This article discusses the tradition of the Ionian colonisation preserved in ancient literary sources. The author focuses on the time and circumstances in which the view that the Athenians were responsible for the Ionian colonisation emerged. He also examines whether there is any support in the sources for the opinion expressed by some  historians that such a belief was already strong in the Archaic period.

The Greek city of Emporion is one of the few Greek emporia which ultimately became a polis. Consequently, the city had to adapt the previously held structures of an emporion to cope with the new circumstances which being a polis required; thus its urban space, territory, population, laws, government had to be modifi ed in the conversion from one situation to another. Furthermore, this change had to be fulfi lled in the midst of a non-Greek environment, which obviously had consequences in the development of Greek identity within the city. Fortunately, in the case of Emporion we have both archaeological and literary evidence (although not very abundant) to observe these processes. The aim of this paper is, consequently, to consider this evidence in order to see how interactions worked in Emporion itself as well as in the surrounding region in different historical moments and how those interactions contributed to shaping several interrelated identities within the Greek city, which also became a strong point for building the identity of the non-Greek peoples in that region of north-eastern Iberia.

The present paper deals with the population of the Seleukid settlements in order to address issues about the settlers’ mobility and ethnic identity. By surveying the available evidence, this study aims in particular to understand the role played by non-Greek populations in the Seleukid Empire, trying to go beyond the thesis of an apartheid-like regime in which those ethnic groups would be socially as well as politically isolated from the Greco-Macedonian settlers.

The Ptolemaic colonisation in Asia Minor and the Aegean region was a signifi cant tool which served the politics of the dynasty that actively participated in the fi ght for hegemony over the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea basin. In order to specify the role which the settlements founded by the Lagids played in their politics, it is of considerable importance to establish as precise dating of the foundations as possible. It seems legitimate to acknowledge that Ptolemy II possessed a well-thought-out plan, which, apart from the purely strategic aspects of founding new settlements, was also heavily charged with the propaganda issues which were connected with the cult of Arsinoe II.

This article is an attempt to present the role of colonisation in the Roman policy of expansion towards its Italian neighbours in the 3rd–2nd BCE and showing the effects of this phenomenon, as illustrated by settlements in the Ager Gallicus and Picenum. Information on the founded colonies in sources, appearing somewhat on the margins of accounts of military activities and diplomatic missions in Italy (foedera), but also connected with the internal policy conducted by Rome (grants of land), may indicate that colonisation complemented such activities. This complementary character of the process of colonisation in relation to other political, military, diplomatic, and internal activities seems to be an important feature of the Republic’s activities.

A few months before his death, Caesar decided to establish a Roman colony on the spot where Corinth, destroyed in 146 BC, used to lie. The population of Roman Corinth was ethnically and socially diverse from the very beginning. This, however, does not change the fact that the city was a Roman colony, whose offi cial name was Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis. With time, natural demographic processes started to take place, which on the one hand increased the original diversity, and on the other hand reinforced the strongest element of this diversity, i.e. Greekness. In this article, the author tries to answer the often-asked question about the circumstances in which Corinth – a Roman colony – started to be perceived as a hellenised city. What exactly does the “hellenisation” of Corinth mean and how does it show?

The aim of this article is to draw attention to the need to intensify historical research on Herulian settlements in Byzantium under Emperors Anastasius and Justinian based on the analysis of written sources. The starting point for studying the history of the Heruli in Late Antiquity should be a historical analysis of the excursus devoted to them by Procopius of Caesarea in the book VI Wars. As a result of a historical analysis based on literal interpretation and critical examination, taking into account legal circumstances and the historical context, it can greatly contribute to our knowledge of Herulian history. To sum up the results of the conducted research, it is possible to give quite a precise description of the relations between the empire and the Heruli based on an analysis of the accounts of Procopius of Caesarea and Marcellinus Comes. In 512, Emperor Anastasius settled the tribe on the empire’s lands. Taking advantage of their diffi cult situation, he probably forced them into full subordination. It seems that the Heruli, deprived of their tribal organisation and striving to keep their independence, rebelled and attacked the Romans at the fi rst opportunity, i.e. ca. 514. The imperial army managed to defeat them as early as 515 or 516, and Anastasius refused to give them the status of allies, i.e. improve their position. In this situation it seems most likely that the empire completely broke its ties with the Heruli and the tribe left the empire’s lands. At this stage of the analysis it is diffi cult to determine to what extent Procopius was aware of the nuances of Anastasius’ policy, as his account of the Herulian migration in search of new lands is very brief and schematic. All the details he provides, apart from the information about the Heruli crossing the Danube River on their own initiative, are in complete agreement with the reconstruction of events based on Marcellinus Comes’ mention. Only after completing the analysis of Procopius’ whole account on the Heruli will it be possible to formulate conclusions about its reliability and the sources he used.