Colonisation of the Mediterranean.

[Klingan]

The paper an also be found here in a word .doc.

 

If you're not interested in the introduction I suggest you skip down to the discussion. I hope that everyone will enjoy the reading!

 

Introduction, intention and objective

I have chosen to write this paper on the colonisation of the Mediterranean during antiquity. This is because I argue that this is a both important and interesting phases of the areas development. As the subject stretch over both a considerable area and time frame it is my intention and objective not to write a deeper analysis of the subject but to give the reader a basic view over the colonisations during this period. These will later in the paper be compared in a summery and in the very end in a conclusion for a closer look on the reasons behind the expansion and colonisation.

I will also attempt to redefine the word colonisation to fit the period, which I

[Rameses the Great]

Interesting though, the Phoenicians were merchants yet only got involved in wars if they felt their trade was being interrupted. Still, they never really had an organized army and it looks like they could have easily been destroyed by both Assyrian and Egyptian forces even at its pinacle.

[Klingan]

Interesting though, the Phoenicians were merchants yet only got involved in wars if they felt their trade was being interrupted. Still, they never really had an organized army and it looks like they could have easily been destroyed by both Assyrian and Egyptian forces even at its pinacle.

 

The forming of an alliance and an army was what in the end doomed them as the Assyrians then felt threatened to a certain degree.

[Kosmo]

Good work Klingon!

In regard to greek colonisation I have some comments:

-from both arheological digs or literary sources results that colonies did not start as trading points.

- The trade relations were probably expended by colonisation and not the other way around.

- greek colonisation was a part of the social change that resulted in the creation of polis. Areas that did not evolved to polis did not created colonies.

- the division of the land in equal shares does not mean that everybody received the same number of pieces of land. Something like loot distribution it's posible where leaders received several equal shares.

- the person(s) that led the colonisation were often aristocrats.

-the purpose of colonisation was to aquire arable land

-the colony was often started by the conquest of the native population and it's expelling or subjugation

[Klingan]

Good work Klingon!

In regard to greek colonisation I have some comments:

 

Thanks and yet again thanks for the comments! Some feedback is always great!

 

-from both arheological digs or literary sources results that colonies did not start as trading points.

 

An example of a trading point/ foreign trading district exist in Phoenician cities and there is one in Egypt as well that I cannot remember the name of. In Italy and Sicily it however went on to city founding very quickly. I should have mad that clearer.

 

- The trade relations were probably expended by colonisation and not the other way around.

 

Very much possible, but I believe that the increased trade led to colonies that then led to increased trade with time.

 

- greek colonisation was a part of the social change that resulted in the creation of polis. Areas that did not evolved to polis did not created colonies.

 

Note taken. The events most defiantly coincide. The question is again then, why?

 

- the division of the land in equal shares does not mean that everybody received the same number of pieces of land. Something like loot distribution it's posible where leaders received several equal shares.

 

It's probably true that some people were able to grab more land. It's more of a generalization that were mostly followed and focused on the Hippodamic theory.

 

- the person(s) that led the colonisation were often aristocrats.

 

true, but they were in no way aristocrats in the same way when the city was founded as back home. However all the founders of a successful colony, no matter of background, would most likely in time become a new aristocracy.

 

-the purpose of colonisation was to aquire arable land.

 

-the colony was often started by the conquest of the native population and it's expelling or subjugation

 

At some places, at some it wouldn't. It was however far more peaceful then the later European colonization. Peaceful examples are Cuma and Cyrene. (Of those I remember without opening my books)

 

Again thanks for your comments, all very welcome!

 

 

It would be great if someone would like to comment the language of the text too.

[Ursus]

Thanks for the article.

 

The language is fine. There may be a few typos here and there, but ones I make every day as a native speaker.

[Gaius Octavius]

Klingon, would you please stop apologizing for you English. If anyone has a problem, they will ask you. It's the matter that counts, and you do just fine.

 

Anyway, what is the 'Neo Assyrian Empire"?

[Kosmo]

An example of a trading point/ foreign trading district exist in Phoenician cities and there is one in Egypt as well that I cannot remember the name of. In Italy and Sicily it however went on to city founding very quickly. I should have mad that clearer.

 

Naucratis was highly atipical and I was not talking about phoenician colonies.

 

At some places, at some it wouldn't. It was however far more peaceful then the later European colonization. Peaceful examples are Cuma and Cyrene. (Of those I remember without opening my books)

 

It is hard for me to believe that locals were willing to give up their land to the newcomers, especially because it was usually a good harbour and seaside fertile plains. Because the colonists were looking for arable and other agricultural land the size of the territory of the polis (chora) had to be quite large. It's hard to know now where the borders of colonies were, but some indications were analysed.

The 3 greek colonies in Dobrogea (Histria, Tomis and Callatis) controlled the entire coast line and a proconsular decree enforcing the borders of Histria recognised the city authority over a vast area. Of course, the placenames mentioned in the decree are hard to put on a map today and this it's about the I C AD rather then Clasical period, but it's obvious that the prosperity of a greek colony depended always on the size and fertility of it's agricultural land.

I don't believe that this large fertile lands were uninhabitated or that the locals were willing to give such land grants, regardless of later stories and myths. The land was taken and this involved force, at least as a show of force.

 

Your english it's very good. I had no problem enjoying your work.

[Klingan]

Klingon, would you please stop apologizing for you English. If anyone has a problem, they will ask you. It's the matter that counts, and you do just fine.

 

Anyway, what is the 'Neo Assyrian Empire"?

 

 

Actually it more of in search of what I could do better. I try to improve myself as I go and a good way to do that is to ask what could be better

 

The Neo Assyrian Empire is the Assyrian Empire that took power in the Mesopotamian area in the 10th-9th century somewhere. They had power for a few hundred years until they were defeated by peoples from the easy. I don't remember it all in detail, the history of Mesopotamia is a total mess!

 

Kosmo;

 

Naucratis was highly atipical and I was not talking about phoenician colonies.

 

Very true about Nauctatis (I believe we're thinking about the same city, can't be anythign else). What I meant about the phoenician cities was that Greeks in early phases of the colonization had own trading posts in some of the phoenician cities. (According to one of my sources, (Martin 2000 I believe) I can't really say anything more about it since I just don't know. I'd like to take a closer look at it when I've got time thought.

[AEGYPTUS]

Brilliant article Klingan. Very informative I learned alot! I found the part on the Phonecians very interesting. As I did not know much about them other than having founded Carthage. :D

Edited January 24, 2008 by AEGYPTUS

[Klingan]

Brilliant article Klingan. Very informative I learned alot! I found the part on the Phonecians very interesting. As I did not know much about them other than having founded Carthage. :D

 

 

Thanks a lot!

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I'm sorry but I find your paper on colonization lacking in many ways. But maybe it is because I spent a lot of time on the subject, mainly on the greek colonization. Also I recognize the fact that your paper had to stay inside some boundaries set upon you by your teachers and that you were also limited by your sources and time yet I'd like to give you some more elements. But before I go any further I must ask you forgiveness if my words seems too harsh to you for they are not intended to be so, they might look like it because my command of the english language is like yours the one of a non-native english speaker and I thus have some troubles with nuances. So don't think I'm attacking you or denigrating you for it is absolutely not my purpose, I only want to give you more informations.

 

I wont speak here of mycenaean colonization ( of which traces were found in Italy on Pythecusa for example ) for it is outside the timescope of your work. But about the phoenicians I note you did not mention a patern that appears quite often in the phoenician colonies which is the principle of founding a colony on an island just next to the coast, like the city of Tyr was in their homeland. when they could not find such a configuration of land they also used promontaries. These served as trading post and secure bases from which to go further inland to trade. A good port was also essential of course and one must indeed say that they did choose well. At first the Greeks of the archaic period seems to have done the same, Syracuse being one good example ( with the island Orthigia serving as first base for the colony ). They could also build colonies on the continent itself : Cyrene being one early example.

 

The Greeks of the archaic wave did indeed spread wide and far but they did so in two parts : the first was the one mainly motivated by demographic pressure and the economic opportunities. They were often the colonies established the furthest from Greece itself : in Italy the first colony was the most northernmost, Emporium and Massalia were also from this period. We can see that while Delphi played an important role on were the settlers went ( as examplified by the story of Bathos of Cyrene, the only colony founder to become a king, all the others colonies adopting at first a larger directing comitee, often oligarchic at first, later more democratic ) we see areas of influence get drawn on the map. Ionian greeks were those who went the further, Corinth was an important player that often worked closer to home, the doric populations concentrated in Sicily and southern Italy, Athens will later play a great role in the Black Sea area.

 

The second motivation of the colonization movement of the archaic period was the persian pressure on the cities of Asia Minor and more generaly the pressure of (civil) war. The story of the Phoceans is the best known ( founding emporion and massalia early on, then founding alalia in corsica, fleeing there when the persians comes, becoming real pirates, winning a pyrric battle against an etrusco-carthaginian fleet, re-interpreting an oracle and founding Velia, cf. Herodotus. note that Velia could not be an agricultural fondation due to a lack of good farming land ) but we know that other migrations and foundations took place at that time. Other groups of oikists included peoples defeated in war, eventually given as slave to Delphi who then sent them to found a city ( but this matter is currently debated ) or looser in civic conflicts. But Alalia is a clear marker after which their is no more colonization in the west.

 

Athens during this period is not very active because she had large lands to cultivate in Greece proper, an enormous amount of cultivable lands by greek standards. Yet late in the archaic period and early in the classical period they do found colonies of a specific kind : the clerouchia. That is citizens keeping their rights but living inside a foreign community on a permanent basis on State's instructions. Miltiades used them in the 6th century according to Herodotus.

 

The in the 5th century we see other city sponsored attempts at colonies and also an oddity, the colony of Thourioi, an athenian sponsored pan-hellenic attempt whose objective was to give athens a base in Sicily, even if it did not happen.

 

Athens also create more colonies in the north, especially on the road to the black sea, in order to control the grain trade vital for it's population but also to gain control of mines and, more importantly, wood for it's fleet.

 

A topic you do not look a lot into is the relationship between a colony and it's mother city. Yet they are interesting to look at for they show many realities and foundation myths and their variations provide a good insight on those relations.

 

After the more economic foundations of the 4th century will come a whole new generation of colonies, those of the hellenistic period. They are done in many ways, are sometime the giving of a greek cloak to an indigenous city, a mass population migration ordered by hellenistic kings, merging of cities, renaming of cities, military colonies to guarison an area, ... and I think they are worth a mention in your essay.

 

Just a note on the relations with indigenous populations : they could vary a lot and we have various foundations tales that sound quite pacific : Cyrene and Massalia comes to mind, Carthage is also a good example.

 

About the roman colonization now, you are right to point to it's military function and later to it's civilisating function. Yet I can't follow you on some points on which you seems mistaken. For example they are colonies founded outside of Italy before Caesar : beside the roman towns of southern Gaul ( transalpine gaul ) you had attempts at colonies in Africa at the time of Marius, and earlier the Gracchi wanted to use african land too.

 

It's late ( more than 2h30 in the morning ) and I'm tired, I also don't have all my books under hand but I think I gave you here some indications that might be worth checking. I'd suggest you to find Descoeuvre ( ? ) book as well as Boardman's "the greek overseas" to get a bit more insight of some aspects to make your essay better.

 

Hope I helped a bit !

[Julius Ratus]

Hey Klingan, your paper looks fascinating. Unfortunately I don't have time to read it here at work. I printed off a copy and hope to write more later.