Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros79Actualités de la recherche sur la...Greek “Colonisation” in Sicily an...

Actualités de la recherche sur la Sicile antique

Greek “Colonisation” in Sicily and the West. Some Problems of Evidence and Interpretation Twenty-Five Years On

“Colonisation” grecque en Sicile et en Occident : problèmes de preuves et d’interprétation sur vingt-cinq ans
Gillian Shepherd
p. 15-25


Cet article offre un bref examen de certains changements majeurs dans la manière d’aborder l’étude de la colonisation grecque en Méditerranée occidentale et tout particulièrement en Sicile. Elle note trois changements importants et largement répandus dans l’opinion des spécialistes : premièrement, que l’entreprise privée plutôt que celle d’l’État a pu être à l’origine de l’initiative qui a entraîné la fondation de sites grecs en Sicile ; deuxièmement, que les habitants des nouvelles colonies sont vraisemblablement venus de régions autres que celles des cités-mères mentionnées dans les sources historiques ; et troisièmement, que des groupes indigènes ont contribué de manière significative au peuplement des états grecs par le biais des mariages mixtes et de la cohabitation. En concomitance avec ces aperçus récents s’ajoute tout un éventail d’autres révisions et zones de recherche qui comportent de nouvelles approches théoriques comme l’« hybridité » et le « territoire intermédiaire ».

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I would like to express my thanks to Sandra Péré-Noguès for her kind invitation to participate in the “Actualités de la recherche sur la Sicile” workshop in Toulouse and for all the hospitality provided, as well as to all the other participants from whose comments, discussion and papers I have much benefited.

  • 2 Morel, 1984.

1The title of this paper may sound vaguely familiar to some readers: it is in fact a version of the title of a paper by Jean Paul Morel published in 1984, in which he reviewed the state of research into ancient Greek colonisation in the Western Mediterranean2. He noted a number of issues related to Greek activity in the West which he believed were becoming more (or indeed less) significant as areas of research, observing also the rapidity of change in research problems. Twenty-five years later and at a workshop devoted to “Actualités de la recherche sur la Sicile”, it is perhaps not inappropriate to take some stock again of the state of research a generation or so after Morel’s important paper, at least as far as Sicily is concerned. In this regard and others this very brief paper is far more restricted in scope than Morel’s wide-ranging survey, but I follow Morel in two other respects: firstly, by not in any way wishing to suggest a comparison with the subject reviews of more distinguished scholars, including Morel himself; and secondly by being very – indeed even more – selective in my subject matter and concentrating in the limited space here on the areas with which I am most familiar. For the most part, this means the historiography of Greek colonisation in the West and also burial practices in Greek Sicily; the former reveals approaches which were particularly prevalent in Anglophone scholarship and hence I take the opportunity here to concentrate on more recent English-language studies; the latter at least may be justified by the fact that burial customs were one area which Morel regarded as most fruitful for current and future research.

  • 3 See, for example, Purcell, 1997, p. 500; Osborne, 1998, p. 251‑2; Snodgrass, 2005, 45‑9.

2For those familiar with Morel’s work, it will be clear that I have taken several liberties with his title. One is in the concentration here on Sicily; the other is with the word “colonisation”, which is here placed within inverted commas. This term and its cognates (“colony”, “colonial” etc) were, twenty-five years ago, standard expressions in the discussion of ancient Greek settlement abroad in Anglo-phone scholarship, together with similarly Latin-derived words in other languages (“la colonisation”, “la colonizzazione” etc). In English, at least, these words carry distinct overtones of imperialism and political and cultural domination, to the point where they can be misleading to the lay reader; it is not surprising then that they have come under recent criticism and debate, not only in the context of ancient Greek settlement overseas but also in current wider debates of what are known as post-colonial studies. As a number of scholars have observed, the use of these terms is particularly problematic in relation to archaic Greece and to some degree they are disappearing from English-language works – including this one3. Elsewhere, as Robin Osborne has pointed out, some attempt to override the less desirable connotations of traditional phrasing has been made by the prefixing it with “Greek” in the hope that this will contextualise the terminology; if this is not an entirely satisfactory response, it also has to be admitted that no one has yet come up with a word or phrase which better delineates our understanding of this area of Greek activity in the archaic period. The alternative is a set of neutral phrases – “Greek settlement overseas” and so on – which, while avoiding the obvious problems of “colonisation” terminology, are at best cumbersome and at worst restrictive in the construction of discussion: for example, a single adjective to replace “colonial” would be particularly useful for those of us who find the older terminology outdated even where it is carefully defined in the context of the Greek world.

  • 4 Freeman, 1891‑4, I, p. 328.
  • 5 Dunbabin, 1948, p. vii, 17.
  • 6 Woodhead, 1962, p. 17.
  • 7 Dinsmoor, 1950, p. 75.
  • 8 Littman, 1974, 49. See further Shepherd, 2005.

3More significantly, traditional designations of Greek settlements abroad as “colonies” are now widely recognised to be inappropriate not only in that in their modern usage such terms do not accurately describe Greek activity abroad, but also because their unsuitability was far from confined to terminology: in the past, the models, interpretations and theories which accompanied the study of Greek “colonisation” have often been themselves deeply imbued with many of the more pejorative connotations of the language being used and indeed to a significant degree appear based on the modern, and especially British, imperial experience. Again, this seems to be something which is particularly conspicuous in Anglophone literature, where concepts of the cultural inferiority of the Greek “colonies” and their cultural dependence on those states identified as their mother-cities by ancient authors are prominent and have a long history: thus for the West, for example, Edward Freeman could in the late nineteenth century class the palpable success of Syracuse as “greatness of a colonial kind” and accordingly not likely to last4; just over fifty years later Thomas Dunbabin, declaring the antipodean reaches of the British Empire as his model, could talk of Corinth’s “possession” of Syracuse and the complete “cultural dependence” which was the “pride of most colonials”5; and in 1962 A.G. Woodhead could invoke Stanley Baldwin’s vision of the British colonial spirit as entirely apposite to the Greeks in the West6. These conceptions of ancient Greek foundations in Italy and Sicily extended well beyond specific studies and permeated other accounts of the ancient Greeks of the archaic period as well: thus, for example, Western Greek architects were accused by Dinsmoor of a “certain amount of provincialism or ‘cultural lag’” in their enormous temples7, while in his general study of ancient Greece R. Littmann could also assert “cultural lag”, claiming further that “the colonials’ sense of cultural inferiority to ‘old Greece’ often led to over-compensation”8.

  • 9 Snodgrass, 2006, p. 292; Snodgrass 1994.

4These sort of views lasted well into the twentieth century – although in fact it is fair to say they started to change before the associated terminology did, which effectively highlighted the need for new forms of expression. As Anthony Snodgrass observed in 2006 on the occasion of the republication of his 1994 article “The Nature and Standing of the Early Western Colonies”, twelve years earlier the word “colonisation” and related terms could still be used “without compunction”9. But by 1994 the ways in which Greek settlements in the West were being interpreted and our understanding of their nature had already changed very significantly from those of the earlier twentieth century, even if the terminology still lagged behind somewhat. Some of the major shifts in thinking are summarised below.

  • 10 Graham, 1964.

5One of the areas which, in the early 1980s, Morel thought was becoming less important as a subject of research was the relationship between “colonies” and their mother-cities. This has not quite proved the case, although admittedly the sorts of relationships which Morel had in mind might have been those explored by A.J. Graham in his seminal work of 1964, Colony and Mother-City in Ancient Greece (see also 1972 ed.), namely the formal methods through which a “colony” and its mother-city maintained a relationship subsequent to foundation10. Graham argued that these were in general close and were articulated primarily through religion and shared festivals; yet his work, which remains a fundamental study, was primarily concerned with historical evidence (especially epigraphic) and as such inevitably relates to the circumstances of the sixth century and later, including foundations of this period. The latter in many cases were set up with a degree of political connection with the mother-city which we do not believe to have necessarily been the case for the archaic settlements in the West. As such, the sorts of relationships which Graham revealed were always somewhat problematic in their application to the earlier settlements in Sicily and Italy, for which written evidence was largely lacking. For these, a longstanding approach has been to identify duplicated customs – also adduced for the later “colonies” – and cultural features which signify the desire of the “colony” to maintain a filial link with the mother- city and which are also symptomatic of the sort of “cultural dependence” noted above which earlier scholars sought to identify especially in the archaeological record of Western Greek settlements.

  • 11 Shepherd 1995, 2000, 2005.

6In my own work, I have argued that in certain areas of cultural activity, especially burial customs and temple building, differences in practice between Greek settlements in the West and their historically attested mother-cities are in fact more distinctive than the similarities and are indicative of the forging of independent cultural identities; likewise, much of the evidence for the religious activity of the Western Greeks, especially in the context of pan- Hellenic sanctuaries can be interpreted in a similar manner, rather than as demonstrative of the sorts of relationships which Graham identified for other Greek settlements abroad11. More importantly, however, and in the wider field of scholarship, the relationship between a “colony” and its mother-city (as identified in ancient texts) has in fact been central to much recent debate, although this has been less to do with the on-going relationships which Graham envisaged and more to do with the circumstances of foundation. It has involved two main revisions of past ideas which have gained widespread, if not total, acceptance in the scholarly community and which have had, and continue to have, a significant impact on many of the older assumptions regarding the nature of Greek settlement in the West and have raised new areas of investigation.

  • 12 Graham, 1964, p. 8.
  • 13 Osborne, 1998.

7The first is that not all of these settlements were state enterprises. This is in fact a longstanding idea: certainly in his 1964 work Graham argued that both state and private ventures were undertaken in the historical colonising period and identified state enterprise in the highly and apparently centrally organised settlement of Cyrene as described by Herodotus (IV.150.3 ff.), but argued that the failed attempt to settle at Kynips without a foundation oracle by Doreius betokened a private enterprise12. However, the shift away from the general – if often tacit – assumption that the archaic settlements in the West were state projects has gained greater momentum in more recent years, no doubt in part due to the decline of imperially-based ways of thinking and the rise of post-colonial approaches. Thus, for example, Robin Osborne has argued that private enterprise should account for most, if not all of the settlements of the eighth and seventh centuries BC13. It must be admitted that in fact the foundation stories, such as they are, give little clue as to the manner in which enterprises were organised: there is nothing to parallel the Cyrene story, which itself may of course be a somewhat reworked version of earlier events; and if ancient authors such as Thucydides appear quite unequivocal regarding the family connections of Greek states in Sicily, then it should also be remembered that this does not automatically mean that they were state foundations, however obvious and attractive that assumption might be – and indeed was to many earlier commentators – and that such accounts may reflect fifth century or later views of the past rather than eighth and seventh century realities. As Osborne further suggests, even the level of planning and organisation argued to be evident in the archaeological record for Megara Hyblaea does not demand state involvement, but could just as well be the result of a well-organised and far-sighted private venture.

  • 14 See also Malkin, 2002b.

8In other words, it now seems possible that many of these places in Sicily and Italy might have had far less formal origins than have previously been supposed and ones in which the mother-city – if it can even be defined as such – played a far less direct role. This may be linked to another view which is also gaining ground, namely that “foundation” was less a one-off event of the sort of flag-planting type implicit in many earlier studies (and, admittedly, in the largely terse accounts of Thucydides et al.) and more a process carried out over a period of time – something more similar, say, to the wanderings and vicissitudes described by Thucydides (VI.4) for the Megarians before they finally acquired the site of Megara Hyblaea14. Indeed, if comparisons are to be made with modern colonisation, then the history of European settlement of America might provide a better analogy, where private enterprise, significant struggle and indeed failure are common motifs. After all, with the exceptions of the salutary tale of Doreius – whose first failed foundation attempt Herodotus (V.42.2) implies was the result of omitting to get a Delphic oracle – and the Megara Hyblaeans (who ultimately succeeded, but only after several setbacks: Thuc. VI.4) we hear nothing of failed ventures. While it is unsurprising that only the successful foundations made it into the literary record of later centuries, the likelihood that not all ventures grew from strength to strength in the manner of Syracuse, Selinus or Akragas is worth keeping in mind; some may have floundered long before they left a discernable trace on the archaeological record.

  • 15 Morel, 1984, p. 124.
  • 16 See for example, Tusa, 1982; further, Morris, 1996.
  • 17 Meola, 1996‑8, I, p. 293‑6.
  • 18 Morris, 1996.

9Here one might also add that another declining area of debate which Morel observed was the question of the absolute foundation dates of the Western settlements15. It is probably fair to say that it is still the case that they do not come under much discussion now, perhaps in part because of the recognition that they may represent a point in a process that was defined subsequently rather than as recorded (accurately or not) dates for events which could be defined in such strict absolute terms. As such, they are perhaps best regarded as useful guidelines, plausible and convenient for modern discussion but not as precise dates to which protracted debate regarding their origins and accuracy will necessarily make any further meaningful contribution. Occasionally, however, the absolute foundation dates do resurface, especially in relation to finds at sites critical to the chronology for Corinthian wares, which of course has always been primarily based on the Thucydidean foundation dates. Thus, for example, the publication of the Buffa Necropolis at Selinus has not proved helpful in resolving the problem of the discrepancy between the Thucydidean and Diodorean foundation dates (628 and 651 respectively), an issue strenuously debated in the early 1980s when claims – ultimately not sustainable – were made of finds of Late Protocorinthian pieces at Selinus16. If anything, the Buffa Necropolis appears to reinforce the traditional chronology since its earliest vases are Early Corinthian wares datable to the late seventh century17. Indeed, as one discussion of the absolute foundation dates which has appeared in more recent years points out, an important and reassuring feature of their relationship with the ceramic record is not only that thus far nothing been found which must significantly disrupt the dates, but also that the relative chronology provided by Thucydides of the Sicilian settlements corresponds to the relative chronology of the pottery they have yielded18.

  • 19 Snodgrass, 1994, p. 2.

10The second main revision of Greek settlement in the West which is gaining ground is the possibility that not all Greeks who travelled to these settlements came from the particular mother-city or cities identified in ancient texts. While this is certainly the implication of the ancient texts, to some extent it has been a modern assumption as well, based on the citing of the origin of the oikist and the initial group settlers by ancient authors (e.g. Thuc.VI.3 ff.) which, strictly speaking, cannot necessarily be extrapolated to cover all other participants as well. Yet, as Anthony Snodgrass noted in 1994, the apparent enthusiasm of some Greek states for sending out parties to found new settlements does not tally very well with what we understand their population levels to have been in the later eighth and seventh centuries BC19: eighth century Corinth, for example, looks more like a rather dispersed village than a city with sufficient inhabitants to supply settlers for more than one foundation abroad without significantly debilitating the remaining population. The historical accounts need only meant that the oikist and perhaps a core group of settlers – and not necessarily the majority of those who set out on a particular venture – came from the particular place or places identified in ancient texts.

11We do, after all, have occasional acknowledgments even in the ancient texts that Greeks who settled abroad derived from different places – most famously perhaps Archilochos’ complaint that the “misery of all Greece” (West fr. 102) was gathered in Thasos, a settlement attested as founded by Paros. For Sicily, Strabo (6.2.4) reports that en route to Syracuse the Corinthian oikist Archias picked up some “Dorians” who had parted company with the Megarian group, while the Myletidai, an aristocratic family exiled from Syracuse in the seventh century, are said to have taken part in the foundation of Himera (Thuc. VI.5). Such scattered references might hint at a wider situation in which the participation of individuals who did not come from the specified mother-city was not unusual and perhaps even commonplace. As far as the formulation of a history for these states was concerned, however, the general insistence in the textual sources of a single so-called “mother-city” might in large part be a construction which offered certain advantages.

  • 20 Malkin, 1987, p. 241‑60.
  • 21 Hall, 1997 and 2002.

12One of these advantages is the likelihood that there was much to be gained in terms of history creation through a single focus on a restricted area of origin for the settlers20. Another might be the acquisition of a sub-Hellenic identity (Dorian, Ionian etc), especially if such identities were indeed as critical for Greek states in the archaic Greek world as Jonathan Hall has argued recently21. Assuming the foundation stories are not entirely creations of the fifth century BC, claims to a sub-Hellenic identity would be especially hard to establish and maintain in a context where mixed origins were openly acknowledged and emphasised, but rather easier to construct in one where the official “line” was a claim of derivation from a single mother-city (occasionally two) and accordingly also to the sub-Hellenic identity which that city asserted. Here I would also add that the archaeological record, especially the funerary record, likewise reveals little in the way of mixed origins for Greek states in the West and Sicily in particular; rather, it also points to attempts to forge an overarching cultural profile which was independent of that of the declared mother-city but also promoted the cultural and social cohesion desirable for a new state.

  • 22 See Graham, 1962, p. 64 and passim.

13Further, the ancient texts have never told us much about how population growth was fuelled in Greek foundations in the West or indeed elsewhere. Obviously, populations would grow normally through reproduction, but that does not quite seem to account for the speed with which the new states grew and indeed it seems unlikely that, once founded, they would not have attracted further waves of settlers. Modern scholarship has also always been somewhat vague on this subject, apart from the idea that “colonies” might have been reinforced by new arrivals from the mother-city subsequent to foundation. The best evidence for this notion of reinforcement from the mother-city comes from the fourth century Cyrene foundation decree inscription22, but this and other snippets to a large degree conform with ideas of rather exclusive links with mother-cities which themselves seem to be derived from notions of colonial loyalties perhaps more appropriate to modern empires, especially the British one: thus, for example, Dunbabin detected reinforcement of the settlement of Gela by Rhodes in the presence of Rhodian vessels dating to the second half of the seventh century and enchytrismos burials – despite the fact that enchytrismos was a practice commonly employed throughout the Greek world at the time. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that, for Sicily at least, subsequent arrivals did not also derive from areas beyond the stated mother-city and, once settled, subscribed to prevailing cultural norms, including accounts of the “history” of their new state.

  • 23 Dunbabin, 1948, p. 47 and 192.
  • 24 Snodgrass, 2005, p. 50 ff.

14Another obvious source for population expansion is of course the indigenous population, which brings us to a third area of research which has changed radically over recent decades. The incorporation of native populations into Greek settlements was an area of “colonial” demography that in fact older studies were often quite adamant about, insisting that the Greeks would not have tolerated Sikels or other indigenous groups in their cities, except perhaps as slaves. Thus, for example, Dunbabin could insist that in the archaic Greek cities the Sikels had “no place” and were kept at “arm’s length”, even going so far as to suggest that “probably the Sikels were not allowed to live in the Greek cities”23. Again, this may well be an idea that derives as much from modern imperial viewpoints in which intermarriage or similar acknowledged relationships between Europeans and the peoples of the countries they dominated was socially unacceptable – although, significantly, only in nineteenth and twentieth centuries, not the eighteenth – as it does to any ancient evidence24: although groups such as the Killyrioi at Syracuse may well be interpreted as a Sikel slave class since it is difficult to see where else such a large body of slaves could have come from, it is nevertheless the case that they are nowhere named as such and it is possible that the Killyrioi had other – or additional – membership.

  • 25 Morel, 1984, p. 124; see also the volume of articles for the Australian congress of 1985, Greek Col (...)

15Now, however, the concepts of intermarriage, co-residence and relationships with indigenous populations other than slavery are not so unpalatable and have been widely accepted. Progress in this area was of course already well underway when Morel made his observations, and indeed he identified “Relations between Greeks and the Italian natives” as a major area of future and current investigation25. It must be admitted that the detection of an indigenous element in the populations of Greek cities is problematic: in this respect earlier commentators were making their claims with some justification, since it was, and remains, extremely difficult to identify elements of the archaeological record which are of indigenous derivation and for which the best explanation is indigenous residents without resorting to a version of the old and discredited “pots equal people” argument. Instead, the archaeological evidence from Greek sites appears overwhelmingly Greek, to the point where – at least as far as material culture was concerned – any significant indigenous element which might have existed in the population is obscured through subscription to a prevailing Greek environment. Given that much of the discussion and attempts to identify “natives” have revolved around burial practices, this is perhaps not altogether surprising and need not preclude cohabitation between Greeks and Sikels: the combination of the overall coherence of burial systems and the fact that they do not replicate those of the supposed founding city might suggest that they were cultural constructions which were deliberately established as appropriate and peculiar to an individual state and which did not tolerate much deviation on the part of a population expected to subscribe to them, whatever the origins of that population.

  • 26 See, for example, Malkin, 2002 and Antonaccio, 2005.

16Equally, however, the theoretical and methodological tools which we use to understand interactions between the different groups in Sicily and the West have changed also and become far more subtle in nature and implementation. We have moved from older notion of “Hellenisation”, in which ideas and influences travelled in one direction only – an approach which typifies many of the earlier studies mentioned here – to “acculturation”, the theoretical model which allows for a two-way process in which particular cultural features could be adopted by both groups; and, most recently, to concepts of the “middle ground” or “hybridity”26. These last seek to identify a “third space” in which different groups did not simply borrow from one another but actually constructed a common and mutually understood cultural environment. In terms of the modes of interaction and the contexts in which these phenomena might operate, the general acceptance of the likelihood of extensive co-residence and intermarriage between Greeks and indigenous populations in the West and elsewhere in scholarship of the late twentieth century is an essential element. At the same time, some of the methodological issues inherent in using material culture for the identification of different ethnic groups are highlighted.

  • 27 Buchner, 1975, p. 79.
  • 28 Lyons, 1996.
  • 29 Di Stefano, 2002.

17As already noted, the burial record has been particularly prominent in this respect, unsurprisingly since it is usually viewed as a particularly potent context for the declaration of identities, ethnic or otherwise. Much of the detection of “natives” in Greek cemeteries has been based on the identification of “Sikel” as opposed to “Greek” objects or features, an approach which at times can be rather more simplistic than the “middle ground or hybridity” (or indeed arguably Hellenisation and acculturation) since it assumes the straightforward maintenance of a particular cultural feature even where the other accompanying cultural features have changed. For burials in Sicily, two of the most obvious examples might be the fibulae which are sometimes found in graves and the use of contracted burial. The former, which are found more commonly in graves at the somewhat earlier Italian site of Pithekoussai, were argued to be evidence for intermarriage by Giorgio Buchner, who saw in them the maintenance of traditional dress by native wives, who were buried in graves which were otherwise “Greek “ in appearance27. The latter, contracted burial, has been viewed as a sign of individual Sikels who adhered to traditions of Sikel burial in the face of the method of extended burial which prevailed at Greek sites in Sicily. Both such interpretations have their disadvantages, not least because fibulae are not very common and contracted burials exceptional in Greek Sicilian cemeteries; more significantly, both are open to other equally (even more) compelling interpretations, such the cross-cultural attractions of such luxury objects as metal fibulae and the fact that contracted burial was equally traditional for many of the Greek groups purported to have been in Sicily, not least the Corinthians. The newer approaches of the middle ground and hybridity may prove more promising in untangling some of the knottier problems of interaction between Greeks and Sikels or other native populations. For example, the lack of obviously “mixed” burials at Greek sites is in sharp contrast to their relatively common appearance at Sikel sites, such as Morgantina where traditional Sikel chamber tombs existed side by side (and even contained) “Greek” burials in sarcophagi and the like28; or the extraordinary recent discovery at Castiglione near modern Ragusa of the “Guerriero” burial, an elaborate fossa tomb of highly unusual design, including a tumulus, six extra human skulls, Greek vases and, probably associated with the grave, the stone “Guerriero” sculpture bearing the name of one Pyrrinos29.

  • 30 See, for example, Iacovella , 1997.
  • 31 Meola, 1996‑8; Kustermann Graf, 2002; Gras et al., 2004.
  • 32 For example, Lanza and Orsi, 1990.

18These are just a few respects in which the study of ancient Sicily has changed in recent decades; numerous others could be mentioned, and indeed were by Morel. For example, Morel noticed large gaps between Greek cities: these are now starting to be populated with rural settlements, as recent field surveys conducted in Sicily identify new sites of all periods, including Greek; to this might be added the significance of landscape archaeology more generally and computer applications30. Pottery studies are now paying much more attention to locally produced wares, rather than concentrating on imports from Greece; we have recently seen important publications of some major long-term and large-scale projects, such as the cemeteries of Selinus and the archaic city of Megara Hyblaea31; and on-going moves to restudy and republish material from much older excavations, such as those of the prolific father of Sicilian archaeology Paolo Orsi, are of enormous value32. Yet it could also be observed that much of what has more recently come to the fore as major areas of research had already been raised at the time Morel was writing (and even before) and in this respect Morel was most percipient in his analysis and predictions regarding likely research paths and emphases. Twenty-five years on, ancient Sicily is still the focus of much exciting and innovative research, both current and future.

Haut de page


Antonaccio, C., 2005, Excavating Colonization, in H.Hurst and S. Owen (eds), Ancient Colonizations. Analogy, Similarity and Difference, London, p. 97‑113.

Buchner, g., 1975, Nuovi aspetti e problemi posti degli scavi di Pitecusa con particolari considerazioni sulle oreficerie de stile orientalizzante antico, in Contribution à l’ étude de la société eubéenes. Cahiers de Centre Jean Bérard II, Naples, p. 59‑86.

Buchner, G., 1979, Early orientalizing: aspects of the Euboean connection, in D. and F.S. Ridgway (eds), Italy before the Romans, New York, p. 129‑44.

Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.), 1990, Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Oxford.

Dinsmoor, W.B, 1950, The Architecture of Ancient Greece, 3rd ed., London.

dougherty, C., 1993, The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece, Oxford.

Di Stefano, G., 2002, Il Guerriero di Castiglione e l’abitato siculo, in F. Cordano and M. Di Salvatore (eds), Il Guerriero di Castiglione di Ragusa. Greci e Siculi nella Sicilia sud- orientale. Hesperia 16, p. 17‑49.

Dunbabin, T.J., 1948, The Western Greeks, Oxford.

Freeman, E.A., 1891‑94, A History of Sicily from the Earliest Times, vols I-IV, Oxford.

Graham, A.J., 1964, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Manchester.

Gras, M., Tréziny, H., Broise, H., 2004, Mégara Hyblaea 5. La ville archaïque, Rome.

Hall, J., 1997, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.

Hall, J. 2002, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago.

Iacovella, A., 1997, Etudes des proximités dans l’espace funéraire: le cas de la nécropole occidentale de Mégara Hyblaea, Archeologia e Calcolatori 8, p. 67‑102.

Kustermann graf, a. Selinunte. Necropoli di Manicalunga. Soveria Mannelli.

Littman, R.J., 1974, The Greek Experiment, London.

Lanza, M.T., and Orsi, P., 1990, Paolo Orsi. La necropoli di Passo Marinaro a Camarina. Campagne di scavo 1904‑1909. Monumenti Antichi Serie Miscellanei 4, Rome.

Lyons, C., 1996, Morgantina Studies V. The Archaic Cemeteries. Princeton.

Malkin, I., 1987, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden.

Malkin, I., 2002a, A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples”, in C. Lyons and J. Papadopoulos (eds), The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles, p. 151‑81.

Malkin, I., 2002b, Exploring the Concept of ‘Foundation’: A Visit to Megara Hyblaia, in V. Gorman and E. Robinson (eds), Oikistes. Studies in Constitutions, Colonies and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honour of A.J. Graham, Leiden, 195‑225.

Meola, E, 1996‑8, Necropoli di Selinunte I – Buffa. Palermo.

Morel, J.–P., 1984, Greek Colonization in Italy and the West (Problems of Evidence and Interpretation), in T. Hackens, N.D. Holloway and R. R. Holloway (eds), Crossroads of the Mediterranean. Archaeologia Transatlantica II, p. 123‑61.

Morris, I., 1996, The Absolute Chronology of the Greek Colonies in Sicily, Acta Archaeologica, 67, p. 51‑59.

Osborne, R., 1998, Early Greek colonization? The nature of Greek settlement in the West, in N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds), Archaic Greece. New Approaches and New Evidence, London, p. 251‑69.

Purcell, N., 1997, Review of G.R. Tsetskhladze and F. de Angelis (eds), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation. Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, Oxford 1994, Antiquity 71, p. 500‑2.

Ridgway, D., 1992, The First Western Greeks, Cambridge.

Shepherd, G.B., 1995, The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies, Acta Hyperborea 6, p. 51‑82.

Shepherd, G.B., 2000, Greeks bearing gifts: religious relationships between Sicily and Greece in the archaic period, in C. Smith and J. Serrati (eds), Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus. Edinburgh.

Shepherd, G.B., 2005, The Advance of the Greek: Greece, Great Britain and Archaeological Empires, in H. Hurst and S. Owen (eds), Ancient Colonizations. Analogy, Similarity and Difference, London, p. 23‑44.

Snodgrass, A.M., 1994, The Nature and Standing of the Early Western Colonies, in G. Tsetskhladze and F. de Angelis (eds), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Oxford, p. 1‑10.

Snodgrass, A.M., 2005, “Lesser Breeds”: The History of a False Analogy, in H. Hurst and S. Owen (eds), Ancient Colonizations. Analogy, Similarity and Difference, London, p. 45‑58.

Snodgrass, A.M., 2006, Archaeology and the Emergence of Greece, Edinburgh. tusa, S., 1982, Ricerche e scavi nelle necropoli selinuntine, ASAA LX, p. 189‑202. Woodhead, A.G., 1962, The Greeks in the West, London.

Haut de page


2 Morel, 1984.

3 See, for example, Purcell, 1997, p. 500; Osborne, 1998, p. 251‑2; Snodgrass, 2005, 45‑9.

4 Freeman, 1891‑4, I, p. 328.

5 Dunbabin, 1948, p. vii, 17.

6 Woodhead, 1962, p. 17.

7 Dinsmoor, 1950, p. 75.

8 Littman, 1974, 49. See further Shepherd, 2005.

9 Snodgrass, 2006, p. 292; Snodgrass 1994.

10 Graham, 1964.

11 Shepherd 1995, 2000, 2005.

12 Graham, 1964, p. 8.

13 Osborne, 1998.

14 See also Malkin, 2002b.

15 Morel, 1984, p. 124.

16 See for example, Tusa, 1982; further, Morris, 1996.

17 Meola, 1996‑8, I, p. 293‑6.

18 Morris, 1996.

19 Snodgrass, 1994, p. 2.

20 Malkin, 1987, p. 241‑60.

21 Hall, 1997 and 2002.

22 See Graham, 1962, p. 64 and passim.

23 Dunbabin, 1948, p. 47 and 192.

24 Snodgrass, 2005, p. 50 ff.

25 Morel, 1984, p. 124; see also the volume of articles for the Australian congress of 1985, Greek Colonists and Native Populations (Descoeudres, 1990); on literary evidence, Dougherty, 1993.

26 See, for example, Malkin, 2002 and Antonaccio, 2005.

27 Buchner, 1975, p. 79.

28 Lyons, 1996.

29 Di Stefano, 2002.

30 See, for example, Iacovella , 1997.

31 Meola, 1996‑8; Kustermann Graf, 2002; Gras et al., 2004.

32 For example, Lanza and Orsi, 1990.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Gillian Shepherd, « Greek “Colonisation” in Sicily and the West. Some Problems of Evidence and Interpretation Twenty-Five Years On »Pallas, 79 | 2009, 15-25.

Référence électronique

Gillian Shepherd, « Greek “Colonisation” in Sicily and the West. Some Problems of Evidence and Interpretation Twenty-Five Years On »Pallas [En ligne], 79 | 2009, mis en ligne le 01 mai 2009, consulté le 23 juillet 2024. URL : ; DOI :

Haut de page


Gillian Shepherd

Lecturer in Classical Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur


Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search