e pluribus unum: the multiplicity of models

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


Current practices in the study of Greek “colonisation” are characterised by polarisa-tion. This can be seen in two different areas: in national and linguistic scholarly traditions, and in disciplinary approaches. The result is often a dialogue of the deaf, in which these differences pull at the subject matter in com-peting but artificial ways. This paper argues for the development of a coordinated approach, involving common methodologies and theo-ries that transcend any single tradition or dis-cipline. This is increasingly being done in North American cultural contact studies, and it is something that can be applied to antiq-uity. In doing so, we would thus respond to repeated appeals by some scholars of Greek “colonisation” for an infusion of thinking from comparative frontier history. This paper concludes by putting its money where its mouth is by introducing a new theoretical model to explain the physical development of Archaic Greek cities in Italy that seeks to bridge the current polarisation.

This paper addresses the usually very dif-ferent theoretical and methodological positions used to interpret the earliest cultural encoun-ters in “Italy” in the ninth to early seventh cen-turies BC. It seeks to encourage dialogue, and my title embodies how I intend to contribute to that goal. The Latin phrase “E pluribus unum” (or “Out of many, one”) is one that has been used in various ancient and modern contexts

on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. With this phrase I have a twofold purpose in mind: to establish a bridge between the various interpre-tative models that have emerged out of both the Old and New Worlds, and to suggest that, out of this multiplicity of models, we should work towards a coordinated approach that goes beyond any single discipline or scholarly tradi-tion, as is increasingly being done in New World culture contact studies. To make this argument, I will divide my paper into two parts, saying something first about current practices and conceptualisations regarding method and theory, and how evolution out of them is abso-lutely required to move ahead, and then mak-ing some suggestions as to how we might pro-ceed in the future.

I.

I begin with some observations on current practices and conceptualisations. In my view, one word still best describes the overall state of play: polarisation. Polarisation exists at two levels. It is evident at the level of interpretation, as in, for example, the debates between Italian and Dutch scholars in respect of the develop-ment of southern Italy in the ninth to seventh centuries BC. The debate continues in the recent series of articles published in Ancient West and East, where our distinguished col-leagues Emanuele Greco and Douwe Yntema repeat pretty much what they have said over the

E pluribus unum: The Multiplicity of ModelsFranco De Angelis

Book 1.indb 97 17/03/16 10:01

98 franco de angelis

1 Greco, ‘On the Origin of the Western Greek Poleis’ and Yntema, ‘Archaeology and the Origo Myths of the Greek Apoikiai’.2 De Angelis, ‘Re-assessing the Earliest Social and Eco-nomic Developments’, p. 22 n. 5.

3 Godin, We are all weird, pp. 84-85.4 Gras, ‘Fra storia greca e storia dei Greci’, p. 30.

last dozen years.1 To summarise their basic positions, the former favours a classical archae-ological Greek approach, and the latter a pre-historic native approach, which also rejects the ancient Greek literary tradition as being com-pletely invented history. Yntema sees no Greek superiority, and Greco argues for the restora-tion of the Greeks’ role. Polarisation also exists at this second level. As I have remarked else-where, what seems to be at the root of this debate is an adherence to a particular set of dis-ciplines, theories, and methods to the detri-ment of others.2 This is what makes under-standable the repeated restatement of previously aired views and positions by these two scholars.

But let us step back and ask ourselves what is at stake for our understanding of culture con-tact in “Italy” in the ninth to early seventh cen-turies BC, if we continue proceeding in this way. Both sides in this debate have made very valuable contributions, and that is beyond doubt and should be recognised. But I have serious reservations that this kind of back and forth pendulum-swinging is the way forward. What this debate says to me is that parts of dif-ferent theoretical and methodological perspec-tives are useful in our understanding of the past, but no one perspective on its own is so completely useful to the detriment of others. There is no doubting, to put it another way, that, say, post-colonialism and the Middle Ground have made valuable contributions in the last two decades. There is no doubting that the study of prehistoric Italic archaeology has also made valuable contributions. And there is no doubting that study of classical Greek

archaeology and texts has also made important contributions. But none of these and other con-tributions can, however, represent a complete view of the past on its own and explain every-thing at one fell swoop. Instead, these contribu-tions need to be brought all together into a sin-gle coordinated approach, one that transcends any single national or linguistic tradition.

Otherwise we are trapped in what Seth Godin, the media and marketing theorist, has recently dubbed the “Ism Schism”:3

The easiest way to make noise within a com-munity is to divide the tribe. Modernism, clas-sicism, realism, impressionism – dividing things into schools of thought, or even warring camps – makes it easy to create tension and thus attention…. If members of a tribe encour-age schisms and cheers on the battles, is it any wonder that it’s hard to create forward motion? When we’re not in sync, power is dissipated.

This schism has no doubt had a detrimen-tal effect on the advancement of knowledge in competing but artificial ways whatever the issue or field of study. A symphony of the deaf has resulted.

This polarisation of methods and theories is also shaped and distorted by the richness of the data for protohistoric Italy. At a practical level, as Michel Gras has noted, we need to be courageous to study this period of the Mediter-ranean, as it is extremely challenging to keep abreast of the latest developments for the Etrus-cans, Sardinians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and so on.4 Alessandro Guidi’s perceptive observation that developments in the archaeology of later Italian prehistory have not impacted most

Book 1.indb 98 17/03/16 10:01

e pluribus unum: the multiplicity of models 99

5 Guidi, ‘The Emergence of the State’, p. 140.6 Ridgway, ‘Euboeans and Others along the Tyrrhenian Seaboard’, p. 28.7 Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery, pp. 480-481.8 Greco, ‘On the Origin of the Western Greek Poleis’, p. 236.

9 Lombardo, ‘Tavola rotonda finale’.10 Lepore, ‘Per una fenomenologia storica’ and Finley, ‘Il dibattito’.11 Ceserani, Italy’s Lost Greece.12 De Angelis, ‘Colonies and Colonization’, p. 57.

foreign scholarship is as true today as it was then.5 Alas, the late David Ridgway had said as much in the intervening years.6 Protohistorians usually give the Greek material more attention than classicists give the pre- and protohistoric material. The legacy of the “Greek Miracle” remains alive. A recent example of the problem is how the second, 2008 edition of the late Nicolas Coldstream’s magnum opus on Greek Geometric pottery makes no mention of the revolution in radiocarbon and dendrochrono-logical dating emerging north of the Alps.7 The polarisation of methods and theories discussed earlier is certainly not helped by the other parallel universe that we call Italian prehistory, a problem which is part of the highly parcelled up and hence specialized intellectual landscape that characterises the study of the ancient Med-iterranean. Nevertheless, this problem too has to be overcome, if we are get ourselves out of the present predicament.

II.

What is to be done? Here I would like to make two suggestions on how to proceed in the future.

My first suggestion has already been pro-posed by other scholars, namely to treat our subject from the general perspective of frontier studies. Emanuele Greco recently made this same suggestion in his article in Ancient West and East8; Mario Lombardo made it at the Taranto conference Confini e frontiera nella

grecità d’Occidente in 1999,9 and of course Ettore Lepore and Moses Finley made it first at another Taranto conference back in 1968.10 That some scholars keep on saying, as time goes by, that frontier history is the best methodolog-ical tool to study our subject can only mean that it has not become standard practice. If Gio-vanna Ceserani’s recent book on the history of scholarship on Magna Graecia is anything to go by, Ettore Lepore is not even mentioned in it.11 Such is his legacy in this area! As someone who was born and brought up in North Amer-ica, it seems natural to me too to suggest fron-tier history as the theoretical and methodologi-cal way forward.

To adopt a frontier history framework, however, requires a revolution in our scholarly thinking and structures, as it currently hap-pening in North America. Otherwise we are back to square one, and like Sisyphus we roll the theoretical and methodological stone up the hill only to have it roll down time after time. In other words, hybridisation needs to occur to create a third field, which is no longer Greek archaeology and history tout court and no longer Italic archaeology and history tout court. Elements of all these approaches are surely needed to respond properly to the cultural con-junction that occurred in ancient Italy. In my chapter to The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies, I called for the development of a con-tact archaeology as one of the future directions that could be taken in the study of ancient Greek “colonisation”.12 I am even more con-vinced of this need, after reading Albert Nijboer

Book 1.indb 99 17/03/16 10:01


13 Nijboer, ‘Teleology and Colonisation’, pp. 294, 302-303.14 Cf. also already Gras, ‘Donner du sens à l’objet’. 15 Murray, ‘The Archaeology of Contact’, pp. 1-2; cf. already Thompson, Pioneer Colonization.

16 Regan, Unsettling the Settler Within.17 Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed, p. xxi.

contribution to that group of articles published in the journal Ancient West and East that I have already mentioned.13 He too argues for the need to combine prehistoric, protohistoric, and clas-sical archaeology into the same approach, and for the independent study and dating of the material of each group taking part in any con-tact situation.14

We would not be reinventing the wheel in doing so, since the same sorts of methodologi-cal and theoretical challenges that we face in the study of Iron Age Italy are also faced by scholars working on modern frontiers. As Tim Murray, an Australian archaeologist, has recently noted, North America has been a bat-tleground for these issues in the last genera-tion.15 And in his recently edited collection of essays, he has taken the initiative in applying the theories and methods developed in that continent to other modern frontiers. People are not really fighting so much over methods and theories in North America; they have devel-oped, and continue to develop, historical archaeology, which is now being exported around the world to study modern historical frontiers elsewhere. For the prize is a better interpretation of the past, which provides all sides with a firmer place in history and thereby with a stronger claim to North America’s land, sea, and natural resources.

As in North America, we will all have to divest ourselves from our respective disciplines and national scholarly traditions in order to achieve this goal. In Canada, which can well be described as one of today’s modern laboratories for understanding cultural contact, the discus-sion is more and more turning to a “reality

check” by facing up to the cold hard facts of the brutal realities of the cultural encounter and its legacies of the last two centuries. In Canada, this period of unsettling is seen as necessary before any advances can be made, and it has been modelled on the truth and reconciliation commissions held in post-Apartheid South Africa.16 Of course, although we are studying cultural encounters that happened 2,500 to 3,000 years ago in the Central Mediterranean, passions and opinions similarly run high. Every side wants to have its voice heard and its evi-dence considered. We will do much to avoid speaking in oppositional terms of native Ital-ians versus immigrant Greeks and of assigning the status of actors versus spectators to one or the other in the making of pre-Roman Italy, if we also speak of “spect-actors” – to use the term coined by the late Brazilian playwright Augusto Boal.17 Spect-actors participate as both specta-tors and actors and work together at the same time to create interactive and socially trans-formative theatre. This opens the door to a two-way historical process, hence to a deeper and more complex understanding of the cultural development of pre-Roman Italy. In other words, sometimes the side we support watches, at other times it is the one being watched, and sometimes it is both at the same time.

But why should we unsettle the core of our respective foundations? Why is it worth doing so? I can suggest two reasons. The first is obvi-ous: we will get more complex interpretations of the past. The second reason takes us outside our field per se to the wider world of cultural contact studies. In dealing with Italy in the Iron Age, we are studying what people outside our

Book 1.indb 100 17/03/16 10:01


18 Lombardo, ‘Da apoikiai a metropoleis’.19 Mertens, Città e monumenti dei Greci d’Occidente.20 Gras, ‘Périples culturels’; De Angelis, Megara Hyblaia and Selinous; Osborne and Cunliffe, Mediterranean Urban-ization 800-600 BC.

21 Diamond and Robinson, Natural Experiments of His-tory, p. 7.

field would generally regard as one of the most important cultural encounters in world history. Relating our field to wider issues will only do us good, by showing the rest of the world that we have something to contribute in terms of data, methods, and theories that will certainly be of interest to them. As migration and diaspora studies mirroring current global realities con-tinue to become the central concerns of the world in the 21st century, we want to make sure that we can contribute something meaningful to them, instead of getting left behind.

My second suggestion is that such a broad-ening of horizons needs to move in step with the development of methods and theories needed to explain historical phenomena from ancient frontiers. In doing so, we seek to put into practice what I am preaching. To illustrate this, the focus will be put on the theme of the early development of the Greek cities of south-ern Italy and Sicily, as requested by the original conference organizers, now the editors of this volume. I will not in the first instance decide to use, say, a classical archaeological approach or to work within the Middle Ground framework to address this theme, since that would prese-lect the questions asked and data used and pro-duce a narrower historical account. Instead, I will seek to explain the physical development of Western Greek cities using a model that has never been previously used, in order to show that there is more to the arsenal of possible the-ory and method than envisaged by the polari-sation that currently dominates.

The basic pattern of this physical develop-ment has been made once and for all crystal

clear thanks to the work of Mario Lombardo and his collaborators in discussing “sub- colonisation”.18 In most cases this occurred between the third and fourth generations after the original foundations. Various causes con-nected with the growth of the oikos and the community more generally have been advanced to explain this pattern. I would like to build on these already established results by making two other points.

The first is that this phenomenon of “sub-colonisation” highlights the perspective of and effects on the ancient Greek settler. But this is only one dimension of a multilateral phenom-enon. Given the Archaic Mediterranean’s con-nectivity, it goes without saying that similar developments occurred across wider areas, Greek and non-Greek. Let us remember that when the Greek cities of Italy witnessed build-ing booms in the mid-seventh century and again in the mid-sixth century,19 similar booms were occurring at the same time in, say, Etruria, Rome, Carthage, and wherever else was con-nected to this multilateral world.20 These are important parallel developments that have often been more described than explained. This leads me to my second point.

Early city development in North American and other modern frontiers is becoming better and better known. Thanks to the comparative perspective taken in the most recent of this work, as in for instance the volume edited by the Jared Diamond and his colleague James Robin-son,21 there is little doubt that cities in dynamic frontier situations operate according to similar patterns and cycles that respect little cultural

Book 1.indb 101 17/03/16 10:01


22 Rostow, ‘The Take-off into Self-sustained Growth’; The Stages of Economic Growth.23 See his comments made in Rostow, The Stages of Eco-nomic Growth, pp. xxiii, 4-6.

24 De Angelis 2012a-b.

and ethnic lines. What these modern case stud-ies tell us is that city development must never be considered in isolation, as is still commonly done in the study of ancient Mediterranean urbanism. Connectivity must be envisaged, and the parallel developments caused by this con-nectivity explained with larger more encom-passing interpretative frameworks that tran-scend any single ethnic or disciplinary focus. Economic take-off theory provides one such framework. Although Walt Rostow, the father economic take-off theory,22 sought to explain the development of the Industrial Revolution, his focus did not exclude the possibility that such economic development could have, muta-tis mutandis, also occurred in earlier historical periods, right from the beginning of time.23

In two recent studies, I have fully made this argument and shown how economic take-off theory contributes two notable insights relevant to understanding this important transition between the third and fourth genera-tions that we see in the early development of Western Greek cities.24 Economic take-off theory explains both the timing and nature of these developments. It is only now, with the insights made visible by this theoretical model, that we should turn to the question of who the actors, spectators, and “spect-actors” were in the ninth to early seventh centuries BC, and how their historical trajectories and identities were affected by these economic take-offs. In our debates we should bear these larger ques-tions and processes in mind, instead of taking first a particular ethnocultural side or adopting

a particular archaeo-historical approach. Both sides of the coin, so to speak, must be read in unison. A more robust approach that is not restricted to one discipline or to one cultural group is what is required to understand prop-erly and fully the historical development of Early Iron Age Italy.

To conclude, what I am suggesting with this example and in my paper more generally is that we must approach the cultural encounters in Iron Age “Italy” not by taking a priori a par-ticular theory and method as the be-all and end-all to interpreting our subject, as has so often been, and still is today being, done. If we continue to act in this way, we will be like Sisy-phus rolling the stone up the hill only to have it roll down again. Instead, we need to draw on the present multiplicity of models to forge ahead with the creation of a proper contact his-tory which uses all forms of evidence and takes every cultural side into the equation, or, put another way, to give theoretical and methodo-logical life to the frontier history framework that we have often talked about as being the right one for our subject. Once we have done so, we can then turn to applying whatever inter-pretative models we like, testing their validity against our empirical base. I know firsthand that this is a practicable suggestion. This is where the subject should be going in my view; others who work on frontiers in modern cul-ture contact zones would readily agree. It now remains to be seen whether scholars of Iron Age Italy will seize the opportunity and follow suit.

Book 1.indb 102 17/03/16 10:01


Bibliography

Boal, Augusto, Theatre of the Oppressed. 3rd ed. Trans. C.A. McBride and M.-O. Leal McBride (London: Pluto Press, 2000).

Ceserani, Giovanna, Italy’s Lost Greece: Magna Grae-cia and the Making of Modern Archaeology (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Coldstream, J. Nicolas, Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles. 2nd ed. (Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press, 2008).

De Angelis, Franco, Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The Development of Two Greek City-states in Ar-chaic Sicily. Oxford University School of Archaeol-ogy Monograph, no. 57 (Oxford: Oxford Universi-ty Press, 2003).

De Angelis, Franco, ‘Colonies and Colonization’ in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies, ed. by G. Boys-Stones, B. Graziosi, and P. Vasunia (Ox-ford: Oxford University Press 2009), pp. 48-64.

De Angelis, Franco, ‘Re-assessing the Earliest Social and Economic Developments in Greek Sicily.’ Mit-teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 116 (2010), 21-53.

De Angelis, Franco, ‘Art and Power in Archaic Greek Sicily: Investigating the Economic Substratum’, in Arte – Potere: forme artistiche, istituzioni, paradig-mi interpretativi. Atti del Convegno di studio tenuto a Pisa Scuola Normale Superiore, 25-27 Novembre 2010, ed. by M. Castiglione and A. Poggio (Milan: LED, 2012a), pp. 173-184.

De Angelis, Franco, ‘Teorizzando l’economie arcai-che della Sicilia greca,’ in Griechen in Übersee und der historische Raum, ed. by J. Bergemann (Rah-den: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2012b), pp. 27-28.

Diamond, Jared and James A. Robinson, eds. Natural Experiments of History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).

Finley, Moses I., ‘Il dibattito’, in La città e il suo terri-torio: atti del settimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 8-12 ottobre 1967, ed. by P. Roma-nelli (Naples: L’Arte Tipografica, 1968), p. 186.

Godin, Seth, We are all weird. The Myth of Mass and the End of Compliance (Brilliance Corporation, 2011).

Gras, Michel, ‘Fra storia greca e storia dei Greci’ Quaderni di Storia 51 (2000a), 227-231.

Gras, Michel, ‘Donner du sens à l’objet. Archéologie, technologie culturelle et anthropologie’ Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 55 (2000b), 601-614.

Gras, Michel, ‘Périples culturels entre Carthage, la Grèce et la Sicile au VIIIe siècle av. J.-C’, in Identités et cultures dans le monde méditerranéen antique en l’honneur de Francis Croissant, ed. by C. Müller and F. Prost (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002), pp. 183-198.

Greco, Emanuele, ‘On the Origin of the Western Greek Poleis’ Ancient West and East 10 (2011), 233-242.

Guidi, Alessandro, ‘The Emergence of the State in Central and Northern Italy’ Acta Archaeologica 69 (1998), 139-161.

Lepore, Ettore, ‘Per una fenomenologia storica del rapporto città-territorio in Magna Grecia’, in La città e il suo territorio: atti del settimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 8-12 ottobre 1967, ed. by P. Romanelli (Naples: L’Arte Tipografi-ca, 1968), pp. 29-66.

Lombardo, Mario, ‘Tavola rotonda finale’, in Confini e frontiera nella grecità d’Occidente. Atti del trenta-settesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 3-6 ottobre 1997, ed. by A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, (Taranto: Istituto per la Storia e l’Arche-ologia della Magna Grecia, 1999), pp. 743-749.

Lombardo, Mario, ‘Da apoikiai a metropoleis. Dal progetto al convegno’, in Colonie di colonie: le fon-dazioni sub-coloniali tra colonizzazione e colonial-ismo. Atti del convegno internazionale, Lecce, 22- 24 giugno 2006, ed. by M. Lombardo and F. Frisone (Galatina: Congedo Editore, 2009), pp. 17-30.

Mertens, Dieter, Città e monumenti dei Greci d’Occidente. Dalla colonizzazione alla crisi del V secolo a.C. (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2006).

Murray, Tim, ‘The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies’, in The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies, ed. by T. Murray (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 1-16.

Nijboer, Albert J., ‘Teleology and Colonisation in Antiquity and in Recent Times’ Ancient West and East 10 (2011), 281-307.

Osborne, Robin and Barry Cunliffe, eds. Mediterra-nean Urbanization 800-600 BC. Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 126 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Regan, Paulette, Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconcilia-tion in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010).

Ridgway, David, ‘Euboeans and Others along the Tyrrhenian Seaboard in the 8th Century’, in Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in

Book 1.indb 103 17/03/16 10:01


Honour of Brian Shefton, ed. by K. Lomas, Mne-mosyne Suppl. Vol. 246. (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 15-33.

Rostow, Walt W., ‘The Take-off into Self-sustained Growth’ The Economic Journal 66 (1956), 25-48.

Rostow, Walt W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. 3rd ed. (Cambridge: the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1990).

Thompson, Stephen I., Pioneer Colonization: A Cross-cultural View. Addison-Wesley Module in Anthro-pology no. 33 (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Pub-lishing, 1973).

Yntema, Douwe, ‘Archaeology and the Origo Myths of the Greek Apoikiai’ Ancient West and East 10 (2011), 243-266.

Book 1.indb 104 17/03/16 10:01

e pluribus unum: the multiplicity of models

Documents