Δείτε τα βίντεο για το ρόλο της Τουρκίας στις πρόσφατες ευρωεκλογές και την υπόδειξη της αυτοαποκαλούμενης "Συμβουλευτικής Επιτροπής Τούρκων Δυτικής Θράκης" για ΛΕΥΚΟ στις εκλογές.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wXFshrEdII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAgIgG6Plds
Σελίδες
▼
Σάββατο 27 Ιουνίου 2009
Πέμπτη 25 Ιουνίου 2009
Φάνης Μαλκίδης Η ΆΡΝΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΤΟΥΡΚΙΑΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΓΕΝΟΚΤΟΝΙΑ ΚΑΙ Η ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΘΡΑΚΗ
Είναι γεγονός ότι οι τουρκικοί μηχανισμοί και οι υποστηρικτές τους σε όλον τον κόσμο εφευρίσκουν διάφορα σενάρια προκειμένου να δικαιολογήσουν τις μαζικές εκτοπίσεις και τελικώς τις μαζικές δολοφονίες ενάντια στους Έλληνες. Ένα πρώτο «επιχείρημα» που συνδέεται και με στοιχεία που αναιρούν την ιστορία χιλιάδων ετών, υποστηρίζει ότι «οι Έλληνες ουδέποτε εγκαταστάθηκαν στη Μικρά Ασία»
Οι Τούρκοι και οι υποστηρικτές τους τονίζουν πως πολλοί Έλληνες στη διάρκεια του Α΄παγκοσμίου πολέμου είχαν αναπτύξει «προδοτική δραστηριότητα» και η κυβέρνηση δεν μπορούσε να γνωρίζει ποιοι Έλληνες θα παρέμεναν πιστοί και ποιοι θα έπαιρναν το μέρος των Ρώσων και των δυτικών συμμάχων. Έτσι σύμφωνα με τη τουρκική άποψη δεν επρόκειτο καθόλου για γενοκτονία αλλά για μια πράξη «αυτοάμυνας» της οθωμανικής κυβέρνησης και του τουρκικού έθνους, που η υπόστασή του απειλούνταν από τους αντάρτες και έτσι αναγκάστηκε να απελάσει μέρος των Ελλήνων.
Επίσης δίνεται μία προπαγανδιστική εικόνα για την εποχή, αναφέροντας ότι οι Νεότουρκοι και οι κεμαλικοί προστάτεψαν τους Έλληνες, ενώ γίνεται προσπάθεια να αλλοιωθεί ο αριθμός των Ελλήνων που ζούσαν στον Πόντο, στη Θράκη, στην Ιωνία και την Καππαδοκία.
Επίσης προβάλλεται η ασυνέχεια μεταξύ Νεότουρκων και Κεμαλικών, και τονίζεται ότι το σημερινό τουρκικό κράτος δεν έχει καμία σχέση με το οθωμανικό κράτος.
Η Τουρκία εκτός από την τακτική άρνησης τα γεγονότα και οι υπεύθυνοι που τα συγκροτούν, τις μεθόδους διάψευσής της ιστορίας που εφαρμόζουν οι υποτακτικοί της επίσημης ιστορίας εφαρμόζουν τα εξής: επιλεκτική χρήση, μερική περιγραφή ή επιδέξια παραμορφωμένη πραγματικότητα, συνεχώς βελτιωμένη παρουσίαση εργασιών ακαδημαϊκής αίγλης που θα επαυξάνει την αξιοπιστία της απευθυνόμενη σε μη ειδικούς, ραδιοτηλεοπτικές εκπομπές που παίζουν και το ρόλο του εκφοβισμού των Τούρκων πολιτικών και διανοουμένων που επιθυμούν την αλήθεια για το ζήτημα. Αυτό προκύπτει από την παραπληροφόρηση που η προπαγάνδα που γίνεται στον τουρκικό πληθυσμό σχετικά με τους Έλληνες, τον ρόλο τους στο παρελθόν και τα συναισθήματα που μπορεί να προκαλέσει. Επίσης, η Τουρκία αφιερώνει ένα διαρκώς αυξανόμενο προϋπολογισμό σε προγράμματα που αποσκοπούν να δώσουν μια άσπιλη εικόνα για το παρελθόν της και να της εξασφαλίσουν καλές σχέσεις.
Είναι ξεκάθαρο πλέον ότι η Τουρκία εκτός από την άρνηση τέλεσης του εγκλήματος, έχει επιδοθεί σε συστηματική προσπάθεια για να εξηγηθεί, να δικαιολογηθεί και να στοιχειοθετηθεί το μαζικό έγκλημα, που κατέληξε στην ολοκληρωτική εκδίωξη των Ελλήνων. Μάλιστα αντιστρέφοντας τα γεγονότα η τουρκική προπαγάνδα υποστηρίζει τη Γενοκτονία τη διέπραξαν οι Έλληνες εναντίον των Τούρκων (!). Το ανησυχητικό όμως είναι ότι την τουρκική φρασεολογία και επιχειρηματολογία, την ακολουθούν και ορισμένοι στην ελληνική Θράκη. Στην εφημερίδα Μιλλέτ (2-6-2009) που εκδίδεται στην Ξάνθη, δημοσιεύτηκε ένα κείμενο (βλ. εφημερίδα Αντιφωνητής 16-6-2009 ) το οποίο αναπαράγει τις παραπάνω επισημάνσεις για την τουρκική πολιτική άρνησης.
Συγκεκριμένα το δημοσίευμα αναφέρει τα εξής: «Με την υποκίνηση της Ευρώπης επιτέθηκαν (οι Έλληνες) στην Ανατολία φτάνοντας ως την Άγκυρα. Δεν έμεινε αγριότητα και απανθρωπιά που να μην την έκανε ο ελληνικός στρατός κατά μήκος της διαδρομής του. Βίασαν γυναίκες και μικρά κορίτσια και μετά αφού πετσόκοψαν άνδρες και γυναίκες πυρπόλησαν χωριά. Ίδιες αγριότητες υπήρξαν και στις ακτές της Μαύρης Θάλασσας. Οι Ρωμιοί που ζούσαν στην περιοχή με την υποκίνηση της Ελλάδας και της Ευρώπης, σχημάτισαν τρομοκρατικές αντάρτικες ομάδες. Αυτές οι συμμορίες εξοπλίστηκαν από τις δυτικές δυνάμεις και διέπραξαν σφαγές που έφτασαν στο σημείο γενοκτονίας των τουρκομουσουλμάνων που ζούσαν στην περιοχή. Όμως τι περίεργο στις μέρες μας τα εγγόνια αυτών των συμμοριών δολοφόνων συκοφαντώντας το τουρκικό έθνος ισχυρίζονται πως υπέστησαν γενοκτονία. Για να καλύψουν τις αγριότητες που έκαναν οι ίδιοι κατηγορούνε τους Τούρκους μουσουλμάνους. Το ξαναγράφουμε. Οι Τούρκοι λόγω θρησκείας ποτέ δεν έχουν κάνει γενοκτονία. Οι Τούρκοι δεν έκαναν γενοκτονία ούτε στους Αρμένιους, ούτε στους Ρωμιούς. Το αντίθετο. Οι Αρμένιοι και οι Ρωμιοί διέπραξαν γενοκτονία εις βάρος των Τούρκων. Τα δήθεν ντοκουμέντα και έγγραφα που ισχυρίζονται πως έχουν είτε οι Αρμένιοι, είτε οι Ρωμιοί, δεν έχουν καμία σχέση με την επιστήμη και την ιστορική πραγματικότητα. Αυτά είναι στημένα και ψέμματα. Αυτά υποδεικνύουν ανεξάρτητοι και αμερόληπτοι ιστορικοί»
Παρά όμως την προπαγάνδα και το ψεύδος στην Τουρκία αλλά δυστυχώς και στην Ελλάδα και ειδικότερα στην Θράκη, η αλήθεια δεν μπορεί να κρυφτεί.
Η Τουρκία με την αναγνώριση της ευθύνης της για τη γενοκτονία, θα έκανε ένα βήμα μπροστά, ένα βήμα προκειμένου ο τουρκικός λαός να απελευθερωθεί από τα δεσμά του παρελθόντος. Είναι μία αναγνώριση την οποία οφείλει η γειτονική χώρα να την πράξει και μάλιστα άμεσα, προτρέποντας τους αρνητές και τους προπαγανδιστές όπου και αυτοί βρίσκονται να πράξουν το ίδιο.
Two articles of Sam Topalidis, 'Formation of the first Greek settlements in the Pontos' and the 'Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon region of Pontos'
Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos
Sam Topalidis
The Pontos
According to Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the word Pontos stands for the sea, especially the open sea. In time, the word Pontos became associated with the north-eastern portion of Asia Minor that borders the Black Sea (see Map 1).1 The Greeks first called the Black Sea, Aξεινος πóντος (inhospitable, unfriendly pontos), but later it was called Εϋξεινος πóντος (hospitable pontos) when they became aware of its wealth in the lands around it.2
The ancient name Πóντος Εϋξείνος, has the distinguishing characteristics of a hybrid name, part Greek and part Iranian. The Greeks took both parts to be Hellenic, but they also recognised an earlier form, which they took to mean its opposite, ‘inhospitable’ (äξεινος i.e. axenos). However, after studies in the early 20th century, it has become generally accepted that axenos was itself a borrowing into Greek from an Iranian root αχšαēnα meaning dark.3
The Greeks appear to have known about the Black Sea as early as the 13th century BC. This view is based on early Greek legends such as Jason and the Argonauts who set out to find the Golden Fleece in Colchis (modern Georgia, see Map 1). The earliest Greek trade with the lands around the Black Sea was reflected in the Greek legends about the origin of iron.4
Map 1: Miletos and its colonies on the Pontic coast (Hionides 1996, p. 35)
Also, the mythical Amazons were believed to have lived in northern Asia Minor, at the mouth of the Thermodon (Terme) river, although an alternative version states they lived on the Tanais (Don) river in southern Russia.5
Miletos colonising the Pontos
In the late 11th-10th century BC the Ionians (and subsequently the Dorians and Aeolians) migrated from mainland Greece and settled in the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia), where they founded 12 cities.6 Ancient written sources seldom mention reasons for Greek colonisation, but where they do, the emphasis is always on forced emigration and conflict.7
An obvious example of forced migration is from Ionia, a very wealthy region where Miletos (see Map 1) was the main city. From the second half of the 7th century BC, its eastern neighbour, Lydia, expanded taking Ionian territory. At this time, Ionia began sending out its first colonies. In addition, from the middle of the 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Empire began to conquer Ionian territory and then, in the wake of the Ionian revolt in 449-494 BC, laid it waste. There was a shortage of land and food, but this was not from overpopulation, but from a loss of resources to a conquering foe and external difficulties provoked internal tension between different political groups, especially in Miletos.8
In the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, Miletos was supposed to have founded 90 colonies on the Pontos and the Propontis. This, is an exaggeration, but it proves the fame of Miletos as the pioneer of colonisation in the Black Sea.9 However, Miletos was the principal coloniser of the Black Sea, founding its first colonies there in the last third/end of the 7th century BC.10
The territory of Miletos was almost completely lacking in mineral ores. However, the south Pontic region was well endowed in these ores. In relation to commodities such as copper, gold and iron, there were alternative sources in the Mediterranean, yet it was the Black Sea that Miletos appeared to colonise so intensively. Likewise, grain could be sourced from a number of regions, of which the Black Sea was only one. Perhaps, like grain, in times of crisis, metals were too important to rely on a single supply source. Other commodities which the Black Sea region may have traded in, included timber (and charcoal), fish and slaves. However, all these items are archaeologically ‘invisible’.11
A slightly contrary view states the Black Sea was not rich in metals, as has been supposed, and that the Milesian colonies had access to plenty of natural resources close to home. Also, in the Pontos the Greeks did not plant crops known to the locals, instead they planted familiar crops, which they brought with them.7
Sinope to Amisos (Samsun)
In the written historical sources, it is unclear exactly when the Greeks appeared on the southern Black Sea coast. However, Greek pottery from the Halys valley (between Sinope and Amisos, see Map 1) proves the Greeks had contacts there long before the foundation of the coastal cities. Iron Age settlements testify to significant cultural exchange in the late Archaic period (Archaic period c. 750–550 BC). Sites along the Halys basin yielding Greek pottery and architectural terracottas apparently show that the Greeks paid special attention here. The reason was due to this valley’s abundant resources such as red pigments and other minerals.12
The Milesians drove out from Sinope the weakened Leukosyroi. Sinope then conquered land from the natives to the east for her colonists.13 The Greek settlers in Sinope and Amisos had to deal with the indigenous population from the beginning of their colonial activities, since their survival depended on access to the native territory to obtain agricultural products, valuable minerals and metals. The presence of local pottery in Sinope and Amisos suggests that the native Syrians and Cappadocians respectively formed a part of the populations there. These cities may have been founded over the already existing settlements or they could have received people from the surrounding area.12
According to Xenophon (c. 400 BC) Miletos founded Sinope. Sinope in turn founded Trapezous (Trabzon), Amisos (Samsun), Kotyora (Ordu) and Kerasous (Giresun) (see Map 1).14
The Pontic coastline provides very few natural harbours, with the notable exception of Sinope. Its harbour, and its rocky peninsula provided a naturally strong defensive site with a rolling hinterland stretching some 30 km to the south, which provided ample arable and pastoral land to support the city.15
There are inconsistencies between archaeological research of the Black Sea region and dates of its colonisation based on ancient literary sources. For example, archaeological excavation in Sinope has so far produced nothing earlier than the late 7th century BC.16 Sinope’s foundation date is quite confused in written sources. According to legend, it was founded in about 756 BC, but it was destroyed by the Cimmerians and refounded by Milesians in about 631 BC. (A critical re-evaluation of the written sources in the light of archaeological material is needed, as archaeologically researchers are not able to distinguish a Cimmerian culture.) Sinope had little access to trade links with central Anatolia. Its main orientation was towards the rest of the Black Sea.17
Little is known of Sinope after its colonisation until it was under a tyrant, Timesileos, who was driven out c. 436 BC by Athenian intervention under Pericles. A contingent of 600 men was sent there to consolidate Athenian influence and democracy.18
Amisos was founded around 564 BC on the site of modern Samsun. Ancient authors permit two interpretations: a purely Milesian foundation, or a joint foundation by Phocaea and Miletos. The archaeological evidence from Amisos just adds to the confusion. No proper excavation of the settlement has been conducted because of modern overbuilding.19 Amisos had intensive links with central Anatolia and looked more inland than across the Black Sea.20
The city of Amisos, constituted an emporium for the produce of the plateau. The low barrier of hills to the south of it rises only to a thousand metres. The hills come down to the sea for a short distance on either side of Amisos and then, on the eastern side, the coast opens up into a wide plain formed by the deltas of the Iris and the smaller river Thermodon (Terme).21
Amisos lies 165 km east of Sinope. It possessed no fine harbour; nor was it near the mouth of any major river. Its main assets were iron, probably traded from the Chalybes. Its lands produced olives, some local silver from the Pontic mountains, and the overland route across the so-called isthmus of Asia, which led to Tarsos.22
Kotyora (Ordu)
Kotyora is similar in pattern to the other Greek settlements. It stands at the head of an inland route with two wide deltas to the east, which provides ample food supplies, and its sheltered beaches are overlooked by an acropolis.23 Xenophon (c. 400 BC) stayed outside the walls of Kotyora for 45 days. Xenophon states Kotyora had a governor appointed by Sinope and was in the territory of the Tibareni.14
Kerasous (Giresun)
Kerasous’ great rocky peninsula provides with Sinope the best defensive site along the coast. As a harbour and anchorage, it has little to recommend it. The hinterland of Kerasous does not offer extensive arable and pastoral lands, which extend around the towns further westward. It seemed likely therefore, that defense was the prime consideration for the choice of Kerasous as a site. Possibly the historical importance of the town was largely due to it serving as the outlet for the alum exports from Koloneia (Şebinkarahisar)24 located 220 km to the southeast.
Xenophon (c. 400 BC) visited Kerasous for 10 days with his Greek army of 8,600 soldiers. Xenophon stated Sinope had taken away the land from its natives and given the land to their colonists for which Kerasous paid Sinope regular tribute. The food in the houses of the Mossynoeci, at Kerasous, consisted of loaves of bread, corn, pickled dolphin, dolphin fat, chestnuts and wine.14
Trapezous (Trabzon)
The Armenian version of Eusebius (Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo, ed. A Schoene, Berlin, 1866) provides a date for the founding of Trapezous of 757/6 BC, which is wrong. Eusebius was actually referring to another city in the Propontis.25 (According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia Online 1999, Eusebius Pamphili was a Greek Christian writer born about 260 AD who became the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.)
In 400 BC, Xenophon with his Greek Army of 10,000 soldiers visited Trapezous, an inhabited Greek city, for about 30 days and stated that it was a colony of Sinope. The people of Trapezous gave Xenophon’s army presents of oxen, barley and wine.14
From Xenophon’s text, The Persian Expedition, several indigenous peoples who lived near Trapezous in 400 BC can be identified. These indigenous peoples included the Taochi (north of Erzurum), the Chalybes (around Gumushane), the Scytheni (further west), the Macrones (behind Trapezous) and assorted Colchian tribes at the coast.26
Conclusion
The Archaic Greek colonies along the southern Black Sea coast were quite small and often situated on peninsulas. If these initial sites have not survived, the main reason could be due to the rise in sea level. Along the Black Sea coast the sea level has risen several times in antiquity, and it has risen by a further three to four metres since the first century CE.27
Our current knowledge about major Greek cities and local peoples, mainly in the Archaic period (c. 750–550 BC) along the southern coast of the Black Sea includes, not many Greek cities were established in this large area, due to the local geography and the unfriendliness of many local peoples. Also, archeologically, we do not know much about these Greek cities, primarily because they have been built over by modern towns and cities, modern road construction and reclamation works, which have destroyed what, had survived until now.28
References
1 Hionides, C 1996, 1 The Greek Pontians of the Black Sea, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 31.
2 Danov, CM 1979, ‘The ancient Greeks and the Black Sea’, 12th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, 18-20 March 1978, Archeion Pontou [Archives of Pontos], vol. 35, Athens, p. 156.
3 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, ‘The Black Sea area’, in An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, (eds MH Hansen, and TH Nielsen), Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 924.
4 Danov, CM 1979, p. 159.
5 King, C 2004, The Black Sea: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 26.
6 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, ‘Revisiting ancient Greek colonisation’, in Greek,colonisation. An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, (ed. GR Tsetskhladze), vol. 1, Leiden, Boston, p. xxiii.
7 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxix.
8 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxx.
9 Danov, CM 1979, p. 161.
10 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. lxvi.
11 Greaves, A 2007, ‘ 11 Milesians in the Black Sea: trade, settlement and religion’, in The Black Sea in antiquity: regional and interregional economic exchanges, Black Sea Studies, 6, The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies, (eds V Gabrielsen & J Lund), Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, p. 11.
12 Summerer, L 2007, ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’, in The Black Sea: past, present and future, Proceedings of the International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Istanbul, 14-16 October 2004, (eds G Erkut and S Mitchell), British Institute at Ankara Monograph 42, British Institute at Ankara, London, p. 35.
13 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 927.
14 Xenophon, 400 BC, The Persian Expedition, (translated by Rex Warner), Penguin Classics, London.
15 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 7
16 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxxiii.
17 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, ‘Greeks and locals in the southern Black Sea, littoral: a re-examination’ in Greeks between east and west: essays in Greek literature and history in memory of David Asheri, (eds G. Herman and I. Shatzman), The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 165-7.
18 Av ram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 961. 19 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, pp. 168-9. 20 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 173. 21 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 8. 22 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 954. 23 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 120. 24 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 9. 25 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 964. 26 Nişanyan, S & Nişanyan, M 2001, Black Sea: a traveller’s handbook for northern Turkey, 3rd edn, Infognomon, Athens, p. 11. 27 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 177. 28 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 194.
I wish to thank Professor Tsetskhladze for kindly sending me some of his archaeological papers on the Black Sea.
Related Articles
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Greek Colonies in the East
Ideology and archaeology in Turkey
Greek Penetration of the Black Sea
Iron Age Caucasia
The Incredible Odyssey of the Black Sea Greeks
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Sam Topalidis
Who were the crypto-Christians?
The crypto-Christians (also called cryphi, klosti, Stavriotes, Kromledes) were Christian Greeks who due to the Muslim persecution against Christians publicly declared themselves Muslims. However, in secret, they upheld their Greek language, customs and Christian religious practices.1
Crypto-Christians were not polygamists and they were married in a Christian as well as a Muslim ceremony. The Christian marriage ceremony was often conducted in a rock-hewn house or one underground. When one of them died, a Christian funeral took place as well as the usual Muslim one. Up to the mid 19th century their Christian ceremonies were conducted with great care, but by the early 1900s as long as the men registered themselves as Muslims (thus available for military service), nobody asked whether they were Christian or Muslim at heart.2
Greek authors gave some curious details of the secret Christian rites of Greeks in the Trabzon district (see Map 1). Crypto-Christians followed the Orthodox fasts. Their children were baptised, and bore both a Christian and Muslim name for secret and public use respectively. They never allowed their daughters to marry Muslims, but the men did take Muslim wives. In the latter case, the Christian marriage was conducted in secret, in one of the monasteries. If pressure was required, the bridegroom threatened to leave his bride.3
Map 1: Map of Pontos (Bryer and Winfield 1985, p. 2)
Historical perspective
The first reference to crypto-Christians in the Trabzon region comes from an American missionary in 1833, followed by W.J. Hamilton in 1836 and two French travellers in 1840. (Between 1796 and 1832, none of the 25 western travellers, who left a record and passed through this region, mentioned crypto-Christians.)4
During the century after 1461, Trabzon became a ‘Muslim’ town; partly by influx of Muslims, partly by deportation of Christians, but largely through conversion. (There were considerable financial benefits in converting to Islam.) According to Ottoman tax registers [tahrir defters] in 1520 (59 years after the fall of Trabzon to the Ottoman Turks), Trabzon was still 86% Christian. However, by 1583, it was 54% Muslim, with still 77% Greek speaking.5
Greek historians maintain that, like Of (a village 45 km east of Trabzon) and the Greek-speaking Muslim Oflus, the Greeks of Tonya (42 km south-west of Trabzon) converted to Islam in the late 17th century. However, in the case of Tonya there is no popular explanation of why this happened. The notion is plausible, for in the late 17th century, Christian Greeks in the Pontos experienced considerable pressure on their faith. In the case of Of, we now know there was no mass conversion and the Muslims may simply have overtaken the Christians by natural increase.6
Even after conversion to Islam, some people around Trabzon, as reported in the 1890s, did not forget their Christian roots. There were whole villages on this seaboard whose inhabitants were Muslim, and would resent being called anything else; yet their Greek origin was believed both by history and by some of their traditions. For example, Surmene and Of, two considerable villages (35 km and 45 km east of Trabzon respectively), hold to certain customs, which connect them with the Christian faith. Under the stress of illness, the image of Madonna is suspended above the sickbed; the sufferer sips the forbidden wine from the old cup of the Communion, which still remains a treasured object, much as they might be puzzled to tell you why.7
A little earlier, in 1879, it was estimated that out of 10-12,000 families from Of, 8-10,000 families spoke Greek but only 192 families were Christian.8
Map 2 *Click to enlarge: Map of Matsouka, south of Trabzon (Zerzilidis 1959, p. 160)16
Impact of the Tanzimat reforms and Hatt-i Humayun
The Tanzimat was a period of legislation and reform that modernised Ottoman state and society, and brought greater state participation in Ottoman society during 1839-76.9 In 1843, a new penal code was introduced, which recognised equality of Muslims and non-Muslims. One year later, the death penalty for renouncing Islam, a provision of the şeriat, [Muslim religious law] was abolished.10 This abolition was a crucial event.
On 18 February 1856, a new reform charter, the Imperial Rescript (Hatt-i Humayun), was promulgated by the Sultan. This Rescript; prepared under strong pressure from foreign powers, laid down the equality of all Ottoman subjects irrespective of religion.11 The Hatt-i Humayun allowed people to report their true religion in public without punishment. Not all crypto-Christians professed their faith after 1856. The revelation continued up to 1910.12
On 14 May 1856, Petros Sideropoulos, the first Kromniot [from the Kromni area, south of Trabzon] crypto-Christian declared his Orthodoxy in Trabzon. On 15 July 1857, the Kromni (KPOMNH at 39036′E 40034′N in Map 2) crypto-Christians presented a petition to the pasha and western consuls in Trabzon (appealing for protection) on behalf of 55,755 inhabitants of 58 settlements, of whom 52% were claimed to be open Christians, 31% [17,260] Kromniot (crypto-Christians) and 17% Muslims.4 Some crypto-Christians who declared for Orthodoxy after 1856 may have had Muslim ancestors and many were registered for military service.13
In relation to the military reforms under the Tanzimat, from 1845, conscription was officially introduced in most areas of the Ottoman Empire. Christians were now allowed to serve within the army, but as this was expected to create tensions, they were soon able to pay a special tax instead (in lieu of military service), which they largely preferred. Muslims, too, could evade conscription by payment, but this was very steep for most.14
After the Hatt-i-Humayun, in towns, districts and villages where the whole population was of the same religion, they could repair, according to their original plan, buildings of religious worship, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries. The plans of these buildings, in the case of new construction, would after approval by the Patriarchs or heads of communities, be able to be submitted to the Ottoman Government, which would decide if they could be constructed. Each sect, in localities where there were no other religious denominations was free to practice its religion in public. In towns, districts and villages where different sects were present, each community, inhabiting a distinct quarter, had equal right to repair and improve its churches, hospitals, schools, and cemeteries. Each sect was free to exercise its religion.15
Prior to the Hatt-i Humayun, old Christian churches were allowed to be repaired only in some areas, but no new churches were allowed to be built. However, after 1856, in areas where there were Ottoman Muslims, Christian celebrations were not allowed in public, nor were
bells allowed to be rung. Bells were allowed to be rung in areas where mostly Christians lived.17 Presumably where bells were not allowed to be rung, the churches may have hung a slab of wood horizontally and the priest would hit it with a piece of wood.
Impact of the economic conditions of Gumushane on the
crypto-Christians
Gumushane, about 65 km south of Trabzon, was established in the 1590s. Its Greek name of Argyropolis appears to have been derived around 1846. The silver mining economy of old Gumushane declined in 1829 (the silver mines were abandoned in the 1850s) and the emergence of the crypto-Christians of Kromni, Stavri (at 39030’E 40036’N in Map 2) and Santa (40 km SSE of Trabzon) after 1856 are related. In the case of Chaldia (covering Kromni, Stavri and villages further south) at least, the phenomenon of crypto-Christianity arose largely from the peculiar economic and administrative context of the period 1829-56.18
Pontic crypto-Christians only entered their ‘twilight’ world after 1829 and were reluctant to re-emerge in the ‘sunlight’ after 1856. This was to do with the silver-mining and smelting economy of Gumushane. From 1654-1841 both the mining concessionaries (archimetallourgoi) and a new metropolis of Chaldia were in Greek hands, principally the dynasty of Phytianos – which was to provide miners and bishops all over Anatolia and the Caucasus, and a patriarch of Antioch.4
The mines were the property of the Sultan and under state supervision with all precious metals supposed to be sent to Constantinople. (Without doubt, much precious metal was concealed or smuggled.) However, the mines around Gumushane were effectively controlled by the archimetallourgoi, who was invariably a Greek, with the skilled labour also monopolised by Greeks. This situation, by one probably unreliable tradition goes back to the patronage of Maria of Libera (Gülbahar), Pontic Greek wife of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512), gave the Greeks of the area a peculiar economic position and considerable tax privileges.19
From at least the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks of Gumushane and the surrounding villages were exempt from normal taxes in return for working in the main branches of the industry; namely mining, smelting, and charcoal burning. Gumushane drew its charcoal from an area later to be identified with crypto-Christianity. These villages were excused the haraç, tribute which Christians paid in lieu of military service, thus losing a basic legal distinction as Christians. The crypto-Christians claimed their faith in 1856 only after the mines of Gumushane were abandoned. As they had never paid the haraç before they still demanded exemption, but mining service had ended and they were given the ‘privilege’ of military service instead. The argument dragged on into the 1860s.19
After 1829, it was a question whether the silver mines of Chaldia or the charcoal for smelting from Imera (Stavri /Kromni), were exhausted first. The most intensive crypto-Christian (and fewest Muslim living) areas in the petition presented in 1857 (by Kromniot crypto-Christians mentioned previously) had been economically dependent on silver-mining and charcoal burning for smelting. Smaller crypto-Christian elements were listed near alum mines to which the archimetallourgoi of Gumushane turned after 1829, when their own silver mines declined. Neither Professor Dawkins nor Hasluck (see ref 3) asked why crypto-Christians were keeping their identity secret in places where there were so few declared Muslims.4
The Orthodox church was more reluctant that the Ottoman state to recognise the situation after 1856. By 1863, the church’s solution was to combine the monastic exarchates of Sumela (ΣOYMEΛA 39039′E 40041′N in Map 2), Vazelon (BAZEΛΟN 39030′E 40045′N in Map 2) and Peristereota (ΠEPІΣΤEΡEOTA 39043′E 40047′N in Map 2) into its last Anatolian eparchy, Rhodopolis. According to the petition of 1857, the 14,525 inhabitants of the new diocese were 53% open Christian, 37% crypto-Christian and 10% Muslim. Here if their landlord was one of the three ruling abbots, from whom were the crypto-Christians keeping their identity secret?4
Palgrave (1826-88), the British consul in Trabzon, was first to observe that Ottoman mining and smelting service in the Pontos was in lieu of military service, so Kromniots carried arms (another obvious advantage) as Muslims but did not pay poll tax as Christians. With the decline of the mines after 1829, they clung to the best of both worlds.4
References
1 Hionides, C 1988, The Greek Pontos: mythology geography history civilization, Boston Massachusetts, p. 99.
2 Pears, E 1911, Turkey and its people, Methuen & Co Ltd, London, pp. 266-7.
3 Triantaphyllides, P 1866, People in Pontos, or Pontica, and some speeches by the same author, (in Greek), Athens, pp. 55-92, in Hasluck, FW 1929, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 472-3.
4 Bryer, A 2006, R.M. Dawkins, F.W. Hasluck and the ‘Crypto-Christians’ of Trebizond, Paper delivered to British School at Athens.
5 Lowry, H 1977, The Ottoman Tahrir Defters [tax registers] as a source for urban demographic history: the case study of Trabzon ca. 1486-1583, unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, excerpts used in Bryer, A 1991, ‘The Pontic Greeks before the diaspora’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 4 (4) p. 319.
6 Bryer, A & Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 156.
7 Lynch, HFB 1901, Armenia: travels and studies, vol. 1, reprinted in two volumes in 1967, Khayats, Beirut, pp. 11-2.
8 Parcharides, I 1879, Στατιστική τής έπαρχίας Оφεως του νομου Τραπεζουντος, Παρνασσός, iii, pp. 224-32, quoted in Bryer, A 1968, ‘Churches east of Trebizond (the Santa district), Archeion Pontou, vol. 29 (2), p. 110, in Bryer et al 2002.
9 Shaw, SJ & Shaw, EK 2002, History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II: reform, revolution, and republic: the rise of modern Turkey, 1808-1975, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 55.
10 Zurcher, EJ 2004, Turkey: a modern history, 3rd edition, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, p. 61.
11 Lewis, B 2002, The emergence of modern Turkey, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, NY, p. 116.
12 Andreadis, G 1995, The Cryptochristians: klostoi: those who returned, tenesur: those who changed, Kyriakidis Brothers, Thessaloniki, Greece, p. 84.
13 Bryer, A 1970a, ‘The Tourkokratia in the Pontos: some problems and preliminary conclusions’, Neo-Hellenika, vol. 1, p. 40.
14 Zurcher, EJ 2004, p. 57.
15 Shaw, SJ and Shaw, EK 2002, pp. 124-5.
16 Zerzilidis, G 1959, ‘Τοπωνυμικó της Άνω Ματσούκας’, (in Greek), Archeion Pontou, vol. 23, p. 160.
17 Fotiadis, K 2001, A translation of, The forced Islamization in Asia Minor and the cryptochristians of the Pontos (in Greek), Kiriakidis Bros, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 369-70.
18 Bryer, A 2002, ‘Introduction’, in The post-Byzantine monuments of the Pontos: a source book, (eds A. Bryer, D. Winfield, S. Balance & J Isaac) Variorum Collected Studies Series, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire GB, p. xvii.
19 Bryer, 1970b, ‘Churches south of Trebizond’ in Archeion Pontou vol. 30, pp. 326-8 (in Bryer et al 2002).
I warmly thank Anthony Bryer OBE, Emeritus Professor of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, for sending me a copy of his 2006 paper delivered to the British School at Athens, which I have quoted here. I also thank him for his cryptic reference to me in his paper. Bryer’s work is essential reading to those studying the history of the Pontos.
Related Articles
Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos
Trabzon Greek
The cost of language, Pontiaka trebizond Greek
Maçka and Sumela monastery trave
Sumela Monastery (Panagia Sumela)
Sam Topalidis
The Pontos
According to Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, the word Pontos stands for the sea, especially the open sea. In time, the word Pontos became associated with the north-eastern portion of Asia Minor that borders the Black Sea (see Map 1).1 The Greeks first called the Black Sea, Aξεινος πóντος (inhospitable, unfriendly pontos), but later it was called Εϋξεινος πóντος (hospitable pontos) when they became aware of its wealth in the lands around it.2
The ancient name Πóντος Εϋξείνος, has the distinguishing characteristics of a hybrid name, part Greek and part Iranian. The Greeks took both parts to be Hellenic, but they also recognised an earlier form, which they took to mean its opposite, ‘inhospitable’ (äξεινος i.e. axenos). However, after studies in the early 20th century, it has become generally accepted that axenos was itself a borrowing into Greek from an Iranian root αχšαēnα meaning dark.3
The Greeks appear to have known about the Black Sea as early as the 13th century BC. This view is based on early Greek legends such as Jason and the Argonauts who set out to find the Golden Fleece in Colchis (modern Georgia, see Map 1). The earliest Greek trade with the lands around the Black Sea was reflected in the Greek legends about the origin of iron.4
Map 1: Miletos and its colonies on the Pontic coast (Hionides 1996, p. 35)
Also, the mythical Amazons were believed to have lived in northern Asia Minor, at the mouth of the Thermodon (Terme) river, although an alternative version states they lived on the Tanais (Don) river in southern Russia.5
Miletos colonising the Pontos
In the late 11th-10th century BC the Ionians (and subsequently the Dorians and Aeolians) migrated from mainland Greece and settled in the Aegean islands and the western coast of Asia Minor (Ionia), where they founded 12 cities.6 Ancient written sources seldom mention reasons for Greek colonisation, but where they do, the emphasis is always on forced emigration and conflict.7
An obvious example of forced migration is from Ionia, a very wealthy region where Miletos (see Map 1) was the main city. From the second half of the 7th century BC, its eastern neighbour, Lydia, expanded taking Ionian territory. At this time, Ionia began sending out its first colonies. In addition, from the middle of the 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Empire began to conquer Ionian territory and then, in the wake of the Ionian revolt in 449-494 BC, laid it waste. There was a shortage of land and food, but this was not from overpopulation, but from a loss of resources to a conquering foe and external difficulties provoked internal tension between different political groups, especially in Miletos.8
In the Natural History of Pliny the Elder, Miletos was supposed to have founded 90 colonies on the Pontos and the Propontis. This, is an exaggeration, but it proves the fame of Miletos as the pioneer of colonisation in the Black Sea.9 However, Miletos was the principal coloniser of the Black Sea, founding its first colonies there in the last third/end of the 7th century BC.10
The territory of Miletos was almost completely lacking in mineral ores. However, the south Pontic region was well endowed in these ores. In relation to commodities such as copper, gold and iron, there were alternative sources in the Mediterranean, yet it was the Black Sea that Miletos appeared to colonise so intensively. Likewise, grain could be sourced from a number of regions, of which the Black Sea was only one. Perhaps, like grain, in times of crisis, metals were too important to rely on a single supply source. Other commodities which the Black Sea region may have traded in, included timber (and charcoal), fish and slaves. However, all these items are archaeologically ‘invisible’.11
A slightly contrary view states the Black Sea was not rich in metals, as has been supposed, and that the Milesian colonies had access to plenty of natural resources close to home. Also, in the Pontos the Greeks did not plant crops known to the locals, instead they planted familiar crops, which they brought with them.7
Sinope to Amisos (Samsun)
In the written historical sources, it is unclear exactly when the Greeks appeared on the southern Black Sea coast. However, Greek pottery from the Halys valley (between Sinope and Amisos, see Map 1) proves the Greeks had contacts there long before the foundation of the coastal cities. Iron Age settlements testify to significant cultural exchange in the late Archaic period (Archaic period c. 750–550 BC). Sites along the Halys basin yielding Greek pottery and architectural terracottas apparently show that the Greeks paid special attention here. The reason was due to this valley’s abundant resources such as red pigments and other minerals.12
The Milesians drove out from Sinope the weakened Leukosyroi. Sinope then conquered land from the natives to the east for her colonists.13 The Greek settlers in Sinope and Amisos had to deal with the indigenous population from the beginning of their colonial activities, since their survival depended on access to the native territory to obtain agricultural products, valuable minerals and metals. The presence of local pottery in Sinope and Amisos suggests that the native Syrians and Cappadocians respectively formed a part of the populations there. These cities may have been founded over the already existing settlements or they could have received people from the surrounding area.12
According to Xenophon (c. 400 BC) Miletos founded Sinope. Sinope in turn founded Trapezous (Trabzon), Amisos (Samsun), Kotyora (Ordu) and Kerasous (Giresun) (see Map 1).14
The Pontic coastline provides very few natural harbours, with the notable exception of Sinope. Its harbour, and its rocky peninsula provided a naturally strong defensive site with a rolling hinterland stretching some 30 km to the south, which provided ample arable and pastoral land to support the city.15
There are inconsistencies between archaeological research of the Black Sea region and dates of its colonisation based on ancient literary sources. For example, archaeological excavation in Sinope has so far produced nothing earlier than the late 7th century BC.16 Sinope’s foundation date is quite confused in written sources. According to legend, it was founded in about 756 BC, but it was destroyed by the Cimmerians and refounded by Milesians in about 631 BC. (A critical re-evaluation of the written sources in the light of archaeological material is needed, as archaeologically researchers are not able to distinguish a Cimmerian culture.) Sinope had little access to trade links with central Anatolia. Its main orientation was towards the rest of the Black Sea.17
Little is known of Sinope after its colonisation until it was under a tyrant, Timesileos, who was driven out c. 436 BC by Athenian intervention under Pericles. A contingent of 600 men was sent there to consolidate Athenian influence and democracy.18
Amisos was founded around 564 BC on the site of modern Samsun. Ancient authors permit two interpretations: a purely Milesian foundation, or a joint foundation by Phocaea and Miletos. The archaeological evidence from Amisos just adds to the confusion. No proper excavation of the settlement has been conducted because of modern overbuilding.19 Amisos had intensive links with central Anatolia and looked more inland than across the Black Sea.20
The city of Amisos, constituted an emporium for the produce of the plateau. The low barrier of hills to the south of it rises only to a thousand metres. The hills come down to the sea for a short distance on either side of Amisos and then, on the eastern side, the coast opens up into a wide plain formed by the deltas of the Iris and the smaller river Thermodon (Terme).21
Amisos lies 165 km east of Sinope. It possessed no fine harbour; nor was it near the mouth of any major river. Its main assets were iron, probably traded from the Chalybes. Its lands produced olives, some local silver from the Pontic mountains, and the overland route across the so-called isthmus of Asia, which led to Tarsos.22
Kotyora (Ordu)
Kotyora is similar in pattern to the other Greek settlements. It stands at the head of an inland route with two wide deltas to the east, which provides ample food supplies, and its sheltered beaches are overlooked by an acropolis.23 Xenophon (c. 400 BC) stayed outside the walls of Kotyora for 45 days. Xenophon states Kotyora had a governor appointed by Sinope and was in the territory of the Tibareni.14
Kerasous (Giresun)
Kerasous’ great rocky peninsula provides with Sinope the best defensive site along the coast. As a harbour and anchorage, it has little to recommend it. The hinterland of Kerasous does not offer extensive arable and pastoral lands, which extend around the towns further westward. It seemed likely therefore, that defense was the prime consideration for the choice of Kerasous as a site. Possibly the historical importance of the town was largely due to it serving as the outlet for the alum exports from Koloneia (Şebinkarahisar)24 located 220 km to the southeast.
Xenophon (c. 400 BC) visited Kerasous for 10 days with his Greek army of 8,600 soldiers. Xenophon stated Sinope had taken away the land from its natives and given the land to their colonists for which Kerasous paid Sinope regular tribute. The food in the houses of the Mossynoeci, at Kerasous, consisted of loaves of bread, corn, pickled dolphin, dolphin fat, chestnuts and wine.14
Trapezous (Trabzon)
The Armenian version of Eusebius (Eusebii Chronicorum Libri Duo, ed. A Schoene, Berlin, 1866) provides a date for the founding of Trapezous of 757/6 BC, which is wrong. Eusebius was actually referring to another city in the Propontis.25 (According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia Online 1999, Eusebius Pamphili was a Greek Christian writer born about 260 AD who became the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine.)
In 400 BC, Xenophon with his Greek Army of 10,000 soldiers visited Trapezous, an inhabited Greek city, for about 30 days and stated that it was a colony of Sinope. The people of Trapezous gave Xenophon’s army presents of oxen, barley and wine.14
From Xenophon’s text, The Persian Expedition, several indigenous peoples who lived near Trapezous in 400 BC can be identified. These indigenous peoples included the Taochi (north of Erzurum), the Chalybes (around Gumushane), the Scytheni (further west), the Macrones (behind Trapezous) and assorted Colchian tribes at the coast.26
Conclusion
The Archaic Greek colonies along the southern Black Sea coast were quite small and often situated on peninsulas. If these initial sites have not survived, the main reason could be due to the rise in sea level. Along the Black Sea coast the sea level has risen several times in antiquity, and it has risen by a further three to four metres since the first century CE.27
Our current knowledge about major Greek cities and local peoples, mainly in the Archaic period (c. 750–550 BC) along the southern coast of the Black Sea includes, not many Greek cities were established in this large area, due to the local geography and the unfriendliness of many local peoples. Also, archeologically, we do not know much about these Greek cities, primarily because they have been built over by modern towns and cities, modern road construction and reclamation works, which have destroyed what, had survived until now.28
References
1 Hionides, C 1996, 1 The Greek Pontians of the Black Sea, Boston, Massachusetts, p. 31.
2 Danov, CM 1979, ‘The ancient Greeks and the Black Sea’, 12th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, 18-20 March 1978, Archeion Pontou [Archives of Pontos], vol. 35, Athens, p. 156.
3 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, ‘The Black Sea area’, in An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, (eds MH Hansen, and TH Nielsen), Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 924.
4 Danov, CM 1979, p. 159.
5 King, C 2004, The Black Sea: a history, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 26.
6 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, ‘Revisiting ancient Greek colonisation’, in Greek,colonisation. An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas, (ed. GR Tsetskhladze), vol. 1, Leiden, Boston, p. xxiii.
7 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxix.
8 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxx.
9 Danov, CM 1979, p. 161.
10 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. lxvi.
11 Greaves, A 2007, ‘ 11 Milesians in the Black Sea: trade, settlement and religion’, in The Black Sea in antiquity: regional and interregional economic exchanges, Black Sea Studies, 6, The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre for Black Sea Studies, (eds V Gabrielsen & J Lund), Aarhus University Press, Aarhus, p. 11.
12 Summerer, L 2007, ‘Greeks and natives on the southern Black Sea coast in antiquity’, in The Black Sea: past, present and future, Proceedings of the International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Istanbul, 14-16 October 2004, (eds G Erkut and S Mitchell), British Institute at Ankara Monograph 42, British Institute at Ankara, London, p. 35.
13 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 927.
14 Xenophon, 400 BC, The Persian Expedition, (translated by Rex Warner), Penguin Classics, London.
15 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 7
16 Tsetskhladze, GR 2006, p. xxxiii.
17 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, ‘Greeks and locals in the southern Black Sea, littoral: a re-examination’ in Greeks between east and west: essays in Greek literature and history in memory of David Asheri, (eds G. Herman and I. Shatzman), The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem, pp. 165-7.
18 Av ram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 961. 19 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, pp. 168-9. 20 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 173. 21 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 8. 22 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 954. 23 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 120. 24 Bryer, A and Winfield, D 1985, p. 9. 25 Avram, A, Hind, J & Tsetskhladze, G 2004, p. 964. 26 Nişanyan, S & Nişanyan, M 2001, Black Sea: a traveller’s handbook for northern Turkey, 3rd edn, Infognomon, Athens, p. 11. 27 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 177. 28 Tsetskhladze, GR 2007, p. 194.
I wish to thank Professor Tsetskhladze for kindly sending me some of his archaeological papers on the Black Sea.
Related Articles
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Greek Colonies in the East
Ideology and archaeology in Turkey
Greek Penetration of the Black Sea
Iron Age Caucasia
The Incredible Odyssey of the Black Sea Greeks
Crypto-Christians of the Trabzon Region of Pontos
Sam Topalidis
Who were the crypto-Christians?
The crypto-Christians (also called cryphi, klosti, Stavriotes, Kromledes) were Christian Greeks who due to the Muslim persecution against Christians publicly declared themselves Muslims. However, in secret, they upheld their Greek language, customs and Christian religious practices.1
Crypto-Christians were not polygamists and they were married in a Christian as well as a Muslim ceremony. The Christian marriage ceremony was often conducted in a rock-hewn house or one underground. When one of them died, a Christian funeral took place as well as the usual Muslim one. Up to the mid 19th century their Christian ceremonies were conducted with great care, but by the early 1900s as long as the men registered themselves as Muslims (thus available for military service), nobody asked whether they were Christian or Muslim at heart.2
Greek authors gave some curious details of the secret Christian rites of Greeks in the Trabzon district (see Map 1). Crypto-Christians followed the Orthodox fasts. Their children were baptised, and bore both a Christian and Muslim name for secret and public use respectively. They never allowed their daughters to marry Muslims, but the men did take Muslim wives. In the latter case, the Christian marriage was conducted in secret, in one of the monasteries. If pressure was required, the bridegroom threatened to leave his bride.3
Map 1: Map of Pontos (Bryer and Winfield 1985, p. 2)
Historical perspective
The first reference to crypto-Christians in the Trabzon region comes from an American missionary in 1833, followed by W.J. Hamilton in 1836 and two French travellers in 1840. (Between 1796 and 1832, none of the 25 western travellers, who left a record and passed through this region, mentioned crypto-Christians.)4
During the century after 1461, Trabzon became a ‘Muslim’ town; partly by influx of Muslims, partly by deportation of Christians, but largely through conversion. (There were considerable financial benefits in converting to Islam.) According to Ottoman tax registers [tahrir defters] in 1520 (59 years after the fall of Trabzon to the Ottoman Turks), Trabzon was still 86% Christian. However, by 1583, it was 54% Muslim, with still 77% Greek speaking.5
Greek historians maintain that, like Of (a village 45 km east of Trabzon) and the Greek-speaking Muslim Oflus, the Greeks of Tonya (42 km south-west of Trabzon) converted to Islam in the late 17th century. However, in the case of Tonya there is no popular explanation of why this happened. The notion is plausible, for in the late 17th century, Christian Greeks in the Pontos experienced considerable pressure on their faith. In the case of Of, we now know there was no mass conversion and the Muslims may simply have overtaken the Christians by natural increase.6
Even after conversion to Islam, some people around Trabzon, as reported in the 1890s, did not forget their Christian roots. There were whole villages on this seaboard whose inhabitants were Muslim, and would resent being called anything else; yet their Greek origin was believed both by history and by some of their traditions. For example, Surmene and Of, two considerable villages (35 km and 45 km east of Trabzon respectively), hold to certain customs, which connect them with the Christian faith. Under the stress of illness, the image of Madonna is suspended above the sickbed; the sufferer sips the forbidden wine from the old cup of the Communion, which still remains a treasured object, much as they might be puzzled to tell you why.7
A little earlier, in 1879, it was estimated that out of 10-12,000 families from Of, 8-10,000 families spoke Greek but only 192 families were Christian.8
Map 2 *Click to enlarge: Map of Matsouka, south of Trabzon (Zerzilidis 1959, p. 160)16
Impact of the Tanzimat reforms and Hatt-i Humayun
The Tanzimat was a period of legislation and reform that modernised Ottoman state and society, and brought greater state participation in Ottoman society during 1839-76.9 In 1843, a new penal code was introduced, which recognised equality of Muslims and non-Muslims. One year later, the death penalty for renouncing Islam, a provision of the şeriat, [Muslim religious law] was abolished.10 This abolition was a crucial event.
On 18 February 1856, a new reform charter, the Imperial Rescript (Hatt-i Humayun), was promulgated by the Sultan. This Rescript; prepared under strong pressure from foreign powers, laid down the equality of all Ottoman subjects irrespective of religion.11 The Hatt-i Humayun allowed people to report their true religion in public without punishment. Not all crypto-Christians professed their faith after 1856. The revelation continued up to 1910.12
On 14 May 1856, Petros Sideropoulos, the first Kromniot [from the Kromni area, south of Trabzon] crypto-Christian declared his Orthodoxy in Trabzon. On 15 July 1857, the Kromni (KPOMNH at 39036′E 40034′N in Map 2) crypto-Christians presented a petition to the pasha and western consuls in Trabzon (appealing for protection) on behalf of 55,755 inhabitants of 58 settlements, of whom 52% were claimed to be open Christians, 31% [17,260] Kromniot (crypto-Christians) and 17% Muslims.4 Some crypto-Christians who declared for Orthodoxy after 1856 may have had Muslim ancestors and many were registered for military service.13
In relation to the military reforms under the Tanzimat, from 1845, conscription was officially introduced in most areas of the Ottoman Empire. Christians were now allowed to serve within the army, but as this was expected to create tensions, they were soon able to pay a special tax instead (in lieu of military service), which they largely preferred. Muslims, too, could evade conscription by payment, but this was very steep for most.14
After the Hatt-i-Humayun, in towns, districts and villages where the whole population was of the same religion, they could repair, according to their original plan, buildings of religious worship, schools, hospitals, and cemeteries. The plans of these buildings, in the case of new construction, would after approval by the Patriarchs or heads of communities, be able to be submitted to the Ottoman Government, which would decide if they could be constructed. Each sect, in localities where there were no other religious denominations was free to practice its religion in public. In towns, districts and villages where different sects were present, each community, inhabiting a distinct quarter, had equal right to repair and improve its churches, hospitals, schools, and cemeteries. Each sect was free to exercise its religion.15
Prior to the Hatt-i Humayun, old Christian churches were allowed to be repaired only in some areas, but no new churches were allowed to be built. However, after 1856, in areas where there were Ottoman Muslims, Christian celebrations were not allowed in public, nor were
bells allowed to be rung. Bells were allowed to be rung in areas where mostly Christians lived.17 Presumably where bells were not allowed to be rung, the churches may have hung a slab of wood horizontally and the priest would hit it with a piece of wood.
Impact of the economic conditions of Gumushane on the
crypto-Christians
Gumushane, about 65 km south of Trabzon, was established in the 1590s. Its Greek name of Argyropolis appears to have been derived around 1846. The silver mining economy of old Gumushane declined in 1829 (the silver mines were abandoned in the 1850s) and the emergence of the crypto-Christians of Kromni, Stavri (at 39030’E 40036’N in Map 2) and Santa (40 km SSE of Trabzon) after 1856 are related. In the case of Chaldia (covering Kromni, Stavri and villages further south) at least, the phenomenon of crypto-Christianity arose largely from the peculiar economic and administrative context of the period 1829-56.18
Pontic crypto-Christians only entered their ‘twilight’ world after 1829 and were reluctant to re-emerge in the ‘sunlight’ after 1856. This was to do with the silver-mining and smelting economy of Gumushane. From 1654-1841 both the mining concessionaries (archimetallourgoi) and a new metropolis of Chaldia were in Greek hands, principally the dynasty of Phytianos – which was to provide miners and bishops all over Anatolia and the Caucasus, and a patriarch of Antioch.4
The mines were the property of the Sultan and under state supervision with all precious metals supposed to be sent to Constantinople. (Without doubt, much precious metal was concealed or smuggled.) However, the mines around Gumushane were effectively controlled by the archimetallourgoi, who was invariably a Greek, with the skilled labour also monopolised by Greeks. This situation, by one probably unreliable tradition goes back to the patronage of Maria of Libera (Gülbahar), Pontic Greek wife of Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512), gave the Greeks of the area a peculiar economic position and considerable tax privileges.19
From at least the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks of Gumushane and the surrounding villages were exempt from normal taxes in return for working in the main branches of the industry; namely mining, smelting, and charcoal burning. Gumushane drew its charcoal from an area later to be identified with crypto-Christianity. These villages were excused the haraç, tribute which Christians paid in lieu of military service, thus losing a basic legal distinction as Christians. The crypto-Christians claimed their faith in 1856 only after the mines of Gumushane were abandoned. As they had never paid the haraç before they still demanded exemption, but mining service had ended and they were given the ‘privilege’ of military service instead. The argument dragged on into the 1860s.19
After 1829, it was a question whether the silver mines of Chaldia or the charcoal for smelting from Imera (Stavri /Kromni), were exhausted first. The most intensive crypto-Christian (and fewest Muslim living) areas in the petition presented in 1857 (by Kromniot crypto-Christians mentioned previously) had been economically dependent on silver-mining and charcoal burning for smelting. Smaller crypto-Christian elements were listed near alum mines to which the archimetallourgoi of Gumushane turned after 1829, when their own silver mines declined. Neither Professor Dawkins nor Hasluck (see ref 3) asked why crypto-Christians were keeping their identity secret in places where there were so few declared Muslims.4
The Orthodox church was more reluctant that the Ottoman state to recognise the situation after 1856. By 1863, the church’s solution was to combine the monastic exarchates of Sumela (ΣOYMEΛA 39039′E 40041′N in Map 2), Vazelon (BAZEΛΟN 39030′E 40045′N in Map 2) and Peristereota (ΠEPІΣΤEΡEOTA 39043′E 40047′N in Map 2) into its last Anatolian eparchy, Rhodopolis. According to the petition of 1857, the 14,525 inhabitants of the new diocese were 53% open Christian, 37% crypto-Christian and 10% Muslim. Here if their landlord was one of the three ruling abbots, from whom were the crypto-Christians keeping their identity secret?4
Palgrave (1826-88), the British consul in Trabzon, was first to observe that Ottoman mining and smelting service in the Pontos was in lieu of military service, so Kromniots carried arms (another obvious advantage) as Muslims but did not pay poll tax as Christians. With the decline of the mines after 1829, they clung to the best of both worlds.4
References
1 Hionides, C 1988, The Greek Pontos: mythology geography history civilization, Boston Massachusetts, p. 99.
2 Pears, E 1911, Turkey and its people, Methuen & Co Ltd, London, pp. 266-7.
3 Triantaphyllides, P 1866, People in Pontos, or Pontica, and some speeches by the same author, (in Greek), Athens, pp. 55-92, in Hasluck, FW 1929, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 472-3.
4 Bryer, A 2006, R.M. Dawkins, F.W. Hasluck and the ‘Crypto-Christians’ of Trebizond, Paper delivered to British School at Athens.
5 Lowry, H 1977, The Ottoman Tahrir Defters [tax registers] as a source for urban demographic history: the case study of Trabzon ca. 1486-1583, unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, excerpts used in Bryer, A 1991, ‘The Pontic Greeks before the diaspora’, Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 4 (4) p. 319.
6 Bryer, A & Winfield, D 1985, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, vol. I, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library & Collection, Harvard University, Washington D.C., p. 156.
7 Lynch, HFB 1901, Armenia: travels and studies, vol. 1, reprinted in two volumes in 1967, Khayats, Beirut, pp. 11-2.
8 Parcharides, I 1879, Στατιστική τής έπαρχίας Оφεως του νομου Τραπεζουντος, Παρνασσός, iii, pp. 224-32, quoted in Bryer, A 1968, ‘Churches east of Trebizond (the Santa district), Archeion Pontou, vol. 29 (2), p. 110, in Bryer et al 2002.
9 Shaw, SJ & Shaw, EK 2002, History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, vol. II: reform, revolution, and republic: the rise of modern Turkey, 1808-1975, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 55.
10 Zurcher, EJ 2004, Turkey: a modern history, 3rd edition, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London, p. 61.
11 Lewis, B 2002, The emergence of modern Turkey, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, NY, p. 116.
12 Andreadis, G 1995, The Cryptochristians: klostoi: those who returned, tenesur: those who changed, Kyriakidis Brothers, Thessaloniki, Greece, p. 84.
13 Bryer, A 1970a, ‘The Tourkokratia in the Pontos: some problems and preliminary conclusions’, Neo-Hellenika, vol. 1, p. 40.
14 Zurcher, EJ 2004, p. 57.
15 Shaw, SJ and Shaw, EK 2002, pp. 124-5.
16 Zerzilidis, G 1959, ‘Τοπωνυμικó της Άνω Ματσούκας’, (in Greek), Archeion Pontou, vol. 23, p. 160.
17 Fotiadis, K 2001, A translation of, The forced Islamization in Asia Minor and the cryptochristians of the Pontos (in Greek), Kiriakidis Bros, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 369-70.
18 Bryer, A 2002, ‘Introduction’, in The post-Byzantine monuments of the Pontos: a source book, (eds A. Bryer, D. Winfield, S. Balance & J Isaac) Variorum Collected Studies Series, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire GB, p. xvii.
19 Bryer, 1970b, ‘Churches south of Trebizond’ in Archeion Pontou vol. 30, pp. 326-8 (in Bryer et al 2002).
I warmly thank Anthony Bryer OBE, Emeritus Professor of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, for sending me a copy of his 2006 paper delivered to the British School at Athens, which I have quoted here. I also thank him for his cryptic reference to me in his paper. Bryer’s work is essential reading to those studying the history of the Pontos.
Related Articles
Formation of the First Greek Settlements in the Pontos
Trabzon Greek
The cost of language, Pontiaka trebizond Greek
Maçka and Sumela monastery trave
Sumela Monastery (Panagia Sumela)
Τετάρτη 24 Ιουνίου 2009
Φάνης Μαλκίδης Οι εκλογές στην Αλβανία και η ελληνική μειονότητα
Η κατάρρευση του αλβανικού καθεστώτος το 1991 έφερε στο προσκήνιο ένα ζήτημα, το οποίο για πολλά χρόνια είχε περιοριστεί στο ελλαδικό εσωτερικό πολιτικό σκηνικό. Η αναφορά για την ελληνική μειονότητα στην Αλβανία, η οποία μετά από ένα μεγάλο χρονικό διάστημα, κατά τη διάρκεια του οποίου δοκιμάστηκε από διάφορους μηχανισμούς καταπίεσης, ήλθε στην επικαιρότητα στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1990. Στην αρχή ως μία μικρή μάζα μέσα στις χιλιάδες που ερχόταν από την Αλβανία, στη συνέχεια με τη δίωξη των ηγετικών στελεχών της πολιτικής οργάνωσης, μετά με το ζήτημα των «πυραμίδων», όπου κρατικές και παρακρατικές αρχές καρπώθηκαν τις οικονομίες ετών από σκληρή εργασία στην Ελλάδα, και σήμερα με το μέλλον και την προοπτική ως μίας αυτόχθονης μειονοτικής ομάδας.
Οι εκλογές της Κυριακής στην Αλβανία δείχνουν ότι η δοκιμασία που θα περάσει η ελληνική μειονότητα θα είναι μεγάλη. Από τη μία πλευρά υπάρχει η Αλβανία η οποία παρά το γεγονός ότι έχει απέναντι μία χώρα, την Ελλάδα, η οποία στηρίζει κάθε προσπάθειά της, πολιτική, οικονομική, κοινωνική και άλλη, δεν έχει να επιδείξει μία αντίστοιχη στάση. Το αντίθετο μάλιστα δείχνουν οι κινήσεις που αποσκοπούν στην περαιτέρω πίεση της ελληνικής μειονότητας, παρά την επίφαση της συμμετοχής της σε κυβερνητικούς σχηματισμούς και θέσεις ήσσονος πάντως σημασίας, ενώ η αλβανική στάση για το ζήτημα των Τσάμηδων, είναι διπλωματικά και πολιτικά απαράδεκτη. Θυμίζουμε την διαδήλωση των Τσάμηδων κατά τη διάρκεια της παρουσίας του προέδρου της ελληνικής δημοκρατίας και τις εκδηλώσεις της 27ης Ιουνίου, μία μέρα πριν τις εκλογές, για τη «γενοκτονία των Τσάμηδων».
Παράλληλα η πολιτική παράδοση του αλβανικού καθεστώτος, φαίνεται ότι συνεχίζει την εχθρική στάση έναντι της ελληνικής μειονότητας, στάση η οποία δεν έχει καμία λογική εξήγηση. Αυτό αν αναλογιστούμε ότι οι Έλληνες της Αλβανίας, θεωρούνται ιστορικά η πιο προσηλωμένη στους νόμους της Αλβανίας, εθνική ομάδα, η οποία ζήτησε και ζητά την απόδοση των δικαιωμάτων της μέσα στα τυπικά νομικά και πολιτικά πλαίσια.
Η Ελληνική μειονότητα από την άλλη οφείλει να ξεπεράσει τα προβλήματα, τα οποία υπάρχουν και θα υπάρχουν σε κάθε ζωντανό πολιτικό οργανισμό και να κοιτάξει μπροστά χωρίς πάθη και προσωπικές διαμάχες. Η παρούσα πολιτική και κοινωνική κατάσταση δεν είναι αυτή του 1991. Ο κοινωνικός και πολιτικός ιστός δεν είναι ο ίδιος, αφού η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των Ελλήνων της Αλβανίας βρίσκεται πλέον στην Ελλάδα και μάλιστα υπό καθεστώς χορήγησης υπηκοότητας. Επίσης, πολλές φορές, η ελληνική μειονότητα μέσα από μία διαδικασία στενής επιτήρησης από κρατικούς και κομματικούς μηχανισμούς στην Ελλάδα και στην Αλβανία, δεν μπόρεσε να προτάξει την αυτόνομη δική της πολιτική φωνή και πρόταση. Οι εκλογές της Κυριακής στην Αλβανία, είναι μία ευκαιρία για την ανάδειξη μίας νέας πολιτικής πρότασης από την ελληνική μειονότητα και μπορεί να είναι η αρχή μίας επανασύνδεσης της πολιτικής με την πλέον καταπιεσμένη εθνική ομάδα στα Βαλκάνια. Η ευθύνη είναι μεγάλη και είναι συνολική.
Ο Φάνης Μαλκίδης έχει γράψει τα βιβλία «Η εθνική ελληνική μειονότητα στην Αλβανία» (στην ελληνική, αγγλική, και αλβανική γλώσσα), «Οι ελληνοαλβανικές σχέσεις» και «Το αλβανικό εθνικό ζήτημα».
Οι εκλογές της Κυριακής στην Αλβανία δείχνουν ότι η δοκιμασία που θα περάσει η ελληνική μειονότητα θα είναι μεγάλη. Από τη μία πλευρά υπάρχει η Αλβανία η οποία παρά το γεγονός ότι έχει απέναντι μία χώρα, την Ελλάδα, η οποία στηρίζει κάθε προσπάθειά της, πολιτική, οικονομική, κοινωνική και άλλη, δεν έχει να επιδείξει μία αντίστοιχη στάση. Το αντίθετο μάλιστα δείχνουν οι κινήσεις που αποσκοπούν στην περαιτέρω πίεση της ελληνικής μειονότητας, παρά την επίφαση της συμμετοχής της σε κυβερνητικούς σχηματισμούς και θέσεις ήσσονος πάντως σημασίας, ενώ η αλβανική στάση για το ζήτημα των Τσάμηδων, είναι διπλωματικά και πολιτικά απαράδεκτη. Θυμίζουμε την διαδήλωση των Τσάμηδων κατά τη διάρκεια της παρουσίας του προέδρου της ελληνικής δημοκρατίας και τις εκδηλώσεις της 27ης Ιουνίου, μία μέρα πριν τις εκλογές, για τη «γενοκτονία των Τσάμηδων».
Παράλληλα η πολιτική παράδοση του αλβανικού καθεστώτος, φαίνεται ότι συνεχίζει την εχθρική στάση έναντι της ελληνικής μειονότητας, στάση η οποία δεν έχει καμία λογική εξήγηση. Αυτό αν αναλογιστούμε ότι οι Έλληνες της Αλβανίας, θεωρούνται ιστορικά η πιο προσηλωμένη στους νόμους της Αλβανίας, εθνική ομάδα, η οποία ζήτησε και ζητά την απόδοση των δικαιωμάτων της μέσα στα τυπικά νομικά και πολιτικά πλαίσια.
Η Ελληνική μειονότητα από την άλλη οφείλει να ξεπεράσει τα προβλήματα, τα οποία υπάρχουν και θα υπάρχουν σε κάθε ζωντανό πολιτικό οργανισμό και να κοιτάξει μπροστά χωρίς πάθη και προσωπικές διαμάχες. Η παρούσα πολιτική και κοινωνική κατάσταση δεν είναι αυτή του 1991. Ο κοινωνικός και πολιτικός ιστός δεν είναι ο ίδιος, αφού η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των Ελλήνων της Αλβανίας βρίσκεται πλέον στην Ελλάδα και μάλιστα υπό καθεστώς χορήγησης υπηκοότητας. Επίσης, πολλές φορές, η ελληνική μειονότητα μέσα από μία διαδικασία στενής επιτήρησης από κρατικούς και κομματικούς μηχανισμούς στην Ελλάδα και στην Αλβανία, δεν μπόρεσε να προτάξει την αυτόνομη δική της πολιτική φωνή και πρόταση. Οι εκλογές της Κυριακής στην Αλβανία, είναι μία ευκαιρία για την ανάδειξη μίας νέας πολιτικής πρότασης από την ελληνική μειονότητα και μπορεί να είναι η αρχή μίας επανασύνδεσης της πολιτικής με την πλέον καταπιεσμένη εθνική ομάδα στα Βαλκάνια. Η ευθύνη είναι μεγάλη και είναι συνολική.
Ο Φάνης Μαλκίδης έχει γράψει τα βιβλία «Η εθνική ελληνική μειονότητα στην Αλβανία» (στην ελληνική, αγγλική, και αλβανική γλώσσα), «Οι ελληνοαλβανικές σχέσεις» και «Το αλβανικό εθνικό ζήτημα».
Βιβλιοπαρουσίαση Τρεις Γενοκτονίες. Μία στρατηγική. Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Ημερίδας. Θεσσαλονίκη: εκδόσεις Αδελφοί Κυριακίδη.
Το βιβλίο, το οποίο έχει εκδοθεί στην ελληνική και αγγλική γλώσσα, περιέχει τις εισηγήσεις του Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου «Τρεις γενοκτονίες, μια στρατηγική» που διοργάνωσε ο Πανελλήνιος Σύνδεσμος Ποντίων Εκπαιδευτικών, ο Σύνδεσμος Ποντιακών Σωματείων Ανατολικής Μακεδονίας και Θράκης της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδος, η Συντονιστική Επιτροπή Νεολαίας της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδος και όλα τα ποντιακά σωματεία του Νομού Ροδόπης, στην Κομοτηνή το Μάιο του 2008.
Στην ημερίδα εξετάστηκαν οι Γενοκτονίες των πληθυσμών της Μικράς Ασίας από τους Νεότουρκους και τους Κεμαλικούς και συζητήθηκε η αξιοποίηση της εμπειρίας του αγώνα κυρίως των Αρμενίων καθώς και η οικοδόμηση της συνεργασίας και ο συντονισμός του αγώνα των τριών λαών που υπέστησαν τη Γενοκτονία (Ελλήνων, Αρμενίων, Ασσυρίων).
Στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται οι χαιρετισμοί της Χ. Μαυρίδου, μέλους του Δ.Σ. της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδας, η οποία αναφέρθηκε στη σημαντικότητα της εκδήλωσης καθώς και στο συμβολισμό που έχει η πραγματοποίηση της ημερίδας στη Ροδόπη, του προέδρου της Ποντιακής Νεολαίας της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδας Χ. Κοτίδη ο οποίος αναφέρθηκε στην έλλειψη ενδιαφέροντος από πλευράς ελληνικής πολιτείας, η οποία δεν έκανε κανένα βήμα για τη διεθνοποίηση του ζητήματος. Επίσης από την πλευρά του o Θόδωρος Παυλίδης, πρόεδρος της Πανελλήνιας Ένωσης Ποντίων εκπαιδευτικών χαρακτήρισε την ημερίδα «πρωτοπόρα προσπάθεια που ανοίγει έναν νέο κύκλο στην ιστορία του ποντιακού ζητήματος, ενώ στην αξία της ημερίδας αναφέρθηκε και ο Δ. Τομπουλίδης, Πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Συνομοσπονδίας Ποντιακού Ελληνισμού. Στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται επίσης οι χαιρετισμοί του βουλευτή του ΛΑΟΣ, Η. Πολατίδη, του χορηγού της ημερίδας Π. Εμφιετζόγλου, του πρώην προέδρου της Βουλής, Α. Κακλαμάνη, καθώς και τα μηνύματα που έστειλαν ο πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Ένωσης ελληνικών κοινοτήτων κοινοπολιτείας Ανεξαρτήτων Κρατών «Πόντος» Β. Κάισεβ, ο γραμματέας της Παν- ποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ- Καναδά, Δ. Μολοχίδης και ο πρόεδρος της Ομοσπονδίας Ποντιακών Σωματείων Αυστραλίας Χ. Ταβλαρίδης. Επίσης στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται τα συμπεράσματα της ημερίδας και οι στόχοι που τέθηκαν μέσα από αυτή, για τη Γενοκτονία.
Στην ημερίδα εξετάστηκαν οι Γενοκτονίες των πληθυσμών της Μικράς Ασίας από τους Νεότουρκους και τους Κεμαλικούς και συζητήθηκε η αξιοποίηση της εμπειρίας του αγώνα κυρίως των Αρμενίων καθώς και η οικοδόμηση της συνεργασίας και ο συντονισμός του αγώνα των τριών λαών που υπέστησαν τη Γενοκτονία (Ελλήνων, Αρμενίων, Ασσυρίων).
Στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται οι χαιρετισμοί της Χ. Μαυρίδου, μέλους του Δ.Σ. της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδας, η οποία αναφέρθηκε στη σημαντικότητα της εκδήλωσης καθώς και στο συμβολισμό που έχει η πραγματοποίηση της ημερίδας στη Ροδόπη, του προέδρου της Ποντιακής Νεολαίας της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας Ελλάδας Χ. Κοτίδη ο οποίος αναφέρθηκε στην έλλειψη ενδιαφέροντος από πλευράς ελληνικής πολιτείας, η οποία δεν έκανε κανένα βήμα για τη διεθνοποίηση του ζητήματος. Επίσης από την πλευρά του o Θόδωρος Παυλίδης, πρόεδρος της Πανελλήνιας Ένωσης Ποντίων εκπαιδευτικών χαρακτήρισε την ημερίδα «πρωτοπόρα προσπάθεια που ανοίγει έναν νέο κύκλο στην ιστορία του ποντιακού ζητήματος, ενώ στην αξία της ημερίδας αναφέρθηκε και ο Δ. Τομπουλίδης, Πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Συνομοσπονδίας Ποντιακού Ελληνισμού. Στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται επίσης οι χαιρετισμοί του βουλευτή του ΛΑΟΣ, Η. Πολατίδη, του χορηγού της ημερίδας Π. Εμφιετζόγλου, του πρώην προέδρου της Βουλής, Α. Κακλαμάνη, καθώς και τα μηνύματα που έστειλαν ο πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Ένωσης ελληνικών κοινοτήτων κοινοπολιτείας Ανεξαρτήτων Κρατών «Πόντος» Β. Κάισεβ, ο γραμματέας της Παν- ποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ- Καναδά, Δ. Μολοχίδης και ο πρόεδρος της Ομοσπονδίας Ποντιακών Σωματείων Αυστραλίας Χ. Ταβλαρίδης. Επίσης στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνονται τα συμπεράσματα της ημερίδας και οι στόχοι που τέθηκαν μέσα από αυτή, για τη Γενοκτονία.
Στο βιβλίο περιλαμβάνεται οι εισηγήσεις της Τhea Halo, του Μάριου Ευρυβιάδη, του Atman Sabri, Σταύρου Αμπαριάν, Νίκου Λυγερού, Αντώνη Παυλίδη και Φάνη Μαλκίδη.
Η Τhea Halo, ένα πρόσωπο-σύμβολο στον αγώνα για τη διεθνή αναγνώριση της γενοκτονίας, μίλησε με θέμα “Η αναγνώριση της Γενοκτονίας των Ελλήνων από τη Διεθνή Ένωση Ακαδημαϊκών για τη μελέτη των γενοκτονιών και προς τα πού πορευόμαστε από δω και πέρα” Στην ομιλία της αναφέρθηκε στη μητέρα της μεταφέροντας την επιθυμία της να της αποδοθεί η ελληνική υπηκοότητα, κάτι που έγινε πρόσφατα, αλλά και στο βιβλίο της που αναφέρεται στην ιστορία της μητέρας της, ενώ αναφέρθηκε στην αναγνώριση των γενοκτονιών από τη Διεθνή Ένωση Ακαδημαϊκών Αναγνώρισης Γενοκτονιών και στις προσπάθειες που έχουν γίνει για τη διεθνοποίηση του προβλήματος από πλευράς της. “
Μέθοδοι ανάδειξης της γενοκτονίας των Ελλήνων του Πόντου ως διεθνούς ζητήματος” είναι το θέμα της εισήγησης του Μάριου Ευρυβιάδη, ο οποίος αναφέρθηκε στις σύγχρονες πρακτικές προπαγάνδας και παραπληροφόρησης που χρησιμοποιούνται. Ανέφερε παραδείγματα με τα οποία οι Αρμένιοι κατόρθωσαν να ανατρέψουν μια συστηματική και οργανωμένη προπαγάνδα των Τούρκων μια συστηματική δουλειά «την οποία πρέπει να ακολουθήσουν και οι Έλληνες και οι Ασσύριοι.
Με θέμα “Ο Αφανισμός των Ασσυρίων στην Τουρκία” μίλησε ο Ataman Sabri, Πρόεδρος της Ομοσπονδίας Ασσυρίων Ευρώπης. Ο Ataman Sabri, τόνισε ότι το 1915 το μισό του πληθυσμού των Ασσυρίων εξολοθρεύτηκαν στην γενοκτονία, ενώ η Τουρκία πρέπει να αναγνωρίσει τη γενοκτονία που διέπραξε το 1915 στους Αρμένιους, Ασσύριους και Έλληνες και εναντίον των άλλων μειονοτήτων και να ζητήσει συγνώμη για αυτές».
Ο Σταύρος Αμπαριάν Εκπρόσωπος Αρμενικής Εθνικής Επιτροπής Ελλάδος μίλησε με θέμα “Γενοκτονία των Αρμενίων: 49 αναγνωρίσεις - πορεία προς το μέλλον”. Ο . Αμπαριάν δίνει το νομικό πλαίσιο της Παγκόσμιας Αρμενικής Επιτροπής που έχει σκοπό την αναγνώριση της αρμενικής γενοκτονίας, «γιατί η αναγνώριση μιας γενοκτονίας μπορεί πρώτα απ’ όλα να είναι θέμα ηθικής τάξης όμως η υποκίνηση της αναγνώρισης είναι πολιτική διαδικασία. Αναφέρει ότι η γενοκτονία και των τριών λαών είναι ιστορικά αποδεδειγμένη, ενώ ο αγώνας των Αρμενίων για την αναγνώριση της γενοκτονίας είναι ένα θέμα καθαρά πολιτικό.
Οι Νίκος Λυγερός και Αντώνης Παυλίδης στην εισήγησή τους με τίτλο «Από τη γενοκτονία στη λύτρωση», τονίζουν τη δυναμική της μνήμης που καθοδηγεί τον αγώνα για την αναγνώριση της γενοκτονίας. Επίσης αναφέρουν τη σημαντικότητα του εγκλήματος της γενοκτονίας, που είναι ένα έγκλημα χωρίς τιμωρία, αφού επαναλαμβάνεται συνεχώς. Τέλος στην εισήγησή τους, προτείνουν μία νέα στρατηγική για τη γενοκτονία και την ποινικοποίηση της μη αναγνώρισης,
Η εισήγηση του Φ. Μαλκίδη αναφέρεται στο διεθνές πλαίσιο της γενοκτονίας. Τα νομικά και πολιτικά κείμενα σε όλο τον κόσμο και τα ντοκουμέντα, τεκμηριώνουν την τέλεση της γενοκτονίας εναντίον των Ελλήνων και μάλιστα η ύπαρξη αυτών των στοιχείων δίνει τη δυνατότητα σε ολοένα και περισσότερους ανθρώπους και θεσμούς να αναγνωρίσουν τη γενοκτονία. Επίσης υπάρχουν κάποια ζητήματα όπως η καταβολή αποζημιώσεων στους απογόνους των θυμάτων της γενοκτονίας που αποτελεί σημαντικό εφόδιο τα επόμενα στάδια της προσπάθειας για αναγνώριση της γενοκτονίας, προσπάθεια που πρέπει να είναι συνεχής και σοβαρή.
Ανακοίνωση Τύπου Ιερό Ίδρυμα Παναγία Σουμελά Ποντίων Αμερικής
Την Παρασκευή 19η Ιουνίου 2009 στις 5:00 μμ ολοκληρώθηκε από το Ιερό Ίδρυμα ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ η αγορά όμορου με το υπάρχον οικόπεδο στο West Milford, NJ. Η σχετική υπογραφή συμβολαίων ιδιοκτησίας πραγματοποιήθηκε στα δικηγορικά γραφεία των Masessa & Cluff στη διεύθυνση 1524 Route 23 North, Butler NJ 07480. Τα συμβόλαια υπογράφηκαν από τον Πρόεδρο και την Ταμία του Ιερού Ιδρύματος Παναγία Σουμελά Δρα. Χαράλαμπο Β. Βασιλειάδη και δ. Ελένη Κυριλλίδου αντίστοιχα.
Πέρα των προαναφερομένων, στην υπογραφή των συμβολαίων παρευρισκόταν ο Μέγας Ευεργέτης και Επίτιμο Μέλος του Συμβουλίου Παραπιστευματοδόχων (Board of Trustees) του Ιερού Ιδρύματος κ. Βασίλειος Κακουλίδης, οι πρώην Πρόεδροι κ.κ. Βασίλειος Βασιλειάδης και Γεώργιος Τρικίδης, η πρώην Πρόεδρος του Γυναικείου Τμήματος κ. Σημέλα Τρικίδου και ο νομικός σύμβουλος του Ιερού Ιδρύματος κ. Κωνσταντίνος Στάμος, Esq. Επίσης παρευρέθηκαν οι κ.κ. Ηλίας Τσεκερίδης, Πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Συνομοσπονδίας Ποντίων Ελλήνων (ΔιΣυΠΕ) και πρώην Πρόεδρος της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ και Καναδά και Γεώργιος Τσιλφίδης, Αναπληρωτής Πρόεδρος Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ και Καναδά και Πρόεδρος του Συλλόγου Ποντίων «Πόντος» του Norwalk, Connecticut.
Το νέο οικόπεδο όπως δείχνει η ακόλουθη αεροφωτογραφία είναι περίπου 3.85 acres (15.58 στρέμματα) και συνορεύει με το υπάρχον των 3.76 acres (15.22 στρέμματα). Έτσι η συνολική επιφάνεια των δύο οικοπέδων είναι 7.61 acres (30.80 στρέμματα). Το ποσό αγοράς ανήλθε στα $320.000 και θα πληρωθεί πέρα της προκαταβολής σε 5 ετήσιες δόσεις.
Πέρα των προαναφερομένων, στην υπογραφή των συμβολαίων παρευρισκόταν ο Μέγας Ευεργέτης και Επίτιμο Μέλος του Συμβουλίου Παραπιστευματοδόχων (Board of Trustees) του Ιερού Ιδρύματος κ. Βασίλειος Κακουλίδης, οι πρώην Πρόεδροι κ.κ. Βασίλειος Βασιλειάδης και Γεώργιος Τρικίδης, η πρώην Πρόεδρος του Γυναικείου Τμήματος κ. Σημέλα Τρικίδου και ο νομικός σύμβουλος του Ιερού Ιδρύματος κ. Κωνσταντίνος Στάμος, Esq. Επίσης παρευρέθηκαν οι κ.κ. Ηλίας Τσεκερίδης, Πρόεδρος της Διεθνούς Συνομοσπονδίας Ποντίων Ελλήνων (ΔιΣυΠΕ) και πρώην Πρόεδρος της Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ και Καναδά και Γεώργιος Τσιλφίδης, Αναπληρωτής Πρόεδρος Παμποντιακής Ομοσπονδίας ΗΠΑ και Καναδά και Πρόεδρος του Συλλόγου Ποντίων «Πόντος» του Norwalk, Connecticut.
Το νέο οικόπεδο όπως δείχνει η ακόλουθη αεροφωτογραφία είναι περίπου 3.85 acres (15.58 στρέμματα) και συνορεύει με το υπάρχον των 3.76 acres (15.22 στρέμματα). Έτσι η συνολική επιφάνεια των δύο οικοπέδων είναι 7.61 acres (30.80 στρέμματα). Το ποσό αγοράς ανήλθε στα $320.000 και θα πληρωθεί πέρα της προκαταβολής σε 5 ετήσιες δόσεις.
Press Release. Holy Institution PANAGIA SOUMELA Pontion Amerikis
Holy Institution PANAGIA SOUMELA Pontion Amerikis
On Friday, June 19th, 2009, the Holy Institution PANAGIA SOUMELA had the closing for the purchase of a property adjacent to the existing one in West Milford, NJ. The closing took place at the attorney offices of Masessa & Cluff located at 1524 Route 23 North, Butler NJ 07480. The contract was signed by the President and Treasurer of the Holy Institution Dr. Haralambos V. Vasiliadis and Miss Helen Kyrillidis, respectively.
Also present were the Great Benefactor and Honorary Member of the Board of Trustees Mr. Vasilios Kakoulides and the past Presidents Messrs Vasilios Vasiliadis and George Trikedes, the past President of the Ladies Auxiliary Mrs. Semela Trikedes as well as the legal counsel of the Holy Institution Mr. Constantine Stamos, Esq. Present were also Messrs Elias Tsekerides, President of the International Confederation of Pontian Hellenes and Past President of the Pan-Pontian Federation of USA and Canada and George Tsilfidis, Deputy President of the Pan-Pontian Federation of USA and Canada and President of the Pontian Society “Pontos” of Norwalk, CT.
The new property, as shown in the following aerial photograph, is approximately 3.85 acres and borders the existing of 3.76 acres. Thus the total surface area is approximately 7.61 acres. The purchase price was $320,000 and will be paid off, in addition to the down payment, in 5 annual payments.
On Friday, June 19th, 2009, the Holy Institution PANAGIA SOUMELA had the closing for the purchase of a property adjacent to the existing one in West Milford, NJ. The closing took place at the attorney offices of Masessa & Cluff located at 1524 Route 23 North, Butler NJ 07480. The contract was signed by the President and Treasurer of the Holy Institution Dr. Haralambos V. Vasiliadis and Miss Helen Kyrillidis, respectively.
Also present were the Great Benefactor and Honorary Member of the Board of Trustees Mr. Vasilios Kakoulides and the past Presidents Messrs Vasilios Vasiliadis and George Trikedes, the past President of the Ladies Auxiliary Mrs. Semela Trikedes as well as the legal counsel of the Holy Institution Mr. Constantine Stamos, Esq. Present were also Messrs Elias Tsekerides, President of the International Confederation of Pontian Hellenes and Past President of the Pan-Pontian Federation of USA and Canada and George Tsilfidis, Deputy President of the Pan-Pontian Federation of USA and Canada and President of the Pontian Society “Pontos” of Norwalk, CT.
The new property, as shown in the following aerial photograph, is approximately 3.85 acres and borders the existing of 3.76 acres. Thus the total surface area is approximately 7.61 acres. The purchase price was $320,000 and will be paid off, in addition to the down payment, in 5 annual payments.
Κυριακή 21 Ιουνίου 2009
Η Τουρκία παραχαράσσει την ιστορία των Ελλήνων της Ιωνίας
Έλληνες και Αρμένιοι διαμαρτύρονται γιά την άφιξη του προκλητικού τουρκικού πλοίου στην Μασσαλία
Arméniens et Grecs contestent la venue de ce bateau provocateur turc à Marseille
Ενημερωτικό φυλλάδιο υπογεγραμμένο από :ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΕΩΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΩΝ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΙΣ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΧΩΡΩΝ
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ
ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ
Το φυλλάδιο αυτό διανέμεται στην ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑ γιά να μη γίνει δεκτή η άφιξη του τουρκικού πλοίου που υπολογίζεται να γίνει την 1η Ιουλίου. Απευθύνεται στούς Μασσαλιώτες γιά να μήν δεχτούνε το τουρκικό πλοίο στην πόλη της Μασσαλίας που ιδρύθηκε από Έλληνες Φωκαείς περί το 600 π.Χ Οι Μασσαλιώτες Γάλλοι είναι υπερήφανοι γιά τις Ελληνικές ρίζες της πόλης τους και υπερήφανοι για τη λαμπρή Ελληνική κληρονομιά
Le conseil de coordination des organisations arméniennes de FranceLa communauté chypriote de FranceL’union hellénique de Marseille et de sa régionLa communauté grecque de Marseilleont élaboré un tract commun, distribué partout à Marseille, à propos de la venue d’un bateau turc dans la ville phocéenne.
ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΕΩΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΩΝ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ Marseille - Provence COMMUNAUTE CHYPRIOTE DE FRANCE - UNION HELLENIQUE DE MARSEILLE et de la Région -
COMMUNAUTE GRECQUE de MARSEILLEΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ - ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΙΣ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΧΩΡΩΝ - ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣMARSEILLAISES, MARSEILLAIS… LE SAVIEZ-VOUS ?
L'inauguration de la saison turque en France se fera le 1er juillet 2009 à Marseille.Ce jour là, Marseille accueillera officiellement un bateau turc parti de l'ancienne ville grecque de Phocée, devenue Foça car située aujourd'hui en Turquie. Ce bateau va retracer le périple de Protis qui a fondé Massalia, il y a plus de 2.600 ans !Ce ne sont pas les turcs qui ont fondé notre chère ville!En 600 avant Jésus-Christ, les porteurs de civilisation étaient grecs !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est accepter une Turquie qui travestit l'Histoire et qui s'accapare le glorieux héritage hellénique dont nous sommes si fiers !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie est un état négationniste qui refuse de reconnaître sa culpabilité dans le génocide des Arméniens dont les rescapés sont également arrivés par bateau à Marseille.• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie occupe illégalement depuis 1974 la partie nord de l'Ile de Chypre qui est un pays membre de l'Union Européenne et qu'elle refuse de reconnaître en tant que tel !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie ne respecte pas les Droits de l'Homme pas plus que les minorités vivant sur son territoire !Marseillaises, Marseillais pour toutes ces raisons nous sommes contre l'arrivéede ce bateau à Marseille…. ET VOUS ?La Turquie a transformé le bateau historique grec de Phocée en bateau turc.
ΤΟΥΡΚΕΨΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΛΟΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΧΑΙΩΝ ΦΩΚΑΕΩΝ
LE BATEAU MASQUE DES COUPABLESLes Turcs ne peuvent en aucun cas représenter les Grecs de Phocée ; les bourreaux de Phocée de tant de Grecs d’Asie Mineure, du Pont-Euxin et d’Arméniens et de beaucoup d’autres encore, ne peuvent en aucun cas représenter la civilisation européenne !
ΤΟ ΠΛΟΙΟ - ΜΑΣΚΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΝΟΧΩΝ
Δεν μπορούν οι Τούρκοι να παριστάνουν του αρχαίους Φωκαείς! Δεν μπορούν οι σφαγείς των νεότερων Φωκαέων να παριστάνουν τους πολιτισμένους Ευρωπαίους!
Διαβάστε περισσότερα - Pour en savoir davantageCORSE - ΚΟΡΣΙΚΗhttp://diaspora-grecque.com/modules/altern8news/article.php?storyid=1629http://www.noiazomai.net/kybeli.htmlhttp://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=51766http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=83709034236&ref=tshttp://www.collectifVAN.org/article.php?r=0&id=31071
Arméniens et Grecs contestent la venue de ce bateau provocateur turc à Marseille
Ενημερωτικό φυλλάδιο υπογεγραμμένο από :ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΕΩΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΩΝ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΙΣ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΧΩΡΩΝ
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ
ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ
Το φυλλάδιο αυτό διανέμεται στην ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑ γιά να μη γίνει δεκτή η άφιξη του τουρκικού πλοίου που υπολογίζεται να γίνει την 1η Ιουλίου. Απευθύνεται στούς Μασσαλιώτες γιά να μήν δεχτούνε το τουρκικό πλοίο στην πόλη της Μασσαλίας που ιδρύθηκε από Έλληνες Φωκαείς περί το 600 π.Χ Οι Μασσαλιώτες Γάλλοι είναι υπερήφανοι γιά τις Ελληνικές ρίζες της πόλης τους και υπερήφανοι για τη λαμπρή Ελληνική κληρονομιά
Le conseil de coordination des organisations arméniennes de FranceLa communauté chypriote de FranceL’union hellénique de Marseille et de sa régionLa communauté grecque de Marseilleont élaboré un tract commun, distribué partout à Marseille, à propos de la venue d’un bateau turc dans la ville phocéenne.
ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΕΩΝ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΩΝ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ Marseille - Provence COMMUNAUTE CHYPRIOTE DE FRANCE - UNION HELLENIQUE DE MARSEILLE et de la Région -
COMMUNAUTE GRECQUE de MARSEILLEΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΓΑΛΛΙΑΣ - ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΝΩΣΙΣ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΧΩΡΩΝ - ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ ΜΑΣΣΑΛΙΑΣMARSEILLAISES, MARSEILLAIS… LE SAVIEZ-VOUS ?
L'inauguration de la saison turque en France se fera le 1er juillet 2009 à Marseille.Ce jour là, Marseille accueillera officiellement un bateau turc parti de l'ancienne ville grecque de Phocée, devenue Foça car située aujourd'hui en Turquie. Ce bateau va retracer le périple de Protis qui a fondé Massalia, il y a plus de 2.600 ans !Ce ne sont pas les turcs qui ont fondé notre chère ville!En 600 avant Jésus-Christ, les porteurs de civilisation étaient grecs !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est accepter une Turquie qui travestit l'Histoire et qui s'accapare le glorieux héritage hellénique dont nous sommes si fiers !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie est un état négationniste qui refuse de reconnaître sa culpabilité dans le génocide des Arméniens dont les rescapés sont également arrivés par bateau à Marseille.• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie occupe illégalement depuis 1974 la partie nord de l'Ile de Chypre qui est un pays membre de l'Union Européenne et qu'elle refuse de reconnaître en tant que tel !• Accepter l'accostage de ce bateau c'est oublier que la Turquie ne respecte pas les Droits de l'Homme pas plus que les minorités vivant sur son territoire !Marseillaises, Marseillais pour toutes ces raisons nous sommes contre l'arrivéede ce bateau à Marseille…. ET VOUS ?La Turquie a transformé le bateau historique grec de Phocée en bateau turc.
ΤΟΥΡΚΕΨΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΛΟΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΧΑΙΩΝ ΦΩΚΑΕΩΝ
LE BATEAU MASQUE DES COUPABLESLes Turcs ne peuvent en aucun cas représenter les Grecs de Phocée ; les bourreaux de Phocée de tant de Grecs d’Asie Mineure, du Pont-Euxin et d’Arméniens et de beaucoup d’autres encore, ne peuvent en aucun cas représenter la civilisation européenne !
ΤΟ ΠΛΟΙΟ - ΜΑΣΚΑ ΤΩΝ ΕΝΟΧΩΝ
Δεν μπορούν οι Τούρκοι να παριστάνουν του αρχαίους Φωκαείς! Δεν μπορούν οι σφαγείς των νεότερων Φωκαέων να παριστάνουν τους πολιτισμένους Ευρωπαίους!
Διαβάστε περισσότερα - Pour en savoir davantageCORSE - ΚΟΡΣΙΚΗhttp://diaspora-grecque.com/modules/altern8news/article.php?storyid=1629http://www.noiazomai.net/kybeli.htmlhttp://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=51766http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=83709034236&ref=tshttp://www.collectifVAN.org/article.php?r=0&id=31071