Greek Colonisation: The Right to return

bruxelles - brussel - roma belgisch historisch instituut te rome

institut historique belge de rome istituto storico belga di roma

2016

conceptualising early colonisation

lieve donnellan, ed.Valentino nizzo

gert-Jan burgers

98110_Donnellan_voorwerk.indd 3 17/03/16 09:45

© 2016 ihbr - bhir

no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission of the copyright owner.

d/2016/351/2isbn 978-90-74461-82-5


Table of content

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... 7

l. donnellan & V. nizzo, Conceptualising early Greek colonisation. Introduction to the volume ... 9

r. osborne, Greek ‘colonisation’: what was, and what is, at stake? .............................................. 21

i. malkin, Greek colonisation: The Right to Return ....................................................................... 27

J. hall, Quanto c’è di “greco” nella “colonizzazione greca”? ............................................................ 51

a. esposito & a. Pollini, Postcolonialism from America to Magna Graecia............................... 61

g. saltini semerari, Greek-Indigenous intermarriage: a gendered perspective .......................... 77

r. Étienne, Connectivité et croissance : deux clés pour le VIII e s.? ................................................ 89

F. de angelis, e pluribus unum: The Multiplicity of Models ........................................................ 97

V. nizzo, tempus fugit. Datare e interpretare la “prima colonizzazione”: una riflessione “retro-spettiva” e “prospettiva” su cronologie, culture e contesti .................................................................. 105

m. cuozzo & c. Pellegrino, Culture meticce, identità etnica, dinamiche di conservatorismoe resistenza: questioni teoriche e casi di studio dalla Campania ..................................................... 117

o. morris, Indigenous networks, hierarchies of connectivity and early colonisation in Iron AgeCampania ........................................................................................................................................... 137

l. donnellan, A networked view on ‘Euboean’ colonisation ........................................................ 149

h. tréziny, Archaeological data on the foundation of Megara Hyblaea. Certainties and hypo-theses ................................................................................................................................................... 167

F. Frisone, ‘Sistemi’ coloniali e definizioni identitarie: le ‘colonie sorelle’ della Sicilia orientalee della Calabria meridionale ............................................................................................................. 179

e. greco, Su alcune analogie (strutturali?) nell’organizzazione dello spazio : il caso delle città achee ....................................................................................................................................................... 197

d. Yntema, Greek groups in southeast Italy during the Iron Age ................................................... 209

g.-J. burgers & J.P. crielaard, The Migrant’s Identity. ‘Greeks’ and ‘Natives’ at L’Amastuola,Southern Italy ........................................................................................................................................ 225

P.g. guzzo, Osservazioni finali ......................................................................................................... 239

m. gras, Observations finales .......................................................................................................... 243


1 I wish to thank Lieve Donnellan and Valentino Nizzo, the organizers of the conference “Contextualizing early colonisation” for their invitation. I am grateful to Josephine Quinn for her careful reading of the ms and her advice. I bear full responsibility for the entire text.2 A colony, says Plato (Laws 708b) is “like a swarm of bees [curiously, another early meaning of the Greek word apoi-kia], a single genos goes out from a single country and set-tles, like a friend coming from among friends, being either squeezed out by lack of room (stenochoria) or forced by

some other such pressing need”; sometimes, “the violence of civil strife (stasis) might compel a whole section (morion) of a state to emigrate; and on one occasion an entire state went into exile because of external attacks.”3 Malkin, Small Greek World.4 Such may have been the case of the Aegean migrants we know as Philistines who had lost their Indo-European language. Cf. Yasur-Landau, The Philistines and Aegean Migration.

This paper explores the validity of the concept of colonisation in modern scholar-ship and the way it operates in analyzing colo-nisation as a discrete historical phenomenon. It argues against the approach that denies both the terminology and the existence of Greek colonisation. It especially reassesses issues of links between mother cities and new foundations. The existence of networks of metropoleis and apoikiai (with their specific, usually uncontroversial identities) was a mat-ter of consensus among Greeks. This mutual recognition was in place from early on and is evident in the colonists’ right to return to the metropolis.

Arriving by sea between the end of the second millennium and around the middle of the first, Greeks founded settlements on islands, promontories, and river mouths in the Aegean, Asia Minor, the Propontis and the Black Sea, and the central and western Mediterra-nean. Historians tend to split this period into periods of “migrations” and “colonisation”: the

first refers to the wholesale migration of com-munities and individuals (notably, the “Ionian Migrations”); in the Archaic period (from the second half of the eighth century), how-ever, migration was supposedly replaced by “colonisation”, with home communities remaining in place (i.e., these were no longer migrations of an exodus type) and colonists, like swarms of bees (to use Plato’s expression), migrated to found new hives.2

In general, the world of Greek colonisation, in contrast to that of previous migration, was also contemporary with the emergence of the polis. In fact, the foundation of new communi-ties that rapidly acquired a comprehensive polit-ical character may be largely responsible for that rise of the polis. It was probably also the time when Greek civilisation crystalised into a world of recognisable commonalities and collective identity, not least because of the formation and expansion of networks, the nodes of which were the new poleis.3 When migrants reached shores that were too distant or they reached them too early, they were cut off from those evolving networks and did not become Greeks.4

Greek colonisation: The Right to ReturnIrad Malkin1

Book 1.indb 27 17/03/16 10:01

28 irad malkin

5 Raoul-Rochette, Histoire critique. 6 Thuc. 1.12.4 treating the Ionian and central Mediterra-nean settlements as a single phenomenon.

Yet, was there ever a discrete historical phe-nomenon that we may call “Greek colonisation”? Generally speaking, ever since the pioneering work of Désiré Raoul-Rochette (1815)5 histori-ans have applied the term “colonisation” spe-cifically to the migratory and settlement pro-cess that started in the late eighth century and resulted, ca. 500 BCE, in the existence of hun-dreds of poleis (and emporia) along the coasts of the Black Sea and the central and western Med-iterranean all the way from the Ukraine to Spain. Nobody doubts the end result and its major characteristics around the close of the Archaic period: coasts dotted with city-states, such as Sinope, Cyrene, Syracuse, and Massalia that were mostly independent and sovereign. Moreover, they all shared the notion that they had once been founded from some mother-city that was still in existence when they were shar-ing that notion. Furthermore, with varying detail for each case, most also shared the notion that their foundation had been effected along similar, conventional lines: a foundation oracle delivered to some founder (oikistês); rituals of transfer and settlement (sacred fire, specialized seers, or manteis); burial of the founder in the agora and an annual heroic cult for him; on-going religious relations and recognition of privileges among mother-cities and colonies; the convention that when a city founds a colony its own mother-city would send a co-founder to join the new foundation (see below). Most of these characteristics emerge in accounts exist-ing in sources from the Classical period, with a few notable exceptions, such as the poetry of Archilochos and Mimnermos. In addition, his-torians, epigraphists, and archaeologists have pointed out other common traits: conventional

urban and spatial planning, similar propor-tions between city and “country” (some could have a large chôra, but nobody attempted the conquest of entire countries); and comparable nomima, those institutional sets of magistra-cies, sacred calendars and social divisions that show remarkable similarity among mother cities and colonies.

No scholar has been happy with the term “colonisation”, rooted in Latin and semanti-cally associated with modern imperialism and colonialism. It is anachronistic by definition. Yet criticism of the term “colonisation” seems to emerge again and again, sometimes unaware of its own long history, without offering any reliable alternative that also satisfies the speci-ficity of the shared characteristics of the phe-nomenon.

Neither historical phenomena nor histori-cal periods lend themselves easily to compre-hensive names. There is always something arbi-trary about any historical denomination. For example, the term “Era of Exploration” was happily employed for quite a while to describe the early modern period, only to become prob-lematized when people started taking native perspectives seriously. There is constant discus-sion in current historical discourse of what may be an acceptable descriptive terminology, a healthy exercise in and of itself. The problem, of course, is that most terms identifying a histori-cal or social phenomenon are the fruit of hind-sight and fluctuating perspectives.

We do not have an apt term, either in ancient Greek or in any modern language, for “Greek colonisation”. When trying to general-ize, the best that Thucydides can do is to say “when Hellas sent out apoikiai”.6 Fearful of

Book 1.indb 28 17/03/16 10:01

greek colonisation: the right to return 29

7 For the lyrics: http://www.lyricstime.com/harry-bela-fonte-man-piaba-lyrics.html

8 Lepore, Colonie.

anachronism, some have turned to the re-assuring strategy of casting a wider net for the appropriate terminology. One may, for exam-ple, replace “colony” with “settlement”, a nicely neutral term, yet telling us neither how it came into being nor of its specific traits. “Settlement” may relate to either a mixed bag of people grad-ually arriving at some place and eventually evolving into a settlement, or to a well-organ-ised, tightly led, deliberate foundation, settled and organised “all entire in a day”. The further danger with such a strategy is that instead of focusing on a problem through its terminology we now use a term that obfuscates both. A term such as “migration” (sometimes suggested to replace “colonisation”) may have wonderfully wide applications yet quite insignificant impli-cations, while providing the illusion that one has “covered” the issue. It is a classic case of defining definitions: the wider the fines the more elements are likely to creep in, rendering the “fence” meaningless. One is reminded of a wonderful line in a Harry Belafonte song, “Man Piaba”, about a father speaking in generalities to avoid saying something explicit about sex to his son: in frustration, the son says: “it was clear as mud, but it covered the ground, and the confusion made the brain go ‘round”.7

There is also an issue of what we read: in an age of globalisation some academic critical reading seems to get narrower in scope. There is much redundancy: the recent generation of students and scholars in the English-speaking world seem to avoid reading similar warnings issued long ago. For example, in 1960, two years

before France abandoned Algeria, Jean Bérard published his L’expansion et la colonisation grecques jusqu’aux guerres médiques; he was adding his voice to an already familiar warning that the term “colonisation” was a misnomer. His exemplum (as too often in French scholar-ship) was France: Think, he said, of North Africa, that France outremer, where French colonists remained French citizens, voted for the French parliament, and were liable to serve in the French army. Now, think of the exact opposite and you will begin to understand the nature of the independent and sovereign Greek apoikia. The French outremer were rather more similar to Classical Athenian klerouchoi than to Archaic Greek settlers. The French could “return” home because supposedly they had never left, and in 1962 Charles de Gaulle opened the doors for over one million French, most of whom had never laid eyes on France, to invol-untarily exercise their right of return. (I shall return to the Greek “right of return” below).

Bérard and other European scholars, such as Ettore Lepore,8 who kept warning against the misnomer of colonisation, seem to go unmen-tioned these days. What has appeared, espe-cially among scholars writing in English, is a repetition of the same kind of warning with the enthusiasm typical of those shattering some orthodoxy. Perhaps reacting to post-colonial sensitivities and to the legacy of the British Empire (scholars of Greek colonisation writing in French, Dutch and Italian seem less troubled by colonialist legacies), recent years have seen another awakening to the issue.

Book 1.indb 29 17/03/16 10:01

30 irad malkin

9 De Angelis, ‘Ancient Past, Imperial Present’.10 I have made some of these initial points in my review of Hurst and Owen’s book: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2008/ 2008-11-08.html

11 See Yavetz, ‘Why Rome?’12 Malkin, Myth and Territory; see also Malkin, ‘Foreign Founders: Greeks and Hebrews’.

Yet the news is that there is no news. Nobody has ever expressed enthusiastic sup-port for the term “colonisation” yet nobody, to this very day, has managed to come up with a reliable alternative, one that is precise enough to carry any specificity which may be meaning-ful historically. Among global historians too, the term “colonisation” (not “colonialism”) seems apt. Marc Ferro ought to know: he is one of France’s leading historians and the editor of the Le livre noir du colonialisme (2003). He also wrote Colonisations (plural) which appeared in English in 1997 as Colonisation: a Global History, where he also suggests some qualifying attributes to different types of colonisation. He probably never imagined how little he would be read by English-reading ancient historians.

Instead we find younger scholars excavat-ing the work of older ones for nuances of impe-rialism, as if that, in and of itself, necessarily implies their work is tainted. In a widely-read article Franco de Angelis has milked dry the influential book by Thomas Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (1948), of its very few quotable analogies of empire.9 Dunbabin’s is a magnum opus, consisting of some 500 pages; however, most of these analogies to empire are taken from pages vi-vii of the preface, in addition to a few quotations from pages 182-192. There is nothing significant beyond this. These quota-tions (revealing aspects of Dunbabin’s personal Zeitgeist rather than its application to his immense scholarship) then get re-quoted by others as a representative sampling. A book edited by Sara Owen and Henry Hurst (2005), while providing some excellent discussions about the malady of “misguided analogy”,

actually provides very little evidence that the patient is all that sick.10

There is confusion, I think, and it is between “analogy” and Zeitgeist. There is no doubt, for example, that Thomas Dunbabin was influenced by his time, its current terminology and framework of associations, just as we are by ours. But was it detrimental to what he was doing? The issue of Zeitgeist in historiography has been with us for almost as long as critical modern historical scholarship.11 Not to labor the familiar point, basically it means, in the words of Croce, that the historian of the past cannot avoid being a citizen of the present. It is the present that influences perspectives, assumptions, and mostly the choice of histori-cal questions, such as, following Marxism, the emergence of the economy as a legitimate his-torical subject, or gender history, following the rise of the feminist movement in the USA.

When I wrote Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (1994), a book that dis-cusses the use of myth as articulating or justi-fying conquest and colonisation, I took special care to be explicit about which country I came from and how keenly aware I was of the possi-ble analogy between the land promised by God to Abraham and the Gift of Zeus to the Herak-leidai, made explicit in the seventh century by Tyrtaios.12 But being aware of Zeitgeist also helps avoid being entirely conditioned by it. When Zeitgeist is self-aware, there is nothing wrong with it: it serves as a stimulus for ques-tioning history, in a constant, dynamic, and reciprocal dialogue with the past. It is then up to the historian to be a critical citizen of the present or a naïve one.

Book 1.indb 30 17/03/16 10:01


13 Osborne, ‘Early Greek Colonization’.14 Cf. Tsetskhladze, Greek colonisation.

15 Graham, ‘The authenticity of the ORKION TON OIKIS-TERON of Cyrene’; ML 5.

In my view we need to stop worrying about the term “colonisation”, and concentrate rather on what we mean by it. “Colonisation” is a conventional marker, no more, yet it has more relative proximity to the phenomenon than other terms. That is also an advantage: instead of a tempting, reassuring historical term that might block our critical examination (cf., again, the impact on historiography of the once- conventional “Discovery of the New World”), we always need to qualify, ad hoc, what it is we are talking about.

In general the critique revolves around two planes. The first, as we have seen, is termi-nology. The second, and to my mind far more serious, is the one that questions or even denies the phenomenon of Greek colonisation as such. It is one thing to deny the validity or applicabil-ity of historical terminology such as “colonisa-tion”; it is quite another to claim that the his-torical phenomenon never existed.

* * * *

This second critique13 about Greek coloni-sation during the Archaic period is mainly based on some selective re-assessments of the archaeological evidence and a minimalist eval-uation of literary sources (mostly from the Classical period). Here another kind of anach-ronism is claimed: fifth-century accounts of (Archaic) Greek colonisation were tainted with the contemporary political concerns of the “last person speaking to Herodotus”, and, more gen-erally, by the “Classical model of colonisation”, i.e., Classical practices of how to found a colony, which were projected backward to the Archaic

period in order to formulate narratives of foun-dation.

One prominent example is a provocative and often cited article that appeared in 1998, in which Robin Osborne concludes that “chapters on Greek colonisation should be eradicated from textbooks”. We are talking about an 18-page article, not a comprehensive volume,14 but at least Osborne has tried to go beyond les mots in order to deny les choses. Provocative, well-written, and influential, Osborne’s article has been seminal in changing the mood and tone of those writing about, or, more often, men-tioning in passing, ancient Greek colonisation. Yet curiously, nobody has picked up the chal-lenge: such a short piece could not possibly have dealt with the entire field; its sweeping conclu-sion might seem wildly over-reaching, but since its intention seemed to provide a stimulus for re-examination one could live with that.

However, what followed was not some major study (or a PhD thesis) to revise the field, but another, even more general discussion by Osborne himself in a format that does not allow for the research oriented analysis that the huge field deserves. In 2009 Osborne published a second edition of his 1996 textbook, Greece in the Making, where he takes up again the issue of colonisation with Cyrene as his example (always a problem with that exceptional colony) but without addressing many of the points that had already been put forward in previous scholar-ship.15 Such general presentations are legiti-mate, of course, but they cannot form the basis for denying the entire field as we know it.

A short paper may indeed cause a para-digm shift in our thinking. Such, for instance,

Book 1.indb 31 17/03/16 10:01

32 irad malkin

16 Turner, The frontier in American history, and see his other works listed in the reference list.17 Lepore, Colonie.18 Turner, Frontier and section; selected essays; Turner, Rise of the new West.

19 See, however, the critical and serious engagement with foundation stories in Hall, ‘Foundation stories’.20 Braund, ‘Writing and Re-Inventing Colonial Origins’.

was the paper by Frederick Jackson Turner that articulated the famous thesis on the role of the Frontier in shaping the history of the United States.16 Osborne’s article, similar in length, had not achieved a comparable result. For his part, Turner did not need to debunk, on a positivistic level, the accepted facts of the story of Ameri-can colonisation. His goal was simply to sug-gest a new long-term perspective for its inter-pretation. It was coherent and eminently convincing to many (including the grand Ital-ian master, Ettore Lepore, who tried to apply it to ancient Greek colonisation).17 Turner claimed (in 1893) that the ever-rolling frontier shaped American democracy and egalitarianism. Freed from the European value-system and land rents, the frontier, says Turner, also shaped the American notion of Liberty, attitudes to property (especially with the availability of lands free for the taking), and violence.

Osborne’s conclusion is similarly sweep-ing: Greek colonisation is not a valid category. Had Osborne’s article been just a warning to scholars not to take colonisation narratives at face value, or to suggest new ways of interpret-ing the material evidence, it would have been a significant contribution to the discussion, albeit with much less of an impact on the mood of scholarship. The trouble is that it claims a Turner-like status (paradigm shift) without doing the work to substantiate his huge claim (the young Turner, aged only twenty-three when he gave his famous address, then dedi-cated his life to filling up his ideas with specific content).18

This is the expression of a mood, not a presentation of research and argument. Nobody has taken upon her- or himself, say, a review of the entire epigraphic corpus of the Mediterra-nean and Black Sea; or a comprehensive, com-parative assessment of the material evidence from the entire world of colonial sites; or a full re-reading of the corpus of relevant Delphic oracles, poetic fragments, or foundation-narra-tives. This is what is needed, not some general policy statements about how we need to speak of Greek colonisation.19

Without the hard work needed to be done in order to refute and replace one reconstruc-tion and interpretation with another, the grand claim denying Greek colonisation seems irre-sponsible, especially when we consider the effect on students who are told “how we do things now”,20 and thus implying how we ought to be doing them.

Re-assessing an entire field is a serious matter, especially when that field is ancient Greek colonisation. The stakes are enormous: how to interpret the existence of the astonish-ing map of Greek settlements, say, around 500 BCE? No one could deny the fact that by that time the shores of both the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were full of Greeks settlements. They included various forms of trading stations (emporia), some enclave communities (enoikis-moi, Greeks living among non-Greeks), and hundreds of city states.

Offering a new, comprehensive model of interpretation would necessitate researching and re-examining an entire spectrum of issues

Book 1.indb 32 17/03/16 10:01


21 I address the direct archeological implications of “foun-dation”, answering Osborne. See Malkin, ‘Exploring the Validity of the Concept of ‘Foundation’’.22 I address the challenge to the “value of tradition” in Mal-kin ‘‘Tradition’ in Herodotus: The Foundation of Cyrene’. Cf. Malkin ‘Foundations’.

23 See Jean-Paul Morel. ‘Greek Colonization in Italy and in the West: Problems of Evidence and Interpretation’, listing some of these issues, and complaining (in 1984!) that many have gone out of academic fashion.

that colonisation supposedly consists of. To date this had not been done. Just to mention four major questions:• Does the archaeology point to gradual

evolution or deliberate foundation (as inferred from the division of land and space, architecture, burials, and pottery)? Does the material evidence point to hostil-ity and separation or rather to convivenza with local populations? 21

• Source-criticism: how should we read accounts of foundations in the literary sources?22 How should we assess the epi-graphical evidence, including foundation decrees and reciprocal rights between a mother city and a colony, such as inherit-ance, ritual access, arbitration, and the right of return? Or, more generally, was there even such a thing as a mother city?

• How should we study and interpret the rich body of nomima (e.g., sacred calendars, tribal terminology, formal terms for magis-tracies and institutions) that seem com-mon (in fact identical, in many cases) to mother cities and colonies?

• How should we understand and interpret pan-Hellenic aspects of colonisation, especially the involvement of the Delphic oracle?

• Was colonisation a discrete phenomenon or ought it to be interpreted together with other new ‘foundations’ (misleadingly called “reforms”) of the social and political order in the Archaic period, such as the Great Rhetra at Sparta (which was also a Delphic foundation decree)?

• Other common issues discussed among historians of Greek colonisation include causes, chronology, relations with other maritime civilizations (Etruscans, Phoe-nicians), the role of the oikistês-ktistes-archêgetês (“founder”), contacts and “mixing” with non-Greek populations (e.g., actual co-habitation, religious syn-cretism, mutual commercial and mar-riage treaties).23

The most frustrating aspect of trying to reply to the current scholarly discourse and the challenge to the very concept of Greek coloni-sation is that it is non-existent. “Compelling questions” are raised, declarations of where our research should be heading are articulated, pedagogic remarks are made in passing, and scare-quotes around “colonisation” are added routinely, often with little elaboration. Again we are mostly concerned with an academic mood, not a comprehensive, sustained re-examination of data and systematic argumen-tation applying to all the aspects mentioned above. Since no-one to date has actually done the serious work that might merit the re-assessment Osborne is calling for, how can we answer this challenge? Is there even a real chal-lenge here? Is one to counter with some general arguments answering and backing it up with one or two “case-studies”? But that would be playing on a court pre-determined by that approach, which I consider a priori illegitimate for grand claims.

Meanwhile, the wonderful rise in archaeo-logical activity keeps suggesting more complex

Book 1.indb 33 17/03/16 10:01

34 irad malkin

24 Krebs, ‘Greek Colonization and Agriculture in Dobrudja’; Burgers and Crielaard, ‘Greek Colonists and Indigenous Populations at l’Amastuola’.25 Shepherd, ‘The Pride of Most Colonials’; ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’; Mertens, Città e monumenti dei Greci d’Occidente.

26 For discussion see Malkin, A Small Greek World, chap-ter 6. cf. Antonetti, ‘Megara e le sue colonie’; Note espe-cially the prodigious and excellent work by Adrian Robu (see references).27 See notes 11, 12 and Malkin ‘Foundations’.

realities: individual farms at Istria, for example, or probable convivenza at L’Amastuola,24 indi-cate there were other modalities to the life of Greeks among non-Greeks. However, the strong emphasis on sites may divert our atten-tion away from issues that the material evidence cannot answer, such as the dynamic relations among networks of colonies and mother cities and the mental maps of Greeks who saw them-selves as originating from specific communities and expressed that in non-material forms. Dieter Mertens and Gillian Shepherd, for exam-ple, have shown that neither architectural styles nor burial customs followed those of mother cities, but evolved regionally.25 For some that would mean weak relations with mother cities; for others that Greeks did not care to express such links in these material forms. At the same time, spatial and “urban” divisions in the colo-nial world seem to provide a clear indication that the foundation of a colony was an event rather than a slow process. Moreover, they appear to express an egalitarian principle at work (division of klêroi), a firm conceptual grasp of an entire territory, and a priori atten-tion to public functions (religious, mortuary, public) implying a political community right from the start.

The study of nomima is also a wide area that seems to have vanished under the nega-tion-approach radar. To understand the valid-ity of the concept of colonisation, we need to remember another network aspect of mother cities and colonies. It is encouraging to see that more studies are being conducted these days that pertain directly to colonial nomima, such

as sacred calendars, tribal divisions, magistra-cies, and other institutions, often common with the mother city.26 This is an independent, mostly value-free, corpus of evidence that pow-erfully supports the similarity and close rela-tions between mother cities and colonies (and hence the very existence of certain poleis as metropoleis), a point which the negation-approach simply ignores. Another omission is glaring in the negation-approach: the hugely important issue of mother cities. It seems clear why: denying colonisation means denying mother cities. Elsewhere I addressed some of the doubts cast on the value of our sources and colonial “traditions”, on the very notion of foundation, and on the interpretation of the archaeological evidence.27 My purpose here is to indicate how, by looking closely at one set of specific questions relating to mother cities and colonies, one may proceed to the grander ques-tion. First let me summarise some of the argu-ments, in order to place the question of mother cities in context.

In the simplest terms, we find the claim that archaic foundations were retrospective inventions based on the Classical model and fifth-century practices. Yet historical inven-tions need an agent and an audience, i.e., some-one doing the inventing, and some community that believes and sustains the invented story as a tradition. Indeed we can go further: since the recognition of mother cities was dependent on discrete networks (e.g., colonies of Corinth, or Phokaia, or Sparta, etc.) as well as on the entire Hellenic network (we hardly hear of disputed mother cities) and on the Delphic oracle, for

Book 1.indb 34 17/03/16 10:01


28 Curty, Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques. 29 Malkin, ‘Foundations’

someone to claim an “invention” one would need to ask how and when did this Hellenic rec-ognition come about, especially among Greeks who usually found plenty of other matters to disagree about.

So were mother cities anachronistically invented, and if so, cui bono? The question is usually ignored. One would be hard-pressed to show motive for such inventions: who might have invented them and why? If the specific identity of a mother city was merely a late inven-tion, it is surprising that we don’t find rival claims for association with prestigious colonies and mother cities. We know what such rivalries look like: plenty of Greek cities, for example, vied for the honor of being recognized as the birth-place of Homer; metropoleis, on the other hand, did not argue with each other about an equivalent prestige when it came to successful colonies. Corinth did not claim to be the mother city of the Byzantion, nor did Megara ever claim Syracuse. This is also because historical mem-ory was never merely local. “Everyone knew” Syracuse had been an apoikia of Corinth. More-over, local histories were inter-dependent: for example, both Byzantion and Megara Hyblaia recognized Megara (Nisaia) as their mother city. Thus Megara Nisaia was an important element in the constituent identity of both.

We need to confront the fact that the belief in a web of mother cities and colonies (and colo-nies of colonies) was both shared and sustained by an entire Hellenic network, transcending specific, local stories. In short, we have here a reciprocally recognized status, implying consistent mutual recognition across wide expanses. In other words, within the pan-Hel-lenic network we can observe a (rare) pan-

Hellenic consensus as to the specific identities of metropoleis and their function as such.

Nor did colonies freely invent their mother cities. How come a magnificently rich colony such as Cyrene could be content with poor Thera as its mother city? Thera never founded another colony and was not a great mother city such as Miletus. Cyrene could claim Sparta, certainly a prestigious lineage, but had to be content with Sparta as a mere grand-mother city, via Thera. On the other hand, should we wish to see how such inventions might have seemed all we need to do is move on to the Hel-lenistic era, when kinship policy (syngenneia) was the order of the day.28 Or take the case of Chalkis and Chalkidian colonies: It is not self-evident why anyone in, say, the fifth century, would invent Chalkidian origins for a Sicilian foundation dating two centuries earlier. Again, cui bono? Chalkis had lost all of its Mediterra-nean importance already by the end of the eighth century. Yet colonies kept claiming ori-gins from Chalkis with no apparent ad hoc advantage to themselves.

Although the notion might seem unpopu-lar today, one excellent reason to claim Chalkid-ian origins is that a Chalkidian founder and a Chalkidian nucleus were in fact responsible for the origins of, say, Sicilian Naxos, or some of the poleis in Chalkidike. I emphasize origins since I see early settlements is one of cohesive groups forming the nucleus of foundation and absorbing other migrants who, within a gener-ation of following the nomima of their new set-tlement, would become “Chalkidian”.29

To date, John Graham’s exhaustive study of Colony and Mother City in ancient Greece (2nd edition, 1983) has not been replaced. It

Book 1.indb 35 17/03/16 10:01

36 irad malkin

30 Malkin, Myth and Territory, p. 34 for detailed discus-sion.31 cf. Malkin, Religion and Colonization, pp. 189-266; cf. Hall, ‘Foundation stories’.

32 Polyb. xii 9, following Timaios.33 Casevitz, Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien.

covers all textual and epigraphic testimony that was available to him. This evidence concerns traditional practices, the role of the oikist, citi-zenship, foundation decrees, and numerous general aspects of on-going relations (e.g., arbi-tration by mother cities) that emerge with the study of particular colonial cities (especially Thasos, Corinth, Miletus, Athens, Argos and Crete). Hardly any of Graham’s painstakingly detailed studies of specific topics have been challenged; the current discourse of invention mostly ignores them.

Another absence in the current discourse concerns the specificity of the “invented” details, especially the names of founders: I can find no discussion as to why the specific names of founders (together with their original home city) might have been invented. We possess a surprisingly large corpus of founders’ names, yet almost none had been sufficiently prestig-ious as to stimulate invention. They are mostly obscure names and had become so already by the Classical period, precisely when they were supposed to have been invented. Kroton, for example, had to keep the memory of Myskellos of Rhype alive, but in the fifth century added Herakles as its founder.30 Herakles ktistes (thus also on Kroton’s coins) is a nice illustration for what an invention may look like but it only proves that the Krotonians could not overlook their own collective memory of Myskellos even though he obviously conferred no pan-Hellenic honor on them.

So the question remains: how come we have so many specific names for founders, mostly obscure and meaningless, unless they were real and their name probably preserved

through the founder’s cult? Could a “Gnesio-chos” have evoked pan-Hellenic pride? Why invent “Is of Helike”, a non-entity, as founder? The conclusion to my mind is that the obscurity of existing names of founders, together with their heroic cult as a probable context for the transmission of their memory, rather confers a significant measure of veracity to the ancient sources.31

* * * *

I now wish to illustrate, by concentrating on a single issue, how one may go about revisit-ing the grand questions of Greek colonisation, especially that of the on-going links within net-works of mother cities and colonies. Since ques-tions of language and Greek terminology are hardly confronted in the negation- approach, let me first go back to basics, to two key terms of colonisation: metropolis and apoikia. The “metro” (mother) part of the term metropolis exists within a semantic field signifying direct parental origins, consanguinity, and on-going relations (as “parents to children” are the open-ing words of a Lokrian foundation decree).32 Moreover, the term apoikia signifies a “[home] far from home”, thus emphasizing precisely the one aspect that current discourse wishes to deny it: a linkage of homes.

There is a shade of anachronism implied in the word “metropolis”: It is unfortunate that in his study of the terminology of Greek coloni-sation Michel Casevitz does not discuss this term,33 since the “polis” part in metro-polis usu-ally appears in its later significance: not relating to a fortified place, such as the ptolis of Homer,

Book 1.indb 36 17/03/16 10:01


34 Malkin, Religion and Colonization, chapter 8; Malkin, ‘Inside and outside: colonization and the formation of the mother city’.35 Soph. Oed. 998.36 Pyth. 4.258.

37 Archidamos 84.38 Hekat. FGrHist 1F55.39 Finley, The world of Odysseus, chapter 5.40 Montiglio, Wandering in ancient Greek culture, p. 2.41 Baslez, L’etranger dans la Grèce antique, p. 49.

but as we usually know it, a “city” or “city state”. Thus it seems that the term “metropolis” is directly linked with the rise of the polis, appar-ently an eighth-century phenomenon, and con-temporary with colonisation. As I have argued elsewhere, colonisation itself did more for the crystallisation of polis forms than vice versa.34 The foundation of a colony could be tanta-mount to the founding the home society: the home community would solidify into a polis because it became a mother city: it could become homogenised by allowing a dissonant section of its members to depart. At this point, what seems significant is that metropolis is a relatively late term, whereas apoikia seems far older and applies to various types of status, both personal and communal. It seems to have acquired its contextual (“colonisation”) signifi-cance with the practice of new foundations in the eighth century.

Following Casevitz’s study that provides a wide range of examples, the oikos element in apoikia seems ancient as it covers a wider range of meanings: an apoikos may be simply somebody far away, permanently or temporar-ily living “not at home”. Sophocles has Oedi-pus say he was once a Corinthian by express-ing it as “Corinth was resided far away from me a long time ago”: “he Korinthos ex emou palai/ makran apokeito”.35 Pindar adds the sense of a migration of a clan far away from home that results in settlement. From Lake-daimon, says Pindar, “they went to inhabit/settle [apoi[o]kesan] Kalliste”.36 With Isocrates we still retain the sense of both emigration and colonisation: “The Phokaians, fleeing the

tyranny of the Great King, left Asia and (set-tled at a distance in Massalia)” eis Massalian apo[i]kesan37 Isocrates is consistent: much ear-lier Hekataios defines Massalia as an “apoikos of the Phokaians”.38

The examples collected by Casevitz abound, all indicating that apoikia involves movement to a distance from some home. Since oikos may signify (early on) both a house and a household, it would seem that the early signifi-cation of the oikos compounds with ap- has more to do with individual movement and migration than with an organised expedition by an entire community. Already the Homeric oikos signifies something more like familia in early Latin, involving a master and “all that is his”, including slaves.39 “Individual movement”, of course, may imply more than a movement of a single person, but entire households can be involved, perhaps with an individual going first. In short, apoikos-apoikia originally emphasises not immigration and destination, but emigration, denoting a clear notion of ori-gins – yet not necessarily from any city as such. A corollary may be found with another verb with apo- compound: As Silvia Montiglio notes, in Greek “one of the main verbs for trave-ling, apodêmein, describes the movement as a departure from the demos”.40 The parallel with apoikia is explicit.41 Thus apodêmein (and apoikizein), defines the action of travel (or travel that results in settlement) in reference not to destination but to one’s point of departure.

Casevitz shows that the word apoikos may also be applied to exiles and married women. Saying “far away” naturally implies a point of

Book 1.indb 37 17/03/16 10:01

38 irad malkin

42 Malkin, Religion and Colonization, chapter 3. 43 Williams, Charles Kaufman, ‘Archaic and Classical Corinth’; Walker, Archaic Eretria.

origins from which one is far. Hence too the parallel practices that we find in domestic and collective life: a woman marrying takes fire from the hearth at home to the new hearth of her husband; a military commander takes fire from the hearth at the home-city to ignite sac-rificial fire en route; an oikistês would take fire from the collective home to initiate the fire in the new collective home.42

The apoikia appears more ancient than the emergence of the polis, relating to the notion of an oikos, with the extended com-munal meanings attached to it according to context. These terms may have been used during the Dark Ages, when the settlement in the Aegean and Asia Minor were established, perhaps in household groups. Since we have no idea as to the exact nature of this move-ment, we need to settle for the conventional, descriptive scholarly name for this Dark-Age phenomenon, “migration”.

There is one aspect of direct continuity between the Dark Ages and the Archaic era, which may explain the extension of the apoikia of a more migratory nature to an apoikia of more organised emmigration and settlement. It is where they chose to settle. The maritime landscape of both the era of migrations and the time of colonisation is exactly the same: offshore islands, promontories, river mouths. What apparently became different in the later eighth century was the new political character that such settlements both acquired and expressed, both in the home communities (mother cities) and the new settlements (colo-nies).

By contrast, the metropolis in the sense of a mother-polis would appear on the scene only with the emergence of a home community as a polis, sometimes later than the colony. That is why I think we find the component of “polis” in metropolis, and do not find it in apoikia, in spite of the fact that all apoikiai became poleis (we do not find the ethnos, for example, as a viable political form among colonies). The issue of colonies as poleis and mother cities as commu-nities which had not yet reached a polis state was raised by Anthony Snodgrass in his Inau-gural Lecture of 1977: we do not find ethne in colonies and except for emporia, all colonies were poleis, which is not always true of all “mother cities”. For Snodgrass, Achaia serves as a prime example: while “Achaians” were found-ing poleis in the seventh century, the polis form appeared in Achaia itself not before the fifth century. Similarly, the urbanisation of Corinth would come later than that of its colony Syra-cuse, and that of Eretria was contemporary with its colonies.43

In short, I agree that the idea of a well established mother city sending out a copy of itself makes little sense for the early period. But this does not negate the foundational aspect of the colonies themselves, nor does it negate the formation of mother-cities as such in tandem with colonies. In short: we need to retain the concepts of mother cities and colonies (in the sense of new city foundations, not as subsidiary branches); forget the red herring of compari-sons with modern imperialism altogether, and re-direct our vision to the reciprocal and networking aspects of the formation and

Book 1.indb 38 17/03/16 10:01


44 Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions.

45 ML 20; van Effenterre and Ruzé, Nomima no. 43, pp. 178-185; Translation: Graham, Colony and mother city, pp. 226-228.

foundation of city states in the eighth century as a coherent phenomenon.

I return to the oikos, as it is fundamental both for understanding early practices of state formation (reciprocally, both at “home” and in the apoikiai), Greek notions of identity and belonging, and for appreciating the veracity of colonisation accounts.

1. The right of return to the oikos and to the metropolis

The phenomenon of colonisation appar-ently re-oriented the meaning of oikos-related words to the collective level. Coming back home, to the oikos, became an issue relevant to both individual migrants, exiles, and collec-tively, to colonists. The notion of “return” is articulated, around 500 BCE, in the foundation decree of Naupaktos and in other decrees con-cerning the re-integration of individuals in the mother city. There is no sense of a novelty in such decrees; rather their specific details seems to be based on conventional expectations and forms that must have preceded the Classical period.

Mental and practical notions of origins and identity form lines that connect a mother city and a colony especially during the first and second generation of foundation. Both sons, exiles, and colonists could claim the right to return home. With colonists, this is a double issue: the individual’s right and, in a failing settlement, the group’s right to return en bloc. That such rights were an issue is another indication that we are not concerned

with some general mobility of atomised indi-viduals migrating to various points according to circumstance and only generations later inventing their origins in a particular metrop-olis. The right of return, as such, is an excel-lent indicator that Greeks kept alive the notion of a home community, a notion that involved both blood links and issues of legal and political integration.

Jeremy Boissevain, an early theoretician of social networks, says that although he sees his milkman every day, far more frequently than his own brother who has been living abroad for many years, a far larger variety of contacts, practical and emotional, exist with the far-away brother.44 The relations mostly belong to expec-tations of potential family contacts. We need to keep this in mind when considering relations between mother cities and colonies that criss-cross the Mediterranean with intermittent con-tacts, such as those between Sparta and Taras. The concrete evidence of broken milk bottles should not imply an “intensive” relationship with the milkman, while the inference from the lack of it might miss the far more intricate rela-tionship with the far-away brother. Thus we need not be surprised that we hear of the right of return only in exceptional circumstances; we may assume it was something that was gener-ally recognised as a perennial aspect of Greek mentalité, expressing a mental network of belonging.

The foundation decree of Naupaktos,45 a (re)colonisation by the Eastern Lokrians, speci-fies very comfortable terms for inheritance rights: a colonist may inherit in the home com-munity and vice versa. This is an important

Book 1.indb 39 17/03/16 10:01

40 irad malkin

46 Strabo ix 4.2 (425) with Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris; Heine Nielsen, ‘Epiknemidian, Hypoknemidian and Opuntian Lokrians’.47 ML 5, van Effenterre and Ruzé, Nomima no. 41,170-173.48 Lines 32ff. Compare the story about the Eretrians who tried to return too soon: Plut. QG 293a.

49 Leukas: Strabo 10.2.8 (452) (Gorgos, son of Kypselos); Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 59 (says his name was Pylades); Ambrakia: Ps. Scymn. 453f.; Strabo loc. cit.; Anaktorion: Strabo loc. cit.; Nic. Dam. loc. cit. (the name he gives is Echiades); Potidaia: Nic. Dam. FGrHist. 90 F 58.

point as it envisages an ongoing network of per-sonal connections (another neglected point) with some political implications, since property and communal rights were usually bound together in a Greek polis.

Opus, perceived as the mother city of all the various Lokrian communities according to an inscription set up at Thermopylai ca. 480, was not a model city state.46 Therefore, the con-cepts of citizenship and political sharing which are revealed in the Naupaktos inscription are of particular interest especially in terms of the personal position of the colonist (which is the main concern of the foundation decree). It is the variability of the Hypoknemidian Lokrians which allows for a more intricate interplay, adding the local Lokrian community (itself a part of a network of “Lokrians”) as a third angle to the “metropolis-apoikia” formula.

The colonist, for example, loses his citizen-ship “when he becomes a Naupaktian”; how-ever, if he returns to the Hypoknemidian Lokrians, “he shall have it proclaimed in the marketplace of Naupaktos, and among the Hypoknemidian Lokrians he shall have it pro-claimed in the marketplace of the city of origin” (lines 19-22). On the other hand, the colonist also swears not to “secede” from Opus (lines 11-14), which does point to some sort of depend-ency. The colonist retains the right to share in the most evident expression of political partici-pation, cult: a few provisions allow him and his family to “make offerings and receive a share both in the sacrifices of the people and those of the societies” (Lines 1-4). In addition to indi-

vidual choice, the right of return is also granted communally, if the colonists are compelled “by necessity” to abandon Naupaktos.

The right of return seems to me the most explicit expression of belonging to a home com-munity. It is a right, perhaps not actualized and hence difficult to grasp as something concrete, yet it indicates an authentic Greek mental framework which acknowledged the mother city as such. This is the context in which we need to interpret the item in the Foundation decree of another colony, Cyrene,47 which some prefer to regard as anachronistic: if, after (or up to?) five years, the Theran colonists fail to settle in Libya, they are granted the right to return home: “But if the apoikoi do not establish the settlement (oikisia) and the Therans are unable to help them and they suffer inescapable trou-bles up to (alternatively: after a minimum of) five years let them return from that land (gê) without fear to Thera, to their possessions (chre-mata) and to be citizens (êmen poliatas)”.48

It is also interesting to note patterns of movements among refugee communities that were based on colony and mother city relations. Direct personal links among family members in mother cities and colonies is most apparent in Corinthian colonisation, where Kypselids also served as founders of the Corinthian colo-nies: Leukas, Ambrakia, and Anaktorion (founded by sons of Kypselos) and the son of Periandros, Euagoras, was the oikist of Potid-aia.49 It worked both ways: One could cite the sub-community of the Bakchiad refugees from Corinth (comprising probably of the aristocrats

Book 1.indb 40 17/03/16 10:01


50 Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 57.7.51 Graham, Colony and mother city, p. 113.52 Hdt. 6.21.1; with Graham, Colony and Mother city, p. 114 n.2.53 Graham, Colony and Mother city, p. 114.54 Paus. 4.4.4.; Dittenberger and Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia, pp. 247f.; LSAG no. 120 p. 215.

55 Hdt. 4.164.1.56 Hdt. 1.174.2.57 IG xii 3.322.58 Hdt. 3.138.1.

and their bands) who, escaping from Kypselos, found refuge at Corcyra, Corinth’s colony.50 A more collective level is implied in the accept-ance of the refugees from Phokaia in Alalia (Corsica) and probably (although this is an inference) at Massalia.51 We also hear of other cases in the Archaic period: Herodotus says that when Sybaris was destroyed by Kroton in 511 its inhabitants found refuge in its colonies, Laos and Skidros.52 Similarly, changes in the coinage of Poseidonia (another colony of Syba-ris) have been interpreted as a kind of synoikis-mos with the refugees of the mother city.53 Fur-ther study, emphasizing personal names and ethnics, is still needed to illustrate the web of personal links and identity-markers: why could Herodotus be both a Halikarnassian and a Thourian? How come the sculptor Pythagoras who emigrated from Samos to Rhegion was called “Rheginian” yet signed his name as “Samian”? Or Praxiteles who was both a “Syra-kosios and a Kamarinaios”?54

A fascinating example is that of Cyrene: around 520 BCE, when its king, Arkesilaos III, dispatched his enemies to be killed in Cyprus they were rescued by some poeple of Knidos and were sent to Thera, Cyrene’s mother city.55 Note that Both Thera, Cyrene, and Knidos were interrelated as apoikiai of Sparta.56 The exiles were accepted at their old mother city. Aside from saving grandson colonists of Sparta and restoring them to their mother city, Thera, Kni-dos was considered as sharing syngeneia with Thera.57 Knidos also intervened with Sparta’s colony in Italy, Taras, on behalf of the Persian king Darius to release the exile Gillos “because

the Knidians were their friends”.58 Finally, in the fourth century we find the reverse direc-tion: Therans arrived in Cyrene and were given Cyrenaian citizenship, their claim apparently based on the line in the foundation decree that says: “If the colonists establish the settlement, any of their fellow-citizens (or kinsmen? oikeiôn) who later sails to Libya shall have a share in the citizenship and honors (politeias kai timam) and shall be allotted a portion of the unoccupied land”.

Note that Sparta itself is not a part of the story: the web of colonies could function as an independent network, which may also explain how the various components of the network sustained and mutually guaranteed the preser-vation of historical traditions, albeit selectively.

Fig. 1: A “Spartan” network without Sparta

1. Knidians rescue Cyrenaians2. Knidians deliver the freed Cyrenaians to Thera,

Cyrene’s mother city or Cyrene’s metropolis3. Knidians as friend of the Tarentines4. Thera as mother city of Cyrene5. Therans wish to join Cyrene→ → → Sparta as mother city

Book 1.indb 41 17/03/16 10:01

42 irad malkin

59 Rhodes and Osborne, Greek historical inscriptions, no. 74.60 IC IV no. 78; van Effenterre and Ruzé, Nomima no. 16.61 Forsdyke, Exile, ostracism, and democracy.62 Dittenberger and Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia no. 22; van Effenterre and Ruzé, Nomima no.17 with Asheri,

‘Rimpatrio di esuli a Selinunte: Inschr. V. Ol. V 22’; Asheri, ‘Rimpatrio di esuli e redistribuzioni di terre nelle città sice-liote’, cf. Graham Colony and Mother city, pp. 112-113.

A nice illustration of such colonial networks is provided by a fourth-century (ca. 340) inscrip-tion that celebrates a Corinthian victory in Sicily: “The Syracusans, Leukadians, Ambraki-ots, Corcyreans, Apolloniates (?), dedicated to the Isthmian Poseidon from the enemy. These cities cultivating their Founder Corinth (ktistêra Korinthon).59

2. Exiles

To get a better sense of why a Greek colony was called an apoikia, in a functional, even lit-eral sense, it may be instructive to compare the colonial “right of return” with inscriptions that deal with the individual status of exiles (another possible meaning of apoikoi) and other out-casts. It would also give further salience to the active network of “mother city and colony”.

The similarity in terminology is signifi-cant, I think. An inscription from Gortyn in Crete,60 relating to Lato and dating to around 500, specifies that “among those who have returned whoever wishes may settle himself (katFoikidethai) and become a citizen of Lato on equitable [or “complete”] and equal rights” epi tai FisFai [kai t]ai omoiai” and nobody may enslave him. Here it appears that individuals are given the right to return to their commu-nity (note the oikos-related word katFoikide-thai) and re-acquire full citizen rights. This is remarkably similar to the formulation in the foundation decree of Cyrene where settlers may sail on “fair and equal terms” (lines 27-28: epi

tai isai kai tai homoiai plên …); it seems implied that should they need to exercise their right of return to Cyrene (see above) that formulation would apply to them as well.

What is remarkable in my view is that equality of rights vis-à-vis the community in colonial contexts is also expressed in Greek laws concerning exiles. We should be grateful to Sara Forsdyke for bringing to the foreground the intricate interplay between the institution of exile and perceptions of the political com-munity.61 In this case, equality of rights is phrased in terms very similar to those used of colonists since here too one is concerned with the re-integration of those “away from home” (here: banished individuals) returning to their home society. A returning exile may have an oikos (or re-acquire his own oikos), thus ceasing to be an apoikos – the word we know better in its sense of colonist. This precise parallelism is noteworthy, and may contain futher implica-tions for our general understanding of the development of Archaic society.

Also around 500, far removed from Crete, we find an inscription regarding Selinous in western Sicily which was placed at Olympia. Its state is very fragmentary, but enough exists to support the interpretation of David Asheri that it relates to the re-integration of exiles.62 This too involves horkia (agreements based on oath) on the part of the community of Selinous and, twice, the issue of the mother city, Megara. But which Megara? Either Megara Hyblaia in Sicily is meant here, or perhaps Megara Nisaia, the grandmother city of Selinous. In any case, there

Book 1.indb 42 17/03/16 10:01


63 Thuc. 1.24-55 with Hornblower, Commentary, pp. 66-97. 64 Thuc. 1.24.2.

is something to do with the Megarid (line a.1) and being with or returning “with the Megari-ans” (b11-12). Apparently the fugitives (proba-bly exiles) found shelter at their own mother city, with some Megarians perhaps serving as intermediaries for the return. The returnees may repossess their property when returning to Selinous. This is an expression of a double right of return: a person is granted the right to return to Selinous and become full citizen yet again. What is noteworthy is the implication that a man from Selinous, who was a colonist of Megara Hyblaia, apparently enjoyed some right of return (or asylum?) at his own mother city, before being granted the right to return to Selinous yet again. Such a person might have gone there because he had relatives, or because he could claim some collective right of integra-tion at Megara Hyblaia, or perhaps it was both.

The episode that opens Thucydides’ Pelo-ponnesian War63 concerns relationships among a mother city, a colony, and a colony of a col-ony: Corinth, Corcyra, and Epidamnus. Here we are well into the Classical period, in the sec-ond half of the fifth century, and the context is the heated discussion of the rights and wrongs of the origins of the Peloponnesian wars. Yet the evidence mentioned by the participants that pertains to colony and mother city rela-tions goes back to long before the Classical period. This is an especially instructive con-text, since we may assume that each side of the debate wishes to debunk the other where possible. Hence, where the two sides overlap and agree we are on a much firmer ground as to traditional practices.

It is important to note that all sides in the debate do indeed appeal to traditional

practices. The call for international arbitration, either by Peloponnesians or by Delphi, implies that both sides had confidence in the mutual recognition of colonial nomoi by the entire Greek world, but not in their interpretation, which was an ad hoc issue. There can be little doubt that the practices themselves – especially because they are supposed to convince numer-ous Greeks of varying interests – predate the Classical period.

I will merely underline a few aspects of this very familiar episode: Epidamnos was set-tled before 600 BCE (the date given by Eusebius is 627), about one hundred years after Corcyra; Thucydides says that Corcyra was its mother city, and that when founding Epidamnos Cor-cyra invited a co-founder from Corinth, Cor-cyra’s own mother city, “according to the ancient custom (nomos)”.64 His name was Phal-ios, a Herakleid, and thus probably from the same family of Chersikrates, the Corinthian founder of Corcyra, and Archias, the Corin-thian founder of Syracuse.

Even in the heated and manipulative rhet-oric of the Corcyra episode no side is arguing the facts. Clearly, when the Epidamnians wished to abandon Corcyra as a mother city and have Corinth proclaimed in its stead, they were making contemporary political use of the ancient Phalios, the Corinthian co-founder, but not inventing him as such. Everyone is working within established and recognized frameworks. These frameworks include two strata: the first has to do with established, ongoing, ritual rela-tions. These seem self-evident to everyone, yet they get mentioned because of the controversy. The second stratum has to to with historical memory and mutually accepted frameworks.

Book 1.indb 43 17/03/16 10:01

44 irad malkin

65 Paus. 3.14.3 Malkin, Myth and Territory, p. 83; p. 110.66 Thuc. 3.92; Malkin, Myth and Territory, pp. 219-235.67 Hdt. 8.31.

68 Malkin, Religion and Colonization, pp. 228-232; 98-101.69 Thuc. 5.11.1.70 Thuc. 1.26.3.

All sides agree that these include Corinth-Cor-cyra-Epidamnos as a chain of settlements.

That Phalios was invited according to a general nomos indicates a ritualistic and his-torical framework for well-articulated mother-city and colony connections that must reach back therefore at least to the middle of the sev-enth century. Incidentally, this is also the time when Cyrene was founded and the Spartan Chionis had joined Battos of Thera in the colo-nisation of Cyrene precisely because Sparta was Thera’s own mother city.65 However, note the contrast between the Archaic and the Classical “models”: when Sparta founded Herakleia Tra-chinia in 426 (= “Classical model”) no oikist was invited from Doris, the city that Sparta rec-ognized as its own mother city.66 This, in spite of the fact that Sparta had taken Doris’ status as a mother city seriously, as attested indepen-dently by Herodotus.67

This is another case that refutes the notion, advanced by Osborne, that stories about colonies founded in the Archiac period were fictions based on the “Classical model”, namely, on colonial practices current in the Classical period. The claim is that stories about archaic oikists were concocted based on what these Classical oikists actually did. Yet the exact reverse seems to be true: note that the Spartan founders of Herakleia Trachinia, Leon, Alkidas, and Damagon, did not remain in the colony they had founded, and thus acted in a very similar way to their contemporary, the Athenian Hagnon, the founder of Thracian Amphipolis, who also left the colony. Another contemporary, Lampon, one of the Athenian founders of Italian Thourioi, was also only

happy to return to Athens.68 The Archaic model, by contrast, insisted on the founder remaining in the colony, dying there, getting buried in the agora, and receiving a hero’s cult after death. On this the sources are quite con-sistent. When the Amphipolitans transferred the title of founder from Hagnon to Brasidas, they were obviously reverting to what they knew as traditional and to what Hagnon had deprived them of: a public funeral, a burial in the agora, and a heroic cult.69

We need to remember those personal familial connections of Phalios, probably with some Corcyreans, while envisaging the scene of the exiled Epidamnians at Corcyra, pointing to the tombs of their family members, and calling for help.70 A web of blood connections that usu-ally eludes us, like the brother of Jeremy Bois-sevain (see above), must have transcended indi-vidual poleis, and there should be no reason to doubt that within the first three generations, say one century, the major facts concerning ori-gins and foundation were well remembered. It is no accident, as we have seen, that the Bakchi-ads, when exiled from Corinth, found refuge at Corcyra, its colony. It would seem, therefore, that the notion of an oikos must have been alive among many settler families, both in its con-crete sense of their own household which they personally had left, and the oikos in the sense of the home community at large.

Other elements in the Corcyra debate that might have been categorized as typical of the “Classical model” appear in fact to be Archaic. Once the Corinthians are recognized as the mother city of Epidamnus instead of Corcyra they call upon whoever wishes to join in a

Book 1.indb 44 17/03/16 10:01


71 Thuc. 1.26.1.72 Hdt. 4.159.73 Thuc. 1.27.1.74 Syll3 141.75 DuŠanic, ‘The horkion tôn oikistêrôn and fourth-century Cyrene’.

76 Morris, ‘The Strong Principle of Equality’.77 Asheri, Distribuzioni di terre nell’antica Grecia; Gras, Tréziny and Broise, Mégara Hyblaea.78 Hornblower, Commentary (rightly following Walter Burkert), ad 1.25.4.

re-colonisation oikêtora te ton boulomenon ienai keleuontes).71 “Whoever so wishes”, seems formulaic and perhaps mirrors the second colo-nial oracle given to Cyrene in the sixth century, now addressed not to Therans but to all the Greeks (hellenas pantas) to come and join the Cyrenaians in Libya.72 The Corinthians too make a pan-Hellenic announcement: “they announced an apoikia to Epidamnos, saying that whoever so wished might go there on a basis of equal rights for all”, (…) apoikian es tên Epidamnon ekêrusson epi te[i] íse kai homoia[i], ton boulomenon ienai”. Literally: “on equal and like terms”.73

Such “equal and like terms” exist also in the foundation decrees of Cyrene and Naupak-tos (see also the fourth-century inscription from Black Corcyra in the Adriatric).74 In the Naupaktos decree we find the same phenome-non in the reverse direction: it is the colonist returning home who has “equal and like” rights. This is a mirror image of the colonist setting out, and illustrates how the act of settlement was perceived in terms of communal belonging both at the home community and in the colony. We have also seen it in the decree concerning Lato: “among those who have returned who-ever wishes may settle himself (katFoikidethai) and become a citizen of Lato on equitable [or “complete”] and equal rights” epi tai FisFai [kai t]ai omoiai”. The bi- and multi-directionality of such conventions regarding apoikoi both of the exilic and colonial type, ought to come as no surprise, except for those who approach the issue with an a priori argument.

It is curious that the notion of “fair and equal terms”, made explicit for colonists in the foundation decree of Cyrene, has been used as one of the trump cards for the claim of obvious anachronism, indicating that the inscription quoting the original foundation decree is a fourth-century forgery. How could a commu-nity in the seventh-century Aegean make a col-lective decision regarding a notion that has made its appearance in Greek culture only much later? Thus argues DuŠanic;75 he is clearly wrong: Aside from general arguments on “likeness and equality” in the archaic period (e.g., the Spartan homoioi)76 we may look spe-cifically at the archaeological evidence in colo-nial contexts with regard to patterns of land-division. The lots at Megara Hyblaia in Sicily, for example, appear remarkably egalitarian, right from the start.77 This egalitarian division belongs to the last third of the eighth century, i.e., about a century before the founding of Cyrene and some four centuries (!) before the putative anachronistic forgery.

Other traditional practices are mentioned in the Corcyrean debate, those which the Cor-inthians claim to have been deprived of at Cor-cyra (note that although some of the complaints are reported directly by Thucydides rather than in a speech, and are hence less “rhetorical”): first, they were denied a share in common meetings (panegyresi tais koinais); second, Corinthians were not only denied participation in public sacrifices but were actually expecting to start them off, certainly the most privileged role in a public sacrifice.78

Book 1.indb 45 17/03/16 10:01

46 irad malkin

79 See Cargill, Athenian settlements of the fourth century B.C.

80 This is one of the claims in Malkin, A Small Greek World.

The points of controversy between Corinth and Corcyra concern the implications of tradi-tional practices, not the practices themselves. Corcyreans supposedly say (1.34): “let them know that … every colony honors the mother city so long as it is well treated; yet that if wronged it becomes alienated; for colonists are not sent out to be slaves to those who are left behind, but to be their equals (Ou gar epi to[i] douloi, all’ epi tô[i] homoioi tois leipomenois einai ekpempontai). If ever anyone expressed an idelogy of Greek colonisation, here it is.

In short, while taking into account the more obvious rhetorical misrepresentaions and demagoguery (but what is demagoguery if not manipulation or lies using selective, accepted truths?), it appears that what Corinthians complain about is the neglect of that which had been traditional. These are not recent prac-tices, and have nothing to do with the putative Classical model.

3. Conclusions

A critique of Greek colonisation ought to be made seriously and comprehensively, with-out ignoring major issues and fields of research. “Colony and mother city” is defintely one such an issue. I see no room for the current denial of the “Archaic model” that basically disregards the networks of colonial kinship. The bi- and multi-directional relations between mother cit-ies and colonies, or among colonies of the same mother city, or that of settlers and their home community, needs to return to the foreground of the discussion.

These relations and their modalities indi-cate that the notion of the Classical Model is inoperable. In fact, there is no such thing as a “Classical model” of Greek colonisation: it is a scholarly fiction. All evidence points to the reverse: whenever we can actually observe a new city-foundation, supposedly along the lines of the Classical model, it contains serious devi-ations from previous conventions. It did not exist as a “model”; colonisation in the Classical period was never consistent enough to be that in any case. Just think of Amphipolis, Herak-leia Trachinia, or Black Corcyra, not to men-tion the Athenian cleruchies.79 During the Archaic period colonial conventions, I claim, developed very rapidly in a network modality, as is typical in situations when vast horizons suddenly open, collective identities are re-aligned and defined, and the process is punctu-ated by the histoire événementielle of founda-tions.80 I suggest that whereas eighth-century colonisation may have started out with oikoi and apoikoi in the sense of individuals or dis-crete groups setting out “from home” to find another life elsewhere, by the end of the century foundation-nomima evolved quickly to re-define both the “home” and the colony as polit-ical communites. It is in that context that we can observe an Archaic model in action. It is easier to observe it in colonies where the con-crete terms of replicated principles of social, spatial, and territorial plannings are more apparent.

The fast pace of colonial dynamics, as well as their network aspects, solidified the Archaic model very quickly. Its rapid development was encouraged by the network aspect of Mediter-

Book 1.indb 46 17/03/16 10:01


81 Lombardo and Frisone, Colonie di colonie; see also the perceptive approach of Costanzi, ‘Les colonies de deuxième degré de l’Italie du Sud et de la Sicile’.

ranean and Black sea settlements: they copied from each other, sometimes using itinerant experts such as seers, constitution specialists, and town planners, as Aristophanes satirizes them in the Birds. Founders also imported reli-gious pantheons and sets of nomima. A key-word that emerges is homoios, a right granted both to a colonist setting out, and to a colonist (sometimes an exile too) returning home, and to the members of the home community left behind. The phrase “… colonists are sent out to be the homoioi of those left behind, epi tô[i] homoioi tois leipomenois einai ekpempontai, makes the point: they are homoioi who freely acknowledge that they were, in fact, “sent out” from a home community.

Apoikia-related words preserve the net-work-connotations of mother cities and colo-nies, and of colonies serving as mother cities for more colonies.81 By contrast, Greek colonial terminology has a parallel set of terms that seems to reveal a stronger emphasis on the actual possession and cultivation of the site of arrival: it shifts, as Michel Casevitz has emi-nently shown, to the family-words of ktizein. Words related to ktizo are closer to the seman-tic field of meaning of Latin colonia: tilling the land, possessing it through labor. Latin coloni were both “tillers of the soil” and newly installed “inhabitants”, “settlers”. The connotations of the second family of words relating to colonisa-tion, i.e., Greek verb ktizein (“to found, settle”) and ktistês (“founder”) is precisely that: taking possession and tilling the land. In that particu-lar sense, the modern use of the term “colonisa-tion” (as derivative from Latin) may not be such a misnomer after all.

In sum, I have yet to see a lexicographic study that justifies a revision of the connota-tions of apoikizo: movement through space from a defined point of departure, And ktizo: actual settlement and land-possession.

Greeks did move through the vast spaces of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, creat-ing a network that was based, in a very real sense, on notions of home. The mutual recogni-tion of colonial practices and values were net-work-oriented, which helps explain the dynam-ics of replication and the general similarity of patterns for most Greek settlements, of mother-cities, colonies and daughter colonies. The very real sense of blood relations together with its extended, metaphoric sense, consolidated the mental framework for Archaic Greek civiliza-tion.

The “right to return” may be applied both to ancient Greek colonists, who rarely did, but potentially could, return home; to members of the home-communities who might migrate (or “return” in the reverse direction) to colonies; and to us, reclaiming the right to return to the subject of Greek colonisation.

Bibliography

Antonetti, Claudia, ‘Megara e le sue colonie: Un’unità storico-culturale?’ in Il dinamismo della colonizzazione greca-Atti della tavola rotonda Es-pansione e colonizzazione greca d’età arcaica: Me-todologie e problemi a confronto (Venezia, 10–11/11/95), ed. by C. Antonetti (Napoli: Loffredo, 1997), pp. 83-94.

Asheri, David, Distribuzioni di terre nell’antica Grecia; memoria (Torino: Accademia delle Scienze, 1966).

Book 1.indb 47 17/03/16 10:01

48 irad malkin

Asheri, David, ‘Rimpatrio di esuli a Selinunte: In-schr. V. Ol. V 22’ Annali della Scuola Normale Su-periore di Pisa III, x 2 (1979), 479-497.

Asheri, David, ‘Rimpatrio di esuli e redistribuzioni di terre nelle città siceliote, ca. 466-461’, in Philias Charin. Miscellanea in onore di E. Manni, I (Rome: Brettschneider, 1979), pp. 145-158.

Baslez, Marie-Françoise, L’etranger dans la Grèce an-tique (Paris: les Belles Lettres, 1984).

Bérard, Jean, L’expansion et la colonisation grecques, jusqu’aux guerres médiques (Paris: Aubier, 1960).

Boissevain, Jeremy, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).

Braund, David, ‘Writing and Re-Inventing Colonial Origins: Problems from Colchis and the Bosporus’, in The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, ed. by G.R. Tsetskhladze (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998), pp. 287-296.

Burgers, Gert-Jan and Jan Paul Crielaard, ‘Greek Col-onists and Indigenous Populations at l’Amastuola, Southern Italy’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, 82 (2007), 87-124.

Cargill, Jack, Athenian settlements of the fourth cen-tury B.C. (Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1995).

Casevitz, Michel, Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en grec ancien: étude lexicologique: les familles de [ktizō] et de [oikeō-oikizō] (Paris: Klincksieck, 1985).

Ceserani, Giovanna, Italy’s lost Greece: Magna Grae-cia and the making of modern archaeology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Costanzi, Michela, ‘Les colonies de deuxième degré de l’Italie du Sud et de la Sicile: une analyse lexico-logique’, Ancient West and East 9 (2010), 87-107.

Curty, Olivier, Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques: catalogue raisonné des inscriptions conte-nant le terme syngeneia et analyse critique (Genève: Libr. Droz, 1995).

de Angelis, Franco, ‘Ancient Past, Imperial Present: The British Empire in T.J. Dunbabin’s The Western Greeks’, Antiquity 72 no. 277 (1998), 539-549.

Dittenberger, Wilhelm and Karl Purgold (eds.), Die Inschriften von Olympia (Berlin, Asher, 1896).

Dušanic, Slobodan, ‘The horkion tôn oikistêrôn and fourth-century Cyrene’, Chiron 8 (1978), 55-76.

Effenterre, Henri van, and Françoise Ruzé, Nomi-ma : recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec (Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1994).

Ferro, Marc, Colonization: A global history (London; New York: Routledge, 1997).

Ferro, Marc et al., eds., Le livre noir du colonialisme: XVIe-XXIe siècle, de l’extermination à la repentance (Paris, Laffont, 2003).

Finley, M.I. The World of Odysseus (London: Pen-guin, 1978).

Forsdyke, Sara, Exile, ostracism, and democracy: the politics of expulsion in ancient Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).

Fossey, John M., The Ancient Topography of Opoun-tian Lokris, (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1990).

Graham, Alexander John, ‘The authenticity of the ORKION TON OIKISTERON of Cyrene’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 80 (1960), 94-111.

Graham, Alexander John, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. 2nd edn. (Chicago: Ares, 1983).

Gras, Michel, Tréziny, Henri and Broise, Henri, Méga-ra Hyblaea. Vol. 5: La ville archaïque (Paris: École française de Rome, 2004).

Hall, Jonathan, ‘Foundation stories’ in Greek Coloni-sation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 2, ed. by G. R. Tsetskhladze (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 383-426.

Heine Nielsen, Thomas, ‘Epiknemidian, Hypokne-midian and Opuntian Lokrians. Reflections on the political organization of East Lokris in the Classi-cal period’, in Further studies in the ancient Greek polis, ed. by P. Flensted-Jensen (Stuttgart: F. Stein-er, 2000), pp. 91-120.

Hornblower, Simon. A commentary on Thucydides (Oxford : Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991-2008).

Hurst, Henry and Owen, Sara, eds., Ancient coloni-zations: analogy, similarity and difference (Lon-don: Duckworth, 2005).

Knoepfler, Denis, ‘Sur les traces de l’Artémision d’Amarynthos près d’Erétrie’, Comptes Rendus des Séances, Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres (1988), 382-421.

Knoepfler, Denis, ‘Le calendrier des Chalcidiens et de Thrace: Essai de mise au point sur la liste et l’ordre des mois eubéens’, Journal des Savants (1989), 23-59.

Knoepfler, Denis, ‘The Calendar of Olynthus and the Origin of the Chalkidians in Thrace’, in Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeol-ogy Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall, Sydney, 9-14 July 1985, ed. by J.-P. Des-coeudres (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), pp. 99-115.

Book 1.indb 48 17/03/16 10:01


Krebs, S. A., “Greek Colonization and Agriculture in Dobrudja,” in Antiquitates proponticae et Caucasi-cae II: Proceedings of the First International Confer-ence on the Archaeology and History of the Black Sea, (McGill University, November 22-24, 1994), ed. by J. M. Fossey (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1997), pp. 47-65.

Lepore, Ettore, Colonie greche dell’Occidente antico (Roma: Nuova Italia scientifica, 1989).

Lombardo, Mario and Frisone, Flavia, eds., Colonie di colonie: le fondazioni ‘sub-coloniali’ greche tra ‘colonizzazione’ e ‘colonialismo (Convegno Inter-nazionale Lecce 2006) (Galatina: Congedo, 2009).

Lupu, Eran, Greek sacred law: a collection of new doc-uments (Leiden; Boston : Brill, 2009).

Malkin, Irad, Religion and colonization in ancient Greece (Leiden: Brill, 1987).

Malkin, Irad, ‘Inside and Outside: colonization and the formation of the mother city’, Apoikia. Studi in onore di G. Buchner. Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica 16 (1994), 1-9.

Malkin, Irad, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Malkin, Irad, ‘Exploring the Validity of the Concept of ‘Foundation’: A Visit to Megara Hyblaia’, in Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power in the Ancient World. Offered in Honor of A.J. Graham, ed. by V.B. Gorman and E.W. Robinson (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2002), pp. 195-224.

Malkin, Irad, ‘‘Tradition’ in Herodotus: The Foun-dation of Cyrene’, in Herodotus and his World: Es-says from a conference in memory of George Forrest, ed. by P. Derow and R. Parker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 153-170.

Malkin, Irad, ‘Foundations’ in A Companion to Ar-chaic Greece, ed. by K. Raaflaub and H. van Wees (Malden; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 373-394.

Malkin, Irad, A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean (New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2011).

Malkin, Irad, ‘Foreign Founders: Greeks and He-brews’, in: Foundation Myths in Ancient Societies. Dialogues and Discourses, ed. by N. Mac Sweeney (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), pp. 2-40.

Meiggs, Russell and David M. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the

Fifth Century B.C. Rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989).

Mertens, Dieter, Città e monumenti dei Greci d’Occi-dente : dalla colonizzazione alla crisi di fine V seco-lo a.C. (Rome : L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2006).

Montiglio, Sylvia, Wandering in ancient Greek cul-ture (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005).

Morel, Jean-Paul, ‘Greek Colonization in Italy and in the West: Problems of Evidence and Interpreta-tion’, in Crossroads of the Mediterranean: Papers Delivered at the International Conference on the Archaeology of Early Italy, Haffenreffer Museum, Brown University, May 8-10, 1981 (Publications d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain 38), ed. by T. Hackens, N. D. Holloway, and R. Holloway (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Center for Old World Archaeol-ogy and Art and Institut Superieur d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art, Collège Erasme, 1984). pp. 123-161.

Morris, Ian, ‘The Strong Principle of Equality and the Archaic Origins of Greek Democracy’, in De-mokratia: a conversation on democracies, ancient and modern, ed. by J. Ober and C. Hedrick (Princ-eton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 19-48.

Osborne, Robin, ‘Early Greek Colonization? The na-ture of Greek settlement in the West’, in Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed. by N. Fisher and H. van Wees (London: Duckworth and Classical Press of Wales, 1998), pp. 251-269.

Osborne, Robin, Greece in the making, 1200-479 BC (London; New York: Routledge, 2009).

Patterson, Lee. Kinship myth in ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010).

Rhodes, Peter John; Osborne, Robin, Greek historical inscriptions: 404-323 BC (Oxford, New York: Ox-ford University Press, 2003).

Robu, Adrian, ‘Le culte de Zeus Meilichios à Séli-nonte et la place des groupements familiaux et pseudo-familiaux dans la colonisation méga-rienne’, in La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne, Actes du XIIe colloque international du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007), Kernos Suppl. 21, ed. by P. Brulé (Athènes: Centre de l’étude de la religion grecque antique, 2009), pp. 277-291.

Robu, Adrian, ‘Les fondations mégariennes de Sicile: origine des colons et appropriation du territoire’, in Actes de la journée doctorale Colonies et colonisa-tion dans les mondes grec et romain : appropriation

Book 1.indb 49 17/03/16 10:01

50 irad malkin

du territoire et espaces partagés (Paris, 7 mars 2009), Cahiers « Mondes anciens » 2 (2011) (http://mondesanciens.revues.org/index347.html).

Robu, Adrian, ‘Les établissements mégariens de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin : réseaux, solidari-tés et liens institutionnels’, in Les diasporas grecques du VIIIe à la fin du IIIe siècle av. J.-C., Actes du symposium de la SOPHAU (Université de Lille 3, 11-12.05.2012 ), ed. by L. Sève, Pallas 89 (2012), 181-195.

Robu, Adrian, ‘Traditions et innovations institution-nelles : l’organisation civique de Byzance et de Chalcédoine’, Il Mar Nero 7, 2007-2009 (2012), 149-166.

Robu, Adrian, ‘Traditions et rapprochements ono-mastiques dans les cités grecques de la mer Noire: quelques exemples tirés du ‘monde mégarien’, vo-lume consacré à la mémoire de Petre Alexandres-cu, ed. by A. Avram et I. Bîrzescu, Il Mar Nero, 8, 2010-2011 (2012), 279-291.

Robu, Adrian, ‘Le culte de Poséidon à Mégare et dans ses colonies’, Dacia 57 (2013), pp. 65-80.

Robu, Adrian, Mégare et les établissements mégariens de Sicile, de la Propontide et du Pont- Euxin (Bern: Peter Lang, 2014).

Rochette, Raoul, Histoire critique de l’établissement des colonies grecques (Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1815).

Shepherd, Gillian, “The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Greek Colo-nies,” Acta Hyperborea, 6 (1995), 51-82.

Shepherd, Gillian, ‘Dead Men Tell No Tales: Ethnic Diversity in Sicilian Colonies and the Evidence of the Cemeteries’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(2) (2005), 115-136.

Snodgrass, Anthony M., Archaeology and the rise of the Greek state. Inaugural lecture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., (ed.), Greek colonisation: an account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, Vol. 1 (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2006).

Tsetskhladze, Gocha R., (ed.), Greek colonisation: an account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, Vol. 2 (Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2008).

Turner, Frederick Jackson, Frontier and section; selected essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1961).

Turner, Frederick Jackson, Rise of the new West, 1819-1829, (Gloucester, Mass., P. Smith, 1961 [c1906]).

Turner, Frederick Jackson, The frontier in American history (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1986).

Walker, Keith G., Archaic Eretria: A Political and Social History from the Earliest Times to 490 BC. (London: Routledge, 2004).

Williams, Charles Kaufman, ‘Archaic and Classical Corinth’ in Corinto e l’Occidente: Atti del trenta-quattresimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia: Taranto, 7-11 ottobre 1994, (Taranto: Istituto per la storia e l’archeologia della Magna Grecia, 1995), pp. 31-45.

Yasur-Landau, Assaf, The Philistines and Aegean mi-gration at the end of the late Bronze Age (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Yavetz, Zvi, “Why Rome? Zeitgeist and ancient his-torians in the early 19th-century Germany”, Ameri-can Journal of Philosophy 97 (1976), 276-296.

Book 1.indb 50 17/03/16 10:01

Date post:	01-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	telaviv
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Greek Colonisation: The Right to return

Documents