Messenia, Ethnic Identity, and Contingency 289division of the Peloponnese) but outside the territory of Old Messene. Opinions differ on
the location of the Messene of Tyrtaeus, but there is a consensus that it was considerably
smaller than the territory of Spartan Messenia (Pearson 1962: 402, 406; Luraghi 2002a:
67, 2003: 111–2, 2008: 71–2; Hall 2003: 146–7). Alternatively, Thucydides’ allusion
to the heterogeneity of the helots of Messenia can be explained by a model of internal
colonization by chattel slaves or dependent labor following the flight or desertion of at
least part of the pre-conquest population (Figueira 2003: 221–2; Hodkinson 2003: 262;
van Wees 2003: 36).
Theperioeciformed a key stratum in the social structure of Spartan Messenia, and their
role in the Ithome revolt should not be ignored. They had hoplite training, and it may be
that this was decisive in the rebel successes in open warfare in the early stages of the revolt
(Luraghi 2008: 205, cf. Hdt. 9.64.2). However, the hypothesis that theperioeciwere the
carriers of Messenian ethnic identity in the early fifth century is highly conjectural. Above
all, it assumes that the Ithome revolt was a mass ethnic uprising.
Ethnogenesis on Mount Ithome
The first to rebel after the Spartan earthquake were local helots who made an abortive
attack on the city of Sparta and withdrew to the countryside where they gained the sup-
port of several perioecic towns, apparently by persuasion but perhaps by coercion (Plut.
Cim. 16.7, cf. Diod. 11.64.1). News of the earthquake spread west of the Taygetus, and
this led to a separate uprising in Messenia, in which the ethnic dimension came to the
fore (cf. Roobaert 1977: 147). Plutarch describes the rebels on Ithome as “Messenians
and helots” (Plut.Cim. 17.3, cf.Lyc. 28.12), and Diodorus has the helots join a revolt
initiated by “the remnants of the Messenians” (15.66.4, cf. 11.63.4–64.4), while Pausa-
nias claims that all the rebel helots were ethnic Messenians (3.11.8, 4.24.6). Thucydides
offers the most precise and reliable testimony: the rebels were helots, except for theperi-
oeciof Thuria and Aethaea, and most but not all of the rebel helots were of Messenian
descent (1.101.2, with Luraghi 2002c). Other sources of the period ignore the helot
identity of the “Messenian” rebels (Hdt. 9.35.2, 9.64.2, ps.-Xen.Ath. Pol. 3.11, Xen.
Hell. 6.5.33, cf. Ar.Lys. 1141–42).
The Messenian ethnic identity attested on Mount Ithome can be understood as the
product of an ethnogenesis or ethnic reawakening that took place within Spartan Messe-
nia in the years before the revolt. An alternative is to refocus on the decade of rebellion
following the Spartan earthquake. The long duration of the siege on Mount Ithome
indicates that the rebels had a strong social organization and an effective leadership. Para-
doxically, the Spartans brought the rebels into close contact with the outside world, and
this provided a context for the transmission of ideas: allied Greek states sent military aid
to Sparta, among them the Athenians, whose contingent was famously dismissed and sent
home on the suspicion that it might sympathize with the rebels and change sides (Thuc.
1.102.3, Paus. 4.24.6, Plut.Cim. 17.2). The Athenians had no conscious policy of sub-
version at Ithome, yet Sparta was clearly nervous that fraternization could lead to the
transfer of ideas from its Greek allies to the besieged (Talbert 1989: 28; Figueira 1999:
233; cf. Lewis 1992a: 110; Raaflaub 2003: 184–5). Mount Ithome provides a context
for Messenian ethnogenesis, and it was above all on Ithome, after the outbreak of the