BMCR 2006.11.10

Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’antichità. Atti del I Incontro Internazionale di Storia antica, Genova, 22-24 maggio 2003. Serta Antiqua et Mediaevalia, VII

, , , , , , Serta antiqua et mediaevalia.. V. 8: Scienze documentaire. Roma: G. Bretschneider, 1997-2006. volumes 1-6 : illustrations ; 26 cm.. ISBN 8876891358. €250.00.

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

“Il cittadino, lo straniero, il barbaro, fra integrazione ed emarginazione nell’antichità” is a volume containing twenty-nine essays offered by different scholars at the first International Meeting of Ancient History held in Genova in May 2003. The contributions are divided into two main parts: a section on Greek History and one on Roman History. In a short introduction, one of the editors, Maria Gabriella Angeli Bertinelli, opens the discussion, states the purposes of the colloquium and explains the choice of the theme. A long section before the conclusion is reserved for some short essays written by Italian postgraduate students in Ancient History. The field has been the object of several recent important contributions.1 The volume offers a representative sample of recent trends of research by scholars from different countries, a large up-to-date bibliography, and several valuable suggestions for further research.

The theme of the volume is analysed from different points of view, and the essays do not have a single methodological approach. Rather, the topic is studied according to literary, numismatic, epigraphic, linguistic and archaeological evidence. Moreover, the chronological and geographical coordinates are not given. At first sight, the lack of these reference points seems confusing, but the strength and the originality of this work finds its basis in this breadth.The real purpose, in fact, is not to offer a general and overall idea of integration and marginalizationin the ancient world. A thorough reading shows that the contributions are extremely detailed and specific. On page after page, the reader finds out how complex and controversial the question was considered to be in antiquity too. Therefore it is necessary to evaluate each of the essays in turn. Unfortunately because of the number of the contributions it is not possible to devote too many words to each one, but as much as I can, I will try to give a complete discussion.

The short introduction by Maria Gabriella Angeli Bertinelli of Università di Genova aims to connect the choice of Genova for the meeting, with the topic of the congress by stressing its continuous historical rule as a place of exchange, in the wide meaning of the term, because of the presence of a harbour and because of its contact with the East. Moreover, she also presents the theme from an interesting point of view: the modernity of the matter. The integration and/or the exclusion of the foreigner, on account of his difference, were a phenomenon of ancient cultures as well of contemporary ones.

The first contribution “La langue comme facteur d’intégration ou d’exclusion. L’Athènes de Périclès et la Rome de Cicéron” (pp. 3-20) by Bruno Rochette is characterized by a linguistic approach. Rochette states one of the most evident elements that define the identity of a population: the language. Approaching the literary evidence both for the Greek and the Roman world, Rochette, quoting Herodotos, affirms that the language, beside religion, common customs and blood,2 was the first element to distinguish citizens from foreigners, especially from the fifth century BCE. In Greece, for instance, Attic represented the pure language clearly distinguishable from other dialects, especially from those of Northern populations who had problems in pronouncing aspiration. As for Rome, things were not so different, though from the beginning the Roman world was a mélange of cultures (Etruscan, Greek and Latin). Cicero, more than others, stresses how the language and the way of speaking were clear proof of the origin of people: his distinction between rusticitas vs urbanitas is famous. As for the linguistic situation, Rochette assumes that there were some similarities that allow comparing Athens of the fifth century BCE with Rome of the end of Republic.

The second contribution is by Wolfgang Schuller, “Zwischen Verachtung und Hochachtung: Die Hetären” (pp. 21-29). Schuller focuses his attention on a particular social category often considered at the margins of the society: the hetairai. He considers the category both in Greek and Roman world. He states that the idea of hetaira in the ancient world was not characterized by completely negative connotations: the hetairai were not simple prostitutes, but usually culturally educated and often integrated into the society. Nevertheless he affirms that sometimes the negative viewremained and that their social integration depended on social context and settings. Schuller supports his assessment by giving several historical examples in Greek and Roman society.

In “Prigioniero e ospite: forme e pratiche delle relazioni intercomunitarie in età classica” (pp. 31-43) with characteristic schematic clearness, Giovanna Daverio Rocchi investigates the vocabulary of hospitality, paying particular attention to the category of the doryxenos. After presenting the literary evidence testifying to the different uses of the word and the contexts in which it was used, Daverio Rocchi arrives at the conclusion that under the category of doryxenos two different definitions probably came together: the enemy who became friend and the guest-prisoner who repaid his hospitality. Thus, as the proxenos was the public guest and the idioxenos the private one, Daverio Rocchi suggests that the doryxenos represents an intermediate category, no longer attested after the sixth century BCE.

Enrica Culasso Castaldi’s contribution, “Per un bilancio comparativo sulle prossenie ateniesi del IV secolo a.C.” (pp. 45-75), is partially connected with the previous essay although Culasso Castaldi refers to a particular chronologically delimited period. According to the communis opinio, the main aim of proxeny in the ancient world was to establish a network of contacts.The phenomenon of proxeny, widely attested since the sixth century BCE, began to lose its strength in the fourth century BCE.3 In the case of fourth-century Athens, it seems, according to the epigraphic evidence, that the polis, with the loss of its leadership and its increasingly philo-macedonian attitude, continued to promulgate proxeny decrees, but with a marked philomacedonism. Culasso Castaldi notices, however, two important cases in which Athens seems to retrieve her ancient spirit through the institution of the proxeny: the stewardship of the cleruchy of Samos and a decree dated to the Lamian war. Culasso Castaldi, at least for Athens, distinguishes three phases in the development of proxeny connected to the political life of the city: at first the proxeny was a valid tool for pursuing Athenian policy; in a second phase the strategic purposes of the proxeny turned into economic interests; in the final moment the award of proxeny seems to follow both economic and political reasons with the renewal of the ancient spirit of the city.

Cinzia Bearzot’s contribution, “Né cittadini né stranieri: apeleutheroi e nothoi in Atene” (pp. 77-92) inquires into two Athenian social categories of non-citizens: the apeleutheroi 4 and the nothoi, by trying to give a definition and by analyzing the relationships and similarities between them and other categories of non-citizens, such as the metoikoi. Bearzot states that, although many similarities between the apeleutheroi, the manumitted slaves, and the metoikoi, they were two distinct and not assimilated social and political categories: both were subjected to change, but the first changed status, the second only residence. As for the nothoi, they were partly citizens because one of their parents was a citizen. Their situation became more and more complicated after the Pericles’ law in 451/0 BCE, which restricted the criteria of citizenship. Both categories, apeleutheroi and nothoi, were intermediate categories, but according to Bearzot it is reductive to place them in the middle of the opposition between the category of citizens and non-citizens, because the situation was very complex and often subjected to changes.

The second essay in German is offered by Peter Siewert, “‘Richter über die Hellenen’ (Hellanodikas) und andere überstaatliche Gemeinschaftsbezeichnungen in Olympia” (pp. 93-104). Siewert rightly affirms that the shrine of Olympia, as well as the Olympic Games, was one of the most important factors in the awareness of the concept of Hellenicity.5 Connected with this idea, he notes a change in the vocabulary in the documents concerning the shrine and the Games: to indicate the “referee” at the end of the sixth century BCE the inscriptions testify to the use of the word διαιτητής, while in the first quarter of the fifth century BCE Pindar and some epigraphic sources use Ἑλλανοδίκαι. Siewert analyses the documents he has adduced, the epigraphic parallels, and political situation, and tries to give plausible answers.

Clara Talamo in “Greci e Cari a Mileto” (pp. 105-114) investigates the relationships between the Greeks and the Carians in Miletos through the analysis of two episodes of slaughter: the Greek massacre of Carians at the time of their arrival in Caria, reported by Herodotos and Pausanias, and the civil conflict at Miletos in the sixth century BCE. She considers these two events as connected to the definition of the civic community of citizens: in the first massacre, the native Carians were killed or assimilated to Ionians; in the second case, the slaughter functions to establish oligarchic power and the dominance of rich citizens over other citizens of inferior status. The essay presents original and interesting cues, which are worth detailed investigation.

As for “I Greci ad Adria fra il VI e il V secolo a.C.” (pp. 115-141), Claudia Antonetti analyses the presence of the Greeks in the area around Adria in the sixth and the fifth century BCE according to archaeological evidence.6 Apparently in that area most of the epigraphic evidence testifying to the presence of Greeks belongs to the fifth century BCE, but the first half of the fifth century is characterized by little evidence. This increasing of evidence should be due to commercial connections between Adria, a Greek emporion, and Athens and Aegina. It is interesting to note, as Antonetti reports, that the Etruscans were recorded at Aegina as well in an inscription of the second quarter of the sixth century BCE: this represents significant proof of a reciprocal presence. The essay is accompanied by two visual tables of evidence containing samples of inscriptions and an epigraphic appendix with four documents, each of them complete with commentary, bibliography and translation, where possible.

Pietrina Anello with “Cittadini e barbari in Sicilia” (pp. 143 – 176) presents the question of the relationship between the barbarians and the Greeks in Sicily. Anello gives precise preliminary remarks making the scenario of the complex and dynamic situation clearer. She also limits her investigation to three moments: the foundation of the apoikiai, the sixth century BCE, and the end of the fifth century to the beginning of the fourth century BCE. She admits, moreover, the limits of her enquiry, which are mainly due to the unavailability of sources and the complexity of the question. Anello points out that the relationships between the Greeks and the “Others”, intended in the wide sense of the word, changed progressively. The Greeks, once they reached the island, established friendly contacts with the local population because of their fear towards the indigenes and because of the Greeks’ numeric inferiority. The things changed in the second generation of colonists when the Greeks became stronger and stronger. According to the analysis of Anello, the crucial moment in the development of the relations between Greeks and barbarians was the sixth century BCE when hostilities increased, that is conflicts between Greeks and barbarians as well as between Greeks and Greeks. From the last twenty years of the fifth century and the end of the fourth century BCE the idea of barbarians in Sicily changed radically: they were no longer the local population, already assimilated to the Greek population, but rather the Carthaginians.

Angela Donati in “Processi di integrazione nel mondo romano” (pp. 179-183) opens the Roman section. The essay is particularly short and offers some interesting insights that could have been improved. Donati affirms how the central government of Rome constantly supported the adoption of Latin features, such as laws, languages and customs, in the process of political and territorial expansion. But the Latin language, first of all, was used because it was the most important means of communication, especially in the justice and military matters. Latin was used in addition to the local language, as the bilingual documents testify. The progressive assimilation is proved by epigraphic evidence and in particularly by onomastic attestations. This interesting question is unfortunately only mentioned and not developed in detail.

According to Gabriella Poma, “Le regole della convivenza tra cittadini e ‘immigrati’ in età imperiale” (pp. 185-212), the cives in the civitates were divided into coloni and municipes. The local non- cives were, in order: incolae, hospites, advenae or adventores, servi, and ancillae. As for incolae, the word here defines the simple residents; the original meaning of “indigenous people” was maintained only partly. Because of the territorial expansion of the Roman Empire, the indigenous are in the situation of being foreigners in their own country by assuming the status of incolae. Poma, moreover, approaches the difficult and complex matter of the domicilium that determined the status of incola. It was a concept very closely connected with the idea of time of residence in the city.Apparently there were registers of incolae used to control the movement of people and their presence in the town, intra moenia and extra moenia. Certainly people who lived permanently in the town enjoyed a different social and political condition in comparison to foreigners who happened to visit the city for short periods. Thus the status of incola was so complex that it cannot be described with a single formula. The final assimilation of the incolae with the cives was to be under Constantine in 325 AD.

Ezio Buchi’s “La Venetia fra immigrazione e integrazione” (pp. 213-244) investigates the presence of foreign elements in the territory of Venetia. He analyses case after case of evidence coming from several towns of the area and he concludes that despite the fact that the region apparently was characterized by the typical stretto provincialismo (p. 213), there were some areas in which immigration existed. He records a list of towns and reports the relative epigraphic documentation as proof. The towns involved in different ways in immigration were Opitergium, Ferrara, Acelum, Altinum, Ateste, Patavium, Vicetia, Verona. But, the greatest amount of evidence about immigration is recorded in Iulia Concordia, an emporion, and Aquileia, an important harbour. In the latest case evidence shows that the immigration was both internal and external; some attestations, moreover, indicate the presence of people coming from Syria, Cyprus, Ephesus, Numidia.

“Casi di emarginazione nella Traspadana romana: cittadini, stranieri o barbari?” (pp. 245-256) is the contribution offered by Giovannella Cresci Marrone. At the beginning, the essay outlines the temporal and spatial boundaries of the investigation: the area of Traspadania from the time of Caesar to the constitutio antoniniana. According to Cresci Marrone, the inhabitants of the region gained citizenship in 49 BCE, and thus after Caesar, Traspadania apparently might be considered as a country of cives pleni iuris. But Pliny seems to deny this status: he reports that some populations, such as Trumplini and Communi, and complures similes did not gain the same juridical and administrative status of the cives pleni iuris. It is not possible to specify who were those complures similes. The onomastic, in particular the lack of three characteristic elements, helps in the determination of their identity, although it is not always precise.7 At the time of Augustus, the population living next to the Alps were subjected. The account of these people describes them according to the stereotypes of fierce and savage barbarians, stereotypes which were useful to the political demonization of the foreigners.8 Cresci Marrone, moreover, analyses a particular onomastic group of evidence. She wonders whether in some cases and in some territorial areas, Transpadane inhabitants, although they had the plenum ius, could not express this right by mentioning it in the proper formula. She considers a particular sample of inscriptions coming from the western region. She observed that on these inscriptions of nomina non tamquam cives Romani there are some peculiar features, such as the almost complete lack of the tribes, the idionymic formulas, the patronymics mentioned in extenso, prenomina are rarely abbreviated, etc. (p. 252). Cresci Marrone reports both the hypothesis of Lommatzsch and Castagnal, who attempted to explain the examples. But she suggests her own persuasive idea: this onomastic is peculiar of “epigrafia povera”, that connotes a special kind of citizen, the so-called “cittadini sommersi”. These are micro-communities or individuals at the borders, originally from an indigenous background, for whom we cannot talk about a “ritardo di romanizzazione” (p. 256) due to their marginality, but rather to a peculiar feature of a social class romanized but not alphabetized and self-representative, so condemned to silence.

The following contribution is offered by Eleonora Salomone Gaggero, “Provinciali e Italici in Liguria: proprietari terrieri non liguri” (pp. 257-271). The essay is one of the clearest and most logical of the whole volume. She records a series of examples taken from literary and epigraphic evidence testifying that foreign people possessed estates and properties in Liguria, regio IX.9 According to the examples given, it seems that most of the notable people who had estates there came from nearby areas, such as Gallia Narbonensis or North Italy.

“La sociedad romana barcinonense a través de la epigrafia” (pp. 273-282) by Marc Mayer analyses the peculiar social situation of Barcellona, the ancient Barcinos, especially considering the strange constituents, integrated or not, in the community. The position of the town was particularly suitable for commerce and economic activities beside its strategic importance. It seems that liberti in Barcinos had most of the economic power, but it is notable that the foreigners, Italics and Etruscans, tend to be integrated in Barcinos, as the onomastic evidence proves. Probably they were foreigners attracted there because of the possibility of wealth. Barcinos had its own definite characteristics thanks to its economical strength, and in spite of the extreme proximity to the capital of provincia romana.The essay provides two tables of inscriptions.

Julián Gonzáles’ “Colonizazión y latinización en la provincia Baetica” writes about the provincia Baetica, arisen from the division of the Hispania Ulterior in two provinces in 27 BCE. Gonzáles points out three phases of the long process of Romanization, beginning from the foundation of towns in the pre-Caesarian period, passing through the foundations of Caesar and Augustus, and arriving at the final grant of citizenship under Vespasianus. Apparently, in the first period the evidence reveals the reluctance of Rome in conceding privileges connected with citizenship to the people of Baetica, although many Roman citizens had moved there. But little by little the institutions of the central government, transferred to the province, attracted the ambitious Roman, Latin and Romanized indigenous citizens as well as the local magistratures. The social and political situation changed significantly: Rome bestowed the indigenous nobility of Baetica with citizenship, an attempt to earn their loyalty; moreover many soldiers and people attracted by the new economical possibilities moved to Baetica.

“La lettre 62 de Saint Cyprien et les guerres d’Afrique au milieu du IIIe siècle” (pp. 305-325) is the contribution of Yann Le Bohec. The essay is particularly interesting because, through an analysis of the document, Le Bohec arrives at the conclusion that the letter does not help to elucidate the wars of the third century AD in Africa. The question arose from Cyprian’s mention of some captivi. Le Bohec discusses the document in detail, starting from the problem of the dating of the letter, which is placed between the 248/9 and the 258/9 AD; he also refutes the theories of Carcopino and Christal by considering Cyprian’s reference to episodes of brigandage; the captivi were probably hostages kept for a ransom. He later suggests approaching the epigraphic material in order to find elements for the study of the social and political reality of North Africa.

The numismatic contribution of Rossella Pera concludes the section on Roman History. In “Riferimenti a stranieri e barbari sulle monete romane” (pp. 327-343), Pera analyses the presence in the Roman coins of elements referring to foreign countries or people. She points out how in the coins considered, dating back to the first century BCE as well at the first century AD, the “foreign element” belongs to the usual connotation of barbarians as dangerous and violent people but subjected by the Romans. This picture does not suit the peaceful cohabitation of Roman citizens and barbarians at the borders, for instance at the time of Trajan. The barbarian element in the coins of Imperial time, however, has a double connotation: on one hand, they were depicted as integrated constituents of the Roman empire to give an idea of unity (clearly visible for instance in the coins of Hadrian); on the other hand, there are references supporting the idea of the Emperor as the victor of people and countries, as in the statuary of Hadrian. The essay is provides four numismatic tables (pictures).

The final section of the collection is reserved to the contributions of Italian graduate students in Ancient history. Giovanna Dallara with “L’immagine dei barbari del Nord negli autori greci: il caso dei Celti” (pp. 347-359) approaches a very interesting topic about the opinions and ideas that the Greeks had about the people from the North, focusing her attention on the Celts. The preliminary remarks and the ancient sources suggested by Dallara are very remarkable and valuable but the essay at the end appears to be a list of sources lacking a conclusion. The sources could be used as starting point for a research project that is worth being discussed.

Maria Elena De Luna’s “Xenoi e Barbari nelle tragedie di Eschilo (con un’appendice sofoclea)” (pp. 361-373) approaches the theme of foreigners in Aeschylus’ tragedies, in particular referring to three of them (Supplices, Agamemnon and Persians) according to the theme of “incontro-scontro”. The essay analyses some passages from a linguistic point of view. The research is significant because it shows how literary texts can be an important source for the historian.

Paolo Andrea Tuci approaches the theme of the Scythian archers in “Gli arcieri sciti nell’Atene del V secolo a.C” (pp. 375-389) very clearly and persuasively. The paper is significant, besides its tightly constructed argument, for the conclusion suggested. Tuci, by reporting and discussing the sources mentioning the archers, delimits chronologically their presence in the Athenian army and comments on the Athenian attitudes and the possible reasons and parallels of their behaviour towards the Scythians. He concludes that the probable negative impression that the Athenians had should be considered carefully and that probably it is to be seen in the context of broad Greek view of the “other”.

Clara Elena in “Il tiranno e i suoi ‘concittadini'” (pp. 391-400), reports several examples of tyrannoi that exemplify their behaviour towards citizenship. According to Elena and the sources referred to, the tyrannoi were not considered excluded from the community but they were homoioi who were leaders thanks to the support of the inferior classes, not of the homoioi, who often represented a danger for the tyrannos.

Monica Berti contributes the paper “Licurgo e il tradimento di Ipparco (Lycurg. Leocr. 117 SG.)” (pp. 401-409) where she tries to give an identity to that Hipparchus, son of Timarchus, about whom Lycurgus wrote. She wonders whether Hipparchus, son of Carmus (the first victim of ostracism, mentioned by Harpocration who affirms to report this name from Lycurgus) and Hipparchus, son of Timarchus (reported in Lycurgus’ manuscript tradition) were the same person. Berti tries to verify whether identification is possible chronologically; she concludes by persuasively suggesting that they were two different persons.

Serena Teppa writes about the role of women and their role in the polis at the beginning of the fourth century BCE (“La donna: precedenti utopici della Repubblica di Platone”, pp. 411-418). She considers Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic and finally the female characters of Aristophanes’ comedies. She arrives at the conclusion that the theme of the equality of women suggested in the Republic probably found its basis in Aristophanes’ comedies and in the Sophistic debate of the first quarter of the fourth century BCE. The change is probably due not to female initiative, but to the historical political context, and to Sophistic influence. I am sceptical about a revaluation of the role of women in antiquity, although Teppa considers it just hypothetical and perhaps suggested by some enlightened men.

Barbara Guagliumi, “Tra esilio e cittadinanza: il caso di Iulis” (pp. 419-425), writes about the defection of the Ceans in 364 BCE from the Athenian League, which happened in two moments. She states that inside Ceos there were two opposite sides: one unfavourable to the defection, because they were sympathetic to the Athenians, and another, favourable to the fight since they were pro-Theban. Guagliumi suggests that this pro-Theban sympathy was connected with some agreements of isopoliteia stipulated between the Ceans and the poleis of Istiea and Eretria, probably dating back to the period of defection. At first, the philo-Theban party prevailed and forced the members of the opposite side to go into exile. They came back with the help of the Athenians. Both sides, as often happens in theses cases, were guilty of massacres and persecutions and confiscation of properties towards the rebels. The final repression led by Aristophon hit the inhabitants of Ioulis, supporters of the second rebellion. In the text of the agreement the Ceans also established a particular statement which recalls the exiles and gives back their properties in order to establish concordia among citizens.

Stefania Gallotta, “Tra integrazione ed emarginazione: gli indigeni nelle poleis greche del mar Nero” (pp. 427-436) analyses the peculiar case of Greek colonization in the Black Sea. According to her, when the Greeks came into contact with the local indigenous population, cohabitation was characterized by peaceful reciprocal convenience, as the archaeological evidence shows. Nevertheless each community reacted differently because of the heterogeneity of the population living there before the arrival of the Greeks. Gallotta focuses her attention on three communities (those of Pontic Herakleia, Chersonnesos Tauricos and Olbia) to study the integration of the local indigenous elements in the Greek community.

Agata Sugliano, “La composizione civica delle colonie romane d’Asia Minore” (pp. 437-452) approaches the question of the integration of the local communities after Roman deductio of colonies. The problem was both for Roman colonies in Italy and for provinces of the Empire. Apart from rare cases, in fact, the Roman policy during deductio of colonies was geographically uniform although it varied according to the situation. Sugliano in particular focuses on the problem of the cohabitation of Roman and Greek elements. She considers the case of some colonies in Asia Minor, such as Alexandria in Troas where there were five kinds of people living in the colony. The epigraphic documentation testifies to a complex social and juridical structure in the towns in Asia Minor. People who did not have citizenship could take part in social, civic and religious life. Only a few of the previous members of the citizen body were integrated in the corpus civilis, and most of them increased the ranks of people considered non-citizens. The ancient citizens were considered foreigners in patria ( incolae or paraoikoi) at least until 212 AD.

The last contribution to the section reserved to the postgraduate students is “A proposito dell’usurpazione della civitas alessandrina” (pp. 453-461) by Marco Rolandi. He discusses the integration of people in the citizen body by focusing his attention on particular geographical areas, such as Egypt. Apparently there the demotic remains the only regular official designation for citizenship. But he argues that the admission to ephebia was the peculiar necessary step to gain citizenship, at least for the Greeks of Alexandria. To argue his idea he considers a papyrus of the second century AD documenting a trial, conserved in Geneva. To be precise, it is about only the eiskrisis of a 14-year-old citizen: the aim was proving his right to participate in the ephebia. The political and social status of ephebia, according to Rolandi seems to guarantee a sort of economical privileged status, which is why they controlled access very carefully.To conclude, the last word is offered by William V. Harris “Can Enemies too Be Brave? A question about Roman Representation of the Other” (pp. 465-472). As an informal discussion Harris considers some passages of Roman historiographers about the enemies of Rome. Apparently the enemies of the past and/or of the present were represented with a constant feature: in spite of their bravery and courageousness, the barbarians were always defeated by the Romans. So their representation in positive words was a sort of self-representation. Tacitus could be an exception, but according to Harris he fitted well with this hypothesis because when he describes the virtues of the barbarians, he clearly referred to Germanicus and Agricola. Tacitus used them as examples for the Romans, and moreover he wrote in a time of peace at least at the borders, when the barbarians seemed not to represent a real danger.

To conclude, the volume offers a wide variety of subjects and approaches. It is clear that its theme is closely connected with the problem of identity both in Greek and Roman world: the definition of the “others”, in fact, depends firstly on the way we define ourselves.10


Bruno Rochette, La langue comme facteur d’intégration ou d’exclusion. L’Athènes de Périclès et la Rome de Cicéron.

Wolgang Schuller, Zwischen Verachtung und Hochachtung: Die Hetären.

Giovanna Daverio Rocchi, Prigioniero e ospite: forme e pratiche delle relazioni intercomunitarie di età arcaica.

Enrica Culasso Castaldi, Per un bilancio comparativo sulle prossenie ateniesi dal IV secolo a.C.

Cinzia Bearzot, Né cittadini né stranieri: apeleutheroi e nothoi in Atene.

Peter Siewert, ‘Richter über die Hellenen’ (Hellanodikas) und andere überstaatliche Gemeinschaftsbezeichnung in Olympia.

Clara Talamo, Greci e Cari a Mileto.

Claudia Antonetti, I Greci ad Adria fra il VI e il V secolo a.C.

Pietrina Anello, Cittadini e barbari in Sicilia.

Angela Donati, Processi di integrazione nel mondo romano: alcuni esempi.

Gabriella Poma, Le regole della convivenza tra cittadini e ‘immigrati’ in età imperiale.

Ezio Buchi, La Venetia fra immigrazione e integrazione.

Giovannella Cresci Marrone, Casi di emarginazione nella Transpadania romana: cittadini, stranieri o barbari?

Eleonora Salomone Gaggero, Provinciali e italici in Liguria: proprietari terrieri non liguri.

Marc Mayer, La sociedad romana barcinonense a través de la epigrafía.

Juliáan González, Colonización y latinización en la provincia Baetica.

Yann Le Bohec, La lettre 62 de Saint Cyprien et les guerres d’Afrique au milieu du IIIe siècle.

Rossella Pera, Riferimenti a stranieri e barbari sulle monete romane.

Giovanna Dallara, L’immagine dei barbari del nord negli autori greci: il caso dei Celti.

Maria Elena De Luna, Xenoi e barbaroi nelle tragedie di Eschilo (con un’appendice sofoclea).

Paolo Andrea Tuci, Gli arcieri sciti nell’Atene del V secolo a.C.

Clara Elena, Il tiranno e i suoi ‘concittadini’.

Monica Berti, Licurgo e il tradimento di Ipparco (Lycurg. Leocr. 117 SG.).

Serena Teppa, La donna: precedenti utopici della Repubblica di Platone.

Barbara Guagliumi, Tra esilio e cittadinanza: il caso di Iulis.

Stefania Gallotta, Tra integrazione ed emarginazione: gli indigeni nelle poleis greche del Mar Nero.

Agata Sugliano, La composizione civica delle colonie romane d’Asia Minore.

Marco Rolandi, A proposito dell’usurpazione della civitas alessandrina.

William V. Harris, Can Enemies too Be Brave? A Question about Roman Representation of the Other.


1. Among the most recent and important contributions on this topic, with special reference to Greek History, see M. Sordi (a cura di), Emigrazione e immigrazione nel mondo antico, in CISA XX, Milano 1994; M. Sordi (a cura di), Coercizione e mobilita umana nel mondo antico, in CISA XXI, Milano 1995; D. Ogden, Greek Bastardy, Oxford 1996; J. E. Coleman – C. A. Walz (eds.), Greeks and Barbarians, Bethasda 1997; M. Sordi (a cura di), L’opposizione nel mondo antico, in CISA, XXVI, Milano 2000; T. Harrison, Greeks and Barbarians, Edinburgh 2002; L. Moscati Castelnuovo (ed.), Identità e prassi storica nel Mediterraneo greco, Milano 2002.

2. The question is complex and much debated. The article is lacking some important recent bibliographical references: E. Hall, Inventing the Barbarian, Oxford 1989; C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Herodotos (and others): Some Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, in P. Derow-R. Parker (eds.), Herodotus and his World, Oxford 2003, pp. 103-144.

3. See for instance, F. Gschinitzer, Abitanti senza diritto di cittadinanza: non liberi e stranieri, in S. Settis (ed.), I Greci, II, 2, p. 415.

4. The author rightly reports a further distinction between apeleutheros, those born slaves, and exeleutheroi, those born free.

5. See M. Giangiulio, Le città della Magna Grecia e Olimpia in età arcaica. Aspetti della documentazione e della problematica storica, in A. Mastrocinque (a cura di), I grandi santuari della Grecia antica e l’Occidente, Trento 1993, pp. 93-118.

6. The presence of Greeks on the Adriatic coast in North Italy is an interesting topic of research, mainly developed by several contributions published in the journal “Hesperia. Studi sulla Grecità d’Occidente” edited by Lorenzo Braccesi.

7. The author rightly reports the case of tabula clesiana and cases of usurpation, p. 251.

8. In this sense, the victor also assumes character of greatness. Propaganda assumes a double significance.

9. E. Salomone Gaggero also argues that many Ligurian senators had properties in other regions. The phenomenon was double.

10. The book is handsomely produced in a way that aids reading, as all volumes published by Giorgio Bretschneider Editore. The typographical mistakes are few, such as p. 162 n. 78 “greek” for “Greek”; p. 167 “inportante” for “importante”; p. 207 n. 103 “exmagistrati” for “ex magistrati”; p. 275 n. 12 “G, Paci” for “G. Paci”. These mistakes, however, do not compromise comprehension. At p. 456 the main text repeats almost mot à mot the footnote n. 12.