Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:34:28.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sparta and Samos: a Special Relationship?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

L. H. Jeffery  and
Paul Cartledge
Paul Cartledge
Affiliation:
Clare College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States seems to embody most fully the type of the ‘special relationship’ today. It is a relationship founded ultimately (and now of course remotely) on biological kinship, structured by mutual economic and strategic interests and cemented by a sense of political and ‘spiritual’ affinity. At least the broad contours of such contemporary ‘special relationships’ are sufficiently clear. This is far from being the case with those of the Archaic and Classical Greek world, for two main reasons. First, and more decisively, our sources for the history of that world – literary, epigraphical, archaeological – are normally scrappy, discontinuous and variously slanted. Second, and only in part because of the nature of the evidence, the workings of all ancient Greek interstate relationships, whether ‘special’ or not, are in principle controversial. For in the absence of governments and parties in the modern sense it is frequently impossible to explain confidently a particular foreign policy decision taken by a Greek state. A fortiori it is in principle even more difficult to describe and account for ‘special’ relationships between states that apparently transcended purely immediate, local and narrowly self-interested considerations.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , December 1982 , pp. 243 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See e.g. Gatzke, H. W., Germany and the United States: A’ Special Relationship’? (Cambridge, Mass., 1981).Google Scholar

2 This is not made clear in SirAdcock, Frank & Mosley, D. J., Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London, 1975).Google Scholar

3 Seibert, J., Metropolis und Apoikie. Historische Beiträge zur Geschichte ihrer gegenseitigen Beziehungen (Diss. Würzburg, 1963)Google Scholar; Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother-city in Ancient Greece (Manchester, 1964)Google Scholar; both reviewed by Jeffery, L. H., JHS 86 (1966), 242–5;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWerner, R., ‘Probleme der Rechtsbeziehung zwischen Metropolis und Apoikie’, Chiron 1 (1971), 19–73Google Scholar; and, for the archaeological evidence bearing on the colonization movement of the eighth to sixth centuries, Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas. Their early colonies and trade (London, 1980)Google Scholar. ‘Colony’ is of course a misnomer: Finley, M. I., ‘Colonies-an attempt at a typology’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. 5 26 (1976), 167–88, esp. pp. 169, 173 f., 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Schmid, P. Benno, Studien zu gr. Ktisissagen (Diss. Freiburg, 1947), pp. 126–8Google Scholar; Pembroke, S. G., ‘Locre et Tarente. Le rôle des femmes dans la fondation de deux colonies grecques’, Annales (ESC) 25 (1970), 1240–70. In a humorous passage of the pseudo-Platonic Hippias Major (285d) we are told that the Spartans were particularly addicted to such ⋯ρχαιoλoγíα.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Stibbe, C. M., ‘Sparta und Tarent’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 37 (1975), 1–20Google Scholar; Cartledge, , Sparta and Lakonia. A regional history 1300–362 BC (London, 1979), pp. 123 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Fifth century: Kythera (Thuc. 7. 57. 6), Thera (Pindar, Pyth. 5. 72–6; Hdt. 4. 145–50; cf. Strabo 10. 5. 1, C484), Melos (Thuc. 5. 112. 2), Knidos (Hdt. 1. 174. 2). Fourth century: Lyktos (Ephorus, FGrHist 70F 149. 17; Arist. Pol. 2. 10, 1271 b27–8), Kyrene (Isoc. 5 [Phil.] 5). Roman period: Magnesia, Alabanda, Kibyra, Synnada, Salagassos, Selge, Amblada – evidence collected in Woodward, A. M., ‘Sparta and Asia Minor under the Roman Empire’, Stud. D. M. Robinson ii (St Louis, 1953), pp. 868–83; Lokroi (Paus. 3. 3. 1) - accepted as genuine by Stibbe Med. Ned. Inst. Rome 36 (1974), 34 n. 111.Google Scholar

7 Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation, etc. (Philologus Supp. XIV. 1, 1920), pp. 6–9Google Scholar; Blumenthal, E., Die altgr. Siedlungskolonisation im Mittelmeerraum, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Südküste Kleinasiens (Tübingen, 1963), pp. 15–22.Google Scholar

8 Traditionally, the settlers of Samos did include Peloponnesians from Epidauros, but these would have been pre-Dorians: Paus. 7. 4. 1–3; cf. 2. 26. 2; Iambi. Vita Pyth. 2. 3. Herodotus’ ‘Dorians of Epidauros’ (1. 146. 1) is probably an anachronistic reference to these. For the literary traditions see generally Sakellariou, M. B., La migration grecque en lonie (Athens, 1958), pp. 93–106Google Scholar. (I am indebted to M. H. Jameson for a personal communication on this point.) For the archaeological evidence bearing on the early settlement of Samos see Boardman (n. 3), pp. 30 and 268 n. 22. An excellent brief summary of the geography and history of Samos is given by Meyer, Ernst, Der kleine Pauly iv (Munich, 1975), coll. 1534–7.Google Scholar

9 These are discussed from varying standpoints by Immerwahr, H. R., ‘Herodotus’ Samian stories’, CJ 52 (1957), 312–22Google Scholar; Cobet, J., Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes (Historia Einzelschr. XVII, 1971), pp. 159–69Google Scholar; Mitchell, B. M., ‘Herodotus and Samos’, JHS 95 (1975), 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tölle-Kastenbein, R., Herodot und Samos (Bochum, 1976)Google Scholar, which is usefully reviewed by Mitchell, , JHS 98 (1978), 194f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Kebric, R. B., In the Shadow ofMacedon: Duris of Samos (Historia Einzelschr. XXIX, 1977), p. 38Google Scholar; on Douris as a historian see Ferrero’s, L. aptly titled ‘Tra poetica ed istorica: Duride di Samo’, in Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria de A. Rostagni (Turin, 1963), pp. 68–100.Google Scholar

11 Reconstruction of Herodotus’ life and outlook depends chiefly on inferences from the Histories, but a contemporary Halikarnassian inscription (M/L 32) has been used to corroborate the tradition that Herodotus opposed the tyranny of Lygdamis, the grandson (or perhaps rather son or nephew) of Herodotus’ Artemisia. However, this tradition ‘has no reflection at all in the history’: Waters, K. H., Herodotus on Tyrants and Despots. A study in objectivity (Historia Einzelschr. XV, 1971), p. 42.Google Scholar

12 Jacoby, F., ‘Herodotos’, RE Supp. II (Berlin, 1913), coll. 220–3, 228 f.Google Scholar; photographically reprinted in his Gr. Historiker (Stuttgart, 1956). My own, inexpert impression of Herodotus’ intellectual development is that his overarching scheme of Graeco-Barbarian relations culminating in the Persian Wars was conceived early on in his researches.Google Scholar

13 Mitchell (n. 9).

14 For the chronology and chronography – but for these alone – see Miller, M., The Thalassocracies. Studies in Chronography II (Albany, 1971), pp. 22–39, at 31.Google Scholar

15 In fact against the aristocratic-oligarchic régime of the Geomoroi or ‘Landsharers’; Stein, H., Herodotos5 (Berlin, 1883)Google Scholar thought that something like τoîς παχέσι (‘against the rich’) might have dropped out of the MSS of 3. 39. 1. See also J. Labarbe, ‘Un putsch dans la Grèce antique. Polycrate et ses frères a la conquête du pouvoir’, Ancient Society 5 (1974), 21–41. On the vexed question of the circumstances of Polykrates’ accession see further n. 70.Google Scholar

16 For this conflict in Herodotus between sober historical narrative and moralizing fiction (the folkloristic anecdote of Polykrates’ ring) see Ste, G. E. M. de. Croix, ‘Herodotus’, GR2 24 (1977), 130–48, at p. 145.Google Scholar

17 Presumably the suspects Polykrates had chiefly in mind were Geomoroi, but by themselves these could not possibly have manned forty triremes, whose full complement should have been around 8000 men. C. G. Cobet therefore suggested that ‘forty’ was a corruption in transmission of ‘four’, Stein (n. 15) that the suspects were sent not as rowers but as marines. Other explanations of the numerical difficulty are possible too.

18 As was noted by Sayce, A. H., Herodotus I-III (London, 1883) ad 3. 45Google Scholar; cf. Niese, B., ‘Herodotstudien, besonders zur spartanischen Geschichte’, Hermes 42 (1907), 419–68, at pp. 426–40, for some general remarks on ‘Herodots einheimische Gewährsleute’.Google Scholar

19 See now Labarbe,’Les rebelles samiens à Lacéd***mone (Hérodote, III, 46)’, in Hommages à Claire Préaux (Brussels, 1975), pp. 365–75. Labarbe prefers to the περιεργάσθαι of the MSS and translates ‘they should put their excessive zeal in the service of their sack’.Google Scholar

20 It seems clear that Herodotus had actually seen the bowl and corslet in the Heraion: Dunst, G., ‘Archaïsche Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaëtie aus Samos’, AM 87 (1972, publ. 1974), 99–163, at pp. 122 f.; Tölle-Kastenbein (n. 9), pp. 60–2,108. The practice of sending a krater as a gift was possibly a Lydian custom in origin; cf. Hdt. 1. 14. 3 (Gyges), 25. 2 (Alyattes), 51.1 (Croesus). The krater sent by the Spartans was perhaps of the type of the Vix krater: Boardman, Greeks Overseas, pp. 100 f. and fig. 261. For Samian piracy see n. 69; for the alliance or alliances, n. 75.Google Scholar

21 For the fierce chronological and/or textual difficulties of this passage see e.g. Ed. , Will, Korinthiaka (Paris, 1955), p. 13Google Scholar; Cadoux, T. J., JHS 76 (1956), 105 f. (extremely critical of Herodotus 3. 47–9 as a whole). They are explained away, rather too neatly, as ‘artistic licence’ by Ph.-E. Legrand, ‘De la “malignité” d’Hérodote’, Mél. Gustave Glotz II (Paris, 1932), pp. 534–47, at 536–8. See also n. 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 How, W. W. & Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus I (Oxford, 1928), p. 269;Google Scholar for their general discussion of what they saw as Herodotus’ defects as a historian see ibid., pp. 43–6.

23 Will (n. 21), pp. 625–38; at p. 634 he remarks on ‘cette mentalité agônale archaїque’ (italics in the original).

24 I return in section V to his suggestion that the Spartans were acting under constraint from the eager Corinthians.

25 How & Wells, op. cit. ii, p. 71; Dunbabin, T. J., The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948), pp. 78 f.Google Scholar; Burn, A. R., The Lyric Age of Greece (London, 1960; repr. 1978), p. 187 and n. 9Google Scholar; Starr, C. G., The Economic and Social Growth of Early Greece 800–500 B.C. (New York, 1977), p. 176Google Scholar; Boardman, , Greeks Overseas, pp. 179, 203Google Scholar; Figueira, T. J., Aegina. Society and Politics (New York, 1981), p. 267Google Scholar; etc. Notable exceptions are Bücher, K., Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Tübingen, 1922), pp. 42–4Google Scholar; and Hasebroek, J., Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece (Tübingen, 1928; Engl. trans. London, 1933), p. 109.Google Scholar

26 See now Snodgrass, A. M., Archaic Greece. The age of experiment (London, 1980), chap. 4.Google Scholar

27 Trade nevertheless has been advanced in explanation of them: for Knidos and Taras, Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece. The city-states c. 700–500 B.C. (London, 1976), p. 199Google Scholar; for Kyrene and Samos, White, D., ‘Archaic Cyrene and the cult of Demeter and Persephone’, Expedition 17.4 (Summer, 1976), 2–15, at p. 6.Google Scholar

28 Evidence for connections between Sparta and Knidos is collected in Lewis, D. M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977), p. 97 n. 68Google Scholar; add the Spartan called Knidis (n. 37). Dispute over the site of Archaic Knidos complicates attempts to establish archaeological links: see now AR 1978–79, 82 f. Possible connections between Sparta and Thera include the Ephorate, the cults of Apollo Karneios and the Dioskouroi, and – more doubtfully – institutionalized pederasty.

29 One Spartan, the athlete Charmis, was supposed to have participated in the foundation of Kyrene in c. 630: Paus. 3. 14. 3. For relations between Sparta and Kyrene generally see Lila Marangou, ‘Aristaios’, AM 87 (1972, publ. 1974), 77–83, at pp. 82 f.; Boardman, Greeks Overseas, pp. 147, 157. And see n. 48.

30 See generally Adcock & Mosley (n. 2); Olshausen, E. (ed.), Antike Diplomatie (Darmstadt, 1979);Google Scholar on Spartan diplomacy, mainly in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, see Mosley ibid., pp. 183–203.

31 On guest-friendship and the associated nexus of gift-exchange see Finley, M. I., The World of Odysseus2 (London, 1978), Index s.vv.Google Scholar

32 Proxenoi, citizens of state A resident in state A but representing the interests in various spheres of citizens from another state B, are attested from around 600: Wallace, M. B., ‘Early Greek proxenoi’, Phoenix 24 (1970), 189–208; id.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B.C. (Toronto & Sarasota, 1978), pp. 2–4Google Scholar; cf. generally Gschnitzer, F., ‘Proxenos’, RE Supp. XIII (1973), coll. 629–730.Google Scholar

33 The other two certain examples are Tymnes (4. 76. 6) and Thersandros (9. 16. 5). George Grote, A History of Greece, new edn in 10 vols (London, 1888), III. 456, considered that, had Herodotus regularly so specified his informants, ‘the value as well as the interest of his history would have been materially increased’.

34 Pitana was where the senior royal house, the Agiadai, lived and had their burial-ground: Paus. 3. 14. 2 ff. Other passages suggesting Pitana’s superior status are Pindar, Ol. 6. 28; Eur. Tro. 112 ff.;Plut. Mor. 601b.

35 Schöll, A., ‘Herodots Entwicklung zu seinem Beruf,’ Philologus 10 (1855), 25–81, at p. 32; Jacoby (n. 12), coll. 222 f. The meeting took place around 450,’perhaps after the conclusion of the Thirty Years’ Peace in 446/5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Dunst (n. 20), 142. How & Wells state categorically, but without foundation, that ‘Archias was (Thuc. iii. 70) of Samos at Sparta’.

37 Herodotus says he acquired the name because of his father’s glorious achievement (⋯ριστεία) at Samos in 524. This is possible, but I wonder whether Herodotus has not simply made a false inference from the posthumous honour accorded Archias I by the Samians (n. 40). For names of the Samios type, foreign ethnics, are not unparalleled in Sparta (numbers in brackets refer to P. Poralla, Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier bis auf die Zeit Alexanders des Grossen [Breslau, 1913]): Athenaios (32), Boiotios (175), Thessalos (367), Knidis (449), Libys (490), Olyntheus (577), Skythes (668), Chalkideus (743). Conversely, the Archaic Samian named Lakon (Iambi. Vit. Pyth. 267) would have been the scion of a family with Spartan ties; cf. the Plataian Lakon, proxenos of Sparta in 427: Thuc. 3. 52. 5. Poralla’s other Samios (659) is presumably Samios II, son of Archias II; and it has been suggested that Samios II was father of Pythagoras (652), who bears a good Samian name: R. Sealey, Klio n. f. 58 (1976), 349 f.

38 The expedition and siege are described at Hdt. 3. 39. 1,44. 1, 54–6; cf. Polyainos 1. 23; Plut. Mor. 859–60. The main reason for the Spartan (and Corinthian) failure was the existence of Samos’ stout, four kilometre circuit-wall – Phase I in the scheme of Kienast, H. J., Samos XV. Die Stadlmauer von Samos (Bonn, 1978)Google Scholar. The story that Polykrates bribed the Spartans with an ad hoc issue of gilded lead coins is dismissed by Herodotus (3. 56. 2); but Polykrates does seem at one time to have struck an emergency issue of lead staters, possibly once gilded with electrum foil, and these may have given rise to the story: Robinson, E. S. G., ‘Some electrum and gold coins’, ANS Centennial vol., ed. Ingholt, H. (New York, 1958), pp. 585–94, at 592 f.Google Scholar; cf. Kraay, C. M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976), pp. 29 f.Google Scholar

39 Herodotus allows hospitality to get the better of his judgement when he writes that, if all the other Lakedaimonians had been the peers of Archias and Lykopas, Samos would have been taken (3. 55. 1). This was the stuff of mess-talk: Oilier, F., Le mirage spartiate I (Paris, 1933), p. 109; cf. 124 ff.Google Scholar

40 This monument is also mentioned by Plutarch (Mor. 860d). Stein (n. 15) dated it after Mykale since it was only then that the Polykratean tyrant house was finally overthrown (cf. n. 92). On the other hand, the visit to Sparta in c. 517 of Polykrates’ successor Maiandrios (Hdt. 3.148) would seem to imply reasonably friendly relations, if it is not actually an instance of the special relationship in action; and Maiandrios might have sanctioned the erection of such a monument after Polykrates’ death in c. 522 – especially if, as Mrs Mitchell has suggested to me, he had been among the exiles of 525.

41 Plut. Mor. 223d (7) attributes a version of Hdt. 3. 46 (the Spartans’ response to the Samian appellants) to Kleomenes I, but this is probably due to an understandable desire to personalize the account of Herodotus, whose sources are unlikely to have omitted any genuine participation by Kleomenes. On the rôle of the kings in foreign policy see further section V.

42 Mosley, D. J., ‘Spartan kings and proxeny’, Athenaeum n.s. 49 (1971), 433–5; cf. Wallace (n. 32), 198: ‘the kings placed a kind of liturgic obligation on prominent Spartans to look after certain foreigners’.Google Scholar

43 Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der gr. Religion i3 (Munich, 1967), p. 430Google Scholar; Kipp, G., ‘Zum Hera-Kult auf Samos’, in Hampl, F. & Weiler, I. (eds), Kritische und vergleichende Studien zur alten Geschichte und Universalgeschichte (Innsbruck, 1974), pp. 157–209, at 158. However, the Lakonian terracotta protome depicting a goddess (?) which was dedicated at the Heraion (n. 64) might imply that one Spartan or Samian saw a resemblance. See also text and n. 117.Google Scholar

44 See Stibbe and Cartledge (n. 5).

46 The Berlin fragment was published as Late Geometric by E. Diehl, A A 1964, 543; but it seems to me rather to belong to the Subgeometric stream of the following Transitional phase. The other fragment is in the Vathy Museum, Samos, where - thanks to the courtesy of the Greek Archaeological Service and of Professor A. Mallwitz, then director of the German Archaeological Institute in Athens - I was able to study it and other Lakonian material in 1970.

48 Lakonian I and II ware, as yet not fully published; cf. Stibbe (n. 5), 18 n. 89.

47 I stress that I am here concerned only with decorated ware. C. M. Stibbe is preparing a comprehensive study of Lakonian plain ware, which is bound to affect somewhat conclusions drawn from the decorated ware alone. Meanwhile, plain Lakonian aryballoi and kraters are known to have been found on Samos: Shefton, B. B. in Dunbabin, T. J. (ed.), Perachora II (Oxford, 1962), pp. 383 n. 1, 385n.Google Scholar

48 Lakonian was the third most widely distributed sixth-century fabric after Attic and Corinthian (down to c. 550); but distribution was everywhere thin, except to Samos, Olympia, Taras, Cyrenaica and Etruria: see generally Stibbe, Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Amsterdam & London, 1972)Google Scholar. Since this basic publication more Lakonian has been identified at several sites, notably Halieis, Gravisca and Cerveteri; cf. Cl. Rolley, , ‘Le problème de l’art laconien’, Ktema 2 (1977), 125–40, at pp. 134 f.Google Scholar; Stibbe, , ‘Neue Fragmente lakonischer Schalen aus Cerveteri’, Med. Ned. Inst. Rome 38 (1976). 7–16.Google Scholar

49 Heraion: Stibbe, LV, Nos 2, 3, 10, 14, 18, 21, 22 (?), 24, 25a, 25b, 26, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,48,49, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 65, 75, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 102, 111,118a-c, 119, 120, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134 (?), 136, 138, 139, 142, 144, 145, 158a-b, 160 (?), 163, 166, 167,168,169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 206b (?), 207, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 230, 240, 246, 247, 252, 254, 265, 269, 279, 292 (?), 293, 295, 305, 315, 317, 321, 323, 327, 344, 360. Add now Stibbe, ‘Ein lakonischer Becher aus dem Heraion von Samos’, AM 91 (1976), 63–74; id., ‘Lakonische Kantharoi’, Med. Ned. Inst. Rome 40 (1978), 23 f., 36, Nos 1–2 (seven cups of unique form, all exported, two of which are from the Heraion); H. P. Isler, Samos IV. Das Archaïsche Nordtor und seine Umgebung im Heraion von Samos (Bonn, 1978), pp. 102 f., 166 f. (fragments of eight kylikes, and of one aryballos, krater and lakaina). West Cemetery: Stibbe, LV, Nos 106,209,210,336. Kyriakou (grave): 294. Misokampos (heroōn?): 206a, 206b (?).

50 Schefold, K., Meisterwerke gr. Kunst (Basel & Stuttgart, 1960), pp. 24, 163 (3. 151–2)Google Scholar, neatly juxtaposes a Lakonian kylix of unknown provenance (Stibbe No. 348) with a Samian imitation; cf. Lane, E. A., ‘Lakonian vase-painting’, BSA 34 (1933–1934), 99–189, at p. 185Google Scholar; Walter-Karydi, E., Samos VI.1. Samische Gefässe des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Bonn, 1973), pp. 26, 28, 32, 37, 42, 43 fGoogle Scholar. For East Greek influence on Lakonia see Lane, art. cit., 131; further references in Walter-Karydi, op. cit., p. 26 and n. 64; add Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: the Archaic Period (London, 1978), pp. 25 f. (perirrhanteria). See further n. 56.Google Scholar

51 I say ‘apparent concentration’ since, as Professor Cook reminds me, Samos may not prove unique among East Greek cities in its imports of Lakonian pottery; comparable sites elsewhere have either not been excavated or not been fully published. On balance, though, I rather suspect that Samos will hold its place in this regard.

52 Lane (n. 50), 179.

53 Conceivably some or all of the pots which served as grave-goods (n. 49) had come into the possession of the families concerned through non-commercial means. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that most of the vases dedicated to Hera were not bought fairly cheaply from a retailer in Samos, possibly indeed within the Heraion itself, where κάπηλoι were operating at least by the second half of the third century B.C.: Chr. Habicht, AM 87 (1972, publ. 1974), 210–25; cf. Dunst, ZPE 18 (1975), 171–7; L. Koenen, ZPE 27 (1977), 211–16.

54 Stibbe (n. 5), 14; the vases in question are conveniently grouped by shape in LV, pp. 15 f.

55 Vallet, G. & Villard, F., ‘Céramique grecque et histoire économique’, in Courbin, P. (ed.), Études archéologiques (Paris, 1963), pp. 205–17, at 209. But there were very few Spartan workshops: Stibbe has identified just fourteen distinct artistic personalities in the sixth century, five of whom have identifiable followers.Google Scholar

56 In his still fundamental article R. M. Cook argued that the export in considerable quantities of Greek pottery of a minor school such as Lakonian would be evidence of direct trade between the place of finding and the home of that school: ‘Die Bedeutung der bemalten Keramik fur den gr. Handel’, JdI 74 (1959), 114–23, at pp. 117, 123Google Scholar. He has since abandoned that hypothesis in this particular case and suggested instead that Samian traders were active in the western trade and stopped off in Lakonia for one reason or another on the return journey: ‘The distribution of Laconian pottery’, JHS 99 (1979), 153 fGoogle Scholar. I prefer his earlier view, which may be corroborated by Sparta’s strong eastern contacts from the early seventh century. As Jeffery (n. 27), p. 217, has suggested, ‘Samos may have been one (if not the only) channel whereby the luxuries of the east Aegean and Lydia had come to Lakonia’. For Samos as a recipient of orientalia see Jantzen, U., Samos VIII. Aegyptische und orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos (Bonn, 1972)Google Scholar, with the reviews in AJA 77 (1973), 236 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gnomon 47 (1975), 392–402.Google Scholar

57 Roebuck, C., Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York, 1959), pp. 82 f.; though I cannot accept without qualification his view that ‘This export to Samos is usually and reasonably accounted for by the political connections between the two states’.Google Scholar

58 For Lakonian harbours, of which the principal one was Gytheion, see my Sparta and Lakonia, pp. 143, 181 f. There is no question that Lakonian (Perioikic) traders could have inaugurated the connection; but then there is virtually no evidence for Lakonian traders at any period. For the few (and not diagnostic) trademarks on Lakonian pots see Johnston, A. W., ‘Trademarks on Greek vases’, GR2 21 (1974), 138–52, at p. 141Google Scholar; ‘Rhodian readings’, BSA 70 (1975), 145–67, at p. 148 and n. 7Google Scholar; Trademarks on Greek Vases (Warminster, 1979), pp. 19, 51, 172, 235.Google Scholar

59 cf. Humphreys, S. C., Anthropology and the Greeks (London, 1978), p. 160:’ Earlier [sc. than the fifth century] a more complicated interaction can be traced between the travels and guest-friendships of nobles, war, raiding and piracy, and the development of trade.’ See further section V.Google Scholar

60 The two certainly Lakonian ivories are Freyer-Schauenburg, B., Elfenbeine aus dem samischen Heraion (Hamburg, 1966), pp. 4 f., Nos 5 and 6 (E.I, E.78), pp. 30–9, pls. 6a, 8aCrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Marangou, E.- L. I., Lakonische Elfenbein- und Beinschnitzereien (Tübingen, 1969), pp. 74 ff. and n. 434;Google Scholar 196 f. Marangou, ibid., pp. 42, 139, 196 and nn. 231–2, is inclined to follow a suggestion of H.-V. Herrmann in assigning to Lakonia the famous kneeling youth who probably served as a lyre-support (Freyer-Schauenburg E.88); but this suggestion was always rather implausible: cf. Boardman (n. 50), fig. 53. Better is her suggestion (op. cit., p. 197 and n. 1114) that her fig. 58 (Freyer-Schauenburg, E.10) is Lakonian.

61 Gabelmann, H., Studien zum frühgr. Löwenbild (Berlin, 1965), pp. 69–71, 117, No. 69a; Dunst (n. 20), 140–4, fig. 6, pi. 56; Snodgrass (n. 26), p. 133 and pl. 20.Google Scholar

62 Vathy Mus. B 302: JHS 53 (1933), 286, 289, fig. 15Google Scholar; Ducat, J., Les Kouroi du Ptoion (Paris, 1971), p. 344, (f)Google Scholar; Jost, M., ‘Statuettes de bronze archaïques provenant de Lykosura’, BCH 99 (1975), 359, No. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Attribution of such figurines to Lakonia is always uncertain, though fairly secure here; but certainly false is the view of Segall, B., AJA 59 (1955), 316, that they were designed for export as ‘symbols of Sparta’s military strength’ and tokens of Spartan opposition to Persian expansion. The example found far beyond the Greek world in South Arabia, which prompted Segall’s fantasy, could be a traveller’s or native trader’s curio: Boardman, Greeks Overseas, p. 18.Google Scholar

63 Buschor, E., Altsamische Standbilder i (Berlin, 1934), pp. 132 f, figs. 115–17Google Scholar; cf. Dunst (n. 20), 142. This was only tentatively attributed to Lakonia by Kunze, E., AM 59 (1934), 99 (not cited by Dunst), but the attribution carries considerable weight in the light of the intimate familiarity with Lakonian art-forms he displayed in Gnomon 9 (1933), 1–14 (a review of Artemis Orthia: see next note). It is not, however, cited in the important discussion of this class of mirror-handles by Th. Karagiorgha, ADelt 20A (1965), 96–109.Google Scholar

64 Rightly attributed by H. Kyrieleis, AA 1978,395 f, fig. 14, comparing Dawkins, R. M. (ed.), Artemis Orthia (JHS Supp. V, 1929), pis. 29. 2, 3, 7; 38. 3Google Scholar; and Jenkins, R. J. H., Dedalica (Cambridge, 1936), pl. 5. 4–5.Google Scholar

65 The Gymnopaidiai were founded traditionally in 668: Wade-Gery, H. T., ‘A note on the origin of the Spartan Gymnopaidiai’, CQ 43 (1949), 79–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the attendance of distinguished foreign guests see Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 61; Plut. Cim. 10. 6; Mor. 823e. For the luxury of the Archaic Samians, displayed actually in the Heraion, see Asios (a Samian contemporary) fr. 13 Diehl, translated in Emlyn-Jones, C. J., The Ionians and Hellenism (London, 1980), p. 20.Google Scholar

66 This is one of only two epigraphical uses of as opposed to known to me; the other is a perhaps rather earlier dedication at Olympia by collectively. On the other hand, two Spartan proxenoi of Elis, who were granted the signal honour of inscribed marble seats at Olympia in the second half of the sixth century, both had themselves described as References in my ‘Literacy in the Spartan oligarchy’, JHS 98 (1978), 36 n. 76.Google Scholar

67 The suggestion in Herodotus (8. 132. 3) that Samos still seemed remote even in 479 is a dramatic exaggeration, probably due to the impatience of Herodotus’ Ionian source with Latychidas’ caution, rather than a reflection of early-fifth-century reality. Still, for Eumnastos Samos may have seemed distant indeed, and conceivably, as Professor Barron has suggested to me, his visit to Samos was connected with the diplomatic dealings between Sparta and Croesus (text and n. 75). For Samos as a stop-over en route from the Peloponnese to Sardis in the sixth century see Hdt. 3. 48. 2.

68 Lane (n. 50), 179.

69 Ormerod, H. A., Piracy in the Ancient World (Liverpool, 1924; repr. 1978), pp. 100–5; cfGoogle Scholar. Garlan, Y., ‘Signification historique de la piraterie grecque’, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne iv (Besancon & Paris, 1978), pp. 1–16, esp. 2–5 (Samian piracy would correspond most nearly to his Type 3).Google Scholar

70 See generally Dover, K. J., Greek Popular Morality (Oxford, 1974), pp. 181–4Google Scholar. Acceptance of the truth of this alleged motive of revenge would seem to have one historically important corollary, namely that a connection of the famous Polykrates had been tyrant before him. For powerful statements of this view see White, M. E., ‘The duration of the Samian tyranny’ JHS 74 (1954), 36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barron, J. P., ‘The sixth-century tyranny at Samos’, CQ n.s. 14 (1964), 210–29, esp. pp. 212 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recent literature on the duration and personnel of the Samian tyranny is reviewed by Schmidt, G., ’Heraion vonSamos:eineBrychon-Weihung’, AM 87 (1972, publ. 1974), 165–85, at pp. 181–5 (revised stemma of Polykrates on p. 166).Google Scholar

71 A fourth suggested explanation brings Sparta and Corinth to Samos in 524 because Polykrates’ coup had deprived them of good Samian trade-contacts; but this seems to me to misprise the character of Archaic Greek trade.

72 A brief bibliography is given by Austin, M. M., Greece and Egypt in the Archaic Age (PCPhS Supp. II, 1970), pp. 74 f.; cf. Lewis (n. 28), p. 62 n. 81, where he expresses ‘some fondness’ for ‘an old-fashioned view that some Spartans had the Persian threat well in mind even before 491’.Google Scholar

73 Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Munich, 1967), I, p. 113; 11, pp. 586 f.Google Scholar

74 Hasebroek, J., Gr. Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte bis zur Perserzeit (Tübingen, 1931), p. 224Google Scholar; cf. Cawkwell, G. L., ‘Agesilaus and Sparta’, CQ, n.s. 26 (1976), 66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 71 (the most satisfactory account of the origins of the Peloponnesian League is ‘ that which grounds the extension of Spartan influence in a policy of suppressing tyrannies and restoring exiled aristocracies with which she entered into agreements of friendship and mutual defence’); Legon, R. P., Megara. The political history of a Greek city-state to 336 B.C. (Ithaca & London, 1981), pp. 141–2.Google Scholar

75 Alliance: Bengtson, Svt. 113; though this has been doubted, e.g. by Austin (n. 72). Champion of Hellenism: Hdt. 1. 152–3, esp. 152. 3; cf. 5. 49. 2.

76 Kleomenes’ intervention at Aigina: Hdt. 6. 48–51, 61. 1, 64–67. 1, 73; cf. my Sparta and Lakonia, pp. 150 f. Kleomenes’ refusals: Hdt. 3. 148 (Maiandrios), with Bua, V. La, ‘Sulla conquista persiana di Samo’, Quarta miscellanea greca e romana (Rome, 1975), 41–102, esp. pp. 88 ff.; and 5. 49–51 (Aristagoras). Incidentally, Herodotus’ justification (3. 60. 1) for the length of his digression on Polykrates suggests that he did not regard the Spartan expedition of 524 as an integral part of his story of Graeco-Persian hostilities.Google Scholar

77 For the view that the Spartans deposed Lygdamis of Naxos in the mid-520s and not later see Leahy, D. M., ‘The Spartan embassy to Lygdamis’, JHS 77 (1957), 272–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 Sparta and Lakonia, pp. 146 f., 148.

79 Ste, G. E. M. de. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), ch. 4, esp. pp. 151–66.Google Scholar

80 Carlier, P., ‘La vie politique à Sparte sous le règne de Cléomène ler: essai d’interprétation’, Ktema 2 (1977), 65–84. He rightly emphasizes that in order to understand ‘ the interior evolution of Spartan political life’ we must begin from Herodotus’ account of Kleomenes’ reign (biased though it is) rather than fit that account into any preconceived schema derived from an interpretation of the later evidence.Google Scholar

81 That the term includes all these was the view of Niccolini, G., ‘I re e gli efori a Sparta’, RSA n.s. 5 (1900), 524–51, at p. 542.Google Scholar

82 Herodotus’ silence cannot be taken as a decisive argument for the unimportance or non-intervention of the Gerousia and the procedure of probouleusis.

83 Will (n. 21), pp. 635 f., who adds as a further possible consideration the geopolitical situation in the Peloponnese. In a forthcoming history of Corinth, John Salmon plausibly argues that Sparta and Corinth had concluded an alliance in c. 550, though I cannot entirely accept his version of the terms of this alliance.

84 Lane (n. 50), 179.

85 For the view, which I cannot accept, that Samian involvement in the First Messenian War was part of a far-flung, almost panhellenic’ Lelantine War’ see Forrest, W. G., A History of Sparta 950–192 (London, 1968, 1980), p. 36.Google Scholar

86 Vathy Mus. B 1080, a team of bronze horse-figurines datable to the second half of the eighth century, does show Lakonian stylistic traits, but cannot be certainly attributed to Lakonia: Herrmann, H.-V., ‘Werkstätte geometrischer Bronzeplastik’, JdI 79 (1964), 17–71, at p. 22 n. 19Google Scholar; Heilmeyer, W.-D., Olympische Forschungen XII. Frühe Olympische Bronzefiguren, Die Tiervotive (Berlin, 1979), 111 and n. 157.Google Scholar

87 See e.g. Kiechle, F., Messenische Studien (Kallmünz, 1959), p. 33Google Scholar; Huxley, G. L., Early Sparta (London, 1962), p. 74; Jeffery (n. 27), p. 120.Google Scholar

88 Thuc. 1. 13. 3. The precise type of the ships designed for the Samians by the Corinthian Ameinokles is disputed, but this is of course irrelevant for my purposes.

89 cf. Plut. Quaest. Graec. 57 (a fleet sent out by the Geomoroi apparently early in the sixth century). Humphreys (n. 59), p. 166, speaks of ‘the ships which Greek aristocrats owned and used in war, diplomacy, visits to religious festivals and games, and travels abroad to contract or keep up personal alliances, – especially when in exile, a not infrequent phenomenon in the archaic age’.

90 On the Spartans and their past see Murray, O., Early Greece (London, 1980), p. 153. But compare, e.g., the formally parallel motive for Eretria’s participation in the Ionian Revolt: Hdt. 5.99. 1.Google Scholar

91 Only slightly inaccurately since, though Samos was not geographically part of Asia, the island was under Persian suzerainty in 524, and the Great King habitually equated his domain with ‘Asia’ (e.g. Hdt. 1. 4).

92 I assume that the Greek victory at Mykale spelled the end of the tyranny of Theomestor (Hdt. 8. 85. 3; cf. 130). But in this instance I cannot follow Kraay (n. 38), p. 333, in his suggested political interpretation of the alternation between square and round reverse dies on the fifth-century Samian coinage, for this would make Samos a democracy between c. 480 and 475. See also n. 98.

93 Hdt. 9. 90, discussed by Mitchell (n. 9), 90; cf. 76 n. 12. It is perhaps noteworthy that an earlier appeal by Chians had elicited only a lukewarm response from Latychidas.

94 Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford, 1972), pp. 33 f., 43, 413 f. [hereafter Meiggs]. ‘Delian League’ is of course a modern term, and it would not be inappropriate to refer to the organization as ‘the Athenian Empire’ within a few years of its foundation.Google Scholar

95 M/L 34 = Fornara, C. W. (ed.), Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War (Baltimore & London, 1977), No. 77 [hereafter Fornara]. The date of this epigram is uncertain. See also the inscription recording the award of an aristeion to the Samian Leokritos by Inaros, king of the Libyans: Dunst (n. 20), 153–5.Google Scholar

96 Plutarch gives Theophrastos as his source, but as it stands the anecdote can hardly be attached to 454, since by then Aristeides was dead; it may be wholly spurious.

97 Barron, , ‘Religious propaganda of the Delian League’, JHS 84 (1964), 35–48; cf. Meiggs, pp. 295–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 For the view that Samos remained an oligarchy from 479 to 441 see Ed. , Will, ‘Notes sur les régimes politiques de Samos au Vesiècle’, REA 71 (1969), 305–19, at pp. 308–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legon, R. P., ‘Samos in the Delian League’, Historia 21 (1972), 145–58Google Scholar. I am not competent to assess the numismatic part of Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos (London, 1966), pp. 80–93Google Scholar, who argues that Samos was a democracy between 494 and 454, an oligarchy from 453 to 439, and a democracy 439–12; but see Kraay, , Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, pp. 241, 332–4, for some counter-suggestions. On the other hand, I find it hard on historical grounds to believe in Kraay’s own numismatically based reconstruction of governmental shifts; cf. n. 92.Google Scholar

99 For the chronology see now Fornara, JHS 99 (1979), 7–18; on Samian aggression, Meiggs, p. 428.

100 I am prepared to believe in a ‘Peace of Kallias’ concluded in the early 440s, but even if no such formal peace was made my argument would not be affected.

101 Meiggs, pp. 188, 562–5; H.-J. Gerke, ‘Zur Geschichte Milets in der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’, Historia 29 (1980), 17–31.

102 Meiggs, p. 189.

103 The course of the revolt is described by Kagan, D., The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, 1969), pp. 170–8; and Meiggs, pp. 188–94Google Scholar; the latter, rightly in my view, accepts the prima facie suspect evidence of Douris (76F67) concerning the brutality of Athens’ punishment of the captured Samian trierarchs and marines. For the hostages see Amit, M., ‘Hostages in ancient Greece’, RFC 98 (1970), 129–47, at p. 140. To account for the participation of Byzantion, Legon (n. 74), pp. 201 f., has tentatively suggested a connection between the revolt of Megara’s chief colony and Megarian-Athenian hostility.Google Scholar

104 The known terms of the peace are set out in Ste. Croix (n. 79), pp. 293 f. For the Spartan reaction see my Sparta and Lakonia, p. 230.

105 Jones, A. H. M., ‘Two synods of the Delian and Peloponnesian Leagues’, PCPhS 2 (1952/3), 43–6; Ste. Croix, Origins, pp. 117, 143, 220–3. Meiggs, p. 190 and n. 3, agrees that Sparta did call a League Congress but not that the Spartan assembly had already decided in favour of sending help. However, if we accept (as Meiggs does) that the language Thucydides puts into the mouth of’the Corinthians’ at 1. 40. 5 is precise, then clearly the motion on which the allies were asked to vote was a motion in favour of sending help. That motion must have been put to the Congress if not actually by Sparta at least with Spartan approval.Google Scholar

106 Meiggs, p. 190. The decree is IG i2 50+ = M/L 56 = Fornara, No. 115. For what has been published as IG i3 145, which may or may not be the beginning of the decree, see D. M. Lewis, ‘Additional note’ to Fornara (n. 99), 18 f.

107 cf. Legon (n. 98), 151. Thuc. 1. 140. 2, where Perikles is made to say in 432 ‘It was evident before that the Spartans had designs on us’, may also be relevant.

108 Meiggs, p. 190, canvasses the possibly relevant grievances of individual Peloponnesian League allies of Sparta, but these are pale shadows of the of 432 retailed by Thucydides.

109 The form of the aid requested by the Samians and/or envisaged by the Spartans is an open question. In 433/2 ‘the Spartan authorities’ promised to assist the Poteidaians in their revolt from Athens by invading Attika (Thuc. 1. 58. 1, 71. 4), but may mean just the Ephors and there is no mention of a Peloponnesian League Congress: Ste. Croix, Origins, pp. 203 f. and n. 108. In 441/0, therefore, it cannot be excluded that the Spartans envisaged some sort of naval assistance to Samos; hence perhaps the crucial significance of Corinth’s opposition to the motion.

110 So Legon (n. 98), 154–7; though the explicit statement of Diodorus (12. 28. 4) does not prove it. This, the standard, view is disputed by Will (n. 98), 312–19, who believes that from 439 to 412 Samos was ruled mildly by an oligarchy. See now Andrewes, A. in Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides v (Oxford, 1981), pp. 45 f.Google Scholar

111 The coinage struck by these exiles at Anaia was dated by Barron (n. 98), p. 93, to c. 430, but has been redated by Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, p. 333 (coin No. 883) to 412, when the (as he and I believe) re-established oligarchy was once more overturned by a democratic revolution. For a possible reference to the Anaia exiles in a context of 428 or 427 (Vita Soph. 9) see Woodbury, L., ‘Sophocles among the Generals’, Phoenix 24 (1970), 213–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 IG i2 101, with Lewis, D. M., BSA 49 (1954), 29–31Google Scholar; cf. Meiggs, p. 457; and Andrewes (n. 110), p. 47, who stresses that ‘it certainly must not be argued from Thucydides’ silence that there had not been an oligarchic seizure of power shortly before 412’. For another view of the 412 events, see Schuller, W., ‘Die Einführung der Demokratie auf Samos im 5. Jahrhundert’, Klio n.f. 63 (1981), 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113 M/L 94 = Fornara, No. 166; cf. Gawantka, W., Isopolitie (Munich, 1975), pp. 178–97Google Scholar; Davies, J. K., ‘Athenian citizenship: the descent group and the alternatives’, CJ 73 (1977-8), 105–21, at p. 107. The probouleuma was introduced by a unique formula ‘to emphasise that the proposal was unanimous’: M/L, p. 287. The original stele was perhaps destroyed under the Thirty, since what we have is a copy reinscribed in 403 together with two other decrees that confirmed and extended the privileges granted to the Samians in 405. For the coinage of the Samian democracy of 412–04 see Barron, Silver Coins, pp. 96–101.Google Scholar

114 I take this opportunity of correcting errors in my Sparta and Lakonia, p. 268.

115 Chr. Habicht, , Gottmenschentum und gr. Städte2 (Munich, 1970), pp. 3–7, 243 f. The inscription is AA 1965, 440 and fig. 10.Google Scholar

116 M/L 95; Paus. 10. 9. 7–10. The date of the lettering of the epigram commemorating Lysander is disputed: M/L, p. 288, say ‘probably of the second half of the fourth century’, whereas J. Bousquet, BCH 80 (1956), 580 f., was prepared to put it as early as 400. The composer of the epigram was the Samian Ion. (See now Bommelaer, J.-F., Lysandre de Sparle. Histoire et traditions [Paris, 1981], which came into my hands after this article had been accepted for publication.)Google Scholar

117 I owe this suggestion to Stephen Hodkinson.

118 The genesis of this article lies in a question put to me by L. H. Jeffery at an Oxford graduate seminar in 1970; I hope that my answer will find at least some favour with her. An earlier version was delivered to the Triennial Meeting of the Hellenic and Roman Societies at Cambridge in 1978. For helpful criticism of this and subsequent drafts I am indebted to J. P. Barron, J. Boardman, R. M. Cook.S. J. Hodkinson.G. L. Huxley.B. M. Mitchell.andA. M. Snodgrass. The errors that remain are entirely my responsibility.