I. Introduction
Many modern translations of ancient Greek texts and epigraphic collections, especially those designed to be accessible to a wider audience, now routinely substitute the word ‘Spartan’ for ‘Lakedaimonian’. This interchangeability of ‘Spartans’ (more accurately, Spartiatai or Spartiates) and ‘Lakedaimonians’ is nothing new; the confusion between the two in the ancient sources has long been noted,Footnote 1 with considerable scholarly discussion on the exact nature of the relationship between Spartiates and Perioikoi and the concept of Lakedaimon as an entity.Footnote 2 It is impossible to distinguish archaeologically between Spartiates and Perioikoi from the surviving material evidence,Footnote 3 while all inhabitants of Lakonike used a common dialect and letter forms for inscriptions.Footnote 4 However, Thucydides was able to specifically label commanders as either Spartiates or Perioikoi and distinguish 120 Spartiates among the 292 Lakedaimonian prisoners from Sphakteria.Footnote 5 Xenophon’s usage of the terms largely mirrors Thucydides’, albeit with a greater number of technical terms for different groups within the Lakedaimonian community.Footnote 6 In particular, Xenophon’s account of the Kinadon conspiracy not only showcases a wide range of Lakedaimonian subdivisions, but demonstrates that the Spartiates were distinguishable from and, reportedly, detested by other groups (Hell. 3.3.6):
λέγειν καὶ περὶ τούτου ἔφη αὐτὸν ὡς σφίσι μὲν τοῖς προστατεύουσιν οὐ πάνυ πολλοί, ἀξιόπιστοι δὲ συνειδεῖεν· αὐτοὶ μέντοι πᾶσιν ἔφασαν συνειδέναι καὶ εἵλωσι καὶ νεοδαμώδεσι καὶ τοῖς ὑπομείοσι καὶ τοῖς περιοίκοις· ὅπου γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τις λόγος γένοιτο περὶ Σπαρτιατῶν, οὐδένα δύνασθαι κρύπτειν τὸ μὴ οὐχ ἡδέως ἂν καὶ ὠμῶν ἐσθίειν αὐτῶν.
He (Kinadon) had said that those in the plot with himself and the leaders were few, but trustworthy. Rather, it was the case, the leaders claimed, that they were in the plot with everyone else: Helots, Neodamodeis, Hypomeiones and Perioikoi. For whenever among these classes any mention was made of Spartiates, no one was able to conceal the fact that he would be glad to eat them raw.
The Spartiates in the agora may have been distinguishable by their dress and hairstyle, as well as the personal knowledge of Kinadon and his co-conspirator,Footnote 7 while the exclusivity of Spartiate status was closely guarded through a combination of economic contributions and genealogy.Footnote 8 Herodotus states that only Tisamenos and Hegias had ever become Spartiates (as opposed to being born into the Spartiate class), but that it was the Lakedaimonians who made them citizens (9.33–35). Herodotus’ usage of ‘Lakedaimonian’ and ‘Spartiate’ is considerably more interchangeable than in both Thucydides and Xenophon, even within individual passages (e.g. 7.211.3). This flexibility reaches its zenith in the description of the embassy to Gelon of Syracuse, in which Syagros, the Spartan ambassador, is described as Lakedaimonian, Spartiate and Lakonian:Footnote 9
7.153: Emissaries sent to Gelon, including Syagros from the Lakedaimonians (καὶ ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων Σύαγρος);
7.157: Syagros speaks on behalf of the Lakedaimonians and their allies;
7.159: Syagros complains that Agamemnon would wail aloud if he heard that the Spartiates had been deprived of their command by Gelon and the Syracusans. Syagros goes on to tell Gelon that if he wishes to help, he must obey the Lakedaimonians;
7.160: Gelon addresses Syagros as his Spartiate guest (ξεῖνε Σπαρτιῆτα);
7.161: The Athenians answer Gelon before the Lakedaimonian could speak, twice refer to Syagros as ‘the Lakonian’ and say that command of the fleet and army belongs to the Lakedaimonians.
As these examples demonstrate, a major hurdle to accurately explaining to whom the term ‘Lakedaimonians’ refers is the fact that the major historical sources are written by non-Spartans, indeed, by non-Lakedaimonians, resulting in a picture looking in from the outside rather than offering the perspective of an inhabitant of Lakonike. Jean Ducat has summarized the image presented by the written sources in formulaic terms as: ‘Sparta + perioikis = Lakedaimon’.Footnote 10 By extension, all Spartiates are Lakedaimonians, but not all Lakedaimonians are Spartiates. There is currently little scholarly consensus on how keen the Perioikoi may have been to identify themselves as Lakedaimonian,Footnote 11 or how much access they had to setting up inscriptions. However, the term ‘Lakedaimonian’ does undeniably encompass a wider selection of society. For the purposes of the present paper, I take the following approach: the terms ‘Spartiate(s)’ and ‘Lakedaimonian(s)’ will be used as direct translations from the ancient sources, while the term ‘Spartan’ will be used more generically to describe political decisions and culture where a specific term does not appear in the ancient sources.
The aim of this paper is not to enter the debate over who the Lakedaimonians were as an entity, but rather to utilize a different corpus of evidence, namely epigraphy and inscribed dedications, to shed some light on how the Lakedaimonians (and Spartiates) wished to be identified. The surviving physical inscriptions provide our most direct evidence of self-presentation in terms of the division between ‘Spartiate’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’, while the interchangeability of the terms in ancient writers can lead to inscriptions being misquoted.Footnote 12 The following discussion is based on all appearances of the words ‘Spartiate’, ‘Sparta’, ‘Lakedaimon’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’ in published inscriptions from the Archaic and Classical periods (Appendices A–D). Most inscriptions are found in the Inscriptiones Graecae corpus, with further commentary and information on dating and further examples drawn from subsequent publications.Footnote 13 I also consider certain lost inscriptions quoted in historical sources (not included in the supplementary materials), and the wider patterns in terms of collective identity visible through sixth, fifth and fourth centuries. Two further key issues will be addressed based on the trends revealed by the surviving evidence: the transition from the Late Archaic period into the Early Classical, which seems to present a distinct change in terminology, and the extent to which poetic metre may be responsible for the selection of terms.
Appendices A–D display the terms as they occur in inscriptions according to period and location to ascertain whether the label is one that is consciously being adopted or, as in our historical sources, being applied to the group. Throughout this paper, numbers in bold correspond to numbers in the appendices. The following discussion also considers whether there was probable Spartan oversight or approval of inscriptions and compares these to examples where the inscribers would have been beyond Spartan influence, or even actively hostile to them.
II. The uses of ‘Spartiate’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’ before the Persian Wars
The corpus of inscriptions mentioning Spartiates or Lakedaimonians before the Persian Wars is quite meagre, totalling only ten items. The context and content of the inscriptions are, however, broad enough to allow for some analysis in the development of Spartan self-representation during the Archaic period. The dating of inscriptions from Lakonike based on letter forms is far from certain due to the relatively small corpus of texts and fluctuations in usage.Footnote 14 Therefore, certain inscriptions discussed below may belong to the early years of the fifth century and should perhaps be considered alongside evidence from after the Persian Wars. However, the early inscriptions speaking of Spartiates (Appendix A, supplementary material) are reasonably securely dated to before the Persian Wars, after which ‘Lakedaimonian’ became the dominant term, meaning that a broadening of the historical period under consideration may skew the results and disrupt the analysis of the patterns emerging through the rest of the Archaic period.
The attested uses of ‘Spartiate’ as an identifier come from a fairly broad geographical area in this period, though there are none from Lakonike itself (which is also true of inscriptions mentioning Lakedaimonians). This is not surprising, for it would be unnecessary to specify one’s origins when offering a dedication in that same place.Footnote 15 Three inscriptions come from sanctuaries: two from Olympia (1, 2) and one from the Heraion on Samos (3). Of the two inscriptions from Olympia, (1) is extremely fragmentary, with Σπα|ρτιάτ preserved in boustrophedon over two lines. The missing letters at the end of the word allow for either a singular or plural, although the former is slightly more convincing.Footnote 16 The second (2) is certainly an offering from the Spartiates as a collective, although the purpose is unclear. An offering on purely religious grounds seems somewhat unlikely, while the collective identity of the dedicants rules out a sporting victory, leaving a military dedication as the most probable explanation. (2) might therefore reflect a campaign undertaken without the aid of the Perioikoi, or one in which the contribution of the Perioikoi was overlooked. Without a secure dating for the inscription beyond the sixth century, or further information, any reconstruction of the offering’s purpose must remain very speculative.
(3), a crouching bronze lion, once part of a larger bronze vessel, was an individual dedication to Hera on Samos by Eumnastos, a self-identified Spartiate. It seems that the vessel was transported from Lakonike to Samos and could have coincided with close political ties between the two states.Footnote 17 The grave stele of Pleistas (4), from Eretria, mentions Sparta as the dead man’s patris,Footnote 18 but that he made his living (or was raised) in Athens,Footnote 19 and died in Eretria. The inscription is in the Doric dialect, but the letter forms are neither Lakonian nor typically Eretrian but closer to Attic.Footnote 20 The fact that his fatherland is identified (in the present tense) as Sparta, rather than Lakedaimon may represent a source of pride for the individual, reflecting his status as a Spartiate, which he wished to celebrate, like Eumnastos, above and beyond his status as Lakedaimonian.Footnote 21 On the other hand, there is the possibility that Pleistas was interred by the Eretrians, but that he left Sparta in his childhood and the choice of term is therefore largely irrelevant to discussions of Spartan identity.Footnote 22 This situation could be similar to that of Drakontios, whom Xenophon describes as a Spartiate even though he had been exiled from Sparta as a boy (Anab. 4.8.25). Walker has suggested that the grave could be connected to the events of 511, when Anchimolios launched an unsuccessful attack on the port of Phaleron, and that Pleistas was a Spartiate casualty carried to the friendly territory of Eretria and buried.Footnote 23 The burial of fallen soldiers in nearby friendly territory is a Spartan phenomenon that can be observed with some certainty in the fifth and fourth centuries and it is surely not too much of a stretch to imagine that the practice had earlier roots,Footnote 24 especially after an unsuccessful raid where the recovery and burial of the dead on the battlefield would pose considerable logistical problems.Footnote 25 We are therefore left with a somewhat muddled burial of an individual from Sparta, whose fellow Spartans may have dictated the words of his epitaph for a local craftsman to engrave.
Though the examples are few, in the second half of the sixth century and into the early fifth there are occasions where a ‘Spartiate’ identity can potentially be seen, expressed both by individuals and groups. This is significant because, as will be set out below, after the Persian Wars this separate Spartiate identity seems to disappear almost completely from the epigraphic and monumental record. Conversely, there is no evidence of the term being applied by outsiders in any official or dedicatory capacity. Although this may simply be an accident of survival, it might also reflect an emerging sense of Lakedaimon as a collective entity. Therefore, the surviving examples of dedications made by self-proclaimed Spartiates may highlight the pride felt by a group who viewed themselves as elevated above the ‘other Lakedaimonians’. This attitude mirrors the description of the men of Lakedaimon given to Xerxes by the exiled Demaratus (Hdt. 7.234.2):
πλῆθος μὲν πολλὸν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ πόλεις πολλαί … ἔστι ἐν τῆ Λακεδαίμονι Σπάρτη πόλις ἀνδρῶν ὀκτακισχιλίων μάλιστα, καὶ οὗτοι πάντες εἰσὶ ὅμοιοι τοῖσι ἐνθάδε μαχεσαμένοισι. οἵ γε μὲν ἄλλοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι τούτοισι μὲν οὐκ ὅμοιοι, ἀγαθοὶ δέ.
Great is the number of the Lakedaimonians and the number of their cities … there is in Lakedaimon a city called Sparta of 8,000 men, and all of them are similar (homoioi) to those who fought here. The other Lakedaimonians are not similar (homoioi), but they are brave also.
The existence of a distinct Spartiate identity, exhibited by both individuals and groups, in the years before the Persian Wars calls into question the status of the Lakedaimonians as a collective entity in this period. There are currently few epigraphic uses of the term ‘Lakedaimon’ dated before the Persian Wars. The geographical spread for occurrences of Lakedaimonians is also narrower than the appearances of Spartiates and covers fewer different contexts (Appendix A).
The statue base from the dedication (10) is difficult to date accurately and there is a distinct possibility that it should be connected to the Messenian revolt of the 460s, rather than to the early fifth century.Footnote 26 Lilian Jeffery prefers a date around 500–490, in conjunction with a Helot uprising hinted at in Plato (Leg. 692d, 698d–e) and Strabo (8.362),Footnote 27 chiefly due to the cylindrical cutting, which suggests an older, semi-iconic statue, like that of Apollo at Amyklai (Paus. 3.19.2).Footnote 28 Pamela-Jane Shaw also argues for a conflict between Sparta and the Messenians ca. 490, while Ducat suggests a constant state of conflict between 520 and 460.Footnote 29 The absence of this conflict in historians such as Herodotus is problematic, and a protracted conflict would provide little opportunity for a victory monument. By contrast, Herodotus does mention the victory over the Messenians at Ithome as one of the five contests where Tisamenos served as mantis for the Spartans (9.35.2), and this event therefore represents a stronger candidate for the dedication of the statue.Footnote 30 The old-fashioned form of the statue need not necessarily mean an older monument, as the Classical Spartans were fond of traditional styles.Footnote 31 If this dedication does indeed belong after the Persian Wars, in connection to the Messenian revolt of the late 460s, then the only inscriptions mentioning the Lakedaimonians in this period are two individual dedications and three relating to the appointment of proxenoi.
It may be tempting to assume that the two individual Lakedaimonian dedications (6, 8) come from Perioikoi, rather than Spartiates, and the choice of term reflects a political reality, but there is not enough evidence to make a forceful argument for this. It is also unclear whether the arms dedicated by Eurystratidas (8) were his own equipment or captured from the enemy. The inscribed haltēr of Akmatidas at Olympia (6) is the only surviving example of a Spartan athletic dedication from this period that preserves an ethnic.Footnote 32 The considerable number of athletic dedications from Sparta, clustered around the sanctuaries of Athena Chalkioikos and Apollo at Amyklai,Footnote 33 celebrated victories in local contests, rendering the specification of the ethnic of the victor unnecessary. However, even in the case of another haltēr dedicated at Olympia by a certain Koiris in letter forms identified by Jeffery as sixth-century Lakonian, no ethnic was included.Footnote 34 Akmatidas’ victory was evidently significant, won ‘dust free’,Footnote 35 at a time when Sparta was no longer exercising the dominance it once had in terms of Olympic victories,Footnote 36 and this significance is reflected in the use of a metrical inscription on the haltēr. Footnote 37
The metrical inscriptions on the haltēr and the base for the statue of Zeus (6, 10) necessitate some consideration of the implications of poetic metre for the usage of the two terms. ‘Lakedaimoni-’ (short-short-long-short-short, and long for any ending) fits neatly into hexameters and elegiac couplets. By contrast, ‘Spartiat-’ (long-short-long, plus ending) cannot appear in metre without somewhat awkward consonation.Footnote 38 This means that the appearances of the term ‘Spartiate’ in both inscriptions and poetry are even more significant for questions of identity. Of the Archaic Spartan poets, Alkman does not use either term, while Tyrtaios refers exclusively to Sparta and Spartiates.Footnote 39 Tyrtaios’ insistence on using ‘Spartiates’ in fr. 23a, especially when ‘Lakedaimonians’ would be an easier metrical fit, demonstrates that on this occasion at least he felt it was important to refer to the Spartiates specifically. The appearances of ‘Spartiate’ in the epigraphic record in the sixth century may therefore represent the continuation of an older, more robust Spartiate identity reaching back into the seventh century which was eventually subsumed by the broader concept of Lakedaimon. The term ‘Lakedaimonian’ came to dominate in both metrical and non-metrical inscriptions throughout the fifth and fourth centuries (Appendix B), while certain hostile metrical epigrams of the fourth century refer specifically to Sparta. These examples, coupled with Tyrtaios, demonstrate that it was possible to circumvent the metrical awkwardness of referring to Sparta and the Spartiates.
The proxeny inscriptions (5, 7, 9) reflect the apparent development of Lakedaimon as a cohesive political identity. As Ducat has argued, Lakedaimon resembled a ghost state, with no central institutions of its own distinct from those of Sparta,Footnote 40 yet as a concept it was important enough by the mid-to-late sixth century that official business such as proxenoi appointments at Olympia and Taras was done in the name of the Lakedaimonians, not the Spartiates. The preference for Lakedaimon may also coincide with a shift in Spartan policy around this time, with increasing attention paid to the Achaian ancestry of the Spartan kings in particular,Footnote 41 as Sparta sought to expand and legitimize its dominance over the Peloponnese through the formation of alliances.Footnote 42 ‘Lakedaimon’ is attested in eight Linear B tablets from Thebes,Footnote 43 and is listed first among the places led to Troy by Menelaus in the Iliad (2.581). Neither the Iliad nor the Odyssey refers to individuals as Spartiate or Lakedaimonian, but both mention Sparta and Lakedaimon. Aside from Il. 2.581, Sparta only appears as one of the three poleis dear to Hera in the Iliad (4.52), while Lakedaimon appears four more times as the birthplace of Helen and the Dioskouroi.Footnote 44 In the Odyssey, the two terms are generally interchangeable, and the selection of one over the other probably reflects concerns of metre, rather than meaning. Furthermore, it appears that for the poet of the Odyssey Messene was considered a part of Lakedaimon, for Iphitus and Odysseus are described as meeting in Lakedaimon, yet it is subsequently clear that their meeting takes place in Messene.Footnote 45
In summary, from the mid-sixth century until the beginning of the Persian Wars, we find two individuals referring to themselves as Spartiates and two as Lakedaimonians, an even split but one that may reflect division (if the Lakedaimonians were Perioikoi), or personal preference. The group dedication from the Spartiates contrasts sharply with the proxenoi material, all of which is produced in the name of the Lakedaimonians. The dedication at Olympia may represent small-scale conflicts fought by the Spartiates without major assistance from the Perioikoi, in keeping with the common orthodoxy that the latter were only merged into the Spartiate army following the Messenian revolt of the 460s.Footnote 46 Such an attitude, however, does a disservice to the Perioikic contribution during the Persian Wars, during which they made up half of the Lakedaimonian contingent (excluding Helots) at Plataia (Hdt. 9.11), and probably more than two-thirds of the force at Thermopylai (Diod. Sic. 11.4.2–5; Isoc. 4.90, 6.99).Footnote 47 As it is not the purpose of the present paper to enter into the debate concerning Perioikic contributions, military or otherwise, to the Lakedaimonian state, it is sufficient to state here that the mixed terminology of these dedications may reflect either a mixed reality of military service or a Spartiate dominance of memorialization.
The overall picture from before the Persian Wars is therefore that official business, such as serving as proxenos, was carried out in the name of all the Lakedaimonians. However, it is Sparta and the Spartiates who are mentioned in the poetry of Tyrtaios and who may continue to celebrate their status and, perhaps, claim credit for success in warfare, though this tends towards full inclusivity and the universal use of ‘Lakedaimonian’. The surviving memorials of the Persian Wars, and those inscriptions which come later in the fifth century, speak universally of the Lakedaimonians.
III. The Persian Wars to the Battle of Leuktra: Lakedaimonian domination
It appears that the burgeoning popularity of ‘Lakedaimonian’ as an official identifier visible in the late sixth century continued and intensified into the fifth. Notably, there are no securely attested examples of the word ‘Spartiate’ in a fifth-century epigraphic context. By contrast, there are many varied appearances of ‘Lakedaimonian’, both inside and outside Spartan territory, used universally by Spartans and foreigners alike.
Significantly, there are three examples from Sparta itself: two lists of contributions to a war fund near the start of the Peloponnesian War (61, 62),Footnote 48 plus a treaty of alliance which has been plausibly dated either to the early years of the Peloponnesian War or ca. 388 (63).Footnote 49 In these examples we find official business being conducted in the name of the Lakedaimonians, rather than the Spartiates. Lakedaimon may have been a ghost state, yet it was in the name of all the Lakedaimonians that official business was being carried out.
Considering the use of ‘Lakedaimonian’ as a collective term even within the city of Sparta itself, it is perhaps unsurprising that the monuments erected beyond the borders of Lakonike also speak only of Lakedaimonians, never of Spartiates. Two fifth-century epitaphs, found at Eretreia (57) and Amphipolis (11), both label the deceased as Lakedaimonian. While we cannot rule out the possibility that these were Perioikoi, the late fifth-century Tomb of the Lakedaimonians in Athens (17) included an inscription in which the names of the dead, including two Spartan polemarchs, were interwoven between larger letters spelling ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΙ.Footnote 50
At Delphi, Lysander dedicated the grand Aigospotamoi monument which included an inscription on his statue base without any ethnic term (Paus. 10.9.7–10).Footnote 51 However, the positioning of the words, with Lysander’s name directly preceding Lakedaimon, draws close attention to his identity as a Lakedaimonian (36). This choice may be partially explained by considerations of metre (see above), yet it is noteworthy that Lysander refers to himself as Lakedaimonian, rather than Spartiate, when dedicating golden crowns in Athens and on Delos.Footnote 52 In Lysander’s case, there are naturally many avenues for speculation as to his choice of identifier and it could be that his reported status as a mothax caused him to identify as Lakedaimonian, rather than Spartiate (Ath. 6.102; Ael. VH. 12.43). However, this attribution of mothax status to Lysander appears late in our sources,Footnote 53 while reports that his father had ties to the king of Libya make it improbable that Lysander hailed from a lowly family (Diod. Sic. 14.13.6).Footnote 54 It is also difficult to believe Lysander did not hold Spartiate status in light of his alleged plot to overthrow the kingship of Sparta and replace it with a leader elected from among either the Herakleidai, or all Spartiates.Footnote 55 Three other individuals, Arakos, Epikydidas and Eteonikos,Footnote 56 also had portrait statues in the Aigospotamoi monument and are all identified as Lakedaimonian, yet all three were Spartiates.Footnote 57 The simplest solution is therefore the most probable, that Lysander referred to himself as Lakedaimonian because, in the late fifth century, this was the term used in all official, collective and individual Spartan monuments, as attested by the surviving epigraphic evidence.
Beyond the extant epigraphic evidence, the inscriptions attested by ancient authors also conform to the universal use of ‘Lakedaimonian’, both in collective dedications such as the golden shield set up at Olympia after the Battle of Tanagra in 457 (Paus. 5.10.4),Footnote 58 and those of important individuals, such as the regent and general Pausanias’ krater dedicated at the Hellespont in the early 470s, in which he calls himself ‘Lakedaimonian by birth’ (Λακεδαιμόνιος γένος, Ath. 12.50).Footnote 59 The major monuments of the Persian Wars also refer exclusively to Lakedaimonians. Despite Herodotus’ insistence that only Spartiates were present at Thermopylai (7.205.2, 228.2; an assertion challenged by Diodorus Siculus, 11.4.5),Footnote 60 the metrical epitaph erected in the pass implored the reader to ‘go tell the Lakedaimonians’. The Serpent Column, a monument with a significant Spartan fingerprint,Footnote 61 included a list of the allies with Lakedaimonians at the top, after Pausanias’ attempt to inscribe his own name as, interestingly, leader of the Greeks (Ἑλλήνων ἀρχηγός, Thuc. 1.132.2).Footnote 62 It is frustrating that the surviving fragments of Simonides’ elegies on Thermopylai and Plataia do not mention either Spartiates or Lakedaimonians, although the latter text does refer to the ‘sons of Dorus and Herakles’ (Simon. fr. 13 West).Footnote 63 The Plataia elegy twice refers to the army leaving Sparta (fr. 11 West, 25, 29), without any reference to Lakedaimon. This may be in line with Herodotus, who regularly refers to the Lakedaimonian army leaving Sparta (e.g. 6.120, 9.11),Footnote 64 yet, as mentioned above, ‘Lakedaimon’ is often an easier metrical choice, and it is slightly awkward that Simonides deploys ‘Sparta’ twice in close succession. It may be tempting to believe that the fragmentary first appearance ([ ]ν οἳ Σπάρτ[ ]) may be a form of Spartiatēs that has undergone consonation similar to that found in Tyrtaios fr. 23a. Sadly, much of the line is missing, and Simonides does not engage in such consonation elsewhere in his surviving works, meaning the safer conclusion is that he has indeed referred to Sparta twice in quick succession.Footnote 65
It is not only the Lakedaimonians themselves who preferred the wider term at this time, as inscriptions from other Greek communities speak universally of the Lakedaimonians. A great deal of the available evidence comes from Athens: a shield taken from the Lakedaimonians at Pylos (14), a casualty list for some Argives, buried in Athens, who died fighting against the Lakedaimonians (12) and a series of official decrees and treaties (13, 15, 16, 23, 25–31). Beyond Attica the evidence is more sparse, limited to a dedication of spoils taken from the Lakedaimonians at Delphi (35) and a spear butt dedicated by the Messenians at Olympia (59).Footnote 66 There are a handful of examples where ‘Lakedaimonians’ has been suggested as a restoration, but these are not particularly valuable for the current discussion. The epigraphic evidence, however limited, supports the idea that after the Persian Wars at the latest, monuments were erected in the name of the Lakedaimonians, not the Spartiates.
As noted above, certain official business was already being carried out in the name of the Lakedaimonians in the sixth century, yet in the fifth century we see a complete domination of the Lakedaimonian identity over the Spartiate, both for individuals and collectives. It is worth noting a decree from Argos in which Gnostas, a Perioikos from Oinous is named as proxenos under his local ethnic (Γνόσσταν τὸν ϝοινόντιον) rather than as a Lakedaimonian.Footnote 67 This inscription, in Argive script, dated ca. 475, may demonstrate that the united picture of Lakedaimon projected by official monuments and inscriptions was not absolute and that Perioikic poleis were still free to pursue elements of their own policy.Footnote 68 This minor exception aside,Footnote 69 the overall picture from this period appears to show an outward display of harmony between the Spartiates and the Perioikoi, with the concept of Lakedaimon at the forefront of both internal business and external comprehension.
The use of ‘Lakedaimonian’ as the preferred term by both Spartans and non-Spartans continues into the fourth century with only one significant exception: the victory monument of Kyniska at Olympia (66) which refers to ‘kings of Sparta’ (Σπάρτας μὲν [βασιλῆες]). This is significant as there is no example of an inscription mentioning the king (or kings) of Lakedaimon. In addition to the monument of Kyniska, another fourth-century inscription from Tegea (68) speaks of a king of Sparta, while the term also appears in the Thermopylai elegy (Diod. Sic. 11.11.6). Ducat has argued that the term basileus Lakedaimoniōn (‘king of the Lakedaimonians’), popular with Herodotus and Thucydides, owes its existence to the confusion between Spartiates and Lakedaimonians, and that it more accurately reflects a military reality, where the king of Sparta acted as commander of the Lakedaimonian army.Footnote 70 While most textual sources refer to kings of the Lakedaimonians, Athenaios (quoting Douris) names Pausanias as ‘king of the Spartiates’ (ὁ τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν βασιλεὺς, 12.50; Douris = BNJ 76 fr. 14), although the regent labelled himself Lakedaimonian by birth on the Hellespont krater. The Douris quotation, the Tegean inscription and Kyniska’s monument, coupled with the lack of any epigraphic evidence mentioning a king of Lakedaimon, support Ducat’s view that the term ‘king of the Lakedaimonians’ was a military title, and that they should be seen constitutionally as kings of Sparta, although even this assumes the existence of such a title.Footnote 71 However, a late fifth-century decree recording an agreement for the protection of Delos (32) names both Spartan kings (Agis and Pausanias) and lists the five ephors, but refers to the ‘dues of the Lakedaimonians’ sent to Delos. The kings and ephors, though constitutionally governing Sparta, could therefore evidently act officially on behalf of the Lakedaimonians as an entity. Whether such a title was correct or not, the use of ‘Sparta’ on Kyniska’s monument may also have been aimed at the predominantly Spartiate horse breeders who were currently enjoying such success in the chariot races.Footnote 72
The period 404–371, sometimes described as the ‘empire of the Spartans’, saw the growth of major tensions and inequalities between various components of the Lakedaimonian state, an increasing reliance upon Perioikoi, freed Helots (Neodamodeis) and other Greek allies, and the enrichment of a small number of Spartiate families combined with the disenfranchisement of many others, leading to a major decline in Spartiate manpower.Footnote 73 The discontent at home had manifested as early as 399, when Kinadon masterminded his conspiracy with the backing of the Helots and Perioikoi (Xen. Hell. 3.3.4–11). Sadly, this period, marked by internal tensions in Sparta, yields very few inscriptions from the Spartans themselves. The only securely dated examples are the offerings of Lysander and a reused tombstone from Thespiai, inscribed for Hippokles the Lakedaimonian, dated 378–371 (64). While Hippokles may have been a Perioikos, the usage of terms observed throughout the fifth and later fourth centuries suggests that a full Spartiate would also use ‘Lakedaimonian’ as an identifier. Much like the sixth-century example from Euboia, here an ethnic identifier is used on an individual epitaph beyond the borders of Spartan territory, in contrast to memorials such as the en polemoi stelai found within Lakonike and therefore needing no identifier.Footnote 74 The evidence is limited, but there seems no reason to believe that this period saw a major change in ‘official’ Spartan policy in the use of ‘Lakedaimonian’ as the preferred identifying term. Indeed, these internal tensions probably strengthened the desire for the state to transmit a consistent image of stability, as was certainly the case after the Spartan reversal at Leuktra, to which I now turn.
IV. Post-Leuktra: a new external focus on Sparta?
With hindsight, Spartan power probably began to decline as early as 394 with the naval defeat at Knidos. However, it was not until 371 and the catastrophic defeat at Leuktra, followed by a Theban invasion of Lakonike, the liberation of the Messenian Helots in 369 and finally the Battle of Mantineia in 362 that Sparta truly lost its pre-eminent position among the Greeks. It is in this period that ‘Sparta’ reappears in metrical epigrams, though it is not the Spartans, but their enemies who apply it.
Two inscriptions are related to the Theban victory at Leuktra and invasion of Lakonike. Although fragmentary, the text from the statue of Pelopidas (67) begins with a secure reference to ‘having made Sparta desolate’ (Σπάρτημ μὲγ χήρ[ωσας]).Footnote 75 There may be some interplay here with the verses on the statue of Lysander (36), which celebrated ‘crowning unravaged Lakedaimon’ (Λακεδαίμονα ἀπόρθητον), emphasizing that Spartan territory had, in 404/3, never been conquered or plundered. Lysander’s monument, prominently displayed at Delphi, was presumably well known, but he had probably tapped into an existing source of Spartan pride regarding the unravaged nature of their territory.Footnote 76 In either case, it is telling that the Pelopidas monument refers not to Lakedaimon (as Lysander had), but to Sparta. The epigram for Leuktra (69) similarly begins with a reference to the time ‘when the spear of Sparta held sway’ (ἁνίκα τὸ Σπάρτας ἐκράτει δόρυ), before ‘the army from the Eurotas’ and ‘Lakonian shields’. These references seem targeted, as does the lack of a reference to Lakedaimon or the Lakedaimonians, which had been the dominant identifier for over a century. It may be that the Thebans were focusing on Sparta as the ruling power of Lakedaimon, and that the word choice is therefore explained by the extra prestige that it confers upon the Theban victory and presents a parallel to the early fourth-century Theban mindset. The Thebans represent the leaders of a resurgent ‘Boiotia’,Footnote 77 and have triumphed over Sparta, the leader of Lakedaimon. In addition, the Thebans may have promoted themselves due to their rivalry with (Lakedaimonian-backed) Orchomenos, previously a prominent member of the Boiotian federation which had defected to Sparta in 395 and held a Lakedaimonian garrison from 395 to 375 (if not later).Footnote 78 A second potential explanation is that ‘Lakedaimon’ was no longer a stable entity, with evidence of certain communities of Perioikoi switching sides or refusing to answer the calls for mobilization from Sparta during the Theban incursion.Footnote 79
This explanation also appears to fit the final epigraphic appearance of the word ‘Sparta’ from this period: an elegiac couplet on a funerary monument from Tegea (68) that refers to the ‘hostile men and king of Sparta’. The monument has been plausibly dated ca. 362, during a decade when the loyalty of the Perioikoi to Sparta was potentially in serious doubt. In this context, the enemy is Sparta, rather than the Lakedaimonians, as the definition of the latter identity changes and allegiances start to shift. It may also reflect a desire among both the Tegeans and the Thebans to tempt groups among the Perioikoi away from Sparta, thereby further weakening the power of Lakedaimon as a collective and military entity.
In contrast to the late fifth century, there are no securely dated fourth-century inscriptions mentioning the Lakedaimonians from within Lakonike. Outside their own borders there are a handful of examples where we can observe a potential preference for being identified as Lakedaimonians as opposed to Spartiates. In the case of a fragmentary proxeny decree from Keos, it is hardly surprising that business is being carried out on behalf of the Lakedaimonians.Footnote 80 However, on this same inscription we also find three Perioikic communities providing their own proxenoi: Epidauros Limera, Kyphanta and Pellene in Lakonike. In a similar manner to the proxenos from Oinous in Argos (see above), this decree showcases individual Perioikic communities pursuing their own agenda, although in this case it is significant that they appoint proxenoi in addition to a (presumably) more central Lakedaimonian official.
In addition, there are numerous decrees listing contributions to repairs at Delphi that mention either individual or groups of Lakedaimonians, never Spartiates (40–45, 48–55). Interestingly, while the offerings of individual Lakedaimonians are generally inscribed according to the usual formula (name – ‘the Lakedaimonian’ – monetary amount),Footnote 81 there are two examples (dated 362/0 and 336) where all the contributions are grouped together and offered under a single collective heading of ‘Lakedaimonians’ (42, 49).Footnote 82 This may represent occasional ad hoc attempts to curb explicit displays of wealth by individual Lakedaimonians based on how much a particular individual could afford to offer. The majority of non-Spartan evidence for the use of the terms post-Leuktra comes from Athens and Delphi, both of which continue the fifth-century practice of using ‘Lakedaimonian’, demonstrating that, despite the context-specific exceptions above, the Lakedaimonians were still a coherent entity in the eyes of many Greeks, if somewhat reduced in power and numbers by the mid-fourth century.
It appears that even as Spartan power waned in the years after Leuktra and Mantineia, official business was still carried out in the name of the Lakedaimonians. Even as the Thebans and newly empowered Arkadian League sought to dismantle the power of Lakedaimon as an entity, the message coming from within, through official channels and individual dedications, was still one of a united collective. This may reflect an increased reliance on the military contributions of the Perioikoi as Spartiate numbers floundered in the grips of oliganthropia during the late fifth and early fourth centuries,Footnote 83 but the pattern of dedicatory language had in reality been set in the early fifth century and merely continued unabated into the fourth.
V. A further confusion: the use of ‘Lakonian’ as identifier
Above, I have charted the development and relationship of the terms ‘Spartiate’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’ in inscriptions set up by both Spartans and other Greeks. However, there exists a third term, ‘Lakonian’, used almost exclusively, with one possible exception, by non-Spartans. Generally, the term is connected to Lakonike, itself a somewhat flexible term for Spartan territory, and as a result is primarily geographical rather than political in its meaning. However, enough references exist to groups and individuals in the epigraphic record, as well as major historical sources of the Classical period, that a short investigation of the uses of the term is warranted at this point. As with the uses of ‘Spartiate’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’, I shall begin with the epigraphic evidence, set out in Appendix D.
Half of the epigraphic examples refer to vessels of some description, reflecting manufacturing origin or style rather than considerations of political identity. The reference to Lakonian shields on the Athenian acropolis (70) may mirror the ‘Lakonian shields’ in the Leuktra epigram (69), but these shields are elsewhere called ‘Lakedaimonian’ and, if we can generalize from the surviving example (14), they were inscribed that they were taken ‘from the Lakedaimonians’.
The two sets of spoils (74, 75) dedicated by the Tegeans at Delphi were almost certainly captured during the raids into Lakonike in 370/69, including an attack on the Spartan port of Gytheion, from which the sails could conceivably have been taken (Xen. Hell. 6.5.32). In this case, the choice to identify the sails and weapons as ‘Lakonian’ could reflect Tegean pride at having won these spoils in Lakonike itself, an unprecedented feat. The spoils were set up in the Spartan stoa at Delphi, opposite the Aigospotamoi monument, on which Lysander had boasted of ‘unravaged’ Lakedaimon.Footnote 84 Even more so than the statue of Pelopidas (67), these spoils formed part of a direct response to the rhetoric of Sparta’s monumental domination of the entrance to the Sacred Way at Delphi over the preceding 35 years (Paus. 10.9.5–7). The further identification of themselves as Τεγεᾶται Ἀρκάδες (‘Arkadian Tegeans’) emphasizes the Tegeans’ break from Lakedaimon and the Spartans, who had been their close allies for many years. The focus on the newly prominent Arkadian League also fits with the potential attempts to draw Perioikic groups away from Lakedaimon discussed above.
The final epigraphic example (77) is a proxeny decree dated to the mid-360s, identified as being made from marble from the Gorani quarry in Lakonia. The find-spot of the relief is unknown, but the letters suggest a Boiotian rather than Lakonian hand, meaning the stone was probably transported from Lakonike to Boiotia for carving and inscribing. The choice of iconography on the stone at first presents a confusing fusion of Spartan, Arkadian and Theban themes: the infant Herakles (born in Thebes and mythical ancestor of the Spartan Herakleidai) strangling snakes, the Dioskouroi accompanied by horsesFootnote 85 and Athena Alea.Footnote 86 The choice to identify Timeas as Lakonian, rather than Spartiate, Lakedaimonian or with a specific Perioikic community, requires some explanation. If Timeas were a Spartiate, there may have been some concern that to identify him as either Lakedaimonian or as a Spartiate could lead to reprisals, especially if the stele was set up in Thebes or elsewhere in Boiotia. This assumes that ‘Lakonian’ was a less politically charged term and that the Spartans were so despised in Thebes that even an individual serving as proxenos might choose not to specify their identity. The other explanation is that Timeas was a Perioikos, possibly from a community that abandoned, or considered abandoning, Sparta to join Arkadia (hence the presence of Athena Alea). Even if their community were merely considering leaving Sparta, individuals acting for Boiotian interests could conceivably choose to identify themselves with the geographical term ‘Lakonian’ rather than the more politically charged ‘Lakedaimonian’. Neither of these explanations helps clarify the presence of the Dioskouroi with their close ties to Sparta unless it is due to their invocation during the swearing of oaths.Footnote 87
Beyond the epigraphic evidence, the use of ‘Lakonian’ as an identifier for groups or individuals is relatively scarce throughout the Classical period. Thucydides uses the term very rarely, limited to two individuals and describing how the Athenians wrote on the ‘Lakonian stele’ that the Lakedaimonians had violated their oath.Footnote 88 Thucydides and Xenophon both occasionally speak of ‘Lakonian ships’ (Thuc. 6.104.1, 8.35; Xen. Hell. 1.6.34, 2.3.8), with Xenophon also using the term to describe harmosts (2.2.2, 4.8.1), troops (2.4.4, 4.5.10) and two individuals (1.132). Herodotus uses ‘Lakonian’ in a more varied set of contexts,Footnote 89 and to describe more individuals and groups. When Lichas, a Spartiate, visited Tegea searching for the bones of Orestes (Hdt. 1.68.2), he was addressed by the Tegean blacksmith as ξεῖνε Λάκων (‘Lakonian guest’); the Persian queen Atossa wished to have Lakonian, Argive, Attic and Corinthian women as servants (3.134.5); Evagoras, whose horses won three Olympic crowns, is described as Lakonian (6.103.4); Eurybiades is described as Lakonian once (8.2), though elsewhere he is explicitly labelled a Spartiate (8.42.2). The troops of Xerxes fleet came to observe the ‘Lakonian disaster’ at Thermopylai (8.66), while in Herodotus’ description of Plataia we find a passage in which the Lakedaimonians are ordered to follow the other Greeks and withdraw, Amompharetos refuses to leave because doing so would bring shame upon Sparta, and so the Lakonian army stays in place (9.53). This interchanging has already been noted for the case of Syagros, who is described as Lakedaimonian, Spartiate and Lakonian during the embassy to Gelon.
VI. Conclusion
Although the evidence is somewhat scarce, it is possible to trace an overall pattern for the uses of the terms ‘Spartiate’ and ‘Lakedaimonian’ during the Archaic and Classical periods. Before the Persian invasions, it is possible to see a distinct Spartiate identity expressed both by individuals and collectives. However, there is a parallel development of Lakedaimon as an entity and a sense of the Lakedaimonians acting as a single unified body in the appointment of proxenoi at Olympia and Taras. In this period, it may have been a matter of personal preference whether individuals were referred to as Spartiate or Lakedaimonian. Interestingly, there are no recorded examples of individual Perioikoi or Perioikic communities dedicating in their own name before the Persian Wars, although this may reflect an accident of survival rather than a lack of local identity.
The Persian Wars marked a major turning point in commemorative language as the designation ‘Spartiate’ disappears completely from both internal and external inscriptions, and monuments are dedicated only in the name of the Lakedaimonians. The reasons for such a change were subtle and emerged over many years, but the major Perioikic contributions at both Thermopylai and Plataia demanded recognition and may have accelerated the process. This image of a unified, harmonious Lakedaimon seems to have broadly reflected the historical reality in terms of Perioikic loyalty, yet it may have also served to mask the unrest throughout Lakedaimonian territory after the Helot revolt of 465/4.Footnote 90 This is not to say that there were no perceived differences between Spartiates and Perioikoi. However, as not only inscriptions but also historians speak almost exclusively of Lakedaimon and Lakedaimonians during this period, the projection of this image appears to have been largely successful.
This unified image was actively targeted after the battles of Leuktra and Mantineia. This new focus on Sparta, rather than Lakedaimon, is also found in Xenophon’s description of the invasion of Lakonike in the 360s, where ‘The Spartiates … were, and were seen to be, very few in number’ (Οἱ δὲ Σπαρτιᾶται … μάλα ὀλίγοι καὶ ὄντες καὶ φαινόμενοι, Hell. 6.5.28). During this invasion, the principal enemies are the Spartiates, not the Lakedaimonians, an attitude reflected in the epigrams of the Thebans and Tegeans. The epigraphic evidence after the loss of Messene and the curtailment of Spartan power shows a continuing attempt to project a unified Lakedaimon, yet the local identifiers found in the proxeny decree from Keos suggest a growing independence for Perioikic communities, even if still in cooperation with Spartan policy. In addition, the appearance of external inscriptions identifying groups and individuals as ‘Lakonian’ could offer further evidence of the breaking down of the image of a strong, stable Lakedaimon which had dominated for a century or more.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426926100536
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to the two anonymous JHS reviewers, whose comments and criticisms greatly enhanced this work. I am grateful to the many friends and colleagues who provided invaluable feedback on earlier written drafts and following presentations at the Classical Association conference in Warwick and the Sparta Live webinar series – Chrysanthi Gallou, Stephen Hodkinson, Oliver Thomas, Paul Christesen, Theodora Jim, Gabriel Bernardo and Daphne Martin. Any remaining errors or weaknesses are my sole responsibility.
Open access
