Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

In Europe the German historian Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer disputed the “Kingdom of Greece” national propaganda, not to mention that he is neither the first nor the last to consider the inhabitants of that small state non descending from the ancient Greeks. The desultory reaction of the theorists intellectual fathers of that artificial hellenization, e.g. S. Zambelios and C. Paparrigopoulos, would had collapsed with only one phrase of Fallmerayer, who wrote that False-Greeks “are people with Slavic arched eyebrows and tough lineaments of Albanian shepherds”. It did not happen. Mass hellenization of Slavic, Albanian and Vlach place names throughout Greece, during the last half of the 20th century, was only the summit of the iceberg.

FEARFUL HISTORY

Demetrios Horologas
so you do belive that albanians have slavic arched eye brows? as you clearly were raised in greece you know that is very easy to distinguish a greek from an albanian and if you are not sure then the short one should be the albanian
 
There was I think in 1923 a huge population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Greeks took about 1.5 million Anatolian Greeks and resettled them in mainland, including Populousness. That was 40% of population of Greece of that time. So no genetic study of Greeks tells the truth about genetic composition of Greeks of Middle ages when Fallmerayer visited Greece. To say now that Peloponnese's was not touched by resettlement of populations from Anatolia is not the truth. When Fallmerayer visited Greece he landed by ship on port of Pireus close to present day Athens. The first thing he realized was that local population spoke no Greek. He was greeted by hordes of Arvanites who spoke no Greek. Also the Vlah population of of Greece was significant. They might have composed 10% of total Greek population. He famously said something like: I guess I have to visit cemeteries. There is where the real Greeks lay. Unless the Anatolian Greeks have the same genes like the one Peloponesses have I don't see how this study could be true? I come to believe the expression: Don't believe everything you read!
the 1923 greek population was 4.8 millions +1.5million refugees = 6.3million tottal
so the anatolians were 23.8% not 40%
the refugees prefere to live in big cities like athens and thessaloniki so almost none came to peloponnese. A simple wiki research will confirm that...
the anatolian surnames are very distinct and are very rare in peloponesse
finaly anthropological studies like Tito Körner's sudy on lakonia conclude mediterraneans alpines dinarics and nordics as the racial components of the lakonians but not the armenoids and he is crystal clear about that
 
And, based on that post which still does not your ethnicity, you will not show your ethnicity. That being so, be prepared to be challenged as being a false flag commenter. To be clear, imo ethnicity makes little difference if the posts are based on science and verifiable and generally accepted 'facts' - so that one is seeking the truth, rather than advocating a position that is fundamentally an opinion. But ethnicity is pertinent if rash and unsupported comments are posted. Not everyone is versed on the flame wars that seem to be fun for some advocates. And when opinions are masked as facts, pealing back the facade to reveal a unhelpful* motive saves a lot of time. */ unhelpful to finding the truth.
Huh? Whatever. I'll have to put u in my ignore list together with Yetos. With regards to the Arbereshe brining I M423 to Italy, I don't think the Arbereshe were numerous enough to be responsible for the 5% in Apulia, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm actually surprised that there is I2-Din in Arbereshe as a previous study suggested that I2-Din came very late to the Southern Balkans because of the Arbereshe lacking it. The same study concluded that there were high levels of "Italian I2" into Arbereshe, suggesting a local Italian ancestry of those families being assimilated into the community. So I'll have to refer to the studies again when I have time and check for I M423.
 
so you do belive that albanians have slavic arched eye brows? as you clearly were raised in greece you know that is very easy to distinguish a greek from an albanian and if you are not sure then the short one should be the albanian
You are right that many Albanians in Greece are indeed short, especially the Tosk. But I dont think many people will agree with you if you compare the Albanian and Greek communities in the USA for instance.
 
the 1923 greek population was 4.8 millions +1.5million refugees = 6.3million tottal
so the anatolians were 23.8% not 40%
the refugees prefere to live in big cities like athens and thessaloniki so almost none came to peloponnese. A simple wiki research will confirm that...
the anatolian surnames are very distinct and are very rare in peloponesse
finaly anthropological studies like Tito Körner's sudy on lakonia conclude mediterraneans alpines dinarics and nordics as the racial components of the lakonians but not the armenoids and he is crystal clear about that

I think, speaking about slavs, Maniates, refugees, there is something emblematic, right in the heart of greekdom:
Areopoli
 
so you do belive that albanians have slavic arched eye brows? as you clearly were raised in greece you know that is very easy to distinguish a greek from an albanian and if you are not sure then the short one should be the albanian

I think you have to read carefully this greek scholar.
 
A reminder to posters: This is a thread dedicated to a particular paper. That paper does not address the genetic similarities between Greeks and Albanians. Any such discussion is off topic. I'll remove any further such off-topic posts.

The main topic addressed by the authors is whether there was a replacement of the locals by "Slavic" and "Middle Eastern" tribes, as proposed by some "historians" in the past. The genetics indicate that was not the case. In that regard yDna frequencies might add further insight.

Even if the topic were a comparison of Albanians and Greeks, a-scientific discussions of the shape of eyebrows are not probative in any way. For God's sake, people, this is the twenty-first century.

I will remove any further off-topic posts.
 
the 1923 greek population was 4.8 millions +1.5million refugees = 6.3million tottal
so the anatolians were 23.8% not 40%
the refugees prefere to live in big cities like athens and thessaloniki so almost none came to peloponnese. A simple wiki research will confirm that...
the anatolian surnames are very distinct and are very rare in peloponesse
finaly anthropological studies like Tito Körner's sudy on lakonia conclude mediterraneans alpines dinarics and nordics as the racial components of the lakonians but not the armenoids and he is crystal clear about that
The Wikipedia's page is clear, there is also a map about settlements. Peloponneso was basically untouched by Asia Minor Greeks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
 
A reminder to posters: This is a thread dedicated to a particular paper. That paper does not address the genetic similarities between Greeks and Albanians. Any such discussion is off topic. I'll remove any further such off-topic posts.
Well, it's bit difficult. It's like in a thread dedicated to the genetic of England and the consequences of the various invasions during the early Middle Ages, you ask to ignore the Scottish.
The main topic addressed by the authors is whether there was a replacement of the locals by "Slavic" and "Middle Eastern" tribes, as proposed by some "historians" in the past. The genetics indicate that was not the case. In that regard yDna frequencies might add further insight.

Even if the topic were a comparison of Albanians and Greeks, a-scientific discussions of the shape of eyebrows are not probative in any way. For God's sake, people, this is the twenty-first century.

I will remove any further off-topic posts.
Back to this "scientific" paper. I have an limited knowledge of genetics, but i can read and understand without problem the part of the paper dedicated to abstract, introduction and subjects and methods.
Even an person with an average knowledge of history can understand that this part of this "study", at least is totally inaccurate and the authors are ignorants in history. So, from this moment, since the object of the study is to prove that some scholars identified with the name of this poor Fallmerayer are wrong, we can conclude that this "study" is a crap. We know that greeks are experts in this kind of "studies". They invest much more money and time in the falsification of history then in the investigation and study of historical events. I can make a long post to explain what is wrong with this paper, but i will bring at your attention two moments.

From the abstract we learn that:
In 1830 CE, the German historian Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer presented his theory of disappearance of the Greek nation and its substitution by Slavs.9 Fallmerayer proposed that during the 6th century CE, large armies of Avars and Slavs overran the Balkans and eliminated the populations of the Hellas, who up to that period had successfully survived the attacks of barbarians and the religious suppression by the Byzantines. The Peloponnesean Greeks, except for few remnants enclosed in coastal castles, were slaughtered or forced to leave and Peloponnese was inhabited by Slavic tribes. The Slavs kept their identity for few centuries but eventually they were Hellenized under the influence of the Orthodox Church and interactions with Hellenized Asia Minor populations who were settled in Peloponnese by the Byzantines. Since the time Fallmerayer’s theory was published, a debate on the question of the ancestry of Peloponneseans has raged among historians (reviewed in Curta,10). Of note is that in spite of their diametrically different views, all historians have been using the same medieval written sources.

Controversies are rather common in historiography and result to endless debates among scholars. Controversies concerning the ancestry of populations can potentially be resolved by genetic analysis. In this paper, we use genome-wide data to study the genetic structure of the Peloponnesean populations and compare them with other populations of the world. We observe characteristic patterns of genetic differentiation within Peloponnese, we examine their possible causes and we focus on the question of the impact of Slavic migrations on the genetic structure of the Peloponnesean populations. Our results reject the theory of extinction of medieval Peloponnesean Greeks and their replacement by Slavic and Asia Minor settlers.

We know that there are people who support the theory of Fallmerayer and other who are against him. Now it's the moment to know the opinion of the people who are against Fallmerayer.
It's easy to find the opinion of this people, just open the page of Wikipedia and search for voice Greece :
From the 4th century, the Empire's Balkan territories, including Greece, suffered from the dislocation of the Barbarian Invasions. The raids and devastation of the Goths and Huns in the 4th and 5th centuries and the Slavic invasion of Greece in the 7th century resulted in a dramatic collapse in imperial authority in the Greek peninsula.[57] Following the Slavic invasion, the imperial government retained formal control of only the islands and coastal areas, particularly the densely populated walled cities such as Athens, Corinth and Thessalonica, while some mountainous areas in the interior held out on their own and continued to recognize imperial authority.[57] Outside of these areas, a limited amount of Slavic settlement is generally thought to have occurred, although on a much smaller scale than previously thought.[58][59]
The Byzantine recovery of lost provinces began toward the end of the 8th century and most of the Greek peninsula came under imperial control again, in stages, during the 9th century.[60][61] This process was facilitated by a large influx of Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor to the Greek peninsula, while at the same time many Slavs were captured and re-settled in Asia Minor and those that remained were assimilated.[58]
Well, it's evident that this people who have prepared this page of wiki are greeks. And their intention is to down play the role of the slavic invasion of Greece. They speak about a limited amount of Slavic settlements, but we know that for example Procopious described Greece as scythian desert. They speak about densely populated walled cities like Athens, but we know from archeological sources that Athens ceased to exist as city, etc. But this opponents of Fallmerayer accept this movement of populations from Greece in Asia Minor and the re-settlement of people from Italy and Asia Minor in Greece.
As you can see, the problem of the authors here, is not with Fallmerayer, but with all the historians. If you search in internet, for sure you can find greek "historians" who support this stupidity, internet is full with every kind of things, but as you can see, even those historians who are friendly with greeks, don't support the conclusion of this "study".

continue.
 
LABERIA: Well, it's bit difficult. It's like in a thread dedicated to the genetic of England and the consequences of the various invasions during the early Middle Ages, you ask to ignore the Scottish.

That's not an apt analogy. This thread is dedicated to a particular paper and that paper makes no pretense of being a definitive study of the genetics of the people of the Peloponnesus. It is examining two particular aspects of it. It's more like the many papers on England examining the impact of the Anglo-Saxons in places like York, for instance, which do not examine the impact of Scottish incursions. Are we clear now?


Back to this "scientific" paper. I have an limited knowledge of genetics, but i can read and understand without problem the part of the paper dedicated to abstract, introduction and subjects and methods.
Even an person with an average knowledge of history can understand that this part of this "study", at least is totally inaccurate and the authors are ignorants in history. So, from this moment, since the object of the study is to prove that some scholars identified with the name of this poor Fallmerayer are wrong, we can conclude that this "study" is a crap. We know that greeks are experts in this kind of "studies". They invest much more money and time in the falsification of history then in the investigation and study of historical events. I can make a long post to explain what is wrong with this paper, but i will bring at your attention two moments.

It's irrelevant that the paper contradicts the written history, so stop posting about the writings of some of these historians. Their work now goes into the trash bin. History is written by people, people who have all sorts of motives for distorting the facts, or who, with all the good intentions in the world, don't have the knowledge to understand what they have observed, and I'm saying this as some one who majored in history and has been studying it all her life. For goodness' sakes, the Bible says the world was created in seven days and the earth is only a few thousand years old, but geology tells us differently. Which do you believe?

I'm tired of explaining this, and you're not going to clutter up this thread repeating the same quotes over and over again. You've made your "point" such as it is. We all understand what you think. Now cut it out; it's becoming spam.

"We know that there are people who support the theory of Fallmerayer and other who are against him. Now it's the moment to know the opinion of the people who are against Fallmerayer.
It's easy to find the opinion of this people, just open the page of Wikipedia and search for voice Greece.


Well, it's evident that this people who have prepared this page of wiki are greeks. And their intention is to down play the role of the slavic invasion of Greece. They speak about a limited amount of Slavic settlements, but we know that for example Procopious described Greece as scythian desert. They speak about densely populated walled cities like Athens, but we know from archeological sources that Athens ceased to exist as city, etc. But this opponents of Fallmerayer accept this movement of populations from Greece in Asia Minor and the re-settlement of people from Italy and Asia Minor in Greece.
As you can see, the problem of the authors here, is not with Fallmerayer, but with all the historians. If you search in internet, for sure you can find greek "historians" who support this stupidity, internet is full with every kind of things, but as you can see, even those historians who are friendly with greeks, don't support the conclusion of this "study".

continue.

I don't know if it's written by Greeks or not. You can check that by looking at the history. You can also check their sources. Follow the citations. Read those papers. If there has been some distortion as to the results of those papers going on then you can dispute the posting.

Regardless, it's irrelevant. The genetics have spoken. If someone can show the genetics analysis is incorrect, fine. Otherwise, it is what it is. Of course, no one can force you to accept it. There are still people walking around who think the world was created by fiat a couple of thousand years ago too.
 
to angela
as a spartan my self (all 4 grandparents) i can answer your questions
Sparta is included to the lakonia population.
The slavs settled to taygetos that is on of the 2 mountains surrounding sparta so it is close to sparta but taygetos is a stiff mountain so they lived in isolation.
Today none of them haves them memory of slavic ancestry thats why they can not be tested separately.
You can find slavic landmarks all over taygetos but not in the spartan valley.
As i see by lakonia here includes north taygetos sparta and the rest of lakonia (there is a slight difference between the three of them).
Maniotes are lakonians too but they are separated from the rest of lakonians for historical reasons and in order to facilitate the research.
Mani had mantained its indipendence during the ottoman period so it is consindered to be more racialy pure and includes deep mani, east taygetos and west taygetos.
The difference is that west taygetos is actually in messenia (it is called by the maniots outer mani), east taygetos have some slavic landmarks and deep mani is considered to be the most untouched by other populations.
I must also say that i lived in south Italy for 7 years and i must confirm that distinguish greeks from italians is very difficult.
another information that you might find interesting is that some greeks from italy fled to peloponnese during the medieval times after byzantium lost its italian lands.
Finaly to my albanian friends.
Arvanites in peloponnese lived in small villages in the mountains and they were very few thats why they were easily absorbed by the greek speakers.
Infact i challenge you to find even one peloponnesean that claims to be an arvaniti as the arvanites of central greece do.
Face it you do not have a great past and that can not be changed by insulting others.
But if you want to prove yourselves you can try to create a great future, it is all up to you.

scusa mi per aver litigato con gli albanesi pero possono diventare molto fastidiosi a volte.
se hai qualsiasi domanda riguardo sparta sarrei felice di risponderti
 
The second moment is this:
Abstract
Peloponnese has been one of the cradles of the Classical European civilization and an important contributor to the ancient European history. It has also been the subject of a controversy about the ancestry of its population. In a theory hotly debated by scholars for over 170 years, the German historian Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer proposed that the medieval Peloponneseans were totally extinguished by Slavic and Avar invaders and replaced by Slavic settlers during the 6th century CE. Here we use 2.5 million......
Well, to put it it simple, because our moderator want that people accept her point of view, i will not take you much time, this is a big lie. If you quote an author, even if you don't share the same point of view or you don't like him, you have to quote correctly.
It's true that Fallmerayer said that ancient greeks were extinguished by slavs. But this event happened in the VII century. And from that moment of history until the XIX century are 1.200 years of history. And Fallmerayer, an expert in Medieval history of Greece, expressed his opinion about this long period. Other migrations and important events happened. The genetic material analyzed is not from VII century.
For these reasons, personally i think that this document is one of those things that greeks are very good to produce.
 
The second moment is this:

Well, to put it it simple, because our moderator want that people accept her point of view, i will not take you much time, this is a big lie. If you quote an author, even if you don't share the same point of view or you don't like him, you have to quote correctly.
It's true that Fallmerayer said that ancient greeks were extinguished by slavs. But this event happened in the VII century. And from that moment of history until the XIX century are 1.200 years of history. And Fallmerayer, an expert in Medieval history of Greece, expressed his opinion about this long period. Other migrations and important events happened. The genetic material analyzed is not from VII century.
For these reasons, personally i think that this document is one of those things that greeks are very good to produce.

That comment is a total fabrication of what is going on here. You are perfectly free to state that you disagree with the results of this paper. You've already done so, in fact, numerous times. All that is being asked of you is not to spam the same quotes over and over again.

No, the genetic material analyzed is not from the seventh century, but to my knowledge there was no subsequent migration of Slavs into the Peloponnesus. For the tenth and last time, the paper is only looking at the "Slavic" and "Levantine" correspondences or lack of them.

Stop spamming this thread over and over again with the same point, or there will be consequences.
 
It's true that Fallmerayer said that ancient greeks were extinguished by slavs. But this event happened in the VII century. And from that moment of history until the XIX century are 1.200 years of history. And Fallmerayer, an expert in Medieval history of Greece, expressed his opinion about this long period. Other migrations and important events happened. The genetic material analyzed is not from VII century.

Ok, I understand that it is difficult to let go when one obviously has an axe to grind, but I will try one last time based on simple logic: Fallmerayer argued that Peloponnesean Greeks had been replaced by Slavs. Had this indeed happened, the study we discuss here would have produced completely different results. It didn't. Furthermore, at least some elements of slavic folklore and customs would have survived. None did.
 
Ok, I understand that it is difficult to let go when one obviously has an axe to grind, but I will try one last time based on simple logic: Fallmerayer argued that Peloponnesean Greeks had been replaced by Slavs. Had this indeed happened, the study we discuss here would have produced completely different results. It didn't. Furthermore, at least some elements of slavic folklore and customs would have survived. None did.
Fallmerayer argued that ancient greeks were replaced by slavs, but he didn't said that greeks of XIX century, including the inhabitants of Peloponnesus were just hellenised slavs. He said another thing when he landed in Morea. In 1200 years of history many other major events happened. The authors of this study, intentionally ignore what exactly he said and they quote him selectively.
 
the 1923 greek population was 4.8 millions +1.5million refugees = 6.3million tottal
so the anatolians were 23.8% not 40%
the refugees prefere to live in big cities like athens and thessaloniki so almost none came to peloponnese. A simple wiki research will confirm that...
the anatolian surnames are very distinct and are very rare in peloponesse
finaly anthropological studies like Tito Körner's sudy on lakonia conclude mediterraneans alpines dinarics and nordics as the racial components of the lakonians but not the armenoids and he is crystal clear about that

The Wikipedia's page is clear, there is also a map about settlements. Peloponneso was basically untouched by Asia Minor Greeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey


The worst part of Population Exchange is the number of Turks. Turks have been fleeting from Greece since its independence (1821). However, Exchange was mostly focusing recent immigrations. Probably it is true also for Greeks

When the first time Greece's decleration of independence, they didn't have many lands so obviously people who escaped from Ottomans and decided to fight for Greece, went to Morea too. Not much as Greek Macedonia, but also not untouched by Asia Minor. Also even in the research, not all West Asian Greeks are different from Peloponnesian
Greece%201832%20to%201946.gif

Did someone tell something about a simple wiki research? :grin:

"In the early 20th century, Patras developed fast and became the first Greek city to introduce public streetlights and electrified tramways.[12] The war effort necessitated by the first World War hampered the city's development and also created uncontrollable urban sprawl after the influx of displaced persons from Asia Minor after the 1922 population exchange between Greece and Turkey."

This is from Wiki about Greek city Patras.
 
oh boy

some guys when the other is showing the moon, they just see the finger
 
Fallmerayer argued that ancient greeks were replaced by slavs, but he didn't said that greeks of XIX century, including the inhabitants of Peloponnesus were just hellenised slavs. He said another thing when he landed in Morea. In 1200 years of history many other major events happened. The authors of this study, intentionally ignore what exactly he said and they quote him selectively.

The authors focused on a specific assumption he made. That's how academic studies work. They test specific hypotheses, not vague general ideas.
If you want, you can have someone commission your own study, on whether the Greeks are Albanians, Chinese or Martians. But this paper is about something else.
 
The worst part of Population Exchange is the number of Turks. Turks have been fleeting from Greece since its independence (1821). However, Exchange was mostly focusing recent immigrations. Probably it is true also for Greeks

When the first time Greece's decleration of independence, they didn't have many lands so obviously people who escaped from Ottomans and decided to fight for Greece, went to Morea too. Not much as Greek Macedonia, but also not untouched by Asia Minor. Also even in the research, not all West Asian Greeks are different from Peloponnesian
Greece%201832%20to%201946.gif

Did someone tell something about a simple wiki research? :grin:

"In the early 20th century, Patras developed fast and became the first Greek city to introduce public streetlights and electrified tramways.[12] The war effort necessitated by the first World War hampered the city's development and also created uncontrollable urban sprawl after the influx of displaced persons from Asia Minor after the 1922 population exchange between Greece and Turkey."

This is from Wiki about Greek city Patras.

there is discussion among 2 high level politicians ( I think one is Kapodistrias (Capo d' Istria was alternative name for the Greek community hiden company like the Philiki of Trieste -Tergest after 1720's)
and it is said that none Turk left in that time modern Greece, by the term Turk or προσκυνημενοι (those who kneel) Greeks mean muslims and that include not only Turks but other Muslim nationalities also, like Albanians,

the
the exchange of 1922 has 3 rules

Rule 1 the Greeks who arrive will occupy each Turkish property of those who left as exchanged population to Turkey,
the Turk who stay will might keep max 100 000 m2 or 10 % of their property according the qitap (land register) with min the house or 8-10 000 m2
That is about 80% of Pontic people who stayed at the villages or at the tsiflik of the Turks who left 1 year before, and about 30 % of minor Asian (Smyrna) at what was called Nees ktiseis or New Greece (Greek expansion after 1860, Makedonia Epirus some islands and a part of Thessaly the ones called Vakuf (Ottoman properties like camps or forests who stayed as common property before, etc etc)

rule 2 Those who will go to old Greece (before 1860) will accept some British sauvereign or some other currency as help but not land to cultivate, since the land is given and is registered
alternative the state kept the money and bought land (απαλοτριωσις) and share a small piece of land able enough to build a typical poor home of tha era.
that is major part of minor Asians (Smyrna) about 50% and 10 % of Pontic, most them are those who raise the industrial effort of the big cities.of 30's till late 70's,
that was the major labour dynamic of the time, they mostly become working class for 2 generations. and is focused in certain areas, like Pireus Athens Volos Herakleion Mytiline Thessaloniki
and mostly have names of the area they come, like Nea Smyrne (New Izmir) Kordellio (karsiyaka) Nea Ionia (Yunan= Ιων=Ιοnian) etc

Rule 3
where the church has property big land area (do not remember the size), or areas that were in progress to dry for farming 50% will pass to refuggees (new land),
At peloponese there are 2 villages of minor Asians (Smyrna) at Heleia preferacture, but since they are after 1920's surely excluded from the search.
BUT Peloponese took the lowest almost zero of exchange population, since there was no Turkish property or exchangable population.

About Patras I do not know if there was previous devastation, from minor Asia, but if it was it should be merchants guild devastation, as also was at Smyrna,
but early 20th century is at least 40 after the limit of the search border 1860 if remember coorect, (I might be wrong)



Other interesting data that might be interest the Forum members,


Well Albanians have a point of view through Fallamyer, but they do not know that,

At 1821 Cretans came to fight, Karaiskakis died at Κρητων αναχωμα (Cretan defence) but none become Greek citizen, they remained Ottoman citizens,
at 1821 at Makedonia happened many revolts, most remarkable was Emm Pappas from Serres Georgakis |Olympios and |Diamantis Nikolaou ( from Pieria Makedonia)
all these and their men none become Greek citizen, all remained Ottoman citizens and went back,
Can you imagine how Makedonian Diamantis Nikolaou felt when he revolt, he liberated 3 islands he had his own battaglion gave battles there where no one dared to do,
But he returned as Ottoman citizen back to his lands?
can you imagine the rebels of Pappas who revolt almost conguer Thessaloniki (and they would do so, if ...) went to new Greece to see their leader die
and then return back as Ottoman citizens,
I will not expand to this why Fallmayer took wrong vision of Greece.
400 years of raya, what he expected to see? Greek man philosophizing? or naked man make gymnastics? maybe symposiums with Sokrates?
the 200 Pontic Greeks who followed Ypsilantis (majority went to Romania to revolt, Greek revolution started there)
went back to Ottoman empire and seen their leader die at Vienna, and his sister married to Crete, still as Ottoman citizens,

for the above reasons I am certain that the Greek from Asia admixture if the search is before 1860 is not at considerable level.

 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 368052 times.

Back
Top