Wandering Greeks

by Garland, Robert

  The Return of the Samians. See Badian (1976, 289–94); Shipley (1987, 155–68); Habicht (1997, 30–35); and Poddighe (2011, 119–20). Iasus was merely one of several Greek communities that provided the Samian exiles with a refuge during their long years of banishment, as we know from the fact that many other individuals were honored by them (Shipley 1987, 161–63). Evidently their expulsion had caused deep offense throughout the Greek world. In fact even in Athens it had been controversial (Arist. Rhet. 2.1384b 29–36). Many Samians had taken refuge at Anaea, the mainland territory opposite the island, which was part of the Samian state. See Badian (1976, 289–94).

  APPENDIX A

  THE TERMINOLOGY OF DIASPORA

  The contemporary debate about migration is bedeviled by semantic imprecision. There are no clear distinctions, for instance, between the terms “asylum-seekers,” “illegal” (or “irregular”) immigrants, and “refugees.” The attempt to establish a classificatory system based on motivation is also flawed, not least because many factors are regularly in play. It is often impossible to differentiate between voluntary and forced migration, or between migration that has a predominantly political motive and that which is fueled primarily by economic considerations. It is also unclear to what extent a collective need is the motivating factor and to what extent individual aspiration or ambition is to the fore.

  The difficulties that beset the study of migration in antiquity are even greater, not least because Greek historians habitually fail to indicate whether individuals or groups who leave their homeland have been exiled or have fled voluntarily. This problem is compounded by the fact that the terminology for displacement and migration shows considerable overlap.1 There is no linguistic distinction between relocation and deportation, since Greek uses the portmanteau word metoikêsis to cover both conditions. Given the brevity of many of the accounts of mass movements in our sources, it is often impossible to determine whether such a movement was voluntary or forced.

  The word “refugee,” too, is problematic. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as someone who has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” in his or her country of origin “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (Article 1.A.2). As has been frequently observed, the Convention does not recognize as refugees those who are escaping from either civil war or famine. Many countries, therefore, have adopted a broader definition—one that includes those who flee from their homeland to escape any kind of violence or disturbance.

  It is, of course, impossible to define the refugee in antiquity in accordance with the (fairly) strict definition laid down by the Geneva Convention, since Greek does not possess any word that exactly conforms to the modern meaning of the word. Phugas probably comes closest, though this is also used both of a criminal who is escaping from justice and of a slave who is escaping from servitude. Even more problematically, it is used to describe both someone who has been banished in accordance with a judicial or political ruling and someone who has gone into voluntary exile.2 Likewise the abstract noun phugê means both “exile” (that is, enforced) and “flight” (that is, voluntary). To further complicate matters, we do not always know whether a person described as a phugas has been officially exiled or whether he has taken to his heels in advance of sentencing because he fears for his life. Many individuals who underwent atimia, which means “loss of civic rights,” were probably forced into exile, but there are likely to have been exceptions, particularly in the case of those too old or too sick to travel.3 It seems that the Greeks cared little as to whether a person fled or was exiled, or perhaps they surmised that their condition was in most respects identical. Further overlap exists between “evacuation,” meaning the voluntary withdrawal from a country or territory, and “deportation,” involuntary removal.4

  The Greek language has a number of words that correspond to our word “migrant.” Alêtês, literally “wanderer,” is used to describe a “beggar” by Homer and an “exile” by the tragedians. Apoikos, literally “one who is removed from or deprived of an oikos or oikia,” often means “emigrant,” whereas epoikos means “immigrant.” In practice, however, the terms are often interchangeable. In official Athenian terminology epoikos also means “a settler dispatched subsequently or sent as a reinforcement” (cf. Figueira 1997, 14–24). Apoikia, which is the collective noun for a group of emigrants, is usually translated “settlement” or, less appropriately, “colony,” though it can also describe any group of people living abroad. Later sources do not always distinguish between apoikos, ”settler,” and klêrouchos, literally “proprietor of a land allotment or klêros that is not in one’s native land.” The term emporion, which first occurs in Herodotus with reference to the Greek foundations along the north coast of the Black Sea, is also confusing. Though often translated as a “trading station” or “port of trade,” it is not always clear whether an emporion is distinguishable from an apoikia.5

  Another word for a migrant is metanastês, which often carries a pejorative meaning (for example, Hom. Il. 9.648). The abstract noun metanastasis, which occurs first in Thucydides, covers all types of displacement and migration. Isocrates, who wrote scathingly about the dangers posed by migration in the mid-fourth century, favored the portmanteau term planômenos, and its synonyms planês and planêtês, “traveler, wanderer” (for example, 5.96 and 120; 9.9). Apolis and apopolis describe “one who has no attachment to a polis,” either because that person has chosen to live outside the polis or because he has been either outlawed or banished. Hiketês, which is usually translated as “suppliant,” identifies a person who has ceased (at least temporarily) to be a refugee and is hoping to be granted the status of a legal immigrant, though the noun can also apply to someone who has committed homicide and is seeking purification on account of his crime.

  There are other problems of a conceptual nature. Ancient historians from George Grote (1794–1871) onward have referred to the establishment of settlements outside the Greek mainland from the eighth to the sixth century BCE as a “colonization movement,” which suggests that this phenomenon anticipated the now discredited feature of nineteenth-century European imperialism.6 But the communities that established themselves along the Mediterranean littoral and elsewhere were driven by the desire neither to disseminate hellenism nor (primarily at least) to enhance the political power of the cities from which they originated. Though it is no doubt true that some migrants were seeking a better life, others, as we have noted, were driven by such basic compulsions as poverty and hunger, and yet others by what may be broadly described as commercial interests.

  Political exile as it functioned in the Greek world has no exact modern equivalent. Both individuals and groups might expect to be exiled on a fairly regular basis to serve their enemies’ political agenda. As a result they constituted a far larger percentage of the refugee population in Greek antiquity than they do in the modern world. Though they should in theory be regarded as distinct and separate from those who were homeless as a result of natural disaster or war, once they left their homes many of them would have been indistinguishable from refugees. Whether or not they retained their status as political exiles would often have depended on whether they succeeded in making common cause with the enemies of the state that had expelled them. Finally, the word metoikos, which the Athenians used to describe free, noncitizen foreigners living within their territory, constituted a category without any exact modern equivalent. Though it is commonly equated with a modern resident alien, this conceals the fact that a significant percentage of metoikoi would have been short-term residents, since in Athens at least metic status legally defined those who were resident for (probably) only one month at least.

  It follows from all this that the study of the Greek diaspora is a highly inexact science. As often as not we can determine whether a person is a refugee, a fugitive, an exile, a deportee, and so on, only by the literary context, though the context, too,
often fails to provide adequate detail. In many instances, the best I have been able to do is to apply whichever English word seems most applicable to the Greek.

  1 For a useful discussion of the problems presented by the terminology of displacement, see Demand (1990, 6-11).

  2 The same semantic imprecision pertains to the Latin word fuga, which conveys both voluntary and enforced departure.

  3 MacDowell (1978, 28) renders atimia, “outlawry.” Rhodes (1993, 158 and 430-31) argues that in the classical period atimia became “tamed”—that is, involving “the loss of political and judicial rights but not outlawry” As Todd (1993, 142) points out, however, though an Athenian who was atimos could in theory continue to reside in Athens, the loss of his rights might have made his situation so intolerable that he would have chosen “voluntarily” to go into exile. Plu. Sol. 19.3 suggests that the atimoi whose rights were restored to them by Solon had been exiled as a result of crimes other than homicide. For further discussion see Hansen (1976, 75-82); Grasmuck (1978, 16-20); and Forsdyke (2005, 10-11).

  4 Learned Greeks were sometimes troubled by the ambiguities and imprecision of their language. Their debate as to whether “ostracism”—the process by which the Athenians expelled one of their number for ten years without confiscating his property—should or should not be classified as exile is an interesting case in point (earlier, chapter 8).

  5 For further discussion of the distinction between apoikia and emporion, see chapter 3.

  6 Edmund Burke coined the term “colonization” (from Latin, colonia, “a settlement or colony of citizens sent from Rome or the people composing it”) in 1770. George Grote first applied it to ancient history in 1849 (Purcell 1990, 56). Its unsuitability for Greek history has been much discussed in recent years. The first to question its applicability was Finley (1976, 174), who noted with regard to early Greek and Phoenician settlements, “Commercial domination, monopoly, even export drives occur and recur in literature, not because the evidence suggests these things but simply because we have acquired the unfortunate habit of callings the settlements “colonies.” Tsetskhladze (2006, xxiii-xxviii) points out that the debate often hinges upon what “colonization” actually “was.” This, as he goes on to remark, depends largely on an individual scholar’s academic training in the varied disciplines of ancient history, archaeology, anthropology, and the like.

  APPENDIX B

  CATALOGUE OF ATHENIAN CLERUCHIES AND COLONIES

  This appendix is greatly indebted to the work of Jones (1957, esp. 169–73); Graham (1964, 166–210); Brunt (1966, 71–92); Figueira (1991, Table 4 [pp. 217–25]); and Hansen and Nielsen (2004, Index 27 [pp. 1390–96]).

  Aegina

  In 431 the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and sent out settlers of their own to occupy the island. Thucydides variously refers to them as epoikoi, oikêtores, and apoikoi (2.27.1; cf. 7.57.2; 8.69.3). However, both Plutarch (Per. 34.1) and Strabo (Geog. 8.6.16 C375) claim that the Athenians divided the land into allotments—that is, converted it to a cleruchy. Scholars continue to dispute the status of the settlement.

  Amisus

  In the mid-430s Athenians from the Piraeus settled in Amisus, a polis on the southern shore of the Black Sea, and renamed it Piraeus. It had initially been founded by Milesians. (Theopompus, FGrH 115 F 389 = Str. Geog. 12.3.14 C547).

  Amphipolis

  In 476/5 the Athenians made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a settlement at an Edonian (that is, Thracian) site that they renamed Ennea Hodoi, or Nine Ways, close to the future site of Amphipolis. Legend had it that this was the first of nine misfortunes that they suffered before they finally established a viable settlement in the region (Sch. Aesch. 2.31; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F 191.10 = POxy 13.1610 fr. 6). In 465/4(?) the Athenians sent out “10,000 of their own citizens and whoever else wished to go” from among their allies in their second attempt, but were again thwarted by the Edonians (Thuc. 1.100.3, 4.102; cf. D.S. 11.70.5). They finally succeeded in 437/6, by founding a panhellenic apoikia, which they named Amphipolis, just south of Ennea Hodoi (Thuc. 4.102.3, 5.11.1).

  Andros

  In 450 the Athenians sent out 250 settlers, probably cleruchs, to Andros (inference based on reduced tribute paid to the Delian Confederacy in 449 and subsequent years, cf. IG I3 262.i.19; 263.iv.22 with Rhodes [1992, 60]).

  Astacus

  Probably in 435/4 the Athenians established an apoikia at Astacus, an unlocated settlement (perhaps not a polis) on the Propontic coast of Asia Minor (Memnon of Heraclea, FGrH 434 F 12.3; D.S. 12.34.5; Str. Geog. 12.4.2 C563; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 977).

  Brea

  In either ca. 445 or 426/5 the Athenians established an apoikia at Brea in Thrace with possibly 1,000 Athenian settlers. The decree establishing the colony (IG I3 46 = ML no. 49 = Fornara 100) is the subject of detailed investigation by Mattingly (1996, 117–46), who supports the lower date of 426/5. For the site, which has not been identified, see Asheri (1969, 337–40) and Mattingly (1996, 126). Its purpose, Mattingly suggests, was to serve as “a new strongpoint in this vulnerable area” (p. 128). Plu. Per. 11.5 contains a possible reference to the local people as “Bisaltae.” Nothing is known of the history of Brea, but the settlement was probably short-lived.

  Carystus

  In 453/2 or 452/1 the Athenians sent out 250 cleruchs to Carystus, a polis in Euboea (inference based on reduced tribute paid to the Delian Confederacy, cf. IG I3 259, ii.16; 262, i.23; 263 iv.26 with Rhodes [1992, 60]). See Figueira (1991, 225 note y) for further evidence of the existence of a cleruchy.

  Chalcis

  In 506 the Athenians compelled the so-called hippobotai (horse-breeders—that is, the very wealthy) of Chalcis, a polis in Euboea, to hand over their land to 4,000 of their cleruchs, after they had made an abortive attack on Athens in alliance with the Boeotians and Peloponnesians (Hdt. 5.77.2; 6.100.1; Plu. Per. 23.2). The number is probably exaggerated. Aelian (VH 6.1) puts the figure at 2,000. In 490 the cleruchs withdrew to Oropus when the Persians invaded Euboea. It is not clear whether they returned to Chalcis after the battle of Marathon (Hdt. 6.100–101).

  Colophon

  In 447/6 the Athenians sent non-Athenian oikistai to Colophon, a polis in Ionia (IG I3 37.41–2; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 1078).

  Eion

  In 476/5 the Athenian general Cimon seized Eion and “handed it over to the Athenians for occupation” (Plu. Cim. 7.3, 8.2).

  Elaious

  Elaious, a polis in the Thracian Chersonese, was probably settled by the Athenians in the sixth century. It was certainly in their control in the fifth century (Hdt. 6.140.1; cf. Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 906).

  ?Eretria

  A fragmentary inscription dated 446/5 or 424/3 may have included provisions for the establishment of an apoikia at Eretria on Euboea, following the quelling of a revolt (IG I3 39 = Fornara 102).

  Euboea

  In 453/2 the Athenian general Tolmides established a cleruchy at an unknown site in Euboea for 1,000 citizens (D.S. 11.88.3; Paus. 1.27.5).

  Histiaea

  In 446 the Athenians deported the inhabitants of Histiaea, a polis in Euboea, to Macedonia and occupied it as an apoikia (Thuc. 1.114.3; IG I3 41; Plu. Per. 23.2). Theopompus (FGrH 115 F 387) puts the number of Athenian settlers at 2,000; Diodorus Siculus (12.22.2) at 1,000. A portion of the original population remained in the territory with its own dikastêrion (lawcourt) (Koch 1991, 181–83, 192–93; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 656–67).

  Lemnos and ?imbros

  Miltiades the Younger subdued Lemnos and “handed over the island to the Athenians,” presumably so that they could send out settlers (Hdt. 6.136.2). Very likely the Athenians settled the neighboring island of Imbros as well. For the possible establishment of an Athenian cleruchy on Lemnos and Imbros in ca. 449 see Figueira (1991, appendix B).

  Lesbos

  In 427, after crushing the Mytilenean Revolt, the Athenians took control of the entire island of Lesbos, except for Methymna, its second most powerful city, which was de
mocratic and had not revolted. They then divided the land into 3,000 lots and sent out 2,700 cleruchs, reserving 300 lots for the gods (Thuc. 3.50.2). Thucydides does not mention the cleruchs participating in any future military action that took place on the island. It is therefore likely that they were withdrawn as soon as they were no longer needed to keep the islanders in check. Quinn (1981, ch. 3, n. 58, citing P. A. Brunt, Ancient Society and Institutions, ed. E. Badian [Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1966] 81–84) is of the opinion that the cleruchs left “some time before 424.” This view is endorsed by Mattingly (1996, 136), who suggests that the decision to recall the cleruchs may have been forced upon Athens by a manpower crisis consequent upon a fresh outbreak of plague. Cf. also IG I3 66: treaty between Athens and Mytilene dated ca. 427/6, indicating that a measure of independence had by now been restored to Lesbos.