Artemis Orthia and chronology

Abstract

The British School's work in the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta was in its day generally hailed as a classic example of carefully observed stratigraphic excavation in Greece. Equally general has been the reluctance of scholars to accept the dates which were proposed by the excavators for their finds on the basis of their observations on stratigraphy and pottery contexts. In this the excavators were at fault in their choice of absolute dates for the main periods; and, equally, critics have been at fault in failing to adjust their dating. Kunze pointed out the major inconsistencies and the results of accepting some of the excavators' dates in his review of Artemis Orthia (published in 1929 by the Hellenic Society) in Gnomon ix (1933) 1–14. In their answer to another review the excavators gave an excellent account of their method and of the use and abuse of stratigraphy (JHS 1 (1930) 329–36). By reconsidering the absolute dates they proposed I think it is possible to recover much of the value of the observations they made about the stratigraphy and the relative chronology of the finds, and to make some new suggestions about the history of the site and dating of some Laconian objects.The main feature in the stratigraphy of the sanctuary was a blanket of sand which covered the whole area, and which, according to the excavators, sealed deposits earlier than about 600 B.C. Beneath the sand there was a succession of deposits down to virgin soil, which clearly represented a gradual, although by no means even, accumulation of earth and discarded votives. The only significant physical difference in levels which could be observed was offered by the presence of a pebble pavement which was associated with remains of the earliest altar on the site. This pavement, preserved only in small patches, was embedded in the main ‘Geometric’ level, as it was defined by the excavators. This contained much burnt material. The pavement was assigned to the ninth century.