16
Visualising fertility at Artemis Orthia’s site
Nicki Waugh
STARTING IN THE PAST …
The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia is located in the
NW of the ancient Spartan polis, beside the Eurotas
River. This examination is situated in two periods of
the sanctuary’s existence: the first in the Archaic
period, roughly 800–500 BC, and the second in the
early part of the 1900s when it was excavated by
the British School at Athens under the direction of
R. M. Dawkins.
The excavation ran from 1906 to 1910 with the
findings published in the Annual of the British School
at Athens1 and a later monograph,2 which gathered
together all the excavation reports along with numerous
photos and illustrations. The final chapter of the mono-
graph addressed the nature of the cult itself and was
written by H. J. Rose.
Rose noted3 that the goddess was addressed as
‘Orthia’ (with varying spellings) for most of her
sanctuary’s existence; it was not until the Flavian
period that there was epigraphic evidence of her being
referred to as ‘Artemis Orthia’.4 However, he con-
sidered that ‘she cannot be identical, although she
might be identified with the Panhellenic Artemis’.5
His reason for this identification was ‘probably to be
found in the fact that Orthia, like Artemis, is a deity
of fertility of men and beasts’.6
As evidence for this Rose included the following: a
connection with the birth goddess Eileithyia, terracotta
images of nude females, ivory representations of a
possible male consort, terracotta ithyphallic figurines,
the presence of images of animals, her role as
kourotrophos and a vegetation fertility aspect, which
he saw through an association of the cult with Alkman’s
Archaic poem, the Partheneion.7
Without any desire to set Rose up as a straw man,
his interpretation can act as an intriguing starting point
for a re-examination, which may shed light not just on
the artefacts themselves, but the history of how the
votive images have been viewed since excavation.
There is insufficient space here to discuss all of Rose’s
suggestions, so this paper will review a limited number
of them. I shall seek to problematise an interpretation
which continues to be accepted in scholarship many
years after the report’s original publication and raise
questions to be addressed in future research.
EILEITHYIA
Rose’s first reason for considering Artemis Orthia to
be a fertility goddess was an association with the birth
goddess, Eileithyia.8 According to Pausanias (3.17.1),
Eileithyia had a sanctuary not far from Artemis
Orthia’s, and tiles stamped hierou Eleusias were found
in the first year of excavation,9 although no trace of
the building from which they might have come was
discovered and no date is provided for them. A die
inscribed with Eleuthias in ‘Archaic’ writing was
also found, as well as two terracotta figurines (FIG.
16.1) which the excavators interpreted as offerings
to Eileithyia.10
Dawkins described the figurines as ‘a pair of birth-
daemons supporting a mother and newly-born child’ and
‘a woman carrying a child’.11 The figurine on the right,
interpreted as a woman carrying a child, had lost her
head, and Dawkins noted that a break suggests there may
originally have been two children. It is easy to see this
interpretation from the photograph; however, the other
figurine (on the left) is less easy to understand. First, it
is hard to see anything anthropomorphic or ‘daemon’-
like in the base of the figurine Dawkins has illustrated.
Second, the two upper figures, which he interpreted as
mother and newly-born child, are also problematic: they
are facing each other and would appear to be embracing
with their arms round each other and faces touching. A
lack of differentiation in size between the two makes
an interpretation of mother and child — let alone a
newly-born child — somewhat difficult.
1 Dawkins 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910a, 1910b.
2 Dawkins 1929.
3 Rose 1929, 400.
4 Dawkins 1929, 293.
5 Rose 1929, 401.
6 Rose 1929, 402.
7 For a discussion of Artemis Orthia’s kourotrophic role and
possible associations with Alkman’s Partheneion see Waugh
forthcoming.
8 Rose 1929, 402.
9 Dawkins 1929, 51.
10 Dawkins 1929, 51.
11 Dawkins 1929, 51.
160 NICKI WAUGH
Fig. 16.1 (above). Two terracotta figurines,
interpreted by Dawkins as the goddess Eileithyia
(Dawkins 1929, 50, fig. 209).
Fig. 16.2 (right). Terracotta figurines of nude
females (Dawkins 1929, pl. 36.1–7).
Dawkins noted that the two figurines were found
with the debris from the Archaic temple,12 yet still
considered that they were offerings to Eileithyia. But
if they came from Orthia’s temple, as the rest of the
debris around the Archaic temple did, how can they be
Eileithyia’s votives? And if they were offerings to
Eileithyia, how can they be evidence for Orthia being
a fertility goddess?
Rose’s explanation is that ‘the connexion between
the two goddesses must assuredly have been fairly close
in function, since it was so in locality; if not, then they
are meant for Orthia, who thus appears, like Artemis
herself, as a goddess of birth’.13 But are we sure that
Artemis’s association with childbirth is appropriate at
this time, and from an archaeological perspective is it
possible to say that two figurines are sufficient to define
the character of the deity?
NUDE FIGURINES
Of the votives, Rose considered that a number of
terracotta figurines of nude females represented
Orthia’s role as a fertility goddess (FIG. 16.2). He
commented that they were in the pose of the Knidean
Aphrodite and suggested that they either indicated an
association with Aphrodite or with ‘her functions of
giving fertility’.14
There are two issues here. First, the images Rose
refers to are numerically insignificant in comparison
with the images of the goddess clothed. Only three
figurines out of the total 12 nude females could be
viewed as representing the Aphrodite of Knidos pose,
that is with one hand over the groin (FIG. 16.2.2 and
16.2.7 — there were two examples of no. 7 found).
Against these, there were 121 images of clothed
terracotta females, and this number excludes figurines
of a female enthroned, or depicted with standing lions,
or mounted on horseback. Interestingly, these clothed
females are generally referred to by the excavators as
‘Orthia,’ while the nude figurines are discussed
separately and are described as ‘nude female figures’.
At no time in his examination of these figurines does
Dawkins call them ‘Orthia’.15 The discrepancy is an
intriguing perspective into the perceptions of the
excavators themselves.
The second issue is one of interpretation. Is the lack
of clothing necessarily indicative of fertility? Could it
not be an indication of sexuality? As these figurines
predate the Knidean Aphrodite by roughly 300 years
(the figurines are dated to mid-seventh century BC, and
the Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles was fourth
century BC ), any direct association is somewhat
unlikely, and furthermore, Praxiteles’ statue is usually
remembered for the sexuality of the image rather than
12 Dawkins 1929, 51.
13 Rose 1929, 402.
14 Rose 1929, 402.
15 Dawkins 1929, 152.
 VISUALISING FERTILITY AT ARTEMIS ORTHIA’S SITE
Fig. 16.3. Line drawings of ivory plaques, interpreted as ‘Master of
Animals’ (Dawkins 1929, pl. 99.1–2).
fertility. The gesture of placing the hand over the groin
does draw the viewer’s attention to this area, and three
of the other figurines have clearly delineated breasts
( FIG . 16.2.1, 16.2.5 and 16.2.6). Marinatos has
suggested that the sexuality of female nudes could have
an apotropaic and protective function, and while there
are many difficulties with her theory,16 it does serve to
problematise interpretations which simply equate
female nudity with fertility.
MALE FIGURE AMONG THE IVORIES
Rose noted the presence of a winged male figure among
the ivories and suggested that as this figure replicated
one of the goddess’s poses (that of the potnia theron or
‘mistress of animals’) (FIG. 16.3), this male could be a
divine or semi-divine consort, which he felt was ‘a very
appropriate feature in the mythology of a goddess of
fertility’.17 To do Rose justice, he also observed that
he would not place too much stress on these images,
and suggested that the presence of the winged male
could have represented an Oriental influence.
Particular emphasis has, in fact, been laid on these
male images by a more recent scholar, Jane Carter,
who has suggested that Orthia might be identified with
the Near Eastern goddess Asherah or Tanit and that the
cult at Sparta was established by Phoenicians.18 She
cited the masks excavated at the site, as well as the
male consort, as evidence of a transferral of a fertility
cult from the Near East, and further suggested that
Alkman’s Partheneion celebrated the offering of a robe
to the goddess on the occasion of her annual ritual
marriage, with the bridegroom wearing one of the
idealised masks.19
161
Carter’s work highlights methodological issues in
interpreting a Greek sanctuary and cult in terms of Near
Eastern images and culture. Even if it is possible to
trace the adoption of imagery from the Near East at
Sparta, we cannot assume that there was an equal
transference of meaning — let alone the full
transplanting of a cult. Further, Julia Assante has noted
that interpretations of Mesopotamian imagery which
view erotic representations and texts in terms of fertility
are generally based on the outdated theories as
exemplified in Frazer’s Golden Bough. 20 Where
16 Marinatos (2000, 27–31) draws on Near Eastern images as a
source for representations of nude females in eighth century
BC Greek material culture. However, she does not appear to
take into consideration methodological issues such as
recognising the temporal and contextual position of the Near
Eastern images (rather she treats the images of Mesopotamia,
Syro-Palestine and Egypt as a homogenous group), and
further, does not discuss the issue of how meaning could
necessarily be transmitted along with an artistic motif.
Other interpretations have been offered. Powell has
suggested that it could be an early version of the whipping rite
at the site and that in the Archaic period the ritual included a
violent sexual element; that the figure being penetrated from
behind is being whipped by the person having sex with him,
and that the fleeing figure in the extreme left of the frieze is
running away from a similar violent attack from the hairy satyr-
like figure and that the defecation of the fleeing figure
represents the fear inherent in the scene (Powell 1998, 130–5).
17 Rose 1929, 402.
18 Carter 1987, 1988.
19 Carter 1988, 98.
20 Assante 2003, 13–47.
162 NICKI WAUGH
previous scholars have seen sacred marriage and
fertility rituals, Assante has argued for educational love
poetry (which placed sex in terms of agricultural
metaphors to make it familiar to the sexually unini-
tiated) and domestic magic or political messages.21 For
this reason studies such as Carter’s, which consider the
transference of meaning from the Near East to Greece
to include fertility, require revision and updating.
While the male images are most frequent among
the ivory votives, they have a much wider iconography
than just the ‘masters of animals’ motif, appearing in
mythological scenes, as warriors or in scenes with
women.22 One motif, that of a man and woman holding
a wreath between them (FIG. 16.4), appears not only
in ivory but also on a terracotta plaque excavated at
the site (FIG. 16.5). The motif also occurs on an Archaic
stele now in the Sparta Museum. Pipili has suggested
it could represent Helen and Menelaos or perhaps
Helen and Paris and she comments that the wreath is a
frequent image as a symbol of love and marriage.23
Wreaths also appear as votives in their own right
among the little lead figurines at Orthia’s sanctuary.
Cavanagh and Laxton noted in 1984, in their study of
the lead f igurines at Helen’s own sanctuary, the
Menelaion, that more than half of the 6,000 lead
votives were in the form of wreaths.24 This further
problematises the question of whether lead wreaths
were a generic offering at any Spartan sanctuary, or
whether there was any specific significance associated
with them.
Fig. 16.4 (left). Line drawing of ivory plaque of man
and woman holding wreath (Dawkins 1929, pl. 94).
Fig. 16.5 (above). Terracotta plaque of man and
woman holding wreath (Dawkins 1929, 154, fig. 109).
ITHYPHALLIC MALES
Male figures are not restricted to the ivory votives,
although strictly speaking the ‘master of animals’ image
is. Rose noted that the site has yielded hundreds of
male representations, and although they are less
numerous than images of females, their presence could
not be overlooked.25 He further comments that their
signif icance cannot be said to have been fully
discovered.26
From the (possible) perspective of fertility the
terracotta ithyphallic figurines are intriguing, not least
for the way in which the excavators treat them. Of the
around 300 handmade terracotta figurines, 121 of these
are mentioned as ithyphallic. However, in the published
photograph of them, all are examples where the phallus
has broken off (FIG. 16.6).
This demonstration of social niceties at the time of
excavation and publication is also visible in the
treatment of FIG. 16.6.11. Dawkins’s description was:
‘Figures of women in a sitting posture with the legs
apart; the pudenda are often marked conspicuously. The
21 Assante 2003, 15, 30.
22 Dawkins 1929, 203–48.
23 Pipili 1987, 30–1.
24 Cavanagh and Laxton 1984, 23.
25 Rose 1929, 402.
26 Rose 1929, 402.
 VISUALISING FERTILITY AT ARTEMIS ORTHIA’S SITE
Fig. 16.6. Terracotta figurines of ithyphallic men (Dawkins 1929, pl. 40.1–7, 8–12).
Fig. 16.7. Left: stone ithyphallic figurine. Right:
stone figurine with both male and female genitalia
(Dawkins 1929, pls. 63.7, 64.9).
examples — 11 were found — range over the sixth
and fifth centuries.’ Then he stated ‘the figurine on the
plate, showing no signs of sex, may perhaps be a
grotesque tumbler’.27 Needless to say there are no
figural plates of these women in the text of the book;
they are simply not illustrated. Rose also managed to
completely exclude them from his discussion of the
nature of the cult.
Two ithyphallic representations were found in stone,
both now on display in the Sparta Museum (FIG. 16.7).
One depicts a little figure carved in the round whose
legs have broken off, and the second, described as a
roughly cylindrical piece of stone on which four faces
above four sets of sexual organs are depicted, male
and female alternately. Rose did not mention these
pieces either.
163
One kylix fragment found at the site should also be
mentioned in this context: FIG. 16.8. It is in the Sparta
Museum and has been dated to c. 580–575 BC by
Stibbe, who considered it to be from the workshop of
the Naukratis Painter, an artist of early sixth-century
Lakonian figure pottery.28 The interior part of the
fragment depicts cocks and a hen, and was illustrated
and described in great detail by Droop.29 The exterior
frieze is described simply as ‘a figure scene of the less
edifying kind painted with great care and gusto’.30 The
scene was first illustrated by Lane, who included both
a photograph and a line drawing.31 But for all his
liberality in illustrating the fragment, he was still
delicate in describing the scene itself, initially calling
it ‘country revels’ and then describing four of the
figures, whom he considered to be women, as follows:
‘two [are] engaged in a grotesque dance, one in a
symplegma, the last in by-play of another kind’.32
The meaning of this unique scene is still unclear.
Pipili has suggested that it could be part of a ritual in
honour of Orthia ‘whose cult must have included such
obscene dances since she was a fertility deity’.33 She
27 Dawkins 1929, 156.
28 Stibbe 1972, 221.
29 Droop 1929, 85, fig. 68.
30 Droop 1929, 85.
31 Lane 1933–4, pls. 39a–40.
32 Lane 1933–4, 137, 160.
33 Pipili 1987, 65. Other interpretations have been offered. See
above n. 16.
164 NICKI WAUGH
Fig. 16.8. Line drawing of
Laconian III kylix fragment
(Lane 1933/4, pl. 39a).
bases this primarily on her interpretation of the
Lakonian satyr (on the vase fragment this is the hairy
figure with the phallus, second on the left of the frieze)
as an ‘impersonal fertility daemon’. 34 Dawkins
suggested that some of the little terracotta figurines
excavated could represent satyrs; 35 however, as
Lissarrague has noted, satyrs are more associated with
an excessive sexuality that is often unfulfilled rather
than specifically with fertility.36 It is also perhaps
notable that the ‘satyr’ on the vase fragment is not
actually ithyphallic, as the penis, while over-sized, is
not erect but rather hangs down between the figure’s
legs. The sex act on the fragment also draws the image
into the realms of sexuality rather than necessarily
fertility, which highlights a question — are sex and
fertility the same thing?
Rose considered the ithyphallic images to testify to
the goddess’s interest in the increase of mankind,37 but
there is little in the iconography to suggest an
association with human reproduction in these images.
This is particularly apparent if the penetrated figure
on the kylix fragment is interpreted as male.38 As noted
earlier, representations associated with childbirth or
children are rare and problematic. Phalloi could also
perhaps be interpreted as apotropaic, with their
association with boundaries and Herms, which further
muddles the automatic interpretation of ithyphallic
figures, or those depicted with large penises, as
representing fertility.
‘LOWER ANIMALS’
Along with the ithyphallic figurines, Rose noted the
presence of a ‘great number [of terracotta figurines]
representing the lower animals, sometimes alone,
sometimes in conjunction with the figure of the
goddess’.39 He continues: ‘If these were all figures of
sacrificial animals, they might be explained as simply
poor people’s substitutes for real victims; but horses
and lions are included among them, and the latter at
least were certainly not sacrificed in Sparta.’ He
therefore concludes that the images represent the
goddess’s interest in the increase of ‘lower animals,
whether wild or tame’.40
Lions and horses are actually among the most
popular animal representations at the site and both
appear iconographically with the goddess (FIG. 16.9).
The types of animal include those who fit the model
as possible sacrificial substitutes: birds (especially
popular in ivory), bulls and cattle, pigs and boars, rams
and sheep, fish, hares and goats. Animals associated
with the Panhellenic Artemis are also present. Deer
are particularly popular after c. 500 BC and become
the only animal image from this time to be represented
in lead; bears and dogs also appear. More unusual
animal images include lizards, snakes (a popular
Lakonian image), two possible representations of
monkeys, scorpions, tortoises, frogs, ants, snails
and a spider.
There is no iconographical indication of fecundity
associated with the representations; they are not
depicted as pregnant or with young, which makes an
assumption of fertility and increase difficult to accept.
Some of the animals existed locally (for example
lizards, ants, spiders, tortoise, scorpions, frogs and
horses), so perhaps this is why they appear at the
sanctuary. However, this does not explain the presence
of less local animals such as monkeys and lions, and
so emphasises that an immediate explanation of these
votives is not possible.
34 Pipili 1987, 68.
35 Dawkins 1929, 152.
36 Lissarrague 1993, 207–20.
37 Rose 1929, 402.
38 Powell 1998, 31.
39 Rose 1929, 402.
40 Rose 1929, 402.
 VISUALISING FERTILITY AT ARTEMIS ORTHIA’S SITE
Fig. 16.9. Terracotta figurines of female (interpreted
as goddess) with lions (top) and horses (bottom)
(Dawkins 1929, pl. 32.1–5).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS — WHERE TO
NOW?
Finally, to step back from Rose’s list, it is interesting
to see what material he did not choose. He did not
choose the masks, although Carter included them in
her interpretation. He did not discuss the frequent
images of the gorgon; nor the significance of the
potnia theron or ‘mistress of animals’ motif, even
though he considered the male versions of the pose to
be important.
The question of sex is also not addressed. In a
discussion following Carter’s later article, one scholar
is recorded as commenting that as Orthia was a virgin
then surely the rituals were more likely to be those of
initiation for young girls than a sacred marriage. Carter
replied that Orthia’s connection to Artemis was late
and that she was not originally a virgin.41 However,
epigraphic evidence suggests that Orthia was in fact
considered to be a parthenos significantly prior to the
Flavian inscription associating her with Artemis, such
as on a late seventh or early sixth century BC limestone
relief of a horse.42 But, like Carter, Rose dismissed this
aspect of Orthia (considering the title to be almost
another name for Artemis) and instead focused on
fertility as the basis for the association between Artemis
and Orthia.43 Presumably Rose and Carter considered
165
a virgin could not be associated with fertility – but is
this not a modern perception? By ignoring the title
given to Orthia by her worshippers, and refusing to
explore what connotations this may have had, how are
we to understand or interpret the cult?
This is not to claim that these images are evidence
for fertility or that virginity is a counter-indication, but
simply that they are all aspects of Orthia’s cult which
should be included in any interpretation of the nature
of the goddess. And this really leads to the questions
going forward — how do we, as modern scholars,
determine what images at an ancient sanctuary are
significant? Are they those which appear in high
numbers and in various media and periods? Are they
those which appear in other contexts in the same polis
or timescale? Are they even those elements which are
unusual or uncommon?
Some scholars would argue that by even excavating
a site we are interpreting the material;44 in what is kept
and what is thrown away, what is chosen to be published,
to be illustrated, to be discussed, and in many ways the
choices made by Dawkins and his team would not be
those made today. We cannot place ourselves on a
pedestal compared with our predecessors: Dawkins’s
application of stratigraphy at Artemis Orthia’s site was
ground-breaking in its day.45 But equally to accept their
conclusions, without recognising that they were asking
questions and holding assumptions that could be very
different to ours, is to build castles on sand foundations.
Archaeological theory has long acknowledged the
need to recognise that our own culture affects our
interpretations of the past. Some would suggest that it
is impossible to remove our perceptions from our
investigations and therefore all we will ever find is the
past we want or deserve.46 Others have noted that
attempts to investigate ancient meanings without an
appropriate background can lead to reconstructions that
border on science fiction.47 Renfrew, discussing the
archaeology of religion from a cognitive theoretical
approach, has noted that a coherent methodology has
not yet been established for analysing meaning in
complex figurative systems, which definitely includes
ancient Greece.48
Are we then to give up? Is it feasible for us to think
we can recognise ancient distinctions of meaning? Can
we know what the ancient Greeks considered fertility
41 Carter 1988, 98.
42 Limestone carving no. 28; inscription 169.1: Dawkins 1929,
191, 367.
43 Rose 1929, 401–2.
44 Thomas 2004, 22.
45 Boardman 1963, 1.
46 Thomas 2004.
47 Flannery and Marcus 1998, 46.
48 Renfrew 2000, 53.
166 NICKI WAUGH
to be? Can we hope to distinguish between woman and
goddess, man and god (or consort?), sacrifice and
fertility, or fertility and sexuality? What is fertility —
or rather, what was fertility? Was it an erect penis, a
nude woman, a group of animals, or a collection of
wreaths? And finally was this all that Orthia was about?
Bintliff has highlighted Wittgenstein’s description
of the archaeologist as a ‘craftsman going out on a job
with a large bag full of tools — each ideally suited to a
particular application within the remit of the
profession.’49 For a classical archaeologist these tools
include a number of types of analysis which can be
applied to the votive material at the site: functionalist
analysis of the practical purpose(s) of the material,
formal analysis of the style, iconographic analysis of
specific motifs, structuralist analysis of recurrent
combinations of elements, semiotic investigations into
the ways the objects and patterns may refer beyond
themselves and hermeneutic interpretations of meaning
through context.50
Sourvinou-Inwood has proposed a detailed
methodology for the examination of ancient Greek
images,51 although she has been criticised for not always
following it herself.52 She notes that we need to remove
our own cultural f ilters, and that to attempt a
reconstruction of ancient Greek perceptions it is vital
to fully understand the context in which the images
are located.53 Each set of data must be investigated
separately to ‘prevent preconceptions and distortions
from creeping from one part of the discourse into the
other and contaminating it’.54 This is a valid concern
to prevent a circularity of argument, but it is difficult
to see how this sorting of data can avoid being an
interpretation in itself.
Sourvinou-Inwood also recognises that images do
not necessarily have a fixed meaning and that they can
be polysemic. Meaning is determined by interaction,
semantics and perspectives in each context.55 Johnson
has called this variety of interpretation ‘equi-final’,
that is, ‘capable of being explained equally well in
different directions’.56 This is something that I would
suggest particularly applies to a study such as this,
where the focus is on a concept such as fertility. Why
should fertility be an undifferentiated concept?
Furthermore, why should the goddess, Artemis Orthia
herself, be perceived as having a singular meaning or
significance?
It is difficult to provide a conclusion for a paper
such as this, which is at the beginning of research. It
would be hubristic to expect that the methodologies
discussed above will automatically lead to an accurate
interpretation of ancient Greek perception. But by
reviewing and building on our past as classical
archaeologists, we have a stronger case for considering
our interpretations to reflect the ancient context rather
than one based on Victorian social values.
My own research will be seeking to answer some of
the questions I have raised in this paper by contextuali-
sing Artemis Orthia’s sanctuary more closely with other
Spartan cults and material culture, and applying some
of the tools outlined here. In addition, much could be
discovered by asking the same questions of sanctuaries
beyond Sparta’s boundaries; into Arkadia and who
knows where from there. But until this research is
complete it is perhaps appropriate that the last words
go to Rose: ‘That we know all about Orthia, or need
make no more conjectures, would be an utterly absurd
statement; but our present knowledge is to that of the
last generation as tolerably clear daylight to fog.’57
REFERENCES
Assante, J., 2003. ‘From whores to Hierodules: the historic
invention of Mesopotamian female sex professionals’,
in A. A. Donohue and M. D. Fullerton (eds.), Ancient
Art and its Historiography. Cambridge: 13–47.
Barringer, J., 2003. ‘Review of C. Sourvinou-Inwood,
Reading Greek culture: texts and images, rituals and
myths’, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 03.04.14 (14
April).
Bintliff, J. (ed.), 2004. A Companion to Archaeology. Oxford.
Boardman, J., 1963. ‘Artemis Orthia and chronology’, BSA
58: 1–7.
Carter, J. B., 1987. ‘The masks of Ortheia’, AJA 91: 355–83.
——, 1988. ‘Masks and poetry in early Sparta’, in R. Hägg,
N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek
Cult Practice: Stockholm: 89–98.
Cavanagh, W. G. and R. R. Laxton, 1984. ‘Lead figurines
from the Menelaion and Seriation’, BSA 79: 23–36.
Corbey, R., R. Layton and J. Tanner, 2004. ‘Archaeology
and art’, in J. Bintliff (ed.), A Companion to
Archaeology. Oxford: 357–79.
Dawkins, R. M., 1907. ‘Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta,
1907. 4. The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia’, BSA 13:
44–108.
——, 1908. ‘Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta, 1908. 2. The
sanctuary of Artemis Orthia — the excavation’, BSA
14: 4–29.
——, 1909. ‘Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta, 1909. 1. The
sanctuary of Artemis Orthia’, BSA 15: 5–22.
——, 1910a. ‘Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta, 1910. 4.
Artemis Orthia: the excavation of 1910’, BSA 16:
15–17.
——, 1910b. ‘Laconia. I. Excavations at Sparta, 1910. 5.
Artemis Orthia; the history of the sanctuary’, BSA 16:
18–53.
49 Bintliff 2004, xix.
50 List taken from Corbey et al. 2004, 361–2.
51 Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 3–23.
52 Barringer 2003.
53 Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 5–10.
54 Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 7.
55 Sourvinou-Inwood 1991, 11.
56 Johnson 2004, 105.
57 Rose 1929, 406.
 VISUALISING FERTILITY AT ARTEMIS ORTHIA’S SITE
—— (ed.), 1929. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at
Sparta: Excavated and Described by Members of the
British School at Athens 1906–1910. JHS Suppl. 5.
London.
Droop, J. P., 1929. ‘The Laconian pottery’, 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. JHS Suppl. 5. London:
52–116.
Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus, 1998. ‘Cognitive
archaeology’, in D. S. Whitley (ed.), Reader in
Archaeological Theory: Post-processual and Cognitive
Approaches. London and New York: 35–48.
Johnson, M., 2004. ‘Archaeology and social theory’, in
J. Bintliff (ed.), A Companion to Archaeology. Oxford:
92–109.
Lane, E. A., 1933–4. ‘Lakonian vase painting’, BSA 34:
99–189.
Lissarrague, F., 1993. ‘On the wildness of satyrs’, in T. H.
Carpenter and C. Faraone, Masks of Dionysos. London
and Ithaca: 207–20.
Marinatos, N., 2000. The Goddess and the Warrior: The
Naked Goddess and Mistress of Animals in Early Greek
Religion. London and New York.
167
Pipili, M., 1987. Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century
BC. Oxford.
Powell, A., 1998. ‘Sixth-century Lakonian vase-painting:
continuities and discontinuities with the “Lykourgan”
ethos’, in N. Fisher and H. van Wees, Archaic Greece:
New Approaches and Evidence. London: 119–46.
Renfrew, C., 2000. ‘The archaeology of religion’, in
C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, The Ancient Mind.
Cambridge: 47–54.
Rose, H. J., 1929. ‘The cult of Artemis 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. JHS Suppl. 5.
London: 399–407.
Stibbe, C. M., 1972. Lakonische Vasenmaler des sechsten
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Amsterdam.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C., 1991. ‘Reading’ Greek Culture: Texts
and Images, Rituals and Myths. Oxford.
Thomas, J., 2004. ‘The great dark book: archaeology,
experience and interpretation’, in J. Bintliff (ed.), A
Companion to Archaeology. Oxford: 21–36.
Waugh, N., forthcoming. ‘Nymphai as hippoi: female ritual
at the cult of Artemis Orthia’, in E. Millender (ed.),
Unveiling Spartan Women. Swansea.