328 DAVID M. LEWIS
have created a sharply male imbalance in the sex ratio of slavery in southern
Attica. Furthermore, not only was the work physically exacting: the Laurion
region was a deeply unhealthy locale (Xen. Mem. 3.6.12). Attic silver was labo-
riously extracted from lead ores, and lethal airborne toxins hung over those
areas in which processing occurred.^67 Mining was one activity poorly com-
patible with a ‘self-sufficient’ regime of reproduction. Other occupations, such
as labouring in ergasteria, may have been male-heavy, but female-heavy occu-
pations such as textile production and nursing occurred in the same urban
environment. From a hypothetical perspective, then, most of the Attic slave
population could potentially have reproduced itself, with the exception of the
Lavreotiki, where a male-heavy sex ratio was more pronounced. But whether
they did or not is contingent on the degree to which slave families were a
normative feature in the Attic slave population. Again, Tadman’s study can help
us to understand the rationale behind slave population dynamics in Attica. In
explaining the poor demographic performance of sugar plantations, he writes:Slavery on its own would not have produced vast regional patterns of
natural decrease, and sugar without slavery was not enough, nor was the
combination of sugar and slavery without a slave trade. Although labor
on sugar plantations could take a heavy toll on health and on fertility,
what was lethal was the combination of sugar with the slaveowners’ ability
to buy slaves and to choose a male-dominated labor force, rather than being content
with family labor. In other words, the demographic problem stemmed from
the priorities of the sugar planter. Sugar planters, unlike the great major-
ity of owners, calculated that they could maximize profits by continually
skewing their labor force toward men, and far-reaching demographic and
social consequences stemmed from this.^68We must be careful with our comparison here. Attica was not a Caribbean
sugar colony, and its reproductive performance must have been considerably
better than places like Barbados or Bermuda. A significant part of Athens’ slave
demand was clearly met by ‘autarkic’ means, as Braund and Vlassopoulos have
rightly emphasised in recent studies.^69 Slaves moved from Phrygia to Athens
were not travelling into a highly dangerous disease environment as in, for
example, the Caribbean; nor was the work regime as physically debilitating
as sugar production, apart from in the Lavreotiki. But we should note two
variables highlighted in Tadman’s study: gender-skewed forms of production,
and access to slave supply. Here, we can make a valid distinction between the
structural nature of slavery in Athens and Sparta. In Athens, a man who wanted
a maid for his wife could buy a female slave (e.g., Theophr. Char. 22.10). If
he wanted slaves for a mining concession, he could buy or rent male slaves
(e.g., Xen. Vect. 4.14). The reliable and high-volume supply of slaves to the
Attic market allowed buyers to choose slaves to match the tasks for which