See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273403086

Sanctuaries and traditions in ancient Sparta.

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 6,613

1 author:

Mait Kõiv
University of Tartu
33 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mait Kõiv on 11 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cultures in Comparison

Religion and Politics in

Ancient Mediterranean Regions
Edited by
Thomas R. Kämmerer and Mait Kõiv
 Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients
und des Alten Testaments

Band 390 / 3

Herausgeber
Manfried Dietrich • Ingo Kottsieper • Hans Neumann

Lektoren
Kai A. Metzler • Ellen Rehm

Beratergremium
Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider • Stefan Maul
Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger • Gebhard Selz
Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel
Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia
Band 3

Herausgeber

Peter Funke • Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila

Thomas R. Kämmerer • Mait Kõiv
Anne Lill • Hans Neumann
Urmas Nõmmik • Juha Pakkala
Peeter Roosimaa

Cultures in Comparison

Religion and Politics in

Ancient Mediterranean Regions
Edited by
Thomas R. Kämmerer and Mait Kõiv

2015
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster
Cultures in Comparison
Religion and Politics in Ancient Mediterranean Regions
Thomas R. Kämmerer and Mait Kõiv (eds.)
Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia 3
Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 390 / 3

© 2015 garit-Verlag, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.com
All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Germany
ISBN: 978-3-86835-122-4
Printed on acid-free paper
Inhaltsverzeichnis

Mait Kõiv
Vorwort ...................................................................................................................................1

Sebastian Fink / Robert Rollinger

Sports in the Ancient Near East revisited: running gods and balaĝs .........................7

Thomas Kämmerer
Kultisch-politische Beziehungen zwischen den Euphrat aufwärts gelegenen
Kultorten Māri, Terqa, Tuttul, Emar und Aleppo dargestellt als
wechselseitiges Spannungsfeld ........................................................................................15

Mait Kõiv
Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta................................................................25

Neeme Näripä
Die Politik in den Beispielen des Hermogenes im Werk über die Staseis...............67

Kadri Novikov
Gods and religion in “Leukippe and Kleitophon” ........................................................81

Kurt A. Raaflaub
The politics of peace cults in Greece and Rome .........................................................103

Maximiliam Räthel
Das Datum der Eroberung von Sardeis........................................................................131

Peeter Roosimaa
„Jesus von Nazareth“ als sozialpolitisches Problem..................................................143

Vladimir Sazonov
Einige Bemerkungen zur frühmittelassyrischen Königstitulatur............................155

Sergei Stadnikow
Von der göttlichen Vorherbestimmung und der menschlichen Willensfreiheit
in der „Lehre des Ptahhotep“..........................................................................................177

Christoffer Theis
Die Inschrift der Truhe Kairo, Äg. Mus. JdÉ 61478 aus KV 62 ................................187

Index ....................................................................................................................................203
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta∗

Mait Kõiv, Tartu

Introduction
Communities have histories remembered by the people. This remembrance is a
dynamic process where preserving and transmitting of traditions is combined
with deleting and reshaping, and only those accounts which are considered es-
sential will survive over time.1 In early societies the traditions were generally
transmitted orally. However, the people not only told the stories, but also re-
enacted them through commemorative ceremonies,2 which made the ceremonial
centres the focal places of memory.3 In the Greek world, as often in early socie-
ties, the most notable ceremonial centres were the sanctuaries. They provided
context for the rituals uniting the people and attracting spectators from else-
where, and their history was inevitably intermingled with what was believed
about the past of both the sanctuaries themselves and the communities to which
they belonged. Quite naturally, the sanctuaries anchored the traditional stories
concerning the events of the past.
This paper will consider how such a connection between the traditional ac-
counts and the communal cults functioned in ancient Sparta. As with every com-
munity, the Spartans sanctioned their identity through common cults and rituals
expressing the civic pride and enhancing the feeling of unity among the citizens.
They had, naturally, a number of precincts, many of which are documented by
archaeological record and literary sources, but there is no doubt that the sanctu-
aries of Apollo, particularly the Amyklaion about 6 kilometres southward of the
main Spartan settlement complex (the conglomerate of villages as an Athenian
like Thukydides would have said),4 and the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia5 on the
outskirts of the Spartan town, were outstanding among them (map and figure 1).
In the following discussion these cults will appear as the focal points for the ex-
pression of the political identity of the Spartan polity, in the context of which the
traditions concerning the past were tied with the cult practice. It will be shown
how the stories and the rituals were knit into comprehensive wholes where the

∗
The research has been supported by Estonian Science Foundation Grants 8669 and 8993.
I wish to thank Janusz Peters for his help with my English text.
1
For the function and the development of the traditions see especially Vansina 1985;
Connerton 1989; Assmann 2000, 29–160; 2006, 24–30; Gehrke 1994; 2001; 2010; Cubitt 2007;
Shear 2011, 6–12; etc.
2
Connerton 1989, 41–71.
3
For the concept of the places of memory see Stein-Hölkeskamp – Hölkeskamp 2010;
Haake – Jung 2011.
4
Thuc. I 10.2. On the problems concerning this statement see Stibbe 1996, 22–23; Lupi
2006, 202–204; Kõiv 2013a, 164–165. On the town of Sparta see Shipley 2004, 592.
5
The cult probably belonged initially to a local deity, Orthia, who was gradually merged
with the pan-Hellenic Artemis. See Rose 1929, 400–402.
26 Mait Kõiv

rituals inevitably shaped the traditional accounts, and the accounts probably had
their own impact on the ritual practice, and suggest that the connection between
the cult places and the traditions, probably established in the formative period of
the Spartan state, reflects the real historical significance of these sanctuaries for
polity formation.

The origins of the Spartan state: retrospective traditions and archaeology

The Spartan traditions concerning the origin of their statehood focused on the
conquest of the land, and the establishment of the community’s internal order by
the legendary lawgiver Lykurgos. It was generally believed that the Spartan state
was created through the Dorian conquest. The ancestors of the Spartans, the
Dorians led by the descendants of Herakles, supposedly invaded the Peloponnese
from north, conquered at least a part of Lakedaimon, overthrew its previous
rulers, and founded the city of Sparta at the northern edge of the Eurotas plain,
on the western bank of the river. This conquest was supposed to have taken place
roughly two generations after the Trojan War, and was consequently dated to ca
1100 BC.6 The later accounts transmitting the story diverge if either the whole of
the Lakedaimon was subjected to the Spartans during this invasion and the few
immediately following generations, or did the Spartans conquer most of the dis-
trict only many centuries later, during what we count as the eighth century.7
However there was a general agreement that the conquest of Amyklai in the
middle of the Lakonian inland plain south of Sparta, and of Helos on the coastal
plain further south, were crucial in this process. The Amyklaians were later
probably counted as Spartan citizens while the people of Helos were reduced to
slavery, and were supposedly the first helots (heilotes) – the serfs tilling lands of
the Spartiates. When Lakedaimon was under Spartan sway they attacked
Messenia on the western side of the Taigetos mountain range, and enslaved its
inhabitants as well.8
6
Henceforth all the dates will be BC if not stated differently. The ancients calculated
different dates for the Trojan War, but the years 1194–1184 proposed by Eratosthenes
(FGrHist 241 F 1) were probably the most popular. The invasion of the Dorians, placed 80
years after the fall of Troy, fell thus to the year 1104 according to the chronology of
Eratosthenes.
7
The most compact account of the Dorian invasion of Lakedaimon is given by Ephoros
(FGrHist F 117, 118, 16) and Pausanias (III 1–2, 7.1–4). Their accounts diverge essentially,
because Ephoros dates the conquest of the whole Lakonika by the Spartans to the first
two generations after the initial invasion, while according to Pausanias the Spartans
launched their attack against Amyklai and southern Lakedaimon only several generations
later, in a period which could be tentatively identified as the 8th century. The picture is
completed by Herodotos (above all IV 145–149) and several other authors (Arist. fr. 532
Rose; Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 28; Konon FGrHist 26 F 1, 36, 47; etc.). For a detailed dis-
cussion of the traditions concerning the Spartan conquests see Kõiv 2003, 69–140; for a
more concise overview see Kennel 2010, 31–38.
8
The earliest evidence is given by the 7th century Spartan poet Tyrtaios (fr. 5 West), the
more detailed accounts in Ephoros FGrHist 70 F 216; Antiochos FGrHist 555 F 9, 13, and
especially Pausanias IV 4–14 whose detailed and embellished narrative can hardly be
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 27

The establishment of the internal order specific to Classical Sparta was, how-
ever, usually dissociated from the initial conquest and ascribed to the legendary
lawgiver Lykurgos who was usually dated to the period between the Dorian
invasion and the conquest of Messenia.9 It was generally believed, both by the
Spartans and by the rest of the Greeks, that the Lykurgan legislation was pre-
ceded by a period of extreme lawlessness (anomia) or bad order (kakonomia).
Lykourgos, the brother of a king, either of Eunomos (Good order) or Polydektes
(in which case he was Eunomos’ son), and the ward of the young king Charillos,
consulted the Delphic oracle and established the good order (eunomia) according
to a prescription of Apollo.10 This eunomia consisted of both the political organi-
sation of the state (the principles of which were stated by a supposed Delphic
utterance – the Great Rhetra)11 and its strict social order including the austere
way of life which was essentially based on the system of education of the youth
as one of the principal ‘Lykourgan’ establishments.
The reliability of these accounts, concerning both the conquest and the
Lykurgan legislation, is, of course, highly questionable. The very core of the tra-
dition of the Dorian invasion has been strongly contested, and even if accepting
some historical kernel of the migration stories we are scarcely in position of
specifying the more or less exact movements of people after the Mycenaean
Bronze Age.12 We therefore cannot tell how and when the Dorians might have
arrived at Sparta and Lakedaimon, and there is no way of establishing when
exactly the inhabitants of Sparta in the northern Lakedaimon subjected to their
power the communities in the other part of the district, including Amyklai and
Helos.

regarded as representing an authentic tradition. For the origins and historical worth of
the traditional accounts see Pearson 1962, 397–426; Kõiv 2003, 100–118; Luraghi 2008, 68–
106.
9
However, Hellanikos ascribed the creation of the Spartan institutions to the first Hera-
ckleid kings Eurythenes and Prokles (FGrHist 4 F 116), and Plato spoke about an equal
division of land among the Dorians right after the conquest (Nom. 684 d–e), which
explains why Xenophon dated Lykurgos to the time of the first Herakleids (Lac. Pol. 10.8),
and perhaps also why Herodotos regarded him as the son of King Agis (compare I 65 and
VII 204).
10
The standard genealogy is given by Simonides fr. 628 PMG (= Plut. Lyc. 1); Ephoros
FGrHist F 149, 174; Arist. Pol. 1271b; fr. 535, 611 Rose; Diod. VII 12. The detailed account
of Lykurgos’ supposed life and work is given in Plut. Lyc. The mythological nature of this
tradition is obvious and has long been recognised (Gilbert 1872, 80–120; Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff 1884, 283–285; Meyer 1892, 269–283; Beloch 1913, 253–256; Jeanmaire 1939,
575–588; Szegedy-Maszak 1978; Mossé 1988; Kunstler 1991, 201–205; Kõiv 2003, 161–168;
Hölkeskamp 2010, 317–320).
11
Plut. Lyc. 6 quoting Arist. fr. 563 Rose. For the recent discussion of this highly contro-
versial text see Van Wees 1999; Kõiv 2003, 186–198; 2005; Luther 2004, 29–59; Ruzé –
Christian 2007, 53–58; Nafissi 2010, 102–113; Kennel 2010, 45–50; Schulz 2011, 141–155.
12
See Prinz 1979; Osborne 1996, 32–37; Hall 2007, 43–51; Kennell 2010, 20–35. I myself
would side with those accepting some kernel of truth in the invasion traditions (Malkin
1994, 43–45; Gehrke 2003, 12–16).
28 Mait Kõiv

The tradition concerning Lykurgos, although taking shape in a fairly early pe-
riod,13 was obviously stereotypic in both its general outline and many details,14
and can hardly pretend to have much historical reliability. Though we cannot
exclude the possibility that some ‘reformer’ of that name was once active in
Sparta, or that some kind of internal arrangement took place before the Mes-
senian conquest, as the tradition suggests, it is virtually certain that the complex
order of the Spartan state and society developed during a long period, and its
creation was telescoped to an early past and ascribed to a (quasi)mythical law-
giver.15
On the other hand, there is reason to believe that a relatively well organised
political community of Sparta emerged in the eighth century at the latest. Since
at the end of this century (or maybe at the beginning of the next) the Spartans
attacked Messenia beyond the Taigetos Mountain range and conquered at least
part of it, we must assume that it had already emerged as a strong military
power, had thus developed an effective communal organisation, and that the
Spartans had by that time subjected a considerable part of Lakonika.16 If we do
not suppose that the Spartans governed the whole of the Lakedaimon throughout
the Early Iron Age, we can surmise that the account of the conquest of the dis-
trict has at least some kernel of truth, and must assume that much of this took
place before the end of the eighth century.
Some indications for the emergence of the Spartan state can be gauged from
the archaeological record. The Spartan settlement, probably a rather loose con-

13
The earliest evidence is given by the poet Simonides (fr. 628 PMG), and the earliest
more or less detailed version of the story by Herodotos I 65. More is told by Ephoros
FGrHist F 149, 174; Arist. Pol. 1271 b; fr. 535, 611 Rose; Diod. VII 12, while the most de-
tailed ‘biography’ can be found in Plut. Lyc. 1–6, 31. The only principal disagreement
between the different writers concerns the identification of the king during whose reign
Lykurgos legislated, resulting in different dating of the legislation. Simonides and most of
the later writers connected the lawgiver with king Charillos (or Charilaos) (so Ephoros,
Aristotle, Diodoros loci cit.; Plut. Lyc. 1, 3–5; etc.), which placed him about two genera-
tions before the Messenian conquest, while according to Herodotos he tutored king
Leobotas four or five generations before Charillos according to the list of the Spartan
kings, and Xenophon (Lac. pol. 10.8) dated him to the time of the Herakleids, probably
keeping in mind the period of the Dorian invasion.
14
The mythological nature of Lykurgos’ ‘biography’ has been generally recognized:
Jeanmaire 1939, 575–588; Szegedy-Maszak 1979; C. Mossé 1988; Kunstler 1991, 201–205;
Kõiv 2003, 161–168; Hölkeskamp 2010.
15
Lykurgos has been viewed as a deity (Gilbert 1872; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,1884,
283–285; Meyer 1892, 269–283; Beloch 1913, 253–256; Jeanmaire 1939, 575–588), while
other historians have accepted him as a historical figure (Huxley 1962, 41–49; Forrest
1968, 60; Stibbe 1996, 69–88). Nevertheless, there is no doubt about the long development
of the ‘Lykurgan’ order of Sparta: see Tigerstedt 1965, 36–78; Cartledge 1998, 102–159;
Thommen 1996; Hodkinson 1997; Meier 1998, 222–226; Welwei 2004, 34–93; Christien –
Ruzé 2007, 51–52.
16
This was what the ancients unanimously believed (the sources quoted in note 7).
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 29

stellation of villages, came into existence during the tenth century.17 From almost
the same time we can observe cult activity at the sanctuary of Orthia at its edge,
on the bank of Eurotas (see figures 2–3). From the late eighth and early seventh
century, however, we can see a remarkable revival of cult activity in the sanctu-
ary sites both in and around the town of Sparta. The dedications in the Orthia
sanctuary increased remarkably and the precinct received its first archaeologi-
cally detectable permanent structures – an altar and a small temple.18 Sanctuaries
were established at Therapne, on a hill on the eastern bank of the river Eurotas,
dedicated to Helen and Menelaos (Menelaion – see figures 3–4),19 in the modern
village of Kalybia Sochas at the foot of Mount Taigetos, dedicated to Demeter
Eleusinia,20 and at Tsakona north-east of Sparta, dedicated to Zeus Messapeus
(see map).21 Cult activity also intensified in the sanctuary of Apollo Hyakinthios
at Amyklai about six kilometres south of Sparta (figure 5), where a cult place had
existed in the Bronze Age, and could have continued without a significant break
into the Early Iron Age. A monumental statue of the god, the so-called throne of
Apollo was erected there in the sixth century.22
The late eighth century was thus the period when the Spartans virtually en-
circled with the sanctuaries the territory which was later known as the citizen
land (politike ge) as opposed to the territory of the subjected communities of the
perioikoi.23 In all likelihood this manifested their political identity and testifies to
the emergence of the Spartan political community, possibly as a union of the
previously independent settlements. This circle marked by the sanctuaries clearly
included Amyklai, indicating that this settlement was integrated to the Spartan
state by that time. The emergence of the sanctuaries thus appears as the clearest
mark of the emergence of the Spartan state that we have.
All these sanctuaries must have had some traditions attached to them, and
these are often recorded by the later sources. Unfortunately, we cannot tell any-
thing concerning the shrine of Zeus Messapeus at Tsakona which is not recorded
17
See Welwei 2004, 23–24; Nafissi 2009 117–118; Kennell – Luraghi 2009, 240. Zavvou –
Themos 2009, 112–113; Kennell 2010, 30.
18
The sanctuary with its cult legend and ritual is described in Paus. III 16.6–11. For the
archaeological evidence see Dawkins 1929a, 8–27; Kirsten 1958, 171–175; Boardman 1963;
Drerup 1969, 19–21; Fågerström 1988, 31–32; Cartledge 1979, 357–361.
19
Catling 1976-1977, 35–36; 2002, 153, 219–229; Cartledge 1979, 121. For the history and
the description of the sanctuary see Stibbe 1996, 41–49. The sanctuary was ascribed to
either Helen or Menelaos by Hdt. VI 61; Isocr. Helena 63; Paus III 19.9.
20
Parker 1987, 101–103; Stibbe 1996, 58-68. The sanctuary is mentioned in Paus. III 20.5.
21
Cartledge 1998, 44; Catling 2002, 153, 218–220.
22
The much disputed question of possible cult continuity with the Bronze Age (Cartledge
1979, 81–83; Calligas 1992, 40; Petersson 1992, 97–100; Eder 1998, 100; Kõiv 2003, 62–63;
Kennell 2010, 31) does not concern us here, but there is no doubt about a rapid growth in
dedications in the 8th century (Calligas 1992, 42; Kennell 2010, 25). The massive statue of
Apollo seated on a gigantic throne is described in detail in Paus. III 18.9–19.5 (see
Frankoferri 1993; 1996, 181–280; Stibbe 1996, 49–58; Kennell – Luraghi 2009, 243; Richer
2012, 350–351).
23
Cartledge 1998, 44; Richer 2010, 243; 2012, 201–202; Kennell 2010, 39.
30 Mait Kõiv

by the literary sources; the archaeological record suggest some sexual aspect of
the cult indicated by the ithyphallic figurines found on the spot.24 The Menelaion
at Therapne obviously marked an earlier Bronze Age mansion, and as the recipi-
ents of the cult indicate it must have been regarded as the site of the heroic dy-
nasty and thus connected to the traditions the Tyndarids (Helen, Kastor, Pollux)
and Menelaos.25 The ritual in the Orthia sanctuary at the outskirts of the Spartan
town was believed to have been established by the Spartan lawgiver Lykurgos,
which warrants the suggestion that the precinct was connected with the tradition
of the Lykurgan legislation.26 The Amyklaian sanctuary, however, was clearly
tied to the traditions concerning the conquest of Lakedaimon, and as will be
suggested below, the nearby Eleusinion at Kalybia Sochas was probably also
connected to that traditional complex.

The cults of Apollo and the traditions of conquest

Although Amyklaion with its yearly Hyakinthian festival was perhaps the most
prominent sanctuary of the Spartan state, and as demonstrated below, closely
connected to the traditions concerning the establishment of the Spartan con-
quest-state, it was by no means the only important cult of Apollo, nor the only
one linked to the conquest traditions. The cults and celebrations of Karneia and
Gymnopaidiai in the Spartan town, connected respectively with the traditions of
the Dorian invasion into the Peloponnese and the successful wars against the
Argives over the district of Thyrea between them, were of almost equal renown.
These three cults of Apollo Karneios, Apollo Hyakinthios and the festival of
Gymnopaidiai, all of great significance for the Spartan state, thus covered almost
the whole range of the traditions concerning conquests: the Dorian invasion, the
conquest of Amyklai and the whole of the Lakedaimon, and the heroic fighting
against the archenemy – the Argives.27
I will pass briefly over the festival of Gymnopaidiai or Naked Dances, which
took place in midsummer in the town centre,28 and where three ‘choirs’ (choroi)

24
Cartledge 1998, 44; Catling 2002, 153, 218–220.
25
See the literature and the sources quoted in note 19.
26
Xenoph. Lac. pol. 2, 9; Plat. Nom. I 633b; Paus. III 16.9–10. The case will be considered
below.
27
For detailed discussion of these cults and their significance for the Spartan state,
including the connected traditions, see Jeanmaire 1939, 524–540; Brelich 1969, 126–207;
Petterson 1992; Robertson 1992, 147–165 (Gymnopaidiai); 2002, 36–74 (Karneia); Richer
2012, 342–456.
28
The exact place – either in the theatre or in a special place called Choros (the dancing-
place), is uncertain. According to Hdt. VI 67 Leotychidas insulted the deposed Demaratos
during the Gymnopaidiai in the theatre. Xenphon Hell. VI 4.16 tells that the news of the
Leuktran disaster arrived at Sparta during the last day of Gymnopaidiai when the men’s
choir was ‘inside’ (endon ontos) without specifying inside of what. According to Paus. III
11.9 the Gymnopaidiai were celebrated on a place called Choros at the agora, and
according to Anecdota Graeca I p.32 1.18–20 Bekker simply on agora. See Robertson 1992,
154–156; Richer 2012, 384–389.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 31

– the boys (paides), the men (andres or akmazontes), and the seniors (gerontes) –
performed dances either naked or unarmed (gymnos may signify both).29 The
dances lasted during many days in the summer heat and were regarded by Plato
as a test of endurance.30 Some survived scraps of the text of the songs performed
during the occasion suggest a kind of competition between the age groups, which
was probably meant for educating the youth and promoting the sense of unity
among the citizens. There is hardly any doubt that the festival was integrated
into the Spartan system of education. Concerning the connected traditions, we
are told that during the festival the feathery crowns called thyreatikoi were worn
by the performers, for commemorating the victory won against the Argives in
district of Thyrea and those fallen in the famous battle,31 in which 300 chosen
fighters from both sides fought the death and the heroism of the only Spartan
survivor Othryades decided the issue in the Spartan favour.32 The heroism of
Othryades and the 300 fighters was later regarded as paradigmatic of the Spartan
bravery and endurance,33 which makes it quite natural to commemorate this
exploit during the celebration that was viewed as a test of endurance and a dis-
play of physical fitness, as the nakedness in the Gymnaopaidiai implies. The
battle could have been remembered as a chronologically rather floating event in
an unspecified past, but as the victory was celebrated with the songs of several

29
See Richer 2012, 395–402.
30
Plat. Nom. 633c. See Ducat 2009; Richer 2012, 402–404.
31
Sosibios FGrHist 595 F 5 (ap. Athen. XV 678b–c): Θυρεατικοί. οὕτω καλοῦνταί τινες
στέφανοι παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις, ὥς φησι Σωσίβιος ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θυσιῶν, .... φέρειν δ'
αὐτοὺς ὑπόμνημα τῆς ἐν Θυρέᾳ γενομένης νίκης τοὺς προστάτας τῶν ἀγομένων χορῶν
ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ ταύτῃ, ὅτε καὶ τὰς Γυμνοπαιδιὰς ἐπιτελοῦσιν. On the connection between
the Gymnopaidiai and the tradition concerning the Thyrean battle see Brelich 1961, 22–
34; Robertson 1992, 161–164, 179–207; Kõiv 2003, 125–133; Richer 2012; 404–413; Ber-
shadsky 2012.
32
The battle was touched upon by many sources and described most profoundly by
Herodotos (Hdt. I 82; Chrysermos FGrHist 287 F 2; Theseus FGrHist 453 F 2; Anthol. Pal.
430 (Dioskourides), 431 (Simonides); 526 (Nikandros); for a full collection of the ancient
evidence see Kohlmann 1874; Phaklaris 1987, 102–107; Robertson 1992, 181–188, 199–204).
The story goes that the opponents agreed that the issue must be decided by 300 chosen
fighters, all of whom perished in the encounter, except two Agives and the Spartan
Othryades. The Argives hurried to Argos to announce their victory, while Othryades,
heavily wounded, stayed on the field, stripped the bodies of the dead Argives of their
armour, erected a trophy (the victory mark) of a shield and inscribed it with his blood, or
carried the armour to the Spartan camp. According to one version of the story,
Othryades’ heroism was decisive (Chrysermos FGrHist 287 F 2), while according to
Herodotos the opponents disagreed about which side was the winner, and a battle of the
full armies followed the next day, where the Spartans proved victorious and thus gained
the district.
33
Isocr. Archid. 99, and numerous Latin authors – see Kohlmann 1874, 475–480.
32 Mait Kõiv

archaic poets,34 there is no reason to doubt that the memory of it was attached to
the celebration of Gymnopaidiai in the Archaic period.35 Since the Spartans cer-
tainly came to control the district of Thyrea which was situated much closer to
Argos, they probably must have taken it from the Argives, which suggests that
an early conflict (or a series of conflicts) between Argos and Sparta over the dis-
trict must have been a historical reality and that the Gymnopaidian choirs were
likely to have been arranged to celebrate a real military event.
However, this tradition, though important for the Spartans’ identity and vi-
sion of the past, did not concern the origins of their statehood, differing in that
respect from the complexes of accounts tied to the cults of Karneia and Apollo
Hyakinthios.
Apollo Karneios, having at least two sanctuaries in Sparta,36 was often de-
picted with ram’s horns, and was honoured in connection with his human coun-
terpart Karnos who could have been imagined as a youth loved by the god,37 or
as an Akarnanian seer assisting the Dorians and accidentally killed during their
invasion to the Peloponnese.38 In both cases he appears as a mortal counterpart of
the immortal Apollo. The Karneian cult was connected specifically with Dorians
and the traditions concerning their migrations and invasions into different dis-
tricts. There was a pan-Dorian tradition focusing on the death of the Akarnanian
seer killed by the Herakleids (or particularly by a man called Hippotas, destined
to become the father of the founder of Dorian Corinth) when the Dorians were
about to cross over from the Central Greece to the Peloponnese. His death caused
pestilence as divine vengeance, and required expiation by the expulsion of the
culprit and the establishment of the cult and festival of Karneia for enabling the

34
Sosibios FGrHist 595 F 5 mentions that the Thyrean victory was commemorated in the
Gymnopaidiai with the songs of Thaletas, Alkman and Dionysodotos, of whom the first
two composed during the 7th century (the date of Dionysodotos is unknown).
35
One ancient chronology dated the establishment of Gymnopaidiai to 668 (Euseb. Chron.
II 86–87 Schoene gives the dates 669 and 665, but the correct Eusebian date seems to have
been Ol. 28.1, thus 668, as suggested by Mosshammer 1979, 224), and the circumstance
that the victory was celebrated with the songs of the archaic poets (see the previous note)
can suggest an early origin of the connection between the festival and the event. Some of
the ancients ascribed the victory to the Spartan king Polydoros a few years after the
conquest of Messenia (Plut. Apophth. Lac. Polyd. 231d–f); this understanding is reflected
in the chronologies given by Eusebios II 83 Schoene and Solinus VII 9, both dating the
battle a few years after the end of the Messenian war – see Kõiv 2003, 125). Herodotos,
on the other hand, dated the battle more than a century later, to the time of the Lydian
king Kroisos.
36
There was a statue or small shrine of Karneios Oiketas (boiketas according to IG 5.1.497
line 11) at the agora (Paus. III 13.3–6) and another shared with Eileithyia and Artemis
Hegemone on a promenade to the west near a running track (dromos – see Paus. III 14.6)
– see Robertson 2002, 53 n. 136.
37
Scol. Theocr. Idyll. V 82a; Praxilla fr. 753 PMG ap. Paus. III 13.4. See Burkert 1985;
Richer 2012, 435–436.
38
Konon 26; Apollod. II 8.3; Paus. III 13.4; Schol. Theocr. V 83. The story was touched
upon by Theopompos (FGrHist 115 F 375) and Aristotle (fr. 554 Rose).
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 33

subsequent conquest.39 The cult was connected to the foundation stories of vari-
ous Dorian communities. Noel Robertson has suggested that it was especially
linked to sailing overseas, and demonstrated that in the Peloponnesian case it
certainly was tied to the tradition of the sea voyage from Naupaktos to Rhion
launching the Dorian invasion.40
Besides this pan-Hellenic tradition there was a specifically Spartan story,
which connected the god particularly with the foundation of Dorian Sparta. We
are told that Apollo Karneios was worshipped in Sparta before the Dorians ar-
rived, and that the Dorian invaders were helped by a Karneian priest (mantis)
called Krios (the Ram) whose daughter had accidentally met the spies of the
Dorians during their invasion, which was the reason why the statue of the god
was therefore erected in Krios’ house and the Karneian cult was known under
the name of Oiketas (of the House).41 The connection with the invasion and con-
quest is obvious both on the general Dorian and on the local Spartan level.
The Karneian ritual, as known from Sparta, was said to have resembled mili-
tary training (μίμημα εἶναι στρατιωτικῆς ἀγωγῆς): the men ate under nine tent-
like installations (called shades – skiades), nine men from three phratries under
each, and did everything according to the orders proclaimed by a herald.42 The
numbers nine and three suggest that the participants were organised according to
the three Dorian phylai, which were supposedly the units of the Dorians at the
time of their invasion. They were certainly the military units in Sparta in the
Archaic era,43 and probably continued to function as the subdivisions of citizens
during the historical period when the military was probably organised differ-
ently.44 The festival had thus a clearly military connotation. Indeed, the Spartan
soldiers seem to have fought under the Karneian auspices, as suggested by the
depiction of the ram horns on the cheeks of the helmet of the Spartan hoplite
statue known as the bust of Leonidas (figure 6).45
Besides this military aspect the festival included song contest and dances of
youths and girls, some of them apparently under the full moon in a nocturnal

39
Konon 26; Paus. III 13.4; Apollod. II 8.3. Schol. Pind. V (106) clearly states that the cult
and the festival were established for expiating the murder of Karnos.
40
See Robertson 2002, 44–48.
41
Paus. III 13.3. Pausanias explicitly distinguishes between this Spartan story and the pan-
Hellenic tradition (related above) which he relates immediately afterwards.
42
Demetrios of Skepsis by Athenaios IV 141e–f. The full evidence of the Spartan Karneia
is presented in Petterson 1992, 134–137.
43
Testified by Tyrtaios fr. 19.8 West.
44
The traditional modern suggestion is that the classical Spartan army was divided into
five lochoi (the lochos of Pitane is mentioned by Hdt. IX 53.3, but its existence denied by
Thuc. I 20.3) based on the five villages (obai) constituting the Spartan state (Wade-Gery
1944, 116–121; Cartledge 1987, 427–431; etc.). For the criticism of this opinion see Lupi
2006.
45
The military importance of the festival and the cult, and the statue of ‘Leonidas’ as an
additional demonstration of this, is strongly pointed out by Petterson 1992, 62–66, who
views this as a confirmation of the Spartan hegemony in Lakedaimon.
34 Mait Kõiv

setting,46 and Karnos indeed could have been imagined as a beautiful young
eromenos of Apollo. Another rite performed in the course of the Karneia was a
somewhat curious race of staphylodromoi (the grape-runners). A man adorned
with garlands (stemmata) ran to escape the young unmarried men called staphy-
lodromoi, who had to catch him for the good of the state.47 The significance of
the race is obscure, but it is noteworthy that stemmatiaion – the word obviously
recalling the stemmata (the garlands) adorning the escaping runner in this race –
was known as an imitation of the ship with which the Dorians sailed from cen-
tral Greece to the Peloponnese.48 A ship adorned with garlands was indeed the
one that was about to sail. We can therefore suggest that the race of staphylo-
dromoi also was, in some not specifiable way, connected to the tradition of the
Dorians sea voyage from the Central Greece to the Peloponnese, hence with the
Dorian invasion. On the road to the north from Sparta there was a cult place of
Kranios – a possible alternative for Karneios – called Stemmatios.49 It was situ-
ated on the way which the Dorians were probably imagined to have taken when
coming to Sparta, which suggests that this small sanctuary was again linked to
the tradition concerning the invasion.50 All this can warrant the suggestion that
the ritual resembling some form of military discipline in the tents, with the divi-
sion of the participants into three Dorian phylai, was imagined as one more piece
of recollection of the Dorian invasion.
We have thus, in the case of the Spartan Karneia, the tradition of the founda-
tion of Dorian Sparta attached to the cult and festival sanctifying the military
order and discipline. On the other hand, since the young men played an essential
part in these rituals, both in the songs, the dances and in the race of staphylo-
dromoi, and since Karnos could have been imagined as a young paramour of the
always youthful Apollo, it is natural that Karneia has been, with good reasons,
viewed as an integral part of the Spartan education system, and thus as an initia-
tion ritual.51 Initiation into adulthood, thus to the citizen status, and the manifes-
46
The musical contests were mentioned by Hellanikos FGrHist 4 F 85a ap. Athen. XIV
635e and the nocturnal setting of at least some musical events is suggested by Eurip.
Alcestis 445–454. See Richer 1212, 432–434.
47
Bekker Anecd. I 305; Hesych. s.v. Staphylodromoi, s.v. karneatai. For the possible
significance of the rite, including the suggestions that it was meant to promote fertility,
see Wide 1893, 77–79; Burkert 1984, 234–236; Petterson 1992, 68–71; Richer 1212, 428–431.
48
Bekker Anecd. I 305 s.v. στεμματιαῖον· μίμημα τῶν σχεδιῶν αἷς ἔπλευσαν οἱ
Ηρακλεῖδαι τὸν μεταξὺ τῶν ῾Ρίων τόπον. See Robertson 2002, 47–48.
49
Paus. III 20.9.
50
The whole argument has been put forward by Robertson 2002, 47–48. See also Richer
1212, 440–441 with 609 n. 43.
51
Jeanmaire 1939, 524–526; Brelich 1969, 150–153, 179–187; Sergent 1984, 142–148;
Petterson 1992, 87–90. For the initiation rituals in different cultures see Van Gennep 1960
(especially 65–115) and Eliade 1995; the rites of initiation in Ancient Greece and their
relation to the mythology, including the ostensibly historical stories, are considered in
detail by Jeanmaire 1937; Brelich 1969; Sergent 1984; Vidal-Naquet 1981a; 1981b; Moreau
1992; Bremmer 1994, 44–50; Versnel 1990, 44–59; Dowden 2011; see also Kõiv 2003, 77–
118. The warnings against a loose use of the term ‘initiation’ and weeping conclusions
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 35

tation of martial qualities were obviously connected, as the whole education of

the Spartiates was arranged for achieving military goals. Military discipline,
education of the youth, and the traditions of the foundation of the state through
the conquest, were tied into an inseparable whole in this context.
Besides what has been said, it must be noted that there was a particular group
in Sparta strongly connected both to both the Karneian cult and the traditions of
the conquest, known as the Aigeidai, a ‘great tribe’ (phyle megale) in Sparta ac-
cording to Herodotos.52 These Aigeidai were supposedly a group of Theban ori-
gin. The tradition tells that Apollo instructed the Herakleids to call them to assist
in conquering the Peloponnese,53 and that the Herakleids met them in Boiotia
(their homeland according to the tradition) when they were sacrificing to Apollo
Karneios.54 The supposed ancestor of the subsequent members of the clan,
Theras, was according to the tradition the maternal uncle of the first Spartan
kings Eurysthenes and Prokles. He acted as the regent in Sparta during the mi-
nority of the kings, but resented the diminishing of his influence when the boys
grew up and decided to emigrate overseas. He thus founded the Spartan colony
on the island Thera, named after him, implanted there the cult of Apollo Kar-
neios.55 From Thera the cult was later brought to Kyrene in northern Africa.56
Aigeidai certainly resided in the historical period both in Thera and in
Sparta.57 In Sparta they had a special shrine,58 but were above all reputed as the

based on it are certainly justified (see the papers in Dodd – Faraone 2011). However, the
term seems appropriate here if accepting that Karneia was connected to the Spartan cycle
of education (thus using the term according to the criteria of Graf 2011, 9–15).
52
Hdt. IV 149.1.
53
The earliest evidence comes from Pindar (Isthm. VII 14–15; Pyth. V 72–81) who
mentioned that at the time of the Dorian invasion the Aigeidai from Thebes conquered
Amyklai, following the Pythian prescription, and that from Sparta they travelled to
Thera, taking with them the cult of Karneian Apollo that was further transferred to
Kyrene. The detailed account is given by the scholia to Pyth. V 69–(106) and Isthm. VII 12,
where Ephoros (FGrHist 70 F 16) and Aristotle (fr. 532 Rose) are quoted as the authorities.
On the traditions concerning the Aigeidai, and the supposed immigrants from Lemnos
who were closely connected with them in the traditional accounts (discussed below), see
Kiechle 1963, 60–63, 75–95; Nafissi 1980-81; 1985; Vannicelli 1992; Petterson 1992, 66–68;
Malkin 1994, 111–113; Kõiv 2003, 77–100; Kennell 2010, 32–35. The connection of the
traditions to the Spartan cults (Karneia and Hyakinthia) has been pointed out by
Petterson (loc. cit.) and Kõiv 2003, 89–91.
54
As stated in schol. Pind. Pyth. V (106).
55
This migration was briefly touched upon by Pindar Pyth. V 69–76 and described in
detail by Hdt. IV 145–149. The transfer of the Karneia cult from Sparta to Thera by Theras
is recorded by Kallimachos (Hymn. Ap. 71–87, speaking of the genos Oidipodao which
clearly marks Theras, as made clear by Hdt. IV 147.2, 149).
56
Pind. Pyth. V 69–76; Callim. Hymn. Ap. 71–78.
57
Their presence in Thera is suggested by the epigraphic evidence recording the presence
of Aigeid names such as Aigeus, Hoiolykos (the name of the son of Theras and the father
of Aigeus – Hdt. IV 149; Paus. III 15. 8) and Maisiadas (alluding to Aigeus’ grandson
36 Mait Kõiv

conquerors of Amyklai. Their supposed leader during this conquest, Timo-

machos, was therefore greatly honoured in the context of the Amyklaian cult, as
his armour, called Theban hoplon, was paraded during the annual Hyakinthian
festival.59 The tradition concerning them was thus strongly connected, besides
Karneia, to the cult of Apollo at Amyklai.
We have already noted that Amyklaion was probably the most prominent
sanctuary of the Spartan state and the yearly festival of Hyakinthia of paramount
political significance. Its importance was comparable to that of the Great Diony-
sia for Athens, shown by the fact that the treaty of peace and alliance between
Athens and Sparta, concluded in 421, was to be sworn during the Athenian Dio-
nysia and the Spartan Hyakinthia, and the stele with the treaty was displayed in
the respective sanctuaries.60 Amyklaion received rich dedications from the eighth
century onwards while in the sixth century witnessed the erection of a monu-
mental statue of the god, the so-called throne of Apollo, which was perceived as
the altar for the god and the tomb of his human counterpart Hyakinthos. The
latter was supposedly a beautiful youth loved by Apollo, whom the god acciden-
tally killed with a discus-throw.61 We also know that there was a Hykinthian
road (Hyakinthis hodos) connecting Amyklaion to Sparta. This suggests a proces-
sion from Sparta to Amyklai during the Hyakinthian festival, forming a ritual
axis between these two principal settlements of the Spartan state.62 There is a
good reason to view this procession as the supposed commemoration of the Spar-
tan conquest of Amyklai: the Spartans indeed believed that during the conquest
Apollo had appeared to them with four hands and four ears (Apollon Tetracheir)
and they therefore worshipped the god in such a form in Amyklai,63 and as has
been said, during the Hyakinthian festival the Spartans carried the armour of

Maisis – Paus. loc. cit.); see Hiller von Gaertringen 1940-41, 644; Kiechle 1963, 87; Kõiv
2003, 80 n. 62. In Sparta Herodotos indeed knew them as a phyle megale (IV 149.1).
58
Hdt. IV 149.2; Paus. III 15.8. For the nature of this guilt see below, with note 75.
59
Pind. Isthm. VII 12 with the scholia, quoting Aristotle (fr. 532 Rose). See also schol.
Pind. Pyth. V 76.
60
Thuc. V 23.4–5. For the Hyakinthian festival and its significance see especially Petterson
1992, 9–41 and Richer 1212, 343–382.
61
For the textual and archaeological evidence for Amyklaion see note 22 above. The
earliest evidence for the myth of Hyakinthos comes from Euripides Helen. 1465–1475 (for
the myth and its significance for the Amyklaian cult see Eitrem 1914, 9f; Mellink 1943,
161–176; Robertson 1992, 30; Petterson 1992, 30–41; Richer 1212, 345–350).
62
Athen. IV 173f; a Hyacinthia pompa is mentioned in Ovid. Met. X 219. Pausanias III 16.2
mentions that the Spartan women brandished a chiton for Apollo every year, and it has
been plausibly suggested that this was carried in the procession from Sparta to Amyklai
(Mellink 1943, 17; Calame 1977, 310; Petterson 1992, 11). The political significance of the
sanctuary and the procession is pointed out by Polignac 1984, 70–74.
63
Sosibios FGrHist 595 F 25 (ap. Zenob. Prov. I 54): οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀψευδέστερος τοῦ
᾿Απόλλωνος, ὃν τετράχειρα καὶ τετράωτον ἱδρύσαντο Λακεδαιμόνιοι, ὥς φησι
Σωσίβιος, ὅτι τοιοῦτος ὤφθη τοῖς περὶ ᾿Αμύκλαν μαχομένοις. On the worship of this
Apollon Tetracheir at Amyklai see Wide 1893, 95; Kennell 1995, 162–163.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 37

Timomachos, the Aigeid conqueror of Amyklai.64 All this leaves no doubt about
the close connection between the cult and the traditions concerning the conquest.
The Aigeid Timomachos whose armour was displayed at Hyakinthia was be-
lieved to have been ‘the first to arrange everything for war in Sparta’.65 The
Aigeidai were thus ascribed a crucial role not only in the conquest, but also in
the military arrangement of the state. They were supposedly involved in the
establishment of the Spartan double kingship, because their ancestor Theras was
reputed as the guardian of the first two kings during their minority. The part
they supposedly played in the establishment of the Spartan state was confirmed
by the close connection to the Karneian and Hyakinthian cults, the most promi-
nent cults of Apollo in Dorian Sparta. Paradoxically, despite this prominent role
they were assigned, they were viewed as a non-Dorian group of ‘foreign’
(Theban) descent, thus outsiders in Dorian Sparta, and their leader Theras was
believed to have left the country.
This foreign descent and emigration can hardly be occasional, considering
that the Aigeidai were by no means the only non-Dorian group figuring in the
accounts of the conquest, particularly that of Amyklai, who were eventually
forced to emigrate. We are told that when the Spartans first held Amyklai, they
gave it as a reward to a certain Philonomos, an Achaian (thus a member of the
original population) who had betrayed Amyklai to the Dorians. The Spartans also
settled there immigrants from the islands of Imbros and Lemnos,66 known in the
stories either as Tyrrhenians and Pelasgians,67 a supposedly non-Hellenic people
who inhabited these islands in the historical period, or as the Minyans, the de-
scendants of the Argonauts and the Lemnian women who had previously killed
their menfolk and conceived children with the Argonauts when they stopped on
the island during their sea voyage.68 These Lemnians, either the Tyrrheni-
ans/Pelasgians or the Minyans, were believed to have sailed to the Lakedaimon
and asked the Spartans to accept them. The Spartans agreed, included them into

64
Arist. fr. 532 Rose.
65
Arist. fr. 532 Rose: ὃς πρῶτος μὲν πάντα τὰ πρὸς πόλεμον διέταξε Λακεδαιμονίοις, ...·
66
Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 28; Konon 36, 47. These authors were almost certainly following
Ephoros whose account of the beginnings of Dorian Sparta can be found in FGrHist 70 F
117, 118 – see especially Jacoby 1926, 242–243; Andrewes 1951, 39–42.
67
In the account of Ephoros and the authors following him (see the previous note), and in
the more detailed story told by Plutarchos (Mul. Virt. 8).
68
According to Pindar and Herodotos. Pindar noted that the descendants of the Argo-
nauts, whom he called Minyans (for the reasons of this identification see Kõiv 2013b, 340–
343) and the man-slaying Lemnian women, had, in the company of the Lakonian men,
settled on the island of Thera and from Thera to Kyrene (Pyth. IV 43–75, 174–175, 252–
262; for a detailed analysis of the story in Pindar’s fourth Pythian see Calame 1990, 281–
294). Herodotos told the story in connection with the emigration to Theras (IV 145–149),
called the Minyans the sons of the Argonauts (145.2, 5), and mentioned elsewhere the
murderous act of the Lemnian women (VI 138), which was indeed proverbial by his time
(the Lemnia kaka mentioned in Aesch. Choeph. 614). For the story of the Lemnian
women and the Argonauts see Jessen 1914, 437–441; Burkert 1983, 190–196.
38 Mait Kõiv

their tribes (phylai), intermarried with them, and according to some accounts
settled them in Amyklai.69 The immigrants in turn helped the Spartan in the war
against the helots. But they began to make unseemly demands of having a share
in the kingship and other political rights from which they were excluded,70 and
the Spartans therefore imprisoned them and sentenced them to death. They were,
however, rescued by their Spartan wives who were allowed to visit the husbands
in the prison, secretly exchanged with them their clothes and thus allowed the
men to escape in female disguise. The Lemnians subsequently took refuge on the
slopes of Taigetos and helped the helots to revolt against the Spartans. The
Spartans thereafter preferred to send the immigrants overseas. The destination of
their emigration differed in various accounts, depending on if they were imag-
ined as Minyans or Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians. The Minyans, or at least a part
of them, migrated together with Theras to the island Thera, whence their de-
scendants led the foundation of Kyrene many generations later.71 The Pelasgians
/ Tyrrhenians sailed to Crete, founding the colony on the island of Melos on their
way, and eventually the Cretan cities Lyttos and/or Gortyn.72 This expulsion of
the Lemnian and Imbrian immigrants was supposedly connected to the final
subjection of Amyklai and Helos by the Spartans, in which course the inhabitants
of the latter were reduced into the permanent servitude.73
We have thus a complex of different though connected accounts about vari-
ous non-Dorian groups involved in the conquest of Lakedaimon, with specific
connections to Amyklai: the Theban Aigeidai, the Lemnian Minyans, and the
Tyrrhenians/Pelasgians from Lemnos and Imbros. Besides being imagined as
foreign to the Dorian Spartans, these groups were marginal, and ambiguous, in
other respects as well. The Aigeidai were, according to one account, the descen-
dants of a people called the Phlegyans, who were notorious for their violent
deeds, most notably setting fire to the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi.74 The
Theban ancestor of the Aigeidai, Laios, was known for his crime of abducing and
causing the death of a beautiful youth called Chrysippos the son of Pelops, and
the sanctuary of the Aigeidai in Sparta was supposedly established exactly for

69
Acceptance into the phylai and intermarriage in Hdt. IV 145.5, 146.3; Plut. Mul. Virt. 8.
Their settlement at Amyklai stated in Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 28 and Konon 36, both
probably following Ephoros.
70
Hdt. IV 146.1 states that their discontent was caused by their exclusion from a share in
kingship, according to Plutarch (Mul. Virt. 8) they were excluded archeion kai boules.
71
Pind. Pyth. IV 43–75, 252–262; Hdt. IV 150.
72
Gortyn according to Ephoros and his followers, Lyttos according to Plutarch (quoted in
notes 66–67).
73
Konon 36 places the emigration to the third generation (counted inclusively) from the
Dorian invasion, which was the time when according to Ephoros (FGrHist 70 F 117) the
Spartans definitely subjugate the whole of the Lakedaimon and reduced the people of
Helos into the servitude.
74
The Phlegyan ancestry of the Aigeidai is mentioned in schol. Pind. Isthm. VII 12 (label-
led Phlegraioi); the Phlegyan attack against Delphi noted in Paus. IX 36.2; X 7.1 (for the
mythology of the Phlegyans see Robert 1921, 26–29; Eitrem 1941).
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 39

expiating the guilt of the crime.75 This presents, on the one hand, a parallel to the
relationship of Apollo with both Karnos and Hyakinthos, both of whom were
accidentally killed by their divine erastes, while on the other hand it gave the
Aigeidai a kind of ‘criminal’ background confirmed through their own cult,
pointing thus to the liminality of their status. The Minyans in turn were the de-
scendants of the man-murdering Lemnian women and offspring of the illegiti-
mate unions between these women and the Argonauts,76 which pointed out their
highly suspicious descent. The Tyrrenians / Pelasgians were reputed to be formi-
dable sea-robbers of barbarian stock,77 thus as dangerous outsiders in the Hel-
lenic world. The ambiguous nature of the Lemnian immigrants is further empha-
sised by the story of their escape from the prison in the women’s clothes, thus
assuming temporarily the role of the females.
All these foreigners were thus imagined as having somewhat suspicious
backgrounds and playing an ambiguous part during the conquest. They mingled
for a while with the Spartans and were helpful to them, but were never accepted
as completely equal to the Dorian citizens, and were expelled, or preferred to
emigrate as in the case of Theras, when failing in the attempts to attain the equal
status. The Lemnians were, moreover, ambivalently connected to the helots, the
outcasts of the Spartan society, first helping to subjugate them and then exhort-
ing them to fight against their masters. All in all, these groups were imagined as
strongly involved in the Dorian conquest and the establishment of the Spartan
supremacy, while on the other hand they remained outsiders creating a state of
danger, potential chaos, and their expulsion or emigration appears as essential for
the definite establishment of the Spartan hegemony over Lakedaimon, including
the enslavement of the helots establishing the ‘normal’ social hierarchies of
Dorian Sparta.
These features of the tradition become well understandable when looking at
the ritual practice of Apollo Hyakinthios at Amyklai, to which a number of these
accounts was connected (the Aigeidai were indeed reputed as the conquerors of
Amyklai and the armour of Timomachos was displayed in the Hyakinthian pro-
cession, and as the immigrants from Lemnos and Imbros were associated with
either Amyklai or the Aigeid Theras, we can reasonably assume some connec-
tions with Hyakinthia in their case as well).
The Hyakinthia festival was clearly built on a juxtaposition of the mortal and

75
An account of Chrysippos’ death and its causes by the house of Laios is given by
Peisandros FGrHist 16 F 10 ap. schol. Eurip. Phoen. 1760 (see also Hypot. Eurip. Phoin.;
Hypoth. Aesch. Sept.; Athen. XIII 602–603; Hygin. Fab. 85). For the legend of the house of
Labdakos, Laios and Oidipous see Lamer 1924, especially 474–481; Delcourt 1944; Vernant
1982, 22–25; Bremmer 1987. The establishment of the sanctuary as an act of expiation for
this crime appears from Hdt. IV 149. 2 and Paus. III 15. 8.
76
See note 68 above.
77
For example, according to Hdt. VI 137–138 they raped Athenian women when they
lived in Attika in ancient times, and even planned to attack Athens, for which they were
expelled and immigrated to Lemnos. From there they came to kidnap the Athenian
women from Brauron, killing them afterwards together with their sons.
40 Mait Kõiv

dying Hyakinthos and the immortal Apollo. As has been said before, the Throne
of Apollo at Amyklai marked both the tomb of the hero and the altar for the god.
Pausanias relates that the sacrifice (thysia) to the god was preceded by another
kind of sacrifice – enagismos – in honour of the dead Hyakinthos.78 From the
Hellenistic writer Polykrates we know that the first of the three festival days
marked the grief and mourning for Hyakinthos.79 The wreaths and the singing of
Paian, which had a special significance in the worship of Apollo in Hyakinthia,80
were forbidden on that day, and the people ate with great restraint before depart-
ing. In the middle of the three days period, thus presumably on the second day,
the character of the festival changed. Boys (paides) praised the god with kithara
play and songs to flute accompaniment, and the choirs of youths (neaniskoi)
performed local songs; some boys or young men rode on adorned horses, and
girls were carried in litters or paraded on chariots. There were many sacrifices to
the god, followed by the ritual meal (probably called kopis – the cleaver) where
the citizens entertained at dinner foreigners and slaves – no doubt the helots.81
This joyful disorder created a state of inversion, exemplified by the common
feasting with the helots who normally were strictly subjected to their masters.
Polykrates does not tell how this state of inversion was terminated and normalcy
restored, but in some way it almost certainly must have been done – the fact that
the armour of Timomachos, the supposed creator of the Spartan military ar-
rangement, was paraded in the festive procession clearly indicates that order and
hierarchy must have eventually prevailed, and we can reasonably suppose that
this restoration took place during the last day of the festival.82 The reliefs on the
throne of Apollo depicted the apotheosis of Hyakinthos and his sister Polyboia,
suggesting that the resurrection of Hyakinthos was a part of this restoration
phase.83
The Hyakinthia thus appears as a festival of an initial sorrow followed first by
a state of inversion and next by the final restoration of normal order. Besides,
there is every reason to believe that like Karneia it was connected to the educa-

78
Paus. III 19.3.
79
The account of Polykrates (FGrHist 588) is transmitted to us by Athenaios who took it
from Didymos (Athen. IV 139c–f).
80
Mentioned by Xenophon Hell. IV 5.11 and Ages. 2.17. See Brelich 1969, 143.
81
Athenaios IV 138e–f quotes Polemon mentioning a meal at Sparta called Kopis,
Kratinos who told that all the strangers were richly feasted at Kopis, and Eupolis who
connected Kopis with the helots. Petterson 1992, 15–17 has convincingly demonstrated
that Kopis was the feast on the second day of Hyakinthia.
82
Sergent 1984, 118.
83
Paus. III 19.4. Sergent 1984, 108 has seen here an allusion to the symbolic rebirth of
adolescent (young Hyakinthos) as an adult (bearded Hyakinthos, as it was depicted on the
throne); Petterson 1992, 38–41 views it as pertaining to the marriage initiation of the girls
(apotheosis of Polyboia). The importance of the motif of apotheosis is also emphasised by
Richer 1212, 348–350.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 41

tion of the young Spartans and can be thus regarded as a ritual of initiation.84
This is indicated by the prominent part played by boys, young men and girls in
the festival, but also by the very figures of Apollo and Hyakinthos, the youthful
god and his dying adolescent paramour. Like in the case of Apollo and Karnos,
this relationship can be regarded as reminiscent of the Spartan practice of peder-
asty, which clearly played an important part in the Spartan education.85 Pau-
sanias tells that Hyakinthos was, contrary to the usual imagination, depicted as
bearded on the Throne of Apollo, which suggests that the previously dying youth
reappeared as an adult man, symbolizing his transformation into a full citizen.86
The sorrow, inversion and restoration on the one hand, and the death of the ado-
lescent and the emergence of the adult man on the other, were thus organically
connected.
It is easy to see how the traditions concerning the conquest of Amyklai and
the related events recall this ritual pattern. The initial invasion of the Dorians
was followed by a state of inversion: Amyklai was temporarily occupied by the
non-Dorian immigrants who were connected to the helots and wished to have
the full rights, but were never able to attain them, just like the foreigners and
helots were entertained as mock citizens during the Hyakinthian feast, but never
permanently accepted. The general logic of a temporary acceptance of outsiders
creating a state of disorder and followed by the establishment of the normalcy is
obvious on both levels. Moreover, many particulars in these accounts can be
brought into connection with the state of inversion characteristic to the Hyakin-
thian ritual, and can be connected with the rituals of initiation known from dif-
ferent cultures.87 The descent of the Minyans from the illegitimate unions of the
men-murdering women accords with the ritual inversion at Hyakinthia. The
pederastic guilt of Laios the ancestor of the Aigeidai couples with both the rela-
tionship of Apollo and Hyakinthos and the homosexual practices tied to the Spar-
tan practice of education. The threats with death and escape in women’s disguise
recalls the allusion to death and the sexual role reversal characteristic of the ini-
tiation rituals in many parts of the world, and visible in the related stories in

84
Jeanmaire 1939, 526–531; Brelich 1969, 141–147; Sergent 1984, 115–119; Petterson 1992,
35–41, 75–77.
85
For the pederasty in Sparta and its role in the process of education see Cartledge 1981;
Sergent 1984, 402–423; and Link 2009 (who questions the institutionalised character of
pederasty in the Spartan state, but not its importance in the process of education). The
connection between Hyakinthos and Spartan pederasty is especially pointed out by
Sergent 1984, 107–109.
86
See especially Sergent 1984, 117–119.
87
This was pointed out by Jeanmaire 1939, 570–575. The standard work on the initiation
rituals is still Van Gennep 1960 (especially 65–115). Temporary separation and marginal
status of the initates, terrifying tests, trickery and periods of licence, and sexual role
reversal are all known from ethnographic cultures, despite the lack of a strict universal
pattern, and although there is no clear connections between many Greek stories and
particular rituals it is obvious that these features appear in Greek ritual and storytelling
(see the literature quoted and the discussion referred to in note 51).
42 Mait Kõiv

Greek mythology.88 Even the son of Theras, called Hoiolykos (Wolf-like) because
he preferred to stay in Sparta ‘like among the wolves’ when his father sailed to
Thera, as Herodotos tells us, can be viewed as personifying the temporary sepa-
ration of the adolescents from society as a part of the process of initiation.89 The
expulsion, or emigration, of these ambiguous and in many ways marginal groups
meant the establishment of the supremacy of the Dorian Spartans, just as the
foreigners and the helots were probably shown their proper place on the final
day of Hyakinthia, and the youths became citizens and thus the masters of their
state after a period of inversion and separation.
This correspondence between the stories and the ritual practice on the level of
both the general logic of narrative and ritual, and of the several details in them,
as well as, the explicit connection of the stories with Amyklai, warrants the sug-
gestion that these accounts were woven into the ritual framework of the Hyakin-
thian cult and transmitted in that context. This is indeed highly natural given the
central position of Amyklai in the plain south of Sparta, and thus its likely sig-
nificance in the conquest of Lakedaimon and maintaining control over it – a
circumstance that is indeed pointed out by the very accounts under the discus-
sion. The strategically important site, its prominent sanctuary, and the traditions
about its conquest were firmly tied together.
It seems that the nearby Eleusinion at Kalybia Sochas at the foot of Taigetos
near Amyklai was also connected to this circle of traditions. It was indeed the
most likely place where the immigrants from Lemnos and Imbros settled at
Amyklai were believed to have taken refuge when escaping from imprisonment
(both Herodotos and Plutarch explicitly placed them on Taigetos suggesting that
this detail derives from the oral tradition). Pausanias relates that in the Eleusin-
ion there was a statue of Orpheus made by the Pelasgians, which infers a connec-
tion of the Lemnian immigrants with this place, and that nearby there was a
place called Theras, which suggest that the tradition concerning Theras the
Aigeid was also attached to this locality. Pausanias further records a yearly pro-
cession connecting Eleusinion with Helos, which couples well with the traditions
of the Lemnian involvement in the war against the helots.90
All this said, we can be fairly confident that the traditions concerning the
conquest of Amyklai, the subjection of the helots and sending out colonies over-
seas, either to Thera, to Melos, or to Crete, were essentially tied to the Hyakin-

88
Note especially the examples in Vidal-Naquet 1981a, 155–158.
89
Hdt. IV 149.1: ὄϊν ἐν λύκοισι. On the initiatory significance of the wolf-like separation,
and it possible connection with the Spartan institution of krypteia, see, for example,
Jeanmaire 1939, 540–565; Sourvinou-Inwood 1988.
90
Paus. III 20.5 (the sanctuary of Demeter Eleusinia, the ‘Pelasgian’ statue and nearby
Therai), 7 (the procession from Helos to the Eleusinion; see Parker 1987, 103). Hiller von
Gaertringen 1940-41, 61, 63, 68 has noted the importance of the cult of Demeter Eleusinia
on the island Thera, which again can point to the connection between the Lakeadimonian
Therai and the island.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 43

thian cult and probably transmitted in this context,91 just like the tradition of the
Dorian invasion is likely to have been linked particularly to the cult of Apollo
Karneios, and the stories of the fighting against the Argives for Thyrea were
transmitted in the framework of the Gymnopaidian festival. An essential part of
the traditions of the Spartan early conquests was thus attached to these three
cults of Apollo, all of which were of great political importance and connected to
the process of educating the citizens. The traditions tied to Karneia and the
Hyakinthia concerned the very foundation of statehood – the Dorian conquest of
Sparta and the submission of Amyklai, and thus the acquisition of the two set-
tlements, the inhabitants of which formed the Spartan citizen body in the histori-
cal period. In the case of Amyklai the tradition also involved the enslavement of
the Lakonian helots, thus the establishment of the fundamentals of social hierar-
chy in Sparta. The traditions describing the formation of the state through the
conquest were thus connected to the prominent stately cults responsible for the
reproduction of the new soldiers-citizens through the system of education and
the related rituals, and this ritual practice in turn left clear traces in the ostensi-
bly historical accounts.

Orthia, Lykurgos and the foundation of the internal order

The Spartan internal order was, according to the almost unanimous belief of the
ancients, established by the great lawgiver Lykurgos who saved his city from a
terrible chaos (kakonomia) and created the wonderful order (eunomia) for which
Sparta was famous in the Greek world.92 Besides this general account of the
change brought by Lykurgos there was a specific story depicting the lawgiver as
the founder of the central ritual at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. The relevant
account states that the deity was worshipped by the inhabitants of the four Spar-
tan villages (Limnai, Pitane, Mesoa and Kynosura – see figure 1), which suggests
that the Lykurgan establishment was seen as uniting these constitutional parts
into the joint Spartan State. The story, apparently the cult legend of Orthia, is
told by the perieget Pausanias writing in the second century AD. Pausanias de-
scribes how two persons, Astrabakos and Alopekos, found the xoanon (wooden
statue) of Artemis in the bushes and immediately went mad, after which the
Spartans from Limnai, Kynosoureis, Mesoa and Pitane fell to quarrelling and

91
Another example is the story of the Spartan foundation of Taras in Italy by another
marginal group called the Partheniai (Maiden boys, or Maiden’s boys), supposedly born at
the time of the Messenian war and closely connected to the helots, and was believed to
have been launched by a failed plot in the Hyakinthian sanctuary (Antiochos FGrHist 555
F 13; different versions of the story in Ephoros FGrHist 70 F 216; Diod. VIII 21). In this
case we find again a company of young men of illegal birth (the offspring of promiscuous
unions between young Spartans and Spartan maidens) failing to acquire full membership
in the Spartan state and therefore forced to emigrate, with some signs of inversion of
sexual roles (implied by the very name Partheniai), and can suppose that the tradition
was connected to the Hyakinthia ritual and probably transmitted in this context (see
Corsano 1979; Malkin 1994, 111–113; Nafissi 1999; Kõiv 2003, 108–117).
92
See above with note 10.
44 Mait Kõiv

killing at the altar when about to sacrifice to the goddess. This sacrilege caused
disease that was divinely prescribed to be expunged by staining the altar with
human blood. The Spartans therefore began to sacrifice people selected by lot.
Lykourgos averted the custom of human sacrifice, establishing the practice of
scourging the male youths at the altar and staining it with human blood in that
way.93
Lykurgos was thus regarded as the creator of both the internal order of the
Spartan State in general and of the ritual practice of Orthia in particular. The
ritual supposedly established by him is known to us from historical times. Xeno-
phon and Plato in the fourth century related that it was a ritual fight, in the
course of which a group of epheboi (adolescents) tried to steal cheese from the
altar (see figure 2) while others repelled them by using whips. Both authors
viewed this as a test for the endurance of pain.94 By the time of Pausanias in the
Roman period the ritual fight had been replaced by basic flagellation: the youths
were whipped on the altar and the observing priestess held a small statue of the
goddess in her hands, which supposedly turned heavy when the youths were
insufficiently scourged.95 The whipping ritual was apparently followed by a pro-
cession called Lydon pompe (the procession of the Lydians).96
We have thus the rituals from the Classical and the Roman periods and the
aetiology given by Pausanias. The story obviously suits the ritual mentioned by
Xenophon and Plato: the madness and fighting around the altar in the story cor-
responds to the theft, struggle and whipping in the rite.97 A specific connection of

93
Paus. III 16.9–10.
94
Xenoph. Lac. pol. 2, 9: καὶ ὡς πλείστους δὴ ἁρπάσαι τυροὺς παρ' ᾿Ορθίας καλὸν θείς,
μαστιγοῦν τούτους ἄλλοις ἐπέταξε, τοῦτο δηλῶσαι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ βουλόμενος ὅτι ἔστιν
ὀλίγον χρόνον ἀλγήσαντα πολὺν χρόνον εὐδοκιμοῦντα εὐφραίνεσθαι. Plat. Nom. I
633b: τὸ περὶ τὰς καρτερήσεις τῶν ἀλγηδόνων πολὺ παρ' ἡμῖν γιγνόμενον, ἔν τε ταῖς
πρὸς ἀλλήλους ταῖς χερσὶ μάχαις καὶ ἐν ἁρπαγαῖς τισιν διὰ πολλῶν πληγῶν ἑκάστοτε
γιγνομένων· Since Plato counts here three exercises of endurance in Sparta, the rites of
Orthia, the krypteia and the Gymnopaidiai, it looks obvious that both χερσὶ μάχαις and
ἁρπαγαῖς must belong to this first context. The ascription of the custom to the lawgiver
becomes apparent from 633a. On the whole ritual see especially Nilsson 1906, 192–195;
Brelich 1969, 133–136; Ducat 2006, 249–254 (see also Paradiso 2007 suggesting that the
item robbed from the altar was wheat not cheese).
95
Paus. III 16.10–11; Plut. Lyc. 18; Inst. Lac. 40. See Kennell 1995, 70–78 and the full
evidence collected in 149–161. The winner of this contest was honoured as βωμονείκης
(Hygin. Fab. 261 and the inscriptions on their statue bases (IG V 1. 554, 652–654, see
Woodward 1929, no. 142–144). On the ritual and its significance for Spartan upbringing
see Nilsson 1906, 191–195; Brelich 1969, 130–138; Jeanmaire 1939, 515–523; Calame 1977,
276–281; Kennell 1995, 70–97.
96
Plut. Arist. 17.10. Plutarch explains the name of the procession with a story of how the
Spartan commander Pausanias had, before the Battle of Plataia during the Persian War,
whipped back the Lydians trying to rob sacred objects from a sacrificial altar.
97
The significance of fighting in the ritual of Xenophon and Plato was pointed out by
Jeanmaire 1939, 516–517. It is inferred also by a story from Plutarch (previous note) ex-
plaining the ritual as a commemoration of the repulsion of an attack (see Brelich 1969,
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 45

the aetiology with the early cult practice is indicated by the persons who, accord-
ing to the story, found the statue of the goddess and thus caused the sacrilege:
Alopekos and Astrabakos.
The name Alopekos obviously derives from ἀλώπηξ – the fox. Fox is gener-
ally known as a cunning and flexible animal, and as a superb thief. Alopekos is
therefore highly suitable for exemplifying a ritual theft in the course of a struggle
where swiftness, flexibility, and perhaps some cunning, played a crucial part.
Moreover, we are told that the Spartan youths endured a fox period (φούαξιρ)
before taking part in the whipping ritual.98 We also know that they were encour-
aged to steal, but where whipped when caught.99 We also have the famous story
of a Spartan boy hiding a stolen fox beneath his cloth and suffering the animal to
tear out his bowels with its teeth and claws, and dying rather than having his
theft detected.100 Theft, determination, endurance to suffering, whipping, fox and
fox-likeness clearly belonged together, revealing the natural connection between
Alopekos and the Orthian cult.
Astabakos also must have had his place in the ritual. He had a heroon near
the Orthian sanctuary,101 and we are told that the bucolic choirs performed in
honour of Artemis at Karyai in northern Lakonika included songs called As-
trabika, demonstrating that Astrabakos was connected to the cult of the god-
dess.102 Herodotos relates a story about the heros Astrabakos in Sparta taking the
shape of King Ariston to sleep with his wife and siring the next king Demaratos
who was later deposed because of his supposed illegal birth.103 The name Astra-

135). Therefore, I cannot agree with the scholars who have recently suggested that the
story was a late invention, created as the aetion of the ritual during the Roman period
(Bonnechere 1993, 15–18; Kennell 1995, 79–82; Ducat 2006, 251–252): the madness and
fighting in the story do not accord with the late ritual of basic flagellation, but suits
perfectly to the ritual described by Xenophon and Plato. Nor is it possible that the true
aetiology of the ritual of the Classical period was given by the story of the Lydians
(previous note), because all the ancients ascribed the ritual to Lykurgos and therefore
could not have believed that it was established to commemorate an incident during the
Persian War. The story given by Pausanias contains even more elements deriving from
the early ritual, as will be shortly demonstrated.
98
Hesychios s.v. φούαξιρ· ἡ ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας σωμασκία τῶν μελλόντων μαστιγοῦσθαι.
See Vernant 1992, 241; Kennell 1995, 122; Ogden 1997, 113; Ducat 2006, 185, 254–255.
Hesychios also tells that φοῦαι means foxes to the Spartans (φοῦαι· ἀλώπεκες).
99
Plut. Lyc. 17. We know from Xen. Lac. Pol. II 2 that the ‘Lykurgan’ education of the
youth contained scourging by especial whip-bearers (μαστιγοφόροι) serving as the
assistants of the overseer of the boys (παιδονόμος). See Ducat 2006, 159–160.
100
Plut. Lyc. 18; note the way Plutarchos connected this with the sufferings in the Orthian
ritual.
101
Paus. III 16.6.
102
Probus, quoted in Nillson 1906, 198 n.1: ritum autem sacrorum Bucolicon apellaratus --
-- hoc idem carmen Astrabicon dictum est a forma sedilis.
103
Hdt. VI 69. For various interpretations of the story see Burkert 1965 (who completely
disregards the phallic and grotesque nature of Astrabakos, for which see below) and
Seeberg 1966, 62–64.
46 Mait Kõiv

bakos derives from astrabe, a special packsaddle for mules designed for woman
riders.104 We are also told that the deposed king Demaratos was mocked by the
new king Leotychides, his rival, as a son of a muleteer.105 Astrabakos and mule
were clearly connected. Mules indeed were imagined as phallic creatures having,
according to Aristotle, exceptionally large penises, and were depicted so on vases,
usually in carrying Hephaistos amidst the sexually excited silens (figures 7–8).106
This obviously suggests a phallic nature for Astrabakos, which is demonstrated
by the trick he played on Ariston and his wife according to Herodotos’ story.107
As a phallic and cunning creature Astrabakos the mule-saddle-man obviously
relates to his fox-like brother Alopekos. Moreover, he fits perfectly into the con-
text of the early Orthian cult, where we have various pieces of evidence suggest-
ing that it had grotesque and sexual aspects. The archaeology has revealed the
images severe winged goddess, terrifying and grotesque masks, the terracotta and
lead figurines of satyr-like men, often ithyphallic, and of padded dancers evoking
Dionysian revelry (figures 9–10).108 The popularity of this kind of ritual in Ar-
chaic Sparta is demonstrated by an archaic Lakonian vase-painting (figure 11).109

104
Athen. XIII 583b–c. See Mau 1896.
105
Hdt. VI 68.2.
106
Arist. HA 577 b28. LIMC Hephaistos, nos. 106, 116, 117, 133, 138bcd, 139acd, 142af,
144b, 154, 156b, 157deg, 163a, 164a, 165d, 166; but note also the Laconian cup in Rhodes
(Seeberg 1966, 53; Pipili 1987, 54) and the Corinthian amphora from Berlin (F. 1652)
presented and discussed in Seeberg 1966, 53–55.
107
For the evidence for and the character of Astrabakos and his connections to the Or-
thian cult see Wide 1893, 279–280; Bethe 1896; Burkert 1965, 171–174; Seeberg 1966;
Ogden 1997, 111–115. Seeberg 1966, 61–62 and Ogden 1997, 112–113 have suggested that
Astrabakos was lame, bringing this in connection with the seemingly crippled padded
dancers on the one hand and the supposed sexual potency of cripples on the other (ex-
pressed in the Spartan saying ῎Αριστα χωλὸς οἰφεῖ ‘a lame man screws best’ – see
Mimnermos fr. 21a West).
108
For the representations of the winged deity see Dawkins 1929c (Plates XCI 1–2; XCII 2;
XCIII; XCVIII; CVII 1). Among the masks note especially the types labelled by Dickins
1929, 166–169 as ‘Old Women’, ‘Satyrs’ and ‘Caricatures’, although some of the
‘Warriors’, for which Dickins notes (p 167) that the title ‘is perhaps hardly justified by the
evidence’, could be perhaps better regarded as silens (note the masks on Plate LIV nos. 1,
2) Dawkins 1929b, 155–156 in discussing the terracotta figurines notes that ‘the very great
majority of the figurines appear to be intended for bearded males. ... The fullface type also
represents a man, or more probably a satyr, with beard and whiskers.’ The nude and
spirited male dancers mentioned in Wace 1929, 276.
109
As noted by Seeberg 1966, 71–72. See the catalogue of the Laconia ‘padded dancers’
vases in Seeberg 1966, 65–71; the satyrs and komos scenes in Pipili 1987, 65–68, 71–75; and
the discussion in Powell 1998, 129–139. Sosibios and Pollux report the Lakonian comic
dances imitating persons stealing fruits (an ill-placed allusion to the Orthian theft ritual?)
and performed by certain dekelistai who elsewhere, notably in Sikyon, were called phal-
lophoroi (Sosibios FGrHist 595 F 7 ap. Athen. XIV 621 d–e: παρὰ δὲ Λακεδαιμονίοις
κωμικῆς παιδιᾶς ἦν τις τρόπος παλαιός, ὥς φησι Σωσίβιος, .... ἐμιμεῖτο γάρ τις ἐν
εὐτελεῖ τῇ λέξει κλέπτοντάς τινας ὀπώραν ... Pollux Onom. IV 104: τὸ ὄρχημα τὸ
διθυραμβικόν, μιμητικὴν δὲ δι' ἧς ἐμιμοῦντο τοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ κλοπῇ τῶν ἑώλων κρεῶν
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 47

The sexual implications of the cult are further emphasised by the dedication of
the statuettes of ithyphallic males and of females in a sitting posture with the
legs apart displaying conspicuously marked genitals.110
One partially preserved Laconian cup dedicated in the sanctuary, dating from
the first half of the sixth century, can be particularly significant in the present
context (figure 12).111 It depicts three seemingly fat persons wearing buttock-cups
probably indicating their ritual costume, two of whom are dancing and one,
apparently defecating, is chased by a satyr-like figure with a huge hanging penis.
Among them there is a central couple, depicted in an act of copulation. The gen-
der of the penetrated person may be debatable, but as the whole company seems
to be male, and nothing positively indicates the female sex of this person, the
natural conclusion would be that we have a scene of male homosexuality.112 The
active man in this intercourse stretches his right hand over the back of his part-
ner and may be holding a stick in the hand. This interpretation is supported by
the five parallel strips on the back of the penetrated person, which could be un-
derstood as the marks of whipping.113 In such a case we have a depiction of an
obvious sexual act involving humiliation.
We do not know what all this is about. The buttock-caps of the dancers and of
the person approached by the satyr suggest that it could be a depiction of a ritual,
and the satyr-like figure can be also viewed as a man wearing ritual costume,
while the dedication of the cup to Orthia could indicate that the ritual took place
in that sanctuary.114 If the reading of the central scene as male homosexuality
combined with whipping is correct, it would immediately call to mind ritual
scourging.
The depicted scene does not of course correspond to either the Classical or the
Roman period ritual as described by our sources, and any more or less precise
interpretation of it will be inevitably debated. It might be tentatively connected
to the statement of a late source that young Spartiates had regularly to display

ἁλισκομένους).
110
Dawkins 1929a, 156 notes besides the great number of the ithyphallic males 11 figu-
rines ‘of women in a sitting posture with the legs apart: the pudenda often marked con-
spicuously.’
111
First briefly discussed by Lane 1933–34, 160 (drawing and photograph in Plate 39a–40);
see also the detailed description in Stibbe 1972, 221–222 no. 64 (dating it ca 580–575), the
short treatment in Pipili 1987, 65 (no. 179, Fig. 95), and the discussion in Seeberg 1966, 65–
69; Powell 1998, 130–135; Waugh 2009, 163–164.
112
The penetrated person appears virtually sexless and has been viewed as both female
(Lane 1933–34, 160; Stibbe 1972, 222; Pipili 1987, 65) and male (Powell 1998, 131–135;
Ducat 2006, 200).
113
Powell 1998, 132–134.
114
Powell 1998, 139–135. Pipili 1987, 65 has followed the long accepted concept of Orthia
as a fertility goddess (Rose 1929; Carter 1987; 1988) and speculated a fertility ritual, seeing
the satyr with phallus as a fertility daemon. The aspect of fertility and childbirth could
well have been present in the cult (but see Waugh 2009, who seems to be rather sceptical
about this), but there is no particular reason to view either the satyrs or the padded
dancers as promoters of fertility (see Lissarague 1993, 207–220).
48 Mait Kõiv

themselves naked before the ephors (high officials) and were whipped when
found to be soft and weak.115 However, what matters is that the whole scene
reveals a reversal of the military virtues and discipline of which the Spartans
were normally so proud of. Fatness, unmanliness, revelry and sexual humiliation
present an almost complete inversion of the acceptable order for the warrior-
citizens. At the same time, this inversion fits perfectly with the grotesque and
sexual features of the archaic Orthian cult, and fits equally well with the figures
of the cunning and phallic Alopekos and Astrabakos. Such inversion must have
been a natural part of the Orthian ritual during the early period from which this
archaeological evidence derives. Alopekos and Artrabakos represent this aspect
in the corresponding aetiology.
However, any state of inversion must be in the end averted and order re-
stored, and we can be fairly sure that in the sanctuary of Orthia this restoration
was enacted through the victory achieved, and the hierarchy established, in the
course of the ritual contest involving the whipping at the altar, and through the
following procession of the participants who had victoriously emerged from the
fighting and suffering.116
As in the case of the cults of Apollo and the conquest traditions, we can see
here an obvious parallel in the ritual practice and the aetiological story, demon-
strating a connection between the rites and the traditions in the context of a
sanctuary which was of paramount significance for the Spartan state and the
education of its citizens.117 There was a ritually enacted state of inversion in the
cult, exemplified by the grotesque features, revelry, licentiousness, trickery, vio-
lence and perhaps sexual humiliation, from which an order and hierarchy must
have been re-created. There was a corresponding state of inversion in the story,
including madness, fighting and sacrilegious killing by the altar, from which
Lykurgos created order through establishing the scourging ritual. Astrabakos and
Alopekos launched the chaos in the story, and probably exemplified it in the
ritual, while the solution enacted by Lykurgos obviously stands for the restora-
tion of what was considered normal.
Moreover, the creation of the ritual practice in the Orthian sanctuary parallels
the creation of the general order in the whole of the Spartan State: in both cases
there was the initial state of chaos and in both cases normalcy was re-established
by Lykurgos. The very name of Orthia meaning ‘the one making things
straight’118 fits perfectly for embodying the general rectification of the Spartan
affairs. The scourging of the youths on the altar can be seen as representing the
harsh way of life that Lykurgos had imposed on the Spartans, including the

115
Aelian. Var. hist. 14.7; see Vernant 1992, 235.
116
Paradiso 2007, 314 plausibly suggests that ‘the Lydians’ of the procession were those
who had played the part of the Lydians in the theft contest, that is the attackers whipped
by the defenders as described in the story of Plut. Arist. 17 (see note 94).
117
See notes 92–93).
118
Schol. Plat. Nom. 633b. For an interpretation of the name Orthia see Calame 1977, 289–
290.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 49

whipping of boys during their education.119 Since the cult and the rites of Orthia
played an important part in the ‘Lykurgan’ education of the Spartan youth, we
can legitimately suggest that the re-establishment of the order by Lykurgos in the
sanctuary of Orthia and the adjustment of the whole state were intimately con-
nected in the eyes of the Spartans, and that the annual ritual re-creation of the
normal ways in the cult context was seen as confirming the Lykurgan system in
general. This intimate connection between the ‘Lykurgan’ traditions and the cult
of Artemis Orthia legitimates seeing the precinct as an institution preserving and
transmitting the tradition of the Lykurgan establishment, and the rituals per-
formed in the sanctuary appear as the ceremonial re-enactment of this suppos-
edly crucial event of the past.

Conclusion: emergence of statehood, cults, and memories

We see how the principal sanctuaries as the focal ceremonial centres of the Spar-
tan polis, shaping the common identity of the people, served as the places of
memorial preserving and transmitting the traditions concerning the past. No
doubt, the Spartans had numerous localities connected to the traditional ac-
counts, but we can reasonably believe that the more importance the people as-
cribed to the places and the rituals enacted there, the more significant the tradi-
tions were likely to have been linked to them. It is, therefore, natural to find the
accounts of the creation of the state, both the conquest that brought the land
under the Spartan control and the establishment of the political and social insti-
tutions, attached to the prominent sanctuaries of Apollo and of Artemis Orthia.
The cults of Orthia on the verge of the Spartan town and Apollo Hyakinthios in
Amyklai seem to have been particularly important in this respect, because they
formed a ritual axis uniting the crucial settlements of the Spartan polis.120 There
is, of course, no reason to suppose that the Lykurgan traditions were connected
exclusively to the Orthian ritual and the conquest accounts to the cults of Apollo.
The whole Lykurgan order was viewed as a prescription of Apollo in Delphi and
thus protected by the god,121 which gives us every reason to suppose that the
Lykurgan establishment was regularly evoked in Apollonian cult contexts.122

119
The ‘Lykurgan’ education included inspection by special whip-bearers (see note 99).
Besides, the boys were allegedly encouraged to steal, but scourged when caught in the act
(Xen. Anab. IV 16.14–15; Isocr. Panath. 211–212; Plut. Lyc. 17.3–4)
120
Polignac 1984, 70–74.
121
The Delphic prescription of the good order was an invariable element of the Lykurgos
legend, and the Great Rhetra stating the principles of political decision-making was
indeed known as a Delphic utterance (see the sources and literature quoted in notes 10–
11). The Apollonic origin of the Spartan order was proclaimed by Tyrtaios (fr. 4 West).
122
The Gymnopaidiai were celebrated in honour of Apollo Pythaeus (Paus. III 11.9),
implying connections to the Delphic (Pythian) sanctuary, and Hesychios s.v. Lykourgos in
fact ascribes the foundation of the festival to the lawgiver; the Cretan poet Thaletas, who
also was reputed as the establisher of the festival ([Plut.] Mus. 9; according to Athenaios
XV 678 b–c the songs of Thaletas were performed during the festival), was therefore
50 Mait Kõiv

However, the evidence we have still suggests a difference in emphasis between

the different cults and sanctuaries through the lines as demonstrated above.
Apollo and Artemis, the deities honoured with these cults, were regarded by the
Greeks as the paramount protectors of youth, and all these sanctuaries probably
played an essential role in the process of educating and initiating the young
Spartans into adulthood, and thus to the full citizenship. This vitally important
function of preparing the citizen-soldiers gave these cults a great martial and/or
political significance for the Spartan state. Educating meant also introducing the
youth into the traditional knowledge, including what was believed about the
origins, which makes it natural that in Sparta, like in numerous cultures of the
world, the rituals of initiation and the respective cults provided the framework
for transmitting the traditional accounts.123 The education of the citizens, the
maintenance and sacral confirmation of the military and political order, and the
traditions concerning the creation of the state were almost inseparably tied in the
preeminent cult contexts.
The connection between the cult places and the quasi-historical accounts had
obvious effects on the traditional stories. As the traditions were preserved and
transmitted by integrating them into the ritual celebrations, and since they func-
tioned as aetiologies for the cults, their structure was shaped according to the
ritual logic, frequently according to the narrative model of the development from
chaos and inversion to the establishment of order and hierarchy. This is indeed a
widespread pattern of structuring myths and rituals,124 known from both Greece
and adjacent cultures, which can be connected equally with the fertility rites and
the rituals concerning initiation.125 Both these aspects could have been essentially
present in the cults of Apollo and Orthia discussed here.126 This ritual back-

considered as Lykurgos’ contemporary (Arist. Pol. 1274 a 28ff, who himself disagreed
with this opinion; see also Plut. Lyc. 4; Agis 10; Hieronymos ap. Athen. XIV 635 e–f).
123
This function of the initiation rituals in various cultures has been pointed out by Eliade
1995, 18–20.
124
On this model of mythological thinking in different cultures see especially Eliade 1965,
51–137; Assmann 2000, 52–56.
125
We can recall the festivals of Thesmophoria in various Greek poleis, including the
encounter with death on the first day, the aischrologia (indecent speech), sexual
symbolism and women’s alleged threats against men during the celebration, and the
hailing of Kalligeneia (the Beautiful Birth) on the last day, possibly marking the re-
appearance of Persephone from underworld and the re-establishment of the normal order
(Burkert 1984, 242–246; Golden 1988, 5–7; Dillon 2002, 110–120), and the grotesque and
ecstatic sexless (or bisexual) devotees of Ištar (assinnus, kurgarrûs, kulu’us) in the Near
East, probably creating a state of licence which was eventually to be averted, in
accordance with the re-emergence of the goddess from the underworld in the myth (see
Roscoe 1996, 213–216; Teppo 2008). It can be noted that Carter 1987 has postulated a
strong eastern impact on the Orthian cult, which can be seen in the archaeological record
(Kopanias 2009). For comparable features in the initiation ritual see the literature in note
51.
126
Hyakinthos has been often viewed as a spirit of fertility and the Hyakinthia correspon-
dingly as a fertility rite (the different interpretations are summarised in Petterson 1992,
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 51

ground shaped both the general story structure and several particulars in the
accounts. We can reasonably suppose that the elements in the stories pointing to
the marginality of the actors and the state of inversion preceding the final solu-
tion are influenced by the rituals. This pertains, for example, to the ambiguous
and foreign descent of the groups supposedly involved in the conquest of Amyk-
lai, their temporary acceptation and consequent expulsion from the land, as well
as the initial madness and fighting around the altar of Orthia, and the figures of
Astrabakos and Alopekos initiating this state of chaos.
The cults had thus a double effect on the traditional accounts. On the one
hand they provided the context and hence some stability for the transmission,
while on the other hand shaped the stories according to the overall logic and
even certain peculiarities of the rituals. It is, however, difficult to pinpoint the
exact interplay between the rituals and the narrative accounts. The cult practice
shaped the stories, but to what extent could the rituals have been inspired by the
real events of the past, and hence to have had their own effect on the ritual prac-
tice, and to what extent could the traditions, despite their ritually induced pat-
terning, have preserved some historical kernel? It is clear, on the one hand, that
historical events have often given birth to commemorative ritual traditions, and
on the other hand, that the model of order and success arising from initial chaos
– the crisis followed by a solution – does not pertain only to the ritual practice
and mythology, but can fairly adequately describe countless cases in the real
history.127
In the present case no definite answer to these questions suggests itself, be-
cause we have no independent evidence for checking the worth of the accounts.
On the one hand, the early and (half) legendary setting of the stories transmitted
by much later sources does not inspire confidence. On the other hand, there is
almost no doubt that most of the relevant traditions were of comparatively early
origin, dating from the Archaic period. The Dorian invasion was indeed an ac-
cepted fact for Tyrtaios in the seventh century, and all the principal points of the
complex account were familiar to the fifth century authors.128 The stories of the
Aigeidai, Theras and the immigrants from Lemnos were referred to by Pindar
and told in detail by Herodotos, and there is no reason to suppose that the alter-
native versions known to Ephoros and Aristotle were recent inventions during
their time. In the case of the foundation of the Orthia ritual we have, unfortu-
nately, no evidence prior to Pausanias and Plutarch, except for the supposed fact

12–14). For the interpretation of the meaning Karneia, particularly the rite of
staphylodromoi, see the literature quoted in note 47 ; for Orthia as a fertility cult sees note
112. For the interpretation of these cults and rites in the terms of initiation see notes 51,
84, 93. There is no need to choose between the fertility and the initiatory practices, be-
cause they could well have been combined.
127
Note the statement of Burkert (1979, 18) that ‘tale structures, as sequences of
motifemes, are founded on basic biological or cultural programs of actions’.
128
Tyrt. fr. 2, 11 West; Pind. Pyth. I 61–66, V 69–76; Isthm. VII 12ff, IX 1–4; Hdt. I 56, 144–
147, IV 145–149, V 65, 3–4, 76, VI 51–55, VIII 31, 43, 73, IX 26; Thuc. I 12.3; Hellanikos
FGrHist 4 F 116, 125.
52 Mait Kõiv

of the Lykurgan origin assumed by Xenophon and Plato, but the accordance of
the story with the rite mentioned by these fourth century writers, and especially
with the features of the Archaic cult, point to an early origin of this tradition as
well.129
The connection of the tradition to the cults was probably equally ancient. We
have noted that, as far as the archaeological evidence suggests, the formation of
the Spartan state embracing the villages of Sparta and Amyklai was marked by
the emergence sanctuaries. The formation of the state obviously involved the
establishment and promotion of the cults and their integration into the commu-
nity’s religious system. These crucial events must have left memories behind, and
these memories, concerning the very origins of the polis and the cults, must have
been of great significance for the subsequent generations. This warrants the sug-
gestion that the connection between the cults and the foundation traditions dates
from this formative period. More specifically, we can trust that Karneia as an
universal Dorian cult was very ancient in Sparta,130 although we have no archeo-
logical evidence at this point, and its usual connection with the Dorian founda-
tion stories suggests that it was tied to the account of the foundation of Dorian
Sparta from an early period. The origins of the Hyakinthia may or may not go
back to the Bronze Age, but as the worship at Amyklaion was practiced through-
out the history of Dorian Sparta, we need not doubt that whenever, and in
whichever way, the Spartans established their control over the village they must
have also taken over the cult. Hyakinthia was thus probably adopted into the
Spartan religious system at the time of Amyklai’s submission, and the ritual axis
between these settlements built at this very period. We can suppose that the
memories concerning this event were tied to the cult from that time onwards.
From the site of Orthia the archaeological record begins almost synchronically
with the evidence from the Spartan Dark Age settlement, which suggests that the
cult played a crucial part in the development of early Sparta and in the formation
of the political union of the villages the people of which subsequently partici-
pated in the worship.131 From early on it was likely to have anchored the memo-
ries concerning this process.
All in all, as the formation of the Spartan polity went hand in hand with the
rise of its principal sanctuaries, we can surmise that the memories of this devel-
opment were instantly tied to the cults and thus transmitted in that context con-
tinuously from the very emergence of the state. We can therefore believe that the
traditions crystallized at an early period, probably from the eighth and seventh

129
For the reasons of my disagreement with the contrary view see note 95 above.
130
The statement of Lakonian antiquarian Sosibios FGrHist 595 F 3 about the
establishment of the festival at the 26th Olympiad (676–673) is transmitted in the context
of the beginning of the Karneian song contests, and was probably meant to indicate
exactly that (Athenaios XIV 635e–f reports that according to Hellanikos (FGrHist 4 F 85)
the poet Terpandros was the first winner of the Karneia contest , and that according to
Sosibios (loc.cit.) the celebration of Karneia began at Ol. 26) – so, for example, Robertson
2002, 52.
131
So Huxley 1962, 17; Cartledge 1979, 106; Sakellariou 1989, 308; Kõiv 2003, 178.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 53

centuries which seem to have marked the emergence of the Spartan state, and
preserved, despite all the ritually induced and other kind of modifications, their
kernel throughout the following periods. The least we can say is that the organic
link between the cults and the traditions reflects adequately the central role of
these sanctuaries in the polis formation. What else of the historical truth could
have been preserved can be only guessed.

Bibliography
Assmann, J. (2000), Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische
Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. München.
Assmann, J. (2006), Religion and Cultural Memory. Stanford.
Beloch, K. J. (1913), Griechische Geschichte, I 2. Straßburg.
Bethe, E. (1896), Astrabakos. In: RE 4, 1792.
Boardman, J. (1963), Artemis Orthia and Chronology. In: BSA 58, 1–7.
Bonnechere, P. (1993), Orthia et la flagellation des éphèbes spartiates. Un souve-
nir chimérique de sacrifice humain. In: Kernos 6, 11–22.
Brelich, A. (1961), Guerre, agoni e culti nella Grecia arcaica. Bonn.
Brelich, A. (1969), Paides e parthenoi. Roma.
Bremmer, J. (1987), Oedipus and the Greek Oedipus complex. In: J.Bremmer (Ed.),
Interpretations of Greek Mythology, 41–59. London – Sidney.
Bremmer, J. (1994), Greek religion. Oxford.
Burkert, W. (1965), Demaratos, Astrabakus und Herakles. Königsmythos und
Politik zur Zeit der Perserkriege (Herodot 6, 67–69). In: Museum Helveticum
22, 166–177.
Burkert, W. (1979) Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, London
Burkert, W. (1984), Greek Religion. Oxford.
Calame, C. (1977), Les chœurs des jeunes filles en Grèce archaïque I: Morpholo-
gie, fonction religieuse et social. Roma.
Calligas, P.G. (1992), From the Amyklaion. In: J. M. Sanders (Ed.), Philolakon.
Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling. London. 31–48.
Carter, J.B. (1987), The masks of Ortheia. In: AJA 91, 355–383.
Carter, J.B. (1988), Masks and poetry in early Sparta. In: R. Hägg – N. Marinatos
– G.C. Nordquist (Eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice, 88–98. Stockholm.
Cartledge, P. (1979), Sparta and Lakonia. London.
Cartledge, P. (1981), The politics of Spartan pederasty. In: PCPhS 27, 17–36.
Cartledge, P. (1987), Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. London – Baltimore.
Cartledge, P. (1998), City and chora in Sparta: Archaic to Hellenistic. In: W.G.
Cavanagh – S.E.C. Walker (Eds.), Sparta in Laconia: Proceedings of the 19th
British Museum Classical Colloquium, 39–49. London.
Catling, H. (1976–77), Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta, 1973–1976. In: Ar-
chaeological Reports 23, 24–42.
Catling, R.W.V. (2002), The survey area from the Early Iron Age to the Classical
period. In: W. Cavanagh – J. Crouwel – R. W. V. Catling – G. Shipley (Eds.),
Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape. Laconian Survey, 151–
54 Mait Kõiv

256. London.
Christien, J. – Ruzé, F. (2007), Sparte. Géographie, mythes et histoire. Paris.
Connerton, P. (1989), How Societies Remember. Cambridge.
Corsano, M. (1979), Sparte et Tarante: le mythe de fondation d’une colonie. In:
Revue de l’histoire des religions 196, 113–140.
Cubitt, G. (2007), History and Memory. Manchester.
Dawkins, R. M. (1929a), The sanctuary. In: R.M. Dawkins (Ed.), The Sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by Members of the British
School at Athens 1906–1910. London, 1–51.
Dawkins, R. M. (1929b), The terracotta figurines. In: R. M. Dawkins (Ed.), The
Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by Members
of the British School at Athens 1906–1910. London, 145–162.
Dawkins, R. M. (1929c), Objects carved in ivory and bone. In: R. M. Dawkins
(Ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by
Members of the British School at Athens 1906–1910. London, 203–248.
Delcourt, M. (1944), Oedipe ou la légende conquerant. Liége – Paris.
Dickins, G. (1929), The masks. In: R. M. Dawkins (Ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis
Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by Members of the British School
at Athens 1906–1910. London, 163–186.
Dillon, M. (2002), Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion. London – New
York.
Dodd, D. B. – Faraone, C. A. (Eds.) (2011), Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and
Narratives. New Critical Perspectives. London – New York.
Dowden, K. (2011), Initiation: the key to myth? In: K. Dowden – N. Livingstone
(Eds.), A Companion to Greek Mythology. Malden–Oxford– Chichester, 487–
505.
Drerup, H. (1969), Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit. Göttingen.
Ducat, J. (2006), Spartan Education: Youth and Society in the Classical Period.
Swansea.
Eder, B. (1998), Argos, Lakonien, Messenien vom Ende der mykenischen Palast-
zeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. Wien.
Eitrem, S. (1941), Phlegyas. In: RE 19, 266–269.
Eliade, M. (1965), The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History.
Princeton.
Eliade, M. (1995), Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mystries of Birth and
Rebirth. Woodstock.
Fågerström, K. (1988), Greek Iron Age Architecture. Developments through
Changing Times. Göteborg.
Faustoferri, A. (1996), Il trono di Amyklai e Sparta. Bathycles al servizio del pote-
re. Napoli.
Forrest, W.G. (1968), A History of Sparta. 950–192 B.C. London.
Gehrke, H.-J. (1994), Mythos, Geschichte, Politik – antik und modern. In: Sae-
culum 45, 239–264.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2001), Myth, history, and collective identity: uses of past in An-
cient Greece and beyond. In: N. Luraghi (Ed.), Historian’s Craft in the Age of
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 55

Herodotus, Oxford. 286–313.

Gehrke, H.-J. (2003), Sull’etnicità elea. In: Geographia Antica 12, 5–22.
Gehrke, H.-J. (2010), Representations of the past in Greek culture. In: L. Foxhall –
H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi (Eds.), Intentional History: Spinning Time in An-
cient Greece, 15–33. Stuttgart.
Gilbert, G. (1872), Studien zur altspartanischen Geschichte. Göttingen.
Golden, M. (1988), Male chauvinists and pigs. In: Echos du Monde Classi-
que/Classical Views 32, n.s. 7, 1–12.
Graf, F. (2011), Initiation: a concept with a troubled history. In: Dodd – Faraone,
3–24.
Haake, M. – Jung, M. (Hrsg.) (2011), Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungs-
orte. Von der Archaik bis in den Hellenismus. Erträge einer internationalen
Tagung in Münster, 20.–21.1.2006, Stuttgart.
Hall, J. (2007), A History of the Archaic Greek World ca. 1200–749 BCE. Malden
– Oxford – Clarton.
Henderson, J. (1975), The Maculate Muse. Obscene language in Attic Comedy.
New Haven – London.
Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (1940-41), Alt-Thera vor der Gründung von Kyrene. In:
Klio 33, 57–72.
Hodkinson, S. (1997), The development of Spartan society and institutions in the
Archaic period. In: L.G. Mitchell – P.J. Rhodes (Eds.), The Development of the
Polis in Archaic Greece, London – New York, 1997, 83–102;
Hölkeskamp, K. J. (2010), Lykurg – der Mythos vom Verfassungsstifter und Er-
zieher. In: Stein-Hölkeskamp – Hölkeskamp, 316–335.
Huxley, G. (1962), Early Sparta. London.
Jacoby, F. (1926), FGrHist II C. Zeitgeschichte (Kommentar zu Nr. 64–105). Berlin.
Jacoby, F. (1955a), FGrHist III B 1. Autoren über einzelne Städte (Länder) (Kom-
mentar zu Nr. 297–607; Text). Leiden.
Jacoby, F. (1955b), FGrHist III B 2. Autoren über einzelne Städte (Länder) (Kom-
mentar zu Nr. 297–607; Noten). Leiden.
Jeanmaire, H. (1939), Couroi et Couretes: Essai sur l’education spartiate et sur les
rites d’adolescence dans l’antiquité hellénique, Lille.
Kennell, N. M. (1995), The Gymnasium of Virtue. Education and Culture in An-
cient Sparta. Chapel Hill – London.
Kennell, N. M. (2010), Spartans. A New History. Malden – Oxford – Chichester.
Kennell, N. – Luraghi, N. (2009), Laconia and Messenia. In: K. A. Raaflaub – H.
van Wees (Eds.), A Companion to Archaic Greece, 339–254. Malden – Oxford
– Chichester.
Kiechle, F. (1963), Lakonien und Sparta. München – Berlin.
Kilmer, M. (1982), Genital phobia and depilation. In: JHS 1002, 104–112.
Kirsten, E. (1958), Heiligtum und Tempel der Artemis Orthia. In: Bonner Jahrbü-
cher 158, 170–176.
Kohlmann, P. (1874), Othryades. Ein historisches-kritisches Untersuchung. In:
RhM NF 29, 463–480.
Kõiv, M. (2003), Ancient Tradition and Early Greek History. The Origins of States
56 Mait Kõiv

in Early-Archaic Sparta, Argos and Corinth (Tallinn 2003).

Kõiv, M. (2005). The origins, development, and reliability of the ancient tradition
about the formation of the Spartan constitution. In: Historia 54, 233–264.
Kõiv, M. (2013a), Early history of Elis and Pisa: invented or evolving traditions?
In: Klio 95, 15–68.
Kõiv, M. (2013b), Urbanisation and political community in early Greece. In: T.R.
Kämmerer – S. Rogge (Eds.), Patterns of Urban Societies. AOAT/AAMO 2,
149–208. Münster.
Kopanias, K. (2009), Some ivories from the Geometric stratum at the sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia, Sparta: interconnections between Sparta, Crete and the Orient
during the late eighth century BC. In: W. G. Cavanagh – C. Gallou – M.
Georgiadis (Eds.), Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-Modern (British
School at Athens Studies 16). London, 123–131.
Kunstler, B. (1991), The werewolf figure and its adoption into the Greek political
vocabulary. In: CW 84, 189–205.
Lamer (1924), Laios. In: RE XII 1, 467–513.
Lane, E. A. (1933-34), Lakonian vase painting. In: BSA 34, 99–198.
Link, S. (2009), Education and pederasty in Spartan and Cretan society. In: S.
Hodkinson (Ed.), Sparta. Comparative Approaches. Swansea, 98–111.
Lissarague, F. (1993), On the wildness of satyrs. In: T.H. Carpenter – C. Faraone
(Eds.), Masks of Dionysos, 207–220. London – Ithaca.
Lupi, M. (2006), Amompharetos, the lochos of Pitane and the Spartan system of
villages. In: S. Hodkinson – A. Powell (Eds.), Sparta and War. Swansea, 185–
218.
Luraghi, N. (2008), The Ancient Messenians. Construction of Ethnicity and Mem-
ory. Cambridge UP.
Luther, A. (2004), Könige und Ephoren. Untersuchungen zur spartanischen Ver-
fassungsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main.
Malkin, I. (1994), Myth and territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge.
Mau, A. (1896), Astrabe. In: RE 4, 1792–1793.
Meier, M. (1998), Aristokraten und Damoden. Untersuchungen zur inneren Ent-
wicklung Spartas im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und zur politischen Funktion der
Dichtung des Tyrtaios. Stuttgart.
Meyer, E., (1892), Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, I. Halle.
Moreau, A. (1992), Initiation en Grece antique. In: DHA 18, 191–244.
Mossé, C. (1988), La construction d’un mythe historique: la vie de Lycurge de
Plutarque. In: D. Bouvier – C. Calame (Eds.), Mythoi. Philosophes et histo-
riens anciens face aux mythes (Etudes de Lettres 2), 83–88.
Mosshammer, A. A. (1979), The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic
Tradition. Lewisburg – London.
Nafissi, M. (1999), From Sparta to Taras: nomima, ktiseis and the relationship be-
tween colony and mother city. In: S. Hodkinson – A. Powell (Eds.), Sparta.
New Perspectives, 245–272. London.
Nafissi, M. (2009), Sparta, in: K. A. Raaflaub – H. van Wees (Eds.), A Companion
to Archaic Greece. Malden – Oxford – Chichester, 117–137.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 57

Nafissi, M. (2010), The Great Rhetra. In: L. Foxhall – H.-J. Gehrke – N. Luraghi
(Eds.), Intentional History. Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, 89–119. Stutt-
gart.
Nilsson, M. P. (1906), Griechische Feste von religiöse Bedeutung. Leipzig.
Ogden, D. (1997), The Crooked Kings of Ancient Greece. London.
Ogden, D. (2005), Aristomenes of Messene. Legends of Sparta’s Nemesis. Swan-
sea.
Osborne, R. (1996), Greece in the Making, 1200 – 479 BC. London, New York.
Paradiso, A. (2007), Ravir des fromages à l’autel d’Orthia? In: Ktema 32, 311–325.
Parker, R. (1987), Demeter, Dionysus and the Spartan pantheon. In: R. Hägg – N.
Marinatos – G.C. Nordquist (Eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice, 99–103. Stock-
holm.
Pearson, L. (1962), The pseudo-history of Messenia and its authors. In: Historia
11, 397–426.
Pettersson, M. (1992), Cults of Apollo at Sparta: the Hyakinthia, the Gym-
nopaidiai and the Carneia. Stockholm.
Phaklaris, P. B. (1987), He mache tes Thyreas (546 p. Ch.). In: Horos 5, 101–119.
Pipili, M. (1987), Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century BC. Oxford.
Polignac. F. de (1984), La naissance de la cité grecque. Paris.
Powell, A. (1998), Sixth-century Lakonian vase-painting: continuities and dis-
continuities with the ‘Lykourgan’ ethos. In: N. Fisher – H. van Wees (Eds.)
(1998), Archaic Greece: New Approach and New Evidence, 119–146. London.
Qviller, B. (1996), Reconstructing the Spartan Partheniai: many guesses and few
facts. In: SO 71, 34–41.
Richer, N. (2010), The religious system at Sparta. In: D. Ogden (Ed.), A Compan-
ion to Greek Religion, 236–252. Wiley-Blackwell.
Richer, N. (2012), La religion des spartiates. Croyances et cultes dans l’Antiquité.
Paris.
Robertson, N. (1992), Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the
Light of Public Ritual. Toronto – Buffalo – London.
Robertson, N. (2002), The religious criterion in Greek ethnicity: the Dorians and
the festival Carneia. In: American Journal of Ancient History N.S. 1/2, 5–74.
Rose, H.J. (1929), The cult of Orthia. In: R. M. Dawkins (Ed.), The Sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by Members of the British
School at Athens 1906–1910. London, 399–407.
Roscoe, W. (1996), Priests and goddesses: gender transgression in ancient relig-
ions. In: History of Religions 35, 195–230.
Ruzé, F. – Chistien, J. (2007), Sparte: géographie, mythes, histoire. Paris.
Sakellariou, M. B. (1989), The Polis-State: Definition and Origins. Athens.
Schulz, F. (2011), Die homerischen Räte und die spartanischen Gerusie. Düssel-
dorf.
Seeberg, A. (1966), Astrabica (Herodotus VI, 68–69). In: SO 61, 48–74.
Shear, J. L. (2011), Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical
Athens. Cambridge.
Shipley, G. (2004), Lakedaimon. In: M.H. Hansen – T.H. Nielsen (Eds.), An Inven-
58 Mait Kõiv

tory of Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by the

Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, 569–
598. Oxford – New York.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1988), “Myth” and history: on Herodotus III 48 and 50–53.
In: OA 17, 167–182.
Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. – Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (Hrsg.), Die griechische Welt. Erinne-
rungsorte der Antike. München.
Stibbe, C.M. (1972), Lakonische Vasenmaler der sechsten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.
Amsterdam London.
Stibbe, C.M. (1996), Das andere Sparta, Mainz am Rhein.
Szegedy-Maszak, A. (1978), Legends of the Greek Lawgivers. In: GRBS 19, 199–
209.
Teppo, S. (2008), Sacred marriage and the devotees of Ištar. In: M. Nissinen – R.
Uro (Eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Devine-Human Sexual Metaphor from
Sumer to Early Christianity, 75–92. Winona Lake, Indiana.
Thommen, L. (1996), Lakedaimonion Politeia. Stuttgart.
Tigerstedt, E. N. (1965), The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity, I. Stockholm
– Göteborg – Uppsala.
Vansina, J. (1985), Oral Tradition as History. London – Nairobi.
Van Gennep, A. (1960), The rites of passage. Chicago.
Van Wees, H. (1999), Tyrteaus’ Euromia: nothing to do with the Great Rhetra. In:
S. Hodkinson – A. Powell (Eds.), Sparta: New Perspectives, 1–41. London.
Vernant, J.-P. (1982) From Oedipus to Periander: lameness, tyranny, incest in
legend and history. In: Arethusa 15, 19–38.
Vernant, J.-P. (1992), Mortals and Immortals. Collected Essays. Princeton – New
Jersey.
Versnel, H.S. (1990), Myth and ritual. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander: myth and ritual, old and new. In: L. Edmunds (Ed.), Approaches to
Greek Myth, 25–90. Baltimore – London.
Vidal-Naquet, P. (1981a), The black hunters and the origins of Athenian ephebia.
In: R.L. Gordon (Ed.), Myth, Religion and Society. Structuralist Essays by M.
Detienne, L. Gernet, J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, 147–162. Cambridge.
Vidal-Naquet, P. (1981b), Recipes for Greek adolescence. In: R.L.Gordon (Ed.),
Myth, Religion and Society. Structuralist Essays by M. Detienne, L. Gernet, J.-
P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, 163–185. Cambridge.
Wace, A.J.B. (1929), The lead figurines. In: R.M. Dawkins (Ed.), The Sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia at Sparta. Excavated and Described by Members of the British
School at Athens 1906 – 1910. London, 249–284.
Wade-Gery, H. T. (1944), The Spartan Rhetra in Plutarch, Lycurgus VI. C. What
is the Rhetra? In: CQ 38, 115–126.
Waugh, N. (2009), Visualising fertility at Artemis Orthia’s site. In: W. G.
Cavanagh – C. Gallou – M. Georgiadis (Eds.), Sparta and Laconia from Pre-
history to Pre-Modern (British School at Athens Studies 16), 159–167. London.
Welwei, K.-W. (2004), Sparta. Aufstieg und Niedergang einer antiken Großmacht.
Stuttgart.
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 59

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v. (1884), Homerische Untersuchungen (Philologi-

sche Untersuchungen 7). Berlin.
Zavvou, E. – Themos, A. (2009), Sparta from prehistory to Early Christian times:
observations from the excavations of 1994–2005, in: W. G. Cavanagh – C.
Gallon – M. Georgiadis (Eds.), Sparta and Laconia: From Prehistory to Pre-
Modern. London, 105–122.

Map: Southern Peloponnese with Sparta and its sanctuaries:

1 – Amyklai; 2 – Kalybia Sochas; 3 – Menelaion; 4 – Tsakona
(drawn by the author).
60 Mait Kõiv

Figure 1. Topographical map of the villages of Sparta (from Cartledge 1979, 105).
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 61

Figure 2. The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia: the temple, the altar (marked with arrow),
and the Roman period seats for the spectators on the foreground
(photograph by the author).

Figure 3: View on Sparta from the site of Menelaion: A – Spartan acropolis;

O – the site of Orthia; E – Eurotas (photograph by the author).
62 Mait Kõiv

Figure 4: Menelaion with Taigetos on the background (photograph by the author).

Figure 5: Amyklaion with Taigetos an Sparta (marked with arrow) on the background
(adapted from: http://amyklaion.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lofos20101.jpg).
 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 63

Figure 6: The statue of ‘Leonidas’ in the museum of Sparta, with the depiction
of ram’s horns on the cheeks (photograph by the author).

Figure 7. An Archaic vase-painting of Hephaistos on mule accompanied

by silens and maenads (LIMC, Hephaistos no 142a).
64 Mait Kõiv

Figure 8. Hephaistos on mule on an Archaic Laconian cup from Rhodes

(from Pilili 1987, 54 fig. 80).

Figure 9. Orthian masks (from Carter 1987, 90 fig. 3–4).

 Sanctuaries and traditions in Ancient Sparta 65

Figure 10. The figurines of the padded dancers from the Orthian sanctuary
in the Spartan museum (photograph by the author).

Figure 11. Dionysian scenery on the Archaic Laconian pottery

(from Stibbe 1972 Supplement, Tafel 24).
 66 Mait Kõiv

Figure 12. An early 6th century Laconian cup from the Orthian sanctuary
(from Lane 1933-34, plate 39).

View publication stats