¹ My Peloponnesian research is funded by a grant under the Research Leave Scheme of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Board. I am grateful to the University of Leicester for research leave, and to the Director and staff of the BSA for providing research funding, and congenial facilities, during and after my tenure of the Visiting Fellowship in 1999. Especial gratitude is due to Bill and Lena Cavanagh for practical assistance. Much of the groundwork has been laid in the course of research carried out for the Copenhagen Polis Centre; I thank Dr M. H. Hansen for generous funding, advice, and hospitality. Dr L. A. Holford-Strevens made many valuable suggestions for improving the text.

Special abbreviations:

CPC Acts = Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre

CPC Papers = Papers of the Copenhagen Polis Centre (in Historia Einzelschriften)

CS = Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A., Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (London, 1989)Google Scholar

f. = formerly

LS i, ii = Cavanagh, W., Crouwel, J., Catling, R. W. V., and Shipley, G., Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey (BSA supp. vols. 26 (forthcoming, 2001), 27 (1996))Google Scholar

Phaklaris² = Phaklaris, P. V., Αρχαἰα Κυνουρἱα ανθρωπινἡ δραστηριὀ τητα και περιβἀλλον (2nd edn; Athens, 1990)Google Scholar

Pikoulas, NMC = Pikoulas, G. A., ῾Η νὁτια μεγαλοπολιτικἠ χὡρα ἀπὀ τὀν 80 π.Χ. ῶς τὁν 40 μ.Χ. αἰῶνα (Athens, 1988)Google Scholar

Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’ = Pikoulas, G. A., ‘Συμβολἠ στὴν τοπογραφὶα τῆς Σκιρὶτιδις’, Horos, 5 (1987), 121–48Google Scholar

Pritchett, SAGT = Pritchett, W. K., Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, i–vi (Berkeley, 1965–1989); vii (Amsterdam, 1991)Google Scholar

Shipley, GWA = Shipley, G., The Greek World after Alexander: 323–30 BC (London, 2000)Google Scholar

Shipley, OL = Shipley, G., ‘“The other Lakedaimonians”: the dependent perioikic poleis of Laconia and Messenia’, in Hansen, M. H. (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (CPC Acts, 4; Copenhagen, 1997), 189–281Google Scholar

Site numbers of the form AA23 refer to the catalogue in LS ii. 263–313 (see n. 2).

² G. Shipley, ‘The survey area in the hellenistic and Roman periods’, forthcoming in LS i; id., ‘Archaeological sites in Laconia and the Thyreatis’, LS ii. 263–313; id. ‘Site catalogue of the survey’, LS ii. 315–438.

³ Shipley, G., ‘Perioikos: the discovery of classical Lakonia’, in Sanders, J. M. (ed.), Φιλολἀκων: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (London, 1992), 211–26Google Scholar; Shipley, OL; in brief, Moschou-Tsiomi, L., ‘Οἰκιστικἀ συστἡματα τῶν περιοικἰδων καἰ τῶν ἐλευθερολακωνικῶν πὁλεων στἠν χερσὁνησο τοῦ Ταινἁρου’, Πρακτικἁ τοῦ ΧΙΙ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρἱυ Κλασικῆς ᾿Αρχαιολογἰας (᾿Αθἠνα, 4-10 Εεπτεμβρἰου (Athens, 1988), iv. 148–54Google Scholar. I am grateful to Norbert Mertens for allowing me to make use of his unpublished Berlin MA thesis, ‘Die Periöken Spartas’, which clarifies many issues surrounding the Classical Perioikoi.

⁴ On the Classical polis see CPC Acts, CPC Papers, and notably among studies therein M. H. Hansen, ‘The “autonomous” city-state: ancient fact or modern fiction?’, in id. and K. Raaflaub (eds), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (CPC Papers, 2/Historia Einzelschriften, 95; Stuttgart, 1995), 21–43; M. H. Hansen, ‘Kome: a study in how the Greeks designated and classified settlements which were not poleis’, ibid. 45–81. I have learned much from Nielsen, T. H., ‘῾Πολλἀν ἐκ πολὀων the polis structure of Arkadia in the archaic and classical periods’, Ph.D. diss. (Copenhagen, 1996)Google Scholar; and from id. and J. Roy (eds), Defining Arkadia (CPC Acts, 6; Copenhagen, 2000). On the Hellenistic polis see esp. P. Gauthier, Les Cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (BCH Supp. 12; Athens, 1985)Google Scholar; id., ‘Les cités hellénistiques’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-state (CPC Acts, 1; Copenhagen, 1993), 211–31; also Shipley, GWA, chs 3–4.

⁵ Of many discussions I can mention here only the most important in English, by Cartledge and Spawforth (see n. 1). Note also Kennell, N. M., ‘From perioikoi to poleis: the Laconian cities in the late hellenistic period’, in Hodkinson, S. and Powell, A. (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives (London, 1999), 189–210Google Scholar. See also Shipley, GWA 140–8, with additional references at 416. Current knowledge of the archaeology of Roman Sparta, with many references to Hellenistic monuments, is summarized by CS 216–25 (map, 214–15); many Hellenistic data are reviewed by Raftopoulou, S., ‘New finds from Sparta’, in Cavanagh, W. G. and Walker, S. E. C. (eds), Sparta in Laconia: Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium held with the British School at Athens and King's and University Colleges, London (6–8 December, 1995) (BSA Studies, 4; London, 1998), 125–40Google Scholar.

⁶ Notable among these are the works of G. A. (I. A.) Pikoulas on the southern territory of Megalopolis and the north-western borderlands of Laconia, and the sustained efforts of L. Moschou to elucidate the settlements of the Tainaron region. Several of these studies are cited below.

⁷ For ‘Lakonike’, and for the use of ‘Laconia’ rather than ‘Lakonia’ (which is not used in Greek sources), see Shipley, OL 272–3 n. 3 ad fin.

⁸ Shipley, OL 206–11; Hall, J. M., ‘Sparta, Lakedaimon and the nature of perioikic dependency’, in Flensted-Jensen, P. (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (CPC Papers, 5/Historia Einzelschriften, 138; Stuttgart, 2000), 73–89Google Scholar.

⁹ IG v. 1. 1226–7, both = SEG xi. 938 (1st or 2nd c., Kolbe; mid-2nd c. implied at SEG xi. 894; Cartledge, in CS 77, suggests the 70s BC). Gitti, A., ‘I perieci di Sparta e le origini del κοινὀν τῶν Λακεδαιμονἰων’, Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, ⁷ 15 (1939), 189–203Google Scholar, argues convincingly for a date of 195, when the cities deserted Sparta (Livy, xxxiv. 35. 10; cf. 36. 2, xxxviii. 30. 6), rather than 146. The adoption of the koinon form of association was due to the small size and vulnerability of (most of) the poleis (ibid. 197), while the Achaean protectorate (Livy, xxxv. 13. 2; xxxviii. 31. 2) does not imply the enrolment of each individual polis into the Achaean league (ibid. 199). On Hellenistic leagues generally, see Shipley, GWA 133–40. Diod. xxix. 17. 1 testifies to the Achaean league ordering fortifications in Lakedaimon to be demolished when Sparta was taken into the league.

¹⁰ Strabo, viii. 5.5 (366); Paus. iii. 21.7; CS no; Gitti (n. 9), 196, 201.

¹¹ Fundamental studies are now Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’; Pikoulas, NMC; and Pikoulas, G. A., ‘Τοπογραφικἀ Αῖγιος καἰ Αἰγὐτιδος’, Πρακτικἀ τοῦ Α ᾿Τοπικοῦ Συνεδρἰου Λσκωνικῶν Μελετῶν Μολἀοι 5-7 ᾿Ιουνἰου 1982 (Πελοποννησιακἀ suppl. 9; Athens, 1983), 257–67Google Scholar. References to earlier studies will be found in those places.

¹² Not to be confused with Boiotian Leuktra; for the similar names, cf. Plutarch, Pelop. 20. 4, 7. For the attribution of Leuktra and perhaps Kromoi to the Aigytis, see Pikoulas, NMC 143.

¹³ Strabo, x. 1. 6 (446), = Alkman PMG 92 (cf. Ath. i. 31 d); Steph. Byz. 363. 2–4 s.v. Possibly in the area of Dyrráchi or the upper Xerílas valley (Pikoulas, NMC 239, no. II).

¹⁴ See n. 64 below.

¹⁵ Polyb. xxxviii. 2. 9: Σπαρτιᾶται . . . συνεκλεἰσθησαν εἰς τοὐς τῆς Λακωνικῆς δρους.

¹⁶ Paus. viii. 27.4. The text is corrupt; I lollow the proposal by Pikoulas (‘Skiritis’, 137, 148; NMC 142–3, 145 n. 445, 239), following Niese, B. (‘Beitriige zur Geschichte Arkadiens’, Hermes, 34 (1899), 520–52Google Scholar, at 540 n. 1) to read Αἰγυτῶν καἱ Σκιριτῶν Οἰον for Αἰγυτῶν Εκιρτὡνιον; cf. the suggestion of Andrewes in Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., and Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iv (Oxford, 1970), 34Google Scholar; Cartledge, P., Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300–362 BC (London, 1979), 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nielsen (n. 4), 45. For the probable origin of Pausanias’ list (viii. 27. 1–8) in epichoric sources, see ibid. 130–1, 285; for the probable incorporation of ‘synoikized’ communities as dependent communities (second-order settlements), rather than their complete abandonment, see ibid. 298–300, citing Roy, J., ‘Studies in the history of Arcadia in the classical and helleinstic periods’, Ph.D. diss. (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar. Diod. xv. 94. 1–3 states that the synoikism was not complete before 361. Megalopolis's foundation followed closely upon the battle of Leuktra in 371, but its construction will certainly have taken a number of years; see Hornblower, S., The Greek World: 479–323 BC² (London and New York, 1991), 225Google Scholar; id., ‘When was Megalopolis founded?’, BSA 85 (1990), 71–7, at 73–5, showing the Diodoran date of 368 to be an error.

¹⁷ For the date see Shipley, D. R., A Commentary on Plutarch's Life of Agesilaos: Response to Sources in the Presentation of Character (Oxford, 1997), 349Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Nielsen (n. 4), 323–34.

¹⁹ Plut. Kleom. 4 (25). 1–2.

²⁰ Polyb. ii. 54. 3.

²¹ Syll. ³ 665 = IvO 47, lines 34–6.

²² Nielsen (n. 4), 10, 45.

²³ Livy, xxxviii. 34. 8.

²⁴ Polyb. ix. 28. 7, xviii. 14. 7. On the manner of the decision, apparently taking into account the views of the Greeks generally, see Polyb. ix. 33. 10. On Philip's settlement of the Peloponnese see Roebuck, C., ‘The settlements of Philip II with the Greek states in 338 BC’, CP, 43: 73–92Google Scholar, repr. in id., Economy and Society in the Early Greek World: Collected Essays (Chicago, 1979), 131–50.

²⁵ Livy, xxxviii. 34. 8, where Belbinatis, the reading of the MSS, may represent an assimilation of Greek atis to the Latin ethnic ending atis/as (I am grateful to Dr L. A. Holford-Strevens for this observation).

²⁶ B. Niese (‘Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Lakedämons’, Göttingische gelehrte Nachrichten, 1906, 101–42, at 120) thought in terms of the Skiritis and the Karyatis; but ‘Karyatis’ is not an ancient name and Karyai itself may have remained Spartan (see nn. 60, 63).

²⁷ Shipley, OL 232–3 no. 12.

²⁸ Pikoulas (n. 11), 264; Pikoulas, NMC 139–47, no. 95 late 4th-c. BC–2nd-c. AD pottery, esp. 2nd-c. BC–2nd-c. AD; cf. LS ii. 283, CC258, also CC40).

²⁹ Shipley, OL 239 no. 25.

³⁰ Pikoulas, NMC 143.

³¹ Ibid. 161–4 no. 121, at pp. 162, 164; ‘Classical–Early Hellenistic’ pottery, i.e. mid-5th-c. and 4th-c; no trace of fortifications or cemetery, though the site has natural defences.

³² For the date cf. D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 360.

³³ Κρωμνἱτης SEG xxii. 219 (325–280 BC); cf. perhaps Steph. Byz. 388. 4–5, though referring only to Paphlagonian Kromna.

³⁴ Pikoulas, NMC 161–4 no. 121; see also AR 29 (1982–1983), 28–9Google Scholar; BCH 107 (1983), 764–7Google Scholar.

³⁵ Shipley, OL 239 no. 26; or ‘Leuktron’.

³⁶ Pikoulas, NMC 143.

³⁷ Id., ‘Skiritis’, 145–6.

³⁸ Shipley, OL 239 no. 27.

³⁹ Pikoulas, NMC 144 and n. 440 (where the reference to Xen. Hell. i. 28 is presumably to i. 2. 18).

⁴⁰ Ibid. 129 31 no. 91.

⁴¹ Shipley, OL 237 no. 22; first known references PGC Adesp. 1043 K.-A., Phylarchos (FGrH 81), fr. 4 b. In Paus, alone the name is Belemina, applied to an area of land by Paus. iii. 21. 3, viii. 35. 4, but at viii. 27. 4 Blenina. Its chora is Belminatis at Polyb. ii. 54. 3. (The ethnic Βελβινἱτης at Hdt. viii. 125 refers to the islet of Belbina E of the Peloponnese.)

⁴² Diod. xvi. 39. 3–7; Paus. iv. 28. 1–2.

⁴³ G. [= W.] Kolbe, in IG v. 1. p. 11.

⁴⁴ So Kolbe in IG v. 1, p. xiv, followed tentatively by Cartledge in CS 90 and n. 25, referring to Paus. iii. 21. 3; viii. 35. 4; Accame, S., Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), 130Google Scholar; Schwertfeger, T., Der achäische Bund von 146 bis 27 v.Chr. (Munich, 1974), 49 n. 90Google Scholar, but also noting the caution of Ehrenberg, V., ‘Sparta (Geschichte)’, RE iii A 2 (1929), 1373–453Google Scholar, at 1445.

⁴⁵ The hill of Chelmós is probably the site of the Athenaion rather than a settlement of Belbina (LS ii. 283, CC41; Pikoulas, NMC 115–17, no. 70). Possible sites for a Classical settlement of Belemina/Belbina are Vardoúka Skortsinoú on the SW slopes of Chelmós (4th-c. BC to Roman finds; ibid. 120 no. 75) and three less precisely dated sites near Giakoumaíika on the SE slopes of Chelmós (ibid. 120–1 no. 77). Any of these would be compatible with a settlement that came into existence in the Classical or Late Classical period. Pikoulas suggests (ibid. 123) that the site changed its position several times, and locates Late Hellenistic-Roman Belemina at the largest site, Metóchi in the region known as Agía Eiríni near Giakoumaíika Longaníkou. Geometric–Archaic settlement in the general area is suggested by a Geometric tomb and Archaic finds in the area (ibid. 119 no. 74, I, II).

⁴⁶ Shipley, OL 264 no. 106; see e.g. Thuc. v. 33. 1; Andrewes et al. (n. 16), 33–4, with map 1 (facing p. 34); and see esp. Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’; id.NMC 142–5.

⁴⁷ Id., NMC 144.

⁴⁸ Id., ‘Skiritis’, 135. Another Late Classical–Hellenistic site: Kourniákos Rous' Apidiá, ibid. 139.

⁴⁹ Late sources write of a ‘settlement’ κατοικἰα of Skiros, placing it in Arkadia ‘near the Mainalians and Parrhasians’ (Herodian, π. ὀρθογραφἱας iii. 2. 581, 1. 23 = Steph. Byz. 575. 7–8: Σκῖρος ᾿Αρκαδἰας κατοικὶα πλησἰον Μαιναλἐων καἰ Παρρασἰων. οἱ κατοικοῦντες Σκιρῖται τὀ θηλυκὁν Σκιρῖτις). Andrewes (n. 46) suggests that S. was part of Megalopolis.

⁵⁰ Cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Μετἀχοιον , at 449. 1: καἰ γἀρ Οἶος πολἱχνιον ἧς τὁ ἐθνικὁν Οἰἀτης . Herodian, De prosodia catholica, iii. 1. 75, 1. 26, lists it among Arkadian and Laconian ethnics.

⁵¹ Pikoulas (‘Skiritis’, 144) regards the Skiritai as a whole as being of perioikic status, with one urban centre at Oios and smaller settlements in the surrounding area of c. 100 km². Xen.'s statement, Cyrop. iv. 2. 1, that the Assyrians treat the Hyrkanians as the Lakedaimonians do the Skiritai is not to be taken as evidence that the Skiritai were not Lakedaimonians; they clearly formed part of the Lakedaimonian army.

⁵² Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 123, 127.

⁵³ This again depends on the Niese–Pikoulas reading: see n. 16. Dr J. Roy (pers. comm.) has observed that Paus. is well aware that not all the sites he lists were, in the event, incorporated into Megalopolis, but that the proximity of Oios to Tegea may not be an obstacle to accepting his statement, since (a) Pallantion is not much further from Tegea and was incorporated and (b) there may have been a desire on the part of those determining the shape of Arkadia not to see Tegea elevated to a position of power. One might add (c) that if ‘Skiritis’ denoted any territory in S. Arkadia captured by Sparta (above) there might be a presumption that all such places should remain within a single geopolitical entity. (I am grateful to Jim Roy, Thomas Heine Nielsen, and Giannis Pikoulas for discussions of this crux; they are not responsible for my views.)

⁵⁴ Loring, W., ‘Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese’, JHS 15 (1895), 25–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 60 and n. 141; K. Romaios, PAE 1907, 121; Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 124, 135–7 and n. 35; cf. id.NMC 239 no. I; LS ii. 283.

⁵⁵ So Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 123–4.

⁵⁶ Pikoulas, p. 124, takes the silence of the sources as a sign that Skiritis was now Arkadian.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Id., NMC 143–4 and n. 433.

⁵⁹ Shipley, OL 238–9 no. 24. Not part of Skiritis: Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 133.

⁶⁰ Herodian, iii. 1. 106, 1. 12, includes Καρυᾶτις in a list mainly comprising names of territories but immediately following the cult title ‘Dereatis Artemis’. It is therefore probably to be linked with the feminine form Καρυᾶτις , cited by Steph. Byz. 362. 6–7 s.v. Καρὑα as a feminine ethnic and as the name of a variety of bee. Hsch. s.v. Καρυᾶτις takes over the report in Paus. iii. 10. 7 and infers that Καρυᾶτις was the name of a festival of Artemis.

⁶¹ LS ii. 284, DD45; Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 137–9.

⁶² For the date see ibid., 124; D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 355.

⁶³ The legend that Karyatai was the name of a deme of Tegea in very early times (Herodian, loc. cit. (n. 60), also cites the ethnic) can hardly reflect an actual grant by Philip II, which would have made such invention otiose; rather, it reflects a claim concocted on the basis that Philip did give part or all of the Skiritis to Tegea. Niese (n. 26), 120, however, assumes that it was given away by Philip; cf. Kolbe, IG v. 1, p. 172.

⁶⁴ Skotitas was a wooded area between Tegea and Lakedaimon, Polyb. xvi. 37. 4, cf. 3. See also Paus. iii. 10. 6, where the MSS read Σκοτἱταν or Σκοτιτᾶν; Rocha-Pereira in the Teubner edition, probably unnecessarily, reads Σκοτινἀ on the basis of Steph. Byz. 577. 10–14 s.v. Σκὸτινα, but that may be a corruption of e.g. Σκοτἱτας. For the modern wood see O. Rackham, ‘Observations on the historical ecology of Laconia’, forthcoming in LS i.

⁶⁵ Shipley, OL 246 no. 44. The text of Paus. viii. 27. 3 is uncertain (Iasaia? Asea?) but refers in any case to Mainalian towns, whereas Paus. vii. 13. 6 places Iasos on the border of Lakonike and Arkadia. See Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 138 n. 41.

⁶⁶ If Análipsi (above) is not Karyai it may be Iasos; but Pikoulas would place Karyai at Análipsi and Iasos nearer to Sparta, in the headwaters of the Evrótas between Konidítsa, Káto Kollínes (Agía Varvára), and Chelmós (‘Skiritis’, 137–9; cf. LS ii. 284, DD45).

⁶⁷ CS 88, 90.

⁶⁸ F. Hiller von Gaertringen, n. 7 to Syll. ³ 665.

⁶⁹ If we accept the emendation of Paus. viii. 27. 4.

⁷⁰ Thuc. ii. 27. 2, vi. 95. 1.

⁷¹ Hdt. i. 82. 1; Thuc. iv. 57. 1, 3.

⁷² Hdt. i. 8a. 2.

⁷³ Paus. ii. 20. i, μὲνειν ἐπὶ τοῖς καθεστηκὸσιν ὲξ ἀρχῆς ὃροις τῆς χὼρας.

⁷⁴ Cf. Paus. iii. 2. 2: in the reign of Echestratos (early 6th c.) they expelled the adult Kynoureis from the Kynouriake; cf. Romaios, K. A., ‘Κυνουρὶα καὶ Κυνοὺριοι’,Πελοποννησιακἀ, 1 (1956), 1–22Google Scholar, at 3.

⁷⁵ Cartledge (n. 16), 124–6.

⁷⁶ Hdt. i. 82. 2.

⁷⁷ Paus. ii. 38. 5.

⁷⁸ Shipley, OL 226 no. 1; see e.g. Thuc. v. 41. 2; Ps.-Skyl. 46 reading ᾿Ανθἀνα for Μὲθανα Paus. ii. 38. 6. Several locations have been proposed. Tsiórovos and Nisí Agíou Andréa both have Classical Roman pottery (Shipley, l.c., cf. 230–1 no. 10), but Frazer, J. G., Pausanias's Description of Greece (London, 1898), iii. 309Google Scholar, points out that, if we read ᾿Ανθἁνα in Ps.-Skyl. 46 (as I believe we should), then Anthana should be a coastal place, which would rule out Tsiórovos. On the problems of identification, see Phaklaris² 47–55 (proposing Nisí); Pritchett, , SAGT iv. 75–9Google Scholar, vi. 94–101, vii. 214–22 (Tsiórovos; cf. ii. 17, iii. 116–21); cf. LS ii. 276, AAI; 279, AA19; G. Shipley, review of Pritchett, SAGT vi–vii, in CR, n.s. 43 (1993), 131–4Google Scholar, at 132–3. Goester, Y. C., ‘The plain of Astros: a survey’, Pharos, 1 (1993), 39–112Google Scholar, at 88–91, 98–9, makes Tsiórovos mainly Classical though possibly continuing into Hellenistic; at pp. 84. 8. 97–8 Nisí Agíou Andréa is mainly Hellenistic. Another possibility is Nisí Paralíou Ástrous, a fortified Bronze Age and Protogeometrie–Roman settlement with an acropolis (LS ii. 277, AA6; Goester (above), 91–3, 99).

⁷⁹ Shipley, OL 241 no. 30.

⁸⁰ Cf. SEG xxx. 377; LS ii. 278, AA13, Geometric-Roman finds; cf. Pritchett, , SAGT vi. 87–9Google Scholar; also LS ii. 277, AA5; contra, Phaklaris² 78–90 (Ellinikó = Thyrea), 96–104 (Loukoú = Eua).

⁸¹ Goester (n. 78), 77–8.

⁸² Ibid., 57–67; dates at 78–80.

⁸³ LS ii. 278, AAIO; Phaklaris² 185–92.

⁸⁴ e.g. Thuc. iv. 56. 2.

⁸⁵ Romaios (n. 74); Meyer, , ‘Kynouria I’ Der kleine Pauly, iii. 402Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Phaklaris² 18–20, cf. Phaklaris, P. V., “Η μἁχη τῆς Θυρἐας (546 π.Χ.)’, Horos, 3 (1987), 101–19Google Scholar, at 101, and English summary (118–19) at 118.

⁸⁷ Paus. iii. 21. 7.

⁸⁸ Paus. iii. 21. 7 lists eighteen Eleutherolakonian poleis and says another six were formerly Eleutherolakonian but now subject to Sparta. Of those six we can firmly identify only Pharai, enrolled by Augustus in τὁ Λακωνικὁν (Paus. iv. 30. 2), a name Paus. uses elsewhere (iv. 1. 1) for the Eleutherolakonian league. Cartledge (n. 16), 322, following Müller and Kolbe, adds Kotyrta and Hippola; both are likely since they were Hellenistic poleis. Hippola was later ruined (Paus. iii. 25. 9); Kotyrta is not mentioned by Paus. Cartledge, against Kolbe, also adopts Müller's suggestions of Kyphanta, Leukai, and Pephnos. I would accept kyphanta since it was a Classical polis and was later ruined (Paus. iii. 24. 2), and Leukai since it was clearly a substantial settlement and may well have been a polis (attacked by Lykourgos and Philip V; listed with mainly polis settlements at Polyb. iv 36. 5, v. 19. 8); but there is no evidence apart from Steph. Byz. 520. 5–6 that Pephnos was ever a polis (at Paus. iii. 26. 2, it is only a place and an islet). For the sixth, Helos (suggested by Müller) is a possibility since it may have been revived as a polis in the Middle Hellenistic Early Roman period. Cf. Polyb. v. 19. 7, 20. 12 (the Heleia may be its chora); Strabo, viii. 5. 2 (363) (kome, former polis); Paus. iii. 22. 3 (now ruined). The ethnic ῾Ελεὶτης or ᾿Ελεἱτης occurs in a 3rd-c. victor-list from Boiotia (IG vii. 1765, c. 240 BC) and may belong to Helos.

⁸⁹ Syll. ³ 407 = FdD iii. 1. 68; Delphi, 275 BC.

⁹⁰ Paus. iii. 24. 1.

⁹¹ Polyb. iv. 36. 5.

⁹² So Cartledge in CS 63.

⁹³ Livy, xxxiv. 35. 10, xxxv. 13. 2.

⁹⁴ Shipley, , OL 263 no. 101Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Syll. ³ 407, cited above; for the name Τύρος see e.g. Steph. Byz. 643. 5.

⁹⁶ Hansen, ‘Kome’ (n. 4).

⁹⁷ LS ii. 281, BB28 and BB29 respectively.

⁹⁸ Shipley, OL 229–30, no. 7. The site is at Pláka near Leonídi: LS ii. 282, BB33; Phaklaris² 129–37.

⁹⁹ Phaklaris² 137 considers that the archaeological evidence confirms close relations with Argos in at least the 2nd c. BC.

¹⁰⁰ Shipley, OL 247 no. 50; LS ii. 282, BB35.

¹⁰¹ Shipley, OL 233 no. 14; LS ii. 282–3. BB38 Kyparíssi.

¹⁰² Shipley, OL 248 no. 54. The site is LS ii. 310, NN231 Limín Iéraka.

¹⁰³ Shipley, OL 262 no. 96; or Glympeis; LS ii. 281–2, BB31.

¹⁰⁴ Shipley, OL 247 no. 49; LS ii. 286, FK263; 287, FF262 and FF66.

¹⁰⁵ Plut., Agis, 8 (29). 1Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Paus. vii. 13. 6.

¹⁰⁷ Shipley, OL 245 no. 41; or Geranthrai.

¹⁰⁸ CS 58.

¹⁰⁹ Wace, A. J. B., ‘Laconia: Geraki. 2. Sculptures’, BSA II (1904–1905). 99–105Google Scholar: id. and F. W. Hasluck, ‘Laconia: excavations near Angelona’, ibid. 81–90; LS ii. 291, GG103. Date of wall: preliminary excavation reports by Crouwel, J. H., Prent, M. et al. , in Pharos, 3 (1995), 41–65Google Scholar, at 47–52; Pharos, 4 (1996), 89–120Google Scholar, at 90–8; Pharos, 5 (1997), 49–83Google Scholar, at 70. Classical Hellenistic buildings, possible street: ibid. 58–60, 63–5, 70, 72; S. M. Thorne, pers. comm. (July 1999)

¹¹⁰ Shipley, OL 262–3 no. 100; LS ii. 286, FF98.

¹¹¹ Shipley, OL 233 no. 15.

¹¹² Shipley, OL 234 no. 17 (‘Pellene’).

¹¹³ LS ii. 288, GG69 Palaiókastro Pellánas (uncertain date); ibid. GG264 Spiliés, Pellána (prehistoric tombs with Hellenistic, Roman material); less likely ibid. GG67 Ágios Dimítrios Vivaríou (uncertain date).

¹¹⁴ Shipley, OL 239–40 no. 28; LS ii. 321–3, A118 Palaiogoulás, cf. ii. 285, EE54, EE57 and pp. 328, 352. Not part of Skiritis: Pikoulas, ‘Skiritis’, 129.

¹¹⁵ Pikoulas, NMC 144 and n. 437.

¹¹⁶ Shipley, OL 268 no. 126; LS ii. 289. GG85.

¹¹⁷ Shipley, OL 252 no. 64; H. Waterhouse and Simpson, R. Hope, ‘Prehistoric Laconia: part I’, BSA 55 (1960). 67–197Google Scholar. at 80–1; LS ii. 290, 291–2, GG87, GG339, or GG101.

¹¹⁸ Shipley, OL 268–9 no. 131; LS ii. 293. GG108.

¹¹⁹ Shipley, OL 269 no. 134.

¹²⁰ Shipley, OL 262 no. 97.

¹²¹ According to Polyb. the Aitolians ‘enslaved’ the perioikic towns (ἐξηνδραποδἱσαντο τἁς περιοἱκους , iv. 34. 9) and raided the Tainaron sanctuary (ix. 34. 9 (sic)). According to Plut., Kleom. 18 (39). 3Google Scholar, ‘five myriads of slaves’ (ἁνδραπὁδων) were seized; Cartledge (in CS 48 and n. 21) rightly doubts the number, but whatever the true figure it seems possible that Plut. or his source wrongly inferred from Polyb. that the captives were already slaves, when they may have in fact been free Perioikoi. Cf. Kennell (n. 5), 190.

¹²² Livy, xxxiv. 36. 2.

¹²³ Or Maleum: a Maleo, Livy. xxxiv. 36. 3.

¹²⁴ Livy, xxxiv. 13. 1.

¹²⁵ Shipley, OL 227 no. 3; archaeological evidence cited by F. W. Hasluck, ‘§2: the promontory of Malca and Epidauros Limera’ (pp. 167–82 of Wace, A. J. B. and Hasluck, F. W., ‘Laconia, II: topography. South-eastern Laconia’, BSA 14 (1907–1908). 161–82Google Scholar), at 179–82; Lawrence, A. W., Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford, 1979), 146–7Google Scholar; LS ii. 310 11, NN235; see now Zavvou, E., ‘῾Η χὡρα τῆς ᾿Επιδαὑρου Λιμηρᾶς’, Πρακτικἁ τοῦ Ε ᾿ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρἰου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπουδῶν (᾿`Αργος -Ναὑπλιον. 6-10 Σεπτεμβρἰου 1995) (Πελοποννησιακἀ, suppl. 22; Athens, 1996–1997), ii. 497–508Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Shipley, OL 227–8 no. 4. For Hellenistic data from new fieldwork on the island, see Broodbank, C., ‘Kythera Survey: preliminary report on the 1998 season’, BSA 94 (1999), 191–214. at 200, 203, and 206–9Google Scholarpassim.

¹²⁷ Shipley, OL 226–7 no. 2. The site is Neápolis Voión (f. Vátika): Leekley, D. and Noyes, R., Archaeological Excavations in Southern Greece (Park Ridge. NJ, 1976), 111Google Scholar; LS ii. 312–13, NN251; Pikoulas, G. A., ‘῾Η ἀνατολικἠ ἀκτὴ τοῦ Μαλὲα: κὁλπος Μονεμβασὶας’ Λακωνικαἰ σπουδαἰ, 9 (1988), 277–85Google Scholar. Although archaeological evidence is mostly Roman Late Roman, inscriptions (esp. IG v. 1. 952, LHI) confirm the settlement's earlier polis status even if they do not preserve its name.

¹²⁸ Shipley, OL 259 no. 83.

¹²⁹ Ibid., 230 no. 8.

¹³⁰ Ibid., 259 no. 84.

¹³¹ For his invasion and the harm he did to the Λακωνίδι γᾶι and Sparta, see also the Epidaurian epigram in his honour, IG iv² 1. 590.

¹³² Shipley, OL 233 no. 13.

¹³³ Ibid., 241 no. 31. Kastélli Daimoniás, LS ii. 311, NN239. See too n. 88.

¹³⁴ Shipley, OL 246 no. 46. LS ii. 309 MM227 Bozá; 309–10, MM228 Kastélli/Goulás.

¹³⁵ Shipley, OL 244–5 no. 39. Site: LS ii. 310, MM230 Plýtra.

¹³⁶ Shipley, OL 246–7 no. 47; LS ii. 308, MM220.

¹³⁷ Shipley, OL 244 no. 37; LS ii. 308–9, MM219. See too n. 88.

¹³⁸ Shipley, OL 262 no. 99; the site is probably Apidéa or Apidiá, LS ii. 307–8, MM216.

¹³⁹ Shipley, OL 252–3 no. 65. Possible sites: LS ii. 298, KK272, KK140; 299, KK143, KK141.

¹⁴⁰ CS 138 even allow the possibility that Helos might have been reintegrated into the Spartan state in 146/5 or under Augustus, since rich families in Roman Sparta continued to own land there. See too n. 88.

¹⁴¹ Shipley, OL 268 no. 129; Kyrou, A. K., ‘Δῆλὁν ἐστι τὸ ᾿Επιδἡλιον . . .’, Λακωνικαἱ σπουδαἱ, 13 (1996), 373–92Google Scholar.

¹⁴² For an overview, see Moschou-Tsiomi, L., ‘Πὁλεις και μνημεἱα της απχαιὁτητας στην λακωνικἠ Μἀνη’ Αδοὐλωτη Μἀνη, 19 (1997), 17–32.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Livy, xxxiv. 13. 1.

¹⁴⁴ Livy, xxxv. 13. 3.

¹⁴⁵ Shipley, OL 237–8 no. 23.

¹⁴⁶ Hellenistic, Many buildings (AR 26 (1979–1980), 32Google Scholar; 35 (1988–9), 31) and especially Roman-Late Roman structures (same references plus AR 25 (1978–1979), 20Google Scholar; 36 (1989–90), 24; 37 (1990–1), 27; 38 (1991–2), 27) have been found. See generally Giannakopoulos, P. E., Τὁ Γὺθειον ἀρχαιολογικἠ καἰ ἱστορικἠ ἂποψις ἀπὸ τῆς προϊστορικῆς ἐποχῆς μἐχρι τοῦ Μεγἀλου Κωνσταντὶνου (Athens, 1987Google Scholar); LS ii. 296–7, U218; Themos, A. A., ‘Τὁ ρωμαϊκὁ ὑδραγωγεῖο τοῦ Γυθεὶου: μἰα πρὡτη ἐπανεξἐταση τῶν στοιχεἰων’, Πρακτικἀ τοῦ Ε ` Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρἰου . . . (n. 125), i. 400–9Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Shipley, OL 245 no. 42; LS ii. 304, LL188. See 100 n. 88.

¹⁴⁸ Shipley, OL 228 9 no. 5; LS ii. 300, LL153.

¹⁴⁹ Shipley, 0L 229 no. 6; LS ii. 300 1, LL154. On the polis status of Oitylos, see now Hansen, M. H., ‘The use of the word polis in the fragments of some historians’, in Flensted-Jensen, P. (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (CPC Papers, 6/Historia Einzelschriften, 138; Stuttgart, 2000), 141–50, at 148Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Kinaithion is otherwise unattested in the word-list of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae CD-ROM. ‘Cinaethium Pr.’ is marked by Kolbe, , IG v. 1Google Scholar, pl. 7, as the Tigáni peninsula.

¹⁵¹ Shipley, OL 230 no. 9; LS ii. 306, LL210.

¹⁵² Moskou, L. (sic), ‘Topographie du Magne: à propos de la région du Ténare Κιστἐονες -᾿Αγιοι Ασὡματοι’ Πρακτικἀ τοῦ Α ᾿ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρἰου Πελοποννησιακῶν Σπἁρτη 7-14 Σεοτεμβρἰου 1975), ii (Athens, 1976–8), 45–54, at 46Google Scholar; Shipley, OL 246 no. 45; LS ii. 305, LL201.

¹⁵³ Moschou, L., ‘῾Τοπογραφικἀ Μἁνης ἡ πὀλις Ταἱναρον᾿ ’ AAA 8 (1975), 160–77Google Scholar; repeated in L. Moskou (n. 152). For the important temples at Kiónia (ancient Aigila?), presumably in the territory of Tainaron, and their probable reorganization in Late Hellenistic times, see Moschou, L. and Mosehos, T., ‘῾Κιὁνια Α ᾿ μιἀ τοπογραφικἠ καἰ ἀρχιτεκτονικἠ ἒρευνα Πελοπονν, ησιακἁ , 13 (1978–1979), 72–114Google Scholar; Moschou-Tsiomi, L. and Mosehos, T. N., ‘῾Κιὁνια Β ` προβληματικὴ κατασκευῆς δωρικῶν κτιρἰων τῆς ὒστερης ἑλληνιστικῆς περιὸδου καἱ τῶν πρὼτων αὐτοκρατορικῶν χρὀνων. ᾿Η περὶπτωση τῶν δὺο ναῶν’ Πρακτικἁ τοῦ ΧΙΙ Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρἱου . . . (n. 3), iv. 140–7 (pp. 140–1Google Scholar by both authors, 141–7 by Mosehos).

¹⁵⁴ L. Moschou and T. Mosehos, ‘῾Το αρχαῖο φροὑριο τῆς Τευθρὡνης ᾿, ᾿Αρχ. ἐφ (1981), 10–22; Shipley, OL 248 no. 53; LS ii. 306, LL204.

¹⁵⁵ Shipley, OL 251 2 no. 63; 296, 11–124.

¹⁵⁶ Shipley, OL 246 no. 43; LS ii. 301, LL158 (?); Bonias, Z., ᾿Ενα αγροτικὀ ιερὀ στις Αιγιἐς Λακωνἱας (Δημοσιεὑματα , 62; Athens, 1998)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁷ Shipley; OL 241 no. 32; LS ii. 306. LL209.

¹⁵⁸ Shipley, OL, 269 no. 135; LS ii. 296, JJ126 with Doukas, P. Ch., ῾Η Σπἀρτη διἁ τῶν αἰὠνων (New York, 1922Google Scholar; repr. Sparta, n.d. [c. 1984]), 91.

¹⁵⁹ Shipley, OL, 244 no. 38.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid., 247 no. 48.

¹⁶¹ Ibid., no. 51; LS ii. 301 2, LL163.

¹⁶² Shipley, OL 240 no. 29; LS ii. 301, LL162.

¹⁶³ Ps.-Skyl. 46; Shipley, OL 234–5 no. 19.

¹⁶⁴ Shipley, 0L 243–4 no. 36.

¹⁶⁵ Strabo, viii. 4. 6 (361), says the Pamisos near Leuktron was the subject of κρίις between Messenian and Lakedaimonians under Philip (cited by Kolbe, , IG v. 1, p. 243Google Scholar under ‘Thalamae’, who thinks Thalamai was liberated in 338). Cf. Polyb. xvi. 16. 3, Nabis reaches Thalamai; xvi. 14. 3, description (cited from Zenon of Rhodes, FGrH 523, late 3rd early 2nd c), of Nabis' route to Sellasia and thence to Thalamai, Pharai, and the Pamisos, via the so-called Hoplitês, the narrow way, and the Poliasion. Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, ii (Oxford, 1967), 521Google Scholar (with further references), doubts the names, unconvincingly.

¹⁶⁶ Head² 418. Kolbe, , IG v. 1, p. xiiGoogle Scholar, adds Pylos (Polyb. xviii. 42. 7), and Kolonides and Methone on the basis of their coins (Head² 432, 433 respectively), but these are dated by Head to the high imperial period.

¹⁶⁷ Shipley, OL 242 no. 34.

¹⁶⁸ Spawforth, in CS 101.

¹⁶⁹ Shipley, OL 241–2 no. 33; LS ii. 299–300, LI.150; MME 290 no. 150.

¹⁷⁰ Shipley, OL 266–7 no. 199; LS300, LL 149.

¹⁷¹ Shipley, OL 236 no. 21.

¹⁷² CS 139.

¹⁷³ Shipley, OL 257 no. 79.

¹⁷⁴ CS 139.

¹⁷⁵ CS 138 locate it astride the Langada pass through Taygetos. It must be border territory and cannot be coastal, since the famous Artemis Limnatis sanctuary in Dentheliatis (Tac., Ann. iv. 43Google Scholar) was situated some way inland (Paus. iv. 31. 3).

¹⁷⁶ Kolbe, in IG v. I, p. ixGoogle Scholar, referring to id., Ath. Mitt. 29 (1904), 376, favours Gonatas, noting that Beloch preferred Poliorketes and Niese Doson.

¹⁷⁷ IvO 52 = Syll. ³ 683; text also printed at Kolbe p. xv: κρίσιϛ περὶχώραϛΜεσσανίοιϛκαὶΛακεδαιμονίοιϛκ.τ.λ

¹⁷⁸ The date is suggested by Kolbe, , IG v. I, p. xviGoogle Scholar, on the basis of IG v. I. 1448, a decree in honour of both Augustus and Tiberius.

¹⁷⁹ Cf. CS 138. The actions of Philip, Antigonos, Mummius, the Milesians, Octavian/Antony, and Atidius are known only from Tac., Ann. iv. 43Google Scholar, reporting the decision made under Tiberius, when the Lakedaimonians claimed that the Dentheliatis and Artemis Limnatis were seized forcibly by Philip II. For a discussion of Tac.'s account see CS 138–9.

¹⁸⁰ On the date of composition of Paus.'s work, see Pouilloux, J., ‘Introduction, I: l'homme et l' oeuvre’, in Casevitz, M., Pouilloux, J., and Chamoux, F. (eds), Pausanias: Description de la Grèce, i: Attique (Budé edition; Paris, 1992), xiv–xixGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸¹ CS 117, 139. For horoi of disputed date see IG v. 1. 1371 (Vespasianic) = SEG xiii. 259 (AD 25). Kolbe, , IG v. IGoogle Scholar, on no. 1372 (other horoi N of Langada), argues for a date of AD 78 rather than Tiberian times.

¹⁸² Chronology: D. R. Shipley (n. 17), 349 (first invasion Nov./Dec. 370–Mar./Apr. 369), 354, and index s.v. ‘Epameinondas’.

¹⁸³ In a decree of Tiberian date from Gytheion about the organization of a festival in honour of the city's liberators, SEG xi. 923 (xiii. 257), the long-dead Flamininus is the only non-imperial honorand (ll. 12–13), which strongly suggests he and no other person was responsible for setting up the Lakedaimonian league.

¹⁸⁴ For the dissociation of the founding of the Lakedaimonian league from the events of the 140s, see Gitti (n. 9).

¹⁸⁵ Paus. iii. 21. 6, with Gitti (n. 9), 196, 201.

¹⁸⁶ The event is celebrated in inscriptions from the largest town, Gytheion, : IG v. I. 1160Google Scholar, in honour of Tiberius who ‘with his father’ restored their freedom; SEG xi. 923, cited above, where Augustus is called Eleuthcrios (1. 8).

¹⁸⁷ Later mentions are anachronistic or reflect an imprecise, or at least non-technical, use of the term perioikos. Polyb. iv. 34. 9 (c. 240 BC), ii. 65. 9 (222 BC). Strabo, vii. 5. 4 (365), refers to the Perioikoi deserting Sparta for Rome; this is to be interpreted in connection with the reign of Eurykles, not the events of 195 BC, but is an imprecise usage reflecting the seizure of the former perioikic poleis by Eurykles and their temporary reintegration into the Spartan state (Gitti (n. 9), 196).