QuoteReplyTopic: Why not Hellas? Posted: 15-Mar-2005 at 07:12
I am Aroman (Vlach) from both my parents' sides and all propagandists should know that genetically Aromans do not differ at all from their neighboring Greek speaking people. What matters the most though, is our total loyalty to the values of the Orthodox Church and Hellenism throughout the centuries. It is national conscience that classifies you to a specific nation, not your language neither your religion unless you wish they did.
And believe me, Aromans of Greece and most of Albania get offended if they are not thought of as part of the Hellenic nation.
I am Aroman (Vlach) from both my parents' sides and all propagandists should know that genetically Aromans do not differ at all from their neighboring Greek speaking people. What matters the most though, is our total loyalty to the values of the Orthodox Church and Hellenism throughout the centuries. It is national conscience that classifies you to a specific nation, not your language neither your religion unless you wish they did.
Let's say you are assimilated or just about being assimilated...........
Nobody has been assimilated you know. In fact, all the public neoclassic buildings of Athens have been constructed by funds of wealthy Aromanian businessmen of the 19th century. The famous warship "Georgios Averof" was named after the tycoon who covered most of the expenses for its purchase. He was an Aroman you know, like me.
For your information, "Georgios Averof" was the main factor of the decisive defeat of the Ottoman fleet in the sea battles of Elli and Lemnos during the Balkan Wars. In case you didn't know, the villages of Syrrako and Kalarrytes in in Epirus were the first towns to revolt in northern Greece against Turkish rule in 1821. They are both Aromanian settlements by the way.
The first parliamentary prime minister of Greece (1844-1847), Ioannis Kolettis, was from Syrrako, the above mentioned town of Epirus. It sounds like a mystery to me how can assimilation occur while there was no state organization in Greece since the Ottoman conquest.
After all, even if assimilation was the method used by the Greek state to obliterate any foreign ethnic groups or languages in Greece, I think it would be much better than the genocides committed by Turks.
Even though I fail to see what the Aromanian(Vlach) funds Molossos
mentions prove, I do find it hard to assimilate people of your own
culture and origin.
In oder for the Aromanians(Vlachs) to have been asimilated they must
have been a non-Hellinic people or a culturally distinct group,
something they were obviously not!!
You must have mixed up the alleged assimilation of Slavs with the
Aromanians (already mentioned to have been of the Hellinic stock),but
even so, neither was the Slavic element actually assimilated.
Many Byzantine sources mention military expeditions against the Slavs
in the Hellinic area, which started from the mid-7th c and resulted in
the gradual reestablishment of Byzantine authority.
Other souces, See :
Maria Nystazopoulou - Pelekidou, "Les Slaves dans l' Empire Byzantin",
The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Major Papers (Washington
D.C., August 3-8, 1986) New York 1986, pp. 345-367, with the
bibliography and the quotation of the sources; for the policy of
Byzantium, see p. 355.
Mention that, not only did the Byzantium attempt to subjugate the new
settlers but also forcibly transfered Slavic populations to Anatolia in
order to achieve 2 things. 1) Slavic element in the Hellenic area was
arithmetically weakened, in an attempt to keep the Hellinic population
"pure" and
2) assimilation was facilitated in Anatolia, since Slavs who were
transferred to Anatolia found themselves among a flourishing and
numerous Hellinic population.
This demographic measure was even applied vice-versa, that is, Hellinic
populations from Anatolia were transplanted into Slavic populations
("epi tas Sklabinias") in order to reinforce the Hellinic element in
these areas. Thus we learn, for example, that emperor Nicephorus
(802-811) established in the northern Hellinic area populations which
he transferred from all administrative districts ("ek pantos thematos")
of Anatolia.
So we find that throughout history, Hellas had always distinguished
itself from non-Hellinic elements, while the above proves the opposite
for the Turks.
My point was that without Aromans there would be only the Acropolis in Athens. No National Technical University of Athens (Metsovio), no Archaeological Museum, no Zappio, to mention few among several.
Without any attempt to degrade the large contribution of the Aromans to
Hellas, your comment is a bit far streched. You seem to forget that you
are a Hellin first and then part of your "tribe" named Aroman,
Moglonites, Maurovlachoi, Grammoutsianoi, Sarmaniotes,
Koutsovlachoi............... or any other name. So actually Athens has
these
institutions thanks to the contribution of the Hellines. Unless you
consider yourself of some foreign origin that was allegedly assimilated
as Alparslan mentioned?
Anyway, Hellas is much more than Athens alone.
Are you out of your mind adelfe? What part of my post seems so suspicious to you? After all, I am proud I am an Aroman and I know better than anyone else that I am a Hellen first. You didn't have to remind me of that since I don't seem lost regarding my nationality, do I?
You probably missed one of my previous post: "I am Aroman (Vlach) from both my parents' sides and all propagandists should know that genetically Aromans do not differ at all from their neighboring Greek speaking people. What matters the most though, is our total loyalty to the values of the Orthodox Church and Hellenism throughout the centuries. It is national conscience that classifies you to a specific nation, not your language neither your religion unless you wish they did."
Your reply should better be addressed to the Turk who thought he was ironic. No matter what all people think, the contribution of Aromans to the formation of the modern Hellenic state has been invaluable.
I wouldn't actually use the "term" suspicius. I just find it
interesting that you find more pride in declaring your Aromanian origin
than your Hellinic. I might be wrong but you seem to separate these
people when they are one and the same. As I said, I might be wrong!! but the "neighboring Greek speaking people" term you
used, kinda hit me, other than that I have no objection to what you've
posted.
(Prwta kai panw ap'ola Ellhnas, meta Blaxos, Maniaths........)
The term was used in order to prove that no matter what the language of Aromans is, they are autochthonous people of Greece and they don't differ at all from the people who have preserved Greek as their mother tongue. After all, it was cable guy who falsely mentioned that Greeks of Vlach origin forget their grandfathers (he also got poetic ). He motivated me to remind him that not only we are proud to be Aromans, but that our pure Hellenic origin makes even prouder as well.
Aristotle and Apollodorus wrote about Graeci, who were the Selle or Helle a Hellinic tribe of Epirus.
In time I will have to check out these sources. I know the Greeks were mentioned in the Old Testement but were they called Hellenes?
I wonder what the ancient Hebrews called them?????
Not
really familiar to Hebrew but I know that the Hellinic translation of
O.Testament Zechariyah chap. 9. 13 mentions the sons of Hellas but
while searching for it online, I found that the english translated text
uses the name "Javan".
Don't know what to make of it.
Loke, Attila, the grete conqueror,
Deyde in his sleep, with shame and dishonour,
Bleedinge ay at the nose in dronkenesse,
A captayin shoulde live in sobrenesse
I was wondering, since Greeks call there land Hellas, why is it everyone else calls it Greece? Where did that come from?
Dear sir
This is what some of Macedonian historical view on the matter of your question
why .May you'll agree ,may not ,but still it's nice stuff for at least reading only
regards
From the little book of BIG Greek lies>>
> >
BIG Greek Lie # 1>>
> >
Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks>>
> >
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)>>
> >
By Risto Stefov
> >
[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> and its institutions. As long as the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.] >>
> >
How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years?>>
> >
Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern lace>Macedonialace>, a region neighbouring modern lace>Greecelace> be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? >>
> >
These are questions that every Greek should be asking!>>
> >
Ever since Philip II of lace>Macedonialace> conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of lace>Chaeronealace> in 338 BC, the region south of lace>Olympuslace> has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements.>>
> >
THE BIG GREEK LIE: Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancient Greeks>>
> >
There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.>>
> >
It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state.In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.>>
> >
The name lace>Greecelace> was imposed on the lace>lacename>modern Greeklacename>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype>lace> by the Great Powers Britain, lace>Francelace> and lace>Russialace>. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state lace>Hellaslace> (Ellas).>>
> >
By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. >>
> >
By using the name lace>Greecelace> to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> is falsely implying;>>
> >
(1) continuity between the ancient lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and modern lace>Greecelace>, and >>
> >
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
> >
In reality the words lace>Greecelace> and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words lace>Greecelace>.>>
> >
The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in tate>lace>Sicilylace>tate> as Grecos but they referred to the region south of lace>Olympuslace> as Achaia.>>
> >
During the Ottoman era the people living south of lace>Olympuslace> called themselves Romeos (Romans).>>
> >
lace>Greecelace> is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The lace>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype> of lacename>Greecelacename>lace>, occupying the region of Morea, present day lace>Peloponnesuslace>, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day lace>Greecelace>, by conquering lace>Epiruslace>, lace>Thessalylace> and 51% of lace>Macedonialace>.>>
> >
At its inception lace>Greecelace> stated out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time lace>Greecelace> conquered lace>Epiruslace> and lace>Thessalylace>, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000.After it conquered lace>Macedonialace> and exchanged populations with lace>Turkeylace>, its population tripled. In 1928 lace>Greecelace> registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from lace>Asia Minorlace>.>>
> >
After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with lace>Turkeylace>, lace>Greecelace> declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population.>>
> >
It is estimated that after lace>Macedonialace> was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks. >>
> >
According to lace>Greecelace> however, there were no non-Greeks left in lace>Macedonialace> after its population exchanges. Also, according to lace>Greecelace>, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. >>
> >
So the question that begs to be asked here is, What nationality were these million or so people who remained in lace>Macedonialace> and became part of lace>Greecelace>?Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians!>>
> >
If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek? What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the ancient Greeks?>>
> >
Even this small argument shows that there is something fishy about these Greek claims.>>
> >
For over a century and a half lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.>>
> >
This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation.Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous. >>
> >
It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in lace>Atticalace> was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In lace>Spartalace> there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of lace>Athenslace> were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of lace>Spartalace> all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline. Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous. (Pages 83 and 84, John Shea, lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)>>
> >
And there you have it!>>
> >
THE TRUTH: The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation.>>
SIr, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THTA QUESTION?! He wanted to know about the NAME, not about if Greeks were related to the ancients. Prehaps he should post one back ABOUT the Bulgarian/serbian mixing which resulted in Present Day FYROMians
If anyone would like to read more that a tittle of previous post could find out what are you pointing as well :
-There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the City States and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.
-The name Greece was imposed on the modern Greek Kingdom by the Great Powers Britain, France and Russia.
-By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients.
-By using the name Greece to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the Greek State is falsely implying;
(1) continuity between the ancient City States and modern Greece, and
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
-In reality the words Greece and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words Greece. >>
-The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in Sicily as Grecos but they referred to the region south of Olympus as Achaia.
During the Ottoman era the people living south of Olympus called themselves Romeos (Romans). >>
-Greece is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The Kingdom of Greece, occupying the region of Morea, present day Peloponnesus, was created for the first time in 1829.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
I was wondering, since Greeks call there land Hellas, why is it everyone else calls it Greece? Where did that come from?
Dear sir
This is what some of Macedonian historical view on the matter of your question
why .May you'll agree ,may not ,but still it's nice stuff for at least reading only
regards
From the little book of BIG Greek lies>>
> >
BIG Greek Lie # 1>>
> >
Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Greeks>>
> >
(The greatest victims of Greek lies are the Greeks themselves)>>
> >
By Risto Stefov
> >
[NOTE: Our apologies to the Greek people if they find these articles offensive. Our objective here is NOT to create tension between the Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> and its institutions. As long as the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> denies our existence as Macedonians with rights and privileges, we will continue to publish these types of articles.] >>
> >
How can a region in the Balkans where modern Greece is located today, which has been open to a multitude of invasions, conquests and settlements, remain homogeneous and untouched for two thousand seven hundred years?>>
> >
Ironically, as the Greeks claim, how can modern lace>Macedonialace>, a region neighbouring modern lace>Greecelace> be so heterogeneous that it has completely lost its original identity? >>
> >
These are questions that every Greek should be asking!>>
> >
Ever since Philip II of lace>Macedonialace> conquered the ancient City States at the conclusion of the battle of lace>Chaeronealace> in 338 BC, the region south of lace>Olympuslace> has been without borders and open to all kinds of invasions and barbarian settlements.>>
> >
THE BIG GREEK LIE: Modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancient Greeks>>
> >
There were no Ancient Greeks since the word Greek was not coined until after the Roman conquests, approximately 600 years after the establishment of the lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and approximately 150 years after they were conquered by the Macedonians.>>
> >
It is also well known that the ancient City States were never united politically and never established themselves as a single state.In fact they existed politically independent from one another and fought each other for economic dominance of the region.>>
> >
The name lace>Greecelace> was imposed on the lace>lacename>modern Greeklacename>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype>lace> by the Great Powers Britain, lace>Francelace> and lace>Russialace>. Modern Greeks call themselves Hellenes (Ellines) and their state lace>Hellaslace> (Ellas).>>
> >
By using the name Greek to refer to both the ancient and modern people, the Greek state falsely implies descent for the modern Greeks from the ancients. >>
> >
By using the name lace>Greecelace> to refer to both the ancient and modern states, the lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> is falsely implying;>>
> >
(1) continuity between the ancient lace>lacetype>Citylacetype>lacetype>Stateslacetype>lace> and modern lace>Greecelace>, and >>
> >
(2) that there was some sort of political unity between the ancient City States themselves where one did not exist.. >>
> >
In reality the words lace>Greecelace> and Greek were popularized by modern 19th century writers. There are no ancient maps or references with the words lace>Greecelace>.>>
> >
The Romans may have made some references to the ancient people living in tate>lace>Sicilylace>tate> as Grecos but they referred to the region south of lace>Olympuslace> as Achaia.>>
> >
During the Ottoman era the people living south of lace>Olympuslace> called themselves Romeos (Romans).>>
> >
lace>Greecelace> is a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century. The lace>lacetype>Kingdomlacetype> of lacename>Greecelacename>lace>, occupying the region of Morea, present day lace>Peloponnesuslace>, was created for the first time in 1829. Between 1829 and 1912 the Greeks enlarged their territory to present day lace>Greecelace>, by conquering lace>Epiruslace>, lace>Thessalylace> and 51% of lace>Macedonialace>.>>
> >
At its inception lace>Greecelace> stated out with a small population of less than one million people, most of whom were Albanians, Slavs and Vlahs with a small minority of other ethnicities. By the time lace>Greecelace> conquered lace>Epiruslace> and lace>Thessalylace>, its population grew to three times its original size. In 1907 it registered a population of 2,600,000.After it conquered lace>Macedonialace> and exchanged populations with lace>Turkeylace>, its population tripled. In 1928 lace>Greecelace> registered 6,200,000 people. 1,100,000 of them were Christians, refugees from lace>Asia Minorlace>.>>
> >
After the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923, and after the population exchanges with lace>Turkeylace>, lace>Greecelace> declared itself homogenous consisting of 100% pure Greeks with a very small Muslim but ethnically Greek population.>>
> >
It is estimated that after lace>Macedonialace> was conquered, occupied and had some of its population evicted, more than one million Macedonians still remained and were included among the Greeks. >>
> >
According to lace>Greecelace> however, there were no non-Greeks left in lace>Macedonialace> after its population exchanges. Also, according to lace>Greecelace>, the ancient Macedonians were extinct, killed off by the Slavs around the 6th century AD during the so-called Slav invasions. >>
> >
So the question that begs to be asked here is, What nationality were these million or so people who remained in lace>Macedonialace> and became part of lace>Greecelace>?Many Greeks would argue that they were Bulgarians!>>
> >
If that were the case, then how can the modern Greeks claim purity and homogeneity if at least 16% of its population in 1928 was non-Greek? What about its Vlah, Slav, Albanian and Turkish elements? Clearly they are not Greeks, let alone being direct descendents of the ancient Greeks?>>
> >
Even this small argument shows that there is something fishy about these Greek claims.>>
> >
For over a century and a half lace>lacename>Greeklacename>lacetype>Statelacetype>lace> institutions, organizations and individuals have been making unproven and unfounded allegations that the modern Greeks are direct descendents of the ancients. To this day they have shown no evidence to prove their claims. In fact the opposite is true. There is ample evidence that proves that this particular modern Greek claim is an outright BIG Greek lie.>>
> >
This exact issue was tackled by Historian John Shea in chapter 4 of The Great Ethnic Mix of Greece, pages 77 to 96, in his book lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation.Among other things, John Shea proves that even the ancient people were not homogeneous. >>
> >
It has been estimated that in classical times the number of slaves in lace>Atticalace> was roughly equal to the number of free inhabitants, or around 100,000. In lace>Spartalace> there was an even greater proportion of slaves, and most of them, the helots, were Messenians. While the slaves of lace>Athenslace> were a wide racial mix and therefore less likely to unite on the basis of a common language, these Messenian helots of lace>Spartalace> all spoke Greek, and had a kind of group self-consciousness. Thus they presented special problems of security for their Spartan masters, whose numbers were constantly on the decline. Changes in the ethnic composition of Greek city-states are illustrated by the comments about the case of Piso. Piso, who had been the recipient of an unhelpful decision by a vote of the Athenian city assembly, made a violent speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, and Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves. He said that any Roman who flattered them as if they were the legitimate heirs of those ancient heroes was lowering the dignity of the Roman name.Such historical ideas make it clear that even two thousand years ago the notion of ethnic purity amongst the Greeks was difficult to sustain. The ethnic mix continued over the next two thousand years. As Nicol has observed, The ancient Greeks were, after all, of very mixed ancestry; and there can be no doubt that the Byzantine Greeks, both before and after the Slav occupation, were even more heterogenous. (Pages 83 and 84, John Shea, lace>Macedonialace> and lace>Greecelace>, The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation)>>
> >
And there you have it!>>
> >
THE TRUTH: The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation.>>
I always wonder why some people are so negative in understanding basic science and replace it with basic propaganda. I have come down to the result that these people are not able to understand science and find more easy to digest epty propaganda words....
But science , cannot be stopped and cannot be denied ....it is always present .....and it is absolute , up to the point when other scientific data are proven otherwise..
So , lets see what science and scientists have to say :
(The book is sold out, but soon will be republished).
Four successive editions, constantly enriched with new data, are edited concerning the Anthropological - Ethnogenetic study of the Greek population. The basis of this work is Aris N. Poulianos dissertation, which took place in the University of Moscow, under the supervision of the famous professor of Anthropology F. G. Debetz. The research was based on the study of 70 human characteristics (p. ex. body height, width of face, skin colour, shape of eyes etc.) of about 3000 Greek emigrants (after 1949 civil war) in the f. Soviet Union from different Hellenic areas. The statistical elaboration of these characteristics in combination with their geographical distribution demonstrated mathematically (because of their low dispersion) the incessant biological continuity of the Greeks all through the historic and prehistoric epochs, which refer at least to the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic periods (15.000-30.000 years). This historical continuity is also proved by the comparison of measurements of the contemporary inhabitants with those of the ancient skulls of Greece, which statistically show no differences. Despite the occasional influences and limited migrations of populations, the anthropological research has shown that the population of Greece is basically native and that the contemporary Greeks are descendants of the ancient peoples who resided in the Greek peninsula. The same study indicated that the Albanian-speaking, Slav-speaking (Monte Negro included) as well as Valaches (Vlachi) of the greater Macedonian region are in their majority also autochthonous and therefore the influences from abroad mainly concerns the adoption of the chronologically younger languages, which are in use today.
The interest of the Press concerning the "Origin of the Greeks" is indicatively quoted in the following publications:
Avgi, 6-1-1962: Over 150 scientists of the University and the Academy of Moscow have fully agreed with the scientific views of Mr. Aris. Poulianos, underlining the seriousness of the research, and without sparing their expressions, they spoke with praising words about him. Dr S. A. Tocarev, professor of ethnography in the University of Moscow and head of the Department of Ethnography regarding the peoples of Europe at the Institute of Ethnography of the Moscow Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
Aris Poulianos work presents an exceptional interest for the ethnographic science. The huge anthropological material of Greeks, which is concentrated and statistically elaborated, introduces for the first time new scientific sources for the study of a problem of basic importance, as is the problem of the origin of the Greek people. So far, concerning same issue it was generally accepted in science that contemporary Greeks historically have very few common elements with the ancient Greeks founders of the ancient civilization, and that contemporary Greeks in their greatest part represent descendants of Slavs, Albanians and other peoples who migrated in Greece and blended with the Greeks of the Byzantine era. Contrary, the writer of the present study, convincingly and based on analogous material, showed that whatever the influence of Slavs and other peoples who came in contact with the Greeks was, the people of modern Greece is basically descendant of the ancient population of the Balkans and the Aegean islands.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Why not Hellas?
No National Technical University of Athens (Metsovio), no Archaeological Museum, no Zappio, to mention few among several.
). He motivated me to remind him that not only we are proud to be Aromans, but that our pure Hellenic origin makes even prouder as well.
we are good at getting stuff right sometimes..
