Notes to Pages 74–76 175
Thuc. 1.20.4. Peace of Nicias inscription set up at Amyclae: 5.18.10–11. Note 5.41.2–3. The silence
of the sources concerning Mesoa, Limnai, and Konosoura has led one scholar recently to take an
absence of evidence as evidence of absence and to suggest that, in the archaic and classical periods,
the three villages did not as such exist, and that the land they occupied was a part of Pitana, which
was the name used to describe the entire area located about the acropolis: see Marcello Lupi,
“Amompharetos, the Lochos of Pitane and the Spartan System of Villages,” in S W, 185–218.
27.Herodotus’ king lists: 7.204, 8.131. Struggle pitting Pitana and Mesoa against Limnai and
Konosoura: Paus. 3.16.9–10.
- Amyclae once independent: Pind. Isthm. 7.12–15, Arist. F532 (Rose) = F539 (Gigon),
Paus. 3.2.6. Cult of Apollo Hyakinthia peculiar to Amyclae: Xen. Hell. 4.5.11 with Pettersson, Cults
of Apollo at Sparta, 9–41, and Richer, La Religion des Spartiates, 343–82. Amyclaeans excluded
from Artemis Orthia cult: Paus. 3.16.9.
29.Pausanias reliable: Christian Habicht, Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1985); Andrew R. Meadows, “Pausanias and the Historiography of
Classical Sparta,” CQ n.s. 45:1 (1995): 92–113; and Paul Cartledge, “Sparta’s Pausanias: Another
Laconian Past,” in Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, ed. Susan E. Alcock, John F.
Cherry, and Jaś Elsner (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 167–72. Note, however, Maria
Pretzler, “Pausanias and Oral Tradition,” CQ n.s. 55:1 (May 2005): 235–49, who rightly sees that
he relies on local oral traditions and—wrongly in my opinion—doubts their veracity. Note also Jaś
Elsner, “Pausanias: A Greek Pilgrim in the Roman World,” P&P 135 (1992): 5–29, and “Pausanias:
A Pilgrim in the Roman World. Postscript, 2003,” in Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society,
ed. Robin Osborne (Cambridge: Past and Present Publications, 2004), 282–85; Susan E. Alcock,
“Landscapes of Memory and the Authority of Pausanias,” in Pausanias Historien, ed. Jean Bingen
(Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1996), 241–76; and Maria Pretzler, Pausanias: Travel Writing in Greece
(London: Duckworth, 2007), and “Pausanias’ Description of Greece: Back to the Roots of Greek
Culture,” in Mediterranean Travels: Writing Self and Other from the Ancient World to Contempo
rary Society, ed. Patrick Crowley, Noreen Humble, and Silvia Ross (London: Legenda, 2011), 32– - Support of Delphi, destruction of Aigys, seizure of Eurotas headwaters: Paus. 3.21.3, 8.35.3–4.
Invasion of Cynouria: 3.2.5, 7.2. - Conquest of Pharis, Geronthrae, Amyclae: Paus. 3.2.6, 7.4 with Victor Parker, “Some
Dates in Early Spartan History,” Klio 75 (1993): 45–60 (at 45–48). Teleklos on Nedon River and at
Pherae: Nepos Conon 1.1, Strabo 8.4.4, Paus. 3.2.6. Killed at sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis: Strabo
6.3.3; Diod. 15.66.3; Paus. 3.2.6, 7.4, 4.4.2–3, 31.3–4. - See Graham Shipley, “Perioikos: The Discovery of Classical Lakonia,” in Philolakōn,
211–26, and “Sparta and Its Perioikic Neighbors: A Century of Reassessment,” Hermathena 181
(2006): 51–82; Jonathan M. Hall, “Sparta, Lakedaimon, and the Nature of Perioikic Dependency,”
in Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Pernille Flensted-Jensen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 2000), 73–89; Norbert Mertens, “ouk homoîoı, agathoì dé: The Perioikoi in the Classical
Lakedaeimonian Polis,” in SBM, 285–303; Mogens Herman Hansen, “The Perioikic Poleis of
Lakedaimon,” in Once Again: Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,
2004), 149–64; Julián Gallego, “The Lakedaimonian Perioikoi: Military Subordination and Cul-
tural Dependence,” in Esclavage antique et discriminations socioculturelles, ed. Vasilis I. Anasta-
siadis and Panagiotis N. Doukellis (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), 33–57; and Jean Ducat, “Le Statut des
périèques lacédémoniens,” Ktèma 33 (2008): 1–86.
32.Alcamenes conquers Helos: Paus. 3.2.7. Rich soil of nearby plain: Polyb. 5.19.7. The claim
advanced by Theopompus of Chios (FGrH 115 F122) that the old helots of Laconia were de-
scended from the Achaeans of an earlier age is perfectly compatible with Hellanicus FGrH 4 F188;
Ephorus FGrH 70 F117; Paus. 3.2.7, 20.6; and Harpocration s.v. heılōteúeın, as Theopompus’ own
testimony elsewhere (FGrH 115 F13) makes clear. Apart from Antiochus of Syracuse’s claim
(FGrH 555 F13) that the Spartans made helots of citizens who refused to fight in the First Messe-
nian War, there is not a shred of evidence to support Nino Luraghi’s rejection of the ancient tradi-
tion that the helots of Laconia were a conquered people: Luraghi, “Helotic Slavery Reconsidered,”
in SBM, 227–48 (esp. 236–38, 240–42), and “The Imaginary Conquest of the Helots,” in HMLM,
109–41. Nor is his claim true that the subjection of conquered peoples was in antiquity unparal-
leled. It was, in fact, commonplace, as van Wees, “Conquerors and Serfs,” 33–80, demonstrates. See