ΠΥΛΗ ΚΑΤΑΝΟΥ
The Slavs
By “Slavs” we mean the people who speak the Slavic languages, that is, the Russians, Poles, the Czechs, Slovakians, Croatians, Serbs and Bulgarians. These people, though, do not share a specific racial relationship. That is, we do not have a Slavic nation or a Slavic nationality, but different people sharing a linguistic relationship.
The basic components of a nation are race and consciousness. In other words, a racial homogeneity must exist in the people and simultaneously a consciousness of their communal singularity. All other elements, such as language, civilization, morals, religion, etc. which are important, of course, are secondary. However, when one of these two basic components is absent, then the creation of a unified nation is unfeasible. This is exactly the case with the Slavic people. They do not share a specific racial relationship, except, of course, that they all belong to the white European race. Thus, the linguistic relationship by itself cannot make a unified Slavic nation. There were, of course, in the past such visionaries and so-called panslavistic attempts took place, but nothing really happened, since a true relationship among these people did not exist-neither physical nor mental.
I have already discussed the existence of “strong languages” that possess the ability to cross borders and under the appropriate conditions to prevail in different nations, and of “weak languages” that always remain with the people who created them. Various criteria distinguish strong from weak languages. It seems, at first that the grammatically complicated languages, that is, the most ancient languages, do not strongly react to their intermingling with other more simple languages, and finally the later prevail. Second, people with a national consciousness and highly developed civilization do not change their language easily. The third reason, of course, is mamarriages to foreign people, since without the mixture of families, the foreign language cannot infiltrate. The Slavic language was particularly strong because most of the neighbors of the Slavic cradle were culturally and mentally less developed and so accepted the Slavic language easily. The Rumanians constitute an exception.
The cradle of “Slavic homoglossy” is considered the area of eastern Austria, Slovakia and Galicia. Racially speaking, this area is of the so-called “Baltic race”. From the first and particularly from the fourth century the spread of the Slavic language began from this centre.
Paparigopoulos writes about three basic Slavic branches, the Antes, the Vendes, and the Vindes. The Antes formed the main Slavic branch which spread the Slavic language to Russia and Bulgaria. The Vendes, who formed the population of Slovakia, carried the Slavic language to Czechia and Slovenia. The Vindes moved to the south, to Byzantine Empire. The Antes had attempted an invasion of Thrace in the sixth century, but were defeated by the Byzantine Empire and retreated. On the contrary, the Vindes did not attempt any military campaign against the Byzantine Empire, but in groups moved peacefully to the south seeking places to reside. This slow and gradual movement of the Vindes began in the fifth century and lasted for more than five centuries. They settled down in an area of the north Balkans, mixed with the locals, and gradually moved farther south.
The geographical centre from which the Slavic language sprung is today racially Baltic. The eastern branch of the Continental race is called Baltic. The western branch of this Continental race is the so-called “Alpine race”. The Baltic race took this name because it considered that around the area of the Baltic Sea there are most of its representative types. The countries, however, of the eastern Baltic (Lithuania, Estonia, Letonia) are racially mixed with the Nordides, and as far as language is concerned, they do not belong to the Slavic people.
The same is true of the raciality of northern Poland. In the west, in Prussia, the presence of the Baltic race is quite intense. Scholars have given to this race several names such as: “eastern Baltic”, “eastern Alpine”, “Laponic”, “eastern European”, etc. Because I do not want to confuse the reader with such little differences, I use throughout the book the term “Baltic” as the basic anthropological type of the entire area.
From an anthropo-geographical point of view, the Continental race is absolutely different from the other European races (Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric etc.) so they cannot be confused. The Continental race has always had a tendency toward brachycephaly; today-after the general brachycephalization-it tends toward hyperbrachycephaly, but without occipital flatness. Thus, it cannot be confused with the Dinaric race. However, its main characteristic is europrosopy, that is, short and broad face, or compressed face. The morphological height is just 118-119 and the morphological index 83-84. The nose index is similar to that of the Mediterranean race (that is greater than the Dinaric); however, the nose of the Baltic branch is neither straight (as in the Mediterranean) nor crooked (as in the Dinarics): but snub (pug nose). A particularity of the Baltic race-compared to the alpine one-is the light colored hair from the Dinaric and from the main branch of the Mediterranean race.
The typical Baltic is blond with deep blue eyes. In terms of the iris of the eye, we must take into consideration that we do not have only two extreme colors (brown and blue), that is, only two genes. There are many genes which give several shades to the iris-like the grey in the Nordics, which the Baltics lack. The iris consists of sections, each having a pile of different shades-a result of heredity. Thus, the method of measuring the color of the iris, depending on the light or deep color, in brown, blue and intermingled, is too simple. In reality, “intermingled” eyes are not the mixture of blue with brown. The representative population in the Baltic race is today found in the area of south Poland and Slovakia. The typical characteristics of this race prevail there: europrosopy, small head length (which results in hyper-brachycephaly and orthocrany), and light fair hair are found in the western “Alpine race”, which is, however, mixed in a larger scale.
East Baltic race
East Baltic Estonian Baltic East Baltic Baltic men
A great participation of the “Alpines” is found in the French people, perhaps greater than 50% (if one considers that the europrosopy represent 25.3% of the population), and also a far greater participation in northwest France.
Based on what we have examined so far, one would expect that the initial Slavic nucleus, the protoslavs, would be anthropologically speaking, a Baltic type. However, this is not the case. The existing paleoanthropological evidence shows that the protoslavs were dolichocephalic (or even mesocephalic) and leptoprosophic. Of course, we do not have ample evidence because the Slavs of that period used to cremate their dead. However, the existing evidence is more than enough and proves that:
-
The area of Slovakia-south Poland up to the fifth century was not inhabited by Baltics but by Mediterraneans (mixed more or less with Dinarics).
-
That area, which was the Slavic centre, appears as Baltic only later on-and as long as the Slavic spreading had been concluded.
-
The few skeletal fragments of protoslavs that exist have a distinct Mediterranean structure.
-
The area of former Yugoslavia, which received the Slavs moving to the south, did not show the slightest Baltic influence, but on the contrary, showed a Mediterranean influence.
These critical observations lead to the conclusion that the branch of the Mediterranean race that flooded central Europe in prehistory, began at about the fifth century a massive return to the south. Meanwhile, the Slavic language (a branch again of the Iapetic homoglossy) had spread to the neighboring people. And the areas that the Mediterraneans had left flooded with new people from the northeast, inhabitants now of the Baltic race who also adopted the Slavic language. This process of population replacement is not clear today. Possibly the Baltics pushed out the north Mediterraneans, who in their turn moved to the south. What is certain from existing evidence, though, is that these protoslavs were racially a branch of the Mediterranean race.
The Russian scientist Bunak gives an example of a protoslavic cemetery. He refers to the findings of Cernjachov, which belonged to the Antes. According to the findings, we have Mediterranean people with somewhat Dinaric, but not Nordic or Baltic intermixture. The findings present a facial height of 69.5 zygomatic width of 131 (thus leptoprosopy with an index of 53.2), cranial length 186,4 and height 137.6, the index of B/L= 73.5 (dolichocrany).
Nordic race
The Austrian paleoanthropologist Toldt offers some very interesting evidence from research that he conducted on 12 protoslavic cemeteries (dating from the seventh to the twelfth century). He describes long skulls with a complete lack of brachycrany, and of some prognathism, establishing the great difference of the protoslavs with the modern inhabitants of the same areas. As Weninger notes, while earlier on in eastern Austria “the Mediterranean combination of characteristics continued to form the greatest percentage, afterwards, the Mediterranean characteristics were drastically reduced compared to earlier times”.
As far as Slovakia is concerned, as Jelinek comments, in the beginning of the Middle Ages, “the Slovakian, but also some south Moravian populations, had a smaller body height, dolichocrany, a more slender morphology, which denotes, based on the typical typology, a serious Mediterranean participation. And he adds that, even though the brachycephalization had generally begun at that time, it was not started by the Protoslavs (the latter, however, slowly moved to mesocrany). The skeletal fragments of the Middle Ages found in the country up to the tenth century reveal clearly a Mediterranean and not at all Baltic presence: cranial lengths between184 and 189, heights from 133 to 137.5, a facial index greater than 53.8. The differentiation that exists with the oncoming elements of the sixteenth century is impressive. The typical Baltic race which replaced the retreating Mediterraneans had now a facial index of 50-52 (europrosopy).
By studying the paleoanthropological picture of Poland, we discover that the Mediterranean participation in the population was radically reduced from 22.5% in the eleventh century to 4.3% in the eighteenth century; in an analogous way, the Nordic participation increased (from 17.5 to 38.6%) and the Baltic (from 5 to 37.1%), so that Wiercinsky talks about “a process of racial homogenization which covered the whole of Poland”. Essentially it is not about a “racial homogenization”, since the Nordic race dominates the northern part of Poland, while the Baltic dominates the south.
Return to the South
In the area of the former Yugoslavia, where the Protoslavs prevailed, a de-brachycephalization took place. While the Dinarics who lived there had descent of the Mediterranean Protoslavs intercepted that process and reversed it. In de-brachycephalization, it was not only the specific mixture with the dolichocranic people that contributed, but also the mixture by itself, as the raising of endogamy.
The anthropologist Gavrilovich provides the diagram of the progress of the cranial index B/L in the former Yugoslavia, stressing that the southern Slavs (that is, the Protoslavs who entered his country) were dolichocephalic, “as were the eastern Slavs and the western Slavs” (meaning the Antes and the Vendes). The diagram shows that the descent of the Mediterraneans from central Europe to the south must have begun much earlier, as from about -500 the cranial index in northern Yugoslavia starts to decrease gradually from the 78 that it had reached then. That was not due to the Baltics, who had then a larger cranial index B/L (78-81), but to the north-Mediterraneans, those whom Strabo calls Celts.
Southern Yugoslavia (that is Serbia-Montenegro) which was more densely Dinaric and thus more brachycephalic, experienced a north-Mediterranean infiltration later at the onset of the Byzantine era; thus, the cranial index which had reached a maximum of 80.5, began once again to decrease toward mesocrany. The same diagram indicates that around the twelfth century, the Dinaric population finally absorbed the incoming Mediterraneans, and as a result the cranial index started again to ascend toward the present-day hyper-brachycephaly.
Clearly the picture would be completely different if the Protoslavs were Baltics. There would have been at least a reduction of the facial index in the former Yugoslavia from the Dinaric leptoprosopy to europrosopy. But this is not the case. Based on the paleoanthropological data that the Serb scientist Gavrilovich provides, the index remained stable (at about 53.5) to the north of the country, while to the south it became even more leptoprosopic (from 51.6 during the Roman era, it ascended to 53.2 in the twelfth century). Analogous was also the progress of the nasal index in the area. If it had been a Baltic invasion then the index would have increased – that is, a tendency toward mesorrhiny. The opposite, however, took place. There was a reduction of the nasal index (on skulls) in the northern country from 50.2 to 46.5 and in the southern country from 49.5 to 47.5.
The nasal index of living subjects is on the Dinarics much smaller than the Mediterranean, but on the skulls (of skeletons) inversely the Mediterranean index is a bit smaller (about 48 compared to the 49 of the Dinarics). This fact can be explained by the following: the nose consists of a bony part and of a fleshy part. One race with a small bony part may have a very large fleshy part, as is true of the Dinarics. Something analogous happens with the Armenoids.
Generally, we can ascertain without any doubt that the Slavic invasion of the area of the former Yugoslavia resulted in a Mediterranean and not a Baltic influence on the Dinaric population. Moreover, in the north the Mediterranean anthropometric elements prevailed. But Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Voivodina are rather Dinaric areas, with hyper-branchycephaly, occipital flatness, leptorrhinic (with often a hooked nose) and macroprosopy. Poulianos notes, “The Slavic races crossed the Danube toward the Balkans during the sixth and seventh centuries. These movements, however, as the anthropological data reveal were not so massive as to change the physical type of the people who lived in those areas”. The American anthropologist Coon, comparing the small Serbian skulls to the “Slavic” ones, suggests that the Serbs, anthropologically speaking, are not Slavs. The invading Vindes, however, managed to transmit the Slavic language almost to the entire Illyrian population (except Albania).
Anthropologically speaking, the Slavs were more active in the northern and western regions (Slovenia-Croatia). The somewhat increased percentage of light hair and eye color of these populations (with a brown iris less than 50% and dark hair less than 65%) derives exactly from the light colouredness of the Slav invaders. The Slovenes and Croatians do not have the strong Dinaric characteristics of the Serbs. Thus, there is a racial differentiation among Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, which has also caused their ethnological differentiation, having as a result their recent secession from the Yugoslavian state.
There are also other differentiations among these three people. Linguistically, Slovenian, differs from Serbo-Croatian, Serbian uses the Cyrillic alphabet, while the Croatian and Slovenian the Latin. The Serbs are Orthodox Christians, while the Croatians and the Slovenes are Catholics. These three people also had a different course in history. The Slovenes were under the Bavarian-Austrian influence for ages; Croatia was autonomous only between the ninth and twelfth centuries, after that she was subject to Hungary and later to the Ottoman Empire; while Serbia, after gaining its autonomy in the eleventh century, also became subject to the Ottoman Empire. These three people unified in Yugoslavia after WWI; however, during WWII, Slovenia and Croatia formed distinct state entities on the side of the Axis.
From a racial point of view the Protoslavs did not differ much from the classical Mediterranean race-the Helladic. First, they were fairer since they were also affected by the de-colorization of the north-eastern Europe, which had probably taken place in the -5th millennium. Second, they were still dolichocephalic, since the process of brachycephalization had not advanced so much in them.
Consequently, the Protoslavs can be considered a distinct breed of the Mediterranean race under the name “North-Mediterranean”. Today, even though the latter has been totally adsorbed by its neighboring peoples, it can still be classified as a branch of the great Mediterranean race beside the Helladic race, the Atlanto-Mediterranean (of the Iberian) and the Eastern-Mediterranean (of the Middle East).
The North-Mediterranean race is found today more in Slovenia, but also in Austria (where subsequently it infiltrated along with the Nordic race, spreading the Germanic language to the country). It can also be found in Croatia mixed with the Dinaric race and to a lesser degree in Serbia. It seems that from this data Hellas relates racially more to Slovenia, western Austria, and Croatia, than with Serbia, even though both countries are Christian Orthodox.
After the Slavic descent, the Dinarics continued to dominate central Yugoslavia with Montenegro as their racial centre. As Gavrilovich notes, the Mediterraneans prevail on the Dalmatian coasts, and mainly in (Northern) Macedonia. But we shall return to this later.
In conclusion, we ascertain that what we call the “Slavic boom” at the beginning of the Middle Ages, was actually an attempt by the descendants of those Proto-Hellenes who had spread to central Europe 4000 years ago and had flooded the northern area near the Danube and the Carpathians up to the Moravian Gates to return to the sea (Aegean, Black Sea), mainly to return to the south. It was an incredible attempt to return to the roots! Of course, the Antes’ attack against Byzantium in the sixth century was subconsciously motivated by the same desire as the return of the North-Mediterraneans to the south. Certainly this subconscious desire, which caused the Protoslavs after thousands of years to return in groups to the area from which they had set out once, cannot be explained rationally. This desire can be interpreted only as a tremendous manifestation of the immortal racial soul, which actually moves people and creates history. Of course, it might be a subconscious force also moved by some external causes. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Huns and Germans had invaded the area successively. Nevertheless, it was an incredible expedition that persisted for many generations. Finally the Slavic cradle area was almost emptied of Mediterraneans. (For the racial soul and its manifestations see also the relative chapter in Introduction to Biopolitics).
Meanwhile, from the time of the exodus of the Proto-Hellenes and their return to the Aegean, a new factor appeared. The Dinarics had infiltrated the Balkans from the east and had cut the former off. The entrance then of the Dinarics had led the Mediterraneans to the south of the Balkan Peninsula, but had left to the north another branch of them: the Protoslavs. These Protoslavs must have been the descendants of the ancient Dakians, Thracian people (relatives of the Getes) who resided around the Moravian Gates. Indeed, Strabo places the Getes north of Istros and near the Black Sea (that is, in Vlachia); he also places the Dakians in the west, near the springs of Istros and up to the Black Forest. The Patriarch Fotios and the historian Theophylaktos Simokattis used to call the invading Slavs “Getes”. The descent of the Protoslavs fell on this concrete Dinaric bulk and was in a way absorbed by it. Only a few groups of the Protoslavs, and only after many generations, reached the sea. The return of those Dakians under the form of a “Slavic descent” and their infiltration to the Dinaric race constituted a kind of “revenge” in this race’s ancient penetration into the Mediterranean cradle.
Those Protoslavs who set out for the south did not possess a Hellenic consciousness nor did not possess a Hellenic language, except for some roots. Many proto-Hellenic words survived in the language of the Protoslavs. For instance, the words “φολίς” (foil), “φρύγω” (roast), “ασπίς” (shield), “βάρβαρος” (barbarian), “τέμνω” (cut), “φαγείν” (eat), etc.
(see Vasmer’s etymological dictionary). According to Tzenoff, “Ζεύς Πατήρ” was transformed into Gospodar (the counterpart to the Latin Jupiter). As I have stressed, racial descent alone without a unified national consciousness is not enough for the creation of a nation. If we conjecture then that the Slavs had reached Hellas at that time, then certainly they would have created many problems. Because for thousands of years they had not participated in the development of the Hellenic consciousness and civilization, they formed a foreign body that could shatter the metropolis of Hellenism. In this sense, the fact that they were pushed back by the Byzantines, and were absorbed by the Dinaric populations was just as well fro Hellas.
Dinaric race
The general effect of these two racial movements in the Balkan Peninsula (of the Dinarics in the –3rd millennium, and of the North-Mediterranean in the first millennium) was to bring these two initially foreign races closer together.
The Dinaric influence in the Dorians, and later on the Mediterranean influence in the Serbs and Croatians through the Protoslavs is probably the cause today for the limited degree of relationship that exists among these people. Besides, the prehistoric invasion of the Dinarics had not completely turned away the Mediterraneans from the areas near Danube, so that the Mediterranean racial participation is not absent from any area of the Balkans. The area of Bosnia-Herzegovina does not differ at all racially from the rest of Serbia. The difference lies only in the Islamic religion, which about half of the people embraced during the long Ottoman domination. The low cultural and national standard made easier this change in their faith. Even today the same low standard renders the issue of religion in the area as the most important factor of national consciousness and has led to the bloody secession struggles in the area.
From a political point of view, there is no doubt that Hellas should support the cause of Serbia, despite the racial differentiation between the two people. One should take into consideration that the Islamic populations of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo, may become satellites of Turkey, which ruthlessly uses religion to exercise her political influence in the Balkan Peninsula. The great majority of K Kosovo is indeed Albanian, who moved there during the period of the Ottoman rule, substituting the retreating Serbs. Thus, rightfully today Kosovo is claimed by the Albanians. The Serbs, on the other hand, do not intend to abandon this historical area for them which are connected to the Serb-Turkish battle of 1389 and their hero Obilic.
Serbians
FALLMERAYER'S THEORY
Fallmerayer’s Theory
Given what we have proven about the racial origin of the Slavs, it is absolutely clear that Fallmerayer’s theory is fundamentally wrong. However, in order for the reader to have a complete picture, I will briefly present this theory.
Phillip Fallmerayer had created an uproar when, a few years after the liberation of Hellas from Turkish rule, he published some tracts in 1830 concerning the Slavization of Hellas. Fallmerayer asserted that the Slavs had attacked the Byzantine Empire in 589, occupied Hellas, and a result the country was “enslaved” (a word that derives from “Sklavini”, as the Slavs were called at that time). For more than 200 years the Slavs dominated Hellas, while Athens, which was plundered, remained deserted for 400 years. Thus, Fallmerayer stressed that “the modern Hellenes are Skythian Slavs, descendants of northern people, and are of the same race with the Serbs, Bulgarians, Dalmatians and Muscovites”.
Hellenes as well as German historians and linguists seriously challenged Fallmerayer’s view. In 1832, Zinkeisen detected linguistic errors in Fallmerayer’s interpretations of Slavic place-names in Hellas. In 1847, von Ow completed Zinkeisen’s research. The first reaction in Hellas appeared in 1843, when Professor Anastasios Georgiadis-Leukias presented a series of Hellenic customs dating from ancient times, and concluded: “everything that I have presented so far constitutes clear and sound evidence that there were always in Hellas an indigenous people, and these people constitute the present generation. If this is not true, then who introduced the language and customs after, the descendants of Avars? Or the illiterate Bulgarians who came from the shores of the river Volga?
Leukias speaks sarcastically of Fallmerayer, who took as Slavic the place-names “Perivoli” (orchard) and “Ahladokampos” (pear-grove), and writes that “it is enough for him (Fallmerayer) to find a syllable of a Hellenic word similar to a Slavic syllable in order to discard the word from the Greek dictionary and send it to the Northern Pole!”
In 1843, appearing simultaneously with Leukias’ book, K. Paparigopoulos published the first historical refutation which later on was completed in a series of tracts and appeared in his Hellenic History. From the German camp, a complete answer with historical arguments was giver in 1870 by Fallmerayer’s compatriot Karl Hopf.
In his theory Fallmerayer does not record the infiltration of the Slavic masses (Vindes) to Hellas during the eighth and ninth centuries, but the attack of the Antes in Thrace in the sixth century, an attack which was repelled. For this reason Paparigopoulos writes that “it is about a strange historical belief”, and continues that “we do not give to this absurdity any scientific or national value”. A peaceful infiltration of strangers does not cause the extermination of the indigenous people. Extermination would presuppose a war invasion and extensive slaughter, for which we do not have any historical evidence.
The Slavs invaded Thrace in 578, and as the contemporary historian Menandros wrote, they “plundered Thrace and many other areas”. No historian wrote about the conquest of the whole of Hellas, or about a slaughter of the population. At that time the Byzantines had sought the assistance of the Avars (who are the ancestors of the modern Hungarians). The Avars made a diversionary attack into Sklavinia (Serbia), where the Slavs had their women and children. Thus, the Slavic raid was terminated. Menandros also mentions that the chief of the Avars boasted that he had liberated thousands of Byzantine prisoners that the Slavs had captured from Thrace. In the following years many other similar invasions in Thrace followed which all resulted in their expulsion. The columnist Theophanes and the historian Simotakis provide detailed evidence of these incidents. After 600, the Antes did not attempt to invade the Byzantines.
Remarkably Fallmerayer showed some hatred in his campaign, something incompatible to a researcher, which reveals a hidden agenda. Thus, he has repeatedly used as evidence his own standards and beliefs. For instance, he asserts that that according to the columnist Procopius, the Slavs settled down in Thessaloniki and Larissa in the sixth century, something that Procopius does not mention at all. Moreover, he used the so-called “Chronicle of Monemvasia” to argue that Hellas was dominated by the Slavs for 200 years. He cut, however, the passage that records that in 807 a Byzantine army came to the Peloponnese and “defeated and finally annihilated the nation of the Slavs, restoring order”. This chronicle, as Kyriakides has proven exaggerates the Slavic danger as it is based on the boasting of the Archbishop of Patras at that time, who desired promotion using the argument that St. Andreas had helped them to annihilate the Slavs. Indeed, in 807 a Slavic uprising occurred in the Peloponnese. The Slavs besieged the town of Patras, which did not have any army. Before any outside help could arrive, the people themselves took the initiative and cut up the Slav forces. Konstantinos Porfirogennitos describes this victory of the “Greeks” against the Slavs. This proves that Hellenism in the Peloponnese was at that time prospering-and not non-existent as Fallmerayer asserts-and that the Slavs were so few that they were beaten off by the civilians of Patras. And later the intervention of the Byzantine army proves that the Empire was a military presence there. The Byzantine columnists describe two other Slavic uprisings in the countryside. In 675, the Slaves tried to seize the coast of Thessaloniki, and in 783, they mutinied in the Peloponnese, and the Byzantine army had intervened again.
These Slavic uprisings prove that the Slavs were working in the fields as serfs. According to Keramopoulos, in Byzantine times, Slavs were used as slaves in stock raising and farming. That is why the word “slave” derives from Slav as well as the word “Serb” from serf, servant. However, Keramopoulos’s position that the Slavs come to the Byzantine Empire only as the slaves of the Byzantine army is extreme. The truth rests in the middle, that is, the Slavic masses were coming then freely to Hellas to find land, and the Slavic place-names which survived here, should be attributed to those people as Kyriakides states. However, the Slavs who were working in Hellas were the servants of the Hellene landowners and bourgeois, and in time they were absorbed by the Hellenic population.
As King Porfirogennitos wrote to his son, the Slavs had reached the Peloponnese after the famine of 747, that is, in the middle of the eighth century-and not from the sixth century as Fallmerayer asserts. Porfirogennitos’s phrase that “the whole country was enslaved and barbarized” is an exaggeration. According to M. Vasmer, it probably corresponds to what we say today for instance, “a German town became jewised”, that is, it has many Jews. Moreover, Hopf asserts that “the Hellenic cities were almost all fully populated, so that Constantinople could bring more immigrants from these cities in 755”. The fact that we do not have Byzantine cultural findings from that period in the Peloponnese does not mean that the latter was deserted. Giannopoulos writes that “this phenomenon does not appear only in the Peloponnese, but also in the rest of the empire”, adding that Slavic findings do not exist either.
Fallmerayer, in his insistence to set up his myth, became a victim of forgery. He bought in Athens a Monastir manuscript, the so-called “Amargyrio”, which supposedly proved that Athens was plundered by the Slavs and was deserted for 400 years. Paparigopoulos proved that the manuscript dates from a much posterior date (1651), and that the city of Athens following a plundering by thieves was deserted for only three years. Kambouroglou proves that what appears in the manuscript as “foustai” does not mean Slavs, but pirate ships. Moreover, Hopf also detected the forger who had sold this manuscript to Fallmerayer, and pointed out that “it is indeed a wonder that Fallmerayer did not perceive the forgery. What made him insist on his silence was the fact that his whole dissertation would be destroyed”.
Fallmerayer’s anti-Hellenic campaign was fuelled not only by his hatred but also by his petty interest. As Biris explains, “when the diplomatic documents of the Viennese Ministry of External Affairs became unclassified after WWI, it was revealed that the Russian general Osterman Tolstoy, by order of his government, accompanied Fallmerayer on one of his journeys to Hellas. Thus, it became clearly evident that the German historian had undertaken to serve the interests of Tsarist imperialism”. With others words, this supposed researcher was just a common agent of Panslavism who worked with the former Minister of Defence of the Russian Empire, count Tolstoy-the latter was also looking for Slavic place-names in Thessaly and Macedonia. Hopf, who was then not aware of this secret, discovered that “. It was the time of the great conflict among the Great Powers in the Balkan Peninsula, and the Russians were trying to reach the Aegean.
When Fallmerayer talked about the “Slavization” of Hellas, he did not mean the linguistic alienation of the country. There was no linguistic alienation in Hellas, even though the Slavic language prevailed almost everywhere where it came in contact with other languages. Hopf writes that “wherever the Slavs settled, within a few generations they absorbed everything, even the prevailing elements which were few and not dominant enough”. Hopf adds that “since this did not happen in Hellas, then we must suppose that the Slavs did not outnumber the Hellenes, and they did not flood or dominate the country”. Besides, as Hopf asserts, only 1/40 of the geographical names in the Peloponnese is of Slavic origin. Professor Giannopoulos adds that “the Slavic place-names are today limited only to non-important communities or to uninhabited places. No significant town has a name of Slavic origin are rarely found in fertile or intensely cultivated areas. This fact supports the view that the first Slavs of the Peloponnese were of a nomadic and pastoral character”. Zerlentis aptly notes that “it is indeed strange that the Peloponnese was enslaved and barbarized, how is it that the Frank invaders who in 1205 occupied the Peloponnese as a Hellenic country do not record the existence of any Slavs there in their chronicles”. The “Chronicle of Moreas”, for example, which was written by a Frank, commemorates the name of the inhabitants which was “Romioi” from Rome they took the name of the Romans, but there were Hellenes who took this name from the East Roman Empire ,they were simply calling them so. There is not even one reference to the Slavs.
As Paparigopoulos notes, the Slavs who settled in the Peloponnese during the seventh and eighth centuries were few and worked in the countryside as farmers or nomads. The Slavic language was easily forgotten, and the last who used it were the so-called Melingi and Ezerites of Taygetos, who were there until the thirteenth century. Later they caused two slight mutinies, one in 849 during the reign of Emperor Michael, and the other under Romanos in 930, both were successfully defeated. Even today in the mountainous area of Taygetos there is a high percentage of light iris (8,3%) as well as thinner face and longer skull. But the Slavic language did not influence the Hellenic language at all grammatically or phonetically and there was no cultural or spiritual kinship with the Slavic people. The Slavs, who managed to restructure linguistically and culturally so many great people of Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, did not succeed in changing anything in Hellas, because they were few, despite the havoc they raised with their “mutinies”. The great Dinaric populations of the northern Balkans functioned as filters which allowed only a few Slavic factions to reach Hellas.
Fallmerayer attributed the etymology of the word to the Slavic “more” (sea), and he supported the same etymology for “Moreas” (another word for the Peloponnese). Of course, the Slavic word itself, as Livas, explains has a Hellenic root: “mar”, from which the word “μαραίομαι” (sail) derives, or “myr”, from the words “πλημμύρα” (flood), “αλμύρα” (saltiness), derive. There are many theories about the origin of the words “Moreas” and “Moraitis” (inhabitant of Peloponnese). What is certain is that this word is not Frankish, since it is recorded even from 1111, as Sathas notes. It is most probable though that “Moraitis” is a corruption of the word “Mardaitis”. The Mardaitis were the Byzantine warriors of the Near East who were brought to the Peloponnese during the ninth century, perhaps to restore the order which was disrupted by the Slavs. Thus, these agents of the law were called Mardaites or Moraites, and by extension the native people.
When Fallmerayer talked about the “Slavization” of Hellas, he meant the anthropological and racial Slavization. He was thinking of the example of Pomerania, that is, of the infiltration of the Baltic race in and the racial alienation of the area which was formerly Germanic because the Polavs were “secondary Slavs”, belonging racially to the Baltic race, as Bach mentions. And for Germany this is a fact, and it is a fact not only for Pomerania but for the whole of eastern Germany. But in the case of Hellas there was no racial alienation, particularly-as Fallmerayer thought-from the Baltic race.
The “slavization” of Germany which started in the 7th century from the east with the infiltration of the Polavs, on the one hand, extended the Slavic language up to the geographical perpendicular which comes from Denmark, and on the other hand reduced the cranial length (from about 189 to 180) and the facial index (from 55 to 49). Of course, later on the German language spread again to the east, thanks to the new Nordic inhabitants. Today the Baltic and the Alpine intermixture in eastern and central Germany remain obvious. And this intermixture is so obvious that the German anthropologist Felix von Bormann asserts that his country should not be called Germania but Germano-slavia.
When Fallmerayer wrote those grandiloquent phrases that “there is not even one drop of pure blood in the veins of the people of modern Hellas”, it was natural to consult historical sources and refute his theory. At that time ethnological research on racial elements was not possible. However, today we known that the Baltic race which had infiltrated Germany did not touch at all the Balkan Peninsula. Slavic immigration here was on the contrary “Mediterranean” racial injections, which alienated only the north Dinaric countries of the peninsula. Hellas remained racially unaffected as the blood groups of the system ABO reveal. The European chart of the Swedish anthropologist Lundman cited below shows how the posologies of the gene r (for the O blood group) waver geographically, and how Hellas differs from the other Slavic countries. Moreover, the diagram of the three co-ordinates of the blood groups indicates that the position of the Hellenic blood (H) is placed between the two other recognized Mediterranean areas, of Sicily (m) and Spain (M), without entering in the areas of the Baltic (B) or the Dinaric (D) race, which they have more q and much less r. Nevertheless, while the Protoslavs belonged to the Mediterranean race, today when we refer to “Slavs” we mean the Slavic-speaking people who do not have any relationship with the Mediterranean race-or among themselves.
We know today that in Hellas the Mediterranean race resides, which does not have any relationship with the “Muscovites” and other eastern European people. The Hellenes have a morphological index of 86-88, that is, within the limits between mesoprosopy and leptoprosopy, a fact which by itself is enough to completely distinguish them from round-faced Baltic race. Facial width, especially in the Peloponnese (about 143), corresponds absolutely to the zygomatic widths in the skeletons of the Classical and Roman periods (Mycenae and elsewhere). Furthermore, Mongoloid traces, by a supposed mixture with the Avarians, are absolutely non-existent. The profile of the Hellenes (the head’s horizontal section) differs from the profile of the eastern European, which is flatter. The light-colored eyes in the Peloponnese are of the same percentage with the rest of Hellas: the skin color is a bit darker than the skin of the inhabitants of Crete-which was not “conquered” by the Slavs. We could also mention many other anthropometrical elements, but I think that these given elements are enough. Besides, the racial homogeneity of the Hellenic people has been proven by recent medical research focusing on transplants which has ascertained the histo compatibility of the Hellenes.
Exactly the opposite happened from what Fallmerayer believed. The intermixture took place by “Mediterranean blood” in the eastern European Slavic-speaking people who intermixed with the Antes (Mediterranean Protoslavs). Now that we know that the Protoslavs were basically Mediterranean, we can conclude that even if they were in great numbers in Hellas, they would not have caused a racial differentiation there. If they were many, they would have caused only a linguist and cultural differentiation. But they were neither many nor belonged to a foreign race. For this reason they were absorbed easily, without leaving the slightest trace. All those who entered Hellas were easily Hellenized. There are historical references concerning the easy Hellenization of the Slavs in northern Hellas by the Emperor Vasilios I, the Macedonian.
Northern Macedonia
The descent of the Slavs during the Byzantine period made Slavic linguistically the Dinaric populations of the former Yugoslavia-but not, however, the Mediterranean population of Hellas. The differentiation of the populations who spoke Slavic and those who remained Hellenic-speaking was not, of course, absolute. Somewhere in between a narrow transitory zone was created, that is, the zone of the so-called “Slavo-Macedonians”. And it was natural that this language differentiation was not absolute, since it occurred without any state intervention or state education, that is, during a multinational period within the framework of the Byzantine Empire. Despite some exceptions, as Keramopoulos mentions, “Byzantium neither thought nor desired the Hellenization of the Slavs; on the contrary, the same religion was the cause for the Slavization of many Hellenes or Hellenic communities which were located between the Slavic populations of Thrace and Macedonia”.
There, in the transitional zone, a mixed linguistic dialect was created, a mixture of Hellenic, Slavic, Vlachic and Turkish words. The percentage of each language in this mixed dialect differs in each area. As Sinopoulos notes, “in Hellenic Macedonia, the Hellenic words are in excess, in the northern areas, the Slavic words and in the areas of Almopia-Giannitsa, where a Turkish population had settled, Turkish words. The Slavic words are rather of a Bulgarian structure. Martis explains that “the most important cause of the shaping of this Slavic dialect occurred during the Byzantine period, when a number of Bulgarian prisoners were brought to work in the great fields of the Byzantine landowners. During the Turkish occupation which followed, many poor Slavs, because of a lack of essential borders in the Hellenic peninsula, moved to the northern parts of the Hellenic area in search of work. The communication problem was solved by the use of Hellenic, Bulgarian, Turkish, Albanian and Vlachic words. That was a common means of communication for all of them. The Hellenic population was obliged to use that idiom to communicate of course, but also to escape the hatred of the Turks and the mass kidnapping of Hellenic children”. However, as Tsioulka’s research has revealed, the roots of thousands of the words of this linguistic dialect are Hellenic and also Homeric.
In the last few years a problem arose in the area with the creation of a Macedonian state, first within the confederate Yugoslavian state which has as its official language this mixed dialect and later with the declaration of the autonomous State of “Macedonia”, which plans to include within its borders Hellenic Macedonia and the Bulgarian area of Pirin. For these reasons we must clear the issue from an ethnological point of view.
Macedonia is the area of the Hellenic peninsula to the north of Olympus and to the west of the mountains of Aemos. But where are the borders of Macedonia to the north? There are no geographical borders in the north, but only ethnological borders, Macedonia is the area that is inhabited by Hellenes – Hellenes in bread and in consciousness.
There was never a distinct “Macedonian” nation and it is not possible to create one now, States are born out of historical circumstances, and they can die. Nations, however, do not die. Nations are diachronically entities that cannot be artificially created. A Macedonian nation never existed. There was, however, a Macedonian state in antiquity, but the main characteristic of that Macedonian state was its tendency to unite all Hellenes and for this reason, it was even more Hellenic than the other Hellenic states. The Macedonians felt so strongly the Hellenic spirit they managed to unite then all Hellenes.
The Hellenic character of the ancient Macedonians is revealed even in prehistory through myth. According to the Hellenic mythology, Macedon was the son of Pandora and thus he was the grandchild of Deucalion, the first man of the Pelasgia. Paion, who was a mythical King of Macedonia, was considered the son of Endymion, the Dorian king of Elis. These myths symbolically rendered the relationship of the Pelasgians, Dorians and Macedonians, a relationship that Herodotus detects and Aeschylus praises.
The Macedonians formed the last Hellenic breed which encountered the Dinarics’ movement to the south and was the rearguard of Hellenism confronting that strong Dinaric pressure. Even Guenther testifies to this: “the Macedonians could be considered the Hellenic breed which remained back during the moving process from the Danube. Given recent historical research, this is now a certainty”. Furthermore, Professor Ap. Daskalakis writes that “it is absolutely certain that if the Macedonians had not guarded against barbarian invasions south of Olympus, then Hellenism would not have remained for so many centuries undisturbed and able to lay the foundations of freedom and reach those magnificent creations of thought and art”. This is exactly what the historian Polybius also stressed.
Of course, the geographical distances then and the natural obstacles made close communication among the south Hellenes, Macedonians and Thracians difficult and the result was that some linguistic differences appeared as well as differences in consciousness. Such differences existed, as it is known, even among the other areas of south Hellas. However, in all of Hellas, myth always preserved the memory of common descent and kinship as well as the common Hellenic language-which was a witness of this national relation. Therefore, when the historical circumstances matured, Hellenism was unified by the Macedonian King Phillipos and Alexander the Great. Strabo asserts epigrammatically that “Macedonia is Hellas as well”.
The common morals and customs of the Macedonians and south Hellenes were so recently revealed by the findings at Vergina, where the burial methods proved purely Hellenic, and particularly characterized by an archaic conservativeness of a Homeric type. Moreover, the golden burial masks of the graves of Sindos and Trembeniste reveal a direct Mycenaean influence. Hoffmann considered the Macedonians “an Achaean breed”, an opinion that Kallergis also shares who compared the linguistic idiomorphies of the Macedonians and Achaeans. After the Mycenaean script Linear B was deciphered, it was revealed that were words, which some time ago were considered Macedonian idioms. Moreover, the recent discovery of the table of Dispilio (Kastoria), written in Linear Script A in -5250, proves that Hellenic was also the language of Pelasgic Macedonia.
Despite its singularity, the language spoken in Macedonia was a Hellenic dialect and possibly was closer to the archaic Pelasgic. According to the Roman historian Livius Titus, the Macedonians spoke indeed the same language with the other Hellenes. According to the -5th century historian Hellanikos, both the Macedonians and the Thessalians spoke an Aeolian dialect. The votive stele of the Vergina graves mention seventy-five names of Macedonian citizens-all Hellenic. Andronikos notes that “at the end of the 5th century B.C, the Macedonians who lived in the first capital of the Macedonian kingdom, that is, in the cradle of the Macedonian state, had Hellenic names. This testimony absolutely proves the view of historians who support that the Macedonians constituted a Hellenic breed, as all the other breeds that lived in the Hellenic area”. Perhaps there were in the Macedonian dialect some Illyrian words, but “the Macedonians were Hellenes not Illyrians”, as Abel points out. The German linguist Kretschmer stresses that Macedonian was a Hellenic dialect which differed from the others “as the Teutonic differs from the Germanic” and adds that “the Macedonian language remained static at a stage which the Hellenic had abandoned some time ago. It is then certain that the Macedonians were closely related to the Hellenes and if they had emigrated to the south, then they would become as Hellenic as the Dorians, the Thessalians and the Boeotians.
I mentioned some elements concerning the Hellenic character of ancient Macedonia because they may not well known. It is, however, superfluous to deal with the Hellenic consciousness of the modern Macedonians. Throughout the course of medieval history, Macedonia followed the fate of the rest of Hellas, as well as within the frame of the Hellenic Byzantine Empire, with Christianity as in the modern times under the Turkish occupation and the national regeneration. Macedonia and Hellenism are two inseparable concepts.
But the creation of that mixed linguistic dialect in northern Macedonia cannot be the cause for the creation of a new nation. For the creation of a nation a common descent and consciousness of the population are demanded, which are differentiated from the descent and consciousness of other people. Language as a factor might influence the consciousness of a population, but it does not constitute by itself a cause for the establishment of a nation. Moreover, a mixed linguistic dialect, which is actually an occasional linguistic dialect, which is actually an occasional linguistic mixture, cannot even form a factor affecting the consciousness of a population. Thus, in the case of northern Macedonia, we must trace elsewhere the reasons for the declaration about “a Macedonian ethnicity”.
As far as descent is concerned, there is no racial singularity in Macedonia. Macedonia always belonged to the Mediterranean race. The differentiation of the Macedonians from their northern neighbors, the Dinarics, was always clear. There is a minimal intermixture with the Dinarics in the whole of Hellas, but this intermixture is not greater in Macedonia-as it is in Epirus. For instance, the head index B/L, which in Serbia and Montenegro exceeds 85.6 (hyperbrachycephaly), in Hellenic Macedonia is only 83, while occipital flatness, which is a catholic Dinaric feature, in Macedonia is found to a degree of 9%. Anthropologist N. Xirotiris writes that “there is not any mixture of Easterneuropids in northern Hellas and whatever is written concerning that is inaccurate or inadequate.
An issue was created about the triangle of western Macedonia, about which Poulianos had noted that “in Hellas the lightest colors appear in the Hellenic speaking groups of western Macedonia and to a degree in northern Thessaly and in the Vlach and Slav-speaking groups of Macedonia. Generally, the color testifies to the existence of intermixture in these groups”. Light-coloredness by itself cannot be considered as evidence of intermixture with a foreign breed. Moreover, I have already mentioned that the North Mediterranean breed which moved to the south (Slavic descent) had retained some old Mediterranean characteristics (dolichocephaly, leptoprosopy), and was more light-colored, but anthropometrically speaking, it was clearly a Mediterranean breed. This was certified recently by the unique medieval Slavic cemetery that was found in Hellas (on an islet of Prespes); the skulls found there had a small zygomatic breadth and a relatively small skull height. Poulianos considered these skulls Mediterranean. Thus, in this geographical triangle of western Macedonia, beyond the relative lightcoloredness, greater leptoprosopy and narrower skull is noted elements which exclude Baltic or Dinaric intermarriage and speak for intermarriage with the northern branch of the Mediterranean race. There is the same picture in the mountainous area of Taygetus. This, however, is not called an “admixture”, since it does not concern a mixture with foreign breed. The Protoslavs were Mediterranean. Thus, it would be impossible to have an admixture either in Macedonia or in any other place of Hellas.
Concerning the Slavomacedonians, that is, the Hellenes who speak the mixed dialect, Poulianos writes that they are not racially differentiated from the Hellenes, On the contrary, “the average Slavic-speaking type of Hellenic Macedonia differs significantly from the anthropological types that Soviet scientists discerned in other Slavic people”, that is, the Baltic and the eastern European. Thus, there is not in Macedonia, or in any part of Macedonia, such an anthropological singularity that can justify a claim for “Macedonian ethnicity”, as the Skopjeans allege.
Is there, however, such a cause in the part that Yugoslavia possessed? The anthropologist Gavrilovich concluded that the residents there “share some similarities; they are differentiated from the neighboring populations of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in that they have a larger degree of Mediterranean characteristics”. For example, while in the Dinaric epicenter (Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina) the head index is about 86, in the part of Macedonia it wavers from 81 to 83.5. In eye color the Macedonians of Skopje differ in that they have a lesser degree of light-colored iris than all the other populations of the former Yugoslavia a fact that proves a complete lack of Slavism. The German anthropologist Schade and the Bulgarian M. Popov reached the same conclusion, that is, the Macedonians of Skopje are basically of Mediterranean origin with a Dinaric admixture.
But here a serious point should be stressed. The so-called “Macedonia” in Yugoslavia forms a broad area, almost double the size of the real northern Macedonia in which Macedonians reside. The whole area of Skopje-Koumanovo, in the historical past was not a part of Hellenic Macedonia and of course, its residents are not only Mediterraneans. In the recent past thousands of Albanians infiltrated there and now make up more than half of the population there. They form 30% of the total population of the former Yugoslavian Macedonia. Therefore, any anthropological research on Yugoslavian “Macedonia” includes by necessity and real Dinarics who falsify the results.
On the contrary, the residents of the area of Monastir-Gevgeli-Stromnitsa, that is, the real Northern Macedonia, are to a large degree Mediterraneans, that is, people of Hellenic origin. This Northern Macedonia, the so called “Pelagonia”, also extends to the east within Bulgaria itself. Today it is so called “Macedonia of Pirin” (the area of Petritsion, Tzoumagia, Neurokopi), up to the Rhodope Mountains. The Macedonian Pelagonia has the same derivation as the Pelasgi (that is, the land of the ancestors). In Pelagonia there were great Hellenic cities, such as Idomeni, Heraclea, Stovi, etc.
Let us proceed now to the basic element of ethnicity, which is consciousness. First let me remind the reader that when the Ottoman ruled Macedonia, they had divided it into three “viyalets”, Thessalonike, Monastir and Skopje. The viyalet of Thessaloniki today belongs in part to Hellas, while the areas of Stromnitsa and Neurokopi are occupied respectively by the States of Skopje and Bulgaria. The viyalet of Monastir is occupied almost entirely by the state of Skopje with the exception of Florina. The great Macedonian War took place, however, in the entire area of these two viyalets.
According to the last Ottoman statics of 1904, the “Vilayet of Monastir” was inhabited by 261,000 Hellenes, 178,000 Bulgarians and by some minorities. By the name “Bulgarians” the Turks meant those who spoke the mixed dialect (the Slavo-Macedonian). In 1903, there were 27,000 students who were studying at the Hellenic schools of that vilayet and only 8,000 students in Bulgarian schools. Gradually, though, with the intensifying of the Macedonian war, the difference increased even more. Monastir itself had a teacher-training college like Thessaloniki. These towns of Thessaloniki and Monastir were the great bastions of the Macedonian War (1904-1908). In Monastir they did not speak the “slavomacedonian” dialect at all, only the Hellenic and a little bit the Vlach dialect. In 1913, in Monastir 1,696 students were studying at Hellenic schools, 1,200 in Stromnitsa and 557 in Croussovo. All of the Vlach speaking had a heightened Hellenic consciousness, the same as today.
The Macedonian War should be perceived it in its entirety, not only as an armed conflict, but as a national war. The Macedonian warriors on the one hand confronted those murderous Sofia agents, the Komitadjis, protecting the Hellenic-speaking people of the area; on the other hand, however, they wanted to take by their side those speaking the mixed dialect. After so many centuries of slavery, the populations of that area and especially those who spoke the mixed dialect had a confused national consciousness.
The nineteenth century, which swept Europe with nationalistic movements, found the so-called “Slavomacedonians” experiencing internal unrest and national insecurity. They believed that the dialect they spoke could not classify them under any Nation and for this reason they remained nationally disoriented. Thus, the Bulgarian agents attempted to win them over.
The main purpose of the Macedonian War was to certify to those speaking the mixed dialect that they were of a Hellenic descent and that the language does not form a dominant element of nationality. The Macedonian War was successful. Not only did distinguished members of the “Slavomacedonians’ become protagonists of the Macedonian War, like Kotas, Gelev, Gogolakis, Kirou, Nikotsaras and others, but also entire villages embraced Hellenism. Since then the Bulgarians have called these populations “Graecomani” (Hellenic-breed), and have hated them more than they hated the Hellenic-speaking ones. The Macedonian War was successful, in so far as the population who spoke the mixed dialect finally became Hellenized in consciousness. It is also known that guerilla warfare cannot succeed without the solidarity of the population. The Macedonian War succeeded because the entire population, Hellenic speaking or not, supported it.
The strange thing about the Balkan war that followed is that Hellas was obliged to become allies with Serbia and Bulgaria to liberate absolutely Hellenic land from the Turks. The result was that these three countries divided this Hellenic land among themselves. Thus, Serbia took northern Macedonia (with Monastir, Gevgeli and Stromnitsa). Each allied country occupied the land that its army gained.
The land that Bulgaria occupied was regained by Hellenic forces in the Second Balkan War and WW I. But Monastir and northern Macedonia remained Serbian. Thus, from the total Macedonian land, 20% remained Yugoslavian, 13% Bulgarian and only 67% remained under Hellenic sovereignty. It is sad to think that the luck of Monastir was decided by the two days that the Hellenic army delayed in reaching there. It is also sad because Serbia was not interested in Monastir, turning her attention to her exodus to Adriatica. But Hellas, facing the danger of losing Thessaloniki to the marching Bulgarian army, turned her attention to Thessaloniki, sending only a battalion to the unprotected Monastir. Thus, almost by chance, northern Macedonia was lost. And when the great powers insisted on the creation of Albania, excluding Serbia again from Adriatica, Serbia was obliged to insist on the domination of northern Macedonia in order to win something from the war. Hellas, facing then the Second Balkan war with Bulgaria, did not want to risk her good relations with Serbia and Monastir was sacrificed.
The initial idea of “Macedonian ethnicity” was born in the secret service of Sofia around 1890. It had preceded Sofia’s successful attempt with Eastern Romilia, another absolutely Hellenic area which had at first, in 1878, become autonomous and then later on was absorbed easily by Bulgaria. Bulgaria thought to attempt something similar with Macedonia, making the latter at first autonomous and then absorbing her later. Thus, the Bulgarians began to spread propaganda about the existence of Macedonian ethnicity, even though later on this propaganda collapsed under the pressure of the Hellenic reaction and Bulgarian maximalist.
The success of the Macedonian War is due to the isolation of the Bulgarized and “Macedonianized” people. The great mass of Hellenic-speaking and non-Hellenic-speaking population of Macedonia supported the fighters of Pavlos Melas and his descendants. The mutiny of 1903 of those “Macedonianized”, that is, the so-called mutiny of Iliden, failed because it was not supported by the population of the area. Later on, after the national mission of the fighters of Pavlos Melas, the populations of Northern Macedonia, having acquired now a Hellenic consciousness, expected their liberation from Ottoman occupation and their annexation to the free Hellas. This annexation, however, because of some unfortunate historic events, was not realized in 1912.
The worse thing is that Hellas since then has forgotten the Hellenism of Northern Macedonia and has pushed it indirectly toward Slavism. To the people of Northern Macedonia, the feeling remained that Hellas simply used them in the Macedonian war to annex Thessaloniki. The people of Northern Macedonia knowing, that they were not Serbs or Bulgarians, were obliged to believe in a Macedonian ethnicity. What else was left for them to do?
Bulgaria never denied her aspirations to annex Northern Macedonia, either directly or indirectly, through the stage of “Macedonianism”. It is characteristic that in 1912, Bulgaria proposed to Venizelos Macedonia’s autonomy and in 1941, she attacked Hellas in order to “protect the Macedonian brothers”, as she declared. Furthermore, governing the area of Skopje in 1941-42 the Bulgarians had the opportunity to impress upon the people the “Macedonian” idea and also to consolidate pro-Bulgarian sentiments. Thus, it seems that in the future the problem of Northern Macedonia will not be a Hellas-Skopje problem, but a Hellas-Bulgarian one. Serbia never tried seriously in the past to make the area Serbian. Serbia never cared mush about Northern Macedonia. Only during the Communist period did she eagerly accept and promote the idea of an autonomous Macedonia in order to destabilize Hellas. But in 1991 it was Serbia who proposed to Hellas the partition of the Skopjean state between them, a proposition that Hellas paradoxically denied.
After 1922, Hellas with her wings cut ceased to have territorial claims. She deserted not only Ionia, but also Eastern Romilia, Northern Epirus and Northern Macedonia. Hellas forgot the Hellenic or non Hellenic-speaking Hellenes who lived beyond its present borders. Those speaking the mixed dialect within or outside the borders recognized them either as a ‘Bulgarian minority’ (protocol of Kalvov-Politis, 1924), or a “Serbian minority” (Pangalos 1926). The residents of Northern Macedonia recognized them as “Slavs” and as Martis notes» the residents [of Northern Macedonia] had no relationship with the Macedonians, since they were Slavs”!
Hellas’s self-isolation after 1922-if not an avoidance of the problems of the Hellenic areas which in bondage-forced many Hellenic-speaking people from the Monastir area to immigrate to liberated Hellas; however, it formed many Slav-speaking to deny their Hellenic identity. With the exchange of populations by the treaty of Neuilly, only 10,000 Hellenes consented to abandon their ancestral land. Thousands of Slav-speaking Hellenes, with no country in their consciousness, manned the communist guerilla army of 1946-49. But why and how did all these people end up with no country and anti-Hellene? Why did they believe in the supposed “Macedonian ethnicity”? Was it communism that caused them to deny their country, or was it the lack of a nation which made them communists? Had not something similar happened to the Ionia refugees, when the indifference of the Hellenic state to their enormous problems forced most of them to turn to communism?
Hellas is to great degree responsible for the situation that befell the Slav-speaking people. For someone to speak the mixed dialect was a sin-as a token of Slavism. Those who spoke it, mainly the residents of Northern Macedonia who earlier on believed that they were really Hellene Macedonians, felt alienated and isolated from their own country. There was no psychological outlet for them, only the belief in an artificial Macedonian ethnicity, an idea that connects them if not with their nation at least with their land!
This is the essence of the problem. Hellas is responsible for the situation that developed there because she is not interested in that Hellenic area and its residents. She turned her back on them and forgot them completely. And they remained without a national orientation. What were they? A people without a national descent? They had to be something. And thus they accepted the myth of the “Macedonian Nation”. The need for ethnicity is the strongest need in peoples’ life. By accepting “Macedonianism” and not Bulgarism, they revealed that they still had hope in Hellas! Kyriakidis writes that “the Hellenic spirit and the Hellenic Byzantine civilization can still be found in the land which the Hellenes tamed and civilized; moreover of the residents today who do not speak the Hellenic language and do not have a national consciousness” .
Because of Hellas’s obtuseness, indeed a new Macedonian ethnicity will crystallize in the state of Skopje. Hellas did not have the change to avert the creation of a “Bulgarian consciousness” during the 19th century; but today, it must avert this fabricated “Macedonian» ethnicity even by intervention-not to conquer, but to liberate.
From an ethnological point of view, the Macedonian problem is not a matter of “Macedonian ethnicity”, as the Skopjeans support, but on the contrary, concerns the re-Hellenization of Northern Macedonia.
The projection of Macedonian ethnicity by the Skopjean “nomenclature” is an insolent act. Moustairas points out that “here we don’t have simply a pogrom against an ethnological group, a pogrom that one would react to, here we have under the guise of the scientific mantle a denationalization of people and the presence of a new ethnicity, which not only demands acceptance and existence, but also with much insolence puts territorial claims to areas outside of Yugoslavia. Giokas stresses that “one cannot imagine a greater and insolent misinterpretation of history. There is no doubt that most of the lands that this state possesses were Macedonian and thus Hellenic from the beginning of the world. But since, however, these “Macedonians» accept that they reside in a part of ancient Paionia, Pelagonia, Lyngistis and Dasartia, they must learn that the ancient residents of those areas were Hellenes and always fought hard against any barbarian for the freedom and security of the Hellenes. Therefore, if they consider themselves Macedonians, they must, as Macedonians, learn the Hellenic history of their ancestors”. But how could the residents of Northern Macedonia express their Hellenicity, when Hellas itself denies their Hellenicity? Livas emphasizes that the residents of Northern Macedonia “are pure Hellene-Macedonians” and he goes on to point out that “it is not an exaggeration if we say that those who spoke or still speak the Macedonian dialect-and this is true to great degree in the north up to the springs of the Axios and Strimon Rivers and beyond-were undoubtedly Hellenes, and we say this with much more certainty than we could for any other modern Hellene”.
Hellas’ strategy for the Macedonian problem should not only focus on the name of the newly established state, but should avert the stabilization of the consciousness of a Macedonian ethnicity. Hellas should not allow the creation there of an autonomous state. The name “Macedonia» that our neighbors want in the state of Skopje, may bother the official Hellenic state because it reminds Hellas that she has not done her duty to a historically Hellenic area. This name, however, instead of working against the interests of Hellas, would boomerang against those who inspired it. Hellas should declare the Hellenicity of the lands and the populations of Northern Macedonia and demand the latter’s annexation.
Hellenic demonstration in Bitolia (Monastir). 1908 Hellenic School Gymnasium of Monastir (Bitolia), 19th-20th century
The text is from the book "The Origin of the Hellenes". Demetrios Demopoulos. Eleftheri Skepsis. 2005
Sites about Macedonia, FYROM, Northern Macedonia
The one who can read the letters on the epigraph in his own mother-tongue can be called Macedonian
Thrace and Bulgaria
The ancient Thracians were racially Mediterranean and composed the main body of the Mediterranean race that had spread to the entire eastern side of the Balkan Peninsula, from the shores and valleys of the Danube up to the Moravian Gates. Depending on the place, they spoke several dialects (divided mainly into Thracians, Messians, Dakians, Getae, etc. See Herodotus, D 93 and Strabo C 295), which were all related to the Pelasgic Proto-Hellenic.
In antiquity, after the descent of the Dinaric-Illyrians, the Thracians were divided into two parts; the northern part, which was destined to return later on as Vlachic or Slavic and the southern part, which is found today in the area of Hellenic Thrace and Bulgaria. From that time there was certainly a Dinaric racial influence in Thrace, though not significant. We find, for instance, an increased cranial height in the ancient Thracians, but there was neither occipital flatness nor had the cranial index B/L reached the area of hyperbrachycephaly.
The index B/L found in Thrace is indicative of the relatively smaller tendency toward brachycephalization. Up until the + 6th century this index had reached 82.8 in the area north of the Aemos mountain and 77 in the south. From that time onwards, because of the Slavic influence, debrachycephalization began. In the fourteenth century it decreased to 75.5. Since then brachycephalization has increased, and today the head index in Hellenic Thrace and in south Bulgaria is 80-81, while in northern Bulgaria, because of the larger Dinaric and Baltic participation there, it exceeds 83.
In Bulgaria, because of the descent of the Slavs, there is a linguistic influence. However, in terms of the racial structure of the country, the influence of the Slavs was relative. While Eastern Romilia, in the south of Aemos Mountain, continues to exhibit classic Mediterranean characteristics, northern Bulgaria and the area of Pirin have an increased degree of light-colored population and a morphological index somewhat smaller, about 88, within the limits of lepto- and mesoprosopy. It becomes clear then that the Slavic invasion did not disturb the Mediterranean characteristics of the Bulgarian population-and this did not happen since the Antes were North-Mediterranean and light-coloredness was a characteristic of this northern Mediterranean branch.
The Bulgarian anthropologist Boev writes that “Bulgaria’s south exhibits today a clear gracil Mediterranean structure, which is due to a higher percentage of proslavic population and closer encounters with eastern Slavic and Proslavic (Skythian and Sarmatic) populations of the Black Sea, is more affected by the Pontian variety of Mediterranean (more brachycephalic and discolored). By Pontian type, Bunak meant the Skythic people who belonged to the Mediterranean race, but possessing a Dinaric admixture, though. On the other hand, the Sarmatians, who compose the ancestral population of the Ukraine, were typical Alpines. Consequently northern Bulgaria has a Mediterranean (Thracian) basis, but with an Alpine and Dinaric admixture (brachycrany and broad face), while the relative discoloration comes from the northern Mediterranean Protoslavs.
Map of Thrace, Macedonia, Illyria, Moesia, and Dacia in 1849
In the seventh century Bulgaria suffered a Turkish-Tatarian invasion, which brought to the country a Mongolian admixture. Despite the fact, however, that those conquerors ruled the country and conducted fierceful fights with the Byzantine Empire, their traces were finally lost amidst the Thracian population, linguistically and anthropologically. No Mongolian trace can be detected today in the Bulgarian people, even though the Mongoloid characteristics in the paleoanthropological findings of the seventh and eighth centuries (Novi Pazar cemetery, etc.) are clear. It is a common phenomenon to find foreign racial evidence of the several conquerors in the paleoanthropological findings, and to miss those completely in the contemporary populations. . In Hungary this phenomenon is more intense. The Avars, with an extensive Mongoloid admixture, who conquered the country and imposed their language, did not leave any trace of their characteristics in the Hungarian people. This phenomenon has puzzled anthropologists and has given rise to several theories. The most probable is that the indigenous population, considering these foreign characteristics as “inappropriate” slowly isolated the carriers of these characteristics, giving them fewer chances to crossbreed. With the continuous application of this “automatic isolation”, the foreign characteristics after some centuries disappear.
. Of course, the first Tataric invaders of Bulgaria were also few in numbers. Livas notes that ‘what the historians call Bulgarians, which is the group of Asparuch, did not exceed the 2-3000 fighters. It was about an insignificant group in quantity. The analogy of the foreign element that existed in the group of Asparuch is negligible compared to the indigenous population of the Hellenized Thracians who lived then in the modern Bulgarian area and belonged to the Pelasgic and ancient Hellenic race.
Some believe that, from that Tataric invasion derives the name of country “Bulgaria”, as the cradle of the Turk-tatars was the river Volga. Bulgars (also Borgars) were called the Turkic nomadic tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Another view has it that the name derives from Touranic word “bulga” (mixture), in the sense that the Bulgarians called themselves “mulatos”. Keramopoulos’s theory, however, is more convincing: that the Burgarioi were people living on the borders of the Roman Empire who guarded the “bourga” (castles), and because of them, those who resided on the shores of the Istros River were called “Burgarians”. Indeed, even from + 200 the residents of that are area were called Burgarians, as a Hellenic inscription found in Phillipoupolis and now housed in the Sofia museum proves. Emperor Vasilios II first gave the name “Bulgaria” officially to the country when he conquered it.
If, however, the etymology of the first component of the word “Bulgaria” comes from the word “bourga”, the second component is the word “aria” (land), which shows its ancient Thracian origin.
Bulgars subsequent migrations from Central Asia and Western Eurasia to Europe. Balkan aspirations 1914
Bulgaria suffered two other mixtures with the Turk-Tatars. In the fourteenth the Turks brought Tatars to eastern Bulgaria as guards and at the beginning of the nineteenth century – with Russia’s invasion of Bessarabia – a new wave of Tatars entered the country, while tens of thousands of Bulgarians immigrated to southern Russia. These recent Tatarian infiltrations have left strong mongolic-touranic characteristics in the northeastern zone of the country (west of Varna). That area, as the Bulgarian anthropologists certify, it is in a way isolated and marriages are not contracted with the rest of the population.
Popov’s extensive anthropological researched in 1959 found that there is indeed a series of differences between northern and southern Bulgaria. The southern country is less brachycephalic, more leptoprosopic (it has a particularly smaller facial width) and more deep colored. Generally, in Bulgaria, “it is more common to find a combination of characteristics that corresponds to the Mediterranean race, a combination that is from the Neolithic period the basis of the population. This combination is found to a large degree in the south. Even more common is the Mediterranean combination in the southeast, that is, in the Thracian Valley, in the Maritsa Valley and on the shores of the Black Sea. This area between the Aemos and Rhodope Mountains is Eastern Romilia, a purely Hellenic area.
But the northern country, though basically Mediterranean formed the centre of Slavism, since this area was first made Slavic linguistically, and in this area the new national consciousness, “the Bulgarian nation”, was formed. Thus northern Bulgaria experienced a national alienation, one that Hellas would have suffered as well if during the seventh century it had suffered a massive Slavic infiltration.
In antiquity Thrace was even more isolated from mainland Hellas and had a less developed “Hellenic consciousness” – compared, for instance, to Macedonia. With the Macedonian rule of Phillipos and Alexander the Great. Thrace became part of a unified Hellas and developed more intensely its Hellenic consciousness. This also continued during the Byzantine Empire, but northern Bulgaria, even from the sixth century, was detached from the Empire. Thus, northern Bulgaria’s linguistic Slavization and national alienation were facilitated. Despite its racial relationship with the main Hellenic body, northern Bulgaria formed nationally speaking a sensitive area. It was a national mistake to teach the Cyrillic alphabet to the northern Thracians, because in this way they were made Slavic. The Patriarchate should, on the contrary, take care of their Hellenization. Livas writes that ‘the Slavic language gradually prevailed when the Patriarch of Constantinople (ninth century) allowed liturgies to be held in Slavic”. In contrast, southern Bulgaria (Eastern Romilia) remained with interval under the administration of Constantinople until the Ottoman domination of the fourteenth century and the language that its Thracian residents spoke was always the Hellenic one.
During the Ottoman occupation, this in Bulgaria lasted for five long centuries, the Islamization of the population, particularly in the privileged classes, was considerable. And when the people decided to rebel and Turkey as usual, slaughtered thousands of women and children, then Russia intervened in 1876, Russia intervened, of course, to get an exodus to the Aegean, in accordance with the pan-Slavic attempts of that period. The final fabrication of the Bulgarian national consciousness, which up to that time was non-existent, is due to these Russians approaches.
The Bulgarian national consciousness was indeed late in developing. Only after 1840 did it begin to take root under the pressure of Russia’s pan-Slavic plans and with the total absence of Hellas – which at that time had started to rise. Even the Thracians, who where linguistically Slavic, tended toward Hellenism. Kormalis writes that those people “did not want to be called Bulgarians; and the wealthier spoke the Hellenic language, married Hellenic women and studied in Hellenic schools and universities”. The harbinger of Bulgarian consciousness, the monk Paisios, wrote with bitterness that “I know Bulgarians who are so deceived that they do not even recognize their race, but they learn to write and read Hellenic, and that they are ashamed to be called Bulgarians”.
Map of Eastern Romilia (today Southern Bulgaria)
The stamp of the autonomous Eastern Romilia. The Hellenic name of the area appears in central position with Hellenic characters. On the sides the Hellenic name appears again in Cyrillic and Latin characters.
In an ethnological chart of the Balkan Peninsula Publishing House, Eastern Romilia is inhabited by a Hellenic population up to the Black Sea (as Northern Macedonia with Skopje). According to Ottoman records, of the country’s 975,000 inhabitants more than 500,000 were Hellenes. Stanford himself had investigated the area and stressed its Hellenicity. But even Turkey had defined in 1870 the area of Bulgarian Ecclesiastical Exarchate only to the Vilaet of the Danube, excluding Eastern Romilia, which they called “Rum Elli” that is, the area of the Hellenes.
These events, however, led in 1878 to the Treaty of Berlin, according to which Northern Bulgaria and Eastern Romilia achieved their autonomy. It was clear to all that Eastern Romilia was not a Slavic area. The Hellenic language became the official language there (article 22 of the Organization), and a special stamp of the area was circulated where the place name “Eastern Romilia” written in Hellenic was in a prominent place. Unfortunately, Hellas then did not border with the Eastern Romilia and was not in a position to provide any assistance to the latter’s Hellenic population, not even when Bulgaria conquered the area in 1885, nor when the nationality “newly converted” Bulgarians vandalized the Hellenic population in 1906.
Later on, after the Balkan wars and the Neuilly Treaty (1919), an exchange of populations between Hellas and Bulgaria occurred, but of course, only 48,000 Hellenes wanted to leave Eastern Romilia and go to the liberated Hellas. This treaty did not impose the obligatory exchange of populations, as the Hellenic Turkish treaty of Lausanne. The Hellenes of Eastern Romilia were then more than 200,000. Even the Bulgarians recognized the fact that “the Bulgarian element was weak” in the area, as Ischirkoff mentions. It is worth mentioning that Bulgaria reissued in 1908, in Eastern Romilia, the stamp of 1881 with the Hellenic characters that I mentioned before.
Keramopoulos writes that “those who did not dare to return to Hellas still live there silently even though they know their age long Hellenic descent”. Indeed, in the area between Aemos and Rhodope Mountains and on the shores of the Black Sea there live hundreds of thousand of Hellenes who despite their suppressive Bulgarization have not forgotten their descent or their Hellenic language. “In the enslaved Romilia, the Hellenes, fooling the oppressor, retain unblemished their Hellenic consciousness and their worship of mother Hellas, despite plans for Bulgarization”.
Hellas never claimed Eastern Romilia and never made an issue of the national rights of the latter’s citizens. Bulgaria, on the contrary, repeatedly showed aggressive behavior toward Hellas. At the beginning of the twentieth century, having as a pretext the Slav-speaking people of Macedonia. Bulgaria claimed through violence the whole of northern Hellas, resulting first in the heroic Macedonian War and the Second Balkan War later. Moreover, Bulgaria’s conduct was outrageous during World War II; she gave “earth and water” to Germany in order to occupy, with Germany’s aid, Hellenic Thrace and to try to make it Bulgarian.
Bulgarian nationalists believe that the Bulgarians are Thracians, and thus they have the right to “unite” the whole of Thrace with the Aegean. It is, of course, an indisputable fact that the Bulgarians are Thracians, who after the sixth century, however, abandoned the Hellenic language and consciousness to acquire new ones. Thus, they do not have the moral right to unify Thrace, but the Thracians of Hellas, who were always faithful to their primordial descent, do.
People who are not racially cannot become nationally related. People, however, who are racially related can change national consciousness and become worst enemies. However, the hope for reformation never ceases. Thus, the Bulgarian and Hellenic people are racially related. In addition to anthropological data, linguistic data show that one-fourth of the Bulgarian names as well as 10,000 Bulgarian words have a Hellenic root. In the field of ethnography (popular art, dances, etc), the similarity of Bulgarian and Hellenic customs is surprising.
The Bulgarians are the only neighbors related to Hellas that has, however, a differentiated consciousness, which many times has led to an acute conflict with Hellas.
For geopolitical reasons Bulgaria desires access to the Aegean. This desire made Bulgaria in the nineteenth century a permanent pawn of Russian external policy. Bulgaria became the flank of the Russian intervention to the Aegean, first of the Tsarist and later of the Communist Russia. If Bulgaria could overcome her anti=Hellenic self, then Hellenic-Bulgarian relations would be excellent. On the one hand, there is the common danger from the East for both Bulgaria and Hellas and on the other; there is a common internal minority problem. Hellas and Bulgaria are racially related countries that form together the European bastion against the Turanic threat.
Ancient Thracian (pre-Bulgarian) coins have Greek language upon them
The text was taken from the book: "The Origin of the Hellenes, Their roots, related peoples and neighbours" Demetrios Demopoulos, Eleftheri Skepsis
Bibliography:
D. Demopoulos, An Introduction to Biopolitics, 1997
Suchy J. Anthropologie der rezenten Bevoelkerung der Tschechoslowakei in “Rassengesch, d. Menschheit“, V, 1978
Bergman P., Bielicki T,. Sawicki K. Anthropologie der heutingen Bevoelkerung Polens in Rassengesch der Menschheit, V 1978
Vallois H.V., Chamla M.C Historie raciale de la France in « Rassengesch der Menschheit, II, 1974
Bunak V. Rassengeschichte Osteuropas in “ Rassengesch. der Menscheit“, IV, 1976
Weninger D. Die Rassengeschichte Oesterreichs in Rassengesch der Menschheit, V, 1978
Jelinek J. Diengeschichte der Tschechoslowakei in d Menschheit V, 1978
Schwidetzky I. Albanien in Rassengesch der Menscheit, VI, 1979
Gavrilovic Z., Schwidetzky I. Jugoslawien in Rassengesch, der Menschheit, VI, 1979
Λευκίας Γεωργιάδης Α. Ανατροπή (The Reversal), 1843
Παπαρρηγόπουλος Κ. Περί της εποικίσεως Σλαβικών τινων φυλών εις την Πελοπόννησον (About the colonization of some Slavic Tribes in the Peloponese), 1843
Hopf K. Griechenland geographisch, geschichtlich und culture-historisch dargestellt, 1870
Κυριακίδης Στ. Βυζαντιναί Μελέται (Byzantine Studies), VI, 1947
Κυριακίδης Στ. Βούλγαροι και Σλάβοι εις την Ελληνικήν Ιστορίαν (Bulgarians and Slavs in Greek History), 1946
Κεραμόπουλος Α. Οι Έλληνες και οι βόρειοι γείτονες (The Greeks and their Northern Neighbours), 1945
Ζερλέντης Π. Μηλιγγοί και Εζερίται Σλάβοι (Milingi and Ezerite Slavs), 1922
Πίτσιος Θ.Κ. Ανθρωπολογική μελέτη του πληθυσμού της Πελοποννήσου (Anthropological Study of the Population in
Peloponnese), 1978
Σινόπουλος Ν. Πέλλα (Pella), 1948
Πουλιανός Αρ. Η προέλευση των Ελλήνων (The Descent of
the Greeks), 1968
Μάρτης Ν. Η πλαστογράφηση της Ιστορίας της Μακεδονίας (The Fabrication of the History of Macedonia), 1983
Τσιούλκας Κ. Συμβολαί εις την διγλωσσίαν των Μακεδόνων (A study in the bilingualism of Macedonians), 1907
Guenther H.F. Lebensgeschichte des hellenischen Volkes
Δασκαλάκης Απ. Ο Ελληνισμός της Αρχαίας Μακεδονίας, (The Hellenic Character of Ancient Macedonia), 1960
Hoffmann O. Geschichte der griechschen Sprache, 1911
Καλλέργης Ι.Ν. Les Anciens Macedoniens, 1954
Kretschmer P. Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache, 1970
Γυιόκας Π. Η καταγωγή των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων (The
Origin of the Ancient Macedonians), 1977
Λίβας Ξ. Η Αιγηίς κοίτις των Αρίων και του Ελληνισμού (The Aegiis, Cradle of Hellenism and the Aryans), 1963
Μουσταϊρας Γ. Γιουγκοσλαβία και Μακεδονικό (Yugoslavia and the Macedonian Issue), 1986
Popov M. Anthropologija na b’ Igarskija narod, 1959
Tzacheva L., Yordanov Y., Mutapov St. Anthropological investigation of the Tatars in Bulgaria in W. Bernhard’s “Bevoelkenrungsbiologie”. 1974
Κόρμαλης Α. Ανατολική Ρωμυλία (Eastern Romylia), 1985