Cover: Raffaele Gambogi (1874-1943

Immigration and emigration in historical perspective / edited by Ann Katherine Isaacs
(Migration : transversal theme ; 1)
304.82 (21.)
1. Migrazioni – Storia I. Isaacs, Ann Katherine
CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa
This volume is published thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission,
by the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005-006164.
The volume is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held
responsible for its contents or for any use which may be made of it.
Cover: Raffaele Gambogi (1874-1943), Emigrants, oil on canvas, Museo Civico Fattori, Livorno © Photo Scala,
Florence
© Copyright 2007 by Edizioni Plus – Pisa University Press
Lungarno Pacinotti, 43
56126 Pisa
Tel. 050 2212056 – Fax 050 2212945
[email protected]
www.edizioniplus.it - Section “Biblioteca”
Member of
ISBN 978-88-8492-498-8
Manager
Claudia Napolitano
Editing
Francesca Petrucci, Eleonora Lollini, Francesca Verdiani
Informatic assistance
Massimo Arcidiacono, Michele Gasparello
Migration and Greek Civilization
Jean-Luc Lamboley
University of Grenoble
Abstract
The history and the pre-history of the Greeks is marked by migrations. The Greek language is not
autochthonous to the area of Greek civilisation and hence arrived from elsewhere. Ancient and
modern historians have distinguished between different great periods of migration. The ‘heroic
migrations’ lead to the spread of Greek speaking populations around the Eastern Mediterranean,
but the legends linked to these migrations are a reconstruction of the Greek identity deriving
from the classical period; later movements are referred to as ‘colonisations’ and are associated with
many foundation myths which relate the beginnings of the new ‘colonies’. Recent historiography
and archaeology refuse these sharp distinctions, because the Mediterranean has always been a
“connective sea”, but, in reality, the so-called colonisation phase is distinguished by the rise and
spread of a significant new political and institutional invention, the polis or city-state, strongly
connected with religious aspects. Furthermore ancient authors, like Thucydides, distinguish between the migrations of the dark ages and the colonisation of the archaic period; it is worth looking at their testimonies carefully, so as to understand the meaning of these phenomena – without being swayed by modern and anachronistic concepts of colonisation. During the Hellenistic
period, Greek civilisation reached its largest area of diffusion, through huge kingdoms. Shifts of
populations were then less important and mainly consisted only of mercenaries, who contributed
to mixing the populations. Finally, it is interesting to underline the apparent contradiction in the
Greek mentality between the ideal of autarchy and autochthony, and the call of the “corrupting
sea”. The roles of the gentleman farmer and of the sailor/wanderer are mutually exclusive, but both
are important components of Greek civilisation.
L’histoire de la Grèce ancienne permet de distinguer traditionnellement trois grandes périodes de migrations; celles qui a la fin du troisième millénaire amènent les premières populations proto-grecques dans le
sud de la péninsule balkanique et donnent naissance à la civilisation mycénienne, celles des «âges obscurs»,
appelées aussi «migrations héroïques» qui voient les populations éoliennes, ioniennes et doriennes traverser
la mer Egée et s’installer sur les côtes de l’Asie Mineure, et enfin le grand mouvement de colonisation qui commence à partir du milieu du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. et se poursuit pendant près de deux siècles.
Si les trois phénomènes répondent à des motivations différentes, ils présentent une même constante:
l’appel de la Méditerranée et l’essaimage des cités grecques autour de cette mer, comme des grenouilles
autour d’une mare, pour reprendre la célèbre image de Platon. L’aventure grecque est une fille de la
faim, et la nécessité d’exploiter des terres agricoles, des mines, d’ouvrir des routes commerciales avec les
riches régions lointaines a conditionné l‘environnement géographique et culturel des Grecs, à tel point
que certains auteurs ne distinguent plus entre les différentes formes de mouvements de population, et
définissent la Méditerranée comme un espace de connectivité permanent.
Toutefois, une étude plus attentive des différentes périodes permet de distinguer des spécificités, et il
convient aussi de prendre en compte le témoignage des auteurs anciens, comme Thucydide qui établit
Connecting Seas
56
Jean-Luc Lamboley
une nette différence entre la période troublée des migrations héroïques et la période de calme et de
prospérité de la colonisation. On constate que ces récits, en grande partie légendaires, sont une reconstruction que les Grecs ont fait a posteriori de leur passé à la lumière d’événements du Ve siècle comme
les guerres contre les Perses ou la guerre opposant Athènes la ionienne et Sparte la dorienne. Il est vrai
que dans les deux cas des villes sont fondées par des exilés ou des citoyens exclus de la communauté
civique; dans les deux cas des adjectifs ethniques sont utilisés (migration ionienne ou dorienne dans
un cas, fondations eubéennes, achéennes, doriennes, phocéennes dans l’autre); dans les deux cas il y a
une homogénéité culturelle forte entre migrants et non migrants. Toutefois, dans le premier cas la polis
grecque (Cité-Etat) n’est qu’en gestation, et les fondations ne concernent que des villes ou des établissements pré urbains; dans le second cas, celui de la colonisation, tous les colons sont des citoyens, et toutes
les colonies sont des poleis. A moins de considérer comme insignifiant l’apparition de ce phénomène
politique et institutionnel qu’est la Cité-Etat, la différence entre «migration» et «colonisation» est
réelle et significative.
A l’époque hellénistique la situation change considérablement avec la création des grands royaumes.
Les crises sociales et la pauvreté entraînent encore des départs de populations, et la conquête de l’empire
achéménide par Alexandre le Grand, avec la fondation de nouvelles villes dont la plus célèbre est
Alexandrie en Egypte, apparaît pour des intellectuels comme Isocrate, comme le meilleur moyen de
résoudre les problèmes sociaux, beaucoup plus que politiques cette fois. C’est sous l’angle du mercenariat
qu’il faut alors aborder le problème, mais il ne s’agit plus vraiment de mouvements de populations.
Enfin, il est intéressant de constater que dans l‘imaginaire des Grecs, le concept de migration s’oppose
au concept d’autochtonie. L’idéal grec reste celui de l’autarcie, et du «gentleman farmer» que déjà au
VIIe siècle le poète Hésiode préfère à celui de l’aventurier des mers. Si la mer reste l’horizon naturel
des Grecs, elle est bien perçue aussi comme une mer corruptrice, et l’Athénien moyen du Ve siècle ignore
tout de la lointaine Sicile que des politiciens comme Alcibiade rêvent de conquérir. Dans les utopies des
philosophes, les ports et leurs étrangers sont indispensables, mais doivent être tenus à l’écart du centre
politique et civique. L’aventure grecque est peut-être une aventure de marins et d’explorateurs, mais la
très grande majorité des Grecs préfèrent entendre chez eux le récit de ces exploits.
Greek civilization is one of the components of our Western culture partly because from the middle of the 8th century BC Greek populations accepted to leave their homeland – more or less
present day Greece – and spread out from it, founding cities and harbours on the Mediterranean
and Black Sea coasts. From Crimea to Libya, from Asia Minor to Spain, the Greek language, religion and way of life were present until Alexander the Great’s troops brought them to the outskirts
of India; and Alexandria was founded in 331 BC and became the greatest intellectual capital in
all the world known at that time (the so-called oikoumene).
It is true that Greek civilisation is the ‘daughter of hunger’: this means that Greeks were not able
to live in autarchy at home, and needed to search for land areas that they could exploit. Myth links
this necessity to the end of the Golden Age, and the beginning of the “corrupting Sea”, that is to
say when traders and mariners symbolized the decline of morality and happiness:
The division and maintenance of property are indeed linked with the need to control extraneous
landscapes, places at a distance, resources to which control can only be extended by virtue of the
connective Mediterranean1.
This concept of the ‘connective Sea’ is crucial for our topic because migrations seem to be a distinctive character of the whole story of the Mediterranean.
Migration and Greek Civilization
57
From the beginning, the settling of the Greeks in the south of the Balkan Peninsula is a very
long story, entailing shifts of populations about which we know very little. However, it is quite
certain that the Acheans described by Homer, the famous Mycenaeans of the end of the Bronze
Age who spoke Greek – as has been proved by the deciphering of Linear B – and who are
linked to the mythical event of the Trojan War, arrived in successive waves by the end of the
third millennium. Before leaving the front of the stage, they mixed with local populations and
conquered a great part of the Aegean Sea, destroying the brilliant Minoan Civilization. From a
historiographical point of view, the approach is first of all linguistic, and only in a second phase
historical: the first problem is to understand when people began to speak in Greece, that is a
form of Greek or proto-Greek, and an Indo-European language? This problem became historical, because it was difficult to believe that a new language could appear in a specific and well
delimitated geographical space, without being associated with the coming of a new population
speaking this language, and bearing the roots of the future Greek civilisation. So archaeologists
were asked to answer the question of what new population might have come and when, but
they were not able to answer it entirely. We have to confess that we do not have proof available
to determine the date of arrival of the first Greek populations. The first form of writing in a
Greek language, Linear B, dates only back to 1400 BC., but the date when writing appears gives
us only a terminus ante quem for the arrival of the language. The one well established fact is that
Greek is not an autochthonous language, and so migrations are certainly at the origin of this
Mediterranean civilisation. The archaeological data show that the transition between the Ancient Bronze II and Ancient Bronze III took place over a long period of time, and was marked
by successive destructions which are likely to correspond to successive arrivals of new (Greek?)
populations2. Material culture shows at the same times many and lasting contacts with Thessaly,
Macedonia, Albania and Dalmatia, the Cyclades and Anatolia, which can be connected with
the birth of the Pelagic myth. So the best hypothesis, until now, is that there were arrivals of
successive populations from the Balkans, the Pontic and North-East Aegean countries from the
last quarter of the third millennium BC. on, and that these were composed at least in part of
proto-Greeks, who supported an increasing diffusion of metallurgy, and who were not directly
connected with the destructions of the end of the Bronze Age.
One of the most important events during the Mycenaean or Achaean period was the discovery of
the Mediterranean by the Greeks, thanks to contacts with the Minoan thalassocracy. Archaeology has emphasised that Mycenaean ceramics are found all around the north part of the Sea3. We
cannot speak of migration stricto sensu, because we have no evidence for Greek settlements in that
period. It is impossible to know exactly what was the identity of the merchants and sailors who
brought the goods overseas; in any case, the Mediterranean already appears as a “connective sea”
ready for migrations to come. Nevertheless, the decline and the disappearance of the Mycenaean
civilization, around 1200 BC, blots out all previous experiences, and the memory of Mediterranean routes seems to be cancelled.
Then came the Dark Ages. During this period full of troubles and insecurity, the most relevant
events are the shifts of populations from Greece to Asia Minor. Each migration generated many
myths, characterised by the Greek dialect of the people involved. The Aeolians left Thessaly and
Boeotia to go to Tenedos, Mytilene and the northern part of Asia Minor (from Troada to the Hermos river). The Ionians departed from Achaia, via Athens according to some authors, and settled
in Ionia, from Teos to Smyrna. The Dorians left from the Peloponnesus and settled in Rhodes and
in Caria around Cnidus and Halicarnassus. Because of these migrations, the Aegean Basin became
the cradle of the Greek civilization, and it is worth pointing out that the first expression of this
civilization (cities, political organizations, money, art, philosophy, sciences etc.) appeared in the
Aegean islands and in Asia Minor and not in Greece stricto sensu.
Connecting Seas
58
Jean-Luc Lamboley
It is worth underlining that the term “migration” is used especially for these shifts of populations,
but refers to a “historicist” or “presentist” approach, characteristic of the erudition, mixed with
nationalism, of the Nation States of the 19th century. So the shift from the linguistic plane to the
historical plane is quite dangerous. Another difficulty lies in the fact that most of the accounts
have been created a long time after the events, in order to symbolise and fix the image of the past
that the Greek communities conserved. Sometimes migrations in wrong directions have been
invented to justify the similarity between names of tribes or customs in two different countries4.
The term of “colonization” could be also used, because the archaeology has proved that these communities founded the oldest Greek cities.
The Dorian migration is linked to the famous “Return of the Heraclids” (the descendants of Heracles) in their home land, the Peloponnesus. This myth is a main component of the Greek identity
among all the Dorian populations. It is sufficient to recall that the Kings of Sparta are considered
descendants of Heracles. The ancient sources about this myth are very numerous: Herodotus,
Pindar, Diodorus Siculus, Pseudo-Apollodorus. German historiography of the 19th century, influenced by the Spartan model, tried to find an historical background to the myth, and in this way
“invented” the Dorian invasions5. In this case the term migration is not used, because of the destructive consequences of the arrival of the Dorians. European historiography was very much influenced by this approach, and the idea of historical events readable through the mythic narratives
has been defended by a lot of historians, and paved the way to a more archaeologically centred
approach6. For a long time, historians have connected the Dorian invasions with the destruction
and the end of the Mycenaean world, but now we know that that is not what happened7.
We must confess that it is very difficult to establish the origin of these mythical narratives, which
are very heterogeneous and often contradictory. Their “stratigraphy” is impossible to read, and any
historical (historicising) conclusion is very dubious. It is worth underlining that the main structuring of this myth takes place in the 5th century in the context of the rivalries between Athens,
champion of the Ionian culture (see below) and Sparta needed a counterbalance for propaganda8.
So, if the epic poetry referred to an Achean Peloponnesus, the political situation referred to a Dorian world, because the Dorians were the descendants of those who had accompanied the Heraclids when they returned to Doris, a region which is difficult to localise exactly, somewhere in the
north of the Peloponnesus. So, the presence of the Dorian dialect in the Peloponnesus, western
Greece, the southern Cyclades, and Doris in Asia Minor can be explained without the supposed
“Dorian invasions”, all the more so in that it is uncertain whether the expansion of this dialect
took place at the end of the Mycenaean period. In consequence, it is important not to connect the
migrations of the Dark Ages too directly to massive and destructive invasions
As to the Ionian migration, we have three main sources: Herodotus I, 145-147, Strabo VIII, 17 and XIV, 1-4, and Pausanias VII, 1-49. All the three testimonies emphasise the role played by
Athens. The city calls for a Ionian origin with the very ancient arrival and settlement of Ion (the
eponymous hero) in Attica, even if the city claims to be autochthonous. In the cases in which
the city is not the direct origin of the migratory flow, the populations from Achaia for instance
stop in Athens to receive an official agreement before migrating. It is reasonable to think that the
Greek communities in Asia Minor, confronted with the Barbarians (Lydian then Persian attacks)
needed to close ranks and look for protection from a strong state like Athens which, at the end
of the 6th century played a very important role during the famous Ionian rebellion against the
Persian Kings Darius and Xerxes. After the victory at Salamis, in order to resist against the hegemony of Sparta, Athens clearly claimed her rule over the sea through the League of Delos, and
found justification for this her sea-based hegemony in the supposed common Ionian origin. It is
interesting to note that quite all the mythical narratives about Ionian migration are elaborated or
re-elaborated in this period by authors like Hellanikos and then the Atthidographs. Nevertheless,
Migration and Greek Civilization
59
the Ionian-Attic community appears from the beginning of the archaic period, as a real cultural
entity with a common dialect, a common alphabet, common cults and feasts (Apollo, Anthesteria
and Apaturia), and a common social organisation divided in four tribes (Geleontes, Aigikoreis,
Argadeis and Hopletes). It is worth underlining that the first brilliant manifestations of the Greek
civilisation (astronomy, mathematics, philosophy, sculpture, coinage etc.) appear in Ionia during
the 7th and 6th centuries.
As to the Aeolian migration, the interest shown by the ancient – and modern – authors is not so
important. On the base of the dialects, the consensus is that Aeolians originated from Thessaly,
Boeotia, and Locris, but Peloponnesian participation, especially from Achaia, must not be excluded. The mythical figures linked with this migration are Orestes and Penthilosa.
In any case a very important fact must be taken into consideration: in all the regions of Asia Minor
where the migrants settled, survivals of the Mycenaean period are attested, and the break seems
less important than in the continental Greece. It means that the arriving populations found on the
place Greek settlements of the previous period able to free themselves from the domination of the
local powers that had become weaker because of the crises of the end of the Bronze Age. It is very
important to affront the problem of the origin of the polis (city-state) which is the real fact that
marks a break with respect to the Mycenaean period. In effect, the Ionian migration and colonisation takes place at a strategic moment between the Mycenaean frequentations and the “political”
colonization of the archaic period, and so, may be the first example of both the development, in
a new context, of the removals and migrations of the Mycenaean period, and a foreshadowing of
the motivations and colonial processes of the archaic period. It is certain that Greek migrations of
the Dark Ages do not discover a new world when arriving in Asia Minor, but encountered there
Greek populations which had arrived in Mycenaean times. However, in the homeland, the social
and political conditions were new after the fall of the Palace system, and the migrants bore with
them all the elements necessary to build the first cities.
Thanks to contacts with the Phoenicians, the Greeks rediscovered writing and the maritime
routes to the Western Mediterranean, which provided them with the indispensable ores. After
some exploration trips, due to individual and adventurous pioneers, whose echoes we find in the
Odyssey, there began a long episode of colonization, at the same time that the city-state system
(polis) was growing. The history of Greek colonization is also the history of the advent of the
first civic communities – a very difficult process, because access to citizenship implies property,
and lands were not sufficient for everyone. So the conquest of new territories, with the departure
of the victims of social or political exclusion, was a way both for the settlers to become citizens
and for the metropolis to resolve its social and political problems. Differently from the previous
period of migrations, colonization takes place in a period of progress and prosperity as we can see
from a passage in Thucydides (I, 12-13). So for Greek historians, migration and colonization are
two different phenomena.
Thucydides, I, 12:
Even after the Trojan War, Hellas was still engaged in removing and settling, and thus could not
attain to the quiet which must precede growth. The late return of the Hellenes from Ilium caused
many revolutions, and factions ensued almost everywhere; and it was the citizens thus driven into
exile who founded the cities. Sixty years after the capture of Ilium, the modern Boeotians were
driven out of Arne by the Thessalians, and settled in the present Boeotia, the former Cadmeis;
though there was a division of them there before, some of whom joined the expedition to Ilium.
Twenty years later, the Dorians and the Heraclids became masters of Peloponnese. So that much
had to be done and many years had to elapse before Hellas could attain to a durable tranquillity
undisturbed by removals, and could begin to send out colonies, as Athens did to Ionia and most of
Connecting Seas
60
Jean-Luc Lamboley
the islands, and the Peloponnesians to most of Italy and Sicily and some places in the rest of Hellas.
All these places were founded subsequently to the war with Troy.
But as the power of Hellas grew, and the acquisition of wealth became more an object, the revenues of the states increasing, tyrannies were by their means established almost everywhere- the
old form of government being hereditary monarchy with definite prerogatives- and Hellas began
to fit out fleets and apply herself more closely to the sea.
In this excerpt, we have the first attempt by an Athenian historian of the 5th century BC to divide
Greek history into great periods. The Trojan War is the reference point, like the birth of Christ
for us. Even if we have no proof that the Trojan War was an historical event, for ancient historians
it is considered an historical turning point. Using this point, Thucydides divides Greek History
into three great periods:
• Before the Trojan War, which corresponds for us to the Mycenaean period. The destruction of Troy is the symbol of the destructions of the Mycenaean palaces and of the fall of
this first form of Greek civilisation.
• After the Trojan wars, a first period is characterised by troubles, civil wars, and shifts of
populations, which fits very well with what today we call the ‘Dark Ages’. We can see in
the text the Aeolian migration (with the Thessalians), and the return of the Heraclids in
the Peloponnesus (Dorian migrations). It is important to note the expression “citizens…
who founded the cities”. The word used is not “apoikia” (colony), but “polis” (city-state),
which confirms what we said previously about the origin of the city-state. It is interesting
to note that Thucydides links the troubles with the ‘late return’ of the Greek heroes in their
homelands, and that the Dorians are not presented as responsible for the troubles. We can
observe the difference with respect to modern historiography which focuses on migratory
flows and destructive invasions. For Thucydides the cause of disorders is internal, not external; all the foundations are made in continental Greece and not outside, in Asia Minor,
and the Ionian migration does not take place in this period, but in the following one. These
‘strange’ affirmations require some explanation.
• The last period corresponds to historical colonisation (see map 1), when Greeks send apoikiai
(colonies). Why is the Ionian migration located in this period? The reason seems to be solely
ideological. It takes place in a new situation, under the sign of renewal, richness and tranquillity. If Ionian migration had been placed in the previous Dark Age, the phenomenon would
have been depreciated, as being part of an unfortunate time. Athens in the 5th century was
at the head of the Ionian world and spread Ionian culture over the Mediterranean, giving it a
much more important role than Sparta and the Dorian traditions. All the traditions present
Athens as the leader of the Ionian migrations. So it was difficult for Thucydides to put Athens
outside the historical frame of Greek expansion, whether in the western or in the eastern part
of the Mediterranean. We know that Athens did not participate in colonisation in the Archaic
period. Its first attempt was the foundation of Thourioi in Southern Italy around 433 BC.
But Thucydides, when delineating the great periods of Greek history, wants to give a sense to this
History, and Athens cannot be outside of it. What is this sense ? The text wants to show how the
Greek civilisation emerged and underlines four elements:
• The expansion of the Greek population and its stable settlement all around the Mediterranean
• The rediscovery of the sea, and the importance of navigation as indispensable for trade and
colonisation
Map 1
Greek Expansion at the End of the 6th Century BC.
Migration and Greek Civilization
61
Connecting Seas
62
Jean-Luc Lamboley
• A long period of quietness, safety and prosperity.
• The evolution of the political institutions: the local hereditary monarchies, which were
based upon the aristocratic families at the origin of the cities (and no longer the Homeric
oikos or princely household), are replaced by tyrannies, a kind of monarchy which is no
longer contractual, and which is based upon the middle class that benefited from trade ad
crafts.
We can now consider the problem of the difference between the migrations of the Dark Ages and
the colonisation of the Archaic period. Is there actually a difference, besides the chronological
one? The fact that Thucydides can place the Ionian migration in the colonisation period without
shocking his readers seems to prove that the difference is small. In both cases cities are founded
and citizens are involved. The difference seems more a geographical one: the apoikai were sent
far away to the Western Mediterranean, and not just to the Aegean Sea. The one clear difference
between settlement and colony lies in the fact that a colony (apoikia) is sent away, outside the
Greek continental countries. Modern historiography has made a clear and excessive distinction
between the two phenomena because of the model of modern colonisation, but it is not correct to
project much more recent realities onto the past. Recent researchers tend to deny any difference,
and to refuse the very term ‘colonisation’10. The ‘corrupting sea’ corrupts at any time! That means
the Mediterranean space is always interactive, independently from the periods or the political
contexts of the costal countries, and it makes possible individual enterprises of constant moving
all across the sea, some of them leading to lasting settlements. This view seems however excessive.
Certainly archaeology, especially ceramics, does not allow us to identify the exact moment of the
foundation of new settlements, and the foundation myths transmitted by the literary tradition
falsify the history of the apoikiai to justify later claims. Certainly the ancient sources are more
abundant for the Archaic period and in consequence give more importance to ‘colonisation’ than
to the ‘time of heroic migration’. But we have the evidence of all the cultural, religious and linguistic links between apoikia and metropolis, links that archaeology and epigraphy have highlighted.
And why reject in block all the mythical narratives, as if they were without any significance in
reconstructing the historical background11 ?
So, it seems better to trust Thucydides, and to consider that the Greek migrations of the Dark
Ages, because of the context, are intrinsically different from the archaic colonisation. In both cases
towns are founded by exiles or rejected citizens, in both the sea is corrupted, in both ethnic adjectives are used (Ionian or Dorian migration versus Eubean, Achean, Dorian, Phocean foundations)
and show a cultural homogeneity between migrants and non migrants. But in the first case the
Greek polis was only in preparation, and only towns or pre-urban settlements were founded, in the
second, all the settlers are citizens and all the apoikiai are poleis. Unless we consider the appearance
of the exceptional new political and institutional phenomenon of the polis to be unimportant, the
difference between ‘migration’ and ‘colonisation’ is real and significant.
In the Hellenistic period, Alexander the Great’s expedition must be considered to belong to a
new pattern, typical of military conquest, and which foreshadows the Roman Empire. His military expeditions, which employed more mercenaries than regular soldiers, cannot be compared
to a migratory movement, even though they resulted in the conquest of huge territories – where
Greek culture could be diffused on a large scale, and offering a good solution for the social problems of Greece, by giving poor populations opportunities for settlement. Isocrates was aware of
this opportunity when he addressed to Alexander’s father Philip II12. This new phenomenon concerned the West as much as it did the East. For instance, when the Corinthian Timoleon left for
Sicily in order to save that island from Punic attacks, his troops were formed only of poor people
who hoped to make money in the colonial world13. In the same period, many Campanian and
Celtic people left their countries to reach Sicily and enrol in the Hellenistic generals’ forces – like
Migration and Greek Civilization
63
Agathocles or Pyrrhus. More generally, the Hellenistic kingdoms – with their great armies and
perpetual conflicts – offered a possibility of survival for many desperate people, but globally the
existence of these great states consolidated the demographic and social situation. Mercenaries may
be considered to constitute a type of migration but this phenomenon involves individuals rather
than large groups of people. Furthermore, during the Hellenistic period Greek culture reached its
highest degree of universality and no longer required shifts of population to order to survive and
develop. So it is not necessary to examine this period in relation to our theme.
Before concluding, however, we wish to make a final remark, based on a more anthropological
approach, comparing the concept of ‘migration’ to the antithetic one of ‘autochthony’. One of
the most interesting paradoxes of Greek civilization is that the survival of the Greeks depends
on the Mediterranean Sea, but the Greek civic ideals are always to live in autarchy, to be a gentleman farmer, and to form a small community which jealously guards its privileges14. The sea is the
natural horizon for all Greek people, but the call of the open sea does not attract them: the sea is
corrupting. Greek adventure is an adventure for sailors and settlers, but people prefer to hear the
narrative of these exploits in their palaces or cottages. For instance, Magna Grecia (Megalè Hellas)
is the official name for Greek Southern Italy, but Sicily is unknown to a middle class Athenian of
the 5th BC, and all the ancient authors consider that Greek civilization is in danger in the colonial
countries because of the barbarian and mixed populations. So, migration and autochthony are like
the two sides of the a same coin. The Mediterranean supports migration and connects people, so
that Socrates could say that Greeks were “living round the sea like ants and frogs round a pond”15.
But let us remember also this quotation from Strabo: “Plato thinks that those who want a wellgoverned city ought to shun the sea as a teacher of vice”16.
Notes
1
P. Horden, N. Purcell, The corrupting Sea, Oxford 2000, p. 278.
2
For instance the destruction of the so-called ‘House of Tiles’ at Lerne in Argolide at the end of the Ancient Bronze
II after an occupation of circa one or two centuries, gives a good indication. See R. Drews, The coming of the Greeks.
Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and Near East, Princeton 1988.
3
N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean, Göteborg 1991; M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, L. Vagnetti, in Traffici
micenei nel Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, Taranto 1986.
4
For a overarching view, see J. Vanschoonwinkel, L’Egée et la Méditerranée orientale à la fin du deuxième millénaire.
Témoignages archéologiques et sources écrites, in Archaeologica Transatlantica 9, Louvain-la-Neuve 1991; P. Carlier, La
Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg 1984.
5
K. O. Müller, Die Dorier, Berlin 1824.
6
See for instance the contributions of N.G.L. Hammond in the second edition of the Cambridge Ancient History.
7
V.R. d’A Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and Their Sucessors. An Archaeological Survey, c.1200-c.1000 BC., Oxford 1964.
8
For instance, in 462 the Athenian Cimon is dismissed by the Spartans.
9
According to the Eratostenes tradition, the Ionian migration took place in 1044 BC.
10
For instance R. Osborne, Greece in the making 1200-479 BC, New York 1996, especially pp. 119-129. He persists
in Early Greek colonization? in N. Fisher, H. Van Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece, New Approaches and New Evidence,
Swansea 2002: “A proper understanding of archaic Greek history can only come when chapters on ‘Colonization’
are eradicated from books on early Greece” (p. 269).
11
Let us remember what J. Bérard said against the hyper-criticism of E. Pais about the literary traditions: “il ne suffit
pas d’avoir relevé le caractère fabuleux ou semi-fabuleux d’une donnée de la tradition pour lui retirer par là toute
valeur: ce serait oublier que dans la plupart des pays, en Grèce notamment, l’histoire a commencé par la légende”, in
La colonisation grecque de l’Italie méridionale et de la Sicile dans l’Antiquité, 2nd ed., Paris 1957, p. 9.
12
Isocrates, Philippos, 127-129.
13
Plutarch, Timoleon, 23, 2-4.
Connecting Seas
64
14
15
16
Jean-Luc Lamboley
This ideal is already expressed by Homer and Hesiod (in his Works and Days), we find it again in all the intellectuals
of the 4th century (Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle).
Plato, Phaedo, 109B.
Strabo, Geography, VII, 3, 8.
Bibliography
Carlier P., La Royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg 1984.
Desborough V.R. d’A., The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors. An Archaeological Survey, c.1200-c.1000 BC., Oxford
1964.
Drews R., The Coming of the Greeks. Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and Near East, Princeton 1988.
Fisher N., Van Wees H. (eds.), Archaic Greece, New Approaches and New Evidence, Swansea 2002
Gale N.H. (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, Göteborg 1991.
Horden P., Purcell N., The Corrupting Sea, Oxford 2000.
Lamboley J.-L., Religious Space and Construction of Ancient Greek Civic Communities, in Carvalho J. (ed.), Religion,
Ritual and Mythology. Aspects of Identity Formation in Europe, Pisa 2006, pp. 1-12.
Id., Myth as an Instrument for the Study of Greek and Indigenous Identities. II: Myths in Western Greek Colonies, in Carvalho (ed.), Religion, Ritual and Mythology cit., pp. 143-150.
Marazzi M., Tusa S., Vagnetti L., Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo. Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica, Taranto 1986.
Müller K.O., Die Dorier, Berlin 1824.
Osborne R., Greece in the making 1200-479 BC, New York 1996.
Vanschoonwinkel J., L’Egée et la Méditerranée orientale à la fin du deuxième millénaire. Témoignages archéologiques et
sources écrites, in Archaeologica Transatlantica 9, Louvain-la-Neuve 1991.