Just as in almost every other language, many countries are not referred to by what they call themselves but by what the are called in that language.

Greece - Griechenland - Grecia - Grece  (as Cywr said - all refelcting the same Latin root)

France - Frankreich - Francia (All referring not to the latin name for the land - but to the "Franks" who lived there)

Germany - Allemagne - Germania - Deutschland

Some countries are referred to by what their name means  - which then bears little relationship to the original pronunciation:

Unites States - Etats Unis - Vereinigten Staaten - Stati Uniti

It depends on when the country acquired it's name and how the various languages developed.

What are greeks called in Esperanto?

Because I know that from Cywr's earlier posting they got Wales right? Kymri(?) or something like that?

It's also interesting that all "eastern" people call us "Yunan"  (Iones) because they have learned about us from the Persians, while all "western" people call us "Greek" because they have learned about us from the Romans.

Btw, the word Greek is coming from an Eboean conoly in Italy called Graea, with which the Romans came into contact first. Therefore all Hellenes were called: Graeki.

Actually, the etymology of the name "Greek" (Graeci in Roman) goes back to the first actual Greeks the Romans encountered. The Greeks always called themselves "Hellenes", but the Romans applied the specific name "Greek" to all those that spoke a similar language to the Graeci they encountered and thous it prevailed (seing that Latin has heavily influenced most European languages).

Most eastern languages are using the root -yon- which comes from the Persian Yunon (IIRC)  which is a paraphrase of the Greek Ionian.

So, both the easteners and the westeners are using the name of a single Greek tribe to describe all the Hellenes.

The Han language has refered to Greece as XiLai (English spelling shounds like SiLai) as early as Han dynasty.

Now it is called XiLa.

Arabic:íæäÇä

Fixed, pronounced Yunan(not Yunnan, thats chinese) which means Greece, for greek nationals its "íæäÇäí"

I think its a corruption of the english/latin(?) word "Ionian".

Actually, it's Grécia. Just a minor correction. The people are grego(s) and grega(s). There are also the adjective helénico and the noun Hélade, but are especially used only in academic contexts.

the word Hellas or Hellines sounds better than the word Greece

I couldn't agree more, but unforstunatelly Greece is what the country is known as now and it will (probably) never change.

The Germans are even worse, they're known as Germans, Deutch, Alleman, Tedeski (sp?) etc...

Njemci, is the word for Germans, in many slavic languages, it means mute people.

But the explenation that one Tribe gave the name for all, it seems plausible to me, because the romans gave a Continent ,  the name of the first tribe they had met there, the Afris.

Hi, I'm new here. Just read the topic.

Yes, Hellenes/Hellenas/Hellens came from a person named Hellen in Greek Myth.

But that was not Hellen of Troy.

According to Greek Myth, that was Hellen I, son of Deucalion I, who in turn was the son of Prometheus the Titan. The Greeks considered themselves the descendants of Hellen I.

After the Great Flood at the end of the Third Age, only 2 human beings survived, Deucalion I and his wife, Pyrrha, who found refuge on the Parnassus mountain. After the Jupiter commanded the Flood to cease, the couple came to a temple and received an oracle "Depart from the temple with head veiled and garments unbound, and cast behind you the bones of your mother" Since the human race was created by Prometheus from Earth, so the Earth is the Mother of all (Hence Mother Earth). They casted the stones over their shoulders. The stones began to grow soft and assume shape of humans. Thus came the human race renewed.

You can refer to Thomas Buffinch's Mythology

The use of the name 'Hellas' is a relatively new phenomena even compared to the use of name "Greece' in todays modern Greece. The original word for 'Greek' by todays modern Greeks was 'Romiosini' reflecting the multi-cultural background (Albanian, Vlach, Gypsie, Turkish etc) of the majority of the population of modern Greece.

'Romiosini' was simply the Ottoman term for a Christian in the Balkan region and the terms 'Greece' and 'Hellas' were only adopted after the creation of the modern Greek state as part of the nation building process. The adoption of the modern Greek langauge (a langauge at that stage confined mostly to eastern Orthodox Church litergy until then) and the introduction of the continuity myth (the myth of direct descent from the ancient Hellenes) were to become the most important factors in the creation of modern Greece.

So successful were the above efforts in the creation of modern Greek national identity that many modern Greeks today forget (or simply don't want to remember) that their grandparents or great grandparents were Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Gypsies etc. The whole issue is a very controversial topic for modern Greeks, who when reminded of these facts, predictably react with anger and hostility.

Something tells me that you're one of the Slavomacedonians (FYROMians) that were banned some time ago!

We intend to keep the peace in this forum, so please keep in mind that continuing to post posts that are (not so cleverly) intented to provoke, will get you banned!

Alternative history is one thing, provocation is another. So if you don't have anything inteligent to post, just stay mute...

PS

That "Romiosini" part was soooo ignorant....

I was born in Salonica but have grown up in melbourne, Australia.

If you don't believe in such nonsense as 'racial purity', then why are you geting so upset. The fact is that modern Greece is a relatively new state created through the assimilation of a wide variety of ethnically diverse peoples under the myth of continuity (descent from the ancient Hellenes) and the adoption of the modern Greek language.  As I said before, and you yourself have proved, this topic is a very controversial issue for modern Greeks.

Sorry Yiannis, but this rubbish. Firstly, what exactly is the "Byzantine Greek past"? The Byzantine empire was nothing more then the Eastern Roman empire. The only thing 'Greek' about it was the abandonment of Latin and the adoption of Greek as the langauge of state administration and church litergy. The reason for choosing Greek was because in the eastern Mediterranean during that period, Greek was the common language of trade, diplomacy for the all the different races in that region, and not because the empire was 'Greek'. The is the reason why the various ethnic groups in the area of todays modern Greece all referred to themselves as 'Romios' during the Ottoman period and NOT 'Greek' or 'Hellene' as they had absolutey no knowledge of what ancient Greece was or who ancient Greeks were. It was not until the Philhellenism of the English and Germans and the creation of the modern Greece state that most modern Greeks learned about the history of the ancient Hellenes.

Hi Sharrukin,

One thing you are all forgeting is that Byzantium and Constantinople were very multi-racial places. The fact that Greek was already used in everday life (although largely confined to educated persons etc), as a common langauge of communication for all the various ethnic groups, is the main reason why Latin was abandoned.

There is a big distinction between being a 'Greek speaker' and actually being 'Greek', showing the continuity theory to be false when considering the fact the the overwhelming majority of the population of Byzantium weren't actually 'Greek'.

The point I was trying to make in my original post was that area of Greece during the formation of the modern Greek state was a very ethnically diverse place where the various ethnic groups simply referred to themselves as 'Romios' meaning Christian and not 'Greek' or 'Hellene', as they had absolutely no knowledge of Hellenic history or what an ancient Hellene actually was. The majority of the ancestors of todays modern Greeks only became aware of Hellenic history after learning about it from their English, French and German sponsors during the creation of the modern Greek state in the 1830's. The adoption of the continuity myth of direct descent from the ancient Hellenes and creation of the modern Greek langauge were to become the main factors in the formation of the modern Greek national identity. Thus terms such as 'Greek' or 'Hellene' are somewhat artifical today considering that less then 170 years ago the terms were largely unknown.

As someone has already pointed out, Byzantium/Constantinople was a Greek foundation, dating from about 660 BC (three precise foundation dates vary by 11 years around the 660 BC date).  It also needs to be pointed out that its geographic foundation cannot be viewed in isolation, since another Greek foundation at Chalcedon was founded on the other side of the Bosporus Strait, about 685 BC.  On the European side, Byzantium shared the region with Perinthus, founded by Greeks about 600 BC.  In all three sites, the impetus of colonization was from the Megarians, although the last was actually established by the Samians. 

Now, their Greek character remained intact, even when the Romans established their new capital at Byzantium.  Latin was the language of administration, but Greek remained the language of everyday life, until the reign of Heraclius, when Greek regained the status of the language of administration.  While it may be true that "Romans" were more than just Greeks, the Byzantines themselves did not forget about the significence of "Hellas".  It was the name of one of the Byzantine themes in Greece itself, encompassing in its greatest extent, the Peloponnese, Euboea, Attica, Boeotia, central Greece, and southern Thessaly.  It existed from c. 690 to 1204 when the Crusaders conquered Greece, divided it up into various kingdoms and duchies, discarding the name Hellas.  The Byzantines eventually regained a large part of their Greek possessions, (1261-2), but did not revive the name Hellas.   The Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453 and the last Byzantine territory in Greece, the Morea (the Peloponnese) was conquered by 1460.   

So, there was continuity, both on a linguistic level as well as geography.

As for the last, through ages the identitiy of many Greeks was changed to Turk, Albanian, Slavic, Bulgaric etc.

So in fact, with the creation of modern Greece, nothing else happened but most of the greeks that had lost their identity (you loose your identity if you don't have a state), found back their identity in the new Hellas.

In fact, it can not be denied that there is always been a continuation of history and culture of 4000 years.

I will agree with you on the fact that there is a big difference on being a Hellinic speaker and being a Hellin, but I don't recall anyone saying that the Byzantine empire was only "populated" by Hellines.
That is exactly why the Hellines had always distinguished themselves.

You mention "Rwmiosunh" (w=omega, h=hetta), but you neglect to mention the actual use of this "term".
All members of the Byzantine empire were, "named" "Rwmaioi", with one great difference, the word Hellines had became a synonym to "heathen" (see christian persecutions of the "old-faith") so the "term, "Rwmioi" was developed, to clearly distinguish the Hellinic Orthodox members of the "GENOS"= (gender, blood) while the term "Rwmaioi" was used to indicate all Orthodox christian members of the empire in general.

So according to you, the Hellines had no knowledge of their past.
Then why would Theodoros Kolokotronis among many others (war of independence1821), say that they must fight and even die if nessesary, for the "rocks" their ancestors left them.
Do you probably believe that the church let them forget?

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.

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.

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.

Javan = Iones (Ionians)

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

dear strategos

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.

Another copy/paste from our friend homer_makedonski from the propagandistic site http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov55.html - http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/stefov55.html

And you were telling me "propaganda is not your philosophy"???? your actions maybe???

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 ORIGIN OF THE GREEKS BY ARIS N. POULIANOS

(1961, 1964, 1968, 1988)

(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.

To be continued..

The worldwide famous anthropologist of Moscow University Dr I. I. Roginski notes that in the southern part of the Balkans a wide border between the Dinaric and the front Asian anthropological types is located. Therefore, in this area some of the general problems of the classification of the European and front Asian populations may be ascertained. It must be also noted that by this work, the critique of the racist fabrications, regarding the genesis of the ancient Greek civilization, is found. “(Note: meaning the racist theories supporting that contemporary Greeks are not descendents from the ancient and this is the reason why their civilization today falls short compared to that of the developed countries. On the contrary, besides the groundless comparison – if for instance the traditions would be taken into account – the scientific verification regarding the biological continuity of Greeks once more proves that the socio-historical and geographical conditions are the main factors ruling the people’s cultural level.)”.

“The director of the Anthropological department of the Academy Ethnographic Institute in Moscow, Dr M. G. Levin added: ...It may seem paradox that many European peoples have been studied less than the peoples from Australia, Melanesia and other remote countries, Greece being one of the lesser examined ...A. N. Poulianos work completes this missing knowledge. The writer is fully aware of the methodology of the anthropological researches, has strictly kept all the necessary terms and paid suitable attention.
The director of the Anthropological Institute and Moscow Anthropological Museum Dr B. P. Yiakimov stated: " My own view is that Mr A. N. Poulianos work represents the most perfect recapitulation regarding the Anthropology of Greeks."

From the other side of Atlantic, in USA, the director of the Smithsonian Institute, G.L. Angel, in a book review of “The origins of the Greeks” at the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (No 22, v. 5, 1964, p. 343) writes: Aris Poulianos… correctly verifies that there is a full genetic continuity from ancient to contemporary times.

In the newspaper "NEA" of 25-1-1962, it is mentioned that: “The scientific study of A. N. Poulianos refutes the dogmatic theory of the Greek hater, German historian Fallmerayer, who lived from 1790 to 1861, the time of the Greek fight for independence. Him (Fallmerayer) altogether dogmatically, that is without prior anthropological research - and therefore self-evidently anti-scientifically - tried to support the theory that Greeks are mainly Slavs. The researcher (A. Poulianos) ends by mentioning that the anthropological study, with the necessary historical and linguistic data, is necessary for the solution of ethnogenetic problems.

The present is the reflection of the past and in this lays its historical value. If the past helps us understand the present, the present helps us meditate on the future.

To be continued ..

CRETANS – AEGEANS – PELOPONNESIANS – SARAKATSANI

Thereinafter Aris Poulianos studied other 10.000 individuals and hundreds of skeletal remains from various Eurasian sites. The Greek groups, which were less represented in his PhD thesis (Aegeans, Peloponnesians, Pindos mountains), were finally studied after his return to Greece in 1965.

THE ORIGINS OF THE CRETANS AND AEGEANS

The basic conclusion (A. Poulianos 1971,1999) is that the contemporary population of Crete (based on a sample of 3.000 individuals) and the Aegean sea as a whole including the hinterland of Thrace and Asia Minor remained unaltered at least since the Minoan era and belongs to the aegean indigenous anthropological type. The migrations, which occurred during several historical periods, resulted in some light variations, but did not change the morphology of the original type. The influences do not exceed more than 1-3 % and this homogeneity betrays once again that the dwellers of the Aegean basin in general are locally born, at least since the Mesolithic epoch, that is 15.000 years BP (before present).

In 1987, the Italian Professor of Anthropology G. Facini during the 2nd World Congress of Palaeoanthropology in Torino, announced the existence of a 50.000 years human skeleton from Crete, with a morphology similar to the contemporary Homo sapiens sapiens and not that of the Neanderthal man. The announcement never reached the Greek Media, once the “Hellenic” Ministry for Culture stayed, as it was expected, indifferent!

In January of 1999, the medical magazine Tissue Antigens (vol.53) published an article based on blood studies, regarding the origin of Cretans. The final conclusion of this article is that the today inhabitants of Crete have a greater kinship to the … Berbers, to the … Semites and even to the … Japanese than to the Greeks (who, as they allege, arrived … 4.000 years ago in Greece!). In this way the origin of Cretans is transferred to …Africa or to the Middle East 10.000 years ago. Seven professors from Spain and three from Greece sign the article and unfortunately they reached the above conclusion following a route of low scientific standards, since they were based on a sample of only 135 individuals only the HLA gene is studied. They also little respected deontology, because ignoring the previous and more accurate anthropological bibliography, since the phenotype is represented by thousands of genes. Along this slippery way, also the work of A. Mourant et al: “The distribution of human blood groups and other polymorphisms”, University of Oxford, 1976, pp 1055, is missing from their bibliography. In this edition it is referred that the HLA gene is an unreliable basis to exact conclusions on such matters, since it makes the inhabitants of Basque, Iceland and Congo to have … bonds of kinship. It may be noted that views of this kind appeared since 1965, i.e. in a time when studies of molecular biology based on human DNA were not yet started, curiously coordinated toward the same direction (for example see the opposing Athens newspaper Athinaiki, 15/4/1966 : “Cretans … do not derive from Phoenicians and Semites.”).

As for their historical, linguistic and archaeological arguments the situation is no better. For example they make the hypothesis that when 10.000 years ago Sahara became a desert, perhaps the Berbers migrated … to Crete creating the Minoan civilization. In other words, instead of trying to find a way to survive they constructed … ships, and went to … Crete! Did not the authors really wonder about the probability that Cretans, rulers of the high seas at the time, traveled the opposite way, as many ancient sources refer? Moreover, the Sahara’s succulent sojourn faced an abrupt end about 5.500 years ago.”(see Sara Simpson, Scientific American Oct.1999, p.19) and naturally not 10.000 ago when the last fluvial climatic conditions (cataclysm) occurred.

However, this hematological work may be considered as just a hoax and not as related to analogous to Cyprus situations. It is only sad, in the verge of the 3rd millennium, to see scientific journals publishing uncritically such “essays”.

THE PELOPONNESIAN POPULATION (1977/

Th. Pitsios conducted the anthropological research regarding the Peloponnesian population, under the guidance of Dr A. Poulianos, preliminary announced in "Anthropos" (1977, v. 4, p. 5-36). It has verified the basic conclusions of “The origin of the Greeks”, completing the anthropometrical data with 1582 individuals. In 1978 it was published in a separate edition of the Anthropological Association of Greece (book No 2), dedicated with love to his master.

Isk.

Yiannis is correct that "Javan" meant "Ionians", at least originally, but was extended to include all Greeks.  It was taken from more archaic Greek form Iavones, thus the form Yavan which was known among the Hebrews, Phoenicians, and Aramaeans.  This points to an Archaic period familiarity amongst the peoples involved.  The Aramaic word actually made it to India, where the Greeks were known as Yavanas.  The Persian form Yauna derives from the later Greek form Iones, at the time of the conquest of Lydia (c. 547 BC).  Its kind of ironic that the Persian form also made it to India, where Greeks were also known as Yonas. 

The Hellenes were first called "Ãñáéêïß" ("Graeki" with the letter "G" pronounced "Y" as in "Yard") by the Illirians (present day Italians), when the former arrived in Italy from ancient Dodoni (city in Epirus, Greece) as colonists. According to another source, these colonists named Ãñáßïé or Ãñáßêïé ("Graii" or "Graeci"), came to Italy from Ãñáßá ("Graia"), an ancient town in Viotia, Greece (maybe contemporary Tanagra) and founded a new Hellenic Colony there with the name Nea Polis (which means New City, later to become known as Napoli, or Naples in English). This was the very first time that the Latins came close to the Hellenes (Greeks) and thus named them all "Graeci" after the citizens of Graia; and given that most modern European languages originate from Latin, the word "Graecus" became the root for all other respective names for ¸ëëçíáò and ÅëëÜò (ÅëëÜäá) ("Hellen" and "Hellas" or "Hellada"), e.g. Greek-Greece, Grec-Grèce, Grieche-Griechenland. Maybe the name "Hellenes" came from a greek tribe which lived near Dodoni and was called (S)Elli and this name was spread as Dodoni was one of the main ancient greek religion centers.

Later on, during the first Christian centuries, the word " ¸ëëçíåò" (Hellenes) became a synonym to "heathen", in order to distinguish the followers of old faith from those of the new -official- religion, and along with Ñùìéïß ("Romii", originating from "Romans") and Åëëáäéêïß (=of Greece), the name Ãñáéêïß (Graeki) stayed in use until the foundation of the new Hellenic state in 1832AC. From that time on, the ancient terms Hellas and Hellines are used primarily in the interior of this small peninsula in South-East Europe to identify the country and its inhabitants, while the ones originating from Graeci remain in the vocabularies of the European languages.

;laksdjf;lakfj;lakfja;lkfj