Hello,

Being that my three artifacts are all statues, the only way they contribute to the rhetoric of Sparta is through display. At first I figured that in order to understand what ancient Sparta was like, we must look at the dominant and prevalent features of the people, and draw conclusions. What sticks out most, and what does it mean. However, now, due to the idea of Excess and Exaggeration, as well as Dominant Values, I am cautious to assume the amount of validity in the statues.

For example, the legs of the young women are clearly very strong, insinuating Spartans may have believed all citizens should be equal physically. Or the hoplite soldier, who is exposed from the waste down. Not all statues have this trait, so this may convey that men were thought to be the only ones who should go and fight.

Yet, maybe these take aways are not entirely true. Now I see that these statues may be over emphasizing parts of the culture, or mis representing them as well. The image of the angry fighting hoplite may be just a tool to exaggerate the Spartan’s idea of a dominant value or trait. Sadly there are not enough statues preserved to solve this problem, but we must be cautious nonetheless.

I now see that I must keep my emotions in check, and look at the argument from multiple stand points, because, as Protagerous says, dissoi logoi matters, and everything has another side. What you see at first may not be what is actually true.