doi: 10.2143/AWE.10.0.

2141818 AWE 10 (2011) 183-193

COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM:

A TYPOLOGICAL REAPPRAISAL
MICHAEL SOMMER

Abstract
Colonies, colonisation and, in particular, colonialism are concepts carrying heavy ideological
subtexts – yet they loom over the current debate about the dynamism of the Iron Age Medi-
terranean. Forty years after M.I. Finley’s ‘attempt at a typology’, this paper tries to thin out
the terminological jungle: by employing cross-cultural historical comparison, it demonstrates
how complex and manifold seemingly straightforward ideal types are; and that ‘colonies’ and
‘colonialism’ in the classical period of European imperialism were altogether different from
the settlements Greeks and Phoenicians established in their Mediterranean diasporas.

Intellectual Rigour: Logomachies?

All scholarship works with concepts, ideas. This holds true especially for the
humanities and again in particular for the historical disciplines which attempt at
explaining and understanding the past by applying paradigms and terminologies
derived from the present. Max Weber has taught us to view such concepts not as
reflections of a – however defined – historical ‘reality’, but as images of thought
(‘Gedankenbilder’): utopias, emerged from our minds, ‘ideal types’, how he calls
them.1 Ideal types are a tool, not the purpose of knowledge: theory serves historical
knowledge, not the other way round. By means of abstraction and generalisation,
the scholar creates the instruments of his investigation by himself.2
From the historian, Weber’s methodology demands a great deal of modesty,
intellectual self-discipline and rigour. Not only must he be aware that his conclu-
sions based on ideal types bear their expiry date in themselves, are subjective and
depend on a series of assumptions; he also needs to distinguish ideas from ideals:
the ideal types he constructs are not exemplary, neither positively nor negatively,
but explanatory; ideal types are indifferent to normative points of view.3 Who
1
Weber 1956a, 235: ‘In seiner begrifflichen Reinheit ist dieses Gedankenbild nirgends in der
Wirklichkeit empirisch vorfindbar, es ist eine Utopie, und für die historische Arbeit erwächst die
Aufgabe, in jedem einzelnen Falle festzustellen, wie nahe oder wie fern die Wirklichkeit jedem Ideal-
bilde steht […].’
2
Weber 1956a, 250.
3
Weber 1956a, 245: ‘Demgegenüber ist es aber eine elementare Pflicht der wissenschaftlichen
Selbstkontrolle und das einzige Mittel zur Verhütung von Erschleichungen, die logisch vergleichende
Beziehung der Wirklichkeit auf Idealtypen im logischen Sinne von der wertenden Beurteilung der

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 183 19/12/11 13:08

 184 M. SOMMER

leaves the ground of normative indifference, violates intellectual rigour: ‘Die Worte,
die man braucht, sind dann nicht Mittel wissenschaftlicher Analyse, sondern
politischen Werbens um die Stellungnahme der anderen. Sie sind nicht Pflug-
scharen zur Lockerung des Erdreichs des kontemplativen Denkens, sondern
Schwerter gegen die Gegner: Kampfmittel.’4
Weber’s appeal for intellectual rigour may sound somewhat old-fashioned in an
academic world soaked with post-modernist paradigms, but it should make us
aware for the pitfalls of analytical terminology. If concepts are loaded with norma-
tive assumptions – negative and positive – they are likely to prove difficult to oper-
ate in an analytical investigation. Terminological accuracy is hence the precondi-
tion for any serious academic debate.
Colony, colonisation, let alone colonialism are terms loaded with historical, if
not ideological weight; and around them and their applicability to processes of
expansion, settlement and conquest in the ancient Mediterranean has evolved a
vigorous discussion which has not always been led sine ira et studio. Especially in
the Anglo-Saxon world, which is only too aware of its own complex colonial past
(and no less of the patterns of neo-colonial dependency that characterise our pre-
sent), the debate as to whether and how ‘colonial’ (and, respectively, ‘post-colo-
nial’) paradigms should be applied to the study of the Greek – and, often ignored
– Phoenician overseas expansion. Whereas a book published a few years ago has
undertaken to reverse the perspective and view colonisation in the Iron Age Medi-
terranean through the eyes of the ‘colonised’ (i.e. the local populations of the areas
affected by overseas settlement),5 some scholars have suggested that ‘colonial’ ter-
minology be dropped altogether from the discussion.6 Still others have embraced
the jargon of ‘post-colonial’ studies, some very cautiously and for purely analytical
reasons,7 some more cheerfully and with considerable anti-colonial zeal.8
Classicists and archaeologists from outside the Anglo-Saxon world dealing with
the Iron Age (and indeed other periods of antiquity) find it difficult to understand

Wirklichkeit aus Idealen heraus scharf zu scheiden. Ein “Idealtypus” in unserem Sinne ist, wie noch
einmal wiederholt sein mag, etwas gegenüber der wertenden Beurteilung völlig Indifferentes, er hat
mir irgend einer anderen als einer rein logischen “Vollkommenheit” nichts zu tun.’
4
Weber 1956b, 325.
5
Hodos 2006; see also Hodos 2010.
6
Most notably Osborne 1998, 119–20; 2005; 2009; Purcell 2005, 134–35. See also Hall 2007,
93–94 (who calls the colonial terminology ‘misleading’); and Horden and Purcell 2000, 395–400
(who have a much wider scope and emphasise the ‘cosmopolitan’ character of the ‘Mediterranean
colony’, which has been, they criticise, often been represented as ‘monochrome’).
7
Most prominently Malkin 2004.
8
For instance Webster 1996; 1997; Webster and Cooper 1996; van Dommelen 1997; 1998;
2002; 2005; 2006.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 184 19/12/11 13:08

 COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM 185

why the debate about a period of Mediterranean history so remote is so charged

with political tension: in particular, the allegation of ‘colonialism’ against pioneer-
ing scholarship in the field seems exaggerated.9 Considering the current state of
debate, one might be tempted to follow R. Osborne and N. Purcell in abandoning
the ‘colonisation’ paradigm and emphasise aspects other than the relationship
between newcomers and locals: aspects such as the ‘Mediterranisation’ of elites, the
development of trans-Mediterranean networks and the adoption of certain com-
modities and consumption patterns, as archaeologists have done in recent years.10
In order to bring the debate about ancient ‘colonies’ back on track, refining
our analytical tools might be helpful. Terms like ‘colony’, ‘colonisation’ and ‘colo-
nialism’, as I understand them, are Weberian ideal types (and will hence be used
from here onwards without inverted commas): we apply them knowing that they
are our own constructs and were – though the word family comes from the Latin
colonia – never used by Greeks or Romans the way we use them. Therefore, we
need to ask a few rather simple questions: what is a colony? What is colonisation?
What is colonialism? The best way of breaking down a complex term to its various
meanings is a typology, and towards this M.I. Finley has pointed the way a gen-
eration ago.11

Colony
Essentially, a colony is a collectivity of people. However, Finley demonstrates how
manifold the seemingly straightforward concept actually is. He takes into account
a vast array of variables: resources, the labour force, demography and the socio-
political framework in which colonisation occurs. However, his study remains
indeed an attempt at a typology (albeit a very sophisticated one), as Finley focuses
on the variables rather than on classifying types of colonies. A true typology needs
to establish some sort of hierarchy, through which Finley’s parameters can be
ranked, resulting in a classification.12

9
Dunbabin 1948 and Boardman 1999 may have pursued a Greek perspective in their work; they
may have underestimated local elements in ‘colonial’ cultures; their language may seem outmoded;
their investigation may also have been implicitly guided by modern paradigms (the British Empire);
but the allegation of ‘colonialism’ seems far-fetched.
10
Networks: see the contributions in Malkin et al. 2009. Elites and patterns of consumption: see,
for instance, Kistler 1998; Matthäus 1999–2000; Malkin 2002; Niemeyer 2003a; Kistler and Ulf
2005; Lemos 2005. For an overview and discussion, see Ulf 2009.
11
Finley 1976.
12
For European colonial empires in general, see Geiss 1976; 1991; 1994; 2007; Reinhard 1983;
2008; Osterhammel 1997; 2009; Marx 2004. For the British Empire, see Ferguson 2004; for the
Spanish Empire, see Elliott 1990; Brown 2005.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 185 19/12/11 13:08

 186 M. SOMMER

Demography appears to be the most decisive variable: how many people are
involved in the establishment of colonies? Frequently, processes of colonial
expansion entail the transfer of substantial (sometimes: entire) populations.13
Overseas settlements in the Iron Age and in Hellenistic Asia and Egypt, Roman
coloniae, Spanish, French and English ‘plantations’ in the Americas and Australia
– they all depended on the influx of newcomers, who eventually outnumbered
the locals. Other colonies are founded and maintained by settlers who were still
numerous, but less numerous than the local populations (English, Dutch and
German settlers in Southern Rhodesia, South and South West Africa; Spanish
and Portuguese settlers in Latin America; the French Maghreb; Dutch Indies).
Still others involve the mobility of only a few civil servants deployed for the
administration of conquered territories (British India, European colonies in sub-
Saharan Africa).
Colonies established by few or some migrants tend to be peripheries of strong
political centres (‘empires’). Almost invariably, they are imperial colonies politically
depending on the motherland (British India, Africa; in principle, provinces of the
Persian, Roman, Ottoman, etc. empires). Colonies with substantial immigrant
populations are sometimes imperial (British and French North America, parts of
Spanish South America, Australia) sometimes non-imperial (Greek and Phoenician
colonies in the Iron Age). The stronger the immigrant population of the colony
(New England, the Thirteen Colonies in North America), the stronger is usually its
strife for political independence from the motherland.
Immigration in strong numbers usually results in the assimilation, marginalisa-
tion or extinction of the original population (North America, Australia, some
parts of Latin America, Greek colonies in the Iron Age). Extinguished or shrink-
ing local populations often require the importation of labour from third parties
(African slaves in the Americas, free Chinese workers in Indonesia). Colonial
immigration in smaller numbers tends to entail the enslavement or disenfran-
chisement of local populations and/or the creation of a colonial elite of immi-
grant descent (Spanish America, British India, Africa, Iron Age Mediterranean,
Hellenistic Asia and Egypt). Imperial colonies usually become subject to tributary
exploitation, with taxes and contributions being extracted by, and transferred to,
the centre.
Another factor, largely independent of the other variables, is the driving force
behind the establishment of colonies. We need to distinguish between individual
and collective motivations. Individuals settle away from home because they seek
adventure or freedom. First and foremost, however, they pursue ‘happiness’ in

13
Here, further questions of gender and age arise. Who migrates? Young men? Men and women?

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 186 19/12/11 13:08

 COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM 187

its original, very basic meaning: leaving behind dismal economic conditions,
they hope for better luck abroad. They are both pushed and pulled. Collectivities
also use colonies to improve their wealth; but they serve political and strategic
ends, as well. To colonies, societies export excess labour force (like the Greeks),
through colonies they gain access to markets and deposits of raw materials, from
colonies they obtain agricultural goods and tributes. Arable land, raw materials
and trade are the economic pull factors allowing further differentiation. But col-
onies are also the starting points for further imperial expansion; they can serve as
naval bases or command centres; and they can be used to infiltrate enemies.
Finally, an all important parameter is space. The distance or proximity between
motherland and colony is decisive (albeit decreasingly, with improving technology)
for the relationship between the two entities and the quantity of migrants. In a
pre-modern environment, sea routes tend to narrow the gap and create proximity
over substantial distances. Accordingly, most colonial expansions throughout his-
tory resulted in overseas colonies (with the Russian East and the American West,
which can hardly be labelled ‘colonies’, being the most significant exceptions).
Given the chameleon like manifoldness of colonies, the term is hardly opera-
tional as an ideal type. British Nigeria, ruled by a limited number of professional
British administrators who were dispatched for limited periods of time, and Greek
Sicily, which was settled by a massive wave of immigrants from, but not territori-
ally annexed by, mainland Greece, have hardly anything in common. If used as an
analytical concept, ‘colony’ needs to be broken down to its constituent parts. We
have to distinguish between at least four types:14
1. Pure imperial colonies (‘provinces’), established through conquest for the pur-
pose of tributary exploitation; low influx of colonial immigrants (specialised
administrative personnel only): British India, French Indochina, British Egypt,
African colonies, provinces of (Assyrian, Persian, Roman, Ottoman, etc.)
empires. Special cases are the Hellenistic empires, the Seleucid one in the first
place, where military conquest was flanked by colonial settlement of Greeks and
Macedonians.
2. Imperial settlement colonies, established through massive settlement colonisa-
tion flanked by military power with the purpose of exploiting local labour and/
or exporting excess population. Colonisation may involve extinction or margin-
alisation (New England, Canada, Australia) or disenfranchisement (Southern
Rhodesia, South and South West Africa, French Algeria) or importation of
labour-force deported from third countries (Caribbean). Colonies are dependent

14
The following considerations are inspired by Osterhammel 1997, 17–18.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 187 19/12/11 13:08

 188 M. SOMMER

on imperial centres (‘motherland’), but ties tend to be loser than in the case of
pure imperial colonies (often resulting in independence).
3. Pure settlement colonies, established through massive settlement colonisation,
often flanked by violence, with the purpose of land seizure. This type of coloni-
sation tends to result in local populations being marginalised (the Russian East,
the American West, Greek Sicily, Magna Graecia, partly Phoenician colonies in
North Africa, Sardinia and Spain).
4. Outpost colonies, established through conquest or peaceful agreement, with a
moderate influx of (usually specialised) colonial immigrants, for the purpose of
gaining (strategic or commercial) access to a hinterland: Hong Kong, Batavia,
Malacca, Singapore, Aden, Shanghai, Pithekoussai, Phoenician trading posts in
Spain, Sicily and North Africa.
The typology yields some rather surprising results – and it confronts us with
a big caveat. First, if the dynamics of the Iron Age Mediterranean is comparable
to any development in the modern age, it is the land-based frontier type of
colonisation we encounter in 18th- and 19th-century North America and Russia
(and, to some degree, the colonial networks of outposts like Hong Kong and
Singapore) rather than the imperial forms of colonial conquest we have to look
at. Second, the way a historian of the modern world would define the concept
of colony (as a political entity created, by means of invasion, on the base of pre-
colonial conditions, whose foreign authorities are permanently dependent on a
spatially distant ‘motherland’ or imperial centre, which lays exclusive claim to
the colony15), is not applicable to ancient colonial settlements. Namely the ele-
ment of permanent dependence on a ‘motherland’ is generally absent from the
Iron Age Mediterranean. We should, therefore, be very cautious when applying
another other concepts – ‘colonisation’, ‘colonialism’ – largely associated with
the modern definition of colony to ancient societies.

Colonisation
The most general definition of colonisation could be ‘invasion’ or ‘seizure of land’.
There is colonisation without colonies (frontier colonisation like in the Russian
East and the American West or ‘internal’ colonisation claiming so far unsettled

15
Osterhammel 1997, 16: ‘Eine Kolonie ist ein durch Invasion (Eroberung und/oder Siedlung-
skolonisation) in Anknüpfung an vorkoloniale Zustände neu geschaffenes politisches Gebilde, dessen
landfremde Herrschaftsträger in dauerhaften Anbhängigkeitsbeziehungen zu einem räumlich entfern-
ten “Mutterland” oder imperialen Zentrum stehen, welches exklusive Besitzansprüche auf die Kolonie
erhebt.’

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 188 19/12/11 13:08

 COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM 189

areas from nature) and there are colonies without colonisation (the case of pure
imperial colonies above). The common theme is expansion: societies exporting
people to distant places, creating networks of outposts or pushing forward their
boundaries into ‘barbarian’ peripheries are growing, regardless of whether they
expand as political entities (empires, such as the Roman or British) or civilisations
(Greek or Phoenician, for instance). Colonisation appears to be a sub-type of
expansion: expansion as the result of permanent mobility of many ordinary people
as opposed to expansion involving the temporary mobility of armies and few
administrative staff.
Defined as such, the conquest of the American frontier was colonisation, estab-
lishing British India was not; the Romans’ sending out veterans to build coloniae
was, Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was not; the foundation of Syracuse was, the trans-
formation of the Attic League into an informal empire was not; the development
of the east Elbian frontier in mediaeval Germany was, the establishment of the
network of the Hanseatic League was not – and so forth.
Once again, we find the processes of expansion in the Iron Age Mediterranean
under scrutiny in this series of articles and ‘colonial’ expansion from the 15th cen-
tury onwards on opposite sides of the hermeneutic fence. Assyrian and Roman
imperial expansion rather than the Phoenician and Greek city-states’ migratory
expansion in the Mediterranean (and Black Sea) are the ancient parallels to the
processes that resulted in the colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries. This
makes it doubtful that colonialism – a term tailored for the conditions created by
such modern colonial empires – may work as a guiding concept for the study of
Phoenician and Greek expansion.

Colonialism
But what is colonialism? It has been defined as ‘domination of people from another
culture’. But this definition is too inclusive to be of analytical value; it embraces all
forms of imperial rule, colonial or not, which by definition include cultural differ-
ence between the rulers and the ruled. To sharpen the ideal type, J. Osterhammel
has added three attributes: colonialism implies (1) that one society completely
deprives a second one of its potential for autonomous development; that an entire
society is ‘remote controlled’ and reconfigured in accordance to the colonial rulers;
(2) that the ruling and the ruled are permanently divided by a cultural gap; (3) the
intellectual ‘yoke’ of an ideology whose purpose it is to legitimise colonial expan-
sion. According to Osterhammel, colonialism is the rule of one collectivity over
another, with the life of the ruled being determined, for the sake of external inter-
ests, by a minority of colonial masters, which is culturally ‘foreign’ and unwilling

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 189 19/12/11 13:08

 190 M. SOMMER

to assimilate; this rule is underpinned by missionary doctrines based on the colo-

nial masters’ conviction of their being culturally superior.16
Greek ethnocentrism and its discourses of barbarian ‘otherness’ do not fit into
this category. The ‘spirit of colonialism’ (Osterhammel) requires more: namely
the translation of such discourses into a consistent ideology serving the colonisers’
practical needs. It further requires the persistent unwillingness, on the part of the
colonisers, to accommodate, in one way or the other, the culture of the colonised
– and hence a continuing cultural gap between both collectivities, which need to
be clearly defined as the bearers of distinct cultural and ethnic identities. Nothing
of this applies to the people who, in the Iron Age, embarked on their Mediterra-
nean adventure; nor does it apply to those whom they met at the destination of
their journey. On the contrary: the data assembled so far by archaeologists study-
ing the Greek and Phoenician diasporas, point in the opposite direction: the gap
was narrowing; Greeks and Phoenicians were borrowers as well as teachers.17 It
was not before the Classical period, at the dawn of Hellenism, that some Greek
intellectuals developed ideas which somewhat resembled the modern ‘spirit of
colonialism’: Isocrates (Pax 24) suggests that Greeks divert their excess population
to Thrace, invading the country and systematically reducing its native population
to the status of helots. He develops a similar programme for Asia, which, he
claims, can be annexed and plundered without any risk (Panaegyricus 166). His
Athenian compatriot and contemporary Xenophon (Anabasis 6. 4. 6) considers
possible the complete subjection and helotisation of Asia. Both authors justify and
legitimise their programmes of conquest and colonisation with their fellow Hel-
lenes’ innate superiority.18
To conclude, the Greeks and Phoenicians of the Iron Age established colonies
(of type 3 and, to a lesser extent, type 4) in a longue durée process of colonisa-
tion, transforming the entire Mediterranean and converting it, in the long run,
from a conglomerate of heterogeneous local cultures and disparate, highly une-
qual political entities into Plato’s proverbial frog pond. Both colony and coloni-
sation, if applied properly, work as ideal types in order to explain and understand,

16
Osterhammel 1997, 21: ‘[…] eine Herrschaftsbeziehung zwischen Kollektiven, bei welcher die
fundamentalen Entscheidungen über die Lebensführung der Kolonisierten durch eine kulturell
andersartige und kaum apassungswillige Minderheit von Kolonialherren unter vorrangiger Berücksi-
chtigung externer Interessen getroffen und tatsächlich durchgesetzt werden. Damit verbinden sich in
der Neuzeit in der Regel sendungsideologische Rechtfertigungsdoktrinen, die auf der Überzeugung
der Kolonialherren von ihrer eigenen kulturellen Höherwertigkeit beruhen.’
17
It is the achievement of Hodos 2006 to have shown this process of giving and taking. Cf. for
Sicily, De Angelis 2003; for Magna Graecia, Musti 1988; for the Pheonicians, Coldstream 1982;
Niemeyer 1990; 1995; 2002; 2003b.
18
Briant 1982, 255.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 190 19/12/11 13:08

 COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM 191

in the Weberian sense, the dynamism of the period and the changes brought
about by the mobility of people and ideas. Colonialism, on the other hand, is a
much more exclusive category, from which classicists and archaeologists, when
dealing with phenomena intrinsic to their period, should wisely abstain.

Bibliography
Boardman, J. 1999: The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London).
Briant, P. 1982: Rois, tributs et paysans: Études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien
(Paris).
Brown, J.C. 2005: Latin America: A Social History of the Colonial Period, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA).
Coldstream, J.N. 1982: ‘Greeks and Phoenicians in the Aegean’. In Niemeyer, H.G. (ed.), Phönizier
im Westen (Mainz), 261–72.
De Angelis, F. 2003: Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The Development of Two Greek City-States in
Archaic Sicily (Oxford).
Dunbabin, T.J. 1948: The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation
of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (Oxford).
Elliott, J.H. 1990: Imperial Spain, 1469–1716, 3rd ed. (London).
Ferguson, N. 2004: Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (London).
Finley, M.I. 1976: ‘Colonies: An Attempt at a Typology’. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,
5th ser., 26, 167–88.
Geiss, I. 1976: ‘Die Stellung des modernen Imperialismus in der Weltgeschichte’. In Radkau, J. and
Geiss, I. (eds.), Imperialismus im 20. Jahrhundert: Gedenkschrift für George W.F. Hallgarten
(Munich), 21–40.
––. 1991: ‘Kontinuitäten des Imperialismus’. In Reinhardt, W. (ed.), Imperialistische Kontinuität und
nationale Ungeduld im 19. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt), 12–30.
––. 1994: ‘Great powers and empires. Historical mechanisms of their making and breaking’.
In Lundestad, G. (ed.), The Fall of the Great Powers: Peace, Stability and Legitimacy (Oslo),
23–43.
––. 2007: Nation und Nationalismen: Versuche über ein Weltproblem, 1962–2006 (Bremen).
Hall, J.M. 2007: A History of the Archaic Greek World, ca. 1200–479 BCE (Oxford).
Hodos, T. 2006: Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean (London).
––. 2010: ‘Local and global perspectives in the study of social and cultural identities’. In Hales, S.
and Hodos, T. (eds.), Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World (Cambridge),
3–31.
Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000: The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford).
Kistler, E. 1998: Die ‘Opferrinne-Zeremonie’: Bankettideologie am Grab, Orientalisierung und Form-
ierung einer Adelsgesellschaft in Athen (Stuttgart).
Kistler, E. and Ulf, C. 2005: ‘Athenische “Big Men” – ein “Chief” in Lekandi? Zum Verhältnis von
historischen und archäologischen Aussagen vor dem Hintergrund der Bedeutung anthropologi-
scher Modelle’. In Brandt, B., Gassner, V. and Ladstätter, S. (eds.), Synergia: Festschrift für
Friedrich Krinzinger, vol. 2 (Vienna), 271–77.
Lemos, I.S. 2005: ‘The changing relationship of the Euboeans and the Eas’. In Villing, A. (ed.), The
Greeks in the East (London), 53–60.
Malkin, I. 2002: A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan, and Local Elites in the Bay of
Naples’. In Lyons, C.L. and Papadopoulos, J.K. (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism (Los Ange-
les), 151–81.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 191 19/12/11 13:08

 192 M. SOMMER

––. 2004: ‘Postcolonial concepts and ancient Greek colonization’. Modern Language Quarterly 65,
341–64.
Malkin, I., Constantakopoulou, C. and Panagopoulou, K. (eds.) 2009: Greek and Roman Networks in
the Mediterranean (London).
Marx, C. 2004: Geschichte Afrikas: Von 1800 bis zur Gegenwart (Paderborn).
Matthäus, H. 1999–2000: ‘Das griechische Symposion und der Orient’. Nürnberger Blätter zur
Archäologie 16, 41–64.
Musti, D. 1988: ‘I Greci e l’Italia’. In Momigliano, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds.), Roma in Italia, Storia
di Roma, vol. 1 (Turin), 39–51.
Niemeyer, H.G. 1990: ‘Die phönizischen Niederlassungen im Mittelmeerraum’. In Gehrig, U. and
Niemeyer, H.G. (eds.), Die Phönizier im Zeitalter Homers (Mainz), 45–64.
––. 1995: ‘Expansion et colonisation’. In Krings, V. (ed.), La civilisation phénicienne et punique:
Manuel de recherche (Leiden), 247–67.
––. 2002: ‘Die Phönizier im Mittelmeer. Neue Forschungen zur frühen Expansion’. In Braun-Holz-
inger, E.A. (ed.), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahr-
tausend v.Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion
(Möhnesee), 177–95.
––. 2003a: ‘On Phoenician Art and its Role in Trans-Mediterranean Interconnections ca. 1100–
600 BC’. In Stampolidis, N.C. and Karageorghis, V. (eds.), PLOES… Sea Routes…: Intercon-
nections in the Mediterranean 16th–6th c. BC (Athens), 201–08.
––. 2003b: ‘Zur Einführung. Frühformen der Globalisierung im Mittelmeerraum’. In Hopt, K.J. et
al. (eds.), Herausforderungen der Globalisierung (Göttingen), 47–55.
Osborne, R. 1998: ‘Early Greek Colonization? The nature of Greek settlement in the West’. In
Fisher, N. and van Wees, H. (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London),
251–69.
––. 2005: ‘Urban sprawl. What is urbanization and why does it matter?’. In Osborne, R. and Cun-
liffe, B.W. (eds.), Mediterranean Urbanization, 800–600 BC (Oxford), 1–17.
––. 2009: Greece in the Making, 1200–479 BC, 2nd ed. (London).
Osterhammel, J. 1997: Kolonialismus: Geschichte, Formen, Folgen, 2nd ed. (Munich).
––. 2009: Die Verwandlung der Welt: Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Munich).
Purcell, N. 2005: ‘Colonization and Mediterranean history’. In Hurst, H. and Owen, S. (ed.), Ancient
Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity and Difference (London), 115–39.
Reinhard, W. 1983: Geschichte der europäischen Expansion, 4 vols. (Stuttgart).
––. 2008: Kleine Geschichte des Kolonialismus, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart).
Ulf, C. 2009: ‘Rethinking cultural contacts’. AWE 8, 81–132.
van Dommelen, P. 1997: ‘Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean’.
World Archaeology 28, 305–23.
––. 1998: ‘Punic Persistence: Colonialism and Cultural Identities in Roman Sardinia’. In Laurence,
R. and Berry, J. (eds.), Cultural identity in the Roman Empire (London), 25–48.
––. 2002: ‘Ambiguous Matters: Colonialism and Local Identities in Punic Sardinia’. In Lyons, C.L.
and Papadopoulos, J.K. (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism: Issues and Debates (Los Angeles),
121–47.
––. 2005: ‘Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in
the Ancient Mediterranean’. In Stein, G.J. (ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Com-
parative Perspectives (Santa Fe), 109–41.
––. 2006: ‘Colonial Matters. Material Culture and Postcolonial Theory in Colonial Situations’. In
Tilley, C.Y. et al. (ed.), Handbook of Material Culture (London), 267–308.
Weber, M. 1956a: ‘Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis’. In Weber, M., Soziologie,
weltgeschichtliche Analysen, Politik (Stuttgart), 186–82.

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 192 19/12/11 13:08

 COLONIES – COLONISATION – COLONIALISM 193

––. 1956b: ‘Vom inneren Beruf zur Wissenschaft’. In Weber, M., Soziologie, weltgeschichtliche
Analysen, Politik (Stuttgart), 310–39.
Webster, J. 1996: ‘Roman imperialism and the post-imperial age’. In Webster and Cooper 1996,
1–17.
––. 1997: ‘Necessary comparisons. A post-colonial approach to religious syncretism in the Roman
provinces’. World Archaeology 28, 324–38.
Webster, J. and Cooper, N.J. (eds.) 1996: Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives (Leicester).

Classics and Ancient History

School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology
University of Liverpool
12 Abercromby Square
Liverpool L69 7WZ
UK
michael.sommer@liv.ac.uk

94637_AWE10_08_Sommer.indd 193 19/12/11 13:08