Plate 1 View of Sparta, looking north-westwards from the Menelaion.

SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY*

GEOFFREY WAYWELL
Sparta, for its many admirers the greatest of the ancient Greek city states, has been the source of endless fascination from antiquity to the present day on account of its exccllent constitution, attributed to Lycurgus, its rigorous education system, its military prowess, and its fortunate location in Laconia in the southern Peloponnese. Its geographical location can best be appreciated from the site of the Menelaion, the curious stepped structure, sacred to the cult of Menelaos and Helen, which is built on a precipitous hill to the south-west of Sparta. From here there are spectacular views towards mount Taygetos, some 8,500 feet high, which dominates the western skylinc of Sparta, and looking north-west onc can discern the location of the ancient city on the west (or right) bank of thc river Eurotas, its sitc mainly occupied by the modern town refounded here in 1843 (PI. I ) . Present-day Sparta, characterised by broad avenues planted with palm trees, is a pleasant, unpretentious markettown, which continues to grow and has increasing traffic problems, but which has still not, fortunately, expanded into the acropolis area to the north of thc athletic ground. The acropolis arca has been the focus for systematic excavations over thc past hundred years, but many more rescue excavations have been carried out in the area of the modern town, in a frustrating attempt to recover information on the ancient city and its layout. Traditionally Sparta was not renowned for its architecture or topographical layout. Naturally fortified by surrounding mountain ranges and protected by the excellence of its army, it needed no man-made fortifications between the Prehistoric and thc late Classical periods, nor, according to the testimony of Thucydides in the fifth century, did it have any prestigious temples or public buildings, at any rate to rival those of Athens. Later, as Spartas power waned in the Hellenistic period, an oval circuit of walls was built (during the late third - early second centuries BC), traces of which survive, constructcd of mud-brick.5 Within these fortifications ovcr the next six hundred years Sparta developed from a series of
the text of this paper is substantially that delivered on 1 October 1997 at the Open Day celebrating the move of the Institute of Classical Studies to Senate House, supplemented by remarks made in a lecture given at the Tricnnial conference in Cambridge in July 1998, and by new information revealed in excavations at Sparta in suinmcr 1998.
Frazer ( I 898); Jones (1967); Papahatzi (1976); Cartledge (1979); Fitzhardingc ( 1980);Forrest ( 1980);Caitledgc and Spawforth (1989); Kennel1 (1995); Stibbe (1996).

R . A. Tornlinson, The Menelaion and Spartan architecture, in Sanders (1992), 247-55; Stibbc (l996), 41-49.
125-40.

Waywell and Wilkes (1994). 379-84; H. Catling, in Cavanagh and Walkcr (1998), 19-27; S. Ilaftopoulou, ibid. Thuc. I . 10.2; P. Cartledge, in Cavanagh and Walker (1998). 40. See below, n. 15. 01CS-43 - 1999
I

BICS-43 - 1999

random villages into a more conventional city, built on a grid-plan, with increasingly prestigious buildings. This was the city visited by Pausanias in c. 160 AD, and recorded in some detail by him in book 111 of his Periegesis, or Guide-book, to Greece, chapters 1 1- 18. Pausanias account of Sparta, for all its lack of directions and omissions, has been the key to trying to understand the topography of ancient Sparta, and remains SO. Although he is describing a Roman city in the Antonine era of the empire, which had reinvented its customs to flatter itself and to please the tourists, it is evident from his description that many venerable monuments were contained within the Roman-period town-planning, from which it may be deduced that the city he saw occupied the same ground as the city that went back at least until the time of Lycurgus in the Iron Age. A notable attempt to visualise Pausanias Sparta was made in 1816 by Joseph Michael Gandy (1771-1843), the renowned artist and architectural draughtsman who worked for Sir John Soane at his house-museum in Lincolns Inn Fields (PI. 2). Exhibited at the Royal Academy Exhibition in that year, it was entitled The Persian Porch and place of consultation of the Lacedaimonians - Vide Pausanias, book 111, ch. 11. This little-known painting, which is now in the collection of the Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and Humanities in Los Angeles, sums up in many respects the admiration felt for Sparta, its constitution, and its customs by Renaissance and Enlightenment scholars of the preceding centuries. In the romantic spirit of the age of Greek Revival it attempts to recreate the range of monuments mentioned by Pausanias: the Persian Porch (i.e. Stoa, or Portico) which celebrated the Spartan-led victory of the Greeks over Persia at Plataea in 479 BC, decorated with statues of the defeated Persian commanders; the two temples of the market-place, one dedicated to Julius Caesar, the other to Augustus; a colossal statue personifying the Spartan People; and not least, the Tomb of Orestes, son of Agamemnon, where his bones were buried when they were brought back from Tegea at the instigation of the oracle. With its piling up of structures and its gradation of architectural orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, with its dramatic contrast of gloom and brilliant light, it is a work of sheer imagination. Admittedly the mountain range behind could pass for Taygetos, but the steep location of the market-place is more reminiscent of the site of Mistra, the Frankish fortress town founded in the thirteenth century six km to the west, which, after it was handed over to the Byzantine emperors, came to replace medieval Sparta, and was often subsequently mistaken by travellers for the site of the ancient city.x Imagination is still a necessary ingredient for interpreting the topography of Sparta even after more than one hundred years of archaeological investigation. Excavation campaigns have been carried out since 1892 by American, British, German, and Greek scholars, mainly in the acropolis area and the northern part of the city, but they have as yet cast only a small amount of light on the location of the principal monuments of the city. Best results were achieved by the British School at Athens either side of the First World War between 1905 and 1928: a team photograph of 1908 (PI. 3) shows the doughty participants of that era,

Published recently in R. Stoneman, A Luminous kind. Arfisfs Discover Greece (Los Angeles 1998), 78-79, no. 47.

Frazer (1898); Dickins (1905-6),431-9; Papahatzi (1976), 334-81; Cartledge and Spawfoith (1989), 127-42;Stibbe (1989); Torelli (1991); Waywell and Wikes (1994). 429-32.

D. M. Nicol, Byzantine Mistra

- Sparta in

the Mind, in Cavanagh and Walker (1998), 157-59.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

P -

a ,

BICS-43 - 1999

Figure 1

Plan of Spartas acropolis and the Late Roman fortifications, by W. Sejk, 1907.

Plate 3 Members of the British excavation team at Sparta, 1908. British School at Athens archive. Reproduced with permission of the British School at Athens.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

including Woodward, Dickins and Droop in the back row, and Wacc and Dawkins seated." It was largely thanks to these scholars that the acropolis was located, and the theatre was partly cleared. Most important of all, the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia was discovered by the banks o f the Eurotas, with its startling deposits of votive objects. and its temple. altars and grandstand. confirming Pausanias' detailed account of the bloody initiation rites inilictcd here each year on Sparta's youth."' Froin a topographical point of view, the principal shortcoming o f thcsc early investigations, likc those which followed, has been the failure to locate the site ol'thc market-place o r agora. This is crucial to any interpretation of the urban layout of Sparta, a s it was the place first visited, or at least described, by Pausanias, and i t seems to havc been the starting-point for a series o f journeys he made around the different quarters of thc city, culminating in a visit to the Acropolis. At present we can i'ormulate some idea of the end of his tour. but we cannot be sure o f where he started, and consequently which routes he followed." My personal interest in Sparta began in 1989, when a combined London University team, directed by Professor John Wilkes of University College and inyscl l', undertook new cxcavations on sites in the acropolis area, and carried out a li-csh survey of standing monuments. In 1989-1991 we concentrated on the so-called Roman Stoa to the south-cast of the Round Building, and from 1992 until 1998 we re-excavated parts of thc theatre and its immediate vicinity, under the auspices of the British School at Athens. and with the full support of the Ephor of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for Arcadia and Laconia, DrTheodorc Spyropoulos, to whom warmest thanks are due." We cannot claim as yet to have unravelled the great mysteries of Spartan topography, but we arc able t o apply a clearer archaeological perspective to the many problems that remain. We will embark now on a brief tour of the principal visible monuments, indicating what evidcncc they furnish for datc and function, and what the implications arc for topographical questions. The visitor to Sparta's acropolis is often most impressed by the line circuit 01' fortification walls that enclose the area (Fig. I)." These bclong to the Late Roinan period, and represent the final contraction o f the once great city within defensible limits necessitated by the period o f invasions from the north. In this case they were almost certainly built at the time of (probably just a h ) the hostile visit of Alaric and the Visigoths in AD 396. The walls, which havc licqucnt small towers, are particularly well preserved o n the soulh side, running from near tlic modern Ihotball and athletic stadium, in front of the line of the Roman Stoa, past the Round Building, and westwards to the theatre, where they turn northwards to encoinpass the xropolis. In the southern stretch large quantities of architectural spolin wcrc built in, including columns and statue bases. A newly-discovered north-south spur, excavated by us
" British School :it Athens, Archive. Standing, left to right: J . Farrcll, A. M. Wootlwnrtl, G. Ilickins, J . 1'. Droop, 1 W. Hnrvcy: sc:itetl. lctt to right: A. J . B. Wacc, 1 . M. Dawkins, H. S. Thoiiipsoii: in Iroiit. 'hniii. the Cretan poimender'. For :I iiiorc irreverent view nf the British excavators at Sparta of this ei-:~, see I<achel Hood, F(rc.rs ( $ Ar-c./rrre~ihp~ G r w w : Ctrric~rrrfres Pier de Jorig (Oxford 1998). 59- I3 I 111 by
I0 I'

Ilawkins (1929): Paus. iii. 16. 7-10.

Stibhc (1989). csp. 67, lig.3: Waywell and Wilkes (1994).429 n. I I9

I' Roilinn Sloa: Waywell a i d Wilkes ( 1994): cf. eidem, BSA 88 (1993) 219-86: I1.W 92 (1997). 401-34. Theatre: Waywell and Wilkcs (1995). (I99X) mid (1999).
I3

R. Traquair. in Hosmquct and Dickins (1905-6).417-29: T. E. Gregory. 'The foitified cities of Byzantine Greece'.

A r c h c . o i o ~ y 35.1 (Jm-Feh. 1982). 14-21; Waywell and Wilkes (1994). 410-24. .

BICS-43 - 1999

close to the Roman Stoa in 1991, contained a fine tall statue base with a dedication to a woman called Octavia Agis, dating to c. AD 110-130(PI. 4).14It reads: the city (honours) Octavia Agis, daughter of Octavius Longinus and Julia Nicion, descendant of the Founder Gods of the city, Heracles and Lycurgus, and wife of Pompeius Aristocrates, for the sake of her prudence and love for her husband. Pottery from the footings of this section suggested a date of +/- AD 400, so confirming the Late Roman origin. The greater part of the circuit, although not this particular spur, was refurbished and reused for Byzantine Sparta, or Lacedaimonia, which flourished between the ninth and thirteenth centuries, before dwindling away as Mistra supplanted it on account of its superior defensive location. The acropolis walls were by no means the earliest fortifications of Sparta. As already indicated above, an oval circuit, that protected most of the ground between the Eurotas and Magoula rivers, and was 48 stades in length according to the testimony of Polybius, seems to have been begun in the late third century BC, perhaps by King Cleomenes I11 (236-222 BC), and to have been finished under King Nabis (207-192 BC) (Fig. 2; course shown by dotted line). Excavations by Wace in 1906-07 revealed that construction was of mud-brick on a stone socle, and capped by black-glazed tiles, comparable in the choice of material to Hellenistic fortifications at Mantineia, Megalopolis and Athens. Clay, whether sun-dried or fired, and conglomerate stone, as used in the Round Building and the Menelaion, were the locally occurring materials which, together with timber and bronze, must have defined the character of Spartan architecture from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods. Vitruvius (11. 8. 9) tells an anecdote, repeated also by Pliny (NH 35. 173), about how the Roman aediles Murena and V m o (probably in 59 BC), in order to decorate the cornitium at Rome, transferred from Sparta some examples of painted plaster work (opus recrorium), which were cut away from mud-brick walls (lateribus) and encased in wooden frames.I6These same humble materials were employed earlier in the Archaic period for the construction of Spartas most famous shrines, including the temple of Athena Chalkioikos (Bronze-House Athena) on the summit of the acropolis. The acropolis of ancient Sparta is the hill immediately above the theatre, now planted with eucalyptus and pine trees. As Pausanias notes (111. 17. 1) it is the hill that rises highest in the air, although it is not so high as to be a landmark like Theban Kadmeia and Argive Larisa. Even so there are good views south from it over the modern (and ancient) town of Sparta. Excavations conducted on its summit by Dickins and Woodward revealed the badly eroded remains of the temple of Athena Chalkioikos, dating to the second half of the sixth century BC, which once contained a bronze cult-statue of Athena by a local artist called Gitiadas. The lines of stones that represent the foundations (PI. 5) suggest a modest building of some 20 m in length, probably with prostyle columns rather than being fully colonnaded, and roofed by black-painted tiles decorated with Laconian disc acroteria. The upper walls, which were of mud-brick, seem to have been reveted in thin bronze plates, traces of which have survived, so explaining the goddess epithet.
l4

Waywell and Wilkes (1994). 421; A. J. S. Spawforth, ibid. 437-39, no. 10. B. Wace in Bosanquet and Dickins (1905-6). 283-8; idem in Dawkins and Wace (1906-7). 5-16.
J. I. Pollitt, The Art ojRome, c. 753 BC-AD 337: Sources arid Documerirs (Cambridge 1983), 76.

l5 A. J.
l6

l7 G . Dickins, in Dawkins and Wace (1906-7). 137-54; id. (1907-8), 142-6. Woodward (1923-5), 240-76; id (1926-7). 37-95; id. (1928-30). 241-54.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

Plate 4 Statue base of Octavia Agis built into the Late Roman fortifications at Sparta.

Plate 5

Foundations of the Temple of Athena Chalkioikos on the acropolis at Sparta.

BICS-43 - 1999

Excavations to the south of the temple in 1926/7 brought to light the remnants ola small portico, perhaps that referred to by Pausanias (111. 17. 4 ) as belonging to the temple of Athcna Ergane (Athena of Work). Here in this unpromising location were found the fragments of the marble warrior statue, the principal exhibit of Sparta Museum, showing an original Greek hoplite statue o f c . 480170 BC, crouching for the light, his eyes once inlaid (PI. 6). We know from the periegete Pausanias that two portrait statues of his carlier namesake Pausanias, the victorious Spartan commander over the Persian forces at Plataca in 479 BC, were dedicated in the vicinity, but these were of bronze and cannot be the statue in question. The traditional identification as Leonidas, whose tomb Pausanias says lay opposite the theatre, is also unlikely to be correct, as the traveller was down on the lower road behind the stage-building when he made the remark (111. 14. I ) , and must have bccn referring to a monument south of the theatre. The problems of the location of Spartas agora (or market-place) have already been referred to, and have formed the subject of lively controversy at least since the time of Colonel Lcakes Travels in the Moren of 1830.19Two recent attempts t o elucidate the topography of Sparta, one by the Dutch scholar Conrad Stibbe, the other by M. Torclli i n the Italian commentary written with D. Musti on book three of Pausanias, have come to diametrically opposed conclusions on the question. For convenience of reference, Scjks plan of 1907, made for the first British campaign of fieldwork, is reproduced here (Fig. 2 ) . There are two main favourite locations for the agora, neither of which can as yet be conclusively proved: either the flat ground south of the Roman Stoa, mostly located outside the Late Roman defences and under the modern football and athletic stadium, or else the higher-level plateau, sometimes known as Palaiokastro, north of the Roman Stoa and contained within the eastern part of the late fortification walls. Stibbe favours the former location, placing the agora under the football stadium, as Dickins had argued before him, claiming that the Roman Stoa was a rebuilt version of the famous Persian Stoa which thus would have bounded the northern limit of the agora, although Stibbc rejects this. The problem with this interpretation is that it has no archaeological support. Trials carried out by the British School in 1949, prior to the laying out of the stadium, revealed the remains of residential rather than public building in this area, and further there is the difficulty that it is not within the late Roman circuit of walls, which would have meant that if this were the Classical agora then an alternative would have had to be developed after AD 400. The other more plausible location, favoured by Leake and Curtius, and most recently by Torelli (and by the present writer),? is the plateau-like area, almost square in plan, which lies to the east of and lower than the acropolis, and which was contained within the perimeter of
Sparta Museum. no. 3365. Wwdward and M . B. Hobling (1923.5). 253-66; BI.-Br. 776-78: J . IXii-ig. Uir O Mmter trrid hi.r C o / / t ~ / x ~ r ~ ~ ~ o r . r (kiden 1987); 0. Palagia, in Palagia and Coulson f 1993), 167-7.5.
I <Y
IX

/ ~ ~ i p i i

See above, n. I I ; W. M. Lcakc. 7rtrids iri the Morea (London 1830). i. 170. CI. J . M . Wagst:iIIe. Colonel Leakc in Laconia, in Sanders (1992), 277-83.
Stibbe (1989); id. (1996). 21 fig. 3 . Torelli (1991), 191-233.
I ?
??

Stibbe (1989). 65-67; Dickins f1905-6),431-39.

R. V. Nicholls. BSA 45 (1950). 282-98. esp. 289; Cadedge and Spawfoirb (1989). 223 no. 56.

Lenke, loc.cit. (above. n. 19): E. Curtius, Pe/opnne,c/x,ii (Gotha, 1852). 230; Torelli (199 I ): W:iywell and Wilkcs ( I994), 43 1-32,

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

Plate 6 Statue of Hoplite warrior, the so-called Leonidas, from the acropolis at Sparta. Sparta Museum, no. 3365. Photo: Ashmole Archive, London.

10

BICS-43 - 1999

Figure 2 Plan of ancient and modem Sparta by C. M. Stibbe, with suggested locations of buildings, and possible routes taken by Pausanias.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

tI

the late fortifications (Fig. I ) . This is of considerable size with sides of nearly 200 metres in length. At present its deep soil cover is planted with the ubiquitous olive trees. On the west side, or to be more precise at the potential south-west corner, near the Round Building, is the only part so far to have been excavated, by the Greek archaeologists Christou and Stavridis in the 1960s and 1970s (PIS 7-8; Fig. 3).24 These excavations revealed substantial retaining walls of polygonal masonry, running north-south and east-west and meeting at a right angle, from which projected rooms or offices. Finds within the four-metre deep soi1 cover included the bronze statue of a third century AD Roman imperial female, now in the National Museum Athens, and roof tiles stamped for public use.* If the retaining walls continued to run in the directions discovered, as is likely, it would be hard to envisage a more suitable location for the agora, which would then be square in the Hellenistic Greek fashion. The lower situation relative to the acropolis would agree with several references in Plutarch to persons going down into the agora of Sparta, using the verb karaD~itio,*~ the 40,000 square metres would provide ample space and for the temples, stoas, altars and public buildings referred to by Pausanias. Its northerly location within the overall plan of Sparta might also explain why it appears first in Pausanias account, as it would be the first area he came to after crossing the Eurotas bridge. An instructive comparison in terms of scale, shape and layout is offered by the agora-like precinct of Asclepios at Hellenistic Messene, over the mountains from Sparta, where the large, colonnaded area has a central temple to the god and porticoes on four sides containing cult-rooms and public offices, as well as a fine c o ~ n c i l - c h a m b e r . ~ ~ If the market-place of Sparta is correctly located on this plateau, it calls into question the identity and function of the adjacent buildings on the south side, the so-called Round Building and the Roman Stoa excavated by us in 1989-91 (Fig. 3). The Round Building, which is a prominent landmark on the left of the modern road up on to the acropolis, was the first structure to be scientifically excavated at Sparta in 1892-93 (PI. 8). It is so-called from an association with the oikodomenza peripheres mentioned by Pausanias beside one of the roads leading from the agora, supposedly founded by the Cretan Epimenides, which in his day contained images of Olympian Zeus and Olympian Aphrodite (111. 12. 10-1I ) . In fact, as our recent survey has shown, it is semi-circular rather than circular, and it is not so much a building as the encasement of a natural rock outcrop with blocks of conglomerate stone from a nearby quarry, arranged as a three-stepped base, surmounted by orthostats, with an impressive diameter of 43.3 metres. On top, in Roman times, was a paved area with a central cutting either for a tall beam, or roof-support, or for the base of a large statue. The character of the external architecture recalls that of the Menelaion and it could go back in date to the Archaic or Classical Greek periods, although
24

S. N. Kournanoudes, AAA 3 (1970) 260-61 ; A. Datsuli-Stavridis, AAA 9 (1976), 224-29. The statues identity is now believed to be Aquilia Seven rather than Julia Marnmaea. cf. M. Donderer, Ofh 61 ( 199 ID), Beiblatt 258-59, no. 22.
26 27

C. Christou, PAE 1964, 112-20. pls. 113-18; id.. Erpm. 1964, 106-1 12, figs. 130-4; BCH89 (1965). 717-23.

Plut.. Axes. 29; Lyc. 25; Axis 12. Cf. Dickins (1905.6). 433.

P. Themelis, Anaskaphi Messinis, PAE 1995, 5.5-86; id., Artcienr Messrne. Si/r trrid Moriirrrienrs (Athens. 1998). The agora at Messene has been located, but not yet fully excavated.
2x 29

C. L. Meader and C. Waldstein, Reports on excavations at Sparta in 1893. AJA 8 ( I 893) 410-28. Waywell and Wilkes (1994). 414-19, with literature. Cf. also Stibbe (1996). 35-38.

12

BICS-43 - 1999

Figure 3 Plan of Roman Stoa, Round Building, and possible south-west comer of agora, by N. Fradgley.

Plate 7 Structures probably belonging to the south-west comer of Spartas agora to the north of the Round Building.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

13

Plate 8 The Round Building, Sparta.

Plate 9 Vaulted bays from the centre of the Roman Stoa at Sparta.

14

BICS-43 - 1999

our excavations revealed that it rests on a square podium, at least on the south side. Every conceivable association with Pausanias has been tried, the Rotunda of Epimenides already mentioned, the S k i m , or Canopy by Theodoros of Samos that stood beside it (with an umbrella roof), or the site of the colossal statue of the People of Sparta. An alternative, given that the combination of square base and rounded superstructure was often used for tomb monuments in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, is that this was the cenotaph of Brasidas, the Spartan commander in the Peloponnesian war, which according to Pausanias (111. 14. 1 ) was encountered on the road leading west from the agora before reaching the theatre. All that can be safely concluded is that it was a venerable earlier structure, which was refurbished and buttressed when the Roman Stoa was built up against it c.AD 130. The Roman Stoa, of which substantial traces remain, has been shown by our excavations to have been a 200-metre-long portico on two storeys, brick-built, vaulted, and stone-facaded, which defined the south-east corner of what we believe to be the agora plateau. Built in the time of Hadrian, to judge from the style of its brickwork, the Stoa had at least twenty four compartments or shops on its lower level, of which the central pair were apsed and crossvaulted, with provision for an elaborate water-basin. When fully revealed the remains of this central nymphaeum presented a truly impressive sight (PI. 9). The Stoa was fronted on the south and east sides by colonnades, as beam-holes for the roofing timbers show, and this implies that there were main streets running beside it, set at right angles to one another, and flanking the south and east sides of the agora. At any rate it seems that the function of the Stoa was to buttress the plateau of the agora area to the north, and to effect a transition to the lower ground to the south. We and others have been tempted at times to identify the structure with Pausanias Persian Stoa, which he says (111. I I . 3) was: altered in the course of time until it reached the size and decorative splendour you now see. But although this structure was lavishly finished in marble, there are no signs of the famous statues of defeated Persians, and it would be premature to push the connection. More probably the Persian Stoa was placed higher up on the agora.32 At this point let us pause briefly to review the topographical situation. The suggestion is that a visitor approaching Sparta from the north and crossing the Eurotas bridge would come first to the agora, contained within the later circuit of walls, and that this was flanked by principal streets, one running north-south down the east side of the agora, perhaps to be identified with Pausanias so-called Leaving Street or Aphetais, which was the way to the principal south gate of Sparta. Another route ran east-west in front of the Stoa, and was intersected by a further north-south road leaving the agora at its south-west corner by the Round Building. This gives the beginning of a network of regular streets which seems to be picked up by the orientation of roads and alleys revealed by rescue excavations in the lower town. The orientation of the grid of Hellenistic and Roman Sparta was therefore aligned with the road that ran along the south side of the acropolis from the Roman Stoa to the stage building of the theatre. This was surely the route followed by Pausanias at 111.14.1, where he
This interpretation is favouredby Torelli (1991), 210-1 I .
31

Waywell and Wilkes (1994); cf. eidem (1997).

For discussions of the Persian Stoa, see H. D. Plommer, JHS99 (1979). 100; Stibbe (1989). 77: Torelli (1991). 192-93; and id., in M . Gnade, Stips Votivn: fqJer.7 Presented to C. M. Stibbe (Amsterdam. 1991). 225-26.
Waywell and Wilkes (1994), 430-31.

33

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA A N D ITS TOPOGRAPHY

15

Plate 10 Sparta theatre, general view from east. says: 'as you go from the market-place towards the setting-sun. you come to thc empty nionumcnt of Brasidas . . . n o t far away lies the theatre, which is marble nntl worth seeing.' With this briefest of citations, Pausanias gives the theatre star-hilling. but typic;illy says n o morc. I will conclude by reviewing the evidence for i t in the light ol'rcccnt investigations. The location ofthc theatre at Sparta on the south slope ol'thc acropolis liill I i x hccn known since the late eighteenth century, and large-scale excavations were undcrtakcn hy the British School at Athens in 1924-28 under the direction of A. M. Woodward." We resumed work there from 1992 to 1998, with the aim of seeking fresh cvidcncc 1i)r its xchitcctural appearance, date o f construction and later history (PI. IO)." Trial trcnchcs put down i n different parts o f [he theatre, to complement a new electronic survcy ol' extant remains by N. Fradglcy, have confirmed that the theatre as we have i t was o f one huilcl. and not ;I picccnical dcvclopnient o f an earlier structure (it is still n o t known if' the earlier theatre at Sparta, recorded since 465 BC, was o n this site). Large quantities ol' late Hcllcnistic pottery discovered in the artificial loycrs of the east cavca make it cxtrcnicly likcly that construction took place c. 30-20 BC, when C. Julius Eurykles ruled ;IS dynast at Sparta, which now enjoyed highly-favoured status having supported Octavian-Augustus at Actiuin. Tlicntrcs wcrc always among the most prestigious buildings to hc constructed i n cilics. iuid that 01' Sparta may be considered a reasonable guide to the attitude 01' Euryklcs to wchitcctural dcvclopmcnt. For convenience we may consider it under four headings: scale. matcriuls. xchitcctural cmbcllishmcnt and scenic arrangemcnts.'"
" Wootlwnt-tl (1023-5): (19?5-h): (1926.7); (1927-8): (1928-30).
i<

W:iywcll

;riitl

Wilkcs (1905): (1998): (1999).

10

For Eut-yklss. see C a ~ l c t l g c Sp;iwlorth ( 19x9). 97- 104. and

16

BICS-43 - 1999

Figure 4 Reconstructed plan of Sparta theatre, by N. Fradgley.

Plate 1 1 Eastern outer retaining wall of Sparta theatre.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

17

Spartas theatre is gigantic in size and Greek in plan (Fig. 4), consciously following on from the traditions of the late Classical theatres at Megalopolis and Epidauros (with which it is similar in scale: 114 m diameter for the cavea, compared with I 17 m at Epidauros). Its horseshoe-shaped auditorium was divided into upper and lower parts by a central gangway (diazoma) to which an open staircase of 55 steps gave access from the east parodos. There were 48 rows of seats, 3 1 in the lower part including the front seats of honour, and 17 in the upper part, and these were divided into wedges by ten radial staircases below the diazoma, and seventeen above it, as upper intermediate stairways were placed between main staircases I1 - IX. Many details of the design in fact seem to have been based on Megalopolis: the extended auditorium around a potentially fully circular orchestra ( 2 5 3 2 m diameter at Sparta), a lower walkway behind the front row of seats of honour, a detached stage building with open parodoi bounded by towering retaining walls, and a skenotheke (scenery store) of capacious dimensions in the west parodos. The large size at Sparta was achieved partly by cutting back into the hillside, and encroaching on Athena Chalkioikos, and partly by artifically built wings supported by massive outer retaining walls, 147 m apart, the cushioned ashlars of which bear comparison with Herods temple platform in Jerusalem (PI. 1 1). These walls are of limestone, but the rest of the visible theatre was faced in marble. The use of marble construction for a theatre of this scale, on which Pausanias commented, is a remarkable advance not only on what had gone before at Sparta, but on what had been done with earlier Peloponnesian theatres which were generally of limestone or conglomerate. It is perhaps not too much to suggest that under Eurykles at Sparta there was a similar propagandist change from mud-brick to marble architecture as there was under Augustus at Rome. At Sparta the marble is local, and it is clear that the building work on the theatre must reflect the opening up of the Laconian marble quarries, notably that at Gorani. Most of the marble retaining walls and seat blocks were robbed in the medieval period (10th-I 3th centuries), but impressive remains survive in the western seats between lower staircases I and I1 (PI. 12), and in the lower courses of the east parodos wall, where the names of Spartan officials came to be inscribed in the late first and second centuries AD. The masonry jointing is of the highest calibre, and the seats are more carefully shaped than in many theatres. Inner wall blocks and foundations for the seats were of ycllow poros limestone, as demonstrated by the remains of the diazoma (horizontal walkway) discovered in the vicinity of staircase VIII (PI. 13). Beneath the marble and the poros we find an unusual combination of traditional and innovative methods of construction, as multiple layers of redbrown mudbrick, which make up the artificial wings of the theatre, contain within them rubble concrete foundations for two radial walls that supported the limestone ashlars of the back wall of the cavea and the marble columns of a curving Doric colonnade set 4.8 m in front of it. The mixed building technique employed and the emphatic Doric finish of the architecture constitute two of the most important aspects of Spartas theatre in its original late Hellenistic phase. Evidence for the Doric upper colonnade, which must have dominated the visual appearance of the cavea, was found beside upper staircase V.3 Here a seat-block fiom top row 48, which uniquely survives in place, retains traces of a column setting, c. 60 cm in diamcter, which is matched by Doric shafts found fallen into the orchestra by Woodward in 1924. The other
Waywell and Wilkes (1995). 442-43

18

BICS-43 - 1999

Plate 12 Sparta theatre, marble seats in position between lower staircases I and 11.

Plate 13 Sparta theatre, remains of foundations of diazoma near staircase VIII.

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

I!,

part of the theatre where Doric architecture was employed was thc stage arca. Thc cxisting stage building is a second-phase replacement of Roman stylc, given by the emperor Vespasian in AD 78, as an inscribed architravc shows." It had three internal rooms, thrcc grandiose doorways leading on to a deep stage, and a fine Corinthian-columned faqade (scaenae frons) on two storeys with projecting porches. Sufficiently largc quantitics of the architecture of this survive to lend confidence that, with furthcr research, it will bc fully reconstructible on paper. Detailed investigation in 1994-96 of thc surviving structure revealed that elements of a marble Doric colonnadcd order belonging to the first Augustan phase had been smashed into pieces and incorporated within the foundations and walls.3' These fragments make up a Doric order slightly larger than that of the uppcr cavea colonnade. There arc remains of column drums, capitals, architraves, triglyphs and mctopes. Also there are examples of two forms of sima, one with standard Doric canted soffit with mutules and guttae, the other a Corinthianising type with a design of acanthus leaves and tendrils similar to Augustan examples from Corinth. This highly linished columncd ordcr was a permanent feature that was dcsigned to be used in conjunction with the Augustan movcablc stage, probably being placed in front of it, conceivably also bchind. Sparta's rolling stage, which is supposed to have moved like some juggcrnaut on wheels out of the scenery store in the west parodos, has been the subject of great controvcrsy since i t was first proposed nearly scventy years ago (Figs 5 and 7). In the coursc of his 1920s excavations Woodward found numerous grooved channel blocks of hardwcaring conglomerate stone built into the walls of the Vespasianic stage b ~ i l d i n g . ~ " Others still formed a linc in front of the stage area level with the porches, while a line ofporos limestone blocks, suitable as a foundation course for such channelled blocks, ran the entirc length of the later stage rooms, and clearly antedated them. Woodward himself intcrpreted the blocks as rainwater channels, but the German scholar Heinrich Bulle carricd out further trials in thc west parodos in 1935, and first devcloped the hypothesis that the groovcd blocks oncc formed a trackway of three parallel lines, which allowed a whecled stage with variablc scene settings to be rolled out of the western scenery store, perhaps in imitation of a schcmc already in place at Megalopolis theatre.4' This elaborate theory, seemingly bascd on tenuous evidence, was dismissed as fantasy by Buckler in 1986.42 In an attempt to cast more light on this problem, we reopened Bullc's trials and cxcavatcd a new trench across the full width of the west parodos in 1997-8 (PI. 14).47 Thc rcsults confirmed Bulle's finds in startling fashion, and suggested that his thcory merits serious reconsideration (Fig. 6). Two parallel trackways of at least three contiguous grooved blocks wcre found still to be in position on their poros bedding blocks, and cvidcntly continucd under the foundations of an ornamental pool that was built in the rcdundant wcst parodos in the later Imperial period. The more northerly track, which lics closc to the substantial north wall of the scenery store, aligns with the similar blocks in front of thc stage arca, whilc the
' * l C V I 691; Woodward (1928-30). 209.10; Waywell, Wilkes and Walkei-(l99X), 108-09, fig. 9.26.
3'1
40
41

Waywell, Wilkes and Walker (1998), 100-03. Woodward (1923-25), 148-49; id. (1925-26), 190-91.

B u l k (1937), csp. 5-34. Buckler ( I 986), 43 1-36.

Waywell and Wilkes (1999).

42

43

20

BICS-43 - 1999

si

0,

F! I T
Figure 5 Location of grooved blocks in Sparta theatre stage area, by W. Weyhe and H. Bulle. (Printed to align north with Figure 6 below)

Figure 6 Plan of west parodos of Sparta theatre, showing evidence for trackways within the skenotheke (scenery store).

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

21

Figure 7. Hypothetical reconstruction of the rolling stage at Sparta, by W. Weyhe for H. Bulle.

Plate 14 View of trench excavated across west parodos in 1997-8.

22

BICS-43 - 1999

second (central) track, set at a gauge of 2.06 m to the south, is on the line later occupied by the scaenae frons. Further still to the south, two more poros bedding blocks were discovered on the same alignment as those found beneath the later stage rooms, so confirming the existence of a triple trackway, with an overall gauge of c. 6 m between front and rcar grooves. Further trials substantiated the existence of a sizeable skenotheke (or scenery storc) with internal dimensions of 9 m wide by 34 m long, capable of containing a moveable stagc structure which would have completely filled the back-drop to the orchestra, and would in fact have been of similar dimensions to the permanent structure that was subsequently built. The triple trackways, which occupied the full internal length of the scenery storc, cxtendcd eastwards for a total distance of c. 70 ni. It seems beyond doubt that some substantial structure was regularly moved along it in the hundred year period between Augustus and Vespasian. The precise nature of that structure and the way in which it operated together with the permanent Doric colonnaded screen or screens remain subjects for further consideration, as does the question as to whether this was a scaena ductilis or some form of pegnia (or moving tableau).44 The ingenious hypothetical reconstruction (Fig. 7) drawn by Bulk's architect W. Weyhe satisfies most of the implications of the trackways and the scenery store, but fails to take account of any permanent standing Doric archit~cture.~' reason for The designing such a complicated stage arrangement in the late Hellenistic period may have bcen to cater for local topographical and festive considerations, as suggested by Bulle: perhaps thc need to give access to the theatre for horse-riders at the gyrnnopaideia,or to allow spectators in the theatre to view the celebrations at the nearby tomb of Lycurgus during his festival that was re-established in Augustan times.46But another equally valid purpose may have bcen to demonstrate that the new Sparta of Eurykles was as up-to-the minute in its technology as metropolitan Rome, where mechanical devices of increasing complexity had been devised for the games during the first century BC (cf. e.g. Pliny's account of the revolving twin theatres by C. Scribonius Curio in 52 BC, which were turned on axes by winches to form an amphi t heatre) .47 Sparta's theatre, more than any of the other monuments so far discovered there, helps trace the vicissitudes in the history of the city and its ultimate decline. The cornice of the lower storey of Vespasian's stage f a p d e , and the frieze of the upper storey, carry inscriptions rccording the repairs to the fabric carried out at different times. The latest is found on two contiguous blocks displayed in the orchestra, which record the names of Flavius Honorius and Flavius Theodosios, so bringing us to the late fourth century around AD 395 (PI. IS)." Probably the reference is to repairs carried out after a severe earthquake known to havc damaged Sparta in 375, and just before the hostile arrival of Alaric and the Visigoths in 396. Thereafter the Late Wall was built enclosing the theatre and employing much material from the scaenae frons and the parodos walls. Sparta's theatre may have survived as an asscmbly place until the sixth century AD, but its glory days as a place of dramatic perforrnancc were surely gone.
44
45

For definition and discussion of these terms, see Beacham (1991) 169-83 Bulle (1937) 18-23. fig. I .

46

Bulle (1937) 27-34. Cartledge and Spawforth (1989).

56-85. Woodward (1928-30).

" Beacham ( I99 I )

4x

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

23

Plate 15 Upper architrave and frieze block from the scaenae frons of Sparta theatre, inscribed with the names of the emperors Honorius and Theodosios.

Plate 16 Late Roman male portrait head, found in Sparta theatre. Sparta Museum, no. 1 1322.

24

BICS-43 - 1999

In 1993 we had the luck to discover in the fill of the orchestra drain between staircases I and I1 a splendid lifesize late Roman male portrait head in marble (PI. 16).4"Presumably he is a Spartan official of the late fourth century, one of those who helped rebuild the famous city after 375 only to see it fall again before Alaric. His powerful features and stern gaze are a graphic testimony to the continued production of fine sculpture in Greece at this date, while his brooding expression seems to encapsulate the wearisome struggle against the decline in the quality of life in Late Roman Sparta.

Institute of Classical Studies, London

4y

C. B. Waywell and S. E. C. Walker, in Waywell and Wilkes (1995) 4.58-59, no. 3 .

GEOFFREY WAYWELL: SPARTA AND ITS TOPOGRAPHY

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beacham, R. C., 199 I . The Roman Theatre and its Audience. London. Bieber, M., 196 1. The History of the Greek and Romari Theater. 2nd edn., Princeton. Bosanquet, R. C., and Dickins, G., 1905-6. Excavations at Sparta, 1906, BSA 12,277-439. Buckler, C., 1986. The Myth of the Moveable Skenai, AJA 90,431-36. Bulle, H., 1937. Das Theater zu Sparfa. Munich. Cartledge, P. A., 1979. Sparta and Lakonia. A regional history 1300 - 362 BC. London. Cartledge, P. A., and Spawforth, A. J. S., 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Sparfa: a Tale of Two Cities. London. Cavanagh, W. G., and Walker, S .E. C., 1998. Sparta in Lnconia. Proceedings of the 19th British Museum Classical Colloquium, BSA Studies 4. London. Christou, C., 1960. Archaia Sparti. Sparta. Dawkins, R. M., and Wace, A.J.B., 1906-7.Excavations at Sparta, 1907, BSA 13, 1-218. Dawkins, R. M., 1929. Artemis Orthia, JHS Suppl. V. London. Dickins, G., 1907-8. Excavations at Sparta, 1908. 6, The Hieron of Athena Chalkioikos, BSA 14, 142-46. Fitzhardinge, L. F., 1980. The Spartans. Forrest, W. G., 1980. History of Sparta. 2nd edn, London. Frazer, J. G.,I 898. Pausanias Description of Greece 111. London. Hodkinson, S., and Powell, A., (eds.), 1999. Sparta: new perspectives. London. Jones, A. H. M., 1967. Sparta. Oxford. Kennell, N. M., 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue. Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, Chapel Hill and London. Palagia, O., and Coulson, W. D. E. (eds.), 1993. Sculpture,froni Arcadia and Luconia, Oxford. Papahatzi, N., 1976. Pausaniou Ellados Periegesis, 11: Korinthiaka kai Lakonika, Athens. Powell, A., and Hodkinson, S., 1994. The Shadow of Sparta. London. Rawson, E., 1969. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought. Oxford. Sanders, J.M., 1992. @ ~ / ~ o / ~ & K Q K Lnkonian Studies in Honour of Hector C d i t i g , London. Stibbe, C. M., 1989. Beobachtungen zur Topographie des antiken Sparta, BaBesch 64, 61-99. Stibbe, C. M., 1996. Das andere Sparta, Mainz. Tod, M. N., and Wace, A. J .B., 1906. A Catalogue of the Sparfa Museuni, Oxford. Torelli, M., 1991. Pausanin, Guida della Grecia, Libro 111: la Laconia, a c u m di D. Musti e M. Torelli, Milan. Waywell, G. B., and Wilkes, J.J., 1994. Excavations at Sparta: the Roman Stoa, 1988-91, Part 2, BSA 89, 377-432. Waywell, G. B., and Wilkes, J.J., 1995. Excavations at the Ancient Theatre of Sparta, 1992-4: Preliminary Report, BSA 90,435-60. Waywell, G. B., Wilkes, J. J., and Walker, S. E. C., 1998. The Ancient Theatre at Sparta, in Cavanagh and Walker, 1998,97-111. Waywell, G. B., and Wilkes, J. J., 1999. Excavations at the Ancient Theatre of Sparta 1995-1998: Preliminary Report, BSA 94,437-55.

26

BICS-43 - 1999

Woodward, A. M., 1923-5. Excavations at Sparta, 1924-1925. 2. The Theatre, BSA 26, 119-56. Woodward, A. M., 1925-6. Excavations at Sparta, 1926.11.The Theatre, BSA 27, 175-209. Woodward, A. M., 1926-7. Excavations at Sparta, 1927. 2. The Theatre, BSA 28, 3-36. Woodward, A. M., 1927-8. Excavations at Sparta, 1924-1928. 2. The Inscriptions, BSA 29, 2-56. Woodward, A.M., 1928-30. Excavations at Sparta, 1924-1928. I. The Theatre: Architectural Remains, BSA 30, 151-240.