[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Carefully edited by Manolis Pagkalos and Andrea Scarpato, the eleven papers of the volume are grouped in three thematic sections. Part I examines Sparta’s internal and external relations; Part II is primarily concerned with Sparta’s power struggle to maintain the control of the Peloponnese amidst the rising threat of the Achaean League and the presence of the Antigonids; and finally, Part III features papers that explore matters of regional identity through the study of material culture. In addition to the Preface, which articulates the need for a multidisciplinary volume on the Hellenistic Peloponnese and summarizes the chapters, the volume features both an introductory essay and a concluding reflection.
Daniel R. Stewart’s introductory chapter, “Inventing the Hellenistic Peloponnese,” reminds us that “all history is an invention” (5), and that each successive generation of scholars brings its own preconceptions. The transmission of Polybius’s Histories is instructive: “most of us are reading a version of what a nineteenth-century historian thought Polybius should have written” (8). Stewart extends the concept of invention to the archaeology of ancient Olympia, although many archaeologists would disagree. Nevertheless, by embracing the concept of invention, which is inherently ambiguous, the authors of this volume offer novel interpretations on the Hellenistic Peloponnese shaped by individual perspectives.
Andrea Scarpato initiates the volume with an essay (Ch. 1) exploring the military campaigns of Kleonymos, the Spartan general and uncle of King Areus. By re-examining the ancient sources that describe Kleonymos’s four interventions in the early 3rd century B.C.E. (in Southern Italy, Crete, Boiotia, and the Peloponnese), Scarpato argues that Kleonymos functioned and was perceived by other Greek cities and colonies as a de facto king. Scarpato’s discussion of the treaty of alliance between Phalasarna and Polyrrhenia in the early 3rd century B.C.E. is persuasive about Kleonymos’s elevated status within the Spartan state. Kleonymos, whose name appears on the treaty without any honorific title, served as the arbitrator in the dispute between the two cities. To contextualize Scarpato’s interpretation for non-specialists in Spartan history, a brief overview of how Kleonymos has been presented (or omitted) in previous scholarship would have been beneficial.
Roumpini-Ioanna Charami (Ch. 2) tackles the complex issue of identity among the perioikic communities in Laconia (Lakonike) during the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.E., prior to the formation of the Koinon of the Lacedaemonians in the early 2nd century B.C.E. Were these communities subordinate to Sparta? Through an examination of epigraphical and archaeological evidence, Charami argues that the perioikoi acted as, and were perceived by others as, independent poleis, sharing a Lacedaemonian cultural identity with Sparta. While the epigraphical evidence supports the hypothesis of a shared identity between perioikoi and Spartans, the archaeological evidence is limited. Charami largely relies on the excavated perioikic settlement of Geraki, which remains unpublished beyond a few preliminary reports on the pottery.
Charlotte van Regenmortel (Ch. 3) analyzes the motivations behind three Spartan military campaigns abroad, led by members of the royal family in the 4th and early 3rd centuries B.C.E. While acknowledging the mercenary aspect of these campaigns, Regenmortel argues that they were, to some extent, state-sanctioned, serving to bolster Sparta’s international role while adapting to the prevalent use of large mercenary armies in the Hellenistic world. The first campaign, led by King Agesilaos to Egypt in 361 B.C.E., although paid by the Pharaoh, reinforced Sparta’s prestige and military presence in the eastern Mediterranean, while contributing to the city’s finances. Later (315–314 B.C.E.), Akrotatos, son of King Kleomenes II, led an expedition to Sicily in response to a Sicilian appeal. Although Diodorus Siculus portrays Akrotatos as acting independently, Regenmortel, following Sheila Ager, connects Akrotatos’s expedition to Sparta’s longstanding interests in the region. The third campaign to Taras, in 303–302 B.C.E., was led by Kleonymos, younger son of king Kleomenes II and brother of Akrotatos. Funded by the Tarantines, the expedition provided both income for Sparta and an outlet for Kleonymos’ personal ambitions after he had been passed over in the line of succession. Regenmortel’s analysis of Kleonymos’ campaign complements and expands Scarpato’s earlier discussion (Ch.1).
Krzysztof Zimny’s paper (Ch. 4) examines Spartan expansionist plans in the 3rd century B.C.E., focusing on the actions of three kings: Areus (r. 309–265 B.C.E.), Kleomenes III (r. 235–222 B.C.E.), and Nabis (r. 207–192 B.C.E.). The explicit mention of King Areus in the treaty of alliance between Sparta and Athens against Macedonia, as documented in the Chremonides Decree of 269/8 B.C.E., suggests that Spartan royals could operate independent of the state and thus emulate the behavior of Hellenistic monarchs. While Kleomenes III sought to restore Spartan hegemony in the Peloponnese through alliances against the Macedonian threat, this approach was no longer viable by the time of King Nabis. The growth of the Achaean League in the late 3rd century B.C.E. limited Nabis to a strategy of annexation, potentially extending to Crete in addition to the Peloponnese. Zimny refers to an intriguing passage in Livy, alluding to Nabis’s past annexation of certain Cretan cities, further adding to the discussion in this volume of Sparta’s relations with Crete throughout the 3rd century (see also Ch. 1).
While Polybius’s Histories are considered the preeminent source for understanding the intricate history of the Peloponnese in the 3rd century B.C.E., Polybius has often faced criticism regarding his objectivity. In “The Ends Justify the Means” (Ch. 5), Richard J. G. Evans offers an alternate perspective on Polybius’s narrative of the fall of Mantineia in 223 B.C.E. Evans posits that Polybius systematically constructed the history of the Achaean League as a benevolent and protective federation, while simultaneously deconstructing Mantineia as an unstable and ungrateful member that massacred its Achaean garrison in 225. Polybius goes so far as to discredit a contemporary historian, Phylarchus, whose description of the Achaeans’ retaliation in 223 arguably amounts to genocide. Evans contends that sufficient evidence exists in Plutarch’s Lives to support Phylarchus’s credibility and that Polybius’s account of Mantineia “is a case of ugly jingoism” (82). In revisiting existing scholarship, Evans critiques historian Arthur Eckstein’s defense of Polybius’s reliability concerning the events at Mantineia in 223. Evans concludes that Polybius was a staunch nationalist willing to distort facts to safeguard the Achaean League’s reputation.
The history of the Achaean League, according to Polybius, is also the subject of the subsequent paper (Ch. 6). Manolis E. Pagkalos offers a critical assessment of Polybius’s narrative, reassessing his role as a trustworthy historiographer. Like Evans (Ch. 5), Pagkalos deconstructs Polybius’s account, challenging the League’s purported unity and democratic ethos, while highlighting instances of poleis that either joined the League involuntarily or were penalized for secession. More significantly, Pagkalos identifies memory manipulation and moral cleansing in Polybius’s account, arguing that the Histories served a didactic purpose: “a handbook for future men of politics” (96).
The turbulent history of the Peloponnese in the 3rd century B.C.E. is also the focus of the next chapter (Ch.7). Charalampos I. Chrysafis discusses the presence of the Antigonids in the Peloponnese, as described in Polybius’s Histories: a system of royal garrisons and supported tyrannies. In a somewhat dense analysis, he reevaluates the political landscape of four Peloponnesian poleis (Argos, Megalopolis, Sikyon and Elis), arguing that what Polybius portrays as Antigonid-imposed tyrannies were, in fact, independent pro-Macedonian allies, whose political decisions were also shaped by local politics and alliances.
The three final papers in this volume have more archaeological content. James T. Lloyd addresses the complex issue of dating the lead votives from the Sanctuary of Orthia (Ch. 8), particularly when their production ceased. Did they continue to be made until the Hellenistic period? Although the excavators asserted that the sanctuary was excavated stratigraphically, Alan J. B. Wace’s publication (1929) on the lead votives omitted any stratigraphic information. Nevertheless, his categorization remains widely used, albeit with minor adjustments based on revisions in the chronology of the Laconian pottery. Martin Boss’s iconographic examination of the lead votives in 2000 proposed a recategorization into three phases, placing the end of their production ca. 500 B.C.E., contrary to Wace, whose final phase (Lead VI) extended to the 3rd century B.C.E. Lloyd undertakes extensive archival research, examining excavation notebooks and focusing on areas that yielded votives from the last two groups (Lead V and VI). Despite Lloyd’s thorough study of the notebooks, “the perennial question” (138) of whether the leads were produced as late as 250 B.C.E. will remain unanswered as long as we are unable to record any in undisturbed Hellenistic deposits.
Prosopographic studies like that of David Weidgenannt (Ch. 9) offer valuable insights into the history of an ancient polis. His study of epigraphic testimonia documenting the public life of a noble family (gens magna) in Epidauros—active in the Sanctuary of Asclepios for five centuries, from the 3rd century B.C.E. to the 2nd century C.E.—is important for two reasons. First, the micro-history of a local family (easily followed by Wedgenannt’s stemma) illuminates lesser-known periods of the sanctuary. And second, the family’s centuries-long, public service attested through honorary decrees transcends the conventional periodization of Hellenistic and Roman Peloponnese employed by historians.
Contrary to what Polybius relates about Patras’s misfortunes following the defeat of the Achaeans in 146 B.C.E., a recent study of the mortuary practices (grave typology, modes of corpse disposal, tombstones, epitaphs) in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.E., based on archaeological evidence, sheds considerable light on matters of social structure and personal identity. Tamara M. Dijkstra’s paper (Ch. 10), drawn from her 2019 dissertation, exemplifies the wealth of information that a thorough analysis of archaeological data can contribute to understanding subtle societal changes that are often unattested in literary sources. The image of despair that Polybius portrays for the people of Patras after 146 B.C.E. must have been short-lived. The city’s cemeteries reveal a shift toward sumptuous mortuary behavior during the second half of the 2nd century B.C.E., with an emphasis on the presentation and grooming of the deceased. The Roman conquest of Achaea must have offered new avenues for Patras’ inhabitants to acquire wealth and achieve social advancement—potentially attracting new populations to the city.
In a well-structured paper (Ch. 11), Stelios Damigos reviews the Early Hellenistic coinage of the most important Peloponnesian cities during a period of increasing Macedonian interference. From the late 4th through the 3rd century B.C.E., local silver coinage was replaced by Attic-weight productions bearing the name of Alexander III. Meanwhile, the cities continued to issue bronze coinage for local transactions, employing iconography that reflected local traditions and identity. A good example is Corinth which, following its occupation by Kassandros in 308 B.C.E., replaced its silver drachms featuring Pegasos and Aphrodite with silver Alexander III emissions; at the same time, the city continued to issue bronze coins with Pegasos. Damigos argues that the prevalence of Attic-weight Alexander III emissions in the Early Hellenistic Peloponnese is best explained by the cities’ need to finance remote military campaigns, pay foreign garrisons and mercenaries, and cover other expenses that exceeded the capacity of the local economies.
By way of conclusion, Graham J. Shipley, drawing upon his deep knowledge of Hellenistic history, ponders the longevity of the Peloponnesian city-states, their complex relationship with their surrounding regions, and the evolving definition of regional identity, which allowed for adaptation and change. Since many contributors to this volume engage with Polybius, Shipley assures the reader that they are mindful of the difficulties surrounding manuscript transmission and that they have developed “sophisticated ‘rules of engagement'” (200) to avoid the pitfalls inherent in relying on ancient sources which are not contemporary with the events they describe.
The essays in New Perspectives on the Hellenistic Peloponnese represent a school of thought emerging from a promising cohort of early-career scholars. Roughly half of the authors, including the editors, are or were affiliated with the School of Archaeology and Ancient History (SAAH) at the University of Leicester, where Shipley has taught for many years. (Most of the papers in the volume originated from a conference held at the University of Leicester in 2016.) Despite publication delays (noted in the endnotes of several contributors), both editors have done a fine job in meeting most of the volume’s stated goals: to foster interdisciplinary dialogue, to disseminate new research, and to enrich the bibliography on the Hellenistic Peloponnese. Approaching this review not as a specialist in the Hellenistic Peloponnese, but with expertise in Hellenistic Crete, I found the discussion about potential connections between Crete and the Peloponnese informative and enlightening. While the volume succeeds on many fronts, the underrepresentation of archaeological research and perspectives remains a notable limitation, despite the inclusion of “material culture” in the subtitle. Alongside Ioanna Kralli’s The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations (2017) and Shipley’s The Early Hellenistic Peloponnese: Politics, Economies, and Networks (2018), this volume constitutes a valuable third pillar in recent scholarship on the region.
Authors and Titles
Daniel R. Stewart, Introduction: Inventing the Hellenistic Peloponnese
Andrea Scarpato, A De Facto King: Kleonymos
Roumpini-Ioanna Charami, Hellenistic Perioikoi: From the Perioikic Poleis to the Koinon of the Lakedaimonians
Charlotte van Regenmortel, Hellenistic Generals? Spartan Military Leaders Abroad
Krzysztof Zimmy, Spartan Plans for the Peloponnese in the Third Century BCE
Richard J.G. Evans, The Ends Justify the Means: Unpacking Polybios’ Construction of the Mantineian Genocide
Manolis E. Pagkalos, The Histories of the Achaian Koinon: Constructing Identities in the Early Hellenistic Peloponnese
Charalampos I. Chrysafis, Garrisons and ‘Tyrants’: Notes on the Antigonid Peloponnese (295–196 BCE)
James T. Lloyd, ‘No Figures Warranted Absolutely Accurate’: The Final Phases of the Lead Votives at the Sanctuary of Orthia
David Weidgenannt, Υπόμνημα της οικειότητος: The Gens Magna of Epidauros from the Second Century BCE to the First Century CE
Tamara M. Dijkstra, Society and Culture in Hellenistic Patras: A View from the Tombs
Stelios Damigos, Civic Coinages of the Early Hellenistic Peloponnese
D. Graham Shipley, The Present in the Past: By Way of Afterword