar, Peppa-Delmousou dated the writing to between the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE.438 436 There is also a fragmentary relief sculpture of a seated woman facing a snake that has been identified by Woodward (1906/7, 257) and Le Bas (1961, 218-221 & fig. 12) as either a funerary relief or a dedication to Artemis, although there is no epigraphic evidence to support either argument. Several funerary reliefs currently housed in the Sparta museum depict snakes facing the deceased individual (Sparta Museum inv. 6166; 355; 6180; 6360; 6178; also from Charouda in Mani inv. 10567). Moschou (2001-2004, 304) described the relief and dated it to between the Hellenistic and early Roman period, but made no association with Artemis; the relief was removed from the collection of a private citizen in Kotronas and is currently in the Gytheio museum (no. 131). 437 Peppa-Delmousou 1973, 484. 438 Ibid. 235 Figure 6-1 a-d: IG V,1 1219 showing all four sides of altar with relief decoration and inscription. Photos by author. The name of the deity is not included in the inscription, but it is generally accepted to have been Artemis due to the presence of relief sculpture on the altar which depicts a dog, a goat, and a pair of torches. A B C D 236 In her 1973 article, Peppa-Delmousou attempted to link this altar to the worship of Artemis Issoria specifically (based on Pausanias, who stated her cult was located in Teuthrone), but also concluded that the relief symbols on the altar were directly associated with Hekate. Her conclusion – based on the images of a dog, a goat, and torches, combined with Pausanias’ ever-influential text – was that Artemis Issoria was intricately tied to a form of Artemis-Hekate worship and she argued that this should come as no surprise since the Mani had other ties to chthonic worship, notably at Tainaron where there was an ‘entrance to the Underworld’.439 While I believe that the persistent desire to associate the mythological entrance to the Underworld with an actual chthonic cult at Tainaron is problematic, I shall expound upon this in the discussion of Tainaron in the next chapter. Moreover, I argue that Peppa-Delmousou’s conclusions about the chthonic nature of the cult of Artemis Issoria based on the iconography of this altar are unsubstantiated. The existence of the altar surely indicates cult activity in this region, perhaps even to Artemis, Hekate, or a combination of the two goddesses, but without further archaeological investigation in the region there is simply not enough evidence to argue that this altar is for the cult of Artemis-Hekate-Issoria specifically, nor that it is emblematic of the chthonic nature of all cult activity in Mani throughout antiquity, as Peppa-Delmousou claimed.440 With regard to a physical space for the worship of Artemis, Moschou believed that the coastal region of Kotronas across from Skopas island (Figure 7-8:6) was the most likely area for Pausanias’ temple to Artemis Issoria, based on the discovery of a 3rd – 2nd century BCE white marble relief of Artemis with a dog that was dug up by a local in this region, even though no 439 Peppa-Delmousou 1973, 488; Guarisco (2001, 154n104) supported conclusion that the torches indicated a chthonic aspect of Artemis. 440 Peppa-Delmousou 1973, 490-91. 237 Figure 6-2: Hellenistic relief of Artemis with dog. Sparta Museum #15561 Photo by author. architectural remains have been identified that could belong to a sacred precinct.441 Woodward described the relief of Artemis as follows: The stone is .64m high, .30 m in width; the height of the goddess herself is .33 m; she stands facing, her right hand hanging by her side, her left arm bent at the elbow, and holds some object at the level of her breast. Behind her is a hound vigorously rendered, with his right fore paw raised, lifting his head towards her left hand. She wears a long clinging garment reaching to her feet, with a short peplos over it ending in carefully rendered folds which run across from her waist on the right to the left hip; her left knee is slightly bent, and her weight evidently thrown on to her right foot. The relief is low and the surface flattish; her face is weathered away and one cannot distinguish what she holds in her left hand.442 I received permission to photograph this relief, which is currently housed in the Sparta museum (#15561; Figure 6-2). 441 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 307; Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 257; Delivorrias 1968, 155 and Plate 107β; Le Roy (1961, 221) noted specifically that he could not find this relief and, as it turns out, the relief was recovered from a private residence in the nearby town of Phlomochori and is now in the Sparta Museum (#15561). 442 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 257. 238 Although there is no written evidence for a cult of Artemis in this region of the Mani peninsula until Pausanias’ 2nd-century CE text, the inscribed portable altar with relief sculpture of a dog, a goat, and torches and the relief stele showing goddess and a dog provide evidence for her worship in the coastal area of Kotronas in the Hellenistic period. There is also epigraphic evidence for organized religious institutions through the named office of hieroi from this region beginning in the Hellenistic period, and although the divinity not mentioned in any of these inscriptions, Artemis is certainly a viable candidate. 6.2.2.3 Epigraphic Evidence from Skopas Peninsula & Kotronas More epigraphic evidence for religious worship in the north-eastern Mani was found on the Skopas peninsula. Another inscription, (IG V,1 1218; SEG 53 382), was written on a marble votive slab, above a relief of a pig facing left: [---]ιπίδας Πο[τι]δᾶνι εὐχάν The relief was discovered in the late 19th century, but its exact provenance within the Skopas peninsula was not recorded; it is a votive dedication to Poseidon, and is currently housed in the Athens Epigraphical Museum (EM 8926; Figure 6-3).443 Mayer originally suggested a late Hellenistic date for the votive relief, and upon recent re-evaluation, Mylonopoulos agreed. The association between a pig and Poseidon is not completely impossible, as pigs would surely have been used as sacrificial offerings to most deities (and not Demeter exclusively, who is so often associated with pigs).444 The worship of Poseidon in this north-eastern region is not attested 443 Mylonopoulos 2003, 240. Alternatively, Mayer’s initial reading (1891, 140) restored the alternate –τοι spelling of the god’s name: [---ι]π̣πίδας Πο[τoι]δᾶνι εὐχάν. Here, εὐχή (a prayer/vow) is a doric accusative. 444 Mylonopoulos 2003, 240 notes that wild boar are associated with Poseidon in Homer (Od. 11, 131) and that a sacred law from Kamiros from the 3rd century BCE included the sacrifice of a pig to Poseidon. Mylonopoulos also stated that he would be republishing this relief. 239 Figure 6-3: EM 8926 (IG V,1 1218) showing relief of a pig and inscription to Poseidon. elsewhere, which caused Mayer to suggest that this relief was removed from its original location at Tainaron; however, we cannot discount Poseidon’s presence here, given the coastal location of the town and the archaeological remains of a submerged ancient harbour.445 Several inscriptions uncovered in the south-eastern portion of modern Kotronas (just to the north of the isthmus of the Skopas peninsula), reveal aspects of the civic institutions within the region in antiquity. The first (SEG 22 304) was discovered in 1941 – apparently in the fields 445 Moschou 2001-2004, 305; map 6γ. 240 close to an ancient Roman bath complex446 – and is a 2nd-1st century BCE dedication on a red marble stele:447 Γυµνασιάρχου Ἁγήµο- νος καὶ ὑπογυµνασιάρχων Φειδία τοῦ Φίλωνος, Νι- κοτέλιος τοῦ Νικοµε- νίδα, τοὶ παιδίσκοι τοὶ ὑ- π’ αὐτ̣[ο]ὺ̣ς Ἑρµᾶι [. . . .]ενος, Νικοσάλης, [. . . . . . . . .]ν̣ίδας, Ξενο̣- “On behalf of the gymnasiarch Hagemon and the hypogymnasiarchs Pheidias son of Philon and Nikotelis son of Nikomenidas, and Nikosalis the paidiskos, [dedicate] to Hermes…” By the time this inscription was first published by Le Roy in 1961, the stone had been accidentally broken in two, and the inscription was damaged, resulting in the loss of its centre. Le Roy produced the transcription based on a squeeze of the inscription taken shortly after its discovery by an individual named B. Koutoulakos.448 The text of the inscription is in the Doric koine (using τοι as the article and the genitive ending –ιος), and is a very typical dedication made to Hermes on behalf of young men under the direction of a gymnasiarch. Specifically, the one paidiskos is named, Nikosalis, the gymnasiarch is Hagemon, and there are also two hypogymnasiarchs, Pheidias (son of Philon) and Nikotelis (son of Nikomenidas). Le Roy noted that the presence of two hypogymnasiarchs was unprecedented but not unbelievable: this role was filled by citizens who would supply the oil for the activities in the gymnasium, and perhaps the cost of oil was too much of an expense for one individual.449 Le 446 Moschou 2001-2004, 307. 447 Le Roy 1961, 224 preferred the 2nd century date, based on the letter forms, while Robert and Robert 1962, 159 believed it was later. The red marble is presumably rosso antico, but it is never explicitly stated. 448 Le Roy 1961, 223. 449 Le Roy 1961, 226: he also suggested that the modest population of Teuthrone would have necessitated several sponsors; for multiple gymnasiarchs elsewhere, see Le Roy 1961, 226 n4; IGXII, 9, 916 is an extreme case. Le Roy reiterated this sentiment in his later publication (1965, 369). Kennell (personal communication) pointed out to me 241 Roy also believed that the role of the paidiskoi was uniquely Lakonian, and was a class of young males between the ages of paides and ephebes.450 Kennell, however, pointed out that the 4th-century paidiskoi were the equivalent of the later ephebes, and that this inscription may be an anachronism.451 Upon publication, Le Roy noted that this stone was stored within the mayor of Kotronas’ home; its current location is unknown. Le Roy originally claimed that the existence of this inscription did not necessitate the presence of an actual, built gymnasium at Kotronas (ancient Teuthrone), but this assertion was questioned by Robert and Robert, and ultimately refuted by Le Roy himself upon the discovery of the following inscription.452 The presence of a gymnasium at ancient Teuthrone is supported by the evidence found within another inscription (SEG 22 305) published by Le Roy in 1965. This rough marble stone (no colour indicated) was found built into a modern enclosure wall on the coast of Kotronas across from Skopas. The stone was very fragmentary, having been broken on all sides. The text reads: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ς ἡ ἐξέδ[ρα] κ̣ατε[σκευάσθη - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - ἐκ] τῶν ἰδίων ὑπα[ρχόντων - - - -] vacat The only words which can be restored with certainty are ἡ ἐξέδρα (exedra) and τῶν ἰδίων (a private citizen); ὑπα[ρχόντων] immediately afterwards is most likely indicative of the commissioning by the donor’s own funds.453 The presence of an exedra is often associated with a that the hypogymnasiarchs would only have been the gymnasiarch’s assistant (and not themselves paid for the oil), so Le Roy’s conclusions demand further investigation. 450 Le Roy 1961, 227; Wackernagel 1909, 6-8. 451 Kennell 2000, 117. 452 Le Roy 1961, 226n6: “La présence du gymnasiarque et des hypogymnasiarques ne prouve pas pour autant qu'il y ait eu à Teuthrôné un gymnase au sens propre du terme.”; Robert and Robert 1962, 159. 453 Le Roy 1965, 364. 242 gymnasium structure, at the expense of the gymnasiarch; unfortunately, the name of the individual benefactor and the occasion for the donation do not survive. Le Roy dated this inscription tentatively to the 1st century BCE, and its current location is presumably still within the enclosure wall. These inscriptions together provide evidence for the existence of a gymnasium and the athletic and civic institutions that accompany it, suggesting a thriving political and social life in Kotronas (ancient Teuthrone) by the 2nd-1st century BCE. The fact that the first of these inscriptions was on a (premsumably) rosso antico slab provides chronological context for the exploitation of this stone; the nearby Paganea quarries are the obvious candidate for the source, but Moschou also reported extraction sites at Kastro. While no physical remains of a gymnasium have been found, Moschou believed that the gymnasium itself was located on the coastal area of Kotronas, across from Skopas where these inscriptions were discovered, and suggested that perhaps it was located beneath the remains of the nearby Roman bath.454 6.2.3 Archaeological Evidence in the Region of Kotronas Further east along the coast of Kotronas, near the Ypapanti church, a Hellenistic-early Roman relief sculpture of a woman facing a rising snake (Gytheio Museum #131455) was discovered within a domestic building, and a late Hellenistic entablature of the 1st century BCE was also found in this same house, which probably belonged to the same small shrine that originally displayed the two pieces of Doric frieze that are built into the church of Aghios 454 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 306-307. 455 I received permission to study and photograph this object in August 2017, but the employees were unable to locate it within the Gytheio storeroom. 243 Charalambos.456 In the modern town of Phlomochori, the church of Aghia Barbara contains ancient material, including late Hellenistic architectural members. The only potential architectural evidence in situ from the region around Kotronas that dates to the period of interest are the remains a Hellenistic bath near the Aghios Nikolaos church (Figure 7-8:1d). I have not found these remains, but they were identified as such by Moschou and dated based on pottery.457 There are ceramic scatters throughout the region, and I noted two sherds of interest from the BSA study collections (discussed in the previous chapter). In Loutsa, Moschou recorded pottery from the Hellenistic to Late Roman periods.458 Moschou also devoted a section to a list of areas around Kotronas and the ceramic scatters found therein, but without further information regarding concentration, distribution, or type.459 Finally, Moschou argued that the hill near modern Loukadika, to the east of Kotronas, was the acropolis of ancient Teuthrone, and she noted that the ancient fortification system was still visible in the later Byzantine fortifications.460 Specifically, Moschou dated the construction of this system to the 4th-3rd century BCE, as a perioikic defense against the Spartan state, and then proceeded to list the amount of building foundations, architectural members, columns, and pottery that dated to the later Hellenistic period and the post-146 BCE foundation of the Lakedaimonian League. Unfortunately, not enough evidence is provided to support her 456 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 304; Le Roy 1961, 218 and Figures 11 (entablature) & 12 (relief). Woodward (1906/7, 257) also mentioned the entablature. 457 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 301. 458 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], #16 on Map 59; specifically within Kakomaki. 459 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 307-308; these are areas #7-10 on Moschou’s Map 58, but I have not re-plotted these because she does not provide specific coordinates or sufficient information to determine these locations accurately. They are largely located along the main road from Kotronas to Loukadika. 460 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 308 and #12 on her Map 58; LL353. This identification is marked on the local hiking trail. 244 hypothesis, so the extent of a Hellenistic settlement in the region is still not known, and none of the ruined buildings at Loukadika can be confirmed to be ancient.461 Despite the fact that there are little-to-no contemporary literary sources that discuss this north-eastern region of the Mani peninsula, there is an abundance of archaeological and epigraphic evidence for the Hellenistic period, including ceramics, foundations and architectural members, and inscriptions which reveal flourishing religious and civic institutions, particularly around the area of Kotronas. This coincides well with the later literary evidence for ancient Teuthrone which, although limited to Pausanias and Ptolemy, corroborates a Hellenistic-Roman occupation as an Eleutherolakonian settlement. Compared to other places in Mani, a significant amount of investigation has taken place around Kotronas and the Skopas peninsula, but the region is still in need of a systematic survey to map the existing remains before they succumb further to the ravages of the sea and modern construction. 6.2.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Asine There is one additional historical reference of interest for the north-eastern region, in that it mentions an ancient site of Asine. Polybius' Histories, written in the 2nd century BCE, contains the following passage of interest about Philip V's campaigns in Lakonia during the summer of 218 BCE (as a part of the Social War): 5.19.[5]: κατεστρατοπέδευσε περὶ τὸ Κάρνιον, ὅθεν ὁρµήσας ἦγε πρὸς Ἀσίνην: καὶ ποιησάµενος προσβολάς, οὐδέν γε τῶν προύργου περαίνων, ἀνέζευξε, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν ἐπιπορευόµενος ἔφθειρε τὴν χώραν πᾶσαν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ Κρητικὸν πέλαγος τετραµµένην ἕως Ταινάρου. [6] µεταβαλόµενος δ᾽ αὖτις ἐποιεῖτο τὴν πορείαν παρὰ τὸν ναύσταθµον τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων, ὃ καλεῖται µὲν Γύθιον… 461 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 308; she lists additional churches which bear ancient spolia (Aghios Demetrious in Kastro; Panaghia Spiliaiotissa in Apa (east of Kastro), Aghios Theodoroi in Piso Chora (a so-called archaic temple), Koimesis tou Theotokou (necropolis), but does not provide details of these spolia or any photographs. 245 5.19.[5]: He (Philip) camped near Karnion, and setting out from there he marched on Asine: and having made attacks, but making no useful progress, he moved off again, and marching on he destroyed all the remaining territory upon the Cretan sea turning his steps in that direction until Tainaron. [6] And turning around back again he made the march to the harbour of the Lakedaimonians, which is called Gytheio… Prior to this passage, Polybius informed the reader that Philip had set out from Amyklai, which is located immediately to the south of Sparta. While the exact location of ‘Karnion’ is unknown, from Amyklai it makes geographic sense for Philip’s army to have travelled to Lakonian Asine which is located south of Amyklai, thereby continuing the southward trajectory implicit in the narrative; moreover, the presumed site of Lakonian Asine is relatively accessible from Amyklai via coastal valleys. There is no reason to assume that Messenian Asine was meant in this passage, save for that fact that the only other mention of an 'Asine' within Polybius' work referred to Messenian Asine (18.42: Μεσσηνίους δ᾽ ὑπὲρ Ἀσίνης καὶ Πύλου) – however, a journey from Sparta via Amyklai to Messenian Asine would take significantly more time and would involve crossing the Taygetus mountain range. Shipley included Polybius’ passage in his Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis entry for Lakonian Asine with no protestation, despite an earlier publication in which he equivocally stated: “Philip V advances on Asine (apparently Laconian).”462 The argument for the identification of Asine in this passage would become much stronger if the identification of 'Karnion' were more secure, yet the only Karnion known in antiquity was a river located in the Aigys valley on the border of Lakonia and Arcadia (the modern Xerilas river).463 There is absolutely no reason for Philip and his army to have travelled such a formidable distance to the north-west, across the Taygetos mountains, and then back all the way 462 Shipley 2004, 574; Shipley 1997, 240. 463 Shipley 2004, 578; Olshausen and Meyer 2006; Paus. 8.34.[5]; Callim. H. 1.[24]; Pritchett 1989, 104. 246 down the Mani peninsula to Tainaron. Walbank suggested that Karnion referred to the Temple of Apollo Karneios near Las, which was mentioned only by Pausanias (3.24.[8-9]) over three centuries later and which formed the basis for the identification of the Archaic rams-head statues.464 Another good candidate for the location of ‘Karnion’ would be Gytheio, since Pausanias also mentioned the presence of Karneion Apollo there (3.21.[8]), but it would be odd for Polybius to substitute the term ‘Karnion’ for Gytheio initially at the beginning of this passage, only to include the proper name of the city at the end of the same passage when explaining that this was the location of the harbour of the Lakedaimonians. Due to the popularity and importance of the festival of Apollo Karneios in Sparta, I believe it is much more likely that there was a temple or sanctuary known as the Karneion in the immediate vicinity of Sparta itself (possibly even in Amyklai) to which Polybius must have been referring, from which would also be a suitable distance to march to Lakonian Asine.465 This leaves the issue of Philip’s coastal destruction: while the distance between Lakonian Asine and Tainaron is not insurmountable (approximately 30 km as the crow flies or by sea, but over 50 km via modern roads), the eastern side of the peninsula has extremely mountainous, demanding terrain, and it is difficult to envision how an army could have marched down this route with any sort of ease or why Philip would have chosen to do so; the lack of settlements (both ancient and modern, see Chapter 3) along this coast also renders the ‘destruction’ that Philip is said to have caused difficult to understand, as there is no conclusive evidence for any 464 Walbank 1957-79, 555. The Temple to Apollo may have been in use this entire time, but since the literary sources do not provide further information, only archaeological investigation can confirm or deny this claim. 465 There was a Carnea festival in Sparta, probably corresponding to the Dorian month of the same name: Baudy 2006. This festival was the same that famously kept the Spartans from the Battle of Marathon. 247 contemporary occupation throughout that region, so the identification of the territory he would have destroyed remains a mystery. On the one hand, this might explain why no settlements were specifically named in this portion of the passage; on the other, perhaps we should interpret Philip's route as one which crossed from Lakonian Asine to the western side of the peninsula, and along the much flatter, more accessible western coast until he reached Tainaron.466 Alternatively, because there are so few specifics in this passage, one could plausibly argue for the identification of Asine as the Messenian location, and the reason that Philip marched over the Taygetos mountains from Amyklai to Messenian Asine, and then perhaps back along the Messenian gulf and ravaged that coastal land until the peninsula known as Tainaron (italics for emphasis) – however, there is no indication that the entire peninsula may have been referred to as Tainaron until Strabo’s accounts (8.5.[1]) written two centuries later, and the site of Tainaron at the southernmost point of the Mani peninsula was clearly well-known by the time of Polybius’ writing.467 There is no suitable solution to this passage, but I believe the most likely (although not the most obvious) solution is that Philip’s army crossed the Mani peninsula via the easiest, northernmost natural route (from Gytheio to Areopolis), and marched down the more navigable, flatter western side of the peninsula. If the point was to ravage the land and cause destruction, surely Philip and his army would have been informed as to the topographic challenges and the barrenness of the east side of the peninsula and thus crossed to the more populated western coast to satisfy their need for destruction and the spoils derived therefrom. 466 Or potentially only as far as the settlement known as Kainepolis, since Pausanias (3.25.[9]) noted that “the name for this [place] was long ago also Tainaron”. The 3rd century BCE, in which these events took place, would certainly fit the criteria for ‘long ago’. 467 Strabo’s passage referred to the location of the Lakonian Gulf as being between Tainaron and Malea, so the idea that the peninsula in its entirety could have been referred to as Tainaron is tenuously based on the fact that the easternmost peninsula was referred to in its entirety as Malea (i.e. there is no settlement on this peninsula called Malea) and Strabo situated the Lakonian Gulf between these two peninsulas. See also Pomponius Mela 2.50 for a similar usage. 248 6.3 The East Coast 6.3.1 The History of Investigations at the Site of Kionia Under the auspices of the Éxpédition Scientifique de Morée, Puillon Boblaye first discovered the site now known as Kionia, located high in the mountains (494 m) above modern Nyfi and to the southwest of the ruined monastery of Kournos. The monastery boasts an active spring, one of the few abundant natural water sources in Mani. The site of Kionia, which comprises two temples, is unique in Mani; with the exception of the (probable) temple of Poseidon at Tainaron, no other temple remains have been found in the peninsula. For this reason, the temples at Kionia have since become two of the most well-published monuments within Mani, due to the academic proclivity towards religious sites that preserve traditionally ‘classical’, monumental architecture – despite the fact that the site is not included in any ancient written testimony. Le Bas was the first scholar to study these structures, although the publication of his research was met with some difficulty: The [first] extensive study of the two temples at Kionia was carried out by Le Bas, in the course of his travels in Greece in 1842-1844. He and his party spent eight days on the site, excavating and studying the remains. Unfortunately, Le Bas' extensive plans for publishing the results of his travels were interrupted for so long (until 1856) that even his notebooks were lost, and only part of the material that he collected ever appeared in print. Three chapters of his planned "Itinéraire" were published in 1888 by S. Reinach.468 This excerpt is from Winter and Winter’s 1983 study on the Kionia temples, which was the result of visits to the site in 1978 & 1982. As luck would have it, Moschos and Moschou simultaneously undertook an architectural investigation of the temples, which they published in 1979 (“Kionia A”) and 1988 (“Kionia B”, based on a 1983 conference paper presented in 468 Winter and Winter 1983, 4; Le Bas 1888, 138-9. 249 Athens).469 It seems that neither pair of scholars was aware of the other pair’s work as it was ongoing – this is certainly true of the Winters’ research, as they published an additional note in 1984 acknowledging their oversight and explaining that the periodical in which “Kionia A” appeared (Peloponnesiaka) was not readily available in North America at the time: We now take the opportunity of repairing our oversight; "Kionia A" should be added to our list of Kourno sources as the primary source for all future study of this important example of late Hellenistic temple design, completely superseding the brief text that accompanied Landron's drawings in Reinach-Le Bas (1888). With the presentation at the 12th International Congress on Classical Archaeology, held in Athens in September of 1983, of Moschos' "Kionia B," dealing with the peripteros, the Kourno temples have both received their first really comprehensive architectural analysis, complete with new and accurate plans and restored elevations.470 The exact nature of the relationship between these scholars is unclear, but some observations can be made that suggest the concurrent investigations at Kionia were not gladly received.471 In subsequent publications by Moschou, the work by Winter and Winter is not cited472, and the two pairs of academics disagree fundamentally with regard to the proposed dates of the temples: On the dates of the two temples, T. Moschos' conclusions differ from our own with regard to both relative and absolute chronology, and are very well argued; however, it is unlikely that all the facts of the case can be ascertained without excavation.473 Suffice it to say, the temples themselves have been well-studied, an impressive feat given their remote location. 469 Moschou and Moschos 1979 & 1988. 470 Winter and Winter 1984, 232. 471 Christien 1989, 95: “Leur insolence a été semble-t-il amèrement stigmatisée mais nous ne nous plaindrons pas de l'abondance soudaine de renseignements.”; LL205 omits references to the work by the Greek scholars. 472 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25. 473 Winter and Winter 1984, 232. 250 In their article, Winter and Winter provided a comprehensive history of investigation at the site up until the 1970s, as well as descriptions of the two temples and all of the architectural members belonging to each. The smaller, southernmost temple was believed to be in antis; no column bases survive, only fragments of shafts. Architrave blocks preserve taeniae, regulae, and guttae, and triglyph/metope blocks can still be seen at the site today (Figure 6-4). This temple had Ionic decorative features, including the cornice and stylobate and, with regard to its date, Winter & Winter noted that the “backswept profile of the raking sima seems to be a clear indication of influence from west of the Adriatic, and suggests a date not much, if at all, earlier than 100 B.C.”.474 One intriguing block that belonged to this temple, however, might suggest a much older cult: a base with a round-bottomed socket that would have been suitable only for a wooden object – as it was not substantial enough for stone – may have been the base of a wooden cult image (Figure 6-5).475 In contrast, Moschos and Moschou dated this temple to the Roman period, under the emperor Augustus or Tiberius.476 The larger, northern temple is frequently referred to as the ‘peripteros’, a square building with surrounding 6 x 7 peristyle. A few columns are still visible around the foundations, but no capitals have ever been found. Fragments of the architrave, frieze, and cornice are also preserved and lie scattered around the site, and some stylobate blocks still stand in situ (Figure 6-6). This temple is “Roman Doric” in style and Winter & Winter dated its construction to circa 80-50 BCE.477 Conversely, Moschos and Moschou dated this temple to the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE.478 474 Winter and Winter 1983, 10. 475 Winter and Winter 1983, 5 and Plate 4, Figure 14. 476 Moschou and Moschos 1979; Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25. 477 Winter and Winter 1983, 10. 478 Moschou and Moschos 1988; Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25. 251 Figure 6-5: Socketed base in small temple. Photo by Author. Figure 6-4: View of the smaller temple from east. Photo by Author. 252 Figure 6-6: View of large temple (peripteros) from east. Photo by Author. At the church of Aghios Demetrios in the mountain settlement of Exo Nyfi, two unfluted columns stand in the courtyard and support modern lamps (Figure 6-7). According to local oral tradition, these columns are from the sanctuary of Kionia, and at some point in the past century locals rolled columns from Kionia to the church, where they were erected. The circumference of these columns is 125 cm, resulting in a diameter of 39.79cm. The diameter of the columns of the small temple are ~41cm, while the peripteros columns are just over 50 cm. Conceivably, there could be some truth to the story of the Nyfi columns: although the diameters do not match exactly, the columns of the church at Nyfi are unfluted, and the exterior surface has been left unfinished – if the columns were indeed rolled from Kionia, significant damage would have been 253 Figure 6-7: View of columns in courtyard of Aghios Demetrios, Nyfi. Photo by Author. done to the fluting, and if the fluting had been chiselled or picked away, this could explain the reduced diameter of the Nyfi columns. 6.3.1.1 The Identification of Kionia One of the major mysteries surrounding the site of Kionia is its absence from the written record of antiquity. Early visitors to the site noted the omission of Kionia in the historical record without suggesting a reason therefore – for example, Puillon Boblaye simply observed that “L'antiquité ne dit rien sur ces monumens…”479; while Le Bas wrote “…deux temples dont 479 Puillon Boblaye 1836, 89. 254 aucun auteur ancien n’a parlé, mais qui doivent avoir eu dan l’antiquité une véritable importance…”.480 Forster was the first to attempt to rectify this omission, and the first to tentatively suggest that this site “might possibly be” ancient Aegila, an unknown place that was mentioned by Pausanias while writing about Messenia.481 Pausanias only said that Aegila was in Lakonia, and that there was a sanctuary to Demeter there (4.17.[1]). Forster also cited Pliny’s Natural History (4.8), wherein he mentions a place called the ‘sinus Aegilodes’ in his chapter on Lakonia. Forster then connected these two passages to the site of Kionia thus: “Further, while Pausanias states positively that Aegila was in Laconia, he did not himself visit it, and we know from his Laconica (Bk. III) that he did not visit the coast between Taenarum and Teuthrone.”482 Pliny’s account offers no further clues, since the sinus Aegilodes is listed among Mount Taygetos, the river Eurotas, (the gulf of Aegilodes), the town of Psamathous, and the Gulf of Gytheio – in that order, which seems to follow no real geographic pattern. Moschos and Moschou adhered to this theory, and strongly believed that Kionia was the sanctuary to Demeter that Pausanias said was at a site called ‘Aegila’.483 This identification has been accepted locally: today there are trail signs leading to Kionia which use the name ‘Aegila’, maps of the region mark the site as such, and there is even a local hotel called ‘Aegila Resort’ on the coastal stretch below the site of Kionia. In scholarship, the attribution has only been tentatively accepted: on the one hand, it appears in the Barrington Atlas; on the other, many 480 Le Bas 1888, 139. 481 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 255. 482 Forster and Woodward 1906/7 255; Leake (1870, 278-279) associated Aegila with the promontory near Skoutari. 483 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25. 255 scholars – including Shipley – are hesitant to confirm the identification.484 I believe the identification of Kionia with ancient Aegila is incorrect: given Pausanias’ focus on the religious past throughout his work, in combination with his proclivity for visiting ancient religious sites, I think that if Pausanias knew about this site and these temples, he would have mentioned them within his narrative about the Mani peninsula – even if he did not visit them personally. Of course, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions, but in my opinion the evidence for Aegila is too sparse to attribute identification to Kionia, especially since there are other candidates for this ascription. Niese placed Aegila close to Andania because of its inclusion in the Sacred Law of Andania485; there is also the fact that Pliny called ‘Aegilia’ an island in the Myrtoan sea (4.12.65), and Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Ἄιγιλια) said ‘Aigilia’ was between Crete and Lakonike, leading most to agree that this should be identified with the island of Antikythera.486 If these place-names are related to the word ‘αἰγιαλός’ (=‘sea-shore’,‘beach’) then there is even less reason to associate Kionia, at almost 500 m above sea-level, with such a place. In contrast, Winter and Winter concluded that the sacred site of Kionia was affiliated with a nearby, unnamed settlement which was one of the six Eleutherolakonian sites that no longer existed by the time Pausanias visited Mani, and they called it “fruitless to attempt to identify the temple site with any of the cities of towns mentioned by Pausanias”.487 Winter and Winter, therefore, explained the omission of this site by Pausanias as intentional, claiming that Pausanias decided to take a boat from Teuthrone to Tainaron because he decided there was 484 Talbert 2000, 58; Shipley 2004, 572; Shipley 1997, 267-268; Gawlinski 2012, 141 n186; In contrast, Deshours (2006, 125) adhered to Kionia’s identification with Aegila because the diagramma in the Sacred Law of Andania mentions Aegila and matches one of the proposed dates for the temples (c. 100-50 BCE) – however, this is problematic since the exact date of the temples themselves is unknown. 485 Niese 1906, 125. 486 Shipley 1997, 268. 487 Winter and Winter 1983, 10. 256 nothing worth exploring on this eastern coastal stretch, rather than assuming he missed the site as a result of taking the sea-route over the land-route. 6.3.1.2 The Archaeological Site of Kionia In 1999, a 130m2 area around Kionia was declared an archaeological site, and the ruins in the region were mapped and published. Moschou added the following signs of antiquity: on the plateau near the temples she recorded evidence of foundations, traces of monumental structures, columns, altars, statues, and water tanks (reservoirs). To the south-west and north of the temples, Moschou noted a limestone quarry – undoubtedly the source for the building material for the temples and surrounding structures (Q002).488 Forster too saw a rock-cut shaft that he suggested was a tomb, and to the south of this area what he believed were the remains of houses.489 In this area Moschou identified the remains of fortifications, including wall segments and the remains of a tower, although this latter feature is not illustrated on the map included in her article.490 Prior to presenting details regarding the fortifications, Moschou clearly stated that the fortification walls “dated to the final period of the Spartan hegemony”491 – this claim is never qualified. Did Moschou mean the defeat of the Spartans at the battle of Leuktra in 370 BCE? Or perhaps Flamininus’ victory in 196 BCE? It is unclear. Furthermore, at no point is a discussion of the masonry presented, nor does it seem as though Moschou found any ceramic evidence to support her assertions for a (presumably) Classical-Hellenistic date; this illustrates the marked desire for scholars to discover remains of Classical antiquity, often without sufficient evidence. 488 Moschou 1999 [2003], 191 & Maps 38-39. 489 Perhaps the same feature found in Moschou 1999 [2005], figure 42. 490 Moschou 1999 [2005] 191; figures 46-48, map 38. 491 Moschou 1999 [2005] 191. 257 Figure 6-8: View of dry-stone wall construction, south of Kionia. Photo by Author. Moschou provided a few photographs of the fortification system in her article, and it is clear from these images that the walls were constructed from large stones without mortar. The construction is quite rudimentary, and the blocks roughly hewn – particularly in comparison to the fine-cut ashlar blocks used for the temples (Figure 6-8). This does not help with the issue of dating, as the entirety of the Mani peninsula is filled with dry rubble construction which, for many decades, was mistaken as ancient (even ‘Cyclopean’) construction when in fact these structures largely date to the Ottoman periods.492 This, of course, is not an isolated problem, as dry-stone walls can be notoriously difficulty to date, as discussed above in the context of the fortifications on Kastro above Kotronas. Fortunately, the perioikic town of Geronthrai – modern Geraki – boasts a fortification wall that has been the subject of systematic excavation, the results of which are able to shed light 492 Seifried 2016, 45; Kourelis 2003, 178. 258 on other examples of dry-rubble fortification systems in southern Lakonia. Before its excavation, however, the dry-rubble construction was subject to a litany of speculative dating, from “‘Pelasgian’ and Middle Helladic to Mycenaean”.493 While the chronological history of the Geraki walls have long been the subject of speculation, investigations revealed that there were, in fact, late Classical and Hellenistic phases to the wall: the former included “predominantly unworked fieldstone of medium size, the outer face of which was roughly hammered”494, while the latter “a new exterior face using larger, roughly treated, but often carefully fitted quarry-faced blocks.”495 I introduce the Geraki fortifications into this discussion primarily because, as the excavators noted, its “masonry…of roughly shaped field stone, compares poorly with that of ashlar fortifications elsewhere in the Greek world, including those of coastal fortifications in Laconia itself, as for instance at Epidauros Limera and Zarax.”496 Thus, it sets an important precedent for perioikic Lakonian fortification walls – namely, that one should not necessarily expect well-hewn ashlar masonry, and we have indeed already examined an example of ancient dry-rubble construction at the site of Kastro above Kotronas. Ultimately, however, the date of construction of the Geraki walls was only confirmed through excavation, and the remains themselves are much more substantial than those at Kastro above Kotronas, let alone the scant remains at Kionia; at Geraki the walls form a near-complete circuit that can be traced around the top of the acropolis of ancient Geronthrai, and survive up to two metres in places.497 In contrast, the Kastro walls are only preserved on the north-east and north-west sides, while the Kionia ‘fortification wall’ is only a few small segments on the west- 493Thorne and Prent 2009, 235. 494 Thorne and Prent 2009, 238. 495 Thorne and Prent 2009, 240 and Figure 24.7. 496 Thorne and Prent 2009, 239. 497 Wace and Hasluck 1908/9, Figure 2. 259 facing hill. Although it might be tempting to assign the construction of this wall a date around the end of the 3rd century- beginning of the 2nd century BCE – perhaps even a direct result of Philip V’s ‘ravaging of the coast all the way to Tainaron’ (Polybius 5.19.[5-6]) if one accepts the eastern route – there is, ultimately, no indisputable evidence that signifies construction of this ‘fortification system’ in Classical antiquity, let alone under the ‘final period of the Spartan hegemony’. Moschou attempts to associate the walls at Kionia and at Kastro with one another to satisfy her theory that these fortifications were an affiliated network of defense for the Spartan hinterland, although there is simply not sufficient evidence for their respective dates, let alone their connectivity to each other or to Sparta. At the nearby monastery known as Kournos, Moschou noted ancient foundations and a small sanctuary, and suggested that this site may have had the ancient name ‘Krounos’ (κρουνός = spring).498 Kionia and the spring at Kournos were connected by an ancient road, the remains of which are still visible today, as are other ancient pathways.499 In the broader region, Moschou observed an “extensive cemetery with Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic ceramics” in the area below (east of) Kionia between coastal Saloteri (modern Kokkala) and Karakianika , as well as organized port facilities in the bay of Gialos (Nyfi) and Salotari (Kokkala).500 I visited the site of Kionia in July 2013 and April 2014. On both visits, I noticed an almost complete lack of ceramics within the area – I photographed the only two sherds I observed on the path between Kournos and Kionia, which may be late Roman in date. I located the two temples and took photographs of many of the architectural members mentioned above, 498 Cf. Paus 8.35.8 – a spring called Krounos in Arkadia; Strabo 8.3.13 – a spring called Kournoi in Triphylia. 499 Moschou 1999 [2003], 194 & Figure 38. 500 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25; Moschou 1999 [2003], 191-192: No photographs, drawings, or any further information is given, and therefore none of these elements are included on the chapter distribution charts. 260 Figure 6-9: Moschou’s site plan of Kionia atop satellite imagery. Note that the alignment is based on the North arrow, which skews the alignment of Moschou’s drawing of the small temple from the actual remains on the ground (in red). Line drawing by author, based on Moschou 1999 [2003] Maps 38-39. Satellite imagery ©GoogleEarth. including a frieze block built into an early modern building and ashlar blocks built into a nearby ruined church and the Kournos monastery. Several foundations are noticeable in the region, as are the roughly-hewn ‘fortification’ walls; I did not, however, locate the rock-cut relief or the tomb presented above, and a superimposition of Moschou’s site plan atop the satellite imagery of the area shows that Mochou’s presentation of ancient remains do not correspond to any discernible archaeological features (Figure 6-9). The sanctuary at Kionia is one of the best-preserved examples of ancient architecture in Mani and while it has received much scholarly attention, many of the questions regarding occupation history and date of the sanctuary will only be resolved through systematic excavation, although such a feat would be challenging given the remoteness and inaccessibility of the site. 261 Given the active civic and religious life around Kotronas during the late Hellenistic period, I propose that the temples at Kionia, although not precisely dated, may have been a regional sanctuary controlled by one of the north-eastern settlements. The two temples at Kionia are completely absent in the historical and epigraphic records but, paradoxically, represent the best-preserved religious architecture within the entire Inner Mani peninsula. The exact dates of the temples are contested, but both belong to the mid-late Hellenistic period: the in-antis temple c. 100 BCE – Augustan period, and the peripteros between the second half of the 2nd century BCE – 80-50 BCE. The deity is, unfortunately, unknown, as is the ancient name for the site, since I refute its identification as Aegila. 6.4 Prophitis Ilias Quarries Further south from Kionia are the rosso antico quarries at Prophitis Ilias which I have already discussed extensively in Chapter 3.501 It merits mention here, however, that other archaeological evidence of ancient activity – in addition to the quarrying activity itself – can be discerned in the areas surrounding the quarries. First, as one approaches the site from the north, fragments of an ancient cobbled carriage road become visible. According to Moschou et al., who published an impressive survey of the rosso antico quarries in the region, this road would originally have led to the sanctuary at Kionia, and ultimately all the way to Teuthrone, although the physical evidence of additional segments of this path have yet to be found.502 The same is true for two other roads leading from Prophitis Ilias: the first, a cobbled path that the authors believe once led all the way down to the Roman settlement of Kainepolis, and the second, a 501 LL282. 502 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 275 and Road #6 on Map 2. 262 cobbled carriageway that lead to the ancient harbour at modern Aghios Kyprianos.503 There are no known archaeological remains between Prophitis Ilias and the next region of interest (‘The South’) – a distance of approximately 9 km, as the crow flies. 6.5 The South 6.5.1 The Archaeological Evidence at Porto Kagio To the south-west of the bay of Porto Kagio, Forster and Woodward recorded what they believed to be a long row of 20-24 small Hellenistic tombs cut into the hillside, high up on the ridge of the isthmus.504 In size, the depressions ranged from less than 1m high x 1.5 wide, to 2m high x 3m wide. One in particular was singled out for its construction of poros grey stone and measurements of 2.80m long x 0.7m wide, that Forster and Woodward compared to a tomb at Sparta.505 The authors dated these tombs based on surrounding ceramic sherds, which included a “tall-necked, wide-bellied jug with ring foot, with yellow bands round the top of the shoulder and a design like an Irish harp in yellow on the shoulder, all on a fine matt-white slip…and one striking sherd [that] was of good black glaze with a white band across it and on this band a crimson meander pattern.”506 If any sherds were collected or photographed, this information is not provided in the text of the article. IG V,1 1525 & 1526 were also supposedly found in this place, and this further confirmed Forster and Woodward’s hypothesis that these tombs formed a makeshift Hellenistic necropolis for mercenaries who had died while awaiting assignment at Tainaron, since the inscription in IG V,1 1525 included the ethnic ‘Cypriote’ (Κύπριος;). Neither 503 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], Road #1 and Road #9 on Map 2, respectively. 504 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 248; LL209. 505 Dawkins et al. 1906, 155. 506 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 248n3. 263 stone is known today, however, nor did the authors actually see the stone bearing the ancient inscription, and they called their informant “uncertain as to the spelling of the name and ignorant of the letter forms”.507 Unfortunately, although Forster and Woodward’s account persists in descriptions of visible antiquity at Porto Kagio today, the existence of these tombs has never been corroborated.508 6.5.2 Tainaron The evidence for Hellenistic Tainaron is abundant, in all three categories of evidence. The dateable ruins at the site of Tainaron belong to the Hellenistic period, so I present the archaeological overview of Tainaron in its entirety in this chapter. The substantial amount of evidence requires arbitrary organization, and thus it is presented categorically here, beginning with the written evidence, then the epigraphic, and concluding with the archaeological overview. The written evidence itself is presented thematically, beginning with the association of Tainaron with the Underworld, followed by sources which attest to the sanctuary of Poseidon itself, and finishing with a presentation of Tainaron’s role as the location for the Hellenistic mercenary market. 6.5.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Tainaron In the Hellenistic sources, Tainaron was first mentioned explicitly by Lykrophon in the same poem discussed above (Alexandra), in a section foreshadowing the death of Agamemnon: 507 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 248. 508 For example, Shipley 1997, 241 and LL209 both list Hellenistic tombs. Bruno et al. (2002, 45) record an ‘Attic column base’ in a private residence in Porto Kagio, but no other information is given. 264 1106: οἰκτρὰ δέ πέµφιξ Ταίναρον πτερύξεται… 1106: His sad ghost will flutter toward Tainaron…509 Here the use of the word Tainaron is equated with Hades itself. This specific metonymic use became increasingly common within the sources of the Hellenistic and especially the Roman periods, as discussed further in the following chapter. Tainaron is mentioned again three times in the mid-3rd century Greek epic Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes: 1.101-102: Θησέα δ᾿…Ταιναρίην ἀίδηλος ὑπὸ χθόνα δεσµὸς ἔρυκεν… 1.101-102: But Theseus… an unseen bond held [him] under the Tainarian earth… 1.179-181: Ταίναρον αὖτ᾿ ἐπὶ τοῖσι λιπὼν Εὔφηµος ἵκανεν, τόν ῥα Ποσειδάωνι ποδωκηέστατον ἄλλων Εὐρώπη Τιτυοῖο 1.179-181: Next in turn from Taenarus came Euphemus, whom Europa, daughter of mighty Tityus, bore to Poseidon510 3.1240-1241: οἷος δ᾿ Ἴσθµιον εἶσι Ποσειδάων ἐς ἀγῶνα ἅρµασιν ἐµβεβαώς, ἢ Ταίναρον ἢ ὅ γε Λέρνης ὕδωρ 3.1240-1241: Just as Poseidon goes to the Isthmian games mounted on a chariot, or [to] Tainaron or even [to] the water of Lerna… Upon examination of these three passages from the Argonautica, it is clear that the first functioned simply as another example of the association of Tainaron with the Underworld, while the second two reinforced the connection between Tainaron and Poseidon (via Euphemos, Poseidon’s son, in the second passage). No further information is garnered from this text. A passage from Virgil’s Georgics dates to the final years of the Roman Republic, 29 BCE: 4.467: Taenarias etiam fauces, alta ostia Ditis, et caligantem nigra formidine lucum ingressus… 4.467: And also entering the jaws of Tainaron, the lofty doors of Dis, the sacred grove darkened with black fear… 509 Translation: Hornblower 2015, 393. 510 Translation: Race 2009, 19. 265 In this passage Virgil described the descent of Orpheus to the Underworld through the entrance at Tainaron. The inclusion of the term lucus (sacred grove) is interesting, since the only area at the site of ancient Tainaron that can (today) be described as lush whatsoever is the cave area, which is often identified as the ‘sacred grotto’ mentioned in Strabo (8.5.[1]). If this passage referred to a literal (rather than metaphorical) grove, it would be the earliest written mention of this physical feature at Tainaron, although it is certain that Virgil himself was never at the site. One passage, an unassigned fragment from a tragedy by Livius Andronicus, which dates to the 3rd quarter of the 3rd century BCE, only reveals the mountainous topography of the region511: 35: . . . namque Taenari celsos ocres 35: for the high stony mountains512 of Tainaron With regard to the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, the first passage of relevance occurs in Polybius’ Book 9, which recorded the speeches made by Chalaeneas the Aetolian and Lyciscus the Acarnanian at Sparta, during the year Olympiad 142 (sometime between 212-210 BCE): 9.34.[8]: ... οἵ γε καὶ τοῖς ἀσύλοις ἱεροῖς ἐτόλµησαν προσάγειν τὰς χεῖρας. [9] ὧν Τίµαιος µὲν τό τ᾽ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος καὶ τὸ τῆς ἐν Λούσοις ἱερὸν Ἀρτέµιδος ἐσύλησε... 9.34.[8]: Those who dare to bring their hands against inviolable sanctuaries. [9] Just as Timaios plundered both [the temple] of Poseidon at Tainaron and the temple of Artemis in Lusi... This plundering took place during the raid of the Peloponnese by Timaios (the strategos of the Aetolian League) and Charixenus, circa 241/0 BCE.513 Unfortunately, we know nothing 511 Translation: Warmington 1936, x-xi. The fact that this passage derives from an unassigned fragment provides us with no further context. 512 The Oxford Latin Dictionary lists Andronicus’ passage as an example of the use of the word ocris, -is. 513 Walbank 1957-79, 173-4; Eder 2006. 266 more of this destruction, and only archaeological investigation will be able to shed further light on the validity of this statement and the accompanying events. This passage provides yet another piece of evidence for the inviolability of the sanctuary of Poseidon, though this time it is with the word ἄσυλος; this is the first historical source which uses this term to describe the sanctuary (in contrast to ἱκετεία, a place for supplication).514 The status of asylum referred to the protection and inviolability of the sanctuary as a whole, while supplication referred to individuals seeking refuge within the sanctuary. Schumacher pointed out that asylia was often declared by sanctuaries for shorter durations of time (for example, the pan-Hellenic games), or in the face of a very real threat (usually piracy), whereas supplication was a more regular, permanent institution.515 The 240s BCE were an unstable time in the Greek world, and perhaps the sanctuary had declared a state of asylum prior to this pillaging. Cartledge had the following to say about the Aetolian League’s attacks on the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron: In order, perhaps, to avoid antagonizing the Spartans unduly, they concentrated their attention on the Perioeci of southern Laconia rather than the Spartans' directly held civic territory…There is no reason, however, to doubt that the Aetolians characteristically but imprudently despoiled the sanctuary of Pohoidan (Poseidon) at Taenarum. This Perioecic shrine, long an asylum for refugee Helots and in 241 for a fugitive of a very different kind (ex-King Cleombrotus), had been enriched by offerings from the many thousands of mercenaries who congregated here in the expectation of recruitment from the 330s on…Sacking it was not the best way to win anti-Achaean friends among the Perioeci – or indeed the Spartans, who since the massive earthquake of c. 464 had treated Poseidon the Earth-Shaker with boundless reverence.516 This is an interesting take on the situation, since Cartledge suggested that the Aetolian motivation to plunder of the sanctuary of Poseidon was based on the decision to avoid directly 514 Cf. Plutarch, Pompey 24.[5], Chapter 7. 515 Schumacher 1993, 57. Asylum could also be declared/apply to cities and settlements, whereas supplication was typically reserved for sanctuaries. 516 Cartledge and Spawforth 2001, 44. There is no surviving archaeological evidence that indicates that Tainaron had been “enriched by offerings from the many thousands of mercenaries who congregated [t]here” (See Chapter 6). 267 provoking the Spartans, thereby disassociating Tainaron from Spartan control, and implying that Sparta’s reverence and respect for the sanctuary was a direct result of the events in 464 BCE rather than of patronage and/or proprietorship. If this was his intended conclusion, I completely agree with Cartledge’s interpretation of this passage and the associated events. Our most comprehensive Hellenistic/Republican period source for the evidence of ancient Tainaron is Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca Historica, written sometime between 60-36 BCE. Five references to Tainaron in Diodorus’ work all highlight an aspect of the sanctuary which has thus far in the present work only been alluded to briefly in the contentious title of Hyperides’ speech in the previous chapter: that is, the use of Tainaron as a mercenary ‘market’ or gathering place. The first of these five passages dealt with events in 326/5 BCE and discussed the actions of Harpalus, the satrap of Babylon, who fled from Asia to Attica after he found out that Alexander was sentencing to death those of his satraps that were accused of neglecting their duties: 17.108.[6]: … µισθοφόρους δ᾽ ἀθροίσας ἑξακισχιλίους ἀπῆρεν ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ κατέπλευσεν εἰς τὴν Ἀττικήν. [7] οὐδενὸς δὲ αὐτῷπροσέχοντος τοὺς µὲν µισθοφόρους ἀπέλιπε περὶ Ταίναρον τῆς Λακωνικῆς, αὐτὸς δὲ µέρος τῶν χρηµάτων ἀναλαβὼν ἱκέτης ἐγένετο τοῦ δήµου. ἐξαιτούµενος δὲ ὑπ᾽ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Ὀλυµπιάδος καὶ πολλὰ χρήµατα διαδοὺς τοῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ δηµηγοροῦσι ῥήτορσι διέδρα καὶ κατῆρεν εἰς Ταίναρον πρὸς τοὺς µισθοφόρους. 17.108.[6]: …having mustered 6000 mercenaries he (Harpalus) departed from Asia and sailed down to Attica. [7] Since no one devoted [themselves] to him, he left the mercenaries near Tainaron in Lakonike, and taking his part of the money became a suppliant of the (Athenian) people. After [his surrender] was demanded by Antipater and Olympias, and after he handed over much money to those public speakers speaking on behalf of him, he escaped and put into port at Tainaron with the mercenaries. The next passage occurs in the same book, only a few chapters later, and presented events of the following year, 325/4 BCE, after Alexander ordered his satraps to dissolve their armies and lay off their mercenaries: 17.111.[1]: …µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πανταχόθεν διῆραν ἐπὶ Ταίναρον τῆς Λακωνικῆς. [2] ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν Περσικῶν σατραπῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἡγεµόνων οἱ περιλειφθέντες χρήµατά τε καὶ στρατιώτας ἀθροίζοντες ἔπλεον ἐπὶ Ταίναρον καὶ κοινὴν δύναµιν ἤθροιζον. [3] τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον Λεωσθένην τὸν Ἀθηναῖον, ἄνδρα ψυχῆς λαµπρότητι διάφορον καὶ µάλιστ᾽ ἀντικείµενον τοῖς Ἀλεξάνδρου πράγµασιν, εἵλοντο στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα. 268 17.111.[1]: …After these events they (the mercenaries) removed [themselves] from all places to Tainaron in Lakonike. [2] Similarly, those surviving of the Persian satraps and the other leaders, having gathered together both money and soldiers, sailed to Tainaron and gathered together [their] collective forces. They finally elected Leosthenes the Athenian as commander, a distinguished man with brilliance of spirit who was especially opposed to the actions of Alexander. Further details of these disbanded mercenaries are elucidated in the following book. Following the death of Alexander in 323 BCE, Diodorus tells us that the Athenians quickly moved to assert their leadership using the funds given to them by the now-deceased Harpalus and the mercenaries who were waiting on Tainaron517: 18.9.[1]: ἀφορµὰς δὲ ἔσχον εἰς τὸν πόλεµον τό τε πλῆθος τῶν καταλειφθέντων ὑφ᾽ Ἁρπάλου χρηµάτων… ὁµοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἀµίσθους γενοµένους ὑπὸ τῶν σατραπῶν µισθοφόρους, ὄντας µὲν ὀκτακισχιλίους, διατρίβοντας δὲ περὶ Ταίναρον τῆς Πελοποννήσου. [2] διὸ καὶ τούτους προσέταξαν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις Λεωσθένει τῷ Ἀθηναίῳ τὸ µὲν πρῶτον ἀναλαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἰδιοπραγοῦντα χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ δήµου γνώµης…[3] διὸ καὶ Λεωσθένης µετὰ πολλῆς ἡσυχίας µισθωσάµενος τοὺς προειρηµένους παραδόξως… 18.9.[1]: And they had as a starting-point for the war the great amount of money that was left behind by Harpalus…and likewise also the mercenaries down from Asia who became unemployed by the satraps, being 8000 [in number] and passing away their time near Tainaron in the Peloponnese. [2] Wherefore they commanded Leosthenes the Athenian in secrecy to first take them up as of [his own] judgement acting independently, separately from the city…[3] Whereby Leosthenes, with much silence, hired those [troops] mentioned above… We learn from this passage that there were 8000 troops waiting at Tainaron – a truly astounding number considering the size of the area and its inhospitable terrain. Of course, the use of περὶ Ταίναρον to describe the location of the mercenaries could imply that the men were stationed in a much larger area, extending northward from the promontory towards the harbours of Psamathous and Achilleion, and potentially even further north towards modern Kyparissos; the western coast is the only possible place for sufficient agricultural production that could have provided a source of food for this many men. Nevertheless, it is impossible to say exactly where they were stationed, except that it must have been in close proximity to at least one harbour for 517 Harpalus’ 6000 mercenaries were no longer available, since they had been murdered, with Harpalus, by Thibron – see Diod. Sic. 18.19.[2]; Geer 1947, 37. 269 the arrival and departure of the mercenaries. Several chapters later Tainaron is mentioned again, during the events of 322 BCE when Thibron (former officer under Harpalus, who was also accused of killing Harpalus, see Diod. Sic 18.19.[2]) sent messengers to collect mercenaries from Tainaron to use as reinforcements in his campaigns in Libya: 18.21.[1]: ὁ δὲ Θίβρων…προχειρισάµενος δὲ τῶν φίλων τοὺς εὐθέτους ἔπεµψεν εἰς τὴν Πελοπόννησον ἀναληψοµένους τῶν ξένων τοὺς ἐνδιατρίβοντας περὶ Ταίναρον. ἔτι γὰρ τῶν ἀµισθώτων γενοµένων πολλοὶ διεπλανῶντο ζητοῦντες τοὺς µισθοδοτήσοντας καὶ τότε περὶ Ταίναρον ὑπῆρχον πλείους τῶν δισχιλίων καὶ πεντακοσίων. 18.21.[1]: And Thibron… having chosen those of his friends [who were] able, he sent [them] to the Peloponnese so that they would take up those of the mercenaries spending time near Tainaron. For many of them were still not hired, wandering seeking [someone] to pay wages, and at that time they were more than 2500 ready near Tainaron. The popularity of Tainaron as a place for mercenaries to gather persists in the following book of Diodorus, which is our fifth and last passage of relevance. Here Cleonymus, in the year 303 BCE, recruited mercenaries from Tainaron to help the Tarentines in their battle against the Lucanians and the Romans: 20.104.[1]: Κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἰταλίαν Ταραντῖνοι πόλεµον ἔχοντες πρὸς Λευκανοὺς καὶ Ῥωµαίους ἐξέπεµψαν πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην, αἰτούµενοι βοήθειαν καὶ στρατηγὸν Κλεώνυµον. [2] τῶν δὲ Λακεδαιµονίων προθύµως ἡγεµόνα δόντων τὸν αἰτούµενον καὶ τῶν Ταραντίνων χρήµατα καὶ ναῦς ἀποστειλάντων ὁ µὲν Κλεώνυµος ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ τῆς Λακωνικῆς ξενολογήσας στρατιώτας πεντακισχιλίους συντόµως κατέπλευσεν εἰς Τάραντα. 20.104.[1]: But in Italy, the Tarentines were in a state of war against the Lucanians and the Romans, and they sent out ambassadors to Sparta, asking [for] help, and [for] Kleonymos the general. [2] And after the Lakedaimonians eagerly gave them the requested leader and the Tarentines sent off money and ships, Kleonymos, having enlisted 5000 mercenaries [as] soldiers at Tainaron in Lakonia, immediately sailed to Tarentum. In total, there are five separate passages in Diodorus’ writings that explicitly named Tainaron as a location for mercenaries. The distribution of events recorded in these passages spanned a mere quarter-century, specifically the last quarter of the 4th century BCE, a particularly tumultuous time in the Greek world following the death of Alexander and the rise of the diadochoi. In terms of the sheer number of mercenaries at Tainaron, the information from Diodorus can be summarized as follows: in 326/5 BCE, Diodorus informs us that there were 270 6000 mercenaries who accompanied Harpalus to Tainaron; in 323 BCE that number increased to 8000; in 322 BCE there were 2500+; and in 303 BCE there were still 5000 mercenaries available for enlistment. These numbers are impressive, but the phenomenon was relatively short-lived, as we have no further evidence of Tainaron as a mercenary market beyond these dates and little beyond the passages of Diodorus: the contentious title of a speech of Hyperides (from the previous chapter) and a passage from Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, written sometime around the middle of the 2nd century, which seems to indicate that Tainaron was used as a base as early as 333 BCE:518 2.13.[6]: Ἆγις δὲ παρ᾽ Αὐτοφραδάτου τάλαντα ἀργυρίου λαβὼν τριάκοντα καὶ τριήρεις δέκα, ταύτας µὲν Ἱππίαν ἄξοντα ἀποστέλλει παρὰ τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν αὑτοῦ Ἀγησίλαον ἐπὶ Ταίναρον… 2.13. [6]: And Agis, having received thirty talents of silver from Autophradates and ten triremes, dispatched Hippias to bring these things to his brother Agesilaus at Tainaron. In the lines that followed, Agesilaus was instructed to proceed to Crete with the crews of the ships. Although this passage does not mention explicitly the hiring of mercenaries, Jones suggested that this possibility is “not unlikely”519, as the year of this event preceded the earliest mention of Tainaron as a mercenary market (Diod. 17.108.[6]) by a mere seven years. In contrast, Badian argued that this is only the earliest mention of Tainaron as a base, and that this passage provided evidence that Tainaron, at this period “is clearly (as, indeed, was to be expected) a Spartan base, and there is no room for an international hiring-fair there”. I disagree with Badian, and I argue below that there is no evidence for Spartan control of Tainaron at any period nor can we assume Spartan control simply because of Tainaron’s geographic situation in 518 Brunt 1976, x and 1983, 534-573. 519 Jones 1967, 148. 271 Lakonia. No further information is gleaned from Arrian’s 2nd-century CE work, and this is the latest written reference to Tainaron’s function as a mercenary-market. There are several questions which arise from Tainaron’s purported role as a mercenary gathering-place, namely: why was Tainaron chosen as the location for this activity, and how was the organization of this operation maintained? I shall address the second question first, and then return to first question below. Scholars often attribute the organization and administration of the Tainaron mercenary-market to the Spartan state: Jones, for example, proclaimed that the mercenary market “…could not have happened without the co-operation of the Spartan government”520 without providing supporting evidence for this claim, Badian stated that Sparta lost control of Tainaron after the death of Agis III (again, with no supporting evidence)521, and Launey further argued that Tainaron was under the surveillance of Sparta and that government authorization was necessary for the enrolment of mercenaries.522 As evidence for this stance, Launey cited another passage from Diodorus Siculus (19.60.1), wherein Aristodemus sailed to Laconia in 316/5 and, “having received authority from the Spartans to enlist troops, gathered together eight thousand soldiers from the Peloponnesus” (καὶ λαβὼν παρὰ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν ἐξουσίαν ξενολογεῖν, στρατιώτας ἤθροισεν ὀκτακισχιλίους ἐκ τῆς Πελοποννήσου). The obvious problem with surmising Spartan control of Tainaron based solely on this passage is that Tainaron was not mentioned explicitly within this passage. However, even if one were to interpret the meaning of this passage as indicative of Spartan authority over the mercenary market at Tainaron (as Launey did), the translation of ἐξουσίαν can shift the meaning of the entire sentence. The noun ἡ ἐξουσία is 520 Jones 1967, 148. 521 Badian 1961, 26. 522 Launey 1950, 105 n1. 272 related to the verb ἔξεστι, which can be roughly translated to ‘it is allowed/it is possible’ – the relationship between these two terms allows for Launey’s preferred translation of ἐξουσίαν as ‘permission’, a translation which certainly underscores the role of Sparta in Aristodemus’ gathering of Peloponnesian troops. However, ἐξουσίαν can also be translated as ‘resources’ in terms of wealth, arms, food, etc. (see, for example: Thucydides. 1.123; 4.39; 6.31; cf. Demosthenes. 21.138; Plato Lg. 828d), which would suggest an entirely different reading of Sparta’s role in this event: “Aristodemus, having received resources from the Spartans to enlist troops, gathered together eight thousand soldiers from the Peloponnesus”. Most convincing, however, is the lack of any concrete association between Tainaron and Sparta in the five surviving Diodorus passages which do explicitly mention Tainaron as a location for mercenaries. In the first three passages presented above (17.108.[6-7]; 17.111.[1-2]; and 18.9.[1-3]), only Athens and/or an Athenian are mentioned, and in the fifth passage (20.104.[1-2]) we learn only that the Lakedaimonians gave Kleonymos to the Tarentines, and nothing of Spartan association with Tainaron. In the third passage (18.21.[1]), Leosthenes was commanded by the Athenians to hire mercenaries secretly, without revealing that he had permission/motivation to do so by ‘the city’ – in this case, Athens.523 This suggests that under normal circumstances, Athens would have been able to grant some sort of permission to recruit mercenaries; this should not be interpreted as Athenian ‘control’ of Tainaron, but rather that strategoi were expected to request state permission before recruiting mercenaries. Ultimately, in these five passages that described Tainaron as a mercenary market there is nothing that reveals 523 For Leosthenes’ relationship to the mercenaries at Tainaron see also Paus. 1.25.[5]; and 8.52.[5], who said there were 50,000 mercenaries. 273 any sort of link to Sparta whatsoever, further disassociating this site from the Lakedaimonian capital. At this point, I return to the question of location, and why Tainaron was chosen as the site for the mercenary market. The answer to this, I believe, is a simple one: the location of Tainaron was accessible by at least three harbours (Achilleios, Psamathous, and the small bay at Kokkinogheia/Kisternes/Porto Sternes) and was centrally located within the Mediterranean, rendering it possible to bring mercenaries to this location from Asia (17.108.[6-7]; 17.111.[1-2]), or to hire mercenaries and set off on campaigns in Italy (20.104.[1-2]) or Libya (18.21.[1]). Furthermore, I argue that it was precisely this rugged, terrestrially inaccessible location that provided a secure ‘holding-area’ of sorts for the mercenaries, not, in fact, some form of outside control, the latter of which Badian argued: “If we do not hear of serious disturbances in Peloponnese, it must be because at Taenarum there were men willing and able to pay these mercenaries at least a retainer – enough for bare sustenance and the prospect of future employment. It is surely clear that otherwise the whole of Peloponnese (if not of Greece) must have been at the mercy of well-organised and desperate brigandage.”524 I agree with Badian that something kept the mercenaries from plundering and sacking the towns of the Peloponnese out of boredom and hunger, but I do not agree with the existence of an organized force tasked with placating or even paying the troops, as Badian suggested; rather, I believe that the harshness of the topography, the apparent non-existence of navigable paths – let alone roads! – to the north, and the unfamiliarity of the troops with this portion of (barely) mainland Greece would have provided reason enough for the mercenaries to remain in this isolated landscape in southern Mani, where they awaited prospective employers to sail in (the only means of access we hear of 524 Badian 1961, 27. 274 in these passages) and to hire the men by the thousands. In addition, this place may have even been desirable for the soldiers themselves precisely because it wasn’t under the jurisdiction of any one major political power, but remained centrally accessible within the Mediterranean and was accessible by sea for potential employers. 525 Ultimately, the geographic isolation of Tainaron provided the ideal location for a secure mercenary gathering-place and free ‘market’ that was controlled by no one ruling power in particular, let alone the Spartans. I return to this conclusion below. 6.5.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Tainaron The only two Hellensitic-period inscriptions from Tainaron are proxeny decrees, which seemingly granted proxeny to individual Spartans on behalf of the Lakedaimonian League. One of these (IG V,1 1226; SEG 11 938) was first published by Pouqueville in his Voyage dans la Grèce. In this volume, he recorded the find spot of this inscription as ‘à Asomatos’, presumably the church of Aghioi Asomatoi.526 The text is restored as follows: 1 [ἐπειδὴ Φίλων Λα]κεδαιµόνιος [εὔνους] [ὑπάρχων τῶι κ]ο̣ινῶι τῶν Λακε[δαιµο]- [νίων πο]λ<λ>ὰς κ̣αὶ µεγάλας χ[ρείας] [παρέσ]χηται [καὶ] κατὰ κοινὸν καὶ [κατ’] 5 [ἰδ]<ί>α̣ν̣ το<ῖ>[ς ἐν]τυ[γχά]νουσιν σ<π>[ουδῆς] [καὶ φι]λ̣ο[τιµία]ς οὐθὲν ἐ<λ>λείπ<ω>[ν εἰς τὰ] [π]α̣ρακ[αλούµ]ε{ι}να {παρακαλούµενα}, ἔδο<ξ>ε τῶι κο[ινῶι] [τῶν Λακ]<ε>δ[αι]µονίων· Φίλωνα <Ἀ>ν<τι>[— —] [ Λακεδ]αιµόνιον πρόξενον [εἶµεν] 10 [καὶ ε]ὐεργέτα[ν] τοῦ κοινοῦ [τῶν] Λακεδ<α>ιµο{νο}νί<ω>[ν] {Λακεδαιµονίων} καὶ ἐγγόνου[ς αὐ]- [τοῦ] κ̣αὶ εἶµεν αὐτ[ῷ γᾶ]ς καὶ οἰκίας [ἔγ]- [κτησ]<ι>ν̣ <κ>αὶ ἐπινοµίαν καὶ ἀτέλει[αν] [καὶ ἀσ]υ<λ>ίαν καὶ πολέµου καὶ εἰ[ράνας] 525 Many thanks to Kevin Fisher for this suggestion. 526 Pouqueville 1821, 170 (XIII): he says the location is “À Asomato ou Liternes, à Magne”. Liternes may be an ancient name for Kisternes, one of the modern toponyms for the area. 275 15 [κ]αὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τίµια, ὅσ<α> καὶ το[ῖς ἄλλοις] προξέν[ο]ι<ς> [κα]ὶ εὐεργέται[ς τοῦ κοι]- ν̣οῦ τῶν Λακεδαιµονίω[ν. τὰν] [δ]ὲ [π]ρ[̣οξ]<ε>[ν]ί[αν] ταύταν ἀνα- [γρ]α<ψάτω> ὁ ταµίας εἰς [στά]- 20 [λαν λιθίναν] καὶ ἀναθ̣<έ>τ<ω> εἰς τ[ὸ ἱερὸν] [τοῦ Ποσ]ειδᾶνος τοῦ ἐπὶ Ταινά[ρωι]. “Since Philo, a Lakedaimonian, being well-intentioned toward the League of the Lakedaimonians, performed many great services both for the League and for individuals, omitting no zeal nor generosity for the things that were required, it seemed good to the League of the Lakedaimonians that: Philo son of Anti-? should be a proxenos and benefactor of the League of the Lakedaimonians, both he and his descendants; and that he should have tenure of land and household, and the right of pasturage, and exemption from public burdens, and inviolability in both war and peace, and the rest of the honors that also (are granted) to other proxenoi and benefactors of the League of the Lakedaimonians. Let the steward inscribe this decree of proxeny on a stone stele and let him set it up at the temple of Poseidon at Tainaron.”527 This inscription includes several references to the κοινόν τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων, and is therefore often cited as the primary evidence for a League of the Lakedaimonians prior to the later (possibly Augustan) League of the Free Lakonians (Eleutherolakones)528; this first League probably formed after the death of Nabis in 192 BCE.529 This corresponds well with the date of this inscription, which Kolbe dated to the 2nd or 1st century BCE.530 Kennell described this as a “decree granting proxeny to a Spartan along with the right to own land and a dwelling, grazing rights, exemption from duties and unwarranted seizure.”531 The Spartan in this case is Φίλων (Philon), but his patronymic does not survive (<Ἀ>ν<τι>[— —]).532 This decree also included 527 Translation Hilary Bouxsein. 528 Kennell 1999, 198-199; Shipley 2000, 368. 529 Kennell 2010, 180. See also Gitti (1939, 189-203), who argued for a foundation date of 195 BCE. 530 Shipley 2000, 368n9 said that Cartledge (in Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, 77) dated this inscription to the 70’s BCE, but there is no evidence of this claim in the work cited; Shipley incorrectly cited this inscription when IG V,1 1174 was meant (thanks for N. Kennell for pointing this out); see Cartledge & Spawforth (1989, 183) for the correct inscription. 531 Kennell 1999, 199; see also Cartledge and Spawforth 1989; 2002, 161 & n20. 532 Bradford 1977, 35. 276 reference to a ‘treasurer’ (ὁ ταµίας, line 19), and called for its erection at the sanctuary to Poseidon at Tainaron (line 20-21), which indicates that Tainaron must have held some form of special status for the Lakedaimonian League at this time.533 The current location of this inscription is unknown. The second proxeny decree (IG V,1 1227; SEG 11 938), inscribed on a fragmentary red marble stone (presumably rosso antico), was discovered in the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi and is currently located in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.534 The text of this inscription is restored to read: [— — — — — — — — —] [καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τίµια, ὅσα] [καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ] 1 [εὐ]ε[ργέ]τ̣α̣ις̣ τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ [κοιν]ο̣ῦ̣ τ̣[ῶν] Λακεδαµονίων. τὰν δὲ προξενίαν ταύταν ἀνα- γραψάτω ὁ ταµίας εἰς στά- 5 λαν λιθίναν καὶ ἀναθέτω <ε>ἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ποσειδᾶ- νος τοῦ ἐπὶ Ταινάρωι. “[and the rest of the honors that also (are granted) to other proxenoi and benefactors of the League] of the Lakedaimonians. Let the steward inscribe this decree of proxeny on a stone stele and let him set it up at the temple of Poseidon at Taeinaron.” The recipient of the proxeny here does not survive, but this inscription, like IG V,1 1226, includes a reference to a treasurer and calls for the dedication of this decree at the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. In fact, the majority of the missing text from both IG V,1 1226 & IG V,1 1227 could be restored based on the surviving text of the other, complementary, inscription; for this reason they are catalogued together in the SEG. 533 Gengler (2010, 621) calls it the ‘federal sanctuary’ of the League. He also believed the sanctuary belonged to Sparta. Accame (1946, 127) believed that the sanctuary of Poseidon functioned as a ‘communal’ temple. 534 Kolbe listed this as inventory number 74, but the current inventory number is unknown. 277 In the first inscription, the practice of granting proxeny to an individual Spartan indicates that the members of the Lakedaimonian League were eager to have a proxenos and, therefore, representation at Sparta. Proxeny decrees were often issued by cities or states to individuals but, as we see in these two instances, could be issued by more formal leagues (confederations of individual cities). The most common explanation for the erection of these inscriptions at Tainaron is that the sanctuary was the official religious centre of the Lakedaimonian League – a role which it retained through the establishment of the later Eleutherolakonian League. The establishment of proxenia between Sparta and the Lakedaimonian League indicates a positive relationship between two political bodies that were firmly independent of each other. Of the 13 proxeny decrees issued by the Lakedaimonian League and its cities that preserve the name of the city of the honorand, approximately half (seven) are granted to Spartans. It is important to note, however, that of these seven decrees, only this one example issued by the League itself (rather than a member city) can be associated with a place in Mani, but the special role of Tainaron for the Lakedaimonian Leage suggests that all proxeny decrees may have been set up at Tainaron. That is to say, none of the surviving Lakedaimonian League decrees granting proxeny to a Spartan were issued by an individual member-city within Mani; all of the decrees granting proxeny to Spartans were issued by member-cities outside Mani, all in same geographic region to the south-east of Sparta (Cotyrta IG V,1 961, 965, 966; Geronthrai IG V,1 1112, 1113; Gytheio, IG V,1 1145, 1533), or by the League itself. That is to say, the evidence for the connection between Spartan proxeny and Maniate cities is exclusively that the decrees themselves were set up at Tainaron. 278 Figure 6-10 a: Moschou’s site plan of Tainaron atop satellite imagery, aligned by north arrow. Note that the alignment in this image is based on the north arrow (Moschou’s north arrow indicated in yellow, true north in white), which skews the alignment of Moschou’s drawing with everything except for Aghioi Asomatoi (on the left, indicated by red arrow). Line drawing by author, based on Moschou 1975a. Satellite imagery ©GoogleEarth. 10203006.5.2.3 Archaeological Evidence for the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron The location of the site of ancient Tainaron has never been in question, as the architectural remains at the bay of Porto Sternes have been long-been identified with the religious structures of the sanctuary of Poseidon and its auxiliary buildings. The architectural vestiges are scattered around the small bays of Aria, Asomaton, and Sternes (W-E), and upon the promontories that divide these bays. The most complete and reliable descriptions of the site of Tainaron are within the accounts by Leake, Forster and Woodward, Bolte, Bursian, Papachatzis and most recently, Mylonopoulos. Moschou (published in 1975) and Cummer (published in 1978), both mapped select architectural remains at the site and thereby provided invaluable information about the layout of the sanctuary itself, although the drawings themselves are not a precise representation of the remains on the ground (see Figures 6-10 a-c). 279 Figure 6-10b: Moschou’s site plan of Tainaron atop satellite imagery, aligned by the archaeological ruins to the north of the bay. Note that the alignment is based on the rectangular building and channel (centre, indicated by arrow), which skews the cardinal direction (Moschou’s cardinal direction in yellow, true north in white) and the rest of the buildings (note Aghoi Asomatoi). An entirely different alignment would be necessary for the eastern buildings to conform. Line drawing in turquoise by author, based on Moschou 1975a. Satellite imagery ©GoogleEarth. 1020300 In 2007, archaeologists from the 5th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical antiquities excavated select areas of the site: the road, the rectangular building, and domestic building Δ. The results of these excavations shed light on the dates of these structures, but none of these structures was excavated in their entirety due to time constraints, and the authors did not include any plans or details of the pottery in their publication, so the conclusions are based on their testimony alone. Without extensive excavation (or systematic survey), it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the diachronic habitation of the site, or the functions and dates of the buildings therein. Both Moschou and Cummer, in their architectural surveys, were aware of these 280 limitations and rarely attempted to classify or date the unidentified auxiliary buildings that are situated in the larger region. The reason for including this archaeological overview in this chapter is the only buildings at the site that have been dated all date to the late Hellenistic period: specifically, the Hellenistic iteration of the Temple to Poseidon and the domestic building with mosaic on the western portion of the site. In the interests in being comprehensive and providing a complete picture of the site, I made the decision to present all of the available evidence at this point in order to discuss the site of Tainaron in its entirety. Much ink has been spilled by scholars describing the physical remains at Tainaron, and attempting to comprehend the occupation histories and religious functions of three structures in particular: first, the probable site of the ‘temple to Poseidon’ – the remains of which can still be seen within the chapel of Aghoi Asomatoi; second, the ‘cave’ – an open-air cavernous structure often interpreted as the “entrance to the Underworld”; and third, the large square building adjacent to the east of the cave. Visitors to Tainaron and scholars throughout the centuries have been captivated with these structures and although physical descriptions vary somewhat, all are rooted in – and particularly dependent on – the ancient written sources. That is to say, modern analysis of these ancient structures is often rooted in an attempt to match surviving architecture to ancient written testimony, with varying degrees of success. I shall examine each of these structures in turn, in light of Moschou and Cummer’s architectural surveys (Figures 6-11 & 6-12), my own visits to Tainaron, and the ancient written and epigraphic sources. 281 Figure 6-11: Moschou’s site plan of the cave and rectangular structure at Tainaron atop satellite imagery. Line drawing by author, based on Moschou 1999 [2003]. Satellite imagery ©GoogleEarth. Figure 6-12: Cummer’s site plan of the cave and rectangular structure at Tainaron atop satellite imagery. Line drawing by author, based on Cummer 1978. Satellite imagery ©GoogleEarth. 30 m 282 6.5.2.3.1 The Temple to Poseidon/Chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi The post-Byzantine chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi stands atop the promontory between the Asomaton and Sternes bays. The north wall of the chapel is constructed in a pseudo-isodomic manner of extremely worn grey limestone ashlar blocks, a clear remnant of antiquity. Until Moschou and Cummer published the results of their architectural mapping, however, scholars were uncertain as to whether the blocks had been transported from a different structure – namely, the rectangular building on the beach – or if they were in situ. Bursian, Forster and Woodward, and Waterhouse and Hope-Simpson all believed that because there was visible mortar around these ashlar blocks, they must have been transported from elsewhere.535 Moschou’s article was the first to confirm that the north wall was in situ, that the mortar was only superficial and that is was likely added to repair damage.536 Both Moschou and Cummer agreed that there were three distinct building phases to this structure: 1) an ancient, non-peripteral, distyle-in-antis building that likely faced east towards the cave and incorporated at least three white marble architectural members that are still visible within the chapel today; 2) a Byzantine triple-aisled (cross-in-square) church about which very little is known; and 3) the post-Byzantine chapel which stands on the site today. The two church-phases both incorporated the original, ancient, northern ashlar wall, which survives in the krepis and orthostate courses, although several of the large orthostate blocks (one of which measures an impressive 3.0m) have visible cracks, probably due to geological events. The ancient wall extends circa 11.50m in length along the north side, and 535 Bursian 1853-18555, 776; Forster and Woodward 1906, 250; Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 123-124. 536 Moschou 1975a, 164; Cummer 1978, 41-42. 283 Figure 6-13: The north wall of the church of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. somewhere between 6.55m-7.10m in length along the east side (Figure 6-13).537 The current chapel at the site is constructed of a dry-rubble masonry which consists of a combination of ancient and post-Byzantine architectural members. The three ancient marble architectural members which are most prominent within the chapel are a trapezoforos (with incised grooves and sculpted bands) built into the arch that separates the eastern- and western rooms (Figure 6-14), and two Ionic column capitals – the first is used as an offerings table, while the second is built into a niche of the apse (Figure 6-15 & 6- 537 Cummer (1978, 42) for the former measurement; Moschou (1975a, 164) for the latter. The two scholars also disagree on the measurements for the orthostate blocks, in that Moschou presented the 3m-block as two separate stones, whereas Cummer believed it had cracked in two. 284 16).538 The capitals may have once capped the porch columns of the ancient building, although the measurements of the capitals themselves are not identical, and Bruno et al. noted that they were unfinished.539 Typologically, these two capitals belong to a group of Ionic capitals which boast bulky echinuses, thin abacuses, and an overall compact shape: the lower line “no longer corresponds with the imaginary line between the eyes of the volutes”.540 The isotopic values of the samples extracted from these two capitals and the trapezoforos all correspond to quarries from Mani: the capital reused as the offering-table and the trapezoforos both have signatures which indicate origin from southern Mani, while the second Ionic capital suggests extraction closer to Areopolis.541 All three of these architectural members date to the late Hellenistic-early Roman period.542 On the floor of the apse there are also two fragments of monolithic white marble column shafts (Bruno et al. G39 & G42), as well as a marble kioniskos with a projecting base. Bruno et al. also included in their catalogue a circular plinth of white marble (G40) and a rosso antico cornice block reused within the chapel’s architrave (G41). Finally, an early Hellenistic (4th- 3rd century BCE) dedication to Poseidon on a white marble stone has been built into the south side of the apse and is still visible today, although the words are partially obscured (Figure 6-17).543 538 Cummer 1978, 40 & Figure 5. Although, when I visited during summer 2017, the offerings had been moved onto the capital built into the niche. 539 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 44. Catalogue Numbers G1 (offerings-table) & G2 (niche). G1: 72 cm x 50 cm x 24 cm. G2: 75 cm x 55 cm x 26 cm. 540 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 39; Cf. the Ionic columns reused in the church of Aghios Ioannis in Keria, below. 541 Bruno and Pallante 2002, 43. 542 Mylonopoulos 2003, 234; Cummer 1978, 40. 543 SEG 59 400; 53 381; Zavvou 2005, 187; Zavvou 2010, 306-7. 285 Figure 6-14: Trapezoforos rebuilt in the arch of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. Figure 6-15: Columns and capitals in the apse of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. 286 Figure 6-16: Close up of Ionic capital in north side of apse of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. Figure 6-17: SEG 59 400; 53 381 in apse of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. 287 Figure 6-18: View of ashlar blocks to the south-west of Aghioi Asomatoi. Photo by author. The extent of the earliest structure, the distyle-in-antis building, cannot be discerned without excavation, nor can its internal structure be fully elucidated. The southern and western walls are in a much greater state of ruin, but Moschou believed that a terrace of sorts extended beyond the limits of the original temple to the south, and large ashlar blocks are visible to the south and west of the main structure (Figure 6-18).544 Both Moschou and Cummer compared the distyle-in-antis building to the temple at Taxiarches in Aitolia, but I believe it should be considered within its Lakonian context, and compared to the non-peripteral Doric building tradition that was present not only within the peninsula – see above for the small temple at Kionia (3.17 x 3.04 m)– but also throughout 544 Moschou 1975a, 164-167 and Figure 4. 288 Figure 6-19: Éxpédition Scientifique de Morée 1836, Plate 14. southern Lakonia. The only insight into the appearance of the structure prior to the earliest photographs provided in Forster and Woodward’s 1906 text was a drawing of the promontory published by Puillon Boblaye in the volumes of the French Expédition de Morée. This drawing shows a roofed structure with a column attached in the foreground, and a freestanding column atop a terraced platform in the background. In the distance, high up on a hill, is another column (Figure 6-19).545 545 Perhaps there is a connection between this column and the ruins Patrick Leigh Fermor (135) spoke of: “It was on the high rocks between here [Porto Kagio] and the cape that the temple of Poseidon had stood, on the emplacement of one to Apollo in Mycenaean times.” Obviously, this does not correspond to the location of the architecture at Aghioi Asomatoi, so this must have been another structure. The Laconia Survey entry LL210 included the note: “Evidently remains of two temples.” This may also be a depiction of tower-house architecture or a monument of some sort. 289 In this drawing, the foreground structure itself has two windows in the facing wall, and no trace of an apse or the vaulted roof. The construction is clearly of large ashlar blocks, so there is some credibility to the drawing, although it is impossible to know how many liberties were taken. The most intriguing aspect of the image is the standing stele in the bottom right corner, which corresponds roughly to the general area where the manumission stelae may have been displayed (i.e the area to the east of the church, see below). The text on the drawing actually corresponds with the reported text of a now-lost inscription, IG V1 1258 (Ἐ̣τεάρχου ὑιὸν Ἰουλία Ἐτεαρχὶς ἡ θυγάτηρ), which Pouqueville indeed discovered “at Asomatos [the ruined church] or Liternes [Kisternes?]” and published in 1821.546 The stone and corresponding text must still have been visible when the Expédition visited in 1829. With regard to the attribution and function of this building within the chapel of Aghios Asomatoi, the most obvious conclusion is that this was the location of the temple to Poseidon: this is the most securely-attested structure at the site (both in terms of literary mentions, as well as actual surviving architecture), and the religious spatial continuity between ancient temples and Christian churches is well-attested throughout Greece, and the Mani peninsula is no exception, as the ancient ashlar foundations of many Byzantine churches attest.547 In terms of the date of construction for the temple to Poseidon on this spot, modern scholars have encountered some difficulty rectifying the location of this building on the promontory with the description of the temple’s location in the Roman literary sources: a) Strabo’s account of the site suggested that the sanctuary was in a grove (8.5.1); and b) Pausanias’ account spoke of a temple in a cave (3.25.4-8). These two features – a grove and a cave – are 546 Pouqueville 1821, 171 (XII). 547 Makrides 2009. 290 located just to the east of this promontory, in the coastal area (see discussion below). Due to a marked reliance on literal interpretations of the written sources, and the – tentative – Hellenistic date for the Aghioi Asomatoi north-wall masonry, both Mylonopoulos and Papachatzis have suggested that the distyle-in-antis building beneath the chapel of Aghoi Asomatoi was only constructed in the late Hellenistic period, following an extension of the sanctuary after the invasion of the Cilician pirates in the 1st century BCE (Plutarch, Pompey 24.5).548 In support of this argument, Mylonopoulos mentioned that only these three authors (Pausanias, Strabo, and Plutarch) commented on the physical layout of the sanctuary - and presumably intended for this to be a reason to interpret their passages literally. In all likelihood, however, Pausanias may have been the only one of the three whom Mylonopoulos cited that visited Tainaron, and literal interpretation of Pausanias cannot always be reliable or substantiated. Attempting to rectify the ancient accounts with the physical layout of the sanctuary is integral to our understanding of the layout of the site, but cannot be the sole interpretive tool, particularly with conflicting accounts or written sources that can be loosely interpreted. The only means of truly knowing whether the first phase of ancient building on this spot is Hellenistic, or if it stands atop earlier structures, is to undertake formal archaeological excavation. Until then, we cannot know if there are earlier phases to the structure beneath the chapel of Aghoi Asomatoi. 6.5.2.3.2 The Cave and Rectangular Building To the east of the chapel of Aghoi Asomatoi is a small beach that serves as the only place to draw boats to shore in the immediate vicinity of Tainaron. This beach is the location of a small limestone quarry on the west side (see Chapter 3), and to the north are the remains of a 548 Mylonopoulos 2003, 234-235; Papachatzis 1976, 110. 291 Figure 6-20: Rock-cut bedding and ledge in front of the cave at Tainaron. Photo by author. cavernous structure and foundations for a rectangular building, the latter of which has been the subject of much speculation in terms of function. The small cave has been identified as the ‘Cave of Hades’, although it is largely open-air and certainly has no passages leading underground, as Pausanias correctly observed on his visit to the site (3.25.[4-8]). Cummer provided the following measurements for the cave structure: 15.0 m deep x 10-12 m wide, and he suggested that it was formed by the sea.549 The mouth of the cave bears the remnants of an ancient wall or doorway, in the form of a rock-cut bedding, and a raised partition jutting out from the southern edge (Figure 6-20). 549 Cummer 1978, 37. 292 Figure 6-21: Reused ashlar blocks inside the cave at Tainaron. Photo by author. Beyond the open-air space are three small covered cavities, the largest of which is the easternmost (5.0 m wide x 4.5 m deep x 0.30 m tall). In the western hollow, Moschou observed some carvings, but provided no further information.550 Today, the floor of the cave is covered with damp, loamy soil, and a few scatters of modern animal bones. Inside the cave a 2m-thick wall stands, built of ashlar blocks – the blocks and the bedrock cuttings on the exterior of the cave themselves are ancient, but the interior wall was constructed in modern times to transform the cave into a sheepfold (Figure 6-21).551 The interior space is obscured by the lush vegetation, which must be fed by an underground stream, and creates a fertile oasis of greenery in an otherwise barren landscape.552 If there is any truth to Strabo’s attestation of a ‘grove’, this would be the sole candidate. 550 Moschou 1975a, 169. 551 Moschou (1975a, 169) believed the stones were removed from the adjacent rectangular building. 552 Moschou (1975a, 169) says this water source is in the central of the three pockets of the cave. 293 Figure 6-22: Cut in bedrock at south-eastern limit of rectangular building at Tainaron. Photo by author. Directly adjacent to the east of the cave structure are the foundations of a large, rectangular building (Moschou’s dimensions 15 m x 17.75 m; Bursian’s dimensions 16 m x 20 m).553 The south wall of this building does not exist, although Moschou claimed to have seen it submerged in the sea.554 There is, however, a cut corner visible in the bedrock within the southeastern area, which I believe may indicate the extent of the building (Figure 6-22). The eastern wall is preserved for an approximate length of 15 m and a maximum height of 1.7m, and is also cut directly into the bedrock555; Cummer noted that there were no cuttings for additional blocks, so the original height and appearance of this side of the building is unclear. 553 Bursian 1853-55, 776; Moschou 1975a, 170. 554 Moschou 1975a, 170. Despite Cummer’s (1978, 38) claim that “No one has reported a trace of a wall across the beach on the south side.” Cummer’s plan of the building (1978, Figure 3) divided the building in two, and suggested through dotted lines that the two halves were discreet structures. The southern extent of these, as indicated on his map, indeed fall just north of the cave entrance, thus disconnecting the two structures and rendering his reconstructing implausible, as Mylonopoulos (2003, 232-233) rightly pointed out. 555 Moschou 1975a, 171. 294 Figure 6-23: View of the north-eastern corner of rectangular building at Tainaron (from west). Photo by author. The bedrock-cutting continued around the north-east corner and along the easternmost part of the north wall (Figure 6-23). The centre of the north wall was punctuated by an entrance to the building, approximately 2.60 m in width. Bursian was the first to identify this north wall as the entrance and recorded that the two large blocks that flanked the entrance extended southward, creating parallel walls that may have formed a passage down the centre of the building – these southward-projecting blocks and a resulting corridor are not visible today, and the composition of the 295 Figure 6-24: View of the rectangular building at Tainaron from north, showing possible entrance. Photo by author. interior of the building is unclear.556 One of these (the westernmost) low foundation blocks on the north side of the building is still visible today, and Moschou gives the measurements of 1m in length and 0.60m in height.557 Although much of the region is overgrown and currently serves as a dry boat dock, the outline of the building is still quite discernible (Figure 6-24). Cummer noted that there were six blocks in the north wall at his time of recording and that these displayed pry-holes, indicating at least one more course.558 The west wall of the structure was also formed by trimming bedrock, although the cuts are much more irregular than on the east side, and Cummer suggested that blocks may have been 556 Bursian 1853-55, 776-777. 557 Moschou 1975a, 170. 558 Cummer 1978, 38. 296 Figure 6-25: View of the cuttings on the west side of rectangular building at Tainaron from north. Photo by author. set in amongst the bedrock.559 The maximum height of the west wall is 0.7m, and its length is only 10.60 m, since it runs directly into the cave bedding at the southern limit.560 Bölte believed a door once existed on the western wall of the building, but there is no evidence of such construction.561 Above the rock-cut bedding are several more small, rectangular cuttings in the bedrock, which Weil believed were intended to display the manumission stelae presented in the previous chapter: this means that the western wall could not have been built very high, lest it obscure the inscribed stones (Figure 6-25).562 559 Ibid. 560 Moschou 1975a, 171. 561 Bolte 1932, 2038. 562 Moschou (1975a, 171) noted that there were 8 of these recesses, measuring 0.15m x 0.40m to 0.08m x 0.15m – but she also reported that they faced south, which is confusing since the long sides of the cuttings are parallel with the eastern and western walls – if they held the stelae, the stelae would have faced east. The measurements of IG V,1 1228, for example, are: 57.15 cm high x 29.21 cm wide, allowing plenty of room to be inserted into the cutting. 297 In 2007, the excavations that took place at the site of Tainaron included exploration in this building, but no results have been reported with the sole exception of one small bronze figurine of a bearded man uncovered in the south-western corner of the building. No dimensions were given and based on the photograph this figurine resembles a Herakles-type, but it is impossible to tell without further publication of the excavation results. The most common, traditional interpretation of the function of this rectangular building is that it is the ‘psychopompeion’ based on a passage in Plutarch (Moralia 560e) – this opinion was first put forth by Bursian, and agreed upon by Moschou and Papachatzis.563 Mylonopoulos compared the plan and function of this building at Tainaron to a building at the site of Ephyra in Epirus which was long thought to have been a ‘nekromanteion’, but which was recently reinterpreted as an agricultural building.564 Despite problems with this comparison, Mylonopoulos asserted that the identification of the ‘psychopompeion’ at Tainaron did not refer to a single building, but to the sanctuary as a whole. In the following chapter (pp. 399-403), I present Plutarch’s passage at length, and I argue that the psychopompeion was not an actual, physical structure at the site of Tainaron. Rather, interpreters of this passage ought to understand that the psychopompeion ‘existed’ in the realm of Tainaron only as it was used metonymically for the Underworld. Nothing except for the physical situation of the building adjacent to the cave – the latter the obvious candidate for the entrance to the Underworld – directly associates this building with death-rituals, oracles, or Hades whatsoever. The epigraphic evidence from the vicinity of the rectangular building, namely the manumission stelae, point to the sanctuary’s function as a place of asylum and the consecration of these slaves to Poseidon. The bronze ex-votos purported to be 563 Moschou 1975a, 171 n12; Papachatzis 1976, 108. 564 Wiseman 1998; Baatz 1999. 298 found here are typical of the sort of dedications that one would expect to find in a sanctuary of Poseidon (i.e. horses and bulls; see below). I agree with previous scholars that the primary access to the rectangular building was from the north, through a doorway between two large posts, as indicated by blocks. I also believe that this building was integral to the religious and ritual function of the sanctuary as a whole, especially since it was situated directly adjacent to the cave. Many questions remain, however, including how the building was physically connected to the cave, and to what extent the building obscured access to the sea from land and vice versa: was this building an intermediary between the sanctuary and the ocean realm of Poseidon? Did it impede or encourage access by maritime vessels to land in this area? Some questions are impossible to answer, as the shoreline has receded and obscured the exact layout from antiquity, but the questions regarding the exact function and purpose of this building, along with its relationship to the cave, can only be further discerned through future excavations. With regard to small finds, I observed an abundance of ancient ceramics throughout the entire area around the bay of Sternes, including painted fine ware.565 Otherwise, there is a surprising dearth of archaeological material to have surfaced from this site, particularly given its importance in antiquity – to my knowledge no sculpture or small dedications have been recovered, and despite Frazer’s claims, there is no evidence for any statue of Arion riding a dolphin at this site.566 In his 1857 publication, Henzen noted that locals discovered over 70 bronze figurines, mostly of horses and bulls: “inoltre, allorquando nell'anno passato certi contadini tolsero un gran sasso delle fondamenta del tempio nel lato rivolto a qualla grotta, vi 565 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson (1961, 124) specifically noted “Hellenistic and Samian ware sherds.” 566 See Chapter 5: Frazer 1898 (2012) 398. 299 Figure 6-26: View of the cuttings on the east side of the bay of Sternes. Photo by author. rinvennero non meno di settanta figurine di bronzo, rappresentanti tori e cavalli, evidentemente dedicatevi ex voto.”567 Nothing is known of these figurines today, and there is always the possibility, unfortunately, that much more has been looted from the site. 6.5.2.3.3 Auxiliary Buildings To the east and west of this central cultic space are the remains of several auxiliary buildings (Figure 6-26). Cummer and Moschou both mapped the remains of buildings and features around the easternmost small bay; Moschou’s map, however, is much more detailed and corresponds well to the visible remains on the ground in terms of representation, although the measurements themselves are incorrect (Figure 6-10 a-b). Cummer’s description of the function of these buildings is that “there was an extensive Hellenistic and Roman town at Tainaron, marked by rock-cut house foundations and cisterns around the large bay…”568 567 Henzen 1857, 155. 568 Cummer 1978, 36. 300 The interpretation of these buildings as belonging to a small settlement around the sanctuary is agreed upon by Mylonopoulos, Moschou, Bursian, Papachatzis, and Forster and Woodword, but perhaps because no superstructure survives on any of these foundations, only Moschou has ventured a suggestion for specific interpretation for some of these buildings as multi-storey houses and as shipsheds.569 Woodward suggested that the masonry may have been unbaked brick, explaining the lack of surviving superstructure.570 One of the most striking and apparent structures on the site is a channel cut deep into the bedrock which extends from a small ravine at the northern the north of the sanctuary down to the coast (83.60m long, 1.70m wide, 1.50m deep); most agree on the interpretation of this passage as a narrow, special-purpose road, but its exact function is unknown. Papachatzis wrongly believed this road was directly connected to cultic ritual involving the dead, but the road is open-air and ends on the opposite side of the beach as the cave.571 Bölte suggested the removal of rainwater, but such an arid region would not really require a solution to excessive rainwater run-off, and would instead require cisterns to store any rain water for the visitors and inhabitants of the sanctuary.572 Moschou argued that it was a dike that also provided access to the buildings located on the easternmost promontory, reporting that the roadway branched off into a fork at its southern extremity.573 I agree with Moschou’s interpretation of the roadway as providing maritime access, but I believe that an additional, alternative solution to this road is that it conveyed visitors to the appropriate entrance to the sanctuary if they arrived at Tainaron by boat 569 Mylonopoulos 235-236 & n152, 2003; Bursian 1853-1855, 150; Papachatzis 1976, 442; Forster and Woodward 1906, 249. Moschou 1975a, 160, 167, Figures 6-8: she reported that stairs were apparent in the building (2a) directly to the south of the chapel, and that the buildings on the west coast of the eastern bay were shipsheds. 570 Forster and Woodward 1906, 249. 571 Papachatzis 1976, 109. 572 Bölte 1932, 2038. 573 Moschou 1975a, 172. 301 Figure 6-27: Steps leading from coast to the rock-cut channel on the northeast side of the bay of Sternes. Photo by author. at the small bay of Sternes. Upon arrival, the visitors would have met with the rear of the rectangular building near the coast, and thus this road and its stairs leading up from the bay would have provided a means to access the sanctuary from the appropriate north side (Figure 6-27); the depth of the road perhaps obscured the view to allow for a greater visual impact upon emergence at the north, as well as controlled the direction and flow of foot traffic, as it would have been difficult to climb out of the road itself (Figure 6-28). This solution, I believe, solves the question of access to the sanctuary when visitors arrived by sea, and provides further information regarding the organization of the visitors. The southern portion of this channel was excavated in 2007, and it was this investigation that revealed the steps leading down to the bay. In this area, the archaeologists reported black-glazed Hellenistic sherds, and undecorated plain pottery of the Roman period.574 The research agenda also included investigating the relationship between the northern limit of the channel and the natural gorge in the same area, but those results are forthcoming. 574 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 547. 302 Figure 6-28: Rock-cut channel leading north from the bay of Sternes. Photo by author. To the east of this cut channel are sizeable foundations of ‘auxiliary’ buildings (Figures 6-10 & 6-26). The foundations throughout this region are often cut into the bedrock, and the 2007 investigations into the area revealed detachment grooves, indicating that these structures provided their own superstructures: the limestone mined during the quarrying of these foundations was then used as building material.575 Among these buildings on the eastern promontory, Moschou observed the remains of staircases, platforms, and delineated spaces, although these buildings are not included on her architectural plan of the site.576 Several of these buildings have multiple rooms and connected spaces, and Moschou also noted the remains of a cistern. Based on these observations, she suggested that these structures may have been public 575 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 547. 576 Moschou 1975a, 173 and Figure 3. 303 buildings. In contrast, Moschou believed that domestic structures were situated in a small cluster on the northern part of the promontory immediately to the west of the central bay (Asomaton). Moschou reported that these structures were mostly two-storeyed with traces of internal staircases, although no photographs were provided and I was unable to locate such features.577 She did not provide plans for these structures on her larger architectural survey, but Moschou did include the three-room plan of one of the houses, which she calls characteristic of the domestic dwellings at this settlement.578 Woodward noted the presence of a rock-cut staircase within one of the buildings to the east of the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi.579 Finally, the westernmost traces of ancient occupation lie on the coastal shore between the central and western bays. Here, one domestic building in particular is of note: it is approximately 19.5m in length x 5.10m in width and divided into six spaces.580 One of these is covered in a late Hellenistic mosaic floor consisting of a geometric flower pattern surrounded by two concentric circles, the outer of which bears a wave motif (Figure 6-29). The red, white, and blue marble tesserae, c. 2cm2, were laid into red clay, and the entire mosaic was placed atop a mortar substrate. In the mid-2000s, archaeologists from the Lakonian ephoreia (then the 5th Ephorate) undertook restoration work on this mosaic and another in this same building, also with a geometric-and-floral design. In this same report that published the restoration, Panagiotopoulou noted that a collaborative study had been initiated to study the entire area of Tainaron, under the direction of the Greek archaeologist A. Themos, but nothing more has been reported from this 577 According to Moschou (1975a, 175), much of this area has been looted and the agricultural exploitation has destroyed many of the traces of antiquity. 578 Moschou 1975a, 174 and Figure 6. 579 Forster and Woodward 1906, 249. 580 Moschou 1975a, 175-176 and Figure 7. 304 initiative.581 The 2007 excavations, a separate initiative organized after wildfires in the region cleared much of the vegetation (thus providing an opportunity to more easily excavate some areas), focused heavily on this building. In the publication following these excavations, Tsouli reported that the floorplan of the building consisted of 11 separate spaces, and was fundamentally different than previously thought582 – unfortunately, no plan or photographs were included in the report, so the new layout of this residential complex is still unclear. Rooms 2 through 8 were roofed, as evidenced by a large concentration of Lakonian-style rooftiles and Rooms 5 & 10 had water reservoirs lined with hydraulic mortar to ensure adequate water supply in this arid region. The excavators dated the complex, based on the mosaic pavement and associated ceramics, to the late Hellenistic period (2nd – 1st century BCE)/early Roman period (1st century CE). Of note is the presence of opus signinum flooring, a decorative technique popular in the Italian mainland, and only found once elsewhere in Lakonia (in Sparta); the technique is also associated with three Italian-style domestic dwellings on the island of Delos, all of which date to 110-90 BCE.583 Based on the Italian-style mosaic decorations and the size of the dwelling, this house at Tainaron may have belonged to wealthy Roman merchants involved in the marble trade during the late Hellenistic-early Roman period. This hypothesis is complemented by the confirmed Hellenistic date of exploitation of the black marble quarries on the coast of Tainaron (Q007) and at nearby Kyparissos (Q015); the black marble tesserae of the mosaics undoubtedly came from these quarry-sites. Further to the west, Moschou observed more building foundations, cisterns, a large but empty grave, and an isolated building to the extreme west of the promontory (toponym: Aria) 581 Panagiotopoulou 2001-2004 [2012], 290. 582 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 548. 583 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 551n248. 305 Figure 6-29: View of domestic building with mosaic floor on westernmost bay, Tainaron. Photo by author. which has marble floors and several pillars – perhaps this building was associated with a supervisor or owner of the marble extraction on the western coast of the Tainaron promontory (see Chapter 3).584 Moschou is, to my knowledge, the only scholar who has discussed the layout and function of the western auxiliary buildings to-date, with the exception of the building with the large mosaic, which Woodward mentioned was already damaged by the time of his 584 Woodward also noted an oblong poros building at the extreme western section of the site, but it does not match Moschou’s description of her western building; in fact, no description of Moschou’s matched Woodward’s building, so perhaps the stones had all been removed by the time of her writing. 306 publication.585 This lack of attention paid to the auxiliary buildings is perhaps surprising given the fact that there are many literary references to the sanctuary at Tainaron in its capacity as a place refuge and/or asylum, as well as a mercenary-market, all of which require auxiliary buildings for short-term housing; the more permanent residents – such as the priests – would also need long-term solutions for housing and food/water storage. When comparing the large quantity of literary sources which refer to these functions of the sanctuary to the sole literary source which refers to a ‘psychopompeion’, one would expect much more investigation with regard to the former function and attempting to interpret the archaeological remains in light of this usage. Rather, the emphasis has been, as I discuss in the following chapter, disproportionately focused on ‘oracular’ activity at the sanctuary which never actually took place in this sacred space rather than the physical remains of the sanctuary itself. Ancient Tainaron has received more attention from classicists and ancient historians than any other ancient site within the Inner Mani peninsula. Its fame as a sanctuary of Poseidon, the entrance to the Underworld, and a safe place of refuge for slaves and helots has been well-recorded throughout the literary record and I argue that these roles contributed to the perception of the sanctuary as a liminal place and a neutral, protected space. With regard to the archaeological remains, much attention has been placed on the three structures in the sanctuary which were tied most prominently to the literary sources: the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi (the temple to Poseidon), the cave (the entrance to the Underworld), and the rectangular building (the ‘psychopompeion’). Scholars have presented various arguments for the date, function, and construction of these three features, which are based largely on superficial investigations and architectural surveys; these studies have their own merit, but more questions persist regarding 585 Forster and Woodward 1906, 249. 307 usage and chronology that are unable to be answered through isolated studies of individual structures. These three structures have largely been studied individually, while the larger context of the site is relegated to a brief mention. The entire picture of the sanctuary, however, is one that reveals many domestic structures and auxiliary buildings scattered around and among these three religious buildings. I argued that due to its geographic isolation, Tainaron was an ideal place for a sanctuary which provided refuge for those seeking safety, as well as for the masses of mercenaries housed here during the Hellenistic period; the harsh, mountainous terrain hindered overland communication, and thus resources needed to be readily available for visitors to the sanctuary, as well as those living at the site – even if just a small cohort of religious officials. These necessities included, at a most basic level, food, water, and shelter, and it is important to consider the archaeological footprint at Tainaron in light of its role of a major ancient sanctuary and the functions required thereof. Scholars often note the number of cisterns in the area (which gave the area the toponym ‘Kisternes’), but these have never been counted, let alone mapped. Some of the auxiliary buildings in the wider area may have served as farmhouses or storehouses to cater to the needs of the sanctuary. Even the numerous building foundations briefly discussed above have only been partially mapped, and until a more comprehensive archaeological investigation takes place that encompasses the sanctuary in its entirety, our understanding of the function of Tainaron throughout antiquity remains incomplete. 6.6 The West Coast As mentioned briefly in the previous chapter, the evidence for occupation along the western coast of Mani is problematic in that there are only a few archaeological remains and inscriptions that can be dated with relative confidence to any given period of interest. With 308 regard to Hellenistic-period occupation, however, there are select remains that reveal telling information for the settlements and inhabitants, including the existence of ancient Hippola in this period through inscriptions granting proxeny to citizens of Hippola. There are also at least two examples of elaborate funerary relief sculptures which bear stylistic influence from eastern workshops, suggesting overseas contact and exchange of artistic styles, if not trade and/or immigration between the two locales. The problem inherent in the body of evidence on the western coast of Mani, however, is that while there are numerous examples of ancient architectural members, inscriptions, and reliefs throughout the region, most of these are membra disiecta or have been incorporated into later churches as spolia, thus removing context and precluding the determination of provenance. It is important to reiterate that although scholars frequently assign the ‘provenance’ of these unaffiliated artifacts to ancient Hippola, we do not know where the site of ancient Hippola was located, so we cannot definitively associate spoliated inscriptions, artifacts, and architectural members along the western coast of Mani with any one ancient settlement until this issue is resolved in the future. Furthermore, without context, many of these spoliated members cannot be dated precisely. They therefore only provide limited assistance in supporting arguments for settlement patterns or occupation history. However, the spolia and membra disiecta comprise a substantial body of evidence in an otherwise barren landscape and to ignore these unaffiliated artifacts would lead to a misrepresentation of the surviving material cultural record. I have, therefore, assigned a tentative date to much of this spolia based on stylistic evaluations and supporting contextual evidence for the region, with the understanding that the dating of these architectural members and reliefs may well be adjusted following future research. 309 6.6.1 Cavo Grosso & Vicinity One of the major concentrations of ancient spolia along the western coast is atop the plateau of Cavo Grosso and its surrounding plain. Here, there are several churches with examples of ancient architectural members, reliefs, and inscriptions, notably in the modern towns of Keria, Kounos, Nomia, and atop Cavo Grosso itself. Since this region is thought to be the location of both ancient Hippola and ancient Messe, scholars have always attributed the spolia to one of these two ancient sites, despite the fact that neither has been conclusively identified. The amount of spoliated remains and vestiges of antiquity on the plateau of Cavo Grosso and the plain below suggest that there was indeed at least one ancient settlement here, but the location of any ancient site in the region is far from certain. 6.6.1.1 Keria The church of Aghios Ioannes in Keria is one of the most famously spoliated churches in Mani (Figure 6-30).586 There are several ancient marble pieces embedded in the western façade of the church, including architectural members and well-hewn ashlar blocks, monolithic columns (including two erected in the courtyard; Bruno et al. catalogue G25-26), and three late Hellenistic-early Roman Ionic capitals. Bruno et al. categorized the three capitals within the same typological group as those capitals found within the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi at Tainaron (Bruno et al. catalogue G22-24). One of these capitals (G24) was sculpted in the Attic tradition, with well-defined volute channels and a protruding echinus similar to examples found in Rome.587 586 LL196. 587 Bruno et al. 2002, 40. G23 was built into Aghios Ioannes in such a way that only the bottom is visible. Unfortunately, none of these were tested for isotopic signatures. 310 Figure 6-30: Aghios Ioannes, Keria. Photo by author. Also embedded within this church was a relief sculpture of two pairs of (presumably) married couples standing within a naiskos on top of a bottom register that depicts two different urns flanking a rosette (Figure 6-31); the accompanying funerary inscription (IG V,1 1334a; SEG 42 303; 60 387) was located between the registers of sculptural decoration: Καλλικρατίδας, Γοργίδας, Ὠφελία, Νικοί· χαίρετε. Strocka believed the sculptural decoration to be directly influenced by another grave stele (for Polykratis and Nikandria, see below) of the 2nd century BCE, and thus provided a similar date for this inscription.588 588 Strocka 1985, 288. 311 Figure 6-31: IG V,1 1334a. Photo by Author. 312 Cyriac of Ancona recorded that this sculpture was a part of an ancient altar and was embedded in the church “of the Baptist” (in aede Baptistae) in the village of “Καιρίαν”.589 In the 1913 publication of IG, Kolbe stated that a village with such a name was unknown, and catalogued this inscription under the geographic heading ‘Kardamyle’ (IG V,1 1334a), a village which lies to the north of Oitylos in Outer Mani, despite the fact that Cyriac listed this location between the village of Dri and Kyparissos – the precise location of Keria.590 The sculpture was re-discovered in 1968 on the western wall of the church, but was stolen in 1997 by locals who refused to hand it over to the region’s Ephorate until the local police force stepped in; the sculpture is now in the Gytheio Museum (1160), where I studied it in August 2017.591 Another inscription from the village of Keria (SEG 42 304) appears on another white marble funerary relief sculpture that was removed from the ruined church of Aghioi Asomatoi and is currently on display in the Sparta museum (inv. 6661; Figure 6-32a-b).592 The inscription is quite simple and reads: Πολυκρατὶς Νικανδρία χαίρετε That the grave relief was for two women is confirmed by the central sculpture on the stele, which depicts two women within a pedimental naiskos. 589 Fol. 107; Bodnar and Foss 2003, 320-321. 590 Kolbe 1913, 248: “Haud scio, an Cardamyle intelligenda sit, cum Cyriacus ‘exinde extremas Taenarii promontorii partes videre desiderans’ urbem Cyparissiam i.e. Taenarum adierit.” Komis (2005, 372) said that the earliest textual reference to this place was the 1829 Éxpédition Scientifique de Morée (see Chapter 3), so Keria certainly would have been an attested place-name by 1913. See also Seifried 2016, T066. 591 For the ‘re-discovery’ of the inscription see Delivorrias 1968b, 119-120 and Michaud 1970, 982. For the rescue and rehousing of the sculpture, see Zavvou and Themos 2001-2004 [2012], 210-211. 592 Delivorrias 1968b, 119-120. 313 The figure on the left, Polykratia, is standing, while the figure on the right, Nikandria, is seated on an impressive throne with a footstool. The women, Polykratis and Nikandria, are flanked by two smaller figures who are assumed to be attendants, holding boxes. Both women are missing their heads, but Polykratia’s clothing and pose are recognizable as the familiar ‘pudicitia’ type.593 The deceased are standing on a large pedestal base which is also elaborately decorated with images of four Nikai: the two central Nikai hold a basket containing six vessels 593 Papaefthemiou 1992, 76 & 160. Figure 6-32a-b: SEG 42 304 & detail. Photo by Author. A B 314 (hydriae and amphorae), while the flanking Nikai play instruments (a double-aulos and a lyre). Elsewhere, the monument continues to be embellished with sculptural decoration, including the register above the pedestal which depicts lions, panthers, and bulls between bucrania and rosettes; the antae flanking the deceased women boast acanthus tendrils and flower blossoms; and the entablature of the naiskos, which shows a gorgoneion in the pediment, akroteria, and a triglyph and metope frieze. The decoration and style of this stele are discussed in detail by Papaefthimiou, who also dates the relief to the second half of the 2nd century BCE, based on the stylistic characteristics of both the sculpture and the inscription.594 This particular relief has received more attention than perhaps might be expected of a reused object with no exact provenance – the composition of the entire relief program is unique, and the style of the sculpture has led Papaefthemiou, following Strocka, to conclude that this piece is the work of an eastern Greek workshop, likely in Asia Minor and perhaps in the vicinity of Smyrna.595 The pudicitia-type of female depiction is striking, since it is not found elsewhere in Lakonia, and while frequent in grave stelae from Thessaly and Macedonia, it is the most common form of female depiction in the eastern Greek world during the late Hellenistic period.596 Papaefthemiou concluded that the commissioner of this piece perhaps originated from the eastern Greek world, but did not speculate further with regard to the implications of this statement – that is, that such an import suggests trade, immigration, or at the very least, communication between the two places (western Mani and Asia Minor). It is, of course, impossible to know how this funerary monument ended up within the structure of the church of Agioi Asomatoi in Keria, or where it had originally been erected. Strocka believed that this stele belonged to a member of the social 594 Papaefthimiou 1992, 161. 595 Papaefthimiou 1992, 76, 78 & 83; Strocka 1985, 287. 596 Papaefthimiou 1992, 75- 76. 315 elite who had imported this piece which was so unusual and influential that it inspired other, similar gravestones to be manufactured locally, particularly the piece discussed above for Kallikratidas and Gorgidas.597 With regard to the lives of Nikandria and Polykratis, Papefthemiou suggested that the two women were musicians, and that they may have been the winners of a musical competition, thereby explaining the large relief scene on the pedestal of the Nikai holding a basket of six vessels (prizes for the winners) and playing instruments.598 No further clues to the ethnic identity of these women survive, but there are multiple clues as to their cultural and geographic identity (Asia Minor), professional identity (musicians), and social identity (elite). The names of both women are extremely rare: the name Nikandria only occurs three times in the LGPN (here, Megalopolis, and Macedonia); Polykratis only occurs here and once in Megara. There is no concrete evidence for the settlement in which they lived on Mani – Hippola is the closest candidate, assuming it was located in the vicinity of Cavo Grosso. 6.6.1.2 Cavo Grosso Plateau There is more evidence of antiquity atop the 5km-long plateau of Cavo Grosso, a flat, barren, strip of land with precipitous cliffs on all sides. The plateau itself – or sections thereof – would have been easily defensible and the large dry-rubble walls along the eastern edge of the plateau attest to this practice, although no water sources and no natural shade render this a harsh place in which to seek shelter. The western cliffs are known as the ‘Makrina’ ridges, and the 597 Strocka 1985, 288; Papaefthemiou 83. Strocka expressed strong belief that the stele of Kallikratidas and Gorgidas was provincial and inferior, and suggested the two men may have been shepherds. 598 Papaefthemiou 1992, 78-81; of course, the purported festival and whether it took place within Lakonia cannot be known. Papaefthemiou (1992, 81) suggested perhaps the festival of Demeter Eleusina in Sparta. 316 Figure 6-33: Cavo Grosso and plain. ©GoogleEarth. western rock-face is associated with Pausanias’ Thyrides because of the many sea-caves that are visible. On the southernmost end of Cavo Grosso, in the region of the plateau known as ‘Kastro tis Orias’, there is a small, ruined chapel of Aghios Petros built of dry-rubble construction – the only indication that it once functioned as a chapel lies in the residual apse at the eastern end. No roof or wall finishing survives, and the floors are completely obscured by fallen rocks and vegetation. In appearance, it more closely resembles a field house than a religious structure (Figure 6-34a-b). There are a few marble architectural members of note here, including the two lintel blocks over the southern entrance, one of which boasts a socket and may have once been employed as a threshold block. There are also a few well-hewn blocks lying within the church itself, and the blocks framing the niche on the east end are both reused from an earlier building. 317 Figure 6-34 a-b: Aghios Petros, Cavo Grosso. A: fallen architectural members and apse. B: Incised block with inscription. Photos by author. The southern of these appears to have once been an engaged column, and the northern is a precisely worked rectangular block that has a long incised rectangular cutting on one of its wide side, and incised letters on the adjacent narrow side. I received permission to study this inscription in 2015, but the letters are so worn that no words are apparent, although there is no doubt that this inscription is ancient. (Figure 6-34b). To the north of this church is another ruined church, Aghios Philippos, which is used as a cowshed today – it is one of the few places that provides shade on the whole of the Cavo Grosso plateau, and the large, unattended herds of cattle which roam the area for months at a time are truly striking. Within Aghios Philippos are several marble architectural members, including one A B 318 Figure 6-35 a-b: Finds from Aghios Philippos, Cavo Grosso. Worked marble block (left) and Hellenistic handles (right). Photos by author. square (column?) base. I have also observed tile and large handle fragments in the immediate vicinity of the church, which appear to be Hellenistic in date (Figure 6-35 a-b). In the central section of the plateau, there are ruins of extensive dry-stone walls. These remains are most clearly visible in satellite imagery, since the ground surface of the entire plateau has been completely obscured by macquis. Many of these may simply be field walls for farmhouses, but the extent and nature of these complexes are unclear, especially due to the fact that they are obscured on the ground. The eastern walls were certainly defensive, although the (mostly ruined) dry-rubble construction is impossible to date. At the northern end of the plateau, known as Ano Poula (“above Poula”, which corresponds to Kipoula, which itself may be a contraction of Kato Poula = “below Poula”), one of these massive complexes incorporates at least three churches. Two of these, Aghios Giorgos and Aghioi Theodoroi are built together within a large courtyard-type enclosure. In the courtyard in front of these churches lie well-hewn marble architectural blocks, one over 1m in length (Figure 6-36 a-b). Aghios Giorgos has only a few pieces of ancient spolia built into it, and these are all cut architectural blocks. A B 319 Figure 6-36 a-b: Architectural members on the exterior of Aghioi Theodoroi, Cavo Grosso. Photos by author. Also in the Ano Poula region of the plateau of Cavo Grosso, Woodward noted the presence of ceramics and specifically mentioned: “Hellenistic pottery of good quality, as well as black-glazed fragments common to all these periods, but there were none at all which seemed to be of the Roman age.”599 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson confirmed the presence of classical pottery and collected at least 22 sherds from the region which are currently housed in the British School at Athens, two of which are Classical-Hellenistic fineware drinking vessel fragments with black-glaze (BSAKIP0020 & BSAKIP0021; see Appendix H). 600 599 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 244. LL188 “Near Kipoula”. 600 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 123. A B 320 Figure 6-37: Episkopi church. Photo by author. 6.6.1.3 Cavo Grosso Plain Finally, returning to the plain below Cavo Grosso, I noted the following spolia (included in Hellensitic distribution charts): 1) Nomia’s Aghia Panaghia church: several gray marble columns lying on the ground in the vicinity, a white marble cornice block, and a few carved architectural members built into its exterior walls and lying on the ground in the interior of the church; 2) Nomia’s Taxiarches church: two cornice blocks; 3) church of Episkopi near the coast of Mezapos Bay (Figure 6-37): white marble base and a few rosso antico blocks (material more infrequently encountered on this side of the peninsula), two monolithic columns, each capped with a column base and an Ionic capital (Figures 6-38 & 6-39)601; 4) Vlacherna church near Mezapos Bay: some unremarkable ancient marble architectural blocks, including a column base. The only ceramic evidence of note from the lower plain comes from modern Mezapos, where Katsophados observed small, worn, black-glazed Hellenistic sherds, but provided no numbers, photos, or drawings. 601 I assume that Bruno et al. were not aware of these pieces upon compiling their catalogue of Ionic capitals from Mani, since these very fine examples are omitted from their work. One of the capitals is in excellent condition, while one has a broken volute. The capitals are not identical, as is apparent by examining their respective echinuses: in the capital with the broken volute, the egg-and-dart pattern is interrupted by the encroaching honeysuckle. The capitals are carved from white marble, as are the column bases and one of the columns, while the other column bears distinct blue veins. 321 Figure 6-39: Columns and Ionic capitals inside Episkopi church. Photo by author. Figure 6-38: Ionic capital and column base inside Episkopi church. Photo by author. 322 Considering the totality of the material cultural evidence from the Cavo Grosso region, a plausible conclusion is that a Hellensitic settlement existed in the area, with occupation atop the plateau as well as in the plain. A common interpretation is that Cavo Grosso functioned as an ancient acropolis, which is plausible, since there is a significant amount of architectural material atop the plateau. 6.6.2 Evidence for Ancient Hippola The location of ancient Hippola is believed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Cavo Grosso, and this remains the best candidate for a known, named ancient site in the region particularly in light of two late Hellenistic inscriptions from Exo Mani which explicitly mention the place-name of ancient Hippola: IG V,1 1336 from the modern village of Leuktra and IG V,1 1312 (SEG 11 945) from the village of Thalames. Both of these inscriptions contain the city-ethnic of ancient Hippola. The first is a lengthy inscription that contains a decree granting proxeny to judges (δικασταὶ) from the city of Hippola, and the processes and benefits that accompany such an institution. There are three individuals: Nikandrippos son of Nikan—[?], Zenokleidas son of Nikosthenes, and Philon, son of Da—[?]. These three men are all given the city-ethnic ‘Ἱππολαίους’ (Hippolaian), and the city ordered that this decree be set up at the sanctuary of Machaon at Gerenia (modern Kitries, Exo Mani), and that copies be sent to both Hippola and the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. This inscription is originally from Gerenia, despite its findspot in modern Leuktra. It was on a red marble stele in a private home and its current location is unknown. The text is as follows: 323 IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044)602 [ἐπ]ειδὴ παραγεν̣[όµε]νοι δικαστα[ὶ] παρ[ὰ τᾶς πό]- [λι]ος τῶν Ἱππολ[α]ίων Νι̣κάνδριππος [Νι]κα[ν], [Ξεν]οκ̣λ̣[εί]δ̣α̣[ς Νι]κ̣οσθ̣έ̣[νο]υ[̣ς, Φίλων] Δ̣α̣[— — —] [εἰς π]ό̣λ̣ι̣ν̣ τ[ὰ]ν Γερην̣[ῶ]ν ἀνεστράφεν ἀξ[ίως] 5 [τᾶς τ]ε ̣π̣όλ[ιο]ς [τᾶς ἀ]π̣οσ[τειλ]άσας καὶ αὑτῶ[ν] [καὶ κατὰ π]ᾶ̣ν [ἀκο]λ[ο]ύ̣θ̣[ω]ς τοῖς νόµοις, ὅσαι [µὲν ἦσαν δ]ίκαι ὑπο̣τ̣[ίµ]η̣[τ]αι, τάσδε̣ καὶ διέλ{ο}υσα[ν] {διέλυσαν}, [ὅσας] δ̣<ὲ> [βα]ρ̣είας ἀνέλαβον, ἔκριναν καθὼς [ἐνδ]ε̣χόµ ̣ενον ἦν [βέ]λτιστα, ἔδοξε τᾶι πό- 10 [λ]ει τῶν Γερηνῶν· προξένους εἶµεν καὶ εὐερ- [γ]έτας τᾶς πόλεως τῶγ Γερηνῶν Νικάνδριπ̣- [π]ο̣ν Ξενοκλείδ̣αν Φίλωνα Ἱππολαίους καὶ [ὑ]πάρχειν αὐτοῖς ἀτέλειαν καὶ εἰσαγόντοις̣ [κα]ὶ ἐξαγόντοις καὶ ἀσυλίαν καὶ ἐπινοµίαν 15 [κ]αὶ γᾶς ἔνκτησιν καὶ οἰκίας καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τί- µια ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις, αὐτοῖς τε καὶ ἐκγόνοις· ἀναγράψαι δ̣ὲ τοὺς ἐφόρους τοὺς ̣π̣ερὶ Φιλωνίδαν τὰν προξενίαν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Μαχάονος· γράψαι δὲ καὶ ἀντίγραφον τᾶς προ- 20 [ξ]ενίας καὶ ἀποστεῖλαι γράµµατα ποτὶ τὰ[ν] [π]όλιν τῶν Ἱππολαίων καὶ τοὺς ἐφόρ<ο>υς, ὅπω̣[ς] [ἀ]ναγραφῆι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ποσιδᾶνος τοῦ [ἐ]- [π]ὶ ἄκρωι. “Since the judges being present from the city of the Hippolaians, Nikandrippos the son of Nikan-[?], Xenokleidas the son of Nikosthenes, Philon the son of Da-[?], returned to the city of the Gerenians in a manner worthy of the city that sent them and of themselves, and in a manner obedient to the laws in every way, and however many penalties (liabilities?) were assessed, these also they payed (dissolved?), and however many heavy (liabilities) they took up, they determined how it was best for the one receiving them—it seemed good to the city of the Gerenians: that Nikandrippos, Xenokleidas, and Philon, Hippolaians, should be proxenoi and benefactors of the city of the Gerenians, and that they should have exemption from public burdens both for imports and for exports, and inviolability, and the right of pasturage, and tenure of land and household, and the rest of the honors that also (are granted) to other proxenoi, they and their descendants; that the ephors around Philonidas should inscribe the decree of proxeny on the temple of Machaon; that they should also write a copy of the proxeny decree and send the letters to the city of the Hippolaians and to the ephors, so that it may be inscribed at the temple of Poseidon on the promontory.”603 602 For discussions on various interpretations of the text, see Forster 1903/4 175; Robert & Robert 1953, 138-9; and Wilhelm 1951, 75-77. 603 Translation Hilary Bouxsein. 324 IG V,1 1312 (SEG 11 945) 1 — — — — —ΣΠΑ — — — — — — [Ἱππολ]αίως προξένως ἦµε[ν] [καὶ] εὐεργέτας τᾶς πόλεος τῶ[ν] [Θ]αλαµατᾶν αὐτώς τε καὶ ἐκγό- 5 [ν]ω̣ς, ἐπεὶ πολλὰς καὶ µεγάλας χ̣[ρεί]- [α]ς εὐ[ερ]γετοῦντες ἥκοντι τὰµ πό- λιν· ἦµεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἰσοπολιτεία[ν], γᾶς τε καὶ οἰκίας ἔνκτησιν καὶ ἐ- πινοµίαν καὶ ἀτέλειαν· ὑπά[ρ]χε̣ιν̣ 10 δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ τἆλλα τίµια, ὅσα κ̣[αὶ] τοῖς ἄ[λ]λ[οις] ε[ὐερ]γέτ[α]ις. vacat 12 ἔδοξε τῶι δάµωι· πρόξ[ενον] [ἦµεν — — — — ΚΤΛ.] “…that the Hippolaians be proxenoi and benefactors of the city of the Thalamitai, they and their descendants, since they performed many great services for the city voluntarily; that they have isopoliteia, tenure of land and household, the right of pasturage, and exemption from public burdens; that they have the rest of the honors that also (are granted) to other benefactors. [vacat] It seemed good to the people: that there be a proxenos…”604 This second inscription was found in the ruins of a small church in Kutiphari, and at the time of the publication of IG V,1 it was built into a private building; its material, date, and current location are all unknown. Although it contains less information than IG V,1 1336, if the restoration of the city-ethnic ‘[Ἱππολ]αίως’ is correct, this inscription provides additional evidence for the granting of proxeny to citizens of Hippola. Together, these inscriptions yield crucial information about the role of ancient Hippola in the political life of Mani; while the precise dates of these inscriptions are unknown, Kennell believed that the content (proxeny decrees) suggested these political actions were under the organization of either the Lakedaimonian or Eleutherolakonian League, i.e. sometime after the 604 Translation Hilary Bouxsein. 325 early 2nd century BCE and before Pausanias’ writing in the 2nd century CE (since Pausanias does not include Hippola in his list of Eleutherolakonian cities). When comparing the information in these inscriptions with the other two proxeny decrees that survive from the Inner Mani peninsula (see above 1226, 1227), these texts echo information about the privileges that such proxeny afforded, including exemption from duties on imports and exports (ἀτέλειαν καὶ εἰσαγόντοις καὶ ἐξαγόντοις), asylum (ἀσυλίαν), the right to graze flocks (ἐπινοµίαν), the right to own land with a place to live (καὶ γᾶς ἔνκτησιν καὶ οἰκίας; γᾶς τε καὶ οἰκίας ἔνκτησιν), and all of the rest of the privileges bestowed by proxeny (καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τίµια ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις; καὶ τἆλλα τίµια, ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐεργέταις). As Kennell pointed out, such evidence reveals that member-cities were very much independent of one another and that the member-cities of the Lakedaimonian League did not enjoy full sympolity with each other.605 One might expect, however, that such an inscription containing this level of information would feature more prominently in the history of perioikic Lakedaimon, but this inscription has barely received a passing mention in the leading scholarship. For example, while Kennell is very much aware of the inherent value of epigraphic evidence for reconstructing the history of the Eleutherolakonian cities and their League, he tended to draw broad conclusions regarding all of the cities of the League rather than focusing on the evidence provided by individual epigraphic sources. 606 Furthermore, when singling out individual inscriptions, he focused on those deriving from the more prominent cities of the League, namely Gytheio, while all of the inscriptions 605 Kennell 1999, 198-199. 606 Kennell 1999 – For example 205: “In this context, it is at least ironic and perhaps even significant, that no inscription of more than local interest, strictly speaking, has come from post-classical Sparta, whereas the towns of the Lacedaimonian and Eleutherolaconian Leagues have furnished several of prime importance to ancient history: the Cloatii decree, vital for the understanding of the activities of Roman negotiatores; the sacred law of Gythium…; and most significantly, the many fragments of Diocletian’s price edict found at Geronthrae, Gythium, and Boeae.” 326 derived from the Inner Mani alone – including the evidence for the Eleutherolakonian League such as proxeny decrees (IG V,1 1226, 1227, 1312, 1336) and offices of presbutes, ephors, and treasurers (IG V,1 1226, 1227, 1240, 1241, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1336) – are relegated to a few endnotes throughout his important work.607 That is to say, ultimately, that there is more evidence to be found within the inscriptions (and the historical and archaeological evidence) of Mani than has traditionally been presented. For example, when Kennell noted scholarship’s tendency to neglect the Lakedaimonian and Eleutherolakonian Leagues, he commented that: “There is, of course, a valid reason for this neglect, the appalling lack of evidence, even in comparison with that available for late Hellenistic and Roman Sparta.” In the endnote for this sentence, he wrote: “This situation does not seem likely to change in the forseeable future, as the disappointing results of the Laconian survey regarding the hellenistic [sic] and Roman periods make clear.”608 The problem with these claims, however, is that while they might be true for the territory surveyed by the Laconia Survey team – a 70 km2 swath of land to the east of Sparta – and the settlements that typically comprise the focus of perioikic history (places like Gytheio, Geronthrai, Boiai, etc.), these examinations usually omit the Mani peninsula in its entirety or, at the very least, the present study area of the Inner Mani. There is much evidence to be incorporated from this part of the peninsula and while I agree with Kennell that a “full-scale excavation of a perioicic site” is ideal, I do not believe that it is the “only way for modern scholarship to learn more about these cities and communities scattered about the coast and interior of Laconia”. While this latter statement may indeed be true of the well-studied ancient places of Gytheio and Geronthrai, Kennell and 607 Kennell 1999, 198 & n46, n63, n66, & n67. 608 Kennell 1999, 189 & n1; Cavanaugh et al. 1996, 91-110, 199-211. 327 other leading scholars are perhaps forgetting that there is still much to be learned about the Mani peninsula from the existing evidence, as a closer examination of these proxeny inscriptions bestowed by ancient Hippola have shown. As I mentioned above in discussing the proxeny decrees from Tainaron, none of the surviving Lakedaimonian League decrees granting proxeny to a Spartan were issued by an individual member-city within Mani; all of the decrees granting proxeny to Spartans were issued by member-cities located in the geographic region to the south-east of Sparta (Cotyrta IG V,1 961, 965, 966; Gerenia IG V,1 1112, 1113; Gytheio, IG V,1 1145, 1533), or by the League itself. The sole evidence for the connection between Spartan proxeny and Maniate cities is exclusively that the decrees themselves were set up at Tainaron. This situation persists upon examination of the decrees granting proxeny to citizens of Hippola by the ancient cities of Thalames and Gerenia. There is no indication that any Maniate member-city felt any need to have representation via proxeny at Sparta. Instead, the granting of proxeny to Hippolaitans by Gerenia and Thalames show more localized connections in the region of the western coast of Mani. The granting of specific privileges associated with proxeny, in these cases exemption from duties, asylum, the right to graze flocks and to land-ownership, indicate that these civic institutions are alive and well in at least one place along the western coast of Inner Mani and two more member-cities in Exo Mani. To conclude this section, it is important to reiterate that Kennell is absolutely correct in his comment about the need for systematic archaeological survey and excavations in and around these ancient sites. The most revealing evidence for this region is inscriptional, including two Hellenistic sculptural reliefs – one perhaps the product of an east Greek workshop, and one an imitation thereof, which imply wealth and cosmopolitan connections. Most informative are the 328 proxeny decrees that mention Hippola, since they comprise a large portion of the evidence for the ancient political and civic history of that polis. Ultimately, in terms of identifying the original provenance for these inscriptions and reconstructing the settlements on the west coast of the Inner Mani, the epigraphic evidence suggests that Hippola was an important political site for at least a portion of its history, and further work is necessary to determine the extent and territory of this Eleutherolakonian polis. 6.6.3 Coastal Mani between Mezapos & Pyrgos Dirou Between Mezapos and Pyrgos Dirou, the evidence for antiquity consists largely of ancient spolia within later Byzantine churches, a trend which is now familiar for the entirety of the western coast of Mani, as seen throughout the Cavo Grosso plain. From south to north (beginning at Mezapos and terminating at Pyrgos Dirou), the following evidence for Hellenistic-period ancient activity has been recorded, both by early scholars as well as by myself during visits from 2012-2017. Near the site of modern Erimos there is an enormous crater in the ground, a result of the limestone caves that dot the length of the western coast. The dimensions of this hole are 30 m (N-S) by 50 m (E-W) at its longest extent. The bottom of the crater is obscured by trees and vegetation; Woodward suggested it was 20-30 metres deep, although I would double that estimate.609 On the north-west edge of this, Woodward photographed a 0.67m high relief on a standing male, which he interpreted as Herakles.610 I was unable to locate this relief in 2014. 609 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 241. 610 Ibid. Figure 1. In this region, Woodward was also shown a carved “whitish-yellow” marble Roman relief of a standing male figure (0.25m in height) that was in the possession of a local villager. 329 Figure 6-40: Column and Ionic capital inside Aghia Triada, Mbriki. Photo by author. At the site of modern Mbriki, inside the church of Aghia Triada, stands an ancient column capped with an Ionic capital and an upside-down column base in a manner similar to the church of Episkopi (Figure 6-40). The unfluted column itself is quite substantial, although the colour has been obscured by modern paint. The Ionic capital atop the column base is stylistically very similar to that found at Episkopi. The church of Aghios Taxiarches at Kouloumi bears ancient architectural members and threshold blocks; Woodward believed some of these architectural members belonged to the “sill-course of an ancient shrine”.611 Just to the west of the inhabited portion of the town are a series 611 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 241. LL173. 330 Figure 6-41: Ceramics from Kouloumi. Photo courtesy of Rebecca Seifried. of enclosed fields in which I observed significant concentrations of ancient pottery, as well as presence of obsidian flakes (Figure 6-41). Woodward recorded ancient brick and tile, and a fragment of a brown-slipped hydria in some unspecified fields near the church.612 Further west, on the coastal promontory, I observed a shallow rock-cut depression, and Woodward recorded several sculpted fragments, including a life-sized broken male torso of white marble that he presumed was Herakles and dated to the 3rd century BCE, and a fragment of a life-sized standing female figure.613 I assume that such pieces have long ago made their way into the homes of the local villagers. The high concentration of finds in Kouloumi suggests to me the presence of a small, unknown, ancient site at this location and requires further inquiry. Across the highway, to the east of Kouloumi, is the settlement of Vamvaka.614 Dotted throughout the hillside village are many ancient marble architectural members, including a 612 He noted (241) that the hydria, “in coarse reddish clay with dull brown slip, similar in style and purpose to those found in such numbers at Sparta in 1907, but interesting as being of ‘hydria’ shape, which is unknown there.” 613 Ibid and note 1. 614 LL174 331 Figure 6-42: Iconostasis of Aghios Petros, Paleochora. Photo by author. cornice-block built into a field wall, column fragments and bases displayed within private residences, and a column base built into the exterior of the church of Aghioi Theodoroi. The settlement of Paleochora lies just to the north of Vamvaka, at the same altitude nestled in the foothills of the Taygetos. On the southern edge of this village, the ruined church of Aghios Petros contains two monolithic, grey marble columns, each capped with a column base (Figure 6-42). A modern cemetery has been erected around this church, and an enclosure wall surrounds the complex; in this wall, to the left of the entrance, is a white marble relief of a standing female (Figure 6-43). The stone is broken on all sides, and only the torso, dress, and left arm of the woman are preserved. She wears a chiton and a himation tied up under her belt in a manner reminiscent of Artemis. Her arm is crooked and her hand rests on her garment, perhaps pulling 332 Figure 6-43: Relief sculpture of a woman, Paleochora. Photo by author. the fabric slightly.615 It dates to the late Classical/Hellenistic period, and is unique among the spolia of Mani. It may have been sourced from the marble quarries at nearby Charouda. To my knowledge this relief is unpublished, but a full study of this object in comparison to other votive reliefs of Artemis would be welcome. To the west of Paleochora, across the highway, is the settlement of Tsopakas. Further west from Tsopakas are the isolated ruins of a triple-barred church called ‘Trissakia’ (likely a contraction of tris+ekklesakia, or ‘three little churches’). On the ground inside the main chamber are cut architectural members and two kioniskoi. 615 My sincerest thanks to Ross Brendle and Carolyn Laferriere for their insightful comments on this relief. 333 The next promontory is situated just north of Langadaki Bay, which was the location for a white marble quarry discussed in Chapter 3. Between the coast and the nearby village of Charouda is the cave site of Vythakas, a two-chambered cave approximately 6 m below ground and 115 m in length.616 During reconnaissance within this cave, pottery was collected which dated to the “historical” period, as were three bronze coins. Among the ancient ceramics was an Hellenistic kantharos with West Slope decoration. Efstathiou-Manolakou included a photo of the vessel and noted that it was an imitation of metal examples and likely the product of a local workshop. Unfortunately, all of the material from the Vythakas cave is missing today.617 The concentration of spolia (including inscriptions) within Byzantine churches in this stretch of coastal land from modern Mezapos to modern Pyrgos Dirou, coupled with the evidence of ancient sculptural remains and the rock-cut relief observed by Woodward, lead me to conclude that there was likely a small ancient settlement in this region. The spolia, when dateable, coupled with the sculptural evidence, suggests late Classical/Hellenistic through Roman occupation. The ceramic scatter visible at Kouloumi may be indicative of ancient inhabitation, and in terms of location for an ancient site, Kouloumi is the most likely candidate.618 The physical situation of this proposed site – identified based on the location of the ceramic scatter and the sculpture recorded by Woodward upon the promontory – is unusual for sites of ancient Mani, particularly since Koukouri Bay to the immediate north is inaccessible by boat; the craggy, steep coastland would prevent one from engaging in any significant naval 616 Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, 8. LL279 (mistakenly labelled as “Vythakas, Alepotrypa”) 617 Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, 8n12: “In the archive of the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology there is a record of finds (fragments of pots, bronze coins, an arrowhead and fragments of bone) that came from the cave, being handed in to the Community of Diros. We have not so far been able to locate the finds.” 618 Laconia Survey catalogue (LL174) even suggest that the Vamvaka inscription may be from Kouloumi with no further comment. 334 activity from this place, although today the area is replete with salt-pans that are still actively used. If there was an ancient site in the vicinity of modern Kouloumi, it would have been inaccessible by sea, in contrast to the majority of the coastal sites throughout Mani – the only other known ancient site that is significantly removed from the coast is Kionia (see above). Woodward did suggest that the finds in this area perhaps indicated a sanctuary, which would create a fitting parallel to Kionia (although the latter is, of course, much more remote). 6.7 The North-West There is no literary evidence for Hellenistic Oitylos, only three inscriptions and scant archaeological evidence in the form of ceramic scatters and perhaps the fortification wall, both discussed in the previous chapter (and included in the distribution charts for both the Classical and Hellenistic chapters for transparency). Two Hellenistic-period inscriptions from the area of ancient Oitylos may preserve the ancient city-ethnic. The first, IG V,1 1290, bore the following text on a fragmentary red marble stele (perhaps found on the ‘citadel’ of Oitylos):619 [— — — — — — —]ΛΙ[— — — —] [— ἀνήρ ἐστι ἀ]γαθ̣[ὸς — — —] [— — — — — —]τ̣αις [— — — —] [— — — — — κ]α̣ὶ ἐπίσ[ταται —] [— — — — — ἐπ]ιδαµή[σας] [— — — — — —]ρ̣ων αὐ[τ— — —] [— — — — — —]ς ἀριστ[ο— — —], [ἔδοξε τᾶι πό]λ̣ει τῶν ̣[Βειτυ]- [λέων(?)· πρόξε]ν̣ον εἶµ[εν καὶ] [εὐεργέταν τ]ᾶ̣ς ̣πόλ[εος τῶν] [Βειτυλέων αὐτ]ὸν ̣[καὶ ἐκγό]- [νους — — — — — — — — —] 619 The Packard Humanities Institute Epigraphy Database lists the date for this inscription as 2nd century BCE, but provides no reasoning. Kolbe (1913, 240) said the inscription was found ‘in arce’, which probably referred to the nearby ruined fortress of Kelepha. Forster (1903/4 170) said only that the inscription was “brought to me in the village”. 335 It is clear that the text of this inscription has been heavily restored, and the information it contains with regard to the city-ethnic and the institution of proxeny and euergetism cannot be taken at face value. At the time of the IG V,1 publication, this inscription was in the home of a private citizen, and its current location is unknown. The second example of a Hellenistic inscription from Oitylos wherein the city-ethnic is preserved is IG V,1 1296. This inscription, on a white marble stone, was built into the western wall of the church of Aghios Taxiarchis in modern Oitylos and can still be seen there today (Figure 6-44). The text is as follows: [ἁ πόλις] ἁ̣ τῶ̣[ν] [Βε]ι̣τ̣υλέων [Ἀ]- [ρι]στοφάνην Π̣[ο]- λυκράτους καὶ Φιλωνυµίας, ἐπ[ι]- δ̣εξαµένων ̣[τ]ὸ ἀνάλωµα Φ[ι]- λωνυµίδα καὶ Φ[ι]- λωνυµίας τῆς µ ̣ητρός. vacat Unfortunately, in this case the first part of the city-ethnic is missing, so in this case (as in IG V,1 1290) the exact spelling – and presence of a B – is unclear. This dedicatory inscription bears the names of several individuals: Aristophanes (the honorand), son of Polykrates and Philonumia, and Philonumida, Aristophanes’ mother, who dedicated the stone along with Philonumia. The name Philonumida is of interest because it only occurs three times in the LGPN, and the other two records are from Sparta. A date of 2nd century BCE is given to this inscription in the LGPN database, but no reasoning is provided. 336 Figure 6-44: IG V,1 1296. Photo by Author. There are several inscriptions associated with the church Koimesis tou Theotokou, but only one provides information beyond onomastic statistics. This inscription, IG V,1 1295, was seen ‘outside’ the church by Forster, while Kolbe said it was built into the “subsellium”; its current location is unknown. The text of this inscription is the longest from the area of ancient Oitylos, recording a catalogue of names, which Forster suggested was perhaps a catalogue of ephebes620: 620 Forster 1903/4, 168. 337 1 [— — — — Ἡρα]κ̣λε̣ίδαν̣ τ̣ὸ̣ν ̣ἁρ̣µ ̣οσ̣τ̣άν· Παἱνικίδα[ς, — — — — — —] [— — — — —]ο̣α̣ — — —ω̣ν̣ αὐτόµολος, Χαρῖνος, Ἐπίσ[τρ]α̣τ̣[ος], [— — — Ξ]ε̣νόδαµος, Βαδηἵας, Εὔβωλος, Εὔδαµος, Πειἱκρατίδα[ς], [— — —]ς̣, Χαιριάδας, Ἄ̣γιππος, Πάτρ̣ων, Δαµέας, Πειἱκρατίδας, 5 [— —]α̣ς, Νικ̣όστρατος, Μ̣, Τιµίων, Φίλιος, Τρίτων, vacat [— —]ο̣ς, Χρηἱµίδας, Δ̣αµίων, Πά̣τρ̣ων, Περκλῆς, Φιλοµηλ̣ί̣δας, [— —]α̣ς, Φιλώνυµος, Σιµίας, Νίκανδρος, Στράτων, Κλε̣αρέτα̣ς̣, [— —]δα̣ς Κρατήἱππος, Σωιξίων Κ̣λέϊππος, Νικόδ̣α̣µ ̣[ος, Ἀγ]η̣τορίδ̣α[ς], [— —]η̣ς, Φιλόδαµος, Νικίων, Ξένιππος, Νικο̣[— — — — — — — — —] 10[— — —], Λ̣υἱγένης, Τιµύλος, Φιλέα̣ς, [— — — — — — — — — — — —] When Kolbe published his transcription and transliteration of this text in the IG V,1 volume, he had recorded more of the inscription than Forster had in his 1903/4 publication. Notably, the letters added by Kolbe included the majority of the first line, about which he seems relatively confident ([— — — — Ἡρα]κ̣λε̣ίδαν ̣τ̣ὸν̣̣ ἁρ̣µ ̣οσ̣τ̣άν· Παἱνικίδα[ς, — — — — — —]), given that his transcription of the surviving portions of the letters themselves are less clear: Kolbe’s restoration is important to consider, because in it he included the word “τ̣ὸ̣ν ̣ἁρ̣µ ̣οστάν”, which he believed was evidence of the existence of a harmost in this inscription and, therefore, at Oitylos. A harmost (ὁ ἁρµ-οστής -οῦ,) was a governor-type official sent out by the Spartans to her perioikic and subject-cities.621 The implication of reading this word, and thereby understanding this office in Oitylos, is that this furnishes Oitylos with unequivocal evidence of control by Sparta. Not only does this reading supply Oitylos with such an officer, it also dates this inscription to before the invasion of Sparta and Lakonia by Titus Quinctius Flamininus in 196 BCE.622 Moreover, the name immediately after the purported word ‘harmost’ – Painikidas – 621 Thucydides 8.5, Xenophon, Hellenica, 2.4.28. 622 The date given in the Packhard Humanities Institute Epigraphy database is prior to 196 BCE and, in the LGPN, a date of 3rd – 2nd century BCE is listed – seemingly, these dates are both based upon this one restored word. 338 is a hapax, so this does not support Kolbe’s reading. Without a photograph of this stone, or the knowledge of its current whereabouts, such a restoration is precarious because of the implications with regard to date and political history, and should not be cited as evidence for the presence of a harmost at Oitylos, nor as evidence for the relationship between Oitylos and Sparta. Despite the wealth of personal names provided by this inscription, without context it is impossible to draw conclusions from these individuals with regard to who they were and/or what their political office may have been. 6.8 Discussion & Conclusions The Hellenistic and Roman Republican periods provide little in terms of the sheer number of ancient authors who provided written historical evidence for the settlements of Mani. Of the sources that do survive, only the locations of Las, Asine and Tainaron were mentioned; Las and Asine are only named once each (Lykophron 94-95; Polybius 5.19.[5-6], respectively) and neither source provided any valuable information about the settlements – with respect to Asine, it is unclear whether this is even Lakonian Asine, although I believe that this is indeed the case. The situation becomes more complex in light of the material cultural evidence: in terms of Hellenistic inscriptions from Kotronas, although the dates thereof are generally imprecise, the range of dates provides important supporting evidence for the existence of the attested ancient settlements in the region. This is particularly true with the settlement known as Teuthrone, since no ancient source mentions its existence until the middle of the 2nd century CE (Ptolemy 3.16.9; Pausanias 3.21.[7]; 3.25.[4]), but epigraphic evidence from the region of modern Kotronas dates 339 as early as the 2nd century BCE. Inscriptions from the coastal area of Kotronas provide information about the probable existence of a gymnasium and the political offices of gymnasiarch and hypogymnasiarch as well as for religious identity in the form of offices of hieroi and hiera and indications of Artemis-worship in the region. The fact that no settlement in the north-east of the Mani peninsula is confirmed epigraphically, however, proves to be a significant impediment to our comprehensive understanding of this area and its inhabitants in antiquity. Given the active civic and religious life around Kotronas during this period, I proposed that the temples at Kionia, may have been a regional sanctuary controlled by one the north-eastern settlements. The two temples at Kionia are completely absent in the historical and epigraphic records but, paradoxically, represent the best-preserved religious architecture within the entire Inner Mani peninsula. The exact dates of the temples are contested, but both belong to the mid-late Hellenistic period: the in-antis temple c. 100 BCE – Augustan period, and the peripteros between the second half of the 2nd century BCE – 80-50 BCE. The entire west coast of the Mani peninsula north of Tainaron is completely omitted from the historical sources, but the material culture, once again, paints an entirely different picture. There is an abundance of inscriptions and archaeological remains throughout the western coast, which I believe can be associated with at least two different ancient settlements: the first within the Cavo Grosso plain and the second perhaps around the site of ancient Kouloumi. A third place of interest, at the site of Diros Bay, is the subject of the case study in this dissertation, and provides evidence for ancient activity that was hitherto unknown. Most informative from this region are two Hellenistic-early Roman proxeny decrees from Exo Mani that name citizens from Hippola as proxenoi; together they comprise a large portion of the Hellenistic evidence for the 340 ancient political and civic history of that polis prior to its mention by any written source. The connection between the settlements along the western coast, as evidenced through the proxeny decrees, is supported by the relative flatness of the coastal plain. The seascape affords further evidence for the connectivity in this region, through a series of accessible bays, and I suggest that the west coast may have been an actual or perceived ‘region’ for the ancient inhabitants, who were interconnected with one another on this side of the Taygetos range. Further archaeological research is needed to test this hypothesis of interconnectivity, to determine whether there exists a marked footprint of shared material cultural in this region. When it comes to the ancient settlements of the Mani peninsula, the weight placed on the ancient sources has traditionally been disproportionate to the actual archaeological and epigraphic evidence derived from any given region. The literary and historical sources are helpful, but they provide an incomplete picture of ancient activity, especially in the Hellenistic period. The epigraphic sources provide much more evidence for ancient settlement in the region of modern Kotronas, but if the identification of this location with ancient Teuthrone is correct, this is in direct contrast to the evidence for ancient sources; the same is true for the epigraphic vs historical evidence for the site ancient Hippola. If the ratio of literary sources corresponded to the amount of epigraphic sources, we would expect much more from the region identified with ancient Las (modern Chosiari), but most of the material culture from that region actually dated to early periods, as discussed in previous chapters. The identification of these settlements and their historical reconstruction benefits from the assessment of all of the available evidence, with less weight placed on Pausanias, and more weight placed on the epigraphic and archaeological remains. 341 In contrast, the site and history of Hellenistic Tainaron is well-represented in the ancient written sources, as well as through archaeological and epigraphic evidence. Tainaron’s importance throughout the Hellenistic and Republican periods is reflected in the sources, and the sanctuary is referred to in fifteen passages: three reiterated the relationship between Tainaron and the Underworld (Lykophron 1106; Apollonius 1.101-102; Virgil 4.467); two included the now-familiar story of the regent Pausanias and his Argive slave that took place several centuries earlier (Diodorus Siculus 11.45.[4] and Cornelius Nepos 4.4); two reinforced the relationship between Euphemos, Poseidon, and Tainaron (Apollonius 1.179-180 & 3.1240-1241); one fragment described a feature of Tainaron’s topography (Livius Andronicus 35); one informed us that the sanctuary had been plundered in 240 BCE by the Aetolian League (Polybius 9.34.[8-9]); and one revealed that Philip V probably travelled all the way to Tainaron on foot with his army (Polybius 5.19.[5-6], although the precise route is unclear). The only information that can be garnered about the physical layout of the sanctuary from these passages is contentious: Cornelius Nepos’ work included a reference to an altar and an underground chamber, but the chronological separation between the author and the event renders this information unreliable; Virgil’s poem mentioned a lucus, a sacred grove, which may have referred to an actual feature of the sanctuary that is still visible today, but was more likely poetic license. The physical evidence of the destruction caused by the Aetolian League will only come to light through archaeological investigation, if it even survives today. In contrast, the five passages of Diodorus Siculus that provided information about the mercenary-market at Tainaron during the final quarter of the 4th century BCE are invaluable for our understanding of this aspect of the sanctuary. These five passages are especially informative for what they lack: namely, any evidence whatsoever for the control of this aspect of the 342 sanctuary by the Spartan state. As already discussed above, none of these passages revealed a connection between Tainaron and Sparta, and in three of the passages (17.108.[6-7]; 17.111.[1-2]; and 18.9.[1-3]), it is actually Athens and/or an Athenian (Leosthenes) who was mentioned in relation to the mercenaries at Tainaron. To reiterate, I believe that the location of Tainaron was chosen for the mercenary-market because of its geographic isolation, which ensured the protection of the rest of Lakonia and the Peloponnese from bored, roving bands of mercenaries, but its political autonomy also contributed to the selection of Tainaron for the location of this activity. Furthermore, if the Aetolian League chose to plunder Tainaron specifically due to its autonomy from Sparta, as Cartledge suggested, then this strengthens the argument for Tainaron’s independence. The relationship between Sparta and Tainaron is often assumed, but upon closer inspection of these passages, the attribution of Spartan control in any capacity, but especially of the ancient Hellenistic mercenary-market, seems erroneous. Ancient Tainaron has received more attention than any other ancient site within the Inner Mani peninsula. Most of this attention has focused on the three religious structures in the sanctuary which were tied most prominently to the literary sources: the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi (the temple to Poseidon), the cave (the entrance to the Underworld), and the rectangular building (the ‘psychopompeion’). The entire picture of the sanctuary, especially during the Hellenistic period, is one that reveals many domestic structures and auxiliary buildings scattered around and among these three religious buildings. I argued that due to its geographic isolation, Tainaron was an ideal place for a sanctuary which provided refuge for those seeking safety, as well as for the masses of mercenaries housed here during the Hellenistic period; it was primarily accessed by sea, thus reaffirming its coastal maritime outlook and connected seascape. However, the visitors, officials, and mercenaries housed here would require, 343 at a most basic level, food, water, and shelter, and it is important to consider the archaeological footprint at Tainaron in light of its role of a major ancient sanctuary and the functions required thereof. Overall, it seems that the Mani peninsula experienced a population boom during the Hellenistic period. This may have been due, in part, to several factors, including the increasingly cosmopolitan Mediterranean during this time and the formation of the Lakedaimonian League in the face of a weakened Spartan state, freeing up movement and communication between previously Spartan-controlled Lakonian perioikic poleis and those on the Mani peninsula. The resulting effect, therefore, was a thriving north-eastern region including the site of Kotronas (Teuthrone) and the sanctuary at Kionia, and the associated marble exploitation at Paganea, Kastri, and Prophitis Ilias. The north-east also seemed to have a distinct religious identity with a pattern of Artemis worship and discernible religious institutions, notably the office of the hieroi. The substantial archaeological and epigraphic record along the western coast of the peninsula, provides additional evidence for active Hellenistic settlements, including the civic institutions contributing to local civic identities at Hippola (Cavo Grosso region), and the previously unknown site at Diros Bay (discussed in Chapter 9). In terms of the distribution of material throughout the peninsula, there is still a marked pattern of coastal activity and inhabitation, suggesting a maritime outlook that persists well into the Hellenistic and Republican period. The political activity in the wider Mediterranean during this period will be discussed further in the following chapter, but the politically tumultuous nature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, coupled with the decline of the Spartan hegemony and the evidence for ancient Tainaron, contributes further evidence to the relative political and social autonomy of the entire region. 344 Chart 6-1: Frequency of sites named in Hellenistic & Republican sources – bar graph Chart 6-2: Frequency of sites named in Hellenistic & Republican sources – pie graph 345 Chart 6-2: Frequency of Sites Named in Hellenistic & Republican Sources – Pie Graph Chart 6-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Hellenistic & Republican period – bar graph Chart 6-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Hellenistic & Republican period – pie graph 346 A B C D 347 Figure 6-45a-e: Distribution maps for Hellenistic/Republican evidence (previous page: clockwise from top left): a) all categories of evidence; b) written evidence; c) epigraphic evidence; d) archaeological evidence; (this page) e) quarrying evidence. E 348 Chapter 7: The Mani Peninsula in the Roman Imperial Period (Early to Middle Empire: 27 BCE through 2nd century CE) 7.1 Introduction There is a substantial body of evidence for Roman-period Mani in all categories, although the epigraphic and archaeological material often presents the same problems already discussed in previous chapters: namely, that lack of context often prohibits precise dating. For this reason, much of the material cultural remains presented in this chapter is subject to future study. In terms of historical sources, however, surviving Roman Imperial texts comprise the single largest category of written evidence about the ancient Mani peninsula and its inhabitants. Notably, this category includes Pausanias, whose geographically-centred tome contributes more information about Mani than any other written work, and ultimately provides our most comprehensive and most informative picture of the ancient settlements within the peninsula. The date of Pausanias’ work (2nd-century CE, likely circa 165-174 CE) is a convenient – if arbitrary – chronological marker to divide the Roman material discussed in this dissertation. The present chapter examines all of the Roman material from the beginning of the Imperial period, through the 2nd century CE, and all of the later material is presented as ‘late Roman’ material, in the following chapter. As in previous chapters, all categories of evidence are presented together for each region, beginning in the north-east and proceeding clockwise around the peninsula. 7.2 The North-East One of the more comprehensive sources for information about Mani from the early Roman Imperial period is Strabo (64/63 BC – c. 24CE), whose Geography was compiled 349 between c. 7 BCE and c. 17/18 CE.623 Despite the relatively large amount of space Strabo devoted to Mani and its settlements (in comparison to previous works), there is not much new information to be gleaned from his narrative beyond the geographic situations of certain places. There is little-to-no information provided about the political, social, or cultural nature of these settlements and their inhabitants. For example, Strabo’s list of the settlements on the eastern side of the peninsula proceeded from south (Tainaron) to north (Gytheio) and does little more than name the settlements: 8.5.[2]: µετὰ δὲ Ταίναρον πλέοντι ἐπὶ τὴν Ὄνου γνάθον καὶ Μαλέας Ψαµαθοῦς ἐστι πόλις: εἶτ᾽ Ἀσίνη καὶ Γύθειον τὸ τῆς Σπάρτης ἐπίνειον ἐν διακοσίοις καὶ τετταράκοντα σταδίοις ἱδρυµένον: 8.5.[2]: After Tainaron, sailing towards Onugnathon (modern Elaphonissos) and Malea is the city Psamathous: next [is] Asine and Gytheio, the state harbour, having been established two hundred and forty stades from Sparta. In terms of Asine, however, it is precisely this passage which allowed Forster to determine the existence of both a Lakonian and Messenian Asine, and to prove that Thucydides (4.54.[4]) indeed made direct reference to Lakonian Asine. However, this is the extent of the information derived from this passage; Strabo provided no additional helpful information about its exact location, since he included no other names of places along the eastern coast. 7.2.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Las It is also worth emphasizing the fact that Strabo did not mention the existence of Las here, but instead only referred to it a few sentences later: 8.5.[3]: τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ κατωνοµασµένων τὰ µὲν ἀνῄρηται, τῶν δ᾽ ἴχνη λείπεται, τὰ δὲ µετωνόµασται... τὴν δὲ Λᾶν οἱ Διόσκουροί ποτε ἐκ πολιορκίας ἑλεῖν ἱστοροῦνται, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δὴ Λαπέρσαι προσηγορεύθησαν....[4] χρῆσθαι δὲ Λαῒ µὲν ναυστάθµῳ διὰ τὸ εὐλίµενον 623 Clarke 1997, 103. 350 8.5.[3]: And of the rest of those [settlements] named by the poet, some were destroyed, of some a trace remains, and some were called by a new name....They say that the Dioskouroi once captured Las through siege, from which indeed they are called by the name Lapersai....[4] and they [the Herakleiaidai, Eurysthenes and Prokles] used Las for anchorage because of its good harbour. There are several aspects of note in this passage: first, as already mentioned, only here – in a discussion of Homer’s list of settlements – did Strabo include Las, and not in the list of settlements described as one journeys up the eastern coast of the peninsula. This leads to the possibility that Las was destroyed, abandoned, known by a different name by this period, or simply not known to Strabo. Pausanias’ narrative, albeit written two centuries after Strabo, presents a different situation: 3.24.[6]: Τὰ δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ Γυθίου Λᾶς ἐστι, θαλάσσης µὲν δέκα στάδια, Γυθίου δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ἀπέχουσα. ᾤκισται δὲ νῦν µὲν Ἰλίου καλουµένου καὶ Ἀσίας καὶ Κνακαδίου, τῶν ὀρῶν τούτων τὸ µεταξὺ ἐπέχουσα, πρότερον δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας τοῦ ὄρους ἔκειτο ἐπὶ τῇ κορυφῇ· καὶ νῦν ἔτι τῆς πόλεώς ἐστι τῆς ἀρχαίας ἐρείπια καὶ πρὸ τῶν τειχῶν ἄγαλµα Ἡρακλέους καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων τρόπαιον, οἳ µοῖρα τῆς Φιλίππου στρατιᾶς ἦσαν, ἡνίκα ἐς τὴν Λακωνικὴν ἐσέβαλεν, ἀποτραπόµενοι δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων τὰ παραθαλάσσια ἐλεηλάτουν τῆς χώρας. [7] ἔστι δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐρειπίοις ναὸς Ἀθηνᾶς ἐπίκλησιν Ἀσίας, ποιῆσαι δὲ Πολυδεύκην καὶ Κάστορά φασιν ἀνασωθέντας ἐκ Κόλχων· εἶναι γὰρ καὶ Κόλχοις Ἀθηνᾶς Ἀσίας ἱερόν. µετασχόντας µὲν οὖν οἶδα Ἰάσονι τοῦ στόλου τοὺς Τυνδάρεω παῖδας· ὅτι δὲ Ἀθηνᾶν Ἀσίαν τιµῶσιν οἱ Κόλχοι, παρὰ Λακεδαιµονίων ἀκούσας γράφω. τῆς δὲ ἐφ᾿ ἡµῶν οἰκουµένης πόλεως κρήνη τέ ἐστι πλησίον διὰ τὴν χρόαν τοῦ ὕδατος καλουµένη Γαλακὼ καὶ πρὸς τῇ κρήνῃ γυµνάσιον· Ἑρµοῦ δὲ ἕστηκεν ἄγαλµα ἀρχαῖον. [8] τῶν δὲ ὀρῶν ἐπὶ µὲν τοῦ Ἰλίου Διονύσου τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἄκρας τῆς κορυφῆς Ἀσκληπιοῦ ναός, πρὸς δὲ τῷ Κνακαδίῳ Κάρνειος καλούµενος Ἀπόλλων. 3.24.[6]: Las is to the right of Gytheio, ten stades distant from the sea, and forty from Gytheio. It was resettled now (i.e. to its current location) between these mountains called Ilion and Asia and Knakadion, and it was previously situated on the peak of the mountain Asia. And now there is still the ruins of an ancient city and in front of the walls a statue of Herakles and a trophy from the Macedonians, who were a part of the army of Philip, at a time when he made an inroad into Lakonike, and having turned away from the others they plundered the coastal land. [7] And there is, among the ruins, a temple of Athena named Asia, and they say Polydeukes and Kastor made it, having returned safely from Kolchis. For the Kolchians had a temple of Athena Asia. I know that the children of Tyndareus took part in the expedition of Jason. I write that the Kolchians honoured Athena Asia after hearing [this] from the Lakedaimonians. And by the inhabited region of the city there is a spring nearby called Galaktos because of the colour of the water and near the spring a gymnasion: an ancient statue of Hermes was set up [there]. [8] And upon the mountain of Ilion there is both a temple of Dionysus and on the highest peak [a temple] of Asklepios, on the Knakadion is [a temple of?] Apollo called Karneion. Pausanias provided a fair amount of detail about the ruined city of Las, especially regarding the temples (which is unsurprising, given the author’s motivation to record religious architecture throughout his work). Topographically, the exact location of Mount Asia – what 351 Pausanias refers to as the older settlement of Las – is unknown, but scholars generally identify it as Passava hill, based on the ancient remains among the ruined Frankish fortress.624 This is unconfirmed, however, particularly in light of the argument against an ancient date for the fortification wall, presented in Chapter 5. Pausanias’ passage confirms that the city was indeed ruined, as suggested by Strabo’s passage above (8.5.[3]), but there seemed to be a small section of the city that remained inhabited during the time of Pausanias’ writing (τῆς δὲ ἐφ᾿ ἡµῶν οἰκουµένης πόλεως). More importantly, Pausanias revealed that Las suffered coastal destruction at the hands of Philip V’s army (Polybius 5.19.[5] and the campaigns in Lakonia during the summer of 218 BCE) – this latter aspect is particularly important since Polybius did not include Las in his list of towns destroyed by Philip, possibly because the plundering of Las may have been largely the work of a “body of marauders who had straggled from the main body” of the army.625 The revelation that Las was included among the cities destroyed by Philip’s campaigns strengthens the argument for the reconstruction of Philip’s route as southward along the eastern coast of Mani towards Tainaron.626 Due to his unrelenting focus on the religious landscapes of the regions he visited, Pausanias provided unprecedented information on the potential local cults of Las: Herakles, Athena Asia (founded by Kastor and Polydeukes), Hermes, Dionysus, Asklepios, and Apollo Karneion. The association of the Dioskouroi with Las also occurred in Strabo’s passage (8.5.[3]), 624 Musti and Torelli 1982, 276; Traquair 1905/6, 274ff; Early travellers to the region believed that Las and Asine were “two different names for the same place” - Frazer (1898 (2012), 392) referring to Puillon Boblaye (1836, 87) and Curtius (Pelop. 274). 625 Frazer 1898 (2012), 393; Musti and Torelli (1982, 277) are incorrect in stating that these campaigns took place in 337 BCE by Philip II. 626 Admittedly, Philip’s army could still have travelled westward across the peninsula before proceeding south – the solution to the exact nature of his route remains unresolved. 352 and Torelli and Musti observed a strong connection to the Homeric legends in this part of Lakonia, and noted the names of the two mountains ‘Ilion’ and ‘Asia’ (as well as Athena Asia and the presence of the Dioskouroi) as indicative of this relationship and of the role of the Homeric epics in local culture.627 7.2.2 Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence for Ancient Las In terms of physical evidence for a settlement of ancient Las during the Roman period, there is little to help pinpoint the exact location of the town. There have been no recorded finds of note from the immediate vicinity of modern Chosiari (the presumed site of ancient Las and the findspot of earlier artifacts, such as the rams-head herm). One inscription, however, may attest to the existence of Las into the Roman period. This inscription – the only such example that potentially names the city of ‘Las’ itself – was found on the island of Kythera (SEG 46 388). It is inscribed on white marble and contains an honorary inscription from the city for the emperor Hadrian628: ΑΛΑΩ̣Ν̣ [πόλις] Αὐτ[ο]κράτ[ορ]α [Κ]α̣[ί]- [σ]αρ̣α̣ Τραιανὸ̣ν ̣[ca. 3-4] α̣- ν̣ον Σεβ̣αστὸν πατέρα π̣ατ̣ρίδος τὸν αὑτᾶς νοµοθέταν καὶ εὐ̣εργέταν The find spot of the stone was the altar of the church of Ayios Nikolaos at Avlemon (Kythera); there are no other prominent antiquities in this area.629 In a collaborative re- 627 Musti and Torelli 1982, 276-7. 628 Transcription copied exactly from Pikoulas 1992-1998, 564; the SEG incorrectly reports the restoration of Lines 3-4; Petrocheilos (1988, 359-362) previously restored Lines 3-4 as: Τραϊαν[ὸν Ἁδρια]-[ν]ὸν. 629 Petrocheilos 1988, 362; the Kythera survey data for this region was unpublished at the time of writing. 353 examination of the inscription, Pikoulas, Petrocheilos, and Matthaiou agreed that this white marble probably arrived on Kythera from Las in the form of ballast on a ship.630 Therefore, the stone must have been taken from its original context at the site of Las and brought to Kythera, sometime after the Hadrianic date of dedication. This inscription provides the sole primary evidence for the existence and inhabitation of the city of Las during (and perhaps prior to) the reign of the emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE). Returning to the physical situation of ancient Las, Strabo’s passage mentioned Las’ harbour, Pausanias described the coastal destruction, and earlier sources (Thucydides 8.91.[2], Ephoros Fr. 117, and Livy 38.30.[7]) alluded to Las’ maritime location; the closest coastal stretch to modern Chosiari is the bay of Vathy, and may well be a candidate for the location of Las’ maritime access. The coastal area from Vathy to modern Skoutari has evidence of Roman-period activity, and remains can be seen throughout the area even today. 7.2.3 Coastal Vathy and Kamares At Vathy itself, Forster and Woodward noted that “On the sea-shore of the bay of Vathy are remains of Roman masonry, half-buried in the sand, which mark the position of the ancient harbour.”631 No standing architecture is visible on the beach along the coast today, but Moschou-Tsiomi stated that a mosaic was found and destroyed by the construction of a coastal hotel (the Belle Helene632) at this site.633 The entire coastal area has been heavily developed, likely 630 Pikoulas 1992-1998, 564; 631 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 233. 632 The hotel’s current homepage states “Near by is located the sunken ancient city of Las!” (https://www.bellehelene.gr/index.php?lang=en) 633 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 23: “The site of the Roman period, of large size, with many attached constructions and a private port facility (identifiable segments in the seas). The central part of the vestibule (mosaic floor of the 2nd century AD) was destroyed during the founding of the hotel building.” 354 Figure 7-1: Remains of submerged Roman structure in Epano Vathy Bay. Photo by Author. obliterating most visible traces of antiquity, but large concentrations of ancient ceramics are still visible along the beach and underwater in the bay of Vathy. I have already mentioned the existence of a submerged structure just off the coast of Vathy (Chapter 3; Figures 3-3 & 7-1), the remains of which can easily be viewed in the water and from the promontory to the south. This ancient Roman concrete, ashlar, and mortar structure is 2.40m wide and at least 20m in length, at a depth of 1 – 3 m.634 From ancient Las, Pausanias’ narrative proceeded thus: 634 Blackman 2000-2001, 34; Whitley et al. 2006, 27. Dellaporta and Spondylis 1999 [2006], 1023. 355 3.24.[8]: Ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Καρνείου σταδίους προελθόντι ὡς τριάκοντα, ἔστιν ἐν χωρίῳ Ὕψοις ἐν ὅροις ἤδη Σπαρτιατῶν ἱερὸν Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ Ἀρτέµιδος ἐπίκλησιν Δαφναίας. [9] πρὸς θαλάσσῃ δὲ ἐπὶ ἄκρας ναός ἐστι Δικτύννης Ἀρτέµιδος, καί οἱ κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι. ταύτης δὲ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ἄκρας ποταµὸς ἐκδίδωσιν ἐς θάλασσαν Σµῆνος, ὕδωρ πιεῖν ἡδὺ εἴπερ ἄλλος τις παρασχόµενος ποταµός· ἔχει δὲ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Ταϋγέτῳ τὰς πηγάς, ἀπέχει δὲ τῆς πόλεως σταδίους οὐ πλέον πέντε. ἐν δὲ Ἀραΐνῳ καλουµένῳ χωρίῳ τάφος Λᾶ καὶ ἀνδριὰς ἐπὶ τῷ µνήµατι ἔπεστι. τοῦτον τὸν Λᾶν οἰκιστὴν εἶναι λέγουσιν οἱ ταύτῃ, καὶ ἀποθανεῖν φασιν ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως, Ἀχιλλέα δὲ κατᾶραί σφισιν ἐς τὴν χώραν Ἑλένην παρὰ Τυνδάρεω γυναῖκα αἰτοῦντα. λέγοντι δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείᾳ Πάτροκλός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν Λᾶν ἀποκτείνας· 3.25.[1]: Προελθόντι δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ µνήµατος ἐκδίδωσιν ἐς θάλασσαν ποταµός, ὄνοµα δέ οἱ Σκύρας, ὅτι κατὰ τοῦτον ἀνώνυµον τέως ὄντα Πύρρος ὁ Ἀχιλλέως ἔσχε ταῖς ναυσίν, ἡνίκα ἐπὶ τὸν Ἑρµιόνης γάµον ἔπλευσεν ἐκ Σκύρου. διαβάντων δὲ τὸν ποταµὸν ἔστιν ἱερὸν ἀρχαῖον . . . ἀπωτέρω Διὸς βωµοῦ. 3.24.[8]: Advancing about thirty stades from the Karneion, in the district [of] Hypsos in the present boundary of the Spartans, there is a temple of Asklepios and of Artemis named Daphnaia. [9] And near the sea upon a peak is the temple of Artemis Diktynna, and in the course of every year they celebrate a festival [for her]. And to the left of this peak the river Smenos empties itself into the sea, the river supplies sweet water to drink, if really some other (i.e. there is none sweeter). It holds the source in the Taygetus mountain, at a distance from the city not more than five stades. [10] And in the place called Arainos [is] the tomb of Las and a statue is set upon the memorial. Those in this place (i.e. the locals) say this Las is the founder for this [city], and they say that he was killed by Achilles, and that Achilles put into port in this place to ask Tyndareus for Helen as his wife. But they recount in truth it is Patroklus who killed Las. 3.25.[1]: Going forward from the memorial a river, the name of which is Skyras, empties itself into the sea, that according to this it was nameless up until the time Pyrros [the son] of Achilles landed with ships, at a time when he sailed from Skyros for his marriage to Hermione. Crossing over the river, there is an ancient temple […] farther off an altar of Zeus. In a manner similar to the narrative about Las proper, there is much that is unknown, topographically, about this passage, and all of these landmarks and settlements are mentioned here for the first time in any of the surviving historical sources. Thirty stades is approximately 5.5 kilometres (assuming a 185-metre stade), a distance which is unhelpful given the uncertainty of the locations of both Mt. Knakadion (upon which the Karneion stood) and Hypsos iself. In the latter place, the local cults included one for Asklepios and two for different incarnations of Artemis: Daphnaia and Diktynna (a Cretan goddess whose worship spread to Sparta and Laconia635). Frazer identified the Smenos river with the modern Tourkovrisi, which empties into 635 Auffarth 2006. 356 the sea just north of modern Vathy.636 This identification allows for the ‘peak’ upon which the temple to Artemis Diktynna stood to be identified as the Ageranos promontory, as the river would indeed be on the left (north) if one faced eastward towards the sea. Indeed, on the southern, small promontory above Vathy bay stands the church of Aghios Nikolaos and to the east of this church I observed substantial scatters of ancient ceramics as well as the foundations from an ancient building that has been partially destroyed by later terracing. That there is ancient activity in the region is certain, but the extent thereof – both in terms of physical extent and chronological scope – remains to be determined. Frazer further believed that the modern town name of Ageranos preserves the ancient name Arainos.637 Arainos seems to have been inhabited in Pausanias’ time, based on the testimony he received from the locals about the foundation myth of Las, whom they believed was killed by Achilles. In the next several lines (not included above), Pausanias proceeded to defend his argument that it was, in fact, Patroklus who killed Las by providing several references to Homer. None of Pausanias’ references to Homeric texts are informative regarding the contemporary status of the settlements of Mani, but they served to place a significant emphasis on Achilles – reminding the reader of the Homeric connection that persisted throughout the following passages. This excursus concluded Chapter 24, and in Chapter 25 Pausanias began with a return to a description of the settlements, picking up where he left off at the tomb of Las (“the memorial” in 3.25.[1]). 636 Frazer 1898 (2012), 393-4. His opinion was in contrast to Leake’s, who identified this river as the modern Vardounia, which empties slightly further north into the Stomio Bay (Leake 1830, 255, 266, 277); Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 234; Musti and Torelli 1982, 277. 637 Frazer 1898 (2012), 393-4. 357 Puillon Boblaye, Leake, Curtius, and Frazer all identified the Skyras river with the modern Dichovas, which empties into the sea near the modern settlement of Kamares, where there are indeed visible remnants of antiquity.638 In this small coastal village, the most impressive standing architecture from the entire region survives: a semi-circular structure that can still be seen today (Figures 7-2, 7-3, 7-4).639 638 Frazer (1898, 394) mentioned a large circular building in conjunction with his discussion of Hypsa [sic] and the sea-side temple of Artemis Diktynna, but it seems more appropriate to associate these ruins with the settlement of Arainos and the Skyras river (if it is indeed the modern Dichovas), which runs very close to the remains of an ancient, circular building at modern Kamares. 639 Although to see the ruins today is no small task, since an inquiry to the locals yields the response that there are no antiquities to be seen in the area. This was the response I encountered both in 2015 and 2017, and the attendant at the Gytheio museum believes that this is due to illegal activity in the area. The structure is visible from the hill to the north (Leake’s Vathy hill). Figure 7-2: View of Roman building remains from north. Photo by author. 358 Figure 7-3: Aerial view of Roman building remains showing dimensions of apse ©GoogleEarth. Figure 7-4: View of apse and windows of Roman building. Photo by author. 359 This building was recorded by several early travelers including Cyriacus of Ancona who, I believe, was describing this structure when he noted the following: “There [Karopolis, which he believed was ancient Asine] one sees few remnants worth recording of such a great city other than some huge brick remains of the baths and the place the populace calls the “vaults” [Latin camaras = Kamares] because of some surviving arches. Also along the shore, some marble columns and other fragments of ancient structures survive. But since we found no inscriptions, we departed from the site and left behind [ruins] not worthwhile to record.”640 When Leake described this building it seems that the camaras were still intact: “…some ruins at the foot of the hill of Vathy, on the south-western side, a quarter of an hour from the village; they consist of the remains of a large building, strongly constructed with stones and Roman tiles; a semicircular extremity, with 5 windows in it, is still standing entire: the diameter is upwards of twenty yards.”641 The location of this structure is further pinpointed by Forster and Woodward who said that north of the mouth of the river (the modern Skyros), “at a place called Kamares, are the ruins of a splendid group of Roman buildings. The ground-plan of about half the original structure can still be traced and covers a large area. The front facing the sea has entirely perished, but the walls behind, still stand to a height of 8 metres.”642 Forster and Woodward made no mention of vaults or ceilings, so presumably the building had degraded since the time of Leake’s recording. Moschou-Tsiomi noted that this late Roman complex included baths and an early Christian basilica, and was, at the time of observation, being used as a pigsty.643 Today, the height of the 640 Bodnar and Foss 2003, 324-327; LL158 (Kamares, Ageranos). The site LL160 (Dichova, Ageranos) is conflated with the site of Kamares and should not have its own entry. The modern town of Dichova is 1.5 km inland. At this latter place Leake (1870, 267) saw “sepulchres and other vestiges of an ancient site.” 641 Leake 1870, 267. 642 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 234. 643 Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 23; Delivorrias (1968, 153). 360 Figure 7-5 a-b: Fragments of columns near the coast at modern Kamares. Photo by author. walls does not exceed ~6m, and the diameter is closer to 10 metres than the commonly-ascribed 18 metres (see Figure 7-3); the 18-metre convention is perhaps based on Leake’s measurement of 20 yards (= 18.288 m).644 The construction is Roman brickwork, and the modern buildings are built into the structure’s south extremity. A few marble architectural fragments were observed in the coastal area immediately to the east of this structure (Figure 7-5a-b). Early travelers noted other architectural remains further inland, but I have been unable to locate any of these. Leake, for example, noted that “…There is a similar semicircular ruin close by, and farther up the valley a long arched subterraneous structure, which looks like a Roman 644 Delivorrias (1968, 153) and Shipley (1996, LL158) also gave the measurement of 18 metres. Likewise, the nearby Kamares Villa hotel states the following on its webpage: “Kamares- On the trail of the ancient city of Las… The name “Kamares” (arches) is due to a major arch edifice from Roman times (18 meters in diameter), part of which is now submerged. The area of Kamares used to be part of the ancient city of Las, which extended to the temple of Zeus, at the estuary of the river Skyras.” Nothing else is known of this temple of Zeus. http://kamaresvillas.gr/?page_id=2009&lang=en A B 361 cloaca. These, I think, must be the remains of Hypsus or Hypsi.”645 Additionally, Forster and Woodward recorded the remains of a Roman villa, 200 m inland, which Delivorrias confirmed and described as “monumental architecture of the Doric order”.646 7.2.4 Skoutari The archaeological record of Roman occupation persists within the next bay to the south, although Pausanias’ narrative does not. Pausanias seems to have turned inland at this point, visited the site of ancient Pyrrichos, and then returned to the coast further south, at the location of ancient Teuthrone. The swath of land he missed includes the land around Skoutari bay and the modern coastal site of the same name, which many associate with ancient Asine; the latter is also conspicuously absent in Pausanias’ writings. When Forster and Woodward visited the area of Skoutari, they saw “distinct traces of Roman buildings near the sea and a number of ancient blocks and columns built into the modern village.”647 Between 2012-2015 the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia undertook a restoration project on the Late Byzantine church of Aghia Barbara, which is situated directly on the coast of Skoutari Bay.648 Excavations beneath the church revealed evidence for a Roman-Late Roman bath structure, including fragments of architectural members and two adjoining rooms in the southern and eastern areas of the church. The floors of the rooms were built with brick slabs and covered by hydraulic mortar. A mosaic 645 Leake 1870, 267. 646 Forster and Woodward 19067, 234 and note 4: “Close to the Roman building I found three Ionic capitals, of which two were smaller and poorer in style than the other; also marble blocks and a piece of Ionic cornice of fairly good style.” Delivorrias 1968, 153. This is also the location of the discovery of the Archaic inscription to violet-crowned Aphrodite (SEG 32 395). 647 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 235. Similarly, Forster 1909, 221-222: “in the village of Skoutari at the head of the bay there are vestiges of antiquity in the form of columns built into houses and remains of Roman masonry near the sea shore.” 648 Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia, 2015. 362 Figure 7-6: Remains of ancient Roman cistern outside Aghia Barbara, Skoutari. Photo by author. pavement with red-and-white geometric patterning was uncovered in the east room and was indicative of an earlier building phase. This early building phase also boasted tegulae mammatae (rectangular tiles with projections on the corners of one side that were fixed to walls in order to form cavities through which hot gases from the hypocaust circulated), which are indicative of a vertical heating system. A large section of the bath’s cistern has been preserved and is on display outside the church today (Figure 7-6). The restoration revealed several ancient architectural members in the exterior walls of the church. The Pagania rosso antico quarries (Q001) may have been exploited during this period, and along the coast of Skoutari one unfluted red and white marble column has been erected with a plaque that says it is from an otherwise unknown sanctuary of Apollo (Figure 7-7).649 649 “ΤΜΗΜΑ ΚΙΟΝΟΣ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΙΕΡΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΒΟΡΔΩΝΙΟΥ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΟΣ”. 363 Figure 7-7: Fragments of column (rosso antico?) near the coast at modern Skoutari. Reportedly from a sanctuary of Apollo ‘Vordonios’. Photo by author. Moschou-Tsiomi also mentioned remains of port and harbour infrastructures in the unexplored coastal region. Overall, there is evidence for Roman occupation in the area but, as is the case with the area around Kamares, this entire coastal region is in need of extensive investigation.650 650 LL162 does not include mention of the quarries. The Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia (2015) reported finding part of the ancient coastal road approximately 300 metres to the west-southwest of the Aghias Barbaras church during rescue excavations. No other information was provided. 364 7.2.5 Kotronas & Ancient Teuthrone 7.2.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Teuthrone Dating to the middle of the 2nd century CE are the books of Ptolemy’s Geography (Geographia or Cosmographia), the largest part of which features a gazetteer of sorts that listed the longitudinal and latitudinal values for all locations in the known world. The third book listed locations within Greece, and these included (Ptol. Geog. 3.16.9) Teuthrone (Τευθρώνη), and Las (Λᾶς), both listed within the gulf of Lakonia (καὶ ἐν τῷ Λακωνικῷ κόλπῳ).651 This is the first mention of the settlement of Teuthrone, followed shortly thereafter by Pausanias’ narrative: 3.25.[4]: Ἀπὸ δὲ Πυρρίχου καταβάντι ἐς θάλασσαν ἔστι Τευθρώνη· τὸν δὲ οἰκιστὴν οἱ ταύτῃ Τεύθραντα Ἀθηναῖον ὄντα ἀποφαίνουσι, τιµῶσι δὲ θεῶν µάλιστα Ἰσσωρίαν Ἄρτεµιν, καὶ πηγή σφισίν ἐστι Ναΐα. 3.25.[4]: Coming from Pyrrichos to the the sea is Teuthrone. They (the people) in this place declare their founder to be Teuthras the Athenian, and of the gods they especially honour Issorian Artemis, and their spring is Naia. The most striking aspect in this passage is the direct link made to an Athenian, which is only the second link between a Maniate settlement and Athens – the first being Diodorus Siculus’ passages from the first century BCE that named Leosthenes the Athenian as an individual directly involved with Tainaron’s function as a mercenary base during the 4th century BCE (Diod.17.108.6-7 & 17.111.[1-2]). The Athenian that Pausanias called the founder of Teuthrone, Teuthras, is otherwise unknown, as he is certainly not the more well-known Teuthras, ruler of Mysia, who raised Telephos. Like the people of the Hypsos district, the inhabitants of Teuthrone worshipped yet another form of Artemis (discussed extensively in the previous chapter), but the cult of Artemis Issoria was best known in ancient Sparta (i.e. Pausanias 651 Nobbe 1843, 213. 365 Figure 7-8: Map showing the location of object findspots in Moschou 2001-2004 [2012] and objects/places observed by author. ©GoogleEarth. 3.14.[2]; Plut. Agesilaus 32.3; Polyaenus, Strat. 2.1.14; Nep. Agesilaus 6.2), which provides an interesting contrast to the link to Athens via Teuthras.652 7.2.5.2 Archaeological Evidence around Kotronas The location of ancient Teuthrone is not certain, but the most viable candidate is the modern settlement of Kotronas and the peninsula called Skopas. These locations both produced a significant amount of ancient material culture, as seen in previous chapters. In terms of visible antiquity dating to the Roman period, Forster and Woodward noted that the medieval walls of 652 Musti and Torelli 1982, 213; 278-9. 366 Skopas included some ancient blocks in its construction, including one stone with an inscribed ‘A’ mason’s-mark.653 This block was still visible to Le Roy, who observed in within “the outside of the wall to the right of the main entrance”, and he included a photo of the stone in his 1961 article.654 The only other evidence of built antiquity noted by Woodward was a basin carved out of the rock on the southwestern limit of Skopas; this basin is still visible today, as are the trace amounts of mortar along the upper edges (Figure 7-8: “Basin”; Figure 7-9).655 A narrow channel was cut into the bottom which led Woodward to – fancifully – hypothesize that this was the Naia spring mentioned by Pausanias (3.25.[4]). The mortar along the exterior edges is post-antique, and Woodward suggested that perhaps “it was built up with courses of brick to give extra depth when used as the reservoir for the fortress in Byzantine or Venetian times.”656 In reality, Le Roy pointed out that this rock-cut depression was neither a reservoir, nor the ‘Naia spring’ mentioned by Pausanias, but more likely a “settling tank or medieval oil or wine press”.657 In addition to the stone with the alpha-mason-mark, Le Roy also observed three ancient marble threshold blocks on Skopas: one within a terrace wall to the south of the gate; one within a medieval house to the north of the same gate; and the third on a threshing floor. He included a photo of the third example, which today sits in the bench on the exterior wall of Aghios Nikolaos (Figure 7-8: “Threshold block”, south; Figure 7-10).658 Another white marble threshold block is 653 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 256. 654 Le Roy 1961, 215 and Fig. 5: “…ainsi, à droite de la porte principale, à l'extérieur du mur, un bloc de marbre de 0 m. 57 de côté, avec une anathyrose de 0 m. 09, porte, au centre de la surface épannelée, un A à barre brisée de 0 m. 10 de haut, lettre de pose sans doute.” Moschou (2001-2004 [2012], 305) added to these observations that the blocks reused in the later fortification were Hellenistic in date, but provided no evidence for this assertion; see also Puillon Boblaye 1836, 89. 655 All of my firsthand observations were the result of a visit to Skopas and Kotronas on July 13th, 2014. 656 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 256. 657 Le Roy 1961, 218. 658 Le Roy 1961, 216-7 and Figure 6. 367 Figure 7-9: Rock-cut basin on southern Skopas. Photo by author. Figure 7-10: Marble threshold block on exterior bench of Aghios Nikolaos. Photo courtesy of William Parkinson. visible protruding from the bottom of the retaining wall (Figure 7-8: “Threshold block”, north; Figure 7-11), which may have been one of the other two mentioned by Le Roy.659 659 Le Roy 1961, 216. 368 Figure 7-11: Marble threshold block beneath retaining wall. Photo by author. Hope-Simpson and Waterhouse recorded the presence of Samian or Pergamene ware of the Roman period.”660 I also noted a significant amount of surface ceramics in the area, including Roman fine-ware sherds. Finally, Moschou observed ancient piers in the sea around Skopas and coastal Kotronas (Figure 7-8: 6d), and believed this to be an important, organized port site which is in need of substantial investigation.661 With further regard to ceramics in the region, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson commented on the abundance of ancient sherds around Kotronas and for at least 200 metres inland.662 In the ceramic collection of the British School at Athens (Appendix H), I identified one Roman strap 660 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 119. 661 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 305; it also merits mention that when Delivorrias undertook his small survey, he noted something he called an ‘ossuary’ (1968, 155). 662 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 119. 369 handle (BSAKOT0008), one semi-fine Roman rim with three incised grooves (BSAKOT0010), one Roman fineware rim base with slip (BSAKOT0015; perhaps Eastern sigillata), one medium-coarse Roman body fragment (BSAKOT0018), one fine Roman body fragment (BSAKOT0027), and one rolled glass rim, perhaps Roman in date (BSAKOT0011). Beyond the limits of the town of Kotronas, Moschou noted the following evidence: In Gonea, she recorded Greek and Roman architectural elements in churches and homes, and Roman pottery scatters in the outskirts.663 In Loutsa, she recorded pottery from the Hellenistic to Late Roman periods.664 In Skaltsotianika, she recorded architectural members and Roman ceramic scatters.665 Finally, in a place called Salia, between Argilias and Dryalos, Moschou recorded blocks derived from a monumental structure, ancient wells, Roman altar, and black-glazed pottery sherds.666 7.2.5.3 Epigraphic evidence around Kotronas The body of Roman-period epigraphic evidence for the region is small but robust. On the beach where the mainland meets the isthmus connecting the Skopas peninsula, one of the most precisely-datable inscriptions from this region – SEG 22 303 – was uncovered and published by Le Roy in 1961. On a fragmentary stele, the barely-legible Imperial dedication to the emperor Trajan reads: Αὐτο[κράτορα] Νέρο[υαν Τρα]- ϊα̣ν[ὸν] Κ[αίσα]- ρα [Σε]βα[στὸν] [Γ]ε̣[ρ]µ ̣[αν]ι[κὸν] 663 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 309; and #13 on Map 58. 664 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], #16 on Map 58; specifically within Kakomaki. 665 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], #17 on Map 58. 666 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 310; this place is quite a bit further south, along the eastern coast. 370 [Δ]α̣[κ]ικὸ̣[ν ἀνί]- [κ]ητον ἡ̣ π̣όλ[ις ἡ - - - ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - “The city [dedicates a statue of] emperor Nerva Traianus Caesar Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, unconquered…” Le Roy dated this inscription to between 102-114 CE, based on the Imperial epithets; Trajan received the titular Dacicus/Dakikos in 102/103 CE (after his Dacian victories), and this epithet is included in the above inscription, whereas the epithet Aristos – which begins to appear as a Trajanic title around 114 CE – is absent.667 Also frustratingly absent is the name of the dedicatory city-ethnic, which would have originally appeared after ἡ πόλις. Le Roy concluded that the restoration of Teuthrone as the city-ethnic here was the most plausible, given the find spot.668 No information is given with regard to its current location. An inscription from the neighbouring village of Phlomochori (SEG 22 308) further contributes to the evidence for the existence of a gymnasium in the region, first discussed in the previous chapter (SEG 22 304 & 305, 2nd – 1st c BCE). The remains of a broken marble herm, found in the wall of a ruined modern house, displayed the following inscription: Δάµαρχος Φιλίππου γυµνασι- αρχήσας ἐλαίῳ ἐξ [ὁ]λ̣κ[ε]ί̣ο̣υ - - - - - - - - 667 Le Roy 1961, 222. 668 And the presence of the city-ethnic Τευθρώνιοι from an inscription found at Lykosoura (IG V2, 538), see below; Le Roy (223) also considered the possibility that the stone could have originally come from Gytheio, stating that the stone may have served as ballast in a ship from Gytheio that was unloaded at Skopas to make room for a shipment of local marble. This was the case with IG V,1 1147, but in that case the city-ethnic of Gytheio was clearly legible. I do not believe this is the case, given my argument below that incorporates this inscription into the evidence for a prosopographic reconstruction of a 2nd century CE family in the Kotronas region. 371 Le Roy dated this inscription to the second half of the 2nd century CE, which reveals the continued functioning of the socio-political institution of the gymnasium for several centuries in this area. This inscription states that Damarchos, the son of Philip was the gymnasiarch, who distributed oil (for the athletes) from an ὁλκεῖον (a large bowl or basin).669 The most significant aspect of this inscription, however, is the fact that the ‘Damarchos son of Philip’ mentioned here is probably the same individual named in another inscription from this region: IG V,1 1220. This second inscription was originally recorded by Le Bas and Foucart but no findspot was given. Their text was replicated in the Teuthrone section of the IG V,1 volume, but by the time of Le Roy’s 1965 publication, the stone was lost. His edition reads: Side A Side A Side B Φίλιππος Κλέωνος Ἀγαθοκ[λεῖ] Δαµάρχου ἔκγονος ἥρωι ἐτῶν κε΄ Ἐπικρατὶς Δαµάρχου Δαµοσθέν[ης] ἐτῶν µε΄χαῖρε Le Bas noted that the first two columns (side A) should be read from left to right, and seemed to be written by a different hand than the third column (on side B), the latter of which were probably inscribed at a later date.670 Therefore, we can understand that this was the gravestone of Philip, the son of Kleon, grandson of Damarchos (25 years), and Epikratis, the daughter of Damarchos (and, therefore, Philip’s aunt, 45 years). Based on the two above inscriptions, the following two family trees are possible (based on Le Roy): 669 The use of olkeia as receptacles for oil in gymnasia is well attested: see especially Le Roy 1965, 368. Le Roy was unusually judgemental about the practice of dedicating oil in the small town of Teuthrone, calling it ‘provincial vanity’, and saying “Tout bourgeois veut bâtir comme les grands seigneurs!”. 670 Le Bas and Waddington 1847-1873, 253. Both these names are very popular, and there is another Agathokles recorded in Mani: see below, IG V,1 1277. 372 Option A Option B Philippos Damarchos Damarchos Kleon Epikratis Kleon Epikratis Philippos Philippos Damarchos Unfortunately, since the stone is lost, a re-examination of this stone and further determination of the relationship between the individuals listed or the date of the inscription is impossible; however, the presence of the names Philip and Damarchos multiple times in these two inscriptions seems to at least indicate the multi-generational presence of a wealthy family in the area of ancient Teuthrone in the 2nd century CE.671 The final inscriptions of note for the ancient settlement of Teuthrone were found outside of this region of the peninsulas. First, a dedicatory inscription from the Augustan/Claudian period found at the sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura in central Arkadia (IG V2 538) names two people as ‘Teuthronians’:672 Δαµόχαρις Σ̣ω̣τ̣ι̣µ ̣ί̣δ̣α̣ καὶ Ἀριστήδεια Νικία Τευθρ̣ώ̣ν̣ι̣ο̣ι̣ Σ̣ω̣τιµίδαν τὸν υἱὸν Δεσποίνᾳ ἀ̣ν̣[έθηκαν χα]ρι[στήριον]. “Damocharis, son of Sotimidas, and Aristideia, daughter of Nikia, Teuthronians, dedicated an offering to Despoina [on behalf of their] son, Sotimidas. 671 See also the discussion below under IG V,1 1280. 672 The IG entry stated that this inscription is now in the Megalopolis Museum, although I was unable to find a reference number for it. 373 I believe that this Damocharis, son of Sotimidas, is the same individual named in an inscription found on the other side of the Mani peninsula, at the site of Charouda (IG V,1 1280; SEG 60 371). This inscription can be seen today in the bell tower of the church of Aghios Taxiarchis, on two fragments of white marble (Figure 7-12 & 7-13):673 — — — δα a1 [— — πρεσ]βυ- [τερ— — — ] [— — — — —] Δαµόχαρις Σωτειµ ̣[ίδα], Φιλιππὶς Σωτιµίδ[α], a2 χαίρετε. Σωτιµίδα̣[ς Ἐπι]χάρεως, Λαβίππα Φιλοκλέ̣ους, Φιλοκλῆς Σω[τ]ιµίδα πρέσβυς τοῦ ἔθνους. Σωτιµίδας Φ̣ιλίππου ἐτῶν κγʹ. Φίλιππος Φιλοκλέους b1 χαί[ρ]ε̣τε. Κρατησίκλεα Εὐκλείδα Ζ(?) Ἐπικρατὶς Δαµάρχου πρεσβυτέρα. Ξ̣εναρία Σωσιπά- b2 τρου ἐτῶν ιβʹ χαῖρε. a2: “Damocharis, son of Sot(e)imidas, Philippis, daughter of Sotimidas, farewell. Sotimidas son of Epichares, Labippa daughter of Philokles, Philokles son of Sotimidas, presbus of the ethnos.” b1: “Sotimidas son of Philippos, 23 years. Philippos son of Philokles farewell. Kratisikleia daughter of Eukleidas, Epikratis daughter of Damarchos, presbus.” b2: “Xenaria daughter of Sosipatros, 12 years, farewell.” 673 At the time of Kolbe’s IG publication, this inscription was in a different church, that of Aghia Panaghia in the small hamlet of Karathakia. 374 Figure 7-12: IG V,1 1280, Fragment 1. Photo by Author. Figure 7-13: IG V,1 1280, Fragment 2. Photo by Author. 375 The text of this inscription is funerary, with epitaphs for at least 10 individuals (and 14 named individuals total with patronymics). Based on the content of the inscription, a genealogical tree can be reconstructed for some of these individuals: Sotimidas (I) is named several times within this epitaph, and was the father of Damocharis, Philippis, and Philokles, grandfather of Labippa and Philippos, and great-grandfather of Sotimidas, his namesake.674 If the Teuthronian Damocharis, son of Sotimidos, from the Lykosoura inscription (IG V2 538) is the same person that appears on the Charouda inscription, as I believe to be the case, then Sotimidos had two namesakes – his great-grandson by Philippos and his grandson by Damocharis and Aristideia. The family tree can thus be augmented: 674 This name appears 10 times in the LGPN, but this should be 9 if one agrees that the Sotimidas in lines 1,2,4, &6 (col. II.1) are all the same individual, as I posit. 376 The other individuals included in the Charouda inscription but who do not explicitly belong to the same family are: Kratisikleia daughter of Eukeidas, Epikratis daughter of Damarchos, and Zenaria daughter of Sosipatros. The name pairing that is most informative, is that of Epikratis and her father Damarchos, since these two individuals were also recorded in the two other inscriptions from the region of Kotronas presented above (SEG 22 308 & IG V,1 1220a). The name Philippos, while admittedly very common, is the only one which appears in both genealogical branches. Option A of the two possible reconstructions of SEG 22 308 provides a link to combine the two, allowing for the following reconstruction: In total, there are four inscriptions that enable a prosopographic reconstruction of the members of this family: two fragments of IG V,1 1280, located in a modern church in Charouda; two inscriptions (SEG 22 308 & IG V,1 1220a) discovered within the presumed territory of ancient Teuthrone; and one inscription from a regional Arkadian sanctuary which explicitly describes the individuals listed as ‘Teuthronian’ (IG V,2 538).675 Chronologically, the dated 675 This inscription is cited by Shipley (2003, 576) as the example of the city-ethnic of Teuthrone. Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation 4 Generation 5 Generation 6 Generation 7 377 inscriptions correspond to each other reasonably well: IG V,2 538 bears the dedication of members of the 3rd generation, and dates to the Augustan or Claudian period, while SEG 22 308, names the gymnasiarch from the 5th generations dates to the 2nd century CE, approximately 93-114 years later (3 generations at the accepted male generational interval of 31-38 years).676 IG V,1 1220 must date after SEG 22 308, since it bears the name of Philippos, son of Kleon, the last named member from this family (7th generation). IG V,1 1280 names members of the family from the 1st-5th generation, and therefore probably predates SEG 22 308 by two decades or so. The location of IG V,1 1280 must be addressed: the village of Charouda is on the east coast of Mani – the opposite side of the peninsula as Kotronas and the presumed site of ancient Teuthrone. There is much evidence to support the identification of this family as Teuthronian, however, both with the ethnic identifier itself in IG V,2 538 as well as the findspots of IG V,1 1220 and SEG 22 308 in the region of Kotronas. In my opinion, there are two possibilities: either some of the family members migrated to the eastern coast, or the stone itself is displaced. Perhaps isotopic testing of the marbles (for all the inscriptions) will reveal further insight into this problem in the future, but for now it suffices to say that the family members mentioned therein must at least be affiliated with ancient Teuthrone in some capacity, even if just ancestral, and ought to be examined within the context of that city.677 676 If using the Claudian date for IG V2 538, the date for SEG 22 308 could range from 134 CE to 168 CE. This corresponds well to Le Bas-Waddington (1847-1873, 139) who suggested an Antonine date (138-192 CE) based on letterforms. On calculating generations in pre-industrial societies, see: Marc Tremblay et al., "New Estimation of Intergenerational Time Intervals for the Calculation of Age and Origin of Mutations," American Journal of Human Genetics 66 (Feb. 2000): 651-658. Angar Helgason et al., "A Populationwide Coalescent Analysis of Icelandic Matrilineal and Patrilineal Genealogies: Evidence for a Faster Evolutionary Rate of mtDNA Lineages than Y Chromosomes," American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (June 2003): 1370-1388; and Nancy Howell, The Demography of the Dobe !Kung (1979; second edition New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000). 677 Le Bas-Waddington (1847-1873, 278a) believed the fragments originally came from ancient Oitylos; they are under the subcategory ‘Hippola’ within their respective SEG and IG entries, but are associated with ‘Messa’ in the LGPN, in spite of the fact that neither ancient settlement has been conclusively located and the obvious connections with Teuthrone. 378 Finally, of note in this same inscription is the inclusion of the term ‘presbus of the ethnos (πρέσβυς τοῦ ἔθνους)’ following Philokles’ name and ‘presbutera’ following the name of Epikratis, the latter term the feminine adjectival form. Unfortunately, the ‘ethnos’ is not stated, so we do not know the affiliation(s) of these individuals. Le Bas-Foucart stated that in this context, the term referred to the Eleutherolakonian League, but I know of no instance where the Eleutherolakonian cities are referred to, collectively, as an ethnos.678 Kennell argued that the presbus likely referred to an official who was perhaps also a priest, but without further information the exact function of the prebus is impossible to determine.679 Regardless, it seems as though this branch of the multi-generational family from Teuthrone held official civic roles throughout at least four generations, from presbus (Philokles, 3rd generation) and presbutera (Epikratis, 6th generation) to gymnasiarch (Damarchos, 5th generation). 7.2.6 Summary All together, the epigraphic, literary, and archaeological evidence provide a robust basis for a reconstruction of the north-east portion of the Mani peninsula in the Roman period and the settlements of Las, Asine, and Teuthrone therein. In particular, there is an abundance of archaeological evidence for this period in the form of visible, standing architecture along the coast from Vathy down to Kamares, at Skoutari, and at Kotronas, and ceramic scatters around the coastal and inland regions of Kotronas and Skopas peninsula. The literary evidence confirms the existence of Lakonian Asine somewhere in this area (Strabo 8.5.[2]), and Teuthrone is introduced into the literary canon for the first time (Pausanias 3.25.[4] and Ptolemy 3.16.[9]). 678 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 139. 679 Kennell 1999, 199 & n67. 379 The epigraphic record bears evidence for the name of the city of Las and the city-ethnic for Teuthrone, but neither of these two inscriptions were found within Mani itself. The epigraphic record is particularly strong for the area around Kotronas, the presumed site of ancient Teuthrone, with an Imperial dedication to the emperor Trajan, as well as four inscriptions concerning a single prominent family of at least 15 individuals spanning seven generations, including a presbus of the ethnos, a presbutera, and a gymnasiarch. 7.3 The East Coast 7.3.1 Kionia The upland site of Kionia was certainly in use during the Roman period; Moschos and Moschou believed that the smaller of the two temples (the distyle in antis temple) was built under the emperor Augustus or Tiberius.680 In the area surrounding the Kionia temples, other evidence of Roman-period activity may indicate a settlement, or at least ancillary buildings for the sanctuary. To the west of the temples, a three-panelled rock-cut relief was drawn by Le Bas, and described in detail by Forster.681 The rightmost panel has been destroyed, but the central panel depicts a seated female holding a cornucopia, and the leftmost panel shows a male figure wearing a chiton and holding a staff in his right hand while standing on a pedestal. Forster suggested the male represented a Roman emperor, while the female figure was a representation of Tyche. Immediately to the south of the temples (below the small plateau on which they were built)682, Moschou also mapped the remains of the several features, including a necropolis with 680 Moschou and Moschos 1979; Moschou-Tsiomi 1997, 25. 681 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 255; LL284. 682 This location bears the toponym Chalopyrgos and this name is often used interchangeably by Moschou 1999 [2005], 191. Blackman 2000, 41. 380 surviving funerary monuments, retaining walls, foundations of monumental structures, fragments of urns and sarcophagi and architectural members, most of which date to the mid-to-late Imperial period, including a stone disk akroterion.683 I maintain that, in a manner similar to the Hellenistic period occupation of Kionia, the heavily inhabited area around Kotronas (Teuthrone) remains the most logical location for the civic control and maintenance of this sanctuary. 7.3.2 Prophitis Ilias Region In the mountains further south of Kionia are the Prophitis Ilias quarries, which were heavily exploited throughout the Roman Imperial period. With regard to evidence of inhabitation around the quarries, Moschou et al. claimed traces of settlements around Katoro and Panoro, citing Roman and late Roman pottery as evidence, as well as illicitly removed coins, and late Hellenistic and Roman architectural members built into medieval churches in the region.684 They also saw Roman sherds west of the quarries.685 Along the coast directly east from the mountains of Prophitis Ilias are the modern settlements of Aghios Kyprianos & Spira. Moschou et al. believed that the former was the location for an ancient port facility, whose existence relied heavily on the exportation of the rosso antico marble. There have been no explorations of the harbour area, either on land or 683 Moschou 1999 [2005] 191; figures 41-45. 684 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 276: the authors state that this material was found in several places – Kladas, Atsoupas, Karniatika, Chambela, Omale, Kountores, Polemis – none of which are indicated on their accompanying map. 685 Waterhouse Hope Simpson 1961, 121; LL206. 381 underwater, and the only evidence for ancient activity is building material that has been reused in modern homes and the church of Aghios Kyprianos.686 Spira is located directly to the north of the Aghios Kyprianos harbour.687 Moschou et al. recorded spolia in modern houses as well as ceramic scatters throughout the area, noting especially Hellenistic and Roman examples, as well as several good-quality Archaic black-glaze sherds.688 The BSA collection comprises 13 sherds from Spira, all of which I determined to be coarse kitchen and/or storage ware. Most sherds were too fragmentary to date, but four were potentially Roman in date (BSASPI0001 – base/stem; BSASPI0002; BSASPI0006 – possible handle; BSASPI0008). The Prophitis Ilias rosso antico quarries consist of the single largest footprint of ancient quarrying activity within Mani; that the marble was exported from the peninsula is evident given that three objects now located in Italy – a 2nd - 1st century BCE Eleutherolakonian stele now in Altino, a floor pavement from the House of the Faun in Pompeii (1st century CE), and capitals from the Temple of Augustus in Pozzuoli – all display macroscopic features and isotopic signatures in accordance with rosso antico from the Prophitis Ilias quarries, and the latter two have been confirmed petrographically.689 Additionally, a Roman column of undisclosed date, now in Altino, was described as 'very likely' rosso antico from Prophitis Ilias, again based on petrographic, macroscopic, and isotopic evaluations.690 There are also several dozen rosso antico aritfacts within the Sparta museum. The marble industry left a sizeable impact on the eastern coast of Mani in terms of the sheer quantity of stone resources that were removed from the 686 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 277. 687 LL191. 688 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 277-278; no photos or distribution maps were included. 689 Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Altino inv. AL 7013 (Fig 7 Lazzarini 2007); Antonetti 1996. 690 Lazzarini 2007, 90. 382 mountains, and one would expect an equally substantial presence of ancient inhabitation based on the human-powered requirements necessary for mining, extracting, and transporting such a heavy and cumbersome material good. 7.4 The South 7.4.1 Porto Kagio The vast quantity of information of relevance for this region comes, once again, from the site of Tainaron. The modern area of Porto Kagio, however, bears intriguing evidence of Roman-period activity as well. An underwater survey in 1999 revealed a Roman-period shipwreck in the water off the coast here. No further information was given in the publication, perhaps to prevent looting.691 The presence of a shipwreck here reinforces the identification of Porto Kagio with the harbour of ancient Psamathous; Strabo’s testimony presented at the beginning of this chapter (8.5.[2]) provides further evidence, since the polis of Psamathous is listed directly after Tainaron in his list of places from south-north along the eastern Mani peninsula. On the southern promontory at the entrance to Porto Kagio bay is a church of Aghios Nikolaos, and scattered throughout the area surrounding this church is a copious amount of ancient pottery, mostly Hellenistic and Roman (Figure 7-14). 691 Dellaporta and Spondylis 1999 [2006], 1025. The location of this wreck is said to be ‘near the lighthouse’, which is essentially just a bare bulb fixed on the southern promontory at the entrance to the bay. 383 Figure 7-14: Pottery around Aghios Nikolaos, Porto Kagio. Photo by author. In a passage discussed in the context of Tainaron, below, Pliny listed Psamathous as a town (4.16: sinus Aegilodes, oppidum Psamathus; p. 254), and based on this presentation, it seems that perhaps the Gulf of Aegilodes refers to the bay upon which Psamathous sits (Porto Kagio Bay). A brief passage from Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica (70-90 CE) included another Roman-period reference to Psamathous: 1.363-5: hic patrium frangit Neptunius aequor qui tenet undisonam692 Psamathen semperque patentem Taenaron Euphemus, 1.363-5: here Euphemos son of Neptune subdues the surface of [his] father’s sea, who holds wave-sounding Psamath[ous] and ever-exposed Tainaron. The use of ‘Psamathen’ here is unique, and most scholars agree that the Maniate site of Psamathous was intended.693 If this is the case, the misspelling was probably due to Valerius Flaccus’ unfamiliarity with this part of the world; nevertheless, the inclusion and 692 According to Lewis & Short, this passage is one of the few instances of this adjective (undĭsŏnus , a, um). 693 Zissos 2008, 249. 384 acknowledgment of this place whatsoever indicates that it had some degree of consequence during this period. South of Porto Kagio is the modern town of Paliros and several small ancient quarries of a green-white marble (Paliros-Koureloi – Cipollino Verde Tenario - Q005). Puillon Boblaye observed columns of green-white marble on the small beach at Vathi Bay; the columns must have been extracted from these quarries and were transported to the bay for shipment.694 7.4.2 Tainaron The site of Tainaron presents a bit of a problem during the Roman Imperial period: aside from ceramics, there are no archaeological remains which can be conclusively assigned to this period, nor are any of the epigraphic finds from the sanctuary dated to this timeframe. During the 2007 excavations of the rock-cut channel, Tsouli recorded “unpainted utilitarian ceramics of the Roman period”.695 The same type of ceramics were also noted from the excavations of building D, and the style of the mosaic in the same building dates stylistically to the late Hellenistic-early Roman period. It is certain that the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron was still in use during the Roman Imperial period, and Cummer’s description of the function of the site includes the statement that “there was an extensive Hellenistic and Roman town at Tainaron, marked by rock-cut house foundations and cisterns around the large bay…”.696 A combination of limited archaeological investigation and lack of original context for the epigraphic finds, however, prevents a complete picture of the site during this time. 694 Puillon Boblaye 1836, 12; cf. Tsouli 2009, 399 (see Chapter 3). 695 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 547. 696 Cummer 1978, 36. 385 In contrast, the number of literary sources that provide evidence for the site of Roman Tainaron increases substantially. During this Roman Imperial period, however, poetic sources frequently named Tainaron as the entrance to the Underworld without further comment, or used the place-name of Tainaron itself as a metonymic replacement for Hades and the Underworld; because these frequent occurrences functioned largely as literary devices and do not contribute to our knowledge of the ancient site of Tainaron itself, they are included in Appendix B without comprehensive commentary. In general, there are two general categories of written sources for Roman-period Tainaron: The first category comprises authors whose works belong to the genre of ‘literature’, broadly-speaking, and whose texts include mention of Tainaron as a trope due to its famed reputation as a sanctuary, the ‘entrance to the Underworld’, or as a geographically-liminal space. In most of these cases, their accounts should not be taken as face-value interpretations of the lived reality at Tainaron, but can be valuable nonetheless in that they convey Tainaron’s reputation and perceived role; in this way, Tainaron transcended the limits of the traditionally Greek world and permeated the Roman literary canon. The second category comprises authors whose texts convey (or attempt to convey) geographic or historical fact, and whose texts include Tainaron in descriptions of the geography of the region, as a landmark to measure distance to other places, or as a place where historic events took place. 7.4.2.1 Ovid Proceeding roughly chronologically, our first source is Ovid, whose Heroides dates between 25 BCE-16 BCE.697 There are five passages throughout the Heroides which used the 697 Knox 1995, 6. 386 name of Tainaron in place of Sparta, all when referring to the legendary romantic affair between Paris and Helen698: 8.73-74: Taenaris Idaeo trans aequor ab hospite rapta Argolicas pro se vertit in arma manus. 8.73-74: She of Taenarus, stolen away across the seas by the stranger-guest from Ida, roused to arms in her behalf all the men of Argos. 13.45: aut te Taenariae faciem culpasse maritae, aut illi vellem displicuisse tuam! 13.45: Would that either thou hadst seen fault in the face of the Taenarian wife, or she had taken no pleasure in thine! 16.30: Taenaris est classi terra petita meae. 16.30: Taenaris is the land toward which my ships were steered. 16.276: aut ego Sigeos repetam te coniuge portus, aut hic Taenaria contegar exul humo! 16.276: either I shall return to the haven of Sigeum with you as my bride, or here, an exile, be covered with Taenarian earth!699 17.6: scilicet idcirco ventosa per aequora vectum excepit portu Taenaris ora suo… 17.6: Of course it was for this that the Taenarian shore received you into its haven when tossed on the windy tides… The substitution of Tainaron (“Taenaris” here) for Sparta is intriguing, but it is unclear whether Ovid was using metonymy or synecdoche as a literary device in this work. If this is an example of metonymic substitution, then Tainaron here was being used in place of Sparta because of the close association between the two (cf. Tainaron and Hades, see addendum). If the literary device employed here is synecdochic substitution, then Tainaron is used here because it is considered a part of Sparta. Kenney believes that this is an example of synecdoche, but I disagree and argue instead that Tainaron here is used metonymically in place for Sparta, and 698 All translations from Showerman, 1914 (revised by Goold, 1976). 699 Kenney 1996, 86 notes: “Sigeum, on the Aegean coast N.W. of Troy, was famous in Classical times as the burial-place of Achilles and Patroclus.” 387 probably in reference to the entire peninsula due to its formidable topographic presence rather than any real association between the two locales.700 7.4.2.2 Strabo Strabo’s late 1st century BCE account situated the temple of Poseidon in a grove (το ἄλσος701) and mentioned a nearby cave, which functioned in this instance – and for the first time – as the exit rather than the entrance to the underworld.702 8.5.[1]: ἐν δὲ τῷ κόλπῳ τῆς παραλίας τὸ µὲν Ταίναρον ἀκτή ἐστιν ἐκκειµένη τὸ ἱερὸν ἔχουσα τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἐν ἄλσει ἱδρυµένον: πλησίον δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἄντρον, δι᾽ οὗ τὸν Κέρβερον ἀναχθῆναι µυθεύουσιν ὑφ᾽ Ἡρακλέους ἐξ ᾄδου. 8.5.[1]: …and in the gulf the Tainaron promontory, being exposed to the sea, has a temple to Poseidon dedicated in a grove. And nearby is a cave, through which, as the story goes, Cerberus was led up by Herakles from Hades. 7.4.2.3 Pomponius Mela A few decades after Strabo, the first known Latin geographer, Pomponius Mela, published his Geography of the World (de Chorographia) circa 43/44 CE. Mela's writings were not based on his own first-hand experience, but on the writings and possibly on the maps of others.703 Three sequential passages of his text described the geography of the area: 2.49: Peloponnesi oram, sicut diximus, sinus et promunturia lacerant... ad meridiem Malea, Taenaros, Acritas, Ichthys... 700 Kenney 1996, 85. Paris and Helen were said to have stopped at Kranae, the small island off of Gytheio, on their way to Troy, but no other association is made between this mythological event and Tainaron. 701 The LSJ notes that this term can refer to “any hallowed precinct, even without trees”; although Liddell and Scott compare this term to the Latin saltus (-ūs), which almost always refers to a wooded area but is not the term employed in Virgil (the only other source to mention a grove). 702 Strabo mentioned Tainaron four more times throughout his Geography: the first quoted Ephoros (already presented above, 8.6.[14]); the second described the marble quarries (Chapter 3: 8.5.[7]); the third enumerated the distance between Tainaron and Cimarus (10.4.[5]; Cimarus on Crete was 700 stadia from Tainaron); and the final inclusion was to remind his readers of the story of Arion of Methymna and his famed dolphin-rescue (13.2.[4]; cf. Chapter 5: Hdt. 1.23.[1-6]). 703 Romer 1998, 21. 388 2.49: Hollows and promontories break up the coast of the Peloponnese, just as we noted...to the south Malea, Tainaron, Akritas [and] and Ichthys. 2.50: Inter Scyllaeon et Malean <sinus Argolicus dicitur, inter Malean> et Taenaron Laconicus, inter Taenaron et Acritan Asinaeus... 2.50: Between Scyllaeon and Malea <the gulf of Argolis is said [to be], between Malea> and Tainaron the Lakonian [gulf], between Tainaron and Akritas the Asinaean [gulf]... 2.51: ... in Laconico Gythium et Eurotas, in ipso Taenaro Neptuni templum et specus, illi quem in Ponto Acherusium diximus facie et fabula similis.... 2.51: …in the Lakonian [Gulf are] Gythion and [the] Eurotas, on Tainaron itself [are] the temple and cave of Poseidon, that which we say is similar in appearance and in legend to the Acherusion in Pontus.704 Pomponius Mela here used ‘Tainaron’ to describe the site as well as the entire southern promontory of the peninsula, since he described these bodies of water as situated between two promontories. 7.4.2.4 Seneca the Younger Around the same time as Mela, Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE) wrote several plays which included references to Tainaron. Most of these references substitute Tainaron in place of Hades and are therefore located in Appendix B, but one, from the play Hercules Furens written in or around the year 54 CE705, included a curious reference to a dense forest at Tainaron: 662-666: Spartana tellus nobile attollit iugum, densis ubi aequor Taenarus silvis premit; hic ora solvit Ditis invisi domus hiatque rupes alta et immenso specu 662-666: The Spartan land raises up a famous mountain chain, with dense forest where Tainaron presses against the sea. Here the house of unseen Dis loosens and the rock opens deep and in an immeasurable cave… 704 Romer 1998, 64 & 83 – this cave, located near Heracleia on the Pontus, is also associated with Herakles' labours and the bringing up of Cerberus from the underworld. 705 Fitch 2002, 12. 389 The current landscape around the site of ancient Tainaron is certainly unable to support any sort of large-growth forest, let alone a dense one – the passage perhaps referred to the swath of mountainous land that separates Sparta from the Mani peninsula, which is an area that can support more substantial vegetation. Regardless, the term ‘forest’ is still somewhat generous. Because of this, the exact location of the ‘dense forest where Tainaron presses against the sea’ referred to by Seneca is unclear, but this passage is a candidate as an example of a reference to the peninsula in its entirety as ‘Tainaron’. Ultimately, however, due to the nature of the genre and the ambiguity of the intended geographic reference, the phrasing in these lines must be taken as poetic license, rather than concrete evidence. This passage also included a reference to the entrance of the Underworld through a cave. 7.4.2.5 Lucan A passage from Lucan’s Civil War (De Bello Civili) or Pharsalia, which dates to around 65 CE, revealed that Cato, following Caesar’s defeat of Pompey the Great at Pharsalus in 48 BCE, stopped at Tainaron: 9.[36-37]: Dorida tunc Malean et apertam Taenaron umbris, Inde Cythera petit 9.[36-37]: Next he went to Malea of the Dorians and Taenarus where the dead may rise, and thence to Cythera.706 According to Lucan’s narrative, Cato cleaned up the wreckage from Pharsalus in Thessaly before heading to Corcyra and then proceeded to Malea, Tainaron, and Kythera, and eventually to Crete. The order of the locations is slightly off, as one would expect Tainaron to 706 Translation: Duff 1928. 390 precede Malea and Kythera when sailing from Corcyra. While there is no additional evidence that Cato stopped in Tainaron or anywhere along the peninsula, neither of the leading commentaries on Lucan found anything unusual or unbelievable about this narrative.707 In fact, I believe that there was an intentional motivation for Cato to stop at Tainaron, and that is illustrated through Tainaron’s role as a safe, neutral place of refuge where one would logically choose to regroup following a serious military defeat. This exact scenario is mirrored in the use of Tainaron by Antony following the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, and is presented fully below (within the discussion on Plutarch, Antony, 67.4). 7.4.2.6 Pliny the Elder Around 77 CE, Pliny the Elder completed his Natural History (Naturalis Historia), which included at least five references to Tainaron.708 Of these five passages, two used Tainaron as a geographical marker for measuring distances and provided no further contextual information (2.243: ‘Taenarum Laconicae’, outlining the distance of the known world from the Ganges in India to the Pillars of Hercules; and 5.32: ‘distans CCCL p. a Taenaro Laconicae promunturio’, which approximated the distance between Cyrenaica and various locations in Greece). Another passage (36.49) discussed the marble found on Cape Tainaron, which I presented in Chapter 3. Of the remaining two passages, the first re-told the story of Arion and the dolphin (9.28; cf. Herodotus 1.23; and Strabo 13.2.[4]), but did not provide any additional details. We are left with one final passage, which described the territory of Lakonia and its towns: 707 Wick 2004, 22; and Seewald 2008, 51-52. Both commentators observed that the order of the peninsulas in Lucan was wrong, but both still believed that Cato would have physically journeyed to Tainaron. Seewald even noted that Cato’s meeting with Cornelia later in the same passage was a fabrication of Lucan, so presumably if he believed that Cato’s stop at Tainaron was invented, he would have noted as much. 708 Rackham 1938, viii. 391 4.16: Dehinc a Taenaro ager Laconicus liberae gentis et sinus circuitu CVI, traiectu XXXVIII. oppida Taenarum, Amyclae, Pherae, Leuctra et intus Sparta, Therapne atque ubi fuere Cardamyle, Pitane, Anthia, locus Thyreae, Gerania. mons Taygetus, amnis Eurotas. sinus Aegilodes, oppidum Psamathus. sinus Gytheates ab oppido, ex quo Cretam in insulam certissimus cursus. omnes autem Maleo promunturio includuntur. 4.16: From here to Tainaron [is] the territory of the free people of Lakonia, and a gulf 106 [miles] in circumference, 38 [miles] in crossing. The towns [are] Tainaron, Amyklai, Pherai, Leuktra and Sparta on the inside, Therapne, and where Cardamyle, Pitane, [and] Anthia were, the places Thyreae [and] Gerania. The Taygetos mountain, the river Eurotas. The gulf of Aegilodes, the town Psamathus [sic]. The Gytheian gulf, [named] from the town, from which [place] the most established route to the island of Crete. However, all these [places] are bound by the Malea promontory. This summary of Lakonian territory does not provide much in terms of useful data for the settlements and inhabitants of Mani. The only relevant towns (oppida709) that were mentioned are Tainaron and Psamathous, without any further contextual information – however, it is strange that Psamathous was separated from the rest of the towns in this passage. This is the earliest mention of the ‘free people’ of Lakonia, and was probably a reference to the Eleutherolakonian League, which I discuss further in the context of Pausanias’ work (3.21.[7]), at the end of this chapter. 7.4.2.7 Statius Statius’ Thebaid (c. 90 CE) contained four references to Tainaron (one of which is included in the addendum)710: 1.355-356: iam Nemea, iam Taenariis contermina lucis Arcadiae capita alta madent 1.355-356: Now Nemea is drenched and the high Arcadian summits adjoining the forests of Taenarus 2.32-50: Est locus (Inachiae dixerunt Taenara gentes) qua formidatum Maleae spumantis in auras it caput et nullos admittit culmine visus. stat sublimis apex ventosque imbresque serenus despicit et tantum fessis insiditur astris. 709 The use of this term suggests the presence of a settlement and inhabitants. 710 All translations Shackleton Bailey, 2004. 392 [illic exhausti posuere cubilia venti, fulminibusque iter est; medium cava nubila montis insumpsere latus, summos nec praepetis alae plausus adit colles, nec rauca tonitrua pulsant.] ast ubi prona dies, longos super aequora fines exigit atque ingens medio natat umbra profundo. interiore sinu scandentia litora curvat Taenaros, expositos non audax frangere fluctus. illic Aegaeo Neptunus gurgite fessos in portum deducit equos; prior haurit harenas ungula, postremi solvuntur in aequora pisces. hoc, ut fama, loco pallentes devius umbras trames agit nigrique Iovis vacua atria ditat mortibus. 2.32-50: There is a place (the peoples of Inachus called it Taenarus) where the dread promontory of foaming Malea rises into the air; its peak admits no gaze. Lofty stands the summit and serene, looking down on winds and rain; only the weary stars make it their seat. [There the exhausted winds have placed their sleeping quarters and there is a path for lightnings. Hollow clouds take the mountain’s midway flanks; the highest slopes no flap of flying wing approaches nor hoarse thunders strike.] But when the sun moves downwards, a huge shadow draws long lines over the waters and swims in the midst of the deep. Inside an inner bay Taenarus curves climbing shores, not daring to break the open billows. There Neptune brings into harbour his horses weary from the Aegean flood; their forehooves paw the sands, their fishy rears dissolve into the water. At this spot, ’tis said, a winding path drives pale ghosts and enriches the vast halls of black Jupiter with deaths. 3.420-424: Et iam noctivagas inter deus armifer umbras desuper Arcadiae fines Nemeaeaque rura Taenariumque cacumen Apollineasque Therapnas armorum tonitru ferit et trepidantia corda implet amore sui. 3.420-424: And now among night-wandering shades the weaponbearing god strikes from aloft with thunder of arms Arcadia’s boundaries and Nemea’s fields and the peak of Taenarus and Apollo’s Therapne, and fills fluttering hearts with desire for himself. The information garnered from these three passages is largely topographical and tells of the forests and the mountains of Tainaron. Statius’ familiarity with the area is questionable, since in the first passage he located Tainaron adjacent to Arcadia, and in the second passage he conflated Malea and Tainaron. In all likelihood, the formidable geography of southern Lakonia and Mani (particularly the Taygetos mountain range) gained a reputation that Roman poets associated with Tainaron and employed for artistic license, without having firsthand experience 393 with the location.711 These passages may provide yet another example of Tainaron being used synecdochically to represent all of Mani, but it is more likely that Tainaron is simply the most famous site in the region at this period of antiquity; Statius seems to have at least some secondhand knowledge of the site itself, since he described the location where Poseidon/Neptune brought his horses into harbour as an ‘inner bay’ (sinu litora), which accurately reflects the physical situation at the site of Tainaron. 7.4.2.8 Apollodorus The date and author of our next passage are both uncertain. The Library (Bibliotheca) was composed by a man by the name of Apollodorus, and although this author was traditionally believed to have been Apollodorus the Athenian who lived in the 2nd century BCE, this belief is no longer accepted. Rather, the text was most likely composed in the 1st or 2nd century CE.712 The subject-matter concerns the retrieval of Cerberus from Hades: 2.5.[12]: καὶ παραγενόµενος ἐπὶ Ταίναρον τῆς Λακωνικῆς, οὗ τῆς Ἅιδου καταβάσεως τὸ στόµιόν ἐστι, διὰ τούτου κατῄει. 2.5.[12]: And having arrived at Tainaron in Lakonia, where the mouth of the descent to Hades is, he went down through this way. This is the fourth explicit mention of Tainaron as the entrance to Hades (cf. Euripides Herakles 22-24; Chapter 5: Virgil 4.467; and Seneca Hercules Furens 662-666, above). Here, Tainaron is referred to by the now-familiar convention ‘in Lakonike’. 711 Although Puillon Boblaye (1836, 8) thought Statius had visited Greece himself: “Parmi le poëtes, nous devons mentionner Stace qui, sans doute, visita la Grèce avant d’écrire sa Thébaide, et caractérise les lieux à la manière d’Homère, par une épithète géographique toujours juste.” 712 Frazer 1921, xvi. 394 7.4.2.9 Plutarch - Parallel Lives The following author, Plutarch (c. 46 CE – 120 CE) wrote his Parallel Lives at the end of the 1st century CE, and five of these biographies contained references to Tainaron. I present these in their traditional order.713 The first is the biography of Pompey, and a passage which discussed the problem of piracy in the 1st century BCE: 24.[5]: τῶν δὲ ἀσύλων καὶ ἀβάτων πρότερον ἱερῶν ἐξέκοψαν ἐπιόντες τὸ Κλάριον, τὸ Διδυµαῖον, τὸ Σαµοθρᾴκιον, τὸν ἐν Ἑρµιόνῃ τῆς Χθονίας νεὼν καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τὸν Ἰσθµοῖ καὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ Καλαυρίᾳ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος, τοῦ δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος τὸν ἐν Ἀκτίῳ καὶ Λευκάδι, τῆς δὲ Ἥρας τὸν ἐν Σάµῳ, τὸν ἐν Ἄργει, τὸν ἐπὶ Λακινίῳ. 24.[5]: They (the pirates) first made an end of inviolate and untrodden temples, attacking the temples of Klaros, Didyma, Samothrace, that of the chthonic gods in Hermione and that of Asklepios in Epidauros, and those of Poseidon in Isthmus and Tainaron and Kalauria… Piracy presented a very real hazard throughout the Mediterranean world during the Mithridatic Wars (88-85 BCE; 83-81 BCE; 74 BCE), and persisted until it was eradicated by Pompey circa 66 BCE. In this passage the inviolate nature of the temple of Poseidon is reinforced through the use of the term ἀσύλος, which is only the second instance that the ancient sources used this term to describe the sanctuary (cf. Polybius 9.34.[8-9]). Notably, when the sanctuary of Poseidon was described as a place of asylum (ἀσύλος) rather than a place of supplication (iketeia), both occurrences involved an attack upon the sanctuary, probably to emphasize and reinforce the negative implications of such an activity. The following passage, from Plutarch’s biography of Phokion (c. 402 – c. 318 BCE), an Athenian politician used Tainaron to illustrate the edge of the Greek world, along with the Keraunian mountains (in modern-day Albania): 29.[3]: ὅµως δ᾽ οὖν ὁ Φωκίων καὶ φυγῆς ἀπήλλαξε πολλούς δεηθεὶς τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου, καὶ φεύγουσι διεπράξατο µὴ καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν µεθισταµένων ὑπὲρ τὰ Κεραύνια ὄρη καὶ τὸν Ταίναρον ἐκπεσεῖν τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἀλλὰ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ κατοικεῖν… 713 Perrin 1917, ix. 395 29.[3]: But nevertheless Phocion successfully pleaded with Antipater for the exemption of many from exile, and for those who went into exile he obtained the privilege of residing in Peloponnesus, instead of being driven out of Hellas beyond the Ceraunian mountains and the promontory of Taenarum like other men in banishment.714 Plutarch’s next passages come from the Lives of Agis and Kleomenes. In the first, the biography of Agis IV (265-241 BCE; reign 245-241 BCE), Plutarch presented an episode that occurred at the end of King Agis’ reign, wherein the poorer classes reinstated Leonidas II to the Spartan throne and, as a result, Agis and Leonidas’ son-in-law Kleombrotos sought sanctuary: 16.[3]: …τῶν δὲ βασιλέων ὁ µὲν Ἆγις ἐπὶ τὴν Χαλκίοικον κατέφυγεν, ὁ δὲ Κλεόµβροτος εἰς τὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἱερὸν ἐλθὼν ἱκέτευε· καὶ γὰρ ἐδόκει τούτῳ µᾶλλον ὁ Λεωνίδας χαλεπὸς εἶναι, καὶ παρεὶς τὸν Ἆγιν ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἀνέβη στρατιώτας ἔχων· 16.[3]: …And of the kings, Agis fled for refuge to the Chalkioikon (shrine of Athena of the brazen house at Sparta), while Kleombrotos coming to the temple of Poseidon approached as a suppliant: and for Leonidas seemed to be more harsh towards him (Kleombrotos), leaving Agis alone and bringing soldiers he went up against him (Kleombrotos). This passage provides yet another example of the role that the temple of Poseidon (presumably that at Tainaron)715 played as a place of refuge for suppliants. The narrative proceeds to describe how Leonidas’ daughter and Kleombrotos’ wife, Chilonis, sat with Kleombrotos and their children as a suppliant, and refused to leave his side until Kleombrotos was freed or they were all killed: 17.[2]: …τότε δὲ αὖ πάλιν ταῖς τύχαις συµµεταβάλλουσα βάλλουσα µετὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἱκέτις ὤφθη καθεζοµένη, περιβεβληκυῖα τὰς χεῖρας ἐκείνῳ καὶ τῶν παιδίων τὸ µὲν ἔνθεν, τὸ δ᾿ ἔνθεν ὑφ᾿ αὑτὴν ἔχουσα. θαυµαζόντων δὲ πάντων καὶ δακρυόντων ἐπὶ τῇ χρηστότητι καὶ φιλοστοργίᾳ τῆς γυναικός… 17.[2]: …and (Chilonis) was seen sitting as a suppliant with her husband, her arms thrown about him, and a little child clinging to her on either side. All beholders were moved to wonder and tears at the fidelity and devotion of the woman…716 714 Translation Perrin 1919. 715 Perrin 1921, 36-7; Naiden 2006, 36ff & 204ff. 716 Translation: Perrin 1921. 396 As a result of his daughter’s pleading, Leonidas decided to exile, rather than kill Kleombrotos (18.[1]: “making Kleombrotos rise and leave the sanctuary717, he ordered him to flee”; τὸν µὲν Κλεόµβροτον ἐκέλευσεν ἀναστάντα φεύγειν) and Chilonis followed him into exile, only after “making obeisance on the altar of the god” (18.[2]: προσκυνήσασα τὸν βωµὸν τοῦ θεοῦ). Altogether, in this text, Plutarch related that four individuals sat together as suppliants at Tainaron, and that apparently there was a crowd – although the latter detail was probably an attempt to emphasize the fame of these particular suppliants rather than an accurate representation of the sanctuary on any given day. Perhaps surprisingly, given the importance placed on altars in ancient Greek sanctuaries, this passage is only the second time an altar is mentioned at Tainaron (cf. Cornelius Nepos 4.4-5). In another narrative from the Lives of Agis and Kleomenes, Plutarch described an event during the reign of Kleomenes III (265/260-219 BCE; reign 235-222 BCE), wherein Kleomenes had to send his children and his mother, Kratisikleia, by sea from Tainaron to Egypt as collateral (ὅµηρα) in exchange for the protection of Ptolemy II Euergetes: 22.[5]: Πάντων οὖν ἑτοίµων γενοµένων ἀφίκοντο µὲν εἰς Ταίναρον πεζῇ καὶ προὔπεµψεν ἡ δύναµις αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις· µέλλουσα δὲ τῆς νεὼς ἐπιβαίνειν ἡ Κρατησίκλεια τὸν Κλεοµένη µόνον εἰς τὸν νεὼν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἀπήγαγε… 22.[5]: So once all the preparations were ready they arrived at Tainaron by foot and the forces escorted them under arms. As she was about to board the ship, Kratisikleia led Kleomenes away alone into the temple of Poseidon…. Of note in this passage is that Plutarch stated explicitly that the king and his family made their way to Tainaron on foot, which must have been a formidable feat, and one which was left unexplained in terms of motivation and route: did they travel the path of least resistance, crossing 717 ἀναστάντα here is the aorist participle of ἀνίστηµι, which can, according to Liddell and Scott, have the very specific meaning “to make suppliants rise and leave sanctuary”. 397 over from Gytheio to the western coast and making their way south via the coastal valleys, or did they choose to travel the more difficult, mountainous eastern route? And more importantly, why did they not set sail to Egypt from Gytheio, or from one of the harbours located on the northern part of the Lakonian Gulf? I offer the solution that they wished to make offerings to Poseidon at Tainaron in exchange for a safe sea voyage (as was customary at the temple of Poseidon at Sounion, for example), but there is no explicit evidence for this in Plutarch’s text. Regardless, this passage informs the reader that travel by foot from Sparta to Tainaron was possible and, at least once, willingly undertaken. The final passage of relevance from Plutarch’s lives is a section from the Life of Antony: 67.[4]: ἀπαλλαγέντος δὲ τούτου πάλιν ὁ Ἀντώνιος εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ σχῆµα καθεὶς ἑαυτὸν ἡσυχίαν ἦγε· καὶ τρεῖς ἡµέρας καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἐν πρῴρᾳ διαιτηθείς, εἴθ᾿ ὑπ᾿ ὀργῆς, εἴτ᾿ αἰδούµενος ἐκείνην, Ταινάρῳ προσέσχεν. ἐνταῦθα δ᾿ αὐτοὺς αἱ συνήθεις γυναῖκες πρῶτον µὲν εἰς λόγους ἀλλήλοις συνήγαγον, εἶτα συνδειπνεῖν καὶ συγκαθεύδειν ἔπεισαν. [5] Ἤδη δὲ καὶ τῶν στρογγύλων πλοίων οὐκ ὀλίγα καὶ τῶν φίλων τινὲς ἐκ τῆς τροπῆς ἠθροίζοντο πρὸς αὐτούς, ἀγγέλλοντες ἀπολωλέναι τὸ ναυτικόν, οἴεσθαι δὲ τὸ πεζὸν συνεστάναι. Ἀντώνιος δὲ πρὸς µὲν Κανίδιον ἀγγέλους ἔπεµπεν, ἀναχωρεῖν διὰ Μακεδονίας εἰς Ἀσίαν τῷ στρατῷ [6] κατὰ τάχος κελεύων, αὐτὸς δὲ µέλλων ἀπὸ Ταινάρου πρὸς τὴν Λιβύην διαίρειν, ὁλκάδα µίαν, πολὺ µὲν νόµισµα, πολλοῦ δὲ ἀξίας ἐν ἀργύρῳ καὶ χρυσῷ κατασκευὰς τῶν βασιλικῶν κοµίζουσαν, ἐξελόµενος τοῖς φίλοις ἐπέδωκε κοινῇ, νείµασθαι καὶ σώζειν ἑαύτους κελεύσας. 67.[4]: When Eurycles was gone, Antony threw himself down again in the same posture and did not stir. He spent three days by himself at the prow, either because he was angry with Cleopatra, or ashamed to see her, and then put in at Taenarum. Here the women in Cleopatra's company at first brought them into a parley, and then persuaded them to eat and sleep together. [5] Presently not a few of their heavy transport ships and some of their friends began to gather about them after the defeat, bringing word that the fleet was destroyed, but that, in their opinion, the land forces still held together. So Antony sent messengers to Canidius, ordering him to retire with his army as fast as he could through Macedonia into Asia; [6] he himself, however, since he purposed to cross from Taenarum to Libya, selected one of the transport ships which carried much coined money and very valuable royal utensils in silver and gold, and made a present of it to his friends, bidding them divide up the treasure and look out for their own safety.718 Plutarch did not describe any features of Tainaron, only that Antony brought his ship into port here (προσέχω) following the Battle of Actium (31 BCE). The most informative aspect of this passage is the fact that apparently, there was space enough for several merchant ships 718 Translation Perrin, 1920. 398 (στρογγύλων πλοίων719) to put into port here; there is the possibility that the ships were gathering at one of Tainaron’s auxiliary ports – either Psamathous or Achilleion – both bays (Marinari and Porto Kagio) have a much more substantial area for ships than the small bay at modern-day Kisternes. No other sources revealed that Antony spent any time at Tainaron, but since he chose this location to regroup following his defeat at the Battle of Actium and his encounter with Eurykles, we can assume that this was a safe location in which to do so. 7.4.2.10 Plutarch - Moralia At the turn of the 2nd century CE, Plutarch published his Moralia, which survives today in fourteen volumes. These texts differ from the Lives in that they are not biographical, but a collection of essays and philosophical treatises; they should not be taken as historical fact, and any factual information gleaned from these texts ought to be heavily scrutinized. There are references to Tainaron in six of these texts, which are presented in the order in which they appear traditionally in the Moralia.720 The first inclusion of Tainaron is within The Dinner of The Seven Wise Men (Septem Sapientum Convivium/ Τῶν ἑττὰ σοφῶν), an imaginative narrative of a dinner around the 6th century BCE at the home of Periander, tyrant of Corinth: 17 (160D): Ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Σόλωνος λέγοντος εἰσῆλθε Γόργος ὁ Περιάνδρου ἀδελφός· ἐτύγχανε γὰρ εἰς Ταίναρον ἀπεσταλµένος ἔκ τινων χρησµῶν, τῷ Ποσειδῶνι θυσίαν καὶ θεωρίαν ἀπάγων. 17 (160D): While Solon was still speaking, Gorgus, Periander's brother, came in; for it happened that, in consequence of certain oracles, he had been sent to Taenarum, in charge of a sacred mission to offer due sacrifice to Poseidon.721 719 According to Liddell and Scott, στρογγύλος [υ^], η, ον,: 4. [select] of ships, στρ. ναῦς, στρ. πλοῖον, a merchant-ship, from its round shape, as opp. to the long narrow ship-of-war (µακρὰ ναῦς), Hdt., Thuc., etc. 720 Fowler 1936, ix-xii. 721 Translation Babbit, 1928. 399 This passage fortified the connection between Poseidon and Tainaron, but suggested for the first time an aspect of sacrifice in this cult. The historical legitimacy of this source must be taken with a grain of salt since the chronological separation between purported event and composition is nearly 700 years, and there is no proof that such an event ever occurred; this incident may have been simply a product of Plutarch’s imagination. To add to the contentious nature of the events, other historical sources state that Gorgus is Periander’s son, not brother.722 In a similar vein, the historical accuracy of an event described in Plutarch’s Bravery of Women (Mulierum Virtutes/ Γυναικῶν ἀρεταί) is questionable: 8 (242E) ΤΥΡΡΗΝΙΔΕΣ: Τυρρηνῶν τοίνυν τῶν Λῆµνον καὶ Ἴµβρον κατασχόντων, ἁρπασάντων δὲ Βραυρωνόθεν τὰς Ἀθηναίων γυναῖκας, ἐγένοντο παῖδες, οὓς ἐξήλασαν Ἀθηναῖοι µιξοβαρβάρους ὄντας ἐκ τῶν νήσων. Οἱ δ᾿ εἰς Ταίναρον κατάραντες ἐγένοντο χρήσιµοι Σπαρτιάταις περὶ τὸν εἱλωτικὸν πόλεµον… 8 (242E) The Etruscan Women: When the Etruscans had gained possession of Lemnos and Imbros, they carried away forcibly from Brauron Athenian women, and children were born to them. These the Athenians expelled from the islands on the ground that they were in part barbarian, and they put in at Taenarum and made themselves useful to the Spartans in the war with the Helots.723 Not only is this story unconfirmed elsewhere, but putting into port at Tainaron to help the Spartans at war with the Lakonian helots would be strategically unsound, since Tainaron is so geographically isolated from the rest of Lakonia. It is possible that here Tainaron is used as synecdoche for the entire Mani peninsula, and the Etruscans landed at the more tactical port of Gytheio. Plutarch’s philosophical treatise on the existence of the soul, On the Delays of Divine Vengeance (De sera numinis vindicta/ Περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου βραδέως τιµωρουµένων) included an oracle given by the Delphic Pythia to Callondes (nicknamed Corax), the murderer of the 7th century BCE poet Archilochus: 722 Hdt. 3.50-53; Diog. Laert. 1.94; Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 57.8. 723 Translation Babbitt, 1931. 400 17 (560E): ἐκελεύσθη πορευθεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ Τέττιγος οἴκησιν ἱλάσασθαι τὴν τοῦ Ἀρχιλόχου ψυχήν. τοῦτο δ᾿ ἦν ὁ Ταίναρος· ἐκεῖ γάρ φασιν ἐλθόντα µετὰ στόλου Τέττιγα τὸν Κρῆτα πόλιν κτίσαι καὶ κατοικῆσαι περὶ τὸ ψυχοποµπεῖον 17 (560E): he (Corax) was ordered to go to the dwelling of Tettix to appease the soul of Archilochus. And this [place] was Tainaron: for they say that having gone there with a fleet Tettix the Cretan founded a city and settled around the psychopompeion (i.e. ‘Hall of the Souls’). This passage has been continually misinterpreted as Tettix founding a city at the site of ancient Tainaron when in fact I believe that Tainaron here was used to represent the Underworld; Bowie and Hurschmann claim that Tettix was “said to have founded a city on the [sic] Taenarum near the supposed entrance to Hades”724, but there is no reason to read the city in this passage as an actual city when Tainaron is often used metonymically for Hades, especially during this historical period (see Appendix B). This story of Tettix founding a city at Tainaron is also related in a fragment of Aelian (180), but the wording in that passage clarifies that Plutarch is not describing an actual city, but a part of the Underworld, since Aelian’s fragment describes Tainaron as the place where Tettix was buried (ἔνθα Τέττιξ τέθαπται); any argument that favours a burial at the site of Tainaron instead of the more logical place for the dead – the Underworld – is flawed and no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. I believe that in this passage, Plutarch intended for Tainaron to metonymically represent the Underworld as a whole, so it should be included in the Appendix B. I have included it here, however, because of the impact this passage has had on the understanding of function of the site of ancient Tainaron and the buildings therein: it is this passage alone that provides ‘evidence’ for the physical remains of a ‘psychopompeion’ at the site of ancient Tainaron, and the sole evidence for an ‘oracle of the dead’. Scholars such as Papachatzis, Cummer, and Bursian interpreted the rectangular cuttings (discussed in the previous chapter) that are adjacent to the cave at Tainaron 724 Bowie and Hurschmann 2006, [1]. 401 as a ‘psychopompeion’ based on this passage alone; later, Bölte and then Mylonopoulos criticized the interpretation of the cuttings as such but then furthered the impact of this passage, saying that ‘psychopompeion’ should not apply to one building, but to the sanctuary as a whole.725 Mylonopoulos, for example, stated that this word (as well as the terms nekyomanteion and psychomanteion) applied to the entirety of the sanctuary and cited Liddell & Scott as a source for this argument.726 The term psychopompeion, however, is only found in this text: once in reference to Tainaron, and once in reference to Heracleia (see below); Lidell & Scott cite this passage in their definition of the term because there are no other texts to cite,727 which weakens Mylonopoulos’ argument. It is unclear where the specifics of Liddell and Scott’s definition came from, since the terms ἡ ψυχή + τό ποµπεῖον (from ἡ ποµπή, a usually solemn procession) together literally mean a hall or procession of souls. A better English translation of psychopompeion is “passage of the dead” or “passage of souls”, (after De Lacy & Einarson’s translation: De sera numinis 10 and 17, respectively), both of which convey a feature that would rightly be found in the Underworld. Liddell and Scott’s definition as “a place where departed souls are conjured up” may have been influenced by Goodwin’s 1874 translation of this passage of Plutarch, in which the term psychopompeion was translated literally as a ‘place where ghosts are conjured up’ (17; 560E); in contrast, Goodwin translated the only other occurrence of the term psychopompeion in all of ancient Greek writing – also in this text by Plutarch – as ‘the oracle of the dead’ (10; 555C). Goodwin seems to have chosen this latter translation because the context for Plutarch’s second inclusion of the term psychopompeion is the story of Pausanias’ murder of his mistress Cleonice, in which Pausanias journeys to Heracleia to consult Cleonice’s 725 Bursian1872, 150; Papachatzis 1976, 108f; Cummer 1978, 38. 726 Mylonopoulos 2003, 232-233 & 233n142. 727 Liddell and Scott ψυχοποµπεῖον: “a place where departed souls are conjured up, Plu.2.560e.” 402 ghost at a psychopompeion; this same story also occured in Plutarch’s Life of Cimon (6.6; 482C), but in that version Pausanias consulted Cleonice’s ghost at Heracleia’s nekyomanteion (νεκυοµαντεῖον), literally an ‘oracle of the dead’. The term nekyomanteion is also found in Strabo, Pausanias, Herodotus, and Diodorus Siculus, but never in reference to Tainaron (italics for emphasis).728 Not only is it wrong to universally equate a psychopompeion with a nekyomanteion, but it is misleading to translate (Tainaron’s) psychopompeion as an ‘oracle of the dead’ solely because the term psychopompeion was also used in the context of a different story (Pausanias & Cleonice) which took place elsewhere in the Greek world (Heracleia), and then that different story was retold in a completely different text (Life of Cimon) but in that other text the author employed the term nekyomanteion! So, to clarify: Pausanias consulted a nekyomanteion at Heracleia (Life of Cimon 6.6), Pausanias consulted a psychopompeion at Heracleia (Divine Vengeance 10), Tettix the Cretan founded a city and settled around a psychopompeion at Tainaron (Divine Vengeance 17). Perhaps the site of Heracleia functioned as both psychompeion and nekyomanteion, but that doesn’t mean that the two functions are identical or interchangeable, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a physical nekyomanteion existed at the site of ancient Tainaron based on the fact that a psychopompeion was purported to be in the place where Tettix founded a city, which itself was, in all probability, not even Tainaron but located in the Underworld itself. The attempts of modern scholars to interpret this passage as reflective of an actual structure that was situated and functioned in the real world at the site of Tainaron is futile, since it seems that the psychopompeion in this passage was simply a feature of the Underworld. Scholars such as Ogden and Usinova have based their entire interpretation of the ‘oracle’ at Tainaron on this text 728 Strabo 1.2 & 5.4; Pausanias 9.30; Herodotus 5.92; Diodorus Siculus 4.22. 403 (although both are impressively skilled at making it seem as though the evidence for such an oracle is plentiful)729, and therefore much of our current perception of the function of ancient Tainaron is skewed to believe that it was the site of a ‘death-oracle’. This understanding, however, relies solely on scholarship that continually misinterprets the events of Plutarch’s narrative as having occurred at the physical site of Tainaron in the real world; when this passage is examined within the entire corpus of literature about Tainaron and the common metonymic use of Tainaron as representative of the Underworld during this period is taken into consideration, the tendency in scholarship to take this passage at face value is surprising and unsound, especially when coupled with the fact that this text is a philosophical treatise regarding events that ‘occurred’ nearly a millennium earlier; Plutarch’s text is not a geographic or historical account of the site and sanctuary at Tainron. The deconstruction of this pervasive interpretation of the function of Tainaron is extremely important for our continued understanding of the ancient site: even at the site today, the sign that welcomes visitors states Ιερό και Νεκροµαντείο Ποσειδώνος Ταιναρίου (‘Sanctuary and Death-Oracle of Poseidon Tainarios’) – but as it turns out, there is no textual evidence whatsoever for this latter function. Returning now to evidence for Tainaron found elsewhere in Plutarch, in his On Exile (De Exilio/ Περὶ φυγῆς), he echoed his earlier expression from the Life of Phokion (29.3) that situated Tainaron at the edge of Greece: 5 (601A): ὁ δὲ Σωκράτης βέλτιον, οὐκ Ἀθηναῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, ἀλλὰ “Κόσµιος” εἶναι φήσας…” ὅτι µηδὲ Σουνίῳ µηδὲ Ταινάρῳ µηδὲ τοῖς Κεραυνίοις ἐνέκλεισεν ἑαυτόν. 5 (601A): whereas the saying of Socrates is still better, that he was no Athenian or Greek, but a “Cosmian”…because he did not shut himself up within Sunium and Taenarus and the Ceraunian mountains.730 729 Ogden 2001; Ustinova 2009, 69-71. 730 Translation De Lacy & Einarson 1959. 404 De Lacy and Einarson have suggested that the similar wording may be indicative that Plutarch appropriated this expression from an earlier author to express the limits of the Greek world.731 Plutarch’s final two references to Tainaron are from the Lives of the Ten Orators (Vitae Decem Oratorum/ Περὶ τῶν δέκα ῥητόρων), a text which was almost certainly not written by Plutarch himself. The first was discussed earlier in the context of the supposed speech of Hyperides, which opposed the dissolution of a mercenary force commanded by the Athenian Chares; the second passage also related events of the late 4th century BCE: 8 (846C): µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα φυγόντος Ἁρπάλου ἐκ τοῦ δεσµωτηρίου, ἐν ᾧ ἐφυλάσσετο µέχρις ἂν ἀφίκηταί τις παρ᾿ Ἀλεξάνδρου, καὶ πορευθέντος εἰς τὴν Κρήτην ἢ ὡς ἔνιοι ἐπὶ Ταίναρον τῆς Λακωνικῆς, αἰτίαν ἔσχεν ὁ Δηµοσθένης δωροδοκίας, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο µήτε τὸν ἀριθµὸν τῶν ἀνακοµισθέντων µεµηνυκὼς µήτε τὴν τῶν φυλασσόντων ἀµέλειαν. 8 (846C): And after this, when Harpalus escaped from the prison in which he was being kept until a representative of Alexander should arrive, and had gone to Crete or, as some say, to Taenarum in Laconia, Demosthenes was accused of bribe-taking and of having this reason for not mentioning the amount of the money taken up or the carelessness of the guard.732 Harpalus, the Babylonian satrap, was the subject of Diodorus Siculus’ passage presented above (17.108.[6]), in which he travelled to Tainaron with 6000 mercenaries. Nothing more is known about this event, or whether Harpalus did in fact travel to Tainaron after his release from prison.733 7.4.2.11 Appian Another ancient author writing around the middle of the 2nd century CE was Appian, whose Roman History included five books on the Civil Wars. In the fourth book, Appian recorded the events of 43 BCE, and Lucius Staius Murcus’ brief spell at Tainaron: 731 De Lacy and Einarson 1959, 514. 732 Translation: Fowler 1936. 733 Badian (1961) does not even comment on this event. 405 4.9.74: ὁ δὲ Μοῦρκον µετά τε ὁπλιτῶν ἀρίστου τέλους καὶ τοξοτῶν τινων ἐπὶ νεῶν ἑξήκοντα καταφράκτων ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἔπεµπε ναυλοχεῖν περὶ Ταίναρον, . . . περισυράµενος ἐκ τῆς Πελοποννήσου λείαν, ὅσην ἔφθασε. 4.9.74: And he (Cassius) sent Murcus, with both the best hoplite soldiers and some archers on sixty decked ships to the Peloponnesus to lie in wait around Tainaron…carrying off booty from the Peloponnese, as much as [he could] quickly. This passage reiterated Tainaron’s function as a harbour, and stated its function as a muster-place for the first time since Thucydides (7.19.[4]). Liddell and Scott define the verb ναυλοχέω as “to lie in a harbour or creek, esp. lie in wait in order to sally out on passing ships”. The choice to wait near Tainaron was indicative of its neutrality during the Civil Wars, a feature that I argue persisted throughout several centuries. With respect to the plundering that Appian recorded, one can interpret “from the Peloponnese” as evidence that Murcus and his crew did not actually sack Tainaron, but clarity – and, therefore, proof for this argument – is lacking here and it could very well have been that Murcus’ crew pillaged a settlement at or near Tainaron. 7.4.2.12 Apuleius A brief mention of Tainaron was included in Apuleius’ mid-to-late 2nd century CE Metamorphoses: 1.1: Hymettos Attica et Isthmos Ephyrea et Taenaros Spartiaca, glebae felices aeternum libris felicioribus conditae, mea vetus prosapia est. 1.1: Attic Hymettos and Ephyrean Isthmos and Spartan Taenaros, fruitful lands preserved for ever in even more fruitful books, form my ancient stock.734 In this passage, Apuleius was using geographic landmarks to reinforce the narrator Lucius’ ‘Greekness’ and, per Hanson, this passage functioned to reinforce Lucius’ legitimacy in 734 Translation: Hanson 1996. 406 providing narratives which took place in these locations.735 The link between Sparta and Tainaron here was probably, just as in the passages of Statius and Ovid discussed earlier, synecdochical based on the two most famous sites in the region. 7.4.2.13 Ptolemy Also dated to around the middle of the 2nd century CE are the books of Ptolemy’s Geography (Geographia or Cosmographia), the largest part of which features a gazetteer of sorts that listed the longitudinal and latitudinal values for all locations in the known world. The third book listed locations within Greece, and these included (Ptol. Geog. 3.16.9) the promontory of Tainaron (Ταιναρία736 ἄκρα) listed as within Lakonike (Λακωνικῆς), as well as Tainaron (Ταινάριον)737, In Book I. 12.11, the following information is included: καὶ πάλιν τὸ µὲν εἰς Ταίναρον τῆς Λακωνικῆς ὐπὸ Παχύνου µοιρ. ι (“and next that from Pachynus to Tainaros in Lakonia to 10º”738). Pachynos (Πάχῡνος) is located on the south-eastern point of Sicily. The omissions of Oitylos as well as the harbours of Achilleion and Psamathous from this passage are notable.739 7.4.2.14 Pausanias Pausanias devoted a section to Tainaron in Book 3, but he also included a reference to Tainaron briefly in Book 2: 735 Hanson 1996 3n4: “Lucius claims to have been a student at Athens (I 24); Mt. Taenarus recurs as the point of departure for Psyche’s visit to the underworld in VI 18–20; and Corinth is the scene of Lucius’ retransformation and initiation in Book XI.” 736 Nobbe (1843) 213n1 notes that the promontory is a part of Μαῖνη. 737 Note the alternative spelling. 738 Berggren and Jones 2000, 28. 739 Shipley (2004, 585) cited Ptolemy 3.14.43 (“βίτυλα”) in his entry for Oitylos in the Polis Inventory, however I could not find this in Ptolemy’s text neither under the numbered passage cited by Shipley (3.14.43) nor under the listings for Lakonike (Nobbe 1843, 213). 407 2.33.[2]: Καλαύρειαν δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὰν τὸ ἀρχαῖον εἶναι λέγουσιν, ὅτε περ ἦσαν καὶ οἱ Δελφοὶ Ποσειδῶνος: λέγεται δὲ καὶ τοῦτο, ἀντιδοῦναι τὰ χωρία σφᾶς ἀλλήλοις. φασὶ δὲ ἔτι καὶ λόγιον µνηµονεύουσιν: “ἶσόν τοι Δῆλόν τε Καλαύρειάν τε νέµεσθαι Πυθώ τ᾽ ἠγαθέην καὶ Ταίναρον ἠνεµόεσσαν. 2.33.[2]: And they say that there was an ancient temple of Kalaurian Apollo, at a time when Delphi was [sacred to] Poseidon: and this is still said, that they gave each of their own places to one another. And they still say [this], remembering the oracle: “[It is] equal for you to inhabit both Delos and Kalauria, both most holy Pytho and windy Tainaron.” Pausanias’ passage echoes Strabo’s passage (above, 8.6.[14]), and both described how Apollo and Poseidon exchanged Kalauria and Delphi. The wording of the oracle is exactly the same in the two passages, so Pausanias must have been quoting either Strabo’s text or the original passage of Ephoros (F150) directly. Finally, Pausanias’ narrative about the site of Tainaron immediately follows his passage on ancient Teuthrone: 3.25.[4]: Τευθρώνης δὲ ἀπέχει πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν σταδίους ἐς θάλασσαν ἀνέχουσα Ταίναρον, καὶ λιµένες ὅ τε Ἀχίλλειός ἐστι καὶ Ψαµαθοῦς, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ἄκρᾳ ναὸς εἰκασµένος σπηλαίῳ καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἄγαλµα. [5] ἐποίησαν δὲ Ἑλλήνων τινὲς ὡς Ἡρακλῆς ἀναγάγοι ταύτῃ τοῦ Ἅιδου τὸν κύνα, οὔτε ὑπὸ γῆν ὁδοῦ διὰ τοῦ σπηλαίου φερούσης οὔτε ἕτοιµον ὂν πεισθῆναι θεῶν ὑπόγαιον εἶναί τινα οἴκησιν ἐς ἣν ἀθροίζεσθαι τὰς ψυχάς. ἀλλὰ Ἑκαταῖος µὲν ὁ Μιλήσιος λόγον εὗρεν εἰκότα, ὄφιν φήσας ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ τραφῆναι δεινόν, κληθῆναι δὲ Ἅιδου κύνα, ὅτι ἔδει τὸν δηχθέντα τεθνάναι παραυτίκα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰοῦ, καὶ τοῦτον ἔφη τὸν ὄφιν ὑπὸ Ἡρακλέους ἀχθῆναι παρ᾿ Εὐρυσθέα· …[7] ἀναθήµατα δὲ ἄλλα τέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ Ἀρίων ὁ κιθαρῳδὸς χαλκοῦς ἐπὶ δελφῖνος. …[8] ἔστι δὲ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ πηγή, νῦν µὲν οὐδὲν ὥστε καὶ θαῦµα εἶναι παρεχοµένη, πρότερον δὲ τοῖς ἐνιδοῦσιν ἐς τὸ ὕδωρ τοὺς λιµένας—φασί—καὶ τὰς ναῦς θεάσασθαι παρεῖχε. τοῦτο ἔπαυσε γυνὴ τὸ ὕδωρ µὴ καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ τοιαῦτα ἐπιδείκνυσθαι, µεµιασµένην ἐναποπλύνασα ἐσθῆτα. 3.25.[4]: Projecting into the sea, Tainaron is one hundred and fifty stades distant from Teuthrone, and the harbours which are both Achilleios and Psamathous, and upon the headland a temple with a cave and in front of which is a statue representing the likeness of Poseidon. [5] Some of the Greeks wrote that Herakles led up the hound of Hades here, [but] no road leads under ground through the cave, nor [is it] easy to believe that there is some underground dwelling of the gods in which souls gather together. But Hekataios of Miletos found a reasonable explanation, saying that a terrible serpent was bred and kept at Tainaron, and it was called the hound of Hades, [and] it is binding that, having been bitten, one would die immediately from the poison, and he (Hekataios) says this snake was carried off by Herakles to Eurystheus. … [7] And there are other votive offerings at Tainaron [including] a bronze of Arion the kithara-player upon a dolphin. …740[8] and there is a spring at Tainaron, but now [there is] nothing that produces wonder, but before – they say – it exhibited harbours and ships to those allowing [themselves] to look in the water. A woman brought this to an end, not to exhibit these wonders for the future, through defiling the water [by] washing [her] clothes [in it]. 740 See Addendum II (Occurrences of the Story of Arion of Methymna). Possible additional support for a statue includes Philostratus the Elder Imagines 1.25-6; Dio Chrysostum Discourses 37.[3]; Aelian, H.A. 12.45. Frazer 1898 (2012) 398, (after Bursian Geogr. 2. 151 n1) claimed that such an offering was actually found among the votive offerings at Tainaron, but Musti and Torelli 1982 (281) stated that there is no evidence for such a discovery. 408 Although he does not mention it specifically, the consensus regarding this passage is that Pausanias traveled by boat from Teuthrone to Tainaron, which would explain his lack of mention of any archaeological remains and/or settlements along the majority of the eastern coast.741 The distance of 150 stades is roughly equivalent to 28 kilometres (assuming a 185-metre stade), which corresponds to the approximate distance between the two sites, especially if one is traveling by boat.742 Pausanias mentioned the names of the two harbours, Achilleios and Psamathous (cf. Pseudo-Skylax 46; Strabo 8.5.[2]; Pliny 4.16), but provided no additional information about any settlements in or around this region. Pausanias informed the reader that there was a temple and a cave with a statue of Poseidon, described a votive offering of Arion on the dolphin, and noted the presence of a formerly-sacred spring. Interestingly, he also revealed that there was no underground passage leading into or away from the cave, which is an accurate reflection of the geological situation at present-day Tainaron; through this observation, Pausanias essentially discounted the physical connection between Tainaron and the Underworld. Unfortunately, Pausanias included nothing more about the current or former state of the sanctuary and whether it was frequented and/or cared for during his time.743 7.4.2.15 Tainaron in Roman-Period Literary Sources As in other historical periods, Tainaron appeared more frequently than any other Maniate settlements in the primary sources of the Roman Imperial period. In Ovid, Tainaron was used metonymically for Sparta (Heroides 8.73-74; 13.45; 16.30; 16.276); in Strabo, Pliny, and 741 Frazer 1898 (2012), 395. 742 Driving on modern roads from Kotronas to Kokkinogheia the distance is closer to 37km, as the crow flies the distance is around 23.5km. 743 Musti and Torelli 1982 (279) believed that by Pausanias’ time, the town and the temple atop the promontory were abandoned, and only the cave and harbour area were still in some form of active use. 409 Ptolemy it was largely used as a landmark to describe the location of other places (Strabo 8.2.[2], 8.4.[4], 8.5.[2]; Pliny 2.243, 5.32; Ptolemy 1.12.1), and twice in Plutarch’s works, Tainaron was used to demarcate the limits of the Greek world (Phokion 29.3, Moralia 601A). Five authors emphasized the formidable topography of the area (Pomponius Mela 2.49-50; Seneca Hercules Furens 662-3; Valerius Flaccus 1.363-5; Statius 1.355-6, 2.32-50, 3.420-424; Apuleius 1.1), and once it was simply listed as a town (Pliny 4.16: oppidum). Six texts presented Tainaron in its capacity as a sanctuary to Poseidon: Pomponius Mela (2.51) only mentioned the presence of a temple; Plutarch described the attack on the sanctuary by pirates in the first century BCE, and designated the temple as ἀσύλος for the second time (Pompey 24.5); Plutarch also included references to suppliants and an altar (Agis 16.3; 17.2; 18.2), the temple itself (Kleomenes 22.5), as well as ancient sacrifices to Poseidon (possibly historical? Moralia 160D). Several authors recorded the presence of historical figures in and around the site of ancient Tainaron: Lucan (Civil War 9.36-7) indicated that Cato stopped at Tainaron after the Battle of Pharsalus on his way to Kythera; Plutarch (Cleomenes 22.5) described only the second instance (cf. Polybius 5.19.[5-6]) of foot travel to Tainaron, when relating that Kleomenes and his family marched to Tainaron before sailing to Egypt; Plutarch also recorded that Antony sailed to Tainaron after the battle of Actium (Antony 67.4-6), that the Etruscans landed at Tainaron to help with Sparta’s war against the helots (potentially historical, but not likely - Moralia 242E), and that Harpalus went to Tainaron after his release from prison (Moralia 848C). Plutarch also mentioned the presence of ships “lying in wait” around Tainaron (Kleomenes 22.5, Antony 67.4-6). Plutarch’s accounts, combined with Arrian’s work that situated Agesilaus at Tainaron in 333 BCE (and is the earliest recorded instance of a possible mercenary function for Tainaron - 2.13.6), and Appian’s narrative (4.9.74) that described Murcus and his 60 decked 410 ships using Tainaron as a muster-place, all contribute to the already substantial evidence for a port or harbour infrastructure existing in or around ancient Tainaron. As already discussed above, I argue that the use of Tainaron as a muster-place and as a relatively common stopover for historical figures of the early Imperial period contributes to the evidence for Tainaron’s neutrality. Notably, two of the most famous historical figures of the Roman Republican period, Cato and Antony, did not just happen upon Tainaron – they fled to this specific location after decisive losses (the battles of Pharsalus and Actium, respectively). This was not a coincidence. I believe that in both cases, the two individuals actively chose Tainaron as a safe, neutral location to regroup before proceeding to their final destinations. Several authors recorded Tainaron’s association with the Underworld: Pomponius Mela (2.51) mentioned that the cave of Poseidon was similar to one in Acherusion; Seneca (Hercules Furens 662-663) claimed the entrance to Hades was here through a cave; Lucan (9.36-7) described Tainaron as the place “where dead may rise”; Apollodorus (2.5.12) called Tainaron the entrance to Hades and the place where Herakles retrieved Cerberus; Strabo unequivocally called it the exit of the Underworld for the first time, and was also the second author to include a sacred grove in its description (8.5.1; cf. Virgil 4.467). In one of his texts (Moralia 560E), Plutarch said that the dwelling of Tettix was Tainaron, where there was a city and psychopompeion – and I argued that this location was meant to be understood as within the Underworld itself and not at the actual site of ancient Tainaron; this argument effectively eliminates the evidence for the existence of an actual building or structure known as a psychopompeion at the site of ancient Tainaron. Finally, in terms of Tainaron’s classification, Livy (38.1.2), Strabo (8.4.4), Apollodorus (2.5.12), and Plutarch (Moralia 848c) all listed Tainaron as within Lakonike, while Ptolemy 411 (3.16.9) categorized the promontory of Tainaria [sic] as within Lakonia, and the site of Tainarion [sic] as within the Gulf of Lakonia. Only Ovid (Heroides 8.73-74, 13.45, 16.30, 16.276, Helen of Tainaron) and Apuleis (1.1 ‘Taenaros Spartiaca’) associated Tainaron with Sparta, and since both wrote fictional accounts of legendary and/or mythical figures, the historical legitimacy of this association is doubtful. Pliny (4.16) was the first to refer to the territory between Messenia and Tainaron as that of the ‘free people of Lakonia’; this group will be discussed in further detail below. 7.5 The South-West The site of ancient Kainepolis is perhaps the most frustrating site on the Mani peninsula. It reveals, without a doubt, the most material in terms of epigraphic evidence, but correspondingly little in terms of literary evidence. Only Pausanias and the 6th-century CE author Procopius mentioned this site, and both provided the tantalizing information that it used to be called Tainaron (Paus 3.25.[9]; Procop. 3.13.[8]). It may even be that this settlement was the administrative ‘headquarters’ for the sanctuary at Tainaron; I shall readdress this hypothesis in the following chapter. In terms of archaeological evidence, the visible material cultural record is strong: there are spolia scattered throughout the area, built into churches and domestic buildings, and standing architecture can still be seen today. The lack of primary archaeological context for any of this material, however, limits the interpretational possibilities of this large dataset. 7.5.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Kainepolis Beginning with the written record, Pausanias wrote this of Kainepolis after leaving Tainaron and proceeding northward along the western coast of the peninsula: 412 3.25.[9]: Ταινάρου δὲ τῆς ἄκρας πλοῦν ὅσον τεσσαράκοντα σταδίων ἀφέστηκε Καινήπολις· ὄνοµα δὲ ἦν πάλαι καὶ ταύτῃ Ταίναρον. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ µέγαρον Δήµητρος καὶ ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ ναός ἐστιν Ἀφροδίτης καὶ ἄγαλµα ὀρθὸν λίθου 3.25.[9]: And Kainepolis is as many as forty stades sailing voyage away from the cape of Tainaron; the name for this [place] was long ago also Tainaron. In this place there is a megaron of Demeter and a temple of Aphrodite upon the sea and an upright statue [of the goddess] of stone. This is the first recorded instance of the settlement known both as Kainepolis (‘new city’) and, apparently, also as Tainaron. Frazer believed that the official title was likely the ‘City of the Taenarians [sic]’, while Kainepolis may have been an informal or popular name.744 Ultimately, however, the official name of the settlement, whether Kainepolis and/or Tainaron and/or ‘City of the Tainarians’ at any given period is somewhat contentious. The ancient settlement was located in the region of the modern village of Kyparissos, and Pausanias’ claim of 40 stades (~7.4 km, based on a 185-metre stade) between Cape Tainaron and Kainepolis is sufficiently accurate, seeing as how his exact point of departure (the ‘cape of Tainaron’) is unknown. The distance from Kokkinogheia to Kyparissos along the modern road is roughly 11 km, so it is not difficult to imagine the distance of the voyage by boat (πλοῦν) as 4 km shorter.745 Also dated to around the middle of the 2nd century CE are the books of Ptolemy’s Geography (Geographia or Cosmographia), the largest part of which features a gazetteer of sorts that listed the longitudinal and latitudinal values for all locations in the known world. The third book listed locations within Greece, and these included (Ptol. Geog. 3.16.9) Kaine (Καινή), listed within the gulf of Lakonia (καὶ ἐν τῷ Λακωνικῷ κόλπῳ).746 Nobbe believed that ‘Kaine’ was the same as the harbour 744 Frazer 1898 (2012), 399. 745 The distance as the crow flies is 9.2km. 746 Nobbe 1843, 213. 413 Psamathous (“Καινή·ἐνταῦθα λιµὴν Ψαµαθίας”747), but etymologically it is obviously more similar to Kainepolis. Unfortunately, the site identified as ancient Kainepolis is on the western coast of Mani, so the geographic order of settlements does not correspond to this identification, and therefore the identification of ‘Kaine’ is still uncertain. 7.5.2 Epigraphic Evidence from around Kyparissos The inscriptions from the Kyparissos region are numerous, but they have been paid scant attention: many are included here for the first time since the publication of IG V,1. The two main classes of inscriptions here are dedications (including Imperial dedications) and funerary stelae, and they are divided chronologically between this chapter (up to and including the 2nd century CE) and the next (post-2nd century CE). 7.5.2.1 Honorific Inscriptions IG V,1 1243 (SEG 11 942), an honorific inscription dated to 10 CE, was first recorded by Cyriac of Ancona, and is still extant today in the plateia of the modern town of Alika (adjacent to Kyparissos; Figure 7-15).748 It is a blue marble statue base which Cyriac called “exceptionally embellished.”749 The text reads: τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἐλευ- θερολακώνων Γάϊον Ἰούλιον Λάκωνα Εὐ- ρυκλέους υἱὸν τὸν ἴδιον εὐεργέτην. hedera. Δαµαρµενίδας στρα- τηγῶν ἐπεµελήθη. hedera. 747 Nobbe 1843, 213 n2. 748 Accame (1946, 126) dates this broadly to the 1st century CE; the date of 10 CE is from the online SEG entry (Hondius, J.J.E., “SEG 11-888-952. Lakonia. Unknown provenance. Tituli Laconiae oppidorum.”: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1874-6772_seg_a11_888_952 ). 749 Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. 414 Figure 7-15: IG V,1 1243. Photo by author. The translation of this inscription is: “The League of the Free Lakonians [dedicates a statue of] Gaius Julius Lakon son of Eurykles, their own benefactor. The chief strategos Damarmenidas was responsible.”750 Several aspects of this inscription are significant. The first is the inclusion of the name Eurykles, which Cyriac himself noted (translation Bodnar and Foss): “We noticed that Eurycles 750 Adapted from translation by Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. 415 the Lacedaimonian, who the above inscription says was the father of Lacon, was a very close friend of our Gaius Caesar [Augustus], according to this passage in Strabo (8.5.5): “But recently Eurycles stirred them up, having apparently abused the friendship of Caesar unduly in order to maintain his authority over them.” Strabo’s original passage continued on to mention Lakon himself, and it is surprising – given the nature of the inscription he was recording – that Cyriac did not include this, more relevant, portion of the passage: 8.5.[5]: νεωστὶ δ᾽ Εὐρυκλῆς αὐτοὺς ἐτάραξε δόξας ἀποχρήσασθαι τῇ Καίσαρος φιλίᾳ πέρα τοῦ µετρίου πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστασίαν αὐτῶν. ἐπαύσατο δ᾽ ἡ ἀρχὴ ταχέως, ἐκείνου µὲν παραχωρήσαντος εἰς τὸ χρεών, τοῦ δ᾽ υἱοῦ τὴν φιλίαν ἀπεστραµµένου τὴν τοιαύτην πᾶσαν: συνέβη δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ἐλευθερολάκωνας λαβεῖν τινα τάξιν πολιτείας, ἐπειδὴ Ῥωµαίοις προσέθεντο πρῶτοι οἱ περίοικοι τυραννουµένης τῆς Σπάρτης, οἵ τε ἄλλοι καὶ οἱ Εἵλωτες 8.5.[5] But recently Eurycles has stirred up trouble among them, having apparently abused the friendship of Caesar unduly in order to maintain his authority over his subjects; but the trouble quickly came to an end, Eurycles retiring to his fate, and his son [i.e. Lakon] being averse to any friendship of this kind. And it also came to pass that the Eleuthero-Lacones got a kind of republican constitution, since the Perioeci and also the Helots, at the time when Sparta was under the rule of tyrants, were the first to attach themselves to the Romans.751 The nature and effect of Eurykles’ power in Sparta is the subject of several scholarly works, notably and especially by Balzat.752 Although a full treatment of Eurykles’ influence at Sparta is not included here, it will suffice to say that the fact that the Eleutherolakonian League had Lakon, son of Eurykles, as a benefactor and chose to erect a monument stating as much in the town of Kainepolis, is telling with regard to the existence and status of Kainepolis at this time and its obvious connection and positive relationship with Sparta. While the record of Lakon’s name at Kainepolis suggests he was involved in the civic administration of that city, it does not 751 Jones 1924. 752 Balzat 2008. 416 necessarily point to direct evidence for his control over the League in its entirety (or even the other Maniate settlements, for that matter).753 The second example of a dedicatory inscription for a citizen is IG V,1 1248 (SEG 60 376). Like the stone just discussed, this inscription was first noted by Cyriac of Ancona. The stone is extant today but quite worn and survives as the altar in the small church of Aghios Charalambos in Kyparissos (Figure 7-16). The text, as recorded by Cyriac, was as follows: ἡ πόλις ἡ Ταιναρίων Τιβέρι- <ο>ν Κλαύδιον Εὐτυ- <χίδην> Εὐ<τυχίδου τὸν ἀξιολογώτατον πολείτην> “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Tiberios Klaudios Eutychides son of Eutychides, the most worthy citizen.”754 Cyriac called this a statue base, so the original stone must have been much larger than the fragment that survives today. He also noted that this fragment was found on the acropolis, so it was moved (or at least damaged) at some point after he originally recorded it in the 15th century and before Le Bas saw it in the 19th century.755 The recipient of the honours, Tiberios Klaudios Eutychides, shared a praenomen and nomen with an individual mentioned in a now-lost inscription, also recorded by Cyriac, IG V,1 1246: ἡ πόλις ἡ Ταιναρίων Τιβέριον Κλαύδιον Χάρτωνα τὸν ἄριστον πολείτην 753 Also of note in this inscription is the name Damarmenidas. This name also occurs in IG V,1 1236 and IG V,1 1281/1524, and although the two men in these inscriptions are not the same man (the dates of the inscriptions separate the men by several centuries) as the individual in IG V,1 1243, the name Damarmenidas is wholly Lakonian, as all of the surviving examples attest. The LGPN, curiously, lists this particular entry under the geographic region of ‘Lakonia’, rather than the more specific find spot of Kainepolis. 754 Translation Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. There is also another individual with the name Eutychides from Kainepolis (IG V,1 1261; the only two men named ‘Eutychides’ in the Peloponnese), although nothing more is known of that person and the stone is now lost. 755 Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 259. 417 Figure 7-16: IG V,1 1248. Photo by author. σωφροσύνης τε καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν ἀγο- ρανοµίαν ἀνυπερβλήτου φιλο- τειµίας ἕνεκεν. ψη(φίσµατι) β(ουλῆς). “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Tiberios Klaudios Charton, the best citizen, on account of his moderation and unsurpassable munificence when he was in charge of the market. By decree of the council.”756 Neither inscription has been more precisely dated than the Roman period, but these are clearly Julio-Claudian praenomen and nomen, so a 1st-century CE date seems plausible. 756 Adapted from a translation by Bodnar and Foss 2003, 317. 418 7.5.2.2 Imperial Honorific Inscriptions A total of seven imperial honorific inscriptions have been recorded at Kainepolis, but only two remain extant today. The first three are Antonine, the next two are from the Severan dynasty, and two belong to the short reign of the emperor Gordian. The Antonine inscriptions are presented in this chapter, and the remaining in the following chapter: IG V,1 1237 ἁ πόλις θεὸν Ἀντωνεῖ- νον, θεοῦ Ἁδρι- ανοῦ υἱόν, θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Παρθι- κοῦ υἱωνόν, Θε- οῦ Νέρουα ἔγγονον, πατέρα τῶν µεγί- στων Αὐτοκρατό- ρων. “The city [honors] the divine Antoninus, son of the divine Hadrian, grandson of the divine Trajan, victor over Parthia, descendent of the divine Nerva and father of the greatest emperors.”757 Le Bas dated this inscription to after Antoninus Pius’ death, around 161 CE, the first year of the reign of his successors (i.e. the “greatest emperors”, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus).758 Cyriac says only that this inscription is on a marble base and gives no indication of the material or location. By the time Pouqueville published this inscription in 1821, decidedly less of the inscription was extant.759 It does not survive today. IG V,1 1238 ἁ πόλις Αὐτοκράτορα Κα[ίσα]- 757 Translation Bodner and Foss 2003, 317. 758 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 135 (259a). 759 Pouqueville 1821, 170 (VII). 419 [ρ]α Μ(ᾶρκον) Αὐρήλιον Ἀντ<ω>- [ν]εῖνον Σεβ(αστόν), θεοῦ Ἀν- [τ]ωνείνου υἱόν, θεοῦ Ἁ̣δριανοῦ υἱωνόν, θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Παρθ[ι]- κοῦ ἔγγονον, θεο[ῦ] Νέρβα ἀπόγονον, Ἀρµε- νιακὸν Παρθικὸν Μηδικὸν Γερµα- ν̣ικόν, ἀρχιερέα µέ- [γι]στον, δηµαρχ[ι]- [κῆ]ς ἐξουσίας, ὑπα̣- [τον] τὸ γ. “The city [honours] the emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, son of the divine Antoninus, grandson of the divine Hadrian, descendent of the divine Trajan Parthicus, descendent of the divine Nerva, [victor over] Armenia, Parthia, Media, and Germany, pontifex maximus, having the power of the tribune, and consul for the third time.” The location of this base today is unknown.760 When Le Bas saw this stone, he noted that it was broken in two but says nothing of the location.761 This inscription dates to between 173-175 CE, after Marcus Aurelius’ acquisition of the title Germanicus but before he adopted the honorific Sarmaticus. IG V,1 1239 ἁ πόλις Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Λ(ούκιον) Αὐρήλιον Βῆρον Σεβ(αστόν), θεοῦ Ἀντ[ω]νίνου υἱόν, θεοῦ Ἁδρι- ανοῦ υἱ[ω]νόν, θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Παρθικοῦ ἀπόγονον, Ἀρµενιακὸν Παρθικὸν Μηδι- κὸν Γερµανικόν, ἀρχιερέα µέγιστον, δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας, ὕπατον τὸ γ. “The city [honours] the Emperor Caesar Lucius Aurelius Verus Augustus, son of the divine Antoninus, grandson of the divine Hadrian, descendant of the divine Trajan Parthicus, 760 Pouqueville 1821, 169 (V). 761 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 135 (260). 420 [victor over] Armenia, Parthia, Media, and Germany, pontifex maximus, having the power of the tribune, and consul for the third time.” This base for Lucius Verus corresponds directly to the example just discussed above which dated to 173-175. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus co-ruled until the latter’s death in 169 CE, and either the news of the Verus’ death had not reached the Mani peninsula, or the inhabitants dedicated it regardless, or the record of this inscription is incorrect.762 Cyriac commented that this inscription was on a fine base, but provided no information about its location. No later travelers make note of this base, so the accuracy of Cyriac’s text is questionable. 7.5.2.3 Funerary Inscriptons There is only one example of a Greek funerary inscription from Kainepolis that dates to the first centuries of the Roman Imperial period, IG V,1 1256 (SEG 55 495; 48 1901; 11 944): Ἰοῦστος Ἀνδρο- µάχης Τιβεριεύς. This white marble epitaph, for a man named Ioustos (son of Andromache) from Tiberias, has received quite a bit of scholarly attention because the recipient is thought to be Jewish based on his name (Ἰοῦστος = ‘righteous’) and origin.763 Noy et al. suggested that Ioustos’ name was followed by his mother’s name rather than his father’s because she may have been the dedicant; he also argued that the date should be no earlier than the 1st century CE based on the Latin name and the Tiberian origin of the man.764 This inscription, however, is not included in the listings for the name Ioustos in the LGPN, of which there are 47 examples (the majority occur in Ionia and 762 Kolbe 1913, 233 provides no solution. 763 Robert 1946, 100; Noy et al. 2004, 198 for a detailed discussion. See also Di Segni 1998, 146 (no. 35). 764 Noy et al. 2004, 198. 421 the eastern Mediterranean, unsurprisingly). Kolbe recorded that the stone was located in a private home but its current location is unknown. This inscription provides further evidence for a multi-cultural (and perhaps multi-ethnic) community in Kainepolis during the Roman period, in addition to the inscriptions of individuals with Greek names in Roman style. In this inscription alone, there is evidence for immigration from the Levant to Kainepolis, and multiple cultural identities present in the combination of Roman-Jewish name of the deceased and the Greek name of his mother. One can only guess what might have brought Ioustos from Tiberias to Kainepolis, but it must have been a viable option for emigration for whatever reason: its maritime location, an active civic and political life, or perhaps a safer option in the 1st – 2nd century CE for a Jewish man with Greek lineage than his native Tiberias. 7.5.2.4 Latin Inscriptions Finally, there are two Imperial-period inscriptions that have been associated with Kainepolis that merit special mention, since they are the only known Latin inscriptions from the study region, CIL III 491 & 492. CIL 491 is an extremely worn, dedicatory inscription to Marcus Agrippa: [M(arco) Agr]ippae / M(arci) f(ilio) No findspot information was given besides Kyparisso, and its current location is unknown.765 The second Latin inscription, CIL 492, can still be seen today above the entrance to Aghios Charalambos in Kyparissos (Figure 7-17). It is a funerary epitaph on white marble for a two-year-old girl: Claudia Prisca / vixit annos duo[s] / et mens(es) IIII et / h(oras) V (s)e(mis?) 765 Pouqueville 1821, 170. 422 Figure 7-17: CIL 492. Photo by author. The final line on this stone clearly reads ‘HVE’, as observed by Le Bas & Waddington, and the letters are still legible today.766 Yet, because the CIL interpretation of the final line as ‘horas V semis’ (five-and-a-half hours) is the only solution that has been put forward, most epigraphic databases actually include an incorrect transcription of the stone: CLAVDIA PRISCA VIXIT ANNOS DVO ET MENS IIII ET H V S.767 Including hours on grave epitaphs is not uncommon (~900 examples), but there are only three examples of Latin epitaphs that include hours in the entire eastern Mediterranean.768 The inclusion of half-hours occurs in at least 23 epitaphs, and can be understood as an expression of grief for a life lost too soon, rather than an exact record of an individual lifespan. The interpretation of the letters HVE on this stele is still unclear, but may have been a stonecutter’s error in accidentally transliterating the abbreviation for ἠµις instead ‘semis’.769 766 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 136 (#266): “Les trois dernières lettres HVE ont été lues de même par tous les voyageurs qui ont relevé l’inscription; ells sont très distinctes sur l’estampage, et de la même main que les autres. Je ne vois pas quelle n’est le sens; l’interpretations, propose du reste avec beaucoup de reserve par l’éditeur du Corpus [CIL], Horas quinque semis, me parait peu satisfaisante.” 767 http://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD055767 (Epigraphik-Datenbank Heidelburg); http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/edcs_id.php?s_sprache=en&p_edcs_id=EDCS-27000368 (Clauss/Slaby). 768 Ehrlich 2012. 769 Ehrlich 2012, 48n121 & 50; I thank S.Ehrlich (personal communication) for this latter suggestion. 423 7.5.2.5 Summary of Epigraphic Evidence The epigraphic record from Kainepolis is rich, and almost exclusively Roman in date, and the remainder of the corpus of 35 inscriptions from Kainepolis are discussed in the following chapter. At least one inscription discussed in this chapter, however, revealed an aspect of the civic identity of the settlement. In the early 1st century CE, Kainepolis had close ties with Sparta, and especially with the Spartan elite. The polis erected a dedicatory base for Lakon, the son of Eurykles, an eminent Spartan and apparent euergetes for Kainepolis. Another inscription, the funerary stele for Ioustos (son of Andromache) from Tiberias may indicate cross-cultural contact between Mani and the larger Roman world during the first several centuries CE. That Kyparissos was the findspot for the only two Latin inscriptions within the entire Mani peninsula further indicates the relationship between Kainepolis and Rome during this period, as do the Imperial dedications to members of the Antonine Imperial dynasty. 7.5.3 Archaeological Evidence around Kyparissos In terms of archaeological evidence, modern Kyparissos and modern Alika together comprise the archaeological site of ancient Kainepolis. No architectural or systematic pedestrian surveys have taken place around Kyparissos or Alika, and only one rescue excavation has occurred, at the site of the early Roman limestone quarry in Latomas square (Alika), discussed in Chapter 3.770 The archaeological remains of this region are presented largely in this chapter but, since most lack context, the Roman-period dates are subject to refinement. 770 Tsouli 2015, 827-829. Alika LL200; Kyparissos LL201. 424 Figure 7-18: Areas of interest around Kyparissos and Alika. ©GoogleEarth. In 1970, the “acropolis of ancient Kainepolis” was declared an archaeological site (Figure 7-18:A).771 This area is the promontory above Almyros bay, also known as Kastro, upon which Moschou reported the remains of a ruined Byzantine church of Aghios Sotiros and several hewn ashlar blocks dating to the Roman Imperial period. I observed several large white marble blocks on this promontory in 2014, but they were built into a ruined tower – I was unable to locate any churches.772 Moschou believed that this site was the area of Pausanias’ temple to Demeter (3.25.9). The larger region of Kainepolis was declared an archaeological site in 2000, and included several separate areas of archaeological significance; Moschou included a line map of these areas in her 1999 [2005] publication, which I replicate here for convenience (Figure 7-18).773 771 Tsakonas 1970, 2031 (ΦΕΚ 267/Β’/16.4.1970); Moschou 1999 [2005], 194. 772 Some of the white marble blocks that I noted match the blocks in Moschou 1999 [2005], Figure 52, especially the gournai (carved water troughs). Woodward (1906/7, 245) also found no evidence for a church of Sotiros whatsoever. 773 Moschou 1999 [2005], 194-196; Figure 51. Pangkalos 2000, 17993 (ΦΕΚ 1314 B’30.10.2000). 425 Figure 7-19 a & b: Fragment of incised marble (a) and eastern sigillata sherd (b) in vicinity of Aghios Petros. Photos by author. 7.5.3.1 Area B Area B is located to the east of Kastro and, according to Moschou, preliminary research suggested that the forum was in this area, but no specific information was given with regard to location or evidence of occupation. This area is replete with field walls and terraces which Woodward noted were “sometimes four feet thick and eight high, not used to enclose anything in particular, but chiefly, it would seem, to baffle progress and clear the soil for cultivation.”774 I observed ceramics among these terrace walls, including one fragment of eastern sigillata, confirming a Roman date, and a fragment of incised grey marble (Figure 7-19 a & b). 7.5.3.2 Area C Area C (Γ) is the location of the monastery of Koimesis Theotokou/Aghia Panaghias, located on the western promontory above the bay of Sarolimeni. The monastery itself is in a state of ruin, but the adjoining church has recently been restored. The church bears marble architectural members – including one Ionic capital – and early Christian sculptural reliefs in the exterior walls. A nearby building, a late 19th century domestic structure, also has architectural 774 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 245. A Figure 7-19 a & b: FragmenB Figure 7-19 a & b: Fragmen 426 Figure 7-20: The interior of Aghia Paraskevi, Kyparissos. Photo by author. members built into it. Ancient architectural members are displayed inside the church, including two small monolithic columns, each capped with two column bases. Three Ionic columns capitals are displayed on the iconostasis (the partition wall separating the apse from the nave of the church; Figure 7-20). The central of these three capitals was included in Bruno et al.’s 2002 analysis of white marble quarries and artifacts in Mani (see Chapter 3). In their work, this capital formed a typological group of its own and is described as follows: The oval central egg is sculpted in higher relief and is pointed above and below. It can be compared to an example now in the Olympeion at Athens. The space for the darts between the eggs is smaller, and only the points are well defined. The palmettes are not refined. The abacus is not well articulated and is reduced to a thin band.775 775 Bruno et al. 2002, 39; G20. This capital was not sampled for isotopic testing. 427 Figure 7-21: Columns lining the courtyard of Aghias Panaghias, Kyparissos. Photo by author. Elsewhere in the Panaghia/Theotokou church, an additional plain column base and a fragment of entablature are built into the inside of the apse, and another monolithic column is built into the interior of the north wall of the church. The ruined walls around the church (perhaps the former monastery?) also bear ancient marble architectural members. Most impressive is the fact that the perimeter of the church courtyard is lined with at least 6 large, monolithic columns – Bruno et al. recorded seven examples (#G27-G33; Figure 7-21). Of these, all but two are white marble, probably from Mani. The remaining two examples are constructed of imported granite: the one that I observed in the courtyard is carved of Aswan granite (G32) and has a parallel in the central square in modern Alika (Figure 7-22 & 7-23).776 Bruno called the other example ‘Troadense granite’ (G30), but this column was not in this courtyard in 2014. The presence of these imported materials indicates the existence of a substantial economy. 776 Leake (293) observed that these were “of the finest red granite of Syene [Aswan], exactly like that of the Column of Diocletian at Alexandria.” 428 Figure 7-22: Column of Aswan granite in courtyard of Aghias Panaghias, Kyparissos. Photo by author. Figure 7-23: Column of Aswan granite in central plateia, Alika. Photo by author. 429 Figure 7-24: Carved marble basins atop ruined structure, Kyparissos. Photo by author. Somewhere atop this promontory Woodward observed the remains of a ruined church which he called Koimesis tis Panaghias; whether this is the same as the church just discussed is unclear since Woodward describes his church as atop the promontory, while the church with attached (ruined) monastery sits midway up the hillside overlooking the coast. Woodward recorded an Ionic cornice block measuring 3.20m in length within the south wall of this structure. He also claimed that he saw two inscriptions in this church (IG V1 1247 & IG V1 1243), both of which stand in the plateia at Alika today, but Le Bas recorded the former in Aghia Paraskevi (Area D), and Cyriac recorded the latter only in “the elevated part of the city.”777 Moschou believed that this was the area of Pausanias’ temple of Aphrodite, but the more persistent opinion has been that this is the area of Pausanias’ temple of Demeter.778 Below this area, sitting atop a ruined structure overlooking the bay, are the remains of two carved marble basins, one round and one rectangular (Figure 7-24). The latter may be the remnants of a sarcophagus. 777 Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. 778 Moschou 1999 [2005], 195; Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 245; Bursian 1855, 786. 430 Figure 7-25 a & b: Reused marble architectural members in Aghia Paraskevi, Kyparissos. A: Column and Ionic capital used as altar. B: Entablature built into iconostasis. Photo by author. 7.5.3.3 Area D Area D is the coastal region north of Almyros bay. Here, Moschou observed buildings of several periods, up to the 9th century CE. In the ruined structures just north of the beach, a few architectural members are visible, as well as the inscription IG V1 1241. This area also includes the church of Aghia Paraskevi, which Moschou said incorporates a section of an ancient monument.779 There were at least 10 white and grey marble architectural members built prominently into the interior walls of the church when I visited in 2013, including the altar which was constructed of an Ionic column capital atop a broken monolithic column (Figure 7-25 a-b). 779 Moschou 1999 [2005], 195. A B 431 Figure 7-26: Aghios Charalambos, Kyparissos. Photo by author. 7.5.3.4 Area E Area E is the coast to the north and east of Sarolimeni bay. Here stands the small church of Aghios Charalambos (Figure 7-26) that bears several architectural members built into the exterior walls, including the marble lid of a sarcophagus (Bruno et al. #G36), an Ionic capital, and an inscription (CIL 492 and Bruno et al. #G35), as well as several members lying inside, including an unfinished column base (Bruno et al. #G15), another Ionic capital, and an inscription re-used as the altar table (IG V1 1248). 432 According to Bruno et al., the two Ionic column capitals imitate Attic production types that were exported to Rome during the first two centuries CE.780 They described the “conservative” Attic design of three eggs, darts, and palmettes as follows: The lower part of the slim protruding echinus corresponds to the imaginary line lying between the eyes of the volutes. The stylistic realization of each element of the decoration is not well defined, as one can see in the eggs and darts and half palmettes, which are all very flat and lack relief. The bolster of one of the capitals [that on the exterior of the church] is decorated with a small balteus surrounded on both sides by astragals.781 Isotopic testing was performed on these two capitals, and the results showed that both fell within the isotopic field of Areopolis, thus confirming local production in Mani.782 Strangely, the samples taken from the column base yielded results well outside the isotopic fields of Mani, but the authors did not provide comment on this finding. Another Ionic capital is built into the façade of another ruined church along the road from Kyparissos to Tainaron, which Bruno et al. categorize within the same typology as the Aghios Charalambos capitals (their #G21). The capital has been cut below the volutes for this reuse, so its original form is not preserved. Moreover, the palmettes, volutes, and eggs were all carved with incised decoration at some later date, and the central egg bears the face of a bearded man. 7.5.3.5 Area F To the north of Almyro bay, between Kyparissos and Alika is the church of Aghios Andreas (Area F). Within the walls of this church and in the surrounding (ruined) buildings, I recorded several reused members of ancient architecture, including white marble monolithic 780 Bruno et al. 2002, 37. Cf. capital types found at Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli, and the church of San Saba at Rome. 781 Bruno et al. 2002, 39. G14 & G16 in their catalogue. 782 Bruno et al. 2002, 43 and Figures 27 & 28. 433 Figure 7-27 a-c: Reused marble architectural members in Aghias Andreas, Alika. A (top): Columns forming western doorway; B (bottom left): architectural member with lifting boss built into ruined EM building; C (bottom right): Ionic capital built into ruined EM building. Photos by author. columns that formed the doorframe on the western entrance, and a small section of a rosso antico column built into the exterior of the north wall. In one of the ruined buildings in the early modern village to the east of Aghias Andreas I observed a late Ionic column capital and a threshold block with a lifting boss still visible on one side (Figure 7-27 a-c). Curiously, Moschou does not include mention of this area whatsoever in her 1999 [2005] article. A B C 434 7.5.3.6 Alika In the village of Alika, just to the west of Kyparissos, there are further remnants of antiquity. Most notably, the central plateia of the town (Area G) has two monumental inscribed bases on display (IG V1 1243 & 1247), as well as a few collected architectural members including three marble capitals and another example of a large, unfluted, granite column (Figure 7-23). There is a small, ruined, unknown church across from the plateia, in which I noted marble architectural members built into the doorjambs. Elsewhere, Moschou recorded what she called a ‘stoa-like building’ within a ruined monumental complex to the north of the central square (Area H), and remnants of an ancient road.783 The town of Tsikalia, above Alika, has a church with a fragmentary white marble Roman relief showing bucrania and garlands, possibly from a sarcophagus, and likely from Kainepolis. 7.5.3.7 Summary The site of ancient Kainepolis is extensive and has been briefly explored. According to Blackman, attempts to define the urban perimeter and chora were ongoing in 2000, but no results have been published since then. As evidenced through the extensive archaeological sprawl around Kyparissos and Alika, coupled with the literary sources and epigraphic records discussed in this and the following chapter, ancient Kainepolis was a thriving Roman settlement. None of the archaeological evidence is pre-Roman, and there is no literary or epigraphic evidence that suggests a settlement existed in this place earlier than the Imperial period. This settlement may have been established to function as a corollary to the religious sanctuary at ancient Tainaron, if 783 Moschou 1999 [2005], 196; these vestiges are indicated on her map as K2 and B (and possibly M, since this letter does not correspond to anything else within her text), but their plots are not precise enough to include here. 435 the latter was indeed the religious centre of the newly-established Eleutherolakonian League. The literary and epigraphic corpora attest to its capacity as a provincial town during the Roman period, while the archaeological understanding of the region leaves much to be desired. 7.6 The West Coast 7.6.1 Written Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso The two most informative historical accounts for this region of the peninsula are, once again, those of Strabo and Pausanias. Strabo’s Book 8 contains a few geographically relevant passages, which are presented here in their entirety for sake of organization: 8.2.[2]: τῆς δὲ Μεσσηνίας τὸ πλέον ἀνεῳγµένον πρὸς νότον καὶ τὸ Λιβυκὸν πέλαγος µέχρι τῶν καλουµένων Θυρίδων πλησίον Ταινάρου. 8.2.[2]:But more of Messenia (or, the Messenian gulf) opens to the south and to the Libyan sea, as far as those having been named Thyrides, near Tainaron. This is our first mention of the so-called Thyrides ('little windows' from ἡ θυρίς -ίδος, the diminutive of θύρα), which have traditionally been identified as the geological formation known today as Cavo Grosso, the massive limestone plateau with an extreme cliff that drops into the Messenian gulf that was discussed extensively in the previous chapter. In all probability, the name Thyrides derived from the system of small caves located throughout the face of the karstic rock – these were later used for the notorious piracy which took place in this area. In the same chapter, Strabo listed the towns in the Messenian Gulf: 8.4.[4]: τῇ δὲ Μεθώνῃ συνεχής ἐστιν ὁ Ἀκρίτας, ἀρχὴ τοῦ Μεσσηνιακοῦ κόλπου: καλοῦσι δ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ Ἀσιναῖον ἀπὸ Ἀσίνης, πολίχνης πρώτης ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ, ὁµωνύµου τῇ Ἑρµιονικῇ. αὕτη µὲν οὖν ἡ ἀρχὴ πρὸς δύσιν τοῦ κόλπου ἐστί, πρὸς ἕω δὲ αἱ καλούµεναι Θυρίδες, ὅµοροι τῇ νῦν Λακωνικῇ τῇ κατὰ Κιναίθιον καὶ Ταίναρον. µεταξὺ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν Θυρίδων ἀρξαµένοις Οἴτυλός ἐστι: καλεῖται δ᾽ ὑπό τινων Βοίτυλος... 8.4.[4]: But they also call this the 'Asinaean' [Gulf] from Asine, a small town first on the gulf, having the same name as [the town] in Hermione. So, this [Asine] is the beginning of the gulf towards the west, and towards the east those 436 called the Thyrides, bordering even now on Lakonia down towards Kinaithion and Tainaron. Between [these], beginning from Thyrides is Oitylos: but it is called Boitylos by some... The Asine here is in Messenia, and the narrative travels conceptually from Asine across the Messenian gulf to the Thyrides, and loops back around, listing the settlements on the eastern part of the Messenian gulf (i.e. the west coast of Mani). After Oitylos, this passage continued on to name the towns of Leuktra, Kardamyle, Pherai, and Gerenia, the locations of all of which are known, and which proceed geographically from east to west along the Messenian gulf. Therefore, the location of Oitylos here is, logically, south of Leuktra, and north of the Thyrides – this matches the location of modern Oitylos, which was named after the ancient town. This passage provides our earliest information about the actual location of ancient Oitylos. Notably, Strabo mentioned no settlements between the Thyrides and Oitylos, a stretch of approximately 20 km of the flattest, most agriculturally promising land in Mani (assuming Thyrides is, in fact Cavo Grosso). Tainaron is also included in this passage, and the situation of Tainaron (and the unknown Kinaithion) apart from the list of settlements seems to suggest either a geographic separation – the latter two being south of the Thyrides, and therefore beyond Strabo’s easternmost limit of the Messenian Gulf – or a conceptual separation, in that they perhaps are not settlements in the same sense as Oitylos, Leuktra, etc. In their early 20th century translation of this text, Hamilton and Falconer suggested that 'Kinaithion' was actually a corruption of 'Kaenepolis' (or Kainepolis). Geographically, this identification would fit, since the location of ancient Kainepolis is indeed south of Cavo Grosso, however the emendation of the text (and any subsequent translations) from ‘Kinaithion’ to ‘Kaenepolis’ is extreme. The place-name of Kinaithion is only mentioned elsewhere by Dionysius Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities (Ῥωµαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία; Dionysius was writing shortly before Strabo, in the 1st century BCE): 437 1.5067: ἀπὸ δὲ Κυθήρων ποιούµενοι τὸν πλοῦν οὐ πρόσω τῆς Πελοποννήσου τελευτήσαντα τῶν ἑταίρων τινὰ τῶν Αἰνείου Κίναιθον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκρωτηρίων τινὸς θάπτουσιν, ὃ νῦν ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνου Κιναίθιον καλεῖται· 1.5067: And making the voyage from Kythera not far from the Peloponnese, Kinaithon, one of the companions of Aeneus, died, and they buried [him] upon some promontory, which now is called Kinaithion from that man. Based on these two passages, I suggest that there was, in fact, a location called Kinaithion on Mani, but that perhaps it was only known by this name for a short time. There are plenty of promontories that could serve as candidates for the identification of this place, but I propose that the very place to which earlier commentators wished to emend Kinaithion – Kainepolis – is an ideal candidate, since this is a conspicuous promontory that is situated between the Thyrides and Tainaron; the similar-sounding name Kainepolis may have replaced the locally-known toponym of Kinaithion just a few decades after Strabo’s writing, when the ‘new city’ (that is, Kainepolis) was officially founded. Therefore, the inclusion of Kinathion was not an error in transmission in the manuscripts of Strabo, but the name of a location which only persisted as such for a short time. Returning to Strabo, his next passage states: 8.5.[1]: ἔστι δ᾽ οὖν µετὰ τὸν Μεσσηνιακὸν κόλπον ὁ Λακωνικὸς µεταξὺ Ταινάρου καὶ Μαλεῶν, ἐκκλίνων µικρὸν ἀπὸ µεσηµβρίας πρὸς ἕω: διέχουσι δὲ σταδίους ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα αἱ Θυρίδες τοῦ Ταινάρου ἐν τῷ Μεσσηνιακῷ οὖσαι κόλπῳ, ῥοώδης κρηµνός. τούτων δ᾽ ὑπέρκειται τὸ Ταΰγετον... 8.5.[1]: Thus after the Messenian Gulf is the Lakonian [Gulf], between Tainaron and Malea, bending outwards slightly from the south towards the east: the Thyrides, a cliff exposed to the strong sea, separated one hundred and thirty stades from Tainaron, are in the Messenian gulf. The Taygetos [mountain] lies above these.... This passage situated the Thyrides in the Messenian Gulf, and Tainaron in the Lakonian Gulf. Strabo claimed the distance between Tainaron and the Thyrides to be 130 stades, or approximately 24 kilometres (assuming a 185-metre stade). This is slightly more than the distance between the two, but evaluating such a measurement is rendered difficult due to the fact that the plateau of modern Cavo Grosso is approximately 4.3 kilometres in length, and the 438 distance via modern road (~ 22.5 km from modern Kipoula to modern Kokkinogia) vs. the distance as the crow flies (~16.5 km between the same two settlements) differs substantially. Therefore, the distance as given by Strabo, 130 stades, is acceptable. Pausanias’ narrative, in contrast, placed the Thyrides 30 stades north of Kainepolis: 3.25.[9]: ἐντεῦθεν ἀποσχόντι τριάκοντα σταδίους Θυρίδες ἄκρα Ταινάρου καὶ πόλεως ἐρείπια Ἱππόλας ἐστίν, ἐν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερὸν Ἱππολαΐτιδος· ὀλίγον δὲ ἀπωτέρω Μέσσα πόλις καὶ λιµήν. 3.25.[9]: From there (Kainepolis) thirty stades distant is Thyrides, a promontory of Tainaron and the ruined city Ippola (Hippola), in which [there is] a temple of Athena Ippolaitis. Slightly farther off [is] the city and harbour [of] Messa. The distance between Kainepolis and the Thyrides as equivalent to mere 30 stades (5.5 kilometres), is roughly equivalent to the distance between modern Kyparissos and the southernmost point of Cavo Grosso, near the harbour town of Gerolimenas. The site called Ippola (=Hippola) was mentioned for the first time in this passage, and this place is often associated with modern Kipoula due to obvious onomastic similarities, although Kipoula is below Cavo Grosso. The site of ancient Hippola is often identified with the region known as ‘Ano Poula’ on Cavo Grosso, and Kipoula is thought to be a contraction of ‘Kato Poula’ – the standard Greek way to signify an ‘upper’ and a ‘lower’ city. By the time of Pausanias’ visit, Hippola itself was apparently already in ruins, as was (presumably) the temple of Athena Ippolaitis. 439 7.6.2 Archaeological Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso Atop the promontory of Cavo Grosso, at the site of ‘Ano Poula’, the church of Aghioi Theodoroi incorporates many Roman-period marble architectural members, including stones with pry-holes and anathyrosis, threshold blocks, columns, capitals, and bases (Figure 7-28 a-c). In the ceramic collections housed at the British School at Athens collected from atop Cavo Grosso by Waterhouse and Hope Simpson, I observed at least two Roman kitchen ware sherds (1 handle: BSAKIP0004; 1 stem/base: BSAKIP0009). A 440 Figure 7-28 a-c: Architectural members on the interior of Aghioi Theodoroi, Cavo Grosso. Photos by author. In the plain below Cavo Grosso, Woodward claimed to have seen ancient Lakonian coins from the 1st century BCE, as well as Roman coins of Antoninus Pius, Faustina, Lucius Verus, and Constantine the Great.784 Puillon Boblaye also noted rock-cut caverns to the west of Kounos, which he believed may have been tombs or quarries.785 The church of Aghios Ioannes in Keria (discussed at length in the previous chapter) contains at least one Roman relief sculpture of a boy and a dog (Figure 7-30). 784 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 244. LL193. admittedly, these could have surfaced in Kainepolis or even somewhere further afield 785 Puillon Boblaye (1836, 91) is the only one to have recorded these features. LL195. B C 441 Figure 7-29: Roman grave relief, Aghios Ioannes, Keria Photo by author. The main church of Kipoula itself (variously referred to as Aghios Demetrios, Paraskevi, and Basileios), which sits hidden inside a large, garish, modern, unfinished church, houses a few ancient marble architectural members and, most notably, a sculpted marble relief depicting two standing individuals in front of a column (Figure 7-31). This relief, likely a Roman grave stele, is extremely difficult to see, as it is built into a wall of the church that is inaccessible; perhaps for this reason it is largely unknown and has not, to my knowledge, been published. 442 Figure 7-30: Roman grave stele built into Aghios Demetrios, Kipoula. Photo courtesy of William Parkinson. 7.6.3 Epigraphic Evidence for Settlements in the Vicinity of Cavo Grosso The only inscription dating to the Roman Imperial period from the region is IG V,1 1277 (SEG 60 370) and it, like most of the epigraphic (and archaeological) evidence lacks context, so this dating is tentative. The inscription was initially discovered among the ruins of the church of Aghios Panteleimonos, which is adjacent to Aghia Panaghia in the small town of Nomia. 443 According to Zavvou and Themos, this inscription has been removed from the older, ruined church, and built into the north wall of the newer church.786 This inscription is notable because it contains the names of several deceased persons, including at least three women who died in childbirth: 1 a. Λ // ΟΙ \ ΑΠΕ. 2 b. - - c. Περίλα λεχόι. c. Πραξίων χαῖρε. 3.4 d. Ἀγαθοκ̣λῆ | χαῖρε. 4 e. Λαβίπ(π)α λεχό[ι]. 5.6 f. Φιλάριν | χαῖρε. 6.7 g. Πανκρατίδα | χαῖρε. h. Λυκίνα χαῖρε. 7 i. Φι<λ>άριν λεχὸι χαῖρε. 8 k. [Δ]άµιππε̣ χαῖρε. 9 l. - - - χαῖρε. Here the word ‘λεχόι’ (= literally ‘in bed’787) is used to indicate that the women – in this case Perila, Labippa, and Philarin – died during pregnancy or childbirth. This inscription has received its fair share of attention because it has been drawn into an argument about Spartan women, childbirth, and the (possibly incorrect) emendation of the wording of Plutarch’s Lykourgos 27.3 from ἱερῶν to λεχοῦς: ἐπιγράψαι δὲ τοὔνοµα θάψαντας οὐκ ἐξῆν τοῦ νεκροῦ, πλὴν ἀνδρὸς ἐν πολέµῳ καὶ γυναικὸς τῶν ἱερῶν [or λεχοῦς] ἀποθανόντων, χρόνον δὲ πένθους ὀλίγον προσώρισεν, ἡµέρας ἕνδεκα (It was not permitted to inscribe the name of the dead [on a tomb], except for a man who had died in battle or a woman who had died while holding religious office [or in childbirth]).788 Latte first proposed the emendation, and while the subsequent scholarship on the topic is substantial, in recent years academic works have largely 786 Zavvou and Themos 2001-2004 [2012], 217; Drandakis 2002, n115 seems to indicate that this is actually in the west wall. I have seen no evidence of this inscription. 787 Much like the French expression ‘morte en couches’. 788 Tranlsation Dillon 2007, 150. 444 rejected this emendation.789 One of the main reasons for this rejection was that there were only four known Lakonian inscriptions that named women who had died in childbirth, and two of these – this one under discussion as well as one from Geronthrai – were not even from Sparta itself. Not only is the date of this inscription (IG V,1 1277) unknown, but it is also fragmentary, lacks context, is within a geographic area which boasts no evidence of Spartan customs and, last but not least, it also lists the names of six deceased persons, including other women who were not explicitly listed as having died in childbirth. Keeping these problems in mind, Hodkinson used this inscription from Nomia (note that he refers to it as the ‘Tainaron inscription’) to reject such an emendation: However, the evidence of the Tainaron inscription in fact runs counter to Latte’s emendation. The inscription lists at least seven deceased women790: three names are followed by the word ΛΕΧΟΙ, but the others have no such indication. The inclusion of both women who died in childbirth and those who did not indicates that death in childbirth was not a special criterion for a commemorative inscription. This leads us to a third difficulty…The ΛΕΧΟΙ inscriptions cannot logically be adduced as support for Latte’s emendation since Plutarch’s statement ‘determines only who may have epitaphs, not what they may be.’ The fact that certain women received inscriptions indicating that they died in childbirth need not signify that their death in childbirth was what entitled them to receive that inscription. The Tainaron inscription is a perfect illustration of that point.791 The question therefore remains: who were these individuals, and why were they all memorialized together on a single epitaph? Perhaps they were family members, or individuals who held certain offices (priests and/or priestesses, for example). The names of the women are all relatively uncommon: the names Lukina and Perila are hapax legomena; Philarin, which is 789 Dillon 2007 (especially pp. 149-153) provided a succinct history of the argument and clearly presented the reasons for rejecting the emendation. See also Brulé and Piolot (2002, 115-116) for this inscription. 790 In my reading there are only 5 women listed, he must mistake men’s names for women. 791 Hodkinson 2009, 261. 445 the name of two women on this inscription, only appears in three other examples, including one from Teuthrone (IG V,1 1221, see above). The names of some of the males are also recorded in other inscriptions from Mani: Pankratidas is a regional name and seems local to Lakonia, as it appears only nine times including this example, once for an individual from Kainepolis (the son of Hellanikos in IG V,1 530, see above), twice on Kythera and once from Sparta; Agathokles is a very popular name with 633 recorded individuals, including one from Teuthrone (see above, IG V,1 1220 b). Finally, the name Labippa only appears one other time in the epigraphic record, on the inscription found in Charouda discussed extensively above in the context of the multi-generational family from Teuthrone (IG V,1 1280. If this Labippa is one and the same, this inscription can be dated to the 1st century CE. 7.6.4 Written Evidence for Ancient Messe Strabo’s work also addressed the settlement of Messe, which was the first mention of this place since Homer (Il. 2.582): 8.5.[3]: τῶν δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Ὁµήρου καταλεγοµένων τὴν µὲν Μέσσην οὐδαµοῦ δείκνυσθαί φασι... 8.5.[3]: They say that Messe, from the catalogue of Homer, is nowhere to be seen... Strabo’s narrative went on to attempt to explain the omission – that Homer’s reference was actually to a certain 'Messoan', which was a part of Sparta itself (evidence for which is lacking), or that Homer’s ‘Messe’ was a corruption of ‘Messene’, which is unlikely, since Messene was not a settlement until the Theban liberation of the Messenians in the early 4th century BCE. The mystery of Messe is further complicated by the fact that its discussion in this passage is preceded by the verb φασι, which provides an interesting insight into Strabo himself and 446 whether he investigated these settlements first-hand; much ink has been spilled about the identity, date, and travels of Strabo, and the consensus is largely that while he travelled extensively, the only part of Greece to which he travelled definitely was Corinth.792 Strabo also rarely included first-hand accounts of his experiences, and he even stressed the importance of ακοή (‘understanding through hearing’, e.g. 2.5.[11]); together, these two characteristics render the task of determining the source(s) for his writings that much more difficult. There is no reason to assume that Strabo visited any part of the region with which this dissertation is concerned, as his treatment of the settlements throughout Lakonia was rather cursory and he provided no clues to suggest eyewitness encounters. I believe it is possible, however, that during his maritime voyages across the Mediterranean he may have sailed rather close to the southern Peloponnesian coast, and seen (or had his attention directed to) many of the towns that he mentioned along the Messenian and Lakonian gulfs. This may be an explanation for his repeated inclusion of the Thyrides in his accounts, when we hear of them from no other source until Pausanias – this geological formation is a formidable sight from the sea as it looms to considerable heights above the passing ships. A maritime eyewitness viewpoint offers a logical explanation for Strabo’s inclusion of the Thyrides no less than three times, especially considering his omission of any of the physical features of the towns he listed, with the notable exception of the temple of Poseidon at Tainaron, which itself was also visible from the sea. Pausanias may also have mentioned the settlement of Messe in his narrative immediately following Hippola: 3.25.[9]: ὀλίγον δὲ ἀπωτέρω Μέσσα πόλις καὶ λιµήν. 792 Waddy (1963) argued that he likely also visited Athens; Clarke 1997, 99. 447 3.25.[9]: Slightly farther off [is] the city and harbour [of] Messa. This is presumably the same settlement as mentioned in Homer and Strabo, albeit with alternate (Doric) spelling: ‘Messa’ in this passage, which he stated as having a city and a harbour - he provided no additional information about its location or status. 7.6.5 Archaeological Evidence around Mezapos The small village of Mezapos is located on the eastern edge of the gulf of the same name. Here, remnants of antiquity have been observed, although in many cases the interpretations of archaeological traces have been influenced by the desire of scholars to identify this site as ancient Messe. Leake and Woodward acknowledged the onomastic similarities between Messe and Mezapos, but neither saw any remnants of antiquities.793 The leading scholar on the region, Katsaphados, published a book on the region entitled Mani: Mezapos, or Homeric Messe. In this work, Katsaphados stated outright that his primary goal was to locate the site of Homeric Messe; his ultimate conclusion is that Homeric Messe – and subsequent occupation phases thereof – was located at modern Mezapos, and the majority of the book is devoted to proving this hypothesis. He devoted an entire chapter to the archaeological material from the region, and included evidence from all periods, up to and including Byzantine and Medieval churches. With regard to archaeological evidence of relevance for this present work, Katsaphados cited (and provided convincing photographs of) wagon-wheel ruts (his Fig. 15), rock-cut chambers that may have formed a cemetery (his Figs. 4-6), and ceramic sherds (his Fig. 10). Three of these rock-cut chambers, he suggested, may have been Roman columbaria, 793 Leake 1830, 287; Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 243. LL178 448 based entirely on their narrow dimensions,794 and the wagon-grooves were 130-136 cm apart which corresponded well with known Roman cart sizes.795 Empty rock-cut chambers and carved wheel-grooves are, however, difficult to date in and of themselves, and the vast majority of dateable evidence that Katsophados cited (including a 4th-5th century CE lamp-fragment796), dated to the late Roman/early Christian period. The only two “non-prehistoric” sherds included in his book (his #7 & 9, on Figure 10) are two rims with no fabric description or suggested type/date. The rest of the drawn ceramics, which he believed were prehistoric, did not have colour photographs, so it is incredibly difficult to assess his conclusions with regard to date. He also omitted details of their findspots – citing only the general coastal region around the ‘acropolis’ and the ‘cemetery’.797 Unfortunately, while the ceramic evidence from Mezapos is probably ancient, it is unclear whether anything can be conclusively linked to a pre-Roman period. I believe that the most plausible scenario for the ancient occupation of Mezapos (not necessarily any place called ‘Messe’) was that it was a small Roman harbour town which functioned largely as a practical base from which to extract and export stones from the nearby quarries. 794 Katsaphados 1994, 45. Tombs Β,Η,Ι on his Figures 5-6. Additional conclusions of Katsophados’ which I cannot accept are as follows: he interpreted later medieval cisterns as ancient, and claimed that dry-rubble rock walls formed the entrance to a once-formidable Bronze Age acropolis circuit wall. 795 Katsophados 1994, 49-50. Incredibly, however, Katsophados also suggested that the wheel ruts had been there since the Bronze Age, and the Roman simply ‘used’ them. There is no evidence to support this assertion. 796 Katsophados 1994, 57 n1. He compared this to Broneer (1939) types XXVIII-XXXIII. 797 Katsophados 1994, 56. 449 7.7 Central 7.7.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Pyrrichos If the assocation of the location of ancient Pyrrichos with the site of the modern town of Pyrrichos is correct, then this is the sole example of an identified inland site within the Inner Mani peninsula study region. Pausanias’ narrative is the only written source to mention the settlement, and he visited the site from the east coast of the peninsula, after Teuthrone: 3.25.[1]:…τοῦ ποταµοῦ δὲ σταδίους τεσσαράκοντα ἀπέχει Πύρριχος ἐν µεσογαίᾳ. τὸ δὲ ὄνοµα τῇ πόλει γενέσθαι φασὶν ἀπὸ Πύρρου τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως, οἱ δὲ εἶναι θεὸν Πύρριχον τῶν καλουµένων [2] Κουρήτων· εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ Σιληνὸν ἐκ Μαλέας ἐλθόντα ἐνταῦθα λέγουσιν οἰκῆσαι… ὡς δὲ καὶ Πύρριχος ὄνοµα ἦν αὐτῷ, Πινδάρῳ µὲν οὐκ ἔστιν εἰρηµένον, λέγουσι δὲ οἱ περὶ τὴν Μαλέαν οἰκοῦντες. [3] ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῇ Πυρρίχῳ φρέαρ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, δοῦναι δέ σφισι τὸν Σιληνὸν νοµίζουσι· σπανίζοιέν τ᾿ ἂν ὕδατος, εἰ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦτο ἐπιλείποι. θεῶν δὲ ἐν τῇ γῇ σφισιν ἱερά ἐστιν Ἀρτέµιδός τε ἐπίκλησιν Ἀστρατείας, ὅτι τῆς ἐς τὸ πρόσω στρατείας ἐνταῦθα ἐπαύσαντο Ἀµαζόνες, καὶ Ἀπόλλων Ἀµαζόνιος· ξόανα µὲν ἀµφότερα, ἀναθεῖναι δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὰ τὰς ἀπὸ Θερµώδοντος γυναῖκας. 3.25.[1]: … Pyrrichos is forty stades distant from the river in the interior (i.e. inland). They say the name of the city came from Pyrros the son of Achilles, but others [say] Pyrrichos was a god called [2] Kouretes. There are those who say that Silenos coming from Malea lived here…That the name Pyrrichos was [given] to him was not told by Pindar, but said by those living around Malea. And there is in Pyrrichos a well in the agora and they (the inhabitants) consider Silenos to have given to them. They would be in want of water if this well were to run dry. Of the gods in this land for them there is a temple of Artemis surnamed Astrateia, because here the Amazons ceased their expedition hereafter, and Apollo Amazonios. And they say that both wooden carved images, these were dedicated by women from Thermodon. There are several options Pausanias gives to the reader regarding the etymology of the town’s name: a) Pyrros, son of Achilles; b) Pyrrichos, one of the gods called Kouretes; and c) Silenos, who, according to the citizens of Malea, was also called Pyrrichos. The son of Achilles is more commonly known as Neoptolomos (the name he was referred to throughout Homer’s texts), and the alternative name Pyrros (/Pyrrhos/Pyrrhus) was derived from one of his mother Deidamia’s variant names, Pyrrha. The use of Pyrros probably only became common after the 4th century BCE.798 This etymology would link the town to Achilles, and potentially even to the Epirote kings and to Alexander the Great, whose mother Olympias 798 Scherf 2006. 450 was said to have descended from Neoptolomos/Pyrros. The alternative theories, that Pyrrichos was one of the Kouretes (Curetes) is unconfirmed in other sources from antiquity, but these gods were tasked with the protection of the infant Zeus and would thus link the settlement to Zeus as well as to the island of Crete. The final explanation, that Silenos was also called Pyrrichos, is also unconfirmed elsewhere, but this explanation would link the settlement to the closest eastern landmass, the Malea peninsula. Musti and Torelli believed that the multiple etymologies themselves derived from Hellenistic speculation, but stated that the connection to Silenus could have been as old as the Archaic period – what these authors fail to mention is that there is no evidence of a settlement here prior to the Roman period.799 The confusion over the etymology of the name Pyrrichos is echoed in the multitude of explanations for the origin of the term ‘Pyrrhiche’ (πυρρίχη/pyrrhíchē, Latin pyrrhica), a weapon or war dance practiced most famously by Spartan youth.800 Explanations for the origins of the Pyrrhiche also include both the Kouretes (Str. 10.4.[16]; 10.3.[8)] and Pyrrhos (Archil. fr. 190 Bergk; Lucian, De saltatione 9; [1]), as well as an unknown Lakedaimonian man by the name ‘Pyrrichos’ (Str. 10.3.[8]; Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 14.29), further entangling the potential derivation of the town’s name. The unusual epithets of the cults of Artemis (Astrateia) and Apollo (Amazonios) connected the region around Pyrrichos to these two deities through a local legend surrounding the Amazons; this association may also be tangentially related to Achilles and his role with the Amazons.801 799 Musti and Torelli 1982, 278. 800 Harmon 2006. 801 Musti and Torelli 1982, 278; Wide 1893, 126. 451 7.7.2 Epigraphic Evidence around Pyrrichos Since only Pausanias included mention of Pyrrichos, the physical existence of this ancient settlement rests on the supporting evidence provided by epigraphic and archaeological investigations. Of the 9 inscriptions listed under the heading ‘Pyrrichus’ in the IG V,1 volume, four were actually found along the western coast of the peninsula (1281 & 1288 – Glezou; 1286 – Pyrgos Dirou; and 1287 – Vamvaka). The two Glezou inscriptions were both found in a church of Aghios Taxiarches (observed ‘in Pyrgo’, but likely what is now modern Glezou). One of these, IG V,1 1281, is based on Leake’s transcription802; Forster & Woodward, however, noted that Leake’s copy was “full of mistakes and omissions”, and a more complete text appears in the IG V,1 addendum (1524). Forster & Woodward also provided more complete information regarding the location of the inscription, which they said once formed the lintel-block of the ruined church of Aghia Marina, but that they saw inside of the church of Aghios Taxiarches with a cross carved in relief atop the original inscription.803 The lengthy text they provided is as follows: [Γυθ] ε̣ατῶν ἔφοροι καὶ ἁ πόλις Πυ̣[ρριχίων ἐφόροις] [καὶ] τ̣ᾶι πόλει χαίρειν. τοῦ γε̣[γενηµένου — — ψη]- [φίσ]µατος παρ’ ἡµῖν ὑπογε[γράφαµεν — — — — — —] [ὑµῖ]ν τὸ ἀντίγραφον. ἔρ[ρωσθε.] 5 [ἐπεὶ] Δαµαρµενίδας ὁ πο[λείτης ὑµῶν ἐν τᾶι ἡµετέραι] [πόλει] τ̣ετελεύτηκεν ὑὸς Εὐα̣[µέρου — — — — — ] [— —] ὢ̣ν µὲν ἐπισήµων α̣[— — — — — — — — —, παρα]- [δίγ]µατα δὲ δίξας ἐν ὅλ[ῳ τῷ χρόνῳ τῆς — — — ] [καὶ] τῆς ζωῆς σωφροσύν[ης πλεῖστα καὶ α, οὐ] 10 [διὰ] τοῦτο µόνον βαρυ[νόµεθα — — — — — — — — —] [], ὅτι τὸ κοινὸν πολε̣[ίτευµα — — — — — — — — —] [] ἥρπασται, ἀλλ’ ὅτι [— — — — — — — — — — —] [ἀγ]αθόν, ἕρµα µὲν πόλε[ως — — — — — — — — — — —] [ ἔ]θν̣ους, γονέων δὲ̣ [— — — — — — — — — — — —] 802 Leake 1830, Volume III: #29. 803 Forster & Woodward 1906/7, 261; its current location is unknown. 452 15 µος ἐγεννήθη [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] ἐπιτυγχάνοµεν [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] αιων ἀπὸ πρώτη[ς ἡλικίας — — — — — — — —] ιδίας καὶ βίου νηπ[ι— — — — — — — — — — — — —] µεν δοκῖν ἐστηρη̣[µένον — — — — — — — — — —] 20 ἐλπίδι πολίτου π[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] ἢ ἀνέλκιν εἰς τὴν [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] [ ἐ]π̣ιµέλιαν µᾶλλον ο[— — — — — — — — — — — —] τὸν εὐγενῆ καὶ ε̣[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] α δ’ οὐκ ἐλάχιστον [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] 25 ν̣ος πικροῦ, πότερο̣[ν — — — — — — — — — — — —] αµας ν̣ηη Εὐαµ[ερ— — — — — — — — — — — —] ς ἄγουσί τε τὸν ἐα[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] ερ καὶ πόλι καὶ ἰδία[ι — — — — — — — — — — — —] [πε]ρὶ ὑὸν οὕτω σπουδ[αῖον — — — — — — — — — — —] 30 [ἔσ]τ̣αλκεν ἢ πόλιν τα[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] τὴν ἐλπίδα πολιτ[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] ἕκαστον γὰρ µέρος [— — — — — — — — — — — —] ἄξιον πλὴν ἡ µισά[νθρωπος τύχη — — — — — — —] ν τὸν ἅµα ἄρξαντα [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] 35 [ἅµ]α µαρανθέντα τὸν [— — — — — — — — — ἐστρατευ]- [µέ]νον τὸν Ἀρµηνια[κὸν πόλεµον — — — — — — — —] νον τὸν εν Ι ̣ραα[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] σαντα τὸν τοῦ Α[ὐ]το[κράτορος — — — — — — — —] υς µὲν τοὺς ἐπαίνους [— — — — — — — — — οὐκ ἂν] 40 [δυ]ν̣αίµεθα ποιήσασθα[ι — — — — — — — — — — καὶ] [δι]καίους, διὸ ἔδοξε [τᾶι πόλει τῶν Γυθεατῶν· ἀν]- [δρι]άντα µὲν ἅµα οἰνά[νθῃ ἐστεφανωµένον ἀναθεῖναι] [ἐπι]γραφὴν ἔχοντα οὕτω [— — — — — — —· ἁ πόλις Δα]- [µα]ρ̣µενίδαν Εὐαµέρο̣[υ Πυρρίχιον στραταγόν· τὰ δὲ] 45 τατενα ἀνακηρῦξα̣[ι κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν — — — — — —] , ἵνα τὸ συνπαθὲς [— — — — — — — — — — φα]- [νερὸν γ]έ̣νηται Select Commentary/Translations804 Lines 4: “…we are sending you the enclosed copy of our proceedings on the occasion of the vote of sympathy passed on the death of Damarmenidas.”805 804 From Forster & Woodward 1906/7, 263-265. 805 Kennell, personal communication, suggested: “We have appended the copy of the decree…whch was passed by us…” 453 Lines 32: “…for each part [of his life] was worthy of [admiration], but that misanthrope fate snatched away from us one who no sooner had begun his career than he withered away, one who not only”… Lines 39-41: “…we could not praise him in sufficiently high terms.” Lines 41-47. “…wherefore it was resolved…both to set up a statue crowned with vine-shoots, with this inscription: "to Damarmenidas son of Euameros (for his many virtues"), and also to communicate this our resolution [? to his children] in order that our sympathy towards them may be manifested.” Clearly much of the text does not survive, including the complete names of the cities in the first line, although Pyrrichos seems to be the most likely candidate for the second name since the first letter of the second city is a Π, and the findspot is only a few kilometres from the presumed site of ancient Pyrrichos ( = modern Pyrrichos).806 With regard to its content, Woodward noted: “The stone contains apparently a short letter from one city to another, occupying the first four lines and covering a long enclosure, which is a copy of a resolution passed by a town council of similar body, on the occasion of the death of an illustrious citizen.”807 That citizen is one Damarmenidas, son of Euameros, and this individual bore a hyper-local name. As discussed above, the only other three recorded instances of the name Damarmenidas in the LGPN all have ties to Lakonia, and two other Damarmenidas-inscriptions are actually from Mani: IG V,1 1236 from Tainaron and IG V,1 1243 from Kainepolis. The former example dates to the 4th century BCE, so the individual listed on this inscription from Glezou cannot be the same man.808 In the inscription from Kainepolis, however, no patronymic was given to Damarmenidas the chief magistrate (στρατηγῶν ἐπεµελήθη), so it is possible that 806 Forster & Woodward 1906/7, 263; it is under the category ‘Pyrrichos’ in the IG V,1 volume. 807 Ibid. 808 The patronymics also confirm this: Damarmenidas son of Aristoteles in the former, Damarmenidas son of Euameros in the latter. 454 these two men are one and the same, especially given the fact that both men had achieved a level of illustriousness; Woodward believed this to be the case, and remarked that the letterforms in IG V,1 1524 agree with the first half of the 1st century CE date of IG V,1 1243.809 Of the remaining early-middle Imperial-period inscriptions assigned to Pyrrichos, only one is able to provide any information beyond personal names.810 This lengthy inscription thought to be from ancient Pyrrichos was first published by Petrides, who discovered the stone on which it was inscribed in the village of Kavvalos, just west of modern Pyrrichos. Petrides noted that it was in extremely poor condition and the letters were barely distinguishable; he did not note its findspot, material, or suggest a date. By the time of this stone’s publication in the IG volume (IG V,1 1282), it must have been removed from the location in which Petrides saw it, and perhaps even cleaned off, since the IG entry contains significantly more text that Petrides’ editio princeps.811 Unfortunately, however, there is still not a sufficient amount of text that survives to decipher its entire contents: [—]Η̣ΤΑΣΛ[— —]Μ[]Τ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — —]ΝΑ[— — — — — — — — — —] [—]Η[— — — — —]Ν vacat 5 [—]ΤΑΧΡΕ̣ΣΘ[— —]ΕΝΚΑΙ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]Α̣ΝΟΙ Καλλικρατίδαν [— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]η̣ ταφῆς αἰτ[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] [—]ΝΑ[— — ἀνα]λώ[σ]οντος, ὅπως [— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — ἐ]στη̣σάµεθα καὶ δ<ώ>σα[µεν — — — — — — — — —] 10 [— — — — — — —]ΙΜΑΙ vacat ἐπειδὴ Καλλικρατὶς Νεικάν̣δ̣[ρου, γυνὴ — — — — — — — τοῦ εὐ]- [δοξοτ]άτου πολεί[του ἁ]µ<ῶ>ν το[— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — —]νεαδα ὑποσ[τρ]άτ<ι>α [— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — —]νον ἐπὶ Νεικίδα τὸ ϛʹ [— — — — — — — — — — — — ὡσθ’] 809 Forster & Woodward 1906/7, 263. 810 One inscription listed in the LGPN, IG V,1 1594, I was unable to find in any of the IG volumes’ addenda & corrigenda. The only information derived from the LGPN database is that this inscription contained the name of an individual: Τέτρατος. This inscription is not included in the master chart. 811 Petrides 1870, 341. 455 15 [ὑπὸ] µη̣δενὸς αἰτιαθῆναι, τί δ[— — — — — — — φιλοτιµίας καὶ] [δαπάν]ης οὐδὲν ἐλλ<ε>ίπουσα διὰ τὸ ἐ̣λ[— — — — — — — — —] [— — —]προν, ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ Νεικίδα π[ατρονόµου(?) — — τοῦ δεῖ]- [νος κ]αὶ Δαµοσθενήας τὸν καὶ Λ[— — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — —]ια και ην ἔτι Δαµοσθένηας τῆς [— — — — ἐν ἀρχαῖς καὶ] 20 [λειτουργ]<ί>αις µηδὲν µηδέποτε [ἐκκλίνας — — — ὁ δεῖνα περὶ] [τᾶς πατρ]<ί>δος ἀνὴρ γενόµενος [ἀγαθὸς — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — —] παρέσχηται µηδέποτ<ε> Ι[— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — —]διν ἀνῄροντο ΝΑΦ[]Μ[— — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]ος πᾶσιν [—]#⁷#⁷Ν[— — — — — — — — — —] 25 [— — — — — — — —] ἐφόροις τοῖς π̣ε̣ρ̣ὶ̣ [τὸν δεῖνα — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]ε περὶ ο[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]κοµα[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]θ[— — — — —]ασε[— — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — —]Λ̣Ι̣ΙΙ̣̣[—]Αιολιο[— — — — — — — — —] 30 [— — — — — — — — — — — — —]ον[— — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — —] στέφανον [— — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — —]µο[ σ]τεφανο[— — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]αν[— — — — — — — —] Only a few lines can be read whatsoever: Line 7 …burial… Lines 11-12: Since Kallikratis daughter of Nikandros … Lines 14-16: …in the time of Neikidas… no one … Lines 19-20: … Damostheneia in office and public service, never turning away anyone… Line 25: …to the ephors… The names of several individuals survive: 1) Kallikratidas (line 6); 2) Kallikratis, daughter of Nikandros (line 11); 3) Neikidas (lines 14 & 17); and 4) Damostheneia (lines 18 & 19). Based on the fragmentary text, it seems that this is an honorary dedication or decree; Kolbe believed that it was erected for Kallikratidas or Kallikratis, but it is impossible to know more. For some reason, in the LGPN Neikidas is not listed under ‘Pyrrichos’, but under the more general ‘Lakonia’, even though the rest of the individuals from this inscription are listed under ‘Pyrrichos’. I have already presented the name Kallikratidas from the ancient settlements of Kainepolis (IG V,1 1240) and Hippola/Messe (IG V,1 1334a), and in the case of the former, that 456 Figure 7-31: Points of interest, Pyrrichos archaeological site. ©GoogleEarth. Aur. Kallikratidas (son of Kallikratidas) was an ephor, so this may be a familial trend, as there is mention of ephors in this inscription as well.812 Nothing is known of the current location of the stone, or its date: in the LGPN it is – again without explanation – listed as 2nd-1st centuries BCE, but Kennell suggested a probable Roman date.813 The epigraphic record from Pyrrichos is not substantial, but the two fragmentary inscriptions presented here provide evidence of ephors and civic activity during the first few centuries of the Roman Imperial period. 7.7.3 Archaeological evidence around Pyrrichos 812 Kennell 1999 196, n46. 813 Personal communication. 457 In 1970 the area around modern Pyrrichos was declared an archaeological site, although the exact limits of archaeological distinction were not delineated at that time.814 In 2000, the region was the subject of systematic survey by the 5th Ephorate of Antiquities, and the results of this investigation were published by Moschou in 2009. In total, an area of approximately 2500 x 8000 m was designated as archaeologically significant for the ancient settlement of Pyrrichos and its extra-urban area (Figure 7-31). On the survey, remnants of antiquity were observed in and around the modern settlement of Pyrrichos, the valley to the east, and the fortified Kastraki hill which dominates the valley. The Pourchos valley has great agricultural potential, and is better-watered than much of the peninsula due to an underground aquifer; this, coupled with the strategic position held by Pyrrichos at the crossroads of the peninsula, make the location of the settlement a naturally obvious choice. On the western limit of the village, just south of the main Areopolis-Kotronas road, sits the ruined Aghios Nikon church (Figure 7-31:A; 7-32a). Here, Weil observed white marble architectural members, three small Doric capitals, and the base of an Ionic column.815 Today a column base is still visible, as are several well-hewn architectural members, and the segments of the church walls which still stand perhaps reveal secondary usage of ancient construction materials (although this is by no means certain, since it is simply a dry-rubble construction) (Figure 7-32 a-c). The marble appears gray rather than white. I observed three large but undiagnostic sherds within the ruins of the church, one of which is certainly ancient (Hellenistic-Roman). 814 ΦΕΚ 267/Β/16-4-1970 815 Weil 1876; Moschou 2000 [2009], 235; Le Roy 1965, 380. 458 Figure 7-32 a-c: a) Aghios Nikon, Pyrrichos; b-c) Architectural members, Aghios Nikon, Pyrrichos. Photos by author. Within the central town of Pyrrichos (toponym: Philiatroi), Moschou noted the presence of ancient foundations, architectural members and small finds including inscriptions, coins, sculpture, and ceramics – she does not provide any specifics with regard to any of these categories of evidence (Figure 7-31:B). There is a large well just to the north of the main road which is signposted as the “Well of Silenus” (Paus. 3.25.[1-2] ), and due to this fixture, Moschou postulated that this should be the ancient agora of the town – but whether there is any indication of ancient construction at the well and in the immediate vicinity is unclear. A B C 459 Figure 7-33: Construction inside well, below Kastraki. Photo by author. Forster and Puillon Boblaye both reported large marble statuary, including a “torso of a Roman female portrait statue, and a small gliding figure, apparently a Nike”, which were transported to the Gytheio storerooms at some point prior to Le Roy’s 1965 publication.816 Somewhere in the modern village of Pyrrichos, Le Roy observed a Doric column fragment and a late Doric frieze rebuilt into the church of the Koimesis tou Theotokou.817 To the east of modern Pyrrichos the small Pourchos valley stretches out, an isolated verdant plain among the adjacent towering mountains to the north and south. The most notable landmark above Pourchos is Kastraki, a two-peaked conical hill. An archaeological sign has been installed to the southwest of Kastraki, indicating the site of ‘Ancient Pyrrichos’. From here, there is a very overgrown hiking path which appears to lead up the southern slope of Kastraki but is completely impassable due to overground vegetation (macquis). Near the sign is a large well, which bears the marks of ancient construction around the mouth (Figure 7-31:E; Figure 7-33 & 7-34). Moschou also noted the remains of an ancient cart-track in the vicinity.818 816 Forster 1903/4, 160; Puillon Boblaye 88; Le Roy 1965, 380. 817 Le Roy 1965, 380 & Figs. 23-24. 818 Moschou 2000 [2009], 237 (29a on her map). 460 The best access to Kastraki is via the eastern slope, along cow-paths. On the eastern peak are medieval remains, and atop the higher, western peak are several dry-stone walls. As I have shown in previous examples from the east coast of the Mani peninsula (Kastri, Loukadika, Kionia/Chalopyrgos), these walls are constructed of a dry-stone masonry and are difficult to date. Kastraki’s peak bears the ruins of numerous dry-stone walls that have never been mapped, so it is difficult to interpret the extent and course – or existence – of a circuit wall; upon visiting the site in 2014, I noticed a larger wall on the northern limit of the hill which ended on the eastern and western limits, where the hill becomes naturally defensible.819 There are at least two rectangular structures as well as circular structures that may once have functioned as lookouts. A small, damp cave is located on the south-east section of the peak; I recorded several fragments of 819 Seifried 2016, 522. LL276. Figure 7-34: Kastraki, from west. Ancient (?) well indicated by arrow. Photo by author. 461 Figure 7-35: Ceramic fragments from cave, Kastraki. Photo by author. ancient Roman (?) pottery around the entrance of this cave, and observed scatters strewn about the peak in general (Figure 7-31:F; Figure 7-35).820 Kastraki may have once functioned as the acropolis of ancient Pyrrichos, but more systematic exploration is required in the region to determine the exact extent of occupation. Le Roy compared the dry-rubble construction of the walls to the ancient sites of Sellasia and Khelmos in northern Lakonia.821 The problem inherent with such a comparison, however, is that Le Roy cited Loring’s 1915 work as evidence for Sellasia and Khelmos’ ancient construction but, in that same article, Loring remarked the following on the dates of the walls at Khelmos: …the date … cannot be so positively determined. The outer wall (1) has hitherto been regarded as ancient by all authorities; and I have myself supposed it to be a roughly constructed wall of classical times; but Dr. Dorpfeld, judging from my photographs, expresses the opinion that, if they are ancient at all, the great size and loose structure of the unhewn stones proves them to be 'Mycenaean' rather than Hellenic. That they are one or the other, and not mediaeval, appears to 820 I am unsure as to whether this is Forster’s (1903/4, 160) στὸ παλάτι “cave with the entrance partially built up”. 821 Le Roy 1965, 382. 462 me fairly certain; first because it would be difficult to account for the total disappearance of the ancient fort, which, as I have tried to show in the text, must certainly have been upon this hill; secondly because, were walls (1) and (2) mediaeval, it would be very strange that not a trace of brick or tile has been found in any part of them; and thirdly because style (2), which cannot be earlier, and is probably later, than style (1), corresponds precisely with what we find at Sellasia, where the existence of a mediaeval fortress has never (so far as I am aware) been suggested, and no signs of mediaeval occupation have been found…822 Ultimately, it is difficult – if not impossible – to date dry-rubble walls without excavation, and it is problematic to make comparisons to other fortification-sites which themselves have not been conclusively dated. Moschou, however, in keeping with her belief that the Classical Spartans established a network of fortifications throughout the Mani peninsula, dated the Kastraki walls to the 4th century BCE, with modifications in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE; thereby attributing the construction atop Kastraki to the “period of political redevelopments and martial adventures of the city-state of Sparta.”823 This claim of hers is made despite the fact that in her comprehensive publication on ancient Pyrrichos, no evidence was found that dated earlier than the Hellenistic period anywhere, let alone atop Kastraki (and even the Hellensitic material was limited to ceramic scatters).824 The overwhelming majority of archaeological evidence from the region – and Kastraki itself – is Roman and it is difficult to see how she may have been referring to Roman Sparta as engaging in ‘political redevelopments and martial adventures’. In the Pourchos valley proper Moschou noted unspecified traces of ancient hydraulic works that needed further investigation; she suggested that this area may have been the location 822 Loring 1915, 74. 823 Moschou 2000 [2010], 237. 824 Mochou observed Hellenistic ceramics in only four places (indicated 6, 7, 22, & 26 on her map) but Roman in at least 11 (6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 26, 28). 463 of the (now-lost) Roman bath-building observed by Puillon Boblaye.825 Here too is a ruined monastery of Aghios Daniel and the church of Aghios Mamas, both of which incorporate ancient material and were perhaps built directly atop ancient Roman building foundations (Figure 7-31:G).826 7.7.3 Summary In sum, the archaeological evidence for antiquity in Pyrrichos and the adjacent valley is largely Roman in date, with traces of late Hellenistic material culture in the form of ceramic scatters and small finds. Like many sites throughout Mani, there remains much work to be done, and all dates are tentative and subject to refinement and future investigation. The situation is similar with the epigraphic evidence, although many of the stones themselves are lost and neither the texts nor the dates can be verified. The written record is limited to Pausanias’ text which is, of course Roman in date. Pyrrichos is the sole example of an identified inland settlement within the Inner Mani, and the site is positioned at the crossroads of the eastern and western sides of the peninsula; superficially, this location seems to carry much weight but, in reality, Pyrrichos does not seem to have been a particularly important or long-lived site, based on the extent of all categories of evidence. This conclusion carries significant weight for the reality of the division of the eastern and western sides of the peninsula, and the lack of substantial permanent settlements along the natural thoroughfares between the coasts suggests a lack of regular cross-peninsular overland communication. 825 Moschou 2000 [2009], 233; Puillon Boblaye 1876, 88. LL253 ‘Pourchos plain’ but incorrectly cites a well here. 826 Moschou 2000 [2009], 233; Le Roy 1965 382; Forster 1903/4, 160. 464 7.8 The North-West 7.8.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos The site of Oitylos is recorded by just two authors during the early-to-middle Imperial period, Strabo and Pausanias. Strabo’s first reference to Oitylos was as follows: 8.4.[1]: ἐκ δὲ τῶν Φηρῶν καὶ συστρατεύσαντας τῷ Μενελάῳ δηλοῖ ὁ ποιητής, τὸν δὲ Οἴτυλον καὶ συγκαταλέγει τῷ Λακωνικῷ καταλόγῳ, ἱδρυµένον ἐν τῷ Μεσσηνιακῷ κόλπῳ. 8.4.[1]: And the poet (Homer) declares that [the men] from Pherae were joined together in the expedition with Menelaus, and in the Lakonian catalogue he speaks of Oitylos, situated in the Messenian Gulf. In this passage no information is garnered other than that in Homer's Iliad, Oitylos was one of the settlements whose ships were led by Menelaus. Strabo’s second reference to Oitylos was discussed above, in the context of the Thyrides (8.4.[4]: µεταξὺ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν Θυρίδων ἀρξαµένοις Οἴτυλός ἐστι: καλεῖται δ᾽ ὑπό τινων Βοίτυλος... Between [these], beginning from Thyrides is Oitylos: but it is called Boitylos by some...), and this passage provides our earliest information about the actual location of ancient Oitylos. Like Strabo, Pausanias’ narrative of the Inner Mani also omitted any settlement between the region of Cavo Grosso/Messa and Oitylos, a stretch of approximately 20 km of the flattest, most agriculturally promising land in Mani, and concluded with a short description of Oitylos: 3.25.[10]: ἀπὸ τούτου στάδια τοῦ λιµένος πεντήκοντά ἐστι καὶ ἑκατὸν ἐπὶ Οἴτυλον· ὁ δὲ ἥρως ἀφ᾿ οὗ τῇ πόλει τὸ ὄνοµα ἐγένετο, Ἀργεῖος τὸ ἀνέκαθεν, Ἀµφιάνακτος υἱὸς ὢν τοῦ Ἀντιµάχου. θέας δὲ ἄξια ἐν Οἰτύλῳ Σαράπιδός ἐστιν ἱερὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Καρνείου ξόανον Ἀπόλλωνος. 3.25.[10]: From this harbour (Messa) it is one hundred and fifty stades to Oitylon; The hero from whom the city received its name, Argive by origin, was [the son] of Amphianax, son of Antimachos. And worthy of seeing in Oitylon is a temple of Sarapis and a wooden statue of Apollo Karneion in the agora. The distance between the harbour of ‘Messa’ and Oitylos is problematic because the exact location of the former is unknown. If Messa/Messe is indeed modern Mezapos, the latter is approximately 29 kilometres via modern road from Oitylos, a distance that corresponds nicely to 465 Pausanias’ 150 stades, or 28 kilometres (assuming a 185-metre stade).827 Pausanias reiterated the etymology of the city’s name here (cf. Pherekydes, F168) as being derived from the hero Oitylos, the son of Amphianax, and the grandson of Antimachos. This genealogy connected these men to the Herakleidai both through lineage and the link to Argos; however, Fowler noted that this would put the existence of a legendary man called Oitylos “a long time after the Trojan War”, which is problematic for the inclusion of the town of Oitylos in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships (Chapter 4: Il.2.585).828 His solution, though impossible to prove, is believable: that “the people of this town nurtured the belief in an Argive/Heraklid link without noticing the Homeric difficulty; in principle this is no different from the many other links forged between historical Dorians and Herakles”.829 The worship of Sarapis in this region is unique, and was likely a phenomenon of the Roman presence in the area and the resulting religious synchretism achieved through the expansion of the Roman Empire. Pausanias’ inclusion of Apollo Karneion as a patron deity provides a satisfactory parallel to the worship of Apollo Karneion at Las, effectively providing religious ‘bookends’ at either northern extremity of the peninsula. Pausanias made no mention of whether the town and the sacred spaces were inhabited, and although the omission of Oitylos from Ptolemy’s otherwise-comprehensive list of settlements is notable, the archaeological evidence points to some Roman activity.830 827 However, the distance as the crow flies is approximately 18.4 kilometres. 828 Fowler 2013, 513; Since the grandfather of Oitylos was said to be Antimachos, a Trojan. In Graf (2016) the following information is given about Antimachos: [1] “Trojan, opponent of Antenor. When, before the war, Menelaus and Odysseus demanded the return of Helen of Troy, he advised, contrary to custom and tradition, killing the envoys (Hom. Il. 3,205; 11,138). Later, bribed by Paris, he prevented the handing over of Helen, then under consideration by the Trojans (Hom. Il. 11,123 ff.). His three sons were killed by the Greeks (Hom. Il. 12,188).” 829 Fowler 2013, 514. 830 Shipley (2004, 585) cited Ptolemy 3.14.43 (“βίτυλα”) in his entry for Oitylos in the Polis Inventory, however I could not find this in Ptolemy’s text neither under the numbered passage cited by Shipley (3.14.43) nor under the listings for Lakonike (Nobbe 1843, 213). 466 7.8.2 Epigraphic and Archaeological Evidence for Ancient Oitylos In terms of epigraphic evidence, there are only 2 incriptions from Oitylos that are even tentatively dated to the early-to-middle Imperial period (IG V1 1304 & 1306), and neither provide any information beyond personal names. 7.8.2.1 Coastal Oitylos The territory of ancient Oitylos likely extended down the mountains and stretched to the coastal bay of Limeni, the largest and most accessible natural harbour on the western coast of Inner Mani. A 1st-century BCE Roman shipwreck was identified here during an underwater survey in 1977: it lies in water 5-34m deep in the southern portion of the bay.831 One amphora was retrieved and taken to the Sparta Museum for sampling, and many other vessels were noted. The expedition was intended to have a follow-up in the following year, but seems never to have taken place. The local inhabitants of Limeni have been aware of the existence of this wreck for many decades, and I have observed intact vessels and architectural members displayed in the private homes of the local inhabitants. On the northern coast of Limeni Bay is the modern settlement of Karavostasi. Excavations that took place here in 2009 by the former 5th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, yielded Roman-period finds, including Lakonian tiles and ceramic scatters, a large mortared wall running parallel to the shore, and a more substantial wall (1.60-1.90 m. thick; the portion revealed is 8.40 m) running parallel to the Mylonlangkado gorge that may have acted as a retaining wall from the spring run-off in this well-watered ravine. 831 Aupert 1978, 678. LL159. 467 7.8.2.2 Modern Oitylos The 5th Ephorate also investigated the modern settlement of Oitylos in 2008-2009; reconnaissance was undertaken in order to evaluate the state of known monuments after a wild fire in the region, and since the fire had cleared much of the vegetation, several new remnants of antiquities came to light at this time. The new findings of this survey were as follows: a) the fountain at Charampos, ancient marble stone plinths and a column; b) near Xarempos, poros stone and marble blocks from the ancient city-walls; c) Aghios Spyridon, reused ancient marble architrave with relief decoration.832 In addition to the new discoveries, excavations and clearing were carried out on the ancient walls of Oitylos, and near a remnant of the Oitylos city wall was the ruined chapel of Aghios Nikolaos, which was cleaned and briefly surveyed. The foundations of this church are built of stones removed from the city wall, and a marble Doric capital was discovered in the vicinity and taken to the Sparta Museum. Along the same ridge above the gorge, a few hundred metres to the north-east, is the chapel of Aghia Triada/Theotokou (toponym: Niamitsa/Niarmitsa). This church is built atop an ancient building and incorporates large limestone blocks as well as marble architectural members, including a Roman Ionic capital that is similar to capitals found elsewhere in modern Oitylos.833 In the northeastern portion of modern Oitylos is a small rock shelter with three carved semi-circular niches. The Ephorate excavated a small amount of undiagnostic ceramics in this shelter, and concluded that this area was a small outdoor sanctuary. At the site of the church of Aghia Marina, excavations revealed ancient foundations beneath the post-Byzantine chapel, as 832 Tsouli 2000 [2013], 558. 833 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 559-560 & n272. Similar capitals at Aghios Sotiras, the old school, and one example brought to the 5th Ephorate officials by an inhabitant of the village. Forster (1903/4, 161) also observed the poros limestone blocks. 468 Figure 7-36: Ancient columns erected in central square, Oitylos. Photo by author. well as well-hewn ashlar blocks as a part of the construction on the west side.834 Together, the preserved blocks measure approximately 0.55m in height, 0.90m thick, and 2m in length. The trenches alongside the walls of the chapel revealed that the ancient construction was placed directly atop the bedrock, and the excavators were able to determine that the building was a single-room construction, perhaps a shrine or naiskos.835 Elsewhere in the modern village of Oitylos, other remnants of antiquity are visible.836 In the plateia, in front of the church of Koimesis tou Theotokou, two monolithic columns have been put on display (Figure 7-36). White marble architectural members are located throughout the town today, including in churches such as Aghios Sozon (cornice block), as well as placed in the middle of public squares, and within the ruins of early modern homes and towers (Figure 7-37). 834 Hood 1957, 10. 835 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 560-561 & Figure 94. 836 LL154 469 Figure 7-37: Large fragment of worked marble (press?), Oitylos. Photo by author. On the slope just below Koimesis tou Theotokou is the church of Aghios Sotiros. There are several architectural members built into this church, including well-hewn blocks and fluted columns on the interior. In the vicinity, I noted ancient ceramics and a small fragment of a carved white marble relief. With further regard to ceramics, Waterhouse and Hope Simpson noted that the slopes of the settlement were covered with Classical-Roman sherds, and in the British School at Athens study collection I identified two possible Roman kitchenware fragments (BSAOET0003 & BSAOET0005). 470 Figure 7-38: Fluted columns inside Aghios Sotiros, Oitylos. Photo by author. 7.8.2.3 Kelepha Across the Mylolangkado gorge is the modern settlement of Kelepha, whose buildings bear remnants of ancient spolia, most of which was probably derived from the ancient cemetery at Oitylos – the latter is thought to be somewhere along the slopes of the ravine.837 Two churches bear the most spolia: Aghios Giorgos (including IG V1 1305, a marble base, a marble grave marker in the shape of a vase on the roof of the apse, and a marble perrhiranterion inside the 837 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 563. 471 church) and Aghios Basileios (carved relief sculpture of palmettes, marble base above the north door, and white columns with grey veins on the interior).838 7.8.2.4 Summary In sum, the archaeological evidence from ancient Oitylos and its surrounding territory has been well-documented, and more systematic excavations have taken place in this region than any other within the study area. The archaeological evidence complements the historical and epigraphic, with evidence from the Classical through Roman periods, but much of the spolia lacks context and is subject to future investigation. 7.9 Discussion & Conclusions The early and middle Roman Imperial sources provide a substantial amount of information about the settlements of Mani. Aside from Pausanias’ text, there are 17 authors (and 22 works) that included mention of Maniate locations in some capacity. The locations of Kinathion, Kaine, the Thyrides and Teuthrone were all referenced for the first time during this period. The name Kinathion survives from two sources (Strabo 8.4.[4]; Dionysius Halicarnassus 1.5067), and it was revealed that Kinaithion bordered on the Thyrides and was named after a companion of Aeneas who died on the voyage to Rome and was buried on a promontory on the Peloponnese close to Kythera; I argued that this promontory is the same site later known as Kainepolis based on the geographic situation and onomastic similarities. Kaine was also mentioned once (Ptolemy 3.16.9), but whether this was also a reference to Kainepolis cannot be confirmed. The name ‘Thyrides’ appeared three times in Strabo (8.2.[2]; 8.4.[4]; 8.5.[1]) and its 838 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 563. 472 description as a cliff exposed to the sea on the Messenian/Asinaean Gulf, and 130 stades from ancient Tainaron all correspond well to the massive plateau known today as Cavo Grosso; the abundance of caves on the sea face of Cavo Grosso likely contributed to the ancient name of Thyrides (‘little windows’). The settlement of Teuthrone was listed as a location in Ptolemy’s Geography (3.16.9), but no further information was given. The now-familiar locations of Asine, Las, Messa, Psamathous, and Oitylos were all given cursory treatment in the early Imperial sources. Strabo’s inclusion of Asine (8.5.[2]) was the only time Asine was included in early Imperial sources, but because of its placement in the text between Psamathous and Gytheio, this is our most secure evidence for the existence and location of Lakonian Asine.839 Las was mentioned four times (Livy 38.30.[7], 38.31.[2]; Strabo 8.5.[3]; Ptolemy 3.16.9), and Livy’s accounts provide a substantial amount of information regarding the settlement, relating that the town and villagers were attacked by the Spartans for its maritime access. Livy recounted that the villagers drove out the Spartans, which can be interpreted as their being unsympathetic to their invaders, who may or may not have controlled this village prior to the invasion. Based on Strabo’s inclusion of Las in his section on towns and villages that no longer exist, I conclude that Las was indeed destroyed by the time of Strabo’s writing at the turn of the 1st century. Messa (probably Messe) was also named in this same passage of Strabo, and he claimed this settlement was ‘nowhere to be seen’. Psamathous was mentioned three times in the early Imperial sources (Strabo 8.5.[2]; Pliny 4.16; Valerius Flaccus 1.363-5), but we learned nothing more than – in addition to being a harbour-site – it may also have been the location of a 839 The placement of Asine between these ancient sites has subsequently lead modern explorers and archaeologists to search for a candidate for ancient Asine in this area - the site currently identified as ancient Asine (Skoutari) fits this situational criterion but there is no additional supporting evidence for this claim. 473 settlement (cf. Pliny oppidum). Finally, Oitylos was included in Strabo’s account (8.4.[1]; 8.4.[4]), in which its physical location (on the Messenian Gulf) was revealed for the first time. As in other historical periods, Tainaron appeared most frequently in the primary sources of this period. In general, Roman-period literary sources included Tainaron in one of two ways: 1) authors whose texts included Tainaron only as a literary trope based on its reputation as a sanctuary, the entrance to Hades, or as a geographically-liminal space (Ovid, Seneca, Statius, Apollodorus, Apuleius, and Plutarch’s Moralia); or 2) authors whose texts described the actual history and/or geography of the site of Tainaron (Strabo, Pomponius Mela, Lucan, Pliny, Plutarch’s Lives, Appian, Ptolemy, and Pausanias). In the first case, I argued that these accounts should not be taken as face-value interpretations of the lived reality at Tainaron. This first category included Plutarch’s Moralia, particularly 560E, in which he said that the Tettix dwelled in Tainaron, where there was a city and psychopompeion. I argued that this location was meant to be understood as within the Underworld itself and not at the actual site of ancient Tainaron, thereby eliminating the long-standing belief in scholarship that an actual building or structure known as a psychopompeion existed at the site of ancient Tainaron. The material-culture from the early-middle Roman Imperial period in Mani presents a far more complex picture of the ancient settlements throughout the peninsula. In the north-east, archaeological and epigraphic evidence together point to a thriving community around the site of Kotronas, which is identified with ancient Teuthrone. The Teuthronian city-ethnic is identified on an inscription from the Arkadian site of Lykosoura, indicating polis-based identity that was recognized and reinforced outside of the peninsula; several related inscriptions enable a prosopographic reconstruction of a prominent multi-generational family dating to the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, including the civic institutions in which various members took part., informing us 474 further as to civic identity through established offices and occupations. The sanctuary of Kionia and the rosso antico marble quarries at Prophitis Ilias are also active during this period, indicating a far more active and prosperous eastern side of the peninsula than the literary sources suggest. In contrast, the site of Tainaron bears almost no archaeological evidence from the Roman period –not necessarily an indication of the abandonment of the site during this time, but an argument for more investigation into the region to further refine the dates for occupation. The nearby site of Kainepolis and the central, inland site of Pyrrichos both seem to come into existence during the Roman period, as attested by literary, archaeological, and epigraphic evidence. The establishment of Pyrrichos as an inland settlement implies a need for or interest in, for the first time in Classical antiquity, cross-peninsular contact and interaction. Moreover, the remainder of the western coast of the peninsula is almost entirely absent in the literary sources, but pockets of standing visible architecture and spolia from antiquity evince a different picture altogether. I have emphasized the need for future investigation already, but in order to fully appreciate the nature and extent of ancient settlement within the peninsula, and to refine the dates for the physical evidence, proper systematic excavations and surveys are required in the future. Finally, much of the Roman-period information about Mani comes from Pausanias’ third book, known generally as Lakonika, which was written in the later decades of the 2nd-century CE, likely circa 165-174 CE.840 To summarize the evidence provided by Pausanias: his Periegesis supplies the most comprehensive commentary on the locations, as well as the topographic features and religious structures of several sites within Mani. His narrative introduced the settlements of Hypsos, Arainos, and Pyrrichos, for the first and only time within 840 Bowie 2001, 21-33; Cartledge 2001, 168. 475 the primary written sources, and the settlement of Hippola which is only mentioned again in Stephanus of Byzantium’s Ethnika.841 Pausanias included information about most of the places already familiar from earlier sources (Achilleios, Kaine/Kainepolis, Las, Messe, Oitylos, Psamathous, Thyrides, and Tainaron), with the glaring exception of Asine, and the less surprising omission of ‘Kinaithion.’ His account provided evidence for the destruction of a portion of the city of Las, as well as seemingly contemporary habitation (3.24.[6-8]). He also, uniquely, indicated that there was no physical subterranean aspect of the cave found at ancient Tainaron (3.25.[4-8]). Unfortunately, in spite of the wealth of information he did gather and present, the vast majority was focused on religious and cult aspects of the settlements in addition to foundation myths; so while we have some information regarding religious identity during the Roman Imperial period, Pausanias did not record much about additional socio-political aspects of the places he visited, nor about the inhabitants (contemporary or historical) thereof, leaving questions of ethnic identity as obscure as previous periods. The only decisively historical figure he included was Philip V of Macedon when describing the coastal attack on Las (3.24.[6-8]) – all the other individuals named are legendary, often in direct connection with the foundation mythologies of the respective settlements (Las:Arainos; Pyrrhos:Pyrrichos; Teuthras:Teuthrone; Oitylos:Oitylon). Perhaps the most valuable details provided by Pausanias involve the physical situation of the places relative to one another throughout the peninsula. By providing a sequential narrative, Pausanias allows the reader to gain a much more detailed picture of the distribution of the settlements of the peninsula during his time; the general order provided by Pausanias 841 The only possible exception is the Suda which includes an entry for some ‘Arainos’ (s.v. Ἀραῖνος: ὄνοµα ποταµοῦ). 476 corresponds to the geographic realities of the situation of archaeological remains throughout the coastal region of the peninsula. In the same book of his Periegesis, Pausanias also provided one of the most important passages for reconstructing the political structure of the settlements of Mani from the Hellenistic period onward. In this passage, Pausanias listed the cities that belonged to the League of the Free Lakonians, cities that were notably independent from Sparta: 3.21.[7]: ἀριθµὸς δὲ τῶν Ἐλευθερολακώνων ὀκτὼ πόλεις καὶ δέκα εἰσί, πρώτη µὲν καταβᾶσιν ἐξ Αἰγιῶν ἐπὶ θάλασσαν Γύθιον, µετὰ δὲ αὐτὴν Τευθρώνη τε καὶ Λᾶς καὶ Πύρριχος, ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ δὲ Καινήπολις Οἴτυλός τε καὶ Λεῦκτρα καὶ Θαλάµαι …. αὗται µὲν οὖν εἰσιν αἱ λοιπαὶ τῶν Ἐλευθερολακώνων ἀπὸ τεσσάρων ποτὲ καὶ εἴκοσι πόλεων: τὰς δὲ ἄλλας, ἐφ᾽ ἃς ἂν καὶ αὐτὰς ὁ λόγος ἐπέλθῃ δή µοι, συντελούσας ἴστω τις ἐς Σπάρτην καὶ οὐχ ὁµοίως τοῖς προλεχθεῖσιν αὐτονόµους. 3.21.[7]: The cities of the Free Lakonians are eighteen in number, and the first, coming down from Aegiae to the sea, [is] Gythion, after it [are] Teuthrone and Las and Pyrrhichos, and on/near Tainaron [are] Kainepolis, Oitylos, Leuktra, Thalamai… These are the remainder of the formerly twenty-four cities of the Free Lakonians: And the rest [of the cities], about which my account will indeed go through, it must be remembered [that] they belong to Sparta and are not similarly autonomous to those mentioned beforehand. Beyond this passage, not much information is known about the ‘League of the Free Lakonians’. The history of this group can be tentatively traced back to the Hellenistic period and connected to the existence of a predecessor group – the so-called ‘Lakonian’ or ‘Lakedaimonian League’ – about which equally little is known. Kennell suggested that the formation of the earliest iteration of the League dated to the end of the reign of Nabis (192 BCE), when the weakened Spartan state was forced to join the Achaean League, while the newly freed perioikoi, their cities, and the helots formed the Lakedaimonian League.842 Following this narrative, the Romans then freed Sparta from the Achaean League in 146 BCE, after which time the 842 Kennell 2010, 180. Kennell uses Lakedaimonian League and Lakonian League interchangeably. 477 Lakedaimonian League continued to exist and the member cities continued to enjoy their autonomy, and many of the perks thereof.843 We hear nothing about the activities of the Lakedaimonian League until the end of the Hellenistic/Republican period. Kennell argued that Octavian granted the Spartan Eurykles Roman citizenship and “control over the cities of the Lacedaimonian League” in return for his alliance (to Octavian) during the battle of Actium; there is, in my opinion, insufficient evidence for Eurykles’ control of this League.844 However, Kennell’s narrative does satisfy a discrepancy in the chronology: Pausanias credited Augustus with ‘liberating’ some cities from Sparta, at which time a new (or variant) League was formed, the ‘Free’ Lakonians (Eleutherolakonians): 3.21.[6]: Γύθιον δὲ ἀπέχει µὲν σταδίους τριάκοντα Αἰγιῶν, ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ δὲ ᾠκισµένον ἔστιν ἤδη τῶν Ἐλευθερολακώνων, οὓς βασιλεὺς Αὔγουστος δουλείας ἀφῆκε Λακεδαιµονίων τῶν ἐν Σπάρτῃ κατηκόους ὄντας. 3.21.[6]: Gytheio is thirty stades distant from Aigion, settled upon the sea it is presently of the Eleutherolakonians, whom the king Augustus set free from slavery, [they] being subject to the Lakedaimonians in Sparta. If the cities were ‘liberated’ from the Spartans by Augustus, then at some point between the formation of the Lakedaimonian League circa 192 BCE and the Augustan-period events mentioned in this passage, the Free Cities had to have been returned to Spartan rule. Bowersock believed this liberation occurred immediately following the battle of Actium (31 BCE) because Strabo “refers without comment to Eleutherolaconians [which] would be surprising if they had become free just before he was writing”, but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence in 843 Perks such as proxenoi and a treasury. Kennell 2010, 182; IG V.1 961, 965, 1112, 1113, 1226, 1227; Cartledge and Spawforth 2001, 91. 844 Kennell 2010 (184) provided the inscription SEG 29 383 as evidence for Roman citizenship (an honorary base found at Boiai). Kennell also cited Strabo 8.5.[1] and 8.5.[5], the former of which he used as evidence for Spartan control of the League based on the phrase ἣν ἔσχεν Εὐρυκλῆς ἐν µέρει κτήσεως ἰδίας ὁ καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων ἡγεµών, which I argue could refer simply to Eurycles’ position of power in Sparta itself. Indeed, Kennell himself stated that Eurycles was “installed in power in Sparta”; it seems as though the evidence from this line of Strabo for both power at Sparta AND control over the Lakedaimonian League is wanting. 478 Strabo’s writings to draw that conclusion.845 Cartledge and Spawforth claimed that the liberation occurred as a result of the desertion and execution of Eurykles (shortly before c. 2 BCE).846 They also pointed out that because the re-establishment of Spartan control over the Free Cities occurred after 146 BCE, then “Sparta could only have reasserted her old dominion over Laconia with Roman approval.”847 One option to rectify this timeline would be to discredit Pausanias’ testimony as incorrect or misinformed, but inscriptions found in Gytheio may corroborate this event, since they “portray Augustus and Tiberius as the restorers of the city's 'ancient freedom' and posthumously hail the former as 'Eleutherius'”848; to be clear, however, one inscription (IG V,1 1160) states that Καίσα̣ρος restored the city to its ancient freedom ([— — — — — Σεβασ]- τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ Καίσα̣ρος [ὑὸν] ἡ πόλις ἀποκατασ[τή] σαντα µετὰ τοῦ πατ̣[ρὸς] τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἐλευ̣[θ]ε̣ρία̣ν.̣ Vacat), while another inscription (SEG xi 923) from c. 15 CE refers to Augustus as Σεβαστοῦ Σωτῆρος Ἐλευθερίου. Ultimately, the evidence is sparse and the exact history of the Eleutherolakonian League is fraught with chronological complications.; in terms of political identities there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the settlements of Mani were ever ‘controlled’ by either Sparta or Rome, despite the fact that they were certainly situated within the political territory of Lakonia, which was evidently coveted by both superpowers. There is literary evidence that following the death of Eurykles, his son, Lakon, inherited the role of euergetes for certain of the Eleutherolakonian cities – Asopos, Boiai, and Gytheio, specifically. However, the little information we have regarding the Eleutherolakonian cities rarely includes any detail 845 Strabo 8.5.[5]. Bowersock 1965, 92n2; Lindsay 1992 (292) read that Strabo himself “associates this development with the fall of Eurycles”. 846 Cartledge and Spawforth 2001, 92; Kienast 2006; Bowersock’s (1965, 92 n2) stance on the subject disagrees with this argument because “Augustus would hardly have satisfied the angry family of Brasidas, which brought Eurycles to trial, by depriving Sparta of her league.” 847 Cartledge and Spawforth 2001, 91. 848 Ibid. 479 whatsoever about the cities within Inner Mani, particularly in contrast with other nearby perioikic settlements.849 This is surprising given the fact that Lakon is actually named as euergetes on an inscription from the site of Kainepolis (IG V,1 1243). Despite the confusion surrounding the establishment (and/or re-establishment) of the Free Lakonian cities, let alone the absence of further evidence for those cities which lay within Inner Mani, Pausanias’ passage above informs us that at least five cities within Inner Mani are still members of the Eleutherolakones during the time of his writing: Teuthrone, Las, Pyrrichos, Kainepolis, and Oitylos. Tainaron is only mentioned as a geographic marker of sorts, and Pausanias categorized the cities of Kainepolis and Oitylos as ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ - either on or near Tainaron. This separation between Teuthrone, Las, Pyrrichos (and Gytheio) from Kainepolis and Oitylos (and Leuktra and Kardamyle) corresponds to the geographic separation of the eastern and western sides of the peninsula, respectively. This conceptual division between the eastern and western halves isn’t surprising given that the Taygetos mountain range effectively bisects the Mani peninsula. What is notable, however, is that Tainaron itself is not listed as a member of the league itself, only as a landmark for the other settlements. I believe this contributes to the evidence for Tainaron’s role as a neutral location, since it is never categorized as one of the Free Cities or as one of the places that remained under Spartan rule; its omission from the Eleutherolakonian League reflects the fact that it never belonged to Sparta, rather than an indication of persistent Spartan control. 849 See, for example, the extension of Spartan territory during the time of Pausanias’ writing, Cartledge and Spawforth 2001 (126-8), for which we have information about the Free Lakonian towns of Helos, Pleiai, and Thuria, but nothing whatsoever about the settlements in Inner Mani. 480 Chart 7-1: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources – bar graph Chart 7-2: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources – pie graph 481 Chart 7-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron – Roman Imperial period bar graph Chart 7-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron – Roman Imperial period pie graph 482 Chart 7-5: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources including Pausanias – pie graph Chart 7-6: Frequency of sites named in Roman Imperial sources including Pausanias – bar graph 483 A B C D 484 Figure 7-39 a-g: Distribution maps for Roman Imperial evidence (clockwise from top left). Previous page: a) all categories of evidence including entries in appendices (Tainaron in literary uses); b) all categories of evidence excluding entries in appendices (Tainaron in literary uses); c) written evidence including entries in appendices (Tainaron in literary sources); d) written evidence excluding entries in appendices (Tainaron in literary sources); ehis page: e) epigraphic evidence; f) archaeological evidence; g) marble exploitation evidence. E F G 485 Chapter 8: The Mani Peninsula in the Late Roman Imperial and Early Byzantine Period (3rd – 6th century CE) 8.1 Introduction To conclude this examination of the Inner Mani peninsula and its inhabitants in antiquity, I now turn to the final chapter on ancient evidence, in which I discuss the relevant primary sources, inscriptions, and archaeological material that date from the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE. The most comprehensive written source from late antiquity is the 6th century CE work of Stephanus of Byzantium (aka Stephanus Byzantinus/Stephanos Byzantios): a geographical dictionary known as the Ethnika, which only survives from the later (sometime between the 6th – 10th century CE) epitome by Hermolaus.850 The Ethnika listed place-names alphabetically and included entries for Asine, Achilleios851, Hippola, Las, Messe/Messoa, Oitylos, Tainaron and Psamathous. Notably absent are the places Arainos, Kainepolis, Pyrrichos, Teuthrone, and Hypsos, all of which were included to some degree within the early-to-middle Imperial period sources. One hallmark of Stephanus’ work is that it included references to earlier works, many of which are lost today; an analysis of these authors and their works – to the extent that they provide information on the settlements and places within Mani – is included in this chapter for ease of reference and convenience. Their inclusion on the master list of all historic and written references (and their corresponding charts) falls within their respective time periods for more 850 Schumacher 1993, 52. 851 Stephanus’ entry for Achilleios is not explicitly for the location on the Mani peninsula, so it is not included within the commentary. The entry (Meineke 1849, 152) reads: Ἀχιλλειος δρόµος, νῆσος µετὰ τὴν Ταυρικήν. ἔστι καὶ νῆσος ’Αχίλλεια, ὡς δ’ἔνιοι Λευκή, …….καὶ κώµη καὶ λιµὴν Μεσσήνης …τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀχιλλειώτης καὶ Ἀχιλλείτης δύναται εἶναι καὶ Ἀχιλλειοδροµίτης. The closest geographic association is the ‘kome and harbour of Messene’, but no other ancient source mentions an Achilleios in Messene, so whether Stephanus is conflating the Maniate Achilleios with this one, or another place entirely, is unclear. Hesychius (s.v. Ἀχίλλειον πλάκα) has a similar entry: τὴν Ἀχιλλέως νῆσον, τὴν Λεύκην λεγοµένην (trag. ad. 202) <εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ <Ἀχιλλέως δρόµοι> περὶ ταύτην τὴν νῆσον>. 486 accurate representation. For example, Artemidoros of Ephesus’ passage is discussed under Stephanus’ entry for Psamathous below, but Artemidoros can be found in the master list within the category of the Hellenistic/Republican period. Stephanus’ entries852 and translations are included within the relevant discussions of each settlement, below. 8.2 The North-East 8.2.1 Written Evidence Stephanus provides entries for the ancient places of Las and Asine, but his written evidence for these sites is the only relevant information from late antiquity – there are no identifiable inscriptions or archaeological remains that have been conclusively dated to this period anywhere north of modern Kotronas. 8.2.1.1 Las Lᾶ, πόλις Λακωνική. Λυκόφρων “καὶ Λᾶν περήσεις”853. Ταύτην ἑλόντες οἱ Διόσκουροι Λαπέρσαι ἐκλήθησαν. λὲγεται καὶ ἀρσενικῶς. Ταύτην διαλύσας Ὅµηρός φησιν “οἵ τε Λάαν εἶχον, ἠδ’ Οἴτυλον ἀµφενέµοντο.”854 Κεῖται δὲ ἐπὶ πέτρας ὑψηλῆς, διὸ Λᾶ καλεῖται. Οἱ οἰκοῦντες Λᾶοι.855 La, Lakonian polis. Lykopron said “and you will pass through Las”. After the Dioskouroi conquered this [city] they were called Lapersai. And it is spoken [of in the] masculine. Homer solves this [contraction in the name and]856 said “Those [men] who held Laas, and dwelled around Oitylos.” And it lies upon a high rock, as a result of which is it called La. Those who live [there are] Laoi. The confusion as to whether Las should be declined in the masculine (ὁ Λᾶς) or feminine (ἡ Λᾶ) was clearly noticed by the ancient authors.857 Stephanus’ description of the location of the 852 The Greek text is from Meineke, 1849. 853 See Chapter 6; Lykoprohon, Alexandra 95. 854 See Chapter 4; Homer, Il. 2.585. 855 Meineke 1849, 404. 856 Translation here based on Billerbeck 2014, 259. 857 Shipley 2004, 584. 487 city on a high rock corresponds well with Pausanias’ account of the older settlement of Las situated on Mount Asia.858 Las is specifically referred to as a polis here (cf. Pseudo-Skylax 46).859 8.2.1.2 Asine ’Ασίνη, πόλις Λαχωνικὴ ἀπὸ Ἀσίνης θυγατρὸς Λακεδαίµονος. Δευτέρα Μεσσήνης παρὰ τὴν Λαχωνικήν, οἰκισθείσα ὑπὸ Ἀργείων. Τρίτη Κύπρου. Τετάρτη Κιλικίας. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἀσιναῖος καὶ Ἀσινεύς, καθὼς860 Εὔδοξος ἐν ἕκτῃ γῆς περιόδου861. Asine, Lakonian polis [named] from Asine, the daughter of Lakedaimon. The second (Asine) [is] Messenian near Lakonike, founded by the Argives. The third (Asine) [in] Cyprus. The fourth [in] Cilicia. The ethnic [is] Asinaios and Asineus, according to Eudoxos in the 6th [book] of the ‘description of the world’862. The association between Asine and Lakedaimon as mythological figures is unattested elsewhere, but this relationship strengthens the mythological connection between Sparta and the settlement of Asine in Mani; the other ‘persons’ related to Lakedaimon include his mother, Taygete (after whom he names the Taygetos mountains), his spouse, Sparte, his son, Amyklas (who founded the nearby city of Amyklai) and his predecessor, Eurotas (after whom the river is named).863 Clearly, at the time of Stephanus’ writing, the Asine within Lakonian Mani is the most important, as it is listed first and given an etiology. Asine here is specifically called a polis, which it is not anywhere else.864 858 See Chapter 7: Paus. 3.2.4[6]. 859 See also Hesychius (s.v. λααν): *λίθον (Eur. Phoen. 1157) Avgn. ἢ ὁρᾶν. ῥηγµίν. Πόλις καὶ θυλάκιον, ἐν ᾧ οἱ ἡνίοχοι τὰς µάστιγας ἀποτίθενται (S), τινὲς δὲ µάστιγα [καὶ λίθον] 860 The original text is unclear, and there is a possibility that the reading should be κακῶς ὡς; Billerbeck 2008, 275. 861 Meineke 1849, 131. 862 For Eudoxus, see Laserre 1966, 114 (no 316). 863 Frey 2006; Paus. 3.1.[2]; Pseudo-Plutarch 17. 864 Unless perhaps one considers the entry in Hesychius (s.v. Ἀσίνη: ἢ πόλις) to refer to the settlement in Mani as well. 488 Although Stephanus does not mention ancient Teuthrone, if that site is indeed to be identified with the region around modern Kotronas, it is clear that there was still a thriving population in the later years of the Roman Imperial period. 8.2.2 Epigraphic Evidence An inscription found on the Skopas peninsula is one of the longest extant inscriptions from the region (IG V,1 1222; SEG 23 198). It is the white marble funerary epitaph of a woman named Sosikratia, who died in childbirth in the late 2nd/early 3rd century CE.865 Pfohl’s 1959 edition is as follows: ἠέλιον προλιποῦσα φαεσ[φό]ρον εἰς Ἀχέροντα Σωσικράτει’ ἔµολον, ⟨πα⟩τρὶ συνεσποµένη; κουρίδιον προλιποῦσα πόσιν καὶ µητέρα λυγράν ἤλυθον εἰς Ἀίδην, πένθος ἀφεῖσα δόµοις. ὀκτωκαιδεκέτη δὲ χρόνον ζήσασα κατ’ ἦµαρ οὐκ εἶσχυσα λιπεῖν σπέρµα φίλῳ γαµέτῃ, βαστάζουσα βρέφος κατὰ νή⟨δυ⟩ος, ὃ γλυκὺ φέγγος [ἠελίου κα]τιδεῖν ο̣ὐχ ἔ[λαχεν σὺν ἐµοί]. The translation of the inscription is as follows (based on the translation by Pfohl): “I Sosikrateia left the bright sun and went to Acheron, following [my] father; I, leaving [my] marriage, and [my] sad mother, came to Hades, grieving for my home. Life was given to me for eighteen years to the day; I could not leave a child behind for my dear husband, thοugh the baby was in my womb, but it was not fated to gaze in the sun’s sweet light with me.” From this moving epitaph, we learn that Sosikrateia probably died in childbirth, perhaps even on her own birthday.866 The name Sosikrateia occurred relatively infrequently in antiquity, and the majority of instances are localized within Attica, Boeotia, and Phokis. Wilhelm studied 865 Peek 1955, 991; Pfohl 1959, 195. 866 Wilhelm, 1909, 169 (#146) drew this conclusion based on the convention κατ’ ἦµαρ to indicate that she died on her own birthday. 489 this stele in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, but neither Peek nor Pfohl mentioned where they studied the stone, and its current location is unknown. Moreover, although the IG entry states that it was found on the island of Skopa (inventa in insula Scopa), and both Peek and Pfohl include its findspot as “Teuthrone, Lakonien”, Wilhelm did not include a place of origin for the inscription, and even went so far as to suggest that it may have been from the island of Amorgos, based on the fact that several similar epigrams have been found there.867 If the stele did in fact come from Skopas, it is significant to note that Acheron is included here to refer to the entrance to the Underworld/Hades, and not Tainaron. Based on this, I would repeat my conclusions about Tainaron from previous chapters: that, by the 2nd century CE (and likely well before this), the association of Tainaron with the Underworld are made largely for literary purposes rather than any actual perceived connection between Tainaron and the Underworld, even by the residents of the Mani peninsula themselves. The only other contemporary inscription from the region was recently discovered and published by Moschou. In her 2001-2004 article, Moschou reported the discovery of two 3rd-century CE statues of Kybele (copies of Classical-Hellenistic Greek originals), one of which is reported to bear an inscription indicating that the statue was a thank-offering (εὐχαριστήριον) to the Great Mother of the Gods (SEG 60-417). Both statues were found to the north-east of Kotronas in the area of Makria, and are reportedly within the collections of the Archaeological Museum of Gytheio today, although neither has been published.868 In this same area of Makria/Makrina, Moschou observed foundations of ancient temple under an unnamed church.869 867 Wilhelm 1909, 170. 868 Moschou 2001-2004, 309. On page 308, Moschou also noted that two inscribed stelae were found near a Roman tomb at Aghios Nikon, but no further details were given, and the inscriptions have not been published further. 869 Ibid. 490 Figure 8-1: Rectangular Roman structure on the coast of Kotronas. Photo by author. Within the mainland settlement of modern Kotronas there is a substantial amount of surviving archaeological evidence of occupation during the period of late antiquity. The southeastern region of Kotronas (directly across from Skopas; Figure 7-8:6) is an inhabited area, and the majority of visible remains of antiquity are located on private property. For example, on the property of the Rizeakou family (Figure 7-8:6a), Moschou reported a large apsed building with a 2nd-3rd century CE mosaic, a small Roman monument with Doric columns, and a late antique vaulted building.870 On the southern coast of this property are the remains of at least one ancient Roman brick structure that is dangerously close to eroding into the sea; it may have once been a cistern since there is hydraulic mortar still visible on the surface. It measures approximately 2.5m x 2.5m (Figure 8-1). To the immediate northwest of this structure is another square structure (approximately 4.5 x 4.2 m) that I was unable to access because of the private ownership of the property. 870 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 306. It is unclear whether this is the same location wherein Le Roy (1961, 218 and Figures 7 & 8) noted mosaic fragments and a Doric column drum, since he only says ‘near the village in a little field.’ The inscription SEG 22 306 (/60 416) was also found here. 491 On a nearby property belonging the Kyriakakou family (Figure 7-8:6b) are the remains of a brick bath complex that dates to the 3rd-4th century CE: features of this complex include marble slab flooring in one chamber, mosaic floors elsewhere, a large circular hall and a hypocaust system which was still visible in the 19th century.871 Le Roy saw the room covered with marble slabs and provided a photo.872 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson may have seen this same room, which they called the frigidarium, and described as follows: “The floor is of white plaster, and the lower part of the walls is lined with white marble. The walls themselves are entirely made of tile courses with cement bonding.”873 According to Delivorrias, future work was planned for this complex to determine its extent and occupation history, but this seems never to have taken place.874 This property is inaccessible today, but marble architectural members are visible in a modern building as well as in the retaining wall above the road to the beach area. Just to the north of the church of Aghios Nikolaos (Figure 7-8:1e), Moschou claimed the presence of an ancient necropolis that was incorporated into the modern (18th-19th century) cemetery, through evidence of funerary monuments, gravestones, and ceramics. In this same area, Moschou said the north wall of the church of Zoodochos Pigi was built on a Late Roman structure, which she dated by the rubble-and-brick masonry and semicircular apses.875 In the coastal area called Chalichias, Moschou recorded “large vessels for household use submerged in the sand at a depth of 0.80-1m.”876 Just 50 m to the north were foundations of late Roman buildings. Apparently, these foundations were partially visible until they were destroyed 871 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 306. Forster and Woodward (1906/7, 256-257) did not actually see the hypocaust system but recorded that “peasants found several years ago the remains (to judge from local descriptions) of a brick hypocaust; had all been covered up again and not destroyed.” 872 Le Roy 1961, 218 and Figure 7. 873 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 119 & n36. 874 Delivorrias 1968, 154. SEG 31 337 is from this site. 875 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 304. 876 Moschou 2001-2004 [2012], 305. 492 in the 1980’s during the construction of a modern seawall or breakwater. In this area Moschou found several sherds of “high quality and abundant ceramics” and concluded that this was a pottery workshop but did not provide details about the location, or the types and/or dates of the ceramics.877 In the area southwest of Skourka hill and east of gorge that divides the towns of modern Kotronas and modern Phlomochori878 is a small church, Aghios Nikon, that is built of architectural members dating to the late Roman period. Next to it are the remains of a robbed, two-room tomb of late Roman period with two uninscribed funerary stele and small finds including fragments of glass, bronze, and Roman sherds.879 This church was ruined when Moschou published her study, but has been rebuilt today. Despite the lack of contemporary historical sources that pertain to the north-eastern region of Mani in late antiquity, it is clear from the robust epigraphic and archaeological record that the area around modern Kotronas was inhabited in the late Roman period. As is the case with many of the sites of interest throughout Mani, however, the history of occupation here requires further refinement through future investigations into the region. 8.3 The East Coast The sole testimony for late Roman activity along the eastern coast of Mani is at the coastal site of Spira Hill, where Moschou et al. noted that within the church of Aghios Strategos, an Ionic capital, drums, and bases from the late Roman period are kept. Unfortunately, the 877 Ibid. 878 This is presumably Moschou’s area 11 on her Map 59, although this is never explicitly stated. 879 Le Roy 1965, 378 and Figures 15-17 (Aghios Nikon) & 18-20 (tomb); Moschou (2001-2004 [2012], 308) repeated all this info from Le Roy but she believed that the foundations of the church were late Roman as opposed to Le Roy’s belief they were the remains of an early Christian basilica. 493 location of this church is unknown.880 Finally, the Prophitis Ilias quarries may have been in use throughout the late Roman period, and into the early Byzantine period (see p. 522, below). 8.4 The South 8.4.1 Written Evidence for Psamathous Stephanus included a passage from Artemidoros of Ephesus’ original work, which mentioned Psamathous: Ψαµαθοῦς, πόλις Λακωνική. Ἀρτεµίδωρος δευτέρῳ γεωγραφουµένων “µετὰ γὰρ τὸ Ταίναρον πόλις ἐκδέχεται Ψαµαθοῦς”. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ψαµαθούντιος καὶ Ψαµαθούσιος, ὡς Σελινούντιος καὶ Σελινούσιος.881 Psamathous, Lakonian polis. In the second [book] of Artemidoros [of Ephesus’] Geographic Descriptions: “for after Tainaron Psamathous, a polis, comes next.” The ethnic Psamathountian and Psamathousian, just as Selinountian and Selinousian. Artemidoros’ 11-book Geographic Descriptions only survives in the works of later authors, such as this case with Psamathous. Artemidoros’ exact dates are not known, but he is thought to have lived somewhere between the late 2nd century BCE and the early 1st century BCE.882 Curiously, Stephanus wrote that this information about Psamathous was found in Artemidoros’ second book, which is on the region of Hispania. Even more strange, Stiehle included it in a section on islands around Hispania (insulae circa Hispaniam), but described Psamathous as “next to Tainaron”.883 Psamathous here is specifically called a polis (cf. Strabo 8.5.[2]; Pliny 4.16 ‘oppida’). 880 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 277: the altar-table is held up by an unfluted column. The location of this church is unclear, since the authors say both Spira and Kozounas, in the Pagianika-Kokkala zone. 881 Meineke 1849, 700. 882 Banchich 2010. 883 Stiehle 1856, 205 (no.28). 494 8.4.2 Written and Epigraphic Evidence for Tainaron With the exception of Stephanus, all the late Imperial and Byzantine sources use Tainaron either as a literary construct (i.e. metonymically for the Underworld: Aelian F 180, Sidonius, Prudentius, Boethius), or to repeat legendary stories from centuries earlier (Aelian 6.7), and thus do not provide much insight into the existence of Tainaron during this late period. 8.4.2.1 Aelian Aelian’s Historical Miscellany (Varia Historia) was written at the beginning of the 3rd century CE, and includes stories and anecdotes from various points in history (hence the title). In Book 6, he discussed the Spartans, and included a short excerpt about the earthquake that devastated the city in 464 BCE: 6.[7]: Ὅτε οἱ Λακεδαιµόνιοι τοὺς ἐκ Ταινάρου ἱκέτας παρασπονδήσαντες ἀνέστησαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν (ἦσαν δὲ οἱ ἱκέται τῶν εἱλώτων), κατὰ µῆνιν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος σεισµὸς ἐπιπεσὼν τῇ Σπάρτῃ τὴν πόλιν ἀνδρειότατα κατέσεισεν, ὡς πέντε µόνας ἀπολειφθῆναι οἰκίας ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς πόλεως. 6.[7]: When the Lakedaimonians, having broken the treaty, raised the suppliants up from Tainaron and killed them (the suppliants were helots), on account of the wrath of Poseidon an earthquake, having fallen upon Sparta, shook down the city most powerfully, so that only five houses were left from the entire city. This passage reiterates information found within earlier texts, including Aristophanes (Acharn. 509-11), Thucydides (1.1.28.[1]), and Pausanias (4.24.[5-6]; 7.25.[3]). Aelian, like Thucydides, specifically categorized the murdered suppliants as helots, whereas Pausanias called them Lakedaimonians. In this passage Aelian quantified the devastation in Sparta but, given the chronological disparity between the events in 464 BCE and the writing of his Varia Historia in the 3rd century CE, these details were likely included for dramatic effect and should not be taken as historical fact. 495 A second fragment of Aelian contains another version of the story of Archilochus' murderer, Corax, and his journey to Tainaron, (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 560e), which was discussed extensively in the previous chapter. Aelian’s passage is as follows: F 180: καὶ ταῦτα ὁ θεὸς οἰκτείρει καὶ αὐτὸν κελεύει ἐλθεῖν εἰς Ταίναρον, ἔνθα Τέττιξ τέθαπται, καὶ µειλίξασθαι τὴν τοῦ Τελεσικλείου παιδὸς ψυχὴν καὶ πραΰναι χοαῖς. F 180: And the god took pity on him for this and bade him go to Taenarus where Tettix had been buried and appease the soul of the son of Telesicles and soothe him with libations.884 The wording employed in this passage clarifies the argument I presented in Chapter 7 regarding Plutarch’s Moralia passage 560e, namely that Tettix should be understood as inhabiting (and buried within) the Underworld. The action of meeting with/encountering souls would naturally have taken place in the Underworld, as it does in so many narratives from antiquity. 8.4.2.2 3rd century CE Epigraphic Evidence There is one 3rd-century inscription that survives from Tainaron, the sole example of late Roman epigraphic evidence. This inscription is only the second example of a funerary inscription from Tainaron, and contains the epigram of an oikonomos who lived to the age of 65 years (IG V,1 1235; SEG 26 467). His grave stele is the only such example from Tainaron which survives today; it is carved on white marble, and is currently in British Museum (1843,0531.8, Figure 8-2):885 πέντε καὶ ἑξή- 884 12 Suda (s.v. Ἀρχίλοχος) = Aelian. fr. 180 (Hercher 1864), fr. 183 (Domingo-Forasté 1994). 885 Newton 1874, 8 (CXLVI). Not included in this commentary is a stele purported to have been found near the village ‘Trochalia’ with the inscription ‘Τινδαριν’; this inscription is only heard of by Moschou (1975, 162; SEG 48-479) and reportedly destroyed. 496 Figure 8-2: BM 1843,0531.8 (IG V,1 1235) ©Trustees of the British Museum κοντα ἐτῶν µέ- γα σῆµα καλύπτει Εὔτυχον οἰκονό- µον πολλὴν φιλί- ην πορίσαντα. Raffeiner dates this inscription to the 3rd century CE, because in the Roman period the oikonomos (the one who manages a house) is a title given to a private individual, in this case probably a former slave who had earned the position (and the praise and respect of his master) through “prudence and reliability”886; the lunate sigmas and rounded omegas support a late Roman date. The findspot is only noted by Pouqueville 170 (X) as “À Asomatos ou Liternes, dans la Magne.”887 This inscription is the sole evidence for activity at the site of Tainaron during the late Imperial period. 886 Raffeiner 1977, 62; Newton 1874, 8. 887 Pouqueville 1821, 170. 497 8.4.2.3 Prudentius In the late 4th century CE, Tainaron was still principally associated with the Underworld in the literary sources, as evidenced through Prudentius’ Divination of Christ: 749-750: ubi Taenara tristia vasto in praeceps deiecta chao… 749-750: Where is the gloomy Taenarum that plunges down precipitously into the desolation of blackness…888 In this passage, Tainaron is probably used metonymically for the Underworld, but one could also interpret its role here as the entrance to Hades instead. 8.4.2.4 Sidonius In Sidonius’ Panegyric on Anthemius, written in the 2nd half of the 5th century CE, Tainaron is unquestionably used metonymically for the Underworld, in the context of Orpheus’ journey to Hades: 163-4: Taenaron hic frustra bis rapta coniuge pulsat Thrax fidibus… 163-4: There also is the Thracian (Orpheus), whose wife has twice been snatched from him; vainly he beats upon the portal of Taenarus with the throbs of his lyre…889 Neither of these passages which use Tainaron as a metonym for Hades are included in the relevant addendum because of their later dates. 8.4.2.5 Boethius Another account of Orpheus’ journey to the Underworld is included in Boethius’ 6th century CE Consolation of Philosophy: 26: Deflet Taenara commovens 888 Translation Thomson 1949, 175. 889 Translation Anderson 1936, 238. 498 26: He (Orpheus) weeps, agitating Taenarians890 In Boethius’ text, the demonym ‘Taenarians’ [sic] is used for the people inhabiting the Underworld – or perhaps Orpheus is weeping so loudly that he is disturbing those inhabiting the world of the living, up on the earthly site of Tainaron. In either case, the passage, like those presented above, does not provide any information regarding the nature of the sanctuary during late Antiquity. 8.4.2.6 Stephanus of Byzantium Stephanus’ 6th century CE account is as follows: Ταίναρος, πόλις, ἀπὸ Ταινάρου τοῦ Γεραίστου µὲν ἀδελφοῦ, Διὸς δὲ παιδός. ὅς πλέων οὺν Καλάβρῳ τῳ ἀδελφῳ καὶ τόπον τῆς Πελοποννήσου καταλαβών τινα Ποσειδῶνος ἱερὸν ἱδρύσατο, ὅ καλεῖται Ταίναρον. ἔστι καὶ Ταίναρος ὁ Ἰκαρίου υἱός “ἀφ’ οὖ καλεῖται ἡ πόλις καὶ ἡ ἄκρα καὶ ὁ λιµήν.”891 Λέγεται δὲ ἀρσενικῶς καὶ θηλυκῶς. Λέγεται καὶ Ταινάριος καὶ Ταιναρία καὶ Ταινάριου. Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ Ταινάριοι θήβαι (Jacoby = θήκαι), ὡς Χάραξ ἐν Ἐλλενικῶν β. λέγεται καὶ ταιναρίζειν, ὡς Ἕρµιππος Θεοῖς “καί σέ τι χρὴ παραταιναρίζειν;” Ὦρος δέ φησιν ἐν τῇ ὀρθογραφίᾳ “Ταίναρον· πεδίον τῆς Λακωνικῆς, καὶ Ταιναρῖται οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ”.892 Tainaron, city, [named] after Tainaros the brother of Geraistos, son of Zeus. While sailing with [his] brother Kalabros and arriving at a certain place in the Peloponnese, he dedicated the temple of Poseidon, which he called Tainaron. There is also Tainaros, the [grand]son of Ikarios, “after whom the city and the promontory and the harbour are named”. It is said [that the toponym is both] masculine and feminine. And they use [the forms] Tainarios and Tainaria and Tainariou. And there are the Tainarian tombs, according to Charax in the second book of the Hellenika. And they use [the verb] tainarizein (‘to celebrate the Tainaria/festival of Tainaron’), according to Hermippos’ The Gods: “But why must you celebrate the Tainaria [in such a way]?” And Oros said in the Orthography: “Tainaron, plain of Lakonike, and those Tainaristai in it.” Stephanus’ work is the first and only that connects the legendary figure of Geraistos with a so-called brother by the name of Tainaros. In doing so, Stephanus’ work provides a link between Geraistos, Tainaros, a third brother Kalabros (Jacoby = Kalauros), and their father, 890 Alternative translation Stewart, Rand, & Tester 1973, 309: “Make his laments; he moves Taenarian hearts…”. 891 The direct quote is from Pherekydes F39; the first three sentences here concerning Tainaron are repeated verbatim from Herodianos of Antioch, De prosodia catholica 3.1.194.7 (Lentz 1867). 892 Meineke 1849, 598. 499 Zeus. Schumacher’s article examined the relationship between the three ‘brothers’ and their eponymous sanctuaries to (their uncle) Poseidon at Geraistos (southern Euboea), Tainaron, and Kalaureia (Troizen), respectively, but it is important to note that this fraternal connection is not made elsewhere, and the late date of Stephanus’ writing must be taken into account.893 The only other link made between Tainaron and Kalaureia in the ancient sources is the passage of Ephoros (vis Strabo 8.6.[14], F 150) which describes Poseidon and Apollo exchanging Delos and Delphi for Kalaureia and Tainaron, respectively; this, however, only really reinforces the connection between Poseidon and his two sanctuaries at Kalaureia and Tainaron, not any special link between Kalaureia and Tainaron themselves (other than the fact that each is sacred to Poseidon). Several scholarly works base their arguments for an intimate connection between these three Poseidon sanctuaries (Geraistos, Kalaureia, and Tainaron) on this passage of Stephanus alone, and while there is something to be said about the natural maritime route between these three places – all located on coastal promontories – there is simply not sufficient information beyond this passage to prove that there was any additional connection between the three places.894 The alternative etymology given by Stephanus in this passage, that Tainaros was the son of Ikarios, is a direct quote of Pherekydes (F 39) who said that the father of Tainaros was Elatos, son of Ikarios. In his entry for Tainaron, Stephanus also provided information from the now-lost works of Charax of Pergamon (Hellenika), Hermippos (Theoi), and Oros (Orthographia). Charax of Pergamon was a historian who lived during the 2nd century CE, and whose works do not survive. With regard to this passage in his History of Greece (Hellenika), Squillace remarked only that 893 Schumacher 1993. 894 Schumacher 1993; Vian 1944, 1952. 500 “The information on Tainaros [sic] was probably included in a study by Charax of the history of Sparta and Laconia”, and he made no attempt to explain the mention of ‘tombs.’895 Hermippos was a comic poet writing in the 5th century BCE.896 His line included in Stephanus alludes to the existence of a festival called the ‘Tainaria’, which I have discussed already (Eupolis F 149; Aristophanes Acharnians 509-511). On this subject, Hesychius the grammarian (5th – 6th c. CE) (s.v. ταιναρίας) wrote: παρὰ Λακεδαιµονίοις ἑορτὴ Ποσειδῶνος· καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ Ταιναρισταί. Ταίναρον γὰρ πεδίον Λακωνικῆς. According to the Lakedaimonians, a festival of Poseidon: and in this place the Tainaristai. For Tainaron [is] a plain of Lakonike. The latter two sentences parallel the quote of Oros included in Stephanus. Unfortunately, there is no further indication whether this festival took place at Tainaron or within the sanctuary of Poseidon Tainarios at Sparta, although it certainly seems believable once one considers the supporting evidence from the text of Hesychius and Oros, namely the ‘plain’ of Lakonike. Unfortunately, the millennium which separates the two authors (Hermippos and Stephanus) does not shed any clarity on the already speculative argument. Finally, Tainaron here is, once again, specifically called a polis (cf. Pherekydes F39). 8.4.2.7 Summary During the latter centuries of the Roman Imperial period, the site of Tainaron seems to persist in the literary canon as a trope for the Underworld and as a liminal space, but the extent to 895 Squillace 2010. Charax’s work is not included in the chart for Tainaron’s roles in antiquity, because ‘Tainarian tombs’ is too vague to be confidently categorized. 896 His plays survive largely in later works, and of the Theoi (the Gods) – which Nesselrath calls a “parody of a myth” –12 fragments survive. Nesselrath 2006; PCG V 576 (F 32) note that the παρατ- in Stephanus’ passage above was added by Bothe. 501 which the site itself was occupied or whether the sanctuary of Poseidon was still in use at this time is unclear. The fact that the foundations of the Temple of Poseidon lie below two later church building phases suggests continuity from antiquity into the Byzantine/early Christian period, but the only clue for activity at the site during this time is a 3rd-century CE funerary inscription for an oikomenos. Future investigations around the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi may be the sole avenue to further determine the building phases of these structures, and the occupation history of this important site, the most famous on the Mani peninsula throughout antiquity. 8.5 The South-West 8.5.1 Epigraphic Evidence from Kyparissos In contrast to much of the Mani peninsula, the ancient site of Kainepolis continued to thrive in the later centuries of the Imperial period. All categories of evidence shed light on the nature of the settlement and the inhabitants thereof from the 3rd century CE onward. The most abundant evidence is in the form of inscriptions, all of which date to the 3rd century CE, and are presented here thematically. 8.5.1.1 Dedicatory Inscriptions Four dedicatory inscriptions provide evidence for the political institution of the boule (council) at Kainepolis.897 All four inscriptions also name the ‘city of the Tainarians’, indicating that the citizens retained this associative title for their collective identity following the 897 Accame 1946, 129n6. 502 establishment of their ‘new city’ (Kainepolis).898 All four inscriptions were recorded by Cyriac of Ancona, two of which are extant: IG V,1 1244, within the ruins of Aghios Petros (Figure 8-3); and IG V,1 1247, on display in the plateia of the town of Alika (Figure 8-5). Three of the inscriptions have been dated to the 2nd/3rd century CE (IG V,1 1244, 1245, & 1247), while the fourth (IG V,1 1246) is simply dated to the ‘Roman’ period and was discussed in the previous chapter. The texts and translations the first three (3rd-century CE) dedications are provided here: IG V,1 1244 (SEG 11 943)899 ἁ πόλις τῶν Ταιναρίων Λυσικράτη Δαµαρµένου τὸν ἴδιον πολίταν, ἐµπειρότατον τῶν νόµων, ἄριστα̣ πολιτευόµενον. ψη(φίσµατι) β(ουλᾶς). “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Lysikrates son of Damarmenos, its own citizen, most skilled in the law and excellently carrying out his civic duties. By decree of the council.”900 While Lysikrates is a very popular name (with 111 individual entries in the LGPN), at least two other men bear this name on inscriptions from Kainepolis (IG V,1 1241 & 1250). This white marble statue base is quite worn and was reused in the later basilica of Aghios Petros (Figure 8-3). The apse of the late 5th/6th-century CE basilica of Aghios Petros still stands, and the foundations are visible, as is the entrance formed by these massive inscribed bases (Figure 8-4). Among the walls of the basilica, and in the immediate vicinity of this structure I noted scattered 898 Note that Bodnar and Foss instead translate the dedicant in these cases as ‘the city of Tainaron’, see below. 899 Bursian 1855, 788; Le Bas-Waddington (1847-1873, 257) suggests an Antonine date based on the lettering. 900 Adapted from translation by Bodnar and Foss 2003, 317. 503 Figure 8-3: IG V,1 1244. Photo by Author. ceramics – including one fragment of eastern sigillata – brick wall foundations, and the remains of a later (Roman or Byzantine?) tomb. The foundations and walls of Aghios Petros were built with earlier blue-gray marble architectural members, including monolithic columns, column bases, and pieces of entablature, in addition to the inscriptions IG V,1 1244 and SEG 23 199. This is the area of Moschou’s proposed ancient Roman forum. 504 Figure 8-4: The remains of Aghios Petros, Kyparissos. Photo by author. IG V,1 1245 (SEG 53 2191)901 ἁ πόλις ἁ τῶν Ταιν̣αρίων hedera Ζεύξιπ̣πο̣ν Φιλο- δάµου τὸν ἴδιον ἀπὸ προγόν[ω]ν ἄριστον πολεί- ταν, ἰατρεύοντα ἔτι καὶ νῦν εὐνοί- ας εἵνεκεν τᾶς εἰς αὑτὰν. ψη(φίσµατι) β(ουλᾶς). 901 Leake 1830, 291. 505 “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Zeuxippos son of Philodamos, hereditarily its own best citizen, who is still serving as doctor, on account of his benevolence toward it. By decree of the Council.”902 Cyriac noted that he saw this inscription on a marble base on the acropolis of the city (along with IG V,1 1248, see below), but it is now lost. Samama dated the inscription to the 2nd/3rd century CE and noted that this Zeuxippos, a doctor, must have belonged to a prominent family based on his honorifics, and the base likely held a statue of the man.903 The name Zeuxippos occurs 27 times in the LGPN, including 7 individuals at Sparta.904 Philodamos is a much more common name, with 128 individuals, 1 of whom is from Sparta and 8 of whom are from Rhodes – there is, however, an individual with this name who resided in Oitylos (IG V,1 1295). IG V,1 1247 (SEG 11 943) ἡ πόλις ἡ Ταιναρίων Ὦλον Ὀφίλλιον Τάνα- γρον τὸν ἀξιολο- γώτατον πολεί- την τῆς εἰς αὑτὴν εὐνοίας χάριν. ψη(φίσµατι) β(ουλῆς). “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Olos Ophillios Tanagros, a most worthy citizen, for his benevolence to her. By decree of the council.”905 902 Adapted from the translation by Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. 903 Samama 2003, 144 and n42. 904 On this, Samama (2003, 144) observed: “Un Zeuxippos fils de Philomousos, contemporain de celui-ci en IG V,1 305 et un Zeuxippos fils de Ph[…] a Sparte, sur une liste de date inconnue. IG V,1 194.” However, neither of these provides enough information to prove that they refer to the same individual. 905 Adapted from a translation by Bodnar and Foss 2003, 315. 506 Figure 8-5: IG V,1 1247. Photo by Author. Le Bas-Waddington recorded that this inscription was in the church of Aghia Pareskevi, but today the blue marble base stands in the plateia of modern Alika (Figure 8-5).906 The praenomen Olos is thought to be a translation of the Latin Aulus. 906 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 258; Pouqueville 1821, 167. 507 8.5.1.2 Imperial Honorific Inscriptions Four Imperial Honorific Inscriptions that date to 3rd-century Imperial dynasties have been identified at Kainepolis. Two belong to the Severan dynasty (for Julia Domna and Caracalla), and two belong to the short reign of the Emperor Gordion. SEG 23 199 Ἡ πόλις Ἰουλίαν Δόµναν Σε- βαστήν, γυναῖκα Αὐτο- κράτορος Καίσαρος Λου- κίου Σεπτιµίου Σεουήρου Εὐσεβοῦς Περτίνακος Σε- βαστοῦ Ἀραβικοῦ Ἀδιαβηνι- κοῦ Παρθικοῦ µεγίστου ἀ- νεικήτου, µητέρα δὲ Αὐτο- κράτορος Καίσαρος Μάρκου Αὐρηλίου Ἀντωνείνου Σε- βαστοῦ K⟦- - - - - - - - - - - - -⟧ ⟦- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -⟧ vacat δι’ ἐφόρων Λυσίππου τοῦ Καλλιδαµίδα Κλαυδίου Καλλικράτους Καλλικράτους τοῦ Νεικάδα Γαΐου Ἰουλίου Σκυθείνου Τιβ. Κλαυδίου Γαλαίσου καὶ ταµίου Ῥούφου τοῦ Ῥούφου “The city [honours] Julia Domna Augustus, wife of Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, victor of Arabia, Adiabene, and Parthia, pontifex maximus, mother of Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus and…”. The majority of the 12th line and the entirety of the 13th line have been erased – this portion would have included the name of Geta: [Emperor(?)] Caesar Publius Septimius Geta Augustus. The terminus ante quem for the initial carving of the inscription is therefore 211 CE, the year of Septimius Severus’ death as well as the year of Geta’s murder by his brother 508 Caracalla, and his subsequent damnatio memoriae is clearly visible on this stone. It seems that, however, the stone dates to between 198 CE (the year Caracalla began his reign with Septimius Severus) and 209 CE (the year Geta assumed the Imperial throne as well), because even though the letters have been erased, some are still visible in rasura: only the word Αὐτοκράτορος prior to Geta’s name would confirm that he, too, ascended the Imperial throne in 209CE, but immediately after the word Σεβαστοῦ is the letter K, for Καίσαρος, not an A for Αὐτοκράτορος. The second half of the inscription reads “on behalf of the ephors Lysippos son of Kallidamidas; Klaudios Kallikrates; Kallikrates son of Neikadas; Gaios Ioulios Skytheinos; Tiberios Klaudios Galaisos; and the treasurer Rouphos son of Rouphos.” Drandakes noticed that the second half of the inscription was written in a different hand, based on the letter µ, and he believed this indicated an attempt to assert power or prominence on behalf of the ephors. The names of the ephors provide a combination of Greek and Roman naming conventions: some have the Greek patrilineal, others the Roman tria nomina, and thus this Roman-period dedication contains some of the best evidence for cross-cultural and hybrid identities, conspicuously displayed in public inscriptions. Clearly, individuals chose to affiliate themselves with Roman naming conventions, but still bore markedly Hellenic names. The letters in the name of the treasurer (tamias; Rouphos = Latin Rufus) are inscribed larger than the rest of the words, which Drandakes believed was either the result of an egotistical treasurer, or someone paying homage to him.907 There is another inclusion of Rouphos here at Kainepolis, on the following inscription, and may in fact be the same individual. This stone is extant and stands today with IG V,1 1244 at the threshold of the ruined church of Aghios Petros (Figure 8-6). 907 Drandakes 1960, 267; His is the only publication that discusses this inscription in any detail whatsoever. 509 Figure 8-6: SEG 23 199, both halves of inscription. Photo by Author. 510 IG V,1 1240; SEG 34 317 ἡ πόλις Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσα[ρα] Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον Ἀντων̣[εῖνον] Εὐσεβῆ, Εὐτυχῆ, Σεβαστό̣[ν], Παρθικὸν µέγιστον, Βρε̣[ταν]- νικὸν µέγιστον, Γερµα[νικὸν] µέγιστον, ἀρχιερέα µέ[γιστον], δηµαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας [τὸ ι ʹ], αὐτοκράτορα τὸ γ΄, ὕπατο[ν τὸ δʹ], πατέρα πατρίδος, ἀνείκη[τον], τὸν ἴδιον σωτῆρα καὶ εὐερ[γέτην], vacat δι’ ἐφόρων Αὐρηλίων Ἀρ[̣ιστοτέ]- λους τοῦ Ἑλλανίκου, Ἀλκι[— —] τοῦ Ῥούφου, Καλλικρατίδ[α τοῦ] Καλλικρατίδα καὶ ταµία Αὐρηλίου Δικαίου τοῦ̣ [Ͻ]. vacat “The city [dedicates a statue of] Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Pius Fortunate Augustus, greatest victor over Parthia, Brittania, Germania, pontifex maximus, having the power of the tribune for the [11th -19th ?] time and consul for the fourth time, imperator for the third time, father of the country, unconquerable, its own savior and benefactor…on behalf of the ephors Aurelius Aristoteles son of Hellanikos, Aurelius Alki[-?] son of Rouphos, Aurelius Kallikratidas son of Kallikratidas and the treasurer Aurelius Dikaios son of…”.908 Nothing is known of the find spot of the inscription, Pouqueville only noted that it was ‘sur une colonne’, and it is presumably lost today.909 This inscription is dated to between 213 CE – when Caracalla received the title Germanicus – and 219 CE, the year of Caracalla’s death.910 908 As per Kennell 1992, 344: The use of ‘δια’ in these Imperial inscriptions suggests that it was the person/persons immediately following ‘δια’ who was/were responsible for the actual erection of the statue itself. 909 Pouqueville 1821, 168 (IV). 910 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 135-6 (261), who also believed that the presence of three ephors must be typical of the perioikic settlements. On the same issue of ephors, Kennell (1999, 196) stated: “In those towns with any evidence for how they governed themselves, Spartan-style (or, to be more precise, Dorian) institutions are to be found. There are ephors in Gerenia, Hippola, Caenepolis, Pyrrichus, Cotyra, Epidaurus Limera, Geronthrae, and Gythium. As Chrimes [in: Ancient Sparta: A re-examination of the evidence] pointed out, it would be rash to consider these ephorates as direct imitations of a purely Spartan institution, since the ephorate is attested in a great many Dorian cities throughout the Greek world.” 511 212/3 CE was also the year when Caracalla issued the so-called Constitutio Antoniniana, after which the practice of citizens adopting the praenomen Aurelius became commonplace – this declaration was likely the reason for this honorific inscription in the first place.911 All of the magistrates within this inscription bear the praenomen Aurelius, and the Rouphos here (father of Alki -- ?) may in fact be the same man who is named as treasurer in SEG 23 199 (see above), evidently a prominent citizen of Kainepolis during the 3rd century. Kallikratidas is a very Lakonian name, with 16 of the 37 individuals listed in the LGPN coming from Sparta alone, and there are also two men named Kallikratidas in two additional inscriptions from Mani – Hippola (IG V,1 1334a) and Pyrrichos (IG V,1 1282), although these latter examples are Hellenistic in date and are certainly not the same individual. The man named Aurelius Aristoteles, son of Hellanikos, has received some prosopographic attention: Kolbe and Spawforth agree that the man in this inscription, the ephor of Kainepolis, is the same man included in an inscription from Sparta (IG V,1 601) which honours a woman named Aurelia Charteris (Αὐρηλίαν Χαρτηρίδα), the daughter of Aurelius Aristoteles son of Hellanikos.912 Spawforth declared that “the honorand’s father and the ephor of Taenarum are one and the same man, whose daughter Aurelia Charteris married into the upper class of nearby Sparta.”913 Spawforth also believed that the M. Aurelius Pankratidas son of Hellenikos in the inscription IG V,1 530 was the brother of our Aurelius Aristoteles. The family tree can thus be reconstructed: 911 For more on this see especially Spawforth 1984, 364ff. 912 Kolbe 1913, 233; Spawforth 1984, 265. 913 Spawforth 1984, 265. 512 Charteris Hellanikos Kallistratos Aurelia Aristokleia + M. Aurelius Aristoteles M. Aurelius Pankratidas914 M. Aurelius Kleandros (καί) Menios915 + Aurelia Charteris M. Aurelius Euporos916 In the LGPN database, the individuals named within IG V,1 530 & IG V,1 601 are all listed under the regional place-name “Tainaron-Kainepolis”, despite the findspot of Sparta. This attribution suggests that at least two members of this family, Aurelia Charteris and her uncle, Aurelius Pankratidas were originally from Kainepolis (and evidently belonged to a fairly prominent family) and at some point moved to Sparta and continued their lives as prominent citizens there. Pankratidas specifically is called a well-born citizen and member of the council (τὸν εὐγενέστατον πολίτην ἑαυτῆς καὶ βουλευτήν), and Spawforth suggested that this membership on council “denoted an honorary rank, appropriate for conferment (along with Spartan citizenship) on distinguished foreigners.”917 The first of two dedications to the Emperor Gordion from Kainepolis is as follows: 914 Spawforth (1984, 266) believed that Pankratidas had Spartan citizenship, based on the inscription IG V,1 530. In Cartledge and Spawforth (1989, 160) they had the following to say about Pankratidas: “The desire to shine on a larger stage attracted benefaction from at least one ambitious notable in a minor nearby town: in the Severan age M.Aurelius Pancratidas, a citizen of New Taenarum (Caenepolis), used his personal fortune, based on the resources of his native community, to display his philotimia at Sparta 'in the most serviceable ways' and was rewarded with Spartan citizenship and other honours.” 915 IG V,1 313; According to Spawforth (1979, 284) Kleandros served as a Spartan patronomos in the 220s or 230s CE. 916 IG V,1 314 (c. 230-250 CE) from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta; Spawforth 1984, 285. 917 Spawforth 1984, 266. 513 IG V,1 1241 ἡ πόλις Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Μ(ᾶρκον) · Ἀντώνιον · Γορδιανὸν Εὐσεβῆ · Εὐτυχῆ Σεβα- στόν. vacat δι’ ἐφόρων · τῶν περὶ · Μ(ᾶρκον) · Αὐρήλιον · Θαλίαρχον Θα- λιάρχου · καὶ ἐπιµελητοῦ Μ(άρκου) Αὐρηλίου · Λυσιξένου τοῦ · Λυσικράτους. Vacat “The city [honours] Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious Fortunate Augustus, by means of the ephebes headed by Markos Aurelios Thaliarchos son of Thaliarchos and through the manager (note: epimeletos) Markos Aurelios Lysixenos son of Lysikrates.”918 The stone dates to the reign of the Emperor Gordian III, c. 238-244 CE. The practice of only listing the ‘chief’ magistrate seems to become more popular during this time, since the same convention is used in a contemporary inscription from Gytheio as well as IG V,1 1294 from Oitylos, discussed below.919 For a discussion of Lysikrates see above, IG V,1 1244; it is not possible to know if these two inclusions of Lysikrates describe the same man, although both inscriptions date to the 3rd century CE and both instances of the men named Lysikrates are prominent individuals within the city. Cyriac described the location of this inscription as: “…on another marble base brought to use as a column of a certain religious building by later inhabitants”920; in Kolbe’s IG entry, he described this inscription as being on a blue marble base in the church of Aghia Paraskevi. 918 Translation Bodnar and Foss 2003, 317-318. 919 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 125ff (243a). 920 Ibid, fol. 35. 514 Today, however, the inscription can be seen near the bay of Kyparissos, among the ruins of early modern buildings, and the two footholds for a bronze statue are still clearly visible (Figure 8-7). Figure 8-7: IG V,1 1241. Photo by Author. 515 IG V,1 1242 vacat [ἡ] πόλ[ις ἡ τῶν Ταιναρίων] Α̣ὐτο[κράτορα Καίσαρα Μ(ᾶρκον) Ἀντ(ώνιον)] Γορδ̣[ιανὸν Εὐσεβῆ Εὐτυχῆ] ἀνε̣[ίκητον — — — — — — —] θεῶ̣[ν Γορδιανῶν υἱωνόν, Σε]- βασ̣[τόν]. vacat “The city of the Tainarians [dedicates a statue of] Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus, Pious Fortunate … grandson of the deified Gordian Augustii…”. This inscription is contemporary with IG V,1 1241, but is not extant. The wording on this inscription is similar to the private dedications rather than the Imperial dedications, as it includes the city-ethnic (Ταιναρίων) and not just ‘the polis’ as a dedicator (i.e. IG V,1 1241 is an example of the latter). Kolbe noted that the location of this stone was within a private home in Kyparissos; it is presumably now lost.921 The fact that there are two dedications to the Emperor Gordian III from the site of Kainepolis is a bit surprising, given his short reign (238-244 CE), and his young age at the time of accession (13 years). One possible reason for this may be a connection between Kainepolis and the province of Africa Proconsularis, where Gordian III’s grandfather and predecessor, Gordian I was appointed proconsular governor in 237 CE. Another may simply be the high esteem held by the Gordiani dynasty, particularly following the tumultuous years at the end of the Severan dynasty. 921 Le Bas-Waddington (1847-1873, 136) only noted that it was in terrible condition, and did not provide a transcription. 516 8.5.2 Funerary Inscriptions Two late Roman inscriptions from Kainepolis belong to the category of funerary inscriptions. The first, SEG 55 496, is either an epitaph or an honorary inscription for a Jewish man named Ionathas (acc. Ionathan), which was published by Drandakes in 1965. This inscribed white marble plaque (possibly reused from an earlier building) was found in the 6th-century church of Aghios Petros at Kyparissos.922 The text reads: Ἰωνάθαν ὂν δ[ - - - ] ἄρχοντα γενό[µενον? - - - ] This inscription received lengthy treatment in Noy et al., who confirmed the probable Jewish origin of this Ionathas based on his name – which they noted was “an exclusively Jewish one until adopted by Christians”923, as well as his title of archon, a term which was largely adopted by the Mediterranean Jewish community to refer to the council of elders.924 Robert suggested the possibility that this plaque was originally incorporated into a synagogue, but there is no concrete evidence for such a building, nor for the existence of a Jewish community at Kainepolis beyond the inscriptions for Ioustos (IG V,1 1256, see previous chapter) and Ionathas925. This inscription for Ionathas is dated to approximately the 3rd century CE, and its current location is, unfortunately, unknown. The second funerary inscription, IG V,1 1249 (SEG 23-200) is an opisthographic inscription, but only side B is well-preserved: 922 The plaque had a rectangular hole on the left side, and the letters of the inscription were of varying size and shape, all located on the upper third of the stone (above the hole). Robert noted the findspot of the inscription as ‘Magna’ (Mani), which seems to have been an unknown term to Noy et al. (2004, 199), who remarked that “the inscription originated from Taenarum not from Magna, as noted by Robert.” 923 Noy et al. 2004, 199. 924 Noy et al. 2004, 199ff. 925 Robert 1946, 100. The LGPN incorrectly associates this inscription with ‘Kyparissa’ in Messenia (probably due to the confusion of the name of the modern town of Kyparissos on and near the ancient site of Kainepolis). 517 Side A κλεινὸς παῖς [Ζ]ώϊπος {Τ} ἐπών<υµ>ος µ[οῦ]νος [⏑–×] αὐτοµάτῳ [θανάτ]ῳ θνη<σ>κ[⏑⏑–⏑⏑–]926 [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — —]I[—]Ω[— —]ΙΤΟΝ [— — — — — — — — —]Ϲ[— — —]ΑΡΑθ̣ε̣ων [— — — — — — — — —]ΙΝΑ[— — —]ΤΗΡ̣ΩΝ [–⏑⏑–⏑⏑––] ἑτέρως ἔβαλον. vacat? Side B Ξυστοῦ µε παῖδα [Κα]λλινείκης τε σπορᾶς [πατρίς µ’ ἔφυσε Ταίνα]ρος, τάφος δὲ ὅδε τὸν Καλ<λ>ίνεικον χῶσεν, ἄρσενας δυεῖν λιπόντα παῖδας καὶ φάος γυναῖκά τε χήρην Ἀριστόκλειαν, [ἣ] φιλανδρίας ἀρχαῖον ἐζή<λω>σεν ἦθος· [ἥ]ς ̣βαρὺς δαίµων ἀπέσχ[ισ]έν ̣µε καὶ παίδων δυοῖ̣[ν], οὓς ἀντ’ ἐµεῖο Τα[ίναρ]ος φίλη πατρίς, µήτηρ τε κλεινὴ καὶ σύνευνος καὶ φίλοι [ἄγοιεν] εἰς βίοιο γηραιὸν µέτρον. Side A: Kleinos son of Zoïpos, named (by name?) only/alone…dies/died by a natural death… Side B: My fatherland, Tainaron, begot me, a child of Xystos and of the seed of Kallineike, and this (man/masculine entity?) heaped up a grave for Kallineikos, who left behind two male children and a wife deprived of her husband, Aristokleia, who emulated the old way of love for one’s husband. The heavy spirit (i.e. death) separated me from her and from my sons, whom, in place of me, may my dear fatherland Taenarum, my renowned mother and her husband, and my friends lead to the measure of old age.927 926 For an alternate reading of these lines, see Peek 1955, 651 (no. 2028): Κλεῖνος παῖς [Ζ]ωίππ̣ο̣υ ̣ἐγὼ̣ νέο̣ς̣,̣ ο̣ὐ̣[δε]νὸς [ἐχθρος], αὐτοµάτῳ [θανάτ]ῳ θνήσ̣κ[ω ⏑ –⏑⏑ –] 927 Translation H. Bouxsein. 518 Side A was very badly damaged and a detailed reading is not possible – Leake, who discovered the inscription ‘intact but in terrible condition’ did not even bother to transcribe this side.928 The transcriptions of both Peek and Le Bas differ, but both agree that there were the names of two men in the inscription: Kleinos and his father, Zoïpos. Side B is a poetic epigram written in iambic trimeter, a eulogy for the deceased Kallineikos, son of Zeustos and Kallineike, and husband of Aristokleia. An analysis of the LGPN’s records of these names shows that geographic distribution of all the names of this family’s members falls outside of the Peloponnese, perhaps suggesting the non-native origins of the family. Peek originally dated this inscription to the 2nd/3rd century CE, but provides no information as to its find spot and it is presumably lost or destroyed today. 8.5.3 Inscriptions for the Etearchidae family The final three late Roman inscriptions from Kainepolis which merit discussion are grouped together because they may record members of the same family: IG V,1 1257, 1258, & 1259.929 It is unclear whether these inscriptions are dedicatory or funerary in nature, since they are all fragmentary and are all lost today. And, in fact, IG V,1 1258 is incorrectly categorized among the inscriptions for Kainepolis – it was actually found near Tainaron, “at Asomatos [the ruined church] or Liternes [Kisternes?]”.930 The inscriptions are as follows: 1257 Δαµαρχὶς Ἐτεάρχου Ἐτεαρχίδι Δαµέα τῇ ἰδίᾳ θυγατρί. 928 Leake III, 40; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 137 (no. 269). 929 Kolbe 1913, 236; Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 264. 930 Pouqueville 1821, 171 (XII). 519 1258 [Ἰούλιον — —] Ἐ̣τεάρχου ὑ- ιὸν Ἰουλία Ἐτε- αρχὶς ἡ θυγά- τηρ. vacat 1259 [ἡ δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα] Ἐτέαρχου [τοῦ] Νεικανδρί<δ>[α τὸν] [ἴ]διον πα[τέρα]. vacat IG V,1 1257 records an inscription dedicated by “Damarchis, daughter of Etearchos, to her own daughter Etearchis, daughter of Dameas.” IG V,1 1258 is a fragment of an inscription of “[Ioulios]…son of Etearchos…Ioulia Etearchis, his daughter.” IG V,1 1259 names Etearchos, son of Neikandridas. Assuming all three inscriptions record members of the same immediate family in successive generations, one can reconstruct a genealogical tree in the following way: This prosopographic reconstruction suggests that the Etearchos named in all three inscriptions is the same man and is the son of Nikandridas (IG V,1 1259), the father of the missing male in IG V,1 1258 ([Ioul.]?) and his sister Damarchis (IG V,1 1257), and grandfather to two female cousins who are both named after him, Ioul. Etearchis and Etearchis. 520 The surviving epigraphic record shows that there was also a Ioulia Etearchis in Sparta (IG V,1 593). Her dedicatory statue base reads: ἡ πόλις Ἰουλίαν Ἐτεαρχίδα, ἑστίαν πόλεος καὶ θυγατέρα γενοµένην, τὴν σωφρονεστάτην καὶ κοσµι<ω>τάτην, µνή- µης χάριν, προσδεξα- µένων τὸ ἀνάλωµα τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς Κλαυ(δίων) Ἀλκανδρίδα καὶ Ἐλπ̣ί- δος τῆς καὶ Καλλιστονί- κης. The city [dedicates this to] Ioulia Etearchis, (priestess of) the hearth of the city and being a daughter, the most prudent and the most decorous, for the sake of her memory, with her children having accepted the cost, Klaudia Alkandridas and Klaudia Elpis, also [called] Kallistonike.”931 This Ioulia Etearchis was a priestess of Hestia (ἑστίαν πόλεος; priestesses likely in charge of the civic hearth932), and has been incorporated into the late 2nd – early 3rd century CE Claudii family tree by Spawforth.933 Spawforth also suggested that the two women (the Ioulia Etearchis in both IG V,1 1258 & IG V,1 593) may have been the same woman, or at the very least, related, with “the implication that the mother of the two Claudii (her patronymic is not recorded) came originally from Taenarum.”934 I agree that the two inscriptions may have mentioned the same woman, so Spawforth’s family tree of the Claudii can be expanded to include the branch from Kainepolis: 931 Translation Hilary Bouxsein. 932 Kajava 2004, 6. 933 Spawforth 1985, 224ff & Table 3. 934 Spawforth 1985, 243; note Spawforth has the correct location of Tainaron for this inscription, and not Kainepolis. 521 It is also possible that this family had further ties to the Aelii family, as Spawforth initially indicated, since the name of Ioulia Etearchis’ grandfather, Nikandridas, is a name that is attributed to a Spartan eight times (out of a total 15) in the LGPN.935 Damarchis and Etearchis are also names that display the hyper-locality of this region: the first has only three recorded individuals but all three are within Mani (the other two are at a) Hippola, IG V,1 1276, discussed below and b) Gytheio, IG V,1 1167, in the outer Mani), while the second has only four recorded occurrences but all are within the southern Lakonian peninsulas (the three discussed above, and one from Boiai on the Malea peninsula: IG V,1 955, Μινδίας Ἐτεαρχίδος). The other individual within this family tree, Dameas, has a very popular name, with 102 individuals throughout the eastern Mediterranean, including another individual from Mani (Oitylos, IG V,1 1295, discussed below). It seems likely that this was an influential family in the Kainepolis region during the Roman Imperial period. Unfortunately, further study on these three inscriptions from Tainaron is 935 Spawforth 1985, 246. 522 impossible, since their current location is unknown: IG V,1 1259 was stated to be within the church of Aghios Andreas in Kyparissos, but I was unable to find any trace of it there.936 The material for all three is presumed to be marble, but was not recorded. 8.5.4 Inscriptions from Panormo The last inscription that may be of relevance to Kainepolis – SEG 50 388; 51 441 – is an inscribed stele of grey of limestone that was discovered at the church of Aghia Thekla in Panormo, near the Prophitis Ilias quarries on the southern Taygetos mountain range. The text was recorded as follows: [- - -χ]αῖρε vac. Καλλικράτια, χαῖρε vac. This funerary epitaph for Kallikratia was found during a survey of the rosso antico quarries around Prophitis Ilias, and was dated to the 2nd -3rd century CE. The authors of the survey concluded that this stone was from a family tomb, and the members of this family likely worked at the quarries.937 The authors attribute the opening of the rosso antico marble quarries to the reign of Augustus and renewed interest in revenues for marble export (see Chapter 3), and they therefore associate this inscription – and the quarries in their entirety – with Kainepolis since it is the closest Eleutherolakonian settlement.938 While the history of exploitation of rosso antico marble on the Mani peninsula is long and complex, by this late date the association of this family (and the export of coloured marble) with Kainepolis is reasonable, since during this period Kainepolis is, by far, the most prominent and active settlement within the peninsula. 936 Kolbe 1913, 236. 937 Moschou et al. 1998 [2002], 276. 938 Moschou et all 1998 [2002], 267-268; 288. 523 8.5.5 Summary The late Roman epigraphic record from Kainepolis is rich, particularly in comparison to other contemporary settlements throughout the peninsula. The corpus of inscriptions from Kainepolis reveal several aspects of the civic identity of the settlement, as well as extra-peninsular relations and allow certain prosopographic reconstructions. Specific citizens display overt connections to Sparta: Ioulia Etearchis (IG V,1 1258), seems to have been a native of the Kainepolis region in Inner Mani, but married a member of the late 3rd century CE Spartan Aelii family in Sparta and became a priestess of Hestia there. Likewise, Aurelia Charteris, the daughter of the ephor Aurelius Aristoteles (IG V,1 1240) married a Spartan and moved to Sparta in the early 3rd century CE; there seems to be a trend for this sort of upward mobility of the elite in Kainepolis to Sparta during this time. More striking than the Spartan connection is Kainepolis’ Roman connection, as evidenced through the epigraphic evidence. While there is more evidence for a connection between Sparta and Kainepolis during the Roman period than anywhere else in the Mani peninsula throughout antiquity, this is a direct result of Roman control of Sparta and the transformation of Kainepolis into a seemingly bustling civic centre, with epigraphic evidence of individuals serving on the boule, as euergetes, epemeletes, ephors, as tamiai and even the record of one doctor. Additionally, there are seven Imperial honorific dedications (to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus discussed in the previous chapter, and to Julia Domna, Caracalla, & Gordion discussed in this chapter) as well as the only two Latin inscriptions in the whole of the Inner Mani. Individual names within inscriptions bear the Roman tria nomina, or adopt imperial praenomen (specifically Aurelius), yet retain Greek names. There are also two examples 524 of potentially Jewish names, indicating the cosmopolitan nature of Kainepolis during the Roman Imperial period, which is reflective of the Mediterranean as a whole during this time. Kainepolis is conspicuously – and inexplicably – absent from the late antique texts of Stephanus of Byzantium and Hesychius. However, Procopius’ 6th century CE History of the Wars included two historical narratives that involved Kainepolis, although the exact nomenclature employed by Procopius has been the subject of much debate. Both of Procopius’ passages are within his narrative on the Vandalic Wars, which took place in Africa from 532-546 CE: 3.13.[8]: νῦν δὲ οὕτως ὥσπερ εἴρηται διαφυγοντες Ταινάρῳ προσέµιξαν, ἣ νῦν Καινουπολις ἐπικαλεῖται. 3.13.[8]: So now it will be told, after they escaped they landed at Tainaron, which is now called Kainoupolis. This passage is a part of Procopius’ larger narrative of the Byzantine expeditionary fleet which sailed from Abydos to Numidia via Greece and Turkey in June-September 533 CE. Immediately prior to this excerpt, Belisarius and his crew had landed at Malea, and immediately after putting into Tainaron the fleet landed at Methone – clearly, based on the close proximity of the two peninsulas, the expedition was moving at an extremely slow pace. As mentioned in the previous chapter (in the context of Pausanias’ narrative), the matter of the exact name of the settlement known as ‘Kainepolis’ is problematic. Assuming that Procopius’ Καινουπολις is synonymous with Pausanias’ Καινήπολις, it is intriguing that the earlier author, Pausanias, writing in the 2nd century CE, stated that the settlement called Kainepolis was “long ago also Tainaron”; whereas Procopius, writing in the 6th century CE, claimed that they landed at “Tainaron, which is now called Kainoupolis.” The first says Kainepolis used to be Tainaron, the second says Tainaron is now called Kainepolis [sic]. While the two authors agree in concept that the settlement a) used to be called Tainaron, and b) is now called Kainoupolis/Kainepolis, it is 525 surprising that the ancient name of the settlement, Tainaron – which had to be the name well before the 2nd century CE, the time of Pausanias’ writing (i.e. “long ago”) – was still so well-remembered in the 6th century CE. Clearly, there is a complicated relationship between, and perhaps even a conflation of, the two locations and the settlements thereof. The literary sources do not provide additional clues as to the parallel identification and overlap between the two places, and therefore further discussion will be resumed below, following this second passage of Procopous: 3.22.[16-17]: Γιζέριχος γάρ, ἐπισκήψας ποτὲ τοῖς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ χωρίοις, Ταινάρῳ προσβαλεῖν ἐνεχείρησεν. ἐνθένδε τε κατὰ τάχος ἀποκρουσθεὶς καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν οἱ ἑποµένων ἀποβαλὼν ἀνεχώρησεν οὐδενὶ κόσµῳ. 3.22.[16-17]: For Gizeric, after falling at some time upon the towns in the Peloponnese, made an attempt to attack Tainaron. But he was quickly driven away from this place, and having lost many of his followers he withdrew with no order (i.e. in complete disorder). The events described in this passage took place after the defeat of the Byzantines by the Vandals in 468 CE. Gizeric (aka Gaiseric/Geiseric/Genseric), king of the Vandals, decided to invade the Peloponnese following the Byzantine defeat but was not successful, as outlined in the excerpt above. Because of Procopius’ earlier passage (at 3.13.8) that Tainaron “is now called Kainepolis”, many have assumed that Gizeric and his fleet actually landed at ancient ‘Kainepolis’ in the bay of Kyparissos, but this assertion remains unresolved.939 8.5.6 The Relationship between Kainepolis & Tainaron At this point it is important to return to the enigmatic relationship between the settlements known as Kainepolis and Tainaron. To recap, the literary evidence includes the testimonia of two authors who both declare that the city of Kainepolis was formerly called Tainaron: Pausanias 939 Greenhalgh and Eliopoulos 1985, 21 & 228ff; Leigh Fermor 1958 assumes the same. 526 (3.25.[9]), writing in the 2nd century CE, and Procopius (3.13.[8]), writing in the 6th century CE. The only other historical source that (perhaps) mentioned Kainepolis was Ptolemy’s 2nd century CE geography (“Kaine”; 3.16.9). The earliest epigraphic evidence from ‘Kainepolis’ (IG V,1 1252) may date to the 2nd century BCE, but the stone is not extant and thus this date cannot be confirmed. The vast majority of inscriptions from Kainepolis date to the years of the Common Era, while there is a marked absence of any material from the Classical and Hellenistic/Republican periods. Archaeologically, the situation is much the same: there is no verifiable material from the Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic/Republican periods. To complicate the situation further, inscriptions from both Tainaron and Kainepolis include the place-name Tainaron: at the site of the sanctuary of Poseidon, the two proxeny decrees (IG V,1 1226 & 1227) include the wording ‘the temple of Poseidon at Tainaron’, while many of the dedicatory inscriptions from Kyparissos include a city-ethnic ‘πόλις τῶν Ταιναρίων’, “the city of the Tainarians”. This means that the inhabitants considered themselves citizens of a polis called Tainaron, and I suggest that perhaps the settlement at the site of modern Kyparissos – ancient Kainepolis – was founded no earlier than the 1st century CE as an extension of the much smaller, ‘skeleton’ settlement at the site of the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. The sanctuary site – probably in existence from the 6th or 5th century BCE – would have housed the priests and other individuals crucial to the functioning of the sanctuary, in addition to the visiting suppliants, while the settlement at Kainepolis seems to have supported a much more permanent population. The fame of the sanctuary likely contributed to the increase in power of the sanctuary and the existence of the satellite settlement at Kyparissos/Kainepolis which, as evidenced by the administrative officers included in the epigraphic evidence as well as the late Imperial dedicatory decrees, grew to become the largest settlement in Mani during the Roman Imperial period. The 527 sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron retained its reputation throughout Classical Antiquity, which is precisely why the entire region was often referred to as ‘Tainaron’940 and the inhabitants of the ‘new city’, Kainepolis, continued to refer to themselves as Tainarians. The two places are undeniably connected as the literary and epigraphic evidence have shown, and only further archaeological investigation will shed further light on the relationship between the two. 8.6 The West Coast 8.6.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Hippola and Messe Securely-dated evidence for the settlements along the west coast of the Mani peninsula is limited to a few inscriptions, and Stephanus’ entries on Hippola and Messoa (Messe): Ἱππόλα, πόλις ἀρχαία Λακωνική, Παυσανίας τρίτῳ. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ἱππολαίτις, καὶ θηλυκὸν Ἱππολαῖτις.941 Hippola, ancient Lakonian polis, Pausanias [included this place] in the third [book]. The ethnic is Hippolaitis, and feminine Hippolaitis.942 Μεσσόα, τόπος Λακωνικῆς. Στράβων ὀγδόη. ἔστι καὶ φυλή Λακωνική. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Μεσσοάτης.943 Messoa, Lakonian place. Strabo’s 8th [book].944 And it is a Lakonian phyle. The ethnic [is] Messoat. No new information about Hippola is revealed in Stephanus’ work. He cites the only known source of information about this place, Pausanias (3.25.[9]). In terms of ‘Messoa’, it is clear that Stephanus is referring to the place that Strabo and Homer refer to as Messe, and to which Pausanias gives the name ‘Messa’. Shipley calls Messe an ‘early place, Roman polis’, 940 e.g. Strabo 8.5.[1] describes the Lakonian Gulf as “between Tainaron and Malea”, the latter of which is the easternmost of the three peninsulas jutting out from the southern Peloponnese; Pomponius Mela 2.49-51 also described the gulf as between Tainaron and Malea; Seneca Hercules Furens 662-663 said there was a mountain chain where Tainaron pushed against the sea; Plutarch Moralia 242e said the Etruscans “put in at Taenarum” but possibly used Tainaron as synecdoche for the peninsula and instead landed at Gytheio; Pausanias 3.21.[7] listed both Kainepolis and Oitylos as ‘on Tainaron’. 941 Meineke 1849, 336. 942 Shipley (2004, 574) suggested this latter ethnic may have been invented. 943 Meineke 1849, 448. 944 Strabo 8.5.[3]. 528 seemingly solely on the testimony of Pausanias, even though Stephanus specifically refrains from assigning it polis status and uses the word topos instead, and then goes on to say it is a phyle (tribe, clan).945 Its occupation – let alone its status as a polis –in the Roman period is questionable, at best. 8.6.2 Epigraphic Evidence around Cavo Grosso In the plain below Cavo Grosso (and the presumed sites of Hippola and Messe), there are several late Roman inscriptions. At the settlement of Pagkia, Zavvou and Themos recorded three inscriptions, at least one of which can be dated to the later Roman Imperial period and provides prosopographic evidence.946 This inscription, re-evaluated by Zavvou and Themos, was a funerary epigram inscribed on a long rectangular marble block which was perhaps originally used as an architectural block (SEG 60 373 = 26 456 = 60 374 = 31 335). This stone lies on the ground to the west of a megalithic ruined structure (Figures 8-8a-b & 8-9). 945 Shipley 2004, 573; see also Hesychius (s.v. Μέσσην): πόλις Λακωνικῆς (Β 582). Hesychius here is referring to Homer Il. 2.582. 946 Zavvou and Themos 2001-2004 [2012], 217. A 529 Figure 8-8a-b: SEG 21 456; 31 335. a) lying in situ. b) close-up. Photos by Rebecca Seifried. This epigram was first published by Taïphakos, and restudied by Peek, but it is unclear whether either individual ever actually saw the stone itself, since both expressed their gratitude to others for providing photographs of the stone.947 Motsopoulos and Dimitrokalles measured the stone and provided a drawing and photograph (albeit one which does not display the letters). The 947 Taïphakos 1976/77, 215n3; Peek 292. Taïphakos (214) also stated that he was preparing a publication of all of the epigraphic funerary epigrams from the Eleutherolakonian cities, including: Gytheio (IG V,1 1186, 1187, 1188, SEG 1 91); Kainepolis (IG V,1 1235, 1249), Teuthrone (IG V,1 1222), and Gerenia (SEG 11 949). To my knowledge, such a publication does not exist. Motsopoulos and Dimitrokalles (1976-1978, 153-154) also published this lintel block with diagrams of its dimensions, and alluded to the fact that there were earlier inscriptions carved on the leftmost edge of the stone, but it is frustratingly unclear what the contents of those inscriptions were. B 530 date of the epigram is 2nd or 3rd century CE.948 Taïphakos’ original reading of the text of the epigram is as follows: a Φιλότι χαῖρε. Οὗτος ἐγὼ Δέξιππος, ὁ δὴ πολέεσσιν ζηλωτοῖς ἱµερτὸν δόξας κῦδος ἀειράµενος, ὃν τέκνωσε εὔγνωστος ἐνὶ θνητοῖσιν ἅπασιν Δεξικλέης, προγόνων ἄξιον εὐκλεῶν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐν φθιµένοις περ ἐὼν ὑπὸ σήµατι τῶιδε κεῖµαι, µηνύσει δόξαν ἐµὸς βίοτος. Δέξιππε χαῖρε. b Μάτηρ µὲν Κλεοπάτρα ἐγείνατο, ἔ(τ)ρεψε δὲ παῖδα Δέξιππος πάντων φέρτατον ἠιθέων. Ἅιδας δ᾽ ἀρτιγένειον ἐδέξατο, κλαῦσε δὲ πάτρα αὐτὸν καὶ µατρὸς πατρὶς ἀποφθίµενον. Ἦν γὰρ πρεσβυτέρους αἰδούµενος ἥλικας ἅµα, ἤπιος εἰς παῖδας, πρὸς δὲ θεοὺς ὅσιος. Τοιγὰρ καὶ φθίµενος ναίει παρὰ ῥεύµασιν Ἅ[ιδου], ἔνθα µιν Ἑρµείας ἦγε πρὸς εὐσεβέας. Τοὔνοµα δ᾽ αὐδάσεις Εὐαµερίδαν, ὅπερ αὐτο̣ῦ ̣µητροπάτωρ εἶχεν, γνήσιον ἐκ προγόνων̣̣. Εὐαµερίδα{ι} χαῖρε. The text comprises 8 elegiac couplets and three verses; the first part is written in epic Kunstsprache, while the second in more traditional Doric language. The text is translated as follows949: “Hail/Farewell Philitis”. “Here I am, Dexippos, he who having seemed desirable because of many enviable deeds carried off glory; whom Dexikles, well-known among all mortals, begat, worthy of his renowned ancestors. And even if I lie among the dead beneath this gravestone, my life will show my fame. Hail/farewell, Dexippos.” 948 Taïphakos (1976/77, 215n1) compared the letter forms of this inscription to others from the region, including IG V,1 1244 & 1249 (Kainepolis) and 1281 (Pyrrichos). As one can see in Figure 8d (above) the style of writing on 1244 and this inscription are quite different. Furthermore, to my knowledge there are no surviving photos of 1249 and it is not extant, so this conclusion is flawed. 949 My gratitude to Hilary Bouxsein for providing a translation and pointing out the dialectical differences in the two sections. Nigel Kennell offered the alternative translation “Dexippos, he who carried off the desirable renown of fame…” 531 “His mother Kleopatra bore him, Dexippos raised him as a child, best of all youths. Hades received him when he had recently grown a beard, and his fatherland and his mother's fatherland lamented him when he was dead. For at the same time he respected those who were older than his age-group, and was gentle towards children, religiously correct towards the gods. Therefore even dead he dwells beside the streams of Hades, where Hermes led him, to the pious people. You will proclaim his name Euameridas, which his maternal grandfather had, legitimately born from his forefathers. Hail/farewell, Euameridas.” Based on the named individuals, Taïphakos constructed the following tree950: The words of this epigram were carved into the right side of the stone, and the rest of the block bears evidence of several earlier inscriptions. For example, the word ‘ΕΥΔΑΙΜΟΝ’ is visible to the upper left of the epigrams; while Taïphakos promised a publication of the remaining inscriptions on this stone which, to my knowledge, has yet to appear. The text on the left half of the inscription (Figure 8-9), therefore, has not been fully published.951 Finally, while this inscription is located in the presumed territory of ancient Hippola and/or Messe, and in the SEG entries 26 456 & 31 335 it is associated with Hippola, in the SEG entries following Zavvou and Themos’ re-assessment (SEG 60 373 & 60 374), this inscription is 950 Taïphakos 1976/77, 216. The name Philitis is omitted from the tree since it is unclear from the inscription just how she fit in to the lineage. 951 Motsopoulos and Dimitrokalles, 1976-1978, 154 & Plates NA’b and NB’. The authors also stated outright that this inscription should be removed to the Sparta museum, but it is still located on the ground in Pagkia. 532 Figure 8-9: Close-up of additional (earlier) inscription adjacent to SEG 21 456; 31 335. Photo by Rebecca Seifried. inexplicably associated with ancient Pyrrichos – I see no reason whatsoever to connect any of these inscriptions discovered at Pagkia with ancient or modern Pyrrichos. Three kilometres to the east of Pagkia is the modern settlement of Nomia. There, on the north wall of the church of Aghia Panaghia, a relief sculpture was discovered that depicted a central female figure with an altar to her left and three males to her right.952 On this marble relief was the following inscription (IG V,1 1276; SEG 60 369): Δαµα<ρ>χὶς Ἐλευθία̣ι µ’ ἀ̣ν<έ>θ̣ηκε̣. vacat vacat [—]Ν̣ΧΙ̣[—]ΦΟ̣Κ̣Λ̣χ̣άριος. 952 Drandakes 2002, n114. I thank A. Johnston for the excellent suggestion that, based on the description of the sculpture and the text of the inscription, this may be a dedication to Eilythuia (in a variant of one of the spellings of her name). 533 The dedicant’s name, Damarchis, was discussed above in the context of IG V,1 1257 (Kainepolis); the rareness of this name, combined the late Imperial date for both inscriptions make it possible that these women are one and the same, or related. The inscription was dated by letter forms to the 4th century CE. Unfortunately, according to Zavvou and Themos, this relief was removed illegally from the wall of the Panaghia church in 1997.953 Its current location is unknown, rendering further examination impossible. 8.6.3 Archaeological Evidence around Mezapos Bay Leaving behind the Cavo Grosso plain itself, the Tigani peninsula – named after its frying-pan shape and perhaps also the fact that temperatures soar unabated on the barren rock – juts out into the sea and forms the westernmost limit of the Mezapos bay. At the very end of the peninsula, located on the highest, most defensible, section – the ‘pan’ itself – are the excavated remains of an early Christian basilica, dating to the 5th – 6th century CE. This basilica was excavated and well-published by Drandakis, and although nothing conclusively points to the use of this site prior to the basilica, several scholars have attempted to place an earlier settlement on this site.954 Leake, followed by Puillon Boblaye and Woodward alike, believed that this was the location of Homeric Messe, but rather than citing archaeological evidence as support for their belief, both men pointed to the abundance of pigeons in the area as proof this was Homer’s Messe “πολυτρήρωνά” (abounding in doves).955 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson, in particular, argued for the presence of Mycenaean cyclopean masonry at the southern edge of the ‘pan’, 953 Zavvou and Themos 2001-2004 [2012], 217. 954 See extensive bibliography under LL177. 955 Leake 1830, 286; Puillon Boblaye 1836, 92; Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 243. Woodward also noted ancient blocks built into the “Venetian fortress” on Tigani, but he likely just saw remains of the 5th/6th century CE basilica, or the megalithic construction (see footnote below). 534 although they themselves admitted that the lack of ceramics throughout the entire region was problematic.956 The photographic evidence they provide for this wall reveals only another example of typical Maniate ‘megalithic’ architecture, and should not be considered ancient, let alone Mycenaean. 8.6.4 Epigraphic Evidence from Vamvaka The final contemporary inscription from the western coast of the Mani peninsula comes from modern Vamvaka. The small hamlet of Vamvaka lies just east of the main Areopoli-Gerolimenas road, across from Koukouri Bay and Kouloumi. Here, built into the western wall of the church of Aghioi Theodoroi, is a blue marble epitaph (IG V,1 1287; SEG 60 372), bearing this inscription: a.2 Διόφαντε χαῖρε. b.1 Αὔγη χαῖρε. c.3 Ἐπίτευξι χαῖρε. d.3 [— — — —]διο. The names of three individuals are preserved in this inscription: Auge, Diophantos, and Epiteuxis. This is an example of an inscription that is listed under the regional category of Pyrrichos in the relevant IG and SEG volumes, but is closer, geographically, to the presumed site of ancient Hippola/Messe than other inscriptions that are actually assigned to Hippola (i.e. inscriptions at modern Charouda, IG V,1 1279 & 1280, 5km further north). In contrast, Le Bas-Waddington listed this inscription under the heading ‘Oetylus’ (= Oitylos); this illustrates the often misleading results of attempting to match physical remnants of antiquity with sites 956 Waterhouse and Hope Simpson 1961, 122, Figure 6, and Plate 20b. When I visited in 2014, I recorded 4 sherds, including a coarse handle fragment that may have been contemporary to the basilica, or perhaps Medieval in date. Of the other three sherds, two were certainly late Roman, and one was certainly Medieval. 535 Figure 8-10: IG V,1 1287. Photo by Author. mentioned in the literary record. The inscription is given an ‘Imperial’ date in the LGPN, but the letter-forms are late Roman.957 The stone is still visible today in the façade of Aghioi Theodoroi (Figure 8-10).958 8.7 Central Pyrrichos is absent from the late Roman and early Byzantine written and epigraphic record, but vestiges of architectural remains strewn throughout the region around modern Pyrrichos suggest occupation continued well into the late Roman and early Christian periods. The modern town of Pyrrichos extends north into the hillside where several scholars observed unfluted columns, likely belonging to a late Roman structure or an early Christian basilica (Figure 7-31:C).959 The ruins of an extensive medieval fortified settlement are visible just to the 957 Kolbe 1913, 239. 958 Le Bas-Waddington 1847-1873, 139 (278 f-g). 959 Le Roy 1965, 381-383; Forster 1903/4, 160. Toponyms for this hillside settlement include: Kokkinogia; Barika; Ampelia; and Ksampela. LL163. 536 west of the modern town, and Moschou believed that this was built atop an ancient settlement, although I am not aware of any evidence for this conclusion. Even higher up the slope of the mountain is a church of Aghia Triada where Moschou recorded unspecified spolia and the remains of an ancient road (Figure 7-31:D).960 This is the extent of evidence for late Roman occupation in the region of Pyrrichos. 8.8 The North-East 8.8.1 Written Evidence for Ancient Oitylos Stephanus of Byzantium included a short entry on the site of ancient Oitylos: Οἴτυλος, πόλις Λακωνικῆς. “ἠδ’ Οἴτυλον”, ὡς δάκτυλον, ἀπὸ τοῦ Οἰτύλου ἥρωος. Τινὲς δὲ τὸ οι ἄρθρον φασὶ καὶ τὴν πόλιν Τύλον. Τὸ ἐθνικὸν Οἰτύλιος.961 Oitylos, polis of the Lakonians. “And [who dwelled around] Oitylos”962, as a dactyl (three-syllable metrical foot), [named] after the hero Oitylos. But some say that the οι was an article (connecting word) and the city was ‘Tulos’. The ethnic [is] Oitylian. Stephanus quotes Homer directly in this passage when referring to the inhabitants of Oitylos. The discussion of the use of the article « οι » in this context is not one that persists today, and was largely dismissed by the scholiasts (and it is only given lip service here by Stephanus).963 Oitylos here is specifically called a polis (cf. Pherekydes 168).964 960 Moschou 2000 [2009], 236 (medieval settlement 20a on her map; Aghia Triada 21). 961 Meineke 1849, 487. 962 This is another reference to the Homeric passage (Il. 2.585) mentioned above in reference to Las. 963 Billerbeck 2014, 427n56. 964 Cf. Hesychius (s.v.Οἴτυλος): πόλις (Β 585). Hesychius here is referring to Homer Il. 2.585. 537 8.8.2 Archaeological Evidence around Karavostasi Evidence for late Roman Oitylos exists in the epigraphic and archaeological records as well. Below the site of modern Oitylos, on the northern coast of Limeni Bay, is the modern settlement of Karavostasi. At the eastern end of the town on private property, excavations took place in 2009 by the 5th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, which revealed a Roman architectural complex as well as a late Roman tomb with undecorated pottery.965 The architectural remains dated from the 1st – 6th centuries CE, and included a 2nd-3rd century CE mosaic floor with geometric designs. The excavations also revealed a coin hoard of 457 4th-century CE copper coins (most date to 355-360 CE; Julian II & Constantine II), suggesting that there was still economic activity in this region at this late date. Tsouli argued that this revealed “intensive monetary circulation” and indicated a connection between Oitylos and the eastern Empire, which would have generated the majority of the currency at this period of time. Tsouli further suggested that the coin hoard was buried as a result of geologic events following the earthquake of July 21st, 365 CE, which was concentrated around southwestern Crete, but whose seismic aftershocks may have been felt throughout the wider region.966 Elsewhere in Karavostasi, further 2009 excavations yielded additional Roman-period finds already discussed in the previous chapter, including a substantial wall (1.60-1.90 m. thick; the portion revealed is 8.40 m) running parallel to the Mylonlangkado gorge that may have acted as a retaining wall from the spring run-off in this well-watered ravine. In the vicinity of this wall, 965 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 541. In 1984, rescue excavations also yielded late Roman and early Christian architectural remains near Aghios Giorgos and Aghioi Theodoroi. 966 Tsouli 2000 [2010], 543. 538 excavators identified Hellenistic ceramic scatters as well as fragments of 5th-6th century CE North African lamps.967 8.8.3 Epigraphic Evidence around Oitylos Several examples of inscriptions attributed to ancient Oitylos provide insight into the existence of this settlement during the later years of the Roman Imperial period. The first example is the only inscription wherein the city-ethnic of Oitylos is fully preserved (IG V,1 1294). However, the stone was only seen by Cyriac of Ancona and it does not survive today. He copied the text as follows: Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα Μᾶρκον Ἀντώνιον Γορδιανὸν Εὐσεβῆ Εὐτυχῆ Σεβαστὸν ἡ πόλις ἡ Βειτυλέων δι’ ἐφόρων τῶν περὶ Μᾶρκον Αὐρήλιον Νεικηφόρον Προσδέ- κτου. “The city of Oitylos, through the ephors headed by Markos Aurelios Nikephoros, son of Prosdektos, [dedicates a statue of] Emperor Marcus Aurelius Gordianus Pious Fortunate Augustus.” Like IG V,1 1241 & 1242 from Kainepolis, this inscription is dated to the reign of the Emperor Gordian III, c. 238-244 CE. Cyriac saw this stone within a citadel (“arcem”), and presumably this inscription, like IG V,1 1290, came from the fortress at Kelepha. Cyriac’s comments on the area and this inscription are as follows: For there are still elegant remnants of the city approximately a hundred stadia from the very tip of the Tainaron peninsula; and no more than five stadia from the shore we saw a citadel built by the later inhabitants out of [materials taken from] ancient buildings, where I found John 967 Ibid. 539 Palaiologos, governor for the Spartan prince Constantine. Received ceremoniously by him, we inspected under his guidance the extant part, made up of ancient walls, in a field, where we found this sculpted inscription to our emperor Gordianus, in which it is evident that [Oitylos] was called Bitylos by later inhabitants, as Strabo testifies. His text included the following comment written in Greek: “I, Cyriac, found this inscription by the Messenian Gate; but now they call this the gate to the diminished city of Bitylos.”968 The earliest written sources that mention Oitylos (Homer Il. 2.585 and Pherekydes 168) both call the settlement ‘Oitylos’ (Οἴτυλον, Οἴτυλος). It is not until Strabo’s early 1st century CE Geography that the first mention of ‘Boitylos’ survives (8.4.[4]: Οἴτυλός ἐστι: καλεῖται δ᾽ ὑπό τινων Βοίτυλος’; see Chapter 7).969 No other ancient source provided evidence for this alternative spelling: Pausanias made no mention of the alternative form of the name, and Stephanos of Byzantium went so far as to say the city-ethnic was “Οἰτύλιος”. The presence of the city-ethnic ‘Beitylos’ (derived from ἡ πόλις ἡ Βειτυλέων) can be attributed to iotacism and the change from ϡ to Β in the Roman period; this spelling can also be found in at least one inscription outside Mani (IG V,1 935, from the island of Kythera).970 The majority of inscriptions from the site of modern Oitylos itself come from the church of the Koimesis Theotokou, which stands at the southwestern edge of the city. Embedded in the exterior south wall of this church are three late Roman grave stelae, all with relief sculpture depicting the commemorated individuals. Stylistically, this sculpture is quite late, likely 3rd-4th century CE. The first two celebrate females, and the third, male. The text of the three epitaphs are: 968 Bodnar and Foss 2003, 311n21. 969 Note that this alternative form has been variously emended, see Jones 1927, 112n3: “Βαίτυλος, Meineke emends to Βοίτυλος; Kramer prefers Βείτυλος.” 970 The form of the city-ethnic in that case is Βειτυλῆ. 540 Figure 8-11a-c (from left): a) IG V, 1 1302; b) IG V, 1 1303; c) IG V, 1 1307 IG V,1 1302 Δαµάριν vac. χαῖρε. IG V,1 1303 Ἀγάριν χαῖρε βιώσασ- [α] ἔτη λαʹ. IG V,1 1307 Ἀγαθήµερε χαῖρε ἔτη βιώσας λεʹ. The name Damarin occurs only here and at Asopos, on the nearby Malea peninsula, and therefore seems to be a local preference. No age is given for Damarin, but Agarin and Agathemere died at ages 31 and 35, respectively. Nothing else is known of these inscriptions. 541 There is one final inscription of note from the area of ancient Oitylos, and that is IG V,1 1301: a.1 Αὐρηλίας Δαµοσθε- νείας τῆς Φι- λαρίστου. b.1 Α̣ὐρηλίας [— — — — — —] το̣ῦ̣ Θ̣[έ]ων̣ο̣[ς ἀρχιερέως] [τοῦ] Σ̣ε̣βαστοῦ. c.1 Θέων Διονυσίας. “a.1: Aurelia Damostheneia, daughter of Philaristos. b.1: Aurelia [--?] daughter of Theon, the chief priest of Augustus. c.1: Dionysia, mother of Theon.” This stone was discovered on the ground in the Mylolangkado gorge leading to the sea, and it was recently rediscovered just east of the gorge.971 It is either a funerary or dedicatory inscription for three members of a family, including one whose father (Theon) served as a ‘chief priest’ (ἀρχιερεύς). The presence of the praenomen ‘Aurelia’ gives a terminus post quem of 212 CE (the date of Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana) to this inscription.972 The name Damostheneia is local to the Peloponnese, including one example from Pyrrichos (IG V,1 1282, see previous chapter). 8.9 Discussion & Conclusions The written text of Stephanus of Byzantium provides the most information about select settlements of Mani in the late Roman Imperial period, namely: Asine, Las, Hippola, ‘Messoa’, Oitylos, Tainaron, and Psamathous. The information contained in his work, however, is largely 971 Forster 1903/4, 171: “this inscr. is cut on a large boulder in the Langada below and S. of Oetylus.” Tsouli 2000 [2010], 557. In this re-publication, Tsouli confirmed the reading of sides A & C, but said B was severely worn. No mention was made of whether the stone was collected or left in place. 972 See above, IG V,1 1240. 542 derived from previous authors. Stephanus’ Ethnika is valuable in that it preserves the words of poets, historians, geographers, and other authors, that would otherwise have been largely lost to the ravages of time. However, in terms of actual information about the settlements and inhabitants of Mani, the work of Stephanus is lacking; where he does preserve the words of the now-lost works of various authors, the information contained in those words is often insufficient for drawing conclusions regarding the activities of the places in ancient Mani (e.g. the celebration of the festival of Tainaron, indicated through the verb ‘tainarizein’, prompts more questions than it answers). The reasons for the emphasis of modern scholars on Stephanus’ work ought to be examined; notably, the work done by the Copenhagen Polis Institute relies heavily on ‘city-ethnics’ provided in the Ethnika to determine the polis-status of ancient settlements during the Archaic-Classical periods but, as I have shown, Stephanus often includes ethnics without citation or additional comment, rendering their validity questionable when combined with his late date of writing. In the late Imperial and early Byzantine sources, Tainaron – once again – is mentioned most often, which is in direct opposition to the lack of physical evidence for the occupation of the site itself. Moreover, none of the literary evidence provides any information with regard to the actual site: Aelian repeated legendary events from mythology and the ancient past; Prudentius, Boethius, and Sidonius all used Tainaron metonymically for literary effect; and although Procopius narrated historic events that happened ‘at Tainaron’, these most likely took place at the settlement which came to be known as Kainepolis during the Imperial period. Most telling of the ancient written sources, however, is Stephanus’ description of Tainaron as, simply, ‘polis’ (πόλις). Notably, he used the term ‘Lakonian polis’ (πόλις Λαχωνικὴ)’ for Asine, Las, and Psamathous, and ‘polis of the Lakonians’ (πόλις Λακωνικῆς) for 543 Oitylos – this reflects the geographic situation of all of these places as within the traditional territory of Lakonia. Messe is also included here but is specifically called a ‘place of the Lakonians’ (τόπος Λακωνικῆς) – rather than a polis. When compared to Stephanus’ other entries, the omission of the descriptor ‘Lakonian’ for the ‘polis’ of Tainaron certainly seems intentional, and therefore has twofold implications. First, if one believes that the descriptor ‘Lakonian’ functioned as an ethnic identifier, the omission thereof naturally separates the inhabitants of Tainaron from the rest of the ‘Lakonian’ settlements in Mani and Lakonia. However, whether this distinction applied to the place where the sanctuary of Poseidon is situated, the place where Kainepolis was founded, or both, is unclear. Moreover, whether this classification was applied throughout antiquity (since Stephanus cited Classical and Roman authors alike) is also unknown. However, the fact that it was listed as such whatsoever is more important than previous scholarship has shown – the work done by the Copenhagen Polis Institute specifically focused on why, when, and how various ancient places were referred to and their status as poleis, but completely omitted that fact that although Tainaron may be classified as a polis, it is not listed by Stephanus as Lakonian.973 The second implication is the following: if one believes that the descriptor ‘Lakonian’ functioned as a geographic identifier, the omission thereof means that ancient Tainaron, as a physical place, was considered – by Stephanus’ source – to be outside of (or apart from) the rest of Lakonia. This conclusion is not surprising, given the fact that Tainaron was so often considered to be the physical edge of the Greek world in a geographic sense, but also the liminal space between the living and the dead, as the entrance to the Underworld. Naturally, the two implications are not mutually exclusive, so it is possible that Tainaron was considered ‘outside’ of Lakonia both ethnically and geographically. The first is much more 973 Shipley 2004, 576. 544 difficult to prove, since while our literary sources hint at a separation between Tainaron and the rest of Mani, none explicitly corroborates such a conclusion, and more archaeological work must be conducted in the region in order to determine the extent of the settlement around the site of the sanctuary of Poseidon. Ultimately, however, I believe that the literary sources from late antiquity support the conclusion that I have put forth in previous chapters: namely, that throughout classical antiquity, the site of ancient Tainaron was a liminal space with a special role as a sanctuary that provided a safe haven for those seeking both refuge and asylum, and that it was not under the direct control of any one ancient ruling power. The archaeological and epigraphic record for settlements in Mani is telling, as the two locations that provide the most evidence in terms of physical remains – Kotronas and Kyparissos – are associated with two ancient sites that are not named in Stephanus’ record of late antiquity: Teuthrone and Kainepolis. At Kotronas, inscriptions dedicated to Kybele and an epitaph for a woman who died in childbirth supplement the late antique archaeological evidence, which includes several Roman brick buildings, one of which may be a bath building, another which contains a mosaic pavement, and various other monuments and ceramic evidence. The site of ancient Kainepolis continued to flourish during the late Roman period, with several traces of archaeological remains complemented by a robust body of epigraphic evidence dating to the 3rd century CE. The inscriptions from Kainepolis include Imperial dedications to Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Gordian III; funerary epitaphs for an individual of possible Jewish origin who served as an archon; three inscriptions that named the “city of the Tainarians” as well as the council (boule); two inscriptions that included mention of ephors and treasurers, and that allow for the prosopographic reconstruction of Aurelia Charteris and her marriage to a prominent Spartan; one inscription that listed the offices of ephebes and epimeletes; and finally, three 545 inscriptions that allow a prosopographic reconstruction of the family of Ioulia Etearchis and her Spartan connections. The epigraphic record of Kainepolis provides crucial information regarding civic and political identities in the 3rd century CE: the inhabitants recognized themselves formally as a group by the name “the city of the Tainarians” and their civic institutions were both secure and pervasive. In terms of ethnic and cultural identity, it is clear that during the 3rd century CE, Roman influence was ever-increasing, as evidence through Hellenized Latin names (Rouphos from Rufus; Olos from Aulus), the presence of the tria nomina, and the praenomen Aurelius. The existence of a Jewish man in Kainepolis may provide further evidence for the cosmopolitan nature of the settlement, in the more connected Mediterranean that Roman rule afforded. More evidence of Spartan relationships is present from Kainepolis at this time than anywhere else in Mani, at any other period, and these Spartan connections are discernible through two families and the marriages of women to Spartan elites. Along the western coast, assorted vestiges of late antiquity survive largely in the form of spolia and while, in most cases, the epigraphic and archaeological evidence cannot be securely associated with any one place in particular, it is clear that there is sufficient activity along the western coast between Kainepolis and Oitylos to determine that at least one ancient settlement continued to exist during this period. At the site of Oitylos itself, archaeological excavations along the coast of the bay of Limeni provide some of the most securely-dated evidence for antiquity, in the form of architectural complexes, tombs, a mosaic floor, ceramics, and a coin hoard of 457 copper coins dating to their reigns of Julian II & Constantine II (c.355-360 CE), suggesting that economic activity persisted in this region well into the 4th century CE. Epigraphic evidence from Oitylos confirms the city-ethnic and the shared civic identity of the inhabitants, and a dedication to the emperor Gordian III adds to the body of Imperial inscriptions along the 546 western coast of Mani, reinforcing the desire for a positive connection to Rome during the 3rd century CE; during this period, settlements with a stronger to tie to Rome and the broader Mediterranean world are situated along the western coast of Mani, which is in keeping with the coastal maritime outlook suggested in previous chapters. The emphasis on seascape naturally allowed for higher connectivity (perceived or real) between these settlements and Rome herself. The political climate during the late antique Mediterranean was tumultuous and unstable, particularly in the final decades of the 3rd century onward. The increasing presence and power of the Byzantine Empire and the new Christian religion infiltrated the communities of the Mediterranean basin, and the Mani peninsula was no exception: although the inhabitants of the Mani proudly claim to be one of the final holdouts for pagan religion, it is clear from 5th-6th century CE basilicas at Kainepolis and Tigani that the Christian presence was not staved off for long. The exact historical timeline of the settlements in Mani during late antiquity is even less clear than in previous periods, since the number of historical sources decline, and the epigraphic evidence all but disappears after the late 3rd – early 4th century CE. Procopius alone provides narratives of historical events during this period, both of which relate to the late antique Byzantine presence in Mani: the first was the attempted invasion of Kainepolis by the Vandals in 468 CE after their defeat of the Byzantines; the second told of Belisarius and the Byzantine expeditionary fleet landing at Kainepolis in June-September 533 CE. These literary references only provide a fleeting glimpse into the existence of Kainepolis during late antiquity. In terms of physical remains, the sheer quantity of ancient spolia built into Byzantine churches reveals a physical connection to Mani’s ancient past, and places such as Tainaron –where ancient foundations are visible beneath later religious structures – are examples of religious continuity. Only a few scholars, however, have attempted to fill in the historical blanks 547 in the middle centuries of the first millennium CE. Moschos and Moschou, in an article enticingly entitled “The palaeomaniatika: the transition from ancient polis to Byzantine chora”, claim that the settlement distribution throughout classical antiquity directly affected and informed the physical placement and establishment of Byzantine settlements.974 The authors do not provide any proof for this claim in the form of data regarding the distribution of dated remains (ancient or Byzantine) or identified ancient settlements; they reference literary sources from throughout antiquity without chronological context, and include mention of “ancient” archaeological features that I have worked hard to disprove throughout my own research, including their “major citadels… at Teuthroni [sic] [and] the Kastro of Loukadika.”975 The authors emphasize the need to address questions like “How did the transition from the Greek and Roman town to the medieval pattern of ekistic units (chora) come about?” without answering any themselves. Ultimately, while Drandakes has excavated isolated early Byzantine remains (namely, the 5th-6th century CE basilica on Tigani) these investigations only provide insight into the individual buildings themselves, and our understanding of the transition of the settlements of Mani from the Roman to the Byzantine period remains incomplete.976 Archaeological investigation into the churches of Mani has been widespread, but an attempt to relate the churches, chronologically, with their pagan predecessors is eagerly awaited, as only such an investigation will enable a conclusive reconstruction of the Mani peninsula in the final centuries of classical antiquity. 974 Moschos and Moschou 1982. 975 Moschos and Moschou 1982, 263. 976 Drandakes 1977. 548 Chart 8-1: Frequency of sites named in Late Antique sources – bar graph Chart 8-2: Frequency of sites named in Late Antique sources – pie graph 549 Chart 8-3: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Late Antique period – bar graph Chart 8-4: Affiliations/roles of ancient Tainaron, Late Antique period – pie graph 550 Figure 8-12a-d: Distribution maps for Late Roman evidence (clockwise from top left): a) all categories of evidence; b) written evidence; c) epigraphic evidence; d) archaeological evidence. A B C D 551 Chapter 9: Case Study – A Classical-Roman Site at Diros Bay 9.1 Introduction This final chapter presents a case study that focuses on a small area located on the western coast of the Mani peninsula that contains Classical through Roman material but is completely absent from the ancient written record. The material presented in this chapter consists of the only published material from classical antiquity collected through systematic pedestrian survey within the entire Inner Mani study region, and as such it represents the possibilities inherent in undertaking comprehensive archaeological investigation, and the value that lies therein. The goal of this chapter is threefold: to demonstrate the importance of analyzing pedestrian surface survey finds and in recording the material culture in understudied regions; to illustrate the discrepancy between the historical record of classical antiquity and the actual record of occupation in the form of archaeological remains; and to emphasize the potential that this region holds for understanding the history of the ancient Mani peninsula in its entirety and the identity of its inhabitants through systematic archaeological investigation. 9.2 Pyrgos Dirou and Surrounding Area The place of interest in this case study is situated directly on the coast of Diros Bay, which is 1.8 kilometres north of modern Pyrgos Dirou and 2.5 kilometres south of the largest town of the region, Areopolis. The promontory dominated by the modern town of Pyrgos Dirou is situated between Spathari and Diros Bays. Early travellers to the region, including Forster and 552 Woodward, dismissed the area as having little or no traces of ancient occupation.977 The area, however, is home to the Neolithic Alepotrypa cave, which was discovered in 1958 and has since become the most intensely-studied archaeological site in the entirety of Inner Mani: the recent discoveries in and around Alepotrypa Cave have impacted our understanding of trade networks and settlement structure in the Late and Final Neolithic.978 A desire to understand the region immediately surrounding Alepotrypa cave formed the basis for The Diros Project, whose systematic pedestrian survey results are the focus of this chapter, as they provide the basis for the present case study which, I argue, reveals the existence of a hitherto unknown ancient settlement in the coastal region of Diros Bay. In addition to Alepotrypa cave, there are several other karstic limestone caves on the western coast around Diros Bay; two of these have yielded archaeological material from classical antiquity, Kataphygi and Xeraradianika.979 Kataphygi is a horizontal cave located near Alepotrypa cave, in a cliff 25 m above sea level. Inside, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds (in addition to Late Neolithic and post-Byzantine) were observed.980 Xeraradianika is also a horizontal cave, comprising three chambers situated beneath the entrance, which drops almost vertically from its small (0.5 x 1 m) opening. Pottery was observed here but the descriptions were limited to “prehistoric and historic.”981 The quantity of ceramics was not given in either case, and it is also unclear whether any of this ceramic material was collected from the Kataphygi and Xeraradianika caves, or simply recorded.982 Due to the common practice of 977 Forster 1903/4, 159; Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 241. 978 Excavations began in 1970 and are still ongoing today. For the most recent work and a full bibliography, see: Papathanasiou et al., 2018. 979 Kataphygi LL278. 980 Touchais 1989, 610. Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, 8 doesn’t mention the Classical ceramics. 981 Efstathiou-Manolakou 2009, 8. 982 Efstathiou-Manolakou (2009, 17) is not clear as to whether further work was planned for any of these sites, or if she simply believes (correctly, in my opinion) that more work ought to be carried out: “Given that caves constitute a 553 Figure 9-1: Aghia Nikita, Velousi. Photo by author. employing cave sites as spaces for cultic and ritual activity, I tentatively suggest that perhaps these two cave sites were ritual focal points for the individuals who inhabited the Classical-Roman sites around Diros Bay. Across the Areopolis-Gerolimenas highway from Pyrgos Dirou is the small settlement of Velousi. At least two churches in this town display ancient spolia: Aghia Nikita which incorporates several architectural members including a cornice block, plinth, and block with visible boss all made of white marble, as well as a pink marble column base, the geological provenance of which is unknown (Figure 9-1). The second church, Aghios Konstantinos, is the location of the inscription SEG 60-384 and apparently several other pieces of spolia, but the exact location of this church is unknown. Within Pyrgos Dirou itself, the church of Aghios Giorgos contains a rosso antico stele from the 2nd – 3rd century CE (see Appendix D), and there are spolia scattered throughout the town’s buildings. There is a visible record of antiquity in the region, but – to quote Forster and Woodward – the belief has long been that Pyrgos Dirou “…does not seem to have been an ancient site.”983 sealed unity, preserved from external factors, which frequently contain undisturbed levels of deposits, we believe that the extensive surface survey combined with the opening of excavation trenches will enlarge the map of archaeological sites in Laconia, will uncover new evidence for the chronological periods and the interpretation of cave use, and will further elucidate the cultural perspective of Laconia, which until today has not been sufficiently studied.” 983 Forster and Woodward 1906/7, 241. 554 Figure 9-2: The Diros Project Survey boundary and Sites. 9.3 Collection Methodology and Site Descriptions The archaeological material published in this chapter was collected under the auspices of the Diros Project, an international and multi-disciplinary project under the direction of Drs. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Galaty, and William Parkinson. The Diros Project was supervised by the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, through a permit from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Between 2011-2014, the Diros Project surveyed a total of 2.05 sq. km (205 ha), and the area of interest for this case study (Sites 005 & 004/006) comprises 24,270 sq.m of the total surveyed land (Figure 9-2). During the 2012-2015 field seasons, I was involved in the pedestrian survey and laboratory analysis, and I was given permission to publish the Classical-Roman ceramics as evidence for ancient activity at Diros Bay. 555 In the 2011 & 2012 field seasons, the Diros Project survey area was systematically and intensively surveyed by fieldwalkers at 15m intervals (in ‘tracts’) with the primary goal of detecting patterns of human activity within the landscape, namely the presence and absence of surface finds. Due to the small survey area and the surprising dearth of visible material culture throughout the region, fieldwalkers were instructed to collect all ceramic, lithic, and glass material; that is, 100% of observed artifacts were recorded and collected. This is somewhat unusual in archaeological survey in Greece, as many places chosen for pedestrian survey are artifact-rich and teams are unable to collect, process, and store large quantities of artifacts. The advantage of total collection, however, is that this methodology allows for more accuracy in terms of distribution and density analyses.984 During laboratory processing of the tract survey material, several areas of interest were identified based on concentrations of ancient artifacts, which we referred to as ‘Sites’. It is important to note that there was no need to discuss the theoretical complications arising between the notion of ‘sites’ and ‘off-sites’ scatters on the Diros Project, since our ‘Sites’ were the only places where ancient material culture was recorded (Figure 9-2 & 9-3). The discussion of ‘blankets’ or ‘carpets’ of pottery does not apply to the Diros Project survey region, and thus we did not need to use the term ‘Site’ to indicate a higher-than-average density of ancient pottery985; we employed the term ‘Site’ to indicate the presence of ancient pottery whatsoever (italics for emphasis). 984 Tartaron et al. (2006, 478n67) note that: “Even total collection is not a perfect tool, since geomorphological and human factors always place limits on the fullness of the archaeological record detected at a single moment in time, and total collection is not synonymous with total coverage of a given survey space.” See also Gregory 2004, 15. 985 Bintliff 1988, 506; Cherry’s (1983, 395) theory of a “virtually continuous spatial distribution of material over the landscape” does not seem to apply to Mani. 556 Figure 9-3: Total ‘ancient Historic’ sherds collected during tract survey. To reiterate, the terminology employed for the Diros Project, specifically the term ‘Site(s)’ has no habitation implications in and of itself: much like the ‘Localized Cultural Anomalies (LOCAs)’ in the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS), or the Places of Special Interest (POSIs) in the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project (SCSP) and Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP), the Diros Project ‘Sites’ simply indicated a place of interest with a noted concentration of surface artifacts.986 Admittedly, the terminology we employed is fraught with negative implications: ‘site’ is no longer a commonly used term to indicate artifact scatters 986 Tartaron et al. 2006, 474 & 486; Caraher et al. 2006, 7-14; Schiffer 1987; Given and Knapp 2011; Alcock and Cherry 2003. 557 due to a long history of wrongfully interpreting a ‘site’ (an artifact scatter) as an area of habitation when, in fact, it is impossible to interpret artifact scatters alone without considering their post-depositional processes.987 Within the context of the Diros Project and within this chapter, the term ‘Site’ is simply a delimited area of archaeological interest based on a higher-than-normal concentration of ancient artifacts. During the tract survey, five ‘Sites’ were earmarked for future investigation, and in 2013, these sites were assessed for potential gridded vacuum-collection; of these, three specific sites are of interest for the present work: Site 004, Site 005, and Site 006 (Figure 9-2). Descriptions of each are as follows988: 9.3.1 Site 005 (Toponym - Mastakaria; Area - 3,890 sq. m) Site 005 is located on a coastal promontory along the northern side of Diros Bay. A large walled enclosure (18m x 22m) stands at the centre of Site 005, with standing dry-stone rubble walls which survive to a height of 1-1.8m. The structure bears traces of a door at the southeast corner and perhaps a window or a second entryway on the eastern wall. Many of the ceramic finds collected from Site 005 are clearly in association with this building. Due to the limitations of the topography, visible boundaries defined the collection units, including the structure itself, rubble piles, field walls, and terraces. No time limit was given to field walkers, due to denser-than-normal vegetation. Because of the cliff-side topographic location of Site 005, a high density of material was collected downslope from the main structure along the cliff edge. The structure itself contained a high density of ceramics and tile, and an abundance of tile was also recovered 987 Tartaron et al. 2006, 485; Cavanagh et al. 1996; Mee and James 2000; Taylor 2000; Dunnell 1992. 988 Much of this information is derived from R.Seifried’s “Gridded Collection & GIS Report 2013”, compiled for the Diros Project 2013 Season Final Report. 558 Figure 9-4: Site 005 collection units. in the squares north and south of the structure. In total, we vacuum-collected 20 units in Site 005 during the 2013 season (Figure 9-4). 9.3.2 Site 004 (Toponym: Kampinaria; Area: 17,110 sq. m) This Site is located in a flat area between two remata (a gorge or ravine), just east of Diros Bay. The limit of Site 004 begins just east of the beach and continues upslope until it reaches a modern road; the topography of Site 004 is much more suitable for gridded collection, since there are only a few low field walls and terraces. At this Site, 10 x 10 m units were laid down using a combination of 20-m measuring tapes and a real-time-kinematic GPS (RTK-GPS), the latter of which was used to place points every 20 m east-west and every 10 m north-south. Each fieldwalker was assigned to one unit at a time (1:1) and collection time was limited to 15 559 Figure 9-5: Site 004 collection squares. minutes per square. Several grid squares in the compound of Aghia Paraskevi had to be recollected (1:2), because during this part of the collection it became clear that fieldwalkers were collecting different amounts of ceramics (despite being in neighboring units with similar visibility).989 The Aghia Paraskevi squares had some of the highest densities and most variety of ceramic finds, and we recollected these squares to ensure proper representation. Ceramic material was concentrated in the center of Site 004, and there was also a noticeable spike in the eastern quarter (the western part of the Aghia Paraskevi compound). Tile was not concentrated in any particular area. In 2014, an additional 13 gridded squares were added to the southeastern corner of the site, since there had been a substantial clearing of vegetation following the 2013 season. In total, of 186 10 x 10 m gridded squares were vacuum-collected in Site 004 during the 2013 & 2014 seasons (Figure 9-5). 989 For this issue see Banning et al. 2006. 560 9.3.3 Site 006 (Toponym: Palia Aghia Paraskevi990; Area: 3,270 sq. m) This site is located immediately to the east of Site 004; the two are only separated by a modern road. At Site 006, a grid unit could not be universally established, so collection units were defined by large rubble walls and structures – including an old church building and structure we believed was a ruined monastery. We were able to grid 10 x 10 m square units in the south of the churchyard (squares 1-4), but elsewhere unit size varied and measured up to 20 x 20 m. Visibility was highly variable throughout the site and there was a high density of ceramic material where visibility was best, namely in the churchyard. Overall, ceramic material was small and poorly preserved, probably due to the use of this site by a local shepherd. Tile was concentrated in the two squares north of the old chapel. Since the topography of Site 006 was more limiting (due to the presence of the ruined monastery in the centre of the site), we often vacuum-collected (total collection) using field walls as boundaries for each unit rather than a grid; 18 such units were collected in Site 006 (Figure 9-6). During the laboratory processing of ceramic and glass finds over the 2013 and 2014 seasons, we determined that the distinction between Sites 004 & 006 was arbitrary (based on the modern road) and the material found in both Sites was too similar to maintain the separation. I still refer to the ceramic material by their reference numbers, which are dictated by the Site in which they were found but, to reiterate, the distinction between Sites 004 & 006 is simply based on nomenclature and not on the material culture. 990 According to Seifried’s “Gridded Collection GIS Report 2013” page 4: “The name of this site is tentative, since there is some confusion about the name of the extant church to the east, the old chapel at this site, and the structure to its north. Specifically, ‘Αγια Παρασκευή is also sometimes known as ‘Αγιοι Θεόδωροι (built 1265-1275), but ‘Αγιοι Θεόδωροι (a different church?) is sometimes known as ‘Αγιος Νίκων (built 1300-1330) [see Δρανδάκη, Ν.Β. 2009." In Μάνη και Λακώνια: Τόµος Β': Μάνη - Ανασκαφή και Ερεύνα, edited by Χ. Κωνσταντινίδη. Περιοδικον Συγγραµµα της Εταιρειας Λακωνικων Σπουδων 17. Αθήναι].” 561 Figure 9-6: Site 006 collection squares. 9.4 Ceramic Processing Under the direction of Daniel Pullen, I spent the latter half of the 2013 season and the entirety of the 2014 season processing the ceramic artifacts from these three sites. The processing of the survey ceramics involved analyzing the sherd fabric and assigning a preliminary date, entering the relevant information into the FileMakerPro database, and photographing the group and individual objects from each gridded square; this was done for each square of all three survey sites under discussion (Table 10-1).991 991 Adapted from Pullen, Daniel J., Michael L. Galaty, William A. Parkinson, Wayne E. Lee, and Rebecca M. Seifried. “The Diros Project, 2011-2013: Surface Survey and Site Collection in Diros Bay.” In Alepotrypa: Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos, edited by A. Papathanasiou, W. A. Parkinson, M. Galaty, and D. Pullen. In press. 562 Table 9-1. Number of subunits and artifacts for sites The Diros Project employed the ChronoType methodology in identifying, recording, and entering items in the object database. This system, developed and expanded by Timothy Gregory for the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project (SCSP), has been used on pedestrian surveys in the Mediterranean with much success, including EKAS, the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey (APKAS), the Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project (TAESP), and the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project (PKAP).992 Essentially, this methodology allows archaeologists to identify as best as possible an item in a hierarchical ordering of materials: ceramics about which one is certain are identified to a higher (= more detailed) level, while materials about which one is less certain are identified to a more general level. Thus, a ChronoType with high certainty could be ‘African Red Slip Form 50b’, while one with medium certainty may be “Late Roman Amphora” or “Medium-Coarse Final Neolithic.” A lower degree of certainty might prompt a Chronotype such as “Roman Storage” or “Medium-Coarse Prehistoric”, allowing entries as simple as “Ancient Historic” or even just “Medium Coarse”; this ensures that all ceramics are processed, regardless of certainty. The original 992 For a comprehensive discussion of the development and integration of the Chronotype system, see Gregory 2004; and Tartaron et al. 2006, 475-481. Site Number of subunits Number of ceramics Number of artifacts 004 186 1,733 1,850 005 20 302 410 006 18 443 530 TOTAL 224 2,478 2,790 563 Figure 9-7: Site 004/006 Total ceramic density. ChronoType analysis was also accompanied by a certainty index, wherein 1 is uncertain (a suggestion), 3 is certain about general shape and period, and 5 is an expert identification. All of the initial ceramic processing was completed under the direction of Daniel Pullen, the laboratory director for the Diros Project, with input by Rebecca Seifried, Sarah James, and Timothy Gregory. As a result of the complete analysis of all of the survey material from Sites 004-006, we were able to better understand the total numbers, distribution, and densities of pottery from different periods and gained a clearer picture of the sites in their entirety. Of all the periods represented, the concentration of Classical-Hellenistic material is most marked in Sites 004 & 006 (“Diros Bay”), while Site 005 had a larger concentration of Roman material. Figures 9-7 through 9-12 illustrate the final results of pottery densities from all three sites. 564 Figure 9-9: Site 004/006 Roman ceramic density. Figure 9-8: Site 004/006 Classical-Hellenistic ceramic density. 565 Figure 9-10: Site 005 Total ceramic density. Figure 9-11: Site 005 Classical-Hellenistic ceramic density. 566 Figure 9-12: Site 005 Roman ceramic density. Following the completion of the pottery processing for each site, a database search was performed in order to locate all potentially diagnostic pottery; diagnostic items included rims, handles, bases, and any fragments with paint and/or glaze. The ceramic material from Diros Bay in general is so small and worn that only in very few cases is there any preserved evidence of surface treatment, and even diagnostic material is quite fragmentary and poorly preserved. The potential diagnostic material was then physically pulled from the shelves and evaluated in terms of usefulness for future study. All pieces that had even slight diagnostic potential were drawn, for fear that the storage of the material during the upcoming museum construction – still ongoing at the time of writing – would prevent access to the pottery in the future. In addition to the gridded material, all the tract material that overlapped with Sites 004 & 006 (collected in 2012) was also evaluated and the relevant pieces drawn. The locations of collection from the tracts are 567 less precise than the gridded collection because the tracts themselves are larger, so these objects are not included in the distribution maps. Each drawn item was entered into the FileMakerPro drawings database. Table 10-2 shows all of the objects (diagnostic pottery as well as two pieces of glass and one fragment of a figurine) drawn from the three sites. Handles Rims Bases Other Total Site 004 23 25 12 4 64 Site 005 5 9 0 1 15 Site 006 5 6 7 2 20 Tracts 8 4 5 1 18 Total 41 44 24 8 117 I completed all drawings by hand, using a diameter chart, profile gauge and callipers when necessary. The individual drawings were named according to their site, square, and object number (i.e. S004SQ0100001 refers to Object 1 from Square 10 within Site 004), and included relevant data including ChronoType and fabric description. Once all the drawings were completed they were scanned and digitized using Inkscape, open-access vector graphics software. Figures 9-13 through 9-16 indicate the distribution of diagnostic material within the individual Sites. Table 9-2. Diagnostic counts from each Site. 568 Figure 9-13: Site 004/006 Total drawn ceramic distribution. Figure 9-14: Site 004/006 Classical-Hellenistic drawn ceramic distribution. 569 Figure 9-15: Site 004/006 Roman drawn ceramic distribution. Figure 9-16: Site 005 Total drawn ceramic distribution. 570 9.5 Macroscopic Analysis of Diagnostic Pottery 9.5.1 Site 005 A total of 15 diagnostic objects were identified from Site 005. Of these, five were assigned a late Antique/post-Antique date (after the 5th century CE). Six additional sherds were unable to be more precisely dated than ‘Ancient Historic’. Of the four remaining sherds, two were identified as Classical-Hellenistic semi-fineware lekane rims with orange fabric (S005SQ0180003 & S005SQ0180004), one as a Roman medium coarseware rim with buff fabric (S005SQ0170008), and one as a Hellenistic-early Roman tableware/fineware rim with orange fabric (S005SQ0070001). Based on the complete collection of ceramic finds from Site 005, my general conclusion is that this is a late Roman-Medieval site. Based on Tim Gregory’s expert analysis, several pieces from this Site dated to the 4-6th or 7th century CE, and most of the identifiable material comes from large vessels, namely jugs and amphorae, including a late Roman 2 amphora rim (S005SQ0180002) and a rim + handle from a Group N (Athenian Agora) late Roman/early Medieval pitcher (S005SQ0020002); the ceramic assemblage indicates domestic occupation and production, and the large quantity of roof tiles also identified at this site confirm this hypothesis. Daniel Pullen further observed that the semi-fineware and fineware from this site was not of good quality. The scarce traces of earlier material (Classical-Hellenistic) are best interpreted as residual pieces and/or vessels exchanged from another site (perhaps neighbouring 004 & 006), rather than as indicative of separate occupation during these periods. The absence of roof tiles from Byzantine-Ottoman palaiomaniatika (literally ‘old Maniate settlements’) supports the theory that roof tiles fell into disuse after late antiquity, when 571 Figure 9-17: Site 005 late Roman domestic structure. Outline indicated in red. Image ©GoogleEarth. structures were roofed with cheaper materials.993 The enclosure wall and ceramics at Site 005 point to evidence for Late Roman occupation, and if the identification as domestic architecture is correct, this is the only example of Late Roman domestic architecture that is documented within all of Inner Mani. 9.5.2 Site 004 & Site 006 There was a large quantity of Classical-Hellenistic sherds collected from these two Sites, particularly at the centre of Site 004, but also in the immediate vicinity of the church of Aghia Paraskevi, and immediately to the east, across the road in Site 006 around the ruined monastery. 993 Seifried, Rebecca M. (forthcoming) "Perseverance in the Periphery: The Stone-Built Palaiomaniatika of the Mani Peninsula, Greece." Submitted for inclusion in Deserted Villages: Perspectives from the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Deborah Brown Stewart and Rebecca M. Seifried. University of North Dakota Digital Press. 572 Roman sherds are notable in the latter two areas, but distribution patterns are difficult to discern in this small sample. The majority of pottery collected from Sites 004 and 006 was non-diagnostic, and not much information was able to be derived from these (mostly very worn) non-diagnostic sherds besides fabric and type of ware (i.e. coarse, medium, fine). Two major fabric groups are apparent, notably ‘buff’ for the Classical-Hellenistic ceramics and ‘orange’ for Roman-period ceramics; the latter category includes a micaceous variety. There is a striking absence in the Classical/Hellenistic material of medium-coarseware such as kitchen and cooking vessels, and a complete dearth of lamps, loomweights, and miniatures; the Classical/Hellenistic pottery assemblage is dominated by tableware (both fine- and semi-finewares, including table amphorae) and coarseware.994 From the gridded collection and tract survey of Sites 004 & 006, 102 sherds were selected for drawing: 64 sherds from Site 004, 20 from Site 006, and a further 18 from Tracts 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, and 82. After further study, 11 of the 102 objects were removed, since their refined dates were deemed to be either post-antique or prehistoric. Of the 91 sherds remaining from Sites 004 & 006, their original ChronoType breakdown is in Table 9-3. Note that this chart reflects the laboratory analysis of this material, and some changes were made during later analysis, discussed below. 994 This observation was first suggested by Sarah James, which I later confirmed. 573 Table 9-3: ChronoType breakdown for drawn sherds, Sites 004/006 Site 004 Site 006 Tract Objects Total Ancient Historic Fineware 3 1 4 Semi-Fineware 7 7 Kitchenware 1 1 Coarseware 1 1 Amphora 4 2 5 11 Pithos 1 1 2 Classical-Hellenistic Fineware 13 1 2 (1 Cl, 1 Hl) 16 Semi-Fineware 2 1 3 Medium Coarseware 1 1 Amphora 7 7 TC Figurine 1 1 Hellenistic-Early Roman Fineware 4 2 6 Semi-Fineware 4 2 6 Amphora 4 4 Roman Fineware 3 1 4 Semi-Fineware 2 2 Kitchenware 1 (late) 1 Medium Coarseware 1 1 (late) 1 3 Amphora 1 1 Koan Amphora 1 1 Glass 1 1 2 Other Ancient Medium Coarseware 1 1 Ancient Kitchenware 1 1 Classical-Roman Semi-Fineware 1 1 Archaic-Classical Body Fragment - Lamp? 1 1 Roman Tile 1 1 Ancient-Medieval Medium Coarseware 1 1 Ancient-Medieval Kitchenware 1 1 574 9.5.3 Macroscopic Analysis of Diagnostic Sherds - Results The Classical-Hellenistic (Cl-Hl) material includes 16 pieces of diagnostic fineware and five pieces of diagnostic semi-fineware, all of which are categorized as tableware (as opposed to miniatures, etc.) There is also one mould-made fragment, perhaps a terracotta figurine or a small bowl (Figure 9-18). The fineware and semi-fineware are presented here together by typological grouping below, and all are fineware unless indicated otherwise. Note that there are only two pieces of Classical-Hellenistic fineware from Site 005; the remaining material is from Sites 004 & 006. The remainder of the diagnostic Classical-Hellenistic material was collected from Sites 004 & 006; this includes one medium-coarse and seven amphorae. All of these eight remaining examples are handles, and are thus grouped together for convenience. Ceramic sherds that were submitted for petrographic and chemical analysis are indicated by their sample reference number, in parentheses. Figure 9-18: S006SQ0040003. Terracotta mould-made fragment. 575 9.5.3.1 Classical-Hellenistic Sherds I.Cl-Hl Bowls (Plate 9-1) a. S004SQ0100001. Small bowl rim; rim thickens to interior; Orange fabric. Diameter: 8cm? Handleless bowl in the Athenian tradition, late 5th century BCE- middle Hellenistic period. Found throughout the Peloponnese and Kythera. Perhaps footed vessel in the Athenian salt-cellar tradition.995 Cf. Laconia Survey BIII A/3-4, D/4; M326/I; U499/2; U511 A2/8.996 b. S004SQ0760001 (Sample 10). Small bowl rim; overfired; grey fabric (due to over-firing) with orange core. Diameter: 20cm? c. S004SQ1480003. Small bowl? rim; semi-fine buff micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. Extremely worn. d. S004SQ1610004. Echinus bowl? rim; buff fabric, slightly micaceous. Diameter: unknown. Handleless bowl in the Athenian tradition. e. T00570000008 (Sample 32). Bevel-rimmed bowl? rim; micaceous orangey-buff fabric. Diameter: 11cm. 3rd century BCE. II. Cl-Hl Lekanes (Plate 9-1) a. S005SQ0180003. Large horizontal everted lekane rim; flat-topped with plain edge; semifine orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. Cf. Laconia Survey (8524 A/2) and Hellenistic examples (H32/1).997 3rd century BCE. b. S005SQ0180004. Horizontal lekane rim with incised groove; semifine orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. Cf. Laconia Survey (H32/1) with horizontal groove. Hellenistic. III.Cl-Hl Cup (Plate 9-2) a. S006SQ0020002 (Sample 28). Ring-base cup? Black glaze; buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. Extremely worn. IV. Cl-Hl Jugs/Pitchers a. S004SQ0290001 (Plate 9-1). Pitcher? Orange fabric. Everted rim. Diameter:12-15cm? Very worn. The everted rim corresponds to several shapes, possibilities include a mortar/mortarium, lekane, or hydria. Considering the presumed Classical-Hellenistic date, the closest parallels from the Laconia Survey include a mortarium (S436/3), a lekane, and a hydria, although the diameter is much larger on all of the LS examples.998 b. S006SQ0030001 (Plate 9-2). Pitcher; articulated flat base; buff fabric. Diameter: 8cm. Slightly hollowed out beneath the base, medium-sized vessel (oinochoe, jug, flask, etc.). 500-300 BCE. Cf. Laconia Survey (H31/31, 34; B111 D/32; N188/7; R281 D/w0; U511 A2/17).999 c. S004SQ1040001 (Plate 9-1). Broad, flat-topped rim, hooked at exterior; open or closed vessel; buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. Lack of wall prevents further indication of vessel, but two viable options exist: i) Large bowls/lekanes, 5th century BCE parallels from the Laconia 995 Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 137-8 & Fig. 9/Pl. 34. 996 Catling 1996, 51-53. 997 Catling 1996 Plate 14.3 & #3; Visscher Plate 15.1, 22-23, & #11b. 998 Visscher 1996, 101 (#23); Catling 1996, 41 (#6c) & 61 (#30d). 999 Catling 1996, 66; #36b. 576 Survey and the Athenian Agora1000 and 2nd century parallel from Laconia survey1001; and ii) hydriai with moulded, downturned exterior rims, 5th century BCE.1002 See also Laconia Survey (M327/34).1003 V. Cl-Hl Bases - Unknown Shape (Plate 9-2) a. S004SQ0120001. Flat base with vertical face and straight profile; brown fabric with fine mica. Inner diameter: 4cm? Extremely worn. b. S004SQ0400001. Everted flat base for small tableware vessel (oinochoe, jug, etc.); brown fabric. Cf. Laconia survey: ‘Uncertain large-medium closed shapes: bases’.1004 Diameter: unknown. c. S004SQ0420001 (Sample 4). Flat base with vertical face and straight profile; closed vessel; semi-fine brown-buff fabric. Diameter: 16cm. 5th-4th century BCE. Without any of the body walls, it is difficult to draw conclusions with regard to this vessel, but the vertical face, straight profile, and diameter correspond to Laconian survey mortars (diameters 12-22cms).1005 d. S004SQ0520009. Ring base for unknown open table vessel; orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. Too worn to determine shape. e. S004SQ1020002. Everted base for unknown open vessel; brown fabric. Diameter: unknown. Too worn to determine shape. f. S006SQ0100005. Flat base; semi-fine orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. Too worn to determine shape. g. T00550000003. Everted flat base for small, unknown open vessel; gray sparkling fabric. Outer diameter: 4cm. 4th century BCE. VI. Cl-Hl Handles – Unknown Shape (Plate 9-3) a. S004SQ0050001. Vertical strap handle; medium-sized tableware; buff fabric. Circumference: 5.2cm. Max. Diameter: 1.9cm. b. S004SQ0540002. Large, flat, oval handle; medium-large tableware; buff fabric. Circumference: 7cm. Max. Diameter: 2.60cm. c. S004SQ1260002. Flat, oval handle; medium-sized closed tableware; brown fabric. Circumference: 5.8cm; Max. Diameter: 1.97cm. VII. Cl-Hl Medium-Coarse & Amphora Handles (Plate 9-3) a. S004SQ0130001 (Sample 1). Oval-sectioned handle for amphora/jar; gray-brown fabric with red core. Circumference: 8cm. Max. Diameter: 3.04cm. b. S004SQ0230001. Half-round sectioned handle; orange fabric. Circumference: 6.1cm, Max. Diameter: 1.86cm. c. S004SQ0330001 (Sample 3). Oval-sectioned handle + body with thumb rest; brown fabric. Circumference: 7.3cm. Max. Diameter: 2.65cm. 1000 Catling 1996, 41 & Plate 14-3, #1-6. 1001 Visscher 1996, 96 #11d & Plate 15.2, 2. 1002 Catling 1996, Plate 14.8, 18-22, & #30f. Note, there are several examples from the Laconia Survey, but no other parallels are known from Laconia. 1003 Catling 1996, Plate 14-4, 1-3 & #10b (unknown shapes). 1004 Catling 1996, 66 & Plate 14.11; #36a. 1005 Catling 1996, 74 & Plate 14.13, 5-10; #42i. 577 d. S004SQ0510001 (Sample 7). Amphora toe; orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 8.3cm. Max. Diameter: 2.74cm. e. S004SQ0510002. Flat-strap sectioned handle; brown fabric with fine mica. Circumference: 7.7cm. Max. Diameter: 2.96cm. f. S004SQ1280001 (Sample 12). Flat-sectioned handle + body for amphora/jar; orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 3.43cm. Max. Diameter: 3.68cm. g. S004SQ1490001 (Sample 14). Large, flat, trapezoidal-sectioned handle; orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 8.1cm. Max. Diameter: 2.99cm. h. S004SQ1710001. Flat, oval-sectioned handle for unknown closed vessel; medium-coarse brown fabric. Circumference: 6.5cm. Max. Diameter: 2.58cm. 9.5.3.2 Hellenistic-Early Roman Sherds The Hellenistic-early Roman (Hl-R) diagnostic material is also principally derived from Sites 004 & 006, with only one example from Site 005. The diagnostic material is restricted to fineware, semi-fineware, and amphorae. I.Hl-R Bowls (Plate 9-4) a. S004SQ0710001. Small bowl; semi-fine reddish-orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. b. S004SQ0950001. Medium bowl/cup with straight, thin walls and uniform rim; semi-fine orange fabric. Diameter: 20cm. No comparanda in Laconia Survey finds. c. S004SQ1610003. Small echinus (?) bowl with in-curving rim; semi-fine orangey-buff fabric with mica. Diameter: unknown. Cf. Laconia Survey echinus bowls.1006 Hellenistic. d. S004SQ1620001. Small bowl with straight rim; fine orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. e. S005SQ0070001 (Sample 23). Small-medium bowl; fine orange fabric. Diameter: 12-15cm? Very worn. II. Hl-R Plates (Plate 10-5) a. S006SQ001003. Plate with flat out-turned rim (broken) and straight walls; fine gray-buff fabric. Very worn. Diameter: unknown. b. S006SQ0010004 (Sample 27). Plate with beveled rim and thin profile; semi-fine orangey-buff fabric with mica. Diameter: c. 15cm? Cf. Laconia Survey plates.1007 Diameter: unknown. Hellenistic. III. Hl-R Rims – Unknown Shape (Plate 9-5) c. S004SQ1620006 (Sample 17). Small, open shape (bowl?); semi-fine orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. Extremely worn. d. S004SQ1760001 (Sample 20). Medium open shape (bowl?) with grooved interior; fine orangey-buff fabric. Diameter: 15cm? 1006 Visscher 1996, 94 & Plate 15.1; #6a. 1007 Visscher 1996, 93 & Plate 15.1, 1-9; #1a. 578 IV. Hl-R Bases – Unknown Shape (Plate 9-6) a. S004SQ0430001. Tall ring base, probably for open vessel (cup/bowl); thick, vertical base with convex wall; fine orange fabric with gray core. Diameter: 10cm? Cf. Laconia Survey bases for several examples and variations.1008 Hellenistic. b. S004SQ1270001. Everted flat base for small tableware vessel (oinochoe, jug, etc.); fine buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. Cf. above, S004SQ0400001 & Laconia survey #36a (‘Uncertain large-medium closed shapes: bases’).1009 c. S006SQ0010002 (Sample 26). Ring base for small open or closed vessel (bowl/cup/jar?); everted shape with convex outer edge; semi-fine buff fabric. Diameter: 5-8cm? Cf. Laconia Survey #20.1010 d. S006SQ0140003 (Sample 30). Fragmentary ring base; fine buff fabric with red slip. Diameter: 15cm. V. Hl-R Amphorae (Plate 9-6) a. S004SQ0140001 (Sample 2). Flat-topped rim from jar/amphora; orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: 12cm. b. S004SQ1340001 (Sample 13). Oval-sectioned handle; orange fabric. Circumference: 7.7cm. Max. Diameter: 2.97cm. c. S004SQ1580001 (Sample 15). Amphora rim that thickens toward exterior; angled; brown fabric. Diameter: 8cm. d. S004SQ1720001 (Sample 18). Large oval-sectioned handle; orange fabric. Circumference: 12.2cm. Max. Diameter: 4.61cm. 9.5.3.3 Roman Sherds The Roman-period material only contains six examples of diagnostic fineware and semi-fineware, but eight examples of diagnostic kitchenware, medium-coarseware and amphorae. Again, the majority of material is derived from Sites 004 & 006, but two of the diagnostic amphorae are from Site 005. I. Roman Fineware Rim (Plate 9-7) a. S004SQ0520001. Slightly everted/thickened rim for an open vessel (hemispherical bowl?); orange fabric. Diameter: 13cm? Very little of the body walls survive. Possible comparison: Laconia Survey A100/8, 14; M321 B/11.1011 II. Roman Fine and Semi-Fineware Bases (Plate 9-7) a. S004SQ0870001. Ring base for open vessel (jug/pitcher?); orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. 1008 Visscher 1996, 97 & Plate 15.3, 1-5; #13. 1009 Visscher 1996, 66 & Plate 14.11. 1010 Visscher 1996, 100 & Plate 15.5, 1-6. 1011 Visscher 1996, 114 & Plate 16.2, 10-12; #26/27. 579 b. T0820000001. Ring base for open vessel; Reddish-brown glaze preserved on bottom; buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. c. S006SQ0020006. Flat base with (possible) inverted walls; semi-fine orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. Extremely worn. d. S004SQ0000001 (Sample 21). Ring base with incised groove on exterior and slightly everted wall; orangey-buff fabric. Outer Diameter: 9cm. Inner Diameter: 5cm? Cf. Laconia Survey ring-base with splaying profile (F2/3; ST 61). III. Roman Fineware Handle (Plate 9-7) a. S006SQ0170002. Triangular-sectioned handle; semi-fine light buff fabric. Circumference: 6cm. Max. Diameter: 1.57cm. Late Roman. IV. Roman Kitchenware/Coarseware/Amphorae Rims (Plate 9-8) a. S005SQ0170008. Roman medium coarseware rim; uniform thickness; buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. b. S004SQ0090002. Cooking pot with out-turned (pinched, slightly everted) rim; concave neck with rounded, piriform body; brown fabric with gray core. Late Roman. Diameter: 20cm. Cf. Laconia Survey (G252/2-3).1012 c. S005SQ0180002 (Sample 25). D-shaped amphora rim1013; vertical, concave neck with rim thickened outwards; slight thickening on inner edge; brown fabric. Diameter: 10cm. Cf. Laconia survey (M355/1, 3; P262/15; S452/2; LS 1064/5 (ST 71)).1014 d. T00550000004 (Sample 31). Flat-topped rim with deeply-incised groove on upper exterior; unknown (open?) vessel; medium-coarse orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: 12-15cm? V. Roman Kitchenware/Medium-Coarseware/Amphorae Handles (Plate 9-8) a. S004SQ0440001 (Sample 5). Arched amphora handle; orange fabric. Circumference: ~9cm. Max. Diameter: 3.3cm. b. S004SQ1750001 (Sample 19). Small oval-sectioned handle for a cup?; medium-coarse orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 3.5cm. Max. Diameter 1.25cm. c. S006SQ0050006. Medium-round handle; possible Koan-amphora type; brown fabric. Circumference 5cm. Max. Diameter: 1.61cm. If Koan, early Roman date. c. S006SQ0180003. Double-barreled rolled oval section for an arched handle; medium coarse grey-brown overfired fabric with orange core. Circumference: 8.6cm. Max. Diameter: 2.93cm. 1012 Lawson 1996, 118 & Plate 16.6, 13-14; #53. 1013 In original laboratory processing, this was classified as a Late Roman 2 amphora rim, but I think the body is too long and straight for this. 1014 Lawson 1996, Plate 16.7, 5-7; #63f. 580 9.5.3.4 ‘Ancient Historic’ Sherds The remainder of the diagnostic material cannot be dated precisely and is, therefore, simply assigned the designation ‘Ancient Historic’ (AH). It is presented briefly here in the same way as the examples above, according to fabric type (fineware through coarseware). I. AH Fineware a. S004SQ0210001 (Plate 9-9). Slightly inverted rim for medium-large open vessel (shallow bowl/plate?); orange fabric with brown core. Diameter: 15-20cm? b. S004SQ0720001 (Plate 9-10; Sample 9). Small flat oval-sectioned handle; orange micaceous fabric. Circumference 3.9cm. Max. Diameter: 1.43cm. c. S004SQ1290001 (Plate 9-10). Small round-sectioned horizontal handle; buff fabric. Circumference: 3.4cm. Max. Diameter: 1.96cm. Perhaps for oinochoe; Classical-Hellenistic in date? d. T00580000006 (Plate 9-9). Flat base with vertical wall; orange fabric. Diameter: 8cm? II. AH Semi-Fineware a. S004SQ1070001 (Plate 9-9). Slightly pinched rim for jug/pitcher?; fine/semi-fine buff fabric. Diameter: Unknown. Possibly Classical-Hellenistic. b. S004SQ1500001 (Plate 9-9). Flat-topped inverted rim with vertical wall; possibly for jug/pitcher?; brown fabric. Diameter: 9cm. c. S004SQ1610002 (Plate 9-9). Everted, flat-rimmed bowl/basin; convex upper wall with two grooves along the inner edges; orangey-buff fabric. Diameter: 10-15cm? Cf. 8 (Fig 16.1, 12-14 p 113 for a Roman parallel with 25cm diameter. Probably Roman period, c. 2nd-3rd century CE. d. S005SQ0180018 (Plate 9-9). D-shaped rim for closed vessel (likely amphora); brown fabric. Diameter: 10cm? Cf. S005SQ0180002. Probably Roman. e. S005SQ0200005 (Plate 9-9). Flat-topped everted rim for unknown vessel; buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. f. S004SQ0030001 (Plate 9-10). Small-medium oval-sectioned handle; buff fabric. Circumference 4.7cm. Max. Diameter 1.57cm. g. S004SQ0540001 (Plate 9-10; Sample 8). Small flat strap handle attached to body; possibly for a pitcher or mug; orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 3.3cm. Max. Diameter: unknown. h. S004SQ0800001 (Plate 9-10; Sample 11). Medium vertical handle for closed vessel (jar?); orange micaceous fabric. Circumference: 6.8cm. Max. Diameter: 2.4cm. i. S005SQ0020007 (Plate 9-10). Medium strap handle with attachment; buff fabric. Circumference: 6.9cm. Max. Diameter: 2.58cm. j. S005SQ0020008 (Plate 9-10). Large oval-sectioned handle (likely for amphora/jar); buff micaceous fabric. Circumference: 8.1cm. Max. Diameter: 3.47cm. k. S004SQ0610001 (Plate 9-9). Flat base with everted angle on convex body; orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. l. S0060SQ0170014 (Plate 9-9). Flat base or tile spall; orangey-buff fabric. Diameter: unknown. 581 III. AH Kitchenware/Amphorae a. S004SQ1620003 (Plate 9-12). Vertical rim thickened to exterior; amphora or jar; orange micaceous fabric. Diameter: unknown. b. S004SQ0410001 (Plate 9-11). Round-sectioned amphora handle; red micaceous fabric. Circumference: 8cm. Max. Diameter: 2.39m. c. S004SQ0450002 (Plate 9-11). Irregular-sectioned amphora handle; medium-coarse red-brown fabric. Circumference: 6.8cm. Max. Diameter: 2.42cm. d. S004SQ1100002 (Plate 9-11). Medium flat strap amphora handle; coarse orangey-buff fabric. Circumference: 6.4cm. Max. Diameter: 2.54cm. e. S004SQ1430002 (Plate 9-11). Small oval-sectioned handle for kitchen/cooking ware; brown fabric with fine mica. Circumference: 4cm. Max. Diameter: 1.45cm. f. S004SQ1610001 (Plate 9-11; Sample 16). Oval-sectioned curved handle (jar?); orange micaceous fabric. Circumference 6.5cm. Max. Diameter: 2.53cm. g. S005SQ0010003 (Plate 9-11; Sample 22). Round-sectioned amphora handle; brown fabric. Circumference: 7cm. Max. Diameter: 2.28cm. h. S005SQ0180001 (Plate 9-12; Sample 24). Oval-sectioned vertical amphora handle with body; raised grooves on exterior edge of handle, extending onto the body; orange fabric with brown core. Circumference: 7.4cm. Max. Diameter: 2.58cm. Broken in two. i. S006SQ0120004 (Plate 9-11). Oval-sectioned amphora handle; orangey-buff fabric. Circumference: 8cm. Max. Diameter: 3.48cm. j. T00550000006 (Plate 9-11). Oval-sectioned amphora or jar handle; red-brown fabric. Circumference: 7.5cm. Max. Diameter: 2.84cm. k. T00580000001 (Plate 9-11; Sample 33). Round-sectioned amphora handle; medium-coarse buff fabric. Circumference: 7.8cm. Max. Diameter: 2.57cm. l. T00600000002 (Plate 9-12; Sample 34). Round-sectioned amphora handle; coarse red-brown micaceous fabric. Circumference: 9.9cm. Max Diameter: 3.11cm. m. T00610000001 (Plate 9-11; Sample 35). Oval-sectioned strap handle for amphora/jar; orange fabric. No measurements taken. n. T00640000001 (Plate 9-11). Worn amphora handle and attachment; orange fabric. Circumference: unknown. Max. Diameter: 8cm at attachment. IV. Storage/Coarseware a. S006SQ0170005 (Plate 9-12). Flat-topped squarish rim for pithos/storage vessel; slight grooved projection on exterior (bevelled edges); probably vertical wall but not enough survives; coarse orange fabric. Diameter: >40cm. cf. Laconia survey #57c for a Classical-period parallel and Laconia survey #37c for a Hellenistic-period parallel.1015 b. T00820000003 (Plate 9-12). Flat base of a pithos/storage vesse; coarse orange fabric with brown core. Diameter: unknown. 1015 Catling 1996 Plate 14.17, 5-6; Visscher 1996, Plate 15.8, 1. 582 9.5.3.5 ‘Other’ sherds Finally, six sherds are included in the ‘other’ category because we were not able to classify them to a specific date, or even within the ‘Ancient Historic’ designation. I. Other Ceramic (Plate 9-13) a. S004SQ0470001 (Sample 6). Incomplete oval-sectioned handle from a kitchen/cooking vessel; orange and brown micaceous fabric. Circumference: 6cm? Max. Diameter: 2.35cm. Ancient. b. S004SQ0460001. Flattened oval-sectioned handle from kitchenware; medium coarse red-brown fabric. Circumference: 5.2cm. Max. Diameter: 1.98cm. Ancient-Medieval. c. S004SQ0530001. Everted rim to convex neck, probably a closed vessel for kitchenware/cooking; gray fabric. Diameter: unknown. Ancient-Medieval. d. S004SQ1830002. Flat-topped inverted rim for small, open bowl; semi-fine orange fabric. Classical-Roman. e. T00570000009. Oval-sectioned arched handle for small cooking vessel; medium coarse red-brown fabric. Circumference: 6cm. Max. Diameter: 2.36cm. Ancient. f. T00610000007. Fragment of lamp or amphoriskos base?; fine orange fabric. Diameter: unknown. Unknown Date. 9.5.4 Commentary - Fabrics As noted above, the major discernible fabric groups are a ‘buff’ and an ‘orange.’ The frequency of both fabric for all types of vessels suggests that these are locally-produced wares, and this is corroborated through petrographic analysis, below. A lack of stratigraphically excavated sites in Mani renders a comprehensive study of the fabrics and shapes difficult, since there are no reliable comparanda. During macroscopic analysis, the fabrics and vessel types were compared principally to material from Laconia, Kythera, and Messenia, but the situation in Messenia is similar in that it too lacks viable comparanda – the record of historical Messenian survey ceramics (from both the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition and PRAP) remains limited due to a similar lack of relevant excavated contexts. Alcock et al. described the situation as such: “the collected pottery of the Hellenistic and Roman periods – during which 583 fundamental political, religious, and economic shifts occurred – provides more questions and problems than answers and insights….we simply cannot recognize the vast majority of the region’s locally produced Hellenistic and Roman pottery.”1016 The Messenian tableware (“household”) fabrics that have been identified through PRAP as locally-produced include light reddish yellow, pale light brown, whereas UMME described local fabrics as pale yellow, pink, and light red. Of note is PRAP’s inclusion of a “warmly hued light orange” which may correspond to the orange fabric present in Diros Bay, but more investigation is required to determine the similarities – if any – between the two.1017 As for the Laconian local fabrics, they seem, as far as I am able to tell, fundamentally different from the predominant Diros Bay fabrics.1018 This is consistent with the fact that many locales were producing their own, local, pottery during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.1019 The Laconia survey Archaic-Classical material largely comprised fineware fabric that was brown, red, and grey in colour, none of which are notable in the Diros Bay assemblage; orange fabric, however, was also common for certain shapes.1020 Hellenistic Laconian fabric tends to be orange, and local wares dominate during this period within Sparta as well as throughout the region of the Laconia Survey.1021 In terms of Roman fabrics, very few finewares were identified whatsoever, and those that were bore a reddish-yellow fabric, unlike anything at Diros Bay.1022 Likewise, household and cooking wares from Laconia typically display a light brown to a light 1016 Alcock et al. 2005, 194. 1017 Alcock et al. 2005, 196-7. 1018 Alcock et al. 2005, 151. 1019 Visscher 1996; Lawson 1996; Corinth VII.3; Corinth XVBl.l; Romano 1994; Bruneau 1970; Rudolph 1978; Bailey 1993. 1020 Catling 1996, 35. 1021 Visscher 1996, 91. 1022 Alcock et al. 204; Lawson 1996, 111 584 red fabric, generally not recorded at Diros Bay1023 – in sum, the Diros Bay assemblage does not seem to comprise Laconian fabrics. The island of Kythera yields the most promising comparative material: the main fabrics at the stratified, excavated site of Kastri include chert fabric and orange micaceous fabric, two fabrics which appear in the Diros Bay assemblage (see detailed petrographic descriptions, below). However, the fabric-based approaches and the petrological ceramic analyses of the Kytheran pottery have been focused primarily on establishing Kytheran Bronze Age pottery chronologies, and not on the fabrics of the historical period.1024 The same is true for the Sphakia survey (Crete), whose local fabrics include two that may be comparable to Diros Bay fabrics: 1) a “Creamy Powder Buff Tan” that dates from LM III through the early Roman period, and comprises fineware and semi-fineware (fine-medium) table vessels; and 2) a “Cretan Tan Fine Calc Sand” fabric used primarily for Roman amphorae.1025 Unfortunately, however, the historical-period Sphakia sherds were not subject to petrographic sampling as were the Kythera survey material, whose microscopic analysis was reserved for the prehistoric sherds. 9.5.5 Commentary - Interpretation The large quantity of Classical-early Roman fineware and tableware is in stark contrast to the almost complete lack of Classical-early Roman kitchenware and cooking vessels. Such an assemblage may, at first glance, suggest a temporary or transient occupation. This may be the result of the site’s close proximity to the coast: the assemblage may reflect a site occupied prior to (or immediately following) a voyage. This hypothesis is strengthened when considering the 1023 Lawson 1996, 118. 1024 Kiriatzi 2003. 1025 Moody et al. 2003, 73 & 85. 585 relatively large ratio of table amphorae, which could be used to transport smaller quantities of food and/or beverage prior to or during maritime travel (as opposed to storage amphorae, which might be interpreted as cargo). The situation changes in the later Roman period, when cooking and kitchen vessels become more common. There is still a good amount of fine/semi-fineware, and this more complete assemblage may reflect a more permanent (or, at least, less temporary) settlement during the Roman period, wherein occupation in general becomes more widespread throughout the peninsula. Another interpretation of the small, tableware-heavy assemblage is the famous ‘classical farmstead’ model1026; rather than simply assume the model based on the presence of the ceramic scatter, I follow Pettegrew in interpreting such a low-density scatter (relative to other parts of Greece) as potentially representative of a habitation site which, when abandoned, was largely stripped of any and all belongings of value (and material culture that would contribute to the archaeological record).1027 As Pettegrew noted: “When families moved then, as today, they took all their valuables with them. Homesteads that at one time existed on the landscape were simply broken down and carted away, along with their equipment.”1028 Based on this cultural formation process theory, I suggest that the assemblage at Diros Bay may, in face, represent the remnants of a habitation site – the vessels represented in the surface ceramics had already been deemed too useless to merit transport when the site was abandoned. Since fineware is most likely to break during habitual use, the large quantity of fine and semi-fine ceramic sherds at Diros Bay may 1026 See Pettegrew (2001, 190) for a summary and main bibliography for this model. 1027 Pettegrew 2001, 203: Even the Vari farmhouse, one of the best studied farmsteads of Classical Greece, only produced a pottery assemblage that, if dispersed on the surface of the ground, would correspond to less than one vessel per square metre. 1028 Pettegrew 1001, 199. 586 have been waste that was left behind. This model, however, still leaves one question unanswered: why is there such a marked absence of massive storage vessels (pithoi, etc.)? Such vessels, despite continued functionality, are quite large for a family to transport, and following Pettegrew’s farmstead-abandonment model, one would expect to see more identifiable fragments of storage vessels in the surface ceramics. Excavation would, of course, shed light on this issue, test this model, and provide further answers. Ultimately, based on the macroscopic analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Sites 004-006, the occupation at Diros Bay seems to be diachronic from the Classical through the Roman period, but the exact nature of that occupation is not fully discernible through the macroscopic examination of the ceramic evidence alone. 9.6 Microscopic and Chemical Analysis From the total corpus of diagnostic objects, I chose 35 examples for further archaeometric sampling. The impetus behind this further study was threefold: 1) to see whether composition of the ceramic fabric yielded information regarding the provenance of the clays/vessels; 2) to test whether the macroscopic examination correlated with the microscopic finds; and 3) to determine fabric groups and outliers among the samples. The individual pieces were chosen to represent a range in fabric types, dates, and vessel forms. As is evident from the list above, the certainty regarding the latter two categories varies drastically among the samples; this was intentional, to reflect the range of confidence at the level of macroscopic identification. The petrographic analysis took place in October 2015 in the Fitch Laboratory at the British School at Athens and the Malcolm H. Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science at 587 the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, using a Leitz Laborlux 12 POL microscope.1029 The analysis of the thin sections is included in Appendix F. 9.6.1 Discussion of Petrographic Results The petrographic analysis yielded four main fabric groups, and a fifth group of outliers. Group 1 (3, 11, 12, 13, & 32); Group 2 (1, 15, 17, 20, & 25); subgroup 2a (22 & 28); subgroup 2b (10 & 21); subgroup 2c (4, 18, & 29); subgroup 2d (19, 23, & 26); Group 3 (2, 5, 8, 9, 14, 27, 35); Group 4 (16 & 34); and Outliers (6, 7, 24, 30, 31, & 33). Petrographically, Groups 1 & 2 shared many similarities, notably the colouring of the groundmass and the high presence of quartz, but were ultimately separated based on the size, quantity, and nature of the inclusions. 2 has several sub-groups which also reflected differences in inclusions, structure, and groundmass. The vast majority of the samples belong to Groups 1 & 2 which is indicative of locally-produced ceramic vessels, since the quartz-heavy limestone fabric typical of these groups is expected given the metamorphic geology of the Mani peninsula, and nothing indicates that these vessels were imported from elsewhere. Groups 1 & 2 may represent a number of different clay sources, but there is nothing overtly remarkable about these samples that reveal further information. Group 3 is characterized overwhelmingly by orange micaceous fabric; the petrographic analysis here corresponds well to the macroscopic fabric analysis, with all of the samples described as ‘orange’ or ‘orange mica’. The samples within this group are representative of a 1029 I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Takis Karkanas and Evangelia Kiriatzi for their help and guidance during my time at the respective labs. 588 separate clay source, but one which is also likely local within the Mani peninsula (again, due to the metamorphic qualities). Group 4 comprises two samples that are both ‘Ancient Historic’ kitchenware; these heavily micaceous samples certainly represent an additional clay source. The igneous plagioclase basalt found in both samples in this group may indicate that these samples were imported. As described above, the highly micaceous schists and biotite inclusions look similar to Kytheran fabrics, but the wavy undulation tends to be more characteristic of Attic/Cycladic metamorphic. Comparatively, these samples are structurally similar to metamorphic colluvium from the site of Karavas on Kythera. Finally, there are six outliers that cannot be associated with any other group, and likely also represent imports. This experiment was met with varying degrees of success in terms of the answers I sought through petrographic analysis. While I was successful in classifying the samples into groups and isolating outliers, I was not overwhelmingly successful in determining provenance for the clays/vessels. I deemed the majority of the samples (Groups 1 & 2, possibly Group 3) to be locally-produced, but I am unable to pinpoint the sources of the clay. Further investigation in the region is needed to identify clay sources and create a comparative database. Moreover, cross-cultural comparison was made difficult due to the fact that few ‘historical’ period ceramics have been the subject of petrographic analysis; microscopic testing is usually reserved for prehistoric ceramics, particularly from pedestrian surveys. Thus, although there have been field surveys in Laconia, Messenia, Kythera, and Sphakia that may have comparable material, none of the Classical-Roman material from these surveys has undergone petrographic analysis. Macroscopic comparison of fabrics is helpful, but is inevitably prone to human subjectivity and error. The value in this petrographic study, however, lies in the fact that through this comprehensive 589 analysis, I have created a dataset that will serve as a valuable basis of comparison for future petrographic studies in the region. Following the petrographic analysis, it became clear that there was not always a direct correlation between macroscopic analysis and microscopic analysis.1030 In fact, in some cases, the classification of fabrics had no bearing whatsoever on their petrographic grouping. The samples in Group 1 all appear quite similar macroscopically, with Sample 32 the least like the rest. Group 2 and its sub-groups has surprising inconsistency when examined macroscopically; a quick look over the macroscopic images reveals that Sample 17 and Sample 21 appear the most similar, despite the former’s categorization in Group 2 and the latter’s in subgroup 2b. Group 3, as mentioned already, all share an ‘orange’ fabric group, but when compared side-by-side, it is clear that Sample 27 has a distinct appearance from the rest of the group (which are quite uniform). The two samples in Group 4 appear very similar macroscopically, but in the laboratory processing their fabrics were initially described as orange mica (Sample 16) and red-brown mica (Sample 34); I should note that the initial macroscopic fabric descriptions are not necessarily inaccurate but can be improved upon by re-examining samples in different contexts and in comparison to similar sherds. Finally, within the group of six outliers, three of the samples (6, 7, 33) are seemingly innocuous and macroscopically appear similar to other groups, while the other three samples (24, 30, 31) are noticeably different from the other samples even under macroscopic examination. The implication of these conclusions is simply that macroscopic categorization of fabric groups alone may lead to misrepresentation and petrographic analysis can be advantageous for more precise classification. 1030 For an example of the use and importance of both macroscopic and microscopic fabric analysis, see: Moody et al. 2003. 590 9.6.2 Chemical Analysis – Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF) During the 2015 Diros Project summer season, I had access to a Bruker Tracer II-SD pXRF machine and tested the elemental composition of the same 35 sherds that had been selected for petrographic sampling, in order to incorporate the results of multiple archaeometric techniques into my conclusions about the ceramic material at Diros Bay. Following the testing of the sherds themselves in Athens, several statistical analyses were performed in order to determine the presence of distinct groups.1031 The first exploratory analysis conducted was hierarchal analysis, which produced two distinct groups: Group Alpha (Samples 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-29, 31-32, & 34-35) and Group Beta (5, 12, 15, 18, 22, 30, 33). There were also two outliers (Samples 31 & 8), that more closely associated with Group Alpha than Group Beta (Figure 9-19). Bivariate plots were constructed to illustrate the elemental differences between the two groups. Differences in elements, such as Manganese (Mg) and Zirconium (Zr), confirmed the distinction between Group Alpha (blue) and Group Beta (red), as well as the two outliers. Principal component analysis was then conducted to determine the similarities in elemental composition of the samples, which confirmed the validity of Groups Alpha & Beta, as well as the outliers. The separation of the two groups is notable: as evidenced in Figure 9-19, ~75% of the compositional variability within the sherds has an Eigen value above 1, which indicates low overall variation among all 35 samples. Thus, the distinction between Group Alpha 1031 My sincerest gratitude to Danielle Riebe for performing these analyses at the Field Museum in Chicago, IL. For a complete explanation of the statistical analyses conducted and their respective advantages, see Riebe 2016, 68-98 & 139-168. A specialized calibration file for ceramics analyzed with the Bruker III-SD was not available and therefore, the parts-per-million (ppm) data presented here should not be relied upon as accurate. Due to the fact that all ceramics are silica based, the GF1z file created by MURR was used to calibrate the data. The statistical analyses conducted act only as an exploratory way to assess the compositional variation between the sherds. Future analysis would require that all sherds be reanalyzed with an instrument that has a soil or clay calibration file in order to generate more reliable, accurate, and replicable data. 591 Figure 9-19: Results of hierarchical analysis and a bivariate plot with zirconium (Zr) and manganese (Mn). All ellipses represent 90% confidence intervals. Figure 9-20: Principal component analysis of the 35 ceramic samples from Diros Bay. and Group Beta is significant, since the 35 samples as a whole do not have a lot of variation (Figure 9-20). 592 Finally, discriminant function analysis was performed to determine the differences between the samples in each group (Figure 9-21). The distinction between Group Alpha and Group Beta persisted, and thus the results are consistent with the initial exploratory groupings (Group Alpha and Group Beta), regardless of the analysis performed. Overall, the pXRF testing yielded consistent results with regard to the groupings and outliers. Interpretation of the two groups and the outliers, however, is less clear. Sample 31 (purple on Figure 9-19 & 9-20) is the most straightforward, as it was classified as an outlier in both petrographic and chemical analysis. Sample 8 (green on Figure 9-19 & 9-20), the other outlier, is a part of petrographic Group 3 (characterized by orange micaceous fabrics), and has no obvious reason for separation from this group; it may represent a different clay that was tempered with similar mica and appeared similar to the other samples in this group. Group Beta (Samples 5, 12, 15, 18, 22, 30, 33) comprises six amphora fragments, and their similar chemical signatures may reflect a similar clay source; unfortunately, when compared to the petrographic results, the Group Beta samples are distributed among four of the major petrographic groups and two of its subgroups, thus producing no discernible pattern. The final sample in Group Beta is a petrographic outlier (Sample 30) and was marked as an import. However, its petrographic separation is based on its overfiring, slip, and extremely fine matrix, and there is no reason why the source cannot be the same as the remaining examples in Group Beta. The samples within Group Beta may represent a similar clay source while still appearing dissimilar petrographically: the recipe of the pottery (including added temper, grog, and other elements) will vary depending on the shape of the vessel and its date of manufacture. 593 Figure 9-21: Discriminant analysis of the 35 ceramic samples from Diros Bay. Plainly, there were drawbacks when performing compositional (and petrographic) analyses on these (and any) survey ceramics: namely, the lack of secure archaeological context and/or control factors. With many uncertain components, including original shape and date of the vessels, the archaeometric testing of surface sherds can only reveal so much.1032 The analysis of 1032 There is also the possibility that when performing the initial pXRF analysis, the results may not represent the matrix of the fabric, but an inclusion (especially in the case of coarse vessels), thus obfuscating the true 594 this dataset did, however, produce two distinct groupings consistently, and thus the presence of two distinct compositional groups in this pottery assemblage is a reliable conclusion. The analyses of the pXRF data also produced a fairly close clustering, suggesting that – like the petrographic results – there is limited variability in the compositional make up of these sherds. This tentative conclusion potentially highlights the hyper-locality of the material culture in this region, and perhaps even the isolated character of the Diros Bay assemblage. The presence of outliers, including the possible fragment of Kythera-ware, underscores the maritime connections that are obvious when examining the coastal location of the scatter itself. As was shown with the petrographic results, I have created a robust database with which to compare local clay samples and material from future archaeological excavations. 9.7 Geophysical Prospection at Site 004 Due to the high concentration of Classical-Roman ceramics within Site 004, we conducted geophysical prospection in order to determine whether any sub-surface features were discernible. Members from the Laboratory of Geophysical-Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-Environment at the Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Foundation for Research & Technology, Hellas (IMS-FORTH) came to the Diros Project in July 2014 to conduct various geophysical surveys. Due to the difficult terrain at Site 004 (agricultural terraces, overgrown vegetation, and changes in elevation) three different geophysical methods were integrated to extract the most data: magnetic gradiometry, multi-frequency EM and electrical resistance (Figure 9-22 through 9-27). compositional signature of the clay paste itself. This is a drawback to the pXRF technique as a whole, and a finer means of analysis is necessary to avoid such complications. 595 Figure 9-22: Digital elevation model (DEM) of Site 004. Total Elevation: 20+m. Source: Papadopoulos & Sarris 2014, Figure 1.4 Figure 9-23: Site 004 & 006 visibility, as reported by field walkers. 596 While the terraces (both visible and hidden) proved to be a significant obstacle to the geophysical prospection, the magnetic gradiometry yielded results that suggest structures of archaeological interest (Figure 9-24): “In general the magnetic signature of the visible and hidden terraces masked any other significant signal related to actual archaeological features. An exception to this lies on the outline of the rectangular anomaly M1 with dimension 8m by 7m at the center of the surveyed region. This feature is located on the flat area of a terrace within the region of the highest ceramics concentration. The southeast part of the surveyed area (south-west of the church) exhibits the largest interest in terms of archaeological structures. The linear segments of the high magnetic intensity anomaly M3 is related to the visible ruins of the basilica that has been exposed in the specific region. Anomaly M2 has the same orientation like M3 and appears with a linear part that terminates towards its south-west corner to a rectangular structure with dimensions 7m by 4m. Both M2 and M3 anomalies exhibit strong magnetic signature signifying a relatively good preservation level of the respective structures. Their similar magnetic signature and orientation (SW-NE) are a good indicator that they belong to the same structural phase (Fig. 6.3).”1033 The results of the electric resistance survey revealed a “compact high resistance region” (R2) at the south-east quadrant of Site 004, which correlates to the magnetic anomaly (M2) in the same area. 1033 Papadopoulos and Sarris 2014, 49. 597 Figure 9-24: Results of magnetic gradiometry at Site 004. Source: Papadopoulos and Sarris 2014, Figure 6.3. Figure 9-25: Results of electric resistance survey at Site 004. Source: Papadopoulos and Sarris 2014, Figure 6.5. 598 Figure 9-26: Results of all geophysical survey techniques at Site 004. Source: Papadopoulos and Sarris 2014, Figure 6.6. The results of the geophysical prospection demonstrate the importance of the combination of employed techniques – a multi-dimensional approach – at Site 004.1034 Both electric resistance survey and magnetic gradiometry produced specific subsurface targets for future archaeological investigation and the methodologies proved complementary, particularly in the south-east region of Site 004. Despite the physical obstacles created by the modern terrace-walls and the overgrown vegetation, the combination of non-invasive techniques produced two viable areas of archaeological significance at Site 004. The polygonal feature at the centre of the site is situated in the midst of dense ceramic scatters, while the linear features at the south-west are located just south of the church of Aghia Paraskevi (Figures 9-26 & 9-27). 1034 Kvamme 2006. 599 Figure 9-27: Magnetometric features superimposed upon ceramic density scatter map of Site 004. Within the church of Aghia Paraskevi are the remains of white marble architectural members, including a large Doric capital and two sections of a (once monolithic?) unfluted column which serve as the altar table (Figure 9-28). The small quarry at Diros Bay (Chapter 3) is the obvious candidate for the source of these members, and their size suggests a relatively large building or monument, but no blocks or additional members were located during the survey; any evidence of antiquity was likely removed to private residences long ago and further information will only be yielded through excavation.1035 1035 Sometime around 2010/2011, a new room was added to the local school in Pyrgos Dirou. In 2014, a local brought a large tray of pottery that was unearthed during this construction to the Diros Museum. This pottery included large quantities of Classical-Hellenistic material, with the characteristic buff fabric, several pieces of fineware including black glaze and a fragment of a lamp. This local believed that the material came from ancient graves. 600 These two geophysical anomalies provide an excellent starting point for future investigation in the region, as I suspect that these two structures are directly related to the high concentration of pottery recorded on the surface in their immediate vicinity. Although I am hesitant to put forth an interpretation of these structures at this point due to the lack of concrete evidence, I believe that there is a high probability that the structure in the centre of Site 004 (M1) is from the period of classical antiquity due to the high concentration of Classical-Hellenistic sherds immediately to the south and west of the structure (see Figure 9-8; M1 corresponds to square 27). With regard to the other structure (M2), I suggest that it may be from the period of late antiquity (late Roman-early Christian period) due to its close proximity to Aghia Paraskevi, a Byzantine-Ottoman cistern, a ruined basilica of the same orientation (M3), and the high density of Roman sherds found in the vicinity (see Figure 9-9; the limit of M2 corresponds to square Figure 9-28: Reused architectural members in the church of Aghia Paraskevi, Diros Bay. 601 185). The results from the geophysical prospection are especially promising for future work in the region of Diros Bay. 9.8 Discussion & Conclusions The pedestrian survey around Diros Bay yielded high-density ceramic scatters in two main areas: Site 005 and Sites 004/006. After macroscopic analysis of the sherds, we determined there was a large concentration of Classical-Hellenistic pottery at Sites 004/006, and Roman pottery at Sites 005 and 006. Site 005 was subsequently identified as an example of Late Roman domestic occupation, the only example of this type of settlement in the entire study region. Diagnostic sherds from all three Sites were removed for further study, during which we observed that there were higher numbers of fineware and semi-fineware, and a surprising lack of cooking ware and storage vessels for all the periods of interest. I performed petrographic and chemical analysis on 35 sample sherds, and the results produced a few unique petrographic groups which helped isolate probable local vs. imported wares, while the pXRF analysis revealed that there were two distinct chemical signatures, perhaps indicative of two main clay sources. Geophysical prospection on Site 004 revealed two potential areas of archaeological interest, at the centre of the ceramic scatter, and to the south of Aghia Paraskevi. In combination, the results of the geophysical survey and ceramic analyses provided a promising location for future archaeological excavations at Diros Bay. The Diros Project pedestrian survey was admittedly small in scope, as it was limited to the area immediately around Diros Bay. In 2013, the directors applied for permission to extend the survey permit north to Oitylos and east to Pyrrichos, but this application was denied on the basis that the Diros Project permit was under the auspices of the speleological Ephorate and 602 directly associated with Alepotrypa Cave; an extension beyond the boundary would not, they argued, reveal additional information about Alepotrypa cave itself. Because we were unable to record and discern broader patterns of ancient activity through pedestrian survey, we are unable to reconstruct the ancient cultural landscape in the greater north-western region of the Mani peninsula. Through this case study, however, I was able to look at these two ‘Sites’ of ancient activity within their topographic context and draw preliminary conclusions with regard to the physical situation of Diros Bay and the identity of the inhabitants therein. As a coastal site on one of the few accessible bays on the western side of the peninsula, Diros Bay was accessible via maritime routes and, I argue, had a coastal maritime outlook. The representative vessels within the ceramic assemblage and the combination of local and imported fabrics are indicative of temporary occupation, possibly a landing site or a camp prior to a sea voyage; as such, the coastal site of Diros Bay is fluidly integrated with the surrounding seascape. Diros Bay was, however, also located on the western limit of one of the few major land routes across the peninsula – from Kotronas via Pyrrichos – and was located just south of the other main access route – from Gytheio to Areopoli. Situated immediately to the south of Oitylos and along the relatively fertile western plain, Diros Bay was physically located at both north-south and east-west crossroads. The networks of karstic caves in the region were used in antiquity – possibly as religious sites – and there were marble outcrops and quarries in the immediate vicinity that were exploited in antiquity. The record of spolia in the region confirms the existence of ancient activity, but prior to this study, there was no ‘place’ with which to associate the spolia. The investigation into Diros Bay provided a viable candidate for a previously unknown site of ancient occupation on the western coast of the Inner Mani peninsula. This comprehensive analysis of the material culture of Diros Bay sheds light on the primarily 603 localized ceramic assemblage – with a few possible examples of imported fabric – suggesting perhaps a local culture for the inhabitants, but one which was still seemingly ‘connected’ through its surrounding landscape and seascape (i.e. outward looking via maritime routes and inward looking via land routes). Although the major disadvantage to such a small survey boundary is the inability to construct regional patterns of land use over a large area, there were also advantages to the small assemblage examined in this case study: the limited focus of the survey allowed for a comprehensive investigation into this small site, and an equally comprehensive attempt to extract as much information as possible from the recovered ceramic material as well as through geophysical survey on the ground. Whereas in larger survey projects such an initially unremarkable scatter may have been recorded and forgotten in the face of larger scatters, sites, or features throughout the landscape, but the small scope of the Diros Project allowed for a thorough and exhaustive study of the ceramic material, from macroscopic examination, to drawing and digitization of the complete diagnostic record, petrographic study, to pXRF chemical analysis, and geophysical prospection in the form of electric resistance and magnetic gradiometry. Through this investigation, we identified the only example of late Roman domestic architecture in all of the Inner Mani and pinpointed an area of Classical-Hellenstic activity. Furthermore, I have produced a reliable dataset for future investigation into the region, and created a model for studying small surface assemblages. The results of the archaeological research into Diros Bay revealed a hitherto unknown area of ancient activity through a (mostly) locally-produced, ceramic assemblage that comprised largely fineware and semi-fineware sherds from the Classical through Roman periods, and potentially associated architectural structures. These results confirm that the notable presence of spolia in the region likely derived from a local 604 site, and was not collected and transported from elsewhere in the peninsula. The Diros Bay archaeological case study changes the known record of antiquity on the western coast of Mani between Mezapos and Oitylos – a region which had been completely omitted in the ancient written sources – and showcases the importance of investigating regions which have been lost to history. It is my sincere hope that in the future we will receive permission to excavate the areas of interest revealed through the geophysical survey and wholly complete this investigation into the Classical-Roman activity at Diros Bay. 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 Chapter 10: Conclusion: Towards a comprehensive picture of the Mani peninsula in antiquity 10.1 Overview Over the past nine chapters, I have presented the available geographic, historical, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence for the inhabitants and the settlements of the Mani peninsula. I chose to present this material within larger, traditional chronological divisions, each of which corresponded to one chapter. Within each chapter, the material was presented regionally, so as to provide an organized, comprehensive overview of the Mani peninsula from the Archaic through the late Roman periods. While general conclusions for each historical period of classical antiquity were presented within each of these chapters, at this point I would like to summarize all of these conclusions. Throughout this work, the central, overarching question has been one related to the identitifaction of the settlements and the inhabitants thereof: namely, ‘Who were the inhabitants of the settlements in ancient Mani?’. In order to answer this question, more directed questions were the focus of each chapter: In Chapter 2, I asked the question ‘how can we approach the study of identity in ancient Mani, using all of the available evidence and building upon existing theoretical frameworks?’ In answering this important question, I presented a theoretical framework with which to study the identity of the inhabitants of ancient Mani, combining approaches to the study of cultural, civic, and religious identity in the ancient world with approaches to identity in coastal and isolated environments. The value in such a framework is that future studies can use Mani as a case study for ‘ahistorical’ identity-formation in marginal environments, and can employ the methods used 619 throughout this dissertation to extract as much information as possible with a relatively insubstantial body of evidence. In Chapter 3, I addressed questions including ‘where did they live?’, ‘how might geological and environmental factors played a role in settlement distribution and daily existence?’, and ‘what natural resources were available to the inhabitants of the peninsula?’ In answering these questions, I presented the physical aspects of the landscape and the distribution of the settlements, as well as a publication of all of the ancient marble quarries within the Mani peninsula. In Chapters 4-8, I answered questions of identity based on various types of evidence for each of the historical-period subdivisions (Archaic; Classical; Hellenistic/Republican; Imperial; late Antique). Through an examination of the historical and literary sources, I answered the question ‘what was written about the settlements of Mani in antiquity, and how has this external perspective shaped our understanding of regional identity?’ The written sources presented in each chapter included evidence for settlement locations, religious cults and worship, allegiance and affiliation (or lack thereof) in times of war, and most frequently, evidence for the nature and function of the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron. Through an examination of epigraphic material from the Mani peninsula, I addressed broad questions including ‘what were the names of individuals who lived here, can familial lineages be reconstructed, and do they have relations to other places throughout the Greek world?’ ‘what civic and religious institutions existed in various settlements?’ and ‘is polis-based identification apparent anywhere in the peninsula?’ I also presented the known archaeological material of Mani in its entirety with the express purpose of evaluating the material culture remains throughout the peninsula. In doing so, I answered the 620 questions ‘where are there traces of human existence, and what can they tell us about the ancient inhabitants in terms of settlement distribution, dates, and institutions?’ Finally, in Chapter 9, I presented a case study from the western side of the peninsula, asking the question ‘Can small, focused, scientific archaeological studies reveal more about the identity of the inhabitants in this region?’ The answer to this is a resounding yes, but with the caveat that much more scientific archaeological investigation is necessary to form a more complete picture of the Mani peninsula in antiquity. To conclude this research, I present my final interpretations of the identities within the ancient Mani peninsula through temporal divisions of regional patterns, from the Archaic through late Roman periods. 10.2 The Archaic Period (prior to ~500 BCE) The Archaic period in Mani is still poorly understood, as there is very little epigraphic, archaeological, and literary evidence that survives. Literary sources mention Oitylos, Las, Messe, and Tainaron; the first three are geographically affiliated with Lakedaimon, and the fourth with the Lakonian land, but I have argued that there is no literary evidence of Spartan control over these places. At this early date, Tainaron is already associated with the mythical underworld. With the exception of Geometric pottery sherds seen in the early 20th century around Cavo Grosso by Woodward, all of our epigraphic and archaeological evidence dating to the Archaic period is concentrated within the north-eastern region of the peninsula and generally associated with ancient Las, as the only settlement in this region that is named in the Archaic period. This material comprises two rams-head sculptures, a large Doric capital, a sculpture of a seated man, a warrior-hoplite relief, a funerary inscription and a dedication to Aphrodite (both 621 now lost). The Archaic evidence as a whole points to, at the very least, the existence of a few small, scattered settlements within Mani, the largest and most religiously-focused of which is located in the north-east of the peninsula. The north-east is the region of the peninsula that is most accessible to Gytheio, Sparta and the rest of Lakonia, and there is a connection to Lakonian religious identity through the Dorian cult of Apollo Karneios if one accepts the interpretations of the rams-head sculptures as such. Overall, Maniate identity in the Archaic period is largely elusive, but does seem to be tied to larger Lakonian religious and perhaps cultural identity. As a result, this period exhibits the most evidence for a ‘Lakonian’ and even ‘Spartan’ identity, but the evidence is so sparse that only future investigations – and archaeological explorations in particular - can shed further light on this conclusion. 10.3 The Classical Period (~480-323 BCE) In the Classical period our evidence for the settlements and individuals of the Mani peninsula only increases marginally in all categories. There is little-to-no evidence for sites or traces of ancient activity inland, suggesting that the coastal settlements and their inhabitants did not engage in much overland travel between opposite coasts, but instead faced outward and relied on maritime cultural seascapes for trade, travel, connection and communication. The Classical-period literary sources added the harbours of Achilleios and Psamathous, as well as the coastal settlement of Asine, which was attacked by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian War. Asine is also thought to be somewhere in the north-east of the peninsula, near Las. Las is categorized as a polis in this period, implying a shared identity among community members. As I’ve mentioned before, the polis itself was a fundamental political aspect of ancient Greek thought, and the characterization of Las (and Oitylos) as such allows us 622 to understand and infer certain key facts: that there were citizens of that polis, and that they themselves identified with that polis and shared this identity with their fellow community members. Las’ mytho-religious connection to the rest of Lakonia persists in this period, as it was affiliated, mythologically, with the Dioskouroi and the foundation of Lakonia. Oitylos, too, was connected to Sparta etymologically, but the authors who made these mytho-historic connections between Las, Oitylos, and Lakonia were all Athenian, so this cannot be taken as unequivocally representative of actual shared identity. There is only one inscription from Oitylos that dates to the Classical period; it does not reveal any significant information, and it is now lost. Archaeologically, all the evidence dated to the Classical period is tentative. This includes the white marble quarry at Charouda and the votive relief (of Artemis?) from nearby Paleochora. More commonly, the Classical-period evidence comprises ceramic scatters throughout the peninsula, with recorded sherds at the following (modern) sites: Passava, Kotronas, Skopas, Spira, Prophitis Ilias, Cavo Grosso, Phokoloto, Kataphygi Cave, and Oitylos. The problem with this category of evidence, however, is that much of this pottery was simply observed (and not photographed, drawn, or collected) by early scholars. The ceramics that I myself have observed and studied – on the ground at various sites throughout the peninsula, in the study collections at the British School at Athens, and the material from the Diros Bay case study – is problematic in that: a) no material derives from systematic, stratigraphic excavation; b) no complete vessels survive; and c) surface ceramics from the region are often very small and worn, obscuring both surface treatment and original shape. Without a more comprehensive understanding of local ceramic fabrics and typologies, I am unable to assign a ChronoType to these sherds beyond ‘Classical-Hellenistic’. I have also argued that no fortifications conclusively date to the Classical period (refuting the argument for a Spartan defensive network in Mani), with the exception of 623 Oitylos’ city walls, which are late Classical-Hellenistic in date. In sum, the corpus of evidence for the Classical period suggests the existence of a few small sites distributed throughout the peninsula: Las and Asine in the north-east, ceramic scatters around Kotronas, Spira, and Prophitis Ilias in the east, Cavo Grosso, Charouda and Diros Bay along the west coast, and Oitylos in the north-west. The inhabitants of the Mani peninsula during this period seem to be scattered throughout the peninsula and isolated from one another, due to a lack of evidence for inland occupation; all of the settlements during this period are coastal and presumably share features of maritime cultural landscapes, in that they position themselves along the coast and direct their interests, trade, and communication towards the sea rather than inland. It is crucial to reiterate that, despite common perception, there is no indication of Sparta’s influence or control over any of these settlements, although Las and Oitylos may have shared Lakonian mytho-religious identities. These Lakonian identities, I argue, persist from the Archaic period. In terms of the political and civic identities, however, the sparse evidence points towards localized, polis-based identity, with no explicit evidence for a larger collective ‘Lakonian’ identity. Finally, Tainaron deserves its own small section, since the evidence for its function during the Classical period is abundant. Literary sources from this period contain information about Tainaron’s connection with the underworld, its function as a place of refuge and a muster-place for ships with a harbour, and its location of a sanctuary of Poseidon. In scholarship, Tainaron’s relationship to – and subjugation by – Sparta is often mentioned offhandedly, as if its status is unquestionable. The control of the sanctuary of Tainaron during the Classical period is simply assumed to have been Spartan, while the location of Tainaron as a muster-place during the Peloponnesian War, as well as a mercenary headquarters, is taken for granted as being the decision of the Spartans. Throughout this work, I 624 argued for an alternative interpretation of the role of Tainaron, particularly during the Classical period of Spartan hegemony: that Tainaron was a location that functioned as a neutral, unaffiliated space for a variety of activities including religious worship, refuge for suppliants (esp. helots), and the gathering of troops and ships for military campaigns. That helots and slaves of Lakonia were travelling all the way to Tainaron for their supplication suggests that the benefits afforded to those seeking refuge at Tainaron were worth the perilous trek – or sail – to the bottom of the Mani peninsula. There were several sanctuaries within Sparta itself, but the decision to travel all the way to Tainaron may in fact have been to literally get away from Sparta and the Spartans themselves, an escape to a sanctuary outside Spartan jurisdiction if still technically within their ‘territory’. Archaeologically, not much evidence survives from Tainaron itself, although the nearby Marmari quarries were exploited in the Classical period and may even have provided a source of revenue for the administration and management of the sanctuary of Poseidon. The Classical-period epigraphic evidence from Tainaron, however, supports my argument for Tainarian autonomy and neutrality. Legal documents, namely manumission stelai, were erected at the site of Tainaron and contained the names of manumitted slaves who were consecrated to Poseidon. My close study of the individuals named within the manumission stelae – owners, ephors, and witness – weakened the historic association of Tainaron with Sparta; only a select few individuals could be linked to Sparta, while the vast majority of individuals showed strong onomastic correlation with locations other than Sparta, including Delphi, Kos, Cyrene, Epiros, Hermione, and, most importantly, other settlements within Mani. Tainaron’s physical situation at the tip of the Mani peninsula led to its perception in antiquity as the liminal space between the world of the living and the dead, as well as the edge of the Greek world, but its geographic 625 isolation from the rest of Lakonia and the Peloponnese enabled it to function as an autonomous, neutral place for refuge throughout its history. In terms of religious identity, the existence of the cult to Poseidon may have connections to other sanctuaries to the same god elsewhere in the Aegean (Kalauria, Geraistos), but evidence for this is scarce. The identities of the individuals who populated Tainaron, however temporarily, were multifarious in terms of cultural and civic background, but at least one socio-cultural class (namely, slaves and helots) were certainly present at the site of Tainaron. The nature of the sanctuary itself, I believe, welcomed an amalgamation of individuals from around the Classical Greek world, with the result that the individual identities represented at Tainaron were polyvalent and varied, while the political (non-) identity of the sanctuary was explicitly unaffiliated, autonomous, and neutral. 10.4 The Hellenistic Period (~323-30 BCE) The Hellenistic Mani is, in my opinion, the most intriguing and least understood period of antiquity in this region. Based on the contemporary literary sources alone, it would seem that apart from Tainaron, the Mani peninsula was devoid of human occupation. In stark contrast, the amount of available archaeological and epigraphic evidence increases substantially throughout the peninsula. In the north-eastern area of the peninsula, at least eight inscriptions date to the later Hellenistic period, from the 2nd century BCE onward. Two inscriptions from the region of Kotronas (ancient Teuthrone) revealed the existence of a gymnasium (and the athletic and civic institutions that accompany it), suggesting a thriving political and social life in Teuthrone by the 2nd-1st century BCE. The fact that the first of these inscriptions was on a rosso antico slab provides chronological context for the exploitation of this stone, and the potential economic 626 implications thereof: namely, a source of revenue for the local inhabitants extracting the stone if the red marble was exported as early as period. There is also epigraphic evidence for organized religious institutions through the named office of hieroi from this region beginning in the Hellenistic period, although for which divinity is unclear. One candidate is Artemis, based on two contemporary objects: the first an inscribed portable altar from Kotronas with relief sculpture of a dog, a goat, and torches; the second a relief stele with Artemis and a dog. The epigraphic record reveals evidence for a flourishing civic, political, and religious life in the north-east region of Mani, particularly around the site of modern Kotronas. The Hellenistic period is also well-represented in the archaeological remains from this north-eastern region around Kotronas. In addition to the relief sculpture of Artemis, there are remains of: a Hellenistic bath building, ceramic scatters, a relief sculpture of a woman facing a rising snake, a large piece of (Doric?) entablature, various architectural members at Phlomochori, and possible remains of fortification walls at Loukadika and Kastri. Given the active civic and religious life around Kotronas during this period, I propose that the temples at Kionia, although not precisely dated, may have been a regional sanctuary controlled by one of the north-eastern settlements. The two temples at Kionia are completely absent in the historical and epigraphic records but, paradoxically, represent the best-preserved religious architecture within the entire Inner Mani peninsula. The exact dates of the temples are contested, but both belong to the mid-late Hellenistic period: the in-antis temple c. 100 BCE – Augustan period, and the peripteros between the second half of the 2nd century BCE – 80-50 BCE. The deity is, unfortunately, unknown, as is the ancient name for the site, since I refute its identification as Aegila. 627 Along the west coast of the Mani peninsula there is an abundance of inscriptions and archaeological remains that is matched by an equally abundant lack of context: Hellenistic pottery was observed throughout the region (Cavo Grosso, Kouloumi, Mezapos, and especially the case study at Diros Bay) and a large number of marble architectural members and spolia are visible throughout the region. Unfortunately, without context most of these lack precise dates. Objects which can be dated precisely include a (now-lost) 3rd c BCE sculpture of a man from Kouloumi, a west-slope kantharos from Vythakas cave, and the two Hellenistic funerary stelai with sculptural reliefs – one perhaps the product of an east Greek workshop, and one an imitation thereof. Most informative are the two Hellenistic-early Roman proxeny decrees from Exo Mani that name Hippola; together they comprise a large portion of the evidence for the ancient political and civic history of that polis. The situation of the western coast of Mani is illustrative of the need for further archaeological research into the region. Pyrrichos has a marked paucity of Hellenistic material culture. Only one inscription from Pyrrichos is (probably) Hellenistic in date, but it does provide information as to the existence of local ephors and civic activity. A few ceramic scatters and one statuette are all that have been attributed to Hellenistic Pyrrichos. Oitylos suffers the same fate as the rest of the western coast: it too is omitted from the literature, but has a substantial record of marble architectural members and spolia that are difficult to date precisely. Its city-walls are Classical-Hellenistic, and its epigraphic record preserves the city-ethnic, but even the longest inscription found in the entire study area reveals only personal names without further context. Finally, much more is revealed about the function of Tainaron during the Hellenistic period. In terms of literary evidence, several passages provided information about the mercenary- 628 market at Tainaron during the final quarter of the 4th century BCE, and are invaluable for our understanding of this aspect of the sanctuary. These five passages are especially informative for what they lack: namely, any evidence whatsoever for the control of this aspect of the sanctuary by the Spartan state. I argued that the location of Tainaron was chosen for the mercenary-market because of its geographic isolation, but its political autonomy also contributed to the selection of Tainaron for this purpose. In terms of epigraphic evidence, the erection of Hellenistic proxeny decrees at Tainaron confirms its role as the principal sanctuary for the League of the Free Lakonians, further removing any association between Sparta and Tainaron. Archaeologically, the majority of (dateable) evidence at Tainaron dates to the Hellenistic period, including the remains of the temple of Poseidon beneath the chapel of Aghioi Asomatoi, the domestic buildings (with mosaic floors) to the west of the main sanctuary, and the exploitation of the black marble quarries on the western coast. I argued that due to its geographic isolation, Tainaron was an ideal place for a sanctuary that provided refuge for those seeking safety, as well as for the masses of mercenaries housed here during the late 4th century and into the early 3rd century. This same harsh, mountainous terrain, hindered overland communication, and although this isolation was a large part of the appeal of Tainaron’s location, this also meant that resources needed to be readily available for visitors to the sanctuary, as well as those living at the site – even if just a small cohort of religious officials. These necessities included, at a most basic level, food, water, and shelter, and it is important to consider the significant Hellenistic archaeological footprint at Tainaron in light of its role of a major ancient sanctuary and the functions required thereof – even when not housing thousands of mercenaries. Its fame, reputation, and probably material wealth during the Hellenistic period rendered it victim of two separate attacks in the Hellenistic period, by the Aetolian League in 240/1 BCE and by Philip V in 218 BCE. 629 Overall, it seems that the Mani peninsula experienced a population boom during the Hellenistic period. This may have been due, in part, to several factors, including the increasingly cosmopolitan Mediterranean during this time and the formation of the Lakedaimonian League in the face of a weakened Spartan state, freeing up movement and communication between previously Spartan-controlled Lakonian perioikic poleis and those on the Mani peninsula. The resulting effect, therefore, was a thriving north-eastern region including the site of Kotronas (Teuthrone) and the sanctuary at Kionia, and the associated marble exploitation at Paganea, Kastri, and Prophitis Ilias. The substantial archaeological and epigraphic record along the western coast of the peninsula, provides additional evidence for active Hellenistic settlements, including the civic institutions at Hippola (Cavo Grosso region), and the previously unknown site at Diros Bay. Overall, the political unrest in the Hellenistic/Republican period seems to contribute to an increasingly allied political identity among the cities of the ‘League of the Free Lakonians’. There is no discernible civil unrest in the settlements of Mani and, in fact, the archaeological and epigraphic evidence point to robust inhabitation, particularly along the west coast of the peninsula, suggesting population increases and more cosmopolitan social and cultural identities throughout this region that was seemingly interconnected both by land and sea. 10.5 The Roman Period and Late Antiquity (after ~30BCE) The evidence for the Roman Mani far surpasses that of any other period. In all categories of evidence – archaeological, epigraphic, and historical – the Roman Mani is very well-represented. Pausanias’ Periegesis supplies the most comprehensive commentary on the locations, as well as the topographic features and religious structures of several sites within Mani. Throughout 630 his accounts, he related valuable evidence of the existence of the Eleutherolakonian League, and the cities thereof (3.21.[7]: Las, Teuthrone, Pyrrichos, Kainepolis, Oitylos. His narrative introduced the settlement of Pyrrichos for the first and only time within the primary written sources, as well as Hippola. His account provided evidence for the destruction of a portion of the city of Las, as well as seemingly contemporary habitation (3.24.[6-8]). In spite of the wealth of information he did gather and present, however, the vast majority focused on religious and cult aspects of the settlements in addition to foundation myths; he did not record further information about the socio-political aspects of the places he visited, nor about the inhabitants (contemporary or historical) thereof. Aside from the information garnered regarding the Eleutherolakonian League and the implications thereof for the Maniate settlements and their relationship – or in the case of Tainaron, lack thereof – to Sparta, perhaps the most valuable details provided by Pausanias involve the physical situation of the places relative to one another throughout the peninsula. Pausanias’ sequential narrative corresponds to the geographic realities of archaeological remains throughout the coastal regions of the peninsula. The distribution of archaeological and epigraphic evidence throughout the peninsula is extensive. In the north-eastern region (north of Kotronas), substantial Roman remains include the submerged port structure at Vathy, the apsidal vaulted brick buildings at Kamares and the remains of the Roman bath at Skoutari. At Kotronas, there is much evidence for Roman activity, including pottery scatters, cisterns, bath buildings, a tomb, architectural members, funerary stelai, an imperial dedication to Trajan, and continued epigraphic evidence for a gymnasium there, complete with prosopographic evidence for a multi-generational family involved in the city’s civic institutions. Together, all of this information corroborates the literary account of an active Eleutherolakonian settlement in this region. 631 On the western coast, ancient Kainepolis was a thriving Roman settlement. Kainepolis, an Eleutherolakonian city, was only founded in the Roman period and has no traces of earlier occupation. None of the archaeological evidence is pre-Roman, and there is no literary or epigraphic evidence that suggests a settlement existed in this place earlier than the Imperial period. Its establishment was directly related to the sanctuary of Poseidon at Tainaron, which Kainepolis likely controlled and maintained; its inhabitants identified themselves as ‘Tainarians’, even though they lived away from the sanctuary of Tainaron itself. The corpus of epigraphic evidence attests to its capacity and importance as an administrative centre during the Roman period, but the archaeological corpus mainly comprises architectural members reused as spolia in later buildings – primarily churches – that are unable to be precisely dated. In the early 1st century CE, Kainepolis had close ties with Spartan elite, and Lakon, son of Eurykles, was their euergetes. There are seven Imperial honorific dedications (to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, & two for Gordion) and the only two Latin inscriptions in the whole of the Inner Mani. Individual names within inscriptions bear the Roman tria nomina, or adopt imperial praenomen (specifically Aurelius), yet retain Greek names; there were also two examples of potentially Jewish names. In terms of the archaeological record, a few scattered sherds of eastern sigillata and the presence of two massive Egyptian granite columns hint at the material cultural exchange and imports into this settlement. There is more evidence for overseas connections in Kainepolis than anywhere else in the Mani peninsula throughout antiquity. Along the western coast the situation remains much the same, in that archaeological and epigraphic evidence hints at occupation, but without provenance our conclusions are limited. Two Roman grave stelai were built into churches within the Cavo Grosso plain, and ceramic scatters around Mezapos, coupled with the late Roman/early Christian basilica on Tigani, suggest 632 continuity of occupation well into late antiquity. The case study at Diros Bay revealed the existence of Roman activity at a heretofore unknown site. The evidence for antiquity in Pyrrichos and the adjacent valley is largely Roman in date, and includes ceramic scatters, architectural members, and building foundations. The establishment of Pyrrichos was probably Hellenistic, but it increased in size during the Roman period, thereby providing concrete evidence for cross-peninsular interactions through the Pyrrichos valley for the first time. Oitylos is the sole location in Mani that has been the target of systematic excavations. These coastal investigations have revealed Roman domestic structures that were occupied between the 1st and the 6th centuries CE. In the town of Oitylos proper, inscribed funerary votive reliefs and other marble pieces are thought to come from a Roman cemetery just east of the modern settlement. Finally, in the Roman period, the site of Tainaron retains is importance only through the written record. There are no specific Roman archaeological remains at the site, and the only Roman inscription is a grave epigram for an oikomenos and former slave. Tainaron seems to have been attacked again – this time by pirates – in the 1st century BCE, but its importance does not diminish: historical figures are associated with Tainaron on a few select occasions: Cato stopped at Tainaron after the Battle of Pharsalus on his way to Kythera; Kleomenes and his family marched to Tainaron before sailing to Egypt; and Antony sailed to Tainaron after the battle of Actium. I don’t believe that Cato and Antony, two of the most famous historical figures of the Roman Republican period, simply ‘happened’ upon Tainaron. Rather, I argue that they fled to this specific location after decisive military losses (the battles of Pharsalus and Actium, 633 respectively), and that, in both cases, the two individuals actively chose Tainaron as a safe, neutral location to regroup before proceeding to their final destinations. In terms of economic activity and natural resource exploitation, the quarries throughout the peninsula are heavily exploited in the Roman period, thus providing evidence for economic prosperity and trade, as several objects were identified of Maniate marbles outside Mani proper. Quarries with evidence of Roman extraction and processing include: Paganea, Prophitis Ilias, Paliros-Koureloi, Kisternes, Tainaron, Mianes, Marmari, Kyparissos, Mezapos, and Oitylos. The case for trade, exchange, and cross-cultural contact during the Roman period is made even stronger through the presence of at least two Roman-period shipwrecks: one at Porto Kagio, and one in Limeni Bay. The Roman Mani was outward looking, cosmopolitan, and very much a part of the maritime economic activities within the Roman Mediterranean. Connections with Spartan families (in particular the Spartan elite) are discernible for the first time, and imperial dedications abound, suggesting that the inhabitants aligned themselves with a hybrid identity typical of Roman Greece – that is, one informed by the apparent local cultural and social influences, local religious cults, a mixture of typically ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ political and civic offices and institutions, and the unique Maniate geographic landscape, seascape, and coastal maritime outlook. 10.6 Final Observations Throughout classical antiquity, the most prominent identities exhibited by the ancient inhabitants of Mani are combinatons of civic, political, personal and religious identities, while the most difficult to discern from our surviving evidence is ethnic identity. The written and epigraphic evidence emphasizes civic identity by referring to poleis and the inhabitants thereof 634 much more frequently than by regional qualifiers. This is true for both internally-based evidence (inscriptions) as well as externally perceived distinctions (written sources). Political and religious identity were evinced, when possible, through ta nomima, or the customs and identifying features of a given polis including cults and the names of magistracies and institutions. The vast majority of nomima of Maniate poleis are impossible to determine without written evidence, but these characteristics provide crucial signifiers for interpreting civic identity, and at least one category – the articulation of identity through cult affiliation – can be glimpsed in Mani through the archaeological and epigraphic record.1036 The names – of individual citizens, rulers, political leaders, poleis, regional powers, and deities – contained in the epigraphic and historical sources are of utmost importance since names themselves provide unparalleled information regarding identity. The value of the explicitly and intentionally included name was emphasized throughout this study, as, in the face of such a limited body of evidence, the inclusion of written and inscribed names provided the basis for reconstructing prosopographic relationships, settlement distribution, and even religious worship. The archaeological record, including marble exploitation and the case study on Diros Bay, served to corroborate data on settlement distribution and extra- and cross-peninsular interaction, particularly through outward-looking maritime interaction, and supplied information regarding material cultural exchange and potential contacts, relationships and mobility patterns both within and outside of the peninsula, all of which are markers in the shaping of identity. Finally, the geographic and topographic realities of the Mani peninsula were emphasized throughout this work, as immovable markers involved in identity formation. Natural resources and the physical environment, while in no way a cultural determinant, have an impact on the 1036 Malkin 2005 71; Ruby 2006 37-46; Tilley 2006, 23. 635 humans inhabiting said environment; the 'natural' landscape directly impacts the 'cultural' landscape. The distribution of Mani's ancient settlements along the coast – in contrast to its mountainous interior – is apparent throughout most of classical antiquity (until the Roman imperial period), which emphasized outward-looking maritime contact in opposition to inward-looking terrestrial communication. The natural features of the landscape precluded connectivity between settlements throughout Mani and largely prevented communication, interrelationships, and shared identities. Each settlement within Mani developed at its own pace and had its own unique history; only within certain subregions (the north-east and the west coast) can we infer shared identities through ease of accessibility. As a whole, however, Mani can certainly be categorized as a frontier zone, both in terms of its separation from the rest of Lakonia and its connectivity to the rest of the Mediterranean. That Mani served as a borderland is exemplified in role of Tainaron: the site of Tainaron is situated on the southernmost point of mainland Greece and was considered by the ancient people to be the edge of the Greek world and the liminal threshold between the world of the living and the dead. It was not, in any period, controlled by Sparta, nor did the inhabitants consider themselves Spartans (or Lakedaimonians) or express any affiliation other than their civic identity; this conclusion may come as a disappointment to the modern inhabitants of the Inner Mani, whose regional flag bears the slogan “Η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ” in an attempt to align themselves with their perceived Spartan forebearers. The research in this dissertation forms the groundwork for future studies of ancient Mani: all of the geographic, literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence presented here contributes to a comprehensive resource for ancient Mani, to-date. While our geographic data and literary corpus is (likely) complete, the epigraphic and archaeological data are likely to become augmented through future discoveries. Only more focused, systematic archaeological 636 investigations into the material culture of Mani can fill in the gaps in our current knowledge, especially with regard to occupation history, settlement distribution (and identification), and cross-cultural interaction. The information presented throughout this dissertation is, hopefully, just the beginning of more diachronic investigations into the history, epigraphy, material culture, and identity of the Mani peninsula and its inhabitants in classical antiquity. 637 Bibliography Accame, S. 1946. Il Dominio Romano in Grecia dalla Guerra Acaica ad Augusto. Rome: Amo Press. Adams, A. E., W. S. MacKenzie and C. Guilford. 2017. Atlas of sedimentary rocks under the microscope. New York: Routledge. Alcock, S.E. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alcock, S.E., A.M. Berlin, A. B. Harrison, S. Heath, N. Spencer and D.L. Stone. 2005. “Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part VII: Historical Messenia, Geometric through Late Roman.” Hesperia 74(2): 147-209. Allen, P.S. 1997. “Finding Meaning in Modifications of the Environment: the Fields and Orchards of Mani.” In Aegean Strategies: studies of Culture and Environment on the European Fringe, edited by P.N. Kardulias and M.T. Shutes, 259-271. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Anderson, W.B., ed. and trans. 1936. Sidonius. Poems. Letters: Books 1-2. Loeb Classical Library 296. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Anderson, A.J. 2004. “Islands of Ambivalence.” In Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands, edited by S.M. Fitzpatrick, 251-273. Westport: Praeger. Antonaccio, C. 2001. “Ethnicity and Colonization.” In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, edited by I. Malkin, 113-58. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 638 --- 2003. “Hybridity and the Cultures Within Greek Culture.” In The Cultures Within Ancient Greek Culture, edited by C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, 57-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --- 2009. “(Re)Defining Ethnicity: Culture, Material Culture, and Identity.” In Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, edited by S. Hales and T. Hodos, 32-53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antonetti, C. 1996. “Una stele messenica al Museo di Altino”, Quaderni di Archeologia del Venero XII.142-7. Bern: Peter Lang. Ardener, E. 1989. “Language, Ethnicity, and Population.” In The Voice of Prophecy and Other Essays, edited by M. Chapman, 65-71. New York: Berghahn Books. Arnaud, P. 2008. “Islandscapes under question: the Maltese Archipelago, Pantelleria and Marettimoand their contexts in classical Antiquity.” In Interconnections in the Central Mediterranean: the Maltese Islands and Sicily in history: Proceedings of the Conference, St. Julians, Malta 2nd and 3rd November 2007 (Vol 7.), edited by A. Bonanno and P. Militello, 21-37. Officina di studi medievali. Aston, M. and T. Rowley. 1974. Landscape Archaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-Roman Landscapes. London: David and Charles. Attanasio D., M. Brilli, and N. Ogle. 2006. The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider. Auffarth, C. 2006. “Dictynna.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e317950 Autenrieth, G. 1891. A Homeric Dictionary for Schools and Colleges. New York: Harper & Bros. 639 Baatz, D. 1999. “Wehrhaftes Wohnen. Ein befestigter hellenistischer Adelssitz bei Ephyra (Nordgriechenland)”, AntW 30(2)151-55. Babbitt, F. C., ed. and trans. 1928. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume II: How to Profit by One's Enemies. On Having Many Friends. Chance. Virtue and Vice. Letter of Condolence to Apollonius. Advice About Keeping Well. Advice to Bride and Groom. The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men. Superstition. Loeb Classical Library 222. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- 1931. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume III: Sayings of Kings and Commanders. Sayings of Romans. Sayings of Spartans. The Ancient Customs of the Spartans. Sayings of Spartan Women. Bravery of Women. Loeb Classical Library 245. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Badian, E. 1961. "Harpalus", JHS 81: 16-43. Bailey, D. M. 1993. "Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988-91, Preliminary Report, Part 1 (b): Hellenistic and Roman Pottery." BSA 88: 221-49. Baltes, M., K. Meister, W. Eder, W. Hübner, and S. Matthaios. 2006. “Timaeus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1214360 Balzat, J.-S. 2008. “Le Pouvoir des Euryclides à Sparte.” In Le Péloponnèse d'Epaminondas à Hadrien: Colloque de Tours, 6-7 octobre 2005, edited by Catherine Grandjean. Études, 21. Pessac: Ausonius. Banchich, T. M. 2010. “Artemidoros of Ephesos (438).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, edited by I. Worthington. <http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a438> 640 Barth, F., ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston: Little, Brown. Baudy, G. 2006. “Carnea, Carneus, Carnus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e609380 Bender, B. 1993. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg. --- 1999. “Subverting the Western Gaze: Mapping Alternative Worlds." In The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, edited by P. Ucko and R. Layton, 31-45. London: Routledge. --- 2002. “Time and Landscape.” CurrAnthr 43: 103–12. --- ed. 2006. “Place and Landscape.” In Handbook of Material Culture, edited by C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer, 303-14. London: Sage. Bender, B. and M. Winer, eds. 2001. Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Oxford: Berg. Bender, B., S. Hamilton, and C. Tilley. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. Berggren, J.L. and A. Jones. 2000. Ptolemy's Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton: Princeton University Press Bevan, A. and Conolly, J., 2013. Mediterranean islands, fragile communities and persistent landscapes: Antikythera in long-term perspective. Cambridge University Press. Biersack, A. 1995. Papuan Borderlands: Huli, Duna, and Ipili Perspectives on the Papua New Guinea Highlands. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 641 Billerbeck, M. 2008. Stephani Byzantii Ethnica Volumen 1: Α-Γ. Berlin: W. de Gruyter --- 2011. Stephani Byzantii Ethnica Volumen 2: Δ-Ι. Berlin: W. de Gruyter --- 2014. Stephani Byzantii Ethnica Volumen 3: Κ-Ο. Berlin: W. de Gruyter: Bintliff, J. and A. Snodgrass. 1988. “Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A Regional and Interregional Perspective.” CurrAnthr 29(3): 506-13. Bizon, G., M. Bonneau, P. Leboulenger, S. Matesco, and F. Thiébault. 1976. “Sur la signification et l'extension des massifs cristallins externes en Peloponnèse méridional et dans l'Arc Egéen.” Bulletin de la Société géologique de France S7-XVIII (2): 337-45. Blackman, D. 1999-2000. “Archaeology in Greece 1999-2000.” AR46: 3-151. --- 2000-2001. “Archaeology in Greece 2000-2001.” AR47: 1-144. Blake, E. 2003. “Space, Spatiality, and Archaeology.” In A Companion to Social Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell and W. Preucel, 230-54. Oxford: Blackwell. Bloch, R. 2006. “Elatus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e328490 Bodnar, E.W., and C. Foss, eds. 2003. Cyriac of Ancona: Later Travels. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bölte, F. 1932. “Tainaron”. RE 4A2: 2038-49. --- 1929. “Sparta”. RE 3A2. 1294-1373. Bombardieri, L., A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi, and S. Valentini, eds. 2013. SOMA 2012: Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3 March 2012. BAR International Series 2581. Oxford: Archaeopress. 642 Bömer, F. 1960. Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. Zweiter Teil: Die sogennante sakrale Freilassung in Griechenland und die (δοῦλοι) ἱεροί. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Boomert, A. and A. Bright. 2007. “Island Archaeology: In Search of a New Horizon.” Island Studies Journal 2(1): 3-26. Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.G.B.M. 1836. Expédition Scientifique de Morée. Section des Sciences Physiques. Tome Premier. Paris: Rélation. Bourguet. 1927. Le dialecte laconien. Librairie Ancienne Honoré. Paris: Champion. Bowen, C. and P. Fowler. 1978. Early land allotment in the British Isles: a survey of recent work BAR 48. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Bowersock, G.W. 1965. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bowie, E. 2001. “Inspiration and Aspiration: Date, Genre, and Readership.” In Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, edited by S.E. Alcock, J.F. Cherry and J. Elsner, 21-33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowie, E. and R. Hurschmann. 2006. “Tettix.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1205670 Bradford, A.S. 1977. A Prosopography of Lacedaemonians from the Death of Alexander the Great, 323 B.C., to the Sack of Sparta by Alaric, A.D. 396. München: Beck. Braudel, F. 1972. Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II. English The Mediterranean and the mediterranean world in the age of Philip II. Translated from French by S. Reynolds. New York: Harper & Row. 643 Brisson, L. 2006. “Theodorus [I19]” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_brill140040 British Admiralty. 1941. Mediterranean Pilot, vol. IV, comprising the islands of the Grecian archipelago, with the adjacent coasts of Greece and Turkey from Cape Tainaron on the west to Kara Burun on the east; including also the island of Kriti. 7th ed. London: Hydrographic Department. Broodbank, C. 2002. An island archaeology of the early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --- 2008. “Not Waving but Drowning.” Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 3:72-6. --- 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brulé, P. and L. Piolot. 2002. “La mémoire des pierres à Sparte. Mourir au féminin: couches tragiques ou femmes hiérai (Plutarque, Vie de Lycurgue, 27,3)?” RÉG115: 485-517. Bruneau, P. 1970. "Tombes d'Argos." BCH 94: 437-531. Bruno, M. 2002. “Mianes, Cape Tainaron: A new quarry of green cipollino and of red fior de pesco.” In ASMOSIA V. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, edited by J.J. Hermann Jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman. 20-27. London: Archetype. Bruno, M., and Pallante, P. 2002. “The Lapis Taenarius quarries of Cape Tainaron” in ASMOSIA VI. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stones. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (Venice 15-18 June 2000), edited by L. Lazzarini. 163-76. Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo. 644 Bruno, M., Pensabene, P., Conti, L., Turi, B., & Lazzarini, L. 2002. “White marble quarries and architectural marbles of Cape Tainaron, Greece.” In ASMOSIA V. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, edited by J.J. Hermann Jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman. 36-46. London: Archetype. Brunt, P.A., ed. and trans. 1976. Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander Volume I: Books 1-4. Loeb Classical Library 236. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- 1983. Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander Volume II: Books 5-7. Indica. Loeb Classical Library 269. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bursian, C. 1872. Geographie von Griechenland II. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner Bursian, K. 1853-5. “Ueber das Vorgebirg Taenaron.” In Abhandlungen der königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Philologische Classe. I. Band VII, Abtheilung III, 771-95. Burtt, J.O., ed. and trans. 1954. Minor Attic Orators, Volume II: Lycurgus. Dinarchus. Demades. Hyperides. Loeb Classical Library 395. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cabane, P. 1976. L'Epire, de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine: 272-167 av. J.C. Paris: Presses Univ. Franche-Comté. Cadell, H. 1966. Papyrus de la Sorbonne. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Calderini, A. 1908. La manomissione e la condizione dei liberti in Grecia. Milan: U. Hoepli. Calvo, M., D. Javaloyas, D. Albero, J. Garcia-Rosselló, and V. Guerrero. 2011. “The ways people move: mobility and seascapes in the Balearic Islands during the late Bronze Age (c. 1400–850/800 bc).” WorldArch, 43(3): 345-63. 645 Caraher, W. R., D. Nakassis, and D. K. Pettegrew. 2006. "Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-Rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern Corinthia, Greece." JMA 19(1): 7-43. Cartledge, P. 2001. “Sparta’s Pausanias: Another Laconian Past.” In Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, edited by S. E. Alcock, J.F. Cherry, and J. Elsner, 167-175. Oxford: Oxford University Press --- 2002. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300-362 B.C. London: Routledge. Cartledge, P. and A. Spawforth. 2001. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A tale of two cities. London: Routledge. Catling, R.W.V. 1996. “The Archaic and Classical Pottery.” In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data, edited by W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, 33-91. London: British School at Athens. Cavanagh, W., Crouwel, J., Catling, R. W. V., and Shipley, G. 1996. Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data. London: British School at Athens. --- 2002. Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. i: Results and Interpretation. London: British School at Athens. Cavanagh, W., R. Jones and A. Sarris. 1996. "The Phosphate and Geophysical Surveys." In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data, edited by W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, 235-61. London: British School at Athens. 646 Cherry, J.F. 2003. “Archaeology beyond the site: Regional survey and its future.” In Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, edited by J. Papadopoulos and R. Leventhal. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Cherry, J. F. 1983. “Frogs round the pond: Perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region.” In Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean Region (BAR International Series 155), 375-416. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Childe, V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chiotis, E.D. 2001. “Geological aspects of the Lakonian marbles and new evidence for their quarrying in antiquity.” In Αρχαιοµετρικές Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Προϊστορία και Αρχαιότητα/Archaeometry Issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, edited by Y. Bassiakos, E. Aloupi and Y. Facorellis, Y., 557-67. Athens: Hellenic Society for Archaeometry. Cole, S. G. 2004. Landscapes, Gender and Ritual Space: The Ancient Greek Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press. Collitz, H., F. Rechtel, J. F. Baunack, A. Bezzenberger, F. Blass, W. Deecke, A. Fick, E. Fraenkel, P. Gärtchen, H. E. van Gelder and O. Hoffmann. 1905. Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften (Vol. 3, No. 2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Christien, J. 2014. “Les Carrières de Laconie: Essai de Synthèse.” In Dialogues d’histoire ancienne. Supplément 11. Sparte Hellénistique: IVe- IIIe Siècles Avant Notre Ère: Actes de la Table Ronde Organisée à Paris les 6 et 7 Avril 2012, 171-191. Paris: Presses Univ. de Franche-Comté. 647 --- 1989. “Promenades en Laconie.” In Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 15:1. 75-105. Paris: Presses Univ. Franche-Comté. Christien, J., and M. Della Santa. 2001-2002. “Pausanias et Strabon. La route du Taygète et les carrières de marbre laconien.” In Πράκτικα του Ζ’ Διέθνους Συνέδριου Πελοποννησιάων Σπουδόν (Τρίπολις 24-29 Σεπτεµβρίου 2000), 203-216. Αthens. Cifani, G., S. Stoddart, and S. Neil, eds. 2012. Landscape, Ethnicity and Identity in the Archaic Mediterranean Area. Havertown: Oxbow Books. Clarke, K. 1997. “In Search of the Author of Strabo's Geography.” JRS 87: 92-110. Clark, J., ed. 2005. Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Council for British Research in the Levant. Levant Supplementary Series, v. 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Cooney, G. 2004. “Introduction: seeing land from the sea.” WorldArch 35(3): 323-28. Cooper, F. A. 1996. The Temple of Apollo Bassitas I, The Architecture. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. --- 1988. “The quarries of Mount Taygetos in the Peloponnesos, Greece.” In Classical marble: Geochemistry, technology, trade (NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences 153), edited by N. Herz and M. Waelkens, 65-76. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. --- 1986. “The Stones of Bassai.” In Science in archaeology: proceedings of a meeting held at the British School at Athens, edited by R. E. Jones and H. W. Catling, 21-33. London: Leopard's Head Press. Cooper, F. 1981. “A Source of Ancient Marble in the Southern Peloponnesos.” AJA 85(2):190-91. Cummer, W. 1978. “The Sanctuary of Poseidon, Lakonia.” AM 93: 35–43. 648 Dareste, R., B. Haussoulier and Th. Reinach. 1904. Recueil des inscriptions juridiques grecques II. Paris: E. Leroux. Darmezin, L. 1999. Les Affranchissements par Consécration en Béotie et dans le Monde Grèc Hellénistique. Études Anciennes 22. Nancy: ADRA. Dawkins, R., A. Wace, J. Droop, G. Dickins, H. Tillyard, A. Woodward and M. Tod. 1906. “Laconia: I. Excavations at Sparta, 1907.” BSA13: 1-218. Delivorrias, A.S. 1968a. “῾Υστεροαρχαῖκὸν ἱερὸν Ἀφροδίτης ἐν θέσει Δίχοβα.” ArchDelt 23. Meros B (Chronika): 153. Delivorrias, A.S. 1968b. “Β’ ΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣ ΕΚ ΛΑΚΩΝΙΑΣ.” AAA 1: 119-22. De Lacy, P. H. and B. Einarson., ed. and trans. 1959. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume VII: On Love of Wealth. On Compliancy. On Envy and Hate. On Praising Oneself Inoffensively. On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance. On Fate. On the Sign of Socrates. On Exile. Consolation to His Wife. Loeb Classical Library 405. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dellaporta, A. and I. Spondylis. 1999 [2006]. “ΝΟΜΟΣ ΛΑΚΩΝΙΑΣ” ArchDelt 54. Meros B (Chronika): 1023−25 Demetriou, D. 2012. Negotiating Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean: The Archaic and Classical Greek Multiethnic Emporia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Depauw, M. and S. Coussement, eds. 2014. Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, 229. Leuven: Peeters. Descola, P. and Palsson, G., eds. 1996. Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge. Deshours, N. 2006. Les mystères d'Andania: étude d'épigraphie et d'histoire religieuse. Pessac: Ausonius. 649 Dewey, J. and A. Bentley. 1949. Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press. Diaz-Andreu, M. 2005. Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. London: Routledge. Dietler, M. and I. Herbich. 1998. “Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries.” In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. Stark, 232-263. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dillon, M. 2007. “Were Spartan Women Who Died in Childbirth Honoured with Grave Inscriptions?” Hermes 135(2): 149-65 Di Segni, L. 1998. “Tiberiade romano-bizantina attraverso le sue iscrizioni.” In Hebraica: Miscellanea di Studi in onore di Sergio J. Sierra per il suo 75 compleanno, edited by F. Israel, A.M. Rabello, and A.M. Somekh. Torino: Istituto di Studi Ebraici Scuola Rabbinica. Dolcetti, P. 2004. Ferecide di Atene. Testimonianze e frammenti. Alexandria: Edizioni dell'Orso. Domingo-Forasté, D. 1994. Claudius Aelianus: Epistulae et Fragmenta. Stuttgart: Teubner. Dommelen, P. van. 1997. “Colonial constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean.” WorldArch 28: 305-23. Dommelen, P. van and A. B. Knapp, eds. 2010. Material Connections in the Ancient Mediterranean: Mobility, Materiality, and Mediterranean Identities. London: Routledge. Dover, K. J. 1993. Aristophanes’ Frogs. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dräger, P. 2006. “Euphemus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e405550 650 Drandakes, N.B. 2002. Βυζαντινά γλυπτά της Μάνης. Athens: Η εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία. --- 1977 [1980]. “᾿Ερεύναι εἰς την Μάνην”. PAAH. 200-28. --- 1960. “Ἀνασκαφὴ ἐν Κυπαρίσσῳ”. Praktika 136-237. Ducat, J. 1990. “Esclaves au Ténare.” In Mélanges Pierre Lévêque. Tome 4: Religion, 173-193. Besançon: Université de Franche-Comté. --- Ducat, J. Les Hilotes. BCH Supplément 20. École Française d’Athènes. Dueck, D. 2012. Geography in Classical Antiquity. Key themes in ancient history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duff, J.D. ed. and trans. 1928. Lucan. The Civil War (Pharsalia). Loeb Classical Library 220. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dunnell, R. C. 1992. "The Notion Site." In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, 21-41. New York: Plenum Press Dyson, S. L. 1993. “From New to New Age Archaeology: Archaeological Theory and Classical Archaeology - A 1990s Perspective.” AJA 97(2): 195-206. Edwards, G.R. 1975. Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery. Corinth 7.3: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Efstathiou-Manolakou, I. 2009. “Archaeological investigations in the caves of Laconia.” In Sparta and Laconia: from prehistory to pre-modern, edited by W.G. Cavanagh, C. Gallouand and M. Georgiadis, 5-20. British School at Athens Studies 16. London: British School at Athens. 651 Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia (Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Λακωνίας). 2015. Αποκατάσταση και Ανάδειξη Ιερού Ναού Αγίας Βαρβάρας στο Σκουτάρι Γυθείου, π.ε. Λακωνίας. Restoration and enhancement of the holy church of Saint Varvara at Skoutari, Gytheio, Prefecture of Lakonia. Ministry of Culture, Education, and Religious Affairs. Epting, M., H.R. Kudrass, U. Leppig, and A. Schafer, A. 1972. “Geologie der Talea-Ori, Kreta.” Neues Jahrb. Geol. Palaontol., Abh 141(3): 259-85. Erbse, H., ed. 1975. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Eriksen, T. H. 1993; 2002. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press. Erlandson, J.M. 2008. “Isolation, Interaction, and Island Archaeology.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3(1): 83-6. Erlandson, J.M. and S.M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. “Oceans, Islands, and Coasts: Current Perspectives on the Role of the Sea in Human Prehistory.” Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 1(1): 15-32. Ehrlich, S. D. 2012. “Horae' in Roman Funerary Inscriptions”. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 471. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/471 Escobar, A. 2001. “Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization.” Political Geography 20: 139-74. Evans, J.D. 1977. “Island Archaeology in the Mediterranean: Problems and Opportunities.” WorldArch 9(1): 12-26. 652 Fairbanks, A., ed. and trans. 1931. Philostratus the Elder, Imagines. Philostratus the Younger, Imagines. Callistratus, Descriptions. Loeb Classical Library 256. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Falkner, C. 1996. “Sparta and the Elean War, ca 401/400 B. C.: Revenge or Imperialism?” Phoenix 50 (1): 17-25. Faraguna, M. 2014. “Citizens, Non-Citizens, and Slaves: Identification Methods in Classical Greece.” In Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World, edited by M. Depauw and S. Coussement, 165-185. Paris: Leuven. Fenn, N. and C. Römer-Strehl, eds. 2013. Networks in the Hellenistic World. According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond. BAR International series, S2539. Oxford: Archaeopress. Finney, B. R. 1976. Pacific Navigation and Voyaging. Wellington: The Polynesian Society. Fitch, J.G., ed. and trans. 2002. Seneca. Tragedies, Volume I: Hercules. Trojan Women. Phoenician Women. Medea. Phaedra. Loeb Classical Library 62. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fitzpatrick, S.M. and A. Anderson. 2008. “Islands of Isolation: Archaeology and the Power of Aquatic Perimeters.” Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3: 4–16. Flower, M. A. 2012. Xenophon's Anabasis, or the expedition of Cyrus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forster, E. S. 1903/4. “South-Western Laconia. Sites & Inscriptions.” BSA 10: 158–89. --- 1909. “A geographical note on Thucydides IV 54.” The Classical Review 23(7): 221-22. 653 Forster, E. S. and A.M. Woodward. 1906/7. “Laconia: II. Topography.” ABSA 13: 219–67. Foster, B.O., ed. and trans. 1919. Livy. History of Rome, Volume I: Books 1-2. Loeb Classical Library 114. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Foucart, P.-F. 1879. “Consécration de deux esclaves à Poseidon.” BCH 3: 96-9. Fowler, H.M., ed. and trans. 1936. Plutarch. Moralia, Volume X: Love Stories. That a Philosopher Ought to Converse Especially with Men in Power. To an Uneducated Ruler. Whether an Old Man Should Engage in Public Affairs. Precepts of Statecraft. On Monarchy, Democracy, and Oligarchy. That We Ought Not to Borrow. Lives of the Ten Orators. Summary of a Comparison Between Aristophanes and Menander. Loeb Classical Library 321. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fowler, R. L. 2013. Early Greek Mythography: Volume 2: Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, J. ed. 1997. Poetic Power of Place: Comparative Perspectives of Austronesian Ideas of Locality. Canberra: ANU Press. Frazer, J. G. ed. 1898; 1965; 2012. Pausanias' Description of Greece: translated with a commentary by J. G. Frazer. New York: The Macmillan Company. Frazer, J. G., ed. and trans. 1921. Apollodorus. The Library, Volume I: Books 1-3.9. Loeb Classical Library 121. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Frey, A. 2016. “Lacedaemon.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e629100 654 Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., H. Maroukian and G. Tsartsidou. 2007. “Late Quaternary changes along the western coast of the Lakonic gulf (Peloponnesus, Greece) based on geomorphological and archaeological data.” Hellenic Journal of Geosciences 42: 39-44. Galaty, M. L., O. Lafe, W. E. Lee, and Z. Tafilica. 2013. Light and shadow: isolation and interaction in the Shala Valley of northern Albania. Monumenta archaeologica 28. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Gardner, A., E. Herring and K. Lomas. 2013. Creating Ethnicities & Identities in the Roman World. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 120. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Gardner, A. 2007. “Fluid Frontiers: Cultural Interaction on the Edge of Empire.” Stanford Journal of Archaeology 5: 43-60. Gardner, P. 1887. A Catalogue of Greek coins in the British Museum. London: Longmans. Gawlinski, L. 2012. The sacred law of Andania: a new text with commentary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Geer, R.M., ed. and trans. 1947. Diodorus Siculus. Library of History, Volume IX: Books 18 19.65. Loeb Classical Library 377. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gengler, O. 2010. “Le paysage religieux de Sparte sous le Haut-Empire.” Revue de l'histoire des religions 227 (4): 609-37. Geus, K. and M. Thiering, eds. 2014. Features of Common Sense Geography: Implicit Knowledge Structures in Ancient Geographical Texts. Antike Kultur und Geschichte, Bd 16. Zurich: LIT. Giannakopoulou, P. E. 1966. Το Γυθεῖον· Αρχαιολογικὴ και Ιστόρικη Απόψις απὸ τῆς Προιστορικῆς Επόχης µέχρι του Μεγάλου Κονστάντινου. Athens. 655 Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gilhuly, K. and N. Worman, eds. 2014. Space, Place, and Landscape in Ancient Greek Literature and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gitti, A. 1939. “I perieci di Sparta e le origini del κοινόν τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων”, Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei 715: 189-203. Gnoli, R. 1988. Marmora Romana. 2nd ed. Roma: Ed. dell'Elefante. Gorgoni, C., I. Kokkinakis, L. Lazzarini and M. Mariottini. 1992. “Geochemical and petrographic characterization of rosso antico and other white-grey marbles of Mani (Greece).” In ASMOSIA II. Ancient stones: quarrying, trade and provenance: Interdisciplinary studies on stones and stone technology in Europe and Near Esst from the Prehistoric to the early Christian period. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, Monographiae, 4, edited by M. Waelkens, N. Herz, L. Moens, 155-165. Belgium: Leuven University Press. Gorgoni, C., L. Lazzarini and P. Pallante. 2002. “New archaeometric data on Rosso Antico and other red marbles used in antiquity”, in ASMOSIA VI. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stones. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (Venice 15-18 June 2000), edited by L. Lazzarini. 199-206. Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo Gosden, C. and L. Head. 1994. “Landscape – A Usefully Ambiguous Concept.” Archaeology in Oceania 29: 113-16. Gosden, C. and C. Pavlides. 1994. “Are Islands Insular? Landscape vs. Seascape in the Case of the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea.” Archaeology in Oceania 29: 162-71. 656 Graf, F., K. Karttunen, M. Fantuzzi and C. Selzer. 2006. “Antimachus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e124320 Gregory, T. E. 2004. "Less is Better: The Quality of Ceramic Evidence from Archaeological Survey and Practical Proposals for Low-Impact Surveying a Mediterranean Context.” In Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues, edited by E. Athanassopoulos and L. Wandsnider, 15-36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Greenhalgh, P.A.L. and E. Eliopoulos. 1985. Deep Into Mani: Journey to the Southern Tip of Greece. London: Faber & Faber. Griffith, G. T. 2014. The mercenaries of the Hellenistic world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimm, H. 1861. “Ueber die von dem Prof. Herrn Siegel in Griechenland aufgefundenen Marmorbrüche der Rosso antico und Verde antico.” In Zeitschrift für allegemeine Erdkunde N.F. Band XI. 131-4. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Gruen, E. S., ed. 2011. Cultural identity in the ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Guarisco, D. 2001. “Alcune Epiclesi di Artemide in Attica: Ereithos, Oinaia, Horaia.” In Simblos: Scritti di Storia Antica 3, edited by L. Criscuolo, G. Geraci and C. Salvaterra, 131-61. Bologna: Lo Scarabeo. Guintrand, M. 2016. “Les Fortifications dans le Système Défensif Lacédémonien à l’Époque Classique.” In Focus on Fortifications: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient 657 Mediterranean and the Near East, edited by R. Frederiksen, S. Muth, P.I. Schneider, and M. Schneller, 435-45. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Günther, K. 1988. “Der Poseidontempel auf Tainaron.” AntW 19 (2): 58–60. Haines, C.R., ed. and trans. 1919. Fronto. Correspondence, Volume I. Loeb Classical Library 112. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hall, J. M. 2012. “The Creation and Expression of Identity: The Greek World.” In Classical Archaeology, edited by S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, 348-93. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. --- 2003. “'Culture' or 'Cultures'? Hellenism in the Late Sixth Century.” In The Cultures Within Ancient Greek Culture. Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, edited by C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, 23-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. --- 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. --- 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, T. D. and P. Turchin. 2006. “Lessons from Population Ecology for World-Systems Analyses of Long-Distance Synchrony.” In The World-System and the Earth-System: Global Socioenviromental Change and Sustainability since the Neolithic, edited by A. Hornborg and C. Crumley, 74-90. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Hansen, M. H. 2000. “Introduction. The Concepts of the City-State and City-State Culture.” In A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, edited by M.H. Hansen, 11-34. Copenhagen: Reitzels. Hansen, M.H. and T.H. Nielsen. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 658 --- 2000. “The use of the word polis in the fragments of some historians.” In Further studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, Historia Einzelschrift 138, edited by P. Flensted Jensen, 141-150. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Hanson, J.A., ed. and trans. 1996. Apuleius. Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass), Volume I: Books 1-6. Loeb Classical Library 44. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harmon, R. 2006. “Pyrrhiche.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1015680 Harrison, S. 1999. “Identity as a Scarce Resource.” Social Anthropology 7: 239–51. Harrison-Buck, E., ed. 2012. Power and Identity in Archaeological Theory and Practice Case Studies from Ancient Mesoamerica. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Hassan, F. A. 1979. “Geoarchaeology: The Geologist and Archaeology.”AmerAnt 44(2): 267-70. Head, B.V. 1911. Historia numorum: a manual of Greek numismatics. Oxford; Clarendon Press. Hegmon, M. 1998. “Technology, style and social practices: archaeological approaches.” In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by M. Stark, 264-79. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Heiden, B. 2008. “Common People and Leaders in Iliad Book 2: The Invocation of the Muses and the Catalogue of Ships.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 138 (1):127-54. Henzen, G. 1857. “Tenaro ed i marmi tenarii.” BdI 1857. 154-8. 659 Herbert, H.J.G., Earl of Carnarvon. 1869. Reminiscences of Athens and the Morea: extracts from a journal of travels in Greece in 1839. Edited by H. H. Molyneux, Earl of Carnarvon. London: John Murray. Hercher, R. 1864. Aelian: De natura animalium libri XVII, Varia historia, Epistolae fragmenta, ex recognition Rudolphi Hercheri. Lipsiae: Teubner. Herz, N. 1987. “Carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios: a data base for classical Greek and Roman marble.” Archaeometry 29(1): 35-43. --- 1985. “Isotopic Analysis of Marble.” In Archaeological Geology, edited by G. Rapp Jr. and J. Gifford, 331-51. New Haven: Yale University Press. Herz, N., Cooper, F.A. and Wenner, D. 1982. “The Mani Quarries: Marble Source for the Bassai Temple in the Peloponnesos.” AJA 86: 270-71. Herz, N., D.G. Mose, D. Wenner and F. Cooper. 1983. “Sr, O, and C Isotopic Studies of Classical Marble Sources and the Bassai Temple in the Peloponnesus.” Abstracts. Symposium on Archaeometry. Naples. 62-3. Higgins, R.A., S.E. Ellis, E. Hope Simpson and R.H. Higgins. 1968. “The Façade of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae.” BSA 63: 331-6. Hiller von Gaertringen, F., ed. 1913. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,2. Inscriptiones Arcadiae. Berlin. Hirsch, E. and M. O’Hanlon. 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hodkinson, S. 2009. Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta. London: Duckworth and the Classical Press of Wales. Horden, P. and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. London: Wiley. 660 Hornblower, S. 2015. Lykophron: Alexandra. Greek Text, Translation, Commentary, and Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. --- 1991. A Commentary on Thucydides. Volume I: Books I-III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hood, M.S.F. 1957. “Archaeology in Greece, 1957.” AR 4: 3-25. How, WW. and J. Wells. 1912; 1928. A Commentary on Herodotus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Huxley, G. 1973. “The Date of Pherekydes of Athens.” GRBS 14: 137-45. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. London: Routledge. Institute for Neohellenic Research, N.H.R.F., Ministry of Culture, National Tourist Organisation of Greece. 1993-1994. Mani: A Cultural Itinerary. Travellers to the Mani 15th -19th Century. An exhibition of Historical Material, Historical Ethnological Museum of the Mani. Kranae Tower – Gytheion – July 1993-December 1994. Irwin, G. 1992. The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonization of the Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ioannou, A. and J. Ioannou. 1984. The Mani Peninsula (Peloponnese): Treasures and Austerity. Athens: Nouvelles Editions Latines. Jacoby, F. 1947. “The First Athenian Prose Writer.” Mnemosyne 13: 13-64. Jeffery, L.H. and A.W. Johnston. 1990, c1961. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth centuries B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, A. H. M. 1967. Sparta. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jones, H.L., ed. and trans. 1929. Strabo. Geography, Volume VI: Books 13-14. Loeb Classical Library 223. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 661 ---, ed. and trans. 1927. Strabo. Geography, Volume IV: Books 8-9. Loeb Classical Library 196. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge. Jones, W.H.S., ed. and trans. 1933. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Volume III: Books 6-8.21 (Elis 2, Achaia, Arcadia). Loeb Classical Library 272. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jones, W.H.S. and H.A. Ormerod, ed. and trans. 1926. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Volume II: Books 3-5 (Laconia, Messenia, Elis 1). Loeb Classical Library 188. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kajava, M. 2004. “Hestia Hearth, Goddess, and Cult.” HSCP 102: 1-20. Karadima-Matsa, Ch. and K. Clinton. 2002. “Korrane, a Sacred Woman in Samothrace.” ZPE 138: 87-92. Kassel, R. and C. Austin, eds. 1983. Poetae comici graeci (PCG). Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Kassis, K. 1979. Mani's History. Translated by E. Charvalia. Athens: Presfot. Katsaphados, P. S. 1994. Μάνη, Μέζαπος, η οµηρική Μέσση; µια αρχαιολογική και ιστορικογεωγραφική έρευνα. Athens. Kayser, B., and K. Thompson. 1964. Economic and Social Atlas of Greece. Center of Economic Research; National Statistical Service of Greece; Athens: National Statistical Service. Kennell, N. 2010. Spartans: A New History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. --- 1999. “From Perioikoi to Poleis: The Laconian cities in the late Hellenistic period.” In Sparta: New Perspectives, edited by S. Hodkinson and A. Powell, 189-211. London: Duckworth. 662 Kenney, E.J. 1996. Ovid: Heroides XVI-XXI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kienast, D. 2006. “Eurycles.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e406480 Kiriatzi, E. 2003. "Sherds, fabrics and clay sources: reconstructing the ceramic landscapes of prehistoric Kythera. Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age." Aegaeum 24: 123-30. Knapp, B. 2007. “Insularity and island identity in the prehistoric Mediterranean.” In Mediterranean Crossroads, edited by S. Antoniadou and A. Pace, 37-62. Athens: Pierides Foundation. Knapp, A.B, and W. Ashmore. 1999. “Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational.” In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by A.B. Knapp and W. Ashmore, 1-30. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Knapp, A. B. and P. van Dommelen. 2010. “Material connections: mobility, materiality and Mediterranean identities.” In Material Connections in the Ancient Mediterranean: Mobility, Materiality and Mediterranean Identities, edited by P. van Dommelen and A. B. Knapp, 1-18. London: Routledge. Knox, P. E., ed. 1995. Ovid: Heroides. Select Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kokkorou-Alevras, G., A. Chatziconstantinou, A. Efstathopoulos, E. Zavvou, N. Themos, K. Kopanias and E. Poupaki. 2009. “Ancient quarries in Laconia.” Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-Modern. BSA 16: 169-79. Kolbe, W. 1913. Inscriptiones Graecae, V,1. Inscriptiones Laconiae et Messeniae. Berlin: Apud Georgium Reimerum. Komis, K. 2005. Πληθυσµός και Οικισµοί της Μάνης: 15ος-19ος αιώνας. 2nd ed. University of Ioannina, Ioannina. 663 Kourelis, K. 2003. "Monuments of Rural Archaeology: Medieval Settlements in the Northwestern Peloponnese." Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Kovacs, D., ed. and trans. 1994. Euripides. Cyclops. Alcestis. Medea. Loeb Classical Library 12. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kristensen, K. R. 2014. “A Comment on Legal Identification in Ancient Crete.” In Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World: Legal documents in ancient societies III, edited by M. Depauw and S. Coussement, 185-97 Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, 229. Leuven: Peeters. Kuecker, G. D. and T.D. Hall. 2011. “Resilience and Community in the Age of World-System Collapse.” Nature and Culture 6: 18-40. Lafond, Y.B. 2006. “Asine.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e203180 Lamar Crosby, H., ed. and trans. 1946. Dio Chrysostom. Discourses 37-60. Loeb Classical Library 376. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lambeck, K. 1995. “Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change in Greece and south-western Turkey: a separation of eustatic, isostatic and tectonic contributions.” Geophysical Journal International 122(3): 1022-44. Lang, G. 1956. “The Concepts of Status and Role in Anthropology: Their Definition and Use.” The American Catholic Sociological Review 17(3): 206-18. Lape, P. 2004. “The isolation metaphor in island archaeology.” In Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands, edited by S. M. Fitzpatrick, 223-32. Westport: Praeger. 664 Larson, S. 2007. Tales of Epic Ancestry: Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Lasserre, F. 1966. Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos. Berlin: De Gruyter. Latsoudas, Ch. 1984. “Mavrovounion-Areopolis-Yerolimin” Geological Map of Greece, 1:50.000, Athens, I.G.M.E. Launey, M. 1949. Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. Volume 1. Paris: E. de Boccard. Lawson, J. 1996. "The Roman Pottery." In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data, edited by W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, 111-23. London: British School at Athens. Lazzarini, L. 2007. Poikiloi lithoi, versiculores maculae: i marmi colorati della Grecia antica. Storia, uso, diffusione, cave, geologia, caratterizzazione scientifica, archeometria, deterioramento. Pisa and Rome: Serra. --- 1999. “Marmo Tenario (Rosso Antico): nuove cave e nuovi dati.” Libro dei riassunti della 6a Giornata Le Scienze della Terra e l'Archeometria (Este, PD, Museo Nazionale Atestino, 26-27.2.1999). 17. --- 1998. “Su un inedito cipollino verde tenario.” In Marmi Antichi II. Cave e tecnica di lavorazione, provenienze e distribuzione. Studi Miscellanei 31, edited by P. Pensabene, 207-12. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider. --- 1990. “Rosso Antico and other red marbles used in antiquity: a characterization study.” In Marble, Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture, 237-252. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum. Lazenby, J. F. 1975. “Pausanias, Son of Kleombrotos.” Hermes: 103 (2): 235–51. Leake, W. M. 1830. Travels in the Morea: With a Map and Plans. Vol. 1. London: Hakkert. 665 Le Bas, P. 1888. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure sous la direction de M. Philippe Le Bas (1842-1844), planches de topographie, de sculpture et d'architecture gravées d'après les dessins de E. Landron, pub. et commentées par Salomon Reinach. Paris: Firmin-Didot et cie. Le Bas, P. and W.H. Waddington. 1847-1873. Explications des Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Gréce et en Asie Mineure. Volume II: Mégaride et Péloponnese. Paris: Firmin- Didot et cie. Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell. Leigh Fermor, P. 1958. Mani. John Murray. Lentz, A. 1867. Herodiani Technici: Reliquae. Volumen 1: Praefationem et Herodiani Prosodiam Catholicam Continens. Grammatici Graeci: Recogniti et Apparatu Critico Instructi Partis Tertia Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Teubner. Lepsius, G.R. 1890. Griechische Marmorstudien. Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin. Le Roy, C. 1965. “Lakonika II.” BCH 89(2): 358-82. --- 1961. "Λακωνικά."BCH 85(1): 206-35. Le Tallec, Y. 2014. “Les carrières de roches marbrières de la péninsule du Magne. Géographie et Histoire,” Dialogues d'histoire ancienne Supplément 11:149-70. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott and H.S. Jones. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lindsay, H. 1992. “Augustus and Eurycles.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Neue Folge 135(3): 290-97. 666 Linton, R. 1936. The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Lloyd-Jones, H., ed. and trans. 1996. Sophocles. Fragments. Loeb Classical Library 483. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Loring, W. 1895. “Some Ancient Routes in the Peloponnese.” JHS 15: 25-89. Lyons, C.L. and J.K. Papadopoulos, eds. 2002. The Archaeology of Colonialism. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Macan, R. W. 1908. Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books, with Introduction, Text, Apparatus, Commentary, Appendices, Indices, Maps: pt. I. Introduction. Book VII (text and commentaries) (Vol. 1). London: Macmillan. MacDowell, D. M. 1986. Spartan Law. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Mair, A.W. and G.R. Mair., ed. and trans. 1921. Callimachus, Lycophron, Aratus. Hymns and Epigrams. Loeb Classical Library 129. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mair, A.W., ed. and trans. 1928. Oppian, Colluthus, and Tryphiodorus. Loeb Classical Library 219. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Maffi, A. 2014. “Identificare gli schiavi nei documenti greci.” In Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, 229, edited by M. Depauw and S. Coussement, 197-209. Leuven: Peeters. Makrides, V. 2009. Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches: A Concise History of the Religious Cultures of Greece from Antiquity to the Present. New York: NYU Press. Malkin, I. 2011. A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Greeks Overseas. New York: Oxford University Press. --- ed. 2005a. Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge. 667 --- 2005b. “Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity.” In Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity, edited by I. Malkin, 56-75. London: Routledge. --- 2004. “Postcolonial concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization.” Modern Language Quarterly 65: 341-64. --- 2003. “Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity.” MHR 18: 56-74. --- ed. 2001. Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Malpas, J.E. 1999. Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marindin, G.E. [1914] 1985. J.B.S. Morritt of Rokeby. A grand tour: letters and journeys, 1794-96. London: Century Publishing. Mastrokostas, E.I. 1970. “Εἰς ἀρχαῖκὴν ἀναθηµατικὴν ἐπιγραφὴν εἰς Ἀφροδίτην ἐκ Γυθείου.” AAA 3: 427-29. Matthews, K.J. 1993. “The sculptured frieze from the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassae. Appendix III.” In Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, edited by O. Palagia, and W. Coulson, 72-7. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Mayer, M. 1891. Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Athenische Abtheilung XVI. McInerney, J., ed. 2014. A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc. --- 1999. The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis. Austin: University of Texas Press. 668 Mee, C. and P. James. 2000. "Soils and Site Function: The Laconia Rural Sites Project." In Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 3), edited by P. Halstead and C. Frederick, 162-75. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Megaw, H. 1932/1933. “Byzantine Architecture in Mani.” ABSA 33: 137-62. Meineke, A. 1849. Stephani Byzantii Ethnicorum quae supersunt. Berolini: Impensis G. Reimeri. Merrifield, A. 1993 “Place and Space: A Lebfurian Reconciliation.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers." NS 18(4): 516-30. Michaud, J.-P. 1970. “Magne.” BCH 94: 982-84. Migiros, G., E. Psomiadis, I. Papanikolaou, T. Karamousalis and G. Stamatis. 2008. “Groundwater coastal discharge of the karstic system of Mani Peninsula, southern Peloponnesus-Greece.” In Proceedings of the 8th Int. Hydrogeological Congress of Greece and 3rd MEM Workshop on Fissured rocks Hydrology, Athens 1. 317-326. Mionnet, T. E. 1829. Description de medailles antiques, Grecques et Romaines, avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation. Supplément 4. Paris: Testu. Moody, J., H. Lewis Robinson, J. Francis, L. Dixon and L. Wilson. 2003. "Ceramic Fabric Analysis and Survey Archaeology." BSA 98: 37-105. Morgan, C. 2003. Early Greek States Beyond the Polis. London and New York: Routledge. --- 2001. “Ethne, Ethnicity, and Early Greek States.” In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, edited by I. Malkin, 75-112. Washington: Center for Hellenic Studies. 669 --- 1991. “Ethnicity and Early Greek States: Historical and Material Perspectives.” PC Philological Society 37:131-63. Morris, I. 2005. “Mediterraneanization.” In Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity, edited by I. Malkin, 30-55. London: Routledge. Morris, S.P. 1984. “Hollow Lakedaimon.” HSCP 88: 1-11. Morison, W. S. 2011. “Pherekydes of Athens (3).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, Edited by I. Worthington. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a3 Morritt, J.B.S. 1817. “Account of a Journey through the District of Maina in the Morea.” In Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic Turkey (Volume 1), edited by R. Walpole, 33-60. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown. Moschou, L. (2001-2004) [2012]. “Νόµος Λακῶνιας·Τευθρώνη.” ArchDelt 56-9 Meros B (Chronika) 4:300-11. --- 2000 [2009]. ArchDelt 55 Meros B (Chronika) 1: 230-38. ---1975a. “Τοπογραφικά Μάνης: ῾Η πόλις Ταίναρον.” In Ἀρχαιολογικά Ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν 8 (2): 160-77. ---1975b. “Topographie du Magne: à propos de la région du Ténare Κιστέρνες- Άγιοι Ασώµατοι”. Praktika des Peloponnesiaka; Congrès de Sparte; 1st Peloponnesian Congress, ii. p. 45-54. Moschos, T. and L. Moschou. 1988. “Κιόνια Β”. Πρακτικά ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας. Τοµος Δ’. Athens. 140-141. --- 1979. “Κιόνια Α’ – Μια τοπογραφική και αρχιτεκτονική έρευνα.” Πελοποννησιακά ΙΓ. 72-114. 670 Moschou, L., S. Raftopoulou, S. and T. Hatzitheodhorou. 1998/2002. “Λίθος ερυθρός, ταινάριος. Τα αρχαία λατοµεία στον Προφήτη Ηλία Δηµαρίστικων Μάνης και η περιοχή τους”, ArchDelt 53. Μeros Α (Meletes): 267-88. Moschou-Tsiomi, L. 1997. “Πόλεις και µνηµεία της Λακωνικής Μάνης.” Αδούλωτη Μάνη 3. Athens. 18-32. Moss, M. L. 2004. “Island societies are not always insular: Tlingit territories in the Alexander Archipelago and adjacent Alaskan mainland.” In Voyages of Discovery: The Archaeology of Islands, edited by S. M. Fitzpatrick, 165-83. Westport: Praeger. Musti, D. and M. Torelli. 1982. Pausania: Guida Della Grecia. Libro III: La Laconia. Milano: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Myers, F. 1986. Pintupi Country, Pintupi self: Sentiment, Place, and Politics among Western Desert Aborigines. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mylonopoulos, I. 2003. Heiligtümer und Kulte des Poseidon auf der Peloponnes. Liège: Centre international d' étude de la religion grecque antique. Naiden, F. 2006. Ancient Supplication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nesselrath, H. and F. Montanari. 2006. “Hermippus.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e510370 Newton, C.T. ed. 1874. Collection of ancient Greek inscriptions in the British Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Niese, B. 1906. “Neue Beiträge zur Gesichte und Landeskunde Lakedämons. Die Lakedaemonischen Perioeken.” Göttingische gelehrte Nachrichten. 101-142. 671 Nobbe, K. F. A. 1843. Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia. Lipsiae: Sumptibus et typis Caroli Tauchnitii. Noy, D., A. Panayotov and H. Bloedhorn. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I. Eastern Europe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Oblik, P. E. Z. R. K., P. Depresij and V. Grčiji. 2004. “The role of epikarst in the morphogenesis of the karstic forms in Greece and specially of the karstic hollow forms.” Acta carsologica 33(1): 220-36. Olshausen, E. and D. Meyer. 2006. “Carnion.” In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e609400 Ogden, D. 2001. Greek and Roman necromancy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Orser, C. E., ed. 2001. Race and the Archaeology of Identity. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Osborne, R. 2012. “Landscape, ethnicity, and the polis.” In Landscape, Ethnicity and Identity in the Archaic Mediterranean Area, edited by G. Cifani, S. Stoddart and S. Neil, 24-31. Oxford: Oxbow Books. --- 2004. Greek History. London: Routledge. --- 1987. Classical landscape with figures. The ancient Greek city and its countryside. London: Sheridan House. 672 Palagia, O. 2002. “A new metope from Bassai.”, In Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stones, Asmosia VI, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (Venice 15-18 June 2000), edited by L. Lazzarini, 375-82. Padova: Bottega d'Erasmo. Palagia, O. and S. Pike. 2009. “The Marble of the Bassai Frieze.” In Marbres et autresroches de la Méditerranée antique, edited by P. Jockey, 255-73. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Panagiotopoulou, A. 2001-2004 [2012]. “Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ταινάρου.” ArchDelt 56-59. Meros B (Chronika): 290. Pannakopoulou, P. E. 1966. Το Γύθηειο. Athens. Papachatzis, N. 1976. “Ποσειδών Ταινάριος”, ΑΕphem. 102-125. Papadopoulos, N. and A. Sarris. 2015. Technical Report: Geophysical Investigations at Alepotrypa (Diros, Peloponnese) – Phase II (2014). Rethymno: IMS-FORTH. Papaefthemiou, W. 1992. Grabreliefs spathellenistischer und römischerzeit aus Sparta und Lakonien; Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken. Welt BD 13. Munich: Tuduv. Papanastassiou, D., K. Gaki-Papanastassioub and H. Maroukian. 2005. “Recognition of past earthquakes along the Sparta fault (Peloponnesus, southern Greece) during the Holocene, by combining results of different dating techniques.” Journal of Geodynamics 40 (2–30): 189–99. Papathanasiou, A., W.A. Parkinson, M. Galaty, D. Pullen, and P. Karkanas eds. 2018. Neolithic Alepotrypa Cave in the Mani, Greece. London: Oxbow. Papathanasopoulos, G.A. 1971. “ΣΠΥΛΑΙΑ ΔΙΡΟΥ· ΑΙ ΑΝΑΣΚΑΦΑΙ ΤΟΥ 1970-1971.” Athens Annals of Archaeology 4: 12-26. 673 Parker, A.J. 1999. “A maritime cultural landscape: the port of Bristol in the Middle Ages.” IJNA 28 (4): 323-42. Parker, B. 2006. “Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes.” AmerAnt 71: 77-100. Parker, V. 2011. “Ephoros (70).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, Edited by I. Worthington. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a70 Pearson, A.C. 1917. The fragments of Sophocles. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peek, W. 1955. Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Berlin: Adolf M. Hakkert. --- 1981. “Lakonische Grabepigramme” ZPE 42: 292 Pemberton, E.G. 1989. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery. Corinth 18,1: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Pentia, M. 1995. “Carbon and oxygen isotopic bivariate distribution for marble artifact quarry assignment.” Romanian Journal of Physics (2-3): 369-79. Peppa-Delmousou, D. 1973. “Βωµίσκος τῆς Ισσωρίας Αρτέµιδος.” AAA 6: 482-91. Perrin, B., ed. and trans. 1921. Plutarch. Lives, Volume X: Agis and Cleomenes. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Philopoemen and Flamininus. Loeb Classical Library 102. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- ed. and trans. 1920. Plutarch. Lives, Volume IX: Demetrius and Antony. Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius. Loeb Classical Library 101. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- ed. and trans. 1919. Plutarch. Lives, Volume VIII: Sertorius and Eumenes. Phocion and Cato the Younger. Loeb Classical Library 100. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 674 --- ed. and trans. 1917. Plutarch. Lives, Volume V: Agesilaus and Pompey. Pelopidas and Marcellus. Loeb Classical Library 87. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Petrides, D. Th. 1870. “Λακῶνικα”. Pandora XX. 341. Petrocheilos, I.E. 1988. “An Unpublished Inscription from Kythera.” BSA 83: 359-62. Pfohl, G. 1959. “Gedanken zur Zweischichtenlehre.” Euphrosyne. 189-197. Philippson, A. 1892. Der Peloponnes: Versuch einer Landeskunde auf geologischer Grundlage Berlin: R. Friedlander & Shon. Phillips, T. 2003. “Seascapes and landscapes in Orkney and northern Scotland.” WorldArch 35(3): 371–84. Picard, C. 1922. Éphèse et Claros: Recherches sur les Sanctuaires et les Cultes de l’Ionie du Nord. Paris: E. de Boccard. Pike, K. L. 1954. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Vol. 1. Glendale: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Pikoulas, I. A. 2012. Τὸ ὁδικὸ δίκτυο τῆς Λακωνικῆς / The Road-Network of Lakonike. Ἡ µεγάλη βιβλιοθήκη. Athens: Horos. --- 1992-1998. “Λακῶνικα.” Horos 10-12: 559-65. Poole, R.S. 1887. BMC. London. Longmans and Co. Porphyrogenitus, C. 1985. De Administrando Imperio. 2nd ed. Translated by R. J. H. Jenkins. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. Post, H.A.V. 1830. A visit to Greece and Constantinople, in the year 1827-8. New York: Sleight & Robinson. Pouqueville, F.C.H.L. 1821. Voyage dans la Grèce. Paris: Firmin Didot. 675 Pownall, F. 2009. “Aristodemos (104).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, Edited by I. Worthington. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a104 --- 2013. “Hekataios of Miletos (1).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, Edited by I. Worthington. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a1 Pritchett, W.K. 1989. Studies in ancient Greek topography 6. Berkeley: University of California Press. Puillon Boblaye, M.E. 1836. Expedition scientifique de Morée: Recherches géographiques sur les ruines de la Morée. Paris: F.G. Levrault. Race, W., ed. and trans. 2009. Apollonius Rhodius. Argonautica. Loeb Classical Library 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- ed. and trans. 1997. Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes. Loeb Classical Library 56. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rackham, H., ed. and trans. 1940. Pliny. Natural History, Volume III: Books 8-11. Loeb Classical Library 353. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- ed. and trans 1938. Pliny. Natural History, Volume I: Books 1-2. Loeb Classical Library 330. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Radt, S. 2002. Strabons Geographika. Band 6: Buch V-VIII: Kommentar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Raffeiner, H. 1977. Sklaven und Freigelassene: Eine soziologische Studie auf der Grundlage des Grieschischen Grabepigrams. Commentationes Aenipontanae. Universitatsverlag Wagner. Rainbird, P. 1999. “Islands out of time: towards a critique of island archaeology.” JMA12: 216- 34. 676 Reedy, C. L. 2008. Thin-section petrography of stone and ceramic cultural materials. London: Archetype. Renfrew, C. 1980. “The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology.” JMA 84(3): 287-98. Richards, C. 1996. “Henges and Water: Towards an Elemental Understanding of Monumentality and Landscape in Late Neolithic Britain.” Journal of Material Culture 1(3): 313-36. Richer, N. 2012. La religion des Spartiates: croyances et cultes dans l’Antiquité. Paris: Belle lettres. --- 2008. “The Religious System at Sparta.” In A Companion to Greek Religion, edited by D. Ogden, 236-52. Malden: Wiley & Sons. Riebe, D. J. 2016. Interaction and Socio-Cultural Boundaries during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Chicago. Rizakis, A.D., S. Zoumbaki, Cl. Lepenioti. 2004. Roman Peloponnese II: Roman personal names in their social context (Laconia and Messenia). Athens; Paris: de Boccard. Robb, J. 2001. “Island Identities: Ritual, Travel, and the Creation of Difference in Neolithic Malta.” EJA 4(2): 175-202. Robert, L. 1946. Hellenica: Recueil d'épigraphie, de numismatique et d'antiquités grecques. Volume III. Paris: Libr. d'Amérique et d'Orient, Adrien-Maisonneuve. Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1962. “Bulletin épigraphique.” RÉG 75: 130-226. Robert, J. 1953. “Bulletin épigraphique.” RÉG 66: 113-12. Robinson, B. 2011. Histories of Peirene: A Corinthian Fountain in Three Millenia. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 677 Rogan, D. E. 1973. Mani: history and monuments. Athens: Lycabettus Press. Romano, I. B. 1994. "A Hellenistic Deposit from Corinth: Evidence for Interim Period Activity (146-44 b.c.)." Hesperia 63:57-104. Romer, F.E. 1998. Pomponius Mela's description of the world. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Rouse, B.I. 1951. “Areas and Periods of Culture in the Greater Antilles.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7: 248-65. Roy, J. 2004. “The Ambitions of a Mercenary.” In The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand, edited by R. Lane Fox, 264-98. New Haven: Yale University Press. --- 1967. “The Mercenaries of Cyrus.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 16 (3): 287-323. Rubinstein, L. 1995. “Pausanias as a Source for the Classical Greek polis.” In Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, edited by M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, 211-19. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Ruby, P. 2006. “Peuples, fictions? Ethnicité, identité ethnique et sociétés anciennes.” REA 108: 25-60. Rudolph, W. 1978. "Hellenistic Fine Ware Pottery and Lamps from above the House with the Idols at Mycenae." BSA 73: 213-34. Sabbadini, R. 1910. “Ciriaco D’Ancona e la sua Descrizione Autografa del Peloponneso Trasmessa da Leonardo Botta.” Miscellanea Ceriani. Raccolta di scritti originali per onorare la memoria di Mr Antonio Maria Ceriani, 180-247. Milan: U Hoepli. Sackett, J.R. 1985. “Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply to Wiessner.” AmerAnt 50: 151 59. 678 Said, S. 2001. “The Discourse of Identity in Greek Rhetoric from Isocrates to Aristides.” In Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity, edited by I. Malkin, 275-99. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Samama, E. 2003. Le médecins dans le monde grec: sources épigraphiques sur la naissance d’un corps medical. Paris: Droz. Sauer, C. O. 1925. “The morphology of landscapes.” University of California Publications in Geography 2: 19-54. Sauvage, C. 2012. Routes maritimes et systèmes d’échanges internationaux au Bronze récent en Méditerranée orientale. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 61. Lyon: Jean Pouilloux. Scheffers, A., D. Kelletat, A. Vött, S.M. May and S. Scheffers. 2008. “Late Holocene tsunami traces on the western and southern coastlines of the Peloponnesus (Greece).” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 269(1): 271-79. Scherf, J., E. Badian, H.D. Blume, J. Engels, W. Ameling, R. Simons, and E. Olshausen. 2006. “Neoptolemus.”, In Brill’s New Pauly, edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e820040 Schiffer, M. B. 1972. "Archaeological Context and Systemic Context," AmerAnt 37: 156-65. Scholfield, A.F., ed. and trans. 1959. Aelian. On Animals, Volume III: Books 12-17. Loeb Classical Library 449. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schröder, B. 1904. “Archaische Skulpturen aus Lakonien und der Maina.” AM 29: 21-4. --- 1905. “Nachtrag.” AM 30: 408-9. 679 Schumacher, R. W. 1993. “Three related sanctuaries of Poseidon: Geraistos, Kalaureia and Tainaron.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 62-87. London: Routledge. Seifried, R.M. 2016. Community Organization and Imperial Expansion in a Rural Landscape: The Mani Peninsula (AD 1000-1821). Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Chicago. Sellet, F., R. Greavesand and P. Yu. 2006. Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. and trans. 2004. Statius. Thebaid, Volume I: Thebaid: Books 1-7. Loeb Classical Library 207. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shennan, S., ed. 1989. Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London: Unwin Hyman. Shipley, G. 2011. Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: The Circumnavigation of the Inhabited World. Text, Translation and Commentary. Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press. --- 2008. “Pseudo-Skylax on the Peloponnese.” In Dioskouroi: studies presented to W. G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the anniversary of their 30-year joint contribution to Aegean archaeology. BAR International Studies 1889, 280-91. Oxford: Archaeopress. --- 2006. “Sparta and its Perioikic neighbours: a century of reassessment.” Hermathena 181:51–82. --- 2004. “Lakedaimon.” In An inventory of archaic and classical poleis, edited by M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, 569-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. --- 2003. “Two Cycladic Islands [Review of Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Kea-Kythnos, 22-25 June 1994]”. CR 53(1): 132–34. 680 --- 2000. “The Extent of Spartan Territory in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods.” BSA 95: 367-90. --- 1997. ““The Other Lakedaimonians”: The Dependent Perioikic Poleis of Laconia and Messenia.” In The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community: Symposium. August, 29-31 1996, edited by M. H. Hansen, 189-282. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. --- 1996. “Archaeological sites in Laconia and the Thyreatis.” In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data, edited by W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, 263-313. London: British School at Athens. Showerman, G., ed. and trans. 1914 (Revised by G. P. Goold. 1976). Ovid. Heroides. Amores. Loeb Classical Library 41. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Simpson, R.H. and J.F. Lazenby. 1970. The catalogue of the ships in Homer's Iliad. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sinn, U. 1993. “Greek sanctuaries as places of refuge.” In Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, edited by N. Marinatos and R. Hägg, 88-109. London: Routledge. Skempis, M. and I. Ziogas, eds. 2014. Geography, Topography, Landscape: Configurations of Space in Greek and Roman Epic. Trends in Classics 22. Berlin: De Gruyter. Slane, K.W. 1990. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Roman Pottery and Lamps. Corinth 18.2: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Smith, A.D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell. 681 Smyth, H.W. 1900. Greek Melic Poets. London: Macmillan. Snodgrass, A. 1985. “The New Archaeology and the Classical Archaeologist.” AJA 89(1): 31-7. Sommerstein, A.H. 1980. “Notes on Aristophanes' Knights”, CQ 30(1): 46-56. Sokolowski, F. 1954. “The Real Meaning of Sacral Manumission.” HTR 47(3): 173-81. Sparkes, B. A., and L. Talcott. 1970. Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries BC. The Athenian Agora 12: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Spawforth, A. J. S. 1985. “Families at Roman Sparta and Epidaurus: Some Prosopographical Notes.” BSA 80: 191-258. --- 1984. “Notes on the Third Century A.D. in Spartan Epigraphy.” BSA 79: 263-88. Squillace, G. “Charax of Pergamon (103).” In Brill’s New Jacoby, Edited by I. Worthington. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1163/1873-5363_bnj_a103 St. P. Walsh, J. 2014. Consumerism in the Ancient World: Imports and Identity Construction. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies 17. New York: Routledge. Stein, G. 2002. “From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction.” American Anthropologist 104(3): 903-16. Stewart, H.F., E. K. Rand and S. J. Tester, ed. and trans. 1973. Boethius. Theological Tractates. The Consolation of Philosophy. Loeb Classical Library 74. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stiehle, R. 1856. “Der geograph Artemidoros von Ephesos.” Philologus 11: 193-242. 682 Storey, I.C., ed. and trans. 2011. Fragments of Old Comedy, Volume II: Diopeithes to Pherecrates. Loeb Classical Library 514. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. --- 2003. Eupolis, Poet of Old Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. --- 1991. "Four Notes on Eupolis." Prudentia 23(2): 1-12. Strang, V. 2005. “Common Senses: Water, Sensory Experience and the Generation of Meaning.” Journal of Material Culture 10(1): 92–120. Strocka, V.M. 1985. “Volkskunst im klassischen Griechenland” Πράκτικα· Του ΧΙΙ Διὲθνους Συνέδριου Κλασικῆς Αρχαιολογίας, 286-292. Athens. Taïphakos, I.G. 1976/1977. “Λακώνικαι Επιγράφαι Ανέκδοτοι.” Πελοποννεσιάκα 12: 214-23. Talbert, R.J.A., ed. 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tartaron, T.F., T.E. Gregory, D.J. Pullen, J.S. Noller, R.M. Rothaus, J.L. Rife, L. Tzortzopoulou Gregory, R. Schon, W.R. Caraher, D.K. Pettegrew and D. Nakassis. 2006. "The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: Integrated Methods for a Dynamic Landscape." Hesperia 75(4):453-523. Taylor, J. 2000. "Cultural Depositional Processes and Post-depositional Problems." In Extracting meaning from ploughsoil assemblages, edited by R. Francovich and H. Patterson, 16-26. Oxford: Oxbow. Terrell, J.E. 1997. “The Postponed Agenda: Archaeology and Human Biogeography in the Twenty-First Century.” Human Ecology 25(3): 419-36. --- 1993. “Regional studies in anthropology: A Melanesian prospectus.” Current Anthropology 34: 177-79. 683 --- 1988. “History as a Family Tree, History as an Entangled Bank: Constructing Images and Interpretations of Prehistory in the South Pacific.” Antiquity 62(237): 642-57. --- 1986. Prehistory in the Pacific Islands: A Study of Variation in Language, Customs and Human Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terrell, J. and R. L. Welsch. 1990. “Trade networks, areal integration, and diversity along the north coast of New Guinea.” Asian Perspectives 29: 156-65. Themelis, P. 1970. “Ποhοιδᾶνος”. ArchDelt 25. Meros A (Meletes): 116-17. Themos, A. 2000 [2009]. “Κατασκέσεις Αρχαῖον”. ArchDelt 55. Meros B (Chonika): 230. Thomson, H.J., ed. and trans. 1949. Prudentius. Preface. Daily Round. Divinity of Christ. Origin of Sin. Fight for Mansoul. Against Symmachus 1. Loeb Classical Library 387. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thorne, S.M. and M. Prent. 2009. “The walls of Geraki” in Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-Modern. British School at Athens Studies 16. 235-242. Tilley, C. 2006. “Identity, place, landscape and heritage.” Journal of Material Culture 11(1–2): 7–32. --- 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. --- 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments. Tod, M. N. and A. J. B. Wace. 1906. Catalogue of the Sparta Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Touchais, G. 1989. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1988.” BCH 113(2): 581-700. Traquair, R. 1905/6. “Laconia: I. Mediaeval Fortresses.” BSA XII: 259-76. Tsakonas, D. 1970. “Περιεχοµενα”. ΦΕΚ 267/Β’/16.4. 2031. 684 Tsartsidou, G., K. Gaki-Papanastasiou and H. Maroukian. 2002. “Coastal evolution of the Inner Laconic gulf in the Late Pleistocene–Holocene period” in Proceedings of the 6th Pan-Hellenic Geographical Conference of the Hellenic Geographical Society, Thessaloniki: 380-387. Tsouli, M. 2015. “New Evidence on Ancient Quarrying Activity at the Mani Peninsula.” In ASMOSIA X Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Rome, 21-26 May 2012, edited by P. Pensabene & E. Gasparini, 823-831. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. --- 2000 [2010]. “Καραβοστάσι Δ. Οιτύλου”; “Οίτυλο, ρέµα Μυλολάγκαδο”; & “Δ.Δ. Οιτύλου Δ.Ε. Οιτύλου”. ArchDelt 65. Meros B (Chronika): 541-63. --- 2009. “Contribution to the study of the ancient marble quarries of the Mani Peninsula, SW Laconia, Peloponnese, Greece: the case of the quarry of white marble at the site of Aspri Plaka, Charouda, Pyrgos Dirou and of the quarry of cipollino verde Tenario at the site Paliros-Koureloi, near Cape Tainaron.” In SOMA 2007: Proceedings of the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Istanbul Technical University, 24-29 April 2007, edited by C. Ö. Aygün, 396-403. Oxford: Archaeopress. --- 2008a. “Εντοπισµοί αρχαιοτνίτων. Αρχαίο λατοµείο ασβετολίθον. Θέση “Χαµολέος-Ξεροπολυάνα.” Δ.Δ. Οιτύλον Λακωνίας.” ArchDelt [In Print]. --- 2008b. “Εντοπισµοί αρζαιοτήτων. Οίτυλο. α. Αρζαία τείχη τον Οιτύλον. Β. Ι. Ν. Κοίµησης της Θεοτόκου, Θέση Νιάµιτσα. ε. Ι. Ν. Αγ. Μαρίνας.” ArchDelt 2008, Chronicles [In Print]. --- 2007. “Ανασκαφικές εργασιές. Άλικα.” ArchDelt 2007, Chronicles [In Print]. 685 Tuan, Y-F. 1977. Space and Place. London: Edward Arnold. Turchin, P. and T. D. Hall. 2003. “Spatial Synchrony among and within World-Systems: Insights from Theoretical Ecology.” Journal of World-Systems Research 9: 37-64. Tweten, L., G. McIntyre, and C.A.M. Gardner. 2015. “From Stone to Screen: Digital Revitalization of Ancient Epigraphy.” Digital Humanities Quarterly. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/1/000236/000236.html Tykot, R.H., R. Newman and N. J. van der Merwe. 1999. “Weathering Surfaces on Classical Marble Sculptures: Isotopic and X-Ray Differentiation Analysis.” In ASMOSIA IV Archéomatériaux – Marbres et Autres Roches. Actes de la IVème Conférence Internationale de l'Association pour l'Étude des Marbres et Autres Roches Utilisés dans le Passé; Centre de Recherche en Physique Appliquée à l'Archéologie and Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux (Bordeaux-Talence), 9-13 octobre 1995, edited by M. Schvoerer, 239-242. Bordeaux: Université Michel de Montaige. Underhill, G. E. 1900. A commentary with introduction and appendix on the Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ustinova, Y. 2009. Caves and the Ancient Greek Mind: Descending Underground in the Search for Ultimate Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Andel, T. H. and C. N. Runnels. 1987. Beyond the Acropolis: a rural Greek past. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Van de Noort, R. 2004. “An ancient seascape: the social context of seafaring in the early Bronze Age.” WorldArch 35(3): 404-15. Van Dyck, R. M. and S. E. Alcock. 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Malden: Blackwell. 686 Van Pelt, W.P. 2013. “Revising Egypto-Nubian relations in New Kingdom Lower Nubia: From Egyptianization to cultural entanglement.” CAJ 23(3): 523–50. Vian, F. 1952. “Génies des Passes et des Défilés” Revue Archéologique, Sixième Série 39: 129- 55. --- 1944. “Les Géants de la Mer.” Revue Archéologique, Sixième Série 22: 97-117. Visscher, H., 1996. “The Hellenistic pottery.” In Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey. Vol. ii: Archaeological Data, edited by W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R. W. V. Catling, and G. Shipley, 91-110. London: British School at Athens. Wace, A.J.B. and F.W. Hasluck. 1908/1909. “Laconia II. Topography: East-Central Laconia." BSA 15: 158-76 Waddy, L. 1963. “Did Strabo Visit Athens?” AJA 67(3): 296-300. Walbank, F.W. 1957-79. A historical commentary on Polybius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Warmington, E.H., ed. and trans. 1936. Remains of Old Latin, Volume II: Livius Andronicus. Naevius. Pacuvius. Accius. Loeb Classical Library 314. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Warren, P. 2012. “The Rediscovery of Greek Rosso Antico marble and its use in Britain in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.” BSA 107: 341-86. Waterhouse, H. and R. Hope Simpson. 1961. “Prehistoric Laconia: Part II.” BSA 56: 114-75. Weissner, P. 1989. “Style and changing relations between the Individual and society.” In The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression, edited by I. Hodder. London: Routledge. 687 --- 1983. “Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points.” AmerAnt 48: 253-76. Westerdahl, C. 1992. “The Maritime Cultural Landscape.” IJNA 21(1): 5-14. Westlake, H.D. 1977. “Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles—a written source?” CQ 27(1): 95-110. White, H., ed. and trans. 1913. Appian. Roman History, Volume IV: The Civil Wars, Books 3.27 -5. Loeb Classical Library 5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Whitley, J., S. Germanidou, D. Urem-Kotsou, A. Dimoula, I. Nikolakopoulou, A. Karnava and E. Hatzaki. 2006. “Archaeology in Greece 2005–2006.” AR 52: 1-112. Whittaker, R.J. 1998. Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wide, S. 1893. Lakonische kulte. Leipzig: Teubner. Wilhelm, A. 1909. Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. ---1951. Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts. Pragmateiai tes Akademias Athenon 17, 1. Athens. Winter, E.J. and F.E. Winter. 1983. “The Date of the Temples near Kourno in Lakonia.” AJA 87(1): 3-10. --- 1984. “The Temples at Kourno: A Correction.” AJA 88: 232. Wiseman, K. 1998. “Rethinking the ‘Halls of Hades.’” Archaeology 51(3): 12-18. Yoffee, N., ed. 2007. Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Zavvou, E. 2004-2009 [2010]. Horos 17-21: 306-7. 688 --- 1999 [2005]. “Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Ταινάρου.” ArchDelt 54. Meros B (Chronika) 1: 187. Zavvou, E. and Themos, A. 2001-2004 [2012]. “Νόµος Λακωνίας.” ArchDelt 56-59. Meros B (Chronika) 4. 210-20. Zissos, A. 2008. Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica, Book 1: Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. No author. 1951. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1950.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 75:101-98. 689 Appendices Appendix A Supplementary Distribution Maps and Charts for Literary and Epigraphic Evidence A.1 Master Chart for all Epigraphic Evidence derived from and concerning Inner Mani A master table containing all epigraphic sources is presented on the following pages, and is presented in order of settlement/findspot, counterclockwise from north-east to north-west. 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 A.2 Master Chart for all Literary Sources about Ancient Settlements within Inner Mani A master table containing all literary sources is presented on the following pages, and passages appear in order they are presented in the main text (by chronology and findspot, counterclockwise from north-east to north-west). 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Figure A-1: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence for ancient Mani. ©GoogleEarth A.3 Distribution Maps for Epigraphic Evidence concerning Settlements and People from Mani in Antiquity These maps illustrate the distribution of epigraphic evidence throughout the Mani peninsula as well as extra-peninsular inscriptions pertaining to ancient Maniate settlements and individuals. The maps show general findspots (when known), and are colour-coded to indicate the ancient settlement with which the inscription has traditionally been associated; these affiliations are derived largely from the IG and SEG volumes. Often, the associations are arbitrary – especially along the western coast of the peninsula where the ancient settlements are, as yet, unidentified – and should not be considered as the conclusive provenance of the stones themselves. 717 Figure A-2: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the Inner Mani. ©GoogleEarth Figure A-3: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the northern portion of the Inner Mani. ©GoogleEarth 718 Figure A-4: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the western portion of the Inner Mani. ©GoogleEarth Figure A-5: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the southern portion of the Inner Mani. ©GoogleEarth 719 Figure A-6: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the presumed region of ancient Las (modern Chosiari). ©GoogleEarth Figure A-7: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the presumed region of ancient Teuthrone (modern Kotronas). ©GoogleEarth 720 Figure A-8: Detailed distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the presumed region of ancient Teuthrone (modern Kotronas and Skopas peninsula). ©GoogleEarth Figure A-9: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the region of ancient Tainaron. ©GoogleEarth 721 Figure A-10: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the region of ancient Kainepolis. ©GoogleEarth Figure A-11: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the presumed regions of ancient Hippola and Messe (modern Cavo Grosso region). ©GoogleEarth 722 Figure A-12: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the region of Pyrgos Dirou and the northwest coast. ©GoogleEarth Figure A-13: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the region of ancient Pyrrichos (modern Pyrrichos). ©GoogleEarth 723 Figure A-14: Distribution map of all epigraphic evidence found within the region of ancient Oitylos (modern Oitylos). ©GoogleEarth Figure A-15: Pie chart indicating the distribution of all epigraphic evidence found within the Inner Mani peninsula. 724 Figure A-16: Bar chart indicating the chronological and geographical distribution of all epigraphic evidence found within the Inner Mani peninsula. 725 Figure A-17: Bar chart indicating the frequency of all named ancient sites within the literary sources of classical antiquity. This chart omits the mentions found within appendices B & C (below), to emphasize distribution. A.4 Charts indicating the Frequency of Inner Mani Settlement Mentions from Ancient Literary Sources 726 Figure A-18: Bar chart indicating the frequency of all named ancient sites within the literary sources of classical antiquity. This chart includes the mentions found within appendices B & C (below), to emphasize the shift in distribution. Figure A-19: Bar chart indicating the frequency of the various roles and associations of ancient Tainaron within the literary sources of classical antiquity. This chart includes all known literary sources that mention Tainaron. 727 Appendix B Metonymic use of Tainaron as Hades and as the Entrance to the Underworld in Roman Imperial Sources Note: All sources are presented in roughly chronological order. 1) Horace, Odes 30-23 BCE Translation by Rudd, 2004. On the effect of Jupiter’s thunder: 1.34.[9-12]: …quo bruta tellus et vaga flumina, quo Styx et invisi horrida Taenari sedes Atlanteusque finis concutitur. 1.34.[9-12]: …at that the heavy earth and wandering rivers, at that the Styx, and the dreaded abode of hated Taenarus, and the boundaries marked by Mount Atlas, were shaken. 2) Ovid, Metamorphoses 7 CE Translation by F.J. Miller, 1916 (Revised by J.P. Goold, 1984). Orpheus and Eurydice: 10.11-13: quam satis ad superas postquam Rhodopeius auras deflevit vates, ne non temptaret et umbras, ad Styga Taenaria est ausus descendere porta 10.11-13: When the bard of Rhodope had mourned her to the full in the upper world, that he might try the shades as well he dared to go down to the Stygian world through the gate of Taenarus. 3) Seneca, Phaedra before 54 CE Translation by J.G. Fitch, 2002. Theseus speaking: 1201-1203: Pallidi fauces Averni vosque, Taenarei specus, unda miseris grata Lethes vosque, torpentes lacus, impium rapite atque mersum premite perpetuis malis… 1201-1203: Gaping jaws of pale Avernus, and you Taenarian caves, waters of Lethe that soothe distress, and you lethargic pools, drag this unnatural man below, crush him with endless pain! 728 4) Seneca, Hercules Furens 54 CE Translation by J.G. Fitch, 2002. The Chorus at the end of Act II: 582-587: tandem mortis ait “Vincimur” arbiter, “evade ad superos, lege tamen data: tu post terga tui perge viri comes, tu non ante tuam respice coniugem, quam cum clara deos obtulerit dies Spartanique aderit ianua Taenari.” 582-587: At last death’s ruler said, “We submit. Go forth to the world, but with this proviso: you may escort your husband, but behind him; you may not look back on your wife until bright daylight discloses the heavens, and the door of Spartan Taenarus is near.” Theseus describing Hercules’ final labour, bringing Cerberus up from the Underworld: 813-816: postquam est ad oras Taenari ventum, et nitor percussit oculos lucis ignotae novos, resumit animos victus et vastas furens quassat catenas; 813-816: But after they reached the borders of Taenarus, and the brightness of the unknown light struck his unaccustomed eyes, he regained his spirit after defeat, and shook his great chains furiously; 5) Seneca, Trojan Women c. 54 CE Translation by J.G. Fitch, 2002 The Chorus, at the end of Act II: 402-404: Taenara et aspero regnum sub domino limen et obsidens custos non facili Cerberus ostio 402-404: Taenarus, and the kingdom under its harsh lord, and Cerberus guarding the entrance with its unyielding gate 6) “Seneca”1037, Hercules on Oeta Late 1st century CE Translation by J.G. Fitch, 2004. The Chorus, on Orpheus: 1037 For a discussion on the authorship of this play, see Fitch, J.G. 2004. Seneca. Tragedies, Volume II: Oedipus. Agamemnon. Thyestes. Hercules on Oeta. Octavia. Loeb Classical Library 78. Harvard. 332-333. 729 1061-1063: Quin per Taenarias fores manes cum tacitos adît maerentem feriens chelyn, 1061-1063: He even approached the silent shades through Taenarus’ gates, plucking his mournful lyre. Alcmene, to Hercules’ ashes: 1771-1773: quando Taenarias fores pulsabis? aut quas mater ad fauces agar qua mors aditur? 1771-1773: When will you pound at the gates of Taenarus? Or what yawning tunnel must your mother approach that gives access to death? 7) Lucan, The Civil War (Pharsalia) 60-65 CE Translation by J.D. Duff, 1928. In comparison to the Thessalian cave of Erictho: 6.648-649: Non Taenariis sic faucibus aer Sedit iners 6.648-649: Even in the gorge of Taenarus the air is less dead and stagnant 8) Statius, Thebaid 90 CE Translation by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, 2004. 1.94-96: illa per umbras et caligantes animarum examine campos Taenariae limen petit irremeabile portae. 1.94-96: Through shades and fields dark with the swarm of ghosts she makes for the threshold of Taenarus’ gate, past which none may return. 9) Plutarch, De Primo Frigido (On the Principle of Cold) after 107 CE Translation by H. Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold, 1957. On whether cold can be found in the earth: 20 (954D): καὶ γὰρ τῶν ῥυτῶν ὑδάτων τὰ πετραῖα καὶ ὀρεινὰ ψυχρότατα καὶ τῶν φρεατιαίων τὰ κοιλότατα· τούτοις µὲν γὰρ οὐκέτι µείγνυται διὰ βάθους ἔξωθεν ὁ ἀήρ, ἐκεῖνα δ᾿ ἐκπίπτει διὰ τῆς γῆς ἀµίκτου καὶ καθαρᾶς, ὡς τὸ περὶ Ταίναρον, ὃ δὴ Στυγὸς ὕδωρ καλοῦσιν, ἐκ πέτρας γλίσχρως συλλειβόµενον οὕτω ψυχρόν, ὥστε µηδὲν ἀγγεῖον ἄλλο µόνην δ᾿ ὁπλὴν ὄνου στέγειν· τὰ δ᾿ ἄλλα διακόπτει καὶ ῥήγνυσιν. 730 20 (954D): And of flowing waters, also, the coldest are those that fall from rocks or mountains, and of well waters the deepest are the coldest; the air from outside does not, in the case of these wells, affect the water, so deep are they, while any such streams burst forth through pure unmixed earth, like the one at Taenarum, which they call the water of Styx: it flows from the rock in a trickle, but so cold that no vessel except an ass’s hoof can contain it—all others it bursts and breaks apart. 10) Lucian, The Downward Journey or The Tyrant mid 2nd century CE Translation by A.M. Harmon, 1915. Hermes speaking on Megapenthes’ attempt to escape: 4: εἵπετο δὲ αὐθαίρετός µοι ὁ βέλτιστος οὗτος, καὶ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ ὕσπληγγος θέοντες καταλαµβάνοµεν αὐτὸν ἤδη ἐν Ταινάρῳ• παρὰ τοσοῦτον ἦλθε διαφυγεῖν. 4: My good friend here followed me of his own free will, and by running as if in a match we caught him just at Taenarus: that was all he lacked of escaping. Note: Here Tainaron is a part of the Underworld, and represents the exit from Hades. 11) Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 2nd ½ of the 2nd century CE Translation J.A. Hanson, 1996. 6.18: Lacedaemo, Achaiae nobilis civitas, non longe sita est. Huius conterminam deviis abditam locis quaere Taenarum. Inibi spiraculum Ditis, et per portas hiantes monstratur iter invium, cui te limine transmeato simul commiseris, iam canale directo perges ad ipsam Orci regiam. 6.18 The famous Achaean city Lacedaemon is not far from here. Ask for Taenarus, hidden in a remote area bordering Lacedaemon. There is Dis’s breathing-vent, and through wide-gaping doors one is shown a dead-end road. 6.20: Sic turris illa prospicua vaticinationis munus explicuit. Nec morata Psyche pergit Taenarum, sumptisque rite stipibus illis et offulis, infernum decurrit meatum 6.20: Thus that far-seeing tower performed its service of revelation. Without delay Psyche went to Taenarus, and when she had duly acquired the coins and cakes, she raced down the path to the underworld. Note: Here Tainaron functions as the entrance to the Underworld 731 Appendix C Occurrences of the Story of Arion of Methymna The story of Arion of Methymna is first found in the text of Herodotus (1.23.1; 1.24.6; 1.24.8), and repeated throughout the literature of Classical Antiquity. In the discussion of literary sources in the main text of this present work, I argued that the narrative of Arion is not to be taken as historical fact (not a stretch, since the story of course involves a miraculous dolphin-rescue), but that the choice of including Tainaron as the location of Arion’s safe return to land was a conscious and purposeful choice due to Tainaron’s role as a known place for refuge and/or asylum. Those hearing the story of Arion would understand that the protagonist was safe as soon as he was ‘cast ashore’ at this place. Tales such as that of Arion’s rescue are often far-fetched, but are not wholly unbelievable due to the carefully chosen details contained therein. Clearly, this narrative carried meaning for ancient authors, as this legend was continuously repeated throughout the written record antiquity. All of the known iterations of this story are included in this addendum, with minimal commentary.1038 1) Strabo, Geography 7 BCE – 17/18 CE Translated by Jones, 1924. 13.2.[4]: ἔπειτα Μήθυµνα, ἐντεῦθεν δ᾿ ἦν Ἀρίων ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ δελφῖνι µυθευοµενος ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ Ἡρόδοτον εἰς Ταίναρον σωθῆναι, καταποντωθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν· 13.2.[4]: And then Methymna, whence came Arion, who, according to a myth told by Herodotus and his followers, safely escaped on a dolphin to Taenarum after being thrown into the sea by the pirates. 2) Pliny the Elder, Natural Histories 77 CE Translated by Rackham, 1940. In the context of dolphin-rescues: 1038 Pausanias’ version, at 3.25.[4-8] is included in the body of Chapter 6; Plutarch Moralia 160E includes a possible allusion to this story; Propertius 2.26.18 and Ov. Fast. 2.83ff., mention Arion briefly but not Tainaron. 732 9.28: nec modus exemplorum: eadem Amphilochi et Tarentini de pueris delphinisque narrant; quae faciunt ut credatur Arionem quoque citharoedicae artis, interficere nautis in mari parantibus ad intercipiendos eius quaestus, eblanditum uti prius caneret cithara, congregatis cantu delphinis, cum se iecisset in mare exceptum ab uno Taenarum in litus pervectum. 9.28: Indeed there are unlimited instances: the people of Amphilochus and Taranto tell the same stories about boys and dolphins; and these make it credible that also the skilled harper Arion, when at sea the sailors were getting ready to kill him with the intention of stealing the money he had made, succeeded in coaxing them to let him first play a tune on his harp, and the music attracted a school of dolphins, whereupon he dived into the sea and was taken up by one of them and carried ashore at [Tainaron]. 3) Dio Chrysostom, Discourses late 1st century – early 2nd century CE Translated by Lamar Crosby, 1946. The Thirty-Seventh Discourse: The Corinthian Oration (ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΑΚΟΣ): 37.[3-4]: ὁ µὲν δὴ ᾖδε· καὶ γὰρ ἦν νηνεµία καὶ σιγὴ κατὰ θάλατταν· καὶ τὸ µέλος ᾔσθοντο δελφῖνες, αἰσθανόµενοι δὲ περὶ τὴν ναῦν ὥρµησαν.1 παυσαµένου δὲ τοῦ Ἀρίονος καὶ τῶν πορθµέων οὐδὲν µαλακὸν2 ἐνδιδόντων, ὁ µὲν ἔρριψεν εἰς τὸν πόντον, δελφὶς δ᾿ ὑπελθὼν ἐξεκόµισε τὸν ᾠδὸν ἐπὶ Ταίναρον ὡς εἶχε σὺν τῇ σκευῇ. Ἀρίων µὲν οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον σωθεὶς καὶ φθάσας τοὺς πορθµέας ἐν Κορίνθῳ ἦν, αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα διηγούµενος 4τῷ Περιάνδρῳ. ἐπικαταγοµένων δὲ τῶν πορθµέων καὶ τοῦ πράγµατος ἀχθέντος εἰς ἔλεγχον, οἱ µὲν ἀπέθνῃσκον, Ἀρίων δέ, οὐ γὰρ Περίανδρος, ἀλλ᾿ Ἀρίων, ποιησάµενος µίµηµα χαλκοῦν οὐ µέγα ἀνέθηκεν ἐπὶ Ταινάρου,3 αὑτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ εὐεργέτου καθήµενον. 37.[3-4]: So then he sang—calm and silence brooded on the deep—and dolphins heard his song, and as they heard it they rushed about the ship. And when Arion ceased and the sailors showed no relenting, he leaped into the sea; but a dolphin rose beneath him and carried the singer in safety to Taenarum just as he was, gear and all. So then Arion, saved in this manner and having outstripped the sailors, was in Corinth narrating these very happenings to Periander. And when the sailors later entered port and the matter was brought to trial, the sailors were put to death, but Arion—not Periander, mark you, but Arion—ordering a bronze likeness of no great size, set it up at Taenarum, a likeness of himself astride the back of his benefactor. 4) M. Cornelius Fronto, Correspondence 140-143 CE Translated by Haines, 1919. M. Frontonis Arion 1: Carminis fine cum verbo in mare desilit: delphinus excipit, sublimem avehit, navi praevortit, Taenaro exponit, quantum delphino fas erat, in extimo litore. M. Frontonis Arion 1: His song ended, with a word on his lips he sprang into the sea: a dolphin received him, carried him on his back, outstripped the ship, landed him at Taenarus as near the shore as a dolphin might. M. Frontonis Arion 2: Delphini facinus <ad Taenarum testatur> delphino residens homo parva figura atque ut argumento magis quam simulacro composita. M. Frontonis Arion 2: The dolphin’s exploit is recorded by a statue set up at Taenarus of a man seated on a dolphin, small in size and executed as a subject-piece rather than as a likeness. 733 5) Philostratus the Elder, Imagines Mid 2nd century CE Translated by Fairbanks, 1931. This passage is likely referencing the bronze statue of Arion which supposedly stood at Tainaron: 1.19.[25-26]: ὀχήσεται γοῦν µικρὸν ὕστερον Παλαίµων ἐπὶ δελφῖνος οὐδὲ ἐγρηγορὼς οὗτος, ἀλλ᾿ ὕπτιος ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καθεύδων, καὶ Ἀρίων δὲ ὁ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ δηλοῖ τοὺς δελφῖνας ἑταίρους τε εἶναι ἀνθρώποις καὶ ᾠδῆς φίλους καὶ οἵους παρατάξασθαι πρὸς λῃστὰς ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καὶ µουσικῆς. 1.19.[25-26]: Soon, at any rate, Palaemon will ride on a dolphin’s back, not awake, but lying prone upon it sound asleep; and the Arion at Taenarum makes it clear that dolphins are the companions of men, and fond of song, and worthy to take the field against pirates in defence of men and the art of music. 6) Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights mid 2nd century CE Translated by Rolfe, 1927. 16.19.[16-18]: Sed novum et mirum et pium facinus contigit.” Delphinum repente inter undas adnavisse fluitantique sese homini subdidisse et dorso super fluctus edito vectavisse incolumique eum corpore et ornatu Taenarum in terram Laconicam devexisse. Tum Arionem prorsus ex eo loco Corinthum petivisse talemque Periandro regi, qualis delphino vectus fuerat, inopinanti sese optulisse eique rem, sicuti acciderat, narravisse. 16.19.[23-26]: Eam fabulam dicere Lesbios et Corinthios atque esse fabulae argumentum, quod simulacra duo aenea ad Taenarum viserentur, delphinus vehens et homo insidens. 16.19.[16-18]: But an unheard of, strange and miraculous thing happened.” Herodotus asserts that a dolphin suddenly swam up amid the waves, dove under the floating man, and lifting his back above the flood, carried him and landed him at Taenarum in the Laconian land, with his person and adornment uninjured. Then Arion went from there straight to Corinth and, just as he was when the dolphin carried him, presented himself unexpectedly to king Periander and told him exactly what had occurred. 16.19.[23-26]: This story is told by the Lesbians and the Corinthians, and in testimony to its truth two brazen images are to be seen near Taenarum, the dolphin carrying the man, who is seated on his back. 7) Oppian Haleutica late 2nd century CE Translated by Mair, 1928. 5.448-452: Καὶ µέν τις Λέσβοιο παλαίφατον ἔργον ἀοιδοῦ ἔκλυεν, ὡς δελφῖνος ὀχησάµενος περὶ νώτῳ κῦµα µέλαν περάσκε καθήµενος, ἄτροµος ἦτορ, ἀείδων, καὶ πότµον ὑπέκφυγε ληϊστήρων Ταιναρίῃ τ᾿ ἐπέλασσεν ἐπὶ προβολῇσι Λακώνων. 734 5.448-452: One has heard, moreover, of the feat famous of old of the Lesbian minstrel, how riding on the back of a Dolphin he crossed the black waves while he sat fearless of heart and singing, and so escaped death from the pirates, and reached the land of Taenarus on the shores of the Laconians. 8) Aelian, On Animals beginning of the 3rd century CE Translated by Scholfield, 19591039. Of note in Aelian’s account is the purported inscription on the statue of Arion: 12.45: Τὸ τῶν δελφίνων φῦλον ὥς εἰσι φιλῳδοί τε καὶ φίλαυλοι, τεκµηριῶσαι ἱκανὸς καὶ Ἀρίων ὁ Μηθυµναῖος ἔκ τε τοῦ ἀγάλµατος τοῦ ἐπὶ Ταινάρῳ καὶ τοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ γραφέντος ἐπιγράµµατος. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἐπίγραµµα ἀθανάτων ποµπαῖσιν Ἀρίονα Κυκλέος υἱὸν ἐκ Σικελοῦ πελάγους σῶσεν ὄχηµα τόδε. ὕµνον δὲ χαριστήριον τῷ Ποσειδῶνι, µάρτυρα τῆς τῶν δελφίνων φιλοµουσίας, οἱονεὶ καὶ τούτοις ζωάγρια ἐκτίνων ὁ Ἀρίων ἔγραψε. καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ὕµνος οὗτος· Ὕψιστε θεῶν, πόντιε, χρυσοτρίαινε Πόσειδον, γαιάοχ᾿ ἐγκύµον᾿ <ἀν᾿> ἅλµαν· βράγχιοι περὶ δὲ σὲ πλωτοὶ θῆρες χορεύουσι κύκλῳ, κούφοισι ποδῶν ῥίµµασιν ἐλάφρ᾿ ἀναπαλλόµενοι, σιµοὶ φριξαύχενες ὠκυδρόµοι σκύλακες, φιλόµουσοι δελφῖνες, ἔναλα θρέµµατα κουρᾶν Νηρεΐδων θεᾶν, ἃς ἐγείνατ᾿ Ἀµφιτρίτα· οἵ µ᾿ εἰς Πέλοπος γᾶν ἐπὶ Ταιναρίαν ἀκτὰν ἐπορεύσαν πλαζόµενον Σικελῷ ἐνὶ πόντῳ, κυρτοῖσι νώτοις ὀχέοντες, ἄλοκα Νηρεΐας πλακὸς τέµνοντες, ἀστιβῆ πόρον, φῶτες δόλιοι ὥς µ᾿ ἀφ᾿ ἁλιπλόου γλαφυρᾶς νεὼς εἰς οἶδµ᾿ ἁλιπόρφυρον λίµνας ἔριψαν. ἴδιον µὲν δήπου δελφίνων πρὸς τοῖς ἄνω λεχθεῖσι καὶ τὸ φιλόµουσον. 12.45: Sufficient proof that Dolphins love song and the music of pipes is supplied by Arion of Methymna in his statue on Taenarum and the inscription written upon it. The inscription runs ‘Sent by the immortals this mount saved Arion son of Cycleus from the Sicilian main.’ 1039 Scholfield notes that this poem to Poseidon is “apocryphal and is the work of some writer of dithyrambs perhaps of the late 5th cent. B.C: Scholfield 1959, 73 note ‘a’; for an extensive discussion on this hymn see Smyth 1900, 15 & 205-209. Smyth believed that Herodotus misinterpreted the statuette at Tainaron, and that it actually represented Poseidon himself; he further says that (206): “The legend of Arion’s romantic rescue is due to a misinterpretation of the figure at Tainaron.” I disagree with this interpretation, clearly, since I believe the location of Tainaron is instrumental to this narrative. 735 And Arion wrote a hymn of thanks to Poseidon that bears witness to the Dolphins’ love of music and is a kind of payment of the reward due to them also for having saved his life. This is the hymn: ‘Highest of the gods, lord of the sea, Poseidon of the golden trident, earth-shaker in the swelling brine, around thee the finny monsters in a ring swim and dance, with nimble flingings of their feet leaping lightly, snub-nosed hounds with bristling neck, swift runners, music-loving dolphins, sea-nurslings of the Nereid maids divine, whom Amphitrite bore, even they that carried me, a wanderer on the Sicilian main, to the headland of Taenarum in Pelops’ land, mounting me upon their humped backs as they clove the furrow of Nereus’ plain, a path untrodden, when deceitful men had cast me from their sea-faring hollow ship into the purple swell of ocean.’ So to the characteristics of dolphins mentioned earlier on I think we may add a love of music. 736 Appendix D Re-examination of IG V1 1286 D.1 Introduction The inscription IG V¹ 1286 is situated within the permit boundary of the Diros Project, an international and multi-disciplinary archaeological project under the direction of Drs. Giorgos Papathanassopoulos, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Galaty, and William Parkinson, supervised by the Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece. As a member of the project’s survey and laboratory team, I received permission to study, photograph, squeeze, and publish this inscription and did so in the 2013 and 2014 Diros Project seasons. D.2 Description and Analysis The inscribed stone IG V¹ 1286 is situated prominently above the western entrance of the church of Aghios Giorgos in a small hamlet known as Kambinara, just north of Pyrgos Dirou and immediately south of Diros Bay (Figures D-1 & D-2). The original archaeological context of the inscription is unknown, since it was removed from its original location and reused as spolium in the late Byzantine church of Aghios Giorgos.1040 This funerary epitaph is inscribed on a red rosso antico marble stele that was likely mined from the quarries on the eastern side of the peninsula at Prophitis Ilias (see Chapter 3). In form, it is a rectangular stele with a pedimental crown above a plain architrave. There may be a central akroterion at the apex of the pediment, and it appears that the pediment boasts a raking cornice, but because the stele has been plastered over several times it is difficult to discern the fine details around the edge of the stone. Carved over top the original inscription is an intricate Byzantine knotted cross, added at some later date (Figure D-3). 1040 This date provided by R. Seifried, personal communication. 737 This inscription is of particular interest due to an oversight made by early scholars: although this inscription is included in the 1913 IG V¹ corpus, the letters were either transcribed or published incorrectly, omitting a very curious spelling anomaly. I received permission through the Diros Project permit to conduct a full study on this stone, and although I initially recorded the inscription with both photographs and drawings, it was not until I took a squeeze of the stone that the anomaly appeared: This inscription was published as ΚΛΕΠΑΤΡΑ ΧΑΙΡΕ (Κλεπάτρα χαῖρε), but in fact reads ΚΛΕΩΠΡΑΤΡΑ ΧΑΙΡΕ (Κλεωπράτρα χαῖρε; Figure D-4 & D-5). The letters in this inscription vary greatly in terms of relative size and spacing between the individual characters, but even with this caveat in mind it is clear that the omega and the first rho were added following the initial carving of the name ΚΛΕΠΑΤΡΑ. In spite of this, however, both rhos in this inscription are relatively similar in size and shape, whereas the omega is only a fraction of the size of the rest of the letters. It is my belief that the original dedicator simply forgot these two letters and added them hastily afterwards. In terms of the original publication of this stone in the early 20th century, however, it is unclear whether scholars overlooked this anomaly or omitted the added letters intentionally. The history of scholarship on the stone is brief: Forster was the first to record its existence, noting only “Church of Ἅγ. Γεώργιος, Ν.W. of village. Funeral stele of red marble, .38 m. x .27 m., letters .017 m.: built in above door and with cross cut on it.”1041 In the course of my examination of the stone, I also discovered that Forster’s published dimensions of both the stele itself, and of letters, were incorrect – for this reason, I doubt whether he actually saw the stone itself and took measurements. Since Kolbe replicated Forster’s information exactly in the IG volume, it is clear 1041 Forster 1903/4, 167. 738 that he, too, failed to examine the stele himself. 1042 The correct dimensions for the visible portion of the stone is approximately 12 cm in width across the centre of the stele (c. 12.7 cm across the base of the pedimental crown), and c. 15.5 cm in height, from the base to the apex of the pediment. The letters range in size, wherein the largest letter (χ) is c. 0.9 cm in height, and the smallest (ω) is a mere 0.31 cm in height. To my knowledge, there are no additional publications which discuss this stone. At this point, the name of the deceased merits further consideration: Κλεωπράτρα is a variation of the more common Κλεοπάτρα, the latter of which generates 180 results in the LGPN database (and includes the variations Κλευπάτρα, Κλοπάτρα, Κλυοπάτρα, and Κλειπάτρα; Figure D-6 & D-7) and 98 results in the Trismegistos database (including the variations Κελοπάτρα, Κλεοπαρα, and Κλευπάτρα; Figure D-8).1043 The variation Κλεωπάτρα with an omega instead of omicron only appears once in the Trismegistos database1044; and in the LGPN it only appears in the masculine form, Κλεώπατρος1045. I could not find any examples which had a second rho. In terms of geographic distribution, Κλεοπάτρα (and its variations) is widespread throughout the eastern Mediterranean, particularly (and not surprisingly) in Egypt and the Aegean, but it is noticeably scarce in the Peloponnese. Besides this inscription and one more in Mani (Hippola, SEG 25-456) the closest places where this name is attested are a) Tegea, in Arcadia; and b) Rethymnon, in Crete. The name Kleopatra doesn't appear in the "Roman 1042 Contrast, for example, IG V¹ 1288 (see Chapter 8), which Forster recorded and Kolbe published with different dimensions. 1043 The data for this name in the Trismegistos database are restricted to Egypt, as they are currently undergoing a substantial expansion for the rest of the ancient world. 1044 P. Oxy. 38 2843, 86CE; stable link: www.trismegistos.org/ref/492766 1045 IG VII 1152, Tanagra, 3rd century BCE (?) 739 Peloponnese: Roman Personal Names in their Social Context" volumes whatsoever1046, nor do any of its variations, rendering the appearance of the name here in the southern Peloponnese unusual, even if it was in its most traditional form, let alone with this alternative spelling. Finally, in terms of dating this inscription, the LGPN classifies it as 2nd -1st centuries BCE, without explanation. Perhaps the editors of the LGPN assigned this date to the inscription because many inscriptions in their database that containing the name ‘Kleopatra’ date to the 2nd – 1st century BCE. Of course, there is no original archaeological context available for this inscription – or any from Mani, for that matter – and relying on letterforms can be fraught. In this inscription alone, for example, there are a few competing traits: the lambda appears elongated (suggesting a Roman date) but the alphas do not; the epsilon is squared off (suggesting an earlier, possibly late-Classical to early Hellenistic date) but the omega is rounded/cursive (suggesting a later, possibly Roman date). Ultimately, the date of this inscription cannot be determined. D.3 Squeeze Documentation and Methodology A squeeze was made of this inscription in July 2014 using filter paper and a handmade, horsehair squeeze brush. The squeeze was transported back to Vancouver, BC, for study and digital preservation (Figures D-9 & D-10). The motivation behind the digitization was twofold: 1) to ensure long-term preservation of the squeeze; and 2) to create a legible, accessible resource for anyone wishing to study the inscription themselves. The digitization of the squeeze was performed with the same technique pioneered by the From Stone to Screen project. The digitization process is as follows1047: 1046 Shipley 2007. 1047 For a more detailed outline of the digitization process and its development, see: Tweten et al. 2015. 740 The squeeze is placed on a TTI Repro-Graphic Workstation 4060, which features a 4x6 foot vacuum table-platform, mounted lights and a suspended camera. The underside of the squeeze (the side of the filter paper that has come into direct contact with the stone) is always placed face-up on the platform (in the case of this squeeze, we scanned both sides for comparison, Figure D-9 & D-10). Using a Sinar 86H cameraback and digital CMV lenses, the squeeze is photographed several times: the camera captures four frames per image in an X-pattern (top left to bottom right, then bottom left to top right) and shifts a single pixel per frame. This process ensures sufficient overlap of the frames to create the sharpest image possible; the single pixel shift creates a composite image that is a precise representation of the original squeeze. Then, CaptureShop image processing software merges the four frames into a single image. Using High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDR or HDI), three different exposures – one overexposed, one properly exposed and one underexposed – are taken of each image to produce a greater range of shadows and highlights. After the images have been captured, the RAW image files are imported into Photoshop CS6 and the automatic HDR merge function is used to create a single image with the dynamic range of the three exposures. The image of the squeeze is then flipped horizontally to allow the letters to be read left to right, and the image is straightened so the text, not the edge of the filter paper, is horizontal to the reader. Finally, a neutral grey background and drop shadow are inserted, which are purely aesthetic choices. The physical squeeze has been donated to the From Stone to Screen epigraphic squeeze teaching collection, which is housed in the Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia, while the digitized files will be added to the open-access teaching resources on the From Stone to Screen online database. The practice of taking 741 epigraphic squeezes in the field and publishing the images of these squeezes in open-access repositories allows for further collaboration and incorporation of the variety of materials discovered at archaeological sites. This small case study illustrates the continued value of squeezes and digitization to current epigraphic research and the value in the continued expansion of open-access databases. 742 D.4 Appendix D Figures Figure D-1a-b: a (left) – IG V1 1286 in process of being squeezed above the western entrance of Aghios Giorgos, Kambinara. Photo by author. b (right) – View of the church © Google Earth Figure D-2: Location of Kambinara relative to Diros Bay. ©Google Earth. A A-3: Distribution maps for epigrB A-3: Distribution maps for epig 743 Figure D-3: Photograph of IG V1 1286 in situ above the western entrance to Aghios Giorgos, Kambinara. Photo by author. 744 Figure D-4: Photograph of IG V1 1286 with digitized text superimposed. Photo by author. Figure D-5: Digitized Text of IG V1 1286. Figure D-6: Frequency of Kleopatra (and variations) in the LGPN Volumes. ©http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk.html 745 Figure D-7: Distribution of Kleopatra (and variations) from the LGPN Database ©http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk.html Figure D-8: Frequency of Kleopatra (and variations) from the Trismegistos Database ©ww.trismegistos.org 746 Figure D-9: Digitized Squeeze of IG V1 1286 – letter impressions facing ‘up’ (towards camera). Courtesy of From Stone to Screen™. 747 Figure D-10: Digitized Squeeze of IG V1 1286 – letter impressions facing ‘down’ (away from camera). Courtesy of From Stone to Screen™. 748 Appendix E Alphabetical List of Personal Names in Inscriptions and Prosopographic Data Names are presented in alphabetical order (according to the Greek alphabet). The first major publication is listed first, and subsequent publications follow in parentheses. Multiple individuals with the same name are indicated by alphanumeric separation (a,b,…). Agatharin (Ἀγαθάριν); f. IG V,1 1219 Agathemeros (Ἀγαθήµερος); m. IG V,1 1307 Agathokles (Ἀγαθοκλῆς); m. a) IG V,1 1220 (spelled Ἀγαθοκλεῖ) b) IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) Agarin (Ἀγάριν); f. IG V,1 1303 Hagemon (Ἁγήµων); m. SEG 22 304 (60 416) Αgetoridas (Ἀγητορίδας); m. IG V,1 1295 Agippos (Ἄγιππος); m. IG V,1 1295 Agrippa, Marcus; m. CIL 491: son of Marcus Hagehistratos (῾Αγηἵστρατος); m. IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Aischrion (Αἰσχρίον); m. IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Akte (Ἀκτή); f. IG V,1 1252: daughter of Omonoia (῾Οµόνοια) Alki – (Ἀλκ[ι— —]) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): son of Rouphos (Ῥούφος) 749 Andromedes (Ἀνδροµέδης); m. IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Anthousa (Ἄνθουσα); f. IG V,1 1251 Anthos (῎Ανθος); m. IG V,1 1251 Arion (Ἀρίον); m. IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939) Aristeus (Ἀριστεύς); m. IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) à also IG V,1 213 Aristidas (Ἀριστίδας); m. IG V,1 1229 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 940) Aristideia (Ἀριστήδεια); f. IG V,2 538: daughter of Nikias (Νικίας); mother of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) Aristokleia, Aurelia (Αὐρηλία Ἀριστόκλεια); f. IG V,1 601: daughter of Aurelia Charteris (Αὐρηλία Χαρτηρίς), mother of Aurelia Charteris (Αὐρηλία Χαρτηρίς) Aristokleia (Ἀριστόκλεια); f. IG V,1 1249 Ariston (Ἀρίστων); m. SEG 60 378 Aristonika (Ἀριστονίκα); f. IG V,1 1221 (SEG 60 416) Aristoteles (Ἀριστοτέλης); m. a) IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) (sp. Ἀριστοτέλες) b) IG V,1 1236: father of Pruaios (Πρυαῖος) and Damarmenidas (Δαµαρµενίδας) c) IG V,1 1527 (sp. Ἀρισστοτέλης) Aristoteles, Aurelios (Αὐρηλίος Ἀρ̣ιστοτέλης); m. IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): son of Hellanikos (Ἑλλανίκος), father of Aurelia Charteris (Αὐρηλία Χαρτηρίς) à also IG V,1 601 750 Aristophanes (Ἀριστοφάνης); m. IG V,1 1296: son of Polykrates (Πολυκράτης) and Philonumia (Φιλωνυµία) Arkolyka (Ἀρκόλυκα); f. IG V,1 1266 (SEG 30 1836) Askulina (Ἀσκυλινα); f. SEG 26 455 Auge (Αὔγη); f. IG V,1 1287 (SEG 60 372) Auktos (Αῦ̓κτος); m. IG V,1 1251 Autokrates (Αὐτοκράτες); m. IG V,1 1229 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 940) Aphrodo (Ἀφροδώ); m. IG V,1 1267 Badeias (Βαδηἵας); m. IG V,1 1295 Bassos, Oualerios (Οὐαλερίος Βάσσος); m. IG V,1 1268 Blastos (βλάστος); m. 1) IG V,1 1219 (SEG 60 416) 2) IG V,1 1263 Boineas (Βοινέας); m. IG V,1 1229 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 940) Galaisos, Tiberios Klaudios (Τιβ. Κλαυδίος Γαλαίσος); m. SEG 23 199 Georgos (Γεωργός); m. IG V,1 1308 Glykonis Ephesia (Γλυκωνὶς Ἐφεσία); f. IG V,1 1255 Gorgidas (Γοργίδας); m. IG V,1 1334a (SEG 42 303; 60 387) 751 Gorgipis (Γοργιπὶς); f. IG V,1 1288 Daiochos (Δαΐοχος); m. IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939) Damarin (Δαµάριν); f. IG V,1 1302 Damarion (Δαµάριον); f. IG V,1 1304 Damarchis (Δαµαρχὶς); f. a) IG V,1 1257: daughter of Etearchos (Ἐτεάρχος), mother of Etearchis (Ἐτεαρχίς) b) IG V,1 1276 (SEG 60 369) Damarchos (Δάµαρχος); m. a) SEG 22 308 (60 416): son of Philippos (Φιλίππος) b) IG V,1 1220: father of Kleon (Κλέων) and Epikratis (Ἐπικρατὶς) c) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): father of Epikratis (Ἐπικρατὶς) Damarmenidas (Δαµαρµενίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1236: son of Aristoteles (Ἀριστοτέλης) b) IG V,1 1243 c) IG V,1 1281 (1524): son of Euameros (Εὐαµέρος) Damarmenos (Δαµαρµένος); m. IG V,1 1244 (SEG 11 943): father of Lysikrates (Λυσικράτης) Dameas (Δαµέας); m. a) IG V,1 1295 b) IG V,1 1257: father of Etearchis (Ἐτεαρχίς) Damion (Δαµίων); m. IG V,1 1295 Damippos (Δάµιππος); m. IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) Damonikidas (Δαµονικίδας); m. IG V,1 1279 Damostheneas (Δαµοσθενήας); f. IG V,1 1282 752 Damostheneia, Aurelia (Αὐρηλία Δαµοσθενεία); f. IG V,1 1301: daughter of Philaristos (Φιλαρίστος) Damosthenes (Δαµοσθένης); m. IG V,1 1220 Damocharis (Δαµόχαρις); m. a) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): son of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) b) IG V,2 538: I, father of Sotimidas II (Σωτιµίδας), c) IG V,2 538: II, son of Sotimidas I (Σωτιµίδας) Damophon (Δαµοφο͂ν); m. IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Deinippidas (Δεινιππίδας); m. IG V,1 1297 Dekios (Δέκιος); m. IG V,1 1234 Demetrios (Δηµήτριος); m. – listed as from ‘abia’ in the lgpn IG V,1 1253 Dexiklees (Δεξικλέης); m. SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374): father of Dexippos (Δέξιππος) Dexippos (Δέξιππος); m. SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374): son of Dexikleis (Δεξικλέης), father of Euameridas (Εὐαµερίδας) Dikaios, Aurelios (Αὐρηλίος Δικαίος); m. a) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): I, father of Aurelios Dikaios II (Αὐρηλίος Δικαίος II) b) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): II, son of Aurelios Dikaios I (Αὐρηλίος Δικαίος I) Diokles (Διοκλῆς); m. IG V,1 1214 Dionysia (Διονυσία); f. a) IG V,1 1301: mother of Theon (Θέων) Diophantos (Διόφαντος); m. IG V,1 1287 (SEG 60 372) Dom- (Δοµ[— ]) IG V,1 1263 753 Ekephulos (Ἐκέφυλος); m. IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Hellanikos (Ἑλλανίκος); m. IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): father of Aurelios Aristoteles (Αὐρηλίος Ἀρ̣ιστοτέλης) and Markos Aurelios Pagkratidas (Μ. Αὐρ. Παγκρατίδας) à also in these inscriptions IG V (1) 530, 2; IG 601 Epaphrodeitos (Ἐπαφρόδειτος); m. SEG 31 337 (60 416) Epikratis (Ἐπικρατὶς); f. a) IG V,1 1220: daughter of Damarchos (Δάµαρχος) b) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): daughter of Damarchos (Δαµάρχος) Epiktas (Ἐπικτᾶς); m. IG V,1 1300 Epikudes (Ἐπικύδης); m. IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941 Epistatos (Ἐπίστατος); m. Giannakopoulou 52-53 Epistratos (Ἐπίστρατος); m. IG V,1 1295 Epiteuxis (Ἐπίτευξις); f. IG V,1 1287 (SEG 60 372) Epicharis (Ἐπιχάρις); f. IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): mother of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) Erato (Ἐρατὠ); f. IG V,1 1528 (SEG 30 401) Erymnidas (Ἐρυµνίδας); m. Giannakopoulou 52-53 Etearchis, Ioulia (Ἰουλία Ἐτεαρχὶς); f. IG V,1 1258 Etearchis (Ἐτεαρχὶς); f. IG V,1 1257: daughter of Dameas (Δαµέας)and Damarchis (Δαµαρχὶς) 754 Etearchos (Ἐτεάρχος); m. a) IG V,1 1257: father of Damarchis (Δαµαρχὶς) b) IG V,1 1258: father of [Ἰούλιος --] Ἐ̣τεάρχος c) IG V,1 1259: son of Neikandridas (Νεικανδρίδας) Euameridas (Εὐαµερίδας); m. a) SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374): son of Dexippos (Δέξιππος) and Kleopatra (Κλεοπάτρα) b) SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374): father of Kleopatra (Κλεοπάτρα) Euameros (Εὐαµέρος); m. IG V,1 1281 (1524): father of Damarmenidas (Δαµαρµενίδας) Eubesychos (Εὐβήσυχος); m. IG V,1 1285 Eubolos (Εὔβωλος); m. IG V,1 1295 Eudamidas (Εὐδαµίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1214 b) IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Eudamos (Εὔδαµος); m. IG V,1 1295 Eukleidas (Εὐκλείδας); m. IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): father of Kratisiklea (Κρατησίκλεα) Eumelidas (Εὐµηλίδας); m. IG V,1 1233 (SEG 40 356; 53 380) Eupora (Εὐπόρα); f. IG V,1 1269 Eurykles, Gaius Julius (Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Εὐρυκλης) IG V,1 1243: father of Gaius Julius Lakon (Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Λάκων) à also IG V (1) 141; SEG XI 883; SEG XXII 310; SEG XXIX 383 Eutychides, Tiberios Klaudios (Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Εὐτυχίδης); m. a) IG V,1 1248 (SEG 60 376): I, father of Tiberios Klaudios Eutychides II (Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Εὐτυχίδης) b) IG V,1 1248 (SEG 60 376): II, son of Tiberios Klaudios Eutychides I (Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Εὐτυχίδης) 755 Eutychides (Εὐτυχίδης); m. IG V,1 1261 Eutychos (Εὔτυχος); m. IG V,1 1235 (SEG 26 467) Zeuxippos (Ζεύξιππος); m. IG V,1 1245 (SEG 53 2191): son of Philodamos (Φιλοδάµος) Zoipos (Ζώϊπος); m. IG V,1 1249 (SEG 23 200): father of (Kleinos (Κλεινὸς) Herakleidas (Ἡρακληίδας) a) IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) b) IG V,1 1295 (sp. Ἡρακλείδαν) Thaliarchos, Markos Aurelios (Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Θαλίαρχος); m. IG V,1 1241: son of Thaliarchos (Θαλίαρχος) Thaliarchos; m. IG V,1 1241: father of Markos Aurelios Thaliarchos (Μᾶρκος Αὐρήλιος Θαλίαρχος) Theares (Θεάρης); m. IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939) Theodoros (Θεόδορος); m. IG V,1 1225 Theon (Θέων); m. a) ΙG V,1 1301: father of Aurelios [--] (Αὐρηλίoς -- ) b) IG V,1 1301: son of Dionysia (Διονυσία) Theris (Θῆρις); m. a) IG V,1 1260: I, father of Theris II (Θῆρις) b) IG V,1 1260: II, son of Theris I (Θῆρις) Thorax (Θόραξ); m. IG V,1 1229 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 940) Ionathas (Ἰωνάθας); m. SEG 55 496 Kalistratos (Καλίστρατος); m. SEG 60 384 756 Kallidamidas (Καλλιδαµίδας); m. SEG 23 199: father of Lysippos (Λυσίππος) Kallikrates, Klaudios (Κλαυδίος Καλλικράτης); m. SEG 23 199 Kallikrates (Καλλικράτης); m. a) SEG 23 199: son of Neikadas (Νεικάδας) b) IG V,1 1250: father of Lysikrates (Λυσικράτης) Kallikratis (Καλλικρατὶς); f. IG V,1 1282: daughter of Neikandros (Νεικάνδρος) Kallikratia (Καλλικρατία); f. SEG 50 388 (51 441) Kallikratidas, Aurelios (Αὐρηλίoς Καλλικρατίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): I, father of Aurelios Κallikratidas II (Αὐρηλίoς Καλλικρατίδας) b) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): II, son of Aurelios Κallikratidas I (Αὐρηλίoς Καλλικρατίδας) Kallikratidas (Καλλικρατίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1334a (SEG 42 303; 60 387) b) IG V,1 1282 Kaloklenas (Καλοκλένας); m. IG V,1 1293: son of Kleomachos (Κλεοµάχος) Kissabos (Κίσσαβος); m. IG V,1 1525 Kleantidas (Κλεαντίδας); m. IG V,1 1223 (SEG 22 307; 60 416) Klearetas (Κλεαρέτας); m. IG V,1 1295 Klearchos (Κλέαρχος); m. IG V,1 1214 Kleeratos (Κλεῄρατος); m. IG V,1 1214 Kleinos (Κλεινὸς); m. IG V,1 1249 (SEG 23 200): son of Zoipos (Ζώϊπος) 757 Kleippos (Κλέϊππος); m. IG V,1 1295 Kleogenes (Κλεογένες); m. IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939) Kleomachos (Κλεοµάχος); m. IG V,1 1293: father of Kaloklenas (Καλοκλένας) Kleomenes (Κλεοµένης); m. IG V,1 1233 (SEG 40 356; 53 380) Kleon (Κλέων); m. IG V,1 1220: son of Damarchos (Δάµαρχος), father of Philippos (Φίλιππος) Kleopatra (Κλεοπάτρα); f. a) SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374): daughter of Euameridas (Εὐαµερίδας), mother of Euameridas (Εὐαµερίδας) Kleopratra (Κλεωπράτρα) IG V,1 1286 Krateippos (Κρατήἱππος); m. IG V,1 1295 Kratisiklea (Κρατησίκλεα); f. IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): daughter of Eukleidas (Εὐκλείδας) Labippa (Λαβίππα); f. a) IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) b) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): daughter of Philokles (Φιλοκλῆς) Lakon, Gaius Julius (Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Λάκων); m. IG V,1 1243: son of Gaius Julius Eurykles (Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Εὐρυκλῆς) Lepida (Λεπίδα); f. IG V,1 1306 Lyhippos (Λύιππος); m. IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Lyigenes (Λυἱγένης); m. IG V,1 1295 Lykina (Λυκίνα); f. IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) 758 Lyon (Λύον); m. IG V,1 1228 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 36 369; 11 939) Lysikrates (Λυσικράτης); m. a) IG V,1 1244 (SEG 11 943): son of Damarmenos (Δαµαρµένος) b) IG V,1 1241: father of Markos Aurelios Lysixenos (Μάρκος Αὐρηλίος Λυσιξένος) c) IG V,1 1250: son of Kallikrates (Καλλικράτης) Lysixenos, Markos Aurelios (Μάρκος Αὐρηλίος Λυσιξένος); m. IG V,1 1241: son of Lysikrates (Λυσικράτης) Lysippos (Λυσίππος); m. SEG 23 199: son of Kallidamidas (Καλλιδαµίδας) Makedon, Auphidios (Αὐφίδιος Μακεδών); m. IG V,1 1268 Marcus CIL 491: father of Marcus Agrippa Megi- (Μεγι[— ]) IG V,1 1263 Melesies (Μελησίης); m. IG V,1 1342 Menecharidas (Μενεχαρίδας); m. IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Nearetas (Νεαρέτας); m. IG V,1 1230 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Nearchis (Νεαρχὶς); f. IG V,1 1262: daughter of Te [--] (Τη--) Neikadas (Νεικάδας); m. SEG 23 199: father of Kallikrates (Καλλικράτους) Neikidas (Νεικίδας); m. IG V,1 1282 Neikandridas (Νεικανδρίδας); m. IG V,1 1259: father of Etearchos (Ἐτέαρχος) 759 Neolaidas (Νεολαΐδας); m. IG V,1 1233 (SEG 40 356; 53 380) Nikan- (Νικαν-) IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044): father of Nikandrippos (Nικάνδριππος) Nikandria (Νικανδρία); f. SEG 42 304 Nikandrippos (Nικάνδριππος); m. IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044): son of Nikan- (Νικαν) Nikandros (Νίκανδρος); m. a) IG V,1 1295 b) IG V,1 1282 (spelling Νείκανδρος): father of Kallikratis (Καλλικράτις) Nikarchidas (Νικαρχίδας); m. IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Nikaphoridas (Νικαφορίδας) – this name not in lgpn IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Nikias (Νικίας); m. IG V2 538: father of Aristideia (Ἀριστήδεια) Nikion (Νικίων); m. IG V,1 1295 Nikodamos (Νικόδαµος); m. IG V,1 1295 Nikoi (Νικοί); f. IG V,1 1334a (SEG 42 303; 60 387) Nikomenidas (Νικοµενίδας); m. SEG 22 304 (60 416): father of Nikoteles (Νικοτέλης) Nikon (Νίκον); m. IG V,1 1232 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) Nikosales (Νικοσάλης); m. SEG 22 304 Nikosthenes (Νικοσθένης); m. IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044): father of Xenokleidas (Ξενοκλείδας) 760 Nikostratos (Νικ̣όστρατος); m. IG V,1 1295 Nikoteles (Νικοτέλης); m. SEG 22 304 (60 416): son of Nikomenidas (Νικοµενίδας) Nymphais (Νυµφαῒς); f. IG V,1 1265 Xenippos (Ξένιππος); m. IG V,1 1295 Xenodamos (Ξενόδαµος); m. IG V,1 1295 Xenokleidas (Ξενοκλείδας); m. IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044): son of Nikosthenes (Νικοσθένης) Omonoia (Ὁµόνοια); f. IG V,1 1252: mother of Akte (Ἄκτη) Painikidas (Παἱνικίδας); m. IG V,1 1295 Pankratidas (Πανκρατίδας); m. IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) Patron (Πάτρων); m. a) IG V,1 1295 b) IG V,1 1295 Peiikratidas (Πειἱκρατίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1295 b) IG V,1 1295 Perila (Περίλα); f. IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) Perkles (Περκλῆς); m. IG V,1 1295 Plaste (Πλάστη); f. IG V,1 1270 Polykratia (Πολυκράτια); f. SEG 22 306 (60 416) 761 Polykratis (Πολυκρατὶς); f. SEG 42 304 Polykrates (Πολυκράτης); m. IG V,1 1296: father of Aristophanes (Ἀριστοφάνης) Praxion (Πραξίων); m. IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) Prisca, Claudia CIL 492 (SEG 60 375) Pruaios (Πρυαῖος); m. a) IG V,1 1231 (SEG 53 380; 40 356; 11 941) b) IG V,1 1236: son of Aristoteles (Ἀριστοτέλης) Rouphos (Ῥούφος); m. a) SEG 23 199: I, father of Rouphos II (Ῥούφος) b) SEG 23 199: II, son of Rouphos I (Ῥούφος) c) IG V,1 1240 (SEG 34 317): father of Aurelios Alki [--] (Αὐρηλίος Ἀλκι--) Saos (Σάος); m. IG V,1 1284 Seueros (Σευῆρος) IG V,1 1254 Simias (Σιµίας); m. IG V,1 1295 Skytheinos, Gaios Ioulios (Γαΐος Ἰουλίος Σκυθείνος); m. SEG 23 199 Sozomenos (Σωζόµενος); m. IG V,1 1224 Soixion (Σωιξίων); m. IG V,1 1295 Sosikrateia (Σωσικράτεια); f. IG V,I 1222 (SEG 23 198) 762 Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας); m. a) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371; spelled Σωτειµίδας): father of Damocharis (Δαµόχαρις) and Philippis (Φιλιππὶς) b) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): son of Epixaris (Ἐπιχάρις) and father of Philokles (Φιλοκλῆς) c) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): son of Philippos (Φιλίππος) d) IG V,2 538: father of Damocharis (Δαµόχαρις) e) IG V,2 538: son of Damocharis (Δαµόχαρις) and Aristideia (Ἀριστήδεια) Sophidoi (Σοφιδοῖ); f. IG V,1 1283 (SEG 52 351; 52 810) Straton (Στράτων); m. IG V,1 1295 Tanagros, Olos Ophillios (Ὦλος Ὀφίλλιος Τάναγρος); m. IG V,1 1247 (11 943) Teimarein (Τειµάρειν); f. IG V,1 1279 Teimokrates (Τειµοκράτης); m. IG V,1 1264 Tetartos (Τέταρτος); m. IG V,1 1233 (SEG 40 356; 53 380) (Tiberieus), Ioustos Andromaches (Ἰοῦστος Ἀνδροµάχης Τιβεριεύς) IG V,1 1256 (SEG 55 495; 48 1901; 11 944) Timandros (Τίµανδρος) IG V,1 1271 Timion (Τιµίων); m. IG V,1 1295 Timulos (Τιµύλος); m. IG V,1 1295 Triton (Τρίτων); m. IG V,1 1295 Pheidias (Φειδίας); m. SEG 22 304 (60 416): son of Philon (Φίλων) 763 Philarin (Φιλάριν); f. a) IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) b) IG V,1 1277 (SEG 30 370) c) IG V,1 1221 (SEG 60 416) Philaristos (Φιλαρίστος); m. ΙG V,1 1301: father of Aurelia Damostheneia (Αὐρηλία Δαµοσθενεία) Phileas (Φιλέας); m. IG V,1 1295 Philios (Φίλιος); m. IG V,1 1295 Philippis (Φιλιππὶς); f. IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): daughter of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) Philippos (Φιλίππος); m. a) SEG 22 308 (60 416): father of Damarchos (Δάµαρχος) b) IG V,1 1220: son of Kleon (Κλέων) c) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): son of Philokles (Φιλοκλῆς), father of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) Philodamos (Φιλοδάµος); m. a) IG V,1 1245 (SEG 53 2191): father of Zeuxippos (Ζεύξιππος) b) IG V,1 1295 Philokles (Φιλοκλῆς); m. a) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): father of Philippos (Φίλιππος) b) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): son of Sotimidas (Σωτιµίδας) c) IG V,1 1280 (SEG 60 371): father of Labippa (Λαβίππα) Philokratidas (Φιλοκρατίδας); m. IG V,1 1298 Philomelidas (Φιλοµηλίδας); m. IG V,1 1295 Philon (Φίλων); m. a) IG V,1 1226 (SEG 11 938): son of Anti-- (Ἀντι--) b) IG V,1 1336 (SEG 11 950; 13 268; 49 381; 59 2044): son of Da-- (Dα--) c) SEG 22 304 (60 416): father of Pheidias (Φειδίας) Philonis (Φιλωνὶς); f. IG V,1 1278 764 Philonumias (Φιλωνυµίας); f. IG V,1 1296: mother of Aristophanes (Ἀριστοφάνης) Philonumidas (Φιλωνυµίδας); m. IG V,1 1296 Philonumos (Φιλώνυµος); m. IG V,1 1295 Philotera (Φιλωτέρα); f. IG V,1 1305 Philetis (Φιλητίς); f. SEG 26 456 (31 335; 60 373; 60 374) Phylax (Φύλαξ); m. IG V,1 1308 Chairiadas (Χαιριάδας); m. IG V,1 1295 Chairon (Χαίρων); m. IG V,1 1300 Charinos (Χαρῖνος); m. IG V,1 1295 Charteris, Aurelia (Αὐρηλία Χαρτηρίς); f. IG V,1 601: daughter of Aurelios Aristoteles (Αὐρηλίος Ἀριστοτέλης) and Aurelia Aristokleia (Αὐρηλία Ἀριστόκλεια), mother of Markos Aurelios Euporos (Μάρκος Αὐρηλίος Εὔπορος). Charteris (Χαρτηρίς); f. IG V,1 601: mother of Aurelia Aristokleia (Αὐρηλία Ἀριστόκλεια) Charton, Tiberios Klaudios (Τιβέριος Κλαύδιος Χάρτων); m. IG V,1 1246 Chriimidas (Χρηἱµίδας); m. IG V,1 1295 Ophelia (Ὠφελία); f. IG V,1 1334a (SEG 42 303; 60 387) 765 Appendix F Analysis of the Petrographic Thin Sections (Samples 1-35) from the Diros Bay Ceramic Assemblage and Accompanying Photos (Petrographic and Microscopic). Sample 1 (# S004SQ0130001) Microstructure: Voids are common, most are small-medium, but there are a couple large voids; the largest of which is ~2mm; several voids are representative of burnt-out limestone, as the exterior rings have sparking remnants; voids and inclusions are randomly oriented. Note: microcrystalline rings around pores/voids may be indicative of deterioration after burial (secondary calcite/gypsum).1048 Groundmass: The interior is a dark reddish-brown in XPL; brown-dark brown in PPL. The exterior is gray-green-brown in XPL; light brown in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted. Quartz: average 0.2mm; smallest < 0.1mm; largest c. 0.5mm; majority monocrystalline with uniform extinction but some polycrystalline. Large amount of quartz in this fabric. Chert: largest 1mm; smallest < 0.1mm. Serpentine: Only very small examples < 0.1mm. Sample 2 (# S004SQ0140001) Microstructure: Few voids, the largest of which is 1.5mm; most voids are medium-small. Randomly oriented. Groundmass: Interior is reddish brown and almost orange-brown in XPL and almost exactly the same colour in PPL near the inner portion of the handle; as move to the exterior of handle becomes a gray-green brown in XPL and a sandy-beige in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, 25%. Feldspar: yellow birefringence, angular, largest 0.1mm (100µµ), average < 0.1mm. Well-sorted throughout. Undulose extinction. Quartz: largest 0.125mm, average < 0.1mm. Mostly monocrystalline. Serpentine: mostly very small (< 0.1mm), orange and green birefringence. Largest 0.116mm. Possible temper/grog: large uniform dark red – black inclusions with little to no birefringence and no extinction. Well-sorted and fairly large: largest 0.5625mm. Sample 3 (# S004SQ0330001) Microstructure: Very few voids, largest of which is 0.5mm. Groundmass: Exterior brown-gray-brown with a tint of green in XPL, sandy brown in PPL. Centre dark reddish-brown in XPL, brown in PPL. Ring in centre of handle. 1048 Reedy 2008, 209. 766 Inclusions: Well-sorted 20-30%. Quartz: angular, mostly monocrystalline, largest 0.666mm. Average <0.1mm. Evidence of burned-out limestone: 0.5mm void with inclusions in the interior (tiny pieces of quartz and feldspar). Feldspar & serpentine: same distribution and measurements as Sample 2. Large chunk of possible grog, quartz inclusions and areas of yellow/red birefringence. Sample 4 (# S004SQ0420001) Microstructure: Very few voids, one large example 1.25mm. Alignment of the spine-like feldspar needles seem to be along the base of the vessel (i.e. the spines are parallel to the bottom of the base). Some voids have sparkling remnants on the exterior, probably indicative of burnt out limestone. Groundmass: Dark reddish-brown interior in XPL, brown in PPL. Colour lightens toward the away from the interior, but the exterior of the vessel is dark brown in PPL Inclusions: Several large chunks of monocrystalline quartz, and some compound polycrystalline quarts chunks. Largest 0.83mm. Few examples of basalt, largest 0.5mm. Feldspar spines, same as Sample 2 & 3 but in higher concentration. Sample 5 (# S004SQ0440001) Microstructure: Very few voids, not well-sorted: the majority of voids are located away from the centre, around the exterior edges of the handle. Some voids have sparkling remnants on the exterior, probably indicative of burnt-out limestone. Groundmass: Very high concentration of inclusions along the exterior edges. Colour almost a blue-gray in XPL, clear to sandy in PPL. Moving towards the interior of the handle, it becomes gray-brown and then red-brown in XPL and only slightly darker red in PPL. Inclusions: Poorly sorted. Much higher percentage of much smaller inclusions near the exterior (indicative of wheel speed). Quartz: much lower percentage than the above samples, approximately 20% here, and individual pieces are smaller overall. Largest 0.15mm, most <0.1mm. Same distribution of feldspar and serpentine as above examples, but more feldspar than serpentine. All very small (<0.1mm), not aligned. Some large red masses, perhaps opaques: largest 1.66mm. No birefringence, some with tiny (<0.1mm) quartz/feldspar inclusions. 767 Sample 6 (# S004SQ0470001) Microstructure: Few voids, randomly placed. Largest about 2mm. Groundmass: Dark red-brown interior moving towards gray on exterior in XPL, light red-brown moving to a more sandy brown on the exterior in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, large and varied inclusions. Quartz: Large chunks of mono and polycrystalline quartz, the largest of the former is 1.25mm, and the latter 0.5mm. Undulating extinction in the large polycrystalline groups.1049 The vast majority of the inclusions here are either large monocrystalline chunks, or equally large chunks of polycrystalline quartz. Definitely conglomerate (sedimentary rock) lithics (largest: 0.5mm); very possibly schist (metamorphic) lithics (largest 1.15mm). Other: muscovite flakes (specifically biotite) and spines, well-sorted, mostly horizontally aligned. Largest 0.5mm; average 0.25mm; smallest <0.1mm. This is a form of mica and has second-order interference colours. Sample 7 (# S004SQ0510001) Microstructure: Many large voids (30%). The fabrication of the toe of this vessel left a definite swirl pattern of voids corresponding to the twisting of the pottery. There are several voids throughout the sample, well-distributed. Many of these voids are connected, so establishing base measurements is difficult, but the largest is > 3mm. Characteristic of all these voids is the presence of a sparkly microcrystalline rings on the edges of the voids, potentially indicative of deterioration after burial (secondary calcite/gypsum).1050 Groundmass: Dark reddish-brown throughout, richer in the centre and fading to a duller brown on the outsides in XPL, dark brown to light brown in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, three major inclusions. Chert: the most common inclusion in this sample (50%), it is recognized by the sparkly texture. All the chert inclusions are large, the largest 1.5mm. Quartz: the next common (15%); some inclusions, not many, and mostly monocrystalline. The largest is about 0.15mm. Serpentine: approximately < 5%, the largest inclusion is 0.125mm. 1049 See comparanda in Adams, McKenzie, and Guilford (2017, 11), who note that the bright lines of interference colours in between the quartz grains are clay. 1050 Reedy 2008, 209. 768 Sample 8 (# S004SQ0540001) Microstructure: Very few voids (10-15%), mostly aligned towards one of the edges (the ceramic fragment itself is so small and worn it is nearly impossible to tell the original structure). One exception, a large void, 0.5mm. Higher concentration of inclusions towards the edge opposite the one with the voids. Groundmass: Dark reddish brown moving towards a more orangey-red to a brown in XPL; Dark black-brown moving towards a red-brown to a sandy brown in PPL. The presence of a very dark line might on one edge might indicate surface treatment. Inclusions: Well-sorted. Mostly large, monocrystalline chunks of angular quartz (70%); largest 0.42mm, well-dispersed. The remainder of the inclusions are primarily basalt and serpentine (approximately 5% each). Largest serpentine 0.3mm, sub-rounded. Basalt: largest 0.24mm. Not well distributed, angular. Other: opaques and some polycrystalline quartz as well (5% total). Sample 9 (# S004SQ0720001) Microstructure: Very few voids (<5%), the largest one in the middle of the same, <0.1mm. Random orientation. Groundmass: Seems extremely compacted with microcrystalline matrix. Orange-brown in centre in XPL, brown in PPL; as moving towards edges more gray-brown in XPL, orange-sandy-brown in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, very small inclusions throughout (not surprising, given its fine fabric). Feldspar: the largest concentration of inclusions are angular, well-distributed, small feldspar spines (70%); largest 0.15mm; average <0.1mm. Quartz: well-distributed angular to sub-rounded inclusions, approximately 20%; largest 0.124mm; average < 0.1mm. Red-brown large inclusions: either opaques or some form of grog/temper; well-distributed, rounded to sub-rounded (approximately 5%); largest 0.25mm; average 0.1mm. Other: one possible angular plagioclase inclusion 0.15mm. Sample 10 (# S004SQ0760001) Microstructure: Several large voids (20%), all aligned lengthwise (horizontal/parallel) to the rim itself. Largest c. 2mm. Several voids have indications of burnt-out limestone, as the exterior has sparking remnants. Groundmass: Distinct colour change between exterior and interior indicative of overfiring. Exterior edges dark grey-blue-black in XPL, in PPL light gray-black; inside rich dark red-brown-black in XPL, brown in PPL. 769 Inclusions: Mostly randomly oriented, but tend toward the horizontal parallel, cf. the voids, above. Seems as though there are many, smaller inclusions (particularly quartz) on the exterior, while less dense but larger fragments are located in the interior. Overall, one of the least dense in terms of concentration (~20% of the overall groundmass). Quartz: mostly monocrystalline, some polycrystalline, overall 70% of the inclusions; largest polycrystalline cluster 0.3mm; largest monocrystalline inclusion 0.17mm; average <0.01. Chert: approximately 5% of the inclusions; largest 0.33mm, sparkly and sub-rounded. Opaques: probably grog/temper, large rounded red/brown inclusions < 5% of matrix; largest 0.5mm. At least one metamorphic inclusion, rounded and 0.3mm.1051 Sample 11 (# S004SQ0800001) Microstructure: Very few voids (5%), all aligned in centre, at least one features sparking remnants on the exterior of the void, potentially indicative of burned-out limestone. The largest is long and horizontal, >3mm and has a strange patterned inclusion in centre, which may be a part of the epoxy. Groundmass: Similar to Samples 2 & 3, above, but denser and darker/less rich in colour. Dark greenish-brown in XPL, sandy brown in PPL. Radiates to a more warm brown towards edges, and then eventually a grey-brown on the very exterior in XPL, and a lighter red-brown in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, full of very small inclusions. Extremely dense (~40%-50% inclusions). Quartz: highest representation of inclusions (~80%), mostly monocrystalline, angular to sub-rounded, well-distribute; largest 0.3mm; average < 0.1mm. Feldspar: very small and well-distributed throughout (10%); angular and spine-like; average <0.1mm. Serpentine: very small and well-distributed throughout (5%); sub-angular and rounded; average < 0.1mm. High birefringence: yellow/orange. Biotite: one example; 0.05mm. Other: possible lithic fragment with kink-folded texture; 0.18mm; combination of graphite, mica, & quartz.1052 Sample 12 (# S004SQ1280001) Microstructure: Very few to few voids (~5%), none larger than 0.1mm. Random assortment/alignment. Groundmass: Dark red-brown matrix in XPL, brown in PPL. 1051 Thanks to E. Kiriatzi for pointing this inclusion out to me. 1052 Reedy 2008, Figure 4.3.23. 770 Inclusions: Well-sorted. ~20% density overall, indicative of fineware. Quartz: predominant inclusion (90%), small-medium, mostly monocrystalline with a few small polycrystalline exceptions; angular to sub-rounded; largest 0.2mm; average <0.1mm. Feldspar: elongated feldspar microlites with high birefringence; largest 0.2mm; smallest <0.1mm; high birefringence. Other: serpentine flecks throughout, all < 0.1mm. Biotite spine: 0.24mm. Unknown lithic inclusion: 0.28mm. Few opaques, all < 0.1mm. Sample 13 (# S004SQ1340001) Microstructure: Voids common (~20%), random orientation and distribution. Largest 1.5mm; some of the voids have sparkling edges from burnt out limestone. Groundmass: Majority reddish in XPL, brown in PPL, small area in direct of centre of handle dark greenish-black-brown in XPL, brown in PPL. Inclusions: Well-sorted, random orientation. Quartz: Mostly monocrystalline but some polycrystalline; angular to subrounded (70%). Largest 0.6mm; average <0.1mm. Feldspar spines and serpentine throughout matrix, typical as in similar samples above (1, 3, 12, etc.). Unknown lithic inclusion: 0.58mm Opaques: all <01.mm; temper/grog. Sample 14 (# S004SQ1490001) Microstructure: Very few to no voids – this slide was ground down too much and presents odd lines on the slide that represent voids but which aren't true to the structure of the sample. One irregularly shaped void potentially represents burnt out organic material; 1.3mm, irregular in shape. Groundmass: The extremely feldsparitic nature of the matrix gives it a bright orange-red appearance in XPL, and an orange-brown to red-brown in PPL; the colour tends to lighten towards the edges but this may be a result of the thinning of the section itself. Inclusions: Extremely feldsparitic matrix (~50%-60%) with high yellow birefringence. Random orientation, well-sorted, random alignment. The large inclusions (no larger than 0.1mm) are only about 5%, but the nature of the matrix is so feldsparitic that it is almost completely packed with these inclusions. Quartz: angular to sub-rounded (30%); largest quartz 0.8mm; average 0.1mm. Serpentine (10%) frag 10 ticks in 10/0.25 fairly large. Opaques: largest 0.6mm; temper/grog. Biotite/muscovite mica: several spines with green, yellow, blue, and pink birefringence (micaceous fabric). One spine within an unknown lithic (0.25mm). Chert: largest example 0.3mm. 771 Sample 15 (# S004SQ1580001) Microstructure: Voids: few-common (10-15%), and the majority of the largest voids have microcrystalline sparkling rings around them, indicative of burnt-out limestone. Largest void 1mm. Evidence of limestone leeching on interior of voids, even though it has been burnt out on the exterior. Groundmass: Extremely dark brown-black in XPL, brown in PPL; ‘starry sky’ composition. Inclusions: Well-sorted, random alignment. Quartz-heavy (60%): Mostly monocrystalline, largest 0.3mm, average 0.1mm, smallest >0.01mm. Some heavily polycrystalline, largest 0.52mm. One example has a vein of biotite/muscovite mica running through. Chert: sparkling, sorted both randomly and in/around voids; largest Th other main component (30%) is chert, sparkling and both on its own and in/around voids. Largest one around 0.58mm. Sample 16 (# S004SQ1610001) Microstructure: Voids: common (~20%), random orientation, average 0.9mm. Some voids found within larger fragments of quartz, others have faint remnants of sparkly microcrystalline inclusions on the external borders. Groundmass: Dark-brown, transitioning to red-brown in certain areas in XPL; dark brown to light brown in PPL but lightening towards the top of the handle (this may be a result of the thickness in the slide). Inclusions: Very large quantity of large inclusions (coarseware). Quartz: approximately 30%; both monocrystalline and polycrystalline inclusions; some of the monocrystalline examples are extremely undulose and do not have uniform extinction; angular-sub angular. Largest piece of monocrystalline 0.25mm; average < 0.1mm. Mica: approximately 40%; long thin spines largely aligned along the horizontal parallel of the handle; angular, well-distributed, and randomly sorted. The mica inclusions exhibit second-order birefringence colours, especially blues, greens, pinks, and oranges. Some may be feldspar as well, perhaps those showing yellow birefringence colours. Towards the edge of the sample the spines because less birefringent, which could be a result of the slide preparation. Largest spines 1.5mm – 2.0mm long. Average 0.5mm-0.75mm. Some of the mica inclusions, are a part of/within larger lithic inclusions, the latter probably schist or schistose quartz. Some of the fragments display a kink-folded texture. Other: small amounts of feldsparitic rock fragments, some with what seems to be basalt. Sample 17 (# S004SQ1620006) Microstructure: Few-common voids (~15-20%), tend to be in the centre of the sample. Slight microcrystalline remnants around the edges. Largest c. 1mm. Orientation tends to be horizontally parallel with the sample itself. 772 Groundmass: Red-brown in XPL; brown in PPL. Inclusions: Opaques: Largest percentage (40%) are large brown-red sub-rounded to sub-angular inclusions that might be grog/temper or opaques; these display no birefringence, so likely opaques; largest is about 0.586mm; none are < 0.1mm. Quartz-heavy (40%) as well, with mostly monocrystalline inclusions; largest 0.3mm and the average is 0.1mm. There are some lithic fragments, including one with plagioclase feldspar inclusions, serpentine, and polycrystalline quartz – it measures 14 ticks in 10/0.25. Very few serpentine inclusions, some feldspar and biotite spines (all < 0.1mm). Sample 18 (# S004SQ1720001) Microstructure: Voids are common (~30-40%); no real orientation – large 'groupings' of voids in middle and on long edges of the handle. Not linear. Some groupings have microcrystalline remnants around the exterior. Larges 'group' of voids is ~6mm (this is visible macroscopically on the thin section slide). Groundmass: Dark red-brown in the centre, moving towards a more brown to blue-brown on the exterior in XPL; a combination of brown, dark brown, and light gray-brown in PPL changes in colour are much more noticeable in PPL. Inclusions: Poorly sorted, with groups of larger inclusions separated from pockets of mainly small inclusions. Quartz: this sample is also quartz-heavy (45%), and has both mono and polycrystalline inclusions. The largest fragments are polycrystalline, one in particular measures around 80 ticks in 10/0.25 and features a large central inclusion within that is either monocrystalling quartz or plagioclase feldspar. Monocrystalline quartz is highly undulose. Largest is 0.67mm; average is < 0.1mm. Serpentine: Two large inclusions (0.33mm) apparent; highly birefringent (red) in XPL but also remains red in PPL. Other: fabric includes tiny feldspar spines. Several lithic fragments, some schistose quartz/sandstone (0.48mm). Also, 10-15% of the reddish inclusions are grog/temper or opaques. Sample 19 (# S004SQ1750001) Microstructure: Few to very few voids (< 5%), random orientation. Some lined with microcrystalline remnants. Groundmass: Orange-brown to red-brown in XPL; light orangey-brown to dark red-brown in PPL. 773 Inclusions: Well-sorted, randomly distributed with medium-large inclusions (coarseware); the largest inclusions have a slight tendency to be grouped together toward the centre. Quartz: (60%) mostly monocrystalline but some polycrystalline that are sometimes a part of larger lithic groups; largest monocrystalline around 0.3mm. Angular to sub-angular in shape. Average <0.1mm (mostly small). Feldspar: at least two examples of what looks like plagioclase feldspar; alternatively, this could be quartz with non-uniform extinction, although I favour the feldspar because it occurs in parallel lines. Opaques: large rounded to sub-rounded inclusions of opaques (grog/temper) that are reddish-brown in colour in XPL. Largest c. 0.5mm. Biotite: Spines of biotite (or feldspar) contribute to the orangeish appearance of the fabric, and most are <0.1mm. Some quartz-heavy lithic inclusions. Sample 20 (# S004SQ1760001) Microstructure: Voids common (~25%), but mostly fairly small and uniform in size (c. 0.25-0.30mm). Most are subrounded, but the largest group of voids has clusters and is not well-defined at all, but has microcrystalline remnants throughout. Horizontally aligned along the axis of the sherd. Groundmass: Dark red-brown core with a marked transition to a gray-brown-green exterior in XPL – the transition in PPL is from a dark rich red-brown to a light brown to a sandy brown in PPL. This transition is visible on the sample itself and is perhaps a result of overfiring. Inclusions: Much more microcrystalline and denser towards the outside of the sample. The core has larger and fewer inclusions (perhaps a result of overfiring). Quartz-heavy (70%), mostly monocrystalline; mostly very small (<0.1mm); largest is 0.25mm. Lithic fragments: Assorted in appearance. Some lithic fragments with sparkling remnants – chert or burnt-out limestone. Some lithic fragments quartz-heavy (largest 0.375mm). One lithic fragment (0.4mm) with red birefringent inclusions (Biotite or feldspar). Microcrystalline matrix full of feldspar and basalt. Sample 21 (# S0040000001) Microstructure: Voids few-common (10%) and larger than in the sample above – largest ~2mm. Most small <0.25mm. Random orientation, well-distributed. Groundmass: Rich dark red-brown in core, transition to a dark blue-black on exterior in XPL. This corresponds to a light brown to dark gray-brown transition in PPL. Like the sample above, this is visible macroscopically on thin section slide of the sample itself. 774 Inclusions: The matrix is extremely dark and densely packed with small inclusions (fineware). Unlike Sample 20, above, the density does not change significantly from the core to the exterior, unlike the above example. Quartz: This sample is another example of quartz-heavy fabric (70%); largely monocrystalline; the largest of which is small, 0.25mm; average size <0.1mm. Other: Some lithic fragments (larges 0.63mm), some which comprise polycrystalline quartz and red birefringent lines of feldspar/mica (biotite? <0.1mm.). Only one or two of the red/brown opaque inclusions (grog/temper), and they are negligible. Sample 22 (# S005SQ0010003) Microstructure: Few voids (10%), randomly distributed; largest ~0.4mm. One long and thin, likely the remnant of organic material (chaff?) and some circular/curved. A few have sparkling remnants on the exterior, or are immediately adjacent to quartz fragments; evidence of burnt-out limestone. Groundmass: Several colours represented. Transition from rich dark brown to green-gray brown to green-brown to sandy brown to blue-grey! All in XPL. In PPL the transition is medium brown to dark brown to light brown to sandy gray beige. Visible on the slide is what seems like over-firing in the area where the description of the transition in this paragraph begins and corresponds to the lightening stage at the end of the transition. Inclusions: Limestone/Chert heavy (50%): Sparkling matrix due to large amount of chert. There are several large inclusions, all ~0.5mm. Random orientation, well sorted. Subrounded for the most part, but there is also a significant presence of elongated pieces, which can only be described as 'angular' – these are also randomly oriented, and some curve at the ends. Quartz (30%): both monocrystalline and polycrystalline with various degrees of undulating extinction. Largest monocrystalline examples ~0.75mm. One polycrystalline chunk has a streak of mica running through it. A couple red/brown opaque (grog/temper) inclusions, and some lithic fragments (largest 0.5mm). Of note in this sample is the presence of highly carbonate microforms (elongated/curved inclusions are a carbonate/shell temper, up to 0.63mm) and that the igneous inclusions are many.1053 Sample 23 (# S005SQ0070001) Microstructure: Few-common voids (20%), mostly small but the largest is c 1mm; average <0.1mm. Groundmass: Fairly uniform red-brown throughout in XPL, although slightly richer brown than other examples. Much different in PPL, where there is a marked transition between dark red brown, then a lighter sandy brown toward the thicker edge. Also, there is a noticeable black line around the exterior in PPL, evidence of glaze/slip. 1053 Evangelia Kiriatzi, personal communication. 775 Inclusions: Quartz: accounts for the vast majority of inclusions (70%), both polycrystalline and monocrystalline but all fairly small; the largest (polycrystalline) only c 0.25mm; average < 0.1mm. Other: Some negligible feldsparitic/biotite spines and serpentine inclusions, the latter melding with the matrix and contributing to the rich colour. There are also a couple lithic fragments, some look like they might have basalt, but the composition is difficult to identify precisely since the inclusions are so small. Sample 24 (# S005SQ0180001) Microstructure: Few-common voids (20%), mostly quite large; largest >2mm; most <0.5mm. Groundmass: Very polychromatic in XPL – in centre gray-green-brown, transitioning to a light-orangey-sandy brown in some places and a more orange-brown in others. In PPL gray-brown to black-brown to orange-brown in places. Very diverse. Inclusions: The vast majority of inclusions in this sample are unidentified. There are large lithic inclusions which may be sandstones, siltstones, or slate but this is unclear. Characterized by varying degrees of birefringence, the most marked feature are strong transverse parallel lines cutting across the inclusions. Another possibility is that these are grog/temper inclusions and the linear features represent various clay integrities. There is some chert/limestone material at various degrees of burning out. There is also quartz, both monocrystalline and polycrystalline and often directly amassed with the large lithic fragments. The largest of these is 1.55mm. Sample 25 (# S005SQ0180002) Microstructure: Very few voids (<5%), the largest of which is c. 0.2mm, but really there are only a handful of voids altogether. Some of the voids have a distinct microcrystalline ring around the outside. Groundmass: Dark gray-green brown transitioning to a richer red-brown in XPL. Extremely dense matrix sparkling with chert and limestone. In PPL dark red-brown to light sandy brown. Inclusions: Well-sorted. The alignment of the inclusions seem to be parallel along the horizontal axis of the sample. A lot of chert/sparkling/highly birefringent inclusions. Also quartz-heavy. Chert/limestone (40%): in various degrees of what seems to be burning out; overall well-distributed and forming a large part of the sparkling matrix; largest is 0.375mm; most <0.1mm. Quartz (40%): both polycrystalline and monocrystalline; largest < 0.5mm; most <0.1mm. Other: some dark red-brown inclusions (hematite temper/grog), especially towards the larger/thicker end of the sample. Some birefringent spines leeching into the matrix. 776 Sample 26 (# S006SQ0010002) Microstructure: Very few voids (< 5%); the two most marked are located on the bottom of the vessel (not the wall); both are very elongated and irregular, c. 1mm. Groundmass: The orange birefringent inclusions give the matrix an orange-brown appearance in XPL. Very dark and lightens towards the wall of the vessel (away from the bottom). In PPL a darker brown bottom to a sandy brown wall (away from bottom). Inclusions: Horizontally aligned; larger clusters of quartz tend to one side of the sample. Quartz (~50%): Large fragments of polycrystalline quartz inclusions, and some monocrystalline. Largest polycrystalline fragment ~0.36mm; average <0.1mm. Other: very few other inclusions of note, except for the dark red-brown grog/temper/hematite inclusions; largest 0.16mm. Serpentine/birefringent matrix but no large inclusions. Sample 27 (# S006SQ0010004) Microstructure: Few-common medium-large voids (not a lot but some quite large); largest c. 1mm; average 0.5mm. Not well sorted, mostly horizontally parallel to the sample and typically located in the centre. The voids all have microcrystalline remnants on the borders, indicating limestone/chert burning out. Groundmass: Very light orange in XPL. All the other samples characterized as 'orange' in colour are slightly darker, reddish-orange, while this one is almost yellow-orange. Probably due to the high presence of feldspar and chert in the matrix. Inclusions: The matrix is chock-full of biotite/feldspar spines, serpentine, and chert, which give it a sparkling quality (70%). Some inclusions resemble chert, but are displaying pink/yellow/green birefringence colours. Unsure as to identification – possibly a carbonate in the process of burning out. Quartz: Some quartz, not particularly quartz-heavy (10%); largest c. 0.188mm; average <0.1mm. Other: Some inclusions of the reddish-brown hematite/grog/temper; largest 0.188mm. One plagioclase feldspar fragment, 0.25mm. Sample 28 (# S006SQ0020002) Microstructure: Very few voids (>5%), random orientation. Largest c. 0.2mm. Groundmass: Dark red-brown to blue-brown-black in XPL, dark red-brown to light brown in PPL. 777 Inclusions: Overall very few inclusions, randomly aligned, sorted with a higher concentration away from the edge of the sample. Feldspar/biotitespines (50%): mostly oriented on the diagonal; three large inclusions; the largest of all the inclusions (0.33mm) has pink and green birefringence colours. Quartz (40%): mostly very small, largest 0.25mm; most <0.01m. 5 ticks in 10/0.25. Opaques: reddish-brown (alternatively grog/temper); largest 0.3mm; average <0.1mm. Sample 29 (# S006SQ0040003) Microstructure: Voids: common (15%) and medium-to-large-sized; most have significant microcrystalline ring surrounding the voids (remnants of leeching limestone); largest 1.5mm and incidentally does not have sparkling remnants around it. The voids themselves are very irregularly shaped and well-distributed. Groundmass: Brown-light brown (almost with a greenish tinge) in XPL; brown-gray-brown in PPL. In XPL there are noticeable streaks of sparkling inclusions on both ends of the sample. Inclusions: Quartz (40%): mostly extremely small and monocrystalline. Largest < 0.1mm; average 0.01mm. Limestone/chert (40%): rather than forming defined inclusions, these are very streak-like; some of the streaks take up large portions of the sample and are difficult to measure because of the lack of clear definition – there is so much of this that it forms a significant portion of the matrix. Other: dark red-brown inclusions (grog/temper/opaques). One or two feldspar/biotite spines, and the bottom portion of the sample has a reddish birefrigent layer. Sample 30 (# S006SQ0140003) Microstructure: Incredibly fine, fired to the point where it is almost glass-like, very few voids/inclusions. There only a handful of voids (<5%), well-distributed, medium, sub-angular to sub-rounded. The largest void is 0.6mm. Groundmass: The matrix is almost completely uniform and glass-like, because of the high degree of firing for this sample. It is a green-brown colour in XPL, and gray with slight tinges of brown and green in PPL. There are odd streaks visible in XPL but not PPL which are not inclusions but almost impurities or imperfections in the groundmass. The sample itself has a visible slip, and this is represented microscopically but a very fine layer of bright red in XPL (<0.01mm) and black in PPL. Inclusions: Very few overall (10%), well sorted, randomly aligned, but a notable higher density away from the middle and towards the edges of the sample. Quartz: the largest quartz is <0.1mm. Serpentine: the largest inclusion overall is one of serpentine (0.26mm). The matrix has tiny birefringent inclusions which are difficult to identify but could be feldspar/biotite/sparkling chert. There are also tiny fragments of opaques/temper/red-brown inclusions. 778 Sample 31 (# T00550000004) Microstructure: Few-common voids (10%) that are well-distributed throughout with a slight tendency to be clumped together closer to the edges; largest void 0.75mm. Groundmass: Dark brown with a clear line of transition to a lighter orangish-brown in XPL; brown to orange-brown in PPL. Inclusions: Extremely large number of inclusions of all sizes. Quartz (70%): the vast majority of inclusion are large chunks of quartz; the largest chunk of monocrystalline quartz is 1.5mm; largest inclusion of polycrystalline 1.5mm. The range of sizes for quartz is very large, and they are well-distributed throughout; the average/most common is probably > 0.1mm, as the inclusions on average are very large in this sample. Other (30%): there are also several large schistose lithic chunks which have combinations of quartz/feldspar/serpentine/biotite inclusions. Essentially, the matrix is extremely dense and busy with a vast combination of the above elements overlapping and obscuring composition of the clay. Lots of high birefringent feldspar spines (largest 0.33mm) and bright red serpentine (largest 0.2mm), but no mica/muscovite in this sample. Opaques: a few medium-large examples (reddish-brown; temper/grog), largest 0.6mm. Sample 32 (# T00570000008) Microstructure: Very few voids, and poorly sorted: all concentrated in what seems to be the 'wall' of the vessel. Elongated, poorly distributed. Largest 0.5mm. Groundmass: Throughout the sample there is a gradual transition from blue-gray to red-brown in XPL. It is somewhat obscured by the nature of the small inclusions in the matrix. In PPL the transition is through shades of brown, from light to dark. Inclusions: Well-sorted, randomly aligned. Quartz (55%): mostly smallish quartz; largest 0.125mm; average < 0.1mm. Feldspar: slightly fewer feldspar spines than quartz, but the matrix is heavy with yellow tints because of the feldspar. Other: few opaques. At least three large (0.5mm) lithic inclusions, two of which seem to be chert/limestone; the third lithic inclusion the identification is unclear but its composition is undulating microcrystalline with potential quartz/biotite/serpentine. Sample 33 (# T00580000001) Microstructure: Very few voids, and most associated with lithic fragments. Most rounded to sub-rounded with the exception being the largest void which is elongated and irregular (0.5mm). 779 Groundmass: Sparkling light orange to a deep red-brown in XPL. The edges almost a blue-gray, but could be a result of the sample being ground too thin. In PPL it ranges from light sandy-brown to brown to dark brown. Inclusions: Different from what we've seen so far because of the nature of the ratio between matrix:inclusions. Most samples have inclusions which range in size, but this one has only extremely microscopic inclusions contrasted with very large inclusions. The matrix is notably uniform and devoid of quartz, this may suggest a different clay source. As mentioned above, the inclusions themselves are either too small to be identified, or rather large and well-dispersed (average ~0.5mm). The large inclusions include everything from mono and polycrystalline quartz, to combinations of feldspar/basalt lithics with quartz-heavy inclusions, lots of lithics with biotite/serpentine-like appearances, and even some potential chert/limestone. One interesting one has three massive chunks of the brown-red temper/opaques along with a feldspar/basalt/quartz. Aside from these significant inclusions, the matrix is composed primarily of small feldspar spines, small pieces of quartz, and opaques. Sample 34 (# T00600000002) Microstructure: Very few voids (~10%); some voids are difficult to distinguish because their extinction isn't typical, but could almost be described as closer to the uniform extinction of quartz (but without the brightness characteristic of quartz). Sub-angular to sub-rounded, not well-distributed, and often associated with adjacent lithics. One of largest, 0.5mm. Groundmass: Quite orange-brown, transitioning to lighter sandy gray-brown on the exterior in XPL; Light sandy-brown to a dark reddish-brown in PPL. Inclusions: Extremely packed with inclusions (80%); very coarse, and inclusions visible in the sample and the slide. The smaller inclusions are primarily composed of spines of yellow feldspar (30%; 0.1-0.5mm) and small quartz (20%; 0.1-0.2mm). The large inclusions are vast and numerous. Some lithics are characterized by a sandy-orange sparkling fabric in XPL, criss-crossed at oblique angles with dark lines which feature undulating extinction. In the centre of the largest example of this lithic are quartz/basalt/plagioclase feldspar inclusions. In PPL this lithic remains grey-green and measures c. 1.3mm. More common inclusions of monocrystalline and polycrystalline quartz are present, but a characteristic of some of the quartz is a dullness when not extinct (in contrast to the bright white expected of quartz). Muscovite mica flakes showing yellow, green, pink, and blue birefringence colours throughout (25%), some are by themselves, others included within larger lithic chunks. There is one chunk of limestone which has an unusual line cutting across it which does not go extinct at all (although the chert itself does); c. 1.0mm. Other: opaques with quartz inclusions; reddish-brown chunks (temper/grog), some of these are independent and others are a part of a larger lithic. The same is true for the serpentino inclusions. Possible lithic fragment with kink-folded texture graphite, mica, quartz combo (c.1.0m).1054 1054 Reedy 2008, Figure 4.3.23. 780 Note: The highly micaceous schists and biotite inclusions look similar to Kytheran fabrics, but the wavy undulation tends to be more characteristic of Attic/Cycladic metamorphic (and much imported to Kythera during this period). Cf. Kythera 32 (reduced metamorphic colluvium; 700ºC; Karavas) and Kythera 65, 33 (metamorphic colluvium 700ºC, Karavas).1055 Sample 35 (# T00610000001) Microstructure: Few to very few voids, randomly aligned; the largest is the burnt-out interior of a large lithic (c 1.0mm). Most smaller (<0.1mm - 0.2mm) Groundmass: Orange to reddish brown interior in XPL, transitioning to grey-green on the edges. Brown to orange-brown interior in PPL, transitioning to light brown on exterior. Inclusions: Well-sorted and horizontally aligned. Quartz (60%): Mostly small, rounded to sub-rounded; largest 0.25mm; most <0.1mm. Limestone/chert (10%): few inclusions, but one large example (1.0mm). Matrix orange in colour because of serpentine and feldspar spikes. Lithics: One unknown example with green and pink birefringence and opaques contained within the lithic itself (0.75mm); basalt lithic with similar green ad pink birefringence (0.4mm). Opaques (10%): well-sorted, rounded, average <0.1mm. Of note: fossiliferous inclusion – biotite or hornblende amphibole (0.4mm). 1055 Evangelia Kiriatzi, personal communication. 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 Appendix G Rosso Antico and Other Marble Objects from the Sparta Archaeological Museum with Probable Mani Provenance Photos of select objects, followed by a master chart. Object numbers are located in the top left corner of each photos. All photos by author. 286 287 789 28 31 14b 790 291 1536 791 314 1532 792 793 794 795 Appendix H Materials Related to the British School at Athens Study Collection. This appendix includes complete catalogue entries for all the ceramics studied at the British School at Athens during summer 2015, and photos of the ceramics. 796 Figure H-1: BSA ceramics from the site of Mavrovouni. Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 797 Figure H-2: BSA ceramics from the site of Kotronas/Skopas. Group 1: Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 798 Figure H-3: BSA ceramics from the site of Kotronas/Skopas. Group 2: Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. Figure H-4: BSA ceramics from the site of Oitylos. Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 799 Figure H-5: BSA ceramics from the site of Passavas. Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 800 Figure H-6: BSA ceramics from the site of Gytheio (Cranae). Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 801 Figure H-7: BSA ceramics from the site of Spira. Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 802 Figure H-8: BSA ceramics from the site of Hippola. Side a (top) & side b (bottom). Photo by author. 803 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 804 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 805 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 806 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 807 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 808 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 809 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 810 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 811 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 812 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 813 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 814 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 815 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 816 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics 817 Appendix H: Catalogue of BSA study collection ceramics
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Classics
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
The Mani peninsula in antiquity : an archaeological, historical, and epigraphic investigation into regional identity
Text